Talk:Azov Brigade/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Azov Brigade. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
RFC designation of Azov "Battalion" as neo-Nazi in lede
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Before we begin talking about this RfC proper, we thought it necessary to go over some of the previous discussions that led to this one. Not only was that requested by some participants, but that's a normal procedure for these kinds of discussions, as previous arguments are commonly used as the base of the participants' choices to an RfC, and it can also enlighten the closers by showing what points were considered to be the most relevant by the community.
First, we had the RfC that was procedurally closed before this one. Our reading of that discussion was there was a rough consensus that the lede needed working, and possibly the rest of the article as well. While there was some agreement to talk about the Battalion's political ideology in the lede, there was also clear disagreement on how to proceed, and we saw the closure of that RfC as beneficial to advancing the discussion. A "yes or no" answer was seen as too simplistic to be able to solve the issue editors found with the lede, as it was seen by many editors as breaching WP:NPOV, and to be possibly outdated and confusing to readers (as it conflates multiple parties).
Now, to talk about the RfC proper. This has been a highly contentious discussion, no doubt affected by the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, and saw wide participation by the community. A great number of options were provided for editors to discuss and an extensive source review was carried out, which enriched the discussion. Numerically, the community was approximately split on whether to include or not include the words "Neo-Nazi" in the lede. Thus, some saw for the need of a closure by a panel of editors as appropriate and necessary to assess the strength of arguments rather than count votes.
Option A (the status quo) received the most !votes, both in favor and against it. Those in favor say they are based on what current reliable sources say about the battalion, who describe them as neo-nazi. This argument saw a lot of pushback for several reasons, with some calling it original research, saying that while the political party that spawned from the group has been called neo-nazi, the same is not necessarily true for the battalion itself, and the two groups are being conflated in the analysis of these sources. Others also mention that only older sources attribute neo-nazi ideology to the battalion, with newer ones avoiding directly calling them that (such as using scare quotes), raising doubts over whether they are still political or if things changes and showing that there is uncertainty among RS. Some editors also note that option A does not do enough enough the multiple entities involved here (the paramilitary group, the Government's battalion, and the political group that spawned from it).
Option B received very little attention. The few who mentioned it considered to be the "better than the status quo" option. Similar to A, it states information in wikivoice, and its lack of support shows that editors do not agree on this approach.
Option E was as divisive as A, but saw less support, mostly due to the fact that it removes any and all mentions of neo-nazism from the lede. Some of those supporting this option make the compelling point that, even if information about its neo-nazi ties are to be in the lede, they should not be in the first sentence, which should be for undisputed facts (which this clearly isn't). But, since that option does not clarify if the information is to be removed or simply moved later in the lede, many opposed it due to its complete omission of what they see is very essential information about the battalion and its history.
The discussion surrounding these three options is reminiscent of what we saw in the previous RfC, especially regarding to the issues of WP:NPOV raised by many of the participants (both now and then). This is a complex issue, and most editors have shown they want a text that reflects such complexity. Looking at the support and opposition over the three options above, it's clear that all of them have glaring issues and do not tackle the subject in a way that the participating community found satisfactory, and there is a clear lack of consensus for any of them, and we could even say there is rough consensus against the status quo, due to the issues raised based on policies and guidelines.
Among the remaining options, C saw a decent amount of support as a second choice (and also as the first option of some), as it does not state in wikivoice that the battalion is neo-nazi, but clarifies it has such elements. Interestingly enough, it saw support both from those for and against option A. It also saw no clear opposition. This further shows that participants aren't happy in stating that the battalion is (or isn't) neo-nazi in wikivoice. Some, on the other hand, raised issues with this option and similar ones as it appears to skirt the issue. This was more clearly seen in the discussion surrounding Option D, which saw a similar level of support to that of C, with a writing that is somewhat similar. Some of the participants raised some concerns about this option, saying it suffers from weasel-wording, due to its usage of the phrasing "claims". In our eyes, this makes it hard to find enough support based in WP:PAG for this option.
Aside from the 5 main options above, there were also two drafts that rewrite a longer portion of the lede. Draft #1 saw a similar kind of support to that of Option C, but even broader. A lot of the participants saw this as the most balanced description of the subject. It also received support due to its move of the contentious sentence later in the lede, giving it less prominence, an issue raised by many participants. Many who supported draft #1 also supported #2 and vice-versa. Both drafts seemed to find a more nuanced approach to the subject's history, an approach that found near unanimous support (with some caveats, such as rewording some of its sentences).
As we found to be a rough consensus against the status quo and similarly worded options (i.e. options A, B and E), it then becomes a question of which of these options, that received a fair amount of support, is the appropriate choice, without falling into the pitfalls of a WP:SUPERVOTE. Option D saw some pushback due to WP:WEASEL, and Option C, while it did find a decent amount of support, was weaker than that of Draft #1 (both numerically and in arguments), and was seen by many simply as a "better than nothing". Those supporting C considered it to be the more neutral option, by stating simple facts found in reliable sources ("neo-nazi elements"), but some also pointed that that Draft #1 was also suffeciently neutral while going more indepth on the controversial nature of the battalion. Some discussion has also raised some questions over Draft #2, which states in its final sentence with certainty that the battalion has been "largely 'de-politicized'", a statement that was posed as contentious by some editors.
Taking into account all the arguments raised over these options, we see a consensus was formed to use one of the two proposed drafts, with a stronger support for something akin to Draft #1, which was the option that saw the most amount of support and which best aligned with our policies and guidelines. This means that editors should further discuss how to best improve this draft to a point where its main issues raised during the discussion are resolved, at which point it can be used as the new lede.
Isabelle 🏳🌈 13:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Ryk72 talk 14:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
— Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 | Before you close the discussion, please take into account this similar RFC started in March 2022. |
| The closer may also wish to take into account these two discussions: on talk and on the administrative noticeboard |
Lede as it currently stands[1] (with UA taken out): "The Azov Special Operations Detachment, also known as the Azov Regiment or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov."
Should this be changed to?
- A: No change.
- B: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, which used to be a neo-Nazi[2][3], is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine.
- C: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine that contains neo-Nazi elements.
- D: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine which it has been claimed is neo-nazi.
- E: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine
Or
Alternative Draft #1:
The Azov Battalion is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov. The unit was founded in May 2014 as a volunteer paramilitary militia to fight Russian forces in the Donbas War and was formally incorporated into the National Guard on 11 November 2014. During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the group's incorporation into the National Guard drew controversy over its early association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology, its use of uses controversial symbols, and allegations of torture and war crimes. CutePeach (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments about alternative draft 1
|
|---|
|
Alternative Draft #2:
The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. It was founded as the Azov Battalion in Kyiv in 2014, a small paramilitary group of extremist Far Right and neo-Nazi political activists under the political leadership of Andriy Biletsky.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence,[1] relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism,[2] and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers.[3] However, after its forced absorption into the National Guard and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially Andriy Biletsky and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]</ref>[11][12] - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock-master see - [2]
Comments about alternative draft 2
|
|---|
|
Collective source review re: "neo-nazi"
 | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
I'm starting this as a source review of the Azov Battalion group/movement, particularly focused on description of the group re: the "neo-nazi" question. It can later be expanded to any other purpose! Please add sources to the following drop downs in chronological order, based on the type of source. And then note with the following key, how the source falls on the spectrum of "is a neo-nazi group" to "is not a neo-nazi group" and everywhere in between:— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note to closers and !voters: some of the colour-coding used in the below does not closely follow the content of the sources. While a coding scheme such as that used has its merits, editors should remember to focus on the source itself or at least the quote reproduced, and not be swayed by an interpretative framework which may be seriously contested. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Source formatting key
| ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[] · | ||
|---|---|---|
| For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This section was last edited (diff) on 30 April 2024 at 15:39 by PrimeBOT (talk • contribs • logs) | ||
|
[] · | ||
|---|---|---|
| For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG. This section was last edited (diff) on 30 April 2024 at 15:39 by PrimeBOT (talk • contribs • logs) | ||
|
[] · | ||
|---|---|---|
| For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION. This section was last edited (diff) on 30 April 2024 at 15:39 by PrimeBOT (talk • contribs • logs) | ||
|
[] · | ||
|---|---|---|
| For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION. This section was last edited (diff) on 30 April 2024 at 15:39 by PrimeBOT (talk • contribs • logs) | ||
|
[] · | ||
|---|---|---|
| Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution! This section was last edited (diff) on 30 April 2024 at 15:39 by PrimeBOT (talk • contribs • logs) | ||
|
[] · |
|---|
Can we add a column to the table in "Source formatting key" that makes it clear when a source should - and should not - be given a label? e.g. when should a source be labeled ""with neo-nazi elements""? selfwormTalk) 16:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
According to the following source Mapping Militant Organizations. “Azov Battalion.” Stanford University. Last modified March 2022.
This source is already listed about and tagged "with neo-nazi elements", which I presume means "part of the group is composed of neo-nazis" (is this correct?). But this source doesn't merely say that the group has neo-Nazi members. It says that the group "promotes" "neo-Nazism". Neither the label "with neo-nazi elements" nor any of the other 5 labels fully captures this assertion, which I think is important enough that it should be clearly indicated whenever a source states it. And it isn't just this source that indicates this. I remember reading at least a couple others sources that indicate the same thing (although I've only inspected a handful of the 100+ sources listed). Should a new label be introduced for sources that state the group promotes neo-Nazism? selfwormTalk) 16:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@User:Cambial Yellowing, If you are concerned, then add your comments to the subsections in the individual collapses, and we can come to a consensus about labels. It was inappropriate for you to add your comments to the template like that, instead, add your comments to the overall discussion section of the RFC or to the individual sections of the source review. But nothing makes your opinion more important than everybody else's. Replying to the source review directly puts your comment ahead of everyone else's in a way inconsistent with consensus building.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
@User:Cambial Yellowing: I never said RFCs were a vote. The exact passage you've cited about summarizing arguments is why I know that the closer should not be evaluating the content itself, but rather arguments about the content. They will look at how discussion participants have argued about the sources, not the sources themselves.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 09:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
|
Survey
- C or D not draft 2 as it goes into too much detail to replace one word in the lede. C and D seem to sum it up. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- A, no change, the current definition "is a neo-Nazi unit" is very accurate. The battalion\reggiment is the armed wing of the neo-Nazi project called "Azov Movement" and its political project "National Corps", led by the neo-Nazi Andrey Biletsky (original founder of Azov Battalion that said that Ukraine's national purpose was to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade... against Semite-led Untermenschen"[15]). It does not matter the percentage of enlisted soldiers who have a neo-Nazi faith of either 90% or 10%.
- The investigative work by the expert Kuzmenko of the Bellingcat group says:[16] "The relationship between the regiment and the National Corps is also blurred in the political messaging of Biletsky, who has posed with active duty Azov soldiers in political videos. National Corps figures routinely visit the regiment, and the party’s ideologists lecture Azov troops. Their blogs are published on the regiment’s site, while Azov’s social media pages promote the National Corps. According to an August 2017 video, ostensibly recorded at Azov’s base, emigre Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin lectured the regiment. The close alignment between the Azov Regiment and the National Corps continues under the Zelenskyy presidency. In March 2020, soldiers from the regiment were featured alongside leaders of the National Corps in a video ad for a rally meant as a warning to Zelenskyy’s government. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to “depoliticize”. This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps."
- The most recent sources that speak of a depoliticization of unit come substantially from Shekhovtsov, quoted by the Financial Times:[17] "Azov's history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself." Shekhovtsov's version appears to go against the facts, while Kuzmenko's claims is easily verifiable by doing simple fact-checking:
Fact-checking
|
|---|
|
- It is important to note that it is in the interest of the Azov Movement to give the impression that the "National Corps" and "Azov Battalion" are two separated entities. It is clear when the Western media goes to show the links between the two organizations, as for the Time article[35], this is the response of the "National Corps":[36] "National Corps’ Statement on the Information Provocation by TIME Magazine: The Azov Regiment is an official unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, and, therefore, under the Ukrainian legislation, cannot have a “political wing” or “its own political party,” as stated in the article."--Mhorg (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Lots of WP:Original research here. Few notes, Kuzmenko himself doesn't even call Azov regiment explicitly "neo-nazi". Also the National Corps, being a marginal political party with no electoral success, do have strong motivation to grab a share of Azov's military prestige for additional public popularity, so them making youtube videos about the regiment doesn't really prove anything.--Staberinde (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- What Biletsky said or is alleged to have said in 2010 before Azov even existed is not a usable justification for the nature of Azov today, so no good for supporting A, which uses the present tense. (At any rate, his comments were antisemitic but not specifically neo-Nazi.) Kuzmenko is a very strong source, but he is arguing against the claim Azov has "de-politicised" not for the claim it is "neo-Nazi"; nowhere does he describe it as neo-Nazi. Shekhovtsov is a strong source too, and choosing Kuzmenko over Shekhovtsov is either NPOV or OR. The "Fact-checking" is ALL WP:OR which we certainly can't use in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- "This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps." - obviously false, there exists a clear line, the regiment fights in Mariupol and dies, does the movement the same in the same place? Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Battalion and the movement are two separate and distinct entities. There is a relationship between the two. It's not complicated. We don't need a lot of hot air and suspicions and conspiracy theories when people disagree about the nature of the relationship. Feel free to cite RS which indicates tight coordination and RS to the contrary. This applies whether you regard them as heroes or villains. Let's get on with the unique WP approach to things. Wikidgood (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- The burden of proof is on you to prove the political branch and the military branch of the same overarching "Azov" are separate. A summary of RS can be found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Azov_movement already. With lack of consensus, status quo sticks. This entire talk section feels very WP:Activist; you need very compelling evidence to prove the neo-nazi regiment whose emblem was taken directly from the SS has changed. H51bjCKERK (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- The Battalion and the movement are two separate and distinct entities. There is a relationship between the two. It's not complicated. We don't need a lot of hot air and suspicions and conspiracy theories when people disagree about the nature of the relationship. Feel free to cite RS which indicates tight coordination and RS to the contrary. This applies whether you regard them as heroes or villains. Let's get on with the unique WP approach to things. Wikidgood (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- How do you respond to reporting from BBC News that indicates that
has falsely portrayed [Azov] as Nazi
? This seems to be a high-quality reliable source that argues that they are not a Nazi group. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I assume we have 4 for Alternative Draft #1. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Support A - This most succinctly summarizes the available sources, without leaving anything out or watering anything down. Support Alternate Draft 2 as a second, because it does what A does, but much less succinctly. C as a distant third, given that it represents the current concern about nazi elements. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)After carefully building this source review (with help from several others!), I have decided the most accurate depiction is using some form of C with better grammar, but also incorporating some of B. Such as "with neo-nazi and other far-right political elements." The group was originally incorporated as the neo-nazi group..." This is the version which best reflects the sources. If this RFC is closed without action, I will repropose based on that review and with this as an option.—edited by Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)- 'available sources'? Who exactly has studied all available sources? The referenced list of pro'neo-Nazi' sources is cherrypicked. We need sources discussing the problem, rather than annuntiating the Final Truth. Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion Stanford does not say neo-Nazi.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Xx236 See my below comment on the Stanford source. I strongly suggest you strike this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Xx236 I made that assessment after looking at all the sources provided which say neo-nazi and also those which say "formerly" or do not say it at all. These are provided in the dropdowns in the discussion section so everyone can make their own assessment and vote accordingly. if you feel there are sources which are not mentioned there, you are free to add your own. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A per the many sources provided below, in addition to the fact that this issue was already settled previously. --eduardog3000 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A per the overwhelming usage of that term in reliable sources. We can note statements by the group or sources that demur further down the article, but the few sources that say otherwise are not strongly-worded enough or high-quality enough to trump the plain fact that the group is overwhelmingly described as a neo-Nazi one in the article voice of WP:RSes. As far as the problems with the other ones go, B is completely unacceptable because it flat-out ignores the numerous sources describing the group as neo-Nazi today and reads too much into a small number of sources that are cautious about its current state and discuss how it has changed over time but largely do not say so concretely that it has definitely and completely changed - and, more importantly, those sources generally acknowledge, at least implicitly, that it is considered neo-Nazi by others. D is unacceptable per WP:CLAIM and WP:WEASEL, and beyond that dismissing a huge number of academic sources describing the group as neo-Nazi as a mere vaguely-attributed "claim" is misleading. E is the worst of all; no matter which sources you choose, neo-Nazism is the most notable thing about the group and needs to be in the first sentence in some form. Even the tiny number of sources that are more cautiously-worded still make it a major focus - no sources have been presented that could justify complete exclusion.
