Talk:Azov Brigade/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

English and french version not correspond to original ukrainian, text has russian nazi propaganda and it should be delete as soon as possible OlgaAlska (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)  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) 07:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Agreed, a lot of the claims in this article are either factually untrue, echo Russian propaganda (eg claiming Azov is neo nazi when there's 3 seperate units called Asov, 2 of which have only existed for a few weeks, and the original unit was purged of nazis. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC) It is not Russian propaganda. There are sources for these claims, and if you look further up the Talk page, you'll see that there was an RfC where it was decided that the neo-Nazi descriptor was apt and would be kept. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC) It is Russian propaganda, and if you read those sources, you will find that they do not support the claim that the "Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine." Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC) also, the RFC actually said it wasn’t neutral to say in wikivoicr that it’s a neo-Nazi unit.Elinruby (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Unclear on format

I’d like to help but am uncertain what that would look like. Is this intended to be a threaded discussion or a series of posts? If I may make a suggestion, it would be better to make a section for each category of source Elinruby (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would very much appreciate your help!! And I’m sure others would as well. My advice is to just start adding sources and assessing them, making sure to always follow the formatting with date after names, and quotes included. It’s important so we can all verify the assessment! If you (or I or anyone) disagree with the posted assessment of a source, I’ll add a discussion section to each category so we can debate that. I think overall, the quoted statements ‘’should’’ be enough that we will all agree. But as with everything on Wikipedia, it’s important to leave room for debate :) and if the debater can provide a quote that shows the assessment should be different, we can usually just tack on that to the current assessment label. And evaluate it in context :) I think it’s really important that we prevent and call out cherry picking both in ourselves and others given how rampant it’s been in this topic area lately! On all sides!— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice work! XOR'easter (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

We need a category for propaganda Elinruby (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That falls under "Government, Policy, and NGO" but should only include WP:RSes which meet that definition, even if PRIMARY and thus only useful for assessing prevalence of an idea on talk page discussions, not for verifying a statement in article space per WP:V and WP:OR. AKA we should keep our standards still somewhat high, but it is okay to use primary sources from govts, think tanks, international bodies, etc. here. What would not be okay is using unreliable sources (e.g. extreme left- or right-wing magazines, or anarchist publications) anywhere here. Those are not part of the "RS" category and thus should not be used as part of a survey for making content decisions.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think you are thinking about the same stuff I am. I am only going to have a few minutes here and there for the next several hours. I will come back to this after that. Elinruby (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any "propaganda" under these definitions, in general, would be a reliable source. No source which is inherently biased, non-independent, and not editorially reviewed or fact checked, would be a WP:RS. Of course, we must use the consensus present at WP:RSP and elsewhere to determine this, not our personal feelings or opinions about the sources themselves. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Misinformation

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.

---

The Azov regiment is stated as Neo-Nazi, when there are no sources for this other than Putin’s claims 2A02:3037:419:FB51:64CC:7833:9452:B48A (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

See the RFC above, and comment rather about this. 14:59, 21 April 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.

False information/propaganda

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.

---

Azov is not a neo-nazi unit. 83.31.70.3 (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Please comment in the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 19 April 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 15 April 2022

This discussion is duplicative. Please participate in the RFC above.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Remove "neo-Nazi" from the definition of the battalion. On the same page we already have an explanation of why it's not true: > In a 2022 news report, the Washington Post painted a picture of a group aware of its origins, and still with a far-right adherent commander and some extremist members, but much changed from its origins. Many recruits joining the battalion are well aware of its Nazi past, but join up despite its history for various reasons, including Azov's positive reputation for training new recruits. While extremist elements remain, it is less driven by ideology than it was at its formation, and the chief motivation now is patriotism, and anger at Russian provocations and the attack on Ukraine. People come from all over the world driven by outrage against Putin, and not because of a particular ideology. The report also pointed out that while Ukraine does have a far-right movement, it is much smaller than in some other European countries. Michael Colborne, the author of a book about Azov, wrote that he "wouldn't call [Azov] explicitly a neo-Nazi movement" although there are "clearly neo-Nazis within its ranks".[118] AndrewDryga (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please vote in the above RfC on this exact matter. BSMRD (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit request to add sentence to second paragraph

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.

---

• What I think should be changed:

I think it would be appropriate to add the following additional sentence to the second paragraph of the introduction (ie. after the sentence "The battalion drew controversy over allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as association with neo-Nazi ideology. Azov uses controversial symbols, including Wolfsangel insignia used by the Nazi SS divisions."):

After the incorporation into the National Guard the Ukrainian Government engaged in efforts to de-politicize the battalion and remove neo-Nazis , and the battalion has subsequently moved away from its neo-Nazi origins and become more apolitical.

• Why it should be changed:

I made this Edit Request as the notice on the page asks for that to be done. A significant number of recent sources have included statements to some effect of the Azov Battalion moving away from neo-Nazism or becoming less ideological or political. I feel that a sufficiently substantial number of reliable sources support these that it warrants inclusion in the introduction. I understand that there is some disagreement and controversy on the extent that these things have happened, so I've been careful to phrase it as "engaging in efforts", "moved away" and "becoming more apolitical", which don't specify the extent to which it has happened, and therefore are statements that I think are well supported by reliable sources. This isn't making the stronger claim that the battalion isn't neo-Nazi or that it is apolitical. I'm also not suggesting any change to the lede, which is currently subject to an RfC.

Tristario (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References

• Comment This is being discussed (please refer to the ongoing RfC). M.Bitton (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that specifically about the use of "neo-Nazi" in the lede paragraph as a descripter? This isn't about that Tristario (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is a request for something different (I think quite sensible), which could potentially be included if any of options A to E was the consensus. However, it would make sense for us to visit it after consensus has been reached on the first sentence, particularly as the Alternative drafts in the RfC both overlap with this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. BSMRD (talk) 13:10, 12 April 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.

