Talk:Azov Brigade

RfC about the neo-Nazi descriptor

Here's the link to the RfC, in case it comes up again: Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, after this reversal, I dare to discuss it. I will argue once, because English is not my forte. They imagine the current juncture that would lead to the decision what made took a year ago, in that RfC? Well, now, I will say, it is a shame that this solution has been dropped, being as such that the sources indicate that the retired veterans, with the neonazi ideology, split up and created another party. My edit is the correct. Majestic greetings. --Berposen (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Case	Sign/Seal	Edition
To be or to have been.	Berposen	[1]
Sources to blogs	Berposen	[2]
Vigent sources	Berposen	[3]

If you disagree with the outcome of the previous RFC, start a new one. Do not continue to edit-war against a previously established consensus; your personal disagreement with that RFC's outcome is not enough to try and tag an established consensus as still in dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Aquillion The community collaborates, while the juncture progresses. I ask: what happens with this edition? At Wikipedia we work with what is at hand, taking sources here and sources there, in the midst of a belic situation, is a mission of willpower. Don't hang me for not having found this flaw earlier, I would have, I would have argued. The article is being sabotaged. From the outset, there is outdated information, which must be corrected. --Berposen (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If you feel that way - and your feelings on that topic contradict the outcome of the previous RFC - then you will have to start another RFC to overturn its outcome. Consensus can change, but once it has been established once, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it has changed. It is not enough for you to just express the opinion that the result is "outdated information" - you have to convince others, and demonstrate that you have convinced others. --Aquillion (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

AquillionI have proven it to you. Why do I have to keep trying to convince you? If you no longer want to convince you, you don't want to be convinced. Up to here I come. It's a lot of work for me, having to translate, comma by comma, this whole thing. Regards.--Berposen (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

How much of this is actually true and how much is Russian propaganda? It would be good to have this article reviewed in light of current events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.135.14 (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC) 100% genuine skin-heads and neo-Nazis, I'm afraid. 135.23.80.41 (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC) According to https://www.jta.org/2022/03/04/global/jewish-ukrainians-gear-up-for-fierce-russia-fight-alongside-the-neo-nazis-they-say-putin-is-lying-about they used the iconography to be anti-Russian, not anti-Jewish. 85.228.98.130 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC) It is ok to be a Nazi against Russians... Understandable. 2001:569:5383:BE00:2CB5:6096:5D04:4536 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Being Nazi is ALWAYS bad, what are you talking about???? Do you think Russians are an inferior race? 61.9.103.175 (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC) The idea that the Azov Battalion is "a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine," is straight Russian propaganda. This article is supporting a currently occuring genocide and should really be changed. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC) This article is deliberately and regularly edited with disinformation describing Azov as extremist and neo-nazi guilty of military crimes, with questionable sources as proof. 96.250.56.147 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Are you claiming The Nation, BBC, FBI, US Congress, and UN Human Rights Office are all questionable sources? Lvsz (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC) If only those were sources for the claims that the *entire* organization is a neo-nazi organization. From what I've read on this topic - the roots of the Azov Battalion are undoubtedly neo-nazi. The founder, as well as a significant percentage of members are neo-nazi. However, none of their current leaders are neo-nazis, and the group itself denies the label of neo-nazi though members of it estimate that 10-20% are absolutely unabashed neo-nazis. The original logo uses the Black Sun for example, which is absolutely a Nazi symbol, but the Wolfsangel is *not* a nazi symbol and is one of those reappropriated by them, unlike the Black Sun which was exclusively used by the Nazi party of Germany and thus explicitly associated with Nazism. I find the rhetoric that claims that the Wolfsangel is a nazi symbol to be exceedingly weak - the Iron Cross is even more strongly associated with Germany's former Nazi party, but is used by the Bundeswehr to this day as their official insignia. War crimes on the other hand...there's not really a doubt about those. Far-right, ultra-nationalistic ideals also are not in doubt. When I look at origins of sources in Al Jazeera and The Nation for why they claim Azov Batallion is a neo-nazi group, it is usually in connection to a mass-shooting somewhere else in the world - which is wholly bizarre to me, as even the roots of Azov are entirely focused on Europe. Even if neo-nazi members were networking outside of Ukraine instead of fighting separatists, why would they care to get Americans or British to conduct mass shootings or murders of other ethnicities? My conclusion is that the group as an organization is not strictly neo-nazi as their current focus is on fighting the separatists. I don't think we will truly know if it will bounce back to the pre-2014 rhetoric it once openly espoused until the civil war (and now the Russian invasion) is concluded, as their membership numbers in 2014 and onward swelled. Furthermore, leadership explicitly is trying to roll back and in some cases denounce the white supremacy rhetoric. I believe that Stanford has the most complete picture of the group - although they still define it as being a neo-nazi organization, which is contrary to my opinion. https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion Metalsand (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC) The Nation, BBC, FBI, US Congress, and UN Human Rights Office are all questionable sources 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:3CA6:E113:2D46:90F1 (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC) So you're saying that the same sources that support the Azov Battalion are unreliable when they question the Azov Battalion? Magellan Fan (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Azov has become so integrated into Ukrainian culture that any attempts to call them out as the festering disease they are results in being marked an enemy. - D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:9E04:CB00:96A:8160:B1B4:8B90 (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC) This article seems to be a bit better sourced and balanced than what is in this wiki. The group appears to be pretty fringe, other than having some folks in the national guard due to their role in Maidan. They political wing received less than 2% of popular vote last election. That seems about on par with right wing groups in other western countries these days. (sadly) https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ab7dw/azov-battalion-ukraine-far-right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.135.14 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC) That is nowhere even close to “on par.” As of 2016, Switzerland 29%, Austria 21%, Denmark 21%, Hungary 21%, Finland 18%, France 14%, Sweden 13%, Netherlands 10%, Slovakia 8%, Greece 7%, Germany 4.7%, Italy 4%.[1] As of 2021, Russia 7.55% (LDPR), although one wonders whether that should include United Russia’s 72%, now that it has endorsed the war to “denazify” Ukraine. —Michael Z. 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC) now you are comparing "far right/extremists" with regular conservative/right wing. You'd be hard pressed to find political parties in Europe with the numbers you just wrote that have even remotely rhetoric as Svoboda has. 188.61.88.226 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC) I came to the article with similar questions, although I have sn open mind. Russia does keep saying that but it calls the whole idea of an independent Ukraine extremist. Three references follow the word in the lede, but they amount to random parts of the US government. The FBI’s purview is domestic extremists - if there is such a group in the US, is it even affiliated at all with the Ukrainian military unit, or are they just wannabes? The other two sources are about legislative budget maneuvers, which aren’t exactly authoritative either. The description may be accurate but those references aren’t convincing me Elinruby (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC) That’s not quite true. The article says “far-right.” Wikipedia infoboxes define these parties as having “political position: far-right”: Alternative for Germany, National Rally, People's Party Our Slovakia, and Golden Dawn (Greece); “right-wing to far right”: Swiss People's Party, Lega Nord, and Freedom Party of Austria. Browse the articles, and you will see several of these are described as “neo-Nazi,” “neo-fascist,” “antisemitic,” and “criminal.” I’m not arguing Svoboda is necessarily less extreme than all of these, although I don’t think you can show that it isn’t, but that the extreme right has much less support in Ukraine than elsewhere, and the statement “on par” is absolutely inaccurate. —Michael Z. 20:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC) This article is deliberately and regularly edited with disinformation describing Azov as extremist and neo-nazi guilty of military crimes, with questionable sources as proof. JKWMteam (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Yes it is deliberately edited to reflect what wp:rs say. And yes many RS have called them Nazi and extremist. Such as the Guardian, the BBC, and many more. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC) The RS appended to the point in the article are: 1. An article from 2016 about the US congress removing a ban on sending them aid, which accepts their neo-Nazi nature uncritically. 2. An article about the US congress banning sending them aid in 2018 in which a congressperson who opposed aid to Ukraine in general calls them Neo-Nazis without evidence and an Azov representative asserts that Azov is not a neo-Nazi organization. 3. An article by Seth G. Jones in which he mistakenly cites an unrelated court case, but probably means to cite a personal interview with senior FBI officials that Azov is "associated with neo-Nazi ideology." 4. An opinion piece by memoir author Lev Golinkin, who has penned four or five opinion pieces about the purported neo-Nazi nature of the Azov Battalion. There are myriad better and more current sources which deal with the issue more directly . Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC) I think there is overwhelming consensus here that the current citations for "is neo-Nazi" in the lead are bad. I think we can remove them now without any RfC, but we need new RfC to change the wording - this is discussed below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2022 (UTC) The new sources are similarly bad: 1. An article about war crimes by the Belarusian forces which en passant refers to Azov as a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment (the only mention of Azov in the article) in the context of someone getting beaten up by Belarusians for wearing a The Punisher shirt. Azov is not well characterized as neo-Nazi or volunteer in more direct sources. 2. An article from 2014 which says "The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites," but does not at any point refer to the battalion as a neo-Nazi battalion. Mostly moot due to the date, but also does not support the assertion. 3. Golinkin, still an opinion piece by a memoirist who misidentified the commander of the Azov battalion in a Hill article and is not a credible Azov Battalion expert by any means. Contemporary, reliable sources which directly treat on the question of whether or not the Azov Battalion are a neo-Nazi unit of the Ukrainian National Guard and conclude that they are not: https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404 Disconnected Phrases (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I don't want to have to keep batting down all of these terrible sources. Is there any way to require sources to actually support the assertion that they are backing up? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC) These claims are older than the current military operation in Ukraine and some of the sources have been discussed and accepted in an RFC. But I agree, disinformation could be a problem during these times, and that is precisely why we should stick to the result of the previous RFC. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC) The disinformation campaign against the Azov Battalion dates back to at least 2015. People seem to forget this has been an active conflict since 2014. This article itself in its current state is at least misinformation. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC) This is a good point, and I wish I had the answer. Sf46 (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Right, they kept the Russians out of Mariupol in 2014 also Elinruby (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

False information

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Operating in Ukraine this Azov movement appears to have little public support. Only one far-right party, Svoboda, is represented in Ukraine’s parliament, and only holds one seat. President Putin is trying to paint Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's government, who is both Jewish and had family members die in the Holocaust as “Nazis supported by NATO,” Biased sourced information This article is being used for propoganda Editdone (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC) If the Azov Battalion was officially incorporated into the Ukranian National Guard, I believe it is reasonable to say that the Ukranian government tolerates or supports neo-nazi movements. The Azov Battalion receives funding from the Ukranian government as it is part of the Ukranian National Guard. If that is not an indication of tolerance or support, I wouldn't know what is. As said by Eduard Dolinsky who is the Director General of the Ukranian Jewish Committee, "Our government encourages glorification of nazi collaborators, mass murderers and murderers of Jews" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v32wnEJF_EE&t. Dustey (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC) "If the Azov Battalion was officially incorporated into the Ukranian National Guard, I believe it is reasonable to say that the Ukranian government tolerates or supports neo-nazi movements." Your claim has a significant assumption from the start - that the Azov Battalion is officially a part of the neo-nazi movement. Please, provide reputable sources that can confirm this (also, please, do not confuse far-right & neo-nazi). Here is an article (in Ukrainian, please, use a translator) with a link to the official Telegram Channel of Azov Battalion (Mariupol based) with their statement on nazism: [2]https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3442290-polk-azov-poasniv-rosianam-hto-e-nacistami-u-ninisnij-vijni.html About the video: - The video is about antisemitism, not (neo-)nazism. - 13:02 "The last five years is an unbelievable rise of antisemitism. Specifically, and especially anti-antisemitic rhetoric. Especially in social media. ... hundreds and thousands of everyday comments... which we count as antisemitic incidents" and then "We don't have, or very very rare and extremely rare antisemitic physical violence against people" then he goes on about speculating that the reason for the latter is the very small Islamic community in Ukraine. Now, I'd like to point out that the social media comments are a very controversial "proof" due to explicit usage of bot farms [3]https://www.propublica.org/article/infamous-russian-troll-farm-appears-to-be-source-of-anti-ukraine-propaganda and false accusations of Ukraine in neo-nazism by Russia[4]https://www.bbc.com/news/60292915. Moreover, the rise in social media comments seems to coincide with the start of the Russian-Ukrainian War (the video is 2020, he refers to 2015, the war started in 2014) - "We have in a criminal code and article 161 for violation of equality its somewhere near anti-semitism but no one in 30 years, no one has ever convicted " "... because the article is not workable" "[we] should pressure [Ukraine] to not to be in a state of denial because our relation is denial" It seems like the point of his talk is the following: a) Ukraine has controversial antisemitic history b) Ukraine denies this history and this problem should be solved (by European pressure) c) there are ongoing antisemitic issues: comments on social media (which are very much questionable in the light of the recent events) and vandalism. Now circling back to point one. the video is about antisemitism, not (neo-)nazism. I'd like to invite you to provide a set of official documents, established and proven facts, etc. of the Ukrainian goverment supporting neo-nazi movements. If that is a big issue as you claim (the government supporting a particular type of movement), then there must be a solid trail of proof, in addition to one video from one conference with a speech not supported with numbers and has 12 views. I'd also like to point out that this is a discussion of an article dedicated to the Azov movement & Azov Batallion. The video you are referring to does not have any mention of this topic and therefore seems to be irrelevant. Good dog rex (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC) For reference, Ukraine has far less of an antisemitism problem than the surrounding countries. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC) (Sarcasm)I don't know though, the Pew Research Center may be a neo-Nazi organization, their symbol looks a lot like a sonnenrad. (/Sarcasm) Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC) References  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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Certainly the level of political success and influence is relevant, and so I added the fact with this edit. —Michael Z. 19:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

English and french version not correspond to original ukrainian, text has russian nazi propaganda and it should be delete as soon as possible OlgaAlska (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)  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. Cannolis (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Agreed, a lot of the claims in this article are either factually untrue, echo Russian propaganda (eg claiming Azov is neo nazi when there's 3 seperate units called Asov, 2 of which have only existed for a few weeks, and the original unit was purged of nazis. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC) It is not Russian propaganda. There are sources for these claims, and if you look further up the Talk page, you'll see that there was an RfC where it was decided that the neo-Nazi descriptor was apt and would be kept. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC) It is Russian propaganda, and if you read those sources, you will find that they do not support the claim that the "Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine." Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC) also, the RFC actually said it wasn’t neutral to say in wikivoicr that it’s a neo-Nazi unit.Elinruby (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to change wording on political orientation of Asov battalion(s)

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

1. There are now at least 3 entirely separate Azov battalions, the original national guard unit in Mariupol, and Asov territorial defence volunteer units with a separate chain of command in Kharkiv and Kyiv, the latter two being newly formed units of former civillians raised during the war. 2.Reforms to the structure of Asov and changes to the leadership mean that western sources largely no longer define it as a neo-nazi battalion. 3. Restrictions on Asov have largely been lifted, or are not in force on the other two units with evidence that NATO forces and equipment have been supplied to the Asov unit in Kharkiv, including NLAW anti-tank guided weapons with NATO instructors as per Nexta news agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by PompeyTheGreat (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC) References Do you have more sources for this? A tweet will not cut it, when you have The Guardian and others saying otherwise.. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC) The tweet is from a news agency, it is not just from a random account. As for the sources on Asov having two entirely separate regiments formed in Kyiv and Kharkiv under a different command (classed as Territorial Defence Units Asov rather than the National Guard unit this article mentions, Asov themselves have posted it onto their telegram groups, saying that these are entirely separate units. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nexta PompeyTheGreat (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Nexta is not a reliable news agency. Telegram messages are likewise not usable.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC) It isnt nothing either. Telegram is widely used in the area, and this newsgroup is notable enough for its own wiki page. I am not saying we should use it as a source, but you shouldn’t dismiss it either. i’m Betting that if Nexta says it somebody else done tooElinruby (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC) It took me less then a min to find a reliable source about the restriction lifting: Congress is reported to have recently repealed its ban on a Ukrainian militia accused of being neo-Nazi, opening the way for American military assistance. and "Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group." Infinity Knight (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC) They were using an article about that to source "is...neo-nazi", apparently because they did a Google search for Azov Nazi or something of the kind, then picked out some sources generally deemed reliable for what they actually say. Which was not "is...neo-nazi". See "US Congressman as an authority on Nazis" at the Reliable Sources noticeboard Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC: political ideology of the Azov

Should the article lead describe the political ideology of the Azov? Infinity Knight (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

previous RFCs:

• Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion
• Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_1#Far-right,_neo-Nazi_as_result_of_WP:NPOV_rule_ignoration

• No, "Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group." ref Infinity Knight (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC and Yes Do you have any evidence that anything has changed since the last (very comprehensive in participation) RfC? Typically one should discuss a change on the talk page prior to taking it to an RfC. Also, the JPost article you pulled that quote from above calls them "NeoNazi" in the headline, it's clearly an important descriptor. BSMRD (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, please, not again. Nothing has changed since the last RFC, and your argument was even disproved in that discussion.--Mhorg (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Something has changed, but maybe not that. Has something changed? Hell, yes. It's called the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Looks like Ukraine's Jewish people have made peace with Azov. See [5]. Money quote: They had no anti-Jewish ideology. This should be reflected in the lead. Adoring nanny ([[User >talk:Adoring nanny|talk]]) 02:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but a quote from a random Ukrainian is not sufficient for inclusion in the lead. Some guy saying they aren't anti-jewish is worth as much as the org themselves "eschewing Nazism". Nothing. The invasion is not a valid excuse to whitewash Nazis. BSMRD (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with BSMRD. Also, Infinity Knight used a very old article from 2016. In the last RFC we just talked about how "the available evidence indicates that the regiment remains joined at the hip to the internationally active National Corps party it spawned, and the wider Azov movement associated with the regiment" (2020, Atlantic Council[6])--Mhorg (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is a mess. The current text is Azov, is a right-wing extremist,[1][2] neo-Nazi,[3][4][5] formerly paramilitary, unit of the National Guard of Ukraine,[6][7][8].

BSMRD said "JPost article you pulled that quote from above calls them "NeoNazi" in the headline" however actually the article uses scare quotes and in its body the article says Azov was called a “neo-Nazi paramilitary militia” by two US Congressmen and describes Simon Wiesenthal Center objections. There are opposing opinions quoted, and the fact that the US goverment works with Azov. If you read carefully, actually JP says that since 2016, "Neo nazi Azov" is no longer the consensus view.

Mhorg suggests to use Atlanti Ccouncil blog by Oleksiy Kuzmenko, appears as an opinion, which is not spoiled by an abundance of primary sources.

The point is, quoting opinions and then writing them as facts in Wikipedia voice is not the way to go. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

JP says that since 2016, "Neo nazi Azov" is no longer the consensus view. No they don't? Not a single time does any sentiment to that effect appear in the article. The "opposing opinion" quoted from the researcher speaking for the Vaad just says "well they are officially part of the military now so they can't be neo-nazis, and anyways Russia is the real problem". Your view seems to be WP:SYNTH, unless you can pull a quote from the article that actually says what you claim it does. BSMRD (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Synth? Not sure how it applies here. Re consensus, JP reports the news that the Azov Battalion is now legally able to receive American aid and summaries the opinions as Not everyone was so upset. The point remains, quoting opinions and then writing them as facts in Wikipedia voice is not the way to go. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

And this is truly the biggest problem of Wikipedia today when it comes to politics - it is used to spread a narrative based on someones opinions without any factual prove just on assumption that a person/source "would not lie". It sad that any change here called "vandalism" when people are trying to remove or at least make a paragraph about "nazi" marked "as a potential lie spread by Russian propaganda" (which in my opinion is absolute BS).

P.S. Nazis didn't hide that they are nazis because of its nature. That would be a first sign that there may be something wrong with this nazi claims. Baylrock (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - The lead is a place where key elements of the article are summarized. Ideology is very much a part of that. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per Butlerblog, Cinadon36 06:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• No, or at least not without making some clarifications. But yes or no doesn’t solve the article’s structural problem. Like many sources, it doesn’t clearly distinguish Azov former volunteer battalion, its two successors the Azov current National Guard regiment and the National Militias (Natsionalni Druzhyny), the National Corps political party, or the umbrella Azov Movement. —Michael Z. 17:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes the lead should cover ideology, the coverage from WP:RS almost always touches on it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, it must be called "neo-Nazi" as it is part of a larger political project of the "Azov Movement", which is neo-Nazi, as all first-class sources certify (it is unbelievable that we are repeating an RFC when nothing has changed on the subject).--Mhorg (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Any attempt otherwise is akin to whitewashing/rewriting history. Overwhelming number of sources have been presented already. - hako9 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment on sources Leaning to no (Changed to definitely not below)Ce - the references in the lede appear to fail verification, came here to post about that. You can’t extrapolate an ideology based on what some separate organization with the same name did in 1942. I have an open mind but the more I look the less convinced I am. I will add some detail about the sources below this comment. They do not convince me. Possibly others exist that would, but these dont Elinruby (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

1. does not, as far as I can tell, mention either Azov or Ukraine
2. I usually consider Al-Jazeera a good source, but wow. Do editors realize that fake videos about Azov are an ongoing theme in Kremlin rants about Nazis? This new one turns out to apparently not have been debunked by Bellingcat yet, but in 2014 CyberBerkut said they smeared a pig’s head on a Koran. Sound familiar? But let’s assume just for a moment that the video is authentic. Somebody please explain to me like I am five why this would make them specifically neo-Nazis. Oh and they also bombed the maternity hospital in Mariupol, right? Because Nazis.
3. US budget legislation
4. cherry-picked: both sides article, one side quoted
5. Passing mention deep in report on the US, attributed to FBI, whose purview is limited to the US, cited to a court case against a US person

Perhaps the references get better. But those are the one that support “right-wing extremist” and Neo-Nazi. Superficially very plausible as RS, until you go look at them. Elinruby (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Mentions Azov in passing on page 35. It's not a particularly strong source for Azov in particular, but is a good source in its own right, and calls them neo-fascist unqualified (i.e. good enough to substantiate the "far-right extremist" line it is cited for).

2. IDK why you are focusing on "fake videos", there are no videos in the profile and the coverage is more than enough to substantiate the line it is cited for.

3. US budget legislation specifically relating to the Neo-Nazi nature of Azov. Not once in the article is the notion that Azov are neo-Nazis called into question. Indeed the assertion is repeated often by this RS as fact. I have no reason to believe the Nation has a vested interest in somehow making Azov seem like Nazis when they are not.

4. I don't know what cherry-picked: both sides article, one side quoted means in this context. The article says in it's own voice that Azov are neo-Nazis. It calls them a minority yes, but no view is provided quoted or in article voice that challenges the assertion that they 'are' Nazis. The only mildly opposing view is quoted from the State Department, and all it says is that they couldn't be certain they had committed human rights violations, which does nothing to challenge the organizations ideological character.

5. Again not a particularly in-depth source for the org, but CSIS is a strong RS that felt no need to qualify the designation of neo-Nazism when mentioning Azov. A supplementary source to be sure, but one that only strengthens the others given.

I seriously question how deeply you interrogated these sources when you dismiss all of them. All they are cited for is calling Azov far-right and neo-Nazi in wikivoice, and they are more than enough for that. BSMRD (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it is their main source of notability so it obviously has to be covered in the lead in some form. If people take issue with the exact wording then that can be hashed out, and if they take issue with the sources then we can find better sources (and then hash out a wording that uses those sources), but obviously it can't be omitted completely. In that regard this is also a bad RFC insofar as it's not asking the right question - complete omission, which is basically what this RFC is asking to approve, is obviously a nonstarter and doesn't seem to be the main crux of discussions. The question is how, not if, their ideology should be described, and what sources should be used for that. See my list of sources here for reference. --Aquillion (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

comment on this - I am in this because a slightly related page I am working on is grappling with the bombing of the hospital in Mariupol. I am pretty damn sure the Azov Battalion wasn’t using it as a hideout and the firehose of falsehoods the Russians are emitting about Ukraine made me come over here to look up whether in fact they are Neo-Nazis. Right now it looks like a big lie sufficiently repeated. Is Joe Biden a segregationist due to the history of his party? Is the FBI a reliable source for foreign extremists? IF, and right now it’s a big if in my eyes, the group that can be referred to in the present tense - a Ukrainian military unit - can be shown to be Neo Nazi through reliable sources, then it belongs in the lede. If it had neo-Nazi ties in the past — and there may well be sources for this — then that belongs in a History section and the lede becomes a matter of due weight. I do not claim to fully grasp the nature of this group, but I’ve done some reading on Russian disinformation and I am getting a whiff of it here. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I strongly recommend people review the last RfC on this page here which provides cites for calling Azov a Neo-Nazi organization dating from 2014 to 2021 from a variety of RS. Unless anyone can definitively prove that in the last 6 months Azov has suddenly dropped all ties to Nazism, there's really nothing to do here. BSMRD (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

in that case I strongly suggest that you put some of them after the word neo-Nazi in the lede! I have my hands full and really don’t care one way or the other. I know who *I* think the fascists are in Mariupol and I currently have my hands full with that. But fwiw the current sourcing of the statement in the lede is completely unconvincing and I go by sources not preconceptions. You asked for comment. You have mine. At the moment these people are fighting totalitarian forces. The aren’t Nazis just because Putin says so Elinruby (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

They were described as neo-Nazis by WP:RSes long before Putin started talking about them, eg. . Obviously Putin (and his government) is a fountain of disinformation right now and shouldn't be used as a source for anything, but we can't just reflexively go with the opposite of whatever he says, that doesn't work. In any case, as I said above, it's useless to discuss this here because the RFC is bafflingly asking the question of whether we should describe their ideology in the lead at all, which we clearly have to do. Even if it were all some sort of lie originating from Putin, that would still be the most notable thing about the group, we would just have to completely change how we cover it using secondary sources that document the truth. But right now most secondary sources say it is true as far as it goes, eg. - according to the best sources, Putin is drastically exaggerating their significance and using them as a justification in an absurd way, but that does not change the fact that they are still neo-Nazis. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

First source (Irregular Militias… ), expressly says in its abstract "This paper briefly sketches the origins of Azov, biographies of some of its founders, and particulars of its creation, without touching upon such issues as Azov’s military performance, later integration into the National Guard under Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior, and political development after 2014" So it could at best only be used as what Azov WAS, not what azov IS - which I think no one disputes was as an extreme nationalist para-mlitary force. The Vox says "The Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia, played an important role in fighting Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014; since then, it has been integrated into the Ukrainian national guard. Again is that WAS or IS neo-Nazi ? Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am glad you recognize the effect of Kremlin disinformation on this discussion. I do like your sources and have used one of them elsewhere. I may use the others. But. I still don’t find them convincing as to a statement that the current battalion is “now-Nazi”. I also question your understanding of how long Putin has been talking about the Asimov battalion, and conflating the various players using the name. They have been a thorn in his side since they handed him a military defeat in Mariupol in 2014. I’d have to check the dates on the disinformation campaign against them, but it’s been going on pretty much that long. I am uncertain of their importance at the moment. Depends on whether we’re talking about the political party that lost an election, the Euromaidan fighters, the unit that kept Mariupol Ukrainian in 2014, the National Guard unit that has been fighting there in 2022 and has been accused of blowing up the theatre and the hospital, or the original group of soccer hooligans. You are however correct about trying to make this point in this RFC, so I have started a separate post about the sources. Meantime I will stop commenting here and just vote. Peace out :)

• No, definitely not Not until article is re-written to clarify which of several groups it refers to, based on sources that actually are reliable. Elinruby (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You've already stated "leaning no" up above. You're entitled to change your view, but you need to be clear that your opinion is singular. (These are set far apart and separated by other comments - someone not paying attention may count your views twice. I'd suggest you strike the first one above so it is clear your opinion has changed and is only counted once.) ButlerBlog (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough; I now just realized you were asking me to do something and that you are right. I only changed it from “leaning not” to “definitely not”, but I have now processed your point about vote counting, and will go do that Elinruby (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

• Bad RfC, and Yes, we need to accurately convey what nearly innumerable reliable sources have clearly written since 2014: the Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi outfit. We amply demonstrate that in our section on the topic and it's been litigated many times here on the talk page. Elinruby: the invasion of Ukraine by Russia may be a crime and tragedy (I believe it is), and that doesn't change the fact that the Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi group. It remains so even when defending Mariupol against bombardment. -Darouet (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

So people keep saying. It should therefore be no problem to cite this with sources *on this topic* that say so. But let’s discuss that in the section on sourcing I have just started. I actually have bigger fish to fry than this but just saying it doesn’t make it so. Let’s deal with this outside of the bad RFC Elinruby (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, or at least not as in the current version of the lead. The current version conflates several different subjects: Azov as a former volunteer battalion, Azov as the current National Guard regiment and "Azov" as a political movement [7],[8]. Speaking about the current regiment, I think a citation from a statement by a Jewish Ukrainian organization explains it [9]: "It must be clearly understood: there is no kind of ‘neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia’ now. Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group. Its commanders and fighters might have personal political views as individuals, but as an armed police unit Azov is a part of the system of the Ukrainian defense forces.” My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Except that it doesn't conflate them, it explicitly distinguishes them: "former paramilitary group that is now a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine". Is "the current version of the lead" ideal? Clearly not, it's a tortured mess, and IMO needs to be refactored for basic scoping clarity, if nothing else. But what you characterise as an "explanation" is clearly a highly partisan POV, as your own source makes clear: "known for its nationalist stance on many issues". Simply accepting their analysis and repeating it in Wikivoice would transparently be a travesty. And bear in mind the basic timeline here: the block lifted in 2016 was reimposed in 2018, on precisely those grounds: "Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis", as The Hill put it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, but last RfC needs re-doing and lead needs major edit: Of course the ideological orientation should be included, but the current phrasing, resulting from a 2021 RfC is flawed. Things have clearly changed since the sources hitherto used were written, as the military unit's composition has dramatically changed. The description of the ideology in the lead doesn't distinguish between the the National Guard unit, older battalion and wider movement. The sources used for "neo-Nazi" in the lead are among the weakest from the previous RfC, including two non-expert opinions. We need to clearly spell out the different historical shifts in the the role of ideology and use past tense voice for material supported by older sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Please check the sources I brought in the 2021 RFC,[10] even scholarly sources from 2019. They all call the group "neo-Nazi".--Mhorg (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that they have actually changed at all? I grabbed a smattering of recent sources from around the world, they seem the same as ever.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/14/neo-nazi-ukraine-war

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/the-azov-battalion-the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/article65239935.ece

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment (we already use this one)

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-700396

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/18/inside-azov-neo-nazi-brigade-killing-russian-generals-playing/

These are all RS from the past few weeks, surely if there was a drastic ideological shift since the RfC at least one of them would have reported on it in their profiles of Azov? BSMRD (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not as in the current version of the lead. First source in one list above, Irregular Militias … , specifically says "This paper briefly sketches the origins of Azov, biographies of some of its founders, and particulars of its creation, without touching upon such issues as Azov’s military performance, later integration into the National Guard under Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior, and political development after 2014.". Also the Jerusalem Post, immediately above says: "which in the past was a hotbed of extreme right-wing ideology" and "However, since its incorporation into Ukraine's official armed forces it has moved away from neo-Nazism, and a Ukrainian Jewish group as early as 2016 did not oppose lifting the US ban" both of which seem to endorse My very best wishes' comment that The current version conflates several things: Azov as a former volunteer battalion, Azov as the current National Guard regiment and the Azov as a political movement and that some of the criticism is more aptly "was" rather than "is"-neo Nazi. Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, as this is what our WP:BESTSOURCES tell us, and mention as part of the notability of the group: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. Per these sources, the group started as a far-right nationalist paramilitary organization with ties to Neo-Nazism. That is how the group should be represented, and via proportionality dictated by WP:DUE and WP:LEAD, this should be mentioned in the lead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• No. Azov Battalion is a military unit, not a political organisation. It doesn't represent a specific ideology. EricLewan (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• No. Azov Battalion is a military unit and does not have political objectives nor does it have a political ideology. Ergzay (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes — The preponderance of reliable sources describe the Azov Battalion as "far-right" and "neo-Nazi" when discussing them. This is enough to warrant these descriptors in the lead. None of the arguments to the contrary are policy based. Many of the arguments for their exclusion cite WP:NPOV as their basis, but this is just a misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV is and more akin to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It does not matter if what you consider reliable sources is contrary to what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, because mainstream news sources and academic sources from both "the West" and Russia describe the Azov Battalion as specifically a Neo-Nazi and/or far-right unit. Also the arguments above that "[The] Azov Battalion is a military unit and not a political organisation" not only contradicts the reliable sources other editors have cited again and again, but this argument itself is ridiculous on its own. Should we remove all mentions of Nazi ideology in the lead of the article Schutzstaffel because the SS was primarily a security unit? As many people before me have said more elegantly, the Azov Battalion is not just a random military unit of apolitical volunteers with a few neo-Nazis amongst them; people volunteer for the Azov Battalion in particular because they are neo-Nazis. CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Not as in the current version of the lead - I don't necessarily oppose discussing political ideology, but the current version is very much subpar and fails NPOV as pointed out by My very best wishes and Pincrete.--Staberinde (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes They have a political wing so retain the parameter. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• yes As said above they have a political wing, so why not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• No. The "political wing" is necessarily and by design a separate entity and not actually affiliated with the regiment. The regiment is a part of the Ukrainian National Guard and the "political wing" does not currently hold any office or exist in the political sphere in any meaningful way. The political party formed by former Azov members is called the National Corps and conflating a party called the National Corps and a military regiment called the Azov Battalion is confusing and pointless. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Additionally, the National Corps already has its own article, so I don't see why its existence is being used to justify using political language to define an explicitly not politically aligned regular military unit. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

supporting comment Under Ukrainian law, Biletsky had to leave the military unit when he ran for a seat in the parliament. I am not certain whether it’s in the constitution but there is some sort

of iron-clad requirement for separation of the military from the government. Elinruby (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Not in the current form - Azov's founding political ideology no longer characterizes it after it was integrated into the Ukrainian military. Many soldiers serving in the regiment have rejected the neo-Nazi association. Russian propaganda has of course polarized this issue, so WP:NUANCE is required. CutePeach (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Not in the current form As above, Azov was a bunch of Nazi soccer hooligans with guns many years ago. They are now a regular fighting unit part of Ukraine defence forces - fighting Russia. They stil lhave some Neo Nazi members, but that have plenty who aren't. They are not a nazi organisation per se.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Could we just add "presumably neonazi"??

