Talk:Azov Brigade/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

False information

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)

Operating in Ukraine this Azov movement appears to have little public support. Only one far-right party, Svoboda, is represented in Ukraine’s parliament, and only holds one seat. President Putin is trying to paint Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's government, who is both Jewish and had family members die in the Holocaust as “Nazis supported by NATO,” Biased sourced information This article is being used for propoganda Editdone (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC) If the Azov Battalion was officially incorporated into the Ukranian National Guard, I believe it is reasonable to say that the Ukranian government tolerates or supports neo-nazi movements. The Azov Battalion receives funding from the Ukranian government as it is part of the Ukranian National Guard. If that is not an indication of tolerance or support, I wouldn't know what is. As said by Eduard Dolinsky who is the Director General of the Ukranian Jewish Committee, "Our government encourages glorification of nazi collaborators, mass murderers and murderers of Jews" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v32wnEJF_EE&t. Dustey (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC) "If the Azov Battalion was officially incorporated into the Ukranian National Guard, I believe it is reasonable to say that the Ukranian government tolerates or supports neo-nazi movements." Your claim has a significant assumption from the start - that the Azov Battalion is officially a part of the neo-nazi movement. Please, provide reputable sources that can confirm this (also, please, do not confuse far-right & neo-nazi). Here is an article (in Ukrainian, please, use a translator) with a link to the official Telegram Channel of Azov Battalion (Mariupol based) with their statement on nazism: [1]https://www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-ato/3442290-polk-azov-poasniv-rosianam-hto-e-nacistami-u-ninisnij-vijni.html About the video: - The video is about antisemitism, not (neo-)nazism. - 13:02 "The last five years is an unbelievable rise of antisemitism. Specifically, and especially anti-antisemitic rhetoric. Especially in social media. ... hundreds and thousands of everyday comments... which we count as antisemitic incidents" and then "We don't have, or very very rare and extremely rare antisemitic physical violence against people" then he goes on about speculating that the reason for the latter is the very small Islamic community in Ukraine. Now, I'd like to point out that the social media comments are a very controversial "proof" due to explicit usage of bot farms [2]https://www.propublica.org/article/infamous-russian-troll-farm-appears-to-be-source-of-anti-ukraine-propaganda and false accusations of Ukraine in neo-nazism by Russia[3]https://www.bbc.com/news/60292915. Moreover, the rise in social media comments seems to coincide with the start of the Russian-Ukrainian War (the video is 2020, he refers to 2015, the war started in 2014) - "We have in a criminal code and article 161 for violation of equality its somewhere near anti-semitism but no one in 30 years, no one has ever convicted " "... because the article is not workable" "[we] should pressure [Ukraine] to not to be in a state of denial because our relation is denial" It seems like the point of his talk is the following: a) Ukraine has controversial antisemitic history b) Ukraine denies this history and this problem should be solved (by European pressure) c) there are ongoing antisemitic issues: comments on social media (which are very much questionable in the light of the recent events) and vandalism. Now circling back to point one. the video is about antisemitism, not (neo-)nazism. I'd like to invite you to provide a set of official documents, established and proven facts, etc. of the Ukrainian goverment supporting neo-nazi movements. If that is a big issue as you claim (the government supporting a particular type of movement), then there must be a solid trail of proof, in addition to one video from one conference with a speech not supported with numbers and has 12 views. I'd also like to point out that this is a discussion of an article dedicated to the Azov movement & Azov Batallion. The video you are referring to does not have any mention of this topic and therefore seems to be irrelevant. Good dog rex (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC) For reference, Ukraine has far less of an antisemitism problem than the surrounding countries. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC) (Sarcasm)I don't know though, the Pew Research Center may be a neo-Nazi organization, their symbol looks a lot like a sonnenrad. (/Sarcasm) Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC) References  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC) Certainly the level of political success and influence is relevant, and so I added the fact with this edit. —Michael Z. 19:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Over-use of the word "Nazi" in the lead

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)

In the Russian version of the article, the word "Nazi" appears once. In the French version, once. In the German version, zero. In the Ukrainian version, zero. In the Spanish version, zero, but "white supremacism" appears once. Think perhaps the lede as it stands may be somewhat unbalanced maybes? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC) I agree that there's an over-use of the word in the lead. In fact, almost half of the lead is about its far-right leanings. There are plenty of far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis among the Russian separatist forces, and altho there's a section about that, it isn't even mentioned in the lead of their article. ~Asarlaí 14:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Indeed. Just look at the size of the Wikipedia article on the Russian Orthodox Army, from the Russian side, also with neo-Nazi roots. Wikipedia is literally doing the Kremlin's bidding here. As one 2015 German-language peer-reviewed academic article put it (one of the three co-authors was Andreas Umland, the most widely cited scholar on the issue of irregular military formations in the Russo-Ukrainian War): "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." Or: "Although volunteer units are only a part of Ukraine's armed formations, they played [a significant role] in the first battles with separatists and the Russian military in Donbass [in 2014]... This is one of the reasons why volunteer units, along with the National Guard, quickly came to the fore of Moscow propaganda." - Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall “Azov”: Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 65(1/2), 33–41. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Then change those, do not use it as an excuse to change this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Which we are discussing above, so please comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Are these comments directed at me? If so, I apologize profusely, but I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean (English is not my first language). - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC) It is aimed at everyone who keeps on starting up thread after thread about this issue. We are discussing the use of the word Nazi in multiple threads, including one about the idea of a new RFC to decide if we should have it in the lede. Having multiple threads discussing the same topic just makes it hard to judge consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC) You've been entrusted with adjudicating "consensus"? What use is "consensus", when the RSs aren't even considered? How can anyone be expected to make an informed decision if they haven't been exposed to the RSs? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC) No I have not, the closer of the last RFC (not me) was. The closer of the RFC I will launch in a few days will (it will not be me). They will take into account the strength of each side's argument (based upon Wikipedia policies, not logic, facts, or truth). Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC) To push back a bit: Wikipedia policy generally values sources that are reliable for facts in making these sorts of decisions. Arguments are evaluated on their strength in light of policies; it would make sense that a logical argument for why X satisfies a policy is better than an illogical one. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) The problem is logic is often not neutral, it is why we do not allow OR. As demonstrated here, many people are mak9ng what they think are logical arguments, which contradict each other. So whose logical argument wins? Which is why we then fall back on RS, do RS suoopsrt a given claim or not, and not "well its clear RS mean this". Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I don't quite know what logic is often not neutral means in this context; my point was to say that if there is no logical coherence to an argument then it isn't a good one. When we make the claim that the vast majority of WP:RS support X, we generally have to actually demonstrate that rather than just speculating it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I agree we over-use the word "Nazi in the lead and that too much of the lead focuses on this aspect (although it one major reason for notability; the defence of Mariupol is another, but that's underplayed here because of how old versions of the article have sedimented). I think it might be better to get the opening sentence right (see other threads on this page) and then return to this issue, unless there are bits which can obviously be edited now? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

"Dubious" template

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)

This recently-added template is entirely inappropriate. Consensus on that point was established in this RFC with a clear consensus to use neo-Nazi in the article voice; templates cannot be used as a "badge of shame" on something that has been previously settled. If someone wants to challenge that RFC, open a new one, but simply saying that you disagree with the current consensus is not sufficient to tag it as disputed. Part of the purpose of an RFC is to actually end such disagreements and avoid situations where holdouts who refuse to be satisfied continue to insist that something is unresolved, leaving an eternal template as a badge of shame on an article. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Now, just imagine if you had bothered to actually read the scholarly sources before you typed this... nevermind before you started edit-warring and adding all manner of substandard sources from random tabloids and books you discovered after a deep, thorough, 15-odd minutes of Googling (what apparently passes for "research" among some denizens of WikiSpace). Would you perhaps have approached this problem differently? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC) There are more people attacking this RFC than there is those defending it. The RFC needs to be re-done. Ergzay (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC) It will be in a few days, we are discussing above what questions to ask. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Could we just add "presumably neonazi"??