Reliable Sources refuting simplistic "is a neo-Nazi" label

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides many of these sources. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below, and also add any sources which are not down there down there, so everyone there can read and see them.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Pieces by individuals writing in The Nation are not appropriate sources for politically contentious articles in an encyclopedia. The wire services (AFP, Reuters, AP), BBC, DW, et al (WP:NEWSORG) and academic sources (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) trump politically partisan, parochial periodicals such as The Nation. In this spirit, I offer the following sources as far more authoritative than sources 2-5 which, quite hilariously, denote the regiment, as categorically, without qualification, as "neo-Nazi"! News Orgs AFP (via F24): https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war BBC feature: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404 Deutsche Welle: https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151 CNN's reputation has suffered in recent years, but, all the same: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movement-far-right-intl-cmd/index.html WashPo - https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias Financial Times - https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d Scholarly articles/chapters Shapovalova, N., Fowler, G., LAROK, A., MARCZEWSKI, P., VIJAYAN MJ, G. N., SHAPOVALOVA, N., SOMBATPOONSIRI, J., VON BÜLOW, M., & ZIHNIOĞLU, Ö. (2018). THE TWO FACES OF CONSERVATIVE CIVIL SOCIETY IN UKRAINE. In R. YOUNGS (Ed.), THE MOBILIZATION OF CONSERVATIVE CIVIL SOCIETY. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (p. 36) "The most visible radical far-right groups appeared in the wake of the Euromaidan protests and the armed conflict in Donbas... The Azov Battalion was formed in May 2014... Out of this organization grew the National Squads, a civic association whose mission is “to provide order on the streets of Ukrainian cities,” and the National Corps political party... [which] advocates the idea of “economic nationalism"... Both the National Corps and the Right Sector are against Ukraine seeking membership of the EU." "The core supporters of the Azov Battalion are the Kyiv-based Social National Assembly (established in 2008 by Kharkiv-based paramilitary group the Patriot of Ukraine) and other small ultraright groups that have their roots in the early 1990s. The Azov Battalion’s emblem is the overlapping letters I and N to symbolize the “Idea of Nation,” which is also a mirror image of the Wolfsangel symbol used by some Nazi SS divisions during World War II and post-1945 neofascist organizations." Umland, A. (2019). "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014." Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1). (p. 105-107) "This paper does not deal with all the multifaceted and dynamic features of the new Ukrainian armed voluntary movement that emerged in 2014. Instead, I will focus here on the background and rise of one particular battalion and later regiment that constitutes, as will be illustrated, a somewhat aberrant example of the Ukrainian post-revolutionary volunteer phenomenon — the pre- and early history of one of the most famous of these units, the “Azov” Battalion and now Regiment... A political researcher and not a military expert, I am not in a position to adequately assess the latter issues although they are, in the view of most Ukrainian observers, far more important than its pre-history and ideological orientation. In contrast to the regiment’s fame within Ukraine, it is less Azov’s military performance, but rather the eccentric political views of the unit’s founders as well as the various symbols associated with Azov which are the reason for the high media attention in the West." "As briefly illustrated below, the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group that today controls a relatively large military unit could present several problems..." (p. 107) Clapp, A. (2016). "The Maidan Irregulars". The National Interest, 143. (p. 27) "The distinction between the territorial and ideological units quickly became trivial. Members of the Azov Battalion, based in the eastern city of Mariupol, are reputed to be Aryan racists. But most members I met were foreigners who joined because Azov—allegedly funded by Rinat Akhmetov, a Donetsk steel tycoon—pays five hundred dollars per month. If there is a shared sense of mission among the volunteers, it may be best described as anti-Putinism. Almost every volunteer I have met this winter at the Donetsk front bears a personal grudge against him." Gomza, I., & Zajaczkowski, J. (2019). Black Sun Rising: Political Opportunity Structure Perceptions and Institutionalization of the Azov Movement in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine. Nationalities Papers, 47(5), 774-800. An in-depth study of Azov members' activity online, results attribute characterization of "Radical" far right nationalist to 38% of members, 0% as Nazi or neo-Nazi. Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261. "While many commentators emphasize the right-wing extremist party as the political background of the Azov Battalion, the Verkhovna Rada deputy and Azov Civil Corps affiliate Oleh Petrenko, once a football fan club activist from Cherkassy and short-term Right Sector member, has stated that 50% of the early Azov fighters came out of the Ukrainian ultras movement of soccer fans..." (p. 243) "Zvarych [US-born Roman Zvarych, former head of Azov] has claimed that he was critically involved in organizing combat training for Azov battalion/regiment fighters, by Georgian, American, Lithuanian, and British instructors, and to have advised the Azov movement to refrain from using symbols and ideas that could be linked to Nazism..." (p. 244) Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall “Azov”: Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 65(1/2), 33–41. Zu diesen gehört das Bataillon Azov. Seine Geschichte ist dubios, Führungsriege und Symbolik sind faschistisch. Aber Azov, das zum Nationalgarderegiment aufgewertet wurde, ist atypisch.... Obwohl die Freiwilligenverbände nur einen Teil der bewaffneten Formationen der Ukraine ausmachen, spielten sie bei den ersten Zusammenstößen sowie bei weiteren bedeutenden Kämpfen mit Separatisten und der russländischen Armee im Donbass... Dies ist einer der Gründe, warum die Freiwilligenverbände neben der Nationalgarde rasch ins Blickfeld der Moskauer Propaganda rückten. Allerdings ist nur ein Teil der Mitglieder des inzwischen zum Regiment nen Verbands Azov wie auch anderer nationalistischer Freiwilligenbataillone, rassistisch... Das im Fernsehen und auf der Straße sehende Abzeichen [the Azov logo] wird in der ukrainischen Öffentlichkeit nicht als [neo-Nazi] Symbol, sondern als eines von mehreren populären Wappen der Freiwilligenbewegung der Ukraine wahrgenommen... EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC) CNN [[1]] "the battalion has a history of neo-Nazi leanings, which have not been entirely extinguished by its integration into the Ukrainian military. ", so No I am not sure that RS agree it is not still (at least) partly neo-nazi. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC) And I wouldn't disagree with that at all. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Here are another two contemporary, reliable news sources who examine the claim that the unit is neo-Nazi in nature and come to the conclusion that it is not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d Disconnected Phrases (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Collapsing content inappropriate for article talk page, which should be on user pages or ANI BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Needed more WP:ILIKEIT and WP:SHOUTING I felt, and the reference to "reliable sources" might have been taken as some sort of concession to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:RS/P, which really wouldn't do at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC) EN didn't you just come off a block for giant text walls like this? BSMRD (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC) True, and imagine the "giant text walls" you'd have to face if you actually read the sources! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC) EnlightenmentNow1792, please don't misleadingly edit others' comment-indentation and top-post over them: looked like a bizarre causality violation, where you preempted my comment to appear as a reply to a later edit of your own. And lay off the boldface-yelling, WP:BLUDGEONing, and general incivility, if you'd be so kind. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Not my intention at all. Please WP:GOODFAITH, WP:NPA, WP:WIKIHOUNDING, thanks. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Indeed yes, you've repeatedly violated all those too, but I thought that one behavioural-guideline link at a time was the better way to go. But try actually following them, rather than playground-level tu quoqueing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Can we not discuss use here, either take it to their talk page or wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Unfortunately EnlightenmentNow1792 seems to be reverting any message regarding their behavior off their talk page as a "personal attack", so I doubt you'll get much done there. BSMRD (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I am aware of that, that is still the place to do it (not here). Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Reminder: Please "Comment on content, not on the contributor" (WP:NPA). - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Looking at some of these sources. Hope it's OK that I've inserted links above for ease. The piece in The National Interest is not a scholarly source. It's an opinion/analysis piece by a freelance journalist published in a magazine that is run by a "realist" conservative thinktank. Might be usable in the body if noteworthy, but not good ref for a fact in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC) https://muckrack.com/alexander-clapp/articles - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Here are some sources that don't refer to them as neo-Nazis. If I were to try to list every reliable source that doesn't describe them as neo-Nazis, the list would be nigh endless. The preponderance of reliable sources do not refer to them as neo-Nazis. Anyone looking in a way that isn't googling "Azov 'neo-nazi'" would find the same result. News Articles Financial Times "'don't confuse patriotism and Nazism': Ukraine's Azov Forces Face Scrutiny." France 24. "Azov regiment takes centre stage in Ukraine propaganda war." CBS Interactive. "How Putin built a false premise for war against 'Nazis' in Ukraine"(n.d.). BBC. "Ros Atkins on... Putin’s false ‘Nazi’ claims." The Economist Newspaper. "Hundreds of thousands face catastrophe in Mariupol." Business Insider. A soldier wearing Nazi imagery was given a medal by a Russia-backed separatist republic for killing Ukrainian 'nationalists'. Academic articles Shaw, Daniel Odin, and Huseyn Aliyev. “The Frontlines Have Shifted: Explaining the Persistence of Pro-State Militias after Civil War.” Studies in conflict and terrorism ahead-of-print.ahead-of-print 1–21. Web. "“including ultra nationalist ‘Azov’ regiment” Kuzio, Taras. “Armies of Russia’s War in Ukraine: Mark Galeotti. Oxford & New York, NY: Osprey Publishing, 2019, 64pp., £12.99 P/b.” Europe-Asia studies 72.8 (2020): 1436–1438. Web. "The most radical Ukrainian nationalists are Russian speakers from the east of the country who dominate the Azov regiment, a unit integrated within the national guard.” Umland, Andreas. “The Far Right in Pre- and Post-Euromaidan Ukraine: From Ultra-Nationalist Party Politics to Ethno-Centric Uncivil Society.” Demokratizatsiya (Washington, D.C.) 28.2 (2020): 247–268. Print. “Azov's National Corps-an ultra-nationalist party…” Books Galeotti, M. (2019). Armies of Russia's War in Ukraine. United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. plese continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I would like it if someone would update the article with sources that actually support the assertion "Azov Battalion (until September 2014), is a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine..." The current sources: 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 Is there any way to stop people from appending sources that don't support the assertion? Maybe people who put bad sources on this article could be banned from editing it? It seems ludicrous to keep cycling through sources that don't support the assertion. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Welcome to Wikipedia :P - FlightTime (open channel) 02:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks! Seems Danaidean to me. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Russian Wikipedia has less bias in the language, but many of the same sources. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) There have been three queries on the Reliable Sources noticeboard already. Sigh. I completely agree with you BTW. I guess I will do the one about Belarus next. Elinruby (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)  Not done: @Disconnected Phrases: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. This is a procedural decline, since edit requests are meant to be used for edits that you are unable to make yourself due to the level of page protection. There are currently 2 active discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard regarding the cited sources that you are referring to: WP:RSN § US Congressman as an authority on Nazis and WP:RSN § Police in Belarus as an authority on Ukrainian military. — Newslinger talk 08:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC) The problem here is, Azov is in fact, *not* a Neo Nazi unit. The Ukrainian Government have categorically stated they do not have Neo Nazi units in their army. It used to be Neo Nazi, some *members* of Azov are, it is still using some Neo Nazi symbols... but interms of it actually being a Neo Nazi unit today - its isn't. It certainly be Ukrainian Nationalist, but that doesn't make it a Neo Nazi military unit. Until Wikipedia is changed, people are going to keep coming here and asking for it be updated, simple as that. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Curious, the Time in 2021 says the contrary[2], that is, that there is an international problem from this "white supremacist militia". Mhorg (talk) 10:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Well firstly, it's from 2019 not 2021, and secondly, in the doco they talk to a US veteran guy working with the national guard who deals with the Azov recruits, who said: "Are they Neo Nazis as an organisation?No.Have they had Neo Nazi's as Members of their organisation? I would say look at the US Army and you will find Neo Nazi's as well...". This is pretty much the point many are making here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I can't find any reliable source that say that they are a neo-Nazi unit, but I have found a lot of reliable sources that say they are not. I was hoping that someone with better research skills than me could come up with less embarrassingly bad sources if we are going to keep false, extraordinary claims in the article. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC) @Newslinger I actually can't make any changes to the sources or mark the sources as insufficient because my account is not old enough to make changes to protected articles, so I did not know that one could. I'm assuming that in some way I don't understand, this is not in violation of BLPGROUP? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) @Disconnected Phrases: Oops, you're right about your account status. I had misread the registration date on your account. The correct reason for closing the edit request is:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Edit requests are generally only accepted when there is consensus to implement them. When there is an active discussion about the matter that is not yet settled, the edit request is declined until editors reach a decision on whether it should be implemented. For this particular request, it is unlikely that we would know whether it should be implemented until a new RfC has run its course. WP:BLPGROUP does apply to this matter, and the policy can be considered and discussed in the RfC. However, please note that the policy states, "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group." — Newslinger talk 04:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Probably not the best way to go, it's possible they won't qualify as L by the time the RfC closes. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC) We are discussing this above (in many threads), wait for the new RFC and then make your case. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC) An RFC got us into this mess. Maybe we should actually look at the sources? It’s actually embarrassing take the sourcing for this over to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. It’s such a .., question that people can’t believe I am asking it. Four times now and people are like, um no, it doesn’t prove Azov is neo-Nazi if a policemen in Belarus arrested somebody for wearing a Punisher tee shirt. And, may I add, it will never prove it no matter what. It’s embarrassing to even have to ask these questions. If you think that it does you really need to stop lecturing other editors on their talk pages about Wikipedia policy because you have really lost the thread. It’s as if I said that you are clearly a Nazi because my cat told me so Elinruby (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC) And an RFC is needed to overturn it. We are discussing what to ask above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Why is an RFC needed to overturn it? Can you show me where it says that? I am not being sarcastic. I looked for that and didn’t find it Elinruby (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC) And yeah. I tried to encourage that new editor to participate and you guys started yelling off-topic and banished me to a separate section. Hard to discuss when people don’t listen. I think we should start with what is the subject of the article. Elinruby (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Which is also being discussed above, with the split proposal. Starting 15 threads on the same issue does not make a case stronger. Slatersteven (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Really? Because I am trying to discuss it and being told that this is off-topic and the really important thing is that they are neo-nazis. I don't claim expertise about the group and am prepared to stipulate that some members may at some point have been, and possibly even still are, but we are sourcing these assertions with articles about the unfamiliarity of a policeman in Belarus with the Punisher. If we can get an accurate well-sourced topic sentence that would be a progress, yes, but what we say in that topic sentence needs to start from sources. Is the Azov Regiment neo-nazi because a policemen in Belarus mistook the Punisher for something about Azov? It is embarrassing to Wikipedia that I had to ask for that to be adjudicated. Is the current regiment the same organization as some soccer hooligan group in Kharkiv? I think not, but possibly this could be shown somehow through sources. If so then yay. And no, this is not being discussed in a split proposal. The proposal you are talking about concerns a political party. The lengthy well-sourced article about the regiment and its military history was declared a a POV fork because Ukrainians can't be trusted to be neutral about their own military, apparently, and "the media over there are state-owned", which I think is a reference to TASS, but I am really not sure. In any event, banishing it to a redirect effectively removes facts from mainspace, as this article appropriates the name, then equates it with some ill-sourced depiction of a sinister and ill-intentioned group. This is not something that will be solved by an RFC about whether to put neo-nazi in the lede, no matter how many times I get dragged to ANI for doubting that. The answer is simple. If whatever this article is about is or was neo-nazi then that is important enough to be in the lede sentence, sure. I personally don't think this article is about the regiment at all. The Siege of Mariupol is relegated to a bullet point under "Other dates and activities" in part of a sentence. The other part of the sentence is that its commander was declared a Hero of Ukraine, which is only the highest honour an individual can receive from the Ukrainian government. Nothing important about that or about denying the Russians a land bridge to Europe. At all. I know you feel that whether the lede sentence says neo-nazi is the most important thing going on here, but the reason the article is getting all these edit requests that are getting blown off is that quite a few people think this article badly maligns the regiment. Whether some incarnation of Azov was or is neo-nazi is a question of fact that should be based on sources, and can't be sensibly answered until we know which incarnation the question refers to. I have urgently overdue non-Wikipedia matters and need to go attend to them.Elinruby (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I have added a bunch of sources here. I'm going to add them grouped together into the article, since this is such a frequent point of controversy, but we can also pick the best if people have an opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC) References (Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022) References