Collapsing reply to a ping for length
|
|---|
| EDIT: I've said this already, but since people seem to think pinging others is going to help - the sources people have presented below to try and argue that the group isn't widely-described as neo-Nazi are unconvincing. Most of them simply do not actually contradict that descriptor; things like "it has toned down its extremist elements" or such verbiage doesn't challenge the basic definition described in the sources. Furthermore, the sources people are trying to use to argue this point are generally weaker - very few academic sources present the point as something seriously disputed, and the ones that do are generally worded in a way that makes it clear that the authors recognize that they are challenging an established academic consensus. Furthermore, the more serious problems I identified with every alternative remain; in particular E is completely unacceptable because it omits a core element of the subject's notability entirely, while B (or any variation on it, such as alternative draft 1) is completely unacceptable because they falsely present it as a fait accompli that the group is no longer neo-Nazi or that it was merely an "early association" with it when numerous high-quality academic sources directly state otherwise. |
- In short, I still oppose both alternative drafts, B, D, and E in strongest possible terms as a flat and unambiguous misrepresentation of the sources. Even if the weak and unconvincing sources that people have presented to try and argue against A were accepted, nothing anyone has presented remotely supports any of those alternatives, which would require directly ignoring large amounts of recent high-quality scholarship (or, in the case of D, casting them as mere opinion per WP:CLAIM.) Option A remains the most accurate representation of the best sources out of the choices presented. Also, kindly stop bludgeoning people who have expressed support for A; if the scattershot and unconvincing sources people keep using to argue against it were actually as strong as you say, they would be capable of standing on their own. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, E, and B in that order. Oppose A. A used to be a good interpretation of the sourcing, but per recent sourcing, it no longer is. If we go with "E", it should say shortly afterwards that Azov used to be neo-Nazi. I will add that sourcing elsewhere in the discussion of this RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, or E. An overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources would describe the unit in this way. Oppose A. This has been well refuted by reliable, contemporary sources. I agree with adoringnanny that if E, clarification should appear soon after the opening sentence.
- Vyacheslav Likhachev, Anton Shekhovtsov, and Andreas Umland are the most prominent researchers of the far-right in Ukraine. After reading their papers and books on the subject, you will arrive at the conclusion that some of the founders of Azov were neo-fascists and possibly/probably neo-nazis and some of the early members were neo-nazis. In 2014 (months after the group's founding) many of the neo-nazis and fascists left the group. In 2017 some openly neo-nazi members were kicked out of the group for espousing neo-nazi beliefs. Some of the veterans of the unit have founded or joined questionable groups. The regiment has never been known to engage in neo-nazi activity or make neo-nazi statements. They have kicked people out for being neo-nazis. They are under the direct command of the Ukrainian National Guard. Calling the regiment neo-nazi seems like a serious violation of WP:NPOV.Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Support alternative draft 1, Oppose A(which is a ridiculous and outdated simplification). The Ukrainian government has repeatedly said they have no neo nazi units in their defence forces (despite what Russian propaganda says about "Nazi Ukraine"), including Azov. As has been said *many* times, even though people choose to ignore it, Azov were previously a Neo Nazi buch of soccer holligans, but have since been reformed, neo nazi leadership have been purged, and the govt has made them now a regular part of the Ukrainian defence forces. Certainly there are some members of the unit who are Nazis, but that's no different to US units or Russian who have Nazi members... and they aren't designated Neo Nazi. There are numerous sources to support this, and the article presently is filled with older sources (some going back to 2014) that simply call them Neo Nazi, that don't factor in changes of the last years.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternative Draft #1 (preferred), 2 or E, oppose to A. This is for two reasons. (1) As covered in RS, some or many members of the unit had Neo-Nazi views, at least in the past. This is not surprising. I am sure that some members of other military units in Ukraine and other countries (US including) have such views. But this is not the reason to define the whole military unit as "Neo-Nazi" in the first phrase in WP voice. This is just a unit of Army, not a political party. Such description in our article only helps anti-Ukrainian Putinist propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC) So, for example, according to this, 82nd Airborne Division of USA Army, "formed a Neo-Nazi group" in 1995, and so on. But should it be described as a "Neo-Nazi Division" on WP page? Of course not! My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- (2)The detachment and even the related organizations are not described as "Neo-Nazi" in the most recent sources. Due to the ongoing events in Mariupol, the coverage of this unit is changing. Hence, the description in the lead must also change. This is something unusual. The majority of population of Mariupol (just as Kharkiv and Eastern Ukraine in general) are ethnic Russians who speak Russian, etc. So that Putin's forces now exterminate very same people they vowed to protect. On the other hand, the Ukrainian nationalist forces bravely protect the Russian-speaking population in Mariupol from Russian forces who behave just as Nazi during WW II. My very best wishes (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Close as fatally flawed, by indecision and interference during and after the posting of the Rfc. It was initiated on 12:42, 10 April and only after these 21 edits was the first vote cast at 13:23, 10 April 2022 (at which time, the Rfc was *already* a giant mess), including poorly discussed wholesale replacements of the options. In its current state, it's a sprawling mess with multiple collapses, and, imho, none of the options present a balanced view of the evolution of the Azov Batallion from its extremist origins to its complex, flawed present with continued extremist ties though less important, and less numerous, than before. As a second choice, Draft 1 is closest, but still not ideal. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I think in an ideal world, a longer discussion of the various options would exist, and then an experienced, neutral, and uninvolved editor would make an RfC based on the options reached. I also agree that alternative draft 1 is the best written. I think a lot of the problem stems from trying to collapse complex realities into small spaces. Disconnected Phrases — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Support A Aquillion summed it up pretty well. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support E This discussion may be influenced by Russian-Ukrainian information war. The alleged complete list of reliable sources is far from being complete:
- https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion Stanford does not say neo-Nazi.
- https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Stanford source repeatedly talks about AB's Neo-Nazi ideology and says The Azov Battalion is an extreme-right nationalist paramilitary organization that promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism through its National Militia paramilitary organization and National Corps political wing in its first two sentences. The first sentence of the France 24 starts with Some call them war heroes, others neo-Nazis. If you search hard enough you might be able to find sources to support the entire removal of neo-Nazism from the lead but it is definitely not these ones. These sources argue the opposite and it is incorrect to represent the Stanford source like this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is a database entry, and I do not see who was the author. Not a best source. One issue here: is it a [political] organization (as this source say) or is it a military unit (as most other sources say)? If there are both, then perhaps we need two separate pages. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A Per overwhelming usage in reliable sources.Anonimu (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A for now, perhaps they are a leopard trying to change their spots but it is soon to say so. If we are going to have the movement as a redirect here then it might be useful to say something about it somewhere in the lead and perhaps clarify more in the article body.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support E or Alternative draft 1, strictly Oppose A - Should Azov’s far-right and neo-nazi associations be discusses in the article and in the lede – yes. Should we declare them neo-nazi in the very first sentence – no. First sentence should be about undisputed basic facts. In order to describe Azov as a neo-nazi unit in the opening sentence, this descriptor should be applied uniformly and unequivocally across international reliable sources. That is not the case. Substantial number of sources have been presented below suggest Azov has moved away from neo-Nazism, and even more sources while discussing Azov’s far-right links simply do not apply neo-nazi label with no additional qualifiers. Also, the list of sources presented to support the label doesn’t stand up to scrutiny very well, with majority of entries being dated, unreliable, or simply not supporting the “neo-nazi” label [37]. Therefore, it is very clear that the topic of Azov being neo-nazi is by no means actually settled among reliable sources, and calling it unequivocally "neo-nazi" in the first sentence would be violation of WP:NPOV. I would also note that Azov is a military unit. If we look at first sentences of some other wikipedia articles of military units then one can see that we don’t call LSSAH “nazi”, or Red Guards “communist”, or Al-Qassam Brigades “islamist”, even though all those units are/were very strongly associated with those ideologies.--Staberinde (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would prefer a very nicely written Alternative Draft #1 but if that is no go then I would support A (no chance) due to the present sources. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alternative Draft #1 as nominator. I do think this group is part neo-Nazi, but AFU regulars in the unit reject this characterization, so it should not be stated in Wikivoice. CutePeach (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC) (moved to the proper section by GizzyCatBella - pinging CutePeach to notify) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A Kuzmenkos article gives strong evidence. Recent influx of ideologically non-committed members does little to change the nature of the battallion. NSDAP also was diluted by fellow-travellers, opportunists and people compelled to join. In a military unit, the leadership is the central factor. --Jonund (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Jonund but Kuzmenko doesn't call them neo-Nazi, so his article gives strong evidence against A. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support Alternative Draft 1 That's the closest to most recent sources I think. Otherwise E with more elucidation farther on in the text. Volunteer Marek 20:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A Every other option is dubious and not reflective of WP:RS. CharlesWain (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A, oppose E. Clearly there are RSs which say "is neo-Nazi", so E would be totally wrong. However, the RSs which support "is neo-Nazi" are outweighed quantitatively and generally weaker qualitatively than those which do not support this. If we say "is neo-Nazi" in the present tense than sources from 2014 are not useful, given other sources which change. WP:HEADLINES which support "neo-Nazi" but have bodies that say something more nuanced (neo-Nazi links, neo-Nazi symbols, some neo-Nazi members) are also no good for A. And RSs reporting on other things that only mention Azov in passing are weaker than RSs which focus analytically on Azov. Looking at the preponderance of sources, it is clear that something like B/C/D or one of the alternative drafts are far closer to the sources. (I may !vote later on which of these is best depending on the arguments put forward.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC) As we move to close and I still haven't !voted, I think a better worded 1 or 2 is the best but C and D are fine and could live with B. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support A or an improved D with a preference for the latter. Sources are not clear that Azov has moved on and in many ways question if Azov and others are right when they say they have depoliticised. Sources asserting depoliticisation are usually presented as claims which often trace back to Azov themselves or individual academics. Journalists have openly questioned the depoliticisation with Oleksiy Kuzmenko writing despite claims to have moved away from far-right ideology, the available evidence indicates that the regiment remains joined at the hip to the internationally active National Corps party it spawned, and the wider Azov movement associated with the regiment. Sources that do not use neo-Nazi usually talk about others using the description such as the oft quoted France 24 piece which starts Some call them war heroes, others neo-Nazis. Hence my support for D (despite valid claims of WP:WEASEL) as even if not all sources call them neo-Nazis, all sources do say many others describe them as such. Sources presented below show the continued and recent use of neo-Nazi to describe Azov so I am also happy to stay with the status quo for now. In the strongest possible terms I oppose E which erases one of the largest factors of the battalion's notability. Every single source about Azov addresses it's neo-Nazi aspects regardless of where they fall on it. I wouldn't oppose a term like "extreme far-right" or similar instead. However, it appears the opposition to A and support for E or Draft #2 is not because the term "neo-Nazi" is inaccurate but because Azov is no longer political - something which is not supported by the majority of sources and is a fringe viewpoint. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- A The group literally has Nazi symbols on its logo. --Firestar464 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- And your source is? Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- See below comment. Firestar464 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am asking about the source (Nazi symbols), not about opinions. Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please compare Rorschach test. Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- See below comment. Firestar464 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Here's a couple of them.[13][14] Plenty more could be added (if necessary). M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- There is plenty of reliable sourcing for Azov using Wolfsangel and Black Sun, and plenty of reliable sourcing for these being Nazi symbols (although Azov says its similar symbol is not actually a Wolfsangel but the initials of "National Idea"). However, reliable sources for "looks like a duck" are not the same as reliable sources for "is a duck" and if we want to go for option A ("is neo-Nazi") rather than something more specific (e.g. "neo-Nazi elements") I don't think use of symbols is enough. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- And your source is? Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A or C. Strong sourcing and the use of two Nazi symbols (Wolfsangel and Black Sun) in their logo justifies keeping the current version. EDIT: Per BobFromBrockley's comment below I took a look at the sourcing above and have revised my vote accordingly and support C as an option. The majority of the sources listed under scholarship (which I would consider to be the strongest sources) and journalism describe Azov as either "neo-nazi" or with "neo-nazi elements".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- It has been discussed here, but there is more to the "Nazi" symbols. Firstly, the organisation has changed and is no longer Neo Nazi, however it is still using the old symbols - but that doesn't make it a neo nazi organisation - because otherwise, where it really counts, it isn't. Secondly, from what I understand, these symbols AREN't seen as Nazi symbols in Ukraine. They have some Ukrainian traditional meaning...so we appear to be giving some innaproproate non Ukrainian meaning to these symbols - so strictly equating these symbols with Nazism, when they may more correctly be associated with Ukrainian Nationalism (?) is incorrrect. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think that depends entirely on what the experts on these symbols and this movement tell us about the situation. For one, I have not found a particularly high quality source that says their use is entirely unconnected to the popular meaning. Nor have I found a high quality source which shows these alternative "traditional Ukrainian" meanings that the Azov people speak of. And we also have sources which say the movement was told to stop using Nazi symbols, and decided to rebrand them or alter them slightly instead. I would put all of this together to think that it's fair to say the group has "some neo-nazi connections" but is not itself "neo-nazi" in character. Much like how the proud boys have some neo-nazi connections but are not themselves a "neo-nazi" group. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 02:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Wolfsangel is used mostly by neo-Nazi groups and others associated with the far-right, but is not itself a Nazi symbol. The Black Sun, on the other hand, is exclusively a Nazi symbol.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- It has been discussed here, but there is more to the "Nazi" symbols. Firstly, the organisation has changed and is no longer Neo Nazi, however it is still using the old symbols - but that doesn't make it a neo nazi organisation - because otherwise, where it really counts, it isn't. Secondly, from what I understand, these symbols AREN't seen as Nazi symbols in Ukraine. They have some Ukrainian traditional meaning...so we appear to be giving some innaproproate non Ukrainian meaning to these symbols - so strictly equating these symbols with Nazism, when they may more correctly be associated with Ukrainian Nationalism (?) is incorrrect. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A, support C and D. To maintain core article policy WP:NPOV and WP:VER the article shouldn't categorically use the label neo-Nazi when reliable sources are conflicted on this issue, plus its use here seems like contentious opinion WP:CONTENTIOUS so should not be included in WP:VOICE. IndigoBeach (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A. The balance of the decently-reliable sources found so far indicates that use of the straight-up label with no qualifications or modifications is misleading. There are simply too many of those sources in the "has/had neo-Nazi elements" bucket for "is a neo-Nazi battalion" to be a fair summary. Is there unanimity among the sources? No. But that means that the situation is complicated, which in turn means that our article can't take an easy way out. XOR'easter (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are other options you could choose from. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty much the core argument I made "Azov = Nazi" is a (sorta lazy and stupid) oversimplification that the Daily Mirror should use, but we here at Wikipedia need to be more accurate, explaining the actual situation with qualifications. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Does 'decently' suggest that any other opinions are undecent? Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: can I urge editors who have not been following the discussion to look at the review of sources at the top of this page (and/or the two lists of sources below here in the discussion) before !voting on the basis of sources. I note three or four editors have briefly !voted for A with comments such as "reflective of WP:RS" or "Per overwhelming usage in reliable sources", but don't appear to have addressed the balance of sources as documented on this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Bobfrombrockley, what is the correct course of action for the closer when !votes are not made on basis of sources? Should they discard the !votes as WP:IDL and risk being accused of a WP:SUPERVOTE, or lean on some other policy for these situations? I'm genuinly interested in knowing as there is RFC with this exact problem. CutePeach (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Can we please avoid cluttering the !Vote section and move this discussion to where it belongs? M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: One (admittedly imperfect) way to assess how they are described by the overwhelming majority of reliable news organizations would be to go to the perennial sources page, make a list of the reliable for political news outlets, select a representative number of outlets using a random number generator and catalogue how they are characterized (described the first time they appear in the body) by the news outlet in articles (not blogs or opinion pieces) from the last few years. I did not find neo-Nazi to be an at all common descriptor. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- We have this: Talk:Azov Battalion/Sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Those sources are cherry-picked and do not represent the majority of RS opinion. Some of them do not appear on the perennial sources list. It is not what I described. I encourage the closer to research outside this talk page. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- We have this: Talk:Azov Battalion/Sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment There is nothing to suggest that they haven't addressed the balance of sources, nor is there a need for them to limit themselves to what was cherry picked for them. The !voters are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions after analysing what has been covered extensively over the years (in many languages). M.Bitton (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Bobfrombrockley, what is the correct course of action for the closer when !votes are not made on basis of sources? Should they discard the !votes as WP:IDL and risk being accused of a WP:SUPERVOTE, or lean on some other policy for these situations? I'm genuinly interested in knowing as there is RFC with this exact problem. CutePeach (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- C but not E nor draft #2: More sources indicate "contain elements" compared to other characterizations. CurryCity (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A there are many RS published in the recent past, claiming it is a neonazi group. So, we will need a more recent, well cited review paper published in a peer revied journal, that examines the nature or ideology of Azov battalion, and states that they have moved from neonazism to something else Cinadon36 05:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC) (moved "lost" vote to the proper location by GizzyCatBella🍁 11:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC))
- Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, or E. Oppose A.Mihaiam (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternative draft 1, Oppose A From a perusal of recent sources in Talk:Azov Battalion/Sources, it seems like there is debate surrounding the best characterising ideology of the group, especially recently (WP:AGE MATTERS). The current description seems to have problems with WP:NPOV because it is direct contradiction with many recent sources. I like alternative draft 1 because it is fairly matter of fact and avoids anything contentious WP:CONTENTIOUS Cononsense (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- — Cononsense (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A, as reflecting Russian propaganda not current sources, and being WP:UNDUE given the groups current notability comes from their defence of Mariupol. BilledMammal (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Recent news reports such as by the BBC describe it as
once had links to the far right
. Considering this, I think either E, or B, either in the proposed form or preferably in the formwhich used to have links to the far right
, would be best. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Recent news reports such as by the BBC describe it as
- Support alternative draft #2 or alternative draft #1. The reliable sources are sufficiently split (and actually tend towards "formerly" when biasing in favour of more recent sources) that some level of nuance is warranted. Strongly oppose A as too black-and-white. --Tserton (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Close as inept, like the other RfCs. A is absolutely prposterous and shouldn’t even be considered. The only point of all this is to stall any change that might rid the lead of a blatant NPOV violation, when the provisory ‘has often been described as neo-Nazi’ easily slices the endlessly entangled Gordian knot. My expectation is that the RfCs will drag on tactically until Russian wins its territorial gambit, and then we can coldly face the facts and rid the page of propaganda.
![[38]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#/media/File:Emblem_of_the_Azov_Battalion.svg){kind=link}
- There is little evidence of careful source deliberation here. Both Russia and the Ukraine, as heirs to Slavophile traditions field numerous neo-Nazi or fascist groupuscules, the former with explicit régime backing. Wikipedia has obsessed over the Ukrainian version, feeding into, inadvertently or not, Russian propaganda with its pot calling the kettle black. The major and authoritative book on this topic by Michael Colborne, which almost no one appears to have read (and which should be the default source for an article like this) tells you everything about the Ukrainian far-right in detail that would embarrass it. But itincludes an account of an historic caesura of sorts that appears to have occurred on Zelenskyy's election in 2019, when Azov, once incorporated into the Ukrainian army, was 'purged' – as the Azov leadership complained- with the Nazi element estimated to constitute now about a fifth of its force.
- Colborne himself, as we note, on being interviewed in 2022, was cautious about the use of the epithet. Editors have being giving undue weight to a flurry of meme-reproducing sources from 2014 that ignore changes, nuances, and the scepticism of several area specialists – the usual laziness or POV pushing . The A proposal which has garnered so much Pavlovian backing, is farcically at odds with a significant body of research which admits its undoubted pro-Nazi origins, but notes that over 8 years, due to considerable political changes and ideological shifts, Azov, in Colborne’s words , has not been presenting for some time the hardline views attached to its formative period. In the meantime, Nazi behaviour is thoroughly evidenced by units flourishing on the ground in the barbaric Russian assault, as far-right mercenaries, Wagner, Islamic militants, Chechens and embedded members of the advowedly Nazi Russian Imperial Movement get only minor press coverage, though mirroring even now behaviour we once associated with Azov. I can’t remember such a consistent NPOV violation, in the face of extensive contrary sources by eminently solid researchers, since I began editing here in 2006. We know from Polish articles and Arbcom that this area is subject to extreme POV jockeying, and therefore, NPOV should be absolutely obligatory to avoid any hint of manipulation.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- A' There are enough sources to support the status quo.[39] Agletarang (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. The wisdom of 116 edits in 9 years. Read the thread. By the same token 'there are enough sources to change the status quo,' which would (dis)likewise be, as an obiter dictum, a non-argument as the above is.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. How about you stop attacking those who disagree with you? M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- A per use in RS. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Again, use in RS is conflicted. Editors should remember that this is not a polling booth, but an area where consensus is not a matter of numbers, but grounded in the quality of reasoned analyses that justify a conclusion drawn.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- This editor takes issue with your suggesting that this editor hasn't already performed a reasoned analysis of the situation. This editor will not engage you further in dialogue as this editor is not convinced you are acting in good faith. Kind regards, ToeSchmoker (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Again, use in RS is conflicted. Editors should remember that this is not a polling booth, but an area where consensus is not a matter of numbers, but grounded in the quality of reasoned analyses that justify a conclusion drawn.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. I am noticing that there are users who are spamming comments against those who vote for solution "A". Repeating your point of view under each vote is almost becoming spam. This is disrespectful. You should begin to accept that users have seen the sources provided and that they have made a decision.--Mhorg (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- While making no comment as to the merit of these arguments, I would agree with @Mhorg that this is indeed problematic, and amounts to WP:BLUDGEONing. If your arguments have merit, making them once or twice should be enough. Others will pick up the banner. Individual users repeatedly spamming like this is an issue, and a violation of WP:TPG. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A. Per User:Shibbolethink's revised !vote above, also User:XOR'easter who puts it well. Given the sources Shibbolethink and others have now assembled (as of this edit, 18 April), in particular in the balance of 2022 and other recent sources, especially those that consider the question with more discussion that just a passing epithet, it is clear that any flat unqualified statement in WP voice that "the Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi unit" cannot be held compatible with WP:NPOV. (more to follow). Jheald (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- As regards what text should replace it, it looks like this RfC may be heading to No Consensus. That might be no bad thing. For myself I would oppose any particular form of words being locked in with the authority of an RfC.
- IMO a useful way forward could be to re-visit the "Ideology" main section, re-work the first sub-heading to focus on the ideology of the Azov movement broadly as a whole (perhaps also looking into its origins), and then introduce a new sub-heading to look at the competing claims as to what extent the Azov batallion or regiment specifically still reflects that movement ideology -- this would be somewhere with the space to quote and assess in depth e.g. the strong 2020 testimony of Kuzmenko on the one hand, and contrast it with countervailing claims of others that (to a greater or lesser extent) the unit has been actively "de-politicized", and/or diluted ideologically by an influx of less political recruits.
- The lead should ultimately be re-written to reflect whatever balance is found in more detailed main text. In the meantime, holding text along the lines of "a militia created by far-right nationalists that was later incorporated into the national guard" (Guardian 15 April), or (less preferred) "a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, that has sometimes been described as neo-Nazi, based in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov". I also think that Shibbolethink's recent suggestion
The regiment is controversial due to its far-right and neo-nazi associations. Some consider it to still be an extremist organization, while others regard it as largely de-politicized. The regiment itself claims to be apolitical.
would be a useful addition, perhaps towards the end of the lead. - Finally, to other contributors, in particular @Eduardog3000, Aquillion, M.Bitton, Anonimu, Selfstudier, CharlesWain, Vladimir.copic, Agletarang, and ToeSchmoker: Please remember that (I) an RfC is not a vote (WP:VOTINGISEVIL). Closing admins are directed to assess "the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", not to count votes; also (II) as evidenced by eg Shibbolethink's changed !vote above, the balance of sources being raised for consideration had changed considerably by eg 13 April compared to the opening of the RfC on 10 April. Given the above two factors, it seems to me that bare !votes for A such as some above are likely to be on track to be either ignored completely or heavily downweighted by any closing admin, as either (i) not reflecting policy (NPOV), or (ii) not reflecting the full currently available sources. If you still believe A is the best way forward, and you still want your views to count, IMO you could be well advised to add to your !votes above to explain why you think that is the right way to read the sources, despite the wider sources that have since been brought to the discussion (many on 13 April, perhaps after your initial !votes had been made). Jheald (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Jheald: Since you pinged me, I will respond here. My !vote is not based on the cherry picked sources that some editors have collected. Like I said previously, this subject has been covered widely in multiple languages (most of which, I don't expect the average editor to understand). In any case, my !vote stands. M.Bitton (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: If you believe there are particular sources that are particularly relevant or revealing, and/or others that should not be given such weight, you should cite them and make the argument in your !vote. If you don't make the argument, it won't be taken into account. Your vote counts for little; your argument counts for everything. Jheald (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Jheald: I'm not here to teach the basics. If editors want to learn about the subject, then they do their own research and draw their own conclusion. For example: just 5 days ago, Efraim Zuroff described the members of the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazis.[40] M.Bitton (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually in the link Zuroff says "“There is no question that there are neo-Nazis in different forms in Ukraine, whether they are in the Azov regiment or other organizations.”" He does not say Azov is' neo-Nazi. This supports the "elements" wording (option C). BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wrong. When asked specifically about the Azov regiment, Efraim Zuroff said "It’s not Russian propaganda, far from it... these people are neo-Nazis" M.Bitton (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. (Full quotation:
Others have claimed allegations made against the Azov regiment are part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Zuroff dismisses such claims. “It’s not Russian propaganda, far from it,” he explained. “These people are neo-Nazis. There is an element of the ultra-right in Ukraine and it’s absurd to ignore it.”
So this source supports option D, as it's clear it is contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)- Utter nonsense! The source that you misunderstood and still do clearly supports option A. The only way to make it clearer would be for him to draw it in crayons. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. (Full quotation:
- Wrong. When asked specifically about the Azov regiment, Efraim Zuroff said "It’s not Russian propaganda, far from it... these people are neo-Nazis" M.Bitton (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Actually in the link Zuroff says "“There is no question that there are neo-Nazis in different forms in Ukraine, whether they are in the Azov regiment or other organizations.”" He does not say Azov is' neo-Nazi. This supports the "elements" wording (option C). BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Jheald: I'm not here to teach the basics. If editors want to learn about the subject, then they do their own research and draw their own conclusion. For example: just 5 days ago, Efraim Zuroff described the members of the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazis.[40] M.Bitton (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton: If you believe there are particular sources that are particularly relevant or revealing, and/or others that should not be given such weight, you should cite them and make the argument in your !vote. If you don't make the argument, it won't be taken into account. Your vote counts for little; your argument counts for everything. Jheald (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Since you pinged me directly, I'll respond here, too. The sources you are unconvincingly trying to argue have changed everything to the point where you believe the closer should outright disregard everyone who disagrees with you are neither new nor convincing; many of these were presented in the prior discussion, and the ones that weren't are of no higher quality and share the same flaws that I exhaustively detailed both above and in the already-massive (and now even moreso) statement you believe should be disregarded as a bare vote. Many of them don't contradict the fact that the group is a neo-Nazi one, merely documenting ways in which it has tried to downplay that fact; and virtually all of them are clearly lower-quality than the sources describing it outright as neo-Nazi in the article voice. Please be more cautious in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Jheald:, if we were to write in the article that the battalion has been "de-politicized" we would be promoting disinformation directly from Wikipedia. As I demonstrated in the fact-checking section of my answer above, that claim is pure hoax, as well as a gift to the Azov Battalion, which has been trying for years to hide its ties to its neo-Nazi National Corps party. Mhorg (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are certainly experts who believe that they have been depoliticised.