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

IMO, it's the best way to keep everyone happy.. people just need to know that there are multiple opinions and sources on the batallions ideology Averied (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC) No. That would seem like we're theorizing that they're neonazi. Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL which is what "presumably" implies. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) And this is exactly what it is - a theory. As long as there is no world wide confirmed actions or public confirmation statement from Azov group, it is a theory. All sources here are questionable and cannot be described as FACTS. There are FACTS that "someone" claimed it is true but there are no FACTS that IT IS true. None of the given material in the page can be called confirming FACT that they are nazis and can be easily be soaked in russian propaganda fakes that you trying to protect here. Baylrock (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Crystal ball is about future events. What the article states is that AT PRESENT the batallion is neonazi.. This may be quite ofensive to some people, considering it's part of the National guard of Ucraine, just under the ministry of internal affairs. Also there is no statement in the official website of the batallion about it's neonazi ideology So for respects sake..it's "presumably neonazi" is the correct statement, as not everyone agrees, and Wikipedia is supposed to be a non biased source of information. Averied (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Crystal ball includes speculation which is what this is. Also, whether or not it's offensive to some people is completely irrelevant as Wikipedia is not censored. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC) The batallion is neo-nazi.. is this a fact? Averied (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC) @Averied: Does it have a source? If it's mentioned in the lead then the source might be later in the article where it's mentioned again. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC) So you do not approve the change, but you don't even know if there is a source.. how can you have an opinion then if you haven't even read the article? Averied (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC) The fact is . There are multiple opinions on the batallions ideology. So if you don't like the word "presumably" just use something else. But there is no definitive source saying the batallions has a neonazi ideology. So it must be stated like this in the article. I can't believe biased views are welcomed to Wikipedia Averied (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC) We would never say "presumably" because that would be editorializing (see MOS:EDITORIAL). ButlerBlog (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Ok.. but I think you guys get the point. What shall we use? I think having the article making this statement as if it's a fact is completely unacceptable Averied (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) If you have an actual edit request, then submit it as a Semi-protected edit request and be specific (including sources). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) And it will get reverted right after because of "vandalism"! Informational war going on right here in this page... And wiki admins doesn't bother to verify what is going on. Baylrock (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC) This sounds ridiculous, all the chatter about “the battalion” which hasn’t been a battalion since September 2014. Does not lend respectability to any resulting determination. —Michael Z. 22:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Is it normal this swarm of brand new accounts trying to remove the Azov Battalion - neo-Nazi link all together?--Mhorg (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Yea, because now this wiki page is like a first argument in any debate about the reasons of Russian invasion. What makes this sad is that a lot of people tend to trust everything that in wiki without doing any fact checks. While normally I personally would't care about wiki's content, in a current moment, this page is actually doing a big indirect damage to people who suffer in Ukraine today. I hope none here need an explanation of "how". 24.203.147.159 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC) One thing we could possibly do is state more prominently in the article that the Azov Battalion's significance in Ukraine has been drastically exaggerated and has been used as a justification for the war in a way that has no real connection to reality - most sources are very clear on that point, and it has significant coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Honestly, this article has been irritating me for a month. I've been following the disinformation in this war closely since Russia began massing troops. I finally joined wikipedia today to weigh in on it. Is it normal for you to crouch over this article for a year insisting that the term neo-Nazi be in the lede? Please see the multiple contemporary and reliable sources I have cited elsewhere that indicate that this is Russian disinformation. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC) No ToeSchmoker (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC) We cannot add "presumably neo-Nazi" because that would violate the WP:NPOV requirement to avoid stating facts as opinions. There's no serious dispute that they are neo-Nazi; the dispute is over Putin's use of them as a rhetorical point to argue for war, which is very different. (Honestly there isn't really a dispute over that either - every independent RS outside of Russia agrees it's an absurd argument - so the question is more whether we want to cover that here and if so how prominently.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC) So instead we cite opinion as fact?Elinruby (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC) The sources, largely, treat it as fact, not as opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC) If by "the sources", you exclude the leading scholars on the subject (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, et al), in addition to the latest from the news orgs AFP, BBC, DW, CNN, WashPo,, Financial Times,.... then maybe, yeah, "the sources" do say what you want them to say! (@Aquillion: - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Most of those sources do not seem to contradict the description of neo-Nazi; some of them are more cautiously-worded, or note that the Azov Battalion denies being neo-Nazi, but primarily they focus on the fact that Azov Battalion is very small part of Ukraine forces. I don't think this is enough to answer the higher-quality sources I referenced above. Likewise, I don't really see the most of sources you listed above as actually "refuting" the neo-Nazi description; Shekhovtsov just quotes things that Azov members say, and Fedorenko are careful to say that they have attempted to distance themselves from neo-Nazism. What's more, Fedorenko is careful to note that most other commentators emphasize the group's neo-Nazi nature more than he does, which makes it clear he sees even his own caution (which is not at all the same as a denial) as being in the minority. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Why would you pretend you've actually read the sources? How embarrassing. OK, so now I will quote each one... 1) Umland (2019) the single-most-cited scholar on this very issue, says: "the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group". 1a) Umland is quoted by AFP on March 25, 2022: "In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies. 'But it had since become "de-ideologised"' and a regular fighting unit, he told AFP." 1b) Deutsche Welle, in their March 16 piece, also defer to the leading scholarly authority on the issue, Andreas Umland: "Umland said a legend had grown around Azov because of Russian propaganda. He said that volunteer fighters, including Azov, had been accused of looting and improper behavior in 2014..."Normally, we consider right-wing extremism to be dangerous, something that can lead to war," Umland said. But in Ukraine, it is the other way around, he argued. The war had led to the rise and transformation of marginal comradeships into a political movement. But their influence on society is overrated, he said. For most Ukrainians, they are combatants fighting an overbearing aggressor." 2) Fedorenko (2022), in the second-most-widely-cited paper on the issue, quotes the alleged field-commander of Azov in early 2015 (Roman Zvarych) as saying he recruited "Georgian, American, Lithuanian, and British instructors, and to have advised the Azov movement to refrain from using symbols and ideas that could be linked to Nazism..." 3) Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015), another widely-cited paper, wrote: "However, only some of the members of the Azov association, which has now become a regiment, as well as other nationalist volunteer battalions, are racist..." 4) Gomza, I., & Zajaczkowski, J. (2019) carried out an in-depth study of Azov members' activity online, and their results attributed a characterization of "Radical" far right nationalist to 38% of members, and precisely 0% as Nazi or neo-Nazi. 5) Shekhovtsov is quoted by the Financial Times: “Azov’s history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself,” said Anton Shekhovtsov, a Vienna-based Ukrainian expert on Russia’s connections to Europe’s far-right. “Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today.” (Kyiv, March 29, 2022) 6) The BBC says "there is no evidence such sentiment [white supremacism] is widespread..." and quotes Vitaly Shevchenko (another expert, unlike every single one of your sources) of BBC Monitoring as saying: "all they talk about is fighting the Russian forces... there's very little in terms of extremist, anti-migrant, or xenophobic rhetoric there." (26 March, 2022) 7) CNN: "For Putin, who has falsely claimed Ukraine's government is run by "drug addicts and neo-Nazis," Azov presents an obvious target. Moscow has given the regiment an outsized role in the conflict, routinely accusing it of human rights abuses...In the Russian disinformation playbook, the Azov movement is a tempting target -- one where fact and disinformation can be elided...Rekawek, an expert on foreign fighters at C-REX, said Azov has only been able to recruit 20 foreign fighters since the start of the 2022 invasion." 7) WashPo: "Under pressure from U.S. and Ukrainian authorities, the Azov battalion has toned down its extremist elements... Moreover, today’s war against Russia is far different than in 2014, fueled less by political ideology than a sense of patriotism and moral outrage at Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine, especially its civilian population. Extremists do not appear to make up a large part of the foreigners who have arrived here to take up arms against Russia, analysts said... ...“You have fighters now coming from all over the world that are energized by what Putin has done,” said Colin P. Clarke, director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm. “That certainly wasn’t the same in 2014,” he added. “So while the far-right element is still a factor, I think it’s a much smaller part of the overall whole. It’s been diluted, in some respects.” ..."Michael Colborne, who monitors and researches the far right and wrote a book about the Azov, said that he “wouldn’t call it explicitly a neo-Nazi movement...“There are clearly neo-Nazis within its ranks,” said Colborne, author of “From the Fires of War: Ukraine’s Azov Movement and the Global Far Right.” ..."The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014. Ever since it was incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard late that year, they “had to purge a lot of those extremist elements,” said Mollie Saltskog, a senior intelligence analyst at the Soufan Group. “There was much more control exerted over who is affiliated with the battalions.” - (April 6th, 2022, oh, and look, more experts!) 8) And there's much, much more. But I think I've expended quite enough labor on educating you on this matter. Next time: read before you edit and make ludicrous blanket statements... especially regarding non-existent "high quality sources" you found after Google two key words for 15 minutes. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I agree with you @Aquillion:, moreover, Shekhovtsov seems to report fake news that does not match reality, given that there are videos of 4 March 2022 of the National Corps and the Azov Battalion together,[19] evidence that there has been no depoliticization of the Azov battalion, as also claimed by Kuzmenko of the Bellingcat group.[20] Mhorg (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC) How's this grab you @Aquillion:? According to Mhorg it's all fake news. He said that he suspects many editors that contradict his POV on the Russian invasion of Ukraine are in fact SPA especially sent in to spread fake news: "I fear that an external campaign is being organized outside Wikipedia to influence some articles related to the conflict" [21]. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Assertion: "“Azov’s history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself,” said Anton Shekhovtsov"Financial Times Fact-checking: March 2022, Azov Battalion and National Corps(leaded by the neo-Nazi and founder of Azov Battalion Andrey Biletsky) flags together[22]. Moreover, National Corps videos dedicated only to Azov Battalion:[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]and so on for hundreds of their videos. I don't know why Shekhovtsov made that claim, as it is quite easy to disprove it with a quick search for any user. Do not you think? This is very sad, but what Shekhovtsov says does not match reality. How can we define his statement reliable? Mhorg (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I'm not going to waste my time trawling through YouTube, but, I would like to understand you... So, let's just take that first video. What do you interpret it as meaning? I assume you speak Russian, so what is it he says that you regard as betraying a neo-Nazi ideology? - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Ah, I understand you now @Mhorg:! You're just confused. What you're looking at is the YouTube channel of the political party "National Corps". Yes, Andriy Biletsky, formerly of Azov, founded it in 2016. It never won a single seat. The Azov Regiment doesn't have a YouTube channel, it might surprise you to learn.... ;-) - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC) @EnlightenmentNow1792: You will be doubly surprised to find that the Azov battalion has its own Youtube channel! [32] And the fact that the National Corps and Azov Battalion launch videos where they are together is precisely the fact that Azov has not been depoliticized as Shekhovtsov falsely says! The two entities remain linked: the National Corps is the political project and the Azov Battalion is the armed wing. Mhorg (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Wow, Azov does have a YouTube channel! Madness! You got me there moy drug! But no, the National Corps and Biletsky are very much not linked to the contemporary Azov regiment. The Ukrainian authorities have made sure of that. What would a regiment of 1000-odd people in the National Guard do with a political party anyway? Who would lead it? The Lieutenant-Colonel? The chief drill-instructor? ;-) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC) "The Ukrainian authorities have made sure of that" Are the Ukrainian authorities a reliable source on a controversial issue that casts a shadow over the Ukrainian state? Please, let's be serious. Mhorg (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC) TIME (2021): "But Azov is much more than a militia. It has its own political party; two publishing houses; summer camps for children; and a vigilante force known as the National Militia, which patrols the streets of Ukrainian cities alongside the police. Unlike its ideological peers in the U.S. and Europe, it also has a military wing with at least two training bases and a vast arsenal of weapons, from drones and armored vehicles to artillery pieces." Yes, it doesn't just seem to me that Shekhovtsov is lying.--Mhorg (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Wow. Awesome. Thanks for that. "Even in December, the Azov movement’s political wing, the National Corps, and its youth wing maintained at least a dozen pages on Facebook. Some began disappearing after TIME posed questions about Azov to Facebook." That's incredible. But not surprising really, given the authors - journalists often make mistakes. But this one's a real howler! Cheers though, proves the point I find myself having to make continuously - quality of sources is paramount. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources policy: context

Apparently we need to go here. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says:

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

WP:RSCONTEXT The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

I don’t have time to fight door to door over the honor of the Asov battalion. Zelenskyy was just talking about information bunkers with respect to the word “neo-Nazi”. I think some of that is going on here. However I also can’t let it go altogether as these people need to be mentioned at several points in a translation from the Ukrainian I have been working on (Russian information war against Ukraine), and I can’t link to this article as it stands. It should be a disambiguation page. It conflates several organizations. I don’t claim expertise on the group but some of the editors here seem to know less. The name is used with respect to a) a group of soccer hooligans who took up the cause of independence and became street fighters in Euromaidan b) a white supremacist political party that spun off and lost an election, whose leader is on record as s white supremacist and c) a military unit in the current Ukraine National Guard that for some reason apparently tweeted a xenophobic video, which it has since deleted, apparently, but which is nonetheless not “neo-Nazi.” Also, according to some news sources, some of its members may have unspecified racist tattoos. I may have some the above description wrong but it is closer to the truth, I think, than some of the concepts people seem to have here who are telling me to do a Google search. This is the fundamental structural problem brought up by another editor. And therefore may violate WP:BLP with respect to the military battalion. But that argument boils down to sources and before we can have that discussion we all need to be clear on “what is a reliable source”.

Again. reliable sources may well exist to support the designation. But I caution you that the Kremlin has for years been making fake videos about this group, alleging that it desecrated the Dutch flag, had ISIS members, and befouled a Koran with a pig’s head, for example. My source for the word fake is Bellingcat, and they are experts. It would be better to use peer-reviewed publications as sources for this, if they exist.Elinruby (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable to me. Why wound not you make some changes on the page? Then it will be more clear what exactly you suggest to do. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I am already supposedly trying to whitewash the group and I haven't touched the page! Big scare flag on it saying discuss first but then when I do I am not worthy of a reply ;) definitely not going to ask why this article about a military unit doesn't discuss its military actions outside of the info box? But ok. Baby steps.

the reference published at West Point does not discuss the Asov Battalion and there is no sign that the single sentence about it has received any specific scrutiny as to how it describes the group, since it is actually about the arrest of an American soldier.Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022 (3)

Suggest changing "As of late March 2015, despite a second ceasefire agreement (Minsk II), the Azov Battalion continued to prepare for war, with the group's leader seeing the ceasefire as 'appeasement.'" to "As of late March 2015, the Azov Battalion continued to prepare to defend Mariupol from pro-Russian forces, expressing doubt in the validity of any ceasefire, calling it 'appeasement.'"

To be honest, the first version is filled with political editorialization. Minsk II is not mentioned in the sourced Reuters article and was signed a month before the Reuter's article was written, and had already failed or not been adhered to.

Claiming the Azov battalion was "continuing to prepare for war" is largely a false statement since they were instead preparing to repel an invading pro Russian/Russian force on Mariupol. Again, the Reuters source is not consistent with this characterization. 2600:1700:FC80:1CC0:AC3E:483F:EEDA:F394 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Elinruby (talk)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Covering more about the group's usage in Russian propaganda

The article currently doesn't really talk at all about the group's usage in Russian propaganda, which is a major source of their notability today and which has extensive coverage. This source, a paper about Azov Battalion itself and the very first Google Scholar result on the group, says that it was created, in May 2014, by an obscure lunatic fringe group of racist activists but that it became instantly popular targets of the Russian propaganda campaign against Kyiv’s post-Euromaydan political leadership. I feel like we're getting too hung up on the group's descriptor (which is largely uncontroversial) and ignoring the actually important recent development, which is the massive focus and attention the group has gotten as a result of Putin implicitly using it as a justification to start a war; given the massive long-term implications it seems likely to be a major aspect of the group's reputation and coverage in the future. See eg. [33][34][35][36] as possible sources that could be used to flesh out a small initial section. --Aquillion (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I agree it was used almost like a casus belli for the invasion by Russian propaganda (and that contributes to notability of the unit), but it does not mean we should follow this Russian propaganda narrative on this page. The lead of this WP page does read like Russian propaganda. It starts: "Azov, is a right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi formerly paramilitary unit of the National Guard of Ukraine". Then, wording like "Neo-Nazi" is repeated in almost every phrase of the lead, over and over again. I think this needs some editing for neutrality. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Well said, In recent years Azov has produced perfect content for Russian state television, putting a face to the Kremlin’s claims about the rise of the far-right in Ukraine, where recent presidents and prime ministers have all been regular centrist politicians. and The National Corps never ran for national elections but its candidates have shown dismal performance at local elections in a clear sign of just how far Azov’s ideology is from concerns of ordinary Ukrainians who have for years viewed them as a marginal, selfie-happy group. Telegraph Infinity Knight (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no problem with Russian propaganda in this article, only first-class RS from the Western world are used (Time, Telegraph, WashingtonPost...). The international attention was gained by the group precisely for the neo-Nazi ideology which is behind the regiment and behind the political organization (which is a situation that worries several countries around the world, even the United States, as stated in the sources used), Russia has very little to do with it.--Mhorg (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg: the point is that the group's usage in Russian propaganda should be covered. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is heavily influenced by Russian propaganda and in its current format is itself at least misinformation, assuming that various people are almost unbelievably dense and don't realize that, despite the preponderance of reliable sources disagreeing, they are spreading Russian disinformation by referring to the Azov Battalion as "a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine." Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Once again, I think the lead is written as a piece of propaganda to justify the invasion. First of all, this is not a proper summary of page. Secondly, it is written very much as propaganda:

The Azov Special Operations Detachment or simply Azov..., is a right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi,[3][4][5] formerly paramilitary unit of the National Guard of Ukraine,[6][7][8] based in Mariupol, in the Azov Sea coastal region.[9] Azov initially formed as a volunteer militia in May 2014,[10] and has since been fighting Russian separatist forces in the Donbas War. It saw its first combat experience recapturing Mariupol from pro-Russian separatists in June 2014.[6] On 12 November 2014, Azov was incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine, and since then all members have been official soldiers serving in the National Guard.[11][12]

In 2014, the battalion gained attention after allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as neo-Nazi sympathies.[13][14] The group has also been criticized for use of controversial symbols,[15][16][17] as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel,[3] one of the Nazi symbols used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich.[18] Azov representatives said their logo is an abbreviation for the slogan "National Idea" (Ukrainian: Ідея Нації, romanized: Ideya Natsiyi) and deny any connection with Nazism.[14] In March 2015, a spokesman for the battalion said around 10–20% of the unit were neo-Nazis.[19] A provision in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, passed by the United States Congress, blocked military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology; in 2015, a similar ban on aid to the group had been overturned by Congress.[3][4] Members of the battalion came from 22 countries and are of various backgrounds.[20][21] In 2017, the size of the regiment was estimated at more than 2,500 members,[22] but by 2022, it has been estimated to be 900 members.[2]

In 2016, veterans of the regiment and members of a non-governmental organization called the Azov Civil Corps created the political party National Corps.[23] The unit's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi organisations Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine.[24][25] In its early days, Azov was a special police company of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, led by Volodymyr Shpara, the leader of the Vasylkiv, Kyiv, branch of Patriot of Ukraine and Right Sector.

My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I could easily fix the lead, so it would be a more proper summary of the page and without "Neo-Nazi" in every phrase. Would other users allow me? My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

We certainly need to say Neo-nazi only once. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I thought. There are two additional issues here. First, it was defined in sources in a variety of ways like "ultra-nationalist" (most common), "far-right" (very common) and yes, as Neo-Nazi. Secondly, it was described like that before officially joining the Ukrainian National Guard. Chances are it remains as it was, but most sources about "neo-Nazi" are outdated. Looking at the recent sources, most of them do not describe the regiment as Neo-Nazi but rather nationalist/ultra-nationalist. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Unuisre they are still, not as sources like this [[37]] seem to say they may still be. So I would be unsure about removing it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you are probably right, so that "Neo-Nazi" should remain in the lead, along with other descriptions (I did not suggest to remove it completely). My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I think, Neo-nazi kind of covers it anyway so they could be removed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, I fixed it a little, after a few improvements by someone else. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• The lead has been like that (more or less) for over a year, and the second paragraph, which is the one that focuses most directly on that aspect, dates back to at least 2019, possibly 2018 depending on how you consider its changes; the main RFC on the topic was held in July 2021 - it is at least not based on Russian propaganda related to the current war. Either way I think just glancing up should make it clear that those changes are not going to be uncontroversial - and we're already discussing (and have discussed, extensively) that aspect. The point of this section is to focus on something else, ie. I think we can uncontroversially add a lot about the group's use by Russian propaganda, which will balance out any description of its ideology in a way that most recent sources are careful to do (regardless of what the discussions above settle on.) If we turn every discussion into a debate over the use of "neo-Nazi" nothing on the page is going to get done because they're all going to collapse into the same discussion, which has repeatedly failed to go anywhere; and that's a serious problem when there are recent developments that need to be added, including ones that (even if you don't feel it completely solves the problem) will at least counterbalance the concerns of people who feel that our description of the group plays into Russian propaganda. --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again, it seems to me that some users are trying to act on a political level as they need to take sides for or against the events that are taking place in Ukraine. This article has remained unchanged for a long time, and only now someone decided to intervene. Why? In the lede, terms are used to precisely describe the political roots of certain organizations such as the Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine, for example. Hundreds of reliable Western sources speak of this battalion solely for its connection with supremacism and neo-Nazism, and some users would like to eliminate precisely that precise information (all the bolded words). It seems to me the opposite of the work we should be doing here: we should report data on Wikipedia in proportion to how much space the reliable sources give to certain information.--Mhorg (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg: "some users are trying to act on a political level..." is not a valid reason for exclusion of Russian propaganda usage of Azov. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Note about letting feeling rule

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. plese continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be that people want it not to be neo-nazi, because they are supposed to be the "good guys". Sometimes the neo-nazi do good things. It occasionally happens! It is not strange if they fight for their country, its basically what a supposedly neo-nazi ideology is all about, after all. The same thing would probably also happen if someone invaded USA, there are lots of far-right (and occasional neo-nazi) that has been prepping for war all their lives over there. It's not strange if ukraine also has such groups..? Just be careful and be honest to yourselves, or something · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC) I actually think a lot of people here really want it to be Nazi, because then they can blame those other people over there for the violence in the US. I mean. I have been through this talk page in pretty close detail and (gasp) Azov trains fighters! Yeah well those citizen soldiers are saving Europe’s butt. They have been at war since 2014, you realize that right? But anyway my opinion is irrelevant and so is the opinion of everyone who thinks that way. I don’t doubt that some recruits join because Aryans, or that bad stuff has happened, or that given members actually might be card-carrying Nazis. Maybe some of the bad stories are true, but I also know that a bunch of them aren’t, and that yes, there is actual real Russian propaganda. So it behooves to read critically. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, yours is the typical message of those who want to act on the encyclopedia by carrying a political message. Here we do not have to deal with the war but with what the reliable sources report. If there are tons of Western sources claiming Azov is neo-Nazi, there's nothing you can do about it. This is not a blog.--Mhorg (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC) The preponderance of reliable sources describe them as having a neo-Nazi founder or having neo-Nazi members. I have not seen a reliable source describes them as a neo-Nazi battalion in a meaningful way, and I've been looking. The US Army has neo-Nazi members. Is the US Army a neo-Nazi army? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging Azov Special Purpose Regiment into Azov Battalion. Clearly the same entity.Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This is a page about the regiment. That one is .., whatever it is. Not ruling a merge out but it’s too soon to discuss it. I’d like to get some references into it so it can actually be evaluated for one thing, and it still has huge POV problems I’d be working on right now if I weren’t being swarmed by template taggers Elinruby (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ymblanter. A merge is needed.--Mhorg (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Same here Persesus (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Frankly that article needs to be deleted, not merged. It's a blatant WP:POVFORK, not to mention 70% of it is literally copy-pasted from this article and other places (you can even see the linkless cite numbers!), and is generally an unreadable mess. BSMRD (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the name is likely a valid Redirect to this article, so we could at least keep that much. Can't see anything else of value though. BSMRD (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. Looking at Ukrainian sources, they say (translation) The Azov Battalion was established on May 5, 2014 in Berdyansk... On September 17, 2014, by order of the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, the Azov Battalion was reorganized and expanded into the Azov Special Police Regiment of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This is consistent with other sources. My understanding that "Azov" was a self-organized militia before the reorganization (something like "partisans"). After that it became an official part of Ukrainian military forces, which is something very different; the command is differnt. Based on that, one could reasonably argue we might need two separate pages. It seems that even their official emblems are different. Which one we need to use? I would rather wait and see what RS will have to say about it after the Siege of Mariupol. My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Firstly - no, just because Azov was reorganized does not validate a separate article, as it was (and is) essentially the same entity. It is more than covered by the subject matter, as it can very easily be seen as a historical stage, not the forming of a new entity. Their official emblems are not different, the POV fork page just (frankly incorrectly) uses the emblem of the National Guard of Ukraine, the branch Azov was absorbed into. One can take a quick look at the current footage coming out of Mariupol to see the emblem (variant with the Black Sun and Wolfsangel) that is featured on this page present on the shoulder patches of Azov troops. For reference, this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3TJhmGzOi8 - obviously not an article-grade source, but I think it illustrates my point more than enough for the purposes of a talk page. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is apparently the same regiment, except that command has changed. And they use same emblem (see images linked in a thread just below). Yes, these pages could be merged, agree with Ymblamter, although merging them would be a delicate process resulting in changing this page (which I do not object). My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Strong no: Azov Special Purpose Regiment is a propaganda article with unreliable sources, meant to whitewash Azov Battalion. Should be deleted as BSMRD has mentioned. Written by the genius Elinruby who goes on forumshopping in order to remove all neo-nazi references from this article but states I do not claim to fully grasp the nature of this group. This calls into question all of this user's contribution and the disruption caused. - hako9 (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice Since this was never flagged as a proper merger discussion, I have gone ahead and submitted the Article to AfD. The discussion can be found here for interested users. BSMRD (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azov Special Purpose Regiment was closed as redirect, this proposal is redundant.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MSNBC accidentally shows propaganda from azov

Fox reported on this https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-azov-battalion-ukraine-russia-conflict.amp This news site too https://overtells.com/msnbc-report-on-the-conflict-between-russia-and-ukraine-shows-a-ukrainian-neo-nazi-armed-group-training-civilians/ And this one https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/02/16/ukra-f16.html Persesus (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, according to MSNBC report, members of Azov train civilians in Mariupol. So what? My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

good thing too Elinruby (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

History with hilbert

This guy made a video on azov https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cuBeABAprlo Persesus (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Decent source I think

Командир полку «Азов» Андрій Білецький: Ті, хто проливає кров за Україну, повинні мати свій голос у владі (Commander of the Azov Regiment Andriy Biletsky: Those who shed blood for Ukraine must have a voice in power)

Unian seems to be generally accepted as RS. (Or if I am wrong please educate me) if you dig deep enough an oligarch owns 70% of the holding company it belongs to, according to us, and the oligarch also subsidizes the Ukrainian military units in the east, but almost all of the media in Ukraine is owned by one oligarch or another. Elinruby (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Violation of the 2021 RFC verdict and mass deletion of controversial content

User My very best wishes deletes controversial content from the article and voluntarily ignores the 2021 RFC verdict,[38] in which he even participated, which says the battalion should be defined like this: In the first sentence "Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi Ukrainian National Guard regiment". The user changed the text into: Azov, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine".[39] Is there an explanation for this behavior? I also ask other users to better understand the situation.--Mhorg (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

That change was made not by me, but by another contributor who edited just before [40]. I started from editing his version. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay I'm seeing this might be about an edit I made. Nothing was mass deleted, just structured to be coherent. The phrasing in the rFc was untouched (the cited descriptors of the battalion), but the first sentence is a rats nest that needed disambiguation. That we're having a split discussion now is proof of the conflict between the battalion and current successor. While there was consensus on one thing, it can't fly in the face of Reliable Sources. It can't be both paramilitary and military, both battalion and regiment, or both its government structure and its previous extremist group structure. There's a notice above the article requesting copy-editing for a reason.

