Talk:Azov Brigade/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Picture without proof

The linked picture have the notice "citation needed" i understand it like a proof is missing. The soldier / guy in the picture wearing german military clothes, helmet and helmet cover (Helmbezug). Non combatant signs are visible. That means it isn't sure that he is a combatant = regular forces and official member of any state or military organisation. Since it has already an questionmark i would recommend to remove the picture. --89.145.60.157 (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Azov

This article does not give a lot of information. Most of it is repeating itself several times. Sjould be shortened to 2-4000 words. 89.8.93.233 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

there is no western press in this article?

no mention of western support for a neo-Nazi terrorist group? 2804:D59:9012:4700:DCE:DE03:8D70:D06B (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't talk about that here, it's very inconvenient for western interests. You should know that Wikipedia is part of western media, and so must conform to our interests. We can't allow facts about our support for Azov to get out 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:F42D:85DD:AAF:FFD (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@2804:D59:9012:4700:DCE:DE03:8D70:D06B right okay 🙄 2600:1008:B149:7AEC:FD6C:BEF4:411D:F89 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

IP please ignore the other IP (that sounds weird). That's not true whatsoever. See WP:NOTCENSORED. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

This. We do not censor anything and encourage fair and unbiased access to everyone. Except for those Chinese wikipedians, we don't talk about them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:D165:AAF1:3D25:3E2C (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes we do. Please be nice. While Chinese Wikipedia may not be nearly as large (or possibly as uncensored, I don't know I don't speak Chinese) as enWiki, they're still part of Wikipedia. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Not to rag on you, but I need you to understand how twisted your logic sounds here…. ❝Wikipedia isn't censored, we've got an article stating the lack of censorship❞

"What about China?"

❝OK, Chinese wikipedia isn't nearly as uncensored❞….

Straight out of Animal Farm, ❝All Wikipedians are equal, but some Wikipedians are more equal than others!❞ 2600:6C56:6100:46E:30F8:F81D:93A:AD7E (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

IP edit, 27 February 2022

Are they fighting at the moment in the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F2:BF0F:5900:50A8:435E:6BA1:9029 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I know this is a late reply, but yes, they are. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of References!

As of today (10th March 2022) there are a total of 112 references. Number 2 relates to a document dated just a few days earlier. I don't believe the following 110 references have been added in just a few days, so does that mean that ref 2 has been edited? If so, is it still a relevant and reliable source? 86.13.148.233 (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References are not numbered based on date, but rather the order in which they appear in the article. BSMRD (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022 (2)

The entire article is spreading hatred and russian propaganda. No reliable sources to support stated facts. Needs to be removed. Rusana2000 (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I am working to improve this article, but apparently there is a formal arbitration process called a request for comment (RfC). There has been an RfC that decided to call them neo-Nazis. This RfC was overturning a previous RfC that decided they could not be called neo-Nazis. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, so I do not understand all of this well and I am now waiting to see what happens and trying to educate myself on the processes involved. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

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.

