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 From the outset, there is outdated information, which must be corrected.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 It is not enough for you to just express the opinion that the result is "outdated information" - you have to convince others, and demonstrate that you have convinced others.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)

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Before we begin talking about this RfC proper, we thought it necessary to go over some of the previous discussions that led to this one. Not only was that requested by some participants, but that's a normal procedure for these kinds of discussions, as previous arguments are commonly used as the base of the participants' choices to an RfC, and it can also enlighten the closers by showing what points were considered to be the most relevant by the community.

First, we had the RfC that was procedurally closed before this one. Our reading of that discussion was there was a rough consensus that the lede needed working, and possibly the rest of the article as well. While there was some agreement to talk about the Battalion's political ideology in the lede, there was also clear disagreement on how to proceed, and we saw the closure of that RfC as beneficial to advancing the discussion. A "yes or no" answer was seen as too simplistic to be able to solve the issue editors found with the lede, as it was seen by many editors as breaching WP:NPOV, and to be possibly outdated and confusing to readers (as it conflates multiple parties).

Now, to talk about the RfC proper. This has been a highly contentious discussion, no doubt affected by the ongoing invasion of Ukraine, and saw wide participation by the community. A great number of options were provided for editors to discuss and an extensive source review was carried out, which enriched the discussion. Numerically, the community was approximately split on whether to include or not include the words "Neo-Nazi" in the lede. Thus, some saw for the need of a closure by a panel of editors as appropriate and necessary to assess the strength of arguments rather than count votes.

Option A (the status quo) received the most !votes, both in favor and against it. Those in favor say they are based on what current reliable sources say about the battalion, who describe them as neo-nazi. This argument saw a lot of pushback for several reasons, with some calling it original research, saying that while the political party that spawned from the group has been called neo-nazi, the same is not necessarily true for the battalion itself, and the two groups are being conflated in the analysis of these sources. Others also mention that only older sources attribute neo-nazi ideology to the battalion, with newer ones avoiding directly calling them that (such as using scare quotes), raising doubts over whether they are still political or if things changes and showing that there is uncertainty among RS. Some editors also note that option A does not do enough enough the multiple entities involved here (the paramilitary group, the Government's battalion, and the political group that spawned from it).

Option B received very little attention. The few who mentioned it considered to be the "better than the status quo" option. Similar to A, it states information in wikivoice, and its lack of support shows that editors do not agree on this approach.

Option E was as divisive as A, but saw less support, mostly due to the fact that it removes any and all mentions of neo-nazism from the lede. Some of those supporting this option make the compelling point that, even if information about its neo-nazi ties are to be in the lede, they should not be in the first sentence, which should be for undisputed facts (which this clearly isn't). But, since that option does not clarify if the information is to be removed or simply moved later in the lede, many opposed it due to its complete omission of what they see is very essential information about the battalion and its history.

The discussion surrounding these three options is reminiscent of what we saw in the previous RfC, especially regarding to the issues of WP:NPOV raised by many of the participants (both now and then). This is a complex issue, and most editors have shown they want a text that reflects such complexity. Looking at the support and opposition over the three options above, it's clear that all of them have glaring issues and do not tackle the subject in a way that the participating community found satisfactory, and there is a clear lack of consensus for any of them, and we could even say there is rough consensus against the status quo, due to the issues raised based on policies and guidelines.

Among the remaining options, C saw a decent amount of support as a second choice (and also as the first option of some), as it does not state in wikivoice that the battalion is neo-nazi, but clarifies it has such elements. Interestingly enough, it saw support both from those for and against option A. It also saw no clear opposition. This further shows that participants aren't happy in stating that the battalion is (or isn't) neo-nazi in wikivoice. Some, on the other hand, raised issues with this option and similar ones as it appears to skirt the issue. This was more clearly seen in the discussion surrounding Option D, which saw a similar level of support to that of C, with a writing that is somewhat similar. Some of the participants raised some concerns about this option, saying it suffers from weasel-wording, due to its usage of the phrasing "claims". In our eyes, this makes it hard to find enough support based in WP:PAG for this option.

Aside from the 5 main options above, there were also two drafts that rewrite a longer portion of the lede. Draft #1 saw a similar kind of support to that of Option C, but even broader. A lot of the participants saw this as the most balanced description of the subject. It also received support due to its move of the contentious sentence later in the lede, giving it less prominence, an issue raised by many participants. Many who supported draft #1 also supported #2 and vice-versa. Both drafts seemed to find a more nuanced approach to the subject's history, an approach that found near unanimous support (with some caveats, such as rewording some of its sentences).

As we found to be a rough consensus against the status quo and similarly worded options (i.e. options A, B and E), it then becomes a question of which of these options, that received a fair amount of support, is the appropriate choice, without falling into the pitfalls of a WP:SUPERVOTE. Option D saw some pushback due to WP:WEASEL, and Option C, while it did find a decent amount of support, was weaker than that of Draft #1 (both numerically and in arguments), and was seen by many simply as a "better than nothing". Those supporting C considered it to be the more neutral option, by stating simple facts found in reliable sources ("neo-nazi elements"), but some also pointed that that Draft #1 was also suffeciently neutral while going more indepth on the controversial nature of the battalion. Some discussion has also raised some questions over Draft #2, which states in its final sentence with certainty that the battalion has been "largely 'de-politicized'", a statement that was posed as contentious by some editors.

Taking into account all the arguments raised over these options, we see a consensus was formed to use one of the two proposed drafts, with a stronger support for something akin to Draft #1, which was the option that saw the most amount of support and which best aligned with our policies and guidelines. This means that editors should further discuss how to best improve this draft to a point where its main issues raised during the discussion are resolved, at which point it can be used as the new lede.

Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 13:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

---

Lede as it currently stands[1] (with UA taken out): "The Azov Special Operations Detachment, also known as the Azov Regiment or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov."

Should this be changed to?

• A: No change.
• B: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, which used to be a neo-Nazi[2][3], is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine.
• C: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine that contains neo-Nazi elements.
• D: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine which it has been claimed is neo-nazi.
• E: the Azov Special Operations Detachment (Ukrainian: Окремий загін спеціального призначення «Азов», romanized: Okremyi zahin spetsialnoho pryznachennia "Azov"), also known as the Azov Regiment (Ukrainian: Полк Азов, romanized: Polk Azov) or Azov Battalion until September 2014, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine

Or

Alternative Draft #1:

The Azov Battalion is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov. The unit was founded in May 2014 as a volunteer paramilitary militia to fight Russian forces in the Donbas War and was formally incorporated into the National Guard on 11 November 2014. During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, the group's incorporation into the National Guard drew controversy over its early association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology, its use of uses controversial symbols, and allegations of torture and war crimes. CutePeach (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments about alternative draft 1

I think this sounds great. I don't know if this is the right spot as well, but I'd like to add more sources around the fact that in 2015 President Poroshenko worked to removed the neo-nazi elements from the Azov Regiment when it was folded into the National Guard. Here is an additional WSJ article Kiev gets a grip on Ukraine's internal divisions that discusses his work. Infowarrior21 (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Far-left, traditionally taking pro-russian stand, easily labels their oponents Nazi. Russian propaganda calls Nazi everyone who disagrees and resists it, thus all Ukrainean nation is labeled Nazi, also Baltic countries, Poland and US. This strategy is used to avoid accusations in war crimes and genocide, as in popular opinion one can not perform a genocide against Nazis. The word "nazi" itself, heavily overused, has lost its original meaning and now seems to mean simply "bad". Cod172 (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Comment: The above is actually nicely written. I like it. Thanks CutePeach Perhaps (you all) we should consider it? - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Comment: A vast improvement on the status quo. One important thing to note, it is no longer called the "Azov Battalion", and hasn't been for many years. In both Ukrainian and Russian the word is полк, which translates directly to regiment in English. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Comment: I also favour this text. But I would delete "early"; it is still "associated with" far-right groups. That doesn't make it a "far-right group", but the name is still tainted. MrDemeanour (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Comment: I think this is much better than the options above. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Comment There are several sources given for it having been a neo-nazi group. I haven't seen any sources cited that proves it has disavowed its nazi leanings or expelled nazi members; on the contrary it continues to use neo-nazi imagery throughout its public social media accounts. We shouldn't whitewash their political leanings just because they are on the right side in a war. Little Professor (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Alternative Draft #2:

The Azov Special Operations Detachment is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, based in Mariupol, southeastern Ukraine. It was founded as the Azov Battalion in Kyiv in 2014, a small paramilitary group of extremist Far Right and neo-Nazi political activists under the political leadership of Andriy Biletsky. Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence, relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism, and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers. However, after its forced absorption into the National Guard and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially Andriy Biletsky and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".</ref> - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock-master see - [2]

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

Collective source review re: "neo-nazi"

I'm starting this as a source review of the Azov Battalion group/movement, particularly focused on description of the group re: the "neo-nazi" question. It can later be expanded to any other purpose! Please add sources to the following drop downs in chronological order, based on the type of source. And then note with the following key, how the source falls on the spectrum of "is a neo-nazi group" to "is not a neo-nazi group" and everywhere in between:— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Note to closers and !voters: some of the colour-coding used in the below does not closely follow the content of the sources. While a coding scheme such as that used has its merits, editors should remember to focus on the source itself or at least the quote reproduced, and not be swayed by an interpretative framework which may be seriously contested. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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