The RFC stated consensus to define the Battalion immediately as "neo-Nazi" and the article phrasing previously defined it as "right-wing extremist,[1][2] neo-Nazi,[3][4][5][6] formerly paramilitary unit" (which was a detour itself) In fact, the RFC states "The descriptor "Right-wing/nationalist" attracted no support and the descriptors "Far-right" little more.". The rfc also showed rough consensus to handle neo-N links as defined by observers. From what I'm seeing here, the scope of that consensus was already altered, and combined with the mangling of reliable sources it needed some good-faith copy tweaking. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if moving the article to just 'Azov' (or like 'Azov (Military formation)') as a title might be warranted. That way we can avoid all the confusion of if it is a battalion or a brigade or a regiment or a group or whatever. For what it's worth I've seen all used (including the unadorned 'Azov'), but I think an analysis of RS would reveal 'Battalion' as the WP:COMMONNAME, but I'm not 100% sure, and haven't done a super in depth comparison. As for it can't be paramilitary and military, it sort of is both, owing to it's inclusion in the National Guard, which is itself a national paramilitary force. While the group has gone through some restructuring owing to joining the National Guard, it is still fundamentally the same organization. I think it is a mistake to try and draw a distinction between pre and post National Guard Azov in anything but an administrative sense. BSMRD (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worth discussion. There's an overarching issue you touched on, where 'Azov Battalion' is the most common, because it has its own history in a sense, the most content to write about. Almost all the notoriety from symbols to far-right connections came out of 2014 when it used that name so IMO it's its own animal. The article now tries to cram past and present together all at once into one confusing jumble.

I disagree though on the 'paramilitary' issue, as it implies an unofficial, ad hoc nature (like a right wing militia...which they were); right now they are an official military group under the Ministry of Interior. And that's the thing, when they were paramilitary and independent that's when they had the most members, the international far-right supporters, the war crimes allegations, etc.

The article weight presents this like 2014 defines the group and the next 8 years are irrelevant, which I think is an issue. BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, dusted off my ancient account to get to the talk page here as the way the article is currently structured has been bothering me. I'm not a Ukraine expert but I do have a background in twentieth-century Eastern European history and the way the page currently reads does seem largely based on sensationalist articles from 8 years ago. To get to the heart of the matter: as the above conversation shows, some authors seem invested in making sure Azov is equated with neo-Nazism (on this note, I noticed that in the second paragraph as it is currently written someone actually wrote that the battalion is comprised 10-20% of "Nazis", which would be an impressive feat of necromancy). I by no means wish to minimize white supremacist sentiment, which I have no doubts exists among Azov and more widely in Ukraine as it does all over Eastern Europe and (it most be recognized especially for the purposes of editing this page) all the way up to the Kremlin (see Aleksandr Dugin). If there is a swift resolution to this conflict in which Russia fails to swallow Ukraine, we will be seeing fallout in the form of nationalist and extremist politics from this war for decades, but that is a much more broad issue.

However, Azov as it currently exists seems maligned by what I think is symbolism that is seen differently in Eastern Europe than in the West and a lack of education on the part of the country bumpkins that I assume accounted for most of their neo-Nazi membership in 2014. I've gone through some of the old and newer articles on this page and I get the sense that a number of editors didn't bother to read the cited article past the often sensationalist headline. A number of the articles seem to be based on one old and mysterious quote from the founder, who has not been associated with the org for at least half a decade and who himself later denied ever saying it. I also wonder the degree to which people are actually falling for Russian propaganda that is heavily invested in making Ukrainians out to be Nazis.

To cut to the chase, I think that some chronological layout of information about Azov would be a good start in dealing with this problematic organization. Second, I'd maybe separate war crime accusations such as torture from accusations of neo-Nazism. There is a second issue of war crimes that I think needs to be split from accusations of white supremacy to begin to clear up this pejorative jumble. This Human Rights Watch report from many years ago mentions a forthcoming report on Azov torture but I don't know if they ever published it: https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/07/21/you-dont-exist/arbitrary-detentions-enforced-disappearances-and-torture-eastern

I'll try to remember to check in here again soon and also try to lend a hand if help is wanted, but I thought I'd leave this preliminary note of support for a restructuring that could afford this topic some nuance and a bit more clarity. These are problematic people in a tragic situation and I think simply calling Azov neo-Nazis over and over does no one any favors (well, except the Russian state). Lukasz Chelminski (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Defence of Mariupol

The defense of Mariupol is mentioned only in passing mand at least a couple of other notable battles are not mentioned at all Elinruby (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Battles or lack thereof have nothing to do with them being Neo-nazi and is a distraction. If you want to discuss that start up a new thread. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

this article as it stands is about the many incarnations of Azov battalion, regiment and movement. Not about the ways in which they have been called Nazis. It’s a fighting unit. Of course the fights are relevant. I am not sure why you even think neo-Nazis are the topic of this thread, which is about structure. (?) If we are talking about structure then it is relevant that the article ignores a huge chunk of history Elinruby (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

But that still has nothing to do with the RFC we are discussing, it is a separate issue, thus it just makes it harder to follow what is being discussed. Discussion has to be structured and going "ahh but what about this issue" does not make that easier, it makes it harder. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This entire section is explicitly about the removal of "neo-Nazi" from the lead section. So that's why we think it's the topic of the thread: it's because it's the topic of the thread. It's the topic of too many different threads indeed, but that's hard to help, short of someone playing comment-placement placement. If you wish discuss their participation in various battles, please for clarity do it in a different section, whether a new or a related existing one. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not I am saying that "The defense of Mariupol" and "other notable battles" are notj9ng to do with the removal of "neo-Nazi" from the lead section. Which is what the last few posts have been about. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought it was extremely clear I was addressing those remarks at Elinruby, but perhaps you were led to understand otherwise by my attempt to indent legibly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

ok? I disagree but if it helps you? I am betting however that I will be told that it is already being discussed. Elinruby (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

You disagree with... what part? That this section is about what this section explicitly says it's about? Or that it should continue to be about what it started about? As I say, add it to an existing related section if there is one. Is there one? i don't know, hard to say, especially when people keep wandering from topic to topic within each section, adding duplicates, etc. And because I'm not the talk-page comment police. What's the worst thing that's happen, you start a new section, and someone points out a related section? In which event you can just move your comment accordingly. Or be bold, and add the material yourself (in a way that's not just backing into some other ongoing dispute, obviously). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

It is refreshing to talk to someone who isn’t trying to be the talk page police. And yes, I see why that was unclear. I actually typed out a huge blow by blow of the above discussion, which still looks to me like it’s about restructuring the lead to disambiguate all the various organizations the article is trying to cover, and decided it was a wall of text and I should be more succinct. Apparently I over-compensated. TL;DR = I still don’t see neo-Nazis, and I agree with Lukasz Chelminski. We are also oh btw trying to cover too many different entities in this article, and not actually covering them.Elinruby (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This is why I have asked for us to stay focused, and (also) to not have 15 different threads on the same issue. So Elinruby start your new section, I for one will not say we are already discussing it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I would say we are well within WP:PAGs (particularly the talk page guidelines) to move those ancilliary discussions into this one as subsections, and indeed i would encourage you to do that! I will if no one else is willing :) — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Best you do it, as I am well involved it might put people backs out. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Am as involved as anyone -- involveder than most, albeit not able to edit the actual article ever -- but have been so bold as to add a subsection break. I think that's as far as I feel emboldened to go, but I'd encourage moving and folding as felt appropriate by others. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Split proposal

I'm seeing some evidence that sources are treating the Azov Battalion and the Azov movement as explicitly separate things, though Azov Movement is currently a redirect title from this article. A Deustche Welle fact check from February 2022 states a similar thing noting that after 2014 there was a separation of the movement and the regiment, and it is by far not the only source that makes a distinction between the political movement and the actual military group. I propose that the article be split so that the movement, which is different than the national guard unit, can be covered more specifically and in-depth without taking up WP:UNDUE weight in the space that would otherwise be required in this article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not strictly opposed to a split like this, however I think we must be careful not to strip this article of ideological info. While the movement and unit are conceivably separate topics (though I'd like to see a more comprehensive list of sources for a potential movement article first), they are still inextricably linked. The Azov Movement is a neo-fascist one, and the Unit is it's military arm. Both are Neo-Nazi groupings, and I worry some might use a split to whitewash one or both. BSMRD (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10:!thank you for starting from sources. Mine suggest there was a formal split. There may still be unofficial ties; unsure. You may wish to look at the source I suggested in another section of this page; it’s a long interview transcript on unian with the founder of the original Asov, and includes a discussion of various spinoff groups. Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s misinformed. The National Militia (Natsionalni Druzhyny) is the Azov movement’s paramilitary arm. The Azov Regiment is a government paramilitary unit. Yes, there remain informal links between members. But “inextricably linked” is verging on a WP:crystal ball prediction that ignores the last five years of history.

Yes, the article should retain the unit’s history as a volunteer battalion (for four months eight years ago), but not based on undisciplined misunderstandings like the above. No whitewashing, but no conspiratorial demonizing either. —Michael Z. 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The statement you quote is attributed to Ulrich Schmid in his own voice, not DW's. - hako9 (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. While sources exist that use both sources, some specifically treat them as interchangeable (eg. The Azov Battalion, sometimes referred to as the Azov regiment or Azov movement); or unambiguously use Azov Battalion as the English-language name for the movement (eg. the Washington Post saying The would-be militants have been recruited by groups like the Azov Battalion, a far-right nationalist Ukrainian paramilitary and political movement.) Even the few sources that try to make a distinction often do so while acknowledging that most people don't. But most of all, there simply isn't much coverage under the term "Azov movement" at all; it's mostly treated as a minor subtopic of the Azov Battalion or as an alternative way of looking at it. If you feel there are actually enough sources clearly talking about it as a distinct thing to cover the Azov movement in-depth, I think the correct thing to do would be to expand the section on it on this page, and eventually, if it becomes large enough, it could be spun off into another article. But based on the sources I can see, I do not think it will ever reach the size or depth where that would make sense, and it certainly makes no sense to argue spinning it off when it is currently just a handful of sentences - I think we would mostly end up with a smaller, weaker-sourced copy of this article using sources that happen to use the term "Azor movement", plus constant argument over sources that are often not dividing the terms in a rigorous way. Even the sources you're citing seem to be treating it as a subtopic of the sort that would be better covered on this page for now. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I read that article on DW a few days ago, absolutely unreliable and I would declare any material that will be produced by that authors unreliable, as it goes against all the first class reliable sources we have that certify that there is no separation between the Azov Movement and the Azov Regiment, indeed the latter continues to be the armed wing of the movement. See for example what Time documented in 2021.[41]--Mhorg (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wait wait did you just say that Deutsche Wells is unreliable? And produce a YouTube link to prove it?

  1. You’re wrong. Please check the archives at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
  2. I somewhat disagree with Wikipedia’s policy on YouTube if the account is indeed held by s reliable source, but generally speaking no YouTube video is a reliable source.

  Please read the reliable sources policy Elinruby (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  DW is a state run news agency and can be considered unreliable. I oppose as some users may try and use the split to whitewash the ideology part of this article, as mentioned above. BritishToff (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  The news coverage provided by BBC News, ABC News (Australia), and PBS come from state-run news agencies as well; what makes them reliable news organizations are their possession of three qualities—editorial independence, strong editorial review processes, and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you believe that Deutsche Welle lacks these three qualities or is otherwise generally unreliable, you are free to open a discussion on WP:RSN. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

just did it for him. Not that it will get more than an eyeroll, because of course it’s reliable, but it might attract some attention to this problem here. And by the way, I guarantee they haven’t heard of Meduza either, but I just looked into it for my translation of Russian information war against Ukraine, and at least for that topic it definitely is reliable. Probably for your article too as it’s at least somewhat related Elinruby (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The video by Time has an accompanying article.[42] It seems to be factual, but makes some leaps and omissions: while acknowledging the unit entered the National Guard in the war’s first year, it ignores that Biletsky left the unit, uses “Azov” interchangeably to refer to the NG regiment and the civilian political movement, repeatedly calls the NG regiment a “militia,” and implies that the civilian movement has access to NG weapons. These are the kind of sources that have led this article to be an undisciplined and confusing mess. This is borderline sensationalism and borderline NPOV, and we should prefer more academic sources. —Michael Z. 18:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• It ain't just DW (which is a highly respected German news agency, by the way) that draws some distinction between the military movement and the unit. USA Today also makes a distinction between the national guard unit and the movement (the movement is a broader political movement, per USA Today). The Guardian also doesn't put forward that the Azov Regiment and the Azov movement are numerically identical, but says that the two are linked. It's also very clear to me that this Haaretz report is distinguishing between the original battalion (which has been incorporated into the national guard) and some broader Azov movement. Meduza also makes a distinction between the battalion and the greater Azov movement (National Druzhyna is not a part of the military regiment, but it's a part of the Azov movement). That there is a distinction between the two (i.e. they are numerically identical to each other) seems to be relatively uncontroversial. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  "The Azov Regiment is part of Ukraine's broader "Azov Movement,"", that does not say they are separate. Also "They are members of the National Militia, an ultranationalist organisation closely linked to Ukraine’s Azov movement, a far-right group with a military wing that contains openly neo-Nazi members, and its political spin-off, the National Corpus party." ios drawing a discnti0on between one unit (it does not say which,m but its logical to assume this one) and the wider National Militia. Sorry, but it seems to me they are saying that the Azov battalion (the military wing of the Azov movement) does not relfct the wider national militia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

please provide a source for your statements, thanks. Elinruby (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• "X is only part of Y" means that X and Y are not the same thing. My reading of the DW source is not that they have become so separated as to have erased the ideology wholesale. The DW report refers to the Azov Battalion as being among Right-wing Ukrainian combat units and that the regiment still uses right-wing symbols. My reading of the word "separation" is not that the two unrelated, but that there is a difference between the two. The difference between the Provisional Irish Republican Army and 1980s-era Sinn Fein comes to mind. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't manipulate my words. I have written clearly that those "authors" of DW's article should be declared unreliable (and not the entire journal), as they go against the majority of the data shown by the reliable sources, without even bringing a proof.--Mhorg (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

speaking of proof please provide some for your contention that Deutsche Welle is unreliable. Elinruby (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

DW isn't a journal, it's a WP:NEWSORG with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The whole point is that they report on the news. I'm also not sure what dataset you're referring to here, would you mind sharing? — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The authors of this article are the DW fact check team, with the lead author being the head of that team. This is as gold standard a source as we can find for Wikipedia purposes and those editors arguing it isn't are either very ill-informed or have a very poor understanding of reliability, which is worrying considering their contributions to this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories:"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The DW article proves nothing, it's just a line of text that goes against hundreds of reputable sources (who even certify with videos that nothing has changed in the Azov Battalion).--Mhorg (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Odd, an edit of mine was not saved, I note the DW article does not in fact say they ae not linkned. It says according to one academic they are not. This is not sufficient for a split. It would be to add to this article an attributed statement. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Which is why we have wp:v and wp:or, I do not interpret them that way, but as saying what I have said. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  That video is sensationalist nd presents several claims broadly refuted elsewhere. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I have just made another post at the Reliable Sources board about the mischaracterizations of the RS policy on display here. I am sure I will be s brainswashed Nazi or something all over again but I really feel strongly that Wikipedia should be guided by more than whoever can stamp their feet the loudest. Please read the reliable sources policy before describing it again

• Oppose: Never heard of a 'movement' beyond the National Corps political wing. If anything, the 'movement' on a political basis should be folded in there, or a sub-section on the azov page leading into the Nat Corps movement content. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. After looking at sources, including books and recent articles, such as [43] or [44], it seems that Azov (rather than "Azov battalion") is a political movement. No need in split. One can simply create new page, Azov (political movement). There is also Azov Civil Corps (I am not sure if it is different from the political movement). It appears on a separate page in Ukrainian WP, uk:Цивільний Корпус «Азов» and in this subsection of this page. National Corps is yet another, but an entirely different organization. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Aquillion (mostly treated as the same by RS so far) and BSMRD (can become a POV fork). Alaexis_¿question? 21:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  As I said in my reply, I'm not strictly opposed to the idea, though maybe not right now. I have seen the distinction made in some (certainly not all) sources, though I am not convinced it is the majority view. I think perhaps an expansion of the subsection of this article dedicated to the movement beyond the unit would be warranted instead, and if that becomes to large we can come back to talks of a split then. BSMRD (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

References

I agree, but where does it say that the Azov movement and the Azov Regiment are not the same thing, as far as I can tell it says that one academic has said this. That might be enough for a "but according to Ulrich Schmid..." in this artoce. It is not (to my mind) enough to support a split. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Split if he wants If you guys don’t think the movement is a thing, well and good. It is in fact barely mentioned in this article, so it isn’t even really a split. He seems quite familiar with it and I don’t see why he needs you guys to vote on whether it exists or not. He doesn’t need your permission to write an article about something you guys don’t think is important, geez. I don’t think Kim Kardashian is important, but this is me not caring whether somebody else writes an article about her Elinruby (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose split These closely related, overlapping topics tend to be discussed together in sources, according to my Google Scholar searches. Develop the article from RS before considering any split. (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you looked at any of the results? And are you including Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and Slovakian? Elinruby (talk)

Collapse as WP:NOTFORUM.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There really isn’t the necessity for debate on this topic. If the Azov Battalion has changed their name & ideology and have now become the Azov Special Purpose Regiment then that can easily be updated in the historical post. With qualified references. I can’t find any. All the references I’ve found up until November 2021 still classify them as a terrorist extreme right group with ties to neo-nazism. Merge any relevant info with validated reference and move on. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Nevermind. It looks like for some reason Wikipedia has already changed the Azov Battalion to Azov Special Purpose Regiment. Not sure why? No Google search can confirm its existence. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC) My bad, I confused Special Operations with Special Purpose! Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Why is Wikipedia even presenting this debate. I’ve never seen this before. You can’t debate historical fact and Wikipedia should know better. Add your facts and provide legitimate reference. Simple. Done. This forum should not tolerate social media rhetoric. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC) This isn't a forum, it's a page that editors use in order to discuss changes to the article and related proposals in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Forum: A place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Discuss: talk about (something) with another person or group of people. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per Alaexis. Forever yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support The civilian political movement and the National Guard regiment are barely distinguished by a lot of borderline tabloid journalism and opinion pieces referenced here, and consequently in much of this article. Maybe having two articles with two clear leads will help. —Michael Z. 18:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  So it's not a scope or a summary style issue, it's a sourcing one, to which the solution is... a WP:POVFORK? Which of the sources do you feel are unsuitable, or are being given undue weight? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  I named two distinct subjects that sloppy editing in this article has trouble distinguishing. They are constantly misconstrued and factual statements by sources get blatantly misenterpreted on them.[45][46] Not a POV fork. —Michael Z. 18:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  And those are the pieces of "borderline tabloid journalism" that you feel are inappropriate to use? Or they're OK, but you disagree with how they're being presented by our editors? Your argument seems inconsistent to the point of being ad hoc, and in neither case actually argues for a guideline-compliant split. Arguments of the form "this article's wrong, I want to start over with a different one" are precisely POV forks. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  No, I think you’re missing the point. —Michael Z. 22:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, it's obvious the "split" article will be a POV fork riddled with recentism and undue, worthless stuff. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why do you think an article focusing heavily on the political movement is going to be a POV fork? — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Because of [[47]], and because of the 'split the article because I don't like this one' comments here, to start with. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I found this Atlantic Council article, which seemed relevant to this discussion. It draws a distinction between Azov the military unit and the broader "Azov movement" however, it ends like this:

The close alignment between the Azov Regiment and the National Corps continues under the Zelenskyy presidency. In March 2020, soldiers from the regiment were featured alongside leaders of the National Corps in a video ad for a rally meant as a warning to Zelenskyy’s government. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to “depoliticize." This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps.

This seems to support what I said above that, while such a distinction can be made, it seems to largely be a distinction without a difference, and would IMO be better served under on article. BSMRD (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. If I'm not mistaken the source was already mentioned in the 2021 RFC. Mhorg (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ideologically, there was (near-)zero space between the Sturmabteilung and the Nazi Party, yet we have two articles on them because the two are not numerically identical entities and both have significant coverage. My point above is more that there not being substantial ideological room between two entities doesn't necessarily mean that we need one article on them. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And when this article is as substantial and stable as those are it may be appropriate to do so here, in line with the summary-style split guidelines. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that during the course of this discussion, a split was created, hauled off to AfD, and closed there as merge, shouldn't this be closed in the same manner? Otherwise we've a redundantly lingering tag at best, and venue-shopping at the worst. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Considering that the fork of the article that was created is not in any way similar to the split that is being proposed, calling this venue shopping makes no sense. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, misreading of the precise proposal on my part. Too many too similar discussions using too many of the same tropes starting to blur to together after a while. However, the two split ideas seem to me to be uncomfortably close in spirit. Procedurally it perhaps just has to rumble on, though... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Aquillion Also if this is a point of contention, why not simply create a new article? BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Colburne uses the terms Azov Battalion and Azov Movement interchangeably to describe the Azov Battalion before they were incorporated into a regiment in the Ukrainian military and also uses Azov Movement to refer specifically to a group that is not the Azov Battalion. I find it very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Biletsky is a common factor in these entities. There are actually many things in Ukraine named Azov after Sea of Azov, and a few in Russia as well. Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as extremely likely to become a POVFORK — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of "2nd SS Panzer division" in intro

The current version of the article is perpetually defended to include the sentence "their logo features the Wolfsangel,[1] a Nazi symbol used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich." Now, my objection is a) it's a variant of a wolfsangel, so including WW2 original research / synth to say it's the same logo the SS Panzer division used is misleading, and factually incorrect to boot. b) They of course deny any association with the reference implied here, so having a debate in the intro isn't helpful. It doesn't help that their current logo looks nothing like the cited SS one.

I think it's fair to include accusations of its similarity of their old logo to that division in the relevant body section containing neo-nazi accusations & ties, but in its current form it seems forced. I feel simply stating that they have been accused of using controversial symbols such as the Wolfsangel in the intro is sufficient on its own. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 17:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course they deny it. But RS must make the connection. Whilst I have not yet found any that link the SS to Azov, this links the symbol to the NAzis Wolfsangel, that therefore need to be made clear. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

From an Italian RS:[48] "a formation of clear neo-Nazi inspiration, whose symbol is the Wolfsangel, Nazi icon of the 2. SS-Panzer-Division "Das Reich"--Mhorg (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, that's a win, use this as the source. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Already used...--Mhorg (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Are we certain eunews.it is a reliable source? I can't find out much about it. It doesn't seem the best source for hanging something on in the lead. Better to move to the relevant section and just mention wolfsangel resemblance in lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The wolfsangel was (as far as I know) used much more broadly than the one division of the SS. While one RS singles out the specific SS division, that division being mentioned by name is still undue in the lead as it was more broadly used (the Wolfsangel page lists a bunch). If there are a bunch of sources that connect the use of the symbology to that division, rather than to (Neo-)Nazism more broadly, then it should, but I really don’t think that is so dominant that one specific SS division should be mentioned in the lead. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it was, but not in Ukraine, as it is a Franco-Germans symbol. But I would be happy to change it to "used by several units of the German army in ww2". Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Just as a historical note, the 19th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) fought in Western Ukraine and Poland when it broke out of the Kamenets–Podolsky pocket. It used a wolfsangel with a line in the middle. I don't have an issue with that phrasing provided that there is sourcing for it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what you think you have just said, as that seems to back up the claim, this is not a UKRANIAN symbol, you are aware Ukranians fought the Nazis?Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Majority of Ukrainians also fought on the nazi side and collaborated with them. Also who removed far right extremist from the lead? BritishToff (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The majority of Ukrainians were civilians during World War II. To say that the majority of the members of the ethnic group fought alongside Nazis or were Nazi collaborators is a gross distortion of history. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Majority of Ukrainians fought against the Nazis as part of the Red Army. There were more ethnic Russian collaborators than Ukrainian ones. Volunteer Marek 06:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

NO they did not, and nazi means "far right extremist ", it is in fact praticaly a definition of it. Its like saying Wet Water. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven That is not even close to the definition of what nazi is... Ergzay (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is, they are not far-left are they? Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it/edited it to just mention it refers to several World war 2 german military units. It wasn't uniquely representative of any specific unit. Ergzay (talk)10:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg Please discuss rather than reverting. Ergzay (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You made a change without providing a source.--Mhorg (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ergzay: thank you for adding the Wikilink to the symbol. Now I think the text is ok. Mhorg (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Ergzay, you've made four reverts in three hours on this article -- conservatively, counting the direct 'undos' alone. You should consider following your own advice -- rather than blanking talk-page messages on the topic. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you could comment with your real account rather than using a VPN to write your comments. Ergzay (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should revise your understanding of WP:AGF, too. There's a venue for addressing (legit, founded) suspicions of inappropriate use of accounts. There's also places elsewhere where you could work out what static IP addresses are associated with VPNs, and which are standard domestic internet accounts. Doubtless there are places for baselessly attacking anyone pointing out your own problematic editing behaviour, but this isn't intended to be one of them. (The theory doesn't even begin to make sense, anyway. The article is semi-protected, so I'm ganging up on you by... logging out and thus not being edit it at all?) Feel free to consider striking the above entirely. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Azov Battalion actually pagan?

I see the section on their pagan ideology was removed from the article due to citing Russian propaganda sources https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&oldid=1078187164 do we have any reliable sources that support them even having a pagan ideology at all? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are some other articles mentioning Azov battalion being/having large amounts of pagans, Aljazeera one particularly relevant:*

The Black Sun is intrinsically neo-pagan but I suppose the question is whether or not they are believers in that or just like the way it looks.

• note not sure if SPZH is reliable source but I checked and some articles here use it 24.44.73.34 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No it is intrinsically NAzio as they actually created that specific design, you are thinking of the sun Wheel. Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, by neo-pagan I meant the nazi kind. I know not all neo-pagans are nazis. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Then say neo-nazi? By saying "neo-pagan" you're including every single neo-pagan in with racists.199.192.158.98 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

We would need wp:rs to draw that conclusion for us to mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is on WP:RS/P (in a good way), not at all sure about the other two. They might be worth including anyway, but the key thing is all three cases is they're not saying this editorially, they're attributing it to a given source in each case. And one with an obvious axe to grind, at that. ("Christian Taliban" don't think Azov are Christian enough, film at 11.) So we should very clearly not say this wikivoice, nor attribute it to those outlets, but as the view of those being quoted. If at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

For the Black Sun, as well as the [[49]], these are both purely Nazi imagery, and have no ties to historical or modern Paganism intrinsically. While they are used by far-right Norse Pagan branches, and they are derived from runic symbols and sunwheels, they are not historical Heathen symbols.199.192.158.98 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

unsolicited opinion: anything that says "corpse" when they (presumably) mean "corps" probably doesn't get a lot of editorial review Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

New article from CBS news

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. plese continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The Azov Battalion: How Putin built a false premise for a war against "Nazis" in Ukraine[50] Adoring nanny (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Not a fan of this unjustified Russian invasion of Ukraine but seeing CBS use quotation marks when referring to the Azov Battalion as Neo-Nazi when there are multiple concrete examples of the battalion and its soldiers using Nazi insignia such as the Sonnenrad aka the Black sun symbol (which was also used by the white supremacist Brenton Harrison Tarrant) says a lot about the neutrality of CBS. One can criticize Russia without resorting to defending actual neo-Nazis. 27.113.43.41 (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC) According to CBS above this is Russia's alternate reality: References to "Nazi battalions" appear in virtually all Russian news reports about the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin has doubled down on the narrative that Russia is "liberating" Ukraine from Nazis, and that narrative has maintained a consistent focus on one extremist militia in particular - the Azov Battalion.. Note semantically those are scare quotes used by CBS. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, the article adds nothing. It only says that Russia is using the presence of the Azov battalion to legitimize the invasion. This is not about our article here, which is about a battalion made up of numerous neo-Nazis, which attracts neo-Nazis from all over the world, and which is the armed wing of a political movement headed by neo-Nazis.--Mhorg (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Well, it adds to reliable content available about Azov's usage by Russian propaganda to paint Russia's alternate reality. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC) This would be one good RS (along with others) that could be used in a short new section on the use of Azov in the Russian propaganda war, as very sensibly proposed by Aquillion in a talk section above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC) Article reads correctly, the "Nazis" claim is of course ridiculous because it is mad across the board at every part of society, not to a few hundred guys in Azov itself, which is also described accurately and neutrally by CBS in that article (unlike this article). BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC) And another one from Ros Atkins BBC news, What untruths is Russia spreading about Nazis in Ukraine?. "Azov opened its recruitment to the whole Ukrainian society and eventually this radical core was drowned out by the mass of newcomers who joined the regiment because it was an elite unit" Adrien Nonjon, inalco Infinity Knight (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC) References

Lev Golinkin

There is currently an edit war going on by a couple users to avoid attributing who (the heck) "Lev Golinkin" is or why his opinion matters. Attempts to tag the content requesting attribution have been subsequently reverted on sight. Golinkin makes the claim that "Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world's only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces." Who is he to make an authoritative statement such as this, so that readers can know if this is factual or opinion? He is not notable enough to have a wiki bio, so so attribution is needed.

Per attribution guide,[51]:

"In making an in-text attribution to a person, it is usual to establish their "credentials" and why their opinion is of consequence. Identifying them as an author, historian, critic, company president, manager or such, establishes their credentials and, the relevance and credibility of their opinion or other statement."

Is he a science-fiction writer? Historian? Professor? Blogger? Credentials need to be established, not omitted. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

His credentials can be established by anyone who cares to look by clicking the link in The Nation article.

Lev Golinkin is the author of A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka, Amazon’s Debut of the Month, a Barnes & Noble’s Discover Great New Writers program selection, and winner of the Premio Salerno Libro d’Europa. Golinkin, a graduate of Boston College, came to the US as a child refugee from the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkov (now called Kharkiv) in 1990. His writing on the Ukraine crisis, Russia, the far right, and immigrant and refugee identity has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, The Boston Globe, Politico Europe, and Time (online), among other venues; he has been interviewed by MSNBC, NPR, ABC Radio, WSJ Live and HuffPost Live.