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 (♔ ♕) 22:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

IMO, it's the best way to keep everyone happy.. people just need to know that there are multiple opinions and sources on the batallions ideology Averied (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC) No. That would seem like we're theorizing that they're neonazi. Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL which is what "presumably" implies. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC) And this is exactly what it is - a theory. As long as there is no world wide confirmed actions or public confirmation statement from Azov group, it is a theory. All sources here are questionable and cannot be described as FACTS. There are FACTS that "someone" claimed it is true but there are no FACTS that IT IS true. None of the given material in the page can be called confirming FACT that they are nazis and can be easily be soaked in russian propaganda fakes that you trying to protect here. Baylrock (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Crystal ball is about future events. What the article states is that AT PRESENT the batallion is neonazi.. This may be quite ofensive to some people, considering it's part of the National guard of Ucraine, just under the ministry of internal affairs. Also there is no statement in the official website of the batallion about it's neonazi ideology So for respects sake..it's "presumably neonazi" is the correct statement, as not everyone agrees, and Wikipedia is supposed to be a non biased source of information. Averied (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Crystal ball includes speculation which is what this is. Also, whether or not it's offensive to some people is completely irrelevant as Wikipedia is not censored. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC) The batallion is neo-nazi.. is this a fact? Averied (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC) @Averied: Does it have a source? If it's mentioned in the lead then the source might be later in the article where it's mentioned again. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC) So you do not approve the change, but you don't even know if there is a source.. how can you have an opinion then if you haven't even read the article? Averied (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC) The fact is . There are multiple opinions on the batallions ideology. So if you don't like the word "presumably" just use something else. But there is no definitive source saying the batallions has a neonazi ideology. So it must be stated like this in the article. I can't believe biased views are welcomed to Wikipedia Averied (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC) We would never say "presumably" because that would be editorializing (see MOS:EDITORIAL). ButlerBlog (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Ok.. but I think you guys get the point. What shall we use? I think having the article making this statement as if it's a fact is completely unacceptable Averied (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC) If you have an actual edit request, then submit it as a Semi-protected edit request and be specific (including sources). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC) And it will get reverted right after because of "vandalism"! Informational war going on right here in this page... And wiki admins doesn't bother to verify what is going on. Baylrock (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC) This sounds ridiculous, all the chatter about “the battalion” which hasn’t been a battalion since September 2014. Does not lend respectability to any resulting determination. —Michael Z. 22:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Is it normal this swarm of brand new accounts trying to remove the Azov Battalion - neo-Nazi link all together?--Mhorg (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Yea, because now this wiki page is like a first argument in any debate about the reasons of Russian invasion. What makes this sad is that a lot of people tend to trust everything that in wiki without doing any fact checks. While normally I personally would't care about wiki's content, in a current moment, this page is actually doing a big indirect damage to people who suffer in Ukraine today. I hope none here need an explanation of "how". 24.203.147.159 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC) One thing we could possibly do is state more prominently in the article that the Azov Battalion's significance in Ukraine has been drastically exaggerated and has been used as a justification for the war in a way that has no real connection to reality - most sources are very clear on that point, and it has significant coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC) Honestly, this article has been irritating me for a month. I've been following the disinformation in this war closely since Russia began massing troops. I finally joined wikipedia today to weigh in on it. Is it normal for you to crouch over this article for a year insisting that the term neo-Nazi be in the lede? Please see the multiple contemporary and reliable sources I have cited elsewhere that indicate that this is Russian disinformation. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC) No ToeSchmoker (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC) We cannot add "presumably neo-Nazi" because that would violate the WP:NPOV requirement to avoid stating facts as opinions. There's no serious dispute that they are neo-Nazi; the dispute is over Putin's use of them as a rhetorical point to argue for war, which is very different. (Honestly there isn't really a dispute over that either - every independent RS outside of Russia agrees it's an absurd argument - so the question is more whether we want to cover that here and if so how prominently.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC) So instead we cite opinion as fact?Elinruby (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC) The sources, largely, treat it as fact, not as opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC) If by "the sources", you exclude the leading scholars on the subject (Umland, Fedorenko, Shekhovtsov, et al), in addition to the latest from the news orgs AFP, BBC, DW, CNN, WashPo,, Financial Times,.... then maybe, yeah, "the sources" do say what you want them to say! (@Aquillion: - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Most of those sources do not seem to contradict the description of neo-Nazi; some of them are more cautiously-worded, or note that the Azov Battalion denies being neo-Nazi, but primarily they focus on the fact that Azov Battalion is very small part of Ukraine forces. I don't think this is enough to answer the higher-quality sources I referenced above. Likewise, I don't really see the most of sources you listed above as actually "refuting" the neo-Nazi description; Shekhovtsov just quotes things that Azov members say, and Fedorenko are careful to say that they have attempted to distance themselves from neo-Nazism. What's more, Fedorenko is careful to note that most other commentators emphasize the group's neo-Nazi nature more than he does, which makes it clear he sees even his own caution (which is not at all the same as a denial) as being in the minority. --Aquillion (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Why would you pretend you've actually read the sources? How embarrassing. OK, so now I will quote each one... 1) Umland (2019) the single-most-cited scholar on this very issue, says: "the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group". 1a) Umland is quoted by AFP on March 25, 2022: "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." 1b) Deutsche Welle, in their March 16 piece, also defer to the leading scholarly authority on the issue, Andreas Umland: "Umland said a legend had grown around Azov because of Russian propaganda. He said that volunteer fighters, including Azov, had been accused of looting and improper behavior in 2014..."Normally, we consider right-wing extremism to be dangerous, something that can lead to war," Umland said. But in Ukraine, it is the other way around, he argued. The war had led to the rise and transformation of marginal comradeships into a political movement. But their influence on society is overrated, he said. For most Ukrainians, they are combatants fighting an overbearing aggressor." 2) Fedorenko (2022), in the second-most-widely-cited paper on the issue, quotes the alleged field-commander of Azov in early 2015 (Roman Zvarych) as saying he recruited "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..." 3) Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015), another widely-cited paper, wrote: "However, only some of the members of the Azov association, which has now become a regiment, as well as other nationalist volunteer battalions, are racist..." 4) Gomza, I., & Zajaczkowski, J. (2019) carried out an in-depth study of Azov members' activity online, and their results attributed a characterization of "Radical" far right nationalist to 38% of members, and precisely 0% as Nazi or neo-Nazi. 5) Shekhovtsov is quoted by the Financial Times: “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,” said Anton Shekhovtsov, a Vienna-based Ukrainian expert on Russia’s connections to Europe’s far-right. “Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today.” (Kyiv, March 29, 2022) 6) The BBC says "there is no evidence such sentiment [white supremacism] is widespread..." and quotes Vitaly Shevchenko (another expert, unlike every single one of your sources) of BBC Monitoring as saying: "all they talk about is fighting the Russian forces... there's very little in terms of extremist, anti-migrant, or xenophobic rhetoric there." (26 March, 2022) 7) CNN: "For Putin, who has falsely claimed Ukraine's government is run by "drug addicts and neo-Nazis," Azov presents an obvious target. Moscow has given the regiment an outsized role in the conflict, routinely accusing it of human rights abuses...In the Russian disinformation playbook, the Azov movement is a tempting target -- one where fact and disinformation can be elided...Rekawek, an expert on foreign fighters at C-REX, said Azov has only been able to recruit 20 foreign fighters since the start of the 2022 invasion." 7) WashPo: "Under pressure from U.S. and Ukrainian authorities, the Azov battalion has toned down its extremist elements... 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... ...“You have fighters now coming from all over the world that are energized by what Putin has done,” said Colin P. Clarke, director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm. “That certainly wasn’t the same in 2014,” he added. “So while the far-right element is still a factor, I think it’s a much smaller part of the overall whole. It’s been diluted, in some respects.” ..."Michael Colborne, who monitors and researches the far right and wrote a book about the Azov, said that he “wouldn’t call it explicitly a neo-Nazi movement...“There are clearly neo-Nazis within its ranks,” said Colborne, author of “From the Fires of War: Ukraine’s Azov Movement and the Global Far Right.” ..."The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014. Ever since it was incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard late that year, they “had to purge a lot of those extremist elements,” said Mollie Saltskog, a senior intelligence analyst at the Soufan Group. “There was much more control exerted over who is affiliated with the battalions.” - (April 6th, 2022, oh, and look, more experts!) 8) And there's much, much more. But I think I've expended quite enough labor on educating you on this matter. Next time: read before you edit and make ludicrous blanket statements... especially regarding non-existent "high quality sources" you found after Google two key words for 15 minutes. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I agree with you @Aquillion:, moreover, Shekhovtsov seems to report fake news that does not match reality, given that there are videos of 4 March 2022 of the National Corps and the Azov Battalion together,[4] evidence that there has been no depoliticization of the Azov battalion, as also claimed by Kuzmenko of the Bellingcat group.[5] Mhorg (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC) How's this grab you @Aquillion:? According to Mhorg it's all fake news. He said that he suspects many editors that contradict his POV on the Russian invasion of Ukraine are in fact SPA especially sent in to spread fake news: "I fear that an external campaign is being organized outside Wikipedia to influence some articles related to the conflict" [6]. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Assertion: "“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,” said Anton Shekhovtsov"Financial Times Fact-checking: March 2022, Azov Battalion and National Corps(leaded by the neo-Nazi and founder of Azov Battalion Andrey Biletsky) flags together[7]. Moreover, National Corps videos dedicated only to Azov Battalion:[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]and so on for hundreds of their videos. I don't know why Shekhovtsov made that claim, as it is quite easy to disprove it with a quick search for any user. Do not you think? This is very sad, but what Shekhovtsov says does not match reality. How can we define his statement reliable? Mhorg (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC) I'm not going to waste my time trawling through YouTube, but, I would like to understand you... So, let's just take that first video. What do you interpret it as meaning? I assume you speak Russian, so what is it he says that you regard as betraying a neo-Nazi ideology? - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 01:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Ah, I understand you now @Mhorg:! You're just confused. What you're looking at is the YouTube channel of the political party "National Corps". Yes, Andriy Biletsky, formerly of Azov, founded it in 2016. It never won a single seat. The Azov Regiment doesn't have a YouTube channel, it might surprise you to learn.... ;-) - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2022 (UTC) @EnlightenmentNow1792: You will be doubly surprised to find that the Azov battalion has its own Youtube channel! [17] And the fact that the National Corps and Azov Battalion launch videos where they are together is precisely the fact that Azov has not been depoliticized as Shekhovtsov falsely says! The two entities remain linked: the National Corps is the political project and the Azov Battalion is the armed wing. Mhorg (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Wow, Azov does have a YouTube channel! Madness! You got me there moy drug! But no, the National Corps and Biletsky are very much not linked to the contemporary Azov regiment. The Ukrainian authorities have made sure of that. What would a regiment of 1000-odd people in the National Guard do with a political party anyway? Who would lead it? The Lieutenant-Colonel? The chief drill-instructor? ;-) EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC) "The Ukrainian authorities have made sure of that" Are the Ukrainian authorities a reliable source on a controversial issue that casts a shadow over the Ukrainian state? Please, let's be serious. Mhorg (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2022 (UTC) TIME (2021): "But Azov is much more than a militia. It has its own political party; two publishing houses; summer camps for children; and a vigilante force known as the National Militia, which patrols the streets of Ukrainian cities alongside the police. Unlike its ideological peers in the U.S. and Europe, it also has a military wing with at least two training bases and a vast arsenal of weapons, from drones and armored vehicles to artillery pieces." Yes, it doesn't just seem to me that Shekhovtsov is lying.--Mhorg (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Wow. Awesome. Thanks for that. "Even in December, the Azov movement’s political wing, the National Corps, and its youth wing maintained at least a dozen pages on Facebook. Some began disappearing after TIME posed questions about Azov to Facebook." That's incredible. But not surprising really, given the authors - journalists often make mistakes. But this one's a real howler! Cheers though, proves the point I find myself having to make continuously - quality of sources is paramount. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC) References

