Talk:Azov Brigade

RfC about the neo-Nazi descriptor

Here's the link to the RfC, in case it comes up again: Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

collapse per WP:FORUM— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, after this reversal, I dare to discuss it. I will argue once, because English is not my forte. They imagine the current juncture that would lead to the decision what made took a year ago, in that RfC? Well, now, I will say, it is a shame that this solution has been dropped, being as such that the sources indicate that the retired veterans, with the neonazi ideology, split up and created another party. My edit is the correct. Majestic greetings. --Berposen (talk) 01:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Case Sign/Seal Edition To be or to have been. Berposen [1] Sources to blogs Berposen [2] Vigent sources Berposen [3] If you disagree with the outcome of the previous RFC, start a new one. Do not continue to edit-war against a previously established consensus; your personal disagreement with that RFC's outcome is not enough to try and tag an established consensus as still in dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC) Aquillion The community collaborates, while the juncture progresses. I ask: what happens with this edition? At Wikipedia we work with what is at hand, taking sources here and sources there, in the midst of a belic situation, is a mission of willpower. Don't hang me for not having found this flaw earlier, I would have, I would have argued. The article is being sabotaged. From the outset, there is outdated information, which must be corrected. --Berposen (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC) If you feel that way - and your feelings on that topic contradict the outcome of the previous RFC - then you will have to start another RFC to overturn its outcome. Consensus can change, but once it has been established once, the onus is on you to demonstrate that it has changed. It is not enough for you to just express the opinion that the result is "outdated information" - you have to convince others, and demonstrate that you have convinced others. --Aquillion (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC) AquillionI have proven it to you. Why do I have to keep trying to convince you? If you no longer want to convince you, you don't want to be convinced. Up to here I come. It's a lot of work for me, having to translate, comma by comma, this whole thing. Regards.--Berposen (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC designation of Azov "Battalion" as neo-Nazi in lede

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

Comment: The above is actually nicely written. I like it. Thanks CutePeach Perhaps (you all) we should consider it? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Comment: A vast improvement on the status quo. One important thing to note, it is no longer called the "Azov Battalion", and hasn't been for many years. In both Ukrainian and Russian the word is полк, which translates directly to regiment in English. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Comment: I also favour this text. But I would delete "early"; it is still "associated with" far-right groups. That doesn't make it a "far-right group", but the name is still tainted. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Comment: I think this is much better than the options above. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

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. Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence, relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism, and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers. However, after its forced absorption into the National Guard and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially Andriy Biletsky and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".</ref> - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments about alternative draft 2
Comment: Based on my reading of the available RS, I think this provides the best summary of the unit. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Collective source review re: "neo-nazi"

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
Label Code "neo-nazi" "'''{{font color|red|neo-nazi}}'''" "formerly" "'''{{font color|blue|formerly}}'''" "with neo-nazi elements" "'''{{font color|orange|with neo-nazi elements}}'''" "has been accused" "'''{{font color|grey|has been accused}}'''" "Does not mention" "'''{{font color|green|Does not mention}}'''" "not neo-nazi" "'''{{font color|purple|says <u>not</u> neo-nazi}}'''"

[]  · Scholarship
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)
2022 Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": "Azov Battalion". Mapping Militant Organizations, Stanford University. March 2022. Retrieved 14 April 2022. Founded in 2014, the group promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism through its National Militia paramilitary organization and National Corps political wing. Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Fedorenko, Kostiantyn; Umland, Andreas (March 2022). "Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019". Nationalities Papers. 50 (2): 237–261. doi:10.1017/nps.2021.20. The Azov battalion and later regiment has been using stylized, coded neo-Nazi symbols such as the Black Sun and Wolf's Hook, yet it publicly denied that they refer to German fascism (Azov.Press 2015). ...quotes the alleged field-commander of Azov in early 2015 (Roman Zvarych) as saying he recruited "Georgian, American, Lithuanian, and British instructors, and to have advised the Azov movement to refrain from using symbols and ideas that could be linked to Nazism..." Note: some users consider this a passing mention of the term "neo-nazi." [2] Book: "neo-nazi": Jackson, Paul (22 February 2022). Pride in prejudice. Manchester University Press. doi:10.7765/9781526156730. ISBN 978-1-5261-5673-0. S2CID 247079111. ...it attracted interest from a range of international neo-Nazi groups, including the Azov Battalion in Ukraine... Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [3] Book Chapter: "with neo-nazi elements": Kotljarchuk, Andrej (February 2022). "The Counter-Narrative of WWII and the Far Right-Identity". In Mörner, Ninna (ed.). The Many Faces of the Far Right in the Post-Communist (PDF). Centre for Baltic and East European Studies, Södertörn University. pp. 61–75. ISBN 978-91-85139-13-2. The internal historical narrative of Belarusian military volunteers in Donbas is based on neo Nazi values. The SS runes and insignia of the 30th Waffen SS division are on helmets of many volunteers. In 2016, police in the Vitebsk region arrested Stanislau Hancharou, one of the Belarusian volunteers in Ukraine, a soldier of the Azov Battalion. He was known in Donbas under his nickname Terror Machine. The media published photos of his body covered by tattoos presenting an illustrated history of Wafen SS and Nazi atrocities. The symbols of the 30th Waffen SS divisio nand Sonderkommando Dirlewanger are adjacent to the image of SS soldiers, as well as a panorama of a death camp with a guard in front shooting a prisoner in the head. Book: "neo-nazi": Stilhoff Sörensen, Jens (February 2022). Splitting Europe : the EU, Russia, and the West. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 162. ISBN 978-1-5381-5080-1. OCLC 1269507376. ...including the openly neo-Nazi Azov brigade... Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [4] Book: "neo-nazi": Bacigalupo, James; Valeri, Robin Maria; Borgeson, Kevin (14 January 2022). Cyberhate: The Far Right in the Digital Age. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 113. ISBN 978-1-7936-0698-3 – via Google Books. The ascendency of a transnational global fascist terrorist network has drawn accelerationists seeking military training with openly neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-Semitic organizations like the Azov battalion, who recruited from...Note: some users consider this a passing mention of the term "Azov". [5] Book: "with neo-nazi elements": Kuzio, Taras (2022). Russian nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-003-19143-8. OCLC 1273727328. p. 196: A small number of Russian fascist and neo-Nazi groups opposed Russian military aggression against Ukraine. These included the National Democrats, the National Democratic Alliance, and the Slavic Force. Some of their members joined the Azov Regiment, a unit of Ukraine's national guard largely composed of Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians. Azov' s political party, the National Corps, has neo-Nazi sympathies 2021 Book: "neo-nazi": Walia, Harsha (2021). Border and Rule: Global Migration, Capitalism, and the Rise of Racist Nationalism. Haymarket Books. ISBN 978-1-64259-388-4. [The Azov Battalion] is a Ukrainian National Guard regiment and the world's only overtly neo-Nazi militia integrated into a military...Azov movement [is]...actively training neo-Nazis Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [6] Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Chinchilla, Alexandra; Driscoll, Jesse (23 December 2021). "Side-Switching as State-Building: the Case of Russian-Speaking Militias in Eastern Ukraine". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism: 1–20. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2021.2013760. S2CID 245484464. Despite its formal incorporation into the National Guard, Azov still maintains its own recruiting facilities – in a Kyiv building, Cossack House, that also houses other right-wing organizations, the National Corps leadership, and Azov's barely-disguised outreach efforts to right-wing groups across Europe. It rents Cossack House from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense to maintain physical autonomy. War has been profitable for Azov and other far-right groups, as well...Even the most ideologically-motivated militias, therefore, find they have material incentives to align with the state and capture their share of pork. Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Nonjon, Adrien (21 December 2021). "Forging the Body of the New Ukrainian Nation: Sport as a Gramscist Tool for the Ukrainian Far-Right". Journal of Illiberalism Studies. 1 (2): 59–74. doi:10.53483/VCIV3532. For a majority of citizens, these ultranationalist movements and their battalion of volunteers are elite forces that have acquired full legitimacy thanks to their victories, whatever their ideology may be...Deliberately choosing a formal integration into the National Guard, the [Azov] regiment's main objective has been "to further develop its organizational structure and reinvigorate both its media outreach and mobilizational potential." Book: "neo-nazi": Allchorn, William (21 December 2021). Moving beyond Islamist Extremism. BoD – Books on Demand. p. 35. ISBN 978-3-8382-1490-0 – via Google Books. ...antisemitic and white-supremacist conspiracy theories circulated by openly neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion in the Ukraine... Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [7] Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Tarasiuk, Taras; Umland, Andreas (29 September 2021). "Unexpected Friendships: Cooperation of Ukrainian Ultra-Nationalists with Russian and Pro-Kremlin Actors". Illiberalism Studies Program Working Papers. Retrieved 25 April 2022. The Azov movement has its roots in a little known and initially Russian-speaking Kharkiv groupuscule called "Patriot of Ukraine."...By autumn 2014, the battalion had become a well-known professional military unit and was transformed into the fully regular "Azov" Regiment of the National Guard under the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine. It has since been considered one of Ukraine's most capable armed formations. The regiment's commanders claim it is now operating according to NATO standards. In winter 2015, veterans and volunteers of the regiment created the Azov Civil Corps and thereby started to expand their political grouping into a multi-faceted social movement. Book Chapter: "with neo-nazi elements"/"neo-nazi": Dyck, Kristen (22 September 2021). "Holodomor and Holocaust memory in competition and cooperation". Denial: the final stage of genocide?. Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-000-43736-2. OCLC 1263262115. The Azov Battalion and other combat units recycle Nazi visual symbols like the Wolfsangel " and "the Azov Battalion, and other far-right paramilitary organizations often claim their neo-Nazi symbols have nothing to do with anti-Semitism anymore. ... Of course, the argument falters when groups like the Azov Battalion appear in public saying they do not much care that their symbols evoke painful, violent repression for Holocaust survivors and their descendants. Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": MacKenzie, Alex; Kaunert, Christian (25 March 2021). "Radicalisation, Foreign Fighters and the Ukraine Conflict: A Playground for the Far-Right?". Social Sciences. 10 (4): 116. doi:10.3390/socsci10040116. The Azov Regiment, Right Sector, and Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists were or are overtly far-right, while others are or were not so, including the Georgian National Legion...However, Kyiv soon recognised the problems and negative attention brought about by the foreign fighters, including for the purpose of Russian propaganda. It therefore disbanded and integrated these groups into the military by 2016, although some rogue elements persisted into 2019 2020 Primary: "has been accused": Aliyev, Huseyn (2020-07-15). ""Unlikely Recruits": Why Politically Irrelevant Ethnic Minorities Participate in Civil Wars?". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 46 (6). Informa UK Limited: 847–869. doi:10.1080/1057610x.2020.1793457. ISSN 1057-610X. S2CID 225641399. notorious for their ultranationalist and far-right ideological stance. Combining radical Ukrainian nationalism with elements of Slavic paganism, "Azov" battalion in particular served as the hub for ultranationalist activists from all walks of life, including, but not limited to football hooligans (ultras) and former members of security forces... Notwithstanding the battalions' scandalous ideological background, both "Azov" and DUK attracted large numbers of recruits from the Ukrainian ethnic minorities... While many Crimean Tatars were serving with DUK, Crimean Tatar activists have also collaborated with "Azov" members during the blockade of Crimea events... Some [Jews] were even credited with participating in establishing the "Azov" battalion. Most continued practicing Judaism while serving with volunteer battalions... The battalions' ethnic diversity was widely employed to counter the image of these armed groups as ultranationalist or neo-Nazi organizations. In the words of an "Azov" representative, "our regiment has people from most nationalities in Ukraine and beyond." He further added that "although some [pro-Russian] sources call us fascists, we have Jews and Muslims among our members, … we even have Jewish founding members. How can we be neo-Nazis?." Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Katchanovski, Ivan (19 December 2020). "The far right, the Euromaidan, and the Maidan massacre in Ukraine". Journal of Labor and Society. 23 (1): 5–36. doi:10.1111/lands.12457 (inactive 2023-12-13). Vadym Troian, who was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine and one of the commanders of the Azov battalion, became the first deputy head of the National Police. Yuri Mykhalchyshyn, a Svoboda deputy, who expressed his neo-Nazi views, stated that he held a senior position in an SBU department in charge of information.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of December 2023 (link) Primary: "neo-nazi": Edelman, Marc (9 November 2020). "From 'populist moment' to authoritarian era: challenges, dangers, possibilities". The Journal of Peasant Studies. 47 (7): 1418–1444. doi:10.1080/03066150.2020.1802250. ISSN 0306-6150. S2CID 225214310. Just as hundreds of U.S. and European white supremacists joined Croatian paramilitaries fighting for 'ethnic cleansing' in the 1990s Balkan wars, the current training of foreign white nationalists in Ukrainian military units, such as the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, points to... Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [8] Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Nonjon, Adrien (September 2020). "Olena Semenyaka The "First Lady" of Ukrainian Nationalism". Illiberalism Studies Program Working Papers. Retrieved 25 April 2022. Gaining in visibility as the Azov regiment transformed into a multifaceted movement, Semenyaka has become a major nationalist theorist in Ukraine...Through its extensive financial resources stemming from various nationalist "warlords"—and its integration into the Ukrainian National Guard, headed by the Minister of the Interior, Arsen Avakov, in May 2014—the Azov regiment has been capable of instigating numerous initiatives to enter the Ukrainian political arena in a true Gramscist style: a strategy in which the political battle must be fought above all in the cultural field. Primary: "neo-nazi": Campion, Kristy (24 August 2020). "Women in the Extreme and Radical Right: Forms of Participation and Their Implications". Social Sciences. 9 (9). MDPI AG: 149. doi:10.3390/socsci9090149. ISSN 2076-0760. Semenyaka is the leader of the International Department for the National Corps, linked to neo-Nazi Azov Battalion Primary: "neo-nazi": Reid Ross, Alexander; Bevensee, Emmi (July 2020), "Confronting the Rise of EcoFascism Means Grappling with Complex Systems" (PDF), Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right, These groups leverage a white "Indigenous" identity in allyship with neo-Nazi groups like the Azov Batallion, Misanthropic Division, and Right Sector fighting Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine many of whom are, themselves, Duginists. Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [9] Primary: "with neo-nazi elements/formerly": Aliyev, Huseyn (16 July 2020). "Pro-government Anti-government Armed Groups? Toward Theorizing Pro-government "Government Challengers"" (PDF). Terrorism and Political Violence. 34 (7). Informa UK Limited: 1369–1385. doi:10.1080/09546553.2020.1785877. ISSN 0954-6553. S2CID 225626866. particularly "Azov," DUK and the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) battalions—were created on the basis of previously existent ultranationalist or neo-Nazi groups." and "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. Book chapter: "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Umland, Andreas (June 2020). "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the "Azov" Battalion in 2014". The 21st Century Cold War (Taylor & Francis). 31: 105–131. doi:10.1080/09546553.2018.1555974. S2CID 150443541. As briefly illustrated below, the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group that today controls a relatively large military unit could present several problems. The regiment's key commanders held, in the past, manifestly fascist views and may still hold them to one degree or another today. That would put into question the regiment's public respectability as well as the need for special scrutiny of its further development. Secondary: "with neo-nazi elements": Lister, Tim (April 2020). "The Nexus Between Far-Right Extremists in the United States and Ukraine". CTC Sentinel. 13 (4). a country with a well-established, trained, and equipped far-right militia—the Azov Regiment—that has been actively engaged in the conflict against Russian-backed separatists in Donbas...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. 2019 Book: "neo-nazi": Mudde, Cas (25 October 2019). The Far Right Today. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-5095-3685-6 – via Google Books. march through the streets of Kyiv, sometimes in torchlight processions, to commemorate old and new far-right heroes, including those of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which fights against the Russian-backed occupation of Crimea. Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [10] Primary: "neo-nazi": Koehler, Daniel (7 October 2019). "A Threat from Within? Exploring the Link between the Extreme Right and the Military". ICCT. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Smith also was trying to join the neo-Nazi paramilitary Azov battalion and fight on their side in the Ukrainian conflict Primary: "Does not mention"/Attributed: "with neo-nazi elements": Bukkvoll, Tor (4 January 2019). "Fighting on behalf of the state—the issue of pro-government militia autonomy in the Donbas war". Post-Soviet Affairs. 35 (4). Taylor and Francis: 293–307. doi:10.1080/1060586X.2019.1615810. S2CID 164870902. However, as mentioned, Pravii Sektor has continued to fight without formally submitting to the control of regular forces; and the Azov battalion, despite nominally being subordinated within official structures, continues in practice to operate with significant autonomy....Quote from Arsen Avakov, Interior Minister (2016): "And, we had even more doubts about the Azov battalion. In particular, we were sceptical towards the religious motives of several of their people, and about their right-wing radicalism. But I was thinking, what is worse, that they run the streets breaking shop windows or that they feel some responsibility for their country and do a bit of fighting? This was my logic at the time." 2018 Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Saressalo, Teemu; Huhtinen, Aki-Mauri (2 October 2018). "The Information Blitzkrieg — "Hybrid" Operations Azov Style". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 31 (4). Informa UK Limited: 423–443. doi:10.1080/13518046.2018.1521358. ISSN 1351-8046. S2CID 150074996. The Azov Battalion stands out among these because of its Nazi rhetoric and symbolism, which are not as prominent in most other battalions...What sets the Azov Battalion apart from other volunteer units in Eastern Ukraine is its outspoken neo-Nazi views and use of questionable symbols p.440, Ideology 2017 Primary: "has been accused"/"Does not mention": Käihkö, Ilmari (4 December 2017). "A nation-in-the-making, in arms: control of force, strategy and the Ukrainian Volunteer Battalions". Defence Studies. 18 (2). Taylor & Francis: 146–166. doi:10.1080/14702436.2018.1461013. The nature of volunteers deserves additional attention, especially as they are simultaneously viewed with suspicion by some because of their perceived connection to extreme political movements, and hailed as heroes by others...While this can be interpreted as the negation of the strategy to undermine it, Azov nevertheless offers the best example of the evolution of the volunteer battalions from revolutionaries with construction helmets and ice hockey armor to disciplined military formations closely paying attention to NATO standards. Primary: "neo-nazi": Buckholz, Quentin (7 November 2017). "The Dogs That Didn't Bark". Problems of Post-Communism. 66 (3). Informa UK Limited: 151–160. doi:10.1080/10758216.2017.1367256. ISSN 1075-8216. S2CID 158734607. Despite significant criticism from Ukraine's international donors, Avakov has continued to defend Azov, which is the military wing of the white supremacist, neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly of Ukraine. Book: "neo-nazi": Pleshakov, Konstantin (2017). The Crimean Nexus: Putin's War and the Clash of Civilizations. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 133. ISBN 9780300214888. Meanwhile, according to Stern, commanders of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion were close to the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Ragozin, Leonid (2017). "Brothers in Arms: Why Russian ultranationalists confronted their own government on the battlefields of Ukraine". World Policy Journal. 34 (2): 91–98. doi:10.1215/07402775-4191391. ISSN 1936-0924. S2CID 157918103. Retrieved 12 April 2022. "Zheleznov emerged from his first prison term after two years, a rising star of the far right. He was recruited by perhaps the most prominent Russian neo-Nazi of the time, Maksim Martsinkevich. Also known by his nickname, Tesak, meaning "The Hatchet," Martsinkevich was as much a showman as a militant. He was even featured on Russian TV shows and on the British documentary series, Ross Kemp on Gangs. He appointed Zheleznov as PR man for his new organization, Restruct, which became known for harassing people whom it claimed were pedophiles—though most of them, Zheleznov now admits, were just "regular gays."" (Note: Zheleznov, along with many other Russian neo-nazis, are prominent members of the Azov Battalion [11]) 2016 Primary: "neo-nazi": Mandel, David (2 January 2016). "The conflict in Ukraine". Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. 24 (1). Informa UK Limited: 83–88. doi:10.1080/0965156x.2016.1171011. ISSN 2573-9638. S2CID 156126251. To cite just two examples, Vadim Troyan, deputy commander of the neo-nazi Azov Regiment and active member of the neo-nazi paramilitary organisation Patriot of Ukraine... Primary: "with neo-nazi elements: Laruelle, Marlene (2 January 2016). "The three colors of Novorossiya, or the Russian nationalist mythmaking of the Ukrainian crisis". Post-Soviet Affairs. 32 (1): 55–74. doi:10.1080/1060586X.2015.1023004. ISSN 1060-586X. S2CID 143615951. Retrieved 12 April 2022. Some Russian neo-Nazis are involved in the Azov battalion, which serves as a street patrol under the command of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry (Vzglyad, June 15, 2014). They stand alongside neo-Nazis coming from all over Europe, particularly Sweden, Italy, Germany, and Finland, to help Ukraine against Russia. 2015 Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Bezruk, Tetjana; Umland, Andreas; Weichsel, Volker (2015). "Der Fall "Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine". Osteuropa. 65 (1/2): 33–41. ISSN 0030-6428. JSTOR 44936628. Retrieved 11 April 2022. However, only some of the members of the Azov association, which has now become a regiment, as well as other nationalist volunteer battalions, are openly racist Secondary: "neo-nazi": Giuliano, Elise (20 October 2015). "The Social Bases of Support for Self-determination in East Ukraine". Ethnopolitics. 14 (5): 513–522. doi:10.1080/17449057.2015.1051813. ISSN 1744-9057. S2CID 142999704. More dangerously, as the violence heated up, Kiev allowed semi-private paramilitary groups—such as the far right, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion—to fight in east Ukraine (Walker, 2014; Luhn, 2014). Primary:: "has been accused": Kuzio, Taras (2015-06-01). "A new framework for understanding nationalisms in Ukraine: democratic revolutions, separatism and Russian hybrid war". Geopolitics, History, and International Relations. 7 (1): 30–52. ISSN 1948-9145. Retrieved 2022-04-27. In the 1990s SNPU's symbol was suspiciously similar to the Hakenkreuz (hook-cross or swastika) used by the Nazis and the symbol continues to be used by the SNA, giving rise to Western press reports of the "neo-Nazi" Azov, although they now claim that the symbol stands for "SN" (Slava Natsii [Glory to the Nation]). Discussion of Scholarship sources, quotations, and assessments Glenn Diesen has been widely criticized for promoting Russian propaganda Somehow, Glenn Diesen is listed as a top-scholar and the first source in the "Scholarship" section. Yet, he is widely known as a Russian Today speaker, for allegedly promoting Russian propaganda (according to Scandinavian media, Russia experts and other scholars) and for being a contributor for a conspiracy theory website. Surprised nobody brought this up, in more than one month. Mcrt007 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC) And not only is Diesen considered highly unreliable, this is a passing mention in a text about "Russophobia" not a text about the Ukrainian right. I think we should remove this source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC) I've removed the source..— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC) What does 'Between frontline...' say? The quoted academic source https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/between-frontline-and-parliament-ukrainian-political-parties-and-irregular-armed-groups-in-20142019/90BAFE7AA179511DA2B58240D943D8C4 is used her to quote one word 'neo-Nazi'. But the paper is not about the word, please read the Conclusion rather. Our page should describe the (lack of) influence of IAGs on Ukrainian politics with at least the same ardour it describes 'neo-Nazism'. Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC) @User:Xx236 The entire question is about how academics refer to this group. I will note your dispute on the source itself, because it is entirely reasonable to say that it is a "drive-by" which is not as helpful to determining coverage. (I will say i dispute this characterization and I think it is a perfectly fine quotation showing that the authors considered this question and weighed in on it. Conclusion sections aren't everything for our purposes.) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Cyber Hate Source two - https://books.google.pl/books?id=vQxUEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y It is a book, I am unable to verify the source. None of the US authors is an Eastern Europa expert.Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC) The USA has a real problem with neo-Nazism https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/02/christopher-hasson-coast-guard-neo-nazi-far-right Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC) @User:Xx236 Books are part of scholarship. Do you have a higher quality RS which backs up your assertions here? We rely on RSes to determine who is and is not an expert.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC) I do not criticize books, but I have access to selected pages by Google only, not to whole books.Xx236 (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Authors are experts on far right, but not on Ukraine. Is an RS, but not the strongest. One brief mention of Azov in a whole book: counts as drive-by I think. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Will add it to the entry — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Harsha Walia is a (radical) Canadian activist based in Vancouver Walia is a radical activist and the quoted book 'Border and Rule' demands no borders politics. 'The system... must be dismantled.' This Wikipedia is a part of the system, so let's dismantle it. No EE knowledge expected, so she quotes probably someone.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC) @User:Xx236 do you have an RS (preferably one higher in quality (see WP:PARITY) which states this? We trust our RSes' assessment of expertise, not our personal opinions.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Walia's radicalism and her position on borders is not at all relevant here. However, this is clearly a not particularly informed passing mention in a book about something completely different. She has no specific expertise on Nazism or Ukraine. I'd strike this source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC) 2014 Battalion Please do not mix up 2014 and 2022. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1060586X.2015.1023004?journalCode=rpsa20 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44936628 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17449057.2015.1051813?journalCode=reno20 Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC) @User:Xx236 this is the crux of the entire sourcing question (Are these two groups contiguous wrt members, etc). By showing the chronology of the souricng, we help answer that question objectively and without bias. If these two groups are completely separate, it should become clear in the sources and how our best available RSes cover this content.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC) You are right. However Umland, Andreas (June 2020) is (title) about 2014. The DOI was wrong, I replaced it, now it works but looks bad. Xx236 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Can you format it correctly? The text uses the words "today" referring to 2020, and also refers to the past (as in 2014). I see no problem there. Everyone can read the title for themselves and the quotation and make their own conclusions to verify the assessment. Hence why the characterization says "formerly."— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Moving beyond Islamist Extremism - Combat 14/8 The book criticizes Azov and Combat 14/8. Google does not know such group, does someone know it?Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Both Allchorn and Mudde are highly regarded experts on the global far right, but neither of them has any specific expertise on Ukraine, so I would count these as less weighty than more expert takes such as Umland's. See also my comments in source discussion in RfC below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Nationalities Papers Primary: "with neo-nazi elements/says not neo-nazi": :Gomza, Ivan; Zajaczkowski, Johann (September 2019). "Black Sun Rising: Political Opportunity Structure Perceptions and Institutionalization of the Azov Movement in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine". Nationalities Papers. 47 (5): 774–800. doi:10.1017/nps.2019.30. S2CID 213989920. carried out an in-depth study of Azov members' activity online, and their results attributed a characterization of "Radical" far right nationalist to 38% of members, and precisely 0% as Nazi or neo-Nazi. I've removed the above source from the list as I have read through the paper and consider the summary and categories attached to it to be a gross misreading of the text. The journal, as far as I can parse, never studied the neo-Nazism of the group. The paper is a study of political opportunity structure as it relates to Asov. I'm not actually sure that this paper can even be used to add to this particular RfC. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC) In that case we definitely have remove Jackson, Stilhoff Sörensen, Bacigalupo, Walia, Allchorn, Edelman, Reid Ross, Mudde, and probably Buckholz, because none of them studied Azov and none of them (except maybe Buckholz) have any expertise on Ukraine or access to Ukrainian or Russian sources. They’re passing mentions in books/articles about other things. Some of them are experts on fascism; others (Walia, Edelman, Stilhoff Sörensen) aren’t even that BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC) The quotes show they considered Nazism and Azov. Their expertise is a question that needs to be answered with RSes, not our opinions. And expertise in extremism is enough for our purposes. I'm definitely open to the idea that Walia or others aren't experts in any of these or adjacent fields, but we need RSes to show that. It's not a high bar, if we have RSes which show that their training is in something else and they don't work in this area, that's enough to exclude them. However, if they have expertise in extremism, that is enough to include them. If all we accepted was experts in Azov AND experts in Nazism, then we basically lose everything in this list. One does not need to be an expert in the narrowest thing in order to be worth listening to. They just need to be a reasonably-trustworthy expert which our sources trust as an expert. Jackson and Sörenson covered Azov because the quote shows they did. If it's a passing mention that's a different matter and will happily note that. But we can't just remove sources because you or someone else thinks the person who wrote them is not trustworthy, that's an extremely subjective measure. We either need RSes or a local/global wiki consensus to support that action. Otherwise it's a mechanism that's too easy to abuse. And I mean that for any source of any kind in this list.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC) I do also want to say I agree that this Black Sun Rising source should be excluded, and I will revert if someone re-adds it as well. The criticism from VC is accurate, they do not include "Nazi" or "Neo-Nazi" in their categories, so we should NOT be saying that it was "0% Neo-nazi". That's extremely misleading and inappropriate. Worse than cherry-picking, it is willful mis-understanding.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC) I have reread Vladimir comment and realise I misunderstood it. I’ve also read the Nationalities Papers article and agree the summary is misleading. It says “far right” but is neither here nor there on the question of “neo-Nazi”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC) It's okay! I think pretty much everyone here has made mistakes while making this source review. And that's why it's so important to have multiple contributors all helping out from different perspectives.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC) I've finally gotten around to reading this carefully. My strong conclusion is that Vladimir is correct that it was mischaracterised before, but wrong to remove it. It should return but with the tag "Does not mention". It's true it is not focused on characterising the group's ideology, but that is also true of most of the articles which say "neo-Nazi" which simply mention the group in passing. The other issue is that it looks at the whole Azov movement, not the Battalion/Regiment. The article exhaustively examines the group and describes it repeatedly as "far-right". It also indicates shift over time: "originally a far-right groupuscule", they note a shift towards mainstream politics. "We argue that although Azov kept part of its subcultural nationalist thrust, this did not preclude conversion into a pragmatic movement well integrated into conventional politics." In short, this strong source would give us "far-right" and "nationalist" but not "neo-Nazi" and definitely not in the present tense. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC) @Bobfrombrockley: you are right. Removing the Nationalities Papers article was unjustified. Not including an article from a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Cambridge University Press because is not scholarly enough, while including much weaker sources from non-academics is ridiculous. Mcrt007 (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Some non-experts are being presented as experts. Why? Harsha Walia, for examples, is not an academic nor a researcher/scholar. She has zero peer reviewed research articles on extremism or Eastern European studies, and no reliable source seems to present her as such. Why was she even considered a scholar on the current topic? Mcrt007 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