[]  · Scholarship
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP. This section was last edited (diff) on 30 April 2024 at 15:39 by PrimeBOT (talk • contribs • logs)
2022 Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": "Azov Battalion". Mapping Militant Organizations, Stanford University. March 2022. Retrieved 14 April 2022. Founded in 2014, the group promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism through its National Militia paramilitary organization and National Corps political wing. Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Fedorenko, Kostiantyn; Umland, Andreas (March 2022). "Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019". Nationalities Papers. 50 (2): 237–261. doi:10.1017/nps.2021.20. The Azov battalion and later regiment has been using stylized, coded neo-Nazi symbols such as the Black Sun and Wolf's Hook, yet it publicly denied that they refer to German fascism (Azov.Press 2015). ...quotes the alleged field-commander of Azov in early 2015 (Roman Zvarych) as saying he recruited "Georgian, American, Lithuanian, and British instructors, and to have advised the Azov movement to refrain from using symbols and ideas that could be linked to Nazism..." Note: some users consider this a passing mention of the term "neo-nazi." [3] Book: "neo-nazi": Jackson, Paul (22 February 2022). Pride in prejudice. Manchester University Press. doi:10.7765/9781526156730. ISBN 978-1-5261-5673-0. S2CID 247079111. ...it attracted interest from a range of international neo-Nazi groups, including the Azov Battalion in Ukraine... Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [4] Book Chapter: "with neo-nazi elements": Kotljarchuk, Andrej (February 2022). "The Counter-Narrative of WWII and the Far Right-Identity". In Mörner, Ninna (ed.). The Many Faces of the Far Right in the Post-Communist (PDF). Centre for Baltic and East European Studies, Södertörn University. pp. 61–75. ISBN 978-91-85139-13-2. The internal historical narrative of Belarusian military volunteers in Donbas is based on neo Nazi values. The SS runes and insignia of the 30th Waffen SS division are on helmets of many volunteers. In 2016, police in the Vitebsk region arrested Stanislau Hancharou, one of the Belarusian volunteers in Ukraine, a soldier of the Azov Battalion. He was known in Donbas under his nickname Terror Machine. The media published photos of his body covered by tattoos presenting an illustrated history of Wafen SS and Nazi atrocities. The symbols of the 30th Waffen SS divisio nand Sonderkommando Dirlewanger are adjacent to the image of SS soldiers, as well as a panorama of a death camp with a guard in front shooting a prisoner in the head. Book: "neo-nazi": Stilhoff Sörensen, Jens (February 2022). Splitting Europe : the EU, Russia, and the West. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. p. 162. ISBN 978-1-5381-5080-1. OCLC 1269507376. ...including the openly neo-Nazi Azov brigade... Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [5] Book: "neo-nazi": Bacigalupo, James; Valeri, Robin Maria; Borgeson, Kevin (14 January 2022). Cyberhate: The Far Right in the Digital Age. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 113. ISBN 978-1-7936-0698-3 – via Google Books. The ascendency of a transnational global fascist terrorist network has drawn accelerationists seeking military training with openly neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-Semitic organizations like the Azov battalion, who recruited from...Note: some users consider this a passing mention of the term "Azov". [6] Book: "with neo-nazi elements": Kuzio, Taras (2022). Russian nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War. Abingdon, Oxon: Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-003-19143-8. OCLC 1273727328. p. 196: A small number of Russian fascist and neo-Nazi groups opposed Russian military aggression against Ukraine. These included the National Democrats, the National Democratic Alliance, and the Slavic Force. Some of their members joined the Azov Regiment, a unit of Ukraine's national guard largely composed of Russian-speaking eastern Ukrainians. Azov' s political party, the National Corps, has neo-Nazi sympathies 2021 Book: "neo-nazi": Walia, Harsha (2021). Border and Rule: Global Migration, Capitalism, and the Rise of Racist Nationalism. Haymarket Books. ISBN 978-1-64259-388-4. [The Azov Battalion] is a Ukrainian National Guard regiment and the world's only overtly neo-Nazi militia integrated into a military...Azov movement [is]...actively training neo-Nazis Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [7] Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Chinchilla, Alexandra; Driscoll, Jesse (23 December 2021). "Side-Switching as State-Building: the Case of Russian-Speaking Militias in Eastern Ukraine". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism: 1–20. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2021.2013760. S2CID 245484464. Despite its formal incorporation into the National Guard, Azov still maintains its own recruiting facilities – in a Kyiv building, Cossack House, that also houses other right-wing organizations, the National Corps leadership, and Azov's barely-disguised outreach efforts to right-wing groups across Europe. It rents Cossack House from the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense to maintain physical autonomy. War has been profitable for Azov and other far-right groups, as well...Even the most ideologically-motivated militias, therefore, find they have material incentives to align with the state and capture their share of pork. Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Nonjon, Adrien (21 December 2021). "Forging the Body of the New Ukrainian Nation: Sport as a Gramscist Tool for the Ukrainian Far-Right". Journal of Illiberalism Studies. 1 (2): 59–74. doi:10.53483/VCIV3532. For a majority of citizens, these ultranationalist movements and their battalion of volunteers are elite forces that have acquired full legitimacy thanks to their victories, whatever their ideology may be...Deliberately choosing a formal integration into the National Guard, the [Azov] regiment's main objective has been "to further develop its organizational structure and reinvigorate both its media outreach and mobilizational potential." Book: "neo-nazi": Allchorn, William (21 December 2021). Moving beyond Islamist Extremism. BoD – Books on Demand. p. 35. ISBN 978-3-8382-1490-0 – via Google Books. ...antisemitic and white-supremacist conspiracy theories circulated by openly neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion in the Ukraine... Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [8] Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Tarasiuk, Taras; Umland, Andreas (29 September 2021). "Unexpected Friendships: Cooperation of Ukrainian Ultra-Nationalists with Russian and Pro-Kremlin Actors". Illiberalism Studies Program Working Papers. Retrieved 25 April 2022. The Azov movement has its roots in a little known and initially Russian-speaking Kharkiv groupuscule called "Patriot of Ukraine."...By autumn 2014, the battalion had become a well-known professional military unit and was transformed into the fully regular "Azov" Regiment of the National Guard under the Ministry of Interior of Ukraine. It has since been considered one of Ukraine's most capable armed formations. The regiment's commanders claim it is now operating according to NATO standards. In winter 2015, veterans and volunteers of the regiment created the Azov Civil Corps and thereby started to expand their political grouping into a multi-faceted social movement. Book Chapter: "with neo-nazi elements"/"neo-nazi": Dyck, Kristen (22 September 2021). "Holodomor and Holocaust memory in competition and cooperation". Denial: the final stage of genocide?. Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-000-43736-2. OCLC 1263262115. The Azov Battalion and other combat units recycle Nazi visual symbols like the Wolfsangel " and "the Azov Battalion, and other far-right paramilitary organizations often claim their neo-Nazi symbols have nothing to do with anti-Semitism anymore. ... Of course, the argument falters when groups like the Azov Battalion appear in public saying they do not much care that their symbols evoke painful, violent repression for Holocaust survivors and their descendants. Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": MacKenzie, Alex; Kaunert, Christian (25 March 2021). "Radicalisation, Foreign Fighters and the Ukraine Conflict: A Playground for the Far-Right?". Social Sciences. 10 (4): 116. doi:10.3390/socsci10040116. The Azov Regiment, Right Sector, and Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists were or are overtly far-right, while others are or were not so, including the Georgian National Legion...However, Kyiv soon recognised the problems and negative attention brought about by the foreign fighters, including for the purpose of Russian propaganda. It therefore disbanded and integrated these groups into the military by 2016, although some rogue elements persisted into 2019 2020 Primary: "has been accused": Aliyev, Huseyn (2020-07-15). ""Unlikely Recruits": Why Politically Irrelevant Ethnic Minorities Participate in Civil Wars?". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 46 (6). Informa UK Limited: 847–869. doi:10.1080/1057610x.2020.1793457. ISSN 1057-610X. S2CID 225641399. notorious for their ultranationalist and far-right ideological stance. Combining radical Ukrainian nationalism with elements of Slavic paganism, "Azov" battalion in particular served as the hub for ultranationalist activists from all walks of life, including, but not limited to football hooligans (ultras) and former members of security forces... Notwithstanding the battalions' scandalous ideological background, both "Azov" and DUK attracted large numbers of recruits from the Ukrainian ethnic minorities... While many Crimean Tatars were serving with DUK, Crimean Tatar activists have also collaborated with "Azov" members during the blockade of Crimea events... Some [Jews] were even credited with participating in establishing the "Azov" battalion. Most continued practicing Judaism while serving with volunteer battalions... The battalions' ethnic diversity was widely employed to counter the image of these armed groups as ultranationalist or neo-Nazi organizations. In the words of an "Azov" representative, "our regiment has people from most nationalities in Ukraine and beyond." He further added that "although some [pro-Russian] sources call us fascists, we have Jews and Muslims among our members, … we even have Jewish founding members. How can we be neo-Nazis?." Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Katchanovski, Ivan (19 December 2020). "The far right, the Euromaidan, and the Maidan massacre in Ukraine". Journal of Labor and Society. 23 (1): 5–36. doi:10.1111/lands.12457 (inactive 2023-12-13). Vadym Troian, who was a member of the neo-Nazi Patriot of Ukraine and one of the commanders of the Azov battalion, became the first deputy head of the National Police. Yuri Mykhalchyshyn, a Svoboda deputy, who expressed his neo-Nazi views, stated that he held a senior position in an SBU department in charge of information.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of December 2023 (link) Primary: "neo-nazi": Edelman, Marc (9 November 2020). "From 'populist moment' to authoritarian era: challenges, dangers, possibilities". The Journal of Peasant Studies. 47 (7): 1418–1444. doi:10.1080/03066150.2020.1802250. ISSN 0306-6150. S2CID 225214310. Just as hundreds of U.S. and European white supremacists joined Croatian paramilitaries fighting for 'ethnic cleansing' in the 1990s Balkan wars, the current training of foreign white nationalists in Ukrainian military units, such as the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, points to... Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [9] Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Nonjon, Adrien (September 2020). "Olena Semenyaka The "First Lady" of Ukrainian Nationalism". Illiberalism Studies Program Working Papers. Retrieved 25 April 2022. Gaining in visibility as the Azov regiment transformed into a multifaceted movement, Semenyaka has become a major nationalist theorist in Ukraine...Through its extensive financial resources stemming from various nationalist "warlords"—and its integration into the Ukrainian National Guard, headed by the Minister of the Interior, Arsen Avakov, in May 2014—the Azov regiment has been capable of instigating numerous initiatives to enter the Ukrainian political arena in a true Gramscist style: a strategy in which the political battle must be fought above all in the cultural field. Primary: "neo-nazi": Campion, Kristy (24 August 2020). "Women in the Extreme and Radical Right: Forms of Participation and Their Implications". Social Sciences. 9 (9). MDPI AG: 149. doi:10.3390/socsci9090149. ISSN 2076-0760. Semenyaka is the leader of the International Department for the National Corps, linked to neo-Nazi Azov Battalion Primary: "neo-nazi": Reid Ross, Alexander; Bevensee, Emmi (July 2020), "Confronting the Rise of EcoFascism Means Grappling with Complex Systems" (PDF), Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right, These groups leverage a white "Indigenous" identity in allyship with neo-Nazi groups like the Azov Batallion, Misanthropic Division, and Right Sector fighting Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine many of whom are, themselves, Duginists. Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [10] Primary: "with neo-nazi elements/formerly": Aliyev, Huseyn (16 July 2020). "Pro-government Anti-government Armed Groups? Toward Theorizing Pro-government "Government Challengers"" (PDF). Terrorism and Political Violence. 34 (7). Informa UK Limited: 1369–1385. doi:10.1080/09546553.2020.1785877. ISSN 0954-6553. S2CID 225626866. particularly "Azov," DUK and the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists) battalions—were created on the basis of previously existent ultranationalist or neo-Nazi groups." and "Although when first assembled in April–May 2014 the DUK/UDA, "Azov," "Aydar" and many other battalions promoted ultranationalist and even neo-Nazi views, as the battalions became more ideologically mature their radical right-wing ideology gradually toned down. Book chapter: "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Umland, Andreas (June 2020). "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the "Azov" Battalion in 2014". The 21st Century Cold War (Taylor & Francis). 31: 105–131. doi:10.1080/09546553.2018.1555974. S2CID 150443541. As briefly illustrated below, the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group that today controls a relatively large military unit could present several problems. The regiment's key commanders held, in the past, manifestly fascist views and may still hold them to one degree or another today. That would put into question the regiment's public respectability as well as the need for special scrutiny of its further development. Secondary: "with neo-nazi elements": Lister, Tim (April 2020). "The Nexus Between Far-Right Extremists in the United States and Ukraine". CTC Sentinel. 13 (4). a country with a well-established, trained, and equipped far-right militia—the Azov Regiment—that has been actively engaged in the conflict against Russian-backed separatists in Donbas...In 2014, as pro-Russian groups began to seize parts of the Donbas, a neo-Nazi group that called itself Patriot of Ukraine formed a battalion to reinforce the beleaguered Ukrainian army. Few qualifications were required, and volunteers came from all walks of life. The group soon became better known as the Azov Regiment. 2019 Book: "neo-nazi": Mudde, Cas (25 October 2019). The Far Right Today. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-5095-3685-6 – via Google Books. march through the streets of Kyiv, sometimes in torchlight processions, to commemorate old and new far-right heroes, including those of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which fights against the Russian-backed occupation of Crimea. Note: some users consider this a passing mention. [11] Primary: "neo-nazi": Koehler, Daniel (7 October 2019). "A Threat from Within? Exploring the Link between the Extreme Right and the Military". ICCT. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Smith also was trying to join the neo-Nazi paramilitary Azov battalion and fight on their side in the Ukrainian conflict Primary: "Does not mention"/Attributed: "with neo-nazi elements": Bukkvoll, Tor (4 January 2019). "Fighting on behalf of the state—the issue of pro-government militia autonomy in the Donbas war". Post-Soviet Affairs. 35 (4). Taylor and Francis: 293–307. doi:10.1080/1060586X.2019.1615810. S2CID 164870902. However, as mentioned, Pravii Sektor has continued to fight without formally submitting to the control of regular forces; and the Azov battalion, despite nominally being subordinated within official structures, continues in practice to operate with significant autonomy....Quote from Arsen Avakov, Interior Minister (2016): "And, we had even more doubts about the Azov battalion. In particular, we were sceptical towards the religious motives of several of their people, and about their right-wing radicalism. But I was thinking, what is worse, that they run the streets breaking shop windows or that they feel some responsibility for their country and do a bit of fighting? This was my logic at the time." 2018 Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Saressalo, Teemu; Huhtinen, Aki-Mauri (2 October 2018). "The Information Blitzkrieg — "Hybrid" Operations Azov Style". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 31 (4). Informa UK Limited: 423–443. doi:10.1080/13518046.2018.1521358. ISSN 1351-8046. S2CID 150074996. The Azov Battalion stands out among these because of its Nazi rhetoric and symbolism, which are not as prominent in most other battalions...What sets the Azov Battalion apart from other volunteer units in Eastern Ukraine is its outspoken neo-Nazi views and use of questionable symbols p.440, Ideology 2017 Primary: "has been accused"/"Does not mention": Käihkö, Ilmari (4 December 2017). "A nation-in-the-making, in arms: control of force, strategy and the Ukrainian Volunteer Battalions". Defence Studies. 18 (2). Taylor & Francis: 146–166. doi:10.1080/14702436.2018.1461013. The nature of volunteers deserves additional attention, especially as they are simultaneously viewed with suspicion by some because of their perceived connection to extreme political movements, and hailed as heroes by others...While this can be interpreted as the negation of the strategy to undermine it, Azov nevertheless offers the best example of the evolution of the volunteer battalions from revolutionaries with construction helmets and ice hockey armor to disciplined military formations closely paying attention to NATO standards. Primary: "neo-nazi": Buckholz, Quentin (7 November 2017). "The Dogs That Didn't Bark". Problems of Post-Communism. 66 (3). Informa UK Limited: 151–160. doi:10.1080/10758216.2017.1367256. ISSN 1075-8216. S2CID 158734607. Despite significant criticism from Ukraine's international donors, Avakov has continued to defend Azov, which is the military wing of the white supremacist, neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly of Ukraine. Book: "neo-nazi": Pleshakov, Konstantin (2017). The Crimean Nexus: Putin's War and the Clash of Civilizations. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 133. ISBN 9780300214888. Meanwhile, according to Stern, commanders of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion were close to the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Ragozin, Leonid (2017). "Brothers in Arms: Why Russian ultranationalists confronted their own government on the battlefields of Ukraine". World Policy Journal. 34 (2): 91–98. doi:10.1215/07402775-4191391. ISSN 1936-0924. S2CID 157918103. Retrieved 12 April 2022. "Zheleznov emerged from his first prison term after two years, a rising star of the far right. He was recruited by perhaps the most prominent Russian neo-Nazi of the time, Maksim Martsinkevich. Also known by his nickname, Tesak, meaning "The Hatchet," Martsinkevich was as much a showman as a militant. He was even featured on Russian TV shows and on the British documentary series, Ross Kemp on Gangs. He appointed Zheleznov as PR man for his new organization, Restruct, which became known for harassing people whom it claimed were pedophiles—though most of them, Zheleznov now admits, were just "regular gays."" (Note: Zheleznov, along with many other Russian neo-nazis, are prominent members of the Azov Battalion [12]) 2016 Primary: "neo-nazi": Mandel, David (2 January 2016). "The conflict in Ukraine". Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. 24 (1). Informa UK Limited: 83–88. doi:10.1080/0965156x.2016.1171011. ISSN 2573-9638. S2CID 156126251. To cite just two examples, Vadim Troyan, deputy commander of the neo-nazi Azov Regiment and active member of the neo-nazi paramilitary organisation Patriot of Ukraine... Primary: "with neo-nazi elements: Laruelle, Marlene (2 January 2016). "The three colors of Novorossiya, or the Russian nationalist mythmaking of the Ukrainian crisis". Post-Soviet Affairs. 32 (1): 55–74. doi:10.1080/1060586X.2015.1023004. ISSN 1060-586X. S2CID 143615951. Retrieved 12 April 2022. Some Russian neo-Nazis are involved in the Azov battalion, which serves as a street patrol under the command of the Ukrainian Interior Ministry (Vzglyad, June 15, 2014). They stand alongside neo-Nazis coming from all over Europe, particularly Sweden, Italy, Germany, and Finland, to help Ukraine against Russia. 2015 Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Bezruk, Tetjana; Umland, Andreas; Weichsel, Volker (2015). "Der Fall "Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine". Osteuropa. 65 (1/2): 33–41. ISSN 0030-6428. JSTOR 44936628. Retrieved 11 April 2022. However, only some of the members of the Azov association, which has now become a regiment, as well as other nationalist volunteer battalions, are openly racist Secondary: "neo-nazi": Giuliano, Elise (20 October 2015). "The Social Bases of Support for Self-determination in East Ukraine". Ethnopolitics. 14 (5): 513–522. doi:10.1080/17449057.2015.1051813. ISSN 1744-9057. S2CID 142999704. More dangerously, as the violence heated up, Kiev allowed semi-private paramilitary groups—such as the far right, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion—to fight in east Ukraine (Walker, 2014; Luhn, 2014). Primary:: "has been accused": Kuzio, Taras (2015-06-01). "A new framework for understanding nationalisms in Ukraine: democratic revolutions, separatism and Russian hybrid war". Geopolitics, History, and International Relations. 7 (1): 30–52. ISSN 1948-9145. Retrieved 2022-04-27. In the 1990s SNPU's symbol was suspiciously similar to the Hakenkreuz (hook-cross or swastika) used by the Nazis and the symbol continues to be used by the SNA, giving rise to Western press reports of the "neo-Nazi" Azov, although they now claim that the symbol stands for "SN" (Slava Natsii [Glory to the Nation]). Discussion of Scholarship sources, quotations, and assessments Glenn Diesen has been widely criticized for promoting Russian propaganda Somehow, Glenn Diesen is listed as a top-scholar and the first source in the "Scholarship" section. Yet, he is widely known as a Russian Today speaker, for allegedly promoting Russian propaganda (according to Scandinavian media, Russia experts and other scholars) and for being a contributor for a conspiracy theory website. Surprised nobody brought this up, in more than one month. Mcrt007 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC) And not only is Diesen considered highly unreliable, this is a passing mention in a text about "Russophobia" not a text about the Ukrainian right. I think we should remove this source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC) I've removed the source..— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC) What does 'Between frontline...' say? The quoted academic source https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/between-frontline-and-parliament-ukrainian-political-parties-and-irregular-armed-groups-in-20142019/90BAFE7AA179511DA2B58240D943D8C4 is used her to quote one word 'neo-Nazi'. But the paper is not about the word, please read the Conclusion rather. Our page should describe the (lack of) influence of IAGs on Ukrainian politics with at least the same ardour it describes 'neo-Nazism'. Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC) @User:Xx236 The entire question is about how academics refer to this group. I will note your dispute on the source itself, because it is entirely reasonable to say that it is a "drive-by" which is not as helpful to determining coverage. (I will say i dispute this characterization and I think it is a perfectly fine quotation showing that the authors considered this question and weighed in on it. Conclusion sections aren't everything for our purposes.) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Cyber Hate Source two - https://books.google.pl/books?id=vQxUEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y It is a book, I am unable to verify the source. None of the US authors is an Eastern Europa expert.Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC) The USA has a real problem with neo-Nazism https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/02/christopher-hasson-coast-guard-neo-nazi-far-right Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC) @User:Xx236 Books are part of scholarship. Do you have a higher quality RS which backs up your assertions here? We rely on RSes to determine who is and is not an expert.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC) I do not criticize books, but I have access to selected pages by Google only, not to whole books.Xx236 (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Authors are experts on far right, but not on Ukraine. Is an RS, but not the strongest. One brief mention of Azov in a whole book: counts as drive-by I think. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Will add it to the entry — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Harsha Walia is a (radical) Canadian activist based in Vancouver Walia is a radical activist and the quoted book 'Border and Rule' demands no borders politics. 'The system... must be dismantled.' This Wikipedia is a part of the system, so let's dismantle it. No EE knowledge expected, so she quotes probably someone.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC) @User:Xx236 do you have an RS (preferably one higher in quality (see WP:PARITY) which states this? We trust our RSes' assessment of expertise, not our personal opinions.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Walia's radicalism and her position on borders is not at all relevant here. However, this is clearly a not particularly informed passing mention in a book about something completely different. She has no specific expertise on Nazism or Ukraine. I'd strike this source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC) 2014 Battalion Please do not mix up 2014 and 2022. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1060586X.2015.1023004?journalCode=rpsa20 https://www.jstor.org/stable/44936628 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17449057.2015.1051813?journalCode=reno20 Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC) @User:Xx236 this is the crux of the entire sourcing question (Are these two groups contiguous wrt members, etc). By showing the chronology of the souricng, we help answer that question objectively and without bias. If these two groups are completely separate, it should become clear in the sources and how our best available RSes cover this content.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC) You are right. However Umland, Andreas (June 2020) is (title) about 2014. The DOI was wrong, I replaced it, now it works but looks bad. Xx236 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Can you format it correctly? The text uses the words "today" referring to 2020, and also refers to the past (as in 2014). I see no problem there. Everyone can read the title for themselves and the quotation and make their own conclusions to verify the assessment. Hence why the characterization says "formerly."— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Moving beyond Islamist Extremism - Combat 14/8 The book criticizes Azov and Combat 14/8. Google does not know such group, does someone know it?Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Both Allchorn and Mudde are highly regarded experts on the global far right, but neither of them has any specific expertise on Ukraine, so I would count these as less weighty than more expert takes such as Umland's. See also my comments in source discussion in RfC below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Nationalities Papers Primary: "with neo-nazi elements/says not neo-nazi": :Gomza, Ivan; Zajaczkowski, Johann (September 2019). "Black Sun Rising: Political Opportunity Structure Perceptions and Institutionalization of the Azov Movement in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine". Nationalities Papers. 47 (5): 774–800. doi:10.1017/nps.2019.30. S2CID 213989920. carried out an in-depth study of Azov members' activity online, and their results attributed a characterization of "Radical" far right nationalist to 38% of members, and precisely 0% as Nazi or neo-Nazi. I've removed the above source from the list as I have read through the paper and consider the summary and categories attached to it to be a gross misreading of the text. The journal, as far as I can parse, never studied the neo-Nazism of the group. The paper is a study of political opportunity structure as it relates to Asov. I'm not actually sure that this paper can even be used to add to this particular RfC. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC) In that case we definitely have remove Jackson, Stilhoff Sörensen, Bacigalupo, Walia, Allchorn, Edelman, Reid Ross, Mudde, and probably Buckholz, because none of them studied Azov and none of them (except maybe Buckholz) have any expertise on Ukraine or access to Ukrainian or Russian sources. They’re passing mentions in books/articles about other things. Some of them are experts on fascism; others (Walia, Edelman, Stilhoff Sörensen) aren’t even that BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC) The quotes show they considered Nazism and Azov. Their expertise is a question that needs to be answered with RSes, not our opinions. And expertise in extremism is enough for our purposes. I'm definitely open to the idea that Walia or others aren't experts in any of these or adjacent fields, but we need RSes to show that. It's not a high bar, if we have RSes which show that their training is in something else and they don't work in this area, that's enough to exclude them. However, if they have expertise in extremism, that is enough to include them. If all we accepted was experts in Azov AND experts in Nazism, then we basically lose everything in this list. One does not need to be an expert in the narrowest thing in order to be worth listening to. They just need to be a reasonably-trustworthy expert which our sources trust as an expert. Jackson and Sörenson covered Azov because the quote shows they did. If it's a passing mention that's a different matter and will happily note that. But we can't just remove sources because you or someone else thinks the person who wrote them is not trustworthy, that's an extremely subjective measure. We either need RSes or a local/global wiki consensus to support that action. Otherwise it's a mechanism that's too easy to abuse. And I mean that for any source of any kind in this list.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC) I do also want to say I agree that this Black Sun Rising source should be excluded, and I will revert if someone re-adds it as well. The criticism from VC is accurate, they do not include "Nazi" or "Neo-Nazi" in their categories, so we should NOT be saying that it was "0% Neo-nazi". That's extremely misleading and inappropriate. Worse than cherry-picking, it is willful mis-understanding.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC) I have reread Vladimir comment and realise I misunderstood it. I’ve also read the Nationalities Papers article and agree the summary is misleading. It says “far right” but is neither here nor there on the question of “neo-Nazi”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC) It's okay! I think pretty much everyone here has made mistakes while making this source review. And that's why it's so important to have multiple contributors all helping out from different perspectives.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC) I've finally gotten around to reading this carefully. My strong conclusion is that Vladimir is correct that it was mischaracterised before, but wrong to remove it. It should return but with the tag "Does not mention". It's true it is not focused on characterising the group's ideology, but that is also true of most of the articles which say "neo-Nazi" which simply mention the group in passing. The other issue is that it looks at the whole Azov movement, not the Battalion/Regiment. The article exhaustively examines the group and describes it repeatedly as "far-right". It also indicates shift over time: "originally a far-right groupuscule", they note a shift towards mainstream politics. "We argue that although Azov kept part of its subcultural nationalist thrust, this did not preclude conversion into a pragmatic movement well integrated into conventional politics." In short, this strong source would give us "far-right" and "nationalist" but not "neo-Nazi" and definitely not in the present tense. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC) @Bobfrombrockley: you are right. Removing the Nationalities Papers article was unjustified. Not including an article from a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Cambridge University Press because is not scholarly enough, while including much weaker sources from non-academics is ridiculous. Mcrt007 (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC) Some non-experts are being presented as experts. Why? Harsha Walia, for examples, is not an academic nor a researcher/scholar. She has zero peer reviewed research articles on extremism or Eastern European studies, and no reliable source seems to present her as such. Why was she even considered a scholar on the current topic? Mcrt007 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

