Talk:Azov Brigade/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

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

Daily Beast

Can you explain the reason for this edit in more detail? The Daily Beast is not an unreliable source. The RSP entry advises caution when using it for controversial statements, but I don't think that this particular passage is particularly controversial, given other sources in the article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The Daily Beast is not an unreliable source
It's also not a reliable source and the article overall is full of academic sources to replace news, journalist and press sources with, which authors are encouraged to do. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources calling Azov Regiment a neo-Nazi group include

Why is there such one-sided footnote-commentary right in the lead after "The unit has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology"? Where is the neutralizing the POV collection of sources saying the opposite? Not quite NPOV. What to do with that? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The alternative PoV is presented in the next sentence (Others argue that the regiment has changed.... Alaexis_¿question? 20:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Allegations

Greetings @F.Alexsandr, why have you removed [8] "Allegations" from the section title? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Because its a fact, not merely allegations. F.Alexsandr (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Your claim is wrong. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you are basing your alteration on your personal opinion rather than the actual article, the section contains sources with both points of view. TylerBurden (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sham trials

I see sources are pretty solid in characterizing these developments as "Sham trials". I'll add another one - Trials of Ukrainian Prisoners of War in Russia: Decay of the Combatant’s Immunity (justsecurity.org) . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally I agree that it's not a fair trial. However calling it like this in the section title is not encyclopedic. Most of the sources do not use this term [9], [10], [11], [12]. Alaexis_¿question? 20:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Those are short news. More in-depth analyses like those above and from HRW do note that trials are a joke off justice:
A sham trial Russia has put Ukrainian prisoners of war connected with the Azov Brigade on trial for terrorism — Meduza
Ukraine: Russian sham trials of prisoners of war in Mariupol ‘illegal and unacceptable’ - Amnesty International
Russian sham trial threatens 33 UA soldiers with almost 30 years in prison / The New Voice of Ukraine (nv.ua) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

NeoNazi designation

shouldn't we include a note that they are/were a neo nazi group? [13]https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/the-azov-battalion-the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/article65239935.ece[14]https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-battalion-russia/ BarakHussan (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Try reading through the talk page archives if you really think this is the first time someone asks this, or better yet, read the article itself which contains 137 instances of the word "Nazi". TylerBurden (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

US

No mention of the fact that the US Congress banned funds to Ukraine over Azov (https://khanna.house.gov/media/in-the-news/congress-bans-arms-ukraine-militia-linked-neo-nazis) and the ADL's assessement in 2019 (https://www.adl.org/resources/report/hate-beyond-borders-internationalization-white-supremacy). This article is a post-2022 whitewashing propaganda piece. 167.142.48.84 (talk)

"In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives again passed a provision blocking any training of Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi connection" Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

IN fact we have a whole section on the allegations. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably this should be under allegations of antisemitism. The article puts the allegations all over the place to make the pre-2022 allegations less definitive then they are. 167.142.48.84 (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No, the statement "In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives again passed a provision blocking any training of Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi connections." is under "International arms and training controversies" 167.142.48.84 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2024

There's a random piece of orphan text in the middle of the list of references. Please either move it to wherever it may belong or remove it:

According to Biletsky, the emblem that many consider to be the Nazi "wolf trap", "Idea of the Nation" – is the intersection of the letters of the Latin alphabet "and" and "N"</ref>

. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't find that text anywhere in the article. Could you be more precise? Sjö (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

It's in the references section. You need to view in edit mode, not while reading the article 76.14.122.5 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done I looked through the page history and couldn't figure out where that snippet was supposed to go, so deleted it. PianoDan (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 76.14.122.5 (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Offtopic

Greetings @Mhorg, what is the point in your edit [15] , which adds sources such as
Olszański, Tadeusz A. (4 July 2011). "Svoboda Party – The New Phenomenon on the Ukrainian Right-Wing Scene". Centre for Eastern Studies. OSW Commentary (56): 6. Archived from the original on 13 March 2014. Retrieved 27 September 2013.
, some website ("naso"), and so on? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It is the primary source, the website of Ukrainian National Union (political party), where you can see their logo with the Wolfsangel searching for the label "Збори Харківського обласного відділення Українського Національного Союзу". Of course it is better to find a secondary source. Mhorg (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

So, it's unrelated to the article. Can you please filter out and remove content and sources from your edit which are unrelated to this article. Thanks. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for removing this one. Why the article still references the work mentioned in the first message? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to remove sentences discussing symbolics of other groups, like "It was used by the Patriot of Ukraine organization" and so on, as not related to Azov. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong Meta link