[]  · Journalism
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)
2022 Attributed: "with neo-nazi elements": "Ukraine's nationalists and the Azov battalion". Financial Times. 19 May 2022. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Kim Scheppele (Princeton University): Now, the current Azov battalion is much less of a neo-Nazi formation than it was, but there's still remnants of neo-Nazis in that battalion. And that's the one little tiny piece of Ukraine where this neo-Nazi sort of propaganda has a slight bit of truth. "has been accused": Berman, Lazar; Newman, Marissa (17 May 2022). "Senior Zelensky aide to ToI: We are waiting for Israel to change its stance on war". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 20 May 2022. One of the Ukrainian units still holding out in the steel plant over the weekend is the Azov Regiment, a formation that has been accused since its formation in 2014 of associations with neo-Nazi ideology "with neo-nazi elements"/"has been accused": Patrick J. McDonnell; David Pierson; Tracy Wilkinson; Parvini, Sarah (18 May 2022). "U.S. to offer Sweden security guarantees as war in Ukraine enters a new phase". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Lawmakers had cited the Azov regiment, a militia with neo-Nazi roots that was absorbed into Ukraine's military and which Moscow says still comprises Nazis. ""formerly": Davidson, Vladislav (18 May 2022). "The Defenders of Mariupol". Tablet. Retrieved 14 May 2022. Branding the Azov Battalion as 'neo-Nazi' long after it shed its far-right origins is part of a deafening corruption of public discourse. [...] the Azov Battalion, a special operations detachment of the Ukrainian National Guard with a past neo-Nazi association [...] The original, post-Maidan composition of Azov was quickly diluted, and the ghost of Biletsky was replaced with regular officers of the Interior Ministry. By 2017, the battalion as a whole remained distinguished—but for its martial prowess, not for some distinct political ideology. "with neo-nazi elements": Sokol, Sam (17 May 2022). "How many Jews fought at Mariupol's Azovstal plant? Depends who's counting - Europe". Haaretz. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Many of those fighting at the plant were members of the Azov Regiment – a far-right volunteer unit with neo-Nazi ties that was incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces in 2014. "with neo-nazi elements": Lamoureux, Mack (16 May 2022). "Pro-Kremlin Influencers Are Using the Buffalo Shooting to Undermine Ukraine". VICE. Retrieved 20 May 2022. The symbol was also used previously by Azov Battalion, an infamous group in the Ukrainian national guard with well-known neo-Nazi and extreme-right ties. ""formerly far-right militia"/""has been accused": Gall, Carlotta (14 May 2022). "Turkey Offers to Evacuate Mariupol Fighters Despite Disagreements". New York Times. Retrieved 14 May 2022. The evacuation of soldiers was complicated in particular by the inclusion of members of the Azov battalion, a former far-right militia now formally integrated into the Ukrainian Army. Russia has branded them as Nazis, and Mr. Putin has said the war was intended to carry out the 'denazification' of Ukraine. "neo-nazi": Golinkin, Lev (12 May 2022). "Meet the Head of Biden's New "Disinformation Governing Board"". The Nation. Retrieved 17 May 2022. All four have a documented record of war crimes, while Azov is an outright neo-Nazi group. "with neo-nazi elements": Forgey, Quint (12 May 2022). "The cruel irony of being arrested in Putin's Russia". POLITICO. Retrieved 17 May 2022. The organization perhaps most often mentioned by Russian state media is the Azov Battalion — founded as a volunteer militia and later incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine — which has attracted a significant number of members with far-right and neo-Nazi sympathies. "has been accused": Colin, Freeman (12 May 2022). "Ukraine's 'wounded, crippled' Azovstal plant soldiers make last-ditch plea for rescue". Telegraph. Retrieved 12 May 2022. the Azov Battalion, the unit making a last stand at the plant ... The brigade's political outlook has also diluted since being formally integrated into the Ukraine military, with far-Right members leaving and new recruits joining mainly for its reputation of fighting prowess .... Many were said to have Nazi sympathies – although in Ukraine, which suffered Soviet as well as Nazi occupation, far-Right support can be as much about riling Moscow as claiming white supremacy ... Lt Ilya Samoylenko, a young, bearded commander who looks more like a Hoxton hipster than a neo-Nazi bootboy, told reporters: 'We are always accused of being paramilitary Neo-nazi bandits, and all this blah-blah bulls--- about being far-Right radicals. The only thing we are radical on is defending our country.' "Does not mention" Heritage, Timothy (10 May 2022). "Ukraine says Russia pounding Mariupol steel works, mayor's aide says 100 civilians remain". Reuters. Retrieved 12 May 2022. Ukraine's Azov Regiment "Does not mention" Kerry, Frances (8 May 2022). "Ukrainian fighters at besieged Azovstal plant vow to fight till the end". Reuters. Retrieved 12 May 2022. Ukraine's Azov Regiment "Does not mention" Hall, Ben (8 May 2022). "Ukrainian commanders lash out at Kyiv over Mariupol resistance". Financial Times. Retrieved 11 May 2022. The Azov regiment, the military unit that has been leading Ukraine's resistance from a last redoubt ... 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. with neo-nazi elements"/"has been accused": Koshiw, Isobel (9 May 2022). "'Surrender is not an option': Azov battalion commander in plea for help to escape Mariupol". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Azov fighters say its membership holds a range of political opinions. Azov formed as a volunteer battalion in 2014 to fight Russian-backed forces and some its leaders are known to hold far-right views. But since 2015, it has been part of the Ukrainian army and no longer attracts only far-right combatants. [...] Russia claims its members are neo-Nazis who are responsible for "Nazifying" Ukraine. "says not neo-nazi": "Why 9 May Victory Day is so important for Russia". BBC. 9 May 2022. Retrieved 20 May 2022. The city may lie in ruins, but 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. That would resonate on a day marking World War Two. "with neo-nazi elements"/Attributed: "formerly: Heritage, Timothy (4 May 2022). "Ukrainian supporters rally behind embattled Azov regiment". France 24. Retrieved 12 May 2022. Ukraine's Azov regiment -- a far-right volunteer battalion turned Ukrainian national guard unit ... 'The Azov Regiment is part of the national guard of Ukraine, it is not an independent paramilitary unit anymore. The connection with right-wing, radical politicians remains in history,' said Volodymyr Fesenko, a Kyiv-based political analyst. "neo-nazi": Foresta, Mathew (29 April 2022). "Meet the Sneakiest Defenders of Putin's Invasion of Ukraine". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 17 May 2022. During the interview, Ritter claims there is a battalion of Azov in "every brigade" of the Ukrainian Armed Forces—a reference to the notorious neo-Nazi Azov battalion. While Azov is very real and represents a very serious and concerning part of the far right in Ukraine, Ritter's claims are misinformation. Note: The Daily Beast is considered to be a biased or opinionated source that should be used with caution. "neo-nazi": Duggan, Joe (25 April 2022). "Photos show civilians hiding in Azovstal steelworks as Ukraine says Russia tried to storm plant". i News. Retrieved 28 April 2022. In a separate video released by the Azov battalion – an extremist, neo-Nazi group formed as a volunteer militia brigade in 2014 in Ukraine – a day earlier on Saturday, people trapped at the encircled plant said they are desperate to get out and are running out of food. "neo-nazi": Sood, Jai (24 April 2022). "'Ukraine to withdraw from talks with Russia if Mariupol forces killed'". The Statesman. Retrieved 28 April 2022. However, President Vladimir Putin called off the assault on the Azovstal factory, which remains the last holdout of Ukrainian forces, including the fighters of the neo-Nazi Azov regiment, in the strategic port city. Attributed: "neo-nazi": Mclean, Caitlin (23 April 2022). "Halper: Some lawmakers 'beating the drum' for World War III". The Hill. Retrieved 17 May 2022. Halper said the U.S. is still treating the war in Ukraine as a proxy war by providing arms to Ukraine, some of which are reaching groups like the far-right neo-Nazi Azov Batalian. "with neo-nazi elements": Watling, Jack (23 April 2022). "In Mariupol, Putin now rules a wasteland pitted with mass graves". the Guardian. Retrieved 28 April 2022. Mariupol's defenders were made up of marines and members of the Azov battalion, a unit associated with a far-right political party and containing a significant proportion of neo-Nazis. "neo-nazi"/"has been accused": "Israeli weapon seen used by Neo-Nazi Ukrainian unit against Russia". The Jerusalem Post. 20 April 2022. Retrieved 21 April 2022. An anti-armor weapon jointly developed by Israel, Singapore and a German company has been seen in operational use by the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion against Russian military forces." and "The recently published video shows that these partly Israeli-developed weapons are now in the hands of the Azov Battalion, which has been widely characterized as a neo-Nazi militia. "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Follorou, Jacques (17 April 2022). "War in Ukraine: The Azov brigade's last stand in Mariupol". Le Monde. Retrieved 22 April 2022. Yet its integration in September 2014 into Ukraine's National Guard and the recruitment of many candidates without political affiliation, attracted only by its reputation as an elite corps, have gradually marginalized the most extremist elements. This troop is now characterized by Western military experts as "ultranationalist" and "anti-Russian." Attributed: "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Miller, Jonas; Kagermeier, Elisabeth (13 April 2022). "Azov Regiment: Ukrainian Heroes or Extremists?". Bayerischer Rundfunk/Bavarian Broadcasting (In German). Retrieved 29 April 2022. Azov itself propagates this distinction: Regiment and party (movement) are independent of each other. They are two sides of the same coin, Stephan Kramer, head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Thuringia, tells ARD. According to Lara Schultz, there is also an "incompatibility decision": active fighters could not become party members. An employee of a German security agency also supports this assessment: at the regiment, a right-wing extremist ideology plays "rather a subordinate role," she says in an interview with #Faktenfuchs; she does not want to be named. The regiment, however, is only showing itself to be more moderate. Extremism researcher Alexander Ritzmann of the Counter Extremism Project told ARD in March 2022 that the regiment had also disarmed in its symbolism. The wolfsangel - a symbol used by right-wing extremists - is still in the Azov emblem, he said, but other extremist symbols have been removed. In Ukrainian, the wolfsangel means something like "our nation. Attributed: "neo-nazi": "Canada failed when it trained Ukrainian troops linked to the far right, says Nazi hunter". Ottawa Citizen. 13 April 2022. Retrieved 18 April 2022. 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." "with neo-nazi elements": Katerji, Oz (12 April 2022). "By focusing on the Azov Battalion we are falling into Putin's trap". The New Statesman. Retrieved 14 April 2022. There is no way to sugar-coat this story: the racist views of senior Azov figures since its founding can be accurately described as neo-Nazi. "with neo-nazi elements": Mcgee, William (11 April 2022). "Battle for Mariupol: Ukraine's Azov Regiment Destroys Russian Tanks and Vehicles". Newsweek/Zenger News. Retrieved 27 April 2022. The regiment has far-right origins. However, only a minority of its estimated 900 members are believed to have far-right tendencies. "neo-nazi"/Attributed: "formerly": Azhari, Khaldon (10 April 2022). "Ukrainian Azov Battalion removed from Japan's International Terrorists' list". Arab News Japan. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Japan's Public Security Intelligence Agency removed the Ukrainian ultra-right, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which has been fighting the Russian-backed groups since 2014, from its International Terrorism Guide 2021 and apologized for having it on the list...Azov Battalion was reportedly established as a military infantry unit made up of volunteers belonging to the far-right, neo-Nazi groups active in Ukraine. In November 2014, Azov recaptured the strategic port city of Mariupol from the pro-Russian groups. Attributed: "formerly": Romandash, Anna (10 April 2022). "Why has "Azov" become Putin and Xi's favorite propaganda weapon?". CommonWealth Magazine (Name in Chinese: 天下雜誌). Retrieved 12 April 2022. "The narrative related to "Azov" is very bizarre. It is wrong to call them Neo-Nazis because even the fact that the unit includes people of different nationalities proves the opposite." Matviyishyn explains, that the regiment includes very many different people of various ethnicities such as Jews, Ukrainians, Georgians, and even Russians. "Azov" has gone through a transformation in comparison to how it was when it was founded. "In the beginning, it had these right-wing radicals political ideologies, but now, it is depoliticized unit, a part of Ukraine's Armed Forces." "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Krähenbühl, Hélène (8 April 2022). "Meeting the Azov regiment, accused by Russia of being infested with "neo-Nazis"?". Radio Télévision Suisse (In French). Retrieved 12 April 2022. But the gradual arrival of new apolitical members expanded the regiment to the point that the far-right ideology became marginal. "with neo-nazi elements": Raghavan, Sudarasan; Morris, Loveday; Parker, Claire (6 April 2022). "Right-wing Azov Battalion emerges as a controversial defender of Ukraine". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014. Ever since it was incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard late that year, they "had to purge a lot of those extremist elements," said Mollie Saltskog, a senior intelligence analyst at the Soufan Group. "There was much more control exerted over who is affiliated with the battalions. Attributed: "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Philip, Catherine (30 March 2022). "Azov Battalion: 'We are patriots – we're fighting the real Nazis of the 21st century'". The Times. Retrieved 13 April 2022. Azov has its fair share of football hooligans and ultranationalists but also scholars like Zaikovsky, who worked as a translator and book editor. Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert in the European right, claims Azov has evolved so far from its origins as to make its far-right roots meaningless. "with neo-nazi elements": Lister, Tim; John, Tara (29 March 2022). "A far-right battalion has a key role in Ukraine's resistance. Its neo-Nazi history has been exploited by Putin". CNN. Retrieved 11 April 2022. For Putin, who has falsely claimed Ukraine's government is run by "drug addicts and neo-Nazis," Azov presents an obvious target. Moscow has given the regiment an outsized role in the conflict, routinely accusing it of human rights abuses...In the Russian disinformation playbook, the Azov movement is a tempting target -- one where fact and disinformation can be elided...Rekawek, an expert on foreign fighters at C-REX, said Azov has only been able to recruit 20 foreign fighters since the start of the 2022 invasion. Attributed: "formerly/has been accused": Schipani, Andres; Olearchyk, Roman (29 March 2022). "'Don't confuse patriotism and Nazism': Ukraine's Azov forces face scrutiny". Financial Times. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Azov's history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself," said Anton Shekhovtsov, a Vienna-based Ukrainian expert on Russia's connections to Europe's far-right. "Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today. "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Atkins, Ros (26 March 2022). "Ukraine war: Ros Atkins on... Putin's false 'Nazi' claims". BBC. Retrieved 12 April 2022. Adrien Nonjon (Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales): "Azov opened its recruitment to the whole of Ukrainian society and eventually this radical core was drowned out by the mass of newcomers who joined the regiment because it was an elite unit". Ros Atkins (BBC): "Despite the evolving membership, questions about Neo-Nazi links remain... There is though no evidence such sentiment is widespread [in the regiment]" Attributed: "formerly/has been accused": "Azov Regiment takes centre stage in Ukraine propaganda war". France 24. AFP. 25 March 2022. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Some call them war heroes, others neo-Nazis...In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies. 'But it had since become "de-ideologised"' and a regular fighting unit, he told AFP. "with neo-nazi elements": Sommerlad, Joe (24 March 2022). "Who are Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion?". The Independent. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Following its victories in Mariupol and Marinka in the summer of 2014, the battalion – known for wearing black fatigues, sporting Nazi tattoos and going into battle with swastikas drawn on its helmets – was officially absorbed into the Ukrainian National Guard in November of that year, soon becoming a regiment. "with neo-nazi elements": "The Azov Battalion: How Putin built a false premise for a war against "Nazis" in Ukraine". www.cbsnews.com. CBS News. 22 March 2022. Retrieved 11 April 2022. "There are no Nazi battalions in Ukraine," said Ruslan Leviev, an analyst with the Conflict Intelligence Team, which tracks the Russian military in Ukraine. "There is [the Azov] regiment... There are [estimated] several thousand people who are in this regiment. It is indeed a group where many members adhere to nationalist and far-right views," Leviev said. "But a lot of people also join it because it is one of the most prepared and fit-for-war units."...The Azov Battalion stepped in [in 2014]. It was better-equipped and prepared to do much of the frontline fighting against the separatists. The unit has its roots in aggressive fan clubs that support regional soccer teams, known as "ultras," but as the fighting ramped up, they attracted various far-right activists, who often made no secret of their neo-Nazi sympathies. The militia was founded by Andriy Biletsky, an ultra-nationalist political figure who previously led groups including the openly neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly (SNA), which preached an ideology of racial purity for Ukraine. "neo-nazi": Ali, Taz (19 March 2022). "Ukraine could follow Afghanistan into years of turmoil as West adopts 'mujahideen model' with weapons". i News. Retrieved 14 April 2022. The Ukrainian National Guard, part of the country's Ministry of Internal Affairs, was formed in 2014 to incorporate paramilitary and volunteer batallions to fight against pro-Russian seperatists in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. Among them was the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. "with neo-nazi elements": Goncharenko, Roman (16 March 2022). "The Azov Battalion: Extremists defending Mariupol". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Umland said a legend had grown around Azov because of Russian propaganda. He said that volunteer fighters, including Azov, had been accused of looting and improper behavior in 2014..."Normally, we consider right-wing extremism to be dangerous, something that can lead to war," Umland said. But in Ukraine, it is the other way around, he argued. The war had led to the rise and transformation of marginal comradeships into a political movement. But their influence on society is overrated, he said. For most Ukrainians, they are combatants fighting an overbearing aggressor. "with neo-nazi elements": Benjakob, Omer (14 March 2022). "Russia's War on Truth: Top Wikipedia Editor Arrested Amidst Ukraine Censorship". Haaretz. Retrieved 17 April 2022. Though Putin's bogus claims of "denazifying" Ukraine were called out, in English, the article on the contemporary far-right neo-Nazi Ukrainian paramilitary group, known as the Azov Battalion, has become a battleground, with some attempts to whitewash the group and deny their use of a Nazi symbol and neo-Nazi sentiments Attributed: "formerly": Paulik, Jakub (14 March 2022). "Azov Battalion, saluting fighters and purging of radicals. We can't compare their current state with the past, analysts say". Refresher (In Czech). Retrieved 13 April 2022. They made no secret of their inclination to Nazism...According to analyst Michal Lebduška, however, Azov has since been greatly cleansed of radicals, and even in 2014 neo-Nazis were only in the minority. "It is true that this battalion was considered problematic in the past because it also originated from the ranks of nationalists and Nazis. However, not all members were radicals and formed a significant minority from the beginning. Over time, volunteer units were integrated into the Ukrainian Army or the National Guard of Ukraine...By the time they were included in these parallel structures, they had more or less purged them of radicals. To a large extent, they have disappeared from these units," Lebduška, who specializes in security, social and political developments in Ukraine, told Refresher. Security analyst Vladimír Bednár has the same attitude to the matter. "There is a big difference between Azov in 2014 and now... There was a significant cleansing. People associated with neo-Nazi ideology had to leave Azov after integration into the National Guard. Therefore, the current Azov cannot be associated with this from 2014 at all. It has the same name, but it must be seen as two separate things," he told us. "neo-nazi": Smith, Adam (11 March 2022). "Russia moves to ban Instagram and calls Meta 'extremists'". The Independent. Retrieved 26 April 2022. Controversially, however, these "temporary measures" also allowed for praise of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which has admitted to recruiting neo-Nazis and is currently being armed in the fight against Russia. "neo-nazi": Brown, Larisa (10 March 2022). "Russian commander 'killed' as convoy caught in Ukrainian ambush". The Times. Retrieved 26 April 2022. The Ukrainians were understood to be from the neo-Nazi Azov regiment, which has been expanded to become part of Ukraine's armed forces. "neo-nazi": "Russia, Ukraine and the spectre of 1941". Financial Times. 10 March 2022. Retrieved 26 April 2022. Neo-Nazis joined Ukraine's Euromaidan protest movement of 2014, and the neo-Nazi Azov battalion has fought Russia since the Donbas. "with neo-nazi elements": Benjamin, Medea; Davies, Nicolas J.S. (10 March 2022). "Are there really neo-Nazis fighting for Ukraine? Well, yes". Salon. Retrieved 14 April 2022. Despite Svoboda's declining success in national elections, neo-Nazi and extreme nationalist groups, increasingly linked to the Azov Battalion, have maintained power on the street in Ukraine, and in local politics in the Ukrainian nationalist heartland around Lviv in western Ukraine. "formerly": "Did the infamous Azov Battalion inspire Putin's 'denazification' claim?". The Jerusalem Post. 5 March 2022. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The battalion has been a bastion of neo-Nazis and extreme right-wing figures...However, since its incorporation into Ukraine's official armed forces it has moved away from neo-Nazism, and a Ukrainian Jewish group as early as 2016 did not oppose lifting the US ban. "with neo-nazi elements": "Profile: Who are Ukraine's far-right Azov regiment?". Al Jazeera. 1 March 2022. a Ukrainian far-right military regiment is back in the headlines [...] Azov is a far-right all-volunteer infantry military unit whose members – estimated at 900 – are ultra-nationalists [...] hardcore far-right ultra-nationalism is pervasive among members [...] the unit carried out pogroms against the Roma community and attacked members of the LGBTQ community. "with neo-nazi elements": Farrukh, Rimal (1 March 2022). "Ukraine's 'Neo-Nazi' Battalion Is Greasing Bullets in Pig Fat for Russia's Muslim Soldiers". www.vice.com. Vice News. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The Azov Battalion is an ultranationalist volunteer arm of the National Guard of Ukraine that was formally infused into its ranks after it fought against pro-Russian separatists in 2014. The battalion has been accused of espousing neo-Nazi beliefs and reportedly continues to bear Wolfsangel insignia, used by Nazi units during World War II. Attributed: "neo-nazi": Dearden, Lizzie (27 February 2022). "British volunteers who travel to fight in Ukraine could violate terror laws". The Independent. Retrieved 26 April 2022. Quoting Jonathan Hall QC: "But there is always the possibility of less desirable cases at the edges - individuals who travel to Ukraine under false pretence either to support Russia or fight with an ideological group such as the neo-Nazi Azov battalion." "with neo-nazi elements": Hume, Tim (24 February 2022). "Why Vladimir Putin Trotted Out a 'Nazi' Smear to Justify Invading Ukraine". VICE. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Azov – which features the Nazi Wolfsangel logo on its uniforms, is led by figures with deep roots in the country's neo-Nazi scene, and attracted right-wing extremist foreign fighters into its ranks from across the world – was formally incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard in late 2014, bringing its extremists onto the government payroll. "neo-nazi": Biddle, Sam (24 February 2022). "Facebook Allows Praise of Neo-Nazi Ukrainian Battalion If It Fights Russian Invasion". The Intercept. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Facebook will temporarily allow its billions of users to praise the Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi military unit previously banned from being freely discussed under the company's Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, The Intercept has learned. "neo-nazi": Craw, Victoria (14 February 2022). "URussia-Ukraine conflict: Grandma, 79, joins ranks of far-right fighters preparing for Putin to launch invasion". i News. Retrieved 14 April 2022. The extremist, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion formed as a volunteer militia brigade in 2014 and was incorporated into the National Guard that same year. Attributed:"with neo-nazi elements"/"formerly?": "Mariupol's outnumbered defenders refuse to give in". The Economist. 15 April 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2022. Whether the group is still extremist is another question. Azov was incorporated into the National Guard and army structure in 2015. Since then, it has been through a process of professionalisation, with far-right extremists, symbols and ideologies largely filtered out. Michael Colborne, an investigative journalist, author of a forthcoming book on Azov and a longtime critic of the movement, says the process was never completed. 2021 Attributed: "neo-nazi": Bogdana, Alexandrowskaja; Stork, Anna (5 December 2021). "Belarus torture survivors take legal action in Germany". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Because of the T-shirt, Belarus police accused him of sympathizing with the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment fighting in eastern Ukraine. The group's logo, however, does not actually feature a skull. Note: some users participating in an RSN discussion do not consider this source reliable. "neo-nazi": McKenzie, Nick; Tozer, Joel (22 August 2021). "ADF at risk of neo-Nazi infiltration after ex-soldiers passport cancelled". The Age. Retrieved 13 May 2022. In January 2020, Foreign Minister Marise Payne cancelled Mr Sretenovic's passport on the basis he was preparing to fight with the notoriously neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in Ukraine. "with neo-nazi elements": "'Disinformation efforts' to discredit Belarus activist". France 24/AFP. 9 June 2021. Retrieved 25 April 2022. ...the Azov battalion, some of whose soldiers have been known to harbour white supremacist and neo-Nazi views. "with neo-nazi elements": Wesolowsky, Tony (9 June 2021). "Jailed Belarusian Pratasevich Dogged By Claims He Fought For Azov Battalion In Ukraine". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Retrieved 25 April 2022. ...the Azov Battalion, a nationalist force with neo-Nazi roots that has played a prominent role in the conflict that erupted as Kremlin-backed separatists seized parts of the Donbas in 2014... "Though it is true that its leaders are known for far-right beliefs and the broader Azov movement is in touch with the foreign far-right, there is no evidence that every single person [involved] shares neo-Nazi beliefs," [Hanna Hrystenko, a Kyiv-based researcher of the far right] wrote. "with neo-nazi elements": Hume, Tim; McLoughlin, Louise; Bennett, Tom (14 May 2021). "How a War on the Edge of Europe Became a Training Ground for the Far-Right". VICE News. Retrieved 21 April 2022. While Azov has publicly sought to downplay its extremist elements, its radical politics are undeniable. Many of its members openly espouse white supremacist ideology; some sport neo-Nazi tattoos. [...] the Azov ecosystem has helped to sustain a flourishing far-right underground in Ukraine. Azov-affiliated extremists run neo-Nazi music festivals, clothing lines, and MMA tournaments — while the group has continued to actively network and court support from far-right radicals worldwide. "with neo-nazi elements": Biermann, Kai; Fuchs, Christian; Geisler, Astrid; Musharbash, Yassin; Stark, Holger (11 February 2021). "Fascism: The Brown Internationale". Die Zeit. Retrieved 27 May 2022. Using WhatsApp, Oberhuber contacted a German neo-Nazi who he hoped could bring him to the front. The German turned out to be a functionary with the Misanthropic Division, which recruited fighters for the Azov Battalion in Ukraine from almost 20 countries. [...] Other former right-wing extremists told DIE ZEIT of neo-Nazis who joined the Azov Battalion primarily to receive weapons training. "with neo-nazi elements": Ragozin, Leonid; Skibitskaya, Yuliana (9 January 2021). "Telegram has a Nazi problem". Rest of World. Retrieved 28 April 2022. Far-right activists were among the first to form combat-ready units...The most prominent of these volunteer groups was the so-called Azov battalion, which later became an autonomous regiment under the auspices of Ukraine's National Guard. From that, a number of political, veteran, and paramilitary organizations emerged, which members now refer to as the Azov movement. "with neo-nazi elements": Shuster, Simon; Perrigo, Billy (7 January 2021). "Like, Share, Recruit: How a White-Supremacist Militia Uses Facebook to Radicalize and Train New Members". Time. Archived from the original on 28 February 2022. Retrieved 28 February 2022. 2020 "neo-nazi": Katz, Rita (9 July 2020). "Neo-Nazis Are Running Out of Places to Hide Online". Wired. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The group maintains ties to organizations like Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary group, and Atomwaffen Division, a US-based neo-Nazi paramilitary group that is now largely defunct. Note: at least one user considers this source unreliable for this claim: [12] 2019 "with neo-nazi elements": Parafianowicz, Zbigniew (15 November 2019). "Azow to realny problem. Neonazistowski pułk opłaca ukraińskie wojsko, policję i ministerstwa". www.gazetaprawna.pl (in Polish). Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Retrieved 11 April 2022. A campaign to defend Azov's good name has been going on for several weeks in Ukraine. It is bound by the slogan "Defense of the fatherland is not terrorism", and it is attended by activists from far-right, neo-Nazi organizations, as well as mainstream politicians and high-ranking officials. "neo-nazi": Golinkin, Lev (2019-08-13). "The world needs to take the white supremacy threat seriously". CNN. Retrieved 2022-04-27. Indeed, last October, the FBI arrested members of the white supremacist Rise Above Movement who had allegedly attended events hosted by Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov organization. By now, numerous Western journalists have chronicled Azov's crusade to turn Ukraine into a hub of international white supremacy. "with neo-nazi elements": Hume, Tom (31 July 2019). "Far-Right Extremists Have Been Using Ukraine's War as a Training Ground. They're Returning Home". VICE News. Retrieved 21 April 2022. signed up to fight with the Azov Battalion, a newly formed far-right militia with deep neo-Nazi ties [...] Azov, in particular, has produced ISIS-like propaganda videos, distributed pamphlets at neo-Nazi concerts in Western Europe, and sent speakers to far-right conferences in Scandinavia. Though the group denies it is neo-Nazi, and publicly stated in 2014 that "only 10 to 20 percent" of its forces identified as neo-Nazis, its first commander and now leader of its political wing has a history in neo-Nazi groups. Their recruitment efforts have targeted far-right networks [...] Joachim Furholm, a Norwegian neo-Nazi and recruiter for Azov, used an interview with a U.S. white nationalist outlet last year to encourage U.S. extremists to join him. [...] Through the influence of Azov, in particular, Ukraine has increasingly played just such a role, emerging as a key hub in a transnational extreme-right network. "neo-nazi": "Ukraine Jews anxious despite Jewish PM, president". Jerusalem Post. 2019-05-10. Retrieved 2022-04-27. Examples include the presence of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion within the Ukrainian National Guard, which has been accused of war crimes during the conflict in the east and sanctioned by the US Congress for its ultranationalist and white supremacist ties. Attributed: "neo-nazi": Bucci, Nino (22 April 2019). "Government can't stop five fighters returning to Australia from far-right conflict". ABC News. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Five Australians travelled to fight alongside Russian-backed nationalist militia in Ukraine, according to intelligence provided to the Australian Federal Police, raising concerns the group has been exposed to combat experience that could threaten Australia's national security. "neo-nazi": Golinkin, Lev (22 February 2019). "Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine". The Nation. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world's only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces. The Azov Battalion was initially formed out of the neo-Nazi gang Patriot of Ukraine. Andriy Biletsky, the gang's leader who became Azov's commander, once wrote that Ukraine's mission is to "lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade…against the Semite-led Untermenschen." Biletsky is now a deputy in Ukraine's parliament. 2018 "with neo-nazi elements": Brown, John (9 July 2018). "Rights Groups Demand Israel Stop Arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine". Haaretz. Retrieved 25 April 2022. The Azov militia was established in Ukraine following the Russian invasion of the Crimean peninsula in 2014. The militia's emblems are well-known national socialist ones. Its members use the Nazi salute and carry swastikas and SS insignias. Moreover, some of them openly admit they have neo-Nazi sentiments and that they are Holocaust deniers. "with neo-nazi elements": Bennetts, Marc (13 March 2018). "Ukraine's National Militia: 'We're not neo-Nazis, we just want to make our country better'". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 April 2022. They are members of the National Militia, an ultranationalist organisation closely linked to Ukraine's Azov movement, a far-right group with a military wing that contains openly neo-Nazi members, and its political spin-off, the National Corpus party. Attributed: "neo-nazi": Rawlinson, Kevin (2 March 2018). "Neo-Nazi groups recruit Britons to fight in Ukraine". the Guardian. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Neo-Nazi groups involved in the fighting in Ukraine are actively seeking to recruit British far-right activists, a leading anti-fascist watchdog has warned....According to Hope Not Hate, a group named the Misanthropic Division, which is linked to the Azov battalion, is working with representatives of UK-based far-right groups...to recruit activists to travel to Ukraine. 2017 "has been accused": "По ту сторону «Азова». Чем занимается в тылу самый известный полк Нацгвардии - ФОКУС". ФОКУС (in Russian). 2017-08-04. Retrieved 2022-05-20. In the media, Azov is often accused of adherence to far-right ideology, since the unit was created by right-wing activist Andriy Biletsky and his associates from the nationalist organizations Patriot of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly. In addition, the design of the regiment actively uses symbols associated with the far-right movement. On the chevrons, against the background of the Black Sun symbol, an anagram of the letters N and I, the idea of ​​a nation, is depicted. The anagram looks like a mirrored "wolf hook", the symbol of one of the divisions of the Nazi army, and according to UEFA rules, the "Black Sun" is forbidden to be used in football stadiums, since it is a neo-Nazi sign. In the regiment itself, accusations of cultivating a right-wing radical ideology are denied, they say, they have their own ideology, Azov, and the fighters are united by loyalty to Ukraine. "We have people who before the war considered themselves leftists, considered themselves rightists, but everyone reads the Prayer of a Ukrainian Nationalist."... Many wear clothes of special brands used in the right environment - Svastone, Thor Steinar. A former battalion fighter explains that most often these are elements of a subculture that are used more for shocking than for demonstrating a serious commitment to the ideas of Nazism: " Right-wing tattoos are a subculture, a protest against the existing value system, which does not carry anything like that, more for fun."... {{cite web}}: zero width space character in |quote= at position 460 (help) "formerly": Mironova, Vera; Sergatskova, Ekaterina (1 August 2017). "How Ukraine Reined In Its Militias". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 12 April 2022. After the union, the government's first act was to root out two groups within Azov, foreign fighters and neo-Nazis, by vetting group members with background checks, observations during training, and a law requiring all fighters to accept Ukrainian citizenship. Fighters who did not pass this screening were offered the chance to join civilian volunteer corps to help the war effort; these corps assisted police, cleared snow (a crucial task in Ukraine), and even worked on a public radio. Attributed: "not neo-nazi": Boichenko, Nina (2017). "Inside Ukraine's ideological renewal". New Eastern Europe. 28 (05): 70–75. ISSN 2083-7372. Retrieved 12 April 2022. As I arrived, I saw a young man in a library and I told him there are rumours that they are neo-Nazis and that I do not want to believe it, but I came to ask", she says. "'No', the young man replied, 'we are nationalists, we have nothing against other nationalities and ethnic minorities, check the books – there is no Mein Kampf here.'" Indeed, there was not. 2016 "has been accused" / Attributed: "neo-nazi"/Attributed: "says not neo-nazi": Sokol, Sam (18 January 2016). "US lifts ban on funding 'neo-Nazi' Ukrainian militia". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Called a "neo-Nazi paramilitary militia" by Congressmen John Conyers Jr. and Ted Yoho, who cosponsored the bipartisan amendment, the battalion has been a source of controversy since its inception....Not everyone was so upset, however, with the Vaad of Ukraine, a Jewish communal body comprising a number of different organizations and known for its nationalist stance on many issues, coming out in favor of the move. "I appreciate this decision. It must be clearly understood: there is no kind of 'neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia' now. Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group. Its commanders and fighters might have personal political views as individuals, but as an armed police unit Azov is a part of the system of the Ukrainian defense forces," said anti-Semitism researcher Vyacheslav A. Likhachev, speaking on behalf of the Vaad. "neo-nazi": Carden, James (14 January 2016). "Congress Has Removed a Ban on Funding Neo-Nazis From Its Year-End Spending Bill". The Nation. Retrieved 11 April 2022. some have expressed concern that some of this aid has made its way into the hands of neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion. 2015 "with neo-nazi elements": Allen, Christopher (13 August 2015). "European volunteers fighting in Eastern Ukraine". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 13 May 2022. But others, including Mikael Skillt, the Swedish soldier who arrived in Ukraine during the protests on Maidan last February, came to fight for nationalism and their ultra-conservative political ideals regarding Ukraine. Andriy Biletsky, leader of two organisations, Social-National Assembly and the Patriot of Ukraine, is the founder of the Azov Regiment as a politically conservative paramilitary group. The political ideology of Azov has been softened as the battalion grew into a regiment and Biletsky entered the Ukrainian parliament, but many of the Europeans who came in the early stages of the conflict came to fight for their conservative political values. But, while the political fight is important, it is not the only thing that has brought these men here. Once on the front line, the war is less about advocating for political ideals than it is about fighting...These men are driven to the war for the experience of combat. Their politics evolved through their engagement in the conflict. "neo-nazi": "Ucraina, deputato invita capo del battaglione neonazista Azov al Parlamento Ue". Eunews (in Italian). 30 July 2015. Retrieved 11 April 2022. a formation of clear neo-Nazi inspiration, whose symbol is the Wolfsangel, Nazi icon of the 2. SS-Panzer-Division "Das Reich" "neo-nazi": Kramer, Andrew E. (7 July 2015). "Islamic Battalions, Stocked With Chechens, Aid Ukraine in War With Rebels". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Another, the Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi, using the "Wolf's Hook" symbol associated with the SS. Without addressing the issue of the Nazi symbol, the Chechen said he got along well with the nationalists because, like him, they love their homeland and hate the Russians. "neo-nazi/with neo-nazi elements": News, Postmedia (17 June 2015). "Fears that Canadian training mission in Ukraine may unintentionally help neo-Nazis groups". National Post. Retrieved 11 April 2022. U.S. lawmakers have voted to block American troops from training a unit with neo-Nazi members that's operating with Ukraine's forces — a move that raises questions about what safeguards Canada has to ensure it doesn't help extremist groups...The unit has continued to face accusations of neo-Nazi links. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help) "with neo-nazi elements": Vickery, Matthew; Khalel, Sheren (15 April 2015). "'Christian Taliban's' crusade on Ukraine's front lines". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Serediuk originally fought the separatists in the east as part of the Azov Battalion – a notorious far-right Ukrainian militia organised by the neo-Nazi Social-National party. Serediuk didn't leave the Azov because of the neo-Nazi connections, however – extreme-right ideology doesn't bother him. What does irk him, however, is being around fighters who are not zealous in their religious convictions. "neo-nazi": Taub, Amanda (26 February 2015). "Ukraine's next war: how militias and warlords could create a second, worse conflict". Vox. Retrieved 14 April 2022. Some are extreme already, such as the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, which fights on the pro-Kiev side. "neo-nazi": "Ucraina, reparti filonazisti accanto all'esercito, la denuncia del quotidiano "Usa Today"". Il Messaggero (in Italian). 16 March 2015. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Attributed: "says not neo-nazi"/with neo-nazi elements": "Azov Battalion Is Not Neo-Nazi, But Some People In Battalion Are - Umland". Hromadske. 19 January 2015. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Andreas Umland (in video): The battalion...is not neo nazi...but a few people who did build up the battalion were or are biological racists. In article: The Azov volunteer battalion has now been integrated into Ukraine's National Guard, but some of the biological racists that were originally in the battalion still remain, said Andreas Umland, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation. However, these racists with neo-Nazi views are a minority within the Azov battalion. The role of neo-Nazis in volunteer battalions has been blown way out of proportion in the media and has given the erroneous impression that all of Ukraine's volunteer battalions are populated with neo-Nazis, said Umland. 2014 "neo-nazi": Luhn, Alec (30 August 2014). "Preparing for War With Ukraine's Fascist Defenders of Freedom". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The Azov Battalion [...] this openly neo-Nazi unit. "neo-nazi": Parfitt, Tom (11 August 2014). "Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists". www.telegraph.co.uk. The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists. Discussion of Journalism sources, quotations, and assessments This is an excellent list, and the chronological ordering adds considerable value. I would move Branko Marcetic in The Jacobin to "Opinion-based editorials written by journalists". He is writing in an opinion website and has no relevant expertise. (RSP says 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 Some are extreme already, such as the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, which fights on the pro-Kiev side.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'.) Possibly also true of the two pieces in The Nation (RSP: Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.) Lev Golinkin's piece is opinion, but I would say his opinion is noteworthy as he is an expert on Ukraine. Carden's piece is more newsy, but highly partisan and there's no reason to think he has any relevant expertise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Fair, will move it to OpEd, because you're right it's clearly a biased source by RSP!— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC) I would strike "Belarus torture survivors take legal action in Germany", which has been rejected by RSN, or at the very least add "attributed" as this is the opinion of the Belarus police. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Will add Attributed, and a link to the RSN discussion. If we get a consensus that we should remove the source entirely I'm happy to do that too.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC) I think sources from 2014 and 2015 (e.g. Parfitt, Luhn) that are currently tagged red "neo-Nazi" are better tagged blue "formerly" as 2015 can't be source for present tense given other sources show clear changes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) I understand this criticism, but I would ask, in return, "Shouldn't we let users decide that for themselves?" My policy is almost always to lay as much as possible out in the open. And in this case, we have the year and timing right there in the source, listed right next to the author name. What if we added years to the list, as subheadings? Would that help? I don't want to define when we transition from "present" to "past" because it's clearly a spectrum, and each user would likely define it differently based on their own opinion of the group.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Fair point. Let’s leave as is. The chronological arrangement does the work. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Thakur is an opinion piece by a journalist, so I’d move to that section. Katerji might be too, although his article includes primary reporting so I’d leave here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Agreed about Thakur, The Features section is definitely an OpEds section as is most of that magazine. So I moved it to OpEd. But disagree about Katerji, I don't think it's opinion, I would consider it "analysis" which basically most of this section is along with basically all longform journalism. This is the kind of stuff that is less useful for questions like this, but basically all we have on both sides. Hard-hitting factual reporting tends to sidestep these issues or only give it passing mention.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC) April BBC Source This BBC source which I recently added: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61201548 was removed on the grounds that it "makes no mention of neo-nazi ideology", and my label of "formerly" was changed to "with neo-nazi elements" before that was done. In terms of removing it for "no mention of neo-nazi ideology", I don't think that is a reasonable grounds for removing it. There's no requirement that sources in this collection need to explicitly mention neo-nazi ideology, and whatever way that a source refers to the battalion is useful. It is referred to as "originally a far-right group" in the article. I think that far-right is certainly relevant to the question of neo-nazism, and that description is useful for seeing how the group is described in reliable sources. In terms of changing the label from "formerly" to "with neo-nazi elements", I'm more sympathetic to that interpretation. However, the wording in the article does almost exactly match the definition of "formerly". Saying that someone "was originally something" is almost exactly what formerly means. Formerly is defined as "in the past, earlier times"--Tristario (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC) — Tristario (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. #1 This source review is to assist with an RfC regarding the usage of the specific term "neo-Nazi" in the lede. #2 This BBC source does not use this term so, while it may still be useful to this discussion, it is misleading to claim it as an example of how the term is applied to Azov (other than it not being used - for which there is no category.) #3 Look at the following sentence: "Microsoft was originally a privately-owned technology company before being taken public in 1986." Does this sentence support the claim that Microsoft is "formerly a software company"? Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC) #1 This source review is "particularly focused on description of the group re: the "neo-nazi" question", and the rfc is not solely about whether Azov is neo-nazi or not, but how it should be described generally. This source is relevant for those things. #2 I agree that none of the labels fit the description of this article perfectly, however that applies to many of the other sources used here too. That isn't a good enough reason not to include them. And, there is actually a label for "does not mention"- this one: "Does not mention". #3 That doesn't support the claim that Microsoft is formerly a software company, but it certainly does support that it's formerly a "privately owned software company". I agree that formerly isn't a perfect description for how BBC refers to azov here, but it's the closest there is. If you required a stringent enough application of the categories that would just mean the exclusion of many relevant and useful sources. I think that the concerns that you have about the labelling of this source are legitimate. So I would like the propose that the source be included, with the relevant quote, and either be labelled with ""Does not mention"" or ""with neo-nazi elements"", whichever you prefer. Perhaps if others disagree with the labelling they could give their thoughts too.--Tristario (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

