Jump to content

Talk:Azov Brigade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Azov Regiment)


    there's an error

    [edit]

    it needs to say brigada not brihada in the infobox 2600:1700:12F0:8270:81F6:C38A:EE7F:2C77 (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Where in the info box? Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume they mean in the romanized portion of the Ukrainian spelling. TylerBurden (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2024

    [edit]

    Азов ранее подразлеление отряда милиции особого назначенмя МВД Украины, создан для борьбы с террористической угрозой из от организованой преступности (рекет, теракты,заказные убийства, оборот наркотиков, оружия, торговля детьми и людьми), в военное время трансформировался в военную единицу, они имеюи ценный опытом в этом деле.

    Remains a Neo-Nazi movement

    [edit]

    @Genabab, please provide a quote from the source confirming your addition that "Azov remains a Neo-Nazi movement" [1] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @ManyareasexpertYou mean like here or in the page? because in any case the page reference is there. pg.110. Genabab (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quote please? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Manyareasexpert I'm asking again, here or in the reference? Genabab (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can provide it here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Despite this rather monolithic theoretical framing, the right-wing extremist milieu must be perceived as a heterogeneous ecosystem comprising various coexisting currents. Centring on contemporary Europe, Pauwels (2021) outlined anti-Islam and anti-immigrant movements, identitarian movements, far-right sovereign citizen movements, and single-issue extremists as its most prominent current cornerstones, aside from the traditional ones, i.e., neo-Nazis and neo-fascists (ultranationalists) (Ibid. 4-5). Knowing this, one must also acknowledge the inside evolution of this political spectrum. While the latter two exist on its fringe and are often subjected to repression in European countries, the others have quite successfully consolidated their existence in a way that allows them to participate in the liberal democratic arena, as those actors intentionally mask anti-democratic beliefs by implementing pseudo-democratic views. Therefore, even many neo-Nazis and neo-fascists have started associating with the less stigmatized currents (Umland and Shekhovtsov 2013, 36-37). To bridge the theoretical with the empirical, the following Ukrainian political parties and subcultural groupings—having from lower tenths to a few hundred activists—reflect the outlined definition of right-wing extremism. While the All-Ukrainian Union Party 'Svoboda,' National Corps, and Right Sector constitute the former, the Azov movement's affiliates, i.e., Centuria, Wotanjugend, NordStorm, Avangard, Alternativa, Solaris, Tradition and Order, Revanche, Freikorps, and Karpatska Sich, as well as the Brotherhood, C14, the OUN Volunteer Movement, the UNA-UNSO, and the Revolutionary Right Forces represent the latter." Genabab (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It later also states on pg.112 "After scrutinizing the data, the article identified the following Ukrainian right-wing extremist groups: Blood & Honour Division Ukraine and Combat 18,2 Wotanjugend, Misanthropic Division,3 Right Sector, Azov, Revanche Battalion, Karpatska Sich, NordStorm, and Centuria." Genabab (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you've misrepresented the source, again. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So who else supports it? Slatersteven (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    supAhh Im see, you wanted to revert all of it, not just the one line. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, messed with Ultraviolet script. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Manyareasexpert Do you mind elaborating? And why have you removed the edit without any reason? Genabab (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And why have you removed the edit without any reason?
    See Special:PermanentLink/1266287195#December 2024 . Azov brigade is not equal to Azov movement's affiliates. "a Neo-Nazi" is not equal to "right-wing extremist groups." ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > "a Neo-Nazi" is not equal to "right-wing extremist groups.
    this seems like a misreading of the source. It says "Therefore, even many neo-Nazis and neo-fascists have started associating with the less stigmatized currents" and then lists members of the Azov movement, which given how much this topic is something you are passionate about (and I can respect that), you are surely aware is not necessarily the same as the brigade.
    Consider for instance, Centuria has its own subsection in this page. Let's not pretend that's nothing.
    To conclude, it does tie into Azov and it does refer to them as neo-nazis Genabab (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    and then lists members of the Azov movement
    Centuria
    First, Azov movement is not Azov brigade.
    Second, Centuria is not Azov movement member.
    Also, Martin Zilvar is not a "political scientist", as your edit was saying. Another misrepresentation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Manyareasexpert
    > First, Azov movement is not Azov brigade.
    then why is there a section in this page called: Azov Movement. These two are objectively linked together. Would you object to me moving the edit into the Azov Movement section?
    >Second, Centuria is not Azov movement member.
    https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Azov_Brigade#Centuria
    > Also, Martin Zilvar is not a "political scientist"
    It says on his academia page that he is. How did you go about verifying what you're saying here? It's a little disappointing >_> Genabab (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we don't need to add misrepresentation of sources into the article.
