Jump to content

Talk:Azov Brigade

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


    Biletsky said in 2010

    [edit]

    From the article: The founder of the battalion, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen. But Ukraine's National Militia: 'We're not neo-Nazis, we just want to make our country better' | Ukraine | The Guardian Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric in recent years. Why to keep it at all? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That sentence was a big scandal and is often quoted in first-class sources, a sign that it is an important passage. Mhorg (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    is often quoted in first-class sources
    I haven't seen that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would the historical rhetoric be undue? This is an article which cover's Azov's history and it received significant coverage in RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Azov's, not Biletsky. I don't see the "significant coverage". The whole article is pushing "They are Neo-Nazis" too much, highlighting everything that has "Neo-Nazi" in their surrounding. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Biletsky... The founder of Azov? The Guardian article is significant coverage. Thats not an article about Biletsky, thats an article about Azov. If the RS highlight/push then so do we, thats how due weight works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guardian article is significant coverage
    No, it's called a single coverage :) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Washington Post,[1] Al Jazeera,[2] CNN[3] and much more. Mhorg (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me repeat the original argument which has not been attended and which is - given Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric in recent years, why to keep it at all? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Biletsky was fundamental in the creation of the Azov. Mhorg (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the argument above is not addressed, as well as The whole article is pushing "They are Neo-Nazis" too much, highlighting everything that has "Neo-Nazi" in their surrounding, those arguments remain. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have offered nothing which substantiates that argument, first you need to establish that it actually does that... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have offered nothing
    We did. See the article itself. Academic researchers argue that the regiment has changed since its integration into the National Guard, tempering far-right elements and distancing from the movement.[1][2] Alexander Ritzmann, a Senior Advisor to the Counter Extremism Project, wrote of the Azov Battalion: "when your country is under attack by foreign invaders, it is understandable that Ukrainians will not focus on the political views of their co-defenders, but on who can and will fight the invaders".[3] Researchers note that since its formation, Azov has been through general depolitization, acted "with considerably less neo-Nazism and extremism", "and included Muslims, Jews, and other minorities within its ranks".[4]
     ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who else is included in "we"? And none of that says that this article gives undue weight to their far right links. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We the authors. Your argument posted above is answered.
    You have offered nothing which substantiates that argument ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who are the other authors you believe have substantiated this argument beyond yourself, be specific. Again none of that says that this article gives undue weight to their far right links. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See academic references given above. Any of those mentions he founder of the battalion, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric in recent years in their conclusions? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of them seem to mention wikipedia at all in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't need to be that specific. If they don't mention Biletsky's changed past, why should we. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They do actually need to be that specific. You've already been presented with a number of sources which talk about Azov's founding principles, that some other sources are less specific isn't reason not to include. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They do actually need to be that specific
    Let's concentrate on the argument. Which is that you need to prove the need for The founder of the battalion, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric in recent years.
    You've already been presented with a number of sources which talk about Azov's founding principles
    Those are press, we don't need to look at them given abundance on academic sources on the subject.
    that some other sources are less specific isn't reason not to include.
    Not just "some". Academic sources, contrasted to the press.
    Now, let me remind you of another argument you are trying to move off from: you asked to substantiate The whole article is pushing "The whole article is pushing "They are Neo-Nazis" too much, highlighting everything that has "Neo-Nazi" in their surrounding , and you got academic sources which don't mention the contested "fact". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An absense of evidence is not evidence, that substantiates nothing. Also none of those are full academic sources unless I'm missing something, I see two popular press articles (France 24 and Euro News), one think tank piece (Atlantic Council), and one which I'm not entirely sure about which seems to be a commentary piece. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An absense of evidence is not evidence, that substantiates nothing
    If academic sources don't mention the contested "fact", why should we?
    Also none of those are full academic sources
    (99+) Vol. 419 Far Right Extremist Movements Fighting in Ukraine Implications for Post conflict Europe | Andreas Wimmer - Academia.edu is from an academic book - Chapter 7: Far-Right Extremist Movements Fighting in Ukraine: Implications for Post-Conflict Europe in: A Research Agenda for Far-Right Violence and Extremism (elgaronline.com)
    We have more. Like Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: (taylorfrancis.com)
