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 From the outset, there is outdated information, which must be corrected.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 It is not enough for you to just express the opinion that the result is "outdated information" - you have to convince others, and demonstrate that you have convinced others.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) Nothing to talk about. The current statement calling Azov nazis is just a propaganda tale of the actual nazis — ruscists. Whoever keeps it in the article is an accomplice of the genocide, supporting r*ssian terrorism. I happen to know this, as a Ukrainian. FWIW it's all explained here, if anybody cares https://twitter.com/MelaniePodolyak/status/1510535081194098691. If not, I think it'd only be fair to have a banner on top warning the readers that the page contains propaganda in support of mass-murders. Webknjaz (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Well... this is the talk page for the article, so it would appear to seem that there's adequate reason to talk about the article. 2600:1700:CC6:80D0:BCBF:6850:9411:7A0F (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Are personal attacks allowed? If not, why is this comment allowed to be up? 50.255.70.77 (talk) 15:43, 19 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 [1]. Another was excluding quotation of Biletskiy that he allegedly made in 2010, i.e long before creation of Azov (that belongs to his page) [2]. 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 [3], 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 [4], 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,[5] 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)

Point to the misinformation and say what's wrong with it and suggest a correction/provide sources for that correction. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: Honestly, there is so much I don't know where to start. Just above, in that Bellingcat article "According to an August 2017 video, ostensibly recorded at Azov’s base, emigre Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin lectured the regiment." Click the link. It is one guy talking to another guy in a room with a map on the wall. How is that a lecture? What does ostensibly mean? It's posted to a CN21 youtube channel. Bellingcat exaggerates and gets things wrong constantly (for instance, Kuzmenko[6]). They catfish people on the internet and believe what those people say. Read Vyacheslav Likhachev, Anton Shekhovtsov, Andreas Umland -- particularly[7]. I disagree with some of the things they say, but these are credible experts who know what they're talking about. If I change anything on this page, the rabid ideologues who don't know what they're talking about will try to ban me from editing here by citing an opinion piece that doesn't mention Azov. I have deadlines and responsibilities in real life. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 17:17, 15 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)

• While checking the sources, I found this (CNN): In a statement to CNN, the Azov regiment said it "appreciates and respects Andriy Biletsky as the regiment's founder and first commander, but we have nothing to do with his political activities and the National Corps party". So, perhaps this needs to be included in some form to the page, or to the contrary, be a reason for not including anything about personal views by Biletsky to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  this, also in the sources (Jacobin) refers to that same source/quote as well as others in a similar vein and then gives the flip side. Selfstudier (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Obviously, there are many people with far-right views (Biletsky is one of them) and a number of far-right organizations in Ukraine. But so in other countries, including USA, see Category:Far-right politics in the United States. The support for far-right in the USA is probably much greater. I am sure there are many people with far-right views in USA army, but I did not see any pages about USA army units described as "Neo-Nazi". As this page say, "The Azov Battalion has created its own civilian political movement" and so on. So that is what makes Azov different, and that is what (the political movement) should be described as right/left/Nazi/whatever, in my opinion.My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Are there sources identifying USA army units as neo-Nazi? That's what we have in this case and with their own separate recruitment as well. As you say, the battalion created the movement but the argument is being made that the movement has nothing to do with the now regiment; if that were true, then we could safely split the two up, I don't think we can say that is true at the moment.Selfstudier (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  "the argument is being made that the movement has nothing to do with the now regiment"? No, of course the battalion and the movement are connected subjects. But they are not the same subject. Hence the page could be split. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  The split has been discussed several times (see archives) and not agreed, It is also being discussed in the Cossack House section below. Selfstudier (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  OK then. As about Neo-Nazi in US army, yes, sure [8],[9]; that took a few seconds. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  So, for example, according to this, 82nd Airborne Division, "formed a Neo-Nazi" group in 1995, and so on. But should it be described as a "Neo-Nazi Division"? Of course not! My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  We agree then.Selfstudier (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• P.S. I double check the claims by Biletsky here [10] (interview to Alesya Batsman, wife of Dmitri Gordon who published the interview), and indeed, Biletsky said (with regard to his alleged quotation "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen") that he never said it, that he has no such views, and also that the fake quotation was fabricated by Sergey Lavrov: "Это заявление прозвучало во время одного из международных форумов из уст [Сергея] Лаврова, министра иностранных дел Российской Федерации. Он первый произнес эту ахинею, даже не объясняя, где он это взял. И все потом начали на нее ссылаться. Происхождение этой фразы вообще непонятно. Нет ни одного источника. Это сказал Лавров, так что, извините, это его цитата, а не моя. Ко мне эта ахинея отношения не имеет."

Once again, that controversy with citation does not belong to this page. There must be many other materials to include to this section if anyone wants. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

[11] - this is not an extraordinary claim given what we know about the veracity of statements by Lavrov. For example, he repeatedly denied that Russia was going to attack Ukraine, that Skripals were poisoned by Russian agents, and so on (that would be a very long list). My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a claim by Biletsky (the man who described Semites as sub-humans). No further comment necessary, especially when his claim involves a living person. M.Bitton (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

"the man who described..." But that is exactly what he denies. Yes, I also do not like the guy. But your arguments is irrelevant. BLP rules are the same for everyone. If he made a rebuttal, we must say how he justified his rebuttal precisely per BLP rules. Nothing here would be extraordinary: nether the racist claim allegedly made by Biletsky nor the fabrication by Lavrov.My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

He can deny all he wants, but we are not here to publicize his claims about living persons. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

By citing him on this page we do publicize his claims. But that's not the point. My point is simply that instead of the disputed citation controversy we should be able to include something better on the same subject if it was indeed widely covered in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

We're not citing him (he's not a reliable source), we are citing his racist views that have been covered in multiple RS. M.Bitton (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter. "Publicize" means make something widely known. By citing racist views by person X (as covered in multiple RS) we publicize his views. But that is not the point. My point is different: why should we use quotation that could be fabricated by a person famous for fabrications (Lavrov), when we could use something else on the subject? My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

