Jump to content

Talk:Azov Brigade/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

Under "2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine," there are two sentences that say, "On 16 May, the Ukrainian General staff announced that the Mariupol garrison, including remnants of the Azov regiment stationed in Mariupol, had "fulfilled its combat mission" and that evacuations from the Azovstal steel factory had begun. The military said that 264 service members, 53 of them "seriously injured," had been taken by bus to areas controlled by Russian forces."

However, according to the economist, "But on May 16th the troops holed up in tunnels beneath the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol, a Ukrainian port city, began to capitulate. By the end of the day 264 Ukrainian fighters had surrendered to surrounding Russian units, according to Ukraine’s defence ministry. Of those, 52 were severely wounded and evacuated to a hospital in Russian-occupied territory. Iryna Vereshchuk, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, said they would be exchanged for Russian prisoners of war when their condition stabilises."

https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/05/17/mariupols-last-ukrainian-defenders-begin-to-surrender

The Battalion surrendered to Russian forces and will be used to exchange POWs when conditions stabilize. Replace the current sentences with something on the lines of: "On 2022 May 16, 64 Ukrainian fighters had surrendered to surrounding Russian units. Of the 264 service members, 53 of them seriously injured and moved to a hospital in Russian-occupied territory. Iryna Vereshchuk, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, said that Ukraine would exchange them for Russian prisoners of war when their condition stabilizes. Whether that will happen is not clear."

the language should make it clear that they surrendered. LilAhok (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Will we end up having another RFC about this? The propaganda machines appear to be working overtime on this issue as well. It's very recent, let's see if we can determine what most sources are saying. WP is not a source but which other WP article(s) have material on this? Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
other sources that reported the surrender of Ukrainian soldiers:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-backed-separatists-say-256-ukrainian-fighters-surrendered-azovstal-2022-05-17/
https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/fears-for-mariupol-defenders-after-surrender-to-russia
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/17/russia-says-mariupol-plant-fighters-surrendered-fate-uncertain
Each source says Russia said the Ukrainian soldiers have surrendered. Ukrainian politicians, including Zelenskyy, have said they want to exchange prisoners. LilAhok (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-avostal-mariupol-evacuation-russia-wounded-zelenskiy/31854681.html ("Ukraine says more than 260 of its fighters were moved from the besieged Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol after surrendering to Russian forces. Many of the wounded were taken to areas held by Russia-backed separatists on May 16. The surrender marked the end of the months-long Russian siege of the strategic port city, now in ruins.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 10:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I haven't yet looked into many of the sources, fwiw I have the impression this is two separate things, firstly a surrender with that aspect being emphasized by the Russian side and and the subsequent evacuation being emphasized by the Ukranian side. This might explain why a number of sources are using both terms, after all they are not synonyms. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we need to wait, after all we do not know yet how many, or what their final fate will be. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Another discussion at Talk:Battle of Azovstal. And at Talk:Siege_of_Mariupol#"Evacuation"_euphemism.... Sigh. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree with comments that we need to wait for the situation to unfold. The Geneva Convention and International Humanitarian Law for evacuating wounded and besieged military personnel has been negotiated for Azovstal, involving the Red Cross and United Nations, as mentioned here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/16/europe/azovstal-siege-halt-mariupol-intl/index.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/russia-agrees-to-evacuation-of-wounded-soldiers-from-mariupol-steelworks-1.4879468
IndigoBeach (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems they were ordered to surrender by their own side. If that is the case, then why wouldn't we just say that? (note that NYT refers to their evacuation as well "Ukrainian servicemen in a bus after they were evacuated..." Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
My 5 cents, the current wording On 16 May, the Ukrainian General staff announced that the Mariupol garrison, including remnants of the Azov regiment stationed in Mariupol, had "fulfilled its combat mission" and that evacuations from the Azovstal steel factory had begun. says what Ukrainian Gen staff said, thus should stay as is. It should be followed by a sentence similar to Following the announcement Azov fighters began surrender to Russian forces on the order of Ukrainian high command. - that's what de facto happened there, might be a part of a larger plan / arrangement, but still they surrendered them to Russian forces. That should be followed by a few sentences about the reported number of surrendered fighters over few days (the current one says about the first day of surrender only, at the moment sources say about ~2k fighters surrendered, with details on how many on each days, and whereabouts where they were taken by Russians). Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I will copy this down below if that's OK, because the editreq is closed and there is an open one there.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

AZOV still listed as a Neo Nazi unit?

This is entirely dependent on the RFC which is still being closed.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

I came back here to see what changes had been made here to the description of Azov after them multiple RFCs and was suprised to see, after so much discussion, Azov is still listed as a Neo Nazi unit? Seriously? When did wikipedia become a propaganda arm of the Russian government? Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am sure that Wikipedia is the propaganda arm of the Russian government which has repeatedly threatened to block access to it and ordered it to take down certain articles (including on English Wikipedia) because of those unfavourable articles... Mellk (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, when wikipedia matches up with what Russia Propaganda is saying... it certainly is. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Right, articles like 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine definitely match with the propaganda. Mellk (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Did I say anything about 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? I'm talking about this article, and the status of Azov as a "Nazi unit" in particular. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
You were making the assertion that Wikipedia became a propaganda arm simply because of RfC on one article. Anyway this is heading towards WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Mellk (talk) 06:21, 21 M", and such accusaitopnmsd really violate the sport oday 2022 (UTC)
I don't think general Wikipedia is literally a propaganda arm of the Russian government, but arguably, it appears to be pushing a pro Russian line in this article. And yes, I think considering WP:NOTAFORUM, may be we should just agree to dissagree. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Short answer is that while Wikipedia is not a propaganda arm of Russian government (lol) there are enough editors and accounts (some of them newly created accounts) who are willing to parrot the Russian propaganda line and willfully ignore all the recent sources - all which say that while Azov was started as a neo Nazi unit it ceased being one when it was denazified and incorporated into the national guard but it remained a convenient boogey man for Putin’s propaganda - that they’ve been able to hold the page hostage and stonewall the RfC and well, here we are still. Volunteer Marek 06:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, and its unfortunate. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Volunteer Marek. Did you see my fact-checking section in the RFC above? If you haven't seen it yet, what do you think about it? Mhorg (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
While personally I do not think that "neo-Nazi unit" should be stated in wikivoice, there are still plenty of recent RS that still call it neo-Nazi, far-right etc or still having links/elements. I do not think it would be fair to call those sources Russian propaganda agencies or whatever. Mellk (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
No we are not a "propaganda arm of the Russian government", and such statements really violate wp:npa (as you are also saying, in effect, editors are as well) and wp:soap. As to the rest, see the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Being critical about something in Ukraine makes Wikipedia Russian propaganda, really? Calling a Nazi group Nazis is not propaganda. A group that uses the sonnenrad and wolfsangel is hardly apolitical.. as for "moving past that" they did this not too long ago:[2]
Really, this obscurantist behavior many show towards the darker side of Ukraine is not helping Ukrainians, I don't understand.
By the way there's a middle ground between Russian propaganda and denying that there are Nazis in Ukraine... 24.44.73.34 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We have an RFC on this, when it is closed it may or may not change what we say. Whatever the closers decide, that is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Where's the hat button? Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name change request

Inappropriate per WP:POINT and WP:DFTT.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

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

If things continue as they are, I propose that the article be called, Azov's Neoazi Battalion --Berposen (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Is this an incorrect reading?

With regard to the first question of an adjectival descriptor in the first sentence: The descriptor "Right-wing/nationalist"(A) attracted no support and the descriptors "Far-right"(B), and "neo-fascist"(E) little more. The debate was between using "Neo-Nazi"(C) or no descriptor at all(D) and the clear preponderance of commenters was for C. 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 regard to the second question of handling reports: The option to "Mention that many political observers and news outlets have described it as neo-Nazi and reported extensively on having links to neo-Nazi groups."(C) has a very clear majority in both numbers and strength of arguments over either A or B. There were, in fact, no actual arguments made in favor of either of those choices, only statements like "ok with". There was very little difference observed by the participants between "State in wikivoice it is linked to neo-Nazis"(D) and "State in wikivoice it is neo-Nazi"(E). There were alternatives offered but these alternatives did not gain acceptance by the other editors. There were a limited number of arguments opposing those two choices but these essentially recapitulated the arguments about question 1 and the outcome of those discussions was therefore similar.

There is a clear consensus for 1(C) and a rough consensus for a some combination of 2(C) with (D) or (E).

