Talk:Azov Brigade

Modern sources and Neo-Nazi

Let's try to find out what are today's views among the recent sources regarding the issue.
ICWSM_Eluosi.pdf (hanshanley.com) The Azov military battalion was a paramilitary group launched by the Ukrainian ultranationalist groups “Patriot of Ukraine” and “Social National Assembly” in 2014. Azov was considered a neo-nazi organization and it was often referenced as a justifcation for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to “denazify” the country (Thompson and Myers 2022). However, we note that despite the Russian call to “denazify” Ukraine by ridding it of Azov, this has largely been labeled an attempt to delegitimize Ukrainian interests (Thompson and Myers 2022). After being reorganized under the National Guard of Ukraine and additional efforts in 2017, the Azov battalion has been largely considered depoliticized (Shekhovtsov 2020).

#Azovsteel: Comparing qualitative and quantitative approaches for studying framing of the siege of Mariupol on Twitter (sagepub.com) The Azov battalion was originally a paramilitary group formed at the start of Russia’s war in 2014. Among its original members, there were a number of football ultras as well as right-wing personalities, such as Andrii Biletskii. After the incorporation of the battalion in the Ukrainian National Guard and the subsequent expansion of Azov into a regiment, the majority of its extreme members left Azov. However, Russian propaganda kept framing Azov as a neo-Nazi armed group posing existential threat to Russia. For more information, see McCallum (2022).

Much Azov about nothing: The ‘Ukrainian neo-Nazis’ canard – Monash Lens Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent. There isn’t space to canvas all these in a short piece, but this is the conclusion of Anton Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. For a concise summary, Likhachev’s point-by-point rebuttal of the Azov-Nazi narrative comes highly recommended. The Azov Regiment of 2022 bears little relation to the ragtag militia the Azov Battalion of 2014, formed from a few dozen football hooligans, and – yes – far-right extremists. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

McCallum 2022 doesn't appear to be a WP:RS unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

#Azovsteel: Comparing qualitative and quantitative approaches for studying framing of the siege of Mariupol on Twitter - Michael Tschirky, Mykola Makhortykh, 2023 (sagepub.com) and Full article: Gate-crashing “European” and “Slavic” area studies: can Ukrainian studies transform the fields? (tandfonline.com) are referring to him. Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

We can use them, but we can't use McCallum. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Anton Shekhovtsov: Helping those 'Azov Nazis'? - ICDS The Azov Brigade has its own unique – and, indeed, problematic – history. However, by 2022, it had long ceased to be the far-right volunteer battalion of 2014. Talking about the right-wing milieu or independent groups today, they are just soldiers. In some soldiers, we might see right-wing convictions, but in their duty they are governed by orders from higher commanders, rather than personal politics. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there any truth to Russia's 'Ukrainian Nazis' propaganda? – DW – 12/03/2022 There has also been criticism of right-wing Ukrainian militia members who were fighting against the separatists in the east of Ukraine earlier this year — above all, the Azov Battalion. Umland said that although it was founded by a right-wing extremist group, it was integrated into forces of the Interior Ministry, the National Guard, in the fall of 2014.
After that, he said, there had been a separation of the movement and the regiment, with the latter still using the former's symbols but no longer being classified as part of the right-wing extremist scene. During military training courses, extremist soldiers had sometimes come to light, he said, but they had then "been revealed and named as a scandal." Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thats an opinion piece so not really all that usable. Perhaps I'm missing the point here, were you asking about the sources or something else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Andreas Umland (born 1967) is a political scientist studying contemporary Russian and Ukrainian history as well as regime transitions. He has published on the post-Soviet extreme right, municipal decentralization, European fascism, post-communist higher education, East European geopolitics, Ukrainian and Russian nationalism, the Donbas and Crimea conflicts, as well as the neighborhood and enlargement policies of the European Union. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if they're subject matter experts you can't use opinion pieces for info about third parties. I'm finding it ironic given your name that you aren't familiar with our reliability policies and how they pertain to area experts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSEDITORIAL The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. The Deutsche Welle article also isn't an opinion piece. Tristario (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, more likely to be... But still unlikely to be. Did someone say that the Deutsche Welle article was an opinion piece? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That's the comment you replied to. Which one were you saying was an opinion piece? This one? It's an WP:INTERVIEW. Opinion pieces by subject matter experts are relatively commonly used on wikipedia, and for good reasons. I'm unaware of any guideline or policy stating that opinions by subject matter experts are "unlikely to be" reliable. Tristario (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Its marked as "COMMENTARY." It says "more likely to be reliable" not "are reliable" or "are automatically reliable." At best we can use it as an attributed opinion, it can't be used to support facts about third parties. What is the proposed change or addition you are proposing? We don't do discussions of sources which aren't related to concrete improvements of an article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We can use it attributed. You're right that generally we shouldn't use opinion pieces for unattributed statements of fact Tristario (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