[]  · Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
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)
2022 "neo-nazi": Galen Carpenter, Ted (17 May 2022). "The News Media's Ukraine Whitewash Grows Worse". Cato Institute. Retrieved 20 May 2022. The Azov battalion was notorious for years before the Russian invasion as a bastion of extreme nationalists and outright Nazis. That aspect proved to be more than just a source of embarrassment for Ukraine's supporters when the unit became a crucial player in the battle for the city of Mariupol. [...] However, the coverage of the Ukraine war threatens to achieve a new low in media integrity and credibility. When the establishment press whitewashes the behavior of outright neo‐​Nazis, something is terribly amiss. Note: some users question this author's scholarly credibility "formerly": Gomza, Ivan (April 2022). "Too Much Ado About Ukrainian Nationalists: the Azov Movement and the War in Ukraine". Krytyka. Retrieved 23 April 2022. It is certainly true that Azov was an ultra-nationalist and even neo-Nazi organization at its founding." and "However, like any militant and social movement, it has evolved beyond its origins." and " The best sign of Azov's pro-democratic evolution is, ..." and "It is the first step, and many more should follow, including those to understand why pundits spent efforts speculating about Azov instead of warning about a real fascist threat. Note: some users do not consider this to argue that Azov is "formerly neo-nazi." [13] "formerly": Ritzmann, Alexander (12 April 2022). "The myth far-right zealots run Ukraine is Russian propaganda". Euronews. Retrieved 23 April 2022. ... the Azov regiment, a former Nazi-insignia-carrying extreme-right street militia that has become integrated into Ukraine National Guard." and "However, the Azov regiment that is fighting against Russian invaders in Mariupol literally today, is something completely different." and "The extremist leadership mostly left the regiment in 2015 and ... "formerly": Shekhovtsov, Anton (2 April 2022). "How the West enabled genocide in Mariupol with its misguided Azov obsession". Euromaidan Press. Retrieved 29 April 2022. Figures for the National Corps and other Ukrainian far-right parties in public opinion polls were devastatingly low. The National Corps kept on referring to Azov as its affiliated organization, and naïve Western journalists and experts took all that bluster at face value instead of realizing that Azov was not a political organization and that its command structure was completely separate from the National Corps. "with neo-nazi elements"/formerly": ""Of course, there's Russophobia. What did you expect, it's the ninth year of a war of aggression". Right‑wing radicalism researcher Vyacheslav Likhachev on Russian propaganda talking points". Медиазона (in Russian). 2022-03-29. Retrieved 2022-05-20. [Some] people from the National Corps, veterans of Azov battalion... joined Azov in early 2014 without [the] political backgrounds Biletsky and his friends had had. Azov had several roots, and Biletsky was just one of them... Another group of members were football hooligans, primarily from Dynamo Kyiv. "neo-nazi": Pratt, Simon Frankel; LaRoche, Christopher David (29 March 2022). "Ukraine's Refugees Are Close Enough for European Solidarity". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Minority media narratives focusing on the activities of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion participating in Ukraine's defense have not generated broader fears that Ukrainian refugee flows harbor potential terrorist elements or that weapons sent to Ukraine will eventually be turned against European communities—fears that stoked suspicion of Syrian refugees fleeing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic State, and indeed Russia. 2019 "says not neo-nazi" / "with neo-nazi elements": Ben, Bohdan (11 April 2019). "Is the Azov Battalion a terrorist organization as 40 US House Democrats claim?". Euromaidan Press. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Regarding the inclusion of neo-Nazis, it's important to mention that Azov, as well as other regiments of Ukraine's Armed Forces and National Guard has no selection by ideological criteria. A battalion of the National Guard of Ukraine can't have any ideology or favor right or left-wing activists or liberals to be enrolled. Ihor Lutsenko, former member of the Azov Battalion and Ukrainian parliament, told Euromaidan Press that he met people having various ideological opinions among the personnel of the detachment and that it's a private matter for each volunteer. The issue of ideology was not important for Azov when they "were doing real practical things." ...To sum up, Azov's personnel indeed includes an above-average number of right-wingers, but does not entirely consist from them. However, the battalion doesn't force following any ideology and a person holding any views can join it. Azov never called for violence or radicalism, although in 2014-2015 it was implicated in war crimes... Discussion of ScholarOpEd sources, quotations, and assessments Krytyka source - does it argue Azov is formerly neo-Nazi I am not sure that Gozma's piece in Krytyka really supports the view that Azov is formerly neo-Nazi. Instead, he argues that Azov has "evolved beyond its origins', undergone a "pro-democratic evolution" and "moderated their ideological fervor or modified it altogether". There is no explicit argument that Azov is no longer a neo-nazi but that they are different in some way to when they started. What that difference is is not elucidated very clearly apart from allusions to things like democracy and animal rights - neither of which preclude an organisation from nazism. The piece does give support to the idea that Azov was founded as a neo-Nazi organisation. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Authoritarianism, or even totalitarianism, are pretty important parts of nazi ideology, and fascism in general. "Pro-democratic evolution" is pretty much exact opposite to what nazism stands for.--Staberinde (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Might be better to file this as had neo-Nazi elements in the past as it is clear that Azov was already ideologically diverse and only included neo-Nazi elements to start with. He talks about a mix of apolitical football hooligans, anti-liberal counterculturalists who flirted with "recognizable Nazi paraphernalia", and anti-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists. He cites the 10-20% Nazi figure to be clear that the majority were not neo-Nazi in the past. He explicitly says that the claim that it is still neo-Nazi are not "well-grounded". It's true he doesn't give a neat answer to how to characterise Azov today, but it's clear that he sees it as pro-democratic and turning moderate, which means it might still be on the further right but definitely isn't neo-Nazi. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Cato Institute I question whether Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute thinktank should be included in this section, as not a scholar or scientist. I'd even question if it should feature in this source review as per RSP there is no consensus on whether Cato has any reliability for anything other than the opinions of its authors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