[]  · Journalism
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:NEWSORG. This section was last edited (diff) on 30 April 2024 at 15:39 by PrimeBOT (talk • contribs • logs)
2022 Attributed: "with neo-nazi elements": "Ukraine's nationalists and the Azov battalion". Financial Times. 19 May 2022. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Kim Scheppele (Princeton University): Now, the current Azov battalion is much less of a neo-Nazi formation than it was, but there's still remnants of neo-Nazis in that battalion. And that's the one little tiny piece of Ukraine where this neo-Nazi sort of propaganda has a slight bit of truth. "has been accused": Berman, Lazar; Newman, Marissa (17 May 2022). "Senior Zelensky aide to ToI: We are waiting for Israel to change its stance on war". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 20 May 2022. One of the Ukrainian units still holding out in the steel plant over the weekend is the Azov Regiment, a formation that has been accused since its formation in 2014 of associations with neo-Nazi ideology "with neo-nazi elements"/"has been accused": Patrick J. McDonnell; David Pierson; Tracy Wilkinson; Parvini, Sarah (18 May 2022). "U.S. to offer Sweden security guarantees as war in Ukraine enters a new phase". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Lawmakers had cited the Azov regiment, a militia with neo-Nazi roots that was absorbed into Ukraine's military and which Moscow says still comprises Nazis. ""formerly": Davidson, Vladislav (18 May 2022). "The Defenders of Mariupol". Tablet. Retrieved 14 May 2022. Branding the Azov Battalion as 'neo-Nazi' long after it shed its far-right origins is part of a deafening corruption of public discourse. [...] the Azov Battalion, a special operations detachment of the Ukrainian National Guard with a past neo-Nazi association [...] The original, post-Maidan composition of Azov was quickly diluted, and the ghost of Biletsky was replaced with regular officers of the Interior Ministry. By 2017, the battalion as a whole remained distinguished—but for its martial prowess, not for some distinct political ideology. "with neo-nazi elements": Sokol, Sam (17 May 2022). "How many Jews fought at Mariupol's Azovstal plant? Depends who's counting - Europe". Haaretz. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Many of those fighting at the plant were members of the Azov Regiment – a far-right volunteer unit with neo-Nazi ties that was incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces in 2014. "with neo-nazi elements": Lamoureux, Mack (16 May 2022). "Pro-Kremlin Influencers Are Using the Buffalo Shooting to Undermine Ukraine". VICE. Retrieved 20 May 2022. The symbol was also used previously by Azov Battalion, an infamous group in the Ukrainian national guard with well-known neo-Nazi and extreme-right ties. ""formerly far-right militia"/""has been accused": Gall, Carlotta (14 May 2022). "Turkey Offers to Evacuate Mariupol Fighters Despite Disagreements". New York Times. Retrieved 14 May 2022. The evacuation of soldiers was complicated in particular by the inclusion of members of the Azov battalion, a former far-right militia now formally integrated into the Ukrainian Army. Russia has branded them as Nazis, and Mr. Putin has said the war was intended to carry out the 'denazification' of Ukraine. "neo-nazi": Golinkin, Lev (12 May 2022). "Meet the Head of Biden's New "Disinformation Governing Board"". The Nation. Retrieved 17 May 2022. All four have a documented record of war crimes, while Azov is an outright neo-Nazi group. "with neo-nazi elements": Forgey, Quint (12 May 2022). "The cruel irony of being arrested in Putin's Russia". POLITICO. Retrieved 17 May 2022. The organization perhaps most often mentioned by Russian state media is the Azov Battalion — founded as a volunteer militia and later incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine — which has attracted a significant number of members with far-right and neo-Nazi sympathies. "has been accused": Colin, Freeman (12 May 2022). "Ukraine's 'wounded, crippled' Azovstal plant soldiers make last-ditch plea for rescue". Telegraph. Retrieved 12 May 2022. the Azov Battalion, the unit making a last stand at the plant ... The brigade's political outlook has also diluted since being formally integrated into the Ukraine military, with far-Right members leaving and new recruits joining mainly for its reputation of fighting prowess .... Many were said to have Nazi sympathies – although in Ukraine, which suffered Soviet as well as Nazi occupation, far-Right support can be as much about riling Moscow as claiming white supremacy ... Lt Ilya Samoylenko, a young, bearded commander who looks more like a Hoxton hipster than a neo-Nazi bootboy, told reporters: 'We are always accused of being paramilitary Neo-nazi bandits, and all this blah-blah bulls--- about being far-Right radicals. The only thing we are radical on is defending our country.' "Does not mention" Heritage, Timothy (10 May 2022). "Ukraine says Russia pounding Mariupol steel works, mayor's aide says 100 civilians remain". Reuters. Retrieved 12 May 2022. Ukraine's Azov Regiment "Does not mention" Kerry, Frances (8 May 2022). "Ukrainian fighters at besieged Azovstal plant vow to fight till the end". Reuters. Retrieved 12 May 2022. Ukraine's Azov Regiment "Does not mention" Hall, Ben (8 May 2022). "Ukrainian commanders lash out at Kyiv over Mariupol resistance". Financial Times. Retrieved 11 May 2022. The Azov regiment, the military unit that has been leading Ukraine's resistance from a last redoubt ... The Azov battalion has far-right origins but was incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces in 2014 and is considered one of the best-trained parts of the military. with neo-nazi elements"/"has been accused": Koshiw, Isobel (9 May 2022). "'Surrender is not an option': Azov battalion commander in plea for help to escape Mariupol". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Azov fighters say its membership holds a range of political opinions. Azov formed as a volunteer battalion in 2014 to fight Russian-backed forces and some its leaders are known to hold far-right views. But since 2015, it has been part of the Ukrainian army and no longer attracts only far-right combatants. [...] Russia claims its members are neo-Nazis who are responsible for "Nazifying" Ukraine. "says not neo-nazi": "Why 9 May Victory Day is so important for Russia". BBC. 9 May 2022. Retrieved 20 May 2022. The city may lie in ruins, but Russia has repeatedly talked of "de-Nazification and demilitarisation" of Ukraine and it may claim defeat of the Azov battalion, which it has falsely portrayed as Nazi. That would resonate on a day marking World War Two. "with neo-nazi elements"/Attributed: "formerly: Heritage, Timothy (4 May 2022). "Ukrainian supporters rally behind embattled Azov regiment". France 24. Retrieved 12 May 2022. Ukraine's Azov regiment -- a far-right volunteer battalion turned Ukrainian national guard unit ... 'The Azov Regiment is part of the national guard of Ukraine, it is not an independent paramilitary unit anymore. The connection with right-wing, radical politicians remains in history,' said Volodymyr Fesenko, a Kyiv-based political analyst. "neo-nazi": Foresta, Mathew (29 April 2022). "Meet the Sneakiest Defenders of Putin's Invasion of Ukraine". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 17 May 2022. During the interview, Ritter claims there is a battalion of Azov in "every brigade" of the Ukrainian Armed Forces—a reference to the notorious neo-Nazi Azov battalion. While Azov is very real and represents a very serious and concerning part of the far right in Ukraine, Ritter's claims are misinformation. Note: The Daily Beast is considered to be a biased or opinionated source that should be used with caution. "neo-nazi": Duggan, Joe (25 April 2022). "Photos show civilians hiding in Azovstal steelworks as Ukraine says Russia tried to storm plant". i News. Retrieved 28 April 2022. In a separate video released by the Azov battalion – an extremist, neo-Nazi group formed as a volunteer militia brigade in 2014 in Ukraine – a day earlier on Saturday, people trapped at the encircled plant said they are desperate to get out and are running out of food. "neo-nazi": Sood, Jai (24 April 2022). "'Ukraine to withdraw from talks with Russia if Mariupol forces killed'". The Statesman. Retrieved 28 April 2022. However, President Vladimir Putin called off the assault on the Azovstal factory, which remains the last holdout of Ukrainian forces, including the fighters of the neo-Nazi Azov regiment, in the strategic port city. Attributed: "neo-nazi": Mclean, Caitlin (23 April 2022). "Halper: Some lawmakers 'beating the drum' for World War III". The Hill. Retrieved 17 May 2022. Halper said the U.S. is still treating the war in Ukraine as a proxy war by providing arms to Ukraine, some of which are reaching groups like the far-right neo-Nazi Azov Batalian. "with neo-nazi elements": Watling, Jack (23 April 2022). "In Mariupol, Putin now rules a wasteland pitted with mass graves". the Guardian. Retrieved 28 April 2022. Mariupol's defenders were made up of marines and members of the Azov battalion, a unit associated with a far-right political party and containing a significant proportion of neo-Nazis. "neo-nazi"/"has been accused": "Israeli weapon seen used by Neo-Nazi Ukrainian unit against Russia". The Jerusalem Post. 20 April 2022. Retrieved 21 April 2022. An anti-armor weapon jointly developed by Israel, Singapore and a German company has been seen in operational use by the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion against Russian military forces." and "The recently published video shows that these partly Israeli-developed weapons are now in the hands of the Azov Battalion, which has been widely characterized as a neo-Nazi militia. "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Follorou, Jacques (17 April 2022). "War in Ukraine: The Azov brigade's last stand in Mariupol". Le Monde. Retrieved 22 April 2022. Yet its integration in September 2014 into Ukraine's National Guard and the recruitment of many candidates without political affiliation, attracted only by its reputation as an elite corps, have gradually marginalized the most extremist elements. This troop is now characterized by Western military experts as "ultranationalist" and "anti-Russian." Attributed: "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Miller, Jonas; Kagermeier, Elisabeth (13 April 2022). "Azov Regiment: Ukrainian Heroes or Extremists?". Bayerischer Rundfunk/Bavarian Broadcasting (In German). Retrieved 29 April 2022. Azov itself propagates this distinction: Regiment and party (movement) are independent of each other. They are two sides of the same coin, Stephan Kramer, head of the Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Thuringia, tells ARD. According to Lara Schultz, there is also an "incompatibility decision": active fighters could not become party members. An employee of a German security agency also supports this assessment: at the regiment, a right-wing extremist ideology plays "rather a subordinate role," she says in an interview with #Faktenfuchs; she does not want to be named. The regiment, however, is only showing itself to be more moderate. Extremism researcher Alexander Ritzmann of the Counter Extremism Project told ARD in March 2022 that the regiment had also disarmed in its symbolism. The wolfsangel - a symbol used by right-wing extremists - is still in the Azov emblem, he said, but other extremist symbols have been removed. In Ukrainian, the wolfsangel means something like "our nation. Attributed: "neo-nazi": "Canada failed when it trained Ukrainian troops linked to the far right, says Nazi hunter". Ottawa Citizen. 13 April 2022. Retrieved 18 April 2022. Others have claimed allegations made against the Azov regiment are part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Zuroff dismisses such claims. "It's not Russian propaganda, far from it," he explained. "These people are neo-Nazis. There is an element of the ultra-right in Ukraine and it's absurd to ignore it." "with neo-nazi elements": Katerji, Oz (12 April 2022). "By focusing on the Azov Battalion we are falling into Putin's trap". The New Statesman. Retrieved 14 April 2022. There is no way to sugar-coat this story: the racist views of senior Azov figures since its founding can be accurately described as neo-Nazi. "with neo-nazi elements": Mcgee, William (11 April 2022). "Battle for Mariupol: Ukraine's Azov Regiment Destroys Russian Tanks and Vehicles". Newsweek/Zenger News. Retrieved 27 April 2022. The regiment has far-right origins. However, only a minority of its estimated 900 members are believed to have far-right tendencies. "neo-nazi"/Attributed: "formerly": Azhari, Khaldon (10 April 2022). "Ukrainian Azov Battalion removed from Japan's International Terrorists' list". Arab News Japan. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Japan's Public Security Intelligence Agency removed the Ukrainian ultra-right, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which has been fighting the Russian-backed groups since 2014, from its International Terrorism Guide 2021 and apologized for having it on the list...Azov Battalion was reportedly established as a military infantry unit made up of volunteers belonging to the far-right, neo-Nazi groups active in Ukraine. In November 2014, Azov recaptured the strategic port city of Mariupol from the pro-Russian groups. Attributed: "formerly": Romandash, Anna (10 April 2022). "Why has "Azov" become Putin and Xi's favorite propaganda weapon?". CommonWealth Magazine (Name in Chinese: 天下雜誌). Retrieved 12 April 2022. "The narrative related to "Azov" is very bizarre. It is wrong to call them Neo-Nazis because even the fact that the unit includes people of different nationalities proves the opposite." Matviyishyn explains, that the regiment includes very many different people of various ethnicities such as Jews, Ukrainians, Georgians, and even Russians. "Azov" has gone through a transformation in comparison to how it was when it was founded. "In the beginning, it had these right-wing radicals political ideologies, but now, it is depoliticized unit, a part of Ukraine's Armed Forces." "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Krähenbühl, Hélène (8 April 2022). "Meeting the Azov regiment, accused by Russia of being infested with "neo-Nazis"?". Radio Télévision Suisse (In French). Retrieved 12 April 2022. But the gradual arrival of new apolitical members expanded the regiment to the point that the far-right ideology became marginal. "with neo-nazi elements": Raghavan, Sudarasan; Morris, Loveday; Parker, Claire (6 April 2022). "Right-wing Azov Battalion emerges as a controversial defender of Ukraine". Washington Post. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014. Ever since it was incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard late that year, they "had to purge a lot of those extremist elements," said Mollie Saltskog, a senior intelligence analyst at the Soufan Group. "There was much more control exerted over who is affiliated with the battalions. Attributed: "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Philip, Catherine (30 March 2022). "Azov Battalion: 'We are patriots – we're fighting the real Nazis of the 21st century'". The Times. Retrieved 13 April 2022. Azov has its fair share of football hooligans and ultranationalists but also scholars like Zaikovsky, who worked as a translator and book editor. Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert in the European right, claims Azov has evolved so far from its origins as to make its far-right roots meaningless. "with neo-nazi elements": Lister, Tim; John, Tara (29 March 2022). "A far-right battalion has a key role in Ukraine's resistance. Its neo-Nazi history has been exploited by Putin". CNN. Retrieved 11 April 2022. For Putin, who has falsely claimed Ukraine's government is run by "drug addicts and neo-Nazis," Azov presents an obvious target. Moscow has given the regiment an outsized role in the conflict, routinely accusing it of human rights abuses...In the Russian disinformation playbook, the Azov movement is a tempting target -- one where fact and disinformation can be elided...Rekawek, an expert on foreign fighters at C-REX, said Azov has only been able to recruit 20 foreign fighters since the start of the 2022 invasion. Attributed: "formerly/has been accused": Schipani, Andres; Olearchyk, Roman (29 March 2022). "'Don't confuse patriotism and Nazism': Ukraine's Azov forces face scrutiny". Financial Times. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Azov's history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself," said Anton Shekhovtsov, a Vienna-based Ukrainian expert on Russia's connections to Europe's far-right. "Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today. "formerly/with neo-nazi elements": Atkins, Ros (26 March 2022). "Ukraine war: Ros Atkins on... Putin's false 'Nazi' claims". BBC. Retrieved 12 April 2022. Adrien Nonjon (Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales): "Azov opened its recruitment to the whole of Ukrainian society and eventually this radical core was drowned out by the mass of newcomers who joined the regiment because it was an elite unit". Ros Atkins (BBC): "Despite the evolving membership, questions about Neo-Nazi links remain... There is though no evidence such sentiment is widespread [in the regiment]" Attributed: "formerly/has been accused": "Azov Regiment takes centre stage in Ukraine propaganda war". France 24. AFP. 25 March 2022. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Some call them war heroes, others neo-Nazis...In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies. 