When the views are widely covered by RS, then it's our job to report them, end of. M.Bitton (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not our job to dump everything widely covered by RS to pages. Our job is writing good pages. That means selection of the most reliable materials (that one is not), most relevant to specific page (that one is not), and avoiding possible misinformation pretending to be a 100% reliable information (that is one of such cases). My very best wishes (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Dump everything is your claim. The material in question is reliably sourced and relevant to the page (since it's about the founder of Azov). M.Bitton (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No. The statement by Biletsky would be relevant if he talked about Azov, i.e. the subject of this page. Personal views by Biletsky belong to page about Biletsky. But he says in the interview: "no, this is NOT my personal views, and I never said it". True or not, but it makes such citation even less appropriate for this page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The statement by Biletsky is crucial to understand the roots of the Azov Battalion. He was the founder, he shaped the organization. So, he released anti-semitic statements, we should cite them. Mhorg (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

If this page was about a political party, and he was the chief ideologist of such party, then yes, sure. But this is a page about a military regiment, and he was just the first commander of the regiment, long time ago. Looking at the sources which cite it, they cite it primarily in connection with Ukrainian nationalism. So perhaps it belongs there? But would say "no" because the quotation was disputed by the alleged author, and indeed there is no original source that documents his words. There are many other undisputed public claims and other materials on this subject we can cite. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It was agreed quite a while ago now (see back up the page) that we were going to have a potted history about Biletsky on this page, there are mentions scattered all over the page at the moment. Perhaps under leadership and organization, is where it should be and all the detail at his own page. The potted history ought to be a summary of his own page lead. In my view, his current situation/relationship with the regiment is more important than what he said in the past although I am not suggesting that should be airbrushed from history (his own denial is not worth much). Selfstudier (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the Azov Battalion has not depoliticized

Currently, what appears to be most of the pre-war sources, which have delved into the question of the "Azov Movement", tell us that the "Azov Battalion" is the armed wing of the party led by the white-supremacist Andriy Biletsky, the "National Corps."(Biletsky was also the founder of the regiment). Once the war broke out, however (and I don't understand why), some sources claimed[12][13] that these two entities would be separate (i.e. that the Azov Regiment once entered the National Guard in 2014 would have driven away all right-wing extremists, including Biletsky, and that it is therefore not connected with a party pursuing a neo-Nazi project) have begun to gain major media coverage. But how verifiable is there in what they are claiming? How much verifiable is there about an alleged depoliticization of the Azov Battalion? Well, we don't have anything verifiable at all. On the contrary, we have many - verifiable - clues that tell us the exact opposite: that the two entities remain closely related. First of all, there is the investigative work by the expert Kuzmenko of the Bellingcat that says:[14] "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.". And there are even more stuff that we can verify together:

1. (2020) The Azov Battalion itself declares that the "Azov Movement" indoctrinates its soldiers: "The Ideology bloc explored the struggle of Ukrainian nationalists. Lectures were given by representatives of the Azov movement involved in educational projects..."
2. (May 2018) Andriy Biletsky and Denis Prokopenko do the "Azov salute" on the same stage in Mariupol. The source is the Azov Battalion website. According to some sources Biletsky would have been purged in 2014 from the battalion... right?
3. (February 2019) The Azov Battalion commander "Kalina", calls Andriy Biletsky "the leader"! In a video, uploaded by the National Corps, Kalina says: "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."
4. (2019) Biletsky himself, with a statement certifies that the battalion and the Azov movement remain connected: "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"
5. (March 2022) Azov Battalion and National Corps flags are holded by the Azov fighters of Battalion. Weren't they two separate entities?
6. (April 2022) During the siege of Mariupol, The Economist reports Biletsky's statement: "Andriy Biletsky [...] says he is in daily contact with Mr Prokopenko and other soldiers in Mariupol. “We always told our guys they had no place fighting for us if they planned on going into captivity.”"
7. (April 2022) The "National Corps" party organizes the collection of military supplies specifically for the Azov Battalion and are located in the Azov Central Volunteer Headquarters: "Support the AZOV terrorist defense units that are fighting in the East and South of Ukraine. For more than 50 days, the entire civilized world has been on the shoulders of Ukrainian defenders and those who help them. Fighters of the Azov Defense Forces are currently fighting in the Kharkiv, Dnipro, Zaporizhia, Mykolaiv and Kherson areas. Our fighters not only hold positions, but also attack enemy forces, destroy equipment and personnel. Thank you to everyone who supports and helps our departments. If you know where you can buy these things at a good price or you can give them to us - call the Azov Central Volunteer Headquarters in Kyiv."
8. (April 2022) Azov Battalion members are indoctrinated by National Corps ideologues, who claim it on their media:"An Azov volunteer is a warrior who knows not only who to fight against, but also what ideals he is fighting for. A lecture on the recent history of Ukraine has begun at the Azov Regiment in Kyiv. The lecturer is Daniil Koval, a modern ideologue of Ukrainian nationalism and head of the humanities department at the Institute for National Development." Daniil Koval is "the head of ideological department" of the National Corps.[15]
9. (August 2021) On the official website of the "National Corps" there is constant mention of Azov soldiers.
10. [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]and so on... "National Corps" official channel releases hundreds of videos dedicated only to Azov Battalion.