The References link number 115, about Meta's Facebook and Instagram, seems to be linking to information about a Leopard Tank and nothing about Facebook. Looking at the history, soon after the news article was written, someone added the information in with a wrong link. I guess later, the archive link used the wrong link as well. Can someone please correct both links? The dates seem to be correct, 19 January 2023. The correct link seems to be this article. https://kyivindependent.com/meta-azov-regiment-no-longer-meets-criteria-for-dangerous-organization-on-facebook-instagram/ - cyalknight 174.21.101.22 (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

@Horse Eye's Back, we are not removing one POV [16] while expanding a fringe POV [17] in our effort to "WP:NPOV" the article. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Being right is not a justification. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

One major problem with the competence of your analysis: thats not a fringe POV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Is Lev Gorekin a major political analysis? Why is his opinion relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, its relevent because he is a major political analysis who is published in a whole myriad of RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Is he wiki link to the article about him please. Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Is that a rhetorical question or mockery? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

NO it's asking how notable are his views, if he a noted enough academic to have an article on Wikipedia, but let's extend it. Has he been published in peer-reviewed journals? How about his academic qualifications, what makes his views non fringe? Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a RS and he does not have to be an academic. His views seem to be shared by others within the field, many seem to agree that Azov has not completely depolitiscized. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

But if Academics say it is and non academics say its not, what is a fringe view. So let's use better sources. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

No... Thats not what is happening here, all the academics aren't of one opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Then lets use them, and leave him out, and only have the academic dispute. Why do he need HIS views, when others are available? Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

agree. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You are free to do so, but don't remove this until you have better... That how NPOV works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Not how it works, it's down to those who want to include material to find the sources, not down to those who are arguing to exclude it. And wp:npov also means we only include all SIGNIFICANT viewpoints, his are (arguably not sifnigi=caont that this flail wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The publication of his views by RS suggests that they are signficant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

MAybe, but publication in RS is not a guarantee they are. Moreover this has nothing to do with expecting us to find the sources supporting this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

We already have sources which support this, what you have offered to do is to find better sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I never made any such promise, it was said they exist therefore I suggested using them instead, and if this is already covered we go top "why do we need his views" as better sources already cover it (in there article). This really is getting more and more =unude as this now seems to be an argument for just including him for no other reason than he also said this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the only thing we have established is that the view is not fringe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Given abundance of more quality sources on a subject, journalists may well be omitted. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Academic researchers argue that the regiment has changed since its integration into the National Guard, tempering far-right elements and distancing from the movement. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you aware of the difference between a fringe view and a minority view? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

so, why one side POV was extended, while opposing POV removed? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn't do that, are you confused? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

its either we keep none or both. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

So its not fringe? You've argued yourself into a corner, if you believe that "its either we keep none or both" then you either don't believe that its fringe or don't know what that term means on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

AS such I have reset it to before all the removal and addition, lets discuss this. If his views are worthy of inclusion, so is criticism of them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Slatersteven: we tried to make the same edit at the same time, obviously I support this[18]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I should have reset it to one edit back, before all the addition and removals, I have now corrected that. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Time for me to bail out for a bit and let others have their say, this seems to be a violation of wp:undue, and as such I oppose its inclusion until I say otherwise that objection stands. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

BAck in for one message, read wp:brd and WP:ONUS, as well as wp:consensus, do not add any of this back in (read wp:revert) with out it. Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No consensus for your addition @Genabab, you are edit warning [19] [20], this is a warning for you to not to do so. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What specifically is the problem with elaborating on the source material? You appear to have a problem with merely expanding on something that others have agreed is a reliable source while nothing els ewas removed.

You would be right to call it edit warring if i removed the quote of the man calling it "bugbearing" but as you can see, this has not happened. @Manyareasexpert. There is no reason to oppose the edit which simply elaborates on what comes before it. Genabab (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No need to extend journalist's POV not supported by academic publications. Quite the contrary, it should be removed in favor of the latter. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

> No need to extend journalist's POV

Why?

> not supported by academic publications

By one academic publication. No one has demonstrated that this is consensus. And the views of major news outlets ought not to be treated as lesser.

> Quite the contrary, it should be removed in favor of the latter.