---

Can you please provide a credible source as to how this group is “right-wing extremists”?Thanks! I believe they’re neo-nazi fascists and in no way represent the right wing. My source being the only evidence I have seen regarding the verbiage of them being right wing extremists are all from media outlets. Unless Wikipedia is as corrupt as rest of the world, which wouldn’t surprise me given the extremely growing presence of government intervention in censorship. Hope to hear back sooner than later. 98.253.192.54 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Neo-Nazism and fascism are far-right ideologies. This is well established. wwklnd (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The IP is right. Nazism (National Socialism) is a hybrid mix of left and right-wing ideas. Interestingly, the existence of the Azov Battalion does lend credibility to Putin's statement that he's invading Ukraine to rid it of Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.10.198 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Reposting my reply from my User Talk page: I'm sorry, but this position is contrary to essentially all established political science, and the idea that Nazism and fascism aren't right-wing is a pretty fringe position to take. Regardless of the word "socialism" present in their name, the German Nazis were strongly opposed to communism and labour unions. They did oppose laissez-faire capitalism, but the economic system of Nazi Germany was quite solidly capitalist. Similarly, the economics of fascism are generally corporatist and focused on class collaboration rather than the class struggle of leftist politics. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It is not a fringe position, it's a literal fact. No legitimate political scientist thinks the Nazis or Fascists were right wing. Mussolini was a literal communist before creating Fascism. The vast majority of the Nazi party leaders were socialists. The right wing believes in natural hierarchy and the individual when it comes to property and fiscal rights; that's the LITERAL definition per the original meaning of the term in France, you can even read this on Wikipedia. To say otherwise is a lie, I don't care if you're a professor or a self-proclaimed "political scientist." I like how your laughable logic is "white racism or nationalism = right wing" yet Arab nationalism, Black nationalism, etc, are never called this. Wikipedia is a joke because of people like you; racism and/or nationalism are NOT automatically right wing. To say this is a lie. Right and Left are concepts that LITERALLY only deal with property and fiscal ownership, with far left being communal ownership, and far right being individual ownership. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. Stop lying, stop citing liars and pseudoscientists. 50.245.51.73 (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you are wrong and your comment shows a profound lack of familiarity with the subject. Despite your claims to the contrary, it is a fringe position, and Mussolini being a communist earlier in his life does not mean that fascism is not a right-wing ideology, and the claim that the majority of Nazi party leaders were socialists is just flat out wrong. Ernst Röhm and the Strasser brothers were opposed to capitalism, yes, but they were staunchly anti-communist and their anti-capitalism was rooted in anti-semitism and the idea of "Jewish finance capital". Claiming that political Left and Right only have to do with property relations and ownership is also inaccurate, both in a historical context and in contemporary political science. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The very first Nazi prison camp, Dachau, was built to imprison Communists, Social Democrats, and trade unionists. Kind of an odd strategy for a supposedly left-wing party. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Not odd at all. It is a logical fallacy to assert that to be a rival to communists necessarily made one a member of the right wing. Don't forget that at this time the "far right" in Germany was composed mainly of monarchists. Hitler was just as anti-right-wing as he was anti-communist. He was anti-capitalist as well. Stalin executed Bukharin and murdered Trotsky, not because 'Uncle Joe' was such a staunch anti-communist but because all three headed (communist) factions competing for the same real estate on the political spectrum. This is also true of Nazis and Communists, both of whom stemmed from similar philosophical foundations.

Also, you forgot to mention that Dachau imprisoned tens of thousands of Jews, Catholic priests, industrialists, and political prisoners of all persuasions, which I must say is a quite common (and sadly familiar) strategy for far left-wing parties. 2600:1700:13C0:938:79E3:15F9:CF65:5F75 (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Communism is not the same as socialism. There are indeed socialist ideas in nazism. An openness to state expenditure and investment is an obvious one.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

What left winged ideas does Nazism use? Genabab (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

While it is true that the far-left persecuted/persecutes political enemies, it doesn't change the fact that nazism is inherently far-right, its also true that they had some left wing aspects like the hatred for lassez-faire, but they truly hated leftism in general (socialism, communism, anarchism, trade unionism, social-democracy, etc), though they also persecuted right-wing moderate capitalists and liberals due to ideological differences, also, while the thing about the Azov Batallion being neo nazi should give Russia a bit of credibility on the part of "denazifying Ukraine", everyone forgets the Interbrigades of the Russian national bolshevist (NazBol) party, and the volunteers from the Neo-Nazi Russian party fighting for the Donbas separatists.