The important part of attribution is that we say "X wrote/said Y in/at Z". We don't need to add a hype reel before every attributed statement. You may note every other attributed statement in the article is done similarly, including the ones directly above and below. What is your particular objection to Golkin? BSMRD (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems a valid objection, what is their relevant area of expertise? It may well not pass wp:undue or wp:fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

He seems to be a decently common author on the subject of Ukraine and the far-right, I found some collections of his articles

https://foreignpolicy.com/author/lev-golinkin/

https://forward.com/author/lev-golinkin/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/opinion/ukraine-putin-stalin-history.html

https://www.salon.com/writer/lev_golinkin

https://www.politico.eu/author/lev-golinkin/

If nothing else he's been writing about it for a while, and has been published around a variety of RS. I can't speak to any particular schooling or training, it's not like he's publishing his resume with every article, but if he's good enough for the sources above he's likely good enough for us. BSMRD (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So what do we say "Lev Golinkin (a writer on Ukrians affairs)"? Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

That seems fair enough (though change to "Ukrainian affairs"). Can't come with anything better off the top of my head. BSMRD (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I am at 3rr. Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. I wrote it as "Ukrainian affairs writer Lev Golinkin" since I felt that flowed better than the parenthetical. BSMRD (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had stated this to start with, as we do in fact say who said it (what we usually mean by attribution), which we do. This is why when placing tags that may not be clear you need to make a case. Now I agree we need to know why his views are relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not wildly unlikely that be might pass WP:AUTHOR, but on the basis of a strict reading of it, and some hasty googling, my guess is not quite. (If we were as inclusive of writers as of sportspeople though...) Certainly seems to write in a range of RS, and has published a fairly prominent memoir, but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of him being the subject of a great deal of coverage himself. There is NYT book review, which I got a brief glance at before the payportcullis slammed back down... Just in case someone were thinking about firing up their editor on Lev Golinkin... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Is Lev Golinkin reliable? From what I read, I think so, and the fact that The Nation hosts his articles seems to me a good sign too.--Mhorg (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It is more a case of wp:undue, is he really a significant enough person for his views to be relevant here? Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Nation is a green tick on WP:RS/P, so unless there's some particular red flag in this case (like it being presented as a blog, wild-eyed guest editorial, or it appears to present outlandish views notably out of line with other sources), it shouldn't come down to his personal significance. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Lev Golinkin is a memoirist who until this month exclusively wrote opinion pieces about the presence of neo-Nazis all over Europe and the United States. He left Ukraine when he was a child. I don't believe he knows much about the Azov Battalion first hand, given that more than a year after Biletsky left Azov Golinkin was still claiming Biletsky was the commander of Azov in a Hill article.. I do not consider Golinkin an authority on the Azov Battalion. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

References (Lev Golinkin)

References

British or American spellings, WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN

I notice that the current version is a "minor" copyedit -- Spurnshalt apparently has marked all of their edits to date as "m" -- which included, inter alia, flipping all the BrEng spellings to AmEng. There's no particular reason why this article would necessarily be in the one rather than the other, but it's poor form to flip between the two, and especially in an edit that seems to minimise what's being done. It certainly reads awkwardly to me to see the Minister of National Defence (Canada) now described as "the Canadian defense minister". If editors think there's a good reason for AmEng to be used here, an enlightened compromise might be to use her actual MOS:JOBTITLE in caps with the correct spelling.

I do appreciate that this is the least of this article's concerns right now, and editors may well also feel they have to ration this use of reverts right for tactical reasons, but I thought I'd mention that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about my flipping the Br and AmEng spellings. As I was going through the article, my American spellchecker highlighted "organised" as a misspelling, and I modified it to the American "organized" unaware that "organised" was simply how the rest of the world spelled the word. Ditto occurred with the change from "defence" to "defense". Spurnshalt (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Source

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Elinruby (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit

@Mikehawk10: Can you please elaborate as to why that sentence belongs in "antisemitism"? I am not quite sure why it should in the ideology section, as it is more closely related to funding and support of the group. Thanks, CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Two things:

1. That isn't my current username, so I'm not going to receive a ping about your comment if you try to ping "Mikehawk10".
2. The sentence clearly relates to the topic of antisemitism, and it is in a paragraph about Jewish support for the Azov Battalion. I think it is self-evident why this is relevant under a section entitled "connection to antisemitism". The Algemeiner puts the individual's Jewish identity prominently forward. Older reports (such as a 2015 report from Tablet) do similarly, as does a report from Jerusalem Post that talks about how he funded a different nationalist battalion (Dnipr-1). Tablet explicitly points out how odd it is that the primary purveyor of the ultra right wing in Ukraine is a citizen of Israel.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, my bad, seems you've had a re-branding. Regarding the placement of the content, while it is nice that the sources mention the nationality, the only "self-evident" reason I would see for inclusion of this specific fact (especially in this section) would be the whitewashing of antisemitism in the Azov group. I am sure we could find a better place for this content in the article, no? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Well if the sources didn't frame it as such, I'd find it odd to include there. But the sources do, so I don't really see a better place to put them. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove fake russian "Neo-Nazi" propaganda from the article

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. plese continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove fake russian "Neo-Nazi" propaganda from the article. Sources: [52] [53] Polk Azov: Мы презираем нацизм и сталинизм (We despise Nazism and Stalinism) [54] The Azov Battalion: How Putin built a false premise for a war against "Nazis" in Ukraine Remove fake russian propaganda from the article. 46.211.101.54 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC) That CBS source does not say they are not Neo-nazi. It says not many of them are. What it says is the claim that a few nazis means the whole of Ukraine is neo-nazi is false. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Note as well this claim goes back to well before the invasion and is well-sourced (to non-Russian sources). Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC) That CBS source does not take sides. CBS quotes Ruslan Leviev There are no Nazi battalions in Ukraine" Therefore, "Neo-Nazi Azov" is an opinion not a fact. Re old (non-Russian sources), Ros Atkins says for BBC It [Azov] is also not the same force it was in 2014 and quotes Adrien Nonjon to explain the reason, see here. This page must not take sides either, but should explain the sides, i.e. represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC) We do not say it is a fact we say the allegation had caused controversy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC) The intro says "Neo-Nazi" without attribution, in neutral Wikipedia voice Azov is a neo-Nazi[2][3][4][5] former paramilitary group that is now a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine,[6][7][5]... Infinity Knight (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC) No the lede say "The battalion drew controversy over allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as neo-Nazi sympathies.". This has been discussed at length (see the talk page archive), you have brought nothing new to the debate. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Well, it says both. There are four "Neo-Nazi" mentiones in the lede only currently. The first mention, poisoning the well, is the one quoted above as a fact. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Sorry you are correct, the problem is we have RS saying its true, But maybe we should change it to accused. I will let others chip in (as I have said this was recently discussed, more than once). But what it is not is Russian propaganda, the unit used (and may still use) symbolism associated with the Nazi's, as a number of RS pointed out. As such I will now let others chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC) This is a bit difficult to sum up in a snappy lead sentence, especially as it's already trying to cover three different incarnations of Azov (and maybe implicitly a fourth, the movement), and arguably the later ones have undergone some degree of neo-Nazi-dilution from the earlier. Not all the sources given for the wikivoice statement seem to be saying this in editorially unqualified terms themselves. (They're "linked to neo-Nazis", "associated with neo-Nazi ideology", as well as two that do state flatly that they are.) Given that we already have a sixty-word sentence -- to quote a former colleague, "more than twenty and you're crazy" -- I think we're going to have to admit defeat and throw some more punctuation at the problem. I think on the basis of those sources, I'd suggest some median wording like "with neo-Nazi elements". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC) (trying again) the last time I looked, the lede was still using that West Point source with a single mention of Azov, as a unit that a neo-Nazi American soldier was thinking of joining. The sentence is footnoted to PBS, which links to the prosecutor's case (not neutral), which cites the FBI, which is authoritative about American extremists, sure, what the single sentence of the West Point report discusses. They are not however known for their keen understanding of the nuances of international politics; that would be the bailiwick of the CIA. Elinruby (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC) I suggest we discuss something like: Azov Battalion was the precursor of the Azov Regiment. The regiment, like the battalion before it, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine. Both are known for the ferocity of their defense of Mariupol against multiple Russian invasions. The battalion was formed of ultras, skinhead football fighters who participated in the Euromaidan protests leading to the Revolution of Dignity that overturned the Kremlin-backed oligarchic government of Ukraine in 2014. The battalion suffered casualties of up to 25% in some of its campaigns and is credited with giving the Armed Forces of Ukraine time to organize against a invasion that took place days after the country's first elected president took office.(cites) At least one of its founders still has ties to the unit and publicly espoused ultranationalist and anti-Semitic views in the 2014-2016 period, when he founded a far-right party and became a member of the parliament. Russia has spread propaganda, including fake videos, about the unit ever since. In 2022 Russia also accused it of actions such as bombing a nuclear power plant and a hospital that Western journalists agree were Russian actions.(major citations here) Obviously the above needs work (and paragraph breaks) but I have sources for it. Elinruby (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC) Progress! I see the West point source has been removed, actually. Thank you to whoever did that. I still say that American politicians are even more dubious as reliable sources, but that is a matter for a different post. I would however like to discuss the above suggestion. I think there may be more than one person who could conceivably be considered a founder, but this is the lede, and I'm. talking about the one who has recently attended their events wearing questionable insignia.Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC) We would need a new RfC to change the wording of that key sentence in the lead, as it is there because of a 2021 RfC. However, I think we can change the footnotes currently being used to sustain the first "neo-Nazi". Two of them are opinion pieces and one is Ro Khanna's opinion which is not RS. As RSs were cited in the RfC, it would be better to remove at least three of the four footnotes there now and insert instead citations of neutral news sources that actually say it is neo-Nazi. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC) if there are better ones let’s use them Elinruby (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC) This whole question is absurd and is just someone trying to push their views on others. Here are some more independent sources clearly stating Azov Battalion is neo-nazi. It isnt propaganda but its the truth and that seems to be making the IP cope and cry. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-azov-battalion-mariupol-neo-nazis-b2043022.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment 85.255.233.185 (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Al Jazeera "independent", thank you for the laugh! And the text of "The Independent" only mentions Nazi attire before 2017. So the current version "regiment of the National Guard that emerged from a neo-nazi paramilitary group" ist the exact description.--Chianti (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Al Jazeera is a WP:RS/P. If you wish to dispute that, this isn't really the place (and "I laugh to scorn!" isn't really the most persuasive line of argument either, come to that). If there were something to indicate that this was notably opinion-piece in nature, or if there were some evident Qatari dog in this fight, we should take that into account. But it's not appropriate to simply blanket-WP:IDONTLIKEIT the source. If the Independent states they're neo-Nazi in editorial voice, then they've stated it in editorial voice, end of. Trying to unpick their evidence for doing so is classic WP:OR. So the question is rather, what weight to give those and other sources, which as Bobfrombrockley says, is something that was gone over rather extensively, and fairly recently. Unless consensus has changed, we should stick with the result of that, and unless it's changed drastically, it certainly seems like the ultimate result is highly likely to be something in and around "neo-Nazi" or "linked to neo-Nazism", and not at all to be "used to be a little bit neo-Nazi but now they totally aren't". Having another RfC so soon does seem a little soul-destroyingly bureaucratic to be sure: welcome to Wikipedia, and enjoy. Those seem the only realistic options to me. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I feel a need to point out that speaking of fuzzy ties, the Independent has ties to the KGB Elinruby (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC) A reminder that WP:HEADLINES are not reliable sources, the Independent has the following: Following its victories in Mariupol and Marinka in the summer of 2014, the battalion – known for wearing black fatigues, sporting Nazi tattoos and going into battle with swastikas drawn on its helmets – was officially absorbed into the Ukrainian National Guard in November of that year, soon becoming a regiment... Having fought under an explicitly Nazi symbol – a tilted version of the Wolfsangel, borrowed from the Third Reich’s 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich, which the group has insisted is simply an “N” and an “I” to stand for “National Idea” – the regiment was always highly controversial... [In 2015,] the group’s neo-Nazi connections became more widely known... So this would be a good source for "has had neo-Nazi connections" and "has used Nazi symbols", but not actually for "is neo-Nazi". My sense is that if we did a thorough review of recent RSs, we'd end up with some wording like that. Not sure if anyone has appetite for a new RfC, but t he justification for doing one just a year after the last is that the current war has led to a large number of updated overviews in RSs, enabling us to give a balanced, up-to-date description. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Similarly, Al-Jazeera: Azov is a far-right all-volunteer infantry military unit whose members – estimated at 900 – are ultra-nationalists and accused of harbouring neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology... In 2015, Andriy Diachenko, the spokesperson for the regiment at the time said that 10 to 20 percent of Azov’s recruits were Nazis. The unit has denied it adheres to Nazi ideology as a whole, but Nazi symbols such as the swastika and SS regalia are rife on the uniforms and bodies of Azov members. For example, the uniform carries the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol, which resembles a black swastika on a yellow background. The group said it is merely an amalgam of the letters “N” and “I” which represent “national idea”... Individual members have professed to being neo-Nazis, and hardcore far-right ultra-nationalism is pervasive among members... In June 2015, both Canada and the United States announced that their own forces will not support or train the Azov regiment, citing its neo-Nazi connections. And DW: Umland said Azov had drawn early attention by using the the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol as its emblem. "The Wolfsangel has far-right connotations, it is a pagan symbol that the SS also used," said Umland. "But it is not considered a fascist symbol by the population in Ukraine."... So again, "is far right" rather than "is "neo-Nazi", plus "uses/has used Nazi symbols" and "has had Nazi members". BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Al Jazeera is absolutely not a reliable source, regardless of the results of some straw poll on some obscure Wikipedia noticeboard says. If you don't know this, you shouldn't be editing in this area. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC) EnlightenmentNow1792: RSP says: Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy. What is it about "this area" that means we should locally depart from the project's consensus, established over 9 discussions on the RSP? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC) BobFromBrockley: Uhuh, yep. By "this area" I mean absolutely anything that could be broadly considered as politically contentious. Like I said, if you are not aware of AJ's well-documented failings in this area - and I take your reply to be an admission of that - then you ought to do your research first, and then think about whether it is appropriate to use it as a source on such a politically sensitive issue. I'm not going to do it for you (I tried to do similar things for editors before, and ended up being banned for, essentially typing an unacceptable amount of words and citing too many sources, so.... "TextWall" they called it.) - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I started to write something here about collegiality, civility, and consensus, in general and as regarding assessing sources in particular, but as this editor themself expressly refers to having been told this at much greater length, that seems unlikely to be productive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Yeah. My view of AJ is irrelevant. If EnlightenmentNow1792 wants to challenge consensus established by nine RSN discussions, this isn't the place to do it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I started to go down the rabbit hole of whether whether Al-Jazeera is generally reliable, but a better question is whether they are reliable in this context, and the real question is: supposing every word of that piece is accurate, in what way does it prove that they are neo-Nazi specifically? Hateful and bigoted, perhaps, but that is not the same thing Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC) The above comments refer to the video allegedly of an Azov fighter putting pig fat on bullets. I am not aware that this behaviour, whatever else it may be, is “Nazi”. Their text cited above also doesn’t say they are Nazis. It says they have been “accused of harboring neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology.” One of these things is not like the other and cannot be used to prove that they are, present tense, because that is not what the source says. If there are other sources that do say this, they should be used instead. Elinruby (talk)

number of fighters

i am aware that a source is cited for this figure, however if you click through and actually read it, you will notice that THEIR source is no one. seriously. they are not citing anyone at all. therefore, how can this be considered reliable? you can say what you will about the reputation of the press outfit, but i don't see how a statement which has NO evidence provided whatsoever is reliable in any way96.2.225.5 (talk)

NOTE: I am not arguing for or against any particular number of fighters here, i am simply arguing for evidence of any figure given. real evidence, not just a journalist saying something.96.2.225.5 (talk)

imo we should remove this citation. they do not cite any source. its just an assertation based on nothing. if i said azov had a million fighters i could provide exactly as much evidence as did this "source" 96.2.225.5 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Secondary sources don't always give their primary sources, for good reasons and bad. Nothing unusual about that. The difference is that even if you had a primary source, and wrote up something on that basis, it'd still be WP:OR. We're citing a new agency, on the basis -- I assume -- that they're an independent, published and reputable secondary source, as required by Wikipedia policy. The Jewish Telegraph Agency isn't listed on WP:RS/P, so we might have a discussion as to whether they should or shouldn't be, but not by second-guessing individual articles and replacing them with our own conclusions. Additional sources would be good, for that number or any. Though not the "scores of thousands" claim by Andriy Biletsky, clearly. CBS News says "several thousand". Snopes says "anywhere from 900 to 2,500". I'd recommend we have a range and several sources in the infobox, a sentence in the lead section, and any more detailed discussion can go latter in the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Is a group that was originally formed by neo-nazis but became only neo-nazi minority actually neo-nazi?