For someone concerned about consensus, I'm not sure why you're aiming to do that? @Manyareasexpert Genabab (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

By one academic publication
This sentence is false. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

His POV is already summarized in the article, this article is called "Azov Brigade" not "Lev Gorekin's views on the Azov Brigade". Therefore we don't need to give him more weight than we give any other commentator considered WP:RS, unless you can give a good reason why we should. TylerBurden (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I should rephrase.

What specifically do you believe is the problem with expanding on what is already in the page? Everyone seems to be in agreement over Gorekin's article being included. Why make it out to be a problem to simply elaborate more on what Gorekin actually says. You will note, in the areas quoting Gorekin it is only the conclusion he comes to that is shared. Never any of the evidence that he gives for it.

This is significant as quoting someone saying "this is the case" is miles apart from quoting someone saying "this is the case, and here is why". Compare and contrast with other parts of the sub-section, which do give arguments as to why Azov is no longer a neo-nazi batallion. Its only fair if one side gets to give their evidence that the other side should be able to give their evidence. Doubly so when the majority of the "allegations of Neo-Nazism" subsection is filled with arguments saying that it isn't.

In other words, its POV-pushing and it reeks of bias. @TylerBurden Genabab (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This already has been answered above. Please stop accusing other editors. This is the violation of Wikipedia:Personal attacks. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe it is. As I already made clear, simply saying "his POV is summarised" doesn't give anyone here any reason to remove the evidence he provides for said POV.

I'd be more than willing to drop this objection if you could tell me why it is so objectionable that the evidence Gorekin provides is included. When other sources critical of his view are allowed to do so.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Rest assured however that no personal attacks have been used here. I'm just concerned about the integrity of this page. Genabab (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Azov Brigade#c-Manyareasexpert-20240917152200-Genabab-20240917100300 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

?

Nothing in that reply tells me why it is that Gorekin is an objectionable source? Genabab (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

No need to expand journalist's POV which is not supported by academic publications. Quite the contrary, it should be removed in favor of the latter. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

1. It *is* supported by Academic publications

2. That is not a reason. You are only asserting a conclusion. *Why* is it that there is no need to do that. Genabab (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

If it is supported by academic publications then please replace the journalist with those. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

...

Why not both? Genabab (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

See WP:SCHOLARSHIP. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think you might have linked me the wrong Wikipedia Policy. There is nothing in here which says both cannot be used. Genabab (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The question should be - why use journalist, when there are academic publications available? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I get that. I'm just saying, we can always use both. You're acting like journalistic sources are the devil's spawn. They're perfectly legitimate and can be used alongside academic ones. Genabab (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Manyareasexpert Can I take this as a sign to add both jounarlist sources and academic sources which have been discussed to this page? Genabab (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Given there are objections against journalist sources, no. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok then I'm just adding the academic sources. At a later point I'll raise the debate about you being weirdly against news articles. Genabab (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please prefer sources which have significant coverage on article subject. Using sources which mention Azov only in one or two sentences to create a picture that there is a significant opposition against an opinion expressed by sources which have significant coverage on article subject is against WP:WEIGHT. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. WP:Weight does not make any mention of ignoring sources which do not wholly focus on said topic. Genabab (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

See Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, others have argued that Azov has not depoliticized - where is it in sources? it is still ... and fascist - where is it in sources? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Check the citation. The page number and what part of the source it comes from is said there smh Genabab (talk) 10:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not there. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

what do you mean "its not there". What source are you ttalking abou Genabab (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Your sources to not say others have argued that Azov has not depoliticized and it is still ... and fascist. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, they do? They do say that it is fascist, or white supremacist.

the "others" in question are the people I have cited. Genabab (talk) 11:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I see two users opposing any more expansion of his views. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

SO if this continues for another day, I fell an RFC will be in order, lets some fresh voices be heard. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

John Feffer

@Lute88 I re-added the edit but removed the mention of John Feffer due to your objection.

However, I still wanted to ask, could you elaborate on why it is Feffer's source ought to be removed? For one, why do you believe he is Pro-Russia and is he not regarded as a reliable source? Genabab (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's prefer researches which are on the article subject. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Feffer's citation is on subject. It refers to Azov and, importantly, establishes links between them and Atomwaffen. Its relevance to the subject at hand is trivial Genabab (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If you don't address the argument, it stays. Feffer's work is not a research on the article subject. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe let's let Lute88 address why they think its unreliable first Genabab (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Passing mention

There is The unit has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology sentence in the lead which supported by some 4 sources. I have a suspicion that those are not in-depth sources on the subject and only have a passing mention on Azov. Let's check. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

It seems to have a whole section in the body, so its not out of place to say this in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but if we weigh the opinion that sources with dedicated research on the subject do say? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The lede is a summary of the article, not a summery of the literature (that is called the article). Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but we still can see what the sources with dedicated research on the subject say? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Time for others to chip in as I have said all I have to say, its in the body (and thus has a place in the lede). Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Well the body says
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.[69][251] Academic researchers argue that the regiment has changed since its integration into the National Guard, tempering far-right elements and distancing from the movement.