Does the disinformation described in this letter, signed by many members of parliament and business leaders in Ukraine, sound like our Wikipedia article?

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"The Russian authorities specifically point to the members of the Azov National Guard Regiment as an example of such neo-Nazis. We urge all to be very careful when commenting on the Azov topic. As CNN columnists Tara John and Tim Lister have already mentioned in their columns, it is a favorite target of Russian propaganda. And in our opinion, many honest observers have partly become the objects of Russian propaganda." "Firstly. Putin’s propaganda deliberately confuses the Azov National Guard Regiment and the National Corps Party. It is true that after completing their military service some former Azov commanders formed a political party, and among its members were other Azov veterans. However, the Azov Regiment is not a wing of the party and is not related to it in any way. It is a part of the National Guard of Ukraine under the command of the General Staff and the Supreme Military Command of Ukraine. As for the party, Ukrainian law prohibits communist and Nazi ideology." "Secondly. The authors use a quote attributed to politician Andriy Biletsky, who allegedly called for a “white crusade” in 2010. The only source for that quote is Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and he used it in 2015 to justify Russian aggression. Since then, the quote has been used by various media, including the respected Guardian newspaper, on which CNN relies. However, the only living witness to Biletsky’s statement is Mr. Lavrov, and there is no other evidence that the Azov ex-commander ever said that. The same Lavrov now claims that Russia is not waging a war against Ukraine." "In this case, we are dealing not with accidental inaccuracies, but with clever disinformation narratives that are hitting the most painful points in the West with the sole purpose of weakening military and political aid to Ukraine. We urge CNN to publish our letter and apologize to the military unit and remove false information. The false narrative that the defenders of Ukraine are Nazis hurts the families of soldiers who have already died or are now completely surrounded in Mariupol." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Is Lavrov a reliable source? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC) No, Lavrov is a politician, so he isn't reliable source for statements of fact. The same applies to all the numerous Ukrainian MPs and business leaders who signed the letter. Both the Russian foreign minister and Ukrainian MPs are simply claiming something for political gain (denigrating and whitewashing, respectively). Arado Ar 196 (talk/contributions) 05:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Also, according to this letter, Kolomoisky was also not a funder of Azov Battalion. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC) @Disconnected Phrases:, first of all, welcome to Wikipedia! In response to your comment, you're not quite asking the right question. First, you need to read a little bit about some of Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines, starting with Reliable sources, Citing sources, and the difference between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources. In your editing, you need to find reliable, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY sources to back up any of your additions or changes to content. There are problems with the source you cite above, before we even get to the content. The Euromaidan Press where it appears is an online newspaper, so normally that's a secondary source, however the article is largely a reprint of a letter signed by dozens of parliamentarians, with little or no added content, so although it appears in a secondary source, the article might be considered primary, I'm not 100% sure. If it is, that's a problem. It would be better to find a news article reporting on the fact that some MPs got together and wrote an open letter, if possible. Secondly, we'd have to see if Euromaidan Press is considered reliable or not. There was a discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard a month ago (here) that did not garner much response, but what response there was, was negative. That may not matter much in this case because as it's an open letter signed by MPs, if it were fake that would come out right away. Lastly, learning to edit at Wikipedia is a process, and some topic areas are full of dispute and contention among editors, and Eastern Europe and the Balkans is one of those areas, and it's much harder to edit in contentious areas. Within this contentious area, the Azov Battalion is attracting an even greater level of contention, probably because of connections to neo-naziism. So, if I were you, I would avoid this topic as a brand new user, and start on something which is not a current event, and not a locus of dispute like this one is. I think I'm going to leave it there, for now. If you would like advice about editing at Wikipedia in an area more conducive to a new editor learning the ropes. please contact me again on my Talk page, and let's see what we can come up with. I really think that editing here will be very difficult for you, and there are all sorts of traps here and opportunities to get into difficulty, and you don't want that just when you're starting out. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC) @mathglot I would not consider Euromaidan a reliable source in most cases, but, I would consider them a reliable source for the views of Ukrainian officials mentioned by name. I am relatively familiar with the concept of reliable sources from writing academic papers. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I checked and it appears on censor.net, mind.ua, and internetua.com. Serhiy Taruta (the first signatory) posted the letter on his Facebook page. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC) The issue here is not the WP:RELIABILITY of the sources reporting this letter (I'm sure this is a real letter, that really exists), but rather WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:PRIMARY. In this case, Ukrainian MPs and businessmen are not proper sources for the nature of Azov, much as, as you have pointed out, Sergei Lavrov would not be. Both are too close to the subject matter to present an objective analysis BSMRD (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I was addressing Mathglot's concerns about the reliability of Euromaidan Press. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC) What about the world's leading scholars on the issue, are you interested in their views at all BSMRD? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I would not argue that this letter is evidence of anything beyond the fact that there is a letter signed by those people that says that. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC) The views of the world's leading scholars are well-represented in other sections above. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Oh, sorry I misread that, I thought you were BSMRD talking to me. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Again, wait for the RFC and make your case there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I may be being a bit dense here, but this letter seems to address things beyond the scope of the RFC. It addresses the conflation of the regiment with the national corps. It addresses a quote attributed to Biletsky and the funding of the Azov Battalion, among other things. I fail to see how all of these things are covered by the RFC. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I think it is interesting how so many points of contention on this page appear in this letter. That is all. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I would remind all users to read wp:soap and wp:forum, this is not a place to dump things you find interesting. It is a place to (and solely for that) discuss how to improve the article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC) As the letter directly concerns the contents of this article, I don't understand how that applies. I think it is important to be aware of the claims made by the people who wrote this letter to be sure the article is maintaining a neutral point of view. I'm tired and going to sleep. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Whatever the ultimate outcome of this discussion wrt whether it does or doesn't affect the article, I believe DP's raising the issue was in good faith, and is within bounds of the WP:TALK guideline and an appropriate question to raise here, as the best venue for such a question, so that SOAP and NOTFORUM aren't an issue. Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC) References

The timeline

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The text describes at least 8 years and at least three subsequent units. The neo-Nazism subsection uses mostly 2014 sources. 'Shaun Walker wrote in The Guardian' but Walker wrote in 2014. Please prove connections between the current unit and Azov Movement. Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC) 'Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy was born to Jewish parents' - isn't this information important in this context? Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC) please see above, we are discussing this already. Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC) And I participate in the discussion ('The Nation').Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC) We do not need the same thing being discussed in 15 separate threads. Discussion needs to be focused in one place, so a closer can see all the opinions, and not have to search the whole talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Azov Regiment current update