'But it had since become "de-ideologised"' and a regular fighting unit, he told AFP. "with neo-nazi elements": Sommerlad, Joe (24 March 2022). "Who are Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion?". The Independent. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Following its victories in Mariupol and Marinka in the summer of 2014, the battalion – known for wearing black fatigues, sporting Nazi tattoos and going into battle with swastikas drawn on its helmets – was officially absorbed into the Ukrainian National Guard in November of that year, soon becoming a regiment. "with neo-nazi elements": "The Azov Battalion: How Putin built a false premise for a war against "Nazis" in Ukraine". www.cbsnews.com. CBS News. 22 March 2022. Retrieved 11 April 2022. "There are no Nazi battalions in Ukraine," said Ruslan Leviev, an analyst with the Conflict Intelligence Team, which tracks the Russian military in Ukraine. "There is [the Azov] regiment... There are [estimated] several thousand people who are in this regiment. It is indeed a group where many members adhere to nationalist and far-right views," Leviev said. "But a lot of people also join it because it is one of the most prepared and fit-for-war units."...The Azov Battalion stepped in [in 2014]. It was better-equipped and prepared to do much of the frontline fighting against the separatists. The unit has its roots in aggressive fan clubs that support regional soccer teams, known as "ultras," but as the fighting ramped up, they attracted various far-right activists, who often made no secret of their neo-Nazi sympathies. The militia was founded by Andriy Biletsky, an ultra-nationalist political figure who previously led groups including the openly neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly (SNA), which preached an ideology of racial purity for Ukraine. "neo-nazi": Ali, Taz (19 March 2022). "Ukraine could follow Afghanistan into years of turmoil as West adopts 'mujahideen model' with weapons". i News. Retrieved 14 April 2022. The Ukrainian National Guard, part of the country's Ministry of Internal Affairs, was formed in 2014 to incorporate paramilitary and volunteer batallions to fight against pro-Russian seperatists in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine. Among them was the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. "with neo-nazi elements": Goncharenko, Roman (16 March 2022). "The Azov Battalion: Extremists defending Mariupol". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Umland said a legend had grown around Azov because of Russian propaganda. He said that volunteer fighters, including Azov, had been accused of looting and improper behavior in 2014..."Normally, we consider right-wing extremism to be dangerous, something that can lead to war," Umland said. But in Ukraine, it is the other way around, he argued. The war had led to the rise and transformation of marginal comradeships into a political movement. But their influence on society is overrated, he said. For most Ukrainians, they are combatants fighting an overbearing aggressor. "with neo-nazi elements": Benjakob, Omer (14 March 2022). "Russia's War on Truth: Top Wikipedia Editor Arrested Amidst Ukraine Censorship". Haaretz. Retrieved 17 April 2022. Though Putin's bogus claims of "denazifying" Ukraine were called out, in English, the article on the contemporary far-right neo-Nazi Ukrainian paramilitary group, known as the Azov Battalion, has become a battleground, with some attempts to whitewash the group and deny their use of a Nazi symbol and neo-Nazi sentiments Attributed: "formerly": Paulik, Jakub (14 March 2022). "Azov Battalion, saluting fighters and purging of radicals. We can't compare their current state with the past, analysts say". Refresher (In Czech). Retrieved 13 April 2022. They made no secret of their inclination to Nazism...According to analyst Michal Lebduška, however, Azov has since been greatly cleansed of radicals, and even in 2014 neo-Nazis were only in the minority. "It is true that this battalion was considered problematic in the past because it also originated from the ranks of nationalists and Nazis. However, not all members were radicals and formed a significant minority from the beginning. Over time, volunteer units were integrated into the Ukrainian Army or the National Guard of Ukraine...By the time they were included in these parallel structures, they had more or less purged them of radicals. To a large extent, they have disappeared from these units," Lebduška, who specializes in security, social and political developments in Ukraine, told Refresher. Security analyst Vladimír Bednár has the same attitude to the matter. "There is a big difference between Azov in 2014 and now... There was a significant cleansing. People associated with neo-Nazi ideology had to leave Azov after integration into the National Guard. Therefore, the current Azov cannot be associated with this from 2014 at all. It has the same name, but it must be seen as two separate things," he told us. "neo-nazi": Smith, Adam (11 March 2022). "Russia moves to ban Instagram and calls Meta 'extremists'". The Independent. Retrieved 26 April 2022. Controversially, however, these "temporary measures" also allowed for praise of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which has admitted to recruiting neo-Nazis and is currently being armed in the fight against Russia. "neo-nazi": Brown, Larisa (10 March 2022). "Russian commander 'killed' as convoy caught in Ukrainian ambush". The Times. Retrieved 26 April 2022. The Ukrainians were understood to be from the neo-Nazi Azov regiment, which has been expanded to become part of Ukraine's armed forces. "neo-nazi": "Russia, Ukraine and the spectre of 1941". Financial Times. 10 March 2022. Retrieved 26 April 2022. Neo-Nazis joined Ukraine's Euromaidan protest movement of 2014, and the neo-Nazi Azov battalion has fought Russia since the Donbas. "with neo-nazi elements": Benjamin, Medea; Davies, Nicolas J.S. (10 March 2022). "Are there really neo-Nazis fighting for Ukraine? Well, yes". Salon. Retrieved 14 April 2022. Despite Svoboda's declining success in national elections, neo-Nazi and extreme nationalist groups, increasingly linked to the Azov Battalion, have maintained power on the street in Ukraine, and in local politics in the Ukrainian nationalist heartland around Lviv in western Ukraine. "formerly": "Did the infamous Azov Battalion inspire Putin's 'denazification' claim?". The Jerusalem Post. 5 March 2022. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The battalion has been a bastion of neo-Nazis and extreme right-wing figures...However, since its incorporation into Ukraine's official armed forces it has moved away from neo-Nazism, and a Ukrainian Jewish group as early as 2016 did not oppose lifting the US ban. "with neo-nazi elements": "Profile: Who are Ukraine's far-right Azov regiment?". Al Jazeera. 1 March 2022. a Ukrainian far-right military regiment is back in the headlines [...] Azov is a far-right all-volunteer infantry military unit whose members – estimated at 900 – are ultra-nationalists [...] hardcore far-right ultra-nationalism is pervasive among members [...] the unit carried out pogroms against the Roma community and attacked members of the LGBTQ community. "with neo-nazi elements": Farrukh, Rimal (1 March 2022). "Ukraine's 'Neo-Nazi' Battalion Is Greasing Bullets in Pig Fat for Russia's Muslim Soldiers". www.vice.com. Vice News. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The Azov Battalion is an ultranationalist volunteer arm of the National Guard of Ukraine that was formally infused into its ranks after it fought against pro-Russian separatists in 2014. The battalion has been accused of espousing neo-Nazi beliefs and reportedly continues to bear Wolfsangel insignia, used by Nazi units during World War II. Attributed: "neo-nazi": Dearden, Lizzie (27 February 2022). "British volunteers who travel to fight in Ukraine could violate terror laws". The Independent. Retrieved 26 April 2022. Quoting Jonathan Hall QC: "But there is always the possibility of less desirable cases at the edges - individuals who travel to Ukraine under false pretence either to support Russia or fight with an ideological group such as the neo-Nazi Azov battalion." "with neo-nazi elements": Hume, Tim (24 February 2022). "Why Vladimir Putin Trotted Out a 'Nazi' Smear to Justify Invading Ukraine". VICE. Retrieved 20 May 2022. Azov – which features the Nazi Wolfsangel logo on its uniforms, is led by figures with deep roots in the country's neo-Nazi scene, and attracted right-wing extremist foreign fighters into its ranks from across the world – was formally incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard in late 2014, bringing its extremists onto the government payroll. "neo-nazi": Biddle, Sam (24 February 2022). "Facebook Allows Praise of Neo-Nazi Ukrainian Battalion If It Fights Russian Invasion". The Intercept. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Facebook will temporarily allow its billions of users to praise the Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi military unit previously banned from being freely discussed under the company's Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, The Intercept has learned. "neo-nazi": Craw, Victoria (14 February 2022). "URussia-Ukraine conflict: Grandma, 79, joins ranks of far-right fighters preparing for Putin to launch invasion". i News. Retrieved 14 April 2022. The extremist, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion formed as a volunteer militia brigade in 2014 and was incorporated into the National Guard that same year. Attributed:"with neo-nazi elements"/"formerly?": "Mariupol's outnumbered defenders refuse to give in". The Economist. 15 April 2022. Retrieved 15 April 2022. Whether the group is still extremist is another question. Azov was incorporated into the National Guard and army structure in 2015. Since then, it has been through a process of professionalisation, with far-right extremists, symbols and ideologies largely filtered out. Michael Colborne, an investigative journalist, author of a forthcoming book on Azov and a longtime critic of the movement, says the process was never completed. 2021 Attributed: "neo-nazi": Bogdana, Alexandrowskaja; Stork, Anna (5 December 2021). "Belarus torture survivors take legal action in Germany". Deutsche Welle. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Because of the T-shirt, Belarus police accused him of sympathizing with the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment fighting in eastern Ukraine. The group's logo, however, does not actually feature a skull. Note: some users participating in an RSN discussion do not consider this source reliable. "neo-nazi": McKenzie, Nick; Tozer, Joel (22 August 2021). "ADF at risk of neo-Nazi infiltration after ex-soldiers passport cancelled". The Age. Retrieved 13 May 2022. In January 2020, Foreign Minister Marise Payne cancelled Mr Sretenovic's passport on the basis he was preparing to fight with the notoriously neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in Ukraine. "with neo-nazi elements": "'Disinformation efforts' to discredit Belarus activist". France 24/AFP. 9 June 2021. Retrieved 25 April 2022. ...the Azov battalion, some of whose soldiers have been known to harbour white supremacist and neo-Nazi views. "with neo-nazi elements": Wesolowsky, Tony (9 June 2021). "Jailed Belarusian Pratasevich Dogged By Claims He Fought For Azov Battalion In Ukraine". Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Retrieved 25 April 2022. ...the Azov Battalion, a nationalist force with neo-Nazi roots that has played a prominent role in the conflict that erupted as Kremlin-backed separatists seized parts of the Donbas in 2014... "Though it is true that its leaders are known for far-right beliefs and the broader Azov movement is in touch with the foreign far-right, there is no evidence that every single person [involved] shares neo-Nazi beliefs," [Hanna Hrystenko, a Kyiv-based researcher of the far right] wrote. "with neo-nazi elements": Hume, Tim; McLoughlin, Louise; Bennett, Tom (14 May 2021). "How a War on the Edge of Europe Became a Training Ground for the Far-Right". VICE News. Retrieved 21 April 2022. While Azov has publicly sought to downplay its extremist elements, its radical politics are undeniable. Many of its members openly espouse white supremacist ideology; some sport neo-Nazi tattoos. [...] the Azov ecosystem has helped to sustain a flourishing far-right underground in Ukraine. Azov-affiliated extremists run neo-Nazi music festivals, clothing lines, and MMA tournaments — while the group has continued to actively network and court support from far-right radicals worldwide. "with neo-nazi elements": Biermann, Kai; Fuchs, Christian; Geisler, Astrid; Musharbash, Yassin; Stark, Holger (11 February 2021). "Fascism: The Brown Internationale". Die Zeit. Retrieved 27 May 2022. Using WhatsApp, Oberhuber contacted a German neo-Nazi who he hoped could bring him to the front. The German turned out to be a functionary with the Misanthropic Division, which recruited fighters for the Azov Battalion in Ukraine from almost 20 countries. [...] Other former right-wing extremists told DIE ZEIT of neo-Nazis who joined the Azov Battalion primarily to receive weapons training. "with neo-nazi elements": Ragozin, Leonid; Skibitskaya, Yuliana (9 January 2021). "Telegram has a Nazi problem". Rest of World. Retrieved 28 April 2022. Far-right activists were among the first to form combat-ready units...The most prominent of these volunteer groups was the so-called Azov battalion, which later became an autonomous regiment under the auspices of Ukraine's National Guard. From that, a number of political, veteran, and paramilitary organizations emerged, which members now refer to as the Azov movement. "with neo-nazi elements": Shuster, Simon; Perrigo, Billy (7 January 2021). "Like, Share, Recruit: How a White-Supremacist Militia Uses Facebook to Radicalize and Train New Members". Time. Archived from the original on 28 February 2022. Retrieved 28 February 2022. 2020 "neo-nazi": Katz, Rita (9 July 2020). "Neo-Nazis Are Running Out of Places to Hide Online". Wired. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The group maintains ties to organizations like Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary group, and Atomwaffen Division, a US-based neo-Nazi paramilitary group that is now largely defunct. Note: at least one user considers this source unreliable for this claim: [13] 2019 "with neo-nazi elements": Parafianowicz, Zbigniew (15 November 2019). "Azow to realny problem. Neonazistowski pułk opłaca ukraińskie wojsko, policję i ministerstwa". www.gazetaprawna.pl (in Polish). Dziennik Gazeta Prawna. Retrieved 11 April 2022. A campaign to defend Azov's good name has been going on for several weeks in Ukraine. It is bound by the slogan "Defense of the fatherland is not terrorism", and it is attended by activists from far-right, neo-Nazi organizations, as well as mainstream politicians and high-ranking officials. "neo-nazi": Golinkin, Lev (2019-08-13). "The world needs to take the white supremacy threat seriously". CNN. Retrieved 2022-04-27. Indeed, last October, the FBI arrested members of the white supremacist Rise Above Movement who had allegedly attended events hosted by Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov organization. By now, numerous Western journalists have chronicled Azov's crusade to turn Ukraine into a hub of international white supremacy. "with neo-nazi elements": Hume, Tom (31 July 2019). "Far-Right Extremists Have Been Using Ukraine's War as a Training Ground. They're Returning Home". VICE News. Retrieved 21 April 2022. signed up to fight with the Azov Battalion, a newly formed far-right militia with deep neo-Nazi ties [...] Azov, in particular, has produced ISIS-like propaganda videos, distributed pamphlets at neo-Nazi concerts in Western Europe, and sent speakers to far-right conferences in Scandinavia. Though the group denies it is neo-Nazi, and publicly stated in 2014 that "only 10 to 20 percent" of its forces identified as neo-Nazis, its first commander and now leader of its political wing has a history in neo-Nazi groups. Their recruitment efforts have targeted far-right networks [...] Joachim Furholm, a Norwegian neo-Nazi and recruiter for Azov, used an interview with a U.S. white nationalist outlet last year to encourage U.S. extremists to join him. [...] Through the influence of Azov, in particular, Ukraine has increasingly played just such a role, emerging as a key hub in a transnational extreme-right network. "neo-nazi": "Ukraine Jews anxious despite Jewish PM, president". Jerusalem Post. 2019-05-10. Retrieved 2022-04-27. Examples include the presence of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion within the Ukrainian National Guard, which has been accused of war crimes during the conflict in the east and sanctioned by the US Congress for its ultranationalist and white supremacist ties. Attributed: "neo-nazi": Bucci, Nino (22 April 2019). "Government can't stop five fighters returning to Australia from far-right conflict". ABC News. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Five Australians travelled to fight alongside Russian-backed nationalist militia in Ukraine, according to intelligence provided to the Australian Federal Police, raising concerns the group has been exposed to combat experience that could threaten Australia's national security. "neo-nazi": Golinkin, Lev (22 February 2019). "Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine". The Nation. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world's only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces. The Azov Battalion was initially formed out of the neo-Nazi gang Patriot of Ukraine. Andriy Biletsky, the gang's leader who became Azov's commander, once wrote that Ukraine's mission is to "lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade…against the Semite-led Untermenschen." Biletsky is now a deputy in Ukraine's parliament. 2018 "with neo-nazi elements": Brown, John (9 July 2018). "Rights Groups Demand Israel Stop Arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine". Haaretz. Retrieved 25 April 2022. The Azov militia was established in Ukraine following the Russian invasion of the Crimean peninsula in 2014. The militia's emblems are well-known national socialist ones. Its members use the Nazi salute and carry swastikas and SS insignias. Moreover, some of them openly admit they have neo-Nazi sentiments and that they are Holocaust deniers. "with neo-nazi elements": Bennetts, Marc (13 March 2018). "Ukraine's National Militia: 'We're not neo-Nazis, we just want to make our country better'". The Guardian. Retrieved 21 April 2022. They are members of the National Militia, an ultranationalist organisation closely linked to Ukraine's Azov movement, a far-right group with a military wing that contains openly neo-Nazi members, and its political spin-off, the National Corpus party. Attributed: "neo-nazi": Rawlinson, Kevin (2 March 2018). "Neo-Nazi groups recruit Britons to fight in Ukraine". the Guardian. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Neo-Nazi groups involved in the fighting in Ukraine are actively seeking to recruit British far-right activists, a leading anti-fascist watchdog has warned....According to Hope Not Hate, a group named the Misanthropic Division, which is linked to the Azov battalion, is working with representatives of UK-based far-right groups...to recruit activists to travel to Ukraine. 2017 "has been accused": "По ту сторону «Азова». Чем занимается в тылу самый известный полк Нацгвардии - ФОКУС". ФОКУС (in Russian). 2017-08-04. Retrieved 2022-05-20. In the media, Azov is often accused of adherence to far-right ideology, since the unit was created by right-wing activist Andriy Biletsky and his associates from the nationalist organizations Patriot of Ukraine and the Social-National Assembly. In addition, the design of the regiment actively uses symbols associated with the far-right movement. On the chevrons, against the background of the Black Sun symbol, an anagram of the letters N and I, the idea of ​​a nation, is depicted. The anagram looks like a mirrored "wolf hook", the symbol of one of the divisions of the Nazi army, and according to UEFA rules, the "Black Sun" is forbidden to be used in football stadiums, since it is a neo-Nazi sign. In the regiment itself, accusations of cultivating a right-wing radical ideology are denied, they say, they have their own ideology, Azov, and the fighters are united by loyalty to Ukraine. "We have people who before the war considered themselves leftists, considered themselves rightists, but everyone reads the Prayer of a Ukrainian Nationalist."... Many wear clothes of special brands used in the right environment - Svastone, Thor Steinar. A former battalion fighter explains that most often these are elements of a subculture that are used more for shocking than for demonstrating a serious commitment to the ideas of Nazism: " Right-wing tattoos are a subculture, a protest against the existing value system, which does not carry anything like that, more for fun."... {{cite web}}: zero width space character in |quote= at position 460 (help) "formerly": Mironova, Vera; Sergatskova, Ekaterina (1 August 2017). "How Ukraine Reined In Its Militias". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 12 April 2022. After the union, the government's first act was to root out two groups within Azov, foreign fighters and neo-Nazis, by vetting group members with background checks, observations during training, and a law requiring all fighters to accept Ukrainian citizenship. Fighters who did not pass this screening were offered the chance to join civilian volunteer corps to help the war effort; these corps assisted police, cleared snow (a crucial task in Ukraine), and even worked on a public radio. Attributed: "not neo-nazi": Boichenko, Nina (2017). "Inside Ukraine's ideological renewal". New Eastern Europe. 28 (05): 70–75. ISSN 2083-7372. Retrieved 12 April 2022. As I arrived, I saw a young man in a library and I told him there are rumours that they are neo-Nazis and that I do not want to believe it, but I came to ask", she says. "'No', the young man replied, 'we are nationalists, we have nothing against other nationalities and ethnic minorities, check the books – there is no Mein Kampf here.'" Indeed, there was not. 2016 "has been accused" / Attributed: "neo-nazi"/Attributed: "says not neo-nazi": Sokol, Sam (18 January 2016). "US lifts ban on funding 'neo-Nazi' Ukrainian militia". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Called a "neo-Nazi paramilitary militia" by Congressmen John Conyers Jr. and Ted Yoho, who cosponsored the bipartisan amendment, the battalion has been a source of controversy since its inception....Not everyone was so upset, however, with the Vaad of Ukraine, a Jewish communal body comprising a number of different organizations and known for its nationalist stance on many issues, coming out in favor of the move. "I appreciate this decision. It must be clearly understood: there is no kind of 'neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia' now. Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group. Its commanders and fighters might have personal political views as individuals, but as an armed police unit Azov is a part of the system of the Ukrainian defense forces," said anti-Semitism researcher Vyacheslav A. Likhachev, speaking on behalf of the Vaad. "neo-nazi": Carden, James (14 January 2016). "Congress Has Removed a Ban on Funding Neo-Nazis From Its Year-End Spending Bill". The Nation. Retrieved 11 April 2022. some have expressed concern that some of this aid has made its way into the hands of neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion. 2015 "with neo-nazi elements": Allen, Christopher (13 August 2015). "European volunteers fighting in Eastern Ukraine". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 13 May 2022. But others, including Mikael Skillt, the Swedish soldier who arrived in Ukraine during the protests on Maidan last February, came to fight for nationalism and their ultra-conservative political ideals regarding Ukraine. Andriy Biletsky, leader of two organisations, Social-National Assembly and the Patriot of Ukraine, is the founder of the Azov Regiment as a politically conservative paramilitary group. The political ideology of Azov has been softened as the battalion grew into a regiment and Biletsky entered the Ukrainian parliament, but many of the Europeans who came in the early stages of the conflict came to fight for their conservative political values. But, while the political fight is important, it is not the only thing that has brought these men here. Once on the front line, the war is less about advocating for political ideals than it is about fighting...These men are driven to the war for the experience of combat. Their politics evolved through their engagement in the conflict. "neo-nazi": "Ucraina, deputato invita capo del battaglione neonazista Azov al Parlamento Ue". Eunews (in Italian). 30 July 2015. Retrieved 11 April 2022. a formation of clear neo-Nazi inspiration, whose symbol is the Wolfsangel, Nazi icon of the 2. SS-Panzer-Division "Das Reich" "neo-nazi": Kramer, Andrew E. (7 July 2015). "Islamic Battalions, Stocked With Chechens, Aid Ukraine in War With Rebels". The New York Times. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Another, the Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi, using the "Wolf's Hook" symbol associated with the SS. Without addressing the issue of the Nazi symbol, the Chechen said he got along well with the nationalists because, like him, they love their homeland and hate the Russians. "neo-nazi/with neo-nazi elements": News, Postmedia (17 June 2015). "Fears that Canadian training mission in Ukraine may unintentionally help neo-Nazis groups". National Post. Retrieved 11 April 2022. U.S. lawmakers have voted to block American troops from training a unit with neo-Nazi members that's operating with Ukraine's forces — a move that raises questions about what safeguards Canada has to ensure it doesn't help extremist groups...The unit has continued to face accusations of neo-Nazi links. {{cite news}}: |last1= has generic name (help) "with neo-nazi elements": Vickery, Matthew; Khalel, Sheren (15 April 2015). "'Christian Taliban's' crusade on Ukraine's front lines". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Serediuk originally fought the separatists in the east as part of the Azov Battalion – a notorious far-right Ukrainian militia organised by the neo-Nazi Social-National party. Serediuk didn't leave the Azov because of the neo-Nazi connections, however – extreme-right ideology doesn't bother him. What does irk him, however, is being around fighters who are not zealous in their religious convictions. "neo-nazi": Taub, Amanda (26 February 2015). "Ukraine's next war: how militias and warlords could create a second, worse conflict". Vox. Retrieved 14 April 2022. Some are extreme already, such as the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, which fights on the pro-Kiev side. "neo-nazi": "Ucraina, reparti filonazisti accanto all'esercito, la denuncia del quotidiano "Usa Today"". Il Messaggero (in Italian). 16 March 2015. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Attributed: "says not neo-nazi"/with neo-nazi elements": "Azov Battalion Is Not Neo-Nazi, But Some People In Battalion Are - Umland". Hromadske. 19 January 2015. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Andreas Umland (in video): The battalion...is not neo nazi...but a few people who did build up the battalion were or are biological racists. In article: The Azov volunteer battalion has now been integrated into Ukraine's National Guard, but some of the biological racists that were originally in the battalion still remain, said Andreas Umland, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation. However, these racists with neo-Nazi views are a minority within the Azov battalion. The role of neo-Nazis in volunteer battalions has been blown way out of proportion in the media and has given the erroneous impression that all of Ukraine's volunteer battalions are populated with neo-Nazis, said Umland. 2014 "neo-nazi": Luhn, Alec (30 August 2014). "Preparing for War With Ukraine's Fascist Defenders of Freedom". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The Azov Battalion [...] this openly neo-Nazi unit. "neo-nazi": Parfitt, Tom (11 August 2014). "Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists". www.telegraph.co.uk. The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 April 2022. Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists. Discussion of Journalism sources, quotations, and assessments This is an excellent list, and the chronological ordering adds considerable value. I would move Branko Marcetic in The Jacobin to "Opinion-based editorials written by journalists". He is writing in an opinion website and has no relevant expertise. (RSP says There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when Some are extreme already, such as the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, which fights on the pro-Kiev side.using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.) Possibly also true of the two pieces in The Nation (RSP: Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.) Lev Golinkin's piece is opinion, but I would say his opinion is noteworthy as he is an expert on Ukraine. Carden's piece is more newsy, but highly partisan and there's no reason to think he has any relevant expertise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Fair, will move it to OpEd, because you're right it's clearly a biased source by RSP!— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC) I would strike "Belarus torture survivors take legal action in Germany", which has been rejected by RSN, or at the very least add "attributed" as this is the opinion of the Belarus police. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Will add Attributed, and a link to the RSN discussion. If we get a consensus that we should remove the source entirely I'm happy to do that too.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC) I think sources from 2014 and 2015 (e.g. Parfitt, Luhn) that are currently tagged red "neo-Nazi" are better tagged blue "formerly" as 2015 can't be source for present tense given other sources show clear changes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC) I understand this criticism, but I would ask, in return, "Shouldn't we let users decide that for themselves?" My policy is almost always to lay as much as possible out in the open. And in this case, we have the year and timing right there in the source, listed right next to the author name. What if we added years to the list, as subheadings? Would that help? I don't want to define when we transition from "present" to "past" because it's clearly a spectrum, and each user would likely define it differently based on their own opinion of the group.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Fair point. Let’s leave as is. The chronological arrangement does the work. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Thakur is an opinion piece by a journalist, so I’d move to that section. Katerji might be too, although his article includes primary reporting so I’d leave here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC) Agreed about Thakur, The Features section is definitely an OpEds section as is most of that magazine. So I moved it to OpEd. But disagree about Katerji, I don't think it's opinion, I would consider it "analysis" which basically most of this section is along with basically all longform journalism. This is the kind of stuff that is less useful for questions like this, but basically all we have on both sides. Hard-hitting factual reporting tends to sidestep these issues or only give it passing mention.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC) April BBC Source This BBC source which I recently added: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61201548 was removed on the grounds that it "makes no mention of neo-nazi ideology", and my label of "formerly" was changed to "with neo-nazi elements" before that was done. In terms of removing it for "no mention of neo-nazi ideology", I don't think that is a reasonable grounds for removing it. There's no requirement that sources in this collection need to explicitly mention neo-nazi ideology, and whatever way that a source refers to the battalion is useful. It is referred to as "originally a far-right group" in the article. I think that far-right is certainly relevant to the question of neo-nazism, and that description is useful for seeing how the group is described in reliable sources. In terms of changing the label from "formerly" to "with neo-nazi elements", I'm more sympathetic to that interpretation. However, the wording in the article does almost exactly match the definition of "formerly". Saying that someone "was originally something" is almost exactly what formerly means. Formerly is defined as "in the past, earlier times"--Tristario (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC) — Tristario (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. #1 This source review is to assist with an RfC regarding the usage of the specific term "neo-Nazi" in the lede. #2 This BBC source does not use this term so, while it may still be useful to this discussion, it is misleading to claim it as an example of how the term is applied to Azov (other than it not being used - for which there is no category.) #3 Look at the following sentence: "Microsoft was originally a privately-owned technology company before being taken public in 1986." Does this sentence support the claim that Microsoft is "formerly a software company"? Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC) #1 This source review is "particularly focused on description of the group re: the "neo-nazi" question", and the rfc is not solely about whether Azov is neo-nazi or not, but how it should be described generally. This source is relevant for those things. #2 I agree that none of the labels fit the description of this article perfectly, however that applies to many of the other sources used here too. That isn't a good enough reason not to include them. And, there is actually a label for "does not mention"- this one: "Does not mention". #3 That doesn't support the claim that Microsoft is formerly a software company, but it certainly does support that it's formerly a "privately owned software company". I agree that formerly isn't a perfect description for how BBC refers to azov here, but it's the closest there is. If you required a stringent enough application of the categories that would just mean the exclusion of many relevant and useful sources. I think that the concerns that you have about the labelling of this source are legitimate. So I would like the propose that the source be included, with the relevant quote, and either be labelled with ""Does not mention"" or ""with neo-nazi elements"", whichever you prefer. Perhaps if others disagree with the labelling they could give their thoughts too.--Tristario (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