[]  · Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
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)
2022 "neo-nazi: "It should not be illegal to say, there is a neo-Nazi battalion in the Ukrainian Army". Intermountain Jewish News. 21 April 2022. Retrieved 22 April 2022. The Azov Battalion —a unit in the Ukrainian Army — is a neo-Nazi group. Attributed: "neo-nazi": Thakur, Ramesh (16 April 2022). "Game of empires". The Spectator Australia. Retrieved 14 April 2022. After the 2014 coup, the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion – that's a Daily Beast label from 2019 – was incorporated into President Petro Poroshenko's military and security apparatus and has remained there. "neo-nazi: "Wyborcza.pl". wyborcza.pl (in Polish). 14 April 2022. Retrieved 21 April 2022. Per The Times of Israel, " One of Poland’s most prominent journalists, Konstanty Gebert, said he is quitting what many regard as the country’s newspaper of record after it demanded that he describe Ukraine’s controversial Azov Battalion as “far-right” instead of “neo Nazi.” This is his op-ed explaining his decision. "neo-nazi/with neo-nazi elements": Marcetic, Branko (7 April 2022). "Whitewashing Nazis Doesn't Help Ukraine". Jacobin. Retrieved 11 April 2022. the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment that was officially incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard in 2014 [...] it's hard to play down the regiment's neo-Nazi tendencies when it continues to flaunt far-right symbols and carried out a pogrom against local Roma as late as 2018. [...] In fact, he's not just involved but instrumental. In a 2019 interview with UMN (Ukrainian Media Network), the Azov Regiment's chief of staff responded to a question about why Azov was so well supplied and looked better than other parts of the National Guard: "We have a leader, Andriy Biletsky, an independent MP in the Verkhovna Rada [Ukrainian parliament]. On top of being an MP, he is always visiting us at the shooting range encampment, for example. [...] Andriy, unlike others, isn't preoccupied with his own business but is always visiting, always helping us." Here's Biletsky at the Azov Regiment's fourth anniversary celebration, standing with Prokopenko in front of Azov's modified Wolfsangel, the ancient medieval rune famously adopted as a symbol by the Nazi SS. Azov insists with an implied wink that that the figure is merely a combination of the letters "N" and "I," for "the idea of the nation." "formerly": Young, Cathy (4 April 2022). "The Bucha Atrocities and the Kremlin Apologists". The Bulwark. Retrieved 13 April 2022. While Azov has a shady history—it started out as a volunteer battalion with ties both to neo-Nazis and to Jewish billionaire and politician Ihor Kolomoyskyy—most experts believe its current incarnation is not extremist. "neo-nazi": Miller-Idriss, Cynthia (27 March 2022). "How Russia spurred Ukraine's global neo-Nazi recruitment". MSNBC News. Retrieved 25 April 2022. Ukraine's embrace and normalization of the neo-Nazi pro-state militia Azov Battalion has created a global problem. Attributed: "formerly": Nycz, Maciej (18 March 2022). "Facts and myths about the Azov regiment. "Making them a 'Death Star' is a big exaggeration"". RMF24 (In Polish). Retrieved 12 April 2022. I have the impression that the regiment is being blamed for the far-right actions of the Azov Movement and the National Corps party, and the links between them, this umbilical cord, have long been cut off 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. This is not the case. No one in Kiev, no politruk, no fascist, No Ukrainian nationalist or anyone is giving orders to this regiment. It is in normal command structures" - Dr. Kacper Rękawek from the Center for Research on Extremism at the University of Oslo. "neo-nazi": Katz, Rita (14 March 2022). "Perspective Neo-Nazis are exploiting Russia's war in Ukraine for their own purposes". Washington Post. Rita Katz is the executive director of the SITE Intelligence Group and a terrorism analyst. [...] recruited by groups like the Azov Battalion, a far-right nationalist Ukrainian paramilitary and political movement. [...] It has openly welcomed Westerners into its ranks via white-supremacist sites. [...] Neo-Nazi chat groups and channels in various languages have echoed Azov's calls. "neo-nazi": Machanick, Philip (7 March 2022). "Russia has a fascism problem and it's not Ukraine". The Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 26 April 2022. More seriously, the neo-Nazi Azov regiment, formed to fight separatists, was integrated into the National Guard by former president Petro Poroshenko in 2018. 2021 "with neo-nazi elements": Colbourne, Michael (2 June 2021). "Why Designating the Azov Movement as an FTO Is Ineffective". Fair Observer. Retrieved 28 April 2022. The accurate descriptor would, of course, be the "Azov Movement." I've described the Azov Movement, which grew out of the original battalion and regiment, as a heterogenous radical-right social movement. At its core, the movement encompasses the regiment itself, the National Corps political party, the Centuria (formerly the National Militia) paramilitary organization as well as a number of affiliated subgroups and initiatives including a book club, youth camps, a "leadership school" and a (temporarily closed) three-story social center just off Kyiv's central Independence Square. 2014 "neo-nazi": Karatnycky, Adrian (2014-12-30). "Warlords and Armed Groups Threaten Ukraine's Rebuilding". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2022-04-27. Amazingly, in September he even named a leader of the neo-Nazi Azov brigade to head the police in the Kiev region. "neo-nazi": "Look far right, and look right again". Euro Maidan Press. 11 July 2014. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The Division considers that, rather than liberating Eastern Ukraine from illiberal and undemocratic (pro-)Russia separatists, their 'black squadrons are fighting in the ranks of the pagan battalion Azov against the residues of modern society represented by khachi [racist slur for natives of the Caucasus region], chavs, communists, liberals, Asians and other Untermenschen.' Discussion of JournalismOpEd sources, quotations, and assessments