- I believe because this is in dispute, the current characterisation (A) makes it violate WP:NPOV.
- For example, here is a excerpt of an interview with polish researcher Dr. Kacper Rękek, from the Center for Research on Extremism at the University of Oslo:
- I have the impression that the regiment is hit by the far-right actions of the Azov Movement and the National Corps party. The links between them, this umbilical cord has long been severed to a large extent. This does not prevent the Russians from heating up this topic and saying that this is some great socio-political movement that has its militia in the form of this regiment. It is not so. Nobody in Kiev, no politician, no fascist, Ukrainian nationalist or anyone else gives orders to this regiment. It is in the normal Ukrainian command structure.
- this is from a interview (in polish) conducted last month that is in the source list. Cononsense (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see no reason to alter my !vote or what I wrote there. There is no dispute that it was neo-Nazi and the only question is whether the prior RFC may be overturned by way of argument based on relatively recent events. I am not persuaded as yet that this particular leopard has changed its spots. And all this "discussion" stuff should be in the relevant section not clogging up the survey.Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Jheald: Since you pinged me, I will respond here. My !vote is not based on the cherry picked sources that some editors have collected. Like I said previously, this subject has been covered widely in multiple languages (most of which, I don't expect the average editor to understand). In any case, my !vote stands. M.Bitton (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A: I don't see the highly respected West Point Academy's Center for Counterterrorism April 2020, Vol 13, Issue 4, Pg 34 in the sources. [41]. The oppose A voters, in my view, need to produce multiple high quality sources that say explicitly that it was a neo-nazi group, but now it isn't, for me to consider any other options. Claiming that they now rid themselves of neo-nazis, just before the invasion, is an extraordinary claim that would need support of overwhelming evidence. - hako9 (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support D: I believe, it only would be adequate to call an organization neo-nazi, or any other label, if this is written in their statute, and all members have to swear the cause to join. This is obviously not the case. I believe the option D is the most adequate lead: it tells what Azov Battalion certainly is officially, and it mentions the claims of it being neo-nazi. This lead variand does not hide anything from the reader, does not pretend to be the ultimate judgement on the case, and leaves it to the body of the article for all points for and against considering the organization neo-nazi or not. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- It would be completely inappropriate to use the weasel-wording it has been claimed in the lead, when multiple instances of the most reliable source type states, correctly, that it is neo-Nazi, with close to zero reliable scholarship stating otherwise. This is WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopaedia where we use the most reliable sources for facts. Your suggestion that
it only would be adequate to call an organization neo-nazi, or any other label, if this is written in their statute
is contrary to how we select content on this website. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- It would be completely inappropriate to use the weasel-wording it has been claimed in the lead, when multiple instances of the most reliable source type states, correctly, that it is neo-Nazi, with close to zero reliable scholarship stating otherwise. This is WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopaedia where we use the most reliable sources for facts. Your suggestion that
- Alternative Draft #2: Unquestionably, the set of sources compiled between February 2014 and February 2022, have sustained that the regiment has a neonazi origin, however, placing the affirmation of an "is" for the community is a bit irresponsible, given that between these dates, there are an ongoing warlike conflict, where sources chose a side, its supposed origin could be placed, but not the "is" stated as its current state.--Berposen (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- If the alternative is illegal, my opinion in the survey would be for option D.--Berposen (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Move from the current version. As I've expressed earlier while compiling sources the previous time (see previous RfC, section Sources, from which Shibbolethink seems to have drawn), there is no doubt a substantial neo-Nazi element within the battalion and some ties here are undeniable (such as the use of symbols). But when sources diverge on whether to call someone/some organisation a neo-Nazi, the relevant guideline in MOS says we should err on the side of caution. Arguably even "far-right" is a pretty contentious label, but it is appropriate given the overwhelming consensus, as I assessed back in 2021, that the army formation is either far-right or neo-Nazi. The recent news coverage simply confirms what I've been saying back then; scholars don't seem to have substantially changed their mind (and the sources I compiled showed anything but consensus for "neo-Nazi" label). In fact, while back then I supported some label for the battalion given that it is known for its rather extreme views, now that malicious actors have potential and strong incentives of using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes, I would consider simply attributing the neo-Nazi links, remove it from the first sentence and discuss the scholarly and journalist usage in a dedicated section for that purpose (with a short summary elsewhere in the lead). I didn't challenge the previous closure at the time given that I was already tired perusing 100+ sources on the topic, but its assumption that far-right and neo-Nazi fundamentally mean the same thing was thoroughly flawed - it's more or less like to say that communism, anarchism and just far-left politics are monolithic, which of course they are not. Marine Le Pen is not Benito Mussolini is not Adolf Hitler is not Vladimir Zhirinovsky is not Marjorie Taylor Greene is not Eduard Limonov.
- Draft 2 is the closest to what I am willing to support. It is not ideal, but certainly much better than stating outright the Azov Battalion is neo-Nazi. Too much nuance to paint it as neo-Nazi as a whole, in particular as most of its members aren't neo-Nazi after all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- "as most of its members aren't neo-Nazi after all" - how do know that @Szmenderowiecki? Chrystal ball? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- See first sentence in last paragraph of the lead:
In March 2015, Andriy Diachenko, a spokesman for the Azov Brigade, told USA Today that 10% to 20% of the group's members are Nazis.
For independent estimates: Likhachev says "many" but warns this label should not spread to "all". It is also safe to assume that the number of extremists is lower than reported even a year or two ago and likely does not constitute a majority. Same thing reported by the Financial Times and Gazeta Wyborcza. - In other words, if we don't deal with an overwhelming majority of people having a certain behaviour, it is better policy-wise to refrain from contentious labels such as this. We don't even have a majority here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- See first sentence in last paragraph of the lead:
- "as most of its members aren't neo-Nazi after all" - how do know that @Szmenderowiecki? Chrystal ball? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A Largely per Aquillion at 21:21, 18 April 2022 and Hako9. I think it is better to focus on the rest of parts the article tagged with maintenance templates. --Yoonadue (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A, leaving just "is a neo-Nazi unit" (although RfC is rather ambiguously organized). Reliable sources before February 24th are quite clear on this points, and even as, unfortunately, some RS started downplaying the established fact that Azov is a neo-Nazi unit, it should not affect Wikipedia coverage. By the way, the Azov Battalion#Ideology section is a complete mess, it would be nice if somebody rewrote it with RS provided here and elsewhere. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A per last RFC and numerous sources, very weird that the people trying to wipe legitimate sourced statement (addet to the article before the whole russia ukraine conflict) claiming it is russian propaganda, yet their only source to this is, ironically, mostly recentist propaganda. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A per abundant reliable sources over time, including both old and recent sources, also including scholar sources. MarioGom (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Alt Draft 1, with C as a second choice. There are enough sources that dispute "neo-Nazi" that A presents a WP:VOICE-flavored NPOV problem. I am not counting "neo-Nazi elements" sources as directly disputing the label, so this analysis is just based on sources that directly refute the label or use "formerly neo-Nazi"-type language. Even with such a restriction, there are enough reliable sources presented to show that
"different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter"
and we should therefore"not present them as direct statements"
.Alt Draft 1 needs some work, but it's the closest. My main issues with it are that it ties controversy to the groups incorporation into the National Guard, which I don't think is exclusively the case, and that it makes it seem like that incorporation happened during the 2022 invasion, which is not the case. I think all of the proposals could use some rewriting if adopted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)- Some add-ons: I want be clear that I oppose A for the VOICE reasons listed above. I also oppose
DE as the connection to neo-Nazism is a significant controversy and a contributor to notability; it deserves a first paragraph mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC) striking and inserting 00:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)- @Firefangledfeathers Do you mean "Oppose E" rather than "Oppose D"? E Is the only option which omits a mention of neo-nazism. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers Do you mean "Oppose E" rather than "Oppose D"? E Is the only option which omits a mention of neo-nazism. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Some add-ons: I want be clear that I oppose A for the VOICE reasons listed above. I also oppose
- Support alternative draft 2, C or D while opposing A and E – Finds a balance between mentioning Nazi connections without stating in Wikipedias voice that it is objectively Nazi, despite content in the body of the article mentioning that the current Nazi Azov claim is disputed the lead as of now states it as fact. There should be a balance. TylerBurden (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A, prefer C – Most of the newer scholarly and journalistic sources do not call them a "neo-Nazi battalion", but instead say it has "neo-Nazi elements" and has went through a process of de-politicizing – see under "Collective source review" (above). Therefor we should not say, in Wikipedia's voice, that this is a "neo-Nazi battalion". Saying it has "neo-Nazi elements" or something similar is fine. Also, remember that this is a regiment of a country's armed forces, not a political party with an official ideology. ~Asarlaí 08:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternative draft #2 or B. A useful and credible source in support of this is Shekhovtsov, who was warning against the dangerous right-wing aspects of Azov in the past but has researched and published thoroughly on the relevant changes taken place over the recent years. Ingwe Ndlovu (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I hope im not too late. Support option 1 or 2': stating it's neo nazi without any qualification looks quite biased Fourdots2 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support A > C > all other options: Per Shibbolethink's excellent summary of the sources above, it seems to me like the academic sources are split between "neo-nazi" and "neo-nazi elements", with hedging on this fact increasing mainly as we go to poorer quality sources and not really with time. This suggests to me that there's an academic consensus that Azov is still neo-nazi, though the many sources that refer to it having neo-nazi elements only means I can't really oppose that option too strongly. Loki (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support E Neo-Nazism is not defining for the current National Guard regiment. The unit’s reputation can be described in the lead with as much detail and nuance as is appropriate. —Michael Z. 14:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support A Under normal circumstances I would support A or C, there is sourcing for either and I'm not wholly opposed to C, but frankly a neo-Nazi organization and an "organization that contains neo-Nazi elements" are the same thing, especially when said elements are as prominent as they are in Azov. B simply isn't supported by any sources and D is woefully minimizing, and I Oppose E in the strongest possible terms. Azov is not "just another unit" of the National Guard, considering nearly every source about them is about their ideology, one way or another. BSMRD (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support C or D or possibly alternative draft 1, which at least explains itself. I was summoned to the previous RfC and in both I'm confused - to be honest I don't even understand what a neo-nazi regiment is. Surely an army regiment either exists under its nation's military command or it exists independent of the political structure of the state, with its own political ambitions, programme, agenda - ie a para-military org. Nobody suggests the latter currently AFAI can see, even though the organisation may have arisen as the para-military wing of an ultra-nationalist movement. What are these people doing that is neo-nazi in character does not even seem to be touched on - beyond a taste for nazi-like tattoos and other insignia which offends western sensibilities. On the previous RfC I endorsed this comment
The current version conflates several things: Azov as a former volunteer battalion, Azov as the current National Guard regiment and the Azov as a political movement" and that some of the criticism is more aptly "was" rather than "is"-neo Nazi.
. I also endorse this oneAzov Battalion is a military unit and does not have political objectives nor does it have a political ideology.
. A regiment with neo-nazis in it is not the same as a neo-nazi regiment, any more than a regiment with gays in it is a gay regiment. Sorry to be cynical, but most armies attract 'hard-men', who may include some whose views are 'less than wholly liberal'. Armies customarily don't pry into the private political beliefs of their soldiers, who in turn put aside their own political beliefs to carry out the orders of the government. What is Azov doing which is different from any other army in the world? Who are they invading and who do they seek to send to gas chambers? Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC) - Support C- C Seems to best reflect the sources provided. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support Alternative Draft #2 , E, B, C. Strongly oppose Option A which is by far the most simplistic and poorly documented option, especially when we're talking about post 2018/2019 scholarship from experts on extremism or Eastern European / Ukrainian/ Russian studies. Also, as Staberinde remarked in a previous comment, the
first sentence should be about undisputed basic facts. In order to describe Azov as a neo-nazi unit in the opening sentence, this descriptor should be applied uniformly and unequivocally across international reliable sources.
That is definitely not the case here, as XOR'easter also makes the case. The regiment is made of 900-2500 people. Are there some far-right extremists / neo-Nazi among them? Probaly! Is there quantitative evidence from RS that the Azov regiment is neo-Nazi, particularly after Zelensky's election as Ukraine's president?? Nope! A regiment having some neo-nazis in it it's not the same as an actual neo-nazi regiment ... just like a soccer team with a goalkeeper in it is not a team of goalkeepers. Mcrt007 (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)- The source review above shows six scholarly sources in 2022 of which four call Azov neo-Nazi, one says they promote neo-Nazism and one that they use neo-Nazi symbolism. There are similar scholarly sources every year going back to 2015. I'm not sure how this squares with your comment. How can anyone look at the source review and think that "scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely 'de-politicized'" as in Alt Draft 2? Apoligies for the bludgeoning but as someone who has contributed a fair deal to the source review, I am going a bit crazy seeing some of these rationales. Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- +1 to that. There is no dispute that it was neo-Nazi, the only question is whether it is still neo-Nazi and given that there is current contact between Biletsky and the Regiment, it is simply too soon imo to say what the reality might be. To those saying that the entire regiment must be neo-Nazi in order to call it that, it was never the entire regiment in the past either, it was that it contained as well as recruited neo-Nazis.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Vladimir.copic, the "scholarship" section particularly the books (which seem to have been added at the top of the section for no real reason) is rather poor and lacking focus for the subject matter. The sources mentioned at the top of the section don't quite offer serious analyses, either (usually they only reference Azov briefly, in a passing sentence). In most cases, the "evidence" seems to consist of a few passing mentions about the group here and there, just enough to hide with word-noise the more serious research from those who have sudied the phenomenon of extremism in Ukraine for year. Besides, a lot of those included as "scholars" are dubious, a least. A few examples:
- -Glenn Diesen - per wikipedia: 'is known as a regular commentator on Russia Today.' 'has been widely described as promoting Russian propaganda by Scandinavian media, Russia experts and other academics. 'He also writes for Steigan, a self-described "anti-globalist" website that is known for publishing conspiracy theories and pro-Russian views.' - interestingly, i see nobody else brought this issue up yet, though is well documented. Why is he presented as a top source?