in addition, many political scientists say that nazism and fascism are mainly far-right, although having a few far-left ideals. and yes, mussolini was a socialist, although he abandoned the class struggle stuff for a more nationality-focused idea, and, no, although the strasserites (more left-leaning nazis, although they werent staunch communists) existed, most were purged in the Night of the Long Knives, which means that probably all of the nazi high command was, inherently, not left-wing or left-leaning. also, although there is anti-communist opposition in the left, most of it comes from the right itself, monarchism also can be moderate (parliamentary monarchism), so not all monarchists in Germany were far right, Hitler was not "anti-right wing", and he wasnt "anti-capitalist", he was, in fact, a state capitalist (state companies existed but also private ones and a lot of monopolies), in the end, while nazism, fascism and communism have similarities, they arent the same ideas, and they dont come from the same philosophical teaching (class struggle for communism and racial/national struggle for fascism and nazism) now, the rest of your comment is basically personal attacks and revisionism, no one said that racism and nationalism is all right wing (it also exists in extremist leftist ideologies like stalinism, maoism, juche, etc), Wikipedia isn't a joke, and, again, right and left aren't only market stuff, no one is citing liars and "pseudoscientists". EpicWikiLad (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of thinking of it as a political spectrum with left and right 'wings,' it might be better to think of it as a ring. The Nazis and Fascists (not the same thing) are so 'right wing' that they circle back round to the far 'left wing' as well, occupying a bit of both spaces. This is precisely how der Fuher himself described Nazi ideology. 2600:1700:13C0:938:79E3:15F9:CF65:5F75 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

i dont know about that, so i guess ill pull out of the discussion and let you two fight it off... EpicWikiLad (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Any claim that fascism and Nazism are not right-wing ideologies is solidly WP:FRINGE, and it is clearly specified with citations in the Wikipedia articles for neo-Nazism and fascism that they are far-right ideologies. If you want to keep up this insistence, go start a discussion there instead. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Treating this as a single-axis line from far-left to far-right is stultifying. Think instead of "left-wing" as being redistributive, social provision; and right-wing as being low-tax. Then add a Y-axis: liberal->authoritarian. Then you can compare liberal and authoritarian socialists, and liberal and authoritarian low-taxers.

FWIW, I don't think the first sentence of the lede should be stating in Wikipedia's voice the political alignment of a military unit ("far-right extremist neo-nazi"). Obviously the unit itself doesn't have political opinions! By stating such things in the very definition of what the unit is, the article discredits itself; an experienced WP user encountering that first sentence will say to herself "Uh-oh, this is one of those WP articles that is a political battleground, I'll take everything that follows with a bushel of salt".

For my part, I *know* it's a political battleground, and I know the 1st Chairborne Division are all over it - like any other political battleground. But it does no credit to Wikipedia to have that fact advertised in the very first sentence of the lede.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Should we take any notice of a poster who claims the whole world is corrupt? Netanyahuserious (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022 (2)

change "right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi, formerly paramilitary unit" to "right-wing formerly paramilitary unit" Wked00 (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Sources are reliable and adequate. - hako9 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC) - hako9 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hako9: are you sure about that? Please see my deconstruction of the sources in the RFC. They *look* convincing based on the citation but they all fail verification.Elinruby (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The absurdity of your "deconstruction" above, merits no response. The preponderance of sources already present in the article (explicitly mentioning the neo-nazi nature of this group) and hundreds of other western media sources spanning upto 8 years ago, which are a google search away btw, are quite enough. - hako9 (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Merit no response it may, I've written one up regardless. The sources cited in the lead are more than enough for the lines they are cited for, especially in conjunction with the body coverage. BSMRD (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@BSMRD saw that. You do realize that a source can be reliable in one context and not snother, right? And that even if true - which I question - putting a bullet in pig fat might make you a racist asshole, but it doesn’t prove you’re “neo-Nazi”? I am doing something else right now though; I will come back to this silly argument.Elinruby (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Hako9 We are talking about a specific change to a specific sentence in the lede. I am a complete agnostic on whether tbey are or are not neo-Nazis, so stop with the straw men. I am saying that in this specific sentence the words that this editor wants to remove are inadequately sourced. If everybody knows this is correct and there are a lot of RS then use them. I have no idea why this is difficult, but you guys really do need to brush up on the definition of a reliable source, because those sources don’t meet it. If you have some that do, then great. Use them. Don’t refer me to Google. Elinruby (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