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

The person who originally posted this article regards the Azov regiment and the Azov movement has not done their research properly. Very recently (around 28 Mar 2022) the BBC did a video on the Azov regiment and concluded that it is NOT a Neo Nazi paramilitary and it is not anti-Semitic and indeed has several Jewish volunteers currently in the regiment and is well respected by the Jews of Mariupol. Russian propaganda has been going into overdrive to justify their Nazi claims and because Mariupol is central to the strategy of having a landbrigde to the Crimea and the Azov Regiment are such good fighters - its in the Russians interests to discredit them as much as possible. I have attached a link by a well known Ukrainian academic regards the Azov regiment and Azov movement - which are are two distinct entities and have nothing to do with one another and this has been the case for several years. One would've thought that the researcher would have bothered to do their research properly. The link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CPlZT3hKxY. The BBC video is on their Ukraine page and a search on google would bring this up. Also the BBC is hardly a right wing organisation and for them to discount the neo Nazi claims and anti Semitic claims holds a lot of water. Official Ukrainian spoke persons have also poured water on these claims regarding Azov. I am very disappointed that the original researcher didn't do their work properly and instead swallowed Russian propaganda hook, line and sinker. Shame on you - and shame on Wikipedia for not vetting the process properly. This article must be taken down until it is written in an unbiased manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delliott5 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 3 April 2022 (UTC) This is being discussed above, we do not need to have another discussion. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Delliott5, you've linked to one source that's the a video by the self-described "Centre for Democratic Integrity", AKA a tiny YouTube channel. The distance away from being something usable directly as a reliable source seems considerable. If such a source quotes or refers to this purportedly notable academic as being authoritative, it may be usable in some form: as is, directly, not a hope. Your other "the BBC, google it" source seems a little unspecific. The BBC have a lot of output on this conflict and its background; you should at least identify the exact content you're referring to. Specifics of those two sources aside, we have many active threads open on this exact matter, and adding yet another isn't helpful. Not is scolding other users for "not do[ing] their research properly", "not vetting the process properly" simply because the article is not as you personally would like, or in line with two particular sources you deem to be superior. WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, all that fine stuff. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Collapsing content inappropriate for article talk page, which should be on user pages or ANI 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Ah yes jews ''respect'' a group of nazis militants who happen to have two neo nazi symbols in their logo and openly fly nazi flags. BritishToff (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Firstly thank you for taking the time to reply - it is genuinely appreciated. However in reading the reply's to the other comments (which I presume is you) I can see from the response that you seem to be quite a combatitive person - which doesn't help things. I get the impressions from the replies that the attitude is "Im right - you're wrong - now get lost". I think there has been more than enough info given to refute your stance. There is no doubt that you are a meticulous person, given the depth of research - but your article is slanted towards a predetermined outcome, long before it was written and one gets the impressions that you have written the article on the Azov Regiment to prove that they are indeed Neo-Nazi & anti-Semitic fascists despite any and all proof to the contrary and nothing that I or anyone else says, is going to make any difference at all. That's very sad - because we can all learn from one another. Delliott5 (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC) @Delliott5: yes it is sad. If it helps BritishToff has left the building and will not be back Elinruby (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Sorry but I don't understand what you mean by " the British toff has left the building"?? Delliott5 (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC) The user has been globally banned for conduct issues on other articles. Regardless, they only ever posted on some talk pages related to this topic and never directly edited the article proper, so they had nothing to do with its content. BSMRD (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Many Thanks for letting me know this - its much appreciated. I actually feel sorry for this Elinruby fellow - as he is probably a very lonely chap, which is why he is striking out against everyone. It seems that he and Vladimir Putin have something in common. Has anyone recommended anger management to him, I wonder? - but thanks again. Delliott5 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Delliott5, I strongly advise against off-topic personal attacks. Or ideally, either of those things even separately. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Two neo nazi symbols? Is the "Z" any better? Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Here’s another recent factual and opinion piece by Anton Shekhovtsov, and perhaps a counterbalance to Lev Golinkin’s. It includes an accessible political history of the Azov Regiment and update on its status. Anton Shekhovtsov, “How the West enabled genocide in Mariupol with its misguided Azov obsession,” Euromaidan Press, April 4, 2022.  —Michael Z. 21:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Euromaidan Press isn't reliable, it is a pro-govt journal promoter of biased content. Mhorg (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC) @Mhorg: Anton Shekhovtsov is a widely-cited academic with expertise on precisely this issue (88 citations for his 2014 article - co-written with Umland, in the Journal of Democracy (a publication of Johns Hopkins University) entitled: "The Maidan and Beyond: Ukraine’s Radical Right".[3] He is quoted by the Financial Times in this piece[4], ‘Don’t confuse patriotism and Nazism: Ukraine’s Azov forces face scrutiny’, March 29, 2022, where he says: "Azov’s history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself... Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today." But then, you've been doing your best to keep out such academic sources and high quality news outlets from this article, haven't you Mhorg? - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Euromaidan press is not an RS. Another source is needed for your statement. And... it goes in contrast with what has been reported by Time (2021)[5] and by Kuzmenko (2020):[6] "The relationship between the regiment and the National Corps is also blurred in the political messaging of Biletsky, who has posed with active duty Azov soldiers in political videos. National Corps figures routinely visit the regiment, and the party’s ideologists lecture Azov troops. Their blogs are published on the regiment’s site, while Azov’s social media pages promote the National Corps. According to an August 2017 video, ostensibly recorded at Azov’s base, emigre Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin lectured the regiment. The close alignment between the Azov Regiment and the National Corps continues under the Zelenskyy presidency. In March 2020, soldiers from the regiment were featured alongside leaders of the National Corps in a video ad for a rally meant as a warning to Zelenskyy’s government. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to “depoliticize”. This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps." Mhorg (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC) The quote about is from the Financial Times, not Euromaidan Press. I even provided you with the link: https://www.ft.com/content/57ba9898-a346-4554-9a90-97845900a3e0 (you can read it in full here if you're not a subscriber: https://archive.ph/Xx3kv#selection-1519.0-1519.74). "Azov’s history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself... Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today." What's hilarious, is that in way of retort, you quote a blog at the Atlantic Council website. Well, gee whiz, guess who else has a blog there? That's right, one Anton Shekhovtsov! https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/why-azov-should-not-be-designated-a-foreign-terrorist-organization/ : "But, while the ideologically inimical nature of Azov’s roots is indisputable, it is likewise certain that Azov attempted to de-politicize itself; the toxic far-right leadership formally left the regiment and founded what would become a far-right party called “National Corps.” The party formed an electoral bloc with the other Ukrainian far-right parties for the 2019 parliamentary elections, but even a united far-right front obtained only a miserable 2.15 percent of the vote and thus failed to secure a single seat in the Ukrainian parliament." (UkraineAlert February 24, 2020) - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) It's all very interesting what your sources report, the problem is that they seem to be fake news. There are videos relaunched by the same "National Corps" channel,[7] leaded by the neo-Nazi Andrey Biletsky, in which they pose together with the soldiers of the Azov battalion. This again proves that Kuzmenko is right and that the Azov battalion is the armed wing of Biletsky's "National Corps" political project. Also, all their videos are promoting the Azov battalion[8] Mhorg (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Do you sincerely believe this? Are you simply mistaken? I hope so. If that is the case, your problem is very easy to solve: Biletsky was one of the founders of Azov, yes, but by the end of 2014 he was out. That was 8 years ago. A lot has changed. You'd be absolutely right if it was 2014, but it's not. Azov Battalion has been de-politicized. The ideologues were only a minority of the rank-and-file from the start anyway (we're talking about a group of 450 people when Biletsky was leader). If you read the sources I have provided, everything will be clear to you. I have translations of some of my academic sources in Russian, if you'd like, just ask. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC) that doesn’t make it not reliable necessarily. it’s definitely closer to the truth than TASS Elinruby (talk) It's not on WP:RS/P (flagged either way). But more to the point, this is entirely an opinion piece: it's not Euromaidan's news reporting, or even their editorial stance. Just a guess piece from the "Centre for Democratic Integrity" academic (and tiny YT channel), as featured on this very talk-page section, above. No more than it is when another EM article quoted here says "What will Klitschko do when the neo-Nazi gang from the Azov battalion – officially armed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs – returns to Kyiv to fight against various Untermenschen?" Maybe his view can be used in the body of the article, as attributed, but it should no carry any appreciable weight for what we say in wikivoice. Least of all in the much-discussed (in many redundant talk-page sections) lead sentence. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC) @109.255.211.6: Financial Times.[9] Any more comments on sources? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC) FT paywalled. What does it say EnlightenmentNow1792? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC) I quoted it above. FT quotes Shekhovtsov, a leading expert in this field. You can read in full here: https://archive.ph/Xx3kv#selection-1519.0-1519.74 - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC) ::::::you are correct that Telegram does not meet the current Reliable source criteria. I think I said that, and if I didn’t, I am saying it now. However, I suspect the source could be correct about the facts. Here is a current article, sourced to a mainstream French broadcaster: On the other hand, the defence is carried out by Ukrainian soldiers from the 36th Naval Infantry Brigade, the 56th Motorised Infanrty Brigade, as well as elements of the nationalist Azov Regiment. Created in 2014 as a far-right paramilitary group with ties to neo-Nazism, the Azov Battalion has since been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard as the Azov Regiment. Elinruby (talk) 23:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Is a group that was originally formed by neo-nazis but became only neo-nazi minority actually neo-nazi?