If researches argue that the regiment has changed, why is allegedly continuing there then? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

@Genabab, I proposed to review what recent academic researches say on Azov' current situation. You haven't participated, but continued to push some refs with only passing mention with edit war [21]. Even more, your refs do not say that Azov has not depoliticized, or that it's "fascist", as your edit says. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

They do say it is fascist, as you can see if you check their page numbers.

If they say they are fascist, that means they are saying it has not depoliticized

@Manyareasexpert Genabab (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@ManyareasexpertAt this point, I have to conclude you're acting in Bad faith here. You requested academic sources while groundlessly discrediting journalistic sources. I provided academic sources and then you essentially lied about them "not saying Azov was fascist/Nazi/white supremacist" and edit warred over them.

I get that you want the article to say that Azov is not right-wing. But much of the relevant sections argue it is. In the interest of being fair and presenting all perspectives, which do NOT violate WP:Weight as they are part of relevant academic literature and are not fringe, please accept as a compromise the inclusion of academic sources. Genabab (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Your "argumentation" is gish gallop, trying to push your edits while overwhelming an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength. Once more I offer to use researches dedicated to the article subject.

For example, A Research Agenda for Far-Right Violence and Extremism - Google Books:
...
Due to its origins and prolific use of Nazi symbols, as prolifically mentioned
in Russian State Media as anti-Russian neo-Nazis persecuting ethnic Russians
and Russian speakers, Azov has been mentioned a great deal more than Putin’s
United Russia Party (Likhachev, 2016, p. 10).

Notwithstanding, radical elements certainly remained, Azov is today nothing
like its precursor. In 2015, spokesperson Andriy Diachenko stated, “10–20%
of our fighters are Nazis” (Dorell, 2015). According to a fan of the movement,
“it is absolutely nothing like before; there are a few radicals left, for sure, since
the name still attracts them, but now it’s just a part of the Ukrainian Armed
Forces”. There are Jews, Romani, and more foreign fighters, and most joined
because they are known for extraordinary combat training and fighting capa
bilities (Alexander, 2023). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

@[[User:Manyareasexpert|Manyareasexpert] Oh please, its just 6 short sentences. Hardly gish galloping. Anyway, this is one source for a POV that already exists inside the article. As such its irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

That is, there is no good reason for you to edit war over citing reliable academic sources! Genabab (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That is clearly and unambigously not a Gish Gallop... Its also a weird position to take for a guy who just opened a new talk page section without checking whether the argument they were about to make was accurate or strong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Ramani in his book Putin's War on Ukraine - Google Books elaborates

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.

We really should base our article on researches dedicated on article subject. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to have anything to do with my comment despite the edit summary reading "reply to Horse Eye's Back", are you now attempting a Gish Gallop of your own? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

We are discussing the article content.

We are reviewing opinions of a researches on a subject. We can observe they are uniform in saying it is misleading to describe the Azov Battalion as a neo-Nazi organisation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You are deflecting. This is getting disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep posting quotes from various books and sources saying that Azov is no longer far-right.

No one is disputing the inclusion of sources which say that Azov is not far-right/fascist/white supremacist.

Rather, the point is that there is still a variety of opinion on this subject. As such, it is best to showcase said variety by including other POVs. Including the various academic sources I mentioned. Genabab (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Now compare the weight of an opinion to the weight of a dedicated research on a subject. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That can be done by whoever is reading the article. Our job is not to conclude. Part of our job on wikipedia is to show the variety of debate. Thus, the sources must be included.

This much is obvious, as other journalistic sources still remainn in the article with no one calling for their removal.

The bottom line is. If Reliable sources are being cited, then there is no grounds for their reversal. Genabab (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

That can be done by whoever is reading the article
No. WP:WEIGHT Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate that it is indeed a small minority. Genabab (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It may also be time to drop the stick and let some new voices have a say. Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)