[]  · Government, Policy, and NGO
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)
2022 "formerly": Lykhachov, Vyacheslav (3 April 2022). "Euromaidan SOS: honest answers to the most common questions about AZOV in the West". Center for Civil Liberties. Retrieved 12 April 2022. So, the short answer to the question is no, Azov is not a neo-Nazi regiment....there are were individuals with neo-Nazi background and Far-Right views among Azov founders and fighters from the very beginning. However, not all the founders of the battalion had such a background. Among the first fighters of Azov, activists from the Automaidan groups, there were several ethnic Jews (and at least one Israeli citizen) even, for example. Most of the Far Right fighters left the regiment by the end of 2014. The rest of the Right Wing radicals, who clearly articulated their views, were deliberately "cleaned out" by the new commandment of the regiment in 2017. In recent years, there are absolutely no grounds for accusations that neo-Nazis serve in the Azov regiment. 2021 Attributed: "with neo-nazi elements": Weijenberg, Gijs; Zuijdewijn, Jeanine de Roy van (16 July 2021). "The Forgotten Front: Dutch Fighters in Ukraine". International Center for Counter-Terrorism. Retrieved 12 April 2022. Already in the autumn of 2014, The Guardian reported that a large group of Azov members would adhere to far-right or neo-Nazi ideas. They glorified Adolf Hitler's leadership, denied the Holocaust, and the battalion symbol showed the sonnenrad – a common symbol among neo-Nazis. "with neo-nazi elements": Rekawek, Kacper (14 April 2021). "Don't Designate Azov. Why the U.S. should not include the Azov Movement on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list". Counter Extremism Project. Retrieved 27 April 2022. Azov Movement is a multi-faceted entity which comprises not only the aforementioned Regiment, firmly within the command and control structures of the Ukrainian ministry of interior, but also a political party, a paramilitary arm, a charity wing, discussion club, etc., with its backers in the government in Kyiv....The Regiment's veterans have a track record of parading in rows, dressed in black, masked, with torches at political events. Most recently, its political outlet, the National Corps, organized paramilitary trainings for "representatives of veterans' and patriotic organizations, as well as owners of weapons" so that "the Ukrainian army, as well as every citizen of Ukraine […is] ready for any development." 2020 "with neo-nazi elements": Beirich, Heidi (12 November 2020). "The Transatlantic Connections Between American and Southeastern Europe's White Supremacists". Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. Retrieved 12 April 2022. The Azov Battalion's politics are infamous. The regiment has been accused of engaging in torture and war crimes and for using neo-Nazi symbology. Azov representatives claim this has nothing to do with Nazism, but in 2014 a spokesman for the regiment said 10 to 20 percent of the unit were neo-Nazis. Other reporting has documented members' neo-Nazi beliefs and widespread use of Nazi symbols, including the Wolfsangel and the Black Sun, by its adherents. "with neo-nazi elements": Aliyev, Huseyn (12 November 2020). "Opportunities in Ukraine Too Limited to Provide White Supremacists With Military Training". Russia matters (Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs). Retrieved 29 April 2022. It is noteworthy that Saltskog and Clarke seem to brand all volunteer battalions as ultranationalist and white supremacist. However, only Azov, UNA-UNSO and DUK/UDA (Right Sector) espouse ultranationalist views. In fact, Azov's ideology is a mixture of old Slavic (pre-Christian/Nestorian) paganism and modern Ukrainian nationalism. The authors have also omitted the evidence that one of the founders and senior leaders of the Azov battalion, Natan Khazin, is a practicing Jew, which was presented in my original contribution to Russia Matters. Of course, all of the above evidence does not preclude that there are individuals in either Azov or in other ex-battalions with anti-Semitic views. However, individuals with anti-Semitic views were also present in the ranks of the U.S. Army, which cannot serve as evidence that it is a "hub for white supremacists."...While I have encountered individuals with neo-Nazi and far-right views, the majority of Azov's former and active members with whom I communicated had no clearly defined ideological background, apart from broader Ukrainian patriotic views. "with neo-nazi elements": Kuzmenko, Oleksiy (19 March 2020). "The Azov Regiment has not depoliticized". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 11 April 2022. "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." "formerly": Shekhovtsov, Anton (24 February 2020). "Why Azov should not be designated a foreign terrorist organization". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 12 April 2022. But, while the ideologically inimical nature of Azov's roots is indisputable, it is likewise certain that Azov attempted to de-politicize itself; the toxic far-right leadership formally left the regiment and founded what would become a far-right party called "National Corps." 2019 "neo-nazi": OSCE - Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2019 - Information Group on Crimes againts the Person (16 - 27 September 2019) "There is only one viewpoint on both «Azov» Regiment and the «National Corps» («Natzionalnyy Korpus») political party affiliated to it: they are neo-Nazis and racists, and any kind of cooperation with them is impossible." Here it is noted that the Azov regiment is still the armed wing of the National Corps political party and therefore has not been "depoliticized". "with neo-nazi elements": Legieć, Arkadiusz (25 October 2019). "The Risks of Foreign Fighters in the Ukraine-Russia Conflict" (PDF). PISM Bulletin. (Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych). 1898 (150). Retrieved 12 April 2022. ...recruiting other fighters in Ukraine and abroad(e.g.,Azov Regiment recruited volunteers during neo-Nazi festivals in the UK and Germany)...At the same time, foreign fighters on the Ukrainian side have been the subject of Russian propaganda, especially the participation of neo-Nazis in the Azov Regiment or ISIS veterans in Tatar battalions. "neo-nazi": Koehler, Daniel (7 October 2019). "A Threat from Within? Exploring the Link between the Extreme Right and the Military". His own involvement in the militant extreme right movement predated his enlistment and Smith also was trying to join the neo-Nazi paramilitary Azov battalion and fight on their side in the Ukrainian conflict. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) 2018 Attributed: with neo-nazi elements": Jones, Seth G. (7 November 2018). "The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States". www.csis.org. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved 11 April 2022. In Ukraine, RAM members met with groups like the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology. 2015 "with neo-nazi elements": Puglisi, Rosaria (9 March 2015). "Heroes or Villains? Volunteer Battalions in Post-Maidan Ukraine". Istituto Affari Internazionali. Retrieved 13 April 2022. While Biletsky and the top leadership of the Azov are defined by experts as "biological racists," it is generally excluded that the whole battalion is aligned along the same ideological lines. Discussion of Gov, Policy, OpEd sources, quotations, and assessments

[]  · Discussion of the overall template

Source formatting key description 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) As this is a collective effort, and that is a very subjective measure, I would rather that we require each entry has a quotation justifying the label, and that we then cross-check entries editing out ones with poor justification. Each person who reads this should read the quotation and decide for themselves. Egregious offenders can be removed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC) New label suggestion promotes neo-Nazism According to the following source Mapping Militant Organizations. “Azov Battalion.” Stanford University. Last modified March 2022. the group promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism 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) "with neo-nazi elements" would also cover "has some aspects of neo-nazi ideology, but is not solely neo-nazi or even mostly neo-nazi" which would encompass "promotes neo-nazism but is not a straight-up neo-nazi organization" in my understanding. A corollary would be the Alt-right group The Proud Boys. There are proud boys who are neo-nazis. Some of the proud boys promote neo-nazism (such as Kyle Chapman). But they are not in essence a neo-nazi organization. They just have "neo-nazi elements" to their makeup. Similarly, none of these sources are saying "The entirety of the Azov Battalion promotes neo-nazism". Or at least, in context, I have not read any sources to justify that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Exactly what Shibbolethink says is what I was about to say. Plus we need to use the categories in the RfC, otherwise it doesn't help that process. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Concerns about formatting and content Cambial, instead of making the closer redo all the work done here collectively, why not propose amendments in the discussion section of each section and work towards making the colours fit better? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Instead of falsely trying to imply that I am imposing some burden upon the closers, why not simply give your view, rather than bludgeoning the RFC as others have pointed out. I’ve not made anyone "redo" anything, as you already know. The note is clear that voters and closers should concentrate on the source content, rather than any ambiguous and dubious coding scheme on which editors will disagree. If you believe editors/closers should pay less attention to what is written in the sources then, well, you're wrong and you may need to rethink your approach here. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:43, 20 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) As I said in my comment, which does not posit any opinion about what the labels ought to be/how they should differ, readers should use their own judgement and not rely on the views of a far smaller contingent of editors than the more general RFC page attracted. Even if collectively edited, the "source review" is not an official or conclusive statement on the sources, yet it gives off that sense with its formatting. A reminder for people to read the sources is not controversial. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC) FYI, this source review is a transcluded template. It is not part of the RFC. I also did not edit your comments, I moved them to the appropriate location (the discussion section for this template). You added your comments to the source review title, as though it were a discussion. It is not. It's akin to replying to my user page instead of its talk page. No one is saying that the source review is definitive. No one is saying that it is official or conclusive. You are interpreting it that way. It's a straw man that you're attacking. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC) @User:Cambial Yellowing, one of the things I think you're confused about here is that the closer should not even read or incorporate the source review. It is not part of the close, it should not be part of the close. It was only intended to assist discussion participants in their votes. The closer should be reviewing the discussion and its participants and their views, not the specific sources. Likewise, closers should not be taking sides on the content itself in other discussions, they are only here to summarize what participants think about the content. This is an important distinction which is also why closers cannot be involved. It gives a layer of protection to how discussions are closed. This is why the source review should not be part of the closing summary itself, only in how others have interpreted it. To do otherwise would constitute a !Supervote. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC) assist in this context is a value term. I’ve not attacked anything, but gave a different view to yours in which you present your framework as value neutral or settled. If you’re unwilling to have differing views respond to your comments, or feel the need to move responses to your important comments in a Request for Comments away from your own, this may not be the ideal website for you. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Again, you appear confused. This was not created as a comment in the RFC. It was added to the RFC many days later, after it had been created as a separate thing entirely.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC) It’s unfortunate that you’ve misread my comments in such a way that I appear confused to you, but I’ll live with it. As to your notion that the closer should be reviewing the discussion...not the specific sources. That’s not correct and would be absurd. The RFC is not a vote. See WP:DETCON and WP:NHC. Closer is asked to ascertain the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue and to discard irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding. If ten people’s comment is something like “Source A and B say Jerry is a banana, so we should describe Jerry as a banana” and source A says Jerry might be a banana but is most likely an orange, and source B says Jerry is definitely an apple, that illogical reasoning or false premise will affect the weight given to their argument. So closers have to look at what sources or quotes from sources are referred to in comments. Obviously. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:42, 23 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"[14]). 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:[15] "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:[16] "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

1. The Azov Battalion commander "Kalina", calls Andriy Biletsky "the leader"! In a video called "In Azov they told how Andriy Biletsky helps the regiment" the same thing is certified:[17] "We have a leader, Andriy Biletsky, an independent MP in the Ukrainian parliament. On top of being an MP, he is always visiting us at the shooting range encampment, for example. Taxpayers haven’t contributed a dime to its improvement, development, and functioning. Andriy Biletsky looks for sponsors, businessmen that can contribute to what we have now, for instance, good clothes, procuring, good shooting ranges, etc. . . . A lot of volunteer battalions stopped existing in the same way as we do, and we remained in this sphere, because Andriy, unlike others, isn’t preoccupied with his own business but is always visiting, always helping us." 2. Biletsky himself, with a statement (2019) certifies that the regiment and the Azov movement remain connected:[18] "I will forever remain in the ranks of the large Azov family, which over the past five years has formed around the regiment, bringing together volunteers, volunteers and veterans" 3. And again, the official website of the "National Corps" there is constant mention of Azov soldiers.[19] 4. On March 2022, Azov Battalion and National Corps flags are holded by the fighters of Azov Battalion[20]. Moreover, "National Corps" official channel releases hundreds of videos dedicated only to Azov Battalion:[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]and so on....