We do not need this long wall of text to continue now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes Azov was originally neo-nazis or at the very least far-right nationalists, but they were regularized and normalized and integrated into the military and the most extreme members/leaders were removed. Or is it in the opinion of the editors that "once a nazi, always a nazi"? These attempts to repeatedly try to label this group as CURRENTLY neo-nazis strike me as just blatant propaganda by editors with either Russian attachments, Russian funding or far-right (but Nazi-hating) party membership. Notably the majority of attacks on this group come from far-right political parties in at least both the US (fringe portions of Republican party) and AfD members in Germany. If the group is being attacked by the far right, then that says something. Ergzay (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Hi Ergzay, this is not a blog. Please provide sources. What you say goes against even the controversial cases that have involved the Azov battalion in recent days. For example with the racist video (shared by the official account of the National Guard of Ukraine) in which an Azov soldier greases the bullets with pork fat to be used against the Muslim troops of the Russian army.[10]--Mhorg (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I'm sorry but that is not "racism". I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word. Though it is certainly an attack against a religion. Further, that has nothing to do with "neo-nazi" unless you can point to some piece of evidence that shows this is a common belief among "neo-nazis". There are Chechan troops on both sides and the Russian ones are well known for previous wartime atrocities. Ergzay (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Hi @Ergzay, you may be under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia is a place where we argue our opinions and interpretations of those opinions to determine what is suitable for inclusion in our articles. This is not the case. We determine this based on reliable secondary sources, preferably academic ones. Please provide sources to back up your arguments. Thanks. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Some black people also fought on the side of the Confederacy. Does that make the Confederacy less racist? Quite a shallow argument to use. BritishToff (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Alternate question: what do you call a far-right ultranationalist organization that uses Nazi iconography, has neo-Nazi members, was founded by a neo-Nazi, and is tied at the hip to explicitly neo-Nazi political parties? BSMRD (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC) @BSMRD They're Ukrainian nationalist so a "Ukrainian nationalist" label works. They currently only use pagan iconography, not nazi iconography. The unit has jewish as well as muslim members. The founder is much disgraced and failed in his attempt to move into politics and is no longer part of the unit nor in politics. And the unit has no current relation to political parties. Ergzay (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC) They currently only use pagan iconography, not nazi iconography. That's bullshit and everyone knows it. Zero genuine pagans are running around with Black Suns and Wolfsangels unless they are also Nazis. Azov is not running around worshiping Odin or Svarog. The founder is much disgraced and failed in his attempt to move into politics and is no longer part of the unit. And the unit has no current relation to political parties. Biletsky is still very much involved in Azov, and the military unit and the National Corps are very much a part of the same overall movement. To call them simply "Ukrainian nationalists" as if they just really liked Ukraine is irresponsibly detached from what Azov really is and the ideology it represents. BSMRD (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Right, members do still carry a neo nazi emblem on their uniforms. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC) @Slatersteven Do you have a source for that? Ergzay (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC) This one [[11]] which we already use in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC) > That's bullshit and everyone knows it. Zero genuine pagans are running around with Black Suns and Wolfsangels unless they are also Nazis. Azov is not running around worshiping Odin or Svarog. Then you should go read the Wolfsangel article. It's in active use in many places of the world that aren't made of Nazis. > Biletsky is still very much involved in Azov, and the military unit and the National Corps are very much a part of the same overall movement. To call them simply "Ukrainian nationalists" as if they just really liked Ukraine is irresponsibly detached from what Azov really is and the ideology it represents. The source of that is 2 years old at this point and things have been changing rapidly as this group is only 8 years old. Do you have anything more recent? Ergzay (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Then you should go read the Wolfsangel article. It's in active use in many places of the world that aren't made of Nazis. Per the Wolfsangel article, literally no one since WWII uses it that isn't a neo-Nazi (aside from a brief and misguided effort by some Gen Z kids to use a similar symbol that was, surprise surprise, coopted by neo-Nazis). If it was 1743 you might have a point, but the meaning of the symbol has obviously and irrevocably shifted into one representing fascism. The source of that is 2 years old at this point and things have been changing rapidly as this group is only 8 years old. Do you have anything more recent? Do you have anything that isn't from Azov themselves concretely saying they are separated? Or, in fact, that anything has substantively changed since 2020? BSMRD (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Look Ergzay, the group has a neo-Nazi record [12], glorifies (among other things) Nazi collaborators such Bandera and carry Nazi logos [13] so who are they? It’s hard to ignore this reality despite Azov's remarkable role in defending Ukraine. Don’t confuse patriotism with Nazism Ergzay --> [14] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC) It has neo-Nazi origins. Bandera in all my research I've done thus far appears to be a Soviet and Nazi collaborator depending on whoever helped with Ukrainian nationalism. Claims of him being a nazi appear unfounded. I won't deny that they continue to use Bandera as a symbol and this is not surprising given their nationalism goals. I would respond to you the same to not confuse nationalism with Nazism. Just like Bandera they are anti-Muscovite but they don't appear to be against any other ethnic group. Ergzay (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Also here's some words that aren't good enough to put in Wikipedia but would be nice to source the original in some way. https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/status/1508371490827345933 Ergzay (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Regarding what I wrote in my comment here about people with possible Russian-connection. Both @BSMRD and @Slatersteven seem to be sharing similar goals in trying to criminalize this battalion given their edit histories. Notably with regard to trying to get a very good editor (Elinruby) banned from Azov-related articles. I have just found this. Ergzay (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Edited above comment to more accurately reflect things. Ergzay (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I strongly recommend you review WP:AGF before you call someone a Russian shill again. BSMRD (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC) Hi @Ergzay, please reserve your discussions of editor conduct for the appropriate pages. Such places would include: the talk page of either user, the talk page of an admin (preferably) or other user, WP:ANI, or WP:AE. Everywhere else, such discussions are WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and may be removed or collapsed to ensure proper flow and succinctness of on-topic discussion. Article talk pages, like this, are reserved for discussions of content, not conduct. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC) First, this is a kind of pointless conversation unless anyone starts a new RfC. However, using the phrase "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice needs to be based on the majority of RSs saying it "is neo-Nazi" (and when I say "is", this should include recent RSs, as many editors have argued for change over time). It cannot be based on us arguing "well it uses Nazi symbols plus it glorifies Nazi collaborators" etc, as that's SYNTH. If all most RSs say is "it uses Nazi symbolism" and "it has neo-Nazi connections", then that's what we should say in wiki voice. However, we can argue that out if we have another RfC, and should bring this argument to a close. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC) I agree with BobFromBrockley stating it is "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice seems to be conjecture, emotive, and is perhaps a view based on older/outdated sources. I don't think current sources support it- eg (1) "In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies.But it had since become "de-ideologised" and a regular fighting unit, he told AFP." [[15]] and (2)" "There are no Nazi battalions in Ukraine," said Ruslan Leviev, an analyst with the Conflict Intelligence Team, which tracks the Russian military in Ukraine."There is [the Azov] regiment... There are [estimated] several thousand people who are in this regiment. It is indeed a group where many members adhere to nationalist and far-right views," Leviev said. "But a lot of people also join it because it is one of the most prepared and fit-for-war units."[[16]] (3)"“I appreciate this decision. It must be clearly understood: there is no kind of ‘neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia’ now. Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group. Its commanders and fighters might have personal political views as individuals, but as an armed police unit Azov is a part of the system of the Ukrainian defense forces,” said anti-Semitism researcher Vyacheslav A. Likhachev, speaking on behalf of the Vaad." [[17]] As per these and other sources, my understanding is that Azov WAS originally Neo Nazi, and it has since been "cleaned up". It's been made part of the regular Ukrainian forces, and it even has Jewish and Arab members. It still has a minority of Neo nazi members, but that isn't the whole organisation, that's a minority (apparently 20 - 30%) Simply describing it as "a Neo Nazi" organisation in effect seems to be incorrect. Most people seem to join it because it has a rep as being effective, not because they are nazis. The added issue is, it is also supporting Russian propaganda about the Nazi status of Ukraine and thus WP:BIAS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC) @Deathlibrarian - Really? --> Ukraine's Nazi problem is real, even if Putin's denazification' claim isn’t. - [18] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Read this please ---> [19] - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC) ...and exactly my point, the article you referred me to is out of date, and that's part of the issue here. It says "In 2018, the U.S. Congress stipulated that its aid to Ukraine couldn’t be used “to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.”" That decision was reversed after the Azov battallion was reformed and no longer found to be problematical, and the AZOV battallion is no longer on the US ban list - please see [lifts ban on funding neo nazi ukrainian militia] [[20]] and perhaps the three articles I posted, for more detail. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC) RS’s describe Azov as neo-Nazi -->The neo-Nazi Azov regiment is part of the forces today combatting the Russian invasion ([21]) and that’s what we should follow. Anything else would be WP:OR. Please keep in mind that among other things we continue seeing marches there openly glorifying Bandera [22]. This is a painful reality in Ukraine today. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I've just posted three RS that say its not, with excerpts, and explain why, with detail.... so that's what we should follow. Your RS would appear to be incorrect. Also, keep in mind Russia is continuing to pose the "denazification" of Ukraine as a reason to be in Ukraine, and so by only supporting their side of the proposition, we are supporting Propaganda, and thus WP:BIAS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC) "The neo-Nazi Azov regiment is part of the forces today combatting the Russian invasion". That's from an opinion piece (which mentions Azov in passing). IF it had due weight we could use it to say "David Matas described it as neo-Nazi in 2022" not that it is in wikivoice. "Ukraine's Nazi problem is real" is the WP:HEADLINE of another opinion piece which says "neo-Nazis are part of... the Azov Battalion, founded by an avowed white supremacist", so again this doesn't help us say "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice. And the piece about "marches there openly glorifying Bandera" doesn't mention Azov; it is an RS for veneration of Ukrainian nationalists who collaborated with Nazis, but not for Azov "is neo-Nazi". The question is: does the weight of RSs say "Azov is neo-Nazi" or does the weight of RSs say something more like "Azov has some neo-Nazi members, has neo-Nazi links, white supremacist roots and has used Nazi imagery"? I think it's obviously the latter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I think we're rather in the territory of RS say it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, was clearly explicitly and entirely originally a duck, claims it's now 'only' 10-20% duck when it's clearly in its self-serving interests to do minimise its duckness, albeit it does now contain at least some non-duck elements. But only some of them say "yes, it's a duck" in terms. And we have the further difficulty of trying to sum this up in already over-long opening sentence. As I said earlier, I think we need some fairly concise upsum here, whether that be "neo-Nazi group", "group with neo-Nazi elements", or similar. (I'd favour something on the latter lines.) The twisty details we can -- and indeed must -- get into later in the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC) The RS is more pointing to the later, I agree, its a group with some Neo nazi membership, but not a Neo Nazi group. There's plenty of members that just joined Azov because the group has got a rep as an effective fighting force. All its members aren't neo nazis, it would appear, most in fact aren't. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC) It’s extremely challenging not to characterize Azov as a Neo-Nazi bunch -->[23] but I see some editors insist, so maybe use something like a group with neo-Nazi components? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC) This is an opinion piece so if we use it (ideally not in the lead) we should attribute to the expert who has written it, Rita Katz of the SITE Intelligence Group. Neo-Nazi is in the WP:HEADLINE but the article says: The would-be militants have been recruited by groups like the Azov Battalion, a far-right nationalist Ukrainian paramilitary and political movement. Azov was absorbed into the Ukrainian national guard in 2014 and has been a basis for Putin’s false claim that Ukraine’s government is run by neo-Nazis… To be clear, not all in the far right adore Azov, which some see as having ties to Israel or Jewish funders… Among the hundreds of individuals who have announced their intent to join Azov in recent weeks are several known neo-Nazis. It seems an excellent source on global neo-Nazis joining Azov, but not for saying that Azov is neo-Nazi. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "Components" is perhaps to suggest it has neo-Nazi subordinate units, which could be seen as rather minimising the history, regalia, political connections, etc. As Deathlibrarian's WaPo links implies, it might be better seen as neo-Nazis who've been rather successful in gateway recruiting and radicalisation. Another way to hedge "neo-Nazi group" would perhaps be to say "group frequently/generally described as neo-Nazi". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC) "Some Neo-nazi links"?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Don't rely on tabloids. Context is important. https://imgur.com/aIfkEJ6 https://imgur.com/vjd5OV9 - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I think "neo-Nazi links" would be a little minimising too, and "some links" excessively so. The neo-Nazis are calling from inside the house. Certainly it's difficult to concisely sum up a variety of sources, especially given the continual and rather heated interventions seeking to rubbish sources unfavourable to their position. We may have to rehash which sources to use first, and then return to summarising them in the lede after that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I think "neo-Nazi links" is probably the closest. Far from perfect, but at least it gets us away from simply referring to Azov as a Neo Nazi organisation. Neo Nazi components sounds like they formally have Neo Nazi units in their structure (which they don't). Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Agree on "components", too often used as military jargon in exactly that sense. Arguably also an objection to my initial suggestion of "elements", though I intended that in a more general sense. (Statistics would strongly suggest it'd have all-neo-Nazi squads at the least, given the number of self-identifying neo-Nazi recruits, but that's by-the-by.) "Aspects"? "Characteristics"? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC) Actually "elements" is pretty good I think. That doesn't specifically indicate structure, I think is more indicative that part of its membership is. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC) I would be in favor of "Neo-nazi elements" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC) OK might be time to gauge consensus. Proposed options Please say just yay. Do not include the term Neo-nazi Yay. Not in the lede. It is preposterous.Disconnected Phrases (talk) 00:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC) includes Neo-nazi elements Yay Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Yay BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Yay. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Yay. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Yay. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Yay. Ergzay (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Comment - After thinking about it - here is the issue with the above version. Do we have any source that says includes Neo-nazi elements. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see WP:OR - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC) includes Neo-nazi components which has been described as neo-nazi Yay. This is sourceable with the references currently in the article. See below for a different vote if somebody would like to find good sources for “is” Elinruby (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Yay to this too (see my previous comment). I think this kind of phrasing works and allows the nuance to be explained later in the article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Yay, I would go with this one, perhaps modifying it to defined as neo-Nazi - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Which used to be Neo-nazi Yay. (better written as something like "which has its origins as an outgrowth of Far Right ultranationalist and neo-Nazi activists, but is now fully integrated into the Ukrainian military with only scant extremists elements remaining...") See, there's too much nuance and explication needed to be able to fit into a single sentence... - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC) that is kind of my current thought on this, except that I was just reading that the Ukrainian National Guard isn’t part of the Army as it is (I think) in the US. Too complicated a sentence for the lede though, and this whole neo-Nazi thing is imho undue given Mariupol isn’t mentioned at all... it might be better, if we *must* have neo-Nazi in the lede, and apparently we must, to distill it down to some statement we can all agree upon. Assuming that’s possible. Elinruby (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Mariupol is mentioned at the end of the first paragraph. BSMRD (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC) is it anywhere in the body? I am wiliing to believe I missed it, please help me out. I don’t think it was there the last time I looked. Keeping the Russians out of Mariupol is notable enough for the lede and but if it’s in the lede it should also be discussed in the body along with the rest of their combat history. Elinruby (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Given this discussion is specifically about the first sentence, any 'but too complicated for the first sentence' proposals are somewhat unhelpful in that respect. Certainly we should get deeper into the nuance later in the lead section, more fully reflecting the range of characterisations in the different sources, and further still into the body, but we need a suitably-weighted median assessment for the first sentence -- or maybe two, per my suggestion below -- that serves as a defining and scoping statement for what follows. The US National Guard is itself a rather complicated beast, being organised as a reserve at state level, but when 'federalised' deploying in the Army and Air Force command structure. But I don't think that's something we need to get into in this article at all -- we have articles on those for those interested, and we shouldn't assume that readers understand one system in particular in detail in such a way that explaining a different one in terms of it is necessarily going to be helpful. So just the flat statement here is fine. If more of that detail is significant in for example their history, we can address that in the relevant section. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC) ok, but maybe we can agree on one basic principles like hey this unit has seen combat and maybe we should discuss that? I do agree that the status of the National Guard is too complicated for the lede, was just Pointing out that “Ukrainian military” isn’t quite accurate and therefore should be avoided in the lede. Not proposing to object the US one as well ;) Elinruby (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC) Based on recent sourcing, I think that "used to be neo-Nazi" is a fair descriptor. I think it should be fairly high in the lead, but not in the first sentence. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I think there should be a combination of this wording with the above Ne-Nazi "elemants" wording, as it does seem to have been their founding ideology and the current organization inherits it somewhat. CutePeach (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC) I read the RfC. And I add that, in an unfiled source, which is vigent, it reads that that the neonazi faction separated from the battalion, leaving the concept of the introduction outdated.--Berposen (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Comment - Same here, do we have any source that says which used to be neo-Nazi ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Dozens User:GizzyCatBella. Including the from the widely acknowledged scholarly experts in the field (Andreas Umland[24], et al), who are then in turn quoted by the world's most highly respected objective news outlets (AFP, WashPo, Financial Times, BBC, and more) in recent 2022 articles published after the Russian invasion began. I even posted many of them on your talk page. I would encourage you to read them. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC) which has some Neo-Nazi links Is neo-Nazi The battalion should be defined "neo-Nazi" as it is the armed wing of the neo-Nazi project called "Azov Movement" and its political project "National Corps", led by the neo-Nazi Andrey Biletsky (he said that Ukraine's national purpose was to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade... against Semite-led Untermenschen"[25]). It does not matter the percentage of enlisted soldiers who have a neo-Nazi faith of either 90% or 10%. The latest articles that surprisingly speak of a depoliticization of the battalion can be branded as fake news. As Bellingcat expert Kuzmenko (2020) says[26]: ""The relationship between the regiment and the National Corps is also blurred in the political messaging of Biletsky, who has posed with active duty Azov soldiers in political videos. National Corps figures routinely visit the regiment, and the party’s ideologists lecture Azov troops. Their blogs are published on the regiment’s site, while Azov’s social media pages promote the National Corps. According to an August 2017 video, ostensibly recorded at Azov’s base, emigre Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin lectured the regiment. The close alignment between the Azov Regiment and the National Corps continues under the Zelenskyy presidency. In March 2020, soldiers from the regiment were featured alongside leaders of the National Corps in a video ad for a rally meant as a warning to Zelenskyy’s government. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to “depoliticize”. This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps." Indeed, there are videos (4 March 2022) of the "National Corps" channel,[27] in which the flag of Azov Battalion e the National Corps are shown together by the soldiers. This again proves that Kuzmenko is right and that the Azov battalion is the armed wing of Biletsky's "National Corps" political project. Also, all their videos are promoting the Azov battalion.[28] I do not think we can in any way question this evidence and I fear an external campaign is being orchestrated outside Wikipedia to whitewash this facts, with the intervention of multiple brand-new and single-purpose users. I'm afraid we will have to ask for protection for users with fewer than 500 changes to intervene in this issue. If the administrators on the other hand believe that these users are acting in good faith, then I apologize right now. As a reminder, I report all the reliable sources that report that the battalion is neo-Nazi: The Nation: Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces. The Nation: neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion The Guardian Neo-Nazi groups involved in the fighting in Ukraine are actively seeking to recruit British far-right activists [...] At least two Britons are thought to have travelled to the war-torn eastern European country in recent months after encouragement by people linked to the Azov battalion, a notorious Ukrainian fascist militia NY Times: Another, the Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi Center for Strategic and International Studies: a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology The Hill: Ro Khanna: “I am very pleased that the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion fighting in Ukraine.” The Telegraph: Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists TIME: How a White-Supremacist Militia Uses Facebook to Radicalize and Train New Members Wired Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary group Foreign Policy The Azov Battalion [...] this openly neo-Nazi unit Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (POL) Azov is a real problem. The neo-Nazi regiment National Post The amendments, passed unanimously by members of both parties, blocks “the training of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia Azov Battalion,” Deutsche Welle Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment Junge Welt (DE): The Ukrainian neo-Nazi battalion Il Messaggero (ITA): Ukraine, pro-Nazi units alongside the army Il Manifesto (ITA): Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion--Mhorg (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)  Comment:Just the fact that the sources are blogs does not give sustainability to the paragraph. To be or to have been, that is the question. We cannot conjecture on wikipedia if this blog and this other blog has real information or not, reputable sources are used here.--Berposen (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC) This article is even mentioned in academic sources,[29] and in a book of Michael Colborne, from Belligcat.[30] The accusation does not hold.--Mhorg (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC) @Mhorg: Please see WP:NEWSBLOG (N.B.: "attribute the statement to the writer") and WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:AGE MATTERS. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Yay would have been enough, we have seen all the arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC) This is getting harder and harder to follow. Can I suggest that Mhorg just registers a "yay" in this section, and that Mhorg and Disconnected Phrases move their listings of sources out of this section into the section below where we can evaluate the different sources and come to a sense of what the best RSs and the preponderance of RSs say? I don't think anyone disputes that there are some (perhaps several) RSs which say "is neo-Nazi", but it's also clear that there are other ones which don't, or which actively contest this, so listing them here isn't necessarily the best way forward. I also note that some of those listed here (e.g. Ro Khanna via The Hill) have already been judged on this talk page and/or the RSN as no good for this purpose. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I suppose I am a yay to this only because the RfC should give the status quo to be valid. Is it possible to have an “often described as Neo-Nazi” option - this type in of phrasing worked over at Uyghur genocide. It avoids wiki voice and allows to follow up with a more nuanced history of the characterisation including sources noting recent changes? Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Some members have ultra-right and neo-nazi connections Russian Wikipedia solution: Некоторых участников подразделения связывают с ультраправой[15] и неонацистской идеологией Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC) KInd of coverd already but OK. Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC) Some members are neo-Nazis, and that's not the end of their "connections", either. Gawbless the Russian editors for kicking back against the Putin narrative, but that text is amazingly minimising. Especially given the (English-language as it happens) sources they give for it: "Yet some have expressed concern that some of this aid has made its way into the hands of neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion." (The Nation) "Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis"; "a controversial ultranationalist militia in Ukraine that has openly accepted neo-Nazis into its ranks" (The Hill) "In Ukraine, RAM members met with groups like the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology. The Azov Battalion also is believed to be training and radicalizing white supremacist organizations based in the United States." (CSIS) "Its fighters are well trained, but the unit is composed of nationalists and far-right radicals." (DW.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Russian wiki uses exactly the same sources for neo-Nazi in the lead as English wiki does: they're very poor, and assume, for example, that Ro Khanna's opinion is RS for this. Whatever wording we end up with, these sources need to be changed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Shouldn't Russian ультраправой be commonly translated as "far-right" into English? "Ultra-right" seems fairly uncommon in English language as a term.--Staberinde (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC) @Staberinde:, yes, it definitely should. As an indication, see Far-right politics. The term ultraright is very rare in reliable sources in English; see this chart comparing it to the other terms mentioned; note that the datapoints on the graph of "ultraright" are multiplied by 100 so they can be seen on the graph and compared with the other terms; otherwise it's a flat line at zero. Mathglot (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC) comments I think that's all. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC) We already had an RFC in 2021 and another one the 13 March 2022. How many RFCs do we still have to do on topics that always remain the same? Mhorg (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC) This is not an RFC, I am just trying to gauge what people think. And consensus is not permanent, it can change. But we can't have 1 a month, as such to keep on asking ab out this might be wp:tenditious, so I am hoping this might draw a line under it for a while. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC) "Neo-Nazi links" and "some neo-Nazi links" seem significantly different -- albeit neither is ideal. "Used to be neo-Nazi" seems inherently flawed,as it begs an obvious and large question. (So now they're... flower-arrangers? The editorial board of Living Marxism? Slightly less neo-Nazi by dilution and/or Naziwashing? But see my later suggestion on how to address this!) And I don't think we can simply ignore the elephant in the room here, only for it to lead suddenly out with tactical surprise later in the article. The others are potentially viable, just a matter of which best sums up the appropriate sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC) I also like the later suggestion below on disentangling the problem sentence. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Kind of covered by "used to be". Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Kind of not, for the reason I just mentioned. But perhaps we at least need to winnow the options down on this to factor the two with any clarity, so fair enough. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC) How are those significantly different? "Some" is included in "any" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Because (as I already commented on this elsewhere) "links" is decidedly minimising, and "some links" is even moreso. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC) I think lots of editors have given good reasons why we might want to revisit the 2021 RfC (the March 2022 one is slightly different and not closed yet), including the wealth of new reporting which reflects on changes since 2014 and the fact that the sources currently used in the lead are poor. So I think it might be a useful exercise to see what alternative framing has support so that if there is a new RfC it could be well framed and focused (the 2021 was pretty cumbersome, with two different questions that weren't clear to relate). BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Also, by the way, the 2021 RfC was not an overwhelming consensus. Something like 17 out of 32 participants opted for C ("neo-Nazi") in question 1, just over 50%. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC) And I think for question 2, something like 9 out of 26 (roughly a third) supported D, i.e. say "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, kind of the idea, lets gage what has support before we start up any new RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, completely agree here with Slatersteven and BobFromBrockley.Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC) The US army has neo-Nazi members. Should we edit the lede of the US army page to reflect that? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC) At one time, Germany was a majority Nazi country. It still has a neo-Nazi minority. Should we edit the lede of the Germany article to reflect that? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC) it isn’t clear to me that we *must* have an RfC and WP:RFCBEFORE seems to suggest that if the question is complicated it might be better not to if we can reach consensus without it. Just throwing that out there — if editors want to have one then so be it, but it *is* complicated, and I question whether we will get a nuanced answer if we don’t work out the nuances in the choices ahead of time. My suggestion, if anyone cares to hear it, if that we pick either the regiment or the battalion, then either neo-Nazi or nationalist or right-wing, and then decide which of those traits that group may have had. For instance, Biletsky seems to me to be a key to parsing this. I haven’t closely vetted the quotes, but assuming they are good then ok, he was ant-Semitic. Does that make him neo-Nazi? Maybe? I’d like to hear more. If so does that make the group that participated in the Euromaidan anti-Semitic, white nationalist or neo-Nazi? To the extent that Biketsky was any or all of those things, and he was the leader of that group, probably? But I am trying to avoid a wall of text and should stop here. I just want to add that I was looking for where a small consensus was reached for elements to say that this would in my opinion be an improvement. However, what’s an element? It might better to say “has has neo-Nazi members” or flat-out “has” if there is a recent good source for that, not just a passing reference in a headline, Elinruby (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC) TL;DR = yes but if and only if it can be properly sourced and there is also mention of their *absolutely notable* military campaigns Elinruby (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC) It looks like most may now have responded (who has posted here), but I will give it another 7 days, just in case. Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC) The first and newest (2021) reference is a DW article about Belarus crimes (!).'Belarus police accused him of sympathizing with the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment fighting in eastern Ukraine' - whose words are those - of DW or the criminal Belarus police? I demand removal of the refrerence.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I made a post about this at the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN. It would not be a bad idea to make this comment there but the overwhelming consensus over there is that it’s the most ridiculous sourcing the have ever seen. Elinruby (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Russia accuses Ukraine and the Azow specifically but it has neo-Nazi traditions https://theconversation.com/putins-fascists-the-russian-states-long-history-of-cultivating-homegrown-neo-nazis-178535 This is the important context of the whole discussion. Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Comment Recent sourcing is different from older sourcing. See WaPo Under pressure from U.S. and Ukrainian authorities, the Azov battalion has toned down its extremist elements. And the Ukrainian military has also become stronger in the past eight years and therefore less reliant on paramilitary groups. Moreover, today’s war against Russia is far different than in 2014, fueled less by political ideology than a sense of patriotism and moral outrage at Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine, especially its civilian population. Extremists do not appear to make up a large part of the foreigners who have arrived here to take up arms against Russia, analysts said. See also MSNBC youtube Adoring nanny (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC) Note (I will say it again) I will only read Yays, not any other comments. Please can you say Yay (in the option you wish to choose), and not just reply to someone you disagree with. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC) To your question, yes we should have another. Enough opinions expressed here seem to have changed. Mathglot (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Projected RFC Tally (so far) Do not include the term Neo-nazi 1 includes Neo-nazi elements 4 which has been described as neo-nazi 1 Which used to be Neo-nazi 3 (I think) So far then the options for the RFC Would run Should we replace “ Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a neo-Nazi” with A ““ Azov Battalion until September 2014, “ B ““ Azov Battalion until September 2014, a formation which includes neo-Nazi elements“ C “Azov Battalion until September 2014, which used to be Neo-Nazi” As a new voice as shipped it (and made a good point) D leave as is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC) @Slatersteven:I'm going to offer another view. First, an analysis: going back to the eight choices listed under #Options above, we have this: Do not include the term Neo-nazi includes Neo-nazi elements includes Neo-nazi components which has been described as neo-nazi Which used to be Neo-nazi which has some Neo-Nazi links Is neo-Nazi Some members have ultra-right and neo-nazi connections Let's look at those along the lines of static view (past or present) vs. evolutionary (change over time). Here's what I see: Present tense (snapshot now: "is a"/"has some", and the like): 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 Past tense (snapshot then: "was a"/"has been described" and so on): 4 Evolution: (change over time: "used to be"/"was an X but now is more Y" and the like): 5 Do these options offer a fair representation of the panoply of views that we think survey-responders may wish to choose from? I'd say no, that there's too many static views, not enough evolutionary ones. I'd like to see some formulations which offer more possibilities than just the solitary #5 which implies some change since they were first created. I'll think some more about some wording for this, but I wanted to get this out there before an Rfc was created without considering this. Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC) My vote is circumscribed by what I think can reasonably appear in the first sentence. There is only so much room for nuance if the thing that we are voting on must be included in the first sentence. An important divide for me is what the article is making the claim about: A. The regiment itself: 4, 5, 7 B. Elements of the regiment: 2, 3 C. The regiment's links: 6 D. Some members: 8. (1 makes no claim). Once we know what we're talking about, it divides into separates problems of tense, as you described, in what voice (wiki/has been described). Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC) <--- — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC) We mustn't make the mistake of attempting to crowbar in what the RS say, into our pre-cooked rubric of options. That could lead to a dangerously OR or SYNTH or even outright misleading result. So, my suggestion would be, working back from what the RS say, while including all of the discernable positions involved editors on this page have indicated a preference for: A. The Azov Special Operations Detachment is neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. B. The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine composed of neo-Nazis and Far Right extremists, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. C. The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine which contains elements of neo-Nazism and Far Right extremism, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. D. The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, notorious for its 2014 origins as a paramilitary grouping of neo-Nazi and Far Right political activists, under the leadership of Andriy Biletsky. It is based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. And if D., were extended out into a full lede, representative of the scholarly - and frankly just plain historical in some parts - consensus, I would write it something like this... (first draft)... E. The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. It was founded as the Azov Battalion in Kyiv in 2014, a small paramilitary group of extremist Far Right and neo-Nazi political activists under the political leadership of Andriy Biletsky. Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence, relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism, and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers. However, after its forced absorption into the National Guard and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially Andriy Biletsky and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".</ref> - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC) "de-politicized" is not the same as "de-nazified" - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Who says the sources need to say "de-nazified". The Kremlin says Ukraine needs to be "de-nazified", not scholars and academics! Nor me! The original Azov "Battalion" was comprised of at least half football hooligans. You ever been to a football match in Petersburg or Lviv or Belgrade or anywhere else in Eastern Europe? You'd have just as much chance trying to de-mosquito the place! :-) Again, please actually read the sources. Is there some reason why you are unable to do so? Some are beyond a paywall I know, but I can share my copies with you - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) This version paints the best picture of the RS opinion that we have arrived at thus far and is the most NPOV. I think the last sentence could be changed to something like: "After its absorption into the National Guard, the battalion was expanded to a regiment, and purged its more extreme political members." I am very open to other reformulations or interpretations. I can't quite put it into words myself, that is just my stab at it. I believe that Biletsky left to take political office. Members of the military cannot hold political office. I think the de-politicized part could be replaced with something like: "Regular units in the Ukrainian army do not have a political alignment," but I think it is implied by the unit's absorption into the National Guard. I agree that any inclusion of the phrase "de-nazified" would be extremely regrettable, given that "the de-nazification of Ukraine" was explicitly Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine. It is very charged language. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC) re: Biletsky, he and his cohort of neo-nazi ultranationalists and football hooligans were forced out, and in 2016 he founded his own political party, the National Corps. They never won a single seat, in the 450-seat Rada. The street cred he and his ilk gained at Maidan didn't last long after 2014-5. Although the National Corps I've recently discovered maintains a YouTube channel and such, and Biletsky himself often makes appearances, where they - presumably illegally - use Azov-like or "Azov veteran" regalia for clout. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I think we need to keep this to one line and thus think, it is only a brief introduction. So "Which used to have" seems to be short enough, and does some up the claim it no longer is. Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Where would you put it though? The only reason this topic has notability, is because of its earlier notorious reputation. We need to explain in the lede why this article even exists at all. Which adds to the difficulty of the task ahead of us. So, if you look at say, The Black Watch. You wouldn't put in the lede "which used to comprise of six companies to patrol the Highlands of Scotland, three from Clan Campbell, one from Clan Fraser of Lovat, one from Clan Munro and one from Clan Grant." Fascinating though it is, it's history/background/origins - doesn't belong in the lede. We need to mention the extremists paramilitary origins in the lede, because that's how it became notable/notorious in international media, but we also need to make it clear that the 2014 street firm-turned volunteer militia that Azov was in 2014-5, is not the same org as the contemporary National Guard regiment. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC) And we can do that in the body, this is about a brief description in the lede. This is about trying to create an RFC that includes a wide enough range of options for us to reach some kind of consensus over this issue. We can argue about what is correct in the RFC, let's at least decide on what to ask. Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Well, I humbly disagree. As I posited above, the greatest mistake we could make here is attempting to crowbar an introductory sentence or two into some pre-conceived, cookie-cutter rubric. Some subjects are just to multi-faceted for that. An analogous subject might be something like the uncertainty principle. There's just to many facets to the concept - quantum mechanics, mathematical inequalities, particle physics, position, momentum, prediction. Leave any one of those out, and the lede won't actually make sense, it won't be serving its purpose. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC) IN essence the despite is "is, might be, was, was not". In truth those are the only options we need, and detail shous be in the body. So the options should be "Is neo-nazi" "has some neo-nazi elements" "was neo-nazi" or we leave out the claim entirely from that sentence. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC) It's very telling that you begin your sentence with the phrase "In essence". "Essentialism" in formal logic (contemporary analytic philosophy) and historiography is typically employed as a criticism. We are not talking about a mathematical equation or a principle of Newtonian physics. "is [perhaps in a vestigial sense of 5% or 10%]", "was [at one point]", and "is not [essentially]" are not mutually exclusive. The sources are very clear, there was a neo-Nazi and far right element - at least amongst the leadership of the 450-odd member group in 2014 - Biletsky and others did hold Far Right if not neo-Nazi views. International recruits with such an ideological bent did travel to Ukraine to join (as they did the several Far Right and neo-Nazi groups on the Russian side). Extremist ideology is absolutely not, now, an essential feature - it's prohibited by the leadership, by the authorities, and if it still exists, it exists as a tiny minority. This nuanced, multi-faceted reality cannot be crow-barred into your "is, might be, was, was not" model. If the social sciences could be understood with the implementation of such models, then, well, we'd have no need of them anymore! Simple mathematical formulas and algorithms would go the trick. If only humans were that simple... EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC) (broken record alert) I do think ‘that has been categorised/described as neo-Nazi’ is an important option to have as it allows a non-wiki voice option. I’ll shut up about it now but I don’t want this to get lost. Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Vladimir.copic: that would seem to me to be deliberately misinformative. "has been categorized/described" - when? by whom? The Kremlin has been described as the command center of international Marxist-Leninism. I could find you thousands of RS which say that. But that wouldn't be a reflection of what contemporary RS say about the Kremlin in 2022, would it? So, "has been described" in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution and dates, would be deliberately misleading, wouldn't you agree? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC) References (Is a group that was originally formed by neo-nazis but became only neo-nazi minority actually neo-nazi?) References

