Talk:Azov Brigade: Difference between revisions
Selfstudier (talk | contribs) |
Staberinde (talk | contribs) →RFC designation of Azov "Battalion" as neo-Nazi in lede: so how good these sources actually are? |
||
Line 1,830: | Line 1,830: | ||
*[https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/ The Nation]: Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a '''neo-Nazi formation''' in its armed forces. |
*[https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/ The Nation]: Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a '''neo-Nazi formation''' in its armed forces. |
||
*[https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/congress-has-removed-a-ban-on-funding-neo-nazis-from-its-year-end-spending-bill/ The Nation]: '''neo-Nazi groups''', such as the Azov Battalion |
*[https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/congress-has-removed-a-ban-on-funding-neo-nazis-from-its-year-end-spending-bill/ The Nation]: '''neo-Nazi groups''', such as the Azov Battalion |
||
:*Dated, from 2016.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/02/neo-nazi-groups-recruit-britons-to-fight-in-ukraine 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''' |
*[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/02/neo-nazi-groups-recruit-britons-to-fight-in-ukraine 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.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/world/europe/islamic-battalions-stocked-with-chechens-aid-ukraine-in-war-with-rebels.html NY Times]: Another, the Azov group, is '''openly neo-Nazi''' |
*[https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/world/europe/islamic-battalions-stocked-with-chechens-aid-ukraine-in-war-with-rebels.html NY Times]: Another, the Azov group, is '''openly neo-Nazi''' |
||
:*Dated, from 2015.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states Center for Strategic and International Studies] a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is '''associated with neo-Nazi ideology''' |
*[https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states 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.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html The Telegraph] Ukraine crisis: the '''neo-Nazi brigade''' fighting pro-Russian separatists |
*[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html The Telegraph] Ukraine crisis: the '''neo-Nazi brigade''' fighting pro-Russian separatists |
||
:*Dated, from 2014.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://time.com/5926750/azov-far-right-movement-facebook/ 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.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://www.wired.com/story/neo-nazis-are-running-out-of-places-to-hide-online/ Wired] Azov Battalion, a '''Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary group''' |
|||
:*[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology.]], which doesn't cover Azov.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/30/preparing-for-war-with-ukraines-fascist-defenders-of-freedom/ Foreign Policy] The Azov Battalion [...] this '''openly neo-Nazi unit''' |
*[https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/30/preparing-for-war-with-ukraines-fascist-defenders-of-freedom/ Foreign Policy] The Azov Battalion [...] this '''openly neo-Nazi unit''' |
||
:*Dated, from 2014.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/artykuly/1439737,pul-azow-ukraina-strefa-wplywow.html Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (POL)] Azov is a real problem. '''The neo-Nazi regiment''' |
*[https://www.gazetaprawna.pl/wiadomosci/artykuly/1439737,pul-azow-ukraina-strefa-wplywow.html Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (POL)] Azov is a real problem. '''The neo-Nazi regiment''' |
||
:*The statement quoted falls under [[WP:Headlines]], making it unreliable.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://nationalpost.com/news/world/fears-that-canada-may-help-neo-nazis-in-ukraine-with-training-mission-starting-soon National Post] The amendments, passed unanimously by members of both parties, blocks “the training of the '''Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia''' Azov Battalion,” |
*[https://nationalpost.com/news/world/fears-that-canada-may-help-neo-nazis-in-ukraine-with-training-mission-starting-soon 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.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://www.dw.com/en/belarus-torture-survivors-take-legal-action-in-germany/a-57502799 Deutsche Welle] Azov Battalion, a '''neo-Nazi volunteer regiment''' |
*[https://www.dw.com/en/belarus-torture-survivors-take-legal-action-in-germany/a-57502799 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: [https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151].--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/403260.belarus-die-amis-und-der-neonazi.html Junge Welt (DE)] The Ukrainian '''neo-Nazi battalion''' |
*[https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/403260.belarus-die-amis-und-der-neonazi.html Junge Welt (DE)] The Ukrainian '''neo-Nazi battalion''' |
||
:*Unreliable, [[Junge Welt]] is a self-described left-wing and Marxist newspaper.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://www.ilmessaggero.it/primopiano/esteri/ucraina_nazisti_volontari_guerra_kiev-924360.html Il Messaggero (ITA)]: Ukraine, '''pro-Nazi units''' alongside the army |
*[https://www.ilmessaggero.it/primopiano/esteri/ucraina_nazisti_volontari_guerra_kiev-924360.html Il Messaggero (ITA)]: Ukraine, '''pro-Nazi units''' alongside the army |
||
:*Dated, from 2015.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://ilmanifesto.it/ucraina-pogrom-di-stato-contro-la-comunita-rom/ Il Manifesto (ITA)] '''Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion''' |
*[https://ilmanifesto.it/ucraina-pogrom-di-stato-contro-la-comunita-rom/ Il Manifesto (ITA)] '''Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion''' |
||
:*Unreliable, [[Il Manifesto]] is a self-described communist paper.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-battalion-russia/ The Intercept] '''Neo-Nazi Ukrainian Battalion''' |
*[https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-battalion-russia/ The Intercept] '''Neo-Nazi Ukrainian Battalion''' |
||
*[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment Al Jazeera] '''neo-Nazi group''' |
*[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment Al Jazeera] '''neo-Nazi group''' |
||
:*The statement quoted falls under [[WP:Headlines]], making it unreliable.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-azov-battalion-mariupol-neo-nazis-b2043022.html The independent] '''neo-Nazi Azov Battalion''' |
*[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-azov-battalion-mariupol-neo-nazis-b2043022.html The independent] '''neo-Nazi Azov Battalion''' |
||
:*The statement quoted falls under [[WP:Headlines]], making it unreliable.--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*[https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/04/ukraine-russia-putin-azov-neo-nazis-western-media The Jacobin] '''the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment''' |
*[https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/04/ukraine-russia-putin-azov-neo-nazis-western-media The Jacobin] '''the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment''' |
||