We probably can but just a note that nobody has actually proposed using these sources unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think Manyareasexpert just thinks they might be useful sources? Tristario (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I assume (largely from their response to Slatersteven) that they have a larger agenda or point to make. Perhaps we should let them do that and then consider their proposal. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

What does all of this add to what we already say? Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

McCallum is not an expert, only two pubblications.[1] Mhorg (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

How many publications does this expert have [2] ? Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ahem WP:BATTLEGROUND. Lets stay on topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

So what edit is being suggested, we need to remember wp:uvercit. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Putin's War on Ukraine - Google Books These accusations are detached from empirical truths about Ukraine's nationalist battalions. Although the Azov Battalion's founder Andriy Biletsky stated in 2010 that Ukraine's goal was to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade against Semite-led Untermenschen" and the battalion's uniform uses the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol, it is misleading to describe the Azov Battalion as a neo-Nazi organisation. Shortly after Biletsky's departure in October 2014, the presence of Nazis within the Azov Battalion was estimated to be 10-20% of its members and the battalion's integration into the Ukrainian military has further diluted its ideological character.53 While neo-Nazi and illiberal elements within the Azov Regiment remain, the dominance of patriotism over ideology in Ukraine's 2022 resistance to Russia has reined in its extremist impulses. It also belies the presence of neo-Nazi elements within Russia's military apparatus, which include Wagner Group founder Dmitry Utkin, the Rusich unit of the Wagner Group and Lieutenant Colonel Timur Kurilkin, who Pushilin honoured for military heroism. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:forum, and make an edit suggestion. Slatersteven (talk) 11:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

During this conversation it has been suggested that McCallum is not reliable enough. What other editors think would be the reliability bar for this article? Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Why do we need him is my question, what does he add we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

He summarizes Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent. There isn’t space to canvas all these in a short piece, but this is the conclusion of Anton Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. For a concise summary, Likhachev’s point-by-point rebuttal of the Azov-Nazi narrative comes highly recommended. The Azov Regiment of 2022 bears little relation to the ragtag militia the Azov Battalion of 2014, formed from a few dozen football hooligans, and – yes – far-right extremists. [3] Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

" Others argue that the regiment has evolved, tempering its neo-Nazi and far-right underpinnings as it became part of the National Guard.", we already say that. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Now compare this with weight given to it by McCallum. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

So, why is his view so important, sorry this is just one writer's opinion, and we do not give one writer wp:undue coverage no matter how reliable. The fact there maybe some doubt over whether he is even an RS makes that a no go for me. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

why is his view so important, sorry this is just one writer's opinion
Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent. There isn’t space to canvas all these in a short piece, but this is the conclusion of Anton Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

"It also belies the presence of neo-Nazi elements within Russia's military apparatus, which include - Wagner Group and Lieutenant Colonel Timur Kurilkin, who Pushilin honoured for military heroism" quoted from "Putin's War on Ukraine, Russia's Campaign for Global Counter-Revolution by Samuel Ramani". Ramani confused Kurilkin with Senior Lieutenant of the Somalia Battalion Roman Vorobyov. Let's just say that he does not seem to be a reliable source.[4] Mhorg (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

So, what other editors think would be the reliability bar for this article? Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I think these sources you're listing seem to be mostly reliable or usable. I don't think a single instance of someone possibly mixing up names makes it unreliable. Why are you listing these sources though? Tristario (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Incorrectly stating that a person has worn Nazi symbols constitutes defamation. And there is a difference if a high office in the army wears neo-Nazi symbols than if a simple lieutenant does. The fact that this author relied on mistakes made by other journalists could mean that this superficiality could also have occurred on other occasions. Mhorg (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

‘[Ramani’s] encyclopedic descriptions… yield interesting details and… solid tactical analysis.’ — The New York Times

‘Looks behind the headlines to determine the motivations for the invasion and the likely path forward. Ramani is convincing in his view that the war marks a seismic shift in the geopolitical landscape. Clear-minded and authoritative, this book is a thorough analysis of how Putin’s gambit fits into the big picture.’ — Kirkus Reviews

‘A strongly researched account of the events that led to the tragic Russo-Ukrainian war.’ — The Washington Free Beacon

‘Unpicks Putin’s concocted rationales for invading Ukraine… [and] dissects Russia’s strategic military failings.’ — Labour Hub