btw, note that I am not here asking you to make this change. I could make it myself, but although I currently think the change *should* be made, I am politely asking you to improve the sourcing for the statement, so we can resolve this that way. And also, I am in favor of editor retention and don’t like to see new editors disrespected. Elinruby (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing is fine. As I've already explained, your deconstruction is entirely spurious, and several additional sources have been provided on this talk page and in the archived RfC. Not every source needs to be placed in the article (in fact it is better if it is not, there is such a thing as WP:OVERCITE). If you think more citations should be added to the lines then take your pick from those given around here and add them to the page if you feel that strongly about it. Alternatively, if you can, find something that says definitely and incontrovertibly that Azov are not neo-Nazis (in contravention to all the sources given) and we can take the line out. BSMRD (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022 (2)

The *main opening description of this group* states, without evidence, that "in 2015, a similar ban on aid to the group had been overturned by Congress." Where does the Nation article, or any other source, actually support that the 'ban' was 'overturned?' Change the sentence by deleting it. 2600:1700:FC80:1CC0:AC3E:483F:EEDA:F394 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: In the future, please read articles before you request edits on them. See Azov Battalion#U.S. Arms and training where this is described and sourced. Cannolis (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Most recent news

Here are some of the most recent stories about the group https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/the-azov-battalion-the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/article65239935.ece https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/28/ukrainian-fighters-grease-bullets-against-chechens-with-pig-fat https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgd73j/ukraine-neo-nazi-battalion-azov-bullets-pig-fat-chechen-russia https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ukraines-azov-fighters-seen-greasing-bullets-in-pig-fat-for-chechen-muslim-invaders Persesus (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The Hindu is not a reliable source. Greasing bullets with pig fat does not make you a neo-Nazi. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone going to edit this in to the article Persesus (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Vice and the Washington Examiner are marginally reliable if at all; see WP:RS/P. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

Please remove the term neo-Nazi from the article, it is factually incorrect and is russian propaganda. 93.77.153.161 (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See all the previous discussions about this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not just a 'term', it's an entire well-sourced section. So this isn't really an edit request, it's a somewhat ill-defined goal. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of References!

As of today (10th March 2022) there are a total of 112 references. Number 2 relates to a document dated just a few days earlier. I don't believe the following 110 references have been added in just a few days, so does that mean that ref 2 has been edited? If so, is it still a relevant and reliable source? 86.13.148.233 (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References are not numbered based on date, but rather the order in which they appear in the article. BSMRD (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

IP edit, 27 February 2022

Are they fighting at the moment in the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F2:BF0F:5900:50A8:435E:6BA1:9029 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I know this is a late reply, but yes, they are. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

Remone the ideology part and Neo-Nazi stuff as this is fake, The Azov battalion is a nationalist volunttering batallion made of volunteering civillians in 2014 to defend Donbass from separatists. The Neo Nazi stuff is a concept created by Russian political oppositors of Ukraine. It should be removed. 82.158.72.121 (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see cited sources. Cannolis (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle

[1] DW article (translated to English) about batallion. I'll leave it here for others to figure out how and weather to use it. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

First reference mentions unclassified relation, but text classifies the relation. Also, the reference has own reference for the relation. The reference is "Allam" which is not Wiki-standard to define facts. So, I guess the first reference grounding and the classification should be removed. Also relation to a person from a group does not define the group relation. InventingNames (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BSMRD (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the request is unclear. I think he is saying that the first reference is totally out of scope, but I am even more unsure about the request if it Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022

I guess Azov status changed to National Counter-Terrorist Special forces at the moment. InventingNames (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 17:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Agree. Elinruby (talk)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not a democracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edit

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

Two things:

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

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

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

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

Merger proposal

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. [3][4][5][6] as possible sources that could be used to flesh out a small initial section. --Aquillion (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unuisre they are still, not as sources like this [[7]] seem to say they may still be. So I would be unsure about removing it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,[8] 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".[9] 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 [10]. I started from editing his version. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defence of Mariupol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slavic Paganism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Regarding old Azov logo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,[16]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References (Lev Golinkin)

References

Correction: "propOganda" to "propaganda"

Correction: "propOganda" to "propaganda".

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Disinformation

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

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