Please, if there is something that does not convince you of the above, let's discuss it as well. From what I can understand now, what reported by the expert Kuzmenko is the most faithful to reality. My proposals are the following:

1. I think we should avoid giving too much space to what is reported by other sources, for a matter of little if any verifiability (not to mention, at this point, poor reliability). Then remove at least 50% of the text that talks about this alleged depoliticization. And completely delete parts like "It is certain that Azov [the battalion] has depoliticised itself. Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today.", we have tons of text sourced with "Anton Shekhovtsov", who is the main proponent of this unfounded thesis.
2. As for the allusions of a possible separation of the articles of the "Azov Battalion" (neo-Nazi military formation) with the "Azov Regiment" (depolicitized military formation) I think that such a thing is not even imaginable: the military formation seems to remain the armed wing of the "National Corps" party, led by white-supremacist Andriy Biletsky.--Mhorg (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a wall of WP:OR. The fact is: currently some RS claim the regiment has depolitized, some claim it has not. That ("both opinions exist in RS") should be written in the Wiki article. Nothing more to discuss. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The whole question needs looking into as I implied above, Talk:Azov Battalion#Ukraine’s Azov Movement.Selfstudier (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself, imho it is clear that it (and the nature of relations between the regiment and movement) should be described in wiki article as two prominent PoVs are they are linked tightly, or they are distinct entities. In no way either prevents from two articles being split. But sure, many editors won't accept the neutral approach, and only want to prove one of the PoVs as the ultimate truth. Birdofpreyru (talk) 09:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I have not said there should not be two articles, in fact I have said there probably should be. I wouldn't really call it a split because there is not really that much about Azov overall in this article and we would need something still even if there were two articles. Why do you want to do it right now, what's the hurry? You could start writing it up, why not? Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Birdofpreyru, I am questioning the reliability of the sources we are using and I am also questioning the excessive space given to unverifiable assertions. Please comment on this. Mhorg (talk) 00:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I am saying, other sources are reliable and saying the regiment has depolitized. Thus, both PoVs are prominent nowadays, as should be equally presented in the wiki article as per WP:NPOV. You are doing WP:OR to suggest that some RS should be discarted, to strengthen you favourite message. Some of your arguments are manipulation, but I won't go down the rabbit hole arguing with you. I believe, it is clear at this point that my views are opposite of yours, and as some other folks around I consider the whole article heavily leaning left, and bunch of editors having unhealthy interest to further strengthen the message that Azov is "evil-nazi-criminal". Which is sad, as the regiment is currently in epicenter of news, so there is a bunch of factual material to cover, rather than drawing conclusions from a thin air to proove that the regiment is something they and many independent sources deny them to be. Birdofpreyru (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously we cannot discard reliable sources but due weight is important and people often forget about "independent" reliable sources. "Leaning left" is just crap, this isn't a Dem/Rep type of discussion, implying that other editors have a political agenda is an unhealthy way of looking at things. You wouldn't like it if I were to suggest you are a right winger shoring up Nazism? Selfstudier (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I read Mhorg above as "lets discard Anton Shekhovtsov, and some other sources, because I'll prove they are wrong", and now he is actively trying to remove some of Shekhovtsov quoutes from the article. I strongly oppose it.

"Leaning left" is just crap,... implying that other editors have a political agenda... I am sorry, but that is what I see. The neutral / center position to write this article would be: here are two prominent PoVs, etc. I see the actual content and many editors leaning heavily on giving undue weight to highlight "Azov is Nazi" PoV, thus non-neutral. I'd call it is a leftist thing, mainly speaking not about the "global views of editors, etc.", but specifically about the direction they are trying to steer this very article from the neutral PoV. Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

You allege NPOV but without specifics, see the POV tag section I just started. NPOV just means fairly reflecting the balance of sources, it is not a question of "sides" as such. The RFC will sort through the significance of that re the troublesome label. That apart, you need to be clear about which parts of the article are not NPOV, it is no use just saying, this is my side, and my side is right (and the wrong side is left).Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, at this point I mostly lost interest in wasting my time on the arguments regarding this article. Let me just say that beyond the infamous RFC, and not going into the article body, smth along similar to the following would look to me as a NPOV lead. The current lead has mentions of Waffen-SS, Wehrmacht, WWII, and international bans, IMHO, just to bring in extra negative sentiment, to ensure a visitor won't read further and just leaves with the message that it is neo-Nazi. That's why I am saying it is not NPOV, IMHO.

The Special Operations Detachment "Azov" (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк «Азов», romanized: Polk "Azov") and the Azov Battalion (Ukrainian: батальйон «Азов», romanized: Bataliyon "Azov"), is a regiment of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov, from which it derives its name. Azov formed as a volunteer paramilitary militia in May 2014, and has since been fighting Russian forces in the Donbas War.

The regiment has been accused neo-Nazi origin and ties through its history, as well as war crimes. The regiment and some experts deny such accusations, and in particular claim depolitization of the regiment and exclusion of most neo-Nazi elements after its incorporation into the National Guard.

It is estimated to be between 900 and 2500 members strong in 2022.

In the wake of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the battalion gained renewed attention for its use by Russia in justifying the invasion and, during the Siege of Mariupol, for its role in the defense of the city, and for its stand at Mariupol's Azovstal steel plant. Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I can understand that, leaving aside details, the main outstanding issue is about the label, the history of that and so on, isn't it? The RFC will (I hope) resolve that so I am not going to comment further in that regard. Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please don't distort what I write. I said that we need to reduce the space dedicated to Shekhovtsov, which is used in different parts of the article. Yes, it is a matter of due\undue visibility of unverifiable assertions. And, yes, using EuromaidanPress is like using Sputnik, both are unusable on Wikipedia, especially for such delicate matters. Can't find that statement on another source? Mhorg (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

As for Shekovtsov, he is similar to a Colborne, it would be better if his views were published in an RS but attributed quotes of material in a non-RS are OK if he is an expert. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