‘This book will help those who cannot understand why and how a genocidal war of colonial reconquest came to be launched on Europe in the twenty-first century. But it also explains clearly the vital importance of that war for the future of Russia itself and of global security.’ — Keir Giles, Research Director, Conflict Studies Research Centre

‘A definitive account of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, full of thoughtful insights on why Russia sought regime change, how its leadership has managed sanctions and setbacks and what could be its post-war future. Indispensable for all who seek to understand Putin’s ambitions in establishing a new global order.’ — Kathryn Stoner, Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, Stanford University, and author of Russia Resurrected

‘This valuable study offers a compelling, detailed and well-sustained argument that Putin seeks to subjugate Ukraine through war, as part of a broader illiberal “counter-revolutionary” agenda for control of former Soviet territory.’ — Roy Allison, Professor of Russian and Eurasian International Relations, University of Oxford

‘Samuel Ramani’s book on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will doubtless be followed by many others, but when it comes to meticulous research, balanced assessments, acute insights, and comprehensiveness, this superb volume has set a very high standard.’ — Rajan Menon, co-author of Conflict in Ukraine: The Unwinding of the Post-Cold War Order

‘Ramani provides a detailed and well-informed analysis of the reasons Putin invaded Ukraine and the broader implications of the war for European and international security. An important book on a topic of core concern for the future of global security.’ — Roland Dannreuther, Professor of International Relations, University of Westminster, and author of Russia and Islam Putin's War on Ukraine | Hurst Publishers Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Why are you listing these sources though?
I see our article doesn't corresponds to what those sources say. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Those are book reviews, they are opinion pieces which we can't use here at all. You can use Ramani, but they don't override the experts they disagree with they compliment them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Book reviews were provided to confirm reliability of books provided.
Among provided are modern academic sources like Shekhovtsov, Gomza, Umland, Likhachev, Ramani, Soufan report [5] and experts [6] According to experts on the European far-right like Anton Shekhovtsov, the Azov of 2022 is nothing like the group from eight years ago, since those seeking to fight with Azov today are motivated, for the most part, by Ukrainian nationalism and not far-right extremism . If we are about to be as strict to the sources as to not to include McCallum, then look at Neo-Nazism section, most of sources there are press, should we remove those? Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You are probably right that this article requires some tweaking to comply with WP:NPOV better. Thanks for providing some relevant sources. I think McCallum is probably useable, he's probably better than other sources we have in the article. But using him is actually not even necessary since we have plenty of better sources than him Tristario (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you might be confused. Here’s an article in KP.ru saying both Vorobiov and Kurilkin were awarded for serving in the unit that killed over 250 “Nazis,” and with the full video showing both being awarded, Vorobiov in German Nazi regalia, and Kurilkin telling the camera about “cleaning Mariupol from fascist reptiles.”[7] (a pat example of Russian nudge-and-wink denialBragging for cognitive dissonance).  —Michael Z. 19:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

So one proposal for the section start could be
The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia, with connections to neo-Nazism and members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia, and expressing neo-Nazi views. In 2022 however, nationalism researchers such as Anton Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev say that Azov Regiment is a typical military unit with little, if any, political issues. Since 2014, Azov has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard with state control, removed of far-right elements, and is an example of successful deradicalization. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no need to make any changes to the section, it already contains all points of view. And please, let us use reliable sources and not Alasdair McCallum who has only two publications. He is not an expert in this field. Mhorg (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Something like that could work. But, 1. We should use sources besides MacCullum, since we have plenty of better sources (which would entail changing the wording) and 2. I don't think we can say Since 2014, Azov has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard with state control, removed of far-right elements, and is an example of successful deradicalization in wikivoice, since to some extent that's disputed, and I think there's some more nuance to the views on this that have been expressed by experts than that Tristario (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we can say Since 2014, Azov has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard with state control, removed of far-right elements, and is an example of successful deradicalization in wikivoice
How can it be improved?

We can use Shekhovtsov, Gomza, Umland, Likhachev and other themselves instead of McCallum. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It could be something like "Since 2014, Azov has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard with state control, and according to experts Shekhovtsov, Gomza, Umland, and Likhachev, has changed significantly from its origins, with the unit operating like a typical military unit, and it substantially losing the connection to the far-right movement." That may not be perfect, but something like that Tristario (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This would not be in line with WP:NPOV. The proposed text makes the impression that since 2014 Azov is a regular regiment without any connection whatsoever with its far-right roots. Here's a smattering of post-2014 sources which contradict it

• In 2022, Bhaswati Sarkar wrote about the Azov battalion having strong Nazi leanings
• In 2019 Andreas Umland wrote that about the manifest connection between these new nationalist extra-state projects with [the Azov regiment]
• In the article by Umland that Shekhovtsov cites, he calls Azov "far-right," so I don't see how it supports the supposed depoliticisation
• In 2018 Teemu Saressalo wrote that The Azov Battalion stands out among these because of its Nazi rhetoric and symbolism in the present tense.