RfC on the Purported neo-Nazi Nature of the Azov Battalion

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)

I think it is dangerous and irresponsible to claim in an authorial voice that the Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi group. Azov representatives have publicly stated on multiple occasions that they are not a neo-Nazi group and reliable sources back this up. Russia is committing genocide in the Ukraine right now based on false claims that Ukraine is a neo-Nazi country. Russia uses the word Nazi to mean "doesn't want to be part of Russia." I think that in this situation it might be important to avoid authorial-voiced claims that support the propaganda of a country currently committing genocide based on that propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 05:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Please read WP:RFCNEUTRAL and try again. BSMRD (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC) @BSMRD Should I not indicate that I think this change could be urgent because the article in its current form is aiding and abetting genocide? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC) @BSMRD Why is such a poorly sourced and provably false claim in the lede of this article in an authoritative voice? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC) "'is a neo-Nazi' references 2016-2019 sources, so rather 'was' than 'is'. Two of them are from The Nation, a Bernie Sanders supporter. Not exactly mainstream. Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC) I agree that we need a new RfC, but we need a properly worded one. We could do it one of two ways, I think. Either (1) we could give multiple options, winnowed down via the talk section above which is designed to gauge support for alternative wordings, or (2) we could have a straight yes/no for whether we should say "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice and if the consensus is no then work out new wording. Would be good to have guidance from editors more experienced in framing RfCs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC) I think the is "neo-Nazi" descriptor should be removed from wikivoice. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Another brand-new account[18] jumping in the discussion supporting the removal of "neo-Nazi" descriptor. Curious. Mhorg (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC) As I told you above, this article has been irritating me for months. Claims that the Azov Battalion is currently a neo-Nazi organization are tin-foil hat fringe or Russian propaganda. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Again, I find it curious that you've been defending that descriptor in the lede since last May and haven't come up with more convincing sources. If you write a terrible article, eventually people reading it will get irritated enough to come point it out to you. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Oh no, it isn't Russian propaganda, we decided to use that descriptor in an huge RFC in 2021,[19] using multiple Western reliable sources. Mhorg (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC) The places in which those articles appear are reliable, but the content of the articles does not support the claim. I have posted multiple contemporary articles from reliable sources where the claim is examined and refuted. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 12:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Also above, I have pointed out why your sources are not good evidence for the claim. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC) We are discussing what to ask above, and this RFC is badly flawed. Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC) @Disconnected Phrases: I've removed the {{rfc}} tag, because the RfC statement is not neutral, as is required by WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Especially for a high-profile article like this one, leaving the RfC running would significantly complicate the closure. Please work together to draft a new "neutrally worded, short and simple" RfC statement before launching another RfC in a new section. — Newslinger talk 11:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC) In less than a week, I will be launching an RFC based upon the opinions expressed about the wording to choose in 39.1 Options (I will aslko base it only on Yays, and no other comments), I will not be taking into account anything else, in any other thread. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks Slatersteven, hopefully we can put this to bed once and for all. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I suggest: "should a Wikipedia article reflect its sources" as we seem to need to get that straight before proceeding further Elinruby (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC) I do not know enough about the Azov Battalion to opine on whether they should (or should not) be labeled as “Neo-Nazi” in WP’s voice… but having seen the recent wave of questions at RSN, I do have one word of caution: remember that headlines are not reliable. Headlines often use contentious labels as click bait… while the running text of the news article uses more nuanced language that avoids such labels. We need to base any labels we use on the running text, not the headline. With that caution given… please continue your discussions. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Sources for neo-Nazi descriptor Here are some additional sources on it being a neo-Nazi organization: The ascendency of a transnational global fascist terrorist network has drawn accelerationists seeking military training with openly neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-Semitic organizations like the Azov battalion, who recruited from... His own involvement in the militant extreme right movement predated his enlistment and Smith also was trying to join the neo-Nazi paramilitary Azov battalion and fight on their side in the Ukrainian conflict. More dangerously, as the violence heated up, Kiev allowed semi-private paramilitary groups—such as the far right, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion—to fight in east Ukraine (Walker, 2014; Luhn, 2014). ...antisemitic and white-supremacist conspiracy theories circulated by openly neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion in the Ukraine... What sets the Azov Battalion apart from other volunteer units in Eastern Ukraine is its outspoken neo-Nazi views and use of questionable symbols, the significance of which has been challenged in many instances. ...march through the streets of Kyiv, sometimes in torchlight processions, to commemorate old and new far-right heroes, including those of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which fights against the Russian-backed occupation of Crimea. Just as hundreds of U.S. and European white supremacists joined Croatian paramilitaries fighting for ‘ethnic cleansing’ in the 1990s Balkan wars, the current training of foreign white nationalists in Ukrainian military units, such as the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, points to... Pick whichever you think are highest-quality. --Aquillion (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks for giving everyone a perfect demonstration of how not to curate a search for WP:RS. Please note that "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" as per WP:ONUS. More importantly, please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and keep in mind that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:AGE MATTERS. Wikipedia is not - or at least an encyclopedia ought not to be - a mere summation of all that can be found on Google. Please remind yourself of what it is we're actually supposed to be doing here (WP:PURPOSE). EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Citation counts – One may be able to confirm that discussion of the source has entered mainstream academic discourse by checking what scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes or lists such as DOAJ. Works published in journals not included in appropriate databases, especially in fields well covered by them, might be isolated from mainstream academic discourse, though whether it is appropriate to use will depend on the context. Just because you found the specific succession of words that you were looking for, somewhere, anywhere, after a few minutes of frantic Googling, doesn't mean that the sources you uncovered are necessarily appropriate to use in this context, nor reflective of the current state of scholarship. Nowhere is this more crucial than in politically sensitive areas, that require expert scholarly knowledge. if you can't differentiate between the quality of sources in such topic areas, NPOV and the much-sought-after "consensus" is impossible. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC) You will have to be more specific about which ones you object to and why. Given that Azov Battalion only became noteworthy relatively recently (during the 2014 conflict), these sources cover a wide range of time periods, from 2015 to 2022 - effectively the group's entire period of operation. They are also fairly diverse in terms of what sort of scholarship they represent, including many high-quality secondary sources. It's certainly true that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, but WP:ONUS was satisfied in the RFC last year - there is already an overwhelming consensus to call the group neo-Nazi in the lead. A handful of people were objecting to its outcome on the argument that they felt the sources were insufficient, so I took the time to find additional sources. I feel these show that the group is widely-described as neo-Nazi among academic sources, that that is a generally-accepted fact and one of the most noteworthy things about them, and that it is therefore appropriate to use that descriptor in the article voice early in the lead. Or, perhaps it might help if I put it this way - what sort of source are you envisioning? What type of sourcing do you feel would be sufficient to describe the group as neo-Nazi in the article voice? --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Again, thankyou. You've perfectly demonstrated that you're not familiar with the issue, the source material, or the state of current scholarship. To do that, you'd actually have to spend some time reading, not just Googling. That's why you can't differentiate between, say, your first source there, and Saressalo writing in the The Journal of Slavic Military Studies (which, incidentally, doesn't support your POV at all). If you think Azov as founded and led by Biletsky in early 2014 is the same as the Azov in the National Guard now, then... well, as I said, you need to spend some time reading. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC) The sources say what they say; so far you haven't refuted even one of them, while I've gone into detail on the flaws with the sources you've presented yourself. If you feel that it is easy to find massive numbers of sources referring to the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazi, then what else is there to discuss? Your sources are (largely) weaker than the ones I presented, consisting mostly of news sources; the few scholars you have managed to scrounge up mostly don't even really contradict the ones I cited, they just say the same things in a more cautious manner - or they acknowledge that the group is widely viewed as or described as neo-Nazi even while they advise more caution, which puts your position in the minority. --Aquillion (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC) You'd have to read them first. It's ok, I did it for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion#Could_we_just_add_%22presumably_neonazi%22?? Oh and: "Your sources are (largely) weaker than the ones I presented..." Here's a hint: who do you suppose this is? https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=p4WBLWAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra Yes, that's right, 93 citations for his single 2014 article on Ukraine's Radical Right. How many citations do your sources have? Are you beginning to understand now? See why AFP/WashPo/FT etc all quoted the likes of Umland, Shekhovtsov, etc (my guys) and not some random authors they found on Google one day? Here to help. But some lessons must needs be harsh. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2022 (UTC) With a few exceptions, the quotes you pulled out largely fail to support your point. The sources about whether and to what extent the group is racist, whether their white supremacism is widespread, or which just quote the group and so on have no direct bearing on whether the group is, as a whole, structurally neo-Nazi; there are factions and degrees within neo-Nazism, and a group can work to downplay those things while remaining fundamentally neo-Nazi in nature. Sources saying that it is used in Russian disinformation are even worse (because they specifically talk about disinformation exaggerating its role - something I suggested way back at the start that people focus on instead, but which has no bearing on whether they are a neo-Nazi group at all.) Only a few of your sources actually mention neo-Nazism, and many of them are simply cautiously-worded, which is not enough to dismiss so many papers from high-quality sources saying outright that the group is neo-Nazi in nature. Counting citations on a separate paper that does not even mention Azov is a fairly strange argument, but if we're going to be like that about sources, Daniel Köhler, an expert on the radical right, has 354 citations on his most well-cited book on that topic, and in a separate paper he refers to the group as the far right, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. Mark Edelman's defining paper on social movements has received 916 citations and he elsewhere refers to them as the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Amazing that you're still maintaining this charade that you've actually read all the sources. "Only a few of your sources actually mention neo-Nazism" is, of course, something you could say - but only if you hadn't read them. Do you have access to JSTOR? the Gomza and Zajaczkowski paper, have you read that? Shekhotsov's 2014 paper, how many times does that mention "nazi" or "neo-Nazi"? Look, most of them are open source, so why don't you just read them? Like, now? Umland's 2019 paper in Terrorism and Political Violence entitled "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014" is the most widely cited recent paper, on this very precise issue we're dealing with, by the acknowledged scholarly authority on the topic. The word "Nazi" or "neo-Nazi" or "Nazism" appears 9 times in the body of the text, 5 more times in the footnotes. Absolutely all the relevant information, pre-2019, out there in the public domain is contained in this monograph. It's 22 pages long and has 111 footnotes. It's in English. And yes, as he has been quoted by the press in 2022 amid the Russian invasion, he has said exactly what he says back in his 2019 work, "the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group that today controls a relatively large military unit could present several problems..." It's a fascinating article. Towards the end he writes: "Even nationalism’s most militant expressions can, under conditions of an ongoing war for independence, not be easily interpreted as exclusive and unambiguous permutations of right-wing extremism, uncivil society, and anti-democratic politics. For this and similar reasons, Azov’s emergence was, at least within the extraordinary political situation of 2014, a phenomenon that, in spite of some of the evidence presented above, largely falls under the heading of “civic activism in times of armed conflict.” I encourage you to read it. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the list of sources Aquillion, which complements the lists Mhorg, Disconnected Phrases and EnlightenmentNow1792 have all posted in other sections (might be helpful to put all of them in a single section). I think it is very clear there are several sources, some very good, which say "is neo-Nazi" and several, some very good, which actively dispute this or put a more nuanced spin. I don't think it's helpful for editors to attack any of these lists as a whole. We need to evaluate them individually and try to identify which are the strongest and what the preponderance of the RSs say. EnlightenmentNow1792 (and Disconnected Phrases), which entries in Aquillion's list should we discount? Mhorg and Aquillion, which entries in Disconnected Phrases and EnlightenmentNow's lists should we discount? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC) There will be a couple of sources worth discussing, but this is not a matter of debate or opinion BobFromBrockley. Please read WP:RS, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and WP:NOR. Picking and choosing a "compromise list" is not our place, that would be SYNTH and OR. The highest quality reliable sources shouldn't contradict each other. And, happily, they don't here. (Except for that *ahem* outlier piece in TIME magazine by a couple of journos that will be soon publishing corrections!) The only curation needed will be how many to include. Too many makes the article look ugly. But they all say nearly the same thing. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC) References RfC on the Purported neo-Nazi Nature of the Azov Battalion References

Symbol: Is it a wolfsangel? Does it resemble a wolfsangel?

Azov claim the symbol is intended to be NI for "national ideal" or "idea of nation." It does look like a reversed wolfsangel, which is to say it is a rotated mirror image of the wolfsangel used by the Nazi panzer division that used a wolfsangel as a symbol. A Nazi wolfsangel looks like a Z on its side with shorter terminal lines, not like an N. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: what chance do you think there is that it was just a happy coincidence? From Umland (2019, p. 121), the leading academic on Azov and other irregular militias in the conflict:

"Yet, the symbol of the “Idea of the Nation,” with its occult Black Sun image in the background, has an obvious connection to the pre-history, quoted statements, international links, and political behavior of Azov’s [early] leaders. Azov’s wolf hook has a more than coincidental semblance with far right symbols of other countries and from other eras. The early Azov emblem’s significance is an indication of continuity between the early battalion and SNA/PU...