As for the allusions of a possible separation of the articles of the "Azov Battalion" (neo-Nazi military formation) with the "Azov Regiment" (depolicitized military formation) I believe, here was no discussion in splitting it this way. There is a discussion to rename the article into "Azov Regiment", which is purely technical change from the current "Azov Battalion aka Azov Regiment" into "Azov Regiment aka Azov Battalion", just based on what is most commonly used name now. And the proposed split between the regiment and movement articles is just because related or not one enity is focused on fighting on front lines, the other on political / cultural activity in the country. Lots of different stuff can be covered on both sides, and it is just too much for a single article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion (see my reply to you above). If things had not become bogged down in discussions over a label, those separate articles would likely have existed by now. Progress can be made once the RFC is done (maybe). Selfstudier (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah none of this is relevant and this is indeed exactly the kind of original research that has plagued this article. Volunteer Marek 00:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

OR is allowed in talk. Selfstudier (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If it's being done to propose article content it's still a no-no. OR on talk is basically a violation of WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Besides, the OR is only the synth, individual bits are OK. If it stimulates more investigation, I can't see the harm in it. Selfstudier (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I'm showing you that what Kuzmenko claims is verifiable, while what Shekhovtsov says would appear to be fake news or otherwise unverifiable content. We Wikipedia users often concern ourselves with the reliability of the content we display in articles. Why don't you give your opinion on what is shown?

@Selfstudier: could you please give your opinion about the links shown above? Mhorg (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said, adding these altogether like that is a synthesis, so OR in that sense, you would want all these points contained in a single source. That said, the economist report of Biletsky comments is relevant by itself. The Jacobin source I don't think I see there, if memory serves some of that is in there, I'll take another look (Jacobin is OK with attribution). Anything Azov say about themselves is usable as aboutself material (SPS) but we wouldn't want to make a book out of it. Selfstudier (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Does the Azov exist? If it does not, 90% of your opinions are irrevelant or purely historical.Xx236 (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

When the question of continued existence was raised above Talk:Azov Battalion#Asov ended by capitulation, so it´s historically,isn´t it?, Anatoliy denied that. Then there are a lot of people that use "the Azov" to mean more than the regiment and sometimes it isn't clear what exactly is meant. Anyway, the historical aspect remains relevant as history, right? Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

See the RFC above, there is no point in continuing to drag out their political nature (or lack of it). Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mhorg Does the RFC closure imply that they are going to edit the lede to match "Alternative Draft 1"? I am not in favor of removing the well-cited assertion that the Azov Regiment is a neo-Nazi group, but I can see the reasoning for it—if there are people who think otherwise, it might be best to describe the evidence and let people draw their own conclusions. However, the alternative draft talks about controversy regarding the regiments "early association" with far-right groups. Even assuming that it is not a far-right group, the examples given in the article itself (continued contact with its founder and connections with the rest of the movement, alleged speech from a neo-Nazi just five years ago, at least some foreign far-right volunteers allegedly coming to join the regiment even during the last few months) suggest that it should be "association," not "early association." 98.60.79.135 (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

While I disagree with BirdofPrey about "left" bias, I strongly agree about the value of the evidence presented by Mhorg above. It is the very definition of original research to present a series of primary sources that you interpret in a particular way and say this should the truth Wikipedia conveys, especially if there is also a large body of expert opinion published in reliable sources that tells us something different. The thing about experts is that they have spent time and used their expertise to review a range of primary sources, some of which we may not have access to, and given us their interpretations of these primary sources. We need to summarise those, and if they differ then we summarise the differences of opinion. We have a number of relevant experts - Umland, Colborne, Aliyev, Shekhovtsov, Gomza, Likhachev, Kuzmenko - and they say a variety of things, many of which at least partially agree with some degree of de-politicisation. We should certainly not be removing or thinning out those experts who disagree with our original research on the basis that they disagree with our original research. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post https://www.jpost.com/international/article-700396 "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."Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

New statement by Kuzmenko (Bellingcat):[24] "Ihor Mykhailenko ,a former Azov Regiment (NGU) commander, led Azov movement’s notorious street branch National Militia (rebranded Centuria in late 2020) that embraced overt neonazis in its ranks. This Centuria . Now Cherkas is apparently running newly formed Azov Regiment SOF".

This "depoliticization" is therefore full blown fake news. The Azov Regiment is the armed wing of the Azov Movement. Mhorg (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

'The Azov Regiment is the armed wing of the Azov Movement' - this is a strong statement. Is it based on one tweet?

The page does not contain words 'Cherkas' nor SOF. Are you sur eyou accuse the JPost to spread faked news? Xx236 (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

' @wsj recent report apparently mistakes Azov Regiment SOF in Zaporizhzhia with the NGU unit that fought in Mariupol.' I feel to be misinformed by you.I hope this is due my poor English. Xx236 (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not me who accuses anything, it is Oleksy Kuzmenko who accuses. For example, here [25]: "@WSJ piece on SOF Azov Regiment failed to report that "Dmytro Kukharchuk, the commander of the 2nd Battalion Special Forces of Kyiv" is also a National Corps leader".

What Kuzmenko says is confirmed, for example first-class Italian sources report that he is a member of the National Corps (Azov Movement) -> "Attivista del Corpo nazionale Dmytro Kukharchuk".[26]

And on National Corps website, as Kuzmenko stated, we read: "Dmytro Kukharchuk , head of the Cherkasy branch of the National Corps"[27]

Yes, the Azov Battalion has not depoliticized. Mhorg (talk) 10:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry but what is the connection between your text and the Azov Regiment? I have written above that I do not understand you, so you repeat your words. I still do not understand. Xx236 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources if the Azov Regiment still exist, so not 'is' but 'was'.Xx236 (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's more like, after february invasion, a lot of the usual peace time depoliticization is irrelevant or incomparable. Most of the political parties have stopped political activity in the usual sense, there is martial law, and general mobilization. People who are veterans especially are needed to fight, but hell, you have both former and current government officials serving in the territorial defense, which is the successor of the 2014 volunteer battalion system.

These are much more adhoc units and seem to have a much different character than the highly professionalized and elite Azov Regiment unit that was in Mariupol. Cononsense (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Option 1

Sop now then RFC has closed and option one is the outcome do we need any rewording? Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Just for the sake of clarity, editors are to discuss the following as new introduction for the article (aka 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.