--Berposen (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes C and C was "Neo-Nazi". And also read wp:point. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Is it possible, Berposen, that you didn't read the RfC question? A cursory reading shows what 1(C) means, and your edits were plainly counter to consensus on that question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: Did I remove the term? Or did I put what the RfC recommended? --Berposen (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The question that was asked was should we say "Azov Battalion is a neo-nazi Ukrainian National Guard regiment", the answer was yes, you altered it. The other question was not about the lede sentance but the article as a whole.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
You also removed this "Do not remove or alter without prior consensus, see relevant RfC on talk page." telling you not to alter the preceding line (quoted above). Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page protection

Will I have to ask for full protection, or can users please stop removing Neo-Nazi until the RFC is concluded? It says it quite clearly "do not remove", so please stop. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Full protection seems unneccesary, a single user who was of course immediately reverted has removed it since the protection was increased. People are still working on the article so unless it becomes extreme there is no need, just revert them until the RFC is done. TylerBurden (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It should be reverted. The people being slandered on this WP page are in custody of the Russian invader. Their lives are in danger. They are living persons. At what point does it become "extreme", dude? Wikidgood (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Just change the wording in the lead already, and then full-protect the page. It is just getting more and more ridiculous every day that the article states in Wikivoice the widespread consensus on the subject being Nazi, and the talk page with edits history clearly show there is no consense on the matter. Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS, I realize this might be a novel idea, but there it is.Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe read No consensus sub-section of WP:CONSENSUS? It says: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However: In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.. Sure, some will argue living people case does not apply to Azov subject, however in the spirit of this norm, no consnenus does not prevent the contentious claim to be removed. Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Instead of following the RFC route to consensus (which is what we did to arrive at the present consensus), we should instead just follow your opinion? Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Did you arrive to a consensus? I believe, this page shows clearly no "true consensus" were achieved, that's why the new RFC, which no admin wanna touch so far, and that's why recurrent attempts to edit the piece in question :D Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there was a consensus reached at that time and we will know what the new consensus is when the current RFC is closed, possibly by a panel.Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
In an RFC last year. We now have another, and if the attitude is "gives what we want or we will continue" then full PP will be needed, no one can be allowed to[wp:bludeon]] a dispute. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes leaving that descriptor amounts to slander. It is simply wrong. There may be some individuals in the battalion who have some neonazi leanings but the battalion itself is subject to the Ua government. It is simply false to characterize it as "neoNazi" per se. That is widely disputed. RS is split so WP is in disgrace every moment it leaves this falsity to sit there at the top of the page. Wikidgood (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Correct, Birdof...there absolutely is no consensus in RS and no consensus in the WP talk page. This false, or at least, controversial, assertion that the battalion is "neoNazi" should be removed asap. It is really just propaganda. Disgusting that thousands of people in the English speaking world think that if it is on WP it must be true. The facts, and also the RS, is far more nuanced. This may be one of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of WP. Wikidgood (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Wikidgood Do not continue to disruptively edit this page to prove a WP:POINT or to further your own beliefs, agendas, or thoughts about the war. WIkipedia is not the place for this war to be fought. We are all about portraying facts. If you believe that wikipedia is killing people, you should probably find a way to provide the world a better source of information, because you are unlikely to singlehandedly change wikipedia's processes or procedures to fit your agenda. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2022

Information on this page is wrong and untiukrainian. It's russian propaganda that bothers Ukraine to fight in the information war. Link to the true information: https://www.dw.com/ru/polk-azov-mify-i-pravda-ob-ultrapravyh-zashhitnikah-mariupolja/a-61205446 2A00:F41:1866:EFF:404F:E9A0:C44B:E7A1 (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
One of the sources, Andreas Umland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Umland) is a member of a hyperpartisan political action committee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Euro-Atlantic_Cooperation). The other (Adrien Nonjon) appears to be a current graduate student - hardly an expert. DW itself is german state media. H51bjCKERK (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

edit request on 20 May 2022 v2

Under "2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine," there are two sentences that say, "On 16 May, the Ukrainian General staff announced that the Mariupol garrison, including remnants of the Azov regiment stationed in Mariupol, had "fulfilled its combat mission" and that evacuations from the Azovstal steel factory had begun. The military said that 264 service members, 53 of them "seriously injured," had been taken by bus to areas controlled by Russian forces."

This should be replaced with, "On 2022 May 16, more than 200 Ukrainian soliders in the Azovstal steel plant were ordered by the Ukrainian military to surrender to Russian forces Of the 264 service members, 53 of them seriously injured and moved to a hospital in Russian-occupied territory. Iryna Vereshchuk, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, said that Ukraine would exchange them for Russian prisoners of war when their condition stabilizes. Whether that will happen is not clear."[1]

I'll repeat what was said under "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022" by user Selfstudier as my reason for the change.

The NYT is categoric (17 May), both in headline and in content, title is given as "Surrender at Mariupol" and content is given as "More than 200 Ukrainian soldiers in the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol surrendered and were taken into custody by Russian forces." They also report that ..Ukraine’s military ordered them to surrender. The surrender directive, issued late Monday, made the soldiers prisoners and ended the most protracted battle so far of the nearly three-month-old Russian invasion of Ukraine.. I think this is clearcut, they were ordered to surrender and they did. LilAhok (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree, Zelenskyy and the Ukr govt have spoken about "evacuation", but that seems to be just spin. Everything (including video evidence) indicates the Mariupol defenders surrendered and are in custody of the Russians as POWs. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
'evacuation' terminology is consistent with a negotiated humanitarian corridor for the movement of besieged and wounded military under the Geneva Convention and International Humanitarian Law, which it was in this case as reported here [3].
Would be better to move this discussion to LilAhok's first Extended-confirmed-protected edit request of 18 May so that it's easier to follow the comments there rather than repeat the same info and references again. IndigoBeach (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Evacuation is what follows surrender (or some other event), not a synonym. The other req was closed pending consensus, which I think we have, tbh, I am not even sure we really need it given the available sourcing (it's not just NYT) but I have refrained from just editing it in myself until now, in case someone wants to contest the sourcing.Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
NYT isn't consistent on the terminology - this NYT reference says evacuation [4] and today the Independent reports that Russia says 'surrender' and Ukraine says 'mission fulfilled' [5]. To maintain NPOV we could just leave the current wording as is, as it already reflects the two sides' version of events.
Again suggest that it's better to move this discussion to LilAhok's first Extended-confirmed-protected edit request of 18 May, so that it's not split across 2 sections. IndigoBeach (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
We can reach consensus here (3 to 1 atm, anybody else?). That NYT is from 16th so it is not correct to say NYT is inconsistent unless you have NYT using evac as a synonym after the 17th. I am not paying that much attention to Russian reports of surrender or Ukrainian reports of evacuation (used as synonym). Better to have newsorgs saying stuff in their own voice as much as possible, there are quite a few now. NPOV is not "two sides" it is what the balance of sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

'Copy of post from above closed edit req'

My 5 cents, the current wording On 16 May, the Ukrainian General staff announced that the Mariupol garrison, including remnants of the Azov regiment stationed in Mariupol, had "fulfilled its combat mission" and that evacuations from the Azovstal steel factory had begun. says what Ukrainian Gen staff said, thus should stay as is. It should be followed by a sentence similar to Following the announcement Azov fighters began surrender to Russian forces on the order of Ukrainian high command. - that's what de facto happened there, might be a part of a larger plan / arrangement, but still they surrendered them to Russian forces. That should be followed by a few sentences about the reported number of surrendered fighters over few days (the current one says about the first day of surrender only, at the moment sources say about ~2k fighters surrendered, with details on how many on each days, and whereabouts where they were taken by Russians). Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC) 'End copy'

The NYT articles are written by different journalists, so it's fair to say that they as individuals are inconsistent in their use of terminology. Also, to clarify that evacuation isn't a Ukrainian synonym, it's the terminology used in Humanitarian Law, that through negotiation agreement is reached to set up a humanitarian corridor to evacuate people. IndigoBeach (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

NYT takes editorial responsibility for its articles and you did say that NYT was inconsistent, which I think is not the case. I never said that evacuation was a Ukranian synonym for surrender, read what I said more carefully.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
It would be evacuation if they set up a humanitarian corridor by means of which Azov fighters leave their position with their personal arms and belongings straight to Ukraine-controlled territory. It is de facto surrender because they handed themselves to Russians. Politicians and journalists are keen to bend vocabulary meaning of words to suite their agenda, and it is right for us to tell in the article how they pictured the situation, but we also should make it clear what happened de facto. Birdofpreyru (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree with your proposed wording Birdofpreyru. I think we should include the information about the negotiations that were held, so that the context's clear that this was a facilitated negotiation to end the siege and save lives. IndigoBeach (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
No problem to include info about any related negotiation(s), do you have any particular source(s) in mind for that? Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
This is a good source that we can use for the negotiations https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/16/europe/azovstal-siege-halt-mariupol-intl/index.html IndigoBeach (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/05/17/mariupols-last-ukrainian-defenders-begin-to-surrender

 Note: Marking template as answered procedurally. This discussion appears to be moving along well and multiple editors with relevant permissions to edit the page are involved. Feel free to re-open if my assessment is inaccurate. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Asov ended by capitulation, so it´s historically, isn´t it?

In the german version, one guy - last entry there wrote under AMGA 🇺🇦 (d)

"I am almost certain about the latter."

Any sources there might be a new Jesus aka the armed resurrection of the Asov-regiment?--2003:F2:870F:698:7CB7:2E78:49F2:7CE0 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying here, but if you are saying the Asov Battallion has ceased to exist because of the fall of Mariupol, Asov have other units elsewhere, this is just part of their force... so no, they are not past tense.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
There was not full Azov Regiment and not only Azov Regiment on Azovstal. There was only part of Azov.--Anatoliy (Talk) 21:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Please correct reference 28

Xx236 (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Done.Selfstudier (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine’s Azov Movement

It seems that the discussed quote describes the movement, not the regiment. The subject should be discussed before putting the text into the article. It does not belong certainly to the lead.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There have been discussions as to the interplay between battalion and the movement and I would say that no firm conclusion has been reached possibly because people have been focusing their attention only on the neo nazi designation for the battalion, there is less dispute about the neo nazi nature of the movement. There have been discussions about splitting the movement out in its own article but those have not gained traction possibly for the same reason. What we know for a fact is that the movement was born out of the battalion, created by and as a result of the battalion. So it remains to be demonstrated that these entities are now separated, on the evidence I have seen up to now, I personally don't believe that case has been made.Selfstudier (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Tablet magazine source

Recent article from Tablet (magazine) which goes into lots of detail [6].