We do not need this long wall of text to continue now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes Azov was originally neo-nazis or at the very least far-right nationalists, but they were regularized and normalized and integrated into the military and the most extreme members/leaders were removed. Or is it in the opinion of the editors that "once a nazi, always a nazi"? These attempts to repeatedly try to label this group as CURRENTLY neo-nazis strike me as just blatant propaganda by editors with either Russian attachments, Russian funding or far-right (but Nazi-hating) party membership. Notably the majority of attacks on this group come from far-right political parties in at least both the US (fringe portions of Republican party) and AfD members in Germany. If the group is being attacked by the far right, then that says something. Ergzay (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Hi Ergzay, this is not a blog. Please provide sources. What you say goes against even the controversial cases that have involved the Azov battalion in recent days. For example with the racist video (shared by the official account of the National Guard of Ukraine) in which an Azov soldier greases the bullets with pork fat to be used against the Muslim troops of the Russian army.[55]--Mhorg (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I'm sorry but that is not "racism". I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word. Though it is certainly an attack against a religion. Further, that has nothing to do with "neo-nazi" unless you can point to some piece of evidence that shows this is a common belief among "neo-nazis". There are Chechan troops on both sides and the Russian ones are well known for previous wartime atrocities. Ergzay (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Hi @Ergzay, you may be under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia is a place where we argue our opinions and interpretations of those opinions to determine what is suitable for inclusion in our articles. This is not the case. We determine this based on reliable secondary sources, preferably academic ones. Please provide sources to back up your arguments. Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Some black people also fought on the side of the Confederacy. Does that make the Confederacy less racist? Quite a shallow argument to use. BritishToff (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Alternate question: what do you call a far-right ultranationalist organization that uses Nazi iconography, has neo-Nazi members, was founded by a neo-Nazi, and is tied at the hip to explicitly neo-Nazi political parties? BSMRD (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC) @BSMRD They're Ukrainian nationalist so a "Ukrainian nationalist" label works. They currently only use pagan iconography, not nazi iconography. The unit has jewish as well as muslim members. The founder is much disgraced and failed in his attempt to move into politics and is no longer part of the unit nor in politics. And the unit has no current relation to political parties. Ergzay (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC) They currently only use pagan iconography, not nazi iconography. That's bullshit and everyone knows it. Zero genuine pagans are running around with Black Suns and Wolfsangels unless they are also Nazis. Azov is not running around worshiping Odin or Svarog. The founder is much disgraced and failed in his attempt to move into politics and is no longer part of the unit. And the unit has no current relation to political parties. Biletsky is still very much involved in Azov, and the military unit and the National Corps are very much a part of the same overall movement. To call them simply "Ukrainian nationalists" as if they just really liked Ukraine is irresponsibly detached from what Azov really is and the ideology it represents. BSMRD (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Right, members do still carry a neo nazi emblem on their uniforms. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC) @Slatersteven Do you have a source for that? Ergzay (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC) This one [[56]] which we already use in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC) > That's bullshit and everyone knows it. Zero genuine pagans are running around with Black Suns and Wolfsangels unless they are also Nazis. Azov is not running around worshiping Odin or Svarog. Then you should go read the Wolfsangel article. It's in active use in many places of the world that aren't made of Nazis. > Biletsky is still very much involved in Azov, and the military unit and the National Corps are very much a part of the same overall movement. To call them simply "Ukrainian nationalists" as if they just really liked Ukraine is irresponsibly detached from what Azov really is and the ideology it represents. The source of that is 2 years old at this point and things have been changing rapidly as this group is only 8 years old. Do you have anything more recent? Ergzay (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Then you should go read the Wolfsangel article. It's in active use in many places of the world that aren't made of Nazis. Per the Wolfsangel article, literally no one since WWII uses it that isn't a neo-Nazi (aside from a brief and misguided effort by some Gen Z kids to use a similar symbol that was, surprise surprise, coopted by neo-Nazis). If it was 1743 you might have a point, but the meaning of the symbol has obviously and irrevocably shifted into one representing fascism. The source of that is 2 years old at this point and things have been changing rapidly as this group is only 8 years old. Do you have anything more recent? Do you have anything that isn't from Azov themselves concretely saying they are separated? Or, in fact, that anything has substantively changed since 2020? BSMRD (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Look Ergzay, the group has a neo-Nazi record [57], glorifies (among other things) Nazi collaborators such Bandera and carry Nazi logos [58] so who are they? It’s hard to ignore this reality despite Azov's remarkable role in defending Ukraine. Don’t confuse patriotism with Nazism Ergzay --> [59] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC) It has neo-Nazi origins. Bandera in all my research I've done thus far appears to be a Soviet and Nazi collaborator depending on whoever helped with Ukrainian nationalism. Claims of him being a nazi appear unfounded. I won't deny that they continue to use Bandera as a symbol and this is not surprising given their nationalism goals. I would respond to you the same to not confuse nationalism with Nazism. Just like Bandera they are anti-Muscovite but they don't appear to be against any other ethnic group. Ergzay (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Also here's some words that aren't good enough to put in Wikipedia but would be nice to source the original in some way. https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/status/1508371490827345933 Ergzay (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Regarding what I wrote in my comment here about people with possible Russian-connection. Both @BSMRD and @Slatersteven seem to be sharing similar goals in trying to criminalize this battalion given their edit histories. Notably with regard to trying to get a very good editor (Elinruby) banned from Azov-related articles. I have just found this. Ergzay (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Edited above comment to more accurately reflect things. Ergzay (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I strongly recommend you review WP:AGF before you call someone a Russian shill again. BSMRD (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Hi @Ergzay, please reserve your discussions of editor conduct for the appropriate pages. Such places would include: the talk page of either user, the talk page of an admin (preferably) or other user, WP:ANI, or WP:AE. Everywhere else, such discussions are WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and may be removed or collapsed to ensure proper flow and succinctness of on-topic discussion. Article talk pages, like this, are reserved for discussions of content, not conduct. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC) First, this is a kind of pointless conversation unless anyone starts a new RfC. However, using the phrase "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice needs to be based on the majority of RSs saying it "is neo-Nazi" (and when I say "is", this should include recent RSs, as many editors have argued for change over time). It cannot be based on us arguing "well it uses Nazi symbols plus it glorifies Nazi collaborators" etc, as that's SYNTH. If all most RSs say is "it uses Nazi symbolism" and "it has neo-Nazi connections", then that's what we should say in wiki voice. However, we can argue that out if we have another RfC, and should bring this argument to a close. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I agree with BobFromBrockley stating it is "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice seems to be conjecture, emotive, and is perhaps a view based on older/outdated sources. I don't think current sources support it- eg (1) "In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies.But it had since become "de-ideologised" and a regular fighting unit, he told AFP." [[60]] and (2)" "There are no Nazi battalions in Ukraine," said Ruslan Leviev, an analyst with the Conflict Intelligence Team, which tracks the Russian military in Ukraine."There is [the Azov] regiment... There are [estimated] several thousand people who are in this regiment. It is indeed a group where many members adhere to nationalist and far-right views," Leviev said. "But a lot of people also join it because it is one of the most prepared and fit-for-war units."[[61]] (3)"“I appreciate this decision. It must be clearly understood: there is no kind of ‘neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia’ now. Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group. Its commanders and fighters might have personal political views as individuals, but as an armed police unit Azov is a part of the system of the Ukrainian defense forces,” said anti-Semitism researcher Vyacheslav A. Likhachev, speaking on behalf of the Vaad." [[62]] As per these and other sources, my understanding is that Azov WAS originally Neo Nazi, and it has since been "cleaned up". It's been made part of the regular Ukrainian forces, and it even has Jewish and Arab members. It still has a minority of Neo nazi members, but that isn't the whole organisation, that's a minority (apparently 20 - 30%) Simply describing it as "a Neo Nazi" organisation in effect seems to be incorrect. Most people seem to join it because it has a rep as being effective, not because they are nazis. The added issue is, it is also supporting Russian propaganda about the Nazi status of Ukraine and thus WP:BIAS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC) @Deathlibrarian - Really? --> Ukraine's Nazi problem is real, even if Putin's denazification' claim isn’t. - [63] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Read this please ---> [64] - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC) ...and exactly my point, the article you referred me to is out of date, and that's part of the issue here. It says "In 2018, the U.S. Congress stipulated that its aid to Ukraine couldn’t be used “to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.”" That decision was reversed after the Azov battallion was reformed and no longer found to be problematical, and the AZOV battallion is no longer on the US ban list - please see [lifts ban on funding neo nazi ukrainian militia] [[65]] and perhaps the three articles I posted, for more detail. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC) RS’s describe Azov as neo-Nazi -->The neo-Nazi Azov regiment is part of the forces today combatting the Russian invasion ([66]) and that’s what we should follow. Anything else would be WP:OR. Please keep in mind that among other things we continue seeing marches there openly glorifying Bandera [67]. This is a painful reality in Ukraine today. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I've just posted three RS that say its not, with excerpts, and explain why, with detail.... so that's what we should follow. Your RS would appear to be incorrect. Also, keep in mind Russia is continuing to pose the "denazification" of Ukraine as a reason to be in Ukraine, and so by only supporting their side of the proposition, we are supporting Propaganda, and thus WP:BIAS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC) "The neo-Nazi Azov regiment is part of the forces today combatting the Russian invasion". That's from an opinion piece (which mentions Azov in passing). IF it had due weight we could use it to say "David Matas described it as neo-Nazi in 2022" not that it is in wikivoice. "Ukraine's Nazi problem is real" is the WP:HEADLINE of another opinion piece which says "neo-Nazis are part of... the Azov Battalion, founded by an avowed white supremacist", so again this doesn't help us say "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice. And the piece about "marches there openly glorifying Bandera" doesn't mention Azov; it is an RS for veneration of Ukrainian nationalists who collaborated with Nazis, but not for Azov "is neo-Nazi". The question is: does the weight of RSs say "Azov is neo-Nazi" or does the weight of RSs say something more like "Azov has some neo-Nazi members, has neo-Nazi links, white supremacist roots and has used Nazi imagery"? I think it's obviously the latter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I think we're rather in the territory of RS say it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, was clearly explicitly and entirely originally a duck, claims it's now 'only' 10-20% duck when it's clearly in its self-serving interests to do minimise its duckness, albeit it does now contain at least some non-duck elements. But only some of them say "yes, it's a duck" in terms. And we have the further difficulty of trying to sum this up in already over-long opening sentence. As I said earlier, I think we need some fairly concise upsum here, whether that be "neo-Nazi group", "group with neo-Nazi elements", or similar. (I'd favour something on the latter lines.) The twisty details we can -- and indeed must -- get into later in the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC) The RS is more pointing to the later, I agree, its a group with some Neo nazi membership, but not a Neo Nazi group. There's plenty of members that just joined Azov because the group has got a rep as an effective fighting force. All its members aren't neo nazis, it would appear, most in fact aren't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC) It’s extremely challenging not to characterize Azov as a Neo-Nazi bunch -->[68] but I see some editors insist, so maybe use something like a group with neo-Nazi components? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC) This is an opinion piece so if we use it (ideally not in the lead) we should attribute to the expert who has written it, Rita Katz of the SITE Intelligence Group. Neo-Nazi is in the WP:HEADLINE but the article says: The would-be militants have been recruited by groups like the Azov Battalion, a far-right nationalist Ukrainian paramilitary and political movement. Azov was absorbed into the Ukrainian national guard in 2014 and has been a basis for Putin’s false claim that Ukraine’s government is run by neo-Nazis… To be clear, not all in the far right adore Azov, which some see as having ties to Israel or Jewish funders… Among the hundreds of individuals who have announced their intent to join Azov in recent weeks are several known neo-Nazis. It seems an excellent source on global neo-Nazis joining Azov, but not for saying that Azov is neo-Nazi. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "Components" is perhaps to suggest it has neo-Nazi subordinate units, which could be seen as rather minimising the history, regalia, political connections, etc. As Deathlibrarian's WaPo links implies, it might be better seen as neo-Nazis who've been rather successful in gateway recruiting and radicalisation. Another way to hedge "neo-Nazi group" would perhaps be to say "group frequently/generally described as neo-Nazi". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC) "Some Neo-nazi links"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Don't rely on tabloids. Context is important. https://imgur.com/aIfkEJ6 https://imgur.com/vjd5OV9 - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I think "neo-Nazi links" would be a little minimising too, and "some links" excessively so. The neo-Nazis are calling from inside the house. Certainly it's difficult to concisely sum up a variety of sources, especially given the continual and rather heated interventions seeking to rubbish sources unfavourable to their position. We may have to rehash which sources to use first, and then return to summarising them in the lede after that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I think "neo-Nazi links" is probably the closest. Far from perfect, but at least it gets us away from simply referring to Azov as a Neo Nazi organisation. Neo Nazi components sounds like they formally have Neo Nazi units in their structure (which they don't). Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Agree on "components", too often used as military jargon in exactly that sense. Arguably also an objection to my initial suggestion of "elements", though I intended that in a more general sense. (Statistics would strongly suggest it'd have all-neo-Nazi squads at the least, given the number of self-identifying neo-Nazi recruits, but that's by-the-by.) "Aspects"? "Characteristics"? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Actually "elements" is pretty good I think. That doesn't specifically indicate structure, I think is more indicative that part of its membership is. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I would be in favor of "Neo-nazi elements" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC) OK might be time to gauge consensus. Proposed options Please say just yay. Do not include the term Neo-nazi Yay. Not in the lede. It is preposterous.Disconnected Phrases (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC) includes Neo-nazi elements Yay Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Yay BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Yay. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Yay. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Yay. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Yay. Ergzay (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Comment - After thinking about it - here is the issue with the above version. Do we have any source that says includes Neo-nazi elements. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see WP:OR - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC) includes Neo-nazi components which has been described as neo-nazi Yay. This is sourceable with the references currently in the article. See below for a different vote if somebody would like to find good sources for “is” Elinruby (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Yay to this too (see my previous comment). I think this kind of phrasing works and allows the nuance to be explained later in the article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Yay, I would go with this one, perhaps modifying it to defined as neo-Nazi - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Which used to be Neo-nazi Yay. (better written as something like "which has its origins as an outgrowth of Far Right ultranationalist and neo-Nazi activists, but is now fully integrated into the Ukrainian military with only scant extremists elements remaining...") See, there's too much nuance and explication needed to be able to fit into a single sentence... - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC) that is kind of my current thought on this, except that I was just reading that the Ukrainian National Guard isn’t part of the Army as it is (I think) in the US. Too complicated a sentence for the lede though, and this whole neo-Nazi thing is imho undue given Mariupol isn’t mentioned at all... it might be better, if we *must* have neo-Nazi in the lede, and apparently we must, to distill it down to some statement we can all agree upon. Assuming that’s possible. Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Mariupol is mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. BSMRD (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC) is it anywhere in the body? I am wiliing to believe I missed it, please help me out. I don’t think it was there the last time I looked. Keeping the Russians out of Mariupol is notable enough for the lede and but if it’s in the lede it should also be discussed in the body along with the rest of their combat history. Elinruby (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Given this discussion is specifically about the first sentence, any 'but too complicated for the first sentence' proposals are somewhat unhelpful in that respect. Certainly we should get deeper into the nuance later in the lead section, more fully reflecting the range of characterisations in the different sources, and further still into the body, but we need a suitably-weighted median assessment for the first sentence -- or maybe two, per my suggestion below -- that serves as a defining and scoping statement for what follows. The US National Guard is itself a rather complicated beast, being organised as a reserve at state level, but when 'federalised' deploying in the Army and Air Force command structure. But I don't think that's something we need to get into in this article at all -- we have articles on those for those interested, and we shouldn't assume that readers understand one system in particular in detail in such a way that explaining a different one in terms of it is necessarily going to be helpful. So just the flat statement here is fine. If more of that detail is significant in for example their history, we can address that in the relevant section. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ok, but maybe we can agree on one basic principles like hey this unit has seen combat and maybe we should discuss that? I do agree that the status of the National Guard is too complicated for the lede, was just Pointing out that “Ukrainian military” isn’t quite accurate and therefore should be avoided in the lede. Not proposing to object the US one as well ;) Elinruby (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Based on recent sourcing, I think that "used to be neo-Nazi" is a fair descriptor. I think it should be fairly high in the lead, but not in the first sentence. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I think there should be a combination of this wording with the above Ne-Nazi "elemants" wording, as it does seem to have been their founding ideology and the current organization inherits it somewhat. CutePeach (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC) I read the RfC. And I add that, in an unfiled source, which is vigent, it reads that that the neonazi faction separated from the battalion, leaving the concept of the introduction outdated.--Berposen (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Comment - Same here, do we have any source that says which used to be neo-Nazi ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Dozens User:GizzyCatBella. Including the from the widely acknowledged scholarly experts in the field (Andreas Umland[69], et al), who are then in turn quoted by the world's most highly respected objective news outlets (AFP, WashPo, Financial Times, BBC, and more) in recent 2022 articles published after the Russian invasion began. I even posted many of them on your talk page. I would encourage you to read them. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC) which has some Neo-Nazi links Is neo-Nazi The battalion should be defined "neo-Nazi" as it is the armed wing of the neo-Nazi project called "Azov Movement" and its political project "National Corps", led by the neo-Nazi Andrey Biletsky (he said that Ukraine's national purpose was to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade... against Semite-led Untermenschen"[70]). It does not matter the percentage of enlisted soldiers who have a neo-Nazi faith of either 90% or 10%. The latest articles that surprisingly speak of a depoliticization of the battalion can be branded as fake news. As Bellingcat expert Kuzmenko (2020) says[71]: ""The relationship between the regiment and the National Corps is also blurred in the political messaging of Biletsky, who has posed with active duty Azov soldiers in political videos. National Corps figures routinely visit the regiment, and the party’s ideologists lecture Azov troops. Their blogs are published on the regiment’s site, while Azov’s social media pages promote the National Corps. According to an August 2017 video, ostensibly recorded at Azov’s base, emigre Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin lectured the regiment. The close alignment between the Azov Regiment and the National Corps continues under the Zelenskyy presidency. In March 2020, soldiers from the regiment were featured alongside leaders of the National Corps in a video ad for a rally meant as a warning to Zelenskyy’s government. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to “depoliticize”. This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps." Indeed, there are videos (4 March 2022) of the "National Corps" channel,[72] in which the flag of Azov Battalion e the National Corps are shown together by the soldiers. This again proves that Kuzmenko is right and that the Azov battalion is the armed wing of Biletsky's "National Corps" political project. Also, all their videos are promoting the Azov battalion.[73] I do not think we can in any way question this evidence and I fear an external campaign is being orchestrated outside Wikipedia to whitewash this facts, with the intervention of multiple brand-new and single-purpose users. I'm afraid we will have to ask for protection for users with fewer than 500 changes to intervene in this issue. If the administrators on the other hand believe that these users are acting in good faith, then I apologize right now. As a reminder, I report all the reliable sources that report that the battalion is neo-Nazi: The Nation: Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces. The Nation: neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion The Guardian Neo-Nazi groups involved in the fighting in Ukraine are actively seeking to recruit British far-right activists [...] At least two Britons are thought to have travelled to the war-torn eastern European country in recent months after encouragement by people linked to the Azov battalion, a notorious Ukrainian fascist militia NY Times: Another, the Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi Center for Strategic and International Studies: a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology The Hill: Ro Khanna: “I am very pleased that the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion fighting in Ukraine.” The Telegraph: Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists TIME: How a White-Supremacist Militia Uses Facebook to Radicalize and Train New Members Wired Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary group Foreign Policy The Azov Battalion [...] this openly neo-Nazi unit Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (POL) Azov is a real problem. The neo-Nazi regiment National Post The amendments, passed unanimously by members of both parties, blocks “the training of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia Azov Battalion,” Deutsche Welle Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment Junge Welt (DE): The Ukrainian neo-Nazi battalion Il Messaggero (ITA): Ukraine, pro-Nazi units alongside the army Il Manifesto (ITA): Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion--Mhorg (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)  Comment:Just the fact that the sources are blogs does not give sustainability to the paragraph. To be or to have been, that is the question. We cannot conjecture on wikipedia if this blog and this other blog has real information or not, reputable sources are used here.--Berposen (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC) This article is even mentioned in academic sources,[74] and in a book of Michael Colborne, from Belligcat.[75] The accusation does not hold.--Mhorg (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC) @Mhorg: Please see WP:NEWSBLOG (N.B.: "attribute the statement to the writer") and WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:AGE MATTERS. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Yay would have been enough, we have seen all the arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC) This is getting harder and harder to follow. Can I suggest that Mhorg just registers a "yay" in this section, and that Mhorg and Disconnected Phrases move their listings of sources out of this section into the section below where we can evaluate the different sources and come to a sense of what the best RSs and the preponderance of RSs say? I don't think anyone disputes that there are some (perhaps several) RSs which say "is neo-Nazi", but it's also clear that there are other ones which don't, or which actively contest this, so listing them here isn't necessarily the best way forward. I also note that some of those listed here (e.g. Ro Khanna via The Hill) have already been judged on this talk page and/or the RSN as no good for this purpose. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I suppose I am a yay to this only because the RfC should give the status quo to be valid. Is it possible to have an “often described as Neo-Nazi” option - this type in of phrasing worked over at Uyghur genocide. It avoids wiki voice and allows to follow up with a more nuanced history of the characterisation including sources noting recent changes? Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Some members have ultra-right and neo-nazi connections Russian Wikipedia solution: Некоторых участников подразделения связывают с ультраправой[15] и неонацистской идеологией Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC) KInd of coverd already but OK. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Some members are neo-Nazis, and that's not the end of their "connections", either. Gawbless the Russian editors for kicking back against the Putin narrative, but that text is amazingly minimising. Especially given the (English-language as it happens) sources they give for it: "Yet some have expressed concern that some of this aid has made its way into the hands of neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion." (The Nation) "Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis"; "a controversial ultranationalist militia in Ukraine that has openly accepted neo-Nazis into its ranks" (The Hill) "In Ukraine, RAM members met with groups like the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology. The Azov Battalion also is believed to be training and radicalizing white supremacist organizations based in the United States." (CSIS) "Its fighters are well trained, but the unit is composed of nationalists and far-right radicals." (DW.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Russian wiki uses exactly the same sources for neo-Nazi in the lead as English wiki does: they're very poor, and assume, for example, that Ro Khanna's opinion is RS for this. Whatever wording we end up with, these sources need to be changed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Shouldn't Russian ультраправой be commonly translated as "far-right" into English? "Ultra-right" seems fairly uncommon in English language as a term.--Staberinde (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC) @Staberinde:, yes, it definitely should. As an indication, see Far-right politics. The term ultraright is very rare in reliable sources in English; see this chart comparing it to the other terms mentioned; note that the datapoints on the graph of "ultraright" are multiplied by 100 so they can be seen on the graph and compared with the other terms; otherwise it's a flat line at zero. Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC) comments I think that's all. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC) We already had an RFC in 2021 and another one the 13 March 2022. How many RFCs do we still have to do on topics that always remain the same? Mhorg (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC) This is not an RFC, I am just trying to gauge what people think. And consensus is not permanent, it can change. But we can't have 1 a month, as such to keep on asking ab out this might be wp:tenditious, so I am hoping this might draw a line under it for a while. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "Neo-Nazi links" and "some neo-Nazi links" seem significantly different -- albeit neither is ideal. "Used to be neo-Nazi" seems inherently flawed,as it begs an obvious and large question. (So now they're... flower-arrangers? The editorial board of Living Marxism? Slightly less neo-Nazi by dilution and/or Naziwashing? But see my later suggestion on how to address this!) And I don't think we can simply ignore the elephant in the room here, only for it to lead suddenly out with tactical surprise later in the article. The others are potentially viable, just a matter of which best sums up the appropriate sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC) I also like the later suggestion below on disentangling the problem sentence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Kind of covered by "used to be". Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Kind of not, for the reason I just mentioned. But perhaps we at least need to winnow the options down on this to factor the two with any clarity, so fair enough. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC) How are those significantly different? "Some" is included in "any" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Because (as I already commented on this elsewhere) "links" is decidedly minimising, and "some links" is even moreso. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC) I think lots of editors have given good reasons why we might want to revisit the 2021 RfC (the March 2022 one is slightly different and not closed yet), including the wealth of new reporting which reflects on changes since 2014 and the fact that the sources currently used in the lead are poor. So I think it might be a useful exercise to see what alternative framing has support so that if there is a new RfC it could be well framed and focused (the 2021 was pretty cumbersome, with two different questions that weren't clear to relate). BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Also, by the way, the 2021 RfC was not an overwhelming consensus. Something like 17 out of 32 participants opted for C ("neo-Nazi") in question 1, just over 50%. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC) And I think for question 2, something like 9 out of 26 (roughly a third) supported D, i.e. say "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, kind of the idea, lets gage what has support before we start up any new RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, completely agree here with Slatersteven and BobFromBrockley.Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC) The US army has neo-Nazi members. Should we edit the lede of the US army page to reflect that? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC) At one time, Germany was a majority Nazi country. It still has a neo-Nazi minority. Should we edit the lede of the Germany article to reflect that? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC) it isn’t clear to me that we *must* have an RfC and WP:RFCBEFORE seems to suggest that if the question is complicated it might be better not to if we can reach consensus without it. Just throwing that out there — if editors want to have one then so be it, but it *is* complicated, and I question whether we will get a nuanced answer if we don’t work out the nuances in the choices ahead of time. My suggestion, if anyone cares to hear it, if that we pick either the regiment or the battalion, then either neo-Nazi or nationalist or right-wing, and then decide which of those traits that group may have had. For instance, Biletsky seems to me to be a key to parsing this. I haven’t closely vetted the quotes, but assuming they are good then ok, he was ant-Semitic. Does that make him neo-Nazi? Maybe? I’d like to hear more. If so does that make the group that participated in the Euromaidan anti-Semitic, white nationalist or neo-Nazi? To the extent that Biketsky was any or all of those things, and he was the leader of that group, probably? But I am trying to avoid a wall of text and should stop here. I just want to add that I was looking for where a small consensus was reached for elements to say that this would in my opinion be an improvement. However, what’s an element? It might better to say “has has neo-Nazi members” or flat-out “has” if there is a recent good source for that, not just a passing reference in a headline, Elinruby (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC) TL;DR = yes but if and only if it can be properly sourced and there is also mention of their *absolutely notable* military campaigns Elinruby (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC) It looks like most may now have responded (who has posted here), but I will give it another 7 days, just in case. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC) The first and newest (2021) reference is a DW article about Belarus crimes (!).'Belarus police accused him of sympathizing with the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment fighting in eastern Ukraine' - whose words are those - of DW or the criminal Belarus police? I demand removal of the refrerence.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I made a post about this at the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN. It would not be a bad idea to make this comment there but the overwhelming consensus over there is that it’s the most ridiculous sourcing the have ever seen. Elinruby (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Russia accuses Ukraine and the Azow specifically but it has neo-Nazi traditions https://theconversation.com/putins-fascists-the-russian-states-long-history-of-cultivating-homegrown-neo-nazis-178535 This is the important context of the whole discussion. Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Comment Recent sourcing is different from older sourcing. See WaPo Under pressure from U.S. and Ukrainian authorities, the Azov battalion has toned down its extremist elements. And the Ukrainian military has also become stronger in the past eight years and therefore less reliant on paramilitary groups. Moreover, today’s war against Russia is far different than in 2014, fueled less by political ideology than a sense of patriotism and moral outrage at Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine, especially its civilian population. Extremists do not appear to make up a large part of the foreigners who have arrived here to take up arms against Russia, analysts said. See also MSNBC youtube Adoring nanny (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Note (I will say it again) I will only read Yays, not any other comments. Please can you say Yay (in the option you wish to choose), and not just reply to someone you disagree with. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC) To your question, yes we should have another. Enough opinions expressed here seem to have changed. Mathglot (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Projected RFC Tally (so far) Do not include the term Neo-nazi 1 includes Neo-nazi elements 4 which has been described as neo-nazi 1 Which used to be Neo-nazi 3 (I think) So far then the options for the RFC Would run Should we replace “ Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a neo-Nazi” with A ““ Azov Battalion until September 2014, “ B ““ Azov Battalion until September 2014, a formation which includes neo-Nazi elements“ C “Azov Battalion until September 2014, which used to be Neo-Nazi” As a new voice as shipped it (and made a good point) D leave as is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC) @Slatersteven:I'm going to offer another view. First, an analysis: going back to the eight choices listed under #Options above, we have this: Do not include the term Neo-nazi includes Neo-nazi elements includes Neo-nazi components which has been described as neo-nazi Which used to be Neo-nazi which has some Neo-Nazi links Is neo-Nazi Some members have ultra-right and neo-nazi connections Let's look at those along the lines of static view (past or present) vs. evolutionary (change over time). Here's what I see: Present tense (snapshot now: "is a"/"has some", and the like): 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 Past tense (snapshot then: "was a"/"has been described" and so on): 4 Evolution: (change over time: "used to be"/"was an X but now is more Y" and the like): 5 Do these options offer a fair representation of the panoply of views that we think survey-responders may wish to choose from? I'd say no, that there's too many static views, not enough evolutionary ones. I'd like to see some formulations which offer more possibilities than just the solitary #5 which implies some change since they were first created. I'll think some more about some wording for this, but I wanted to get this out there before an Rfc was created without considering this. Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC) My vote is circumscribed by what I think can reasonably appear in the first sentence. There is only so much room for nuance if the thing that we are voting on must be included in the first sentence. An important divide for me is what the article is making the claim about: A. The regiment itself: 4, 5, 7 B. Elements of the regiment: 2, 3 C. The regiment's links: 6 D. Some members: 8. (1 makes no claim). Once we know what we're talking about, it divides into separates problems of tense, as you described, in what voice (wiki/has been described). Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC) <--- — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC) We mustn't make the mistake of attempting to crowbar in what the RS say, into our pre-cooked rubric of options. That could lead to a dangerously OR or SYNTH or even outright misleading result. So, my suggestion would be, working back from what the RS say, while including all of the discernable positions involved editors on this page have indicated a preference for: A. The Azov Special Operations Detachment is neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. B. The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine composed of neo-Nazis and Far Right extremists, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. C. The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine which contains elements of neo-Nazism and Far Right extremism, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. D. The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, notorious for its 2014 origins as a paramilitary grouping of neo-Nazi and Far Right political activists, under the leadership of Andriy Biletsky. It is based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. And if D., were extended out into a full lede, representative of the scholarly - and frankly just plain historical in some parts - consensus, I would write it something like this... (first draft)... E. The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. It was founded as the Azov Battalion in Kyiv in 2014, a small paramilitary group of extremist Far Right and neo-Nazi political activists under the political leadership of Andriy Biletsky. Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence, relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism, and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers. However, after its forced absorption into the National Guard and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially Andriy Biletsky and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".</ref> - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC) "de-politicized" is not the same as "de-nazified" - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Who says the sources need to say "de-nazified". The Kremlin says Ukraine needs to be "de-nazified", not scholars and academics! Nor me! The original Azov "Battalion" was comprised of at least half football hooligans. You ever been to a football match in Petersburg or Lviv or Belgrade or anywhere else in Eastern Europe? You'd have just as much chance trying to de-mosquito the place! :-) Again, please actually read the sources. Is there some reason why you are unable to do so? Some are beyond a paywall I know, but I can share my copies with you - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) This version paints the best picture of the RS opinion that we have arrived at thus far and is the most NPOV. I think the last sentence could be changed to something like: "After its absorption into the National Guard, the battalion was expanded to a regiment, and purged its more extreme political members." I am very open to other reformulations or interpretations. I can't quite put it into words myself, that is just my stab at it. I believe that Biletsky left to take political office. Members of the military cannot hold political office. I think the de-politicized part could be replaced with something like: "Regular units in the Ukrainian army do not have a political alignment," but I think it is implied by the unit's absorption into the National Guard. I agree that any inclusion of the phrase "de-nazified" would be extremely regrettable, given that "the de-nazification of Ukraine" was explicitly Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine. It is very charged language. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC) re: Biletsky, he and his cohort of neo-nazi ultranationalists and football hooligans were forced out, and in 2016 he founded his own political party, the National Corps. They never won a single seat, in the 450-seat Rada. The street cred he and his ilk gained at Maidan didn't last long after 2014-5. Although the National Corps I've recently discovered maintains a YouTube channel and such, and Biletsky himself often makes appearances, where they - presumably illegally - use Azov-like or "Azov veteran" regalia for clout. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I think we need to keep this to one line and thus think, it is only a brief introduction. So "Which used to have" seems to be short enough, and does some up the claim it no longer is. Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Where would you put it though? The only reason this topic has notability, is because of its earlier notorious reputation. We need to explain in the lede why this article even exists at all. Which adds to the difficulty of the task ahead of us. So, if you look at say, The Black Watch. You wouldn't put in the lede "which used to comprise of six companies to patrol the Highlands of Scotland, three from Clan Campbell, one from Clan Fraser of Lovat, one from Clan Munro and one from Clan Grant." Fascinating though it is, it's history/background/origins - doesn't belong in the lede. We need to mention the extremists paramilitary origins in the lede, because that's how it became notable/notorious in international media, but we also need to make it clear that the 2014 street firm-turned volunteer militia that Azov was in 2014-5, is not the same org as the contemporary National Guard regiment. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC) And we can do that in the body, this is about a brief description in the lede. This is about trying to create an RFC that includes a wide enough range of options for us to reach some kind of consensus over this issue. We can argue about what is correct in the RFC, let's at least decide on what to ask. Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Well, I humbly disagree. As I posited above, the greatest mistake we could make here is attempting to crowbar an introductory sentence or two into some pre-conceived, cookie-cutter rubric. Some subjects are just to multi-faceted for that. An analogous subject might be something like the uncertainty principle. There's just to many facets to the concept - quantum mechanics, mathematical inequalities, particle physics, position, momentum, prediction. Leave any one of those out, and the lede won't actually make sense, it won't be serving its purpose. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC) IN essence the despite is "is, might be, was, was not". In truth those are the only options we need, and detail shous be in the body. So the options should be "Is neo-nazi" "has some neo-nazi elements" "was neo-nazi" or we leave out the claim entirely from that sentence. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC) It's very telling that you begin your sentence with the phrase "In essence". "Essentialism" in formal logic (contemporary analytic philosophy) and historiography is typically employed as a criticism. We are not talking about a mathematical equation or a principle of Newtonian physics. "is [perhaps in a vestigial sense of 5% or 10%]", "was [at one point]", and "is not [essentially]" are not mutually exclusive. The sources are very clear, there was a neo-Nazi and far right element - at least amongst the leadership of the 450-odd member group in 2014 - Biletsky and others did hold Far Right if not neo-Nazi views. International recruits with such an ideological bent did travel to Ukraine to join (as they did the several Far Right and neo-Nazi groups on the Russian side). Extremist ideology is absolutely not, now, an essential feature - it's prohibited by the leadership, by the authorities, and if it still exists, it exists as a tiny minority. This nuanced, multi-faceted reality cannot be crow-barred into your "is, might be, was, was not" model. If the social sciences could be understood with the implementation of such models, then, well, we'd have no need of them anymore! Simple mathematical formulas and algorithms would go the trick. If only humans were that simple... EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC) (broken record alert) I do think ‘that has been categorised/described as neo-Nazi’ is an important option to have as it allows a non-wiki voice option. I’ll shut up about it now but I don’t want this to get lost. Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Vladimir.copic: that would seem to me to be deliberately misinformative. "has been categorized/described" - when? by whom? The Kremlin has been described as the command center of international Marxist-Leninism. I could find you thousands of RS which say that. But that wouldn't be a reflection of what contemporary RS say about the Kremlin in 2022, would it? So, "has been described" in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution and dates, would be deliberately misleading, wouldn't you agree? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC) References (Is a group that was originally formed by neo-nazis but became only neo-nazi minority actually neo-nazi?) References

Regarding old Azov logo

@BSMRD The logo is no longer in use and was only used from 2013 to 2014. The fact that a volunteer gymnasium somewhere found the flag and dug it out of storage does not make it a current symbol of Azov. Please stop reverting my edit. Ergzay (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this claim? Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I went by the exact original Russian language description on Wikipedia of the image itself. I'm now looking for an original source. It will of course be a statement from Azov themselves as the design came from Azov. Hopefully that will be sufficient. I'm rather against this whole idea of denying any information about a group that comes from the group itself when that should in fact be the primary source for information about the group. Ergzay (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but how does a source saying "we have used this" means they no longer are, please read wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

So you trust a source when they say they are using it but won't trust a source when they say they aren't using it? Isn't that rather WP:NPOV on your part? Ergzay (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In a way yes, as WP:MANDY comes into play. But we are nosing them as a source, we are using CBS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It's clearly in use still, as the linked article shows. If Azov didn't want it to be used they wouldn't have flags with it plastered on in their facilities. BSMRD (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@BSMRD It's not "plastered" nor is it "facilities" plural. The image shows a single facility, and also assumes the image is even accurately dated (I sent an email to the photographer just now to inquire on if the date is correct). It was clearly just taken out of a box (wrinkle lines are visible) and is being held in place with stacks of gym weights. That is very obviously temporary.

Also to clarify, the first two times I edited and then reverted I did not in fact see that image. I checked the page looking for the source and did not find it. Ergzay (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is the source [[76]] note the caption in the picture "Civilian volunteers for a new group of Territorial Defense Units, set up by veterans of the Azov regiment, train with members of the regiment in a secret location in Dnipro, Ukraine, March 6, 2022.", so yes it does seem to still be in use. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Note, that would be wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel a need to point out that according to Bellingcat the Kremlin has repeatedly produced videos claiming that the group has among other bad behavior trampled the Dutch flag and trained with ISIS fighters. I have not reviewed the sources above and am currently tied up elsewhere, but I urge critical reading of all sources with an eye to whether their assertions benefit the Russian Federation if believed. Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

If we were using Russian media as a source you might have a valid point, we are not. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

if Russian propaganda only ever appeared in Russian media, and only ever targets a Russian audience, you might. But I am not making a definitive statement above, just saying that critical reading — always a good thing when editing Wikipedia, right? — applies even more than usual here. Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, we need to stay on the "what reliable sources say" side of the OR line. If a particular source is notably an outlier, we shouldn't use what they say in wikivoice, but 'think we can second-guess the sources we have and end up with some entirely different conclusion' isn't the way this works. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

And they are RS as we assume they fact check (it is why they are RS). We cannot dismiss an RS because "we know its wrong". Ohh and please wp:agf we may well be critical reading, it just maybe we are not drawing the same conclusions. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

If you guys were critically reading you would have better sources. If you had better sources I would go away. Think of that ;) Trying again: a passing mention on page 37 isn’t a useable source. A white paper on hate groups on another continent is not a reliable source. Elinruby (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Slavic Paganism

Re this edit, this seems like a slim source for a big claim. Website is offline for me. What is Nah News? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm as wise as you on the source. My best guess from the google cache, Internet Research Agency#Additional activities of organizers, and the phrase "Kharkiv News Agency" common between them would be "Russian troll farm". "Most" seems like a claim big to the point of prima facie infeasibility, but I think there's a grain of truth to this. Firstly, of course the group itself uses "not Nazi, pagan!" as a rationale for their, well, flagrantly Nazi iconography. Secondly, I believe I happened across another article in which a Ukrainian Orthodox priest type was bigging up a different far-right unit on the basis of being good Christian boys, as opposed to those naughty Azov pagans. If I can find it again that would clearly have to be at the least attributed, if it's usable at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Meduza has a report on the group's ties to the Russian troll farm operations targeting Ukraine, which a Johns Hopkins-published source confirms. A [In other words, it's likely a state-sponsored fake news website. I will be removing it promptly. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Not asn RS then, but maybe take it to RSN to be sure? Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems somewhat redundant to me, I think it's very clearly not an RS itself, and we're not writing about it as a topic here, so we don't need to find RS on it. And fair warning, I've asked about a considerably more marginal case over there in the past, and been helpfully told (to loosely paraphrase from memory, but it'll be in my contribs for the curious) "well durr! we don't list everything, work it out yourself". Making one wonder what it's even for then, but there we are. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If you think it is worthy of the spam blacklist, then it might be worth taking there. Otherwise we have a pretty standard well-known Russian fake news site, which is already de facto generally unreliable. — Mhawk10 (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This is readding content that was removed and readded multiple times due to unreliable sources. There is discussion here Talk:Azov_Battalion#Is_Azov_Battalion_actually_pagan? and we came to a conclusion that there are insufficient sources to confirm that Azov battalion has a pagan ideology. There are independent sources from the Russian government suggesting this, but they tend to only come from Eastern Orthodox fanatics. MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen criticism on that (purported) basis from the Ukrainian Orthodox types (or the more extreme and politicised among them, doubtless). Either way, it might be worth inclusion, but not in a way that gives it undue weight, and would have to be very clearly attributed. It sounds like an extreme stretch to look for a "pagan ideology" -- I'm not sure what that even means, indeed. Certainly they've appropriated such symbology, and may see it giving them an ideological underpinning (or political cover) for ethnic ultra-nationalist beliefs. (As with "Slavic native faith" type in Russia, let it be said, just happening to end up on the opposite side of the national identification and consequent conflicted in this case.) Are they officially, or even in any substantial degree of their membership, pagan in practice? Theology? Seems highly doubtful. Apparently a certain number of them do so identify. Do you have any good sources on those lines about you? There is something in use at Slavic Native Faith in Ukraine, but it's from a seemingly defunct website whose own significance is unclear. (intersectionproject.eu, "The Church against neo-paganism".) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. plese continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that the russian article doesn't call the battalion neo Nazi and the sources after calling it a neo Nazi in the English version are of one russian prowar propaganda article and others are some American sources just mentioning Azov in passing and they do not give any explanation to why this battalion is neo Nazi at all. Those sources are bad and don't provide any explanation. 5.151.43.38 (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC) So the actual edit you're requesting is what? But essentially this strikes me as yet another take on the endless discussions above, right back to the actual RfC on this precise point, which came to a wildly different conclusion from your assertions above. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Or it does not matter how many times this point is made, not how it is reworded, the answer will be the same as it was the 15 times before. Maybe we need a FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC) The problem with the FAQs is no one reads them. At least then you can save some typing by replying with "see FAQ." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Kind of my idea. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources refuting simplistic "is a neo-Nazi" label

