Jump to content

Talk:Azov Brigade

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


    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]

    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.

    NPOV

    [edit]

    @Horse Eye's Back, we are not removing one POV [4] while expanding a fringe POV [5] in our effort to "WP:NPOV" the article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Being right is not a justification. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One major problem with the competence of your analysis: thats not a fringe POV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Lev Gorekin a major political analysis? Why is his opinion relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, its relevent because he is a major political analysis who is published in a whole myriad of RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is he wiki link to the article about him please. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a rhetorical question or mockery? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NO it's asking how notable are his views, if he a noted enough academic to have an article on Wikipedia, but let's extend it. Has he been published in peer-reviewed journals? How about his academic qualifications, what makes his views non fringe? Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not a RS and he does not have to be an academic. His views seem to be shared by others within the field, many seem to agree that Azov has not completely depolitiscized. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But if Academics say it is and non academics say its not, what is a fringe view. So let's use better sources. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No... Thats not what is happening here, all the academics aren't of one opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then lets use them, and leave him out, and only have the academic dispute. Why do he need HIS views, when others are available? Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agree. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are free to do so, but don't remove this until you have better... That how NPOV works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not how it works, it's down to those who want to include material to find the sources, not down to those who are arguing to exclude it. And wp:npov also means we only include all SIGNIFICANT viewpoints, his are (arguably not sifnigi=caont that this flail wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The publication of his views by RS suggests that they are signficant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MAybe, but publication in RS is not a guarantee they are. Moreover this has nothing to do with expecting us to find the sources supporting this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have sources which support this, what you have offered to do is to find better sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never made any such promise, it was said they exist therefore I suggested using them instead, and if this is already covered we go top "why do we need his views" as better sources already cover it (in there article). This really is getting more and more =unude as this now seems to be an argument for just including him for no other reason than he also said this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it seems the only thing we have established is that the view is not fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given abundance of more quality sources on a subject, journalists may well be omitted. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Academic researchers argue that the regiment has changed since its integration into the National Guard, tempering far-right elements and distancing from the movement. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you aware of the difference between a fringe view and a minority view? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    so, why one side POV was extended, while opposing POV removed? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't do that, are you confused? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    its either we keep none or both. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So its not fringe? You've argued yourself into a corner, if you believe that "its either we keep none or both" then you either don't believe that its fringe or don't know what that term means on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AS such I have reset it to before all the removal and addition, lets discuss this. If his views are worthy of inclusion, so is criticism of them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have reset it to one edit back, before all the addition and removals, I have now corrected that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Time for me to bail out for a bit and let others have their say, this seems to be a violation of wp:undue, and as such I oppose its inclusion until I say otherwise that objection stands. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BAck in for one message, read wp:brd and WP:ONUS, as well as wp:consensus, do not add any of this back in (read wp:revert) with out it. Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No consensus for your addition @Genabab, you are edit warning [7] [8], this is a warning for you to not to do so. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What specifically is the problem with elaborating on the source material? You appear to have a problem with merely expanding on something that others have agreed is a reliable source while nothing els ewas removed.
    You would be right to call it edit warring if i removed the quote of the man calling it "bugbearing" but as you can see, this has not happened. @Manyareasexpert. There is no reason to oppose the edit which simply elaborates on what comes before it. Genabab (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to extend journalist's POV not supported by academic publications. Quite the contrary, it should be removed in favor of the latter. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    > No need to extend journalist's POV
    Why?
    > not supported by academic publications
    By one academic publication. No one has demonstrated that this is consensus. And the views of major news outlets ought not to be treated as lesser.
    > Quite the contrary, it should be removed in favor of the latter.
    For someone concerned about consensus, I'm not sure why you're aiming to do that? @Manyareasexpert Genabab (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By one academic publication
    This sentence is false. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His POV is already summarized in the article, this article is called "Azov Brigade" not "Lev Gorekin's views on the Azov Brigade". Therefore we don't need to give him more weight than we give any other commentator considered WP:RS, unless you can give a good reason why we should. TylerBurden (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I should rephrase.
    What specifically do you believe is the problem with expanding on what is already in the page? Everyone seems to be in agreement over Gorekin's article being included. Why make it out to be a problem to simply elaborate more on what Gorekin actually says. You will note, in the areas quoting Gorekin it is only the conclusion he comes to that is shared. Never any of the evidence that he gives for it.
    This is significant as quoting someone saying "this is the case" is miles apart from quoting someone saying "this is the case, and here is why". Compare and contrast with other parts of the sub-section, which do give arguments as to why Azov is no longer a neo-nazi batallion. Its only fair if one side gets to give their evidence that the other side should be able to give their evidence. Doubly so when the majority of the "allegations of Neo-Nazism" subsection is filled with arguments saying that it isn't.
    In other words, its POV-pushing and it reeks of bias. @TylerBurden Genabab (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This already has been answered above. Please stop accusing other editors. This is the violation of Wikipedia:Personal attacks. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe it is. As I already made clear, simply saying "his POV is summarised" doesn't give anyone here any reason to remove the evidence he provides for said POV.
    I'd be more than willing to drop this objection if you could tell me why it is so objectionable that the evidence Gorekin provides is included. When other sources critical of his view are allowed to do so.
    I'm sorry you feel that way. Rest assured however that no personal attacks have been used here. I'm just concerned about the integrity of this page. Genabab (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Talk:Azov Brigade#c-Manyareasexpert-20240917152200-Genabab-20240917100300 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ?
    Nothing in that reply tells me why it is that Gorekin is an objectionable source? Genabab (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to expand journalist's POV which is not supported by academic publications. Quite the contrary, it should be removed in favor of the latter. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. It *is* supported by Academic publications
    2. That is not a reason. You are only asserting a conclusion. *Why* is it that there is no need to do that. Genabab (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is supported by academic publications then please replace the journalist with those. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...
    Why not both? Genabab (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might have linked me the wrong Wikipedia Policy. There is nothing in here which says both cannot be used. Genabab (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The question should be - why use journalist, when there are academic publications available? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that. I'm just saying, we can always use both. You're acting like journalistic sources are the devil's spawn. They're perfectly legitimate and can be used alongside academic ones. Genabab (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Manyareasexpert Can I take this as a sign to add both jounarlist sources and academic sources which have been discussed to this page? Genabab (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given there are objections against journalist sources, no. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok then I'm just adding the academic sources. At a later point I'll raise the debate about you being weirdly against news articles. Genabab (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please prefer sources which have significant coverage on article subject. Using sources which mention Azov only in one or two sentences to create a picture that there is a significant opposition against an opinion expressed by sources which have significant coverage on article subject is against WP:WEIGHT. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. WP:Weight does not make any mention of ignoring sources which do not wholly focus on said topic. Genabab (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, others have argued that Azov has not depoliticized - where is it in sources? it is still ... and fascist - where is it in sources? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Check the citation. The page number and what part of the source it comes from is said there smh Genabab (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what do you mean "its not there". What source are you ttalking abou Genabab (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sources to not say others have argued that Azov has not depoliticized and it is still ... and fascist. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they do? They do say that it is fascist, or white supremacist.
    the "others" in question are the people I have cited. Genabab (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see two users opposing any more expansion of his views. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    SO if this continues for another day, I fell an RFC will be in order, lets some fresh voices be heard. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Passing mention