This is both a reliable source which obviously has no interest in whitewashing the battalion and unlike most of the stuff used in this article is of very recent vintage. These are the kinds of sources which we should be using to write this article not outdated stuff from 6 years ago. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The author of the slate article is a member of the atlantic council (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/vladislav-davidzon/), which is not a RS about this conflict - they are essentially state media.
from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council#Connections_and_funding -
"In September 2014, Eric Lipton reported in The New York Times that since 2008, the US organization had received donations from more than twenty-five foreign governments. He wrote that the Atlantic Council was one of a number of think tanks that received substantial overseas funds and conducted activities that "typically align with the foreign governments’ agendas". and "In 2015 and 2016, the three largest donors, giving over $1 million USD each, were US millionaire Adrienne Arsht (executive vice chair), Lebanese billionaire Bahaa Hariri (estranged brother of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri), and the United Arab Emirates. The Ukrainian oligarch-run Burisma Holdings donated $100,000 per year for three years to the Atlantic Council starting in 2016. The full list of financial sponsors includes many military, financial, and corporate concerns."
The header image of the article is credited to "DMYTRO ‘OREST’ KOZATSKYI" who is a proud neo-nazi member of Azov (https://web.archive.org/web/20220517141112/https://twitter.com/Kozatsky_D/status/1160076695761764352?s=20&t=3UeEUN3rV7vifulzPwZdeg, https://web.archive.org/web/20220517142811/https://twitter.com/Kozatsky_D/status/1045425058368376832)
Digging further into this article, it comes off as entirely unsourced anecdotes about his... Odinist (https://www.adl.org/resources/glossary-terms/odinism-asatru) drinking buddies? If he's close friends with Azov members, he isn't exactly an impartial source to consult on this matter. H51bjCKERK (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
1. The source is the Tablet, not "Slate".
2. The source is the Tablet, not "Atlantic Council"
3. The Atlantic Council is indeed reliable, despite your own personal opinion.
4. Who the image of the article is credited to is completely irrelevant.
5. I have no idea what you think some twitter photo has to do with anything.
6. "Digging further into this article" is just your own personal expression of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The Tablet is a reliable source.
Please make policy based arguments rather then posting your own personal unsupported opinions. Volunteer Marek 03:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
"the source is not the article's author" is certainly a take. From your other recent comments, it's clear you aren't able to objectively engage with this topic. Wiki editors are not "arms of russian propaganda." H51bjCKERK (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, except I said nothing of the sort (on both counts). And I don’t think you really get to lecture anyone on “objectivity”, particularly when you seem to insist that any western sources except fringe ones aren’t “reliable”. Volunteer Marek 08:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Also please bother making more then ten edits before jumping into controversial topics. Volunteer Marek 03:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Please point out this rule on the wikipedia editing guidelines. H51bjCKERK (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Not a rule, but telling. Volunteer Marek 08:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Telling of what? Please complete your violation of wp:npa. H51bjCKERK (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

April 2022: Symbology

Wolfsangel

@Birdofpreyru: Why do you keep adding sources that do not mention either Azov or what "Wolfsangel" means to them? Your edit was reverted twice with an explanatory edit summary, restoring it with a different problematic source doesn't change the issue. I suggest you self-revert (as this is your second revert today). 19:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you also please refrain from edit warring? M.Bitton (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The latest sources I am adding say that Azov says that for them Wolfsangel is an I & N monogram for "The Idea of the Nation", not the Nazi meaning of the symbol. Then, they (and the wiki article about Wolfsangel) mention that the symbol has other meanings, like freedom and fighting against occupation (which is very fitting in the current context), and it is used in the nowaday Germany by a bunch of cities / regions / whatsoever.
Then I look through Azov article, and I see it presenting the Wolfsangel as exclusively Nazi symbol, which per se proves Azov is a nazi detachment. With somewhat circular logic: Azov is Nazi hence they mean Nazi meaning of Wolfsangel; Azov uses the Nazi meaning of Wolfsangel hence they are Nazi. It looks to me as a soft propaganda montage aiming on a reader who does not know better, and is not interested to investigate the meaning of the symbol.
Hence, I believe NPOV means alternative meanings of the symbol should be mentioned in this article. If you want to prove Azov is Nazi - fine for me, but unfortunately Wolfsangel does not look as a proof to me, when you need to cherry-pick one meaning, which Azov say they don't consider as the meaning. Birdofpreyru (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Wolfsangel and other Nazi symbols (black sun, etc.) were used from day one by Azov as "Nazi symbols". Getting rid of the others and keeping Wolfsangel doesn't change the initial meaning of the symbol for the founders of Azov who think that Semites are sub-humans. M.Bitton (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Source? Re. anti-semitism of Azov, in my current understanding most of it comes down to some rasist quotes attributed to Biletsky, which are not coming from an original source, but more like "somebody in 2015 told that ages ago Biletsky wrote some rasist stuff"... but nobody gives a link to the original source, and Biletsky himself denied that he ever wrote or told anything like that, and says it was invented by Russian propaganda. I tend to believe this because I remember in 2014 the Russian propaganda was all about: we annexed Crimea and a part of Donbas because otherwise Ukraine's Nazi's would enter there to kill everybody Russian-speaking. So, from back then Russian propaganda was actively working to convience everybody that everybody in Ukraine who is not pro-Russian is a nazi. Similarly with the symbols... the guys who use them deny they are using them with nazi meaning, but sure other people know better what the symbol means to them. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe that the use of all the Nazis symbols was accidental? M.Bitton (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe, if they wanted a nazi symbol with a nazi meaning they would just use swastika, or some variation of it as real neo-nazis do in Russia or Ukraine, and which was legal in Ukraine prior to 2015. Sure, I don't know what was their rational to select Black Sun and Wolfsangel, but it looks plausable to me they were not thinking about the nazi meaning. Btw, I myself grew up in Russia, and never heard of Black Sun and Wolfsangel back in Russia. Everybody there knows swastikas, SS runes, skulls with bones, but not the other stuff. I'd guess the same in Ukraine, so again it is easy to believe that most of people in the organization had no idea about origins / meaning of these symbols when they were put on Azov emblem. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
They might as well since they are quite happy having amongst them those who have tattoos of the Swastika on their bodies. M.Bitton (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe that if they wanted to be able to deny they were nazi's they would would pick one that was not so obvious as a swastika (as so many other Neo-nazi groups have down). This is why we go by what RS say, and not what we believe. 09:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Biletsky himself denied, Biletsky deniying something is the contrary of an RS Mhorg (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

This source has this to say:

In Ukraine, the Wolfsangel is widely used as a marker of Nazi views, often without any affiliation with a specific organization or structure. It is included in the symbols of Karpatska Sich. Groups affiliated with the Azov Battalion use a mirrored version of the Wolfsangel as part of their emblem symbolizing the “Idea of the Nation.”
Accidental use of this symbol or its use without an understanding of its connotations (for example as a talisman) is rare.
However, due to its prevalence and historical origins, it is important to determine when and where an emblem including a Wolfsangel was created, so as not to misinterpret its use as a heraldic symbol or as an ancient amulet against werewolves. That said, in Ukraine, the use of a Wolfsangel as a heraldic symbol or a traditional talisman would be uncharacteristic.

The idea that Azov is using it as anything other than a reference to Nazism is frankly laughable. They aren't a German municipality, and the symbol has no history of usage in Ukraine outside of extreme right neo-Nazi groups (not to mention the actual nazis wearing it when they marched through in the 40s). BSMRD (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

off topic discussion
Not a part of this discussion, but I'd like to point out symbols on themselves do not carry any meaning - symbols gain meaning by circumstances of their employment. Such is the nature of symbols. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
If it is not a part of the discussion, then why are you commenting, WP is not a forum for your personal opinions.Selfstudier (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I commented, because, in my opinion, what I saw there was based on flawed assumptions about symbology, and the flaw there was important to point out for other editors involved in the discussion. Also, the sole reason "Talk" section exists on Wikipedia is sharing of opinion between Wikipedia editors regarding a certain article-related issue, so your understanding of it is interesting, to say the least - perhaps, you, indeed, use it for something else. What that might be, is, of course, a rhetorical question. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Commenting on content and sources is welcome, try that. Selfstudier (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, it just so happens that symbology is a part of the content of the article. Moreover, sources are part of the article's content, as well, which makes your remark somewhat strange to a pendant ear. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Not a part of this discussion and I commented, because, in my opinion, he said, pedantically.Selfstudier (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Of course, I did: one doesn't necessarily want to become a part of a discussion after pointing something out for the others actively engaged in it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:FORUM.Selfstudier (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. And you're actively turning it into one by prolonging this pointless chatter. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Merely repeating what I said at the start of it, "WP is not a forum for your personal opinions" but I guess you didn't hear it the first time.Selfstudier (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a useful overview I think. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Just realised that BSMRD also shared a link from the same source, but note the links are to two different pages. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