Alaexis_¿question? 09:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

How would you change the text to comply with NPOV? Because right now the introduction of that section isn't complying with NPOV. And Umland doesn't call Azov far-right there. We've discussed the sourcing for this extensively, and I'd like this discussion to take a more productive note. Tristario (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth you're probably right that the text I proposed isn't fully in line with NPOV Tristario (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Neo-Nazism section, I think that we can re-use the wording from the lede:

“ The unit has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology, its use of controversial symbols linked to Nazism, and early allegations that members of the unit participated in human rights violations. Some experts have been critical of the regiment's role within the larger Azov Movement, a political umbrella group made up of veterans and organizations linked to Azov, and its possible far-right political ambitions, despite claims of the regiment's depoliticization. Others argue that the regiment has evolved, tempering its neo-Nazi and far-right underpinnings as it became part of the National Guard. ”

It sums up the consensus regarding the far-right origins and the ongoing controversy about how far they moved from those origins since then. Alaexis_¿question? 09:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Good thinking. But, the issue then is that we're effectively just repeating the same thing twice. So maybe we could tweak it to be more specific to the section, change the wording a bit, and cut it down a bit? So, maybe something like:

"The unit has drawn controversy since its founding over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology, and its use of controversial symbols linked to Nazism. Some experts have been critical of the regiment's role within the larger far-right Azov Movement, while others argue that the regiment has evolved since its integration into the National Guard, tempering far right elements and distancing from the movement."

Let me know what you think Tristario (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! Alaexis_¿question? 10:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

All allegations of human rights violations are removed. That part must be preserved. Mhorg (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

This is for the opening of the neo-nazism section though. I removed that since it's not relevant to that section (and so it isn't unnecessarily long) Tristario (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

In that case we can move that part in another section, but in the lede must go some reference to human rights violations Mhorg (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, don't worry, that's still in the lede. And we have a section for it too Tristario (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The Guardian's most recent reporting on the Azov Brigade claims "The 5,000-plus strong brigade has shed any far-right associations", could be considered as a source in "Others argue that the regiment has changed, tempering its far-right underpinnings as it became part of the National Guard" sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction of the article. Skdkkh (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Foreign Fighters in Ukraine: The Brown-red Cocktail

To those interested: I found a book which is both modern and takes a deep dive into the subject - https://books.google.com/books/about/Foreign_Fighters_in_Ukraine.html?id=deZNzwEACAAJ , please help me extract important info from it. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Golinkin fake

Golinkin "Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine" A mere four months after Applebaum’s essay, Newsweek ran an article titled “Ukrainian nationalist volunteers committing ‘ISIS-style’ war crimes.” references Newsweek, which supports this statement by referring to russian propaganda outlet NTV. I. e. it is simply fake. I'm removing it. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in connection with what it is being cited for. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

No, nevertheless it's better to not to refer to a source spreading fakes. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We do not get to judge if an RS is fake. Also the quoted line does not say the Newsweek article was true, or that it was even used by Golinkin for any information. It is a one line reference to an article, this is inceficiant to dismis a source written by an expert.. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not an RS, he is not an expert and is spreading fakes. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This has no basis in policy whatsoever. The source we're citing is The Nation, and it's a reliable source. The article mentions a Newsweek article, which in term uses cites NTV for a specific claim. This is not zombie apocalypse, one mention of NTV doesn't infect everything else in the article and in other articles that quote it with unreliability. Alaexis_¿question? 19:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The source we're citing is The Nation, and it's a reliable source
Who is the author? Why is he reliable? Before stating that, we need to address arguments stated before - he is not an expert and is spreading fakes. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We certainly can examine the author's credentials but it has to be based on RS and not on your personal opinion. Lev Golinkin has published articles in multiple highest-quality media outlets (His op-eds and essays on the Ukraine crisis have appeared in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, and Time.com, among others; he has been interviewed by WSJ Live and HuffPost Live [8]). Alaexis_¿question? 20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

none of those publications would meet the proposed Eastern Europe sourcing requirement fyi Elinruby (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

‎Sham trials section

I feel "‎Sham trials" deserves its own section, since the source do not mention "propaganda" at all Russia’s Sham Trial of Ukrainian Prisoners of War | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org) . Another source does metion it Trials of Ukrainian Prisoners of War in Russia: Decay of the Combatant’s Immunity (justsecurity.org) but in absolutely different context. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I'll move it back to its own section and see what the reactions to that are. Sjö (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

other sources emphasise the presence

Greetings! I'm not sure why the article should say "other sources emphasise the presence of former Patriot of Ukraine activists" [9], while the source is the only one, and it's not emphasizing that, but football hooligans and ultras .