...The ideological imprint on the early Azov battalion was strong enough to let some Russian neo-Nazis, including Roman Zheleznev, Aleksei Kozhemyakin, and Aleksandr Parinov, to find their way into the battalion’s so-called Russian Corps, while a Russian reporter with similar views, Aleksei Baranovskii, who had moved to Ukraine, was allowed to observe Azov’s daily routine. It is notable that Parinov and Baranovskii had previously been linked to one of Putin’s Russia’s most notorious neo-Nazi groups, the so-called Combat Organization of Russian Nationalists known under its Russian abbreviation BORN which, amongst other things, carried out targeted killings of Russian anti-fascists... the legal wing of BORN, Russkii Obraz ("The Russian Image") had at one time been under the indirect protection and direction of the Kremlin." [emphasis mine]

- EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I slightly simplified the lead so it now says: It has used controversial symbols,[16][17][18][19][20] including Wolfsangel insignia.[21][22] Azov representatives deny links with neo-Nazism and state that the logo is an abbreviation of the slogan "National Idea" . Probably we should say why controversial, i.e. because of fascist links, but also clarify the Wolfsangel. Would it be better to phrase as It has used symbols with fascist links.[16][17][18][19][20] Its "National Idea" insignia is a version of the Wolfsangel, although Azov representatives deny its Nazi links.? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I disagree as we are saying what they claim is true, it may not be. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point. What's a better way of phrasing it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Not really sure as the whole issue seems to be this self identification as a symbol for "National Idea", while it may in fact just be a resuse of the Nazi symbol. I think it's kind of OK the old way. Its all a bit convoluted. I am unsure we can really do much to untangle it, its not as if most NAzis would ever admit to it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

References

References

"That's enough of that"

Is this explanation of removal of 5,271 characters acceptable? Xx236 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Might be helpful to say which diff you're referring to Xx236. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=1081521729&oldid=1081521590 Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

wp:soap and wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I challenge you to present what value an IP making 7 separate posts in an hour on the exact same subject soapboxing about how the page is all propaganda and disinformation and a disgrace to Wikipedia is adding. They were disrupting the page, I reverted the disruption, and it stopped. BSMRD (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe not the best edit summary but don't see the value of those extra sections, making an already cluttered talk page harder. Alternative would be to collapse or archive, which might be better for transparency although outcome not substantially different. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Quote from Haaretz (formerly 'a Nazi symbol')

This Talk page is dominated by the quote. This suggests the quoted phrase contains the COMPLETE TRUTH. Please remove the quote. BTW the article is about Russian censorship, not about Ukrainian nazim, but who would read the article?Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• It is not obvious that the symbol is Nazi.
• Russia (150 millions) uses Z in a Nazi way. The Russian Armed Forces page does not discuss in the lead if the Forces are Nazi.

Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Frankly I have no idea what to do with this. What are you talking about? BSMRD (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, start to read from the beginning - the Haaretz (mis)quote.Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don’t know what the actual issue is here. Possibly it would be best to close this section and keep the discussion in the “Symbol: Is it a wolfsangel? Does it resemble a wolfsangel” section above, as this talk page is already very cluttered. Xx236, please be clearer about what you’re actually requesting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

good point being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean "This article has been mentioned by a media organization:".

This article should be discussed like other references. Now the quote is some form of external pressure. Haaretz has some leftist bias, so it writes exactly the same as many left-wing media do.

The same Haaretz has published https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-fake-nazi-death-camp-wikipedia-s-longest-hoax-exposed-1.7942233 by the same writer. Xx236 (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what their politics have to do with it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure why is the Haaretz article quoted here, suggesting it is reliable. In fact it quotes stereotypes. The politics may be 'Omer knows everything' https://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/WRITER-1.4699329.Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Is "left-wing" a stereotype? M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not understand you. Please explain.Xx236 (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Football roots of the Azov battalion?

I havent searched the literature to the fullest extent possible, but I failed to find a paper that highlightens the connection to football roots. What I have found, is the catalyst effect Euromaiden and Russia's involvement to Ukraine. (See for example 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), 105–131. doi:10.1080/09546553.2018.1555974). I think the details of the current version are in line with the "just the facts mam" approach of historical events, but I think WP could do better. Cinadon36 08:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Sidestepping the impasse

• We have a text which reads:-

is a neo-Nazi[2][3] unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov

• This states in wiki’s voice that the statement is a fact. Therefore the crucial policy is WP:NPOV
• Many sources state this as a fact. Numerous sources challenge it, or historicize it.
• Given the mere existence of evidence, amply attested, that there is a notable degree of disagreement over whether the Azov battalion is intrinsically neo-Nazi (‘is’ here is ‘ontological’) or not, NPOV has been self-evidently violated by asserting a contested claim to be an undisputed fact.
• Numerous RfCs have not resolved the impasse of conflict between editorial views and source disagreement. Threads with alternatives and voting are, to this editor, virtually illegible in their complexity or unsatisfactory choices between formulations.
• This argufying can go on forever, remain indeterminate, while the clear fact that the text as it stands is problematical for one of our core policies, means that a provisory edit is required, which espouses not a factual statement, but a fair description of the conflicted viewpoints of our sources.
• If we, aware of this, haggle over the perfect solution rather than simply fix in the meantime the flaw, the POV statement will remain stable in violation of policy
• An interim solution that restores NPOV, without claiming to resolve the contention, is therefore obligatory per core policy
• I will therefore emend the text as follows:-

is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, often described as neo-Nazi, based in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov.

• I don’t regard this as a solution, or the highly restrictive description of its operational area satisfactory. But at least the patent NPOV-violation of the received text is eliminated as we await some emerging consensus for a formulation consonant with all of our sources. If someone has a serious argument that NPOV allows contentious (per sources) viewpoints to be written up as facts, please clarify that here.Nishidani (talk)

• Comment This is what the ongoing RfC is meant to solve. Consensus, as a core policy, trumps all others. M.Bitton (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
• Per the above, the RFC will resolve this. And no they have revolve the impasse, as a lot of people will also disagree with this solution (as the RFC has shown). Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Consensus cannot trump NPOV. Several RfCs have not resolved it. Per WP:Crystal we have no guarantee now as before that RfCs will resolve this. I would ask both of you to explain in policy terms why the text, in stating as a fact what is a viewpoint, not a clear violation of a core policy, one requiring simple remedial action. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Well actually it does if consensus is that saying X obeys NPOV. Yes (by the way) several RFCs have said it is NPOV, and continuing to argue in the face of multiple RFC's is wp:tenditious. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I find it bordering on it to imply that already people are getting ready to reject the result if it does not give them what they want. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Then please provide us with the links where the closure states that is Neo-Nazi '(said it) is NPOV.'Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It isn't a loophole to try and find any reason after the fact to try and dispute an RFC result, instead of overturning it. You have to re-run the RFC (which we have now done twice) to try and supersede the consensus. Please participate in the ongoing RFC, and abide by the results as everyone is obliged to do. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Please, all, answer my question above. Where in the closure of the RfCs is it asserted, as opposed to other claims, that stating Azov is a neo-Nazi group, as opposed to any number of other conclusions, conforms to WP:NPOV. That policy reads:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. . . .This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.'

What RfCs may randomly conclude, we have a source conflict (not disputed by anyone) over the nature of the Azov battalion, yet we write that one, as opposed to the other viewpoint, represents the truth. I don't know how much experience editors have here, but there is no margin for doubting that this violates a core policy. Please focus therefore on this precise question, and provide me with a policy explanation for why, apparently, we are allowing for an infraction of a core policy requirement. (As I said, close reading of all these RfCs leaves me in a state of perplexity. They are unintelligible or as many note, two complex in their options, all tweaked, to allow a third neutral party like myself to 'vote')Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Note that if a valid NPOV argument had been made it would have been accepted, if one was made and was not accepted then it was not valid. As the RFC's have come down to "is Neo-nazi" that means no valid NPOV objections were raised. If they are rejected again, it (again) means they are not valid. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

"Consensus cannot trump NPOV" Um, the idea is that given a well attended RFC, editors will/should put forward well reasoned policy arguments for their opinions and then the closer needs to make sense of that, which would include NPOV issues. A close can be contested of course, that's also part of the process.Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

WP Policy - determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Consensus, therefore, is determined by the "quality of arguments", that quality depending on how the arguments relate to Wikipedia policy. It emerges after considering policies. And whether a consensus has been established and what it is, is not judged by vote counting.     ←   ZScarpia   16:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Or, to reply to Slatersteven was it, and Self, the policy cited above is specific. No subsidiary policy can trump NPOV :-

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.]'