Note about letting feeling rule

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. plese continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be that people want it not to be neo-nazi, because they are supposed to be the "good guys". Sometimes the neo-nazi do good things. It occasionally happens! It is not strange if they fight for their country, its basically what a supposedly neo-nazi ideology is all about, after all. The same thing would probably also happen if someone invaded USA, there are lots of far-right (and occasional neo-nazi) that has been prepping for war all their lives over there. It's not strange if ukraine also has such groups..? Just be careful and be honest to yourselves, or something · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC) I actually think a lot of people here really want it to be Nazi, because then they can blame those other people over there for the violence in the US. I mean. I have been through this talk page in pretty close detail and (gasp) Azov trains fighters! Yeah well those citizen soldiers are saving Europe’s butt. They have been at war since 2014, you realize that right? But anyway my opinion is irrelevant and so is the opinion of everyone who thinks that way. I don’t doubt that some recruits join because Aryans, or that bad stuff has happened, or that given members actually might be card-carrying Nazis. Maybe some of the bad stories are true, but I also know that a bunch of them aren’t, and that yes, there is actual real Russian propaganda. So it behooves to read critically. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Yes, yours is the typical message of those who want to act on the encyclopedia by carrying a political message. Here we do not have to deal with the war but with what the reliable sources report. If there are tons of Western sources claiming Azov is neo-Nazi, there's nothing you can do about it. This is not a blog.--Mhorg (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC) The preponderance of reliable sources describe them as having a neo-Nazi founder or having neo-Nazi members. I have not seen a reliable source describes them as a neo-Nazi battalion in a meaningful way, and I've been looking. The US Army has neo-Nazi members. Is the US Army a neo-Nazi army? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Request to change wording on political orientation of Asov battalion(s)

This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

1. There are now at least 3 entirely separate Azov battalions, the original national guard unit in Mariupol, and Asov territorial defence volunteer units with a separate chain of command in Kharkiv and Kyiv, the latter two being newly formed units of former civillians raised during the war. 2.Reforms to the structure of Asov and changes to the leadership mean that western sources largely no longer define it as a neo-nazi battalion. 3. Restrictions on Asov have largely been lifted, or are not in force on the other two units with evidence that NATO forces and equipment have been supplied to the Asov unit in Kharkiv, including NLAW anti-tank guided weapons with NATO instructors as per Nexta news agency — Preceding unsigned comment added by PompeyTheGreat (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC) References Do you have more sources for this? A tweet will not cut it, when you have The Guardian and others saying otherwise.. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC) The tweet is from a news agency, it is not just from a random account. As for the sources on Asov having two entirely separate regiments formed in Kyiv and Kharkiv under a different command (classed as Territorial Defence Units Asov rather than the National Guard unit this article mentions, Asov themselves have posted it onto their telegram groups, saying that these are entirely separate units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexta PompeyTheGreat (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC) Nexta is not a reliable news agency. Telegram messages are likewise not usable.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC) It isnt nothing either. Telegram is widely used in the area, and this newsgroup is notable enough for its own wiki page. I am not saying we should use it as a source, but you shouldn’t dismiss it either. i’m Betting that if Nexta says it somebody else done tooElinruby (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2022 (UTC) It took me less then a min to find a reliable source about the restriction lifting: Congress is reported to have recently repealed its ban on a Ukrainian militia accused of being neo-Nazi, opening the way for American military assistance. and "Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group." Infinity Knight (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC) They were using an article about that to source "is...neo-nazi", apparently because they did a Google search for Azov Nazi or something of the kind, then picked out some sources generally deemed reliable for what they actually say. Which was not "is...neo-nazi". See "US Congressman as an authority on Nazis" at the Reliable Sources noticeboard Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)