Talk:Azov Special Purpose Regiment

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Azov Brigade
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Azov Brigade

Ukraine

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles

Military history: National / European

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	European military history task force

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 March 2022. The result of the discussion was redirect.

Terrorists

Usually this means Russians in the context of modern Ukrainian history, but given the locations mentioned could be Ukrainian Donetsk fighters, Russian paratroopers, or conceivably something else.

I am doing a barely edited translation first. This may be required by the translate template, unsure, but in any event this is how I always do these regimental history translations. Mysteries and references come after that Elinruby (talk) 05:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting myself = it is usually a term for separatist Donbas fighters, who may be either Ukrainian, Crimean or Russian. I realized this morning that I don't need to know their ethnicity or allegiance to call them fighter, and the context makes it clear that these are the bad guys from the point of view of this unit, so I will start making that change Elinruby (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Ukrainian government specifically calls the enemy fighters in Donbas terrorists, and the campaign the unit was in, an anti-terrorist operation. Not that I plan to change the mentions; just noting that in Ukraine the designation is not only only mainstream but official. Elinruby (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear POV fork

This is an article on the same main subject as Azov Battalion, and taken with this user's other ambitions it's quite clear this intends to be a POV fork of that article with most of the elements relating to its status as an extremist organization relegated to the end of the article. Not to mention an article of this low quality should not be in mainspace right now, with the horrifying POV issues, general formatting and uncleaned refs. Sandbox and draft exist for a reason. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't have a point of view on this topic. I am treating this as one of dozens of articles about military units I have translated. They start with a translation, and then I address issues, and then sources and categories. The issue that this one has -- they almost all have issues -- is that the Kremlin has repeatedly made it a bogeyman in its propaganda. This is simply a fact. Ukrainian Wikipedia has felt this was notable enough to address, but doesn't think these ridiculous allegations are the most notable thing about it. Neither do I by the way, but the en.wiki page about the bogeyman has been arguing about Nazi vs neo-Nazi vs extremist for how many months now? And using bad sourcing to do it. You do the bogeyman if you want; this article is about a unit of the Ukrainian National Guard which is keeping Russians out of Mariupol. As with most discussion pages the Ukrainian article's discussion page has suggestions for improvement that I will get to next if I can stop talking to wikilawyers here.

And please. I am trying really really hard not to discuss the behavior of editors. But I will not tolerate further personal attacks. Elinruby (talk) 20: 29, 21 March 2022 (UTC); I've put the article up for deletion. Frankly I don't think I've seen an article this bad before. BSMRD (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BSMRD: Finally got around to telling me eh? I noticed that and did my very best not to mock you. I haven’t decided what to do about your misrepresentation of the article. Please please please go read the RS policy In fact I will make it easy, if you are having trouble finding it on the talk page of that article you are OWNing. Here is a link: WP:RS. You specifically appear to be unfamiliar with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS Elinruby (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "finally"? I immediately made this post and one at Azov Battalion after creating the AfD. By all means, take me to whatever notice board you like, I'm sure they'd love to hear your misinterpretations of policy. Despite your insistence, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS does not give you carte blanche to dismiss reliable sources contra consensus. BSMRD (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I support this and agree that it's a clear POV fork largely written by a single person and should probably be deleted. The Azov Battalion article already talks about the regiment as a part of the national guard but also includes its history, as any proper encyclopedic article should. A case could perhaps be made that that article should be renamed "Azov Special Operations Detachment" with a redirect for "Azov Battalion", but this separate article is not the way to handle it. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That West Point article isn’t a reliable source in this context. There may be some in that article, mind you, but that one isn’t. You can’t support a sentence that says the sky is blue with a reference that says that Other things exist and has no expertise is skies. Honest. I wouldn’t mind you not knowing that — it doesn’t come up much — if you weren’t so rude to new editors trying to explain things to you. Some of them are right. Meanwhile, your intention seems to be to waste my time so I would ask you to take your attitude elsewhere please. I have stuff to do, and I have processed that you aren’t educable in this context so I am sure there is a Facebook page somewhere where you can get a rise out of someone. If you have no suggestions to make about this article, begone. Elinruby (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to incorporate

https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion#text_block_33831 Elinruby (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Shekhovtsov

From lede of his wikibio: writes about the Ukrainian far right and it’s ties to Russia (in neo-Nazi section) Elinruby (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another link

Doubt this one is reliable except for search (self-publushed, non-notable source) terms, but as it happens we need some of those https://intermarium.org.ua/en/the-azov-movement-held-the-inaugural-conference-of-the-intermarium-support-group-2/ Elinruby (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for help at the Ukrainian wikipedia

I posted the following there:

I have done a machine translation of this article (not ideal I realize) and lightly edited it to fix the machine translation errors. Some other editors are trying to delete it because another article titled “Azov Battalion” exists that portrays the group as a NeoNazi root of all evil. I think that the military unit that is currently fighting so valiantly against an undisputed Russian aggressor deserves an article that discusses it as a military unit. Could some editors that speak English please come talk to some of the underinformed editors who are discussing it at the English language wkipedia? I realize that many of the editors here may currently be dealing with an actual threat to world freedom, but if anyone is currently safe and can comment if would help get some truth out. 162.216.189.67 (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]