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides many of these sources. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below, and also add any sources which are not down there down there, so everyone there can read and see them.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Pieces by individuals writing in The Nation are not appropriate sources for politically contentious articles in an encyclopedia. The wire services (AFP, Reuters, AP), BBC, DW, et al (WP:NEWSORG) and academic sources (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) trump politically partisan, parochial periodicals such as The Nation. In this spirit, I offer the following sources as far more authoritative than sources 2-5 which, quite hilariously, denote the regiment, as categorically, without qualification, as "neo-Nazi"! News Orgs AFP (via F24): https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war BBC feature: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404 Deutsche Welle: https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151 CNN's reputation has suffered in recent years, but, all the same: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movement-far-right-intl-cmd/index.html WashPo - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias Financial Times - https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d Scholarly articles/chapters Shapovalova, N., Fowler, G., LAROK, A., MARCZEWSKI, P., VIJAYAN MJ, G. N., SHAPOVALOVA, N., SOMBATPOONSIRI, J., VON BÜLOW, M., & ZIHNIOĞLU, Ö. (2018). THE TWO FACES OF CONSERVATIVE CIVIL SOCIETY IN UKRAINE. In R. YOUNGS (Ed.), THE MOBILIZATION OF CONSERVATIVE CIVIL SOCIETY. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (p. 36) "The most visible radical far-right groups appeared in the wake of the Euromaidan protests and the armed conflict in Donbas... The Azov Battalion was formed in May 2014... Out of this organization grew the National Squads, a civic association whose mission is “to provide order on the streets of Ukrainian cities,” and the National Corps political party... [which] advocates the idea of “economic nationalism"... Both the National Corps and the Right Sector are against Ukraine seeking membership of the EU." "The core supporters of the Azov Battalion are the Kyiv-based Social National Assembly (established in 2008 by Kharkiv-based paramilitary group the Patriot of Ukraine) and other small ultraright groups that have their roots in the early 1990s. The Azov Battalion’s emblem is the overlapping letters I and N to symbolize the “Idea of Nation,” which is also a mirror image of the Wolfsangel symbol used by some Nazi SS divisions during World War II and post-1945 neofascist organizations." Umland, A. (2019). "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014." Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1). (p. 105-107) "This paper does not deal with all the multifaceted and dynamic features of the new Ukrainian armed voluntary movement that emerged in 2014. Instead, I will focus here on the background and rise of one particular battalion and later regiment that constitutes, as will be illustrated, a somewhat aberrant example of the Ukrainian post-revolutionary volunteer phenomenon — the pre- and early history of one of the most famous of these units, the “Azov” Battalion and now Regiment... A political researcher and not a military expert, I am not in a position to adequately assess the latter issues although they are, in the view of most Ukrainian observers, far more important than its pre-history and ideological orientation. In contrast to the regiment’s fame within Ukraine, it is less Azov’s military performance, but rather the eccentric political views of the unit’s founders as well as the various symbols associated with Azov which are the reason for the high media attention in the West." "As briefly illustrated below, the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group that today controls a relatively large military unit could present several problems..." (p. 107) Clapp, A. (2016). "The Maidan Irregulars". The National Interest, 143. (p. 27) "The distinction between the territorial and ideological units quickly became trivial. Members of the Azov Battalion, based in the eastern city of Mariupol, are reputed to be Aryan racists. But most members I met were foreigners who joined because Azov—allegedly funded by Rinat Akhmetov, a Donetsk steel tycoon—pays five hundred dollars per month. If there is a shared sense of mission among the volunteers, it may be best described as anti-Putinism. Almost every volunteer I have met this winter at the Donetsk front bears a personal grudge against him." Gomza, I., & Zajaczkowski, J. (2019). Black Sun Rising: Political Opportunity Structure Perceptions and Institutionalization of the Azov Movement in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine. Nationalities Papers, 47(5), 774-800. An in-depth study of Azov members' activity online, results attribute characterization of "Radical" far right nationalist to 38% of members, 0% as Nazi or neo-Nazi. Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261. "While many commentators emphasize the right-wing extremist party as the political background of the Azov Battalion, the Verkhovna Rada deputy and Azov Civil Corps affiliate Oleh Petrenko, once a football fan club activist from Cherkassy and short-term Right Sector member, has stated that 50% of the early Azov fighters came out of the Ukrainian ultras movement of soccer fans..." (p. 243) "Zvarych [US-born Roman Zvarych, former head of Azov] has claimed that he was critically involved in organizing combat training for Azov battalion/regiment fighters, by Georgian, American, Lithuanian, and British instructors, and to have advised the Azov movement to refrain from using symbols and ideas that could be linked to Nazism..." (p. 244) Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall “Azov”: Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 65(1/2), 33–41. Zu diesen gehört das Bataillon Azov. Seine Geschichte ist dubios, Führungsriege und Symbolik sind faschistisch. Aber Azov, das zum Nationalgarderegiment aufgewertet wurde, ist atypisch.... Obwohl die Freiwilligenverbände nur einen Teil der bewaffneten Formationen der Ukraine ausmachen, spielten sie bei den ersten Zusammenstößen sowie bei weiteren bedeutenden Kämpfen mit Separatisten und der russländischen Armee im Donbass... Dies ist einer der Gründe, warum die Freiwilligenverbände neben der Nationalgarde rasch ins Blickfeld der Moskauer Propaganda rückten. Allerdings ist nur ein Teil der Mitglieder des inzwischen zum Regiment nen Verbands Azov wie auch anderer nationalistischer Freiwilligenbataillone, rassistisch... Das im Fernsehen und auf der Straße sehende Abzeichen [the Azov logo] wird in der ukrainischen Öffentlichkeit nicht als [neo-Nazi] Symbol, sondern als eines von mehreren populären Wappen der Freiwilligenbewegung der Ukraine wahrgenommen... EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC) CNN [[77]] "the battalion has a history of neo-Nazi leanings, which have not been entirely extinguished by its integration into the Ukrainian military. ", so No I am not sure that RS agree it is not still (at least) partly neo-nazi. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC) And I wouldn't disagree with that at all. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Here are another two contemporary, reliable news sources who examine the claim that the unit is neo-Nazi in nature and come to the conclusion that it is not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d Disconnected Phrases (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Collapsing content inappropriate for article talk page, which should be on user pages or ANI BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Needed more WP:ILIKEIT and WP:SHOUTING I felt, and the reference to "reliable sources" might have been taken as some sort of concession to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS/P, which really wouldn't do at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC) EN didn't you just come off a block for giant text walls like this? BSMRD (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC) True, and imagine the "giant text walls" you'd have to face if you actually read the sources! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC) EnlightenmentNow1792, please don't misleadingly edit others' comment-indentation and top-post over them: looked like a bizarre causality violation, where you preempted my comment to appear as a reply to a later edit of your own. And lay off the boldface-yelling, WP:BLUDGEONing, and general incivility, if you'd be so kind. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Not my intention at all. Please WP:GOODFAITH, WP:NPA, WP:WIKIHOUNDING, thanks. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Indeed yes, you've repeatedly violated all those too, but I thought that one behavioural-guideline link at a time was the better way to go. But try actually following them, rather than playground-level tu quoqueing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Can we not discuss use here, either take it to their talk page or wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately EnlightenmentNow1792 seems to be reverting any message regarding their behavior off their talk page as a "personal attack", so I doubt you'll get much done there. BSMRD (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I am aware of that, that is still the place to do it (not here). Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Reminder: Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (WP:NPA). - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Looking at some of these sources. Hope it's OK that I've inserted links above for ease. The piece in The National Interest is not a scholarly source. It's an opinion/analysis piece by a freelance journalist published in a magazine that is run by a "realist" conservative thinktank. Might be usable in the body if noteworthy, but not good ref for a fact in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC) https://muckrack.com/alexander-clapp/articles - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Here are some sources that don't refer to them as neo-Nazis. If I were to try to list every reliable source that doesn't describe them as neo-Nazis, the list would be nigh endless. The preponderance of reliable sources do not refer to them as neo-Nazis. Anyone looking in a way that isn't googling "Azov 'neo-nazi'" would find the same result. News Articles Financial Times "'don't confuse patriotism and Nazism': Ukraine's Azov Forces Face Scrutiny." France 24. "Azov regiment takes centre stage in Ukraine propaganda war." CBS Interactive. "How Putin built a false premise for war against 'Nazis' in Ukraine"(n.d.). BBC. "Ros Atkins on... Putin’s false ‘Nazi’ claims." The Economist Newspaper. "Hundreds of thousands face catastrophe in Mariupol." Business Insider. A soldier wearing Nazi imagery was given a medal by a Russia-backed separatist republic for killing Ukrainian 'nationalists'. Academic articles Shaw, Daniel Odin, and Huseyn Aliyev. “The Frontlines Have Shifted: Explaining the Persistence of Pro-State Militias after Civil War.” Studies in conflict and terrorism ahead-of-print.ahead-of-print 1–21. Web. "“including ultra nationalist ‘Azov’ regiment” Kuzio, Taras. “Armies of Russia’s War in Ukraine: Mark Galeotti. Oxford & New York, NY: Osprey Publishing, 2019, 64pp., £12.99 P/b.” Europe-Asia studies 72.8 (2020): 1436–1438. Web. "The most radical Ukrainian nationalists are Russian speakers from the east of the country who dominate the Azov regiment, a unit integrated within the national guard.” Umland, Andreas. “The Far Right in Pre- and Post-Euromaidan Ukraine: From Ultra-Nationalist Party Politics to Ethno-Centric Uncivil Society.” Demokratizatsiya (Washington, D.C.) 28.2 (2020): 247–268. Print. “Azov's National Corps-an ultra-nationalist party…” Books Galeotti, M. (2019). Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Lead sentence: split into two, one on the NG entity, one on the paramilitaries?

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I think part of the difficulty with the "neo-Nazis in the lede" question is the structure of that sentence. It's giving three names and two descriptions, which when you add in all the parentheticals for language issues and so on, gives us something fairly unwieldy even before we start hedging about an attributive description. I think rather than this structure: The Azov Special Operations Detachment, also known as the Azov Regiment or Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi former paramilitary group that is now a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine" -- it might be helpful to factor that into two sentence, one one each somewhat distinct incarnation of Azov", we split this to me on the lines of: The Azov Special Operations Detachment, also known as the Azov Regiment, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine with neo-Nazi links. As the Azov Battalion it was formerly a far-right paramilitary group. Or "neo-Nazi elements", "aspects", "connections", "associations", etc, see earlier discussion on how best to sum up its present status and composition in that regard. The logic behind this being, that roughly speaking, it seems like the increase in unit size from battalion to regiment, the integration into the military, and the dilution/rebranding of the far-right stuff seems to happen at or around the same time, 2014. Anyone find that helpful at all? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Its being discussed above, we do not need more threads about it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC) This is about refactoring into two sentences, so it's (largely) orthogonal to the descriptor of their current degree of neo-Naziness in and of itself. Though it might be helpful to it, if we get some sort of broad consensus on these lines, rather than trying to crowbar more and more into the current four-line monstrosity. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC) I agree with Slatersteven, its being discussed above, I think it best to see how that disccussion goes first, rather than have two similiar parrallel discussions. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC) that sentence *is* a monstrosity though. If we are going to do another RfC maybe it would be a good idea to have it not just be about one word? I get that we are trying to build a consensus, but this point is well-taken. Elinruby (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ps, I am an agnostic on the verb tense and suggest a deep dive into sources Elinruby (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC) We're sort of having a mini-RfC about having an RfC, I think. Actually, this almost makes sense, because they can be utter nightmares if they're rolling or otherwise unfocused, so a preliminary discussion to workshop alternatives might be better in the long run. Once we have an initial sense of what to do with the degree of neo-Naziness, we can maybe move on to the broader structure, and apply the RfC at whatever point we want to formalise that decision. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC) it’s a good idea to talk about whether to have an RfC and work out what the choices should be, I think. My point is that if we do let’s expand it to more than just the one word “neo-Nazi” and we won’t have to debate “elements” vs “components” to, as you say, shoehorn it in. I am mulling some thoughts about that but I will add them to the comment section on that later. My point here is this: Let’s just be aware, if we have an RfC, that its results may subsequently be considered blessed and immutable Elinruby (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC) meanwhile yes, we appear to need to discuss the degree of neo-Naziness. I agree that the members of the regiment were not flower arrangers. They are a unit of the National Guard. But if a foreign kid kid considers joining because he thinks they are badass, does that make them responsible for whatever he may subsequently do instead, for example? I’ll comment more on this in that section. Elinruby (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC) So are we then dropping the request to remove Neo-nazi? If not then yes this is all about that one word.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Why are so many IPs suddenly swarming in to try and remove one well sourced word in the article but dont appear to want to contribute to anything else. BritishToff (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Well as we are not a democracy, and consensus is not decided by votes not really all that much of a problem. Consensus is based on strength of argument and not the number of drive by SPA's vote. Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC) I fear there is a external coordinated campaign to change the lede of this article. Mhorg (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Anyone object if I refactor these comments? Assuming I can even quite work out how. Or better yet, if people move their own comments to a more applicable section or context. Also, #NotAllIPs... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC) It is relevant as to whether or not we include the one word, as that is the whole cause of this debate. There is no point in having a conversation about sentence structure if any structure would be objected to because they "are not nazi, and we can't say that it is". So until that objection is off the table, we can't begin to discuss any entrance that includes some variant of that claim. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC) So you've said -- and so I've disagreed. Given the change in status from paramilitary group to Nation Guard unit, and the three different names, I think refactoring makes sense regardless of how we characterise either incarnation. But I'm referring to the comments from your "dropping the request to remove Neo-nazi" -- is that a reply to Elinruby in particular? If not, I'm not following the context for it here. And the the "IPs" and "democracy vs consensus" comments, which make very odd reading here from where I'm sitting. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC) It is a general statement that until it is decided if we should include that claim and discussion of how to word it is moot. As if we decide to use your sentnace and then the objection is raised "but it says they are Neo-nazi" we have wasted our time. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC) No, and I've just explained why we wouldn't have. (Though sidebars about IPs and consensus somewhat are.) I think we're going around in circles here, but I'll try one last time. This is not a proposal about about the "neo-Nazi" wording. It's independent of that; the "on the lines of" qualifier is key here. The essence of this is to take an extremely long, heavily parenthesis-laden lead sentence of the form "X AKA Y AKA Z is a P, previously it was a Q.", and refactor that into two sentences structured roughly, "X AKA Y was a P. Previous it was Z, a Q." IMO that works if either, both or none of P & Q make reference to neo-Nazism, and works if they do not. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Yes I know that, but until that other decision is made this will have to be redone whatever of your two choices we make. So it is best to wait until the Neo-Nazi issue is decided. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Well, if you know that, I'm mystified as to why you keep equating it with the neo-Nazi discussion, as with your comment at the top of this string (which I still think needs context or a move), then complaining that it's the same issue and we can't have multiple discussion on the (not the) same issue. And the two are fundamentally orthogonal. They may interact to some degree (according to some apparently the Battalion was only a li'l bit neo-Nazi, and the Regiment only homeopathically, but it's clear the two differ at least somewhat, whatever one's take on how to emphasise or minimise the links). But this isn't an RfC, nor even an edit request, and a formal RfC might be necessary in the final analysis. I don't see how it's productive to insist that we can only discuss one thing at a time (and then discuss a bunch of unrelated things instead, ironically). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Perhaps it would be helpful if I mentioned that I personally have no objection to “neo-Nazi” per se.As far as I am concerned anyway, we can call them the neo-Naziest neo-Nazis that ever neo-Nazied, as long as we source that. And by source I don’t mean a passing mention in a headline. Actual, substantive reliable sources. Elinruby (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 'K, but that's not the point at issue here, and is being discussed above -- in two many different places above, indeed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC) yea, I realize I am replying to an off topic comment, sorry about that. Just pointing out that it is also mistaken. My TL;dr for your post is that yes we should be discussing structure and no it is not the same thing as removing neo-Nazi, which I support based on its lack of sourcing. Elinruby (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a democracy

Note that whilst this is about an AFD, it is nonetheless relevant to any "vote".

It does not matter how many vote. Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Biletsky

Other things do exist, but let’s start with Biletsky. I’d like to invite other editors to source the following statements, or add others if they feel I have missed some. Given signatures I suggest “**” below the appropriate item, the reference, then the signature, but whatever works for people. Some people might prefer to answer in a separate section. Note, this is not a vote, it is an attempt to assess sourcing. I ask editors to comment on sources only and for right now only on Blitelsky. Elinruby (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

(Later) Doh. I am the only one who can split up my post. I guess people could comment below if they want.

If people don’t mind, I‘d like to continue to work on this for a bit. It’s useful in that I have now convinced myself that the odds that Biletsky was not in fact talking about untermenschen in 2010 are vanishing small. Since I am the only one who can add subsections, I am going to stop signing each line.

Biletsky:

• is a nationalist
• is a white nationalist
• is an anti-Semitic
• is a neo-Nazi
• was a nationalist in 2014
• was a white nationalist in 2014
• was an anti-Semitic in 2014
• was a neo-Nazi in 2014
• was a soccer hooligan in 2014
• was a skinhead in 2014
• started a far-right political party
• started a nationalist party
• started a white nationalist party
• started a neo-Nazi party
• is currently a nationalist
• is currently far-right in his beliefs
• is currently a white nationalist
• is currently a neo-Nazi
• is currently an anti-semetic
• was a nationalist at some point between 2014 and today
  • (2018 - weak) "Ukraine's National Militia: 'We're not neo-Nazis, we just want to make our country better'". the Guardian. 2018-03-13. Retrieved 2020-07-31.Elinruby (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• was a white nationalist at some point between 2014 and today
• was an anti-Semitic at some point between 2014 and today
• was far-right in his beliefs at some point between 2014 and today
• was a neo-Nazi at some point between 2014 and today

• was a neo-Nazi prior to 2014
  • (very good) Azov Battalion Elinruby (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• was a nationalist prior to 2014
  • (very good) Azov Battalion Elinruby (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• was an anti-Semite prior to 2014

• • (2010 - very good if verified) "Ukraine's National Militia: 'We're not neo-Nazis, we just want to make our country better'". the Guardian. 2018-03-13. Retrieved 2020-07-31.Elinruby (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • (very good, verifies quote above in above source about untermenschen, close enough for me) Azov Battalion
  • (mostly in passing, but a very good source and has the same quote)

QU'EST-CE QUE LE RÉGIMENT D'AZOV, CES NÉONAZIS DE L'ARMÉE UKRAINIENNE QUE MOSCOU POINTE DU DOIGT? Elinruby (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm as baffled by the purpose of this as its format. Are you perhaps looking for Talk:Andriy Biletsky? Or for User:Elinruby/sandbox? Or if not, can you reflate your brainstorming to this article specifically in a way we can get our minds around? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Biletsky appears to me to be the key to whether there is any way Azov Battalion can in fact be called neo-Nazi. He is usually an argument for doing so. I can’t find anything (except perhaps the link above, which I have not completely read) that actually says in a substantive discussion that “the Azov Regiment is neo-Nazi”. I do find a lot of headlines. So, although it is really SYNTH and also a problem in a BLP I was trying to AGF and find a rational basis for this assertion. If Biletsky was an anti-Semite, maybe he is a Nazi. If he is a Nazi, maybe his soccer gang were Nazis. If his soccer gang were Nazis maybe the battalion was Nazi and if the battalion was Nazi maybe the regiment is. That’s the current argument.

The format is a problem, whoops, brain bubble on my part.

I was trying to get other editors to show me where there are sources for some statement above that stronger than that. I didn’t find one, film at 11. I did throw out bloggityblog dot com, everything with a .ru domain, and that one reliable-looking article whose authority was Marjorie Taylor Greene. This is with google searches on “Biletsky” “Biletsky Azov” and “Biletsky Zelensky”. I may do better at Google Scholar or Wikipedia. That’s what this is about, and remember, you asked. Personally I don’t think I will find anything besides “some soldiers have tattoos and there was a Swedish kid and Biletsky said a thing in 2010 which in 2015 he denied saying. There was quite an interesting article at Meduza, but off-topic for this. I’m willing to try though, because it they are then it might maybe be maybe be almost as important as preserving NATO. I don’t think so, I have looked pretty hard already and translated an entire article about this. All the English sources sources are old and about mass shooters who admired the group. Ukraine has already had a democratic election or two, not a fascist coup, so I discount that bit of pearl-clutching, not altogether, but quite a bit.

But hey. If there is a source — See attempt to find discussion above — I am willing to change my mind, and possibly even model to other editors how it is done, to change one’s mind based on freaking sources.

Yes, a sandbox did occur to me, but I ask you to consider the odds that anyone else would participate. I’m not doing this for me; I don’t care about this regiment in a personal way. If you don’t want to add a source, then don’t. Can we at least agree though, as two of the rational people in this discussion, that the Azov Battalion link above is a pretty good source?

Elinruby (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

So yeah, it's "why we shouldn't say 'neo-Nazi' in the lead, despite the ton of RS that describe them in those terms, part umpteen". Which is a large-scale formatting problem making this talk-page increasingly unusable, in additional the smaller-scale formatting problem. Whether Biletsky is a neo-Nazi or merely "far right" is better addressed in the context of that article. Arguments on the lines of "if he's not a neo-Nazi, Azov can't ever have been, and besides he left" are entirely OR, and not helpful here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Please re-read the above if you believe that is my position. I am getting rather tired of whack a mole red herrings, suddenly followed by yet another straw man. I agree with you that the lede needs restructuring. I *actually* think it will need to be re-written completely to ever meet Wikipedia standards, but for some reason you don’t want me to agree with what I see is at least a small step in the right direction, so fine then. I will stop trying to AGF of the people that insist it doesn’t matter what the sources say because of course they know best. Or hey, you could look at the source, give me an opinion, and quit condescendingly imputing beliefs. Up to you. I have made a good faith attempt to find some basis for the utter refusal here to consider the sources. If you don’t like it, you have my permission to delete the post, but don’t lecture me on OR, because the chain of logic employed here really *is* the epitome of OR. Again: call them the Naziest Neo-Nazis that ever neo-Nazied if you can find a source for that. This is me dancing in the rain not caring at ALL. If you *can’t* find a source, ask yourself why not Elinruby (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, for emphasis: there is no ton of RS. Elinruby (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, for more clearly needed emphasis: there are RS that say this in these exact terms. There are others that say so in slightly different terms. (If you think think a length sidebar about whether the linguistic hedge "a ton" is strictly applicable here, I'll have to disappoint you.) There are many existing discussions as to how best to represent these in article. It's not helpful to have another, especially not one like this. Much less with the song and dance routine we're now getting as a followup: this is a terrible straw man, you're opting out of behavioural guidelines -- the surprise here being perhaps that you thought you were ever following them -- and everyone else is ignoring the sources. Enough. If you're simply going to attack other contributers and relentlessly WP:BLUDGEON the talk page, responses other that WP:AN/I filings are going to seem increasingly both redundant and insufficient. The actual red herring here is the one I already set out: "Biletsky appears to me to be the key to whether there is any way Azov Battalion can in fact be called neo-Nazi." No. The key is whether RS do. End of. Doesn't matter what your beliefs are, it matters what your line of argument is, and that's a terrible one. Rather than demanding people spend more time reading your comments, better that more time be taken to better write them in the first place. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. No, actually. RS do not do that in this article. I was trying to understand why in the world someone would believe that they do, my mistake. No, you are wrong, period, end of statement. Elinruby (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Azov Regiment current update

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The person who originally posted this article regards the Azov regiment and the Azov movement has not done their research properly. Very recently (around 28 Mar 2022) the BBC did a video on the Azov regiment and concluded that it is NOT a Neo Nazi paramilitary and it is not anti-Semitic and indeed has several Jewish volunteers currently in the regiment and is well respected by the Jews of Mariupol. Russian propaganda has been going into overdrive to justify their Nazi claims and because Mariupol is central to the strategy of having a landbrigde to the Crimea and the Azov Regiment are such good fighters - its in the Russians interests to discredit them as much as possible. I have attached a link by a well known Ukrainian academic regards the Azov regiment and Azov movement - which are are two distinct entities and have nothing to do with one another and this has been the case for several years. One would've thought that the researcher would have bothered to do their research properly. The link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CPlZT3hKxY. The BBC video is on their Ukraine page and a search on google would bring this up. Also the BBC is hardly a right wing organisation and for them to discount the neo Nazi claims and anti Semitic claims holds a lot of water. Official Ukrainian spoke persons have also poured water on these claims regarding Azov. I am very disappointed that the original researcher didn't do their work properly and instead swallowed Russian propaganda hook, line and sinker. Shame on you - and shame on Wikipedia for not vetting the process properly. This article must be taken down until it is written in an unbiased manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delliott5 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC) This is being discussed above, we do not need to have another discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Delliott5, you've linked to one source that's the a video by the self-described "Centre for Democratic Integrity", AKA a tiny YouTube channel. The distance away from being something usable directly as a reliable source seems considerable. If such a source quotes or refers to this purportedly notable academic as being authoritative, it may be usable in some form: as is, directly, not a hope. Your other "the BBC, google it" source seems a little unspecific. The BBC have a lot of output on this conflict and its background; you should at least identify the exact content you're referring to. Specifics of those two sources aside, we have many active threads open on this exact matter, and adding yet another isn't helpful. Not is scolding other users for "not do[ing] their research properly", "not vetting the process properly" simply because the article is not as you personally would like, or in line with two particular sources you deem to be superior. WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, all that fine stuff. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Collapsing content inappropriate for article talk page, which should be on user pages or ANI 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Ah yes jews ''respect'' a group of nazis militants who happen to have two neo nazi symbols in their logo and openly fly nazi flags. BritishToff (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Firstly thank you for taking the time to reply - it is genuinely appreciated. However in reading the reply's to the other comments (which I presume is you) I can see from the response that you seem to be quite a combatitive person - which doesn't help things. I get the impressions from the replies that the attitude is "Im right - you're wrong - now get lost". I think there has been more than enough info given to refute your stance. There is no doubt that you are a meticulous person, given the depth of research - but your article is slanted towards a predetermined outcome, long before it was written and one gets the impressions that you have written the article on the Azov Regiment to prove that they are indeed Neo-Nazi & anti-Semitic fascists despite any and all proof to the contrary and nothing that I or anyone else says, is going to make any difference at all. That's very sad - because we can all learn from one another. Delliott5 (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC) @Delliott5: yes it is sad. If it helps BritishToff has left the building and will not be back Elinruby (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Sorry but I don't understand what you mean by " the British toff has left the building"?? Delliott5 (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC) The user has been globally banned for conduct issues on other articles. Regardless, they only ever posted on some talk pages related to this topic and never directly edited the article proper, so they had nothing to do with its content. BSMRD (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Many Thanks for letting me know this - its much appreciated. I actually feel sorry for this Elinruby fellow - as he is probably a very lonely chap, which is why he is striking out against everyone. It seems that he and Vladimir Putin have something in common. Has anyone recommended anger management to him, I wonder? - but thanks again. Delliott5 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Delliott5, I strongly advise against off-topic personal attacks. Or ideally, either of those things even separately. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Two neo nazi symbols? Is the "Z" any better? Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Here’s another recent factual and opinion piece by Anton Shekhovtsov, and perhaps a counterbalance to Lev Golinkin’s. It includes an accessible political history of the Azov Regiment and update on its status. Anton Shekhovtsov, “How the West enabled genocide in Mariupol with its misguided Azov obsession,” Euromaidan Press, April 4, 2022.  —Michael Z. 21:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Euromaidan Press isn't reliable, it is a pro-govt journal promoter of biased content. Mhorg (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC) @Mhorg: Anton Shekhovtsov is a widely-cited academic with expertise on precisely this issue (88 citations for his 2014 article - co-written with Umland, in the Journal of Democracy (a publication of Johns Hopkins University) entitled: "The Maidan and Beyond: Ukraine’s Radical Right".[78] He is quoted by the Financial Times in this piece[79], ‘Don’t confuse patriotism and Nazism: Ukraine’s Azov forces face scrutiny’, March 29, 2022, where he says: "Azov’s history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself... Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today." But then, you've been doing your best to keep out such academic sources and high quality news outlets from this article, haven't you Mhorg? - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Euromaidan press is not an RS. Another source is needed for your statement. And... it goes in contrast with what has been reported by Time (2021)[80] and by Kuzmenko (2020):[81] "The relationship between the regiment and the National Corps is also blurred in the political messaging of Biletsky, who has posed with active duty Azov soldiers in political videos. National Corps figures routinely visit the regiment, and the party’s ideologists lecture Azov troops. Their blogs are published on the regiment’s site, while Azov’s social media pages promote the National Corps. According to an August 2017 video, ostensibly recorded at Azov’s base, emigre Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin lectured the regiment. The close alignment between the Azov Regiment and the National Corps continues under the Zelenskyy presidency. In March 2020, soldiers from the regiment were featured alongside leaders of the National Corps in a video ad for a rally meant as a warning to Zelenskyy’s government. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to “depoliticize”. This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps." Mhorg (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC) The quote about is from the Financial Times, not Euromaidan Press. I even provided you with the link: https://www.ft.com/content/57ba9898-a346-4554-9a90-97845900a3e0 (you can read it in full here if you're not a subscriber: https://archive.ph/Xx3kv#selection-1519.0-1519.74). "Azov’s history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself... Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today." What's hilarious, is that in way of retort, you quote a blog at the Atlantic Council website. Well, gee whiz, guess who else has a blog there? That's right, one Anton Shekhovtsov! https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-azov-should-not-be-designated-a-foreign-terrorist-organization/ : "But, while the ideologically inimical nature of Azov’s roots is indisputable, it is likewise certain that Azov attempted to de-politicize itself; the toxic far-right leadership formally left the regiment and founded what would become a far-right party called “National Corps.” The party formed an electoral bloc with the other Ukrainian far-right parties for the 2019 parliamentary elections, but even a united far-right front obtained only a miserable 2.15 percent of the vote and thus failed to secure a single seat in the Ukrainian parliament." (UkraineAlert February 24, 2020) - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) It's all very interesting what your sources report, the problem is that they seem to be fake news. There are videos relaunched by the same "National Corps" channel,[82] leaded by the neo-Nazi Andrey Biletsky, in which they pose together with the soldiers of the Azov battalion. This again proves that Kuzmenko is right and that the Azov battalion is the armed wing of Biletsky's "National Corps" political project. Also, all their videos are promoting the Azov battalion[83] Mhorg (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Do you sincerely believe this? Are you simply mistaken? I hope so. If that is the case, your problem is very easy to solve: Biletsky was one of the founders of Azov, yes, but by the end of 2014 he was out. That was 8 years ago. A lot has changed. You'd be absolutely right if it was 2014, but it's not. Azov Battalion has been de-politicized. The ideologues were only a minority of the rank-and-file from the start anyway (we're talking about a group of 450 people when Biletsky was leader). If you read the sources I have provided, everything will be clear to you. I have translations of some of my academic sources in Russian, if you'd like, just ask. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC) that doesn’t make it not reliable necessarily. it’s definitely closer to the truth than TASS Elinruby (talk) It's not on WP:RS/P (flagged either way). But more to the point, this is entirely an opinion piece: it's not Euromaidan's news reporting, or even their editorial stance. Just a guess piece from the "Centre for Democratic Integrity" academic (and tiny YT channel), as featured on this very talk-page section, above. No more than it is when another EM article quoted here says "What will Klitschko do when the neo-Nazi gang from the Azov battalion – officially armed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs – returns to Kyiv to fight against various Untermenschen?" Maybe his view can be used in the body of the article, as attributed, but it should no carry any appreciable weight for what we say in wikivoice. Least of all in the much-discussed (in many redundant talk-page sections) lead sentence. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC) @109.255.211.6: Financial Times.[84] Any more comments on sources? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC) FT paywalled. What does it say EnlightenmentNow1792? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC) I quoted it above. FT quotes Shekhovtsov, a leading expert in this field. You can read in full here: https://archive.ph/Xx3kv#selection-1519.0-1519.74 - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC) ::::::you are correct that Telegram does not meet the current Reliable source criteria. I think I said that, and if I didn’t, I am saying it now. However, I suspect the source could be correct about the facts. Here is a current article, sourced to a mainstream French broadcaster: On the other hand, the defence is carried out by Ukrainian soldiers from the 36th Naval Infantry Brigade, the 56th Motorised Infanrty Brigade, as well as elements of the nationalist Azov Regiment. Created in 2014 as a far-right paramilitary group with ties to neo-Nazism, the Azov Battalion has since been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard as the Azov Regiment. Elinruby (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"One NAA cadet was apparently involved as a firearms instructor"

This is a Wikipedia.Xx236 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, what’s that you say? Elinruby (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I say that the phrase is not encyclopedic.Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I may agree, it seems a bit undue, one person. Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You would appear to have a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The cited article's scope's rather beyond one person. "The group has claimed that its members have taken part in joint military exercises with France, the UK, Canada, the US, Germany, and Poland," and numerous other references to extremists, members, etc. Even if it's a generic plural, that guy seems hella well-travelled or well-trained if he's the only person interacting with those half-dozen countries. But it does get a little into six degrees of right-wing bacon: this is about a "far-right group, Centuria", "'led by people with ties to' the Azov movement". We don't even have any clarity or consensus if we're covering the "Azov movement" here -- it redirects here, but we don't give it as an alt title. (Lead para wars continue!) Are the alleged activities in scope here? In a separate "Azov movement" article, if we split that out as preferred by some editors? The New Statesman covers somewhat similar ground: "From Centuria, the black-clad paramilitary that’s been part of the movement’s civil defence training sessions, to youth camps, book clubs and sports classes, the Azov movement tries to be a one-stop shop for all things far right. There’s also a bevy of loosely affiliated but more extreme subgroups under its umbrella as well, including open neo-Nazis who praise and promote violence." 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

MAybe, but we are talking about having that one line in our article. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

... which is the point I just addressed, I could have sworn. Shorter version, then: yes, if the scope of this article includes "Centuria" as part of the "Azov movement"; no, if it isn't. And given that we have at least two disputes here relating to that... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I am against conflating any more organizations with Azov Elinruby (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be as fond of rapid random outdents as you are suggestions of conflation. To cover related topics in a single article is not to conflate them. Azov movement redirects here, so pending any decision to split it out into a separate article, its scope does appear to include that for the time being, even absent any clarity on that in our mess of a lead. Do you disagree with the above -- reliable -- source that Centuria is part of the Azov movement? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The current phrase should be removed. I may understand 'was involved as an ideological instructor who quoted Mein Kampf' but the idea of neonazi firearms education is too original. Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I plead guilty to the outdents. I am on mobile devices and getting carpal tunnel scrolling through all these intricately nested indentations. Also I have been reproved for posting walls of text and am trying to do better. I will try to be mindful of your conflicting formatting critiques. Anyway. I agree that the lede is a mess. I agree that neo-nazi firearms training is silly. When you say the above reliable source, are you talking about the New Statesman? That would depend on what the source says and what it is referencing. If you are asking for my opinion I will look at this later today. As for conflation, well, calling it as I see it. If you think I am wrong I invite you to start a thread. Elinruby (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not know the New Statesman, but I know its founders Sidney and Beatrice Webb and I would not believe any word written by them. Good people are sometimes bad because they are too naive.Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on the Purported neo-Nazi Nature of the Azov Battalion

We do not need this long wall of text to continue now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it is dangerous and irresponsible to claim in an authorial voice that the Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi group. Azov representatives have publicly stated on multiple occasions that they are not a neo-Nazi group and reliable sources back this up. Russia is committing genocide in the Ukraine right now based on false claims that Ukraine is a neo-Nazi country. Russia uses the word Nazi to mean "doesn't want to be part of Russia." I think that in this situation it might be important to avoid authorial-voiced claims that support the propaganda of a country currently committing genocide based on that propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 05:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Please read WP:RFCNEUTRAL and try again. BSMRD (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC) @BSMRD Should I not indicate that I think this change could be urgent because the article in its current form is aiding and abetting genocide? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC) @BSMRD Why is such a poorly sourced and provably false claim in the lede of this article in an authoritative voice? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC) "'is a neo-Nazi' references 2016-2019 sources, so rather 'was' than 'is'. Two of them are from The Nation, a Bernie Sanders supporter. Not exactly mainstream. Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC) I agree that we need a new RfC, but we need a properly worded one. We could do it one of two ways, I think. Either (1) we could give multiple options, winnowed down via the talk section above which is designed to gauge support for alternative wordings, or (2) we could have a straight yes/no for whether we should say "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice and if the consensus is no then work out new wording. Would be good to have guidance from editors more experienced in framing RfCs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC) I think the is "neo-Nazi" descriptor should be removed from wikivoice. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Another brand-new account[85] jumping in the discussion supporting the removal of "neo-Nazi" descriptor. Curious. Mhorg (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC) As I told you above, this article has been irritating me for months. Claims that the Azov Battalion is currently a neo-Nazi organization are tin-foil hat fringe or Russian propaganda. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Again, I find it curious that you've been defending that descriptor in the lede since last May and haven't come up with more convincing sources. If you write a terrible article, eventually people reading it will get irritated enough to come point it out to you. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Oh no, it isn't Russian propaganda, we decided to use that descriptor in an huge RFC in 2021,[86] using multiple Western reliable sources. Mhorg (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC) The places in which those articles appear are reliable, but the content of the articles does not support the claim. I have posted multiple contemporary articles from reliable sources where the claim is examined and refuted. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Also above, I have pointed out why your sources are not good evidence for the claim. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC) We are discussing what to ask above, and this RFC is badly flawed. Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC) @Disconnected Phrases: I've removed the {{rfc}} tag, because the RfC statement is not neutral, as is required by WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Especially for a high-profile article like this one, leaving the RfC running would significantly complicate the closure. Please work together to draft a new "neutrally worded, short and simple" RfC statement before launching another RfC in a new section. — Newslinger talk 11:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC) In less than a week, I will be launching an RFC based upon the opinions expressed about the wording to choose in 39.1 Options (I will aslko base it only on Yays, and no other comments), I will not be taking into account anything else, in any other thread. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks Slatersteven, hopefully we can put this to bed once and for all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I suggest: "should a Wikipedia article reflect its sources" as we seem to need to get that straight before proceeding further Elinruby (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I do not know enough about the Azov Battalion to opine on whether they should (or should not) be labeled as “Neo-Nazi” in WP’s voice… but having seen the recent wave of questions at RSN, I do have one word of caution: remember that headlines are not reliable. Headlines often use contentious labels as click bait… while the running text of the news article uses more nuanced language that avoids such labels. We need to base any labels we use on the running text, not the headline. With that caution given… please continue your discussions. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Sources for neo-Nazi descriptor Here are some additional sources on it being a neo-Nazi organization: The ascendency of a transnational global fascist terrorist network has drawn accelerationists seeking military training with openly neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-Semitic organizations like the Azov battalion, who recruited from... His own involvement in the militant extreme right movement predated his enlistment and Smith also was trying to join the neo-Nazi paramilitary Azov battalion and fight on their side in the Ukrainian conflict. More dangerously, as the violence heated up, Kiev allowed semi-private paramilitary groups—such as the far right, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion—to fight in east Ukraine (Walker, 2014; Luhn, 2014). ...antisemitic and white-supremacist conspiracy theories circulated by openly neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion in the Ukraine... What sets the Azov Battalion apart from other volunteer units in Eastern Ukraine is its outspoken neo-Nazi views and use of questionable symbols, the significance of which has been challenged in many instances. ...march through the streets of Kyiv, sometimes in torchlight processions, to commemorate old and new far-right heroes, including those of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which fights against the Russian-backed occupation of Crimea. Just as hundreds of U.S. and European white supremacists joined Croatian paramilitaries fighting for ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the 1990s Balkan wars, the current training of foreign white nationalists in Ukrainian military units, such as the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, points to... Pick whichever you think are highest-quality. --Aquillion (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks for giving everyone a perfect demonstration of how not to curate a search for WP:RS. Please note that "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" as per WP:ONUS. More importantly, please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and keep in mind that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:AGE MATTERS. Wikipedia is not - or at least an encyclopedia ought not to be - a mere summation of all that can be found on Google. Please remind yourself of what it is we're actually supposed to be doing here (WP:PURPOSE). EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. Just because you found the specific succession of words that you were looking for, somewhere, anywhere, after a few minutes of frantic Googling, doesn't mean that the sources you uncovered are necessarily appropriate to use in this context, nor reflective of the current state of scholarship. Nowhere is this more crucial than in politically sensitive areas, that require expert scholarly knowledge. if you can't differentiate between the quality of sources in such topic areas, NPOV and the much-sought-after "consensus" is impossible. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC) You will have to be more specific about which ones you object to and why. Given that Azov Battalion only became noteworthy relatively recently (during the 2014 conflict), these sources cover a wide range of time periods, from 2015 to 2022 - effectively the group's entire period of operation. They are also fairly diverse in terms of what sort of scholarship they represent, including many high-quality secondary sources. It's certainly true that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, but WP:ONUS was satisfied in the RFC last year - there is already an overwhelming consensus to call the group neo-Nazi in the lead. A handful of people were objecting to its outcome on the argument that they felt the sources were insufficient, so I took the time to find additional sources. I feel these show that the group is widely-described as neo-Nazi among academic sources, that that is a generally-accepted fact and one of the most noteworthy things about them, and that it is therefore appropriate to use that descriptor in the article voice early in the lead. Or, perhaps it might help if I put it this way - what sort of source are you envisioning? What type of sourcing do you feel would be sufficient to describe the group as neo-Nazi in the article voice? --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Again, thankyou. You've perfectly demonstrated that you're not familiar with the issue, the source material, or the state of current scholarship. To do that, you'd actually have to spend some time reading, not just Googling. That's why you can't differentiate between, say, your first source there, and Saressalo writing in the The Journal of Slavic Military Studies (which, incidentally, doesn't support your POV at all). If you think Azov as founded and led by Biletsky in early 2014 is the same as the Azov in the National Guard now, then... well, as I said, you need to spend some time reading. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC) The sources say what they say; so far you haven't refuted even one of them, while I've gone into detail on the flaws with the sources you've presented yourself. If you feel that it is easy to find massive numbers of sources referring to the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazi, then what else is there to discuss? Your sources are (largely) weaker than the ones I presented, consisting mostly of news sources; the few scholars you have managed to scrounge up mostly don't even really contradict the ones I cited, they just say the same things in a more cautious manner - or they acknowledge that the group is widely viewed as or described as neo-Nazi even while they advise more caution, which puts your position in the minority. --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC) You'd have to read them first. It's ok, I did it for you: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion#Could_we_just_add_%22presumably_neonazi%22?? Oh and: "Your sources are (largely) weaker than the ones I presented..." Here's a hint: who do you suppose this is? https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=p4WBLWAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra Yes, that's right, 93 citations for his single 2014 article on Ukraine's Radical Right. How many citations do your sources have? Are you beginning to understand now? See why AFP/WashPo/FT etc all quoted the likes of Umland, Shekhovtsov, etc (my guys) and not some random authors they found on Google one day? Here to help. But some lessons must needs be harsh. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC) With a few exceptions, the quotes you pulled out largely fail to support your point. The sources about whether and to what extent the group is racist, whether their white supremacism is widespread, or which just quote the group and so on have no direct bearing on whether the group is, as a whole, structurally neo-Nazi; there are factions and degrees within neo-Nazism, and a group can work to downplay those things while remaining fundamentally neo-Nazi in nature. Sources saying that it is used in Russian disinformation are even worse (because they specifically talk about disinformation exaggerating its role - something I suggested way back at the start that people focus on instead, but which has no bearing on whether they are a neo-Nazi group at all.) Only a few of your sources actually mention neo-Nazism, and many of them are simply cautiously-worded, which is not enough to dismiss so many papers from high-quality sources saying outright that the group is neo-Nazi in nature. Counting citations on a separate paper that does not even mention Azov is a fairly strange argument, but if we're going to be like that about sources, Daniel Köhler, an expert on the radical right, has 354 citations on his most well-cited book on that topic, and in a separate paper he refers to the group as the far right, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. Mark Edelman's defining paper on social movements has received 916 citations and he elsewhere refers to them as the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Amazing that you're still maintaining this charade that you've actually read all the sources. "Only a few of your sources actually mention neo-Nazism" is, of course, something you could say - but only if you hadn't read them. Do you have access to JSTOR? the Gomza and Zajaczkowski paper, have you read that? Shekhotsov's 2014 paper, how many times does that mention "nazi" or "neo-Nazi"? Look, most of them are open source, so why don't you just read them? Like, now? Umland's 2019 paper in Terrorism and Political Violence entitled "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014" is the most widely cited recent paper, on this very precise issue we're dealing with, by the acknowledged scholarly authority on the topic. The word "Nazi" or "neo-Nazi" or "Nazism" appears 9 times in the body of the text, 5 more times in the footnotes. Absolutely all the relevant information, pre-2019, out there in the public domain is contained in this monograph. It's 22 pages long and has 111 footnotes. It's in English. And yes, as he has been quoted by the press in 2022 amid the Russian invasion, he has said exactly what he says back in his 2019 work, "the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group that today controls a relatively large military unit could present several problems..." It's a fascinating article. Towards the end he writes: "Even nationalism’s most militant expressions can, under conditions of an ongoing war for independence, not be easily interpreted as exclusive and unambiguous permutations of right-wing extremism, uncivil society, and anti-democratic politics. For this and similar reasons, Azov’s emergence was, at least within the extraordinary political situation of 2014, a phenomenon that, in spite of some of the evidence presented above, largely falls under the heading of “civic activism in times of armed conflict.” I encourage you to read it. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the list of sources Aquillion, which complements the lists Mhorg, Disconnected Phrases and EnlightenmentNow1792 have all posted in other sections (might be helpful to put all of them in a single section). I think it is very clear there are several sources, some very good, which say "is neo-Nazi" and several, some very good, which actively dispute this or put a more nuanced spin. I don't think it's helpful for editors to attack any of these lists as a whole. We need to evaluate them individually and try to identify which are the strongest and what the preponderance of the RSs say. EnlightenmentNow1792 (and Disconnected Phrases), which entries in Aquillion's list should we discount? Mhorg and Aquillion, which entries in Disconnected Phrases and EnlightenmentNow's lists should we discount? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC) There will be a couple of sources worth discussing, but this is not a matter of debate or opinion BobFromBrockley. Please read WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:NOR. Picking and choosing a "compromise list" is not our place, that would be SYNTH and OR. The highest quality reliable sources shouldn't contradict each other. And, happily, they don't here. (Except for that *ahem* outlier piece in TIME magazine by a couple of journos that will be soon publishing corrections!) The only curation needed will be how many to include. Too many makes the article look ugly. But they all say nearly the same thing. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC) References: RfC on the Purported neo-Nazi Nature of the Azov Battalion References

The timeline

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The text describes at least 8 years and at least three subsequent units. The neo-Nazism subsection uses mostly 2014 sources. 'Shaun Walker wrote in The Guardian' but Walker wrote in 2014. Please prove connections between the current unit and Azov Movement. Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC) 'Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy was born to Jewish parents' - isn't this information important in this context? Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC) please see above, we are discussing this already. Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC) And I participate in the discussion ('The Nation').Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC) We do not need the same thing being discussed in 15 separate threads. Discussion needs to be focused in one place, so a closer can see all the opinions, and not have to search the whole talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. plese continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like it if someone would update the article with sources that actually support the assertion "Azov Battalion (until September 2014), is a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine..." The current sources: 1. An article about war crimes by the Belarusian forces which en passant refers to Azov as a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment (the only mention of Azov in the article) in the context of someone getting beaten up by Belarusians for wearing a The Punisher shirt. Azov is not well characterized as neo-Nazi or volunteer in more direct sources. 2. An article from 2014 which says "The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists, or anti-Semites," but does not at any point refer to the battalion as a neo-Nazi battalion. Mostly moot due to the date, but also does not support the assertion. 3. Golinkin, still an opinion piece by a memoirist who misidentified the commander of the Azov battalion in a Hill article and is not a credible Azov Battalion expert by any means. Contemporary, reliable sources which directly treat on the question of whether or not the Azov Battalion are a neo-Nazi unit of the Ukrainian National Guard and conclude that they are not: https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404 Is there any way to stop people from appending sources that don't support the assertion? Maybe people who put bad sources on this article could be banned from editing it? It seems ludicrous to keep cycling through sources that don't support the assertion. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia :P - FlightTime (open channel) 02:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks! Seems Danaidean to me. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Russian Wikipedia has less bias in the language, but many of the same sources. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) There have been three queries on the Reliable Sources noticeboard already. Sigh. I completely agree with you BTW. I guess I will do the one about Belarus next. Elinruby (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)  Not done: @Disconnected Phrases: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. This is a procedural decline, since edit requests are meant to be used for edits that you are unable to make yourself due to the level of page protection. There are currently 2 active discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the cited sources that you are referring to: WP:RSN § US Congressman as an authority on Nazis and WP:RSN § Police in Belarus as an authority on Ukrainian military. — Newslinger talk 08:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC) The problem here is, Azov is in fact, *not* a Neo Nazi unit. The Ukrainian Government have categorically stated they do not have Neo Nazi units in their army. It used to be Neo Nazi, some *members* of Azov are, it is still using some Neo Nazi symbols... but interms of it actually being a Neo Nazi unit today - its isn't. It certainly be Ukrainian Nationalist, but that doesn't make it a Neo Nazi military unit. Until Wikipedia is changed, people are going to keep coming here and asking for it be updated, simple as that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Curious, the Time in 2021 says the contrary[87], that is, that there is an international problem from this "white supremacist militia". Mhorg (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Well firstly, it's from 2019 not 2021, and secondly, in the doco they talk to a US veteran guy working with the national guard who deals with the Azov recruits, who said: "Are they Neo Nazis as an organisation?No.Have they had Neo Nazi's as Members of their organisation? I would say look at the US Army and you will find Neo Nazi's as well...". This is pretty much the point many are making here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I can't find any reliable source that say that they are a neo-Nazi unit, but I have found a lot of reliable sources that say they are not. I was hoping that someone with better research skills than me could come up with less embarrassingly bad sources if we are going to keep false, extraordinary claims in the article. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC) @Newslinger I actually can't make any changes to the sources or mark the sources as insufficient because my account is not old enough to make changes to protected articles, so I did not know that one could. I'm assuming that in some way I don't understand, this is not in violation of BLPGROUP? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) @Disconnected Phrases: Oops, you're right about your account status. I had misread the registration date on your account. The correct reason for closing the edit request is:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edit requests are generally only accepted when there is consensus to implement them. When there is an active discussion about the matter that is not yet settled, the edit request is declined until editors reach a decision on whether it should be implemented. For this particular request, it is unlikely that we would know whether it should be implemented until a new RfC has run its course. WP:BLPGROUP does apply to this matter, and the policy can be considered and discussed in the RfC. However, please note that the policy states, "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." — Newslinger talk 04:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Probably not the best way to go, it's possible they won't qualify as L by the time the RfC closes. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC) We are discussing this above (in many threads), wait for the new RFC and then make your case. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC) An RFC got us into this mess. Maybe we should actually look at the sources? It’s actually embarrassing take the sourcing for this over to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. It’s such a .., question that people can’t believe I am asking it. Four times now and people are like, um no, it doesn’t prove Azov is neo-Nazi if a policemen in Belarus arrested somebody for wearing a Punisher tee shirt. And, may I add, it will never prove it no matter what. It’s embarrassing to even have to ask these questions. If you think that it does you really need to stop lecturing other editors on their talk pages about Wikipedia policy because you have really lost the thread. It’s as if I said that you are clearly a Nazi because my cat told me so Elinruby (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC) And an RFC is needed to overturn it. We are discussing what to ask above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Why is an RFC needed to overturn it? Can you show me where it says that? I am not being sarcastic. I looked for that and didn’t find it Elinruby (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC) And yeah. I tried to encourage that new editor to participate and you guys started yelling off-topic and banished me to a separate section. Hard to discuss when people don’t listen. I think we should start with what is the subject of the article. Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Which is also being discussed above, with the split proposal. Starting 15 threads on the same issue does not make a case stronger. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Really? Because I am trying to discuss it and being told that this is off-topic and the really important thing is that they are neo-nazis. I don't claim expertise about the group and am prepared to stipulate that some members may at some point have been, and possibly even still are, but we are sourcing these assertions with articles about the unfamiliarity of a policeman in Belarus with the Punisher. If we can get an accurate well-sourced topic sentence that would be a progress, yes, but what we say in that topic sentence needs to start from sources. Is the Azov Regiment neo-nazi because a policemen in Belarus mistook the Punisher for something about Azov? It is embarrassing to Wikipedia that I had to ask for that to be adjudicated. Is the current regiment the same organization as some soccer hooligan group in Kharkiv? I think not, but possibly this could be shown somehow through sources. If so then yay. And no, this is not being discussed in a split proposal. The proposal you are talking about concerns a political party. The lengthy well-sourced article about the regiment and its military history was declared a a POV fork because Ukrainians can't be trusted to be neutral about their own military, apparently, and "the media over there are state-owned", which I think is a reference to TASS, but I am really not sure. In any event, banishing it to a redirect effectively removes facts from mainspace, as this article appropriates the name, then equates it with some ill-sourced depiction of a sinister and ill-intentioned group. This is not something that will be solved by an RFC about whether to put neo-nazi in the lede, no matter how many times I get dragged to ANI for doubting that. The answer is simple. If whatever this article is about is or was neo-nazi then that is important enough to be in the lede sentence, sure. I personally don't think this article is about the regiment at all. The Siege of Mariupol is relegated to a bullet point under "Other dates and activities" in part of a sentence. The other part of the sentence is that its commander was declared a Hero of Ukraine, which is only the highest honour an individual can receive from the Ukrainian government. Nothing important about that or about denying the Russians a land bridge to Europe. At all. I know you feel that whether the lede sentence says neo-nazi is the most important thing going on here, but the reason the article is getting all these edit requests that are getting blown off is that quite a few people think this article badly maligns the regiment. Whether some incarnation of Azov was or is neo-nazi is a question of fact that should be based on sources, and can't be sensibly answered until we know which incarnation the question refers to. I have urgently overdue non-Wikipedia matters and need to go attend to them.Elinruby (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I have added a bunch of sources here. I'm going to add them grouped together into the article, since this is such a frequent point of controversy, but we can also pick the best if people have an opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

References (Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022)

References

Correction: "propOganda" to "propaganda"

Correction: "propOganda" to "propaganda".

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.16.187 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Only instance of "propoganda" I found in the article is in a direct quote from the source, so I added {{sic}} after it to indicate that is simply how the source spelled it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but not needed. Per [[MOS:#Original wording]], typos in quotations should just be fixed: "However, insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically)." Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to reproduce obvious typos in quotes. At least, that's what they told me in Journalism 101. There may be reason to do it, I suppose, if some source is opining about a topic they can't spell, and the reason isn't unfamiliarity with English, but in that case why are we using them as a source? Clearly the above is a typo. Sic is unnecessary, but if people feel strongly about this I this our typing time is better spent elsewhere. Elinruby (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"That's enough of that"

Is this explanation of removal of 5,271 characters acceptable? Xx236 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Might be helpful to say which diff you're referring to Xx236. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=1081521729&oldid=1081521590 Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

wp:soap and wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I challenge you to present what value an IP making 7 separate posts in an hour on the exact same subject soapboxing about how the page is all propaganda and disinformation and a disgrace to Wikipedia is adding. They were disrupting the page, I reverted the disruption, and it stopped. BSMRD (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not the best edit summary but don't see the value of those extra sections, making an already cluttered talk page harder. Alternative would be to collapse or archive, which might be better for transparency although outcome not substantially different. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Symbol: Is it a wolfsangel? Does it resemble a wolfsangel?

Azov claim the symbol is intended to be NI for "national ideal" or "idea of nation." It does look like a reversed wolfsangel, which is to say it is a rotated mirror image of the wolfsangel used by the Nazi panzer division that used a wolfsangel as a symbol. A Nazi wolfsangel looks like a Z on its side with shorter terminal lines, not like an N. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: what chance do you think there is that it was just a happy coincidence? From Umland (2019, p. 121), the leading academic on Azov and other irregular militias in the conflict:

"Yet, the symbol of the “Idea of the Nation,” with its occult Black Sun image in the background, has an obvious connection to the pre-history, quoted statements, international links, and political behavior of Azov’s [early] leaders. Azov’s wolf hook has a more than coincidental semblance with far right symbols of other countries and from other eras. The early Azov emblem’s significance is an indication of continuity between the early battalion and SNA/PU...

...The ideological imprint on the early Azov battalion was strong enough to let some Russian neo-Nazis, including Roman Zheleznev, Aleksei Kozhemyakin, and Aleksandr Parinov, to find their way into the battalion’s so-called Russian Corps, while a Russian reporter with similar views, Aleksei Baranovskii, who had moved to Ukraine, was allowed to observe Azov’s daily routine. It is notable that Parinov and Baranovskii had previously been linked to one of Putin’s Russia’s most notorious neo-Nazi groups, the so-called Combat Organization of Russian Nationalists known under its Russian abbreviation BORN which, amongst other things, carried out targeted killings of Russian anti-fascists... the legal wing of BORN, Russkii Obraz ("The Russian Image") had at one time been under the indirect protection and direction of the Kremlin." [emphasis mine]

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I slightly simplified the lead so it now says: It has used controversial symbols,[16][17][18][19][20] including Wolfsangel insignia.[21][22] Azov representatives deny links with neo-Nazism and state that the logo is an abbreviation of the slogan "National Idea" . Probably we should say why controversial, i.e. because of fascist links, but also clarify the Wolfsangel. Would it be better to phrase as It has used symbols with fascist links.[16][17][18][19][20] Its "National Idea" insignia is a version of the Wolfsangel, although Azov representatives deny its Nazi links.? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree as we are saying what they claim is true, it may not be. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point. What's a better way of phrasing it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Not really sure as the whole issue seems to be this self identification as a symbol for "National Idea", while it may in fact just be a resuse of the Nazi symbol. I think it's kind of OK the old way. Its all a bit convoluted. I am unsure we can really do much to untangle it, its not as if most NAzis would ever admit to it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

References (Symbol: Is it a wolfsangel? Does it resemble a wolfsangel?)

References

no 'fears that Ukrainian refugee flows harbor potential terrorist elements'

The Ukrainian refugees are mothers and grandmothers with children and an elderly minority. A man has to have 4 children to be allowed to leave Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

What? Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It is an example of problem mentioned in the article.

This discussion (333000 bytes) brings very limited results. Some RFC will or will not solve one detail. is fecit, cui prodest or shorter - qui bono?.Xx236 (talk) 11:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Over-use of the word "Nazi" in the lead

We do not need this long wall of text to continue now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

In the Russian version of the article, the word "Nazi" appears once. In the French version, once. In the German version, zero. In the Ukrainian version, zero. In the Spanish version, zero, but "white supremacism" appears once. Think perhaps the lede as it stands may be somewhat unbalanced maybes? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC) I agree that there's an over-use of the word in the lead. In fact, almost half of the lead is about its far-right leanings. There are plenty of far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis among the Russian separatist forces, and altho there's a section about that, it isn't even mentioned in the lead of their article. ~Asarlaí 14:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Indeed. Just look at the size of the Wikipedia article on the Russian Orthodox Army, from the Russian side, also with neo-Nazi roots. Wikipedia is literally doing the Kremlin's bidding here. As one 2015 German-language peer-reviewed academic article put it (one of the three co-authors was Andreas Umland, the most widely cited scholar on the issue of irregular military formations in the Russo-Ukrainian War): "Obwohl die Freiwilligenverbände nur einen Teil der bewaffneten Formationen der Ukraine ausmachen, spielten sie bei den ersten Zusammenstößen sowie bei weiteren bedeutenden Kämpfen mit Separatisten und der russländischen Armee im Donbass... Dies ist einer der Gründe, warum die Freiwilligenverbände neben der Nationalgarde rasch ins Blickfeld der Moskauer Propaganda rückten." Or: "Although volunteer units are only a part of Ukraine's armed formations, they played [a significant role] in the first battles with separatists and the Russian military in Donbass [in 2014]... This is one of the reasons why volunteer units, along with the National Guard, quickly came to the fore of Moscow propaganda." - Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall “Azov”: Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 65(1/2), 33–41. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Then change those, do not use it as an excuse to change this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Which we are discussing above, so please comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Are these comments directed at me? If so, I apologize profusely, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean (English is not my first language). - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC) It is aimed at everyone who keeps on starting up thread after thread about this issue. We are discussing the use of the word Nazi in multiple threads, including one about the idea of a new RFC to decide if we should have it in the lede. Having multiple threads discussing the same topic just makes it hard to judge consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC) You've been entrusted with adjudicating "consensus"? What use is "consensus", when the RSs aren't even considered? How can anyone be expected to make an informed decision if they haven't been exposed to the RSs? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC) No I have not, the closer of the last RFC (not me) was. The closer of the RFC I will launch in a few days will (it will not be me). They will take into account the strength of each side's argument (based upon Wikipedia policies, not logic, facts, or truth). Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC) To push back a bit: Wikipedia policy generally values sources that are reliable for facts in making these sorts of decisions. Arguments are evaluated on their strength in light of policies; it would make sense that a logical argument for why X satisfies a policy is better than an illogical one. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) The problem is logic is often not neutral, it is why we do not allow OR. As demonstrated here, many people are mak9ng what they think are logical arguments, which contradict each other. So whose logical argument wins? Which is why we then fall back on RS, do RS suoopsrt a given claim or not, and not "well its clear RS mean this". Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I don't quite know what logic is often not neutral means in this context; my point was to say that if there is no logical coherence to an argument then it isn't a good one. When we make the claim that the vast majority of WP:RS support X, we generally have to actually demonstrate that rather than just speculating it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I agree we over-use the word "Nazi in the lead and that too much of the lead focuses on this aspect (although it one major reason for notability; the defence of Mariupol is another, but that's underplayed here because of how old versions of the article have sedimented). I think it might be better to get the opening sentence right (see other threads on this page) and then return to this issue, unless there are bits which can obviously be edited now? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"Dubious" template

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

This recently-added template is entirely inappropriate. Consensus on that point was established in this RFC with a clear consensus to use neo-Nazi in the article voice; templates cannot be used as a "badge of shame" on something that has been previously settled. If someone wants to challenge that RFC, open a new one, but simply saying that you disagree with the current consensus is not sufficient to tag it as disputed. Part of the purpose of an RFC is to actually end such disagreements and avoid situations where holdouts who refuse to be satisfied continue to insist that something is unresolved, leaving an eternal template as a badge of shame on an article. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Now, just imagine if you had bothered to actually read the scholarly sources before you typed this... nevermind before you started edit-warring and adding all manner of substandard sources from random tabloids and books you discovered after a deep, thorough, 15-odd minutes of Googling (what apparently passes for "research" among some denizens of WikiSpace). Would you perhaps have approached this problem differently? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC) There are more people attacking this RFC than there is those defending it. The RFC needs to be re-done. Ergzay (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC) It will be in a few days, we are discussing above what questions to ask. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Does the disinformation described in this letter, signed by many members of parliament and business leaders in Ukraine, sound like our Wikipedia article?