- - Jens Stilhoff Sörensen is not a scholar on Russia/Ukraine. He seems to write about gender in Sweden, academic freedom, former Yugoslavia but so far has NOT published research on Russia/Ukraine or the extremist groups there.
- - Harsha Walia, is not even a scholar. She has zero peer reviewed research articlez. Why was she even considered a scholar on the topic?
- Some sources seem more focused on the subject matter and their authors have been writing about Ukrainian extremism for years as can be easily checked with Google Scholar, Research Gate, Web of Science.
- e.g.: Fedorenko Kostiantyn, Umland Andreas, Alexandra Chinchilla, Nonjon Adrien, Christian Kaunert, Ivan Katchanovski, Anton Shekhovtsov, etc.
- Those scholarly sources of subject matter experts seem to favor the "formerly" or "with neo-nazi elements" views. Mcrt007 (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Rather than carping about what the books say, what you need are books saying that it isn't neo-Nazi.Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier: Hmm. Discussion and assessment of the relative quality and reliability of different sources seems to me exactly what this RfC should be about. After all, that's the key issue here. Per WP:VOICE we should only be making an unqualified statement in Wikipedia voice if there is a consensus for it in the best sources that is overwhelming, with no significant dispute or disagreement. Critical assessment of the quality of the different sources being presented is therefore fundamental. In particular, if there is a body of credible sources that do not go along with Option A, then we cannot state it in Wikipedia voice -- even if there are other reliable sources that do say that. And the more it turns out that sources been cited for Option A are weak or questionable, the even more cautious we should be before lending Wikipedia's voice to it. Critically assessing and evaluating the different sources being presented is exactly what we are called on to be doing here. Jheald (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not disputing that, in my experience when people say they don't like scholarly sources, it's because they can't find scholarly sources saying what they want and are reduced to shooting the messenger. Where do you get "overwhelming" from? Afaik we should reflect majority and significant minority views for NPOV. I assume the closer will identify majority/minority and their weight in the close. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier: The article must reflect majority and significant minority views for NPOV. Therefore WP cannot make an unqualified statement in WP voice ("Option A") if there is a significant minority view that that would not reflect. This is the essence of the advice at WP:VOICE. To justify a statement in WP voice the consensus in the best sources needs to be absolutely overwhelming -- a plurality or even a clear majority is not enough. Jheald (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly, the current state is a complete breach of WP:NPOV because it states in Wiki voice that it is Neo-nazi, the first thing you see in the lead describing Azov. Not as much as a mention that the current nazi status is disputed despite it being in the body of the article with sources. TylerBurden (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- At risk of repeating myself, the current RFC and its close will determine the current position.Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly, the current state is a complete breach of WP:NPOV because it states in Wiki voice that it is Neo-nazi, the first thing you see in the lead describing Azov. Not as much as a mention that the current nazi status is disputed despite it being in the body of the article with sources. TylerBurden (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier: The article must reflect majority and significant minority views for NPOV. Therefore WP cannot make an unqualified statement in WP voice ("Option A") if there is a significant minority view that that would not reflect. This is the essence of the advice at WP:VOICE. To justify a statement in WP voice the consensus in the best sources needs to be absolutely overwhelming -- a plurality or even a clear majority is not enough. Jheald (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not disputing that, in my experience when people say they don't like scholarly sources, it's because they can't find scholarly sources saying what they want and are reduced to shooting the messenger. Where do you get "overwhelming" from? Afaik we should reflect majority and significant minority views for NPOV. I assume the closer will identify majority/minority and their weight in the close. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Selfstudier: Hmm. Discussion and assessment of the relative quality and reliability of different sources seems to me exactly what this RfC should be about. After all, that's the key issue here. Per WP:VOICE we should only be making an unqualified statement in Wikipedia voice if there is a consensus for it in the best sources that is overwhelming, with no significant dispute or disagreement. Critical assessment of the quality of the different sources being presented is therefore fundamental. In particular, if there is a body of credible sources that do not go along with Option A, then we cannot state it in Wikipedia voice -- even if there are other reliable sources that do say that. And the more it turns out that sources been cited for Option A are weak or questionable, the even more cautious we should be before lending Wikipedia's voice to it. Critically assessing and evaluating the different sources being presented is exactly what we are called on to be doing here. Jheald (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mcrt007, Why wouldn't you just add your preferred sources to the source review, if you believe this so strongly? I have removed the more egregious non-experts. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Rather than carping about what the books say, what you need are books saying that it isn't neo-Nazi.Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- +1 to that. There is no dispute that it was neo-Nazi, the only question is whether it is still neo-Nazi and given that there is current contact between Biletsky and the Regiment, it is simply too soon imo to say what the reality might be. To those saying that the entire regiment must be neo-Nazi in order to call it that, it was never the entire regiment in the past either, it was that it contained as well as recruited neo-Nazis.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- The source review above shows six scholarly sources in 2022 of which four call Azov neo-Nazi, one says they promote neo-Nazism and one that they use neo-Nazi symbolism. There are similar scholarly sources every year going back to 2015. I'm not sure how this squares with your comment. How can anyone look at the source review and think that "scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely 'de-politicized'" as in Alt Draft 2? Apoligies for the bludgeoning but as someone who has contributed a fair deal to the source review, I am going a bit crazy seeing some of these rationales. Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Alternative draft 2 looks good to me. Netanyahuserious (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A. BBC News notes in its reporting that
Russia has repeatedly talked of "de-Nazification and demilitarisation" of Ukraine and it may claim defeat of the Azov battalion, which it has falsely portrayed as Nazi
(emphasis mine). In other words, a high-quality reliable news organization is affirmatively saying, in the voice of its newsroom, that Azov is not Nazi. There's plenty of sourcing describing various links to ultranationalist groups and sympathies among some members to neonazism, though this is far too complicated to ram into the opening sentence. As such, support E but also be sure to include discussion of the links to neonazism in the lead, particularly with respect to its early history. We cannot give off the false impression that it only attracts far-right members. It just does not make sense to give a Wikivoice description of it as (Neo-)Nazi in the present tense, especially in light of sourcing. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)- Relying on that BBC source as the golden bullet is really cherry-picking. In recent months The i, The Times, The Independent, FT and The Age - equally high-quality reliable news organizations - have described Azov as neo-Nazi in the voice of their newsrooms. The source review above shows a variety of sources treating this subject in different ways and editors should interpret these as they see fit. But to claim that because Auntie said so it's a closed case, really doesn't make for a convincing argument. Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- To take one of those as an exemplar, the FT has repeatedly described the Azov regiment as NOT neo-Nazi. The article you linked to is a conversational opinion piece by a life & arts columnist from the magazine. He links to a questionable Al Jazeera article to justify the adjective. The political reporters and foreign correspondents at FT describe them as "the military unit that has been leading Ukraine’s resistance"[42] "The Azov battalion has far-right origins but was incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces in 2014 and is considered one of the best-trained parts of the military."[43] To say Financial Times uses neo-Nazi in "the voice of their newsrooms" is pretty misleading when you then link to an opinion piece from the magazine by a life & arts columnist that uses Al Jazeera as a source. Using an older opinion piece over a more recent news piece seems like cherry-picking to me. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- To be clear, FT Magazine is not the FT and a columnist writes from their own personal POV, not in the "voice of the news room." Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Just looked at the The Times article[44] you linked to and it does not mention Azov or neo-Nazi's. Maybe it is the wrong article? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Joe Duggan of inews is using our Wikipedia article as his source. Compare: Wikipedia article: "formed as a volunteer paramilitary militia in May 2014." Joe Duggan of inews: "formed as a volunteer militia brigade in 2014 in Ukraine." This is part of why having false information in a Wikipedia article is dangerous. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Joe Sommerlad of The Independent characterizes them as a "notorious far-right militant group" in the body of the article. Calling a regular army unit militant is unusual. He later says "the group’s neo-Nazi connections" in reference to US Congress, but otherwise does not call them neo-Nazis. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The Age article refers to them as a militia, which, factually, it hadn't been for seven years at the time of that article's publication. The article contains numerous other factual errors, for instance, the entire premise (Tarrant training with Azov) for the article is made from whole cloth.[45] Linking to articles that don't mention Azov or neo-Nazis, opinion pieces by non-experts, articles that use language from the Wikipedia article, and articles riddled with factual inaccuracies doesn't make for a convincing argument. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Just seen your response. You have misrepresented several sources and presented some floored arguments here but I'll leave it at that lest I clog up this RfC with even more text. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Relying on that BBC source as the golden bullet is really cherry-picking. In recent months The i, The Times, The Independent, FT and The Age - equally high-quality reliable news organizations - have described Azov as neo-Nazi in the voice of their newsrooms. The source review above shows a variety of sources treating this subject in different ways and editors should interpret these as they see fit. But to claim that because Auntie said so it's a closed case, really doesn't make for a convincing argument. Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Support Alternative Draft #2 , version "E". Article is seriously outdated (by fully eight years!). The fact that some news outlets re-print misinformation should have no bearing on what is - allegedly - an encyclopedia entry. Confusion over NGO/paramilitary ideologies and allegiances is typical, especially when there is a language barrier (not to mention the added hysteria that accompanies an ongoing war). Which makes it all the more crucial that one relies on the highest quality academic/news sources, not random Google hits. MichelParkinboom (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)— MichelParkinboom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Mhorg (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC) notice also this related edit [46] - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Struck - CU-confirmed sock Girth Summit (blether) 16:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)- Support E, oppose A per well-articulated rational by Ⓜ️hawk10 above. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support A. The analysis of usage in media and scholar articles has been great; regarding the claims of Azov renouncing its past it's worth going one meta level up: this reporting has been described as whitewashing of Azov following the Russian invasion. Alaexis¿question? 19:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:RSP says about this source
Jacobin is a U.S.-based magazine that describes itself as a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture. There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.
- It is leftist press, to them everything to the right of Communism is Nazi :D Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Does a Chicago based reporter for Jacobin who has been an investigative journalist for five years and whose only previous experience was as an editorial intern at In These Times[47] for two years have a better grasp of the situation in Ukraine than, for instance, Kyiv based Vyacheslav Likhachev who has been studying the far-right in Ukraine for 20 years and previously studied the far-right in Russia since the 90s? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- That chap is a better source than random people on the internet and a reliable source with attribution. He provided analysis of both sides, not just fluff. As for him somehow being a leftie, his book Yesterday’s Man: The Case Against Joe Biden gives the lie to that allegation. Citing Ad Fontes Media, well, that's an unreliable source per WP:RSP. Case closed. Really weird how all the A !voters get bludgeoned allatime.Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- @User:Selfstudier Seriously? The Yesterday’s Man: The Case Against Joe Biden book's synopsis on Google.Books reads:
Over nearly fifty years in politics, the man called “Middle-Class Joe” served as a key architect of the Democratic Party’s rightward turn, ushering in the end of the liberal New Deal order and enabling the political takeover of the radical right. Far from being a liberal stalwart, Biden often outdid even Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush, assisting the right-wing war against the working class, and ultimately paving the way for Trump.
So, his criticism of Biden is that Biden is not leftist enough, unlike Branko :D Maybe next time read at least the abstract of the staff you refer to :D Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)- Maybe stop cluttering up the survey? Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- @User:Selfstudier Seriously? The Yesterday’s Man: The Case Against Joe Biden book's synopsis on Google.Books reads:
- That chap is a better source than random people on the internet and a reliable source with attribution. He provided analysis of both sides, not just fluff. As for him somehow being a leftie, his book Yesterday’s Man: The Case Against Joe Biden gives the lie to that allegation. Citing Ad Fontes Media, well, that's an unreliable source per WP:RSP. Case closed. Really weird how all the A !voters get bludgeoned allatime.Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:RSP says about this source
- Oppose A support literally anything else. Preference is alt draft #2. It is important to include its history, But In light of its contention, "Neo-Nazi" should be removed from the lead. Sources show that Azov’s origins were highly neo-nazi, but that those elements had been removed in 2017 and under new leadership and integration with the National Guard. There has also been historical uses of symbols similar to the wolfsangel in Ukrainian and Polish local coat of arms from the 15th century. This does not detract from the fact that the quote remains “15-20% of the Azov battalion is Neo nazi” which was made in 2015 when the battalion was around 900 people. This means a total of 180 members had Neo-nazi ideology. Does this make the entire battalion Neo-nazi? When it was headed by a far right extremist, maybe yes. Once it was integrated in the national guard and can no longer hold political views, and those original leaders were removed along with other members? My opinion is No. Many sources talk about this, and I think this points to the Neo-Nazi element being in its past, but not completely washed. It has been shown by many trust worthy sources that it is no longer a Neo-Nazi Regiment of the Ukrainian National Guard and calling it such would be unscrupulous. Redandteal (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC) — Redandteal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Support A. Despite the past 2 months of whitewashing by US media, the fact remains that Azov is a neo-nazi regiment. I'm surprised I haven't seen this source yet: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/ . Notable quote: "In January 2018, Azov rolled out its National Druzhina street patrol unit whose members swore personal fealty to Biletsky and pledged to “restore Ukrainian order” to the streets. The Druzhina quickly distinguished itself by carrying out pogroms against the Roma and LGBT organizations and storming a municipal council. Earlier this year, Kiev announced the neo-Nazi unit will be monitoring polls in next month’s presidential election." I'm very confused why there's such large pushback about calling a group that was committing pogroms at least until 2019 neo-nazi. Many of the Azov soldiers releasing photos from Azovstal (most notably dmytro kozatsky) have later been revealed as tattoo-bearing neo-nazis (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) and participating in C14 (another neo-nazi group per WP, I'd find the pic again but it looks like he purged his account) demonstrations and I'm not particularly inclined to think that's just a coincidence. H51bjCKERK (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — H51bjCKERK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. IndigoBeach (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am not trying to be a person that responds to every oppose - That article is truly scary. When you dig into the sources that he is providing about this neo-nazi "Azov" groups that are taking over the streets, they are made up of FORMER members of the Azov Militia - ( The people marching are part of the AZOV Movement - which seems to be a sticking point in understanding the difference), which was re-organized in 2017. However it is quite disturbing that Andriy Biletsky (far right politician - neo nazi) was the head of the Ukrainian national guard until 2019. https://khpg.org/en/1517799808 - so that article is talking about the downright scary fact that there were public militias parading with association with far right political parties. But this video he shows is not Azov Regiment as part of the National Guard.Redandteal (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Azov_movement:
- Oleksiy Kuzmenko of Bellingcat in a 2020 article, notes that soldiers from the regiment appeared together with leaders of the "National Corps" political party in a 2020 video ad for a rally, and that a 2017 YouTube video appeared to show the émigré Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin giving a lecture to the regiment. Both entities have admitted to being part of the wider "Azov Movement" led by Biletsky, who worked directly with Arsen Avakov (Minister of the Interior until July 2021) on matters relating to the regiment.