There is more, what is the reliability of Eastjournal which was re-introduced?

"Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov issued a decree authorizing the creation of new paramilitary forces of up to 12,000 people." - anything here on article subject?

What's wrong with Arel, Dominique; Driscoll, Jesse (2023-01-05). Ukraine's Unnamed War: Before the Russian Invasion of 2022. Cambridge University Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-316-51149-7. ?

Thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

To be honest I don't like the whole passage starting from the words "For example." I'm not sure that Khazin's account contradicts the claim that the activists of Patriot of Ukraine were involved in the founding of the movement. How can we know that those 26 "crazy guys" he's writing about were not previously part of Patriot of Ukraine? As far as I can see the opposition ("however") does not come from any of the cited sources and probably is a violation of the synthesis policy.

Please note that the whole third paragraph of the Background and founding section deals with the connection of Azov with the Patriot of Ukraine, so it's not true that there is just one source that talks about it. Alaexis_¿question? 10:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure which "however" you are talking about and what sources "emphasise the presence of former Patriot of Ukraine activists"? While I agree there could be such, and if there are, please make a correction, because I performed my correction based on provided Hromadske reference. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clear. What I meant was that the statement "Khazin said X while other sources emphasise Y" makes it look like there are multiple views about who founded the brigade. Having looked at the sources I don't think that this is the case. Khazin mentions Automaidan, Hromadske mentions the Patriot of Ukraine, Korrespondent.net mentions Automaidan, Patriot of Ukraine and other organisations, nv.ua mentions Automaidan and Patriot of Ukraine. Alaexis_¿question? 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Eastjournal is an Italian-language source. I spent several minutes looking into them (unfortunately Italian WP doesn’t have an RSP or at least not linked) and they seem to be pretty solid as best as I could tell. Their contributors are all academics and policy/analytics bitplayers.

The Avakov decree sounds like it’s providing context for the formation of the volunteer units.

The Mariupol-related edit was largely included because the changes were improperly glossed over in the edit summary (also, the non-capitalization of “pro-russian”, while it has also been seen as a good-faith langtransfer error from European editors without complete fluency, is a visual yellow flag).

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Eastjournal is an Italian-language source. I spent several minutes looking into them (unfortunately Italian WP doesn’t have an RSP or at least not linked) and they seem to be pretty solid as best as I could tell. Their contributors are all academics and policy/analytics bitplayers.
— User:RadioactiveBoulevardier 14:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Not sure. What is their address? Where is their phone number? What is their editorial board? Who is the author of the particular article referenced https://www.eastjournal.net/archives/78786 ? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You can easily find the answers to your questions here. Alaexis_¿question? 19:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No address, no phone number. Established 2010. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

In Italy it is considered reliable. Mhorg (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no presumption of unreliability. If you think it's unreliable you need to provide evidence for that. Alaexis_¿question? 19:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You can find the address in the Gerenza section. Not having a phone number or being founded in 2010 has no bearing on the reliability (see WP:RS). Alaexis_¿question? 19:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no presumption of reliability. The website with no real establishment has no reliability. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

ManyAreasExpert, do you know the Italian language? The source is used 86 times[10] on Italian Wikipedia. Quoted by Radio Radicale[11]. Mhorg (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There are no such criteria in WP:RS. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I've spent a bit of time looking at EastJournal. I don't see any reason to think it's not reliable, unless you've got some reason to. The editorial board and writing team seems to be made up of doctoral students and academics, and I couldn't see any particular red flags in its coverage (e.g. no reason to think it's affiliated with any state). Seems pretty even-handed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We need to be critical on anything written on that private website until confirmed by some reliable sources. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

At this point no policy-based arguments have been presented as to why this source is unreliable. If you disagree with the local consensus please feel free to raise this at the appropriate venue. Alaexis_¿question? 08:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Btw thanks for adding Umland's article as a source. I've learned quite a lot from it and we can probably use it more for this and other articles. Alaexis_¿question? 09:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Opened the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Italian lawyer on Azov Neo-Nazi . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)