  • This page, quoted above by BSRD, is about the classic Nazi Wolfsangel, an ancient rune adopted by the Nazis and used by the SS. In Ukraine, the Wolfsangel is widely used as a marker of Nazi views, often without any affiliation with a specific organization or structure. It is included in the symbols of Karpatska Sich. Groups affiliated with the Azov Battalion use a mirrored version of the Wolfsangel as part of their emblem symbolizing the “Idea of the Nation.”
  • This page is specifically about the Azov's NI symbol, which is a mirrored version of the above. This is a modern symbol. A modern symbol created as an emblem for the Social-National Party of Ukraine (now known as the Svoboda Party). It is a combination of Ukrainian letters “I” and “N” allegedly written in an “ancient script,” though there is no evidence that these letters were ever written in such a way. The symbol is a variation of the Wolfsangel; a mirror image of the emblem of the SS Panzer Division “Das Reich” (a division of the Nazi security services). The leader of Patriot of Ukraine rejects the notion that the symbol has any connection to the Wolfsangel. However, the organizations that use the Idea of ​​the Nation symbol are far-right and use other hate symbols.... Due to the Azov movement’s popularity, the symbol is often used mistakenly, including by those who are not aware of the movement’s ideological orientation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
To me that source does not look as necessarily reliable: their articles do not contain any references; and the overall concept & design clearly aims to show the far-right nazionalism in Ukraine is a menance, and being objective and neutral is not their goal.
Anyway, the claim of Azov in different sources is that Wolfsangel was also a popular symbol in heraldry of Polish / Volyn / Cossacs nobility, thus traditional to western Ukraine, and that's why they and other conservative organizations in Ukraine choosed it. I tried to fact-check this googling up for coats of arms in the region, and the closest I found was this. There is a bunch of other historic coats of arms with various runes, even this one, which make me think that explanation of Wolfsangel choice as a traditional regional symbol rather than nazi-one is plausable, but as I could not easily found anything looking exactly as the Wolfsangel, I guess I am not able to make a strong argument here. Birdofpreyru (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
It turns out:
These look like Nazi, but they are coats of arms of some dinasty from XIX-century Urkaine, some town in Poland, another town in Poland
I guess, the claims the symbol was traditionally used in the region long before Nazi are not that groundless after all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Where is the black sun in these unsourced fancy looking "things"? M.Bitton (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
These things are sourced in the wiki articles I linked in the image title ;) And were is the black sun in the current Azov logo? :D Though, I woudn't be surprised either if there are historic coats of arms in the region with "black sun" symbol. While looking through a few lists of Polish & Ukranian coats of arms I definitely saw a lot of sun-like & wheel-like symbols ;) Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
While you're at it, try finding sources about their ancestors having tattoos of Swastikas (like some of the Azov regiment's soldiers) and with a bit of luck, you may even manage to whitewash the Aryan Nations's emblem in the process. M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Are you saying, as some US citizens have swastika tattoos, we should describe USA as a neo-Nazi country in the brief of its article? Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there a US regiment that has soldiers showcasing the Nazi symbols? M.Bitton (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Well... if you consider Totenkopf to be a neo-Nazi symbol, I guess you'll be surprised to learn that United States Marine Corps Reconnaissance Battalions use it, as well as many other militaries around the world. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't. Anyway, let me assure you that it's impossible to whitewash Azov's neo-Nazi crystal clear link that attested by multiple high quality RS. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The Marine Recon Battalions do not use a totenkopf, they use a generic skull and crossbones. The Nazi totenkopf is a distinctive symbol with the bones crossed laterally behind the jaw, and it is absolutely now a neo-Nazi symbol BSMRD (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok. But then... back to the original discussion, are there soldiers with Nazi tattoos / symbols in US army? I guess so, at least I just googled and one of the first results is this, saying These days, the US military is more like a sanctuary for racists, gang members and the chronically unfit, and The Guardian, I believe, is considered an RS; and this Pentagon report reveals inroads white supremacists have made in military. At the same time, are there any US army units described as neo-Nazi units because some of their soldiers / officers have Nazi tattooes, or got pictured with Nazi symbols? I guess, no? Birdofpreyru (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Diversion. Comparing apples with oranges. The Azov has a rep for a reason, find a US unit that has a similar rep for the same reason, then maybe.Selfstudier (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Are you making an argumentum ad populum? That should not be the basis of an encyclopedic article. Tallungs (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
A swastika was used as a symbol before too. Who in Europe is using swastika after WW2? GizzyCatBella🍁 13:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

If it were not for the fact they combined it with a black sun I might buy it. The problem is they did not use one, they used two symbols associated with neo-nazism. I also not that none of the images here quite match the Azov one (in fact the closest match seems to be the 2nd SS), but then they also seem to keep changing it. I also note that the claim for the family crest seems unsouced. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess, I should take a step back here, and remind that I am not trying to whitewash anybody, like most folks here think, I am rather trying to fact-check what I see in the article, and ensure it stays factual and neutral. The brief says including the Wolfsangel insignia used by divisions of the Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht during World War II, implying that it is not used anywhere but nazi context. I started this talk thread after I tried to append that sentence, saying that the same base symbol was and is used in European heraldry without any connection to fascism. My edit was reverted by somebody saying "nah, we don't like your edit because it kind of undermines the image Azov is nazi-nazi-nazi, and anyway that the symbol is used in German heraldry does not matter, because it was never used closer to Ukraine before SS". Ok, here we see examples that it was used in Urkaine / Poland region, and still used there.
Then, I see in the body (not sure, whether it was added recently, or I just have not noticed it before) In 2022 Andreas Umland, a scholar from the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies, told Deutsche Welle that though it had far-right connotations, the Wolfsangel was not considered a fascist symbol by the population in Ukraine. Thus, I'm saying, shouldn't we either mention that in the brief, where the Wolfsangel meaning is first brought up, or remove the sentense in question from the brief? Otherwise, a person who does not read the article further than the brief takes home the message Wolfsangel = SS = Nazism, which... depends on the context, but in general is wrong.
I also note that the claim for the family crest seems unsouced. It is sourced to this book from 1914, page XIV here. Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The trouble with what you see in the article's body is due to some editors adding cherry picked sources to the article while the RfC is underway (you'll also notice quotes about them not being neo-Nazis by what someone laughably described as a "famous scholar"). I don't like that and I don't feel like following their bad example. M.Bitton (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't see famous scholar in the text, I see just scholar, and according to the article in the wiki it looks to me to be a scholar with relevant career in the field for his opinion to deserve a mention in the article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It looks like someone removed it (it said "well-known", not famous, similar crap though). You're missing the point as there are so many quotes and scholars that we can include, but cherry picking some while the RfC is underway is not what I would do or recommend. M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Black Sun (edit request)

The emblem with the black sun is no longer used officially by the Azov Battalion, and the article should be editing to reflect that (I notice that was just adjusted because there weren't previously references for that). Here are some references for support:

https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/asow-regiment-ukrainische-helden-oder-extremisten,T2nKOyA

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/manifestations-en-ukraine/guerre-en-ukraine-quatre-questions-sur-le-regiment-azov-ce-bataillon-ukrainien-accuse-de-compter-des-neonazis-dans-ses-rangs_5004578.html

https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/11/04/is-the-azov-battalion-a-terrorist-organization-as-40-us-house-democrats-claim/

Specifically, "Its insignia have featured the Black Sun" could be changed to "used to feature the black sun", and "Azov emblem featuring a combination of a mirrored Wolfsangel and Black Sun, two symbols associated with the Wehrmacht and SS, over a small Tryzub" could be changed to "The former Azov emblem....This emblem is no longer in official use". The Euromaidan Press source says it was only in use in 2014-2015, which could be included. I don't care about the specific wording. Thanks Tristario (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

DO any of these actually say it is no longer used? Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Bayerischer Rundfunk: "Extremism researcher Alexander Ritzmann of the "Counter Extremism Project" told ARD in March 2022 that the regiment had also disarmed in symbolism. The Wolfsangel - a symbol used by right-wing extremists - is still in the Azov emblem, but other extremist symbols have been removed. The Wolfsangel means in Ukrainian as much as "Our Nation"
France Info: "These are former emblems of the paramilitary group, still used by some soldiers, says Adrien Nonjon"
Euromaidan Press: "The Azov Battalion included the Black Sun in its emblem in 2014-2015, however, removed it later" Tristario (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
@Slatersteven [8]
Maybe they officially dropped it but if you browse Azov’s official channel -->[9] you can see black sun all over. Watch the promo movies on that channel too. You’ll easily spot a black sun [10] These are recent videos. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I looked at their youtube channel and their website, and the only example of the emblem with the Black Sun I could see was the one in the background of the picture in one of your links. The url of that image indicates it's from 2017. The video in the link to the azov site you gave is also dated from 2016, if you click through to it on youtube. I also skimmed that video, and I didn't see the black sun emblem in it, but maybe it was in it briefly. So I'm not seeing it "all over"
The researcher Adrien Nonjon says that it's still in use by some soldiers, and I have seen it being used by some soldiers, so that is true Tristario (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
There was an official newspaper called the Black Sun (https://issuu.com/nikolay222/docs/3_the_black_sun_english_version). Is that still going? Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we need to avoid original research on whether it's still used. We have a couple of secondary RSs but at the moment they're a little vague, so it would be good to see if there are others. The CBS source at the moment, as Selfstudier notes, doesn't mention the symbol, but has a photo showing a slightly faded flag in the recent photo, so it feels like OR to hang anything on it. The Black Sun magazine seems important too (is it official to the regiment, the movement, or...?) but it is weirdly not mentioned in secondary sources that I can see. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/issues/resources/hoov-22-02-combined_issue_compressed.pdf It is discussed in there along with a copy of an an earlier issue. "In the case of the Azov regiment, we have an unusual publication in English: The Black Sun: newspaper of special purpose regiment "Azov,"" Think that might be where the "pagan" stuff comes from.Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
On the other hand 🙂 Finland's air force used swastika symbol until 2020 -->[11] but we don’t call them Nazi’s, do we? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Did RS? Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
That's a good one :D
@User:Slatersteven Just google it! E.g. March 2018, Finish Airforce celebrating 100 years, just look at the photos from the reception :D Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Read wp:or, do RS say they are Nazi? Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd say it is more about the coverage of Azov's symbol in the article, which gives undue weight to it being Wolfsangel with the only possible Nazi meaning, and going all length to silence alternative explanations. Oddly enough it was User:GizzyCatBella who replied me in another section A swastika was used as a symbol before too. Who in Europe is using swastika after WW2 :) Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The Wolfsangel and the black sun are not the same thing. Nor are we silencing anything, bring fourth RS that says it is not the black sun (or that they no longer use it and I will say we can say that (you will note now sources have been provided I have not opposed saying they no longer use it). Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Looks like you are silencing the vast RS which disputes the characterization of Azov Battalion as "neoNazi". 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Wikidgood (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Finland did 🙂 GizzyCatBella🍁 00:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Finland did what, say they were Nazi? THis is now going round in circles. We need RS to say X, not what we work out by looking at pictures. with that I am out of here, RS are clear these were nazi symbols, chosen because of that association.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
There is RS that says that but also RS that says the opposite of that. But you write "I am out of here" so fine you made your point, we feel you bro, but please honor your assertion "I am out of here" and we will respectfully continue the debate, bearing in mind that you may disagree with our decisions. You are clearly in good faith and making good points, but there seems to be a clear consensus for actions which you may not be 100% in concurrence with. Thank you for your contributions, they will be respected and duly considered. Good day, sir or madame. Wikidgood (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. BSMRD (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Source [9] does not provide any supporting context for its claim.