    It says on his academia page that he is
    No proof, nothing to discuss. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. What if we compromise here. I add the edit into the page, but in the Azov Movement section and just call them "far-right extremists" (which, on an unrelated note is what Neo-Nazis are). I don't agree with you that calling them Neo-Nazis is a misrepresentation of the source, since it uses the term. But I can see it's not direct enough for your liking, so its unlikely you'll budge.
    That's a fair compromise by any standard, do you agree @Manyareasexpert?
    > No proof, nothing to discuss
    If you don't believe me: https://muni.academia.edu/MartinZilvar Genabab (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    in the Azov Movement section and just call them "far-right extremists"
    So you still intend to misrepresent the source.
    If you don't believe me: https://muni.academia.edu/MartinZilvar
    Graduate Student
    So, another misrepresentation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Manyareasexpert
    > So you still intend to misrepresent the source.
    "Despite this rather monolithic theoretical framing, the right-wing extremist milieu must be perceived as a heterogeneous ecosystem comprising various coexisting currents. [...] Knowing this, one must also acknowledge the inside evolution of this political spectrum. While the latter two exist on its fringe and are often subjected to repression in European countries, the others have quite successfully consolidated their existence in a way that allows them to participate in the liberal democratic arena, as those actors intentionally mask anti-democratic beliefs by implementing pseudo-democratic views. Therefore, even many neo-Nazis and neo-fascists have started associating with the less stigmatized currents [...] the Azov movement's affiliates, [...] represent the latter."
    If it needs further elaboration, the source is saying that the Azov Movement is part of a the "right wing extremist milieu" that masks its anti-democratic views.
    You framing that as misrepresentation is very bizarre.
    > Graduate Student So, another misrepresentation.
    this is just being bad faith. being a graduate doesn't mean you are now no longer a political scientist. Doubly so when the source is published in a peer-reviewed, double-blind university journal. There's no escaping that.
    The source was published on "Obrana a strategie"
    Which is from here: "https://www.obranaastrategie.cz/" Genabab (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Azov movement's affiliates
    is not equal to Azov movement. Another misrepresentation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Azov Movement affiliate means a member of the Azov Movement. Genabab (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to see the qoute. Slatersteven (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    OK according to the source provided they are a graduate student, so not even a professor. Who has three published papers (so not in fact a subject expert). Then we have [[2]], so a PhD student, but more papers (with almost zero cites). And [[3]], again a student. So no this failed wp:undue, as they are not in fact a recognized academic. Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok wait a second... Nowhere in undue does it say that you have to be a professor or how many papers you need published to be a reliable source. This feels like the actual misrepresentation here.
    Of course, I'm no epert either though your argument feels incredibly fishy.
    Is there any way to get a more authoritative editor to see if this violates Undue? If so, I'll step back. But as it stands right now, dismissing a paper published in a peer-reviewed, double-blind uni-journal seems... biased to say the least. @Slatersteven Genabab (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    being a graduate doesn't mean you are now no longer a political scientist
    — User:Genabab 13:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

    I lost the part where you prove that he is a political scientist? I think we need to stop discussing this bad faith tendentious POV pushing now. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True, it does not it just says "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources", the fact he is just a PHD student means it is not a "significant viewpoint". Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > the fact he is just a PHD student means it is not a "significant viewpoint".
    2 points to that:
    1. Why?
    2. Why is it then, published in an academic journal? You can't just ignore that Genabab (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Becasue he is not, in fact, significant, he is just one of many political science PHD students. So his views are not more important than any others, when (and if) he actually takes up an academic position or becomes a widely cited author then his views will be more relevant then every other PHD student. Untill then he is just another student. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > I lost the part where you prove that he is a political scientist?
    It was when I linked the academia.edu page which says just that. Genabab (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it did not, it said "Masaryk University, Department of Political Science, Graduate Student" its does not in fact call him a "political scientist" is calls him a student in that subject area. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sham trials

    [edit]

    Can we get a source on "after which Russia began sentencing Azov POWs in sham trials to punish them for defending Ukraine."? It's a grave statement to write without a source. 93Allan (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See Sham trials in Russia article section. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Brigade&oldid=1276601412"