[]  · Opinion-based editorials written by scientists/scholars
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION. This section was last edited (diff) on 30 April 2024 at 15:39 by PrimeBOT (talk • contribs • logs)
2022 "neo-nazi": Galen Carpenter, Ted (17 May 2022). "The News Media's Ukraine Whitewash Grows Worse". Cato Institute. Retrieved 20 May 2022. The Azov battalion was notorious for years before the Russian invasion as a bastion of extreme nationalists and outright Nazis. That aspect proved to be more than just a source of embarrassment for Ukraine's supporters when the unit became a crucial player in the battle for the city of Mariupol. [...] However, the coverage of the Ukraine war threatens to achieve a new low in media integrity and credibility. When the establishment press whitewashes the behavior of outright neo‐​Nazis, something is terribly amiss. Note: some users question this author's scholarly credibility "formerly": Gomza, Ivan (April 2022). "Too Much Ado About Ukrainian Nationalists: the Azov Movement and the War in Ukraine". Krytyka. Retrieved 23 April 2022. It is certainly true that Azov was an ultra-nationalist and even neo-Nazi organization at its founding." and "However, like any militant and social movement, it has evolved beyond its origins." and " The best sign of Azov's pro-democratic evolution is, ..." and "It is the first step, and many more should follow, including those to understand why pundits spent efforts speculating about Azov instead of warning about a real fascist threat. Note: some users do not consider this to argue that Azov is "formerly neo-nazi." [14] "formerly": Ritzmann, Alexander (12 April 2022). "The myth far-right zealots run Ukraine is Russian propaganda". Euronews. Retrieved 23 April 2022. ... the Azov regiment, a former Nazi-insignia-carrying extreme-right street militia that has become integrated into Ukraine National Guard." and "However, the Azov regiment that is fighting against Russian invaders in Mariupol literally today, is something completely different." and "The extremist leadership mostly left the regiment in 2015 and ... "formerly": Shekhovtsov, Anton (2 April 2022). "How the West enabled genocide in Mariupol with its misguided Azov obsession". Euromaidan Press. Retrieved 29 April 2022. Figures for the National Corps and other Ukrainian far-right parties in public opinion polls were devastatingly low. The National Corps kept on referring to Azov as its affiliated organization, and naïve Western journalists and experts took all that bluster at face value instead of realizing that Azov was not a political organization and that its command structure was completely separate from the National Corps. "with neo-nazi elements"/formerly": ""Of course, there's Russophobia. What did you expect, it's the ninth year of a war of aggression". Right‑wing radicalism researcher Vyacheslav Likhachev on Russian propaganda talking points". Медиазона (in Russian). 2022-03-29. Retrieved 2022-05-20. [Some] people from the National Corps, veterans of Azov battalion... joined Azov in early 2014 without [the] political backgrounds Biletsky and his friends had had. Azov had several roots, and Biletsky was just one of them... Another group of members were football hooligans, primarily from Dynamo Kyiv. "neo-nazi": Pratt, Simon Frankel; LaRoche, Christopher David (29 March 2022). "Ukraine's Refugees Are Close Enough for European Solidarity". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Minority media narratives focusing on the activities of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion participating in Ukraine's defense have not generated broader fears that Ukrainian refugee flows harbor potential terrorist elements or that weapons sent to Ukraine will eventually be turned against European communities—fears that stoked suspicion of Syrian refugees fleeing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the Islamic State, and indeed Russia. 2019 "says not neo-nazi" / "with neo-nazi elements": Ben, Bohdan (11 April 2019). "Is the Azov Battalion a terrorist organization as 40 US House Democrats claim?". Euromaidan Press. Retrieved 13 May 2022. Regarding the inclusion of neo-Nazis, it's important to mention that Azov, as well as other regiments of Ukraine's Armed Forces and National Guard has no selection by ideological criteria. A battalion of the National Guard of Ukraine can't have any ideology or favor right or left-wing activists or liberals to be enrolled. Ihor Lutsenko, former member of the Azov Battalion and Ukrainian parliament, told Euromaidan Press that he met people having various ideological opinions among the personnel of the detachment and that it's a private matter for each volunteer. The issue of ideology was not important for Azov when they "were doing real practical things." ...To sum up, Azov's personnel indeed includes an above-average number of right-wingers, but does not entirely consist from them. However, the battalion doesn't force following any ideology and a person holding any views can join it. Azov never called for violence or radicalism, although in 2014-2015 it was implicated in war crimes... Discussion of ScholarOpEd sources, quotations, and assessments Krytyka source - does it argue Azov is formerly neo-Nazi I am not sure that Gozma's piece in Krytyka really supports the view that Azov is formerly neo-Nazi. Instead, he argues that Azov has "evolved beyond its origins', undergone a "pro-democratic evolution" and "moderated their ideological fervor or modified it altogether". There is no explicit argument that Azov is no longer a neo-nazi but that they are different in some way to when they started. What that difference is is not elucidated very clearly apart from allusions to things like democracy and animal rights - neither of which preclude an organisation from nazism. The piece does give support to the idea that Azov was founded as a neo-Nazi organisation. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Authoritarianism, or even totalitarianism, are pretty important parts of nazi ideology, and fascism in general. "Pro-democratic evolution" is pretty much exact opposite to what nazism stands for.--Staberinde (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC) Might be better to file this as had neo-Nazi elements in the past as it is clear that Azov was already ideologically diverse and only included neo-Nazi elements to start with. He talks about a mix of apolitical football hooligans, anti-liberal counterculturalists who flirted with "recognizable Nazi paraphernalia", and anti-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists. He cites the 10-20% Nazi figure to be clear that the majority were not neo-Nazi in the past. He explicitly says that the claim that it is still neo-Nazi are not "well-grounded". It's true he doesn't give a neat answer to how to characterise Azov today, but it's clear that he sees it as pro-democratic and turning moderate, which means it might still be on the further right but definitely isn't neo-Nazi. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Cato Institute I question whether Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute thinktank should be included in this section, as not a scholar or scientist. I'd even question if it should feature in this source review as per RSP there is no consensus on whether Cato has any reliability for anything other than the opinions of its authors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