Remove source [9] as it is used to claim evidence for Azov soldiers "wearing SS symbols and" badges, etc... The source does not provide any evidence, rather only casually mentions it (also claimed but not provided proof) in its narrative. 35.138.253.30 (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Source 9 has 5 uses (a through e), which use is the one you are objecting to? Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

'based in Mariupol' ?

Perhaps 'formerly based'? Is this article about history or about perhaps few soldiers hiding in Azovstal?Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to originally, OK? Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

control of the country by far right forces such as Azov

The statement in the lead is based on two references in the text. Both references use 'false' in their titles. Wouldn't the word useful here?Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It says "alleged", it's enough? Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

Please change the title of the article from "Azov Battalion" to "Azov Regiment (National Guard of Ukraine)". The term "Azov Battalion" is obsolete, wrong, and is highly utilized by the russian disinfo machine against Ukrainians and Ukraine. The Russian disinformation describes them as radicals which is a lie, they are part of the National Guard of Ukraine and abide by law. Please remove the false accusation of them being neo-Nazis, it's Russian disinformation, there is an official statement from them. https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/03/28/7335237/

Here is what Ukrainian historian Oleksandr Alfyorov tells about them ("True history of Azov Regiment from Ukrainian historian"). The video is subtitled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS729WuuofU

Here is a material hosted by BBC's Ros Atkins ("9 mins on the untruths and distortions that Russia is spreading about 'Nazis' in Ukraine - including about the role of the Azov regiment of Ukraine’s National Guard. Produced by Mary Fuller, Michael Cox, Priyanka Deladia"): https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1506988213637890048 Daniel Poirot (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

There is an RM up the page for the namechange, comment there for that.
Ukrainian pravda is not reliable for that material, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 369#Ukrainian Pravda (Ukrayinska_Pravda.
It is not clear that "Oleksandr Alfyorov" is an expert nor is it clear what edit you wish to be made based on a youtube video that appears to be used as click bait to advertise an activist petition.
Ros Atkins is not an expert and twitter is not a reliable source and what edit you want is not specified either.
Not done. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Alfyorov is a academic historian, but he was (is?) Azov's spokeperson.Xx236 (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Cherry picking the WaPo source

This [12] keeps getting added to the lede, but the quote from the article is clearly cherry picked and does not reflect the tone of the article over all. Other quotes from the same article:

"“These are guys who simply love their country and Ukrainian people,” said Suliyma, 23, a former construction worker. “I never knew them to be Nazis or fascists, never heard them make calls for the Third Reich.”"

"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."

"Colin P. Clarke, director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm. “And so it’s not even that they’re in favor of one ideology or another — they’re just aghast by what they’ve seen the Russians doing.” “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"

"Analysts also noted that Ukraine’s far-right movement is not just small in Ukraine, but also is dwarfed by far-right movements in other parts of Europe."

"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.”"

" It is attracting volunteers of all political stripes, including from the far left as well as the far right. For even the more hardcore elements in the Azov regiments, ideology has taken a back seat for the moment, analysts said.“I honestly don't see them pushing a hard line right now,” says Colborne. “They want people who know how to fight, and that's going to include some people on the far right and some who don't come from far-right backgrounds.”"

And so on and so forth.

So basically, one sentence out of the article is being cherry picked out and presented out of context to push a particular POV, while rest of the article paints a very different picture. Volunteer Marek 19:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Are we, what does "Michael Colborne" say other than what he is quoted for? Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I think something got mistyped here. Anyway, why should we quote Colborne rather than Clarke or Saltskog or others in the article? Why should we include THAT particular Colborne quote rather than the other one above, the one which points out that there's also far-left elements in the battalion?
BTW, User:M.Bitton - can you please show that the Tablet quote is cherry picked? I showed above that the WaPo quote was so if you're going to try to do some tit-for-tat WP:POINT edit warring here you need to actually show that other parts of the Tablet article contradict that particular text (they don't) rather than just assert it. Words (including the phrase "cherry picked") have meaning. Volunteer Marek 21:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: Is the tablet article covered in the article's body? What you are doing is adding a cherry picked opinion to the lead that (to push a specific POV) and removing what was added by Selfstudier for balance. You can't have it both ways. M.Bitton (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Here's the diff of Selfstudier's addition which was meant to balance the cherry picked opinion that you added to the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
That part in the lede practically dominates all the different points of view reported in the body of the article. That's no good. Mhorg (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
The Tablet article provides a good overall summary of the developments regarding the battalion since 2014. As such it provides exactly the kind of summary that should go in the lede. This is not the case with the stuff you're trying to insert as a WP:POINT violation. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This bears repeating: the author of the tablet article is a member of atlantic council, state media with a slate of conflicts of interest in reporting.
from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council#Connections_and_funding -
"In September 2014, Eric Lipton reported in The New York Times that since 2008, the US organization had received donations from more than twenty-five foreign governments. He wrote that the Atlantic Council was one of a number of think tanks that received substantial overseas funds and conducted activities that "typically align with the foreign governments’ agendas". and "In 2015 and 2016, the three largest donors, giving over $1 million USD each, were US millionaire Adrienne Arsht (executive vice chair), Lebanese billionaire Bahaa Hariri (estranged brother of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri), and the United Arab Emirates. The Ukrainian oligarch-run Burisma Holdings donated $100,000 per year for three years to the Atlantic Council starting in 2016. The full list of financial sponsors includes many military, financial, and corporate concerns." This clear conflict in interest is even without the fact that the author admitted to being a friendly drinking buddy to azov members.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source
Further, they quote Colin P. Clarke (https://www.rand.org/pubs/authors/c/clarke_colin_p.html), who is a member of the notorious RAND corporation (Dr. Strangelove ring a bell?). The role of WP is not to regurgitate whatever think tanks funded by western governments claim. I could find dozens of articles by RT news contributors calling azov unequivocally neo-nazi and they'd be completely invalid for the same reason; wp:soap exists for a reason. H51bjCKERK (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
"Atlantic council" is completely irrelevant here. Nobody cares except Russian propaganda. It's an RS. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
this is an assertion and your opinion. WP guidelines explicitly say "no propaganda" and by WP standards atlantic council is more than questionable. furthermore, atlantic council does not appear in the registry of WP reliable sources - you'd need to prove the ukrainian-oligarch-funded think tank/mouthpiece is reliable independently before making that claim. H51bjCKERK (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

As has been stated, Colborne's views were added only as balance for the Tablet addition and would not have been added otherwise. If the lead contains neither, that's fine, the whole point of the RFC is to try and resolve this issue, pushing only one side of the debate through the lead is not going to help. Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not "balance" though. The quote from Tablet accurately reflects the Tablet article. The Colborne quote does not accurately reflect the WaPo article. That's the difference. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Which Colborne quotes attributed to him don't reflect what Colborne said? Most of it is straight out of his book. While I think of it, why should the views of the culture correspondent for a Jewish news magazine outweigh those of a recognized expert on Azov? I am not disputing the reliability, you understand, but I know who I am paying more attention to, it's a matter of weight. Selfstudier (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Sigh. Let me write this one more time and highlight the relevant part: "The Colborne quote does not accurately reflect the WaPo article." The whole point of the WaPo article, as illustrated with the quotes already provided above is the OPPOSITE of what this torn-out-of-context quote is trying to push. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
When I added the material I plainly said I was adding Colborne, not WAPO whose views I did not include at all so I don't see how I could be misrepresenting them, the quotes are what Colborne said, attributed to him, WAPO's only part in the whole thing is as publisher of the material, I can probably get the same quotes from other places, as well as his book. If you want to cite the WAPO article for something, as fact, feel free (in the article body).Selfstudier (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
"(in the article body)" <-- same goes for Colborne quote. Why pick THAT particular piece of the WaPo article? Volunteer Marek 01:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
It was a convenient summary of Colborne views, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I messed up my edit earlier, for which I apologise. I meant to move BOTH long quotes out of the lede and replace with a concise neutral phrase along the lines of "Experts disagree as to the extent to which these far right links remain relevant." footnoting both Colborne and the Tablet. I agree these long quotes are inappropriate in the lead, but probably appropriate in the "neo-Nazi" section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The text I added accurately summarizes the source. The text you're trying to add as a disruptive WP:POINT edit grossly mischaracterizes the source. Please do not make falsely invoke WP:FALSECONSENSUS as a justification for your edit warring. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
What part of the "cherry picked source is a problem" don't you understand? M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The part where you spuriously and falsely claim something is cherry picked without actually explaining why it's supposed to be cherry picked. While blatantly misrepresenting a source yourself. Clare? Volunteer Marek 01:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
That you cherry picked an opinion is an undisputable fact. What's so special about that poxy opinion, other than it suits your POV, for it to deserve to be summarized and inserted in the lead section (violating NPOV in the process)? M.Bitton (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the POV tag on the article but probably for the opposite of the reason that it has been placed :) And yea, please stop trying to push Tablet into the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused why tablet - a third tier magazine with pretty miniscule readership - is being used to override the dozens of sources in the RFC. H51bjCKERK (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Please stop vandalizing the lede with your opinion while a closed rfc is pending. H51bjCKERK (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Please use your regular account WP:SPA. Volunteer Marek 01:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
This is not a response to edit warring and vandalism. Please stop vandalizing the lede with your opinion while a closed rfc is pending. H51bjCKERK (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Please stop referring to good faithed edits by other users as "vandalism". There's no RfC on this particular text. Volunteer Marek 01:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
attempting to shoehorn propaganda into an article's lede is unequivocally vandalism, especially when overriding dozens of sources from the rfc. if the pending rfc concludes azov is still a neo-nazi regiment (as sources indicate) this cherrypicked source will randomly attempt to contradict the rfc text a paragraph above. H51bjCKERK (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
I guess we got to go through this. Second warning: do not refer to other editors' good faithed edits vandalism. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter if the quote reflects the WP article, it is not being used to say "the WP said" it is being used as a quote for someone they quote. That seems to be perfectly reasonable. Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course it matters. Picking out one quote out of context out of a source which is making the opposite point of the one that someone is trying to convey via the use of the quote is textbook WP:CHERRYpickin’. Volunteer Marek 03:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
How is the quote out of context, what else does he say that would ahnce its context. Again we are not saitng anyone by him said this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Since Tablet has again been readded to lead (claiming to represent unspecified "analysts") I have readded Colborne for balance. Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