- Similarly, Michael Colborne, journalist at Bellingcat and author of a book documenting Azov's links with the global far right, says that it "would be a mistake to claim...that the Azov regiment is somehow not a part of the broader Azov movement" and points to repeated description of the regiment as the "military wing" of the Azov movement by Olena Semenyaka, the main international representative of the movement. Colborne also states "the Azov movement tries to be a one-stop shop for all things far right. There’s also a bevy of loosely affiliated but more extreme subgroups under its umbrella as well, including open neo-Nazis who praise and promote violence".
- There really does not seem to be a difference between azov (political movement) and azov (militia), or at least a big enough difference to warrant a change in the lede. The fact that azov movement and National Druzhina exist as subsections to this article should be a fairly good indication. H51bjCKERK (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am not trying to be a person that responds to every oppose - That article is truly scary. When you dig into the sources that he is providing about this neo-nazi "Azov" groups that are taking over the streets, they are made up of FORMER members of the Azov Militia - ( The people marching are part of the AZOV Movement - which seems to be a sticking point in understanding the difference), which was re-organized in 2017. However it is quite disturbing that Andriy Biletsky (far right politician - neo nazi) was the head of the Ukrainian national guard until 2019. https://khpg.org/en/1517799808 - so that article is talking about the downright scary fact that there were public militias parading with association with far right political parties. But this video he shows is not Azov Regiment as part of the National Guard.Redandteal (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Alternative draft 1 sums it up well I think. It's a very hot potato today in particular. I just read more info on Azov than I have ever seen before here: https://twitter.com/MelaniePodolyak/status/1510535081194098691 not cited directly but very well written and addresses many of the questions here. I'll make this comment: If we call Azov neo-nazi we are publishing a statement about the Ukrainian armed forces. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- That thread appears to be a screenshot of a facebook post that's repeating the claims made here: https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/04/07/what-is-azov-regiment-honest-answers-to-the-most-common-questions/. Euromaidanpress is hyperpartisan and not a RS; they denied any nazis, period, existed in ukraine in 2014 (https://twitter.com/euromaidanpress/status/510566545035395072). Let's look at the author, Vyacheslav Likhachev. His bio claims he is the head of "National Minority Rights Monitoring Group." From what I can tell, he is the only member - the only results on google yield his biography blurbs and a single report from 2015 (https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Religion/Submissions/UKRAINE_Annex2.pdf) where Likhachev is the sole author. The "newsletter archive" linked in the report has been defunct since 2019, and the only author on any of the contained newsletters is also Likhachev (http://jewseurasia.org/page443). His resume appears to include support for the rehabilitation of banderites (https://www.thejc.com/news/world/row-after-ukrainian-jewish-leader-defends-nazi-collaborators-1.464583).
- I wouldn't say any of the above makes him useless as a source, but I'd definitely take anything he says in a hyperpartisan newspaper with a grain of salt. H51bjCKERK (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC) [moved from wrong section below BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)]
- Support A. The description is well-sourced and accurate. That the existence of Azov is being used as a rationale to invade all Ukraine in Russian propaganda is horrible. But the solution is not to whitewash Azov. They are of course not representative of Ukrainian people as a whole, as is well established in articles about Ukrainian politics and elections. But denying their extremely well-established and honestly quite overt neo-Nazi identity would be malpractice. Zellfire999 (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support A In contentious questions such as this we should defer to the available scholarship, especially where there is significant disagreement not just between news organisations but between individuals within news orgs, and between reporting from 2021 and some coverage starting in 2022. A tiny minority (2/34) of scholarly sources in the list above give some non-committal suggestion that the group has ridden itself of its neo-Nazi characteristics – one states "The regiment’s key commanders held, in the past, manifestly fascist views and may still hold them to one degree or another today." The other states "as the battalions became more ideologically mature their radical right-wing ideology gradually toned down" The only source this Glasgow University lecturer cites for this is, quite embarrassingly in a fairly well-established journal, a "battalion recruiter" for the neo-Nazi organisation. WP:MANDY would giggle appropriately. 32 other scholarly sources in equally or better-established academic fora correctly indicate that it is neo-Nazi. It's appropriate for us to properly represent the mainstream scholarship. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- At risk of bludgeoning, this is just factually wrong. First, it's not a binary between "was neo-Nazi" (option B) and "is neo-Nazi" (option A). It's true that a small number of the academic sources (usually written further in the past) in the collective review (in contrast to a much larger part of the RS journalism) are coded blue for "formerly neo-Nazi" - but likewise it's only a (admittedly larger) minority coded red for "is neo-Nazi", and almost all of these are passing mentions in texts by non-experts, so 2/34 for "was neo-Nazi" does not equate to supporting option A. Second, the Glasgow lecturer who you disparage, Huseyn Aliyev, is one of the scholars in that section who has actually done primary research on this region. His article shows clearly that "is neo-Nazi" is inaccurate. It shows both change over time (
As explained by a battalion recruiter, “the first wave of recruits had many neo-Nazis, football hooligans and other radicals, but most of them either died on the frontlines, ended up in prisons on both sides of the frontline, or self-transformed into moderate [Ukrainian] nationalists”
) and ideological diversity (Some battalions have succeeded in combining radical ideologies with mainstream nationalist ideas
). BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)- Bludgeoning is right (again), please stop bludgeoning the A votes, walls of text belong in the discussion area not in the survey. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that missive, but it's you who has your facts wrong; easily checked. I didn't mention this in my comment, because the closers on an extensive RFC such as this will surely the take the time to read the quotes from the sources, but much of the "colour-coding" used in the source listing is egregiously wrong. Take the first entry, coded yellow "with neo-nazi elements", yet the quote reads: the group promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism (my emph) – not an element within the battalion. You make much of the the colour which they are coded, apparently having paid too little attention to the actual content of the sources. In your own comment, you evidently opt simply to give greater weight to those sources which support your conclusion:
the RSs which support "is neo-Nazi" are outweighed quantitatively and generally weaker qualitatively [sic] than those which do not support this
. This is inaccurate, unless one chooses simply to classify every source which disagrees with your conclusion asweaker qualitatively
[sic]. Amongst the scholarship, which as stated we defer to as the most reliable, your weak contention thatLooking at the preponderance of sources, it is clear that something like B/C/D or one of the alternative drafts are far closer to the sources [sic]
is directly contrary to the facts. - Lastly, I haven't disparaged a lecturer, but some of his publishing output, and rightly so. It's also the only scholarship mentioned in the list above which explicitly states that the group is no longer neo-Nazi. As the quote you reproduce confirms, he relied upon a statement from one of the battalion's own recruiters for a statement of fact – an error you repeat but which Wikipedia editors surely soon learn not to make: one would think postdocs and the publishing journal would consider their sources more critically. Full quote:
- Although when first assembled in April–May 2014 the DUK/UDA, “Azov,” “Aydar” and many other battalions promoted ultranationalist and even neo-Nazi views, as the battalions became more ideologically mature their radical right-wing ideology gradually toned down. As explained by a battalion recruiter, “the first wave of recruits had many neo-Nazis, football hooligans and other radicals, but most of them either died on the frontlines, ended up in prisons on both sides of the frontline, or selftransformed into moderate [Ukrainian] nationalists” (Aleksiy, Kyiv, Summer 2017).
- In conducting his
primary research
, Aliyev has evidently neglected to maintain any kind of scholarly detachment, accepting and publishing the views of the battalion's own propagandists as fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)- Can't keep myself from reminding, it is not for Wiki editors to go into such analysis and argue / cherry-pick sources. If there are RS disagreeing with Nazi label, the label cannot be stated in Wikivoice in the lede as the ultimate truth. Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
reminding
suggests causing someone to remember something. Whereas you've just invented an absurd suggestion: noreminding
involved. Your completely backward assertion thatit is not for Wiki editors to go into such analysis
of sources does not merit much of a response - yes, it obviously is. It's salient to examine what a source relies upon for its information, and editors are encouraged to critically examine sources. As there are more reliable sources stating it is neo-Nazi, we should represent that mainstream scholarship in the encylopaedia's voice. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can't keep myself from reminding, it is not for Wiki editors to go into such analysis and argue / cherry-pick sources. If there are RS disagreeing with Nazi label, the label cannot be stated in Wikivoice in the lede as the ultimate truth. Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- At risk of bludgeoning, this is just factually wrong. First, it's not a binary between "was neo-Nazi" (option B) and "is neo-Nazi" (option A). It's true that a small number of the academic sources (usually written further in the past) in the collective review (in contrast to a much larger part of the RS journalism) are coded blue for "formerly neo-Nazi" - but likewise it's only a (admittedly larger) minority coded red for "is neo-Nazi", and almost all of these are passing mentions in texts by non-experts, so 2/34 for "was neo-Nazi" does not equate to supporting option A. Second, the Glasgow lecturer who you disparage, Huseyn Aliyev, is one of the scholars in that section who has actually done primary research on this region. His article shows clearly that "is neo-Nazi" is inaccurate. It shows both change over time (
- E The Azov Battalion is a part Ukrainian internal military force, which means members of The Azov Battalion willingly accept and have the obligation to follow the official laws that regulate their existence as a military unit. Which laws I talk about:
- "The Law of Ukraine On the Armed Forces of Ukraine" (ЗАКОН УКРАЇНИ Про Збройні Сили України) Specifically "Розділ IV ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ ЗБРОЙНИХ СИЛ УКРАЇНИ Стаття 11. Засади діяльності Збройних Сил України". What it tall us: The Armed Forces of Ukraine conduct their activities on the basis of fidelity to constitutional duty and the military oath, rule of law, legality and humanity, respect for man, his constitutional rights and freedoms. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1934-12
- Constitutional rights and freedoms mean: There shall be no privileges or restrictions based on race, skin colour, political, religious, and other beliefs, sex, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, linguistic or other characteristics." (CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE/ Section II HUMAN AND CITIZENS' RIGHTS, FREEDOMS AND DUTIES Article 24) https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80
- This is the official position. So, throwing accusations that conflict with the main documents of the state and the very idea of the existence of this unit, in the first sentence is at the very least questionable.If there are individual members who violate that, we can and should write it down later, for example, in an already existing paragraph.--Bananabisket (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC) — Bananabisket (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Discovered this thread on WP:AN. I support A because there are enough sources that have perfectly described the "neo-Nazi" label without casting any doubt. I am sure we can find reliable sources where we can find coverage about a vast number of Neo-Nazi and White supremacist organizations without being mentioned as such, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be referred to as Neo-Nazi or White supremacist on Wikipedia. Overall, I am not seeing any need to set a new precedent that will be difficult to handle in near future and invite unnecessary wikilawyering in all other similarly racist groups. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A, B, D, alternative drafts #1 and #2, support C or E (with caveats). There are lots of sources that support either A or B, but the options are in conflict and as Jheald said,
To justify a statement in WP voice the consensus in the best sources needs to be absolutely overwhelming -- a plurality or even a clear majority is not enough.
I think the best option from the NPOV perspective would be C ("neo-Nazi elements"), because it's consistent with sources that support either option A or B even though the options are in conflict – I don't think any source has said Azov has cleaned up all neo-Nazi elements from its ranks. E would be okay if neo-Nazi links are otherwise prominently featured in the lead (something like what we have in the second paragraph of the current lead). D looks too weasely and clunky. I don't think the textDuring the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
in Draft #1 is quite right – why would we limit it specifically to 2022? Draft #2 is largely inconsistent with myriad of sources. Politrukki (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC) - Oppose A. OK, so some reliable sources state clearly it is as a whole neo-Nazi (the important thing is how many in 2022 though), other RS state that now clearly it isn't justifiable to give it that description as a whole. The only logical outcome to me to avoid selection biases is to NOT, in "Wiki voice", state it is the former, since it would mean subjectively weighing some RS over the other contradictory ones for no better reason than personal opinion IMO. It may very well be completely and utterly neo-Nazi still, but there exists confusion and disagreements, and this I think is crucial. I would support alternative draft 2, then E, with the caveat that its bad history and recent evolution and scholarly controversy is covered subsequently in a similar manner as in draft 2. Its bad history surely shouldn't be wiped under the rug, nor that there still is Nazis in it, but the strong/definitive conclusion doesn't seem justified in light of the controversy.--Euor (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment – I apologise to the editors who've agreed to close this for my last minute input, I've been meaning to comment here for a while. I've been reading almost all of the Ukraine coverage in The Guardian, Economist and the Financial Times since the launch of the 2022 invasion as I worked on the main article, so I feel I've kept well-abreast of their treatment of the Azov Battalion. I Oppose A, B and D as insufficiently nuanced. My preference is for E. I think the initial sentence should only state that it is a military unit – its far-right links deserve separate, dedicated lead space and it's both unnecessary and impractical to sandwich the topic into the very first sentence. C is acceptable, but insufficient by itself as the lead needs a broader overview of the unit's relationship to the far-right and the ramifications of this. The first lead sentence should be followed by several sentences, or perhaps a paragraph, outlining the following points: (1) the unit has neo-Nazi roots (it was formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi/ultras group and initially attracted far-right volunteers), (2) it has since been incorporated into the national guard, (3) a number of analysts/experts say it has largely depoliticised itself and gained a wider membership, and (4) its neo-Nazi links have been a key part of Russian propaganda. The Financial Times had a particularly good article on this, which is linked in the source review above but which I would like to draw particular attention to for the closing panel: [48]. Pre-2021 sources should be placed in appropriate context, as later sources explicitly state that the unit's make-up has significantly changed. I think it's difficult to determine from recent articles precisely to what extent neo-Nazi elements remain within the battalion; our article should reflect this uncertainty and avoid categorically stating that the unit is either neo-Nazi or historically/formerly neo-Nazi. Alternative drafts 1 and 2 come close to summarising the points I outline above. I don't think they necessarily contain too much information for the lead. They are imperfect (draft 1 is more succinct and better summarised, but places too much emphasis on the 2022 invasion) but a good basis for further editing. Going forward, I'd encourage working on their text through the normal editing process, and wouldn't want to see their draft wording "locked-in" or treated as consensus, as I think that would obstruct necessary improvements to the precise phrasing/content. Jr8825 • Talk 20:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
irrelvant to options.