    [edit]

    There is The unit has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology sentence in the lead which supported by some 4 sources. I have a suspicion that those are not in-depth sources on the subject and only have a passing mention on Azov. Let's check. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to have a whole section in the body, so its not out of place to say this in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but if we weigh the opinion that sources with dedicated research on the subject do say? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lede is a summary of the article, not a summery of the literature (that is called the article). Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, but we still can see what the sources with dedicated research on the subject say? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Time for others to chip in as I have said all I have to say, its in the body (and thus has a place in the lede). Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well the body says
    The unit has drawn controversy since its founding over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology, and its use of controversial symbols linked to Nazism.[69][251] Academic researchers argue that the regiment has changed since its integration into the National Guard, tempering far-right elements and distancing from the movement.
    If researches argue that the regiment has changed, why is allegedly continuing there then? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    John Feffer

    [edit]

    @Lute88 I re-added the edit but removed the mention of John Feffer due to your objection.

    However, I still wanted to ask, could you elaborate on why it is Feffer's source ought to be removed? For one, why do you believe he is Pro-Russia and is he not regarded as a reliable source? Genabab (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's prefer researches which are on the article subject. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Feffer's citation is on subject. It refers to Azov and, importantly, establishes links between them and Atomwaffen. Its relevance to the subject at hand is trivial Genabab (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't address the argument, it stays. Feffer's work is not a research on the article subject. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe let's let Lute88 address why they think its unreliable first Genabab (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Brigade&oldid=1246582280"