Selfstudier (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I would just like the removal of the word "early". The controversy regards whether they still have far right connections as well as historical ties. Also want to say a thanks to Ixtal, Ryk72 and Isabelle Belato for entering this contentious topic and giving a thoughtful close. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it has been agreed already that it should say "originally based in Mariupol". Selfstudier (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

So this?

The Azov Battalion is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine once 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. The group has drawn controversy over its association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology, its use of controversial symbols, and allegations of torture and war crimes.

OK? Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I am a little confused with the wording of the third sentence, it starts off in 2022 then refers back to the incorporation, how does the incorporation in 2014 draw controversy in 2022? Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Should it just be "The group has drawn controversy over its…"? Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and changed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I fully made the change above - hope you don’t mind! Vladimir.copic (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

i agree with these changes and like the new wording. 'the group's incorporation into the National Guard drew controversy' is only used by russian propaganda to make it sound like Azov has significant influence over the ukrainian government because it the unit is formally part of it, which lends itself to the 'fascist coup' narrative. from a worldwide perspective, the controversy is over the far-right/neo-Nazi stuff.

personally, i think 'and allegations of torture and war crimes.' could be removed as well. this was important in the 2014-2015 war, but the international media has not focused too much on this, outside of countering russian claims Cononsense (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this wording is the best that's been proposed so far. I think Cononsense raises a valid point about whether the allegations of torture have remained a key controversy, as it's not something I've seen mentioned in most recent coverage; would "allegations of torture and war crimes [during the War in Donbas/dating from 2014-15/historic torture]" be more supported by the weight of sourcing? Jr8825 • Talk 14:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd note that the current version {{u| of the lead (beside the neo-nazi label) conveys the same split in several paragraphs, with a bit more details added for each point. Not sure that reverting back to a one-paragraph lead, which won in the RfC, will improve the article. Should we discuss the winning draft vs the current lead, and compile the "updated version" to stay? Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume we would not duplicate, so would remove the same content from the paragraph below. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we can just go ahead and fit that into the lead somehow, remove the neo nazi/tag stuff and then resume editing directly in the lead? Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I suspect it would get reverted by one side of the dispute or the other. Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I had a go at doing it anyway, feel free to mess with it though.Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Needs consequential editing because some duplication later on in the lead. Selfstudier (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with removing "early"; reliable sources such as the BBC say once had links to the far right, and removing "early" means that we are saying that those ties still exist. BilledMammal (talk) 14:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

We might have to work up something like alleged because other (expert) sources say they still exist. Selfstudier (talk) 14:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

how about early association... followed by 'continued use of controversial symbols' Cononsense (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Although the way it is worded now does not directly state that the links still exist, left to the body to explain? Selfstudier (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think Slatersteven's draft is really good. Gets to the point, keeps it basic yet doesn't dodge the controversy (without adding in a definitive wikivoice verdict on it).--Euor (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Any draft where we say that Azov is Neo-Nazi in wikivoice is one which the RfC close excludes. The removal of the word "early" renders the remainder of the sentence as endorsing the view that the group maintains neo-Nazi ideology; saying that "X group has drawn controversy over its neo-nazi ideology" still puts the claim that the group has a neo-Nazi ideology in wikivoice. If there's objection to the use of "early" as putting a wikivoice statement in about the timing, the solution isn't to do something that substantially amounts to the rejected Option A. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This edit by Selfstudier ameliorates my concerns. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I think this manages to thread the needle. (Although I think it’s a bit far to say "association with…" is equivalent to "is neo-Nazi" wikivoice.) Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. I had been parsing the sentence as the controversy being over both its "early association with far-right groups" and its (unqualified) "neo-Nazi ideology", though this was me not reading standard English correctly. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any verbiage which says "associations with ideology" is explicitly putting the idea that this group is still neo-nazi in wiki-voice. If that were true, then there are quite a few politicians whose articles on this site would be also calling them neo-nazi in WV. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Shibbolethink here. It is a bit too weaselly to use "controversy" "association with" and "early and allegedly continuing" never mind making the sentence hard to understand. Association with should suffice and in no way says "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree, IMHO stating in wikivoice "the regiment has connections to neo-Nazi ideology" is equivalent to saying in wikivoice "is neo-Nazi", which was rejected by the RfC. Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If you truly believe this, then I have a very different understanding of the English language to you. Look at this sentence: "Bob has drawn controversy over his association with the police force's ideology." Do you think this is the same as saying Bob is a policeman? Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Why? Let's look at the sentense which was landed to the article, The group has drawn controversy over its associations with far-right groups and connections to neo-Nazi ideology. With my understanding of English it says: (1) the group has associations with far-right groups; (2) the group has connections to neo-Nazi ideology; (3) both (1) and (2) cause controversy around the group and its public image. Many sources and fellow editors disagree with (2), and say there is no solid proofs the group has connections to the ideology, and it is just blatant propaganda around a few soldiers of the group pictured with neo-Nazi symbol, which does not defined the entire group. That's why the current consensus is to prepend such stuff with "allegedly", etc. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are the only one using the phrase "connections to neo-Nazi ideology" - it does not appear in the current lede. RS of all angles speak about the controversy Azov's connections to neo-Nazism/right-wing groups have caused. If you are calling WaPo, Reuters and Politico propaganda I don't think we live in the same universe and it's probably best we don't engage anymore. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Omg... "connections to neo-Nazi ideology" appeared in the lede after edits by Shibbolethink yesterday, and disappeared after I reverted those edits to the previous status quo version. Birdofpreyru (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What makes that the status quo version? It is not status quo simply because you say it is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What makes that the status quo version? It is not status quo simply because you say it is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact it was standing like that for a week, and your version got reverted within a day. Birdofpreyru (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I was unaware that 1 week was the minimum time to set a status quo. Especially when done immediately after a fraught and debated RfC is closed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Many sources and fellow editors disagree with (2), and say there is no solid proofs the group has connections to the ideology That's not what the RFC says. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

"Controversial symbols" is euphemistic. We're talking about Nazi symbols: the Wolfsangel and the schwarze Sonne. We shouldn't dance around that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm also satisfied with current wording. I think for now the "controversial symbols" wording is adequate although, per section above, it sounds like they're making some changes [28] (incidentally the parallels with neo-Nazi groups within Russian forces is mentioned in this source and that may be something that should also be included here). Volunteer Marek 07:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

From "The Times" article brought here by Volunteer Marek: "Azov Battalion drops neo-Nazi symbol exploited by Russian propagandists", ok, so not "Controversial symbols" but "neo-Nazi symbols".