At this point this is pure WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from you. So one more time - the text based on Tablet accurately reflects the Tablet article. The Colborne quote however is cherry picked to MISREPRESENT the article and make it seem like it says the opposite of what it actually says. Examples already given above. This isn't "balance", it's just pure POV and misrepresentation of sources. Please stop. Volunteer Marek 15:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Please Volunteer Marek, your contribution in the lede flips all the material shown in the body of the article. Mhorg (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
No, no it doesn't. Not at all. In fact it summarizes good chunk of the "Neo-Nazism" section. Which is exactly what the lede is suppose to do. Volunteer Marek 16:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I've read the discussion perhaps too quickly and I might have missed something, because I don't understand how one could possibly "balance" Colborne's views with the Tablet piece. Colborne might be right or wrong, but he's an expert on the subject; the Tablet piece, on the other side, is clearly a case of WP:BIASED and its reliability must be assessed accordingly. Note that that piece is not "according to analysts", as I read here, but rather should be "according to one analyst", or better a journalist called Vladislav Davidzon. In the summary of my edit I quoted Davidzon's powerful closing, "it is certainly not too much to chant the glory of every Ukrainian hero who continues to resist Russian imperialism and barbarism." One may agree with the sentiments that inspire the piece, but must acknowledge that the author is clearly trying to make a political point - he is entirely explicit and honest in that regard. So having it in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. I also restored Colborne and made a bit of editing here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Gitz, there are additional sources in the "Neo-Nazism" section. Shekstov, Umlad, Etc. The tablet here is being used to summarize these arguments (cuz it's the lede). Volunteer Marek 16:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
If you want to summarize those arguments, then you should find a secondary source that summarizes them. You cannot (mis)quote a biased "fighting" editorial and claim that "analysts are speaking there" - they are not. Plus, after the extensive discussions you've had on this page I don't see how a single editor can come and hang up their POV to the lead (and do it again, and again) as nothing had happened before and this was not a collaborative project. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Codswallop. And repetitive at that. Any cherrypicking and POV pushing here is at your door, not mine. If you don't want Colborne in the lead, it's simple, stop pushing Tablet into the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Saying "Codswallop" is not a policy based argument. It's disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. The second part of your comment is even more problematic: you're basically saying "I won't let you use your source unless you let me misrepresent my source". That's. Not. How. It. Works. And it pretty clearly illustrates who's doing the POV and pointy agenda editing here. Volunteer Marek 16:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
At least 4 editors have said that WAPO is not misrepresented because the edit is not representing WAPO, it's representing Colborne. WP:IDHT indeed. Apart from tilting the lead in the first place, you then misrepresent your own source by claiming that Tablet represents analysts. Now quit with the nonsense.Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

OK lets make this easy, can some post here his full quote? If we are misrepresenting or cherry-picking what he says demonstrate it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The quote is the quote. The point is that it does not represent the article as a whole. That's what makes it cherry picked. Here are other quotes from the article (some of which you JUST removed):
  • "“These are guys who simply love their country and Ukrainian people,” said Suliyma, 23, a former construction worker. “I never knew them to be Nazis or fascists, never heard them make calls for the Third Reich.”"
  • "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."
  • "Colin P. Clarke, director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm. “And so it’s not even that they’re in favor of one ideology or another — they’re just aghast by what they’ve seen the Russians doing.” “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"
  • "Analysts also noted that Ukraine’s far-right movement is not just small in Ukraine, but also is dwarfed by far-right movements in other parts of Europe."
  • "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.”"
  • " It is attracting volunteers of all political stripes, including from the far left as well as the far right. For even the more hardcore elements in the Azov regiments, ideology has taken a back seat for the moment, analysts said.“I honestly don't see them pushing a hard line right now,” says Colborne. “They want people who know how to fight, and that's going to include some people on the far right and some who don't come from far-right backgrounds.”"

Basically what Selfstudier is doing here is picking out the ONE quote from the source which makes Azov look bad and is purposefully ignoring the half dozen + quotes which say something completely different. That's textbook cherry picking. And this is ON TOP of removing other reliable sources from the lede.

You want the Colborne quote in the lede? Why that one? Why not Clarke? Why not Saltskog? Why not these other analysts? They're all in the same exact source that is being edit warred into the lede! Volunteer Marek 17:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

  • And we do not claim it does, we quote one person, and we do not attribute it to the WP. Now as far as I can see this is not something we should be doing in the lede (I agree, see below). But I do not agree with your chaterisati0on of it as cheery picking. We use the WP< we do not attribute the claim to them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Colborne is only in the lead (he was always in the body anyway) because of Tablet and an attempt to present that in the lead as if it were the only story in town. Well, Tablet isn't the only story in town and it certainly doesn't represent "analysts". If you want to cite WAPO for something else besides Colborne, go ahead, no-one is preventing that, I cited WAPO for what Colborne said, end of.Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Going over each of these: The first quote is by a non-expert and is obviously accorded less weight. The quote that begins with The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014... is cautiously-worded and doesn't really support what you're saying. But more importantly, most of the other quotes are mostly or completely unrelated to the nature of Azov Battalion, talking either about volunteers in general or about the far-right in general.--Aquillion (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

However

The lede is too long, and much of the contested (indeed all of the material) might be better moved to the body. We only need to have one or two lines on this. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the overlong quoting, we only need to know X has been said, and disputed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The removal made the mention of "symbolism" meaningless. Shouldn't it be "controversial Nazi symbolism"? these links have been disputed could also do with being a bit clearer. M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I am unsure that is not a tautology, all nazi symbolism is controverchal by its very nature. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but you removed the word "Nazi". M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
It says Nazi ideology and symbolism. I am unsure where the confusion lies (what it the com,ma I have now removed?). Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
You're right. I missed the "Nazi ideology" while looking at the diff. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Do it myself sometimes, huge walls of cites can make it hard to follow the flow. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. Hopefully, the recent removal will put an end to the disruption. M.Bitton (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I am against the removal of the Wolfsangel symbol. 50% of the sources talk about that symbol, it makes no sense to remove it from the lede. Mhorg (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
WE still mention neo-nazi symbols, we do not need to name them. We can leave that to the body, where also three can be a nuanced discussion about interpretation. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

IMHO recent edits were an improvement but there's a couple of points I don't understand/agree with. 1) "Most of the unit members are Russian speakers and come from the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine" - is that so relevant? I don't see the point being expounded in the rest of the article, so perhaps as per MOS:LEAD we should drop it. 2) "These controversies have led to a focus on the unit in Russian propaganda, at the same time these allegations are disputed by some sources" sounds a bit convoluted to me. The old formulation was more informative and notable: "These links have also led to a focus on the unit in Russian propaganda: one of the reasons given by president of Russia Vladimir Putin for the 2022 invasion was the 'denazification' of Ukraine, to remove the alleged control of the country by far right forces such as Azov". I don't think we should drop that significant piece of information and in any case I wouldn't replace it with "controversies have led to propaganda and controversies are controverted/disputed" which doesn't make much sense. 3) I agree with Mhorg that the info on the symbol is significant, because the symbol "catches the eye" and requires explanation, but if there are different views I don't insist; 4) tags "disputed" "discuss" need to go. They all link to discussions that have already been closed: apparently the topic has been discussed quite extensively here. As per WP:WTRMT I'm now removing them. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