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[30], this is the response of the "National Corps":[31] "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)

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. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)<--- — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• Alternative Draft #1 or E. As covered in RS, some or many members of the unit have/had Neo-Nazi views. 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)

  Due to the ongoing events in Mariupol, the coverage of this unit will change in the near future. Hence, the description in the lead must also change. I think we could wait and then return to this later. But I personally think that the coverage has already changed in the most recent sources. 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 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)<--- — 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 [32]. 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)

  Here's a couple of them. 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)

• 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)

  @C.J. Griffin [33] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:14, 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)

    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)

  • 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)

• 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)
• 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.

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.[34] 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)

• 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.[35] 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)

• 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)

• 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. [36]. 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)
• 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)

• 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 D E 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)

• 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 one Azov 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)
• 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)

Discussion

irrelvant to options.

Second revert. We had "consensus". Three editors were involved, three agreed to move forward with it. You decided to continue to sabotage your own RfC. For over two-hours now I've been trying to salvage your RfC after you spat the dummy. But I'm afraid I have work tomorrow, so, good luck, you're on your own again now. Hope you have a change of heart. This really needn't be so serious and difficult. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC) As the main objection is to even call them Neo-Nazi I know full well this does not have consensus and will be objected to. This is why we needed a formal RFC that include the option "do not include the claim". Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Since when did you reverse your position? As of a few hours ago? No RS claims that the term "neo-Nazi" was never applied to them in 2014, or that there were not at least some neo-Nazi elements amongst its leadership. Biletsky, Mosiychuk, the Black Sun and the Wolfsangel.. What on earth are you talking about? No RS claims there was never, any neo-Nazi element in their background at all. So your objection makes no sense. It shouldn't be an option. Read the sources. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I did not reverse my position. I am saying that the main objection has been that they are not neo-nazi, so we can't claim they are. My opinion on that is known, but I also have to take into account those who disagree with me. I am aware that text will be objected to, so want a fuller discussion, so we can achieve a meaningful consensus that will last longer than a day before someone objects as their voice was not heard. I wouolsd have thought that was clear from the fact I do not think we can keep the current text, but there are ore uswers here than just us. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC is underway whether we like it or not. Need to clear away the clutter.

No, I have started the RFC, those are the options. And you removed my post.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC) All you have just done is confused it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I'm just trying to help. I've offered you help on your Talk page, and we've had long discussions. It's just a question of clarity, that's all. I presented my concerns to you about your planned options, and you didn't respond to me. Would it not be best to let the commenters decide? - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Slatersteven - They removed mine too earlier - [37].Okay, we have a serious issue here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC) If someone does not accept your help, it is resoanble to assume they do not want it, and this has not helped, it has confused the issue. as no one will know (for wxample) which A they are voting for. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Slatersteven, I actually obtained support from two other editors for my framing of the RfC, and my 1st Draft of my preferred version. I praised you for your efforts, I asked you many questions, offered lots of advice, but you went ahead and did it all by yourself anyway. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, as no one but you wanted the last option. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Actually "Disconnected Phrases" did, and I'm sure there'll be a few others. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC) And you left out "do not mention at all", which is the main issue we are trying to address. So now they will just argue this is a flawed RFC as it does not address their concearns. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Feel free to add it in. Please, I've never done an RfC before, that's why when I was offering to help, it was solely about the wording and the best structure to use, in order to do justice to the source material. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Then why...no this is for your talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @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) I wasn't ready to do an RfC, I'd never done one before in my life! I'm new to Wikipedia. I've been putting notifications of the RfC on WikiProject Ukraine and WikiProject Russia, etc. Alright then, can we agree? Let's just wipe this all clean eh? We'll ask an admin to erase it from the record, permanently. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:19, 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) KInd of (to be fair, I struck my preferred options as he was not going to remove his, and it just confused things to have two sets), he also just changed to options after I have voted. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I second the closing per Slatersteven, sorry this one didn’t work Slatersteven despite your considerable struggles to help. Thanks for that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC) If you second the motion for closing, why did you just restore it? And then accuse me of nefarious intent on my Talk Page, your 3rd blatant Personal Attack in the space of a couple of days. I was trying to do Slatersteven a favor, as I've been trying to help him all throughout this process. You continue to be disruptive, fine. Carry on. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Closing is a formal process, it is not just a deletion (one reason is, you are not allowed to delete other users posts). Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 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) As (can be seen below) the key issue is not to what degree they are neo-nazi, but are they even neo-nazi this RFC can't (at this time) answer that. So the RFC is (now) fundemtaly) flawed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC) The posts have now been removed, but were all saying they are not neo-nazi. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 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) I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks CutePeach. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I have asked for it to be closed, but NO an RFC can only really be overturned by another RFC. As they represent a wider community input (in theory). Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Why on earth then, did you tell me to "Close this, it may be buggered beyond rescue."??? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) No matter, Question: Slatersteven, can you point me towards "the rules" that state an article can't be edited while an RfC is underway? You and a couple of other editors have said this, but I've never seen it written anyway. Could be wrong. I'd be surprised though, doesn't make much sense to me. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I did not ask you to do it, I asked for someone to do it. The reason was that having removed the main issue rendered it moot. As to the rules, a number may be applicable such as wp:brd wp:consensus and WP:ONUS may all cover it to some degree. It may also be a wp:npov and wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Per WP:RFC: Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. BSMRD (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Right, so not forbidden. Good. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Which is why I pointed out BRD and Consensus, once an edit is reverted it should not be reinstated without discussion. There is no consensus to alter the existing text. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 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) I'm starting to wonder if what's going on is all normal.--Mhorg (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I have no idea what you mean by that, but I am starting to suspect it may be deliberate. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I apologize for my English. I meant that I don't understand if these RFC changes are valid or not, and I don't understand why some users are changing the lede before this RFC is done.--Mhorg (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC) The RFC is (to my mind) beyond fixing as we have too many options, but not the one that is the start of this whole issue (they are not neo-nazi, and in its most extreme form never have been). Without that keep option any change we make will be objected to (hell we have had two or three edit requests during this RFC for text leaving out the claim). As such the lede should not be changed until the old RFC is overturned, and I doubt that any edit that includes the claim they are, were, or might be Neo-nazi will stand unless we have a formal consensus to reject the idea they are not neo-nazi. As anyone who has been following this should be able to see. If I do not revert it, someone else will. So we need to stop changing it and get a proper consensus, one that can only be achieved via a properly formatted RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 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 {{rfc}} tag generally remains on the page until removed by Legobot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met. - It's on you Slatersteven. Whenever you're ready to put your toys back in the pram, you can make all the changes you want. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, and when told you that your options confused things you dod don't remove them, you left them in place despite the fact they made it impossible for anyone to make a choice. I do not think the RFC is biased, I thought it was confusing (as I told you). But OK, if you want me to just reset the RFC fine. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC) 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)

The Nation, 2019: Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces. Opinion piece but authoritative author (although see discussion here). Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces... While the group officially denies any neo-Nazi connections, Azov’s nature has been confirmed by multiple Western outlets: The New York Times called the battalion “openly neo-Nazi” [in 2015], while USA Today, The Daily Beast, The Telegraph, and Haaretz documented group members’ proclivity for swastikas, salutes, and other Nazi symbols [link is to Daily Beast 2017], and individual fighters have also acknowledged being neo-Nazis. Supports option A. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC) The Nation: neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion Dated, from 2016.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Guardian, 2018: Neo-Nazi groups involved in the fighting in Ukraine are actively seeking to recruit British far-right activists [...] At least two Britons are thought to have travelled to the war-torn eastern European country in recent months after encouragement by people linked to the Azov battalion, a notorious Ukrainian fascist militia Misleading quotation, it is missing "according to Hope Not Hate" which is advocacy group. Also fascist ≠ neo-nazi.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) NY Times: Another, the Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi Dated, from 2015.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2018: a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology Instead of making explicit assessment, FBI uses more qualified "associated with" language.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Telegraph Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists Dated, from 2014.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) TIME, 2018: How a White-Supremacist Militia Uses Facebook to Radicalize and Train New Members While they are both far-right ideologies, white supremacist ≠ neo-nazi.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) This source gives extensive evidence for Nazi links and elements (e.g. describes Patriot of Ukraine and Biletsky as neo-Nazi) focusing on 2014 period. Would be strong source for option C, but does not support option A. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Wired Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary group Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology., which doesn't cover Azov.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Foreign Policy The Azov Battalion [...] this openly neo-Nazi unit Dated, from 2014.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (POL) Azov is a real problem. The neo-Nazi regiment The statement quoted falls under WP:Headlines, making it unreliable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) National Post The amendments, passed unanimously by members of both parties, blocks “the training of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia Azov Battalion,” Misleading quotation, National Post is merely quoting American politician.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Deutsche Welle, 2021: Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment Generally ok but only a passing mention, there is also newer more in-depth DW piece which doesn't call Azov explicitly neo-nazi: [38].--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) At the time, Samalazau was wearing a T-shirt bearing the skull logo of The Punisher, a Marvel comic book character. Because of the T-shirt, Belarus police accused him of sympathizing with the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment fighting in eastern Ukraine. Discussed on RSN, where consensus was that this is not an RS for option A claim. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Junge Welt (DE) The Ukrainian neo-Nazi battalion Unreliable, Junge Welt is a self-described left-wing and Marxist newspaper.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Il Messaggero (ITA): Ukraine, pro-Nazi units alongside the army Dated, from 2015.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Il Manifesto (ITA) Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion Unreliable, Il Manifesto is a self-described communist paper.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Intercept Neo-Nazi Ukrainian Battalion Al Jazeera neo-Nazi group The statement quoted falls under WP:Headlines, making it unreliable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Discussed at RSN and consensus reached that it is not RS for option A claim. Can probably be used for options B-D. The independent neo-Nazi Azov Battalion The statement quoted falls under WP:Headlines, making it unreliable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Jacobin the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment Biased source: There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source..--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) ABC (2019): members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi battalion Azov. Arab News Japan, 2022: neo-Nazi Azov Battalion Not sure if this is RS. It is very definite that Azov is neo-Nazi but is reporting that the Japanese government do not consider it such. Japan’s Public Security Intelligence Agency [said] “We are writing to inform you that we have decided to delete the information (on Azov Battalion) from the International Terrorism Guide 2021 on the agency’s website to prevent the spread of (misinformation)... It is regrettable that such misinformation has been spread in some cases…The Public Security Intelligence Agency doesn’t recognize the Azov Regiment as a neo-Nazi organization.” The agency further [said] its previous position on Azov was based on a compilation of public information collected from various domestic and foreign reports and that it didn’t add its assessment, nor did it recognize the Azov Battalion as a neo-Nazi organization. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC) The Age, August 22, 2021 ...he was preparing to fight with the notoriously neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in Ukraine. and he was planning to travel to Ukraine to fight with the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia fighting Russian forces. James Bacigalupo (UMass Lowell), Robin Maria Valeri (St. Bonaventure University.), Kevin Borgeson (Salem State University) Cyberhate: The Far Right in the Digital Age. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 113, January 2022 The ascendency of a transnational global fascist terrorist network has drawn accelerationists seeking military training with openly neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-Semitic organizations like the Azov battalion, who recruited from... Single mention in whole book. Better to use texts that are actually about Azov, no? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC) "A Threat from Within? Exploring the Link between the Extreme Right and the Military", Daniel Koehler, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), 2019 His own involvement in the militant extreme right movement predated his enlistment and Smith also was trying to join the neo-Nazi paramilitary Azov battalion and fight on their side in the Ukrainian conflict. The single passing mention is a quote from NPR, which might be an RS for option A, but also very brief.[39] Better to use texts that are actually about Azov, no? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Elise Giuliano (Columbia University), "The Social Bases of Support for Self-determination in East Ukraine", Ethnopolitics, 2015 More dangerously, as the violence heated up, Kiev allowed semi-private paramilitary groups—such as the far right, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion — to fight in east Ukraine William Allchorn (University of Leeds), Moving beyond Islamist Extremism. BoD – Books on Demand. p. 35. Dec 2021 antisemitic and white-supremacist conspiracy theories circulated by openly neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion in the Ukraine Stronger source: describes Azov as Nazi or pro-Nazi five times. Author is an academic specialist on anti-Islamic protest movements and radical right social movements in the UK and Western Europe, although not on Ukraine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Cas Mudde (University of Georgia), The Far Right Today. John Wiley & Sons. 2019 march through the streets of Kyiv, sometimes in torchlight processions, to commemorate old and new far-right heroes, including those of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which fights against the Russian-backed occupation of Crimea. The very same sentence includes a clear and obvious factual mistake, indicating author's serious lack of familiarity regarding Azov and Ukraine: "...which fights against the Russian-backed occupation of Crimea." Azov has never fought in Crimea.--Staberinde (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Author is respected expert on global far right, but not on Ukraine. Passing mention. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Marc Edelman (Hunter College CUNY), "From 'populist moment' to authoritarian era: challenges, dangers, possibilities". The Journal of Peasant Studies. 47 (7). August 2020 Just as hundreds of U.S. and European white supremacists joined Croatian paramilitaries fighting for 'ethnic cleansing' in the 1990s Balkan wars, the current training of foreign white nationalists in Ukrainian military units, such as the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, points to... Passing mention in article on authoritarian populism globally, by scholar who is not expert on either Ukraine or far right. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Simon Frankel Pratt (University of Melbourne) and Christopher David LaRoche (Central European University, "Ukraine’s Refugees Are Close Enough for European Solidarity", 29 March 2022 Minority media narratives focusing on the activities of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion participating in Ukraine's defense have not generated broader fears that Ukrainian refugee flows harbor potential terrorist elements i News, March 19 2022 Among them was the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. i News, February 14, 2022 The extremist, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion formed as a volunteer militia brigade in 2014 and was incorporated into the National Guard that same year. Jens Stilhoff Sörensen (University of Gothenburg), Splitting Europe: The EU, Russia, and the West, 2022 including the openly new-Nazi Azov Battalion Alexander Reid Ross (Portland State University) and Emmi Bevensee, "Confronting the Rise of Eco-Fascism Means Grappling with Complex Systems", 2020 neo-Nazi groups like the Azov Batallion Authors are respected experts on global far right, but not on Ukraine. Passing mention. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Paul Jackson (University of Northampton), Pride in Prejudice, Manchester University Press, 2022 it attracted interest from a range of international neo-Nazi groups, including the Azov Battalion in Ukraine Author is respected expert on global far right, but not on Ukraine. Passing mention. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Mapping Militant Organizations. “Azov Battalion.” Stanford University. Last modified March 2022 Founded in 2014, the group promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism through its National Militia paramilitary organization and National Corps political wing. Source also questions depoliticization narrative saying The Azov Battalion denies the symbol’s far-right associations and invokes the reasoning as the PU.[15] However, the Woflsangel is far from Azov’s only allusion to Nazi ideology. ... interviews with members of the Battalion openly espouse neo-Nazi and white supremacist views. The statement about interviews is in reference to the ones the Guardian conducted for this article (reference 17 in the source): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis, which is from 2014 --Tristario (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Tristario (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Incorrect. Reference 17 is appended to the subsequent sentence and is referencing a direct quotation about Ukraine needing a strong dictator. I suggest you strike this comment. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC) This is the full relevant section: "Furthermore, interviews with members of the Battalion openly espouse neo-Nazi and white supremacist views. Many fighters hold an aspirational belief of marching on Kyiv once the war is over, and that Ukraine “needs a strong dictator to come to power who could shed plenty of blood but unite the nation in the process.”[17]" Those two sentences are clearly directly connected, the statement about dictators is clearly in the context of those interviews, and reference 17, which is an article largely dedicated to interviewing Azov Battalion members, is clearly the one that's being used to support the statement about interviews. If you believe that I'm wrong, can you provide the other reference that they are using to support that statement regarding interviews.--Tristario (talk) 05:34, 13 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 Under pressure from U.S. and Ukrainian authorities, the Azov battalion has toned down its extremist elements. And the Ukrainian military has also become stronger in the past eight years and therefore less reliant on paramilitary groups. Moreover, today’s war against Russia is far different than in 2014, fueled less by political ideology than a sense of patriotism and moral outrage at Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine, especially its civilian population. Extremists do not appear to make up a large part of the foreigners who have arrived here to take up arms against Russia, analysts said. MSNBC youtube Today, Azov is leading the fight against Russia on behalf of a pluralistic, Liberal Ukrainian government, led by a Jewish President. So like I said, this is complicated.They say they've grown to include fighters of many different ideologies. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post): "Everyone [the soldiers] we spoke to believed that this [idea that Azov is neo-Nazi] is part of Russian propaganda...The thinking on the Azov is outdated from what we found. It's based on what happened eight years ago...since then there has been a big effort to alter the Azov...there were strong efforts to weed out extremists within the ranks". Quote from Biletsky, former leader of Azov Battalion: "Today, Ukrainians have only one option of political orientation: for or against Ukraine" CBS"There are no Nazi battalions in Ukraine," said Ruslan Leviev, an analyst with the Conflict Intelligence Team, which tracks the Russian military in Ukraine. "There is [the Azov] regiment... There are [estimated] several thousand people who are in this regiment. It is indeed a group where many members adhere to nationalist and far-right views," Leviev said. "But a lot of people also join it because it is one of the most prepared and fit-for-war units." "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" As briefly illustrated below, the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group that today controls a relatively large military unit could present several problems. Jerusalem Post However, since its incorporation into Ukraine's official armed forces it has moved away from neo-Nazism, and a Ukrainian Jewish group as early as 2016 did not oppose lifting the US ban. Foreign Affairs After the union, the government’s first act was to root out two groups within Azov, foreign fighters and neo-Nazis, by vetting group members with background checks, observations during training, and a law requiring all fighters to accept Ukrainian citizenship. Fighters who did not pass this screening were offered the chance to join civilian volunteer corps to help the war effort; these corps assisted police, cleared snow (a crucial task in Ukraine), and even worked on a public radio. BBC Adrien Nonjon (Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales): "Azov opened its recruitment to the whole of Ukrainian society and eventually this radical core was drowned out by the mass of newcomers who joined the regiment because it was an elite unit". Ros Atkins (BBC): "Despite the evolving membership, questions about Neo-Nazi links remain... There is though no evidence such sentiment is widespread [in the regiment]" AFP via France 24 "In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies. But it had since become "de-ideologised" and a regular fighting unit, he told AFP. Its recruits now join not because of ideology but because "it has the reputation of being a particularly tough fighting unit," Umland said...The Azov now function like other regiments "but with better PR," said Vyacheslav Likhachev, a research analyst at the ZMINA Centre for Human Rights in Kyiv. CommonWealth Magazine (Taiwanese magazine, Chinese name: 天下雜誌) “The narrative related to “Azov” is very bizarre. It is wrong to call them Neo-Nazis because even the fact that the unit includes people of different nationalities proves the opposite.” Matviyishyn explains, that the regiment includes very many different people of various ethnicities such as Jews, Ukrainians, Georgians, and even Russians. “Azov” has gone through a transformation in comparison to how it was when it was founded. “In the beginning, it had these right-wing radicals political ideologies, but now, it is depoliticized unit, a part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces.” Radio Télévision Suisse (FR) But the gradual arrival of new apolitical members expanded the regiment to the point that the far-right ideology became marginal. RMF24 (POL) "I have the impression that the regiment is being blamed for the far-right actions of the Azov Movement and the National Corps party, and the links between them, this umbilical cord, have long been cut off 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. This is not the case. No one in Kiev, no politruk, no fascist, No Ukrainian nationalist or anyone is giving orders to this regiment. It is in normal command structures" - Dr. Kacper Rękawek from the Center for Research on Extremism at the University of Oslo. Center for Civil Liberties So, the short answer to the question is no, Azov is not a neo-Nazi regiment....there are were individuals with neo-Nazi background and Far-Right views among Azov founders and fighters from the very beginning. However, not all the founders of the battalion had such a background. Among the first fighters of Azov, activists from the Automaidan groups, there were several ethnic Jews (and at least one Israeli citizen) even, for example. Most of the Far Right fighters left the regiment by the end of 2014. The rest of the Right Wing radicals, who clearly articulated their views, were deliberately “cleaned out” by the new commandment of the regiment in 2017. In recent years, there are absolutely no grounds for accusations that neo-Nazis serve in the Azov regiment. Financial Times Created in 2014 to fight pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Donbas region, the infantry unit first attracted far-right volunteers harbouring anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish views...Now incorporated into the national guard, the regiment has attracted a more diverse crowd and grown more mainstream...“Azov’s history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself,” said Anton Shekhovtsov, a Vienna-based Ukrainian expert on Russia’s connections to Europe’s far-right. “Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today.” The Bulwark While Azov has a shady history—it started out as a volunteer battalion with ties both to neo-Nazis and to Jewish billionaire and politician Ihor Kolomoyskyy—most experts believe its current incarnation is not extremist. Refresher (CZE) They made no secret of their inclination to Nazism...According to analyst Michal Lebduška, however, Azov has since been greatly cleansed of radicals, and even in 2014 neo-Nazis were only in the minority. "It is true that this battalion was considered problematic in the past because it also originated from the ranks of nationalists and Nazis. However, not all members were radicals and formed a significant minority from the beginning. Over time, volunteer units were integrated into the Ukrainian Army or the National Guard of Ukraine...By the time they were included in these parallel structures, they had more or less purged them of radicals. To a large extent, they have disappeared from these units," Lebduška, who specializes in security, social and political developments in Ukraine, told Refresher. Security analyst Vladimír Bednár has the same attitude to the matter. "There is a big difference between Azov in 2014 and now... There was a significant cleansing. People associated with neo-Nazi ideology had to leave Azov after integration into the National Guard. Therefore, the current Azov cannot be associated with this from 2014 at all. It has the same name, but it must be seen as two separate things," he told us.