:*Biased source: [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources|There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source.]].--[[User:Staberinde|Staberinde]] ([[User talk:Staberinde|talk]]) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) |
|||
{{cbot}} |
{{cbot}} |
||
{{collapse top|title=Recent sources that say Azov used to be neo-nazi, or something to that effect.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Adoring nanny|Adoring nanny]] ([[User talk:Adoring nanny#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Adoring nanny|contribs]]) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)</span>}} |
{{collapse top|title=Recent sources that say Azov used to be neo-nazi, or something to that effect.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Adoring nanny|Adoring nanny]] ([[User talk:Adoring nanny#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Adoring nanny|contribs]]) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)</span>}} |
Revision as of 12:11, 11 April 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Azov Brigade article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 21 days ![]() |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the use of neo-Nazi descriptor in the lede. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic. |
Q1: Why is the Azov Regiment described as having neo-Nazi elements?
A1: The consensus among editors is that the preponderance of reliable sources describe the group as such. For the discussion that led to this consensus, see here (May 2022), and for the previous discussion on the topic see here (July 2021). |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article Last six months (log scale)
Last 30 days (linear scale)
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
RfC about the neo-Nazi descriptor
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 20:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC). |
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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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)
| ||
---|---|---|
Editdone (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
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)
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 [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PompeyTheGreat (talk • contribs) 19:33, 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)
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)
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- does not, as far as I can tell, mention either Azov or Ukraine
- 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.
- US budget legislation
- cherry-picked: both sides article, one side quoted
- 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. [1][2][3]. 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. [4][5][6] - 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)
- They were described as neo-Nazis by WP:RSes long before Putin started talking about them, eg. [1][2][3]. 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. [4][5][6] - 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)
- 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)
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
- ^ Umland, Andreas (2 January 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): 105–131. doi:10.1080/09546553.2018.1555974. ISSN 0954-6553.
- ^ Saressalo, Teemu; Huhtinen, Aki-Mauri (2 October 2018). "The Information Blitzkrieg — "Hybrid" Operations Azov Style". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 31 (4): 423–443. doi:10.1080/13518046.2018.1521358. ISSN 1351-8046.
- ^ Risch, William Jay (2015). "What the Far Right Does Not Tell Us about the Maidan". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 16 (1): 137–144. doi:10.1353/kri.2015.0011. ISSN 1538-5000.
- ^ "Profile: Who are Ukraine's far-right Azov regiment?". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
- ^ Beauchamp, Zack (24 February 2022). "Putin's "Nazi" rhetoric reveals his terrifying war aims in Ukraine". Vox. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
- ^ Jackson, Paul (22 February 2022). Online activists. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-5261-5673-0 – via www.manchesterhive.com.
- 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)
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)
The batallion is neo-nazi.. is this a fact? Averied (talk) 18:56, 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)
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)
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)
No ToeSchmoker (talk) 23:03, 16 March 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."
...“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!)
EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:09, 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)
References
- ^ https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war
- ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404
- ^ https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151
- ^ https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movement-far-right-intl-cmd/index.html
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/
- ^ https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d
Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022 (3)
![]() | This edit request to Azov Battalion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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.
andThe 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)
- 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)
- Well said,
- 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)
- I think, Neo-nazi kind of covers it anyway so they could be removed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 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)
- We certainly need to say Neo-nazi only once. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 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)
|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Best you do it, as I am well involved it might put people backs out. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 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)
- 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)
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
[4]); or unambiguously use Azov Battalion as the English-language name for the movement (eg. the Washington Post sayingThe would-be militants have been recruited by groups like the Azov Battalion, a far-right nationalist Ukrainian paramilitary and political movement.
[5]) 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?
- You’re wrong. Please check the archives at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
- 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)
- 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)
- Wait wait did you just say that Deutsche Wells is unreliable? And produce a YouTube link to prove it?
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- ^ https://www.rollcall.com/2021/02/16/pentagon-report-reveals-inroads-white-supremacists-have-made-in-military/
- ^ https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/takeaway/segments/228802-us-militarys-history-recruiting-and-retaining-neo-nazis
- ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/09/white-supremacist-group-patriot-front-one-in-five-applicants-tied-to-us-military
- ^ "What Is Ukraine's Azov Battalion?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 2022-03-22.