Could editors please focus, not dodge, skirt or sidestep the very specific point or order raised here. Not waffle.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Nishidani, to answer your question: the last closed RfC (this one has a closing comment that acknowledges NPOV-based arguments but finds consensus in favor of "neo-Nazi" as a descriptor. The most relevant quote is probably "Those in favor of D argued that a descriptor violated WP:NPOV or that the sources for the descriptor were not reliable or that it violates the MOS to include such a descriptor but these arguments did not persuade the other participants who argued that the quality, quantity, and depth of the sourcing for the label overrides the other concerns and therefore complies with NPOV", with "D" there meaning using no descriptor at all. Consensus can change, and the currently running RfC will reveal if it has. Part of your opening comment states that you intend to edit your proposed language into the article. I urge you not to do so, and I predict with some confidence that it will lead to an edit war. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Firefangled, that is the first focused answer to what I requested. Eminently collegial. Of course, given the above, I will not make the edit because it is only an invitation for reverters.Please note that the RFC closure has consensus trumping NPOV, read closely, by making the majority consonant with it Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable interpretation of the close; I don't have strong opinions either way, except some positive ones about the experience and judgment of the closer. If you'd like, you could consider challenging the closure at AN, though it's likely the resolution of the close challenge would take as long or longer than the RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

is it a good idea to contest an RFC close, now we have a new one active asking the self same question. would it not be better to change consensus via that method? Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

While Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not work in isolation, WP:CONSENSUS, of which, an RfC is the ultimate expression, trumps every single one of them (the only decisions that are not subject to consensus are listed here). M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Read the NPOV policy,cited above, which affirms the opposite.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's take the specific case of determining consensus by RfC. The closer, if there is a closer, will weigh up the strengths of the various arguments advanced. Those arguments which make a case which adheres to policy will be judged stronger. Arguments which either fail to take policy into account or contradict it will be judged weaker. Above, it's implied that if enough editors merely state that they think that the current wording is NPOV, a closer will just accept that. I doubt that's the case. Any editor who wants their argument to count will have to explain why the current wording is NPOV. The neutrality policy means that, if reliable sources disagree about something, it must be presented in terms of viewpoints rather than as a fact. If sources which would normally be regarded as reliable contradict the current wording, in order to show that the current wording is neutral, editors who think that it is neutral would have to make a very strong case why the contradicting sources should be ignored. If there is no closer, determining what the consensus is, assuming there is one, may be difficult. However, claims about it shoudln't be be based on vote counting.     ←   ZScarpia   18:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I have, but like I already mentioned, WP policies do not work in isolation. I have yet to see a single rule that trumps consensus in practice. M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

All policies and guidelines are themselves backed up by consensus. It's consensus all the way down... It's just "global consensus" versus "local". And here's what you do when you think local consensus is conflicting: WP:1AM. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

With due respect, Scarpy, this is not a subjective matter. 'Facts' are not, at least in mainstream epistemology, determined by consensus. The earth does not move around the sun because of a consensus, but because it is a verifiable reality.

Logic allows for zero equivocation here.

(a) sources disagree over the 'neo-Nazi' epithet.

(b) when reliable sources are conflicted, per NPOV (see above) we are under an obligation to 'represent(ing) fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views,' not, as here, one of the two views.

(c) This would not apply only if it were shown that the counter-notion that Azov has a more complex history of development since 2014 than its originative neo-Nazist roots would suggest, is false. I.e., the excellent secondary sources supporting a less reductive take are less reliable (in fact 'insignificant') than those affirming continuity. Making such a preferential judgment is intrinsically subjective, whatever the strength of the consensus,and factual statements are objective, not propositions bartered in a discursive market, as here.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Nishidani wrote:"The earth does not move around the sun because of a consensus, but because it is a verifiable reality", Yes, speaking of "verifiable reality", are there users who can tell me how we can consider reliable the statements of Shekhovtsov who says that the unit has been depoliticized[20] while there is strong evidence until 2022 that the Azov Battalion continues to be the armed wing of the neo-Nazi "Azov" movement headed by Andiy Biletsky?[21] Having established that Shekhovtsov is lying, or has done a bad job of research, and that Kuzmenko of the Bellingcat group is right, shouldn't we remove all references to "depoliticization" from the RFC? For example, in the Alternative draft 2 I read: "the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized"". If this were to pass in the vote, we would be doing misinformation. Mhorg (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I expect troubles with the first sentence continue, because the issue is simply too complex for it. Reasonable short summary of neo-nazi problem would be roughly along the lines: "The regiment is controversial due to its far-right associations. Some consider it to be a neo-nazi formation, while others regard it to have largely de-politicized. The regiment itself claims to be apolitical." Good luck pressing that gracefully into the very first sentence of the article.--Staberinde (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I would tell you that many on this page (and many of the available sources) would amend this to say: "'The regiment is controversial due to its far-right and neo-nazi associations. Some consider it to still be an extremist organization, while others regard it as largely de-politicized. The regiment itself claims to be apolitical."

Is that an effective compromise for you? @Staberinde @Nishidani

Because even many, most of recent best available sources suggest there are some neo-nazi elements which remain within the unit. The regiment claims they are removed, those who stand to gain from the depoliticization claim these elements are removed, but the secondary independent expert sources do not seem to agree. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate these suggestions, but I didn't aspire to find a satisfactory resolution of the lede crux. Ledes summarize the sections where details are given. Editors are wrestling over the details, so I proposed an innocuous and provisory neutral précis of these contentions:'is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, often described as neo-Nazi, based in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov.'

I fail to see why this compromise, which deliberately glosses over the fact that sources exist challenging that epithet (except in writing 'often'), is proving so contentious. The summary style alludes to the its neo-Nazi connections while refraining from making a truth claim, referring readers to the relevant sections where this is discussed. Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Basically any topic area, any content question, has at least some sources which dispute the way we have it written on Wikipedia. Universal agreement is almost impossibly vanishingly rare. We go on what the informal consensus of available sources says. If you look at the source review at the top, extremely few sources actually claim that the group has zero neo-nazi links and is completely de-politicized as of the present. And the ones that do this, mainly rely on self-identification (rarely will a neo-nazi tell you they are a neo-nazi). Most say there are probably still some neo-nazis and a lot of neo-nazi imagery and sentiment, but that the group is disputed as of present, with many saying it's de-politicized, and many saying it is still extremist. This is what I think our lede should say. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not know what it should say, but it says (since some days at least) "is a neo-Nazi". Why?

We have one problem - 'is' may become 'was' and we will be still discussing if 'Azov' washes hands before a lunch.

Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Because that's the consensus right now, and we need an RFC to overturn it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 10:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate Nishidani’s suggestion but don’t know our policy well enough to comment on the procedure. I will add that looking at the last RfC the close must have been hard as the “consensus” was incredibly weak and no single argument dominated. Very few participants actually endorsed “is neo-Nazi” in wiki voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Creation of Azov Batallion

Shibbolethink I did provide the source. You can see the information i wrote here on this link --->>>> https://kievvlast.com.ua/text/sergej-botsman-korotkih-legko-stanovitsya-byt-ukraintsem?__cf_chl_tk=BTfY6Xu5A.FTo.ERjIyS6UWNOyTKTtH4W6i.8JN6yp4-1650046299-0-gaNycGzNB70&fbclid=IwAR2FesCEUH0U2gT6EYkf2H3-xNkosSEOEZmOzk-2zqIJWVWg2Hxl2_Q_55U

Source was already visible next to the information, therefore your revert was unjustifiable. --Lemabeta (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is non-reliable. Citations must be to reliable, independent, secondary sources, preferably scholarly publications. Kievvlast does not appear to have any editorial policy [22]. It has very little circulation or following [23]. It is online-only. There is no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy [24]. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian disinformation tainting our sources

This came up in a discussion of Russian disinformation:

[25] Elinruby (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No please, do not use StopFake as a source. The journalist Katerina Sergatskova was investigating the links between StopFake leaders and Ukrainian neo-Nazis... she was threatened with death and flee the country. This is mentioned even by Human Rights Watch.[26] Mhorg (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby please do not continue to make new sections for every single source or idea that you have. If it is extremely applicable to a different section, please add it to that section. This practice makes this page really frustratingly long and unnavigable. I will start merging your sections manually after this to comply with WP:TPG#YES. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 12:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink you do not have my permission to edit my talk page posts. You did that once before and separated my reply to a post from the post it was answering. I don't have time to engage with your impenetrable wall of text, and would object to this observation on sourcing being incorporated into a vote on whether two plus two equals five or eight. @Mhorg: according to your own source, it's a nonprofit fact-checker, not a death squad ;) and widely cited, at that. The rules on extraordinary claims would apply here, I think. Elinruby (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

If you think using a Ukrainian pro-government organization with links with Ukrainian neo-Nazis as a source is a good idea, well, ok... Mhorg (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

And you're using Russian journalist as a source of information about links between StopFake and some neonazis. One person's opinion against an entire platform fighting misinformation at least since 2014. Also, Ukraine had presidental and parliament elections in 2019 which completely changed the government; so when you say 'pro-government' regarding to StopFake and/or Azov (which existed since 2014), you mean pro-Poroshenko-government or pro-Zelenskiy-government? 91.196.52.42 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

That particular prohibition on my editing that you've just stated applies to your personal talk page. it does not apply here. See WP:TPG#Yes and WP:TPO.