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)

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: [40] 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)

 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[41] 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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 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)

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)

• 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)

The Flying Cloud held the speed record for 130 years

• 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 [42] 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 764 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)

References from posts above

References

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)

Changing the definition.

In light of the recent open letter published by "Azov" (check the latest edit), changing the definition to "allegedly a neo-Nazi unit" seems like a sensible thing to do, considering their official position strongly says otherwise. Looking for a consensus for that. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There is an RFC about this issue in progress above, you can comment there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it. However, I consider the letter to be so significant that it requires a new discussion - this is the first time we get a definitive official position on the matter directly from "Azov". In fact, the letter is so comprehensive and historically significant, I consider creating a separate article dedicated to it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

What's so significant about the guilty pleading innocence? M.Bitton (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have wide coverage from RS to support your view of the significance of this letter? Or are you just asserting it's importance? WP:PRIMARY sources are treated with caution for a reason. BSMRD (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: I suggest you self-revert this. Regardless of what you think about that statement, it clearly does not belong in the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It's somewhat concerning to see such a coordinated effort to suppress any information contradicting the "Azov are Nazis" narrative on Wikipedia. But to answer to all of you, firstly, there's no such thing as "guilty/not-guilty" when assessing reliability of a source on Wikipedia, secondly, one doesn't need to have any third-party source support to prove significance of an official statement from an organization inside an article about that organization (it should be obvious to all of you, but it isn't for whatever reason), and, thirdly, it's perfectly normal for Wikipedia to have such statements in the lead of an article, because, naturally, such statements represent crucial pieces of information for forming an opinion about the subject of an article. Thus, the way you're attempting to discuss this has no substance. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and regarding that WP:PRIMARY reference, no point in mentioning this, because what was added to the article meets all the formal criteria: 1) the source is reliable (a pretty old newspaper; not in the list of unreliable sources), 2) there's no interpretation of the original material (the letter itself) either by the editor (me, in this case), or the authors or the news article, 3) the material is presented in the most straightforward form possible, with direct citations from the article. The only semi-valid complaint you can imagine here is the fact that it requires translation, but in the age of advanced automatic translation, other editors should not experience any difficulty whatsoever with validating the material. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: Who said anything about reliability? That was a metaphor used in a talk page. No, it's not "normal" to stick official statements in the lead of articles, least of all when they are recent and not covered by RS.

 Note: Instead of reverting as I asked you, I see that you are now engaged in edit war (trying to impose chunks of text to the lead as you see fit). M.Bitton (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've absolutely no idea what you mean by "not covered by RS", because the source I've presented is reliable by all the criteria imaginable, which, of course, you should understand. This is why I keep reverting your edits - in my opinion, what you're trying to do here is akin to vandalism (as you keep removing properly sourced material). -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you don't understand what vandalism means and no, you haven't reverted my edits (as I didn't touch yours). In any case, I have now reported you for edit warring (you left me no choice). M.Bitton (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume anything here, because removing a properly sourced material (and it's undoubtedly properly sourced here) with reference to it being "non-reliable", "propaganda" or (which is the most funny part) "produced by the guilty", as you implied in this discussion, is vandalous simply by definition of vandalism on Wikipedia. Well, at least I can't see a rationale behind this - neither from the standpoint of guidelines, nor from what's been said in the discussion. Perhaps, the decision of the administrators would clarify things. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I placed your original edit, a self serving primary source, in the article body (the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body) as being undue for the lead and then in talk pointed you to the ongoing RFC. Whereupon, you simply restored your original edit together with an advice that I should discuss in talk. That is exactly backwards, the way it works is that you make a bold edit (B), some one reverts (R) and then you discuss (D), WP:BRD, if the matter is contentious. Otherwise, you are simply edit warring and I see from the history that is exactly what you have been doing since.Selfstudier (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

As I've told you previously, the RFC you've mentioned here does not take into consideration the recent letter (which is an unprecedented document) with official clarification on the matter, so, naturally, the RFC on this talk page lacks any meaning, even though some its options I'd personally consider acceptable. What's needed here is a new discussion regarding both the definition of "Azov" and balance of the lead (which is just as important), which is exactly why I've created this section. - Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

No new discussion is necessary. Comment in the existing discussion, perhaps some editors will change their opinion following this "unprecedented" "official clarification". Selfstudier (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing special about organizations making claims about themselves and I certainly don't see anything here that would justify halting the ongoing RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not going to work this way, because, at this point, that RFC is just too cluttered to achieve anything, let alone handle a new discussion. This needs to be done in a freshly made section with the letter as one of the base parameters for a final decision. You severely underestimate its importance, because, considering the scale and circumstances of the Mariupol Siege, this document has a real potential to become as historic as, for example, Kalinowski's "Letters from Beneath the Gallows". I strongly suggest you spend some time studying it, if you haven't already. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

More personal opinions. If and when I hear a reliable source saying those things rather than a random person on the internet, I might pay attention.Selfstudier (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

You would need a source on that, if the proposition was to add to the article that the letter will become historic. No one is proposing that, because that would be an absurd thing to add to a Wikipedia article. And as to the letter itself, once again, it is properly sourced, and, even if you really wanted to, you wouldn't have been able to prove otherwise. I am not sure why keep bringing up the non-existent RS issue over and over. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Because stating your personal opinions without any sources to back them up you severely underestimate its importance and this document has a real potential to become as historic as, for example, Kalinowski's "Letters from Beneath the Gallows". Random nonsense I would expect to see on social media not in WP because WP:FORUM.Selfstudier (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Stating your personal opinion in the article. Here, we freely discuss things, in the broadest sense, related to the article - it's the function of the "Talks" page. You're derailing the discussion into pointless chatter once again. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Just to say I agree with Selfstudier and M.Bitton here. This is from a primary source. It is relevant in the body but should not be in the lead. Following BRD, removal was correct and should not be reverted again without clear consensus here. It does not may make the RfC above irrelevant, though worth mentioning in that section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have quiesced, and the OP has been inactive since, but fwiw I think the correct way to handle this (if at all) may be to store the open letter in Russian Wikisource, with a translation in English Wikisource. If anyone is interested in following up or commenting, see s:WS:S#Transwikifying a Russian source with English translation from Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Can someone replace it with 'Allegedly has neo nazi links' or something more neutral? I don't really understand given the whole neutrality ethos of Wikipedia and there is a controversy around this with Shekhontsov saying they are not, or you could note the controversy in another section Fourdots2 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

April 2022: Wolfsangel

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

Can you also please refrain from edit warring? M.Bitton (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The latest sources I am adding say that Azov says that for them Wolfsangel is an I & N monogram for "The Idea of the Nation", not the Nazi meaning of the symbol. Then, they (and the wiki article about Wolfsangel) mention that the symbol has other meanings, like freedom and fighting against occupation (which is very fitting in the current context), and it is used in the nowaday Germany by a bunch of cities / regions / whatsoever.

Then I look through Azov article, and I see it presenting the Wolfsangel as exclusively Nazi symbol, which per se proves Azov is a nazi detachment. With somewhat circular logic: Azov is Nazi hence they mean Nazi meaning of Wolfsangel; Azov uses the Nazi meaning of Wolfsangel hence they are Nazi. It looks to me as a soft propaganda montage aiming on a reader who does not know better, and is not interested to investigate the meaning of the symbol.

Hence, I believe NPOV means alternative meanings of the symbol should be mentioned in this article. If you want to prove Azov is Nazi - fine for me, but unfortunately Wolfsangel does not look as a proof to me, when you need to cherry-pick one meaning, which Azov say they don't consider as the meaning. Birdofpreyru (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Wolfsangel and other Nazi symbols (black sun, etc.) were used from day one by Azov as "Nazi symbols". Getting rid of the others and keeping Wolfsangel doesn't change the initial meaning of the symbol for the founders of Azov who think that Semites are sub-humans. M.Bitton (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Source? Re. anti-semitism of Azov, in my current understanding most of it comes down to some rasist quotes attributed to Biletsky, which are not coming from an original source, but more like "somebody in 2015 told that ages ago Biletsky wrote some rasist stuff"... but nobody gives a link to the original source, and Biletsky himself denied that he ever wrote or told anything like that, and says it was invented by Russian propaganda. I tend to believe this because I remember in 2014 the Russian propaganda was all about: we annexed Crimea and a part of Donbas because otherwise Ukraine's Nazi's would enter there to kill everybody Russian-speaking. So, from back then Russian propaganda was actively working to convience everybody that everybody in Ukraine who is not pro-Russian is a nazi. Similarly with the symbols... the guys who use them deny they are using them with nazi meaning, but sure other people know better what the symbol means to them. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that the use of all the Nazis symbols was accidental? M.Bitton (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe, if they wanted a nazi symbol with a nazi meaning they would just use swastika, or some variation of it as real neo-nazis do in Russia or Ukraine, and which was legal in Ukraine prior to 2015. Sure, I don't know what was their rational to select Black Sun and Wolfsangel, but it looks plausable to me they were not thinking about the nazi meaning. Btw, I myself grew up in Russia, and never heard of Black Sun and Wolfsangel back in Russia. Everybody there knows swastikas, SS runes, skulls with bones, but not the other stuff. I'd guess the same in Ukraine, so again it is easy to believe that most of people in the organization had no idea about origins / meaning of these symbols when they were put on Azov emblem. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

They might as well since they are quite happy having amongst them those who have tattoos of the Swastika on their bodies. M.Bitton (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe that if they wanted to be able to deny they were nazi's they would would pick one that was not so obvious as a swastika (as so many other Neo-nazi groups have down). This is why we go by what RS say, and not what we believe. 09:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Biletsky himself denied, Biletsky deniying something is the contrary of an RS Mhorg (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

This source has this to say:

In Ukraine, the Wolfsangel is widely used as a marker of Nazi views, often without any affiliation with a specific organization or structure. It is included in the symbols of Karpatska Sich. Groups affiliated with the Azov Battalion use a mirrored version of the Wolfsangel as part of their emblem symbolizing the “Idea of the Nation.”

Accidental use of this symbol or its use without an understanding of its connotations (for example as a talisman) is rare.

However, due to its prevalence and historical origins, it is important to determine when and where an emblem including a Wolfsangel was created, so as not to misinterpret its use as a heraldic symbol or as an ancient amulet against werewolves. That said, in Ukraine, the use of a Wolfsangel as a heraldic symbol or a traditional talisman would be uncharacteristic.

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

off topic discussion

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

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

• This page, quoted above by BSRD, is about the classic Nazi Wolfsangel, an ancient rune adopted by the Nazis and used by the SS. In Ukraine, the Wolfsangel is widely used as a marker of Nazi views, often without any affiliation with a specific organization or structure. It is included in the symbols of Karpatska Sich. Groups affiliated with the Azov Battalion use a mirrored version of the Wolfsangel as part of their emblem symbolizing the “Idea of the Nation.”
• This page is specifically about the Azov's NI symbol, which is a mirrored version of the above. This is a modern symbol. A modern symbol created as an emblem for the Social-National Party of Ukraine (now known as the Svoboda Party). It is a combination of Ukrainian letters “I” and “N” allegedly written in an “ancient script,” though there is no evidence that these letters were ever written in such a way. The symbol is a variation of the Wolfsangel; a mirror image of the emblem of the SS Panzer Division “Das Reich” (a division of the Nazi security services). The leader of Patriot of Ukraine rejects the notion that the symbol has any connection to the Wolfsangel. However, the organizations that use the Idea of ​​the Nation symbol are far-right and use other hate symbols.... Due to the Azov movement’s popularity, the symbol is often used mistakenly, including by those who are not aware of the movement’s ideological orientation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

To me that source does not look as necessarily reliable: their articles do not contain any references; and the overall concept & design clearly aims to show the far-right nazionalism in Ukraine is a menance, and being objective and neutral is not their goal.

Anyway, the claim of Azov in different sources is that Wolfsangel was also a popular symbol in heraldry of Polish / Volyn / Cossacs nobility, thus traditional to western Ukraine, and that's why they and other conservative organizations in Ukraine choosed it. I tried to fact-check this googling up for coats of arms in the region, and the closest I found was this. There is a bunch of other historic coats of arms with various runes, even this one, which make me think that explanation of Wolfsangel choice as a traditional regional symbol rather than nazi-one is plausable, but as I could not easily found anything looking exactly as the Wolfsangel, I guess I am not able to make a strong argument here. Birdofpreyru (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It turns out:

These look like Nazi, but they are coats of arms of some dinasty from XIX-century Urkaine, some town in Poland, another town in Poland

I guess, the claims the symbol was traditionally used in the region long before Nazi are not that groundless after all ¯\_(ツ)_/¯Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Where is the black sun in these unsourced fancy looking "things"? M.Bitton (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

These things are sourced in the wiki articles I linked in the image title ;) And were is the black sun in the current Azov logo? :D Though, I woudn't be surprised either if there are historic coats of arms in the region with "black sun" symbol. While looking through a few lists of Polish & Ukranian coats of arms I definitely saw a lot of sun-like & wheel-like symbols ;) Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

While you're at it, try finding sources about their ancestors having tattoos of Swastikas (like some of the Azov regiment's soldiers) and with a bit of luck, you may even manage to whitewash the Aryan Nations's emblem in the process. M.Bitton (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying, as some US citizens have swastika tattoos, we should describe USA as a neo-Nazi country in the brief of its article? Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a US regiment that has soldiers showcasing the Nazi symbols? M.Bitton (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Well... if you consider Totenkopf to be a neo-Nazi symbol, I guess you'll be surprised to learn that United States Marine Corps Reconnaissance Battalions use it, as well as many other militaries around the world. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't. Anyway, let me assure you that it's impossible to whitewash Azov's neo-Nazi crystal clear link that attested by multiple high quality RS. M.Bitton (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The Marine Recon Battalions do not use a totenkopf, they use a generic skull and crossbones. The Nazi totenkopf is a distinctive symbol with the bones crossed laterally behind the jaw, and it is absolutely now a neo-Nazi symbol BSMRD (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. But then... back to the original discussion, are there soldiers with Nazi tattoos / symbols in US army? I guess so, at least I just googled and one of the first results is this, saying These days, the US military is more like a sanctuary for racists, gang members and the chronically unfit, and The Guardian, I believe, is considered an RS; and this Pentagon report reveals inroads white supremacists have made in military. At the same time, are there any US army units described as neo-Nazi units because some of their soldiers / officers have Nazi tattooes, or got pictured with Nazi symbols? I guess, no? Birdofpreyru (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Diversion. Comparing apples with oranges. The Azov has a rep for a reason, find a US unit that has a similar rep for the same reason, then maybe.Selfstudier (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

A swastika was used as a symbol before too. Who in Europe is using swastika after WW2? GizzyCatBella🍁 13:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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

I guess, I should take a step back here, and remind that I am not trying to whitewash anybody, like most folks here think, I am rather trying to fact-check what I see in the article, and ensure it stays factual and neutral. The brief says including the Wolfsangel insignia used by divisions of the Waffen-SS and Wehrmacht during World War II, implying that it is not used anywhere but nazi context. I started this talk thread after I tried to append that sentence, saying that the same base symbol was and is used in European heraldry without any connection to fascism. My edit was reverted by somebody saying "nah, we don't like your edit because it kind of undermines the image Azov is nazi-nazi-nazi, and anyway that the symbol is used in German heraldry does not matter, because it was never used closer to Ukraine before SS". Ok, here we see examples that it was used in Urkaine / Poland region, and still used there.