|
|---|
|
RfC is underway whether we like it or not. Need to clear away the clutter.
|
|---|
@Slatersteven I'm truly gobsmacked. That is by far the single most noble, selfless gesture I have ever seen anybody perform on Wikipedia. Truly heroic, and that's no hyperbole whatsoever. You put the project ahead of everything. This should be highlighted as the epitome of what an editor dedicated to the integrity of the project looks like. Well done mate. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Close this, it may be buggered beyond rescue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Good lord, I step away for a few hours. Did EN1792 just replace an RfCs options with his preferred version because he didn't like what was presented? Because that's what it feels like just happened. BSMRD (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
This is unbelievable. Is this RFC valid or not? Can we vote now?--Mhorg (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
NOte that until a new RFC overturns it the old RFC is still in place, so the line shuls not be altred, please stop. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I would advise Slatersteven to withdraw this RFC and oversee an attempt at summarising the article into the lede without citations. There is no question this unit associated with far-right and neo-Nazi groups in its early days, and that it could have even been classed as such a group itself, but the incorporation into the National Guard changed that. The 2022 invasion changed that even more when conscripts burst its ranks and the original members and their influence declined significantly. Can we not describe this in the first paragraph of the lede without a RFC? We still have another two or three paragraphs to describe the controversy in more detail. CutePeach (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Which part of " Do not remove or alter without prior consensus, see relevant RfC on talk page." is too hard to understand? Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An
By the way (I am unsure that you can claim consensus when only three of the editors involved in this page have agreed to an edit, in less than 6 hours. Especially when things have been as confused as this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
OK, now can we leave the RFC alone now and let people respond? I think this should run for 7 days so as to make sure anyone who wants to respond can. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
People (I.E. the closer) will have to read this, huge walls of sources do not make that task easy. please can we restrict ourselves to not putting walls of text justifying our choice? Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
In this section there are the sources that declare the battalion as "neo-Nazi", if you have other sources, please put them below:--Mhorg (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Recent sources that say Azov used to be neo-nazi, or something to that effect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
WaPo MSNBC youtube CBS "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014" by A Umland in book "The 21st Century Cold War" Jerusalem Post Foreign Affairs BBC AFP via France 24 CommonWealth Magazine (Taiwanese magazine, Chinese name: 天下雜誌) Radio Télévision Suisse (FR) RMF24 (POL) Center for Civil Liberties Financial Times The Bulwark Refresher (CZE) |
- Hi, @User:Mhorg & User:Adoring nanny please add these to the sources template at the top of the page. But PLEASE check to make sure each one isn't in the template already. I'm slowly adding them when I can find time. Thank you! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Shibbolethink: Regarding the list, I would note that far-right and neo-nazi are not synonyms, neo-nazi is a subset of far-right. So while all neo-nazis belong to far right, not all far-right organizations are automatically neo-nazi organizations. For example National Rally is commonly regarded as far-right, but that doesn't make it neo-nazi.--Staberinde (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Staberinde I very carefully chose quotations that showed the label "neo-nazi" was applicable, for exactly this reason You'll note I chose quotations that are different in many cases from those in the above box. If you have a particular assessment you disagree with, please add your disagreement to the "Discussion" section of each source category and I will happily alter the current assessment in probably most cases. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am not questioning any specific quotes. I just noticed that you had created category "neo-nazi or far-right". If a source states "far-right" but does not state "neo-nazi", then it doesn't support applying "neo-nazi" label.--Staberinde (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- If there aren't any specific quotations where this is an issue, then it's probably not worth worrying about. I'll differentiate these into two labels if it makes you feel any better. Edit: should be fixed now — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am not questioning any specific quotes. I just noticed that you had created category "neo-nazi or far-right". If a source states "far-right" but does not state "neo-nazi", then it doesn't support applying "neo-nazi" label.--Staberinde (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @Staberinde I very carefully chose quotations that showed the label "neo-nazi" was applicable, for exactly this reason You'll note I chose quotations that are different in many cases from those in the above box. If you have a particular assessment you disagree with, please add your disagreement to the "Discussion" section of each source category and I will happily alter the current assessment in probably most cases. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Shibbolethink: Regarding the list, I would note that far-right and neo-nazi are not synonyms, neo-nazi is a subset of far-right. So while all neo-nazis belong to far right, not all far-right organizations are automatically neo-nazi organizations. For example National Rally is commonly regarded as far-right, but that doesn't make it neo-nazi.--Staberinde (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment https://www.timesofisrael.com/polish-journalist-quits-after-paper-rejects-neo-nazi-term-for-ukrainian-militia/ Disputes all ova da place.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment There is no point saying "we have sources for X" 15 times, please assume people have read your arguments and have rejected them. Thre is no point in repeating them (see WP:BLUDGEON), it does not make them stronger. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment and can we please stop commenting on users here, it is a violation of the rules. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment as there isn’t a consensus view about the Azov Battalion in reliable sources, we should be mindful of upholding core policies, such as: WP:VER: “All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.” WP:VOICE: “If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.” WP:VOICE: “Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." WP:CONS: “The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies…” IndigoBeach (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Comment All of our policies (including wpv and wp:rs) will be taken into account by the closer, there is no need to teach them to suck eggs. Can we please stop telling them what to think? Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC) moved from survey section by — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hako9 have you looked at the collective source review above, because it include multiple high quality sources that say that it was neo-Nazi and is no longer or otherwise contest the "is neo-Nazi" claim. The CTC article should be added to the list, and it documents numerous Azov connections to the global far right, but it calls Azov "far right" and not "neo-Nazi" so does not support option A. It also says "Azov formally separated from its political leadership in October 2016 at a conference in Kyiv at which the National Corps was formed." (It describes National Corps as far right too, and not neo-Nazi.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Azov formally separated from its political leadership in October 2016 at a conference in Kyiv at which the National Corps was formed.
Yes, fake news already debunked above (see "Fact-Checking" in my answer). Also, please stop putting pressure on people who vote for "A", as other users before me have pointed out.--Mhorg (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)- To clarify, then, Mhorg, you're saying the CTC article is not a reliable source? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please stop cluttering up the survey and take this to the discussion section. I also join in the request to desist harassing persons choosing A.Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I just want to clarify @Bobfrombrockley, you cannot use the fact that a source 'does not say "neo-nazi" to mean that it supports "not neo-nazi." This particular source might support "with neo-nazi connections" but I would need to read it more closely. I see that it does detail many connections between the group and neo-nazi affiliated persons, even after that "supposed" separation from political leadership. @Hako9 this is a good source, you should add it to the source review. I hadn't heard of it. Looks like part of "journalism" by my estimation. If it's peer reviewed or has a DOI, it could probably be under "scholarship." If it has no editorial policy, could probably be "NGO or government policy." But I don't know much about CTC. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Shibbolethink, yes I agree the fact a source does not say "is neo-Nazi" does not mean we should say "is not neo-Nazi"; we just can't use that source for the "is neo-Nazi" claim. In this case, the source does not back up option A, but does back up "contains neo-Nazi elements" (option C). BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Hako9 FYI, @Tristario added the CTC source to "scholarship" this morning: [52] and labeled it as "with neo-nazi elements." I agree with their assessment. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Shibbolethink: In my opinion, the quote accompanying the source in the table should be
In 2014, as pro-Russian groups began to seize parts of the Donbas, a neo-Nazi group that called itself Patriot of Ukraine formed a battalion to reinforce the beleaguered Ukrainian army. Few qualifications were required, and volunteers came from all walks of life. The group soon became better known as the Azov Regiment
. - hako9 (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)- I just added that to the quote. I kept the existing quote too though, as I think it's important a quote describing the group in the present tense is included Tristario (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Shibbolethink: In my opinion, the quote accompanying the source in the table should be
- To clarify, then, Mhorg, you're saying the CTC article is not a reliable source? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hako9 have you looked at the collective source review above, because it include multiple high quality sources that say that it was neo-Nazi and is no longer or otherwise contest the "is neo-Nazi" claim. The CTC article should be added to the list, and it documents numerous Azov connections to the global far right, but it calls Azov "far right" and not "neo-Nazi" so does not support option A. It also says "Azov formally separated from its political leadership in October 2016 at a conference in Kyiv at which the National Corps was formed." (It describes National Corps as far right too, and not neo-Nazi.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment: That according to many sources and videos already presented at this point, between February 2014 and February 2022, it is being argued that supposedly all of its members continue to be neonazi... okay. That the rest of its members, in theory, do not mind too much that some of them pose with nazi or neonazi symbols, and that their symbols have a clear nazi reminiscence... I also agree. But from there to define the group, in its entirety, of neonazis, we are being very hasty.
Within the universe of extreme right-wing movements, neonazi imperialism is identified with racial supremacy and anti-Semitism; the other movements of the extreme right are aggressively nationalist and chauvinist, not at all respectful of the rights of minorities; equity rights; worker's justice; they add that in general, they are markedly anti-communist. It is with these tendencies that, without a doubt, all the members of the Azov regiment identify. In theory, it would be a battle in this war, between right-wing, anti-communist forces, in this region of the war, the faction in Mariupol Azov, against the faction in Putin's army, the latter being a larger set of anti-communism (remember that Putin, like almost the entire current government of Russia, are defectors from communist ideology).
In short, it is enough to identify them as "extreme right", which means all of the above, and allege that probably a substantial part of their members identify themselves as neonazis, and forcing the term, to give them their "neonazi" origin, because we would fall into a Strategy of Tension, which would end up making us support the invasion, being more specific in Mariupol, neonazism is very sensitive to our historical memory... and who better than the Germans[53] to put the identity of the regiment on trial? We should not be so restrictive as to affirm that, "as a whole, the regiment continues to be neonazi"--Berposen (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
That according to many sources and videos already presented at this point, between February 2014 and February 2022, it is being argued that supposedly all of its members continue to be neonazi... okay. That the rest of its members, in theory, do not mind too much that some of them pose with nazi or neonazi symbols, and that their symbols have a clear nazi reminiscence... I also agree. But from there to define the group, in its entirety, of neonazis, we are being very hasty.
- Are we? If a group has several Nazis, is covered with Nazi symbols, espouses a far-right ideology, and is comprised of people who don't mind any of the previous items, what exactly is it if not a neo-Nazi organization? BSMRD (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then, as Azov Battalion is a part of National Guard of Ukraine, you can tell the same about the larger organization: "National Guard has some nazis, nazi symbols, and people following far-right ideology, and is comprised of people who don't mind any of the previous items", thus following your argument National Guard of Ukraine is neo-nazi. Then, as National Guard is a part of Ukraine state machinery, you can continue with your logic: "Ukraine state has some nazis, nazi symbols, far-right ideology, thus Ukraine state is neo-nazi". Thus, I guess you should conclude the Russian propaganda is correct, and Russia leads a justified war against a neo-nazi state? Or, probably, there is some defect in your logic? Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- You know? In order not to lengthen the discussions so much, what does the primary source say? I am referring to the official page of the movement, regiment, or party, they are those that are identified with a "mission" "vision" "objective" and there they usually have a section that specifies their current position in the political spectrum and its socio-economic doctrines. --Berposen (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then, as Azov Battalion is a part of National Guard of Ukraine, you can tell the same about the larger organization: "National Guard has some nazis, nazi symbols, and people following far-right ideology, and is comprised of people who don't mind any of the previous items", thus following your argument National Guard of Ukraine is neo-nazi. Then, as National Guard is a part of Ukraine state machinery, you can continue with your logic: "Ukraine state has some nazis, nazi symbols, far-right ideology, thus Ukraine state is neo-nazi". Thus, I guess you should conclude the Russian propaganda is correct, and Russia leads a justified war against a neo-nazi state? Or, probably, there is some defect in your logic? Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- it is never a good look to take someone else's argument that you disagree with, and mischaracterize it to the point where it is easily "knocked down." This is what is commonly known as a "straw man" argument. No one here is arguing that every single member is a neo-nazi. And if you see that argument here, i would love to see quotes showing it's what someone here thinks. It's, in general, a good practice to quote others when referring to their arguments. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you? but he don't "knock me" down. My argument is specific, since you mention logic, in set theory, sister of logic, it is easy to discern the definition of a set, for its entirety, here there is an evident mixture in its elements, where the definition of its totality remains fallacious in "is". Best regards.--Berposen (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Shibbolethink, Birdofpreyru was using reductio ad absurdum not a straw man. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: 1/ Responding here to something in the Survey above to avoid cluttering that section. M.Bitton said "Utter nonsense" in response to the suggestion that this source supports option D rather than option A. However, it seems to me that a source which says "Some say A is X; others don't" cannot support us saying in wikivoice that "A is X" (option A); it can only support us saying in Wikivoice that "some say A is X" (option D). 2/ Responding to BSMRD above question
If a group has several Nazis, is covered with Nazi symbols, espouses a far-right ideology, and is comprised of people who don't mind any of the previous items, what exactly is it if not a neo-Nazi organization?
This feels like a case study in WP:SYN. If sources say all those things, that's exactly what we should say, and not go beyond it to "is neo-Nazi". (Especially as neo-Nazi is a subset of far right, not a synonym.) In other words, these claims amount to "neo-Nazi elements (option C). In short, lots of the sources being used in this discussion to support option A really support some combination of B/C/D. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)- @Bobfrombrockley: Please don't misrepresent what I said by taking it out of context. The source here is Efraim Zuroff (as mentioned right at the start of the discussion). You questioned my interpretation of what he said and I proved you wrong. That he described them as "neo-Nazis" is the only fact that matters, everything else is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I originally misread the source and missed the quote to which you were referring and you indeed proved me wrong, as I acknowledged. However, I continue to question your interpretation, because in determining what we say in wikivoice I don't think all that matters is what Zuroff thinks. We can attribute the view that Azov is Nazi to him: he is an authoritative and relevant expert. But he is not the only expert, and the article notes that "others" dispute this characterisation. That's all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is what happens from someone's comment is taken out of context. Here's what I said (before you questioned my interpretation of what he said):
I'm not here to teach the basics. If editors want to learn about the subject, then they do their own research and draw their own conclusion. For example: just 5 days ago, Efraim Zuroff described the members of the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazis
M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is what happens from someone's comment is taken out of context. Here's what I said (before you questioned my interpretation of what he said):
- I originally misread the source and missed the quote to which you were referring and you indeed proved me wrong, as I acknowledged. However, I continue to question your interpretation, because in determining what we say in wikivoice I don't think all that matters is what Zuroff thinks. We can attribute the view that Azov is Nazi to him: he is an authoritative and relevant expert. But he is not the only expert, and the article notes that "others" dispute this characterisation. That's all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Bobfrombrockley: Please don't misrepresent what I said by taking it out of context. The source here is Efraim Zuroff (as mentioned right at the start of the discussion). You questioned my interpretation of what he said and I proved you wrong. That he described them as "neo-Nazis" is the only fact that matters, everything else is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment@Szmenderowiecki:
Too much nuance to paint it as neo-Nazi as a whole, in particular as most of its members aren't neo-Nazi after all.