And, talking about that article, I'd like to report (just for the discussion) two statements about two experts:

Ivan Katchanovski: "Media continue to whitewash neo-Nazi-led Azov regiment, which surrendered in Mariupol, & new Azov units which were organized & led after start of Russian invasion by National Corp, civilian wing of Azov. Proxy war outweighs democracy in Ukraine."[29]

Oleksiy Kuzmenko (Bellingcat): "Media & experts on [downplaying] Ukraine far right tout insignia of recently minted Azov unit(s) as a break from the far right BUT an ideologist of the far right Azov movement which leads these units states "[the enemy] won't be able to destroy neither our memory nor our ideas"[30] Mhorg (talk) 09:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

its use of controversial symbols, and allegations of torture and war crimes. does not need to be said twice in the lede, once is enough. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that the word "controversial symbol" is too inaccurate. Confederate symbols are also "controversial" but that's is not what Azov used. The lead should make it clear as "Nazi symbols". Agletarang (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

  But all nazi symbols are controversial, they are controversial because they are nazi. Slatersteven (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Sure, but specificity is surely better than vagueness. Lots of symbols are "controversial." A controversial symbol could be the LBGTQ pride flag (because there are lots of homophobic people who dislike it, as well as some anti-racist activists who see it as exclusionary). A controversial symbol could be the US flag (people literally burn it in protest!), or the Russian flag. By saying that the regiment uses or has used Nazi symbols, the type of controversy is made clear. 98.60.79.135 (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think "nazi symbols" says it all. Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it the "its use of controversial symbols linked to Nazism" part of the lead you are discussing? Because that doesn't seem vague at all to me, people aren't going to think of the US or pride flags when they read that. Controversial symbols linked to Nazism seems appropriate for the lead. TylerBurden (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

No, its been changed to that from ", its use of controversial nazi symbols". Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia kills thousands of civilians.

The main subject discussed in English Wikipedia is point of view of probably tens already dead or imprisoned Azov soldiers.

It is similar to - is Coca Cola better than Pepsi?Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Many armies/units have radical-right problems, eg. the Bundeswehr.Nothing here Bundeswehr.Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It is covered in the Kommando Spezialkräfte article. What’s your point exactly? Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I am opposed to all this insertion of "allegedly" and "early" and "former." We should not be describing this group in a way that washes over whether there are still connections. We should be instead using language which makes clear there are associations. Even if those links were stronger in the past, they are still associations as the same people are involved with the group now as much as then. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Good to know. Though, I oppose removal of "allegedly", "early", and "former" ;) Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As I said above - I agree we should remove "early and allegedly continuing". Mikehawk10's objection was based on (by his own admission) a misreading. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

What is your suggestion? If you just remove "early and allegedly continuing" from the current lead, the remaining sentence will be The group has drawn controversy over its association with both far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology, its use of controversial symbols linked to Nazism, and allegations that members of the group have participated in torture and war crimes, which to me reads almost like claiming wikivoice neo-Nazi ideology of the unit, from which we seemingly departed after the RfC. I oppose that.

It will be ok for me if references to nazism are also removed from the claim, leaving it as The group has drawn controversy over its association with far-right groups, its use of controversial symbols, and allegations that members of the group have participated in torture and war crimes, but I believe other editors won't agree with that.

Thus, if we remove "early and allegedly continuing", we need to re-write the entire sentence to make it clear that there is no consensus on neo-Nazi ideology of the unit. Birdofpreyru (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

There is, however, consensus on connections to Neo-Nazi ideas and symbols...? Do you disagree? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I object to removing words like early, or some other word that implies 'change'. keep in mind that symbology strongly and strictly associated with radical right nationalism (or w/e you identify with 'neo-nazism', but to simply things, xenophobic, anti-democratic, ethno-nationalist positions), inside of ukraine in 2013 can be quite different than in 2022 for various reasons.

See for example, Likhachev talking about the general sociological trend of cultural appropriation of nationalist symbology by a new emerging modern sense of nationalism in the mainstream of ukrainian society, as opposed to the previous usage by narrow far right subcultures: [31]( (page 177)

or for example, gomza who says that these cultural refs are more strongly associated with the modern military unit inside ukraine than the ww2 refs, which are lost to most Ukrainians: [32].

Or say, aliyev's in field observations about 'nationalism' in the context of the 'nationalist battalions', and what that means in the modern sense [33])

in most of the world, the meaning of such symbology is static, and therefore simple to qualify. but this is hardly true in the state of war which ukraine has been in and is in. this is doubly true with the abuse of the word 'nazi' (and 'fascist') by russian propaganda, which seems to be very strongly associated with propaganda that aims to undermine ukrainian sovereignty by using guilt by association rhetorical devices. This all requires nuance to talk about, rather than universals. Cononsense (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: As Cononsense answered already, there is no consensus on this, nor among editors, neither within society. That's why a bunch of editors are against any edits that present it as there is a consensus on it, and that's why if the current wording stayed for a week without reverts and edit-warring that already hints that most of editors on both sides of the argument see it as a reasonable compromise within WP:NPOV. -- Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That's because it is, altough I suppose it is not surprising to see attempts at swaying it into leaning one way or another again. A lot of people didn't get their way with that RfC. TylerBurden (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Azov 2.0?