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"The Russian authorities specifically point to the members of the Azov National Guard Regiment as an example of such neo-Nazis. We urge all to be very careful when commenting on the Azov topic. As CNN columnists Tara John and Tim Lister have already mentioned in their columns, it is a favorite target of Russian propaganda. And in our opinion, many honest observers have partly become the objects of Russian propaganda." "Firstly. Putin’s propaganda deliberately confuses the Azov National Guard Regiment and the National Corps Party. It is true that after completing their military service some former Azov commanders formed a political party, and among its members were other Azov veterans. However, the Azov Regiment is not a wing of the party and is not related to it in any way. It is a part of the National Guard of Ukraine under the command of the General Staff and the Supreme Military Command of Ukraine. As for the party, Ukrainian law prohibits communist and Nazi ideology." "Secondly. The authors use a quote attributed to politician Andriy Biletsky, who allegedly called for a “white crusade” in 2010. The only source for that quote is Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and he used it in 2015 to justify Russian aggression. Since then, the quote has been used by various media, including the respected Guardian newspaper, on which CNN relies. However, the only living witness to Biletsky’s statement is Mr. Lavrov, and there is no other evidence that the Azov ex-commander ever said that. The same Lavrov now claims that Russia is not waging a war against Ukraine." "In this case, we are dealing not with accidental inaccuracies, but with clever disinformation narratives that are hitting the most painful points in the West with the sole purpose of weakening military and political aid to Ukraine. We urge CNN to publish our letter and apologize to the military unit and remove false information. The false narrative that the defenders of Ukraine are Nazis hurts the families of soldiers who have already died or are now completely surrounded in Mariupol." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Is Lavrov a reliable source? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC) No, Lavrov is a politician, so he isn't reliable source for statements of fact. The same applies to all the numerous Ukrainian MPs and business leaders who signed the letter. Both the Russian foreign minister and Ukrainian MPs are simply claiming something for political gain (denigrating and whitewashing, respectively). Arado Ar 196 (talk/contributions) 05:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Also, according to this letter, Kolomoisky was also not a funder of Azov Battalion. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC) @Disconnected Phrases:, first of all, welcome to Wikipedia! In response to your comment, you're not quite asking the right question. First, you need to read a little bit about some of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, starting with Reliable sources, Citing sources, and the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. In your editing, you need to find reliable, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY sources to back up any of your additions or changes to content. There are problems with the source you cite above, before we even get to the content. The Euromaidan Press where it appears is an online newspaper, so normally that's a secondary source, however the article is largely a reprint of a letter signed by dozens of parliamentarians, with little or no added content, so although it appears in a secondary source, the article might be considered primary, I'm not 100% sure. If it is, that's a problem. It would be better to find a news article reporting on the fact that some MPs got together and wrote an open letter, if possible. Secondly, we'd have to see if Euromaidan Press is considered reliable or not. There was a discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard a month ago (here) that did not garner much response, but what response there was, was negative. That may not matter much in this case because as it's an open letter signed by MPs, if it were fake that would come out right away. Lastly, learning to edit at Wikipedia is a process, and some topic areas are full of dispute and contention among editors, and Eastern Europe and the Balkans is one of those areas, and it's much harder to edit in contentious areas. Within this contentious area, the Azov Battalion is attracting an even greater level of contention, probably because of connections to neo-naziism. So, if I were you, I would avoid this topic as a brand new user, and start on something which is not a current event, and not a locus of dispute like this one is. I think I'm going to leave it there, for now. If you would like advice about editing at Wikipedia in an area more conducive to a new editor learning the ropes. please contact me again on my Talk page, and let's see what we can come up with. I really think that editing here will be very difficult for you, and there are all sorts of traps here and opportunities to get into difficulty, and you don't want that just when you're starting out. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC) @mathglot I would not consider Euromaidan a reliable source in most cases, but, I would consider them a reliable source for the views of Ukrainian officials mentioned by name. I am relatively familiar with the concept of reliable sources from writing academic papers. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I checked and it appears on censor.net, mind.ua, and internetua.com. Serhiy Taruta (the first signatory) posted the letter on his Facebook page. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC) The issue here is not the WP:RELIABILITY of the sources reporting this letter (I'm sure this is a real letter, that really exists), but rather WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:PRIMARY. In this case, Ukrainian MPs and businessmen are not proper sources for the nature of Azov, much as, as you have pointed out, Sergei Lavrov would not be. Both are too close to the subject matter to present an objective analysis BSMRD (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I was addressing Mathglot's concerns about the reliability of Euromaidan Press. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC) What about the world's leading scholars on the issue, are you interested in their views at all BSMRD? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I would not argue that this letter is evidence of anything beyond the fact that there is a letter signed by those people that says that. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC) The views of the world's leading scholars are well-represented in other sections above. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Oh, sorry I misread that, I thought you were BSMRD talking to me. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Again, wait for the RFC and make your case there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I may be being a bit dense here, but this letter seems to address things beyond the scope of the RFC. It addresses the conflation of the regiment with the national corps. It addresses a quote attributed to Biletsky and the funding of the Azov Battalion, among other things. I fail to see how all of these things are covered by the RFC. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I think it is interesting how so many points of contention on this page appear in this letter. That is all. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I would remind all users to read wp:soap and wp:forum, this is not a place to dump things you find interesting. It is a place to (and solely for that) discuss how to improve the article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC) As the letter directly concerns the contents of this article, I don't understand how that applies. I think it is important to be aware of the claims made by the people who wrote this letter to be sure the article is maintaining a neutral point of view. I'm tired and going to sleep. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Whatever the ultimate outcome of this discussion wrt whether it does or doesn't affect the article, I believe DP's raising the issue was in good faith, and is within bounds of the WP:TALK guideline and an appropriate question to raise here, as the best venue for such a question, so that SOAP and NOTFORUM aren't an issue. Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC) References

RFC designation of Azov "Battalion" as neo-Nazi in lede

Lede as it currently stands[88] (with UA taken out): "The Azov Special Operations Detachment, also known as the Azov Regiment or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov."

Should this be changed to?

• A: No change.

• B: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, which used to be a neo-Nazi[2][3], is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine.

• C: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine that contains neo-Nazi elements.

• D: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine which it has been claimed is neo-nazi.

• E: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine

Or

Alternative Draft #1:

The Azov Battalion is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov. The unit was founded in May 2014 as a volunteer paramilitary militia to fight Russian forces in the Donbas War and was formally incorporated into the National Guard on 11 November 2014. During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the group's incorporation into the National Guard drew controversy over its early association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology, its use of uses controversial symbols, and allegations of torture and war crimes. CutePeach (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments about alternative draft 1

Comment: The above is actually nicely written. I like it. Thanks CutePeach Perhaps (you all) we should consider it? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Comment: A vast improvement on the status quo. One important thing to note, it is no longer called the "Azov Battalion", and hasn't been for many years. In both Ukrainian and Russian the word is полк, which translates directly to regiment in English. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Comment: I also favour this text. But I would delete "early"; it is still "associated with" far-right groups. That doesn't make it a "far-right group", but the name is still tainted. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Comment: I think this is much better than the options above. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Alternative Draft #2:

The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. It was founded as the Azov Battalion in Kyiv in 2014, a small paramilitary group of extremist Far Right and neo-Nazi political activists under the political leadership of Andriy Biletsky. Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence, relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism, and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers. However, after its forced absorption into the National Guard and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially Andriy Biletsky and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".</ref> - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments about alternative draft 2
Comment: Based on my reading of the available RS, I think this provides the best summary of the unit. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• C or D not draft 2 as it goes into too much detail to replace one word in the lede. C and D seem to sum it up. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• A, no change, the current definition "is a neo-Nazi unit" is very accurate. The battalion\reggiment is the armed wing of the neo-Nazi project called "Azov Movement" and its political project "National Corps", led by the neo-Nazi Andrey Biletsky (original founder of Azov Battalion that said that Ukraine's national purpose was to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade... against Semite-led Untermenschen"[89]). It does not matter the percentage of enlisted soldiers who have a neo-Nazi faith of either 90% or 10%.

The investigative work by the expert Kuzmenko of the Bellingcat group says:[90] "The relationship between the regiment and the National Corps is also blurred in the political messaging of Biletsky, who has posed with active duty Azov soldiers in political videos. National Corps figures routinely visit the regiment, and the party’s ideologists lecture Azov troops. Their blogs are published on the regiment’s site, while Azov’s social media pages promote the National Corps. According to an August 2017 video, ostensibly recorded at Azov’s base, emigre Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin lectured the regiment. The close alignment between the Azov Regiment and the National Corps continues under the Zelenskyy presidency. In March 2020, soldiers from the regiment were featured alongside leaders of the National Corps in a video ad for a rally meant as a warning to Zelenskyy’s government. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to “depoliticize”. This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps."

The most recent sources that speak of a depoliticization of unit come substantially from Shekhovtsov, quoted by the Financial Times:[91] "Azov's history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself." Shekhovtsov's version appears to go against the facts, while Kuzmenko's claims is easily verifiable by doing simple fact-checking:

Fact-checking

1. The Azov Battalion commander "Kalina", calls Andriy Biletsky "the leader"! In a video called "In Azov they told how Andriy Biletsky helps the regiment" the same thing is certified:[92] "We have a leader, Andriy Biletsky, an independent MP in the Ukrainian parliament. On top of being an MP, he is always visiting us at the shooting range encampment, for example. Taxpayers haven’t contributed a dime to its improvement, development, and functioning. Andriy Biletsky looks for sponsors, businessmen that can contribute to what we have now, for instance, good clothes, procuring, good shooting ranges, etc. . . . A lot of volunteer battalions stopped existing in the same way as we do, and we remained in this sphere, because Andriy, unlike others, isn’t preoccupied with his own business but is always visiting, always helping us." 2. Biletsky himself, with a statement (2019) certifies that the regiment and the Azov movement remain connected:[93] "I will forever remain in the ranks of the large Azov family, which over the past five years has formed around the regiment, bringing together volunteers, volunteers and veterans" 3. And again, the official website of the "National Corps" there is constant mention of Azov soldiers.[94] 4. On March 2022, Azov Battalion and National Corps flags are holded by the fighters of Azov Battalion[95]. Moreover, "National Corps" official channel releases hundreds of videos dedicated only to Azov Battalion:[96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104]and so on....

It is important to note that it is in the interest of the Azov Movement to give the impression that the "National Corps" and "Azov Battalion" are two separated entities. It is clear when the Western media goes to show the links between the two organizations, as for the Time article[105], this is the response of the "National Corps":[106] "National Corps’ Statement on the Information Provocation by TIME Magazine: The Azov Regiment is an official unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, and, therefore, under the Ukrainian legislation, cannot have a “political wing” or “its own political party,” as stated in the article."--Mhorg (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I assume we have 4 for Alternative Draft #1. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support A - This most succinctly summarizes the available sources, without leaving anything out or watering anything down. Support Alternate Draft 2 as a second, because it does what A does, but much less succinctly. C as a distant third, given that it represents the current concern about nazi elements. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  'available sources'? Who exactly has studied all available sources? The referenced list of pro'neo-Nazi' sources is cherrypicked. We need sources discussing the problem, rather than annuntiating the Final Truth. Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion Stanford does not say neo-Nazi.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Xx236 See my below comment on the Stanford source. I strongly suggest you strike this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support A per the many sources provided below, in addition to the fact that this issue was already settled previously. --eduardog3000 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A per the overwhelming usage of that term in reliable sources. We can note statements by the group or sources that demur further down the article, but the few sources that say otherwise are not strongly-worded enough or high-quality enough to trump the plain fact that the group is overwhelmingly described as a neo-Nazi one in the article voice of WP:RSes. As far as the problems with the other ones go, B is completely unacceptable because it flat-out ignores the numerous sources describing the group as neo-Nazi today and reads too much into a small number of sources that are cautious about its current state and discuss how it has changed over time but largely do not say so concretely that it has definitely and completely changed - and, more importantly, those sources generally acknowledge, at least implicitly, that it is considered neo-Nazi by others. D is unacceptable per WP:CLAIM and WP:WEASEL, and beyond that dismissing a huge number of academic sources describing the group as neo-Nazi as a mere vaguely-attributed "claim" is misleading. E is the worst of all; no matter which sources you choose, neo-Nazism is the most notable thing about the group and needs to be in the first sentence in some form. Even the tiny number of sources that are more cautiously-worded still make it a major focus - no sources have been presented that could justify complete exclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, E, and B in that order. Oppose A. A used to be a good interpretation of the sourcing, but per recent sourcing, it no longer is. If we go with "E", it should say shortly afterwards that Azov used to be neo-Nazi. I will add that sourcing elsewhere in the discussion of this RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, or E. An overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources would describe the unit in this way. Oppose A. This has been well refuted by reliable, contemporary sources. I agree with adoringnanny that if E, clarification should appear soon after the opening sentence. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, or D Oppose A. The Ukrainian government has repeatedly said they have no neo nazi units in their defence forces (despite what Russian propaganda says about "Nazi Ukraine"), including Azov. As has been said *many* times, Azov were previously a Neo Nazi buch of soccer holligans, but have since been reformed, neo nazi leadership have been purged, and the govt has made them now a regular part of the Ukrainian defence forces. Certainly there are some members of the unit who are Nazis, but that's no different to US units or Russian who have Nazi members... and they aren't designated Neo Nazi. This article relies on older sources that call them Neo Nazi, newer sources don't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Alternative Draft #1 or E. As covered in RS, some or many members of the unit have/had Neo-Nazi views. This is not surprising. I am sure that some members of other military units in Ukraine and other countries (US including) have such views. But this is not the reason to define the whole military unit as "Neo-Nazi" in the first phrase in WP voice. This is just a unit of Army, not a political party. Such description in our article only helps anti-Ukrainian Putinist propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Close as fatally flawed, by indecision and interference during and after the posting of the Rfc. It was initiated on 12:42, 10 April and only after these 21 edits was the first vote cast at 13:23, 10 April 2022 (at which time, the Rfc was *already* a giant mess), including poorly discussed wholesale replacements of the options. In its current state, it's a sprawling mess with multiple collapses, and, imho, none of the options present a balanced view of the evolution of the Azov Batallion from its extremist origins to its complex, flawed present with continued extremist ties though less important, and less numerous, than before. As a second choice, Draft 1 is closest, but still not ideal. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A Aquillion summed it up pretty well. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support E This discussion may be influenced by Russian-Ukrainian information war. The alleged complete list of reliable sources is far from being complete:

  https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion Stanford does not say neo-Nazi.

  https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  The Stanford source repeatedly talks about AB's Neo-Nazi ideology and says The Azov Battalion is an extreme-right nationalist paramilitary organization that promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism through its National Militia paramilitary organization and National Corps political wing in its first two sentences. The first sentence of the France 24 starts with Some call them war heroes, others neo-Nazis. If you search hard enough you might be able to find sources to support the entire removal of neo-Nazism from the lead but it is definitely not these ones. These sources argue the opposite and it is incorrect to represent the Stanford source like this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support A Per overwhelming usage in reliable sources.Anonimu (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A for now, perhaps they are a leopard trying to change their spots but it is soon to say so. If we are going to have the movement as a redirect here then it might be useful to say something about it somewhere in the lead and perhaps clarify more in the article body.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

irrelvant to options.

Second revert. We had "consensus". Three editors were involved, three agreed to move forward with it. You decided to continue to sabotage your own RfC. For over two-hours now I've been trying to salvage your RfC after you spat the dummy. But I'm afraid I have work tomorrow, so, good luck, you're on your own again now. Hope you have a change of heart. This really needn't be so serious and difficult. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC) As the main objection is to even call them Neo-Nazi I know full well this does not have consensus and will be objected to. This is why we needed a formal RFC that include the option "do not include the claim". Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Since when did you reverse your position? As of a few hours ago? No RS claims that the term "neo-Nazi" was never applied to them in 2014, or that there were not at least some neo-Nazi elements amongst its leadership. Biletsky, Mosiychuk, the Black Sun and the Wolfsangel.. What on earth are you talking about? No RS claims there was never, any neo-Nazi element in their background at all. So your objection makes no sense. It shouldn't be an option. Read the sources. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I did not reverse my position. I am saying that the main objection has been that they are not neo-nazi, so we can't claim they are. My opinion on that is known, but I also have to take into account those who disagree with me. I am aware that text will be objected to, so want a fuller discussion, so we can achieve a meaningful consensus that will last longer than a day before someone objects as their voice was not heard. I wouolsd have thought that was clear from the fact I do not think we can keep the current text, but there are ore uswers here than just us. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC is underway whether we like it or not. Need to clear away the clutter.

No, I have started the RFC, those are the options. And you removed my post.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC) All you have just done is confused it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I'm just trying to help. I've offered you help on your Talk page, and we've had long discussions. It's just a question of clarity, that's all. I presented my concerns to you about your planned options, and you didn't respond to me. Would it not be best to let the commenters decide? - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Slatersteven - They removed mine too earlier - [107].Okay, we have a serious issue here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC) If someone does not accept your help, it is resoanble to assume they do not want it, and this has not helped, it has confused the issue. as no one will know (for wxample) which A they are voting for. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Slatersteven, I actually obtained support from two other editors for my framing of the RfC, and my 1st Draft of my preferred version. I praised you for your efforts, I asked you many questions, offered lots of advice, but you went ahead and did it all by yourself anyway. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, as no one but you wanted the last option. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Actually "Disconnected Phrases" did, and I'm sure there'll be a few others. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC) And you left out "do not mention at all", which is the main issue we are trying to address. So now they will just argue this is a flawed RFC as it does not address their concearns. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Feel free to add it in. Please, I've never done an RfC before, that's why when I was offering to help, it was solely about the wording and the best structure to use, in order to do justice to the source material. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Then why...no this is for your talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Slatersteven I'm truly gobsmacked. That is by far the single most noble, selfless gesture I have ever seen anybody perform on Wikipedia. Truly heroic, and that's no hyperbole whatsoever. You put the project ahead of everything. This should be highlighted as the epitome of what an editor dedicated to the integrity of the project looks like. Well done mate. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Close this, it may be buggered beyond rescue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I wasn't ready to do an RfC, I'd never done one before in my life! I'm new to Wikipedia. I've been putting notifications of the RfC on WikiProject Ukraine and WikiProject Russia, etc. Alright then, can we agree? Let's just wipe this all clean eh? We'll ask an admin to erase it from the record, permanently. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Good lord, I step away for a few hours. Did EN1792 just replace an RfCs options with his preferred version because he didn't like what was presented? Because that's what it feels like just happened. BSMRD (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC) KInd of (to be fair, I struck my preferred options as he was not going to remove his, and it just confused things to have two sets), he also just changed to options after I have voted. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I second the closing per Slatersteven, sorry this one didn’t work Slatersteven despite your considerable struggles to help. Thanks for that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC) If you second the motion for closing, why did you just restore it? And then accuse me of nefarious intent on my Talk Page, your 3rd blatant Personal Attack in the space of a couple of days. I was trying to do Slatersteven a favor, as I've been trying to help him all throughout this process. You continue to be disruptive, fine. Carry on. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Closing is a formal process, it is not just a deletion (one reason is, you are not allowed to delete other users posts). Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC) This is unbelievable. Is this RFC valid or not? Can we vote now?--Mhorg (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC) As (can be seen below) the key issue is not to what degree they are neo-nazi, but are they even neo-nazi this RFC can't (at this time) answer that. So the RFC is (now) fundemtaly) flawed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC) The posts have now been removed, but were all saying they are not neo-nazi. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC) NOte that until a new RFC overturns it the old RFC is still in place, so the line shuls not be altred, please stop. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I would advise Slatersteven to withdraw this RFC and oversee an attempt at summarising the article into the lede without citations. There is no question this unit associated with far-right and neo-Nazi groups in its early days, and that it could have even been classed as such a group itself, but the incorporation into the National Guard changed that. The 2022 invasion changed that even more when conscripts burst its ranks and the original members and their influence declined significantly. Can we not describe this in the first paragraph of the lede without a RFC? We still have another two or three paragraphs to describe the controversy in more detail. CutePeach (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks CutePeach. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I have asked for it to be closed, but NO an RFC can only really be overturned by another RFC. As they represent a wider community input (in theory). Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Why on earth then, did you tell me to "Close this, it may be buggered beyond rescue."??? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) No matter, Question: Slatersteven, can you point me towards "the rules" that state an article can't be edited while an RfC is underway? You and a couple of other editors have said this, but I've never seen it written anyway. Could be wrong. I'd be surprised though, doesn't make much sense to me. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I did not ask you to do it, I asked for someone to do it. The reason was that having removed the main issue rendered it moot. As to the rules, a number may be applicable such as wp:brd wp:consensus and WP:ONUS may all cover it to some degree. It may also be a wp:npov and wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Per WP:RFC: Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. BSMRD (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Right, so not forbidden. Good. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Which is why I pointed out BRD and Consensus, once an edit is reverted it should not be reinstated without discussion. There is no consensus to alter the existing text. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Which part of " Do not remove or alter without prior consensus, see relevant RfC on talk page." is too hard to understand? Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I'm starting to wonder if what's going on is all normal.--Mhorg (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I have no idea what you mean by that, but I am starting to suspect it may be deliberate. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I apologize for my English. I meant that I don't understand if these RFC changes are valid or not, and I don't understand why some users are changing the lede before this RFC is done.--Mhorg (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC) The RFC is (to my mind) beyond fixing as we have too many options, but not the one that is the start of this whole issue (they are not neo-nazi, and in its most extreme form never have been). Without that keep option any change we make will be objected to (hell we have had two or three edit requests during this RFC for text leaving out the claim). As such the lede should not be changed until the old RFC is overturned, and I doubt that any edit that includes the claim they are, were, or might be Neo-nazi will stand unless we have a formal consensus to reject the idea they are not neo-nazi. As anyone who has been following this should be able to see. If I do not revert it, someone else will. So we need to stop changing it and get a proper consensus, one that can only be achieved via a properly formatted RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC) If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An {{rfc}} tag generally remains on the page until removed by Legobot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met. - It's on you Slatersteven. Whenever you're ready to put your toys back in the pram, you can make all the changes you want. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, and when told you that your options confused things you dod don't remove them, you left them in place despite the fact they made it impossible for anyone to make a choice. I do not think the RFC is biased, I thought it was confusing (as I told you). But OK, if you want me to just reset the RFC fine. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC) By the way (I am unsure that you can claim consensus when only three of the editors involved in this page have agreed to an edit, in less than 6 hours. Especially when things have been as confused as this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, now can we leave the RFC alone now and let people respond? I think this should run for 7 days so as to make sure anyone who wants to respond can. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

People (I.E. the closer) will have to read this, huge walls of sources do not make that task easy. please can we restrict ourselves to not putting walls of text justifying our choice? Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

In this section there are the sources that declare the battalion as "neo-Nazi", if you have other sources, please put them below:--Mhorg (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The Nation: Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces. The Nation: neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion Dated, from 2016.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Guardian Neo-Nazi groups involved in the fighting in Ukraine are actively seeking to recruit British far-right activists [...] At least two Britons are thought to have travelled to the war-torn eastern European country in recent months after encouragement by people linked to the Azov battalion, a notorious Ukrainian fascist militia Misleading quotation, it is missing "according to Hope Not Hate" which is advocacy group. Also fascist ≠ neo-nazi.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) NY Times: Another, the Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi Dated, from 2015.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Center for Strategic and International Studies a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology Instead of making explicit assessment, FBI uses more qualified "associated with" language.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Telegraph Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists Dated, from 2014.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) TIME How a White-Supremacist Militia Uses Facebook to Radicalize and Train New Members While they are both far-right ideologies, white supremacist ≠ neo-nazi.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Wired Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary group Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology., which doesn't cover Azov.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Foreign Policy The Azov Battalion [...] this openly neo-Nazi unit Dated, from 2014.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (POL) Azov is a real problem. The neo-Nazi regiment The statement quoted falls under WP:Headlines, making it unreliable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) National Post The amendments, passed unanimously by members of both parties, blocks “the training of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia Azov Battalion,” Misleading quotation, National Post is merely quoting American politician.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Deutsche Welle Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment Generally ok but only a passing mention, there is also newer more in-depth DW piece which doesn't call Azov explicitly neo-nazi: [108].--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Junge Welt (DE) The Ukrainian neo-Nazi battalion Unreliable, Junge Welt is a self-described left-wing and Marxist newspaper.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Il Messaggero (ITA): Ukraine, pro-Nazi units alongside the army Dated, from 2015.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Il Manifesto (ITA) Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion Unreliable, Il Manifesto is a self-described communist paper.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Intercept Neo-Nazi Ukrainian Battalion Al Jazeera neo-Nazi group The statement quoted falls under WP:Headlines, making it unreliable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The independent neo-Nazi Azov Battalion The statement quoted falls under WP:Headlines, making it unreliable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Jacobin the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment Biased source: There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source..--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent sources that say Azov used to be neo-nazi, or something to that effect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

WaPo Under pressure from U.S. and Ukrainian authorities, the Azov battalion has toned down its extremist elements. And the Ukrainian military has also become stronger in the past eight years and therefore less reliant on paramilitary groups. Moreover, today’s war against Russia is far different than in 2014, fueled less by political ideology than a sense of patriotism and moral outrage at Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine, especially its civilian population. Extremists do not appear to make up a large part of the foreigners who have arrived here to take up arms against Russia, analysts said. MSNBC youtube Today, Azov is leading the fight against Russia on behalf of a pluralistic, Liberal Ukrainian government, led by a Jewish President. So like I said, this is complicated.They say they've grown to include fighters of many different ideologies. Sudarsan Raghavan: "Everyone [the soldiers] we spoke to believed that this [idea that Azov is neo-Nazi] is part of Russian propaganda...The thinking on the Azov is outdated from what we found. It's based on what happened eight years ago...since then there has been a big effort to alter the Azov...there were strong efforts to weed out extremists within the ranks". Quote from Biletsky, former leader of Azov Battalion: "Today, Ukrainians have only one option of political orientation: for or against Ukraine" CBS"There are no Nazi battalions in Ukraine," said Ruslan Leviev, an analyst with the Conflict Intelligence Team, which tracks the Russian military in Ukraine. "There is [the Azov] regiment... There are [estimated] several thousand people who are in this regiment. It is indeed a group where many members adhere to nationalist and far-right views," Leviev said. "But a lot of people also join it because it is one of the most prepared and fit-for-war units." "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014" by A Umland in book "The 21st Century Cold War" As briefly illustrated below, the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group that today controls a relatively large military unit could present several problems. Jerusalem Post However, since its incorporation into Ukraine's official armed forces it has moved away from neo-Nazism, and a Ukrainian Jewish group as early as 2016 did not oppose lifting the US ban. Foreign Affairs After the union, the government’s first act was to root out two groups within Azov, foreign fighters and neo-Nazis, by vetting group members with background checks, observations during training, and a law requiring all fighters to accept Ukrainian citizenship. Fighters who did not pass this screening were offered the chance to join civilian volunteer corps to help the war effort; these corps assisted police, cleared snow (a crucial task in Ukraine), and even worked on a public radio. BBC Adrien Nonjon: "Azov opened its recruitment to the whole of Ukrainian society and eventually this radical core was drowned out by the mass of newcomers who joined the regiment because it was an elite unit". Ros Atkins: "Despite the evolving membership, questions about Neo-Nazi links remain... There is though no evidence such sentiment is widespread [in the regiment]" AFP via France 24 "In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies. But it had since become "de-ideologised" and a regular fighting unit, he told AFP. Its recruits now join not because of ideology but because "it has the reputation of being a particularly tough fighting unit," Umland said...The Azov now function like other regiments "but with better PR," said Vyacheslav Likhachev, a research analyst at the ZMINA Centre for Human Rights in Kyiv. CommonWealth Magazine (Taiwanese magazine, Chinese name: 天下雜誌) “The narrative related to “Azov” is very bizarre. It is wrong to call them Neo-Nazis because even the fact that the unit includes people of different nationalities proves the opposite.” Matviyishyn explains, that the regiment includes very many different people of various ethnicities such as Jews, Ukrainians, Georgians, and even Russians. “Azov” has gone through a transformation in comparison to how it was when it was founded. “In the beginning, it had these right-wing radicals political ideologies, but now, it is depoliticized unit, a part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces.” Radio Télévision Suisse (FR) But the gradual arrival of new apolitical members expanded the regiment to the point that the far-right ideology became marginal.

I asked for the RfC to be closed

If you disagree with the request here is a place to say so Elinruby (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Support closing. This confusing mess of an RfC should be closed and carefully redone.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Where did you request it to be closed? Regardless of that, what I see above is a complete mess - the RfC statement is neither neutral nor brief (with this effect); it is unsigned; there is a big red error message in the "Alternative Draft #2:"; and there appears to be a second {{rfc}} tag inside one of the comllapsible boxes, producing this effect. Frankly, I don't see any chance of anybody wanting to work on a satisfactory closure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing request was made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#RfC_at_Azov_Battalion.--Staberinde (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I made a post at AE. I didn't ask for sanctions but after subsequently going through the history I now think maybe I should have. There is a lot of arrogance on display here and the newbie trying to help, although not immune to this, is the least of it. I really shouldn't comment right now, as I really feel ill now, but I *will* mention the poor slob who tried to vote with an edit request, not realizing that these are always treated with contempt on this page. No doubt I will be told again that my comments aren't needed or are somehow inappropriate, but right now I despair of Wikipedia. I have urgent offline matters.Elinruby (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That AE "request" is also a complete mess. Just look at the line following "User against whom enforcement is requested" - there are some seriously broken links there. Then there is the entry under "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" - it's just a link back to this page, and worse still, it forces us off to mobile wikipedia. Please stop wasting people's time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

how does it waste your time? Possibly if you were an admin. But ugly as it may be, it makes its point and says what it says, which is that there seems to be a consensus, which was true at the time. A couple of other people have chimed since, and I think they may disagree, but. It's a truthful request for help and they can do what they want to about it over there. That said, peace out.Elinruby (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

how does it waste your time? Possibly if you were an admin......@Elinruby, @Redrose64 is indeed an admin. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh. I did look at their page, but obviously not well enough if I missed that. The statement still stands however. That admin can do what they want. Elinruby (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree. Whatever its previous state, it wasn't like that for long and is fine now; and we need to end this already. Let the RFC run its course. --Aquillion (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree. The RFC was launched, then huge changes were made to the text by other users. There are already complex comments in the vote section, why should we close it?--Mhorg (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• The fact that it was changed is one thing. The other is that it isn't neutral to begin with and people with.no sense of irony are complaining about being edited on the one hand while deleting votes on the other. I say people stop telling other people to shut up, and we have Deathlibrarian and/or Bobfrombrockley draft a proposed RfC. They seem to be among nature's diplomats and are already up to speed on the discussion, so that might not take long at all. Then we can discuss the proposed options, amend if needed, and vote on what to include in the public RfC. I have to vote none of the above on this one, as there is at least one thing wrong with all of the choices, and I am not about to vote for a slightly better BLP violation. Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• it is one thing (and entirely reasonable) to request that the RFC statement be amended or edited to make it more neutral. It is quite another to just state that it should be closed and redone. Let's not waste more time here. Just suggest edits to the RFC statement to make it more neutral, and let us all get on with editing this encyclopedia.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Been there, tried that. At great length, I am told. And yet here we are. I still have urgent non-wiki matters, and am turning my phone off this time. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Agree if the convoluted nature of the RfC will impede its closing. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree - People have largely been content to vote on this RFC without issue, I don't see a major issue, and there was a fair bit of preparation done by slatersteven and others to get it to this point. I guess its not perfect, but I think it should run its course. That said, if it does get voted down, I'm happy to assist with a new one as per Elinruby's suggestion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: With no offence meant to the poster, the spelling and grammar in the proposed options is quite bad making most of the options given unviable. (This is to say nothing of the alternatives - this kind of thing is what comments are for.) If I tidy up the spelling and grammar of the numbered options and collapse the alternative drafts would editors be happy to continue with this RfC? Please bear in mind no RfCs are perfect or give perfect options hence WP:NOTAVOTE. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The Flying Cloud held the speed record for 130 years

• I've already voted "Close" in the #Survey section, so I won't bold it again here, to avoid the appearance of a double vote. This is a very contentious article, in what is probably one of the most contentious topic areas under WP:AC/DS currently, so I strongly respect and support the efforts by the Rfc initiator to create something to move this article forward, while facing all these headwinds. I feel the ship has been nearly wrecked in the storm (if I stumble into a metaphor, I'm gonna stick with it), and before it founders completely, we'd better head to port, and either make major repairs in drydock, or start out with a newer, slimmer, but stronger model. Whew; now what? "Ahoy", I think... Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with arguing over a better way of wording what we eventually choose. But the key issue was and is "do we call them Neo-nazi" and "how do were put it". Once this is decided we can work on a better text, that still obeys the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

References from posts above

References

'a Nazi symbol'

This Talk page is dominated by the quote. This suggests the quoted phrase contains the COMPLETE TRUTH. Please remove the quote. BTW the article is about Russian censorship, not about Ukrainian nazim, but who would read the article?Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• It is not obvious that the symbol is Nazi.
• Russia (150 millions) uses Z in a Nazi way. The Russian Armed Forces page does not discuss in the lead if the Forces are Nazi.

Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Frankly I have no idea what to do with this. What are you talking about? BSMRD (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, start to read from the beginning - the Haaretz (mis)quote.Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know what the actual issue is here. Possibly it would be best to close this section and keep the discussion in the “Symbol: Is it a wolfsangel? Does it resemble a wolfsangel” section above, as this talk page is already very cluttered. Xx236, please be clearer about what you’re actually requesting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

good point being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Is Azov still neo-nazi?

Can we still consider the Azov Regiment to be completely neo-nazi? It appears to me that right now it should be considered "ultranationalist with neofascist and neo-nazi elements inside it".-Karma1998 (talk)

See the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)