[]  · Opinion-based editorials written by journalists
For the relevant sourcing guideline, see WP:RSOPINION. This section was last edited (diff) on 30 April 2024 at 15:39 by PrimeBOT (talk • contribs • logs)
2022 "neo-nazi: "It should not be illegal to say, there is a neo-Nazi battalion in the Ukrainian Army". Intermountain Jewish News. 21 April 2022. Retrieved 22 April 2022. The Azov Battalion —a unit in the Ukrainian Army — is a neo-Nazi group. Attributed: "neo-nazi": Thakur, Ramesh (16 April 2022). "Game of empires". The Spectator Australia. Retrieved 14 April 2022. After the 2014 coup, the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion – that's a Daily Beast label from 2019 – was incorporated into President Petro Poroshenko's military and security apparatus and has remained there. "neo-nazi: "Wyborcza.pl". wyborcza.pl (in Polish). 14 April 2022. Retrieved 21 April 2022. Per The Times of Israel, " One of Poland’s most prominent journalists, Konstanty Gebert, said he is quitting what many regard as the country’s newspaper of record after it demanded that he describe Ukraine’s controversial Azov Battalion as “far-right” instead of “neo Nazi.” This is his op-ed explaining his decision. "neo-nazi/with neo-nazi elements": Marcetic, Branko (7 April 2022). "Whitewashing Nazis Doesn't Help Ukraine". Jacobin. Retrieved 11 April 2022. the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment that was officially incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard in 2014 [...] it's hard to play down the regiment's neo-Nazi tendencies when it continues to flaunt far-right symbols and carried out a pogrom against local Roma as late as 2018. [...] In fact, he's not just involved but instrumental. In a 2019 interview with