(1) I don't mind an alternative formulation, but I believe we should keep in the lead these two points: the regiment is largerly Russian-speaking, it has a significant amount of foreign combatants. I believe most sources agree on these, and it is an important insight into the nature of the regiment, also balances out the neo-Nazi controversities, and far-right Ukrainian nationalism of the regiment (in contrast to if the regiment would only speak Ukrainian language and shoot on spot any Russian speaker).
(2) I moved the one of the reasons given by president of Russia Vladimir Putin for the 2022 invasion was the 'denazification' of Ukraine, to remove the alleged control of the country by far right forces such as Azov piece to the next paragraph, as it is more related to the ongoing war, and it makes no sense to repeat it twice in the lead. However, I kept a mention of Russian propaganda in the "controvesies" paragraph, as the it was the aim of propaganda since very 2014. I don't mind a different formulation instead of These controversies have led to a focus on the unit in Russian propaganda, at the same time these allegations are disputed by some sources, but I'd like to keep these points in the pagraph: that Russia actively targets the regiment and amplifies these controversies in their propaganda since 2014; that there is a significant amount of sources / experts / journalists questioning these allegations.
(3) I am against naming Wolfsangel, and especially direct references to SS and WWII in the lead, just because it kind of misleads a reader into believing that symbols were adopted directly from them. While in reality they adopted it from previous organizations in Ukraine which used them for 30 years already. So, most Ukrainians nowadays sure think of those organizations first, and not about SS / WWII when they see them. As it is not possible to summaries it shortly without loosing nuances, it is better keep just "neo-Nazi symbols" in the lead, and refer to the body of the article to the detailed explanation of all symbols, and nuances in the context of Ukraine. Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thank you. I understand and agree with number 3. Anyway the point on the symbol is clearly explained in section "Neo-Nazism".
I also agree with number 1 but perhaps as per MOS:LEAD, if we want this in the lead then we should also add something to the body of the article: we must explain why and how language and national composition are relevant. Note that the multinational composition of the regiment (presence of foreign combatants) doesn't necessarily balance out neo-Nazi controversies as neo-Nazism today is to a large extent a transnational movement. So perhaps to adequately explain the point about multinational composition we should use RS and don't jump too quickly to conclusions.
With regard to 2, I think we should look for a better formulation. I agree there's no reason for repeating the point twice in the lead. What about the following one? Some experts are also critical of the regiment role in the larger, umbrella-like "Azov Movement", and its possible far-right political ambitions despite the claims of the regiment's depolitization. Other experts argue that the regiment has evolved beyond its origins as street militia tempering its neo-Nazi underpinnings as it became part of the National Guard. Since 2014, criticism of the Azov battalion is a recurring theme of Russian politics ("politics is better then propaganda - no need of overloading the lead of value judgments, as this is clearly a very sensitive topic). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Re.1:
- if we want this in the lead then we should also add something to the body of the article: we must explain why and how language and national composition are relevant. - true. I am a bit surprised now, that the Russian-speaking point is not already present anywhere else in the article. I was sure it was, as in sources it is pretty common to see the mention that the unit is de facto Russian-speaking.
- Note that the multinational composition of the regiment (presence of foreign combatants) doesn't necessarily balance out neo-Nazi controversies as neo-Nazism today is to a large extent a transnational movement - true. I meant that about the "Russian-speaking point". Regarding the multinational composition, I just think it is worth to mention, if we already mention the Russian-speaking point, so we kind of cover entire composition of the unit. I remember seeing in some sources claims that at some point it became the most international unit in Ukrainian army, so many further foreign volunteers were sent there just because of that.
Re. 2: Your version works for me. Birdofpreyru (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Re foreign fighters, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/24/american-fighters-ukraine-white-supremacists-00034860 Politico cites a Customs and Border Protection report of March 7, 2022 "“Ukrainian nationalist groups including the Azo[v] Movement are actively recruiting racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist-white supremacists (RMVE-WS) to join various neo-Nazi volunteer battalions in the war against Russia,”. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

For evidence that Biletsky remains relevant and in the same context, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/ Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Staying with the recruitment theme, https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-0b332e01abf61890d5d5458dc9bf2c8b "Recruiting chats on the encrypted Telegram messaging app are run by the Azov Regiment, popular with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and American neo-Nazis work to recruit for Azov, the respected SITE Intelligence Group says." Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Half of the Washington post article you mentioned give opinions that nowadays their recruites mostly are not nazi extremists, and the political views of newcomers are irrelevant for them compared to the desire and ability to fight against Russian invasion ;) Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I gave WAPO (it's cited multiple times in the article) for evidence about Biletsky continued involvement. The point is not how many extremists there are, it is that they continue to recruit them. Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Though, if we speak about the lead, I guess it is not a matter of more evidences, it is just that a point like "and Biletsky still is involved" kind of does not belong there (say a newcomer reading the lead, would he even know who Biletsky is, and why is he so relevant, without going and reading the article on Biletsky? I mean... he is already mentioned as the founder, so no need to be obsessed with him in the lead beyond that). I'd say the current lead version, in its 3rd paragraph, covers it, mentioning that the role of regiment in "Azov Movement", and its possible political agenda is considered controversial by some experts. It also mentions the controversies re. neo-Nazi idelogy and symbolism. So, it is not hidden from the lead, and who wants to know more will find more regarding Biletsky, and possible world-wide recruitment of far-right extremists in the dedicated sections of the article.
Also, I'd say somebody should remove most of the references after neo-Nazi ideology and symbolism in the lead. Right now there are 10 references - too much for any point the lead. IMHO, it is enough to leave 1 or 2, and keep the rest in the dedicated section of the article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't actually discussing the lead or putting any of this material into it, I was discussing (and providing reliable independent sourcing for) the continued recruitment of neo-Nazis by Azov. Biletsky appears to be involved with that and is thus relevant, as well as for his continued involvement with the regiment.Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about the RFC and the neo-nazi label in the lede

It is obvious that there is no consensus to continue the slanderous, sophomoric over-simplification which characterizes the subject as "neoNazi" in direct contradiction of substantial RS to the contrary. To sit around dickering over the exact language while these living persons are being dragged off the Russian POW camps is a disgrace. Let's agree to disagree on the final revised wording and come up with something provisional, and perhaps a new template warning readers that the matter is under dispute. It is a disgrace to WP to let this sit as is and may have bad real world consequences. Because of the pre-ponderance of wikilawyering and people grinding axes I have not been on WP much in recent years so I would appreciate some suggestions aside from the unhelpful piety of "well we had an RfC in March..." Any ideas? The clock is ticking and these boys' lives are in danger, Wikifolks...Wikidgood (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict, slow connection, I hit cancel but this went through. Checking to make sure I did not inadvertantly delete anything.Wikidgood (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikidgood your message is loaded with political messages and reveals your need to "defend" these people. Sorry, Wikipedia is not made for these things. Please read Wikipedia:Activist. Mhorg (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with their statement Mhorg. In particular, unlike you, Wikidgood addresses content, not editors. You're making personal attacks and I suggest you strike them. Volunteer Marek 21:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
If you think "To sit around dickering over the exact language while these living persons are being dragged off the Russian POW camps" is a legitimate way of arguing, I don't know what else to add. Mhorg (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is as it addresses content (“exact language”). Now, “reveals your need to defend these people” unnecessarily comments on an editor and does so in an offensive way, as if you could read another editor’s mind or motivations. Seriously, strike it. Volunteer Marek 04:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, maybe my message was too harsh, however, see the messages below. As I thought, this thread produced other comments which seems to be on a WP:FORUM. Mhorg (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Mhorg I am surprised by the vehemence of your statement. There is nothing "political" in my remarks. After >15 years with WP I don't need your recommended reading. WP exists in the real world. People refer to it, read it and there is breaking news on this very topic. People who are confused, and the question of how to frame the "neoNazi" characterization is confusing even to specialists, such people are likely to rely upon WP. I suppose it suits you to leave the unsatisfactory characterization but you know that consensus is nearing to modify the lede.

My post was responded to by the placement of a dispute tag in the main body of the text. I am satisfied for the time being. Someone has pointed out that you are engaging in a personal attack, and that is probably what your remark would be classified as. But I don't feel inordinatedly attacked, I know what I am signing on for editing on a hot topic here at WP.
You might be surprised that you and I share many points of view in common, but you seem so intent on criticizing my style that I think you might overlook that. Please focus on the questions at hand. If you thing "to sit around dickering over the exact language" is somehow inappropropriate then feel free to sit around and dicker over the exact language. I am not stopping you. But as stated elsewhere, I am of the view that it is despicable to have "NEO-NAZI" as an unqualified adjectival qualifier in the lede. There is clearly consensus to change that. It does happen to be a fact out there in the real world that these boys are in fact being dragged off in custody of the Russian Federation. You may think that is irrelevant but Russian propaganda frequently quotes Putin apologists in the US. It is not at all inconceivable that Lavrov et al might even say "Even in the English language Wikipedia it says that these are neo-Nazis". You know as well as I do that labelling living people as neo-Nazis can cause them harm, in this case could get them killed. It is very reckless. You can do better. Wikidgood (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
And you should read WP:AGF. TylerBurden (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikidgood, from what I have learned over the years on Wikipedia is that we discuss sources and not talk about how to save people or how our contributes can harm people. If we have hundreds of sources saying that Azov is made up of neo-Nazis and that it is part of a neo-Nazi project, we cannot avoid writing it to us because otherwise their lives are endangered. Speaking of consensus, it does not seem to me at all that the majority of colleagues are in favor of removing that adjective. Most of your comments seem to me almost WP:FORUM but maybe I'm wrong. I appreciate the comment you left me on the talk page, there is no problem for me and I have nothing against you personally. Just, simply discuss the sources and leave everything else apart. Mhorg (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
A close has been requested. At some point, even if a panel has to be convened, it will be closed. I disagree that time is of the essence, at least that's not any policy that I recognize. Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
There are probably 3-4 editors that would immediately revert any attempts to change the wording right now, as they will cite the ongoing RFC, even though like you said it seems the consensus is that the current state is...not optimal. I would not be against changing it at least to not state objectively in Wikipedias voice that the Azov Battalion is neo-nazi before the RFC closes completely. But clearly this article is a heated topic and people have dug in greatly to keep it the way they prefer, so there seems to be little point in attempting this before the RFC closes. Unless you want people to yell at you on Wikipedia I guess. TylerBurden (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree with you @wikidgood. I think in general RFCs etc. Need to be made easier to use, I managed to vote but I didn't have a clue where to put my comment or what I was doing, the whole process needs to be altogether more user friendly. Fourdots2 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry RFC's are the way to go, and we can all decide "we don need no stiking RFC's" when they go against us (I am unsure this on actually; is, but three we are). And consensus is not a majority vote, we are not democracy. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I added another fresh article by a fellow of the Atlantic Council, in the "journalism" section. Reading it now, its a strong attack on the continuing designation of Azov as "neo-Nazi" ("Branding the Azov Battalion as ‘neo-Nazi’ long after it shed its far-right origins is part of a deafening corruption of public discourse"). Given there seems to be so strong opinions (either way), and is so controversial, I do think its strange that the Wiki as of now puts it so strongly and "conclusively" in the article that they are a neo-Nazi battalion. It doesn't really reflect the dispute going on adequately, and probably serves as ammo for those denigrating the Ukrainian struggle ("look, Wikipedia even says!..."). Whatever the decision, I hope the RfC resolves quickly at least, since time is of the essence as stated above.--Euor (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The Atlantic Council is not a RS about this conflict, it is essentially state media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council#Connections_and_funding H51bjCKERK (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
You are right it is not a majority vote, and enough people have expressed concern with it being described in Wiki voice as Neo-nazi that it will likely need to be changed in some way. TylerBurden (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
That is my opinion too. I don’t really know whether or not they’re completely neo Nazi (although I doubt it based on the most recent conflicting RS’s). But the main point is there is a large controversy/discrepancy among the RS, which makes it slightly absurd to fall down heavily in wikivoice on one side, for no better reason I can see than some subjective bias. Remove ‘neo Nazi’ wikivoice from opening sentence, then cover the controversy and history amply further down. I don’t get the opposition to it.--Euor (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
All of which will be taken into account by the closers, so can we please stop trying to second guess them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This real world consequence is a concern to me when a friend of mine said he supported Russia, I asked why and he said he supported the killing of any Nazi. I investigated deeper and he mentioned me sources that was used in this Wikipedia article, but that was translated to the portuguese wikipedia that is way more biased than the english one, the english version is much more neutral. They can have NeoNazi views, and it would be good to make clear specifically what that means, the Neo-Nazism article says: antisemitism, ultranationalism, racism, xenophobia, ableism, homophobia, anti-Romanyism, anti-communism. Do they have all of those beliefs or not all of them? There are many jews among them that it doesn't make much sense they would be antisemitist. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
You would need to ask the RS why they call them neo-nazi, we can only reflect what they say. Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Survey of other Wikis