Then, I see in the body (not sure, whether it was added recently, or I just have not noticed it before) In 2022 Andreas Umland, a scholar from the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies, told Deutsche Welle that though it had far-right connotations, the Wolfsangel was not considered a fascist symbol by the population in Ukraine. Thus, I'm saying, shouldn't we either mention that in the brief, where the Wolfsangel meaning is first brought up, or remove the sentense in question from the brief? Otherwise, a person who does not read the article further than the brief takes home the message Wolfsangel = SS = Nazism, which... depends on the context, but in general is wrong.

I also note that the claim for the family crest seems unsouced. It is sourced to this book from 1914, page XIV here. Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The trouble with what you see in the article's body is due to some editors adding cherry picked sources to the article while the RfC is underway (you'll also notice quotes about them not being neo-Nazis by what someone laughably described as a "famous scholar"). I don't like that and I don't feel like following their bad example. M.Bitton (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see famous scholar in the text, I see just scholar, and according to the article in the wiki it looks to me to be a scholar with relevant career in the field for his opinion to deserve a mention in the article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It looks like someone removed it (it said "well-known", not famous, similar crap though). You're missing the point as there are so many quotes and scholars that we can include, but cherry picking some while the RfC is underway is not what I would do or recommend. M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Images with that symbol appear five times on the page. Is not it too much? My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  As it seems they have used (at least) two separate versions maybe not. Especially as three seems to be for off shoots or sister organizations. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I just removed another image [43]. How do we know that it shows that it is claimed to show? Who are all these people? What is this place? Was it checked by any reputable news organization? This is WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Mariupol steelworks

Given Azov's role in the battle to defend the steelworks could this be put more prominently in the article, as right now it simply says they are involved in the siege of Mariupol right at the bottom of the first para? Additionally, could details about this protest be added, involving Prokopenko's wife plus the relatives of injured Azov soldiers? She is campaigning to evacuate them from the steelworks and id say this is pretty notable given the protest today on the subject was broken up in Kyiv

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/wives-mariupol-soldiers-dispersed-police-kyiv-protest-ukraine-russia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/wives-of-mariupol-defenders-appeal-for-soldiers-evacuation/2022/04/30/9d970ff6-c859-11ec-8cff-33b059f4c1b7_story.html Fourdots2 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Denys Prokopenko.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

I request to look through the definition of the Azov battalion. Cross out the point “neo-nazi” (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movement-far-right-intl-cmd/index.html, https://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2022/05/7/7344690/), as well as change the battalion to regiment. Thank you. Olhaaaaaaaaa (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

it’s crucially important to change the definition of the regiment!! urgently!! Olhaaaaaaaaa (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Svyatoslav Palamar

I've just created a page on the deputy Azov commander Svyatoslav Palamar who has quite an extensive article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I'm not very used to how this works and don't really know how to add a language link to the Ukrainian page and it would be great if someone could take a look at it and improve it a bit. I'm also wondering why the Azov page is classed as being a low importance Ukraine article, I'd have thought it was pretty important at the moment lol. Fourdots2 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Images

I agree we should not have images where it is not clear who they are, I can see a few that are just pictures of soldiers or vehicles. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

[44] - that one also seems to be a copyvio. If one follows the link, this is a screen shot from a copyrightable video. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

isn't this marked as CC-by?

License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWtG2_PVsck Cononsense (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. So that one is probably fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

[[45]], [[46]] [[47]] is that the Azov badge?

[[48]] No insignia, could be anyone. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Some other images however, such as [49], are fine (clearly includes "Azov"), and the image of Skilt does seem to show him. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course, if it clearly shows the name or the insignia. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

A couple of small suggestions [Israel/Biletsky]

I tried to make a few small improvements today, but they were reverted. One of them was moving content about objections to arms sales to a more appropriate section [50]. Another was excluding quotation of Biletskiy that he allegedly made in 2010, i.e long before creation of Azov (that belongs to his page) [51]. Any objections to the first or 2nd change? My very best wishes (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

They are not improvements. The "objections to arms sales" is about neo-Nazism (They argue that these weapons serve forces that openly espouse a neo-Nazi ideology and cite evidence that the right-wing Azov militia, whose members are part of Ukraine’s armed forces, and are supported by the country’s ministry of internal affairs, is using these weapons.), so the more appropriate section is the obvious one. What the founder of Azov said is certainly more important than what some journalists (already cited) have to say about it. M.Bitton (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Biletskiy is the founder and actual leader behind the Azov Regiment, so his political views matter, a lot. Mhorg (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Idk about moving Biletsky, there is still a connection with Azov and he is a controversial figure to say the least.Selfstudier (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

With regards to first change, according to the source [52], Human rights activists petition the court to cease Israeli arms exports to Ukraine, and yes, they refer to "Azov". But the issue of arms embargo to Ukraine is a lot more important than labeling the organization as "neo-Nazi" (there are many other sources which do just that). Hence, I believe it belongs to another section that describes refusal in providing arms and training by US and Canada. With regard to 2nd change, I do not mind citing views by Biletsky, but it should be something more recent, i.e. definitely after creation of Azov, and preferably something related to Azov (i.e. the subject of this page). My very best wishes (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

They refer specifically to Azov as a regiment that that openly espouse a neo-Nazi ideology (we cannot and should not hide this crucial information. The current RfC is there to prove its importance). There is nothing preventing us from using the same source in the arms section to support some some other statement. M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As you can see from my edit [53], I did not hide anything because I did not change a singe word in the original text. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

You moved it from the neo-Nazism section (where it belongs) and turned into a reaction from a country (which it isn't). M.Bitton (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I think one could make valid arguments either way. The 'reaction from countries' really is talking about arms transfers (this probably also needs to be updated for 2022), so moving the content that was moved seems fine to me, or keeping it, either way.

This whole article has a lot of readability/organization issues (and perhaps some redundant content that can be simplified or made succinct) so I'm glad people are trying to improve it. Lots of accumulated cruft. Cononsense (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

NO issue with the move, it can fit in either section. The quote I am less sure about, sure it says he is a racist, but he is not the AZOV. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course that was a racist statement (the guy even denied he said this). I just think that collecting as much as possible of negative and remotely relevant information and throwing it on the page is not a good approach. This page is becoming very important because merely the existence of the detachment (is it a military unit or a political party?) was used as a "casus belli" for the war of aggression. There are many easily fixable issues on the page. For example, there is repetitive content when very same thing is repeated over and over again. There is excessive referencing, etc. However, if some people take a position that all sourced content must stay exactly as it is right now just because it is sourced, there is little I can help. My very best wishes (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hence why I said I am less sure about it, I am unsure what this adds. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We can update, there are plenty current sources to describe him and https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/04/15/mariupols-outnumbered-defenders-refuse-to-give-in here he is quoted "“We understand the predicament,” says Andriy Biletsky, a founder of the Azov Battalion, who 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.” so that's evidence for a current connection to Azov (which should be obvious since he is part of Azov movement).Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that of course would be relevant. Welcome to fix. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Selfstudier, as Kuzmenko of the Bellingcat group also said,[54] whoever says that the Azov regiment and the Biletsky National Corps are two separate entities, are wrong, or are lying. I sincerely would like to remove some parts in the article in which this blatant lie is claimed. It's okay to dedicate a few lines to it, but nothing more. Here we must not do misinformation. Mhorg (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

This article remains rife with misinformation. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

off topic discussion

LOL! While you are on the mission to make sure that every batallion having soldiers with nazi symbols on their uniforms is signalled as neo-nazi in Wikipedia, maybe mention in the Somalia Battalion article, which I see you are also editing, that it has fighters proudly wearing Totenkopfs and Valknuts, and these fighters are proudly awarded for their actions in the war in Ukraine http://www.romea.cz/en/news/world/speaking-of-nazis-the-donetsk-leader-of-pro-russian-separatists-honored-a-russian-soldier-with-nazi-symbols-on-his-uniform. Birdofpreyru (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC) WP:WHATABOUT arguments aren't really the best. Selfstudier (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Just a reminder to remain WP:CIVIL and refrain from making personal attacks towards other editors. I'm mainly saying this because BIrdofprey's comment seemed a little close to a personal attack (not saying it was, but that's what it seemed like to me). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Well, maybe advice how such situation should be handled by Wikipedia rules, or better take the action? I am just noticing here that we have two articles about two regiments fighting on opposing sides of the same war, and the same editor defends in one article that if a fighter from the regiment has been noticed wearing nazi insignia, that is relevant to mention and the entire unit should be labeled as neo-nazi, at the same time the same editor defends in the other article that it is not newsworthy to mention that unit's fighter was wearing nazi insignia on an official award ceremony. I see a clear bias here. Birdofpreyru (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC) Casting WP:ASPERSIONS isn't a good idea either. If you believe that an editor's behavior is sanctionable, there are procedures for that, starting with raising it on the editor's talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC) I am literally asking you this, whether this is a sanctionable behavior, and what are procedures for that? Birdofpreyru (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC) That's a decision for you to make, read WP:BOOMERANG as well. I just explained how you should begin. It's not a matter for discussion here.Selfstudier (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC) @Birdofpreyru: I argued precisely on that issue about the Somalia Battalion. Are you trying to say that that battalion is neo-Nazi because they saw ONE soldier wearing a totenkopf? I'm saying that the Azov battalion is neo-Nazi because we have tons of sources that explain clearly all the relationship between Azov and neo-Nazis around the world, its relationship with the neo-Nazi Andriy Biletsky's "National Corps" political party, not for a single totenkopf of a single neonazi involved in a minor scandal. I think you can clearly understand the difference. If, on the other hand, you think I'm a malicious user, you can make a report in the right place and good luck. If you want to collaborate, I'm here. Mhorg (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC) I am saying, your approach to editing these articles looks to me as biased / soft pro-Russian propaganda within the formal Wikipedia rules. In one place you are making sure as much mentions of neo-nazi allegations stay in the article text as possible, in another article you are trying to ensure by all means no mentions of nazi-related incidents stay. At this point I don't think you are a malicious user, or that it is possible to make a solid case to report you, but I still believe your edits are clearly biased in one direction, and are not neutral. Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC) Please take this discussion elsewhere, it is not a matter for this talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there was a talk page section on this and I edited both of these without seeing it so apologies for that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There seem to be three issues here. 1) In relation to the Israeli petition, is what is noteworthy that 30 unnamed human rights activists considered Azov to be neo-Nazi or is it noteworthy that there was controversy over Israeli arms support to Ukraine because of Azov as evidenced by the petition? I'm not totally sure either of those is noteworthy just on the basis of one JPost article, but if it is either it must be the latter, and therefore belong in the section about arms/funding controversies, alongside the US debate. This is analogous to the Ro Khanna question: there was strong consensus that he was not an RS for whether Azov are Nazi or not, but that he was relevant in relation to US lawmakers voting about arming Azov. If he's not an RS for the Nazi claim, nor are these unnamed petitioners. 2) In relation to the 2010 comment by Biletsky, it seems undue here (given it was 4 years before Azov was founded) and possibly also SYNTH unless sources specifically relate it to Azov, so I moved it to his article. 3) In relation to the status of the battalion/regiment vs the movement, I'm still unsure but I think Kuzmenko is one of the strongest sources on this and it might be helpful to introduce the section with a better summary of his position. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually, has anybody seen a proof of that rascist quote ever made? I see all references from this, and Biletskiy's articles, leading to some news articles from 2014 (when the war was already going on, as well as Russian propaganda raging), but they just state it as fact that he said that years before, not giving any references to video / articles from that time actually supporting the quote. And then Biletsky himself (according to Wiki article about him, and references given there) denies ever saying that rascist stuff, and right away says this was black-PR created by Russian secret services to undermine his reputation, and complicate training and supply of Azov regiment he was creating. Birdofpreyru (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Bob moved the Biletsky material while we were discussing it so you can discuss that at his article. I think we agreed that what was needed here was a potted update about him, that's very easy to source, and I gave one source, there are others, for his continued connection with the regiment. That would not be undue.Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I too agree with this removal by Bob and with comment by Birdofpreyru. Including more info about Biletsky on this page? Yes, maybe, but only as much as directly related to "Azov". The removed content was not really related and was even dated before Azov existed. My very best wishes (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I see this is back in. It looks to me like the consensus is against its inclusion in this article, so will probably remove it again. Re Birdofpreyru: it is quoted in a few RSs, and they all use exactly the same English formulation, so one translation must be the origin, but I've not been able to find the original text. But Wikipedia goes with WP:Verifiability, not truth, so it's not up to us to refute the RSs (although we should, I think, include the disclaimer if we include the text - which adds words, so increases the case for undue-ness in this article). BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't object to this being moved at some point, just that we should do what was agreed at the same time, a potted update about him and his continuing connections to Azov instead of that text. The fact of these continuing connections matters.Selfstudier (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

agreed w/ both of your points. Cononsense (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

These sources might be RS in general, but for the given qoute they are secondary to tertiary sources, and I am not able to find a primary source. I'd say that should should be clearly disclaimed everywhere the qoute is given, as you say. Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Stduent essay from Further reading

I removed this, as it is a student essay published on a website showcasing a commercial study abroad programme which enables US students to study in Russia, so it's not RS. However, it's got a good bibliography that might be worth checking:

• 2021 article by Kate Spencer at GeoHistory

BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Name change request

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

@Firefangledfeathers: Is this an incorrect reading?

With regard to the first question of an adjectival descriptor in the first sentence: The descriptor "Right-wing/nationalist"(A) attracted no support and the descriptors "Far-right"(B), and "neo-fascist"(E) little more. The debate was between using "Neo-Nazi"(C) or no descriptor at all(D) and the clear preponderance of commenters was for C. Those in favor of D argued that a descriptor violated WP:NPOV or that the sources for the descriptor were not reliable or that it violates the MOS to include such a descriptor but these arguments did not persuade the other participants who argued that the quality, quantity, and depth of the sourcing for the label overrides the other concerns and therefore complies with NPOV.

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

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

--Berposen (talk) 13:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes C and C was "Neo-Nazi". And also read wp:point. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible, Berposen, that you didn't read the RfC question? A cursory reading shows what 1(C) means, and your edits were plainly counter to consensus on that question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Did I remove the term? Or did I put what the RfC recommended? --Berposen (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The question that was asked was should we say "Azov Battalion is a neo-nazi Ukrainian National Guard regiment", the answer was yes, you altered it. The other question was not about the lede sentance but the article as a whole.Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You also removed this "Do not remove or alter without prior consensus, see relevant RfC on talk page." telling you not to alter the preceding line (quoted above). Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

Please ... Remove from the description of Azov Battalion that they are neo-Nazi. According to the Wikipedia article on neo-nazism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism nationalism and neo-nazism are different ideologies and the Azov Battalion hasn’t shown any signs of neo-nazism since it was established. They are a part of Ukrainian Armed Forces as all other battalions. Olha Buts (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not done. There is an ongoing RFC about this (above). Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Olha Buts (talk · contribs) If you want to get this removed, you would be better off participating in the discussion that Selfstudier mentioned above (big one almost at the top) explaining your reasoning there. TylerBurden (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"allegations of torture and war crimes"

The first source for this does not support this, it supports the idea that there were no human rights violations by Azov members.

"The Azov battalion’s general reputation and alleged war atrocities would prompt the U.S. Congress in June 2015 to adopt an amendment that ostensibly forbade US advisors training the Ukrainian army and National Guard from training members of Azov. Anton Gerashchenko, advisor to MVD chief Arsen Avakov, responded to the U.S. Congress’s move by saying there was an “anti-Ukrainian lobby” in Congress. The month after the congressional ban, however, Azov ‘sergeant’ Ivan Kharkiv stated that U.S. military advisors had been and still were training Azov fighters, and a U.S. official stated that any screening would not be for ideology but for human rights violations."

The second source, Colborne, relies on a report [55] of Azov "occupying civilian buildings" during the 2014 invasion and subsequent war and one allegation by four prisoners in Mariupol that they were detained and treated poorly by Azov and the SBU.

"On 23 December, OHCHR met with four detainees held in Mariupol SIZO for their alleged involvement in the 9 May events. They complained that they had been ill-treated by SBU officials and members of the Azov regiment in Mariupol, detained incommunicado for some time in September 2014, and that evidence extracted through torture was being used in their trial. They added that they had been denied medical assistance for the injuries. Such delays violate Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code ... Based on their complaints and other information received,[the Prosecutor for Donetsk region] had opened a criminal investigation into the role of SBU officials in the torture and ill-treatment of the four detainees."

This is a single incident and a criminal investigation was launched into the behavior of the SBU in this case, not the behavior Azov Battalion. I do not think this single accusation against the SBU, not Azov, is good evidence for a prominent accusation of torture and war crimes in an article about Azov. I think we are giving short shrift to the FSB propaganda campaign against this unit and a loving attention to its fruits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 21:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Those four detainees were believed to be pro-Russian saboteurs and were arrested in connection with the seizure of a police station[56], massacre of civilians and police officers, and the abduction and torture of Valery Andrushchuk, the chief of police in Mariupol[57]. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of how given to overstatement Colborne is. Always check his sources. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

The claim that Azov Battalion is neo Nazi is unfounded. The citation is from a biased source without factual support 24.100.46.111 (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is frequently discussed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to weigh in on the topic in the large discussion near the top of this talk page, it is a better place to present your arguments than this edit request. TylerBurden (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

stop sharing false information. Azov is just a part of ZSU . They are part of armed forces of Ukraine, which are defending boarders of Ukraine. All definitions connected to nazi are irrelevant and can lead to misunderstanding.correction of this article is just a first priority need to keep dignity of humans (different nationals and backgrounds) who are defwnding people of Ukraine. need

Stop sharing false information. Azov is just a part of ZSU . They are part of armed forces of Ukraine, which are defending boarders of Ukraine. All definitions connected to nazi are irrelevant and can lead to misunderstanding. Correction of this article is just a first priority need to keep dignity of humans (different nationals and backgrounds) who are defending people of Ukraine. 89.101.247.238 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

There is currently an RfC above attempting to remove that false information from the article[58]. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)