I appreciate your concerns and that my editing of any comments would upset you. However, this is a thing that we should all be doing for all talk pages, per the guidelines. And it's indiscriminately applied, not just to your particular edits or sections. I mean no offense to you in particular, and I have no plans to edit the actual words you have written anywhere at any time. I would not do that. I also would not remove any of your comments. I would, however, combine redundant sections as we are all permitted (and, in fact, compelled) to do per the guidelines. I would do this replacing one header as a subheading. I am not sure which edits you are referring to. I did not do this to a past section of yours, but I did collapse one of your sections. Someone else chose to recombine it instead (I think it was @My very best wishes? Anyway, what they did was within guidelines as well. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I can’t be bothered to go look it up, but I am pretty sure it was you, since you were posting about what a good idea it would be. I have no issue with My very best wishes and don’t appreciate you trying to deflect onto her them. This comment is about sourcing. I know you think nothing is important but the lede, but that doesn’t give you license to edit everything else off the talk page Elinruby (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If you can’t be bothered to go look it up, probably best not to assume. I'm not "deflect[ing] onto them." Here are the edits I'm referencing: [27] [28]

I don't think nothing is important but the lede, please don't assume what I believe or feel or think on my behalf. Likewise, I am not edit[ing] everything else off the talk page. I'm collapsing or merging discussions which are redundant. This has very little to do with the RFC, I would have merged this with whichever discussion was closest in topic area.

You are not the only person who is making unnecessary sections, and many of them. I will give the same advice to others when/if they do this. I would avoid it for the WP:TPG reason, but also because it creates the appearance of WP:BLUDGEONing these related issues.

Please try to stay on topic, and comment on content, not conduct. such comments should be placed on User Talk pages, not here. Please try to continue existing discussions and condense your thoughts into related places. This talk page is already extremely long and dense, which creates a large barrier of entry for new editors. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me. Is this the talk page for Azov Battalion? If so, I am not off-topic. And I am not sure why you would suggest I am. Elinruby (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

What they mean is that we have one discussion about something at a time, not 15 separate threads all asking the same question. Per WP:EXHAUST we try to keep discussions focused, which is very hard when spread over multiple threads. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Banderism

The basic grasroot radical Ukrainian nationalism is Banderism. This article mentions only 'Jewish Bandera', which is something different. Either the editors have no idea about Ukrainian nationalism or the Azov has no Banderite connections. Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

RS? Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources, please. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I have asked - is Azov Banderite? I assume it is not, because your sources do not support such thesis.

The Banderism is a real danger: red-black flag, trident, UPA tradition, monuments, street names, accepted by hundreds thousands or millions.

A perfect description of this whole Azov discussion (in Germany, but not only) https://twitter.com/AliceBota/status/1506588983073124360

My summary: Azov is bad but "Das Reden über Asow ist eine Ablenkung", 'a diversion'.

Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

We need RS saying it is, none have been provided. What we have (and use to say) is one source saying they have Jewish members. So what is it you are asking? Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Where does this article say Jewish Bandera. Based on our past interactions, I am sure you're right, but I don't remember seeing that. I thought the Russians didn't like him because he thought the Germans would help him defeat the Soviets? And I suspect you are right, most of us don't understand Banderism. Please explain. Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

WE do not we say "Some members of the Jewish community in Ukraine support and serve in the Azov Battalion. A 2018 BBC report gave the example of one of its most prominent members, co-founder Nathan Khazin, a leader of the "Jewish hundreds" during the 2013 Euromaidan protests in Kyiv.". Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. That answers my question, perhaps. Nonetheless, this editor tends to provide very good input, even though they don’t seem to be a native English speaker and sometimes have to be asked to clarify. @Xx236: what part of the article are you talking about, first of all? Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I am human. I am unable to discuss with virtual reality generation editors at the time when Azov people die. It is not a computer game.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

So no then we do not use the term 'Jewish Bandera'. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Is Azov Battalion actually pagan?

I see the section on their pagan ideology was removed from the article due to citing Russian propaganda sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&oldid=1078187164 do we have any reliable sources that support them even having a pagan ideology at all? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Here are some other articles mentioning Azov battalion being/having large amounts of pagans, Aljazeera one particularly relevant:*

The Black Sun is intrinsically neo-pagan but I suppose the question is whether or not they are believers in that or just like the way it looks.

• note not sure if SPZH is reliable source but I checked and some articles here use it 24.44.73.34 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No it is intrinsically NAzio as they actually created that specific design, you are thinking of the sun Wheel. Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, by neo-pagan I meant the nazi kind. I know not all neo-pagans are nazis. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Then say neo-nazi? By saying "neo-pagan" you're including every single neo-pagan in with racists.199.192.158.98 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

We would need wp:rs to draw that conclusion for us to mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is on WP:RS/P (in a good way), not at all sure about the other two. They might be worth including anyway, but the key thing is all three cases is they're not saying this editorially, they're attributing it to a given source in each case. And one with an obvious axe to grind, at that. ("Christian Taliban" don't think Azov are Christian enough, film at 11.) So we should very clearly not say this wikivoice, nor attribute it to those outlets, but as the view of those being quoted. If at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

For the Black Sun, as well as the [[29]], these are both purely Nazi imagery, and have no ties to historical or modern Paganism intrinsically. While they are used by far-right Norse Pagan branches, and they are derived from runic symbols and sunwheels, they are not historical Heathen symbols.199.192.158.98 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

References

unsolicited opinion: anything that says "corpse" when they (presumably) mean "corps" probably doesn't get a lot of editorial review Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Wolfsangel is not purely Nazi. In fact they specifically altered their version away from either of the Nazi formats.

This is literally what we (Pagans, glad to finally be part of the discussion) talk about when reclaiming the symbols.

The Black Sun is also problematic, but we can also see quite a few Belarussians and other Foreign Volunteers sporting this symbol on their patches. At which point we have to ask ourselves if these can be considered Nazi symbols in this context given the people sporting them and giving them significance aren't really acting like Nazis at the moment, or for the past couple years. 104.165.250.120 (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We go with what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Is Azov still neo-nazi?

Can we still consider the Azov Regiment to be completely neo-nazi? It appears to me that right now it should be considered "ultranationalist with neofascist and neo-nazi elements inside it".-Karma1998 (talk)

See the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Fighting for the right cause is a chance for them to try to rebrand themselves (with the help of those who believe that their enemy's enemy is a friend), it doesn't make them any less neo-nazi. M.Bitton (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

*Answer

1) Umland (2019) the single-most-cited scholar[30] on this very issue, says: "the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group".

1a) Umland is quoted by AFP on March 25, 2022: "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..."

1b) Deutsche Welle, in their March 16 piece, also defer to the leading scholarly authority on the issue, Andreas Umland: "Umland said a legend had grown around Azov because of Russian propaganda. He said that volunteer fighters, including Azov, had been accused of looting and improper behavior in 2014..."Normally, we consider right-wing extremism to be dangerous, something that can lead to war," Umland said. But in Ukraine, it is the other way around, he argued. The war had led to the rise and transformation of marginal comradeships into a political movement. But their influence on society is overrated, he said. For most Ukrainians, they are combatants fighting an overbearing aggressor."

2) Fedorenko (2022), in the second-most-widely-cited paper on the issue, quotes the alleged field-commander of Azov in early 2015 (Roman Zvarych) as saying he recruited "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..."

3) Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015), another widely-cited paper, wrote: "However, only some of the members of the Azov association, which has now become a regiment, as well as other nationalist volunteer battalions, are racist..."

4) Gomza, I., & Zajaczkowski, J. (2019) carried out an in-depth study of Azov members' activity online, and their results attributed a characterization of "Radical" far right nationalist to 38% of members, and precisely 0% as Nazi or neo-Nazi.

5) Shekhovtsov is quoted by the Financial Times:[31] “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,” said Anton Shekhovtsov, a Vienna-based Ukrainian expert on Russia’s connections to Europe’s far-right. “Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today.” (Kyiv, March 29, 2022)

6) The BBC says "there is no evidence such sentiment [white supremacism] is widespread..." and quotes Vitaly Shevchenko of BBC Monitoring as saying: "all they talk about is fighting the Russian forces... there's very little in terms of extremist, anti-migrant, or xenophobic rhetoric there." (26 March, 2022 in "‘Don’t confuse patriotism and Nazism’:Ukraine’s Azov forces face scrutiny Nationalist regiment with neo-Nazi roots has been instrumental in the resistance to Russia’s invasion)

7) CNN: "For Putin, who has falsely claimed Ukraine's government is run by "drug addicts and neo-Nazis," Azov presents an obvious target. Moscow has given the regiment an outsized role in the conflict, routinely accusing it of human rights abuses...In the Russian disinformation playbook, the Azov movement is a tempting target -- one where fact and disinformation can be elided...Rekawek, an expert on foreign fighters at C-REX, said Azov has only been able to recruit 20 foreign fighters since the start of the 2022 invasion."