So I became interested in how other Wikis describe Azov in lead sentence, i.e. whether the lean on the explicit "Neo-Nazi" term or not in the beginning, to describe it now. Here's how various languages cover it:

  • Danish: "is a nationalist unit of the Ukrainian National Guard"
  • Spanish: "is a military unit" in the National Guard of Ukraine
  • Russian: "is a unit" in the National Guard of Ukraine
  • Turkish: "is a far-right, Neo-Nazi, formerly paramilitary unit"
  • French: "is a unit ... formed in 2014 as a far-right unit with neo-Nazi affiliations"
  • Portuguese: "is a neo-Nazi unit" in the National Guard of Ukraine
  • Dutch: "was a Ukrainian far-right militia"
  • German: "volunteer battalion" (stating further on the far right elements have largely been overcome after integration into Ukrainian military.
  • Polish: "a special sub-unit" in the National Guard of Ukraine
  • Norwegian: "a special unit" in the National Guard of :::Ukraine
  • Italian: "is a Ukrainian military unit".
  • Swedish: "is a far-right, sometimes called Neo Nazi"
  • Finnish: "is a volunteer force"
  • Greek: "far-right and Neo-Nazi"

Most, if not all, of the other articles then subsequently mention its far right origins, in lede. Some, like Germany, conclude its origins is not representative of current status, also in lede. So out of total 14 major languages checked, four languages (Portuguese, Greek, Swedish and Turkish) call it Neo-Nazi, while two mention far-right in first sentence (French and Dutch). I find this interesting. It means only 4/14 of the major Wikis in other languages explicitly say it is Neo Nazi in wikivoice at the beginning sentence, while the rest choose to tackle that controversy and history later, starting simply off by calling it a unit in the National Guard. I think it is worth considering what influence the English article has on the two that mention Neo-Nazi, as English often acts as an influence on other smaller Wikis, but apparently the influence is not that large considering only 4/14 follow suit. An example of English Wiki influence can be found in Arabic, I think, which is a very short article (only lede), mirroring what I think is an earlier version of the English article. I am not totally sure though, so I didn't include it in sample (although it wouldn't make a big difference).

Now I know English wiki doesn't have to follow what other wikis do, but I thought it might be interesting to check. So, to sum up, about 29% of the sample uses "Neo Nazi" to describe it in the first sentence; all go on to cover its far-right origins, with some (German for example), concluding it is no longer representative of the unit as of now. Also, this is in no way meant to be conclusive. The selection is fairly small, and mostly the largest wikis, to avoid other languages that simply copy-translate the English one. I had to use Google Translate for most articles, and if I missed something, please let me know.--Euor (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

See the RFC above, and no what other articles (or wiki's do) should not inform what we do. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I know no other article or Wikis should inform what we do, but I believe it is worth sampling other Wikis to get further perspectives. Mostly did this out of curiousity, though.--Euor (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Apparently, many members of the unit (this is not a battalion, but "polk") are still involved in the war in other parts of Ukraine. Perhaps one should say "based in Ukraine", but not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I am asking where do we say it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I copy pasted it from the RfC on this page. That is how it should appear if option "A" prevails. But this is wrong. Yes, "originally" may fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems that they have overlooked that I changed it in the lead to "originally" after a request in talk. Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
This is why NPOV tags need to have discussion linked to them, and not just be an expression of general dislike for the tone. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree. But why this is a non-admin closure by a single person? My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Its not, and it is hard to not make what might seem a snarky comment at this stage, if you had read the request for close you would have seen it is by a panel, not one person. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
No, I did not see it (this page is a mess), and I have no idea who the closers are if that's a panel. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
It does not matter if you know who they are, what relevance does that have? Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

A fresh article about Azov

I just came across a fresh (May 25, 2022) article about Azov by Cathy Young (Russian-born American journalist from a Jewish family, liberitarian/conservative) in The Bulwark (center-right news and opion website), "Heroes of Mariupol or Neo-Nazi Menace? - The messy history of Ukraine’s Azov Regiment." IMHO, a nice overview of the regiment history / controvercies. It does not seem to contain anything that is not in the wiki article already, but IMHO may be used to support some of the points in the Wiki article (I am lazy to do it, but probably some fellow editors are?). Regarding the main pain point: the author comes to the conclusion It’s ludicrous to refer to the regiment as “openly neo-Nazi”—words really should mean something!—and it is equally absurd to claim that no one in the mainstream media ever questioned Azov’s Nazism.. Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that (you forgot to sign). I don't know Bulwark, it seems a new (2018) opinion online news mag of some sort and there is no evidence that Cathy Young is an expert in the subject so I think it is not really usable for this article. Selfstudier (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Though, a reputed journalist she seems to be (59yo, deserved a bio-article in Wiki), and also Jewish-liberitarian background, not a sort of person interested to whitewash anything Nazi / easily doubt a prominent PoV that somebody is Nazi, I guess? So, I'd say her article counts as a good tertiary source. Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure she believes what she says, I wasn't doubting her in that sense. However, as you said It does not seem to contain anything that is not in the wiki article already, it seems likely that anything she has said is likely to be found in better sources. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
she's not an expert, but her content is fine for political commentary as Wikipedia:PARTISAN . she works for Cato Institute, which is very influential, so going to be mainstream american right wing in terms of bias.
here is another related article;
https://www.cato.org/commentary/digging-russias-latest-charge-ukrainian-nazis
actually she's written a number of relevant pieces semi-recently Cononsense (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Cathy Young is most certainly a reliable source. Volunteer Marek 15:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

From the Fires of War: Ukraine's Azov Movement and the Global Far Right

Was published by ibidem (7 Feb. 2022)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fires-War-Ukraine%E2%80%B2s-Analyzing-Political/dp/3838215087

So the claim is it POD is misleading at best, and likely just the fact that this edition is, not the actual, publication. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As is Moving beyond Islamist Extremism by William Allchorn. For some reason Google Books is pulling BoD thus has also been pulled into the citation. It would be good if editors could do just the slightest bit of research (it's on the front cover!) before deleting with an expletive filled edit summary. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
It would be good if editors properly referenced their sources. Volunteer Marek 12:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
True, and it was (and it was still reomoved as self published), eventualy. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
"Eventually" meaning after I pointed it out. Volunteer Marek 12:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
And still reverted using the same excuse afterwards. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Nope. Once the error was corrected I did not revert. Volunteer Marek 12:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Colborne's attributed views stand even if he wrote them on toilet paper per WP:SPS, expert opinion. Nothing more than POV editing and obvious at that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Nope. If you have to pay to have your book published through a scam agency then that's actually worse than writing it on toilet paper, which is why we never use vanity press publications. Point is moot now but just for future reference. Also, quit it with the personal attacks. I believe this is a second or third time I've asked you to stop. Volunteer Marek 12:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
It was corrected, then changed but with an edit summery of "Reverting back to save academic sources. Will update cites to reflect correct publisher information", and you then then reverted, rather than wait for it to be updated (or updating it yourself once this edit [[13]] pointed out the publisher was wrong). Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
My talk page is available for any complaint you wish to make. You may add it to the false complaint you made there already. Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah I'm not sure why Google Books is listing ibidem titles as Books on Demand - the mistake must have stemmed from here with an editor using a citation tool. Good to bear in mind when using ibidem sources in future or to double check when we come across a BoD cite. Thanks for picking up. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Brigade/Archive_7&oldid=1145342589"