That is possibly quite true of the now Regiment, even in prior times the %age of neo-Nazis was perhaps not that high. I am still working on the material but if the supposed clean up involves merely relocating bad apples from the military wing to the political wing of the Azov movement, then in some respects that is even worse because that way they get direct political influence.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)- Parliamentary elections are due in 2024 (unless called earlier), we will see. So far the only far-right party in Ukraine that garnered enough support to get to parliament was Svoboda (got there in 2012, got more or less obsolete after 2014). Two years, as we know, is hell of a lot of time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I noticed the previous RfC has now been archived. Most of the !voters there have also contributed to the discussion here, but not all of them. Editors who contributed there but have not here are as follows. Pinging them to see if the discussion here, which presumably is heading to a close soon, makes them want to specify their position. Those who argued "No" there, which I think is equivalent to a !vote for something like option E (no mention of ideology in the key lead sentence) here: Infinity Knight, Mzajac, EricLewan, Ergzay. Those who argued "Yes" there, which I think is equivalent to a !vote against option E here: ButlerBlog, Horse Eye's Back, Darouet, CentreLeftRight, Dhawangupta, WikiLinuz. Those who argued "Yes, but not in this form", which I think is equivalent to a !vote against option A (the status quo) and against option E here: Pincrete. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- commentUntil this RFC is closed the last RFC result stands. Please stop altering this text until THIS RFC is closed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- comment WP is not a democracy, it is not votes that count, but policy-based arguments. Any closer will base their decision on that alone. Sox any edit based on "number of votes) would not be valid, so stop altering this text until this is closed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- comment If people, keep ignoring "do not remove" I will ask for PP. We have an RFC running so stop. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
PP now requested, there is an RFC running the text shous be left alone until this is closed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- I see Mhorg you've just added a point no.5 to your 10 April comment above in the collapsed "fact-checking" box, which unlike no.1-4 cites a reliable secondary source rather than being original research.
During the siege of Mariupol, The Economist reports Biletsky's statement showing how clearly he is still in charge of the Azov regiment: "Andriy Biletsky [...] says he is in daily contact with Mr Prokopenko and other soldiers in Mariupol. “We always told our guys they had no place fighting for us if they planned on going into captivity.”
(archive.org link) As Selfstudier noted below, we can use that in fleshing out Biletsky, but it very much doesn't show he is "in charge" just that he is currently in daily contact. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I asked for the RfC to be closed
If you disagree with the request here is a place to say so Elinruby (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support closing. This confusing mess of an RfC should be closed and carefully redone.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Elinruby: Where did you request it to be closed? Regardless of that, what I see above is a complete mess - the RfC statement is neither neutral nor brief (with this effect); it is unsigned; there is a big red error message in the "Alternative Draft #2:"; and there appears to be a second
{{rfc}}tag inside one of the comllapsible boxes, producing this effect. Frankly, I don't see any chance of anybody wanting to work on a satisfactory closure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)- Closing request was made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#RfC_at_Azov_Battalion.--Staberinde (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I made a post at AE. I didn't ask for sanctions but after subsequently going through the history I now think maybe I should have. There is a lot of arrogance on display here and the newbie trying to help, although not immune to this, is the least of it. I really shouldn't comment right now, as I really feel ill now, but I *will* mention the poor slob who tried to vote with an edit request, not realizing that these are always treated with contempt on this page. No doubt I will be told again that my comments aren't needed or are somehow inappropriate, but right now I despair of Wikipedia. I have urgent offline matters.Elinruby (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- That AE "request" is also a complete mess. Just look at the line following "User against whom enforcement is requested" - there are some seriously broken links there. Then there is the entry under "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" - it's just a link back to this page, and worse still, it forces us off to mobile wikipedia. Please stop wasting people's time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- how does it waste your time? Possibly if you were an admin. But ugly as it may be, it makes its point and says what it says, which is that there seems to be a consensus, which was true at the time. A couple of other people have chimed since, and I think they may disagree, but. It's a truthful request for help and they can do what they want to about it over there. That said, peace out.Elinruby (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
how does it waste your time? Possibly if you were an admin.
.....@Elinruby, @Redrose64 is indeed an admin. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- how does it waste your time? Possibly if you were an admin. But ugly as it may be, it makes its point and says what it says, which is that there seems to be a consensus, which was true at the time. A couple of other people have chimed since, and I think they may disagree, but. It's a truthful request for help and they can do what they want to about it over there. That said, peace out.Elinruby (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh. I did look at their page, but obviously not well enough if I missed that. The statement still stands however. That admin can do what they want. Elinruby (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- That AE "request" is also a complete mess. Just look at the line following "User against whom enforcement is requested" - there are some seriously broken links there. Then there is the entry under "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" - it's just a link back to this page, and worse still, it forces us off to mobile wikipedia. Please stop wasting people's time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I made a post at AE. I didn't ask for sanctions but after subsequently going through the history I now think maybe I should have. There is a lot of arrogance on display here and the newbie trying to help, although not immune to this, is the least of it. I really shouldn't comment right now, as I really feel ill now, but I *will* mention the poor slob who tried to vote with an edit request, not realizing that these are always treated with contempt on this page. No doubt I will be told again that my comments aren't needed or are somehow inappropriate, but right now I despair of Wikipedia. I have urgent offline matters.Elinruby (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with Redrose closing without change is clearly not appropriate. Someone says they contend there is "arrogance" among the many who are disatisfied with the clearly incorrect lede? Methinks the dude doth protest too much. Even if someone sincerely believes that Azov Battalion is nothing but a neo-Nazi operation, that Zelinskiy is a liar, or a pawn, or whatever, and that we who argue for a more nuanced characterization are arrogant idiots, such a person would have to admit that RS is divided on the issue. To move for closure, and characterize those who want to work this out as arrogance, strains the presumption of good faith. Wikidgood (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Closing request was made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#RfC_at_Azov_Battalion.--Staberinde (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree. Whatever its previous state, it wasn't like that for long and is fine now; and we need to end this already. Let the RFC run its course. --Aquillion (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree. The RFC was launched, then huge changes were made to the text by other users. There are already complex comments in the vote section, why should we close it?--Mhorg (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that it was changed is one thing. The other is that it isn't neutral to begin with and people with.no sense of irony are complaining about being edited on the one hand while deleting votes on the other. I say people stop telling other people to shut up, and we have Deathlibrarian and/or Bobfrombrockley draft a proposed RfC. They seem to be among nature's diplomats and are already up to speed on the discussion, so that might not take long at all. Then we can discuss the proposed options, amend if needed, and vote on what to include in the public RfC. I have to vote none of the above on this one, as there is at least one thing wrong with all of the choices, and I am not about to vote for a slightly better BLP violation. Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- it is one thing (and entirely reasonable) to request that the RFC statement be amended or edited to make it more neutral. It is quite another to just state that it should be closed and redone. Let's not waste more time here. Just suggest edits to the RFC statement to make it more neutral, and let us all get on with editing this encyclopedia.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Been there, tried that. At great length, I am told. And yet here we are. I still have urgent non-wiki matters, and am turning my phone off this time. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree if the convoluted nature of the RfC will impede its closing. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree - People have largely been content to vote on this RFC without issue, I don't see a major issue, and there was a fair bit of preparation done by slatersteven and others to get it to this point. I guess its not perfect, but I think it should run its course. That said, if it does get voted down, I'm happy to assist with a new one as per Elinruby's suggestion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree, might as well let it finish when it has gotten this far. TylerBurden (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Proposal: With no offence meant to the poster, the spelling and grammar in the proposed options is quite bad making most of the options given unviable. (This is to say nothing of the alternatives - this kind of thing is what comments are for.) If I tidy up the spelling and grammar of the numbered options and collapse the alternative drafts would editors be happy to continue with this RfC? Please bear in mind no RfCs are perfect or give perfect options hence WP:NOTAVOTE. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
_0023_(14590133637).jpg)
- I've already voted "Close" in the #Survey section, so I won't bold it again here, to avoid the appearance of a double vote. This is a very contentious article, in what is probably one of the most contentious topic areas under WP:AC/DS currently, so I strongly respect and support the efforts by the Rfc initiator to create something to move this article forward, while facing all these headwinds. I feel the ship has been nearly wrecked in the storm (if I stumble into a metaphor, I'm gonna stick with it), and before it founders completely, we'd better head to port, and either make major repairs in drydock, or start out with a newer, slimmer, but stronger model. Whew; now what? "Ahoy", I think... Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have no issue with arguing over a better way of wording what we eventually choose. But the key issue was and is "do we call them Neo-nazi" and "how do were put it". Once this is decided we can work on a better text, that still obeys the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
* Alternative Draft #1 as nominator. I do think this group is part neo-Nazi, but AFU regulars in the unit reject this characterization, so it should not be stated in Wikivoice. CutePeach (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Comment moved [54] to the proper section (above this one) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Request for admin close filed
- As the RfC has now run for a month, I have filed the following closure request at WP:CR:
- (Initiated 944 days ago on 10 April 2022)
High visibility/newsworthiness article. Strongly-held disputed views. Messy RfC. Policy questions. Overflow and further disputation in additional sections now archived. Also previous RfCs and former discussions. Panel close by experienced admins could be valuable.
- Feel free to add more there if there is more to be said or more that should be highlighted. Jheald (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- (Initiated 944 days ago on 10 April 2022)
- References from posts above
References
- ^ Saressalo, T., & Huhtinen, A.-M. (2018). The Information Blitzkrieg — “Hybrid” Operations Azov Style. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(4), 423–443.
- ^ Chossudovsky, M. (2015). Ukraine’s neo-Nazi summer camp. Guardian (Sydney), (1701), 7.
- ^ Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.
- ^ Umland, A. (2019). Irregular militias and radical nationalism in post-euromaydan Ukraine: The prehistory and emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1), 105-131.
- ^ Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.
- ^ Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall" Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 33-41.
- ^ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2017-08-01/how-ukraine-reined-its-militias
- ^ AFP in https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/
- ^ https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d
- ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404
- ^ https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151
- ^ J. L. Black, Michael Johns (2016). The Return of the Cold War Ukraine, The West and Russia. Routledge. p. 185. ISBN 978-1-317-40954-0.
the Azov Battalion, openly uses Nazi-like symbols (the Wolfsangel) and rhetoric often couched in anti-Semitic terms
- ^ Serhy Yekelchyk (2020). Ukraine What Everyone Needs to Know®. Oxford University Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-19-753210-2.
Azov Battalion, continues to use the Wolfsangel as its official emblem.
Support A there are many RS published in the recent past, claiming it is a neonazi group. So, we will need a more recent, well cited review paper published in a peer revied journal, that examines the nature or ideology of Azov battalion, and states that they have moved from neonazism to something else Cinadon36 05:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Moved to the proper section above - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I hope im not too late. Support option 1 or 2 stating it's neo nazi without any qualification looks quite biased Fourdots2 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC) Moved to the proper section above - BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)GizzyCatBella🍁 11:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Alternative draft 2 looks good to me.
Netanyahuserious (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Alternative draft 1 sums it up well I think. It's a very hot potato today in particular. I just read more info on Azov than I have ever seen before here: https://twitter.com/MelaniePodolyak/status/1510535081194098691 not cited directly but very well written and addresses many of the questions here. I'll make this comment: If we call Azov neo-nazi we are publishing a statement about the Ukrainian armed forces. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- That thread appears to be a screenshot of a facebook post that's repeating the claims made here: https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/04/07/what-is-azov-regiment-honest-answers-to-the-most-common-questions/. Euromaidanpress is hyperpartisan and not a RS; they denied any nazis, period, existed in ukraine in 2014 (https://twitter.com/euromaidanpress/status/510566545035395072). Let's look at the author, Vyacheslav Likhachev. His bio claims he is the head of "National Minority Rights Monitoring Group." From what I can tell, he is the only member - the only results on google yield his biography blurbs and a single report from 2015 (https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Religion/Submissions/UKRAINE_Annex2.pdf) where Likhachev is the sole author. The "newsletter archive" linked in the report has been defunct since 2019, and the only author on any of the contained newsletters is also Likhachev (http://jewseurasia.org/page443). His resume appears to include support for the rehabilitation of banderites (https://www.thejc.com/news/world/row-after-ukrainian-jewish-leader-defends-nazi-collaborators-1.464583).
I wouldn't say any of the above makes him useless as a source, but I'd definitely take anything he says in a hyperpartisan newspaper with a grain of salt. H51bjCKERK (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[Moving to correct section above BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)]
Bludegoning
Is just making it harder for any closer to want to bother to close this, thus it will not overturn the last RFC., thus option A wins. Comments should be in the comments section (for the same reason, we need to make this easy for closer to read), but at the same time please stop fucking about with the format. If this RFC is closed as no result (for whatever reason) those who want to text to change will not have the consensus to do so. I suggest you now let the RFC run its course with no further comments by users whose views are already well known on this issue, saying the same thing 15 times does not make your case stronger. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 20 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.
Close delay
Update: Apologies to all for the long wait. Real life sometimes comes in the way of Wikipedia, and as such we weren't able to deliberate for some days. I expect we will be able to post a closure in the next couple days, though. Again, our apologies. Isabelle 🏳🌈 15:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
This is how ridiculous some of the sourcing in this article is. In addition to vanity press books, one of the sources used to cite "Nazi" in the lede is.... Journal of Peasant Studies. What the hey do Peasants have to do with this topic? Why is this suppose to be a quality source used to source a WP:REDFLAG claim? The amount of WP:TENDENTIOUSness on this page is just mind blowing. Volunteer Marek 12:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Is that addressed to Isabelle? Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with the last sentence though.Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)