7) WashPo: "Under pressure from U.S. and Ukrainian authorities, the Azov battalion has toned down its extremist elements... 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...

...“You have fighters now coming from all over the world that are energized by what Putin has done,” said Colin P. Clarke, director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm. “That certainly wasn’t the same in 2014,” he added. “So while the far-right element is still a factor, I think it’s a much smaller part of the overall whole. It’s been diluted, in some respects.”

..."Michael Colborne, who monitors and researches the far right and wrote a book about the Azov, said that he “wouldn’t call it explicitly a neo-Nazi movement...“There are clearly neo-Nazis within its ranks,” said Colborne, author of “From the Fires of War: Ukraine’s Azov Movement and the Global Far Right.”

..."The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014. Ever since it was incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard late that year, they “had to purge a lot of those extremist elements,” said Mollie Saltskog, a senior intelligence analyst at the Soufan Group. “There was much more control exerted over who is affiliated with the battalions.” - (April 6th, 2022)

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @EnlightenmentNow1792 please add these to the sources template at the top of the page. But PLEASE check to make sure they aren't in the template already. Thank you! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

is a neo-Nazi group

is as gross a violation of NPOV given the source conflict evidenced throughout these discussions. On last looking, further, it was buttressed by two inferior newspaper sources of dubious relevance. Something like 'with neo-Nazi roots' is required. As it stands it endorses the boring Russian spin on the whole resistance, given the undue prominence accorded it (as opposed to the virtual silence on neo-Nazi elements in several Russian donbass units.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Apparently, Zelenskyy's speech at the Greek parliament was overshadowed by the "white bunnies'" video. M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

So, according to this source, a man from Azov battalion said on video:

“I was born in Mariupol, and I take part in the defence of the city from the Russian Nazis. I will not talk about the difficulties we have in defence, participating through the Azov Battalion. This is my debt to my city, my debt as a man and I must talk about the catastrophic conditions in which the Greek Mariupol is experiencing.”

OK. Does that qualify him as a Neo-Nazi? I do not think so. But what really counts is not words but actions. And their actions do qualify them as defenders of the city from Russian Neo-Nazi who act exactly as real Nazi by killing thousands of civilians in the city. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Their actions today, which consists of doing what they like best (killing and maiming) with the moral support of those who should know better, do not change a thing; just like those of Al Qaeda jihadists when they were fighting the Russians (yes, they were portrayed as the good guys back then).

The Greek government irresponsibly undermined the struggle of the Ukrainian people, by giving the floor to a Nazi. The responsibilities are heavy. The government should publish a detailed report of preparation and contacts for the event

— Nikos Kotzias

The speech of members of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in the Greek Parliament is a provocation. The absolute responsibility lies with the Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. He talked about a historic day, but it is a historic shame. The solidarity with the Ukrainian people is a given. But the Nazis cannot have a say in Parliament

— Alexis Tsipras

M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"Their actions today, which consists of doing what they like best (killing and maiming)". Who are you talking about? Russian Army in Mariupol? A comparison of Ukrainian military units who protect Mariupol with Al Qaeda? Wow! My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

As about Mujahideen who fought against Soviet Army, one of their leaders was Ahmad Shah Massoud. Al Qaeda had to kill him just before the September 11 attacks for well-known reasons. Saying "they are all Al Qaeda" is almost as wrong.My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any disagreement about the fact that some Greek politicians think Azov is neo-Nazi. Our discussion is of whether Azov is actually Nazi, a claim for which Greek politicians are not a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

What I draw from this is that some Greek politicians maybe read Wikipedia, and then declared a Ukrainian National Guardsman begging for help defending his home a “Nazi” based on no direct evidence. So your argument must be implying that we should edit the lead to reflect NPOV and not contribute to this happening in the future. Thanks.

Obviously, you can’t be suggesting that two Greek politicians are reliable secondary sources on this article’s subject. Unsourced quotations might come from Euractive.[32] —Michael Z. 19:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You're confirming what I said earlier (see bottom of this thread): in this crazy world we live in, Nazis are quoted with no issue, while a European politician who taught at various prestigious universities is labelled and dismissed. M.Bitton (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

We have srcs that call it neo-Nazi or white nationalist outright as well as ones that describe it as containing such elements. See RfC above and amend lists where appropriate as Shibbo suggested. It doesn't appear Putin is referencing Azov widely; most people still have no idea one way or the other. CurryCity (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

From quite a bit of research on the topic... simply saying "Azov Battallion are Nazis"... without ANY qualifitcations, is pretty much what Russia is doing when they say the "Ukraine are Nazis". Its a stupid generalisation, without any qualifiers, and Wikipedia can do better than put itself in the a smiliar league to Putin and his buddies. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian propaganda is not widespread unless you are in Russia or a couple of other countries in its sphere. Most global media is English-based. Also I don't think we want to go down the route of pressuring / guilt-tripping would-be readers or editors. The other camp can easily say something similar such as "we can do better than trying to whitewash Nazi elements in Ukraine" (plenty sources above). CurryCity (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Russian propaganda is widespread (RT, Sputnik) and more or less supported by some Indian, Pakistani and Chinese media (much more than two billion inhabitants). It used to be present is Germany (Putin-versteher), but Russian crimes made it unpopular. I do not follow Spanish media, but Spain is allegedly the most pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian EU member.Xx236 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That should actually be: English wiki editors (properly) mainly use English sources from and the US. Italy has several mainstream channels that give each, every day, several sometimes 12 hours coverage with dozens of reporters in both the Ukraine and Russia. Both viewpoints are covered, with of course mre detail on the Ukraine. Numerous public intellectuals challenge the 'Western' narrative. The Russian Azov talking point is frequently raised, even to the point of absurdity, arguing that the devastation of Mariupol and the huge death toll there is caused by the Azov battalion, perhaps several hundred combatants in an original population of 500,000, whom refugees transported/deported to Russia claim held the entire population in a regime of terror and had sufficient munitions to raze the city (mathematics alone show that to be nonsense).Nishidani (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Is Russia's talking points so much more widespread than mainstream English media narratives that we need to offset it here? CurryCity (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

All I am noting is that continental European mainstream sources give a very broad and in depth coverage. La7 for example just rebroadcast a discussion on Russia's Channel 1 where the consensus was that Ukrainians don't exist; the 'denazification' (russification) programme will take 20 years to complete; that the 'fascist bandits' must be all 'beheaded'; that the several million 'bandits' who have sought refuge in Europe will not be allowed to return (ethnic cleansing). This is the quality of several mainstream Russian sources I have been watching for a month, as wikipedians fuss with enormous concern over the 900 (of 200,000 Ukrainian serviceman) strong Azov battalion's fascism.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"continental European mainstream sources" in what language, local, Russian, or in English? CurryCity (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not a forum to discuss Greek Parliament. Both quoted poliiticians are members of 'radical' left Syriza.Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course not. This is a place where Nazism is whitewashed and Nazis are quoted with no issue, while a European politician who taught at various prestigious universities is labelled and dismissed. M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

'Of course not' - what do you mean? Which 'place'? Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Not this thread will not be able to overturn or ignore the above RFC, so comment there if you want to have your say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

As I see it, there are many RS published in the recent past, claiming it is a neonazi group. So, we will need a more recent, well cited review paper published in a peer revied journal, that examines the nature or ideology of Azov battalion, and states that they have moved from neonazism to something else . Cinadon36 14:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The RFC closer will examine all of the arguments and judge them based upon their merit with regard to our policies. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Not that many RS do independent research of the subject, I bet many just copy the neo-nazi label from this very article. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Birdofpreyru (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Azov movement

I created a section for this in the article. Based on an November 1918 article from the U.S. funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty , "Combined, these groups are known as the "Azov movement,".

I can see above (the split proposal, for example) there are other, better sources we could use to fill this section out. I think it is difficult to understand the battalion without understanding how it fits together/into the "movement".

If anyone wants to work on it? I will try but no guarantees on the result :) Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Opinion article by Ivan Gomza, one of the authors of Black Sun Rising above

Andreas Umland, 2020

This is very interesting, the "Azov Movement" is in my opinion a pivotal topic to understand what the Azov Regiment is. If I find something I try to contribute. Mhorg (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

References