    Like Foreign Fighters in Ukraine: The Brown–Red Cocktail - Kacper Rękawek - Google Books . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So you agree that you misrepresented three of those sources as academic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again you haven't addressed the argument. If we are down to claiming that books published by Edward Elgar Publishing, Routledge and Taylor & Francis are not academic than we should stop here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is addressing a misrepresentation of fact in the argument not addressing the argument? If you want to focus on the overall presentation of arguments you appear to be engaged in a gish gallop, you've been given sources which indicate that mention is due... But you keep pivoting and squirming despite multiple other editors telling you the same thing. So just to be clear you think thats its due to note that they've become less radical, but not what being radical entailed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not an insignificant detail. Michael Colborne mentions it on p. 27 of his From the Fires of War. Ukraine's Azov Movement and the Global Far Right when he writes about the roots of the movement. Alaexis¿question? 08:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally an argument which has ground. Although In June 2022, Colborne told Haaretz that the battalion has gone through changes over the years. After the first few years that the battalion was founded, only a small minority had far right connections. He noted that today, these numbers are even smaller and the use of neo-Nazi symbols among its members has been reduced greatly.[285]
    and Later in 2023, a year after Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Colborne reassessed that the brigade's priority had shifted from ideology to fighting the war effectively. He argued that any far-right elements within the Azov Regiment were likely to continue to become less significant as the unit expands and the war takes priority.[272] ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, this is his opinion which is mentioned in the article, even if it's not shared by everyone. It doesn't follow from this that Biletsky's words should be removed. Alaexis¿question? 16:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'driveby commenter familiar with the article history: First of all, based on a very crude Google hit count, "show trial" seems to come up more than "sham trial", but yes, they seem pretty synonymous. "Sham trial" mostly brings up stuff about drug trials, though, but that drops considerably if you search include the quote marks in the search, ie Google "sham trial" not sham trial. Show trial does have Stalinist overtones in my opinion, but maybe that is appropriate. I haven't looked at this topic in a while, but yes, Russian propaganda for the domestic market definitely say that Nazis were running Ukraine and Russia needed to take care of that. Much was made of the fact that some towns in Ukraine welcomed the Nazis in World War 2. Domestic propaganda also said that there was no war in Ukraine, just a special operation. I do not know if that is still true and do not have time to research it -- I am just passing through to look up something that has a deadline.
    However, particularly in western Ukraine and Galicia, a lot of Ukrainians thought that the Nazis were there to liberate them from the Soviets, who had been shipping the grain harvests back to Russia, thereby causing artificially-induced famines. I am just the messenger and am completely neutral on this point. However I notice that a lot of the sources are from 2014, when some people still considered the government of Ukraine a plaything of the Russian oligarchy, so there are questions about everyone's affiliations, pretty much. A couple of policy points -- yes we do consider how much weight to give to sources. We do not have to enumerate every single talking point anyone has ever made about them. But surely there are more recent sources than 2014. If they were actually notable and if the unit still exists. I though that the ones in the foundry weretaken prisoner and then the barracks where the Russians were holding them got shelled on night, oops. I could be wrong about that though. Maybe the unit was rebuilt. When I worked on the article before, the sources were pretty bad. A man in Belarus was arrested for wearing a t-shirt with a skull on it. The policeman thought that the skull was an Azov emblem. It wasn't. I kid you not. That police-blotter item was ALL that that source had to say about Azov. This is what we call an in passim reference, and both academic books and serious long-form articles about the military unit itself, not something else, should get more weight than *that* source, if it is still being used. It looks like the one about 40 Congressmen still is, and while that would be an improvement if so, the average US Congressman would not be able to find Ukraine on a map.
    I suggest scrutiny of the sources, and a search of some academic databases, to anyone who comes through here with some time on their hands. To be clear, it's entirely possible that the group's soccer hooligan founder once wore Doc Martins and threw a Nazi salute a time or two in his life. But do we have sources that say that? If so hurray; some progress has been made. My next observation is that the names under "Commander" look poorly sourced, and that should be addressed. Don't be afraid to go to RSN and give people a chance to verify the sources. HTH Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Azov Regiment takes centre stage in Ukraine propaganda war". France 24. 25 March 2022. Archived from the original on 25 March 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2022.
    2. ^ Shekhovtsov, Anton (24 February 2020). "Why Azov should not be designated a foreign terrorist organization". Atlantic Council. Archived from the original on 2 June 2021.
    3. ^ Ritzmann, Alexander (12 April 2022). "The myth that far-right zealots run Ukraine is Russian propaganda". Euronews. Archived from the original on 2 June 2022.
    4. ^ Wimmer, Andreas (2023-01-01). "Vol. 419 Far Right Extremist Movements Fighting in Ukraine Implications for Post conflict Europe". Commentaries.

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

    [edit]

    Add Pokrovsk Offensive to list of engagements of the Azov brigade. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    source:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/09/06/ukrainian-reinforcements-are-counterattacking-outside-pokrovsk/ CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done TylerBurden (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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" [4] . 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 [[5]], so a PhD student, but more papers (with almost zero cites). And [[6]], 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]
    Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Brigade&oldid=1266415122"