According to WAPO "..the Azov Battalion has been decimated", we have instead Kraken, formed by Azov Battalion veterans, answers to the Defense Ministry but is not part of Ukraine’s armed forces (sounds familiar), "filled its ranks with "gym rats," bouncers and "ultras,". Selfstudier (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that "Kraken" is a separate and different unit, hence it needs a separate page. But it can/should be noted on this page as well. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Still nothing.Xx236 (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

New logo

According to The Times, Azov has adopted a new logo, removing the Wolfsangel and adopting an stylised Tryzub. Should we change the image?-Karma1998 (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Already discussed above. As far as I understood from a bit of extra-googling, the new logo is only a symbol for a new sub-unit of Azov Regiment, and not a replacement for the National Idea symbol of entire regiment. Maybe they are going to replace it entirely, but at this point it seems premature to state that in this wiki article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Nice work

Nothing controversial here, I just wanted to say nice work to all for the serious effort put into getting the POV issues resolved. There's been multiple RFCs and threads raised, good to see it sorted. Good work all! Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Being absolutely mad on the net on how much you disliked the former description. Accused wikipedia for being a propaganda arm then backtracked. Near spammed this whole talk page on how much you disliked it, and now you are happy that it changed to the description which you liked more. Glad you are happy though 5.36.196.197 (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Sect 82

I think this edit is problematic. (Original edit. I removed and this edit is a revert of that.) 1) "ultras groups like Sect 82 - what does this mean? If the statement is true of Sect 82, it's relevant here; if it's true of other ultras like Sect 82, it's not relevant. 2) The source doesn't appear to mention Sect 82. 3) The source only appears to mention Autonome Nationalisten or the ideologies.4) The quoted part of the source refers to the 1990s-2000s, which seems irrelevant to the text to which the note is appended. Can anyone explain this to me? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd note that "Sect 82" is not mentioned neither in Russian nor Ukrainian wiki articles on Azov Regiment, nor in Russian / Ukrainian articles on the football club, which these hooligans supported. I'd say it shows "Sect 82" is very non-newsworthy and quite irrelevant, and most probably ended up in the English Azov Regiment article as a part of efforts by some editors to stress ultra-far-right-Nazi origins of the Regiment. -- Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the source is talking about both Sect 82 and other similar groups. Translating it into Italian by us makes this sense. I don't know if it is interpreted differently in English. Also, note that in this italian source[34] they call them "extreme right-wing ultra group Metalist, also accused of Nazi leanings". However, I don't see why we should doubt these sources, just watch this promotional video of Sect 82 where the hooligans shout 'Sieg Heil' and do the Nazi salute.[35] Mhorg (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the source is talking about both Sect 82 and other similar groups. Why is this clear to you? If it doesn't say so, that feels a little like OR. And why are "other similar groups" relevant? This is only relevant to the extent it is directly connected to Azov. Can you explain what Translating it into Italian by us makes this sense means? I'm still also missing the Autonome Nationalisten mention (the SNA aren't mentioned here eitehr. Also, Mhorg, didn't you argue up this page that Shekhovtsov isn't reliable ("fake news or otherwise unverifiable content") so it's odd you're now defending this content.

The Italian source[36] reinforces the first sentence, which I didn't challenge (but it only does so because it cites the same source, hromadske.ua); it doesn't mention SNPU, Svoboda etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Why is this clear to you? If it doesn't say so, that feels a little like OR", because what the source says is precisely the consideration of Sect 82 together with other far-right groups.

"didn't you argue up this page that Shekhovtsov isn't reliable", I still think so, but unlike the things he says about depoliticisation of the regiment\battalion, this thing he wrote about Sect 82 is verifiable by going to those videos where those hooligans make neo-Nazi salutes.[37] So his assertion is verifiable.

Complete italian source: "Sect 82 - an ultra-right-wing Metalist group, also accused of Nazi leanings - which in late February 2014 formed the entity that would later give birth to the Azov Battalion"[38] Mhorg (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Speaking about text inserted in the diff [39], the text itself does not say anything directly about Azov, and the quotation in footnote also does not say directly about Azov. So does not belong to the page, I agree with BobFromBrockley. But I have also concern about the previous phrase, i.e. "The Azov Regiment has its roots in a group of ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect 82". It makes a reference to this Ukrainian language source [40]. This is probably/possibly an RS, but it is mostly about Azov as a political movement, and after reading this article, it appears it does not claim that Azov Regiment has its roots in "Sect 82", unless someone resorts to selective citation or/and WP:SYN. This is a misrepresentation I think. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Actually, most of this section, Azov_Regiment#Founding,_February_2014, except only large last paragraph, should go. That last para starts from "As the situation in the Donbas deteriorated, on 13 April 2014, Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov issued a decree authorizing the creation of new paramilitary forces of up to 12,000 people". Yes, that is how and when the detachment was created. Everything before that in this section is not about founding of the detachment (as the title of the section say) but some kind of WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's legitimate to have some background before the founding, but this is what our single source says:

At the end of February 2014, when the separatist movement unfolded in Kharkiv, Sect 82 occupied the building of the regional administration and acted as the local Self-Defense. The Eastern Corps was soon formed on the basis of the Sect, a volunteer formation that soon became part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and was to protect Kharkiv in the event of war on its territory. Interior Minister Arsen Avakov called the building "his black hundred in Kharkiv." The war in Kharkiv did not happen, the "Eastern Corps" went to Donbas. Its volunteers took part in the liberation of Mariupol in June 2014, in the battles for Ilovaisk and Shirokino, and in August 2015 officially joined the Azov Regiment. At the same time, when the Eastern Corps appeared, the backbone of the Azov Battalion was formed around Andriy Biletsky. The fighters were then called "black men" - by the color of their uniforms.