- ^ "Neo-Nazis are exploiting Russia's war in Ukraine for their own purposes". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-03-22 – via www.washingtonpost.com.
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Already used...--Mhorg (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK, that's a win, use this as the source. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 23 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)
- @Slatersteven That is not even close to the definition of what nazi is... Ergzay (talk) 10:48, 30 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)
- 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)
- 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'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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- You made a change without providing a source.--Mhorg (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhorg Please discuss rather than reverting. Ergzay (talk) 11:02, 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:[1]*[2][3]
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- ^ https://spzh.news/en/news/35596-azov-nationalist-party-nests-extremely-brutal-neo-pagans-sectologist
- ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2015/4/15/christian-talibans-crusade-on-ukraines-front-lines
- ^ https://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/11/look-far-right-and-look-right-again-azov-batalion-neo-pagan-neo-nazi/
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)
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
- 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)
- I am at 3rr. Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 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)
- So what do we say "Lev Golinkin (a writer on Ukrians affairs)"? Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 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)
- 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.[1][2]. I do not consider Golinkin an authority on the Azov Battalion. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:36, 6 April 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)
- 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)
References (Lev Golinkin)
References
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:
- That isn't my current username, so I'm not going to receive a ping about your comment if you try to ping "Mikehawk10".
- 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)
- 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)
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:
Remove fake russian propaganda from the article. 46.211.101.54 (talk) 13:27, 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)
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)
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)
|
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)
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)
Read this please ---> [64] - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
OK might be time to gauge consensus. Proposed optionsPlease say just yay.
Yay. Not in the lede. It is preposterous.Disconnected Phrases (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Comment - Same here, do we have any source that says which used to be neo-Nazi ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
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:
Russian Wikipedia solution: Некоторых участников подразделения связывают с ультраправой[15] и неонацистской идеологией Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
commentsI think that's all. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 1 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)
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)
Comment Recent sourcing is different from older sourcing. See WaPo
Projected RFCTally (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
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)
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.Cite error: A - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:03, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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 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 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)
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)
|
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"!
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
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)
"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."
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.
"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)
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)
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)
|
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:
-- 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
Not a democracy
Note that whilst this is about an AFD, it is nonetheless relevant to any "vote".
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
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)
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.
—Michael Z. 21:00, 4 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)
- MAybe, but we are talking about having that one line in our article. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 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)
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.[11][12][13] Russia is committing genocide in the Ukraine right now based on false claims that Ukraine is a neo-Nazi country.[14][15] Russia uses the word Nazi to mean "doesn't want to be part of Russia."[16] 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.[17][18] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 05:47, 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)
We are discussing what to ask above, and this RFC is badly flawed. Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 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)
Sources for neo-Nazi descriptor
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)
References: RfC on the Purported neo-Nazi Nature of the Azov BattalionReferences
|
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)
|
---|
Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 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..." 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. 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
|
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 WolfTalkBlaze 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)
- 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.[1] 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]
- 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 asIt 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)
- Good point. What's a better way of phrasing it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 10 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)
References (Symbol: Is it a wolfsangel? Does it resemble a wolfsangel?)
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)
|
"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)
|
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."[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 02:19, 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)
Again, wait for the RFC and make your case there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 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)
|
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
|
---|
|
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.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page). Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence,[1] relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism,[2] and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers.[3] 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".[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]</ref>[11][12] - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments about alternative draft 2
|
---|
|
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
|
---|
|
- 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.
|
---|
|
RfC is underway whether we like it or not. Need to clear away the clutter.
|
---|
@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)
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)
This is unbelievable. Is this RFC valid or not? Can we vote now?--Mhorg (talk) 14:07, 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)
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)
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
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)
|
---|
|
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 MSNBC youtube CBS "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" Jerusalem Post Foreign Affairs BBC AFP via France 24 CommonWealth Magazine (Taiwanese magazine, Chinese name: 天下雜誌) Radio Télévision Suisse (FR) |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Closing request was made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#RfC_at_Azov_Battalion.--Staberinde (talk) 21:32, 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)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Flying_Cloud_-_Some_ships_of_the_clipper_ship_era%2C_their_builders%2C_owners%2C_and_captains%3B_%281913%29_0023_%2814590133637%29.jpg/180px-Flying_Cloud_-_Some_ships_of_the_clipper_ship_era%2C_their_builders%2C_owners%2C_and_captains%3B_%281913%29_0023_%2814590133637%29.jpg)
- 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
- ^ Saressalo, T., & Huhtinen, A.-M. (2018). The Information Blitzkrieg — “Hybrid” Operations Azov Style. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(4), 423–443.
- ^ Chossudovsky, M. (2015). Ukraine’s neo-Nazi summer camp. Guardian (Sydney), (1701), 7.
- ^ 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.
- ^ 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), 105-131.
- ^ 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.
- ^ Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall" Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 33-41.
- ^ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2017-08-01/how-ukraine-reined-its-militias
- ^ AFP in https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/
- ^ https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d
- ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404
- ^ https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151
'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)
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- C-Class Ukraine articles
- Low-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class national militaries articles
- National militaries task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia requests for comment