In other words, the Eastern Corps is something different. The other source we use for this early period doesn't mention Sect 82 or the Eastern Corps.

I've edited to make sure our text follows the sources and doesn't exceed them. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the new version is a lot better. Especially relying on a source from 2011 seems undue. According to contempariorious sources, the alliances between the ultras and any other orgs was both fragile and flexible, so oversimplification is bad. during this era, they were clearly important in helping protect the local maidans and anti-seperatism during the so called "Russian Spring". I think we have sufficient background here, and most of the details belong on other pages.

according to likhachev, azov has 'several' roots. that matches other sources that talk about automaidan activists, for example the perspective of Natan Khazin who talks about forming another 'spine' of azov at initiation. Cononsense (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is an improvement, but "had its roots in..." is misleading. Yes, some members of "sect 82" became members of Azov. But it does not mean much. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I've had another go, including the material Cononsense mentions. How is it now? BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Nazi Twitter

The National Guard of Ukraine national gendarmerie and internal military force Twitter account (it's official Twitter account) hosts Nazi videos of the Azov Regiment.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ng_ukraine/status/1497924614865002497

Covered by Al Jazeera

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment

I'm not familiar with Twitter, but I thought you could not host Nazi videos?

Anyway there are probably good and bad people on both sides, but, I think this is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.175.53 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The video has nothing to do with nazism, and it is already covered in the article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent Haaretz article

https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2022-06-01/ty-article-magazine/.premium/understanding-ukrainian-nationalism-and-claims-its-tainted-by-nazism/00000181-1a0c-d9b4-a199-be1e4a3c0000?utm_source=mailchimp&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_campaign=the_best_of_haaretz&utm_content=c976d6f4d5 Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Cononsense cited it, bottom of the neonazi section. It's a bit confusing that article, first they talk about the book and then suddenly it is as if Colborne is in interview but it doesn't say so (possibly because he is a writer for Haaretz).Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry I have not checked. I have obtained it as a 'News'.Xx236 (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Radical nationalists

That term has nothing to do with "the spirit of the RFC". I have seen the term ultranationalists used quite a bit, presumably intending the same meaning and I did not think it was disputed that the "founders" were anything but golden boys. Selfstudier (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The term is present throughout the body of the article and is an established fact. There is no point in removing it. Mhorg (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like another whitewash attempt. At the time of the founding, there was no real dispute about the nature of the beast. Selfstudier (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. no doubt there was radical nationalists involved with the founding group of azov. but using that as the sole unqualified descriptor when the founding groups don't seem homogenous is creating similar problems as the lede pre-rfc.

for example, the founding members associated with automaidan and other maidan defense groups are usually not associated with 'radical nationalism' at all (except for in russian propaganda which uses guilt by association rhetorical devices). Cononsense (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It is in part why it was classed neo-Nazi pre RFC (by a different equally valid RFC). That they may have changed their spots more recently is a different thing. Selfstudier (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ultras is a term I've seen used in sources such as FT to describe the founders. Jr8825 • Talk 13:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"Ultras" mean a different thing from Ultranationalist. They are not named such because they are ultranationalists but "ultra" fans of football. Of course, Ultras have tedencies and connections to radical ideologies (including ultranationaism, neonazism and others), they happened to be ultras who subscribed to Ultranationalism. LordLoko (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Somebody explain me, why is it so important for you to include the radical nationalism label in the very first paragraph of the article, other than hurt WP:NPOV in favour of your favorite PoV?

Does the current version of the article, without this label, hides anything in attempt to whitewash the unit? It does not look so to me. The allegations of the neo-Nazism and associations with far-right ideology are present right below in the second paragraph. The mention of Biletsky, who is the most media-controversial character of the story, with link to article about him, is right in the first paragraph. Everything in this regard is covered in details through the main body of the article.

At this point continuing attempts to squeeze just a little bit more controversial definition of the unit / its origins to just slightly more visible position in the text look just stupid to me. That is aside that for a bunch of people radical nationalism reads as a complement, I believe. Yeah, they were nationalists even back then when it was less popular, defending that Ukrainians is a nation, despite what the Russians say. And they were radical enough in their belief, ready to self-organize and join the armed fight against invasion of their country. Or, maybe better to write it was founded by "radical patriots" of Ukraine? That would be a lovely double-meaning, taking into account the Biletsky's party name :)

Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Because it's a fact? Removing it is the POV violation not adding it. Selfstudier (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, their heroic stand in sieged Mariupol is also a fact. Is it POV violation not starting the article with that? Why don't we write in the first sentence "it is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine" which defended Mariupol during 2-months siege by Russian forces during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine"? Do you see the problem with your reasoning? -- Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No. Adding an adjective is not the same as adding an unrelated event.Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Are we still following sources around here? - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol. I'm sure it is not that difficult to find sources describing the volunteers back then.Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of a source

Seems a shame to lose this source on the grounds that it does not mention Biletsky...by name (it says "When the volunteer Azov Battalion was formed by a white supremacist four months ago..."). Perhaps it can be placed elsewhere in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure why we need it, surely all of its claims are already sources to other RS? Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The source is important, we can include it to describe the creation of the unit. Mhorg (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, as well, the source does not add anything to the article subject. The author voices the same accusations repeated in countless other sources (founders are neo-nazis, their emblem is Wolfsangel, they do war crimes, etc.), without giving any unique insights nor proves for any of these points. Thus, it is just yet another opinion piece on the regiment, which does not have to be in the article. -- Birdofpreyru (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't taken out because of all those reasons, it was taken out because it didn't name Biletsky by name. It's a perfectly good source, not an opinion and should be retained somewhere, perhaps tied to Mariupol. Selfstudier (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

it’s a perfectly good source and I think we are still using it elsewhere in the article aren’t we? Just can’t use it for something it doesn’t say about founder. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC) (it’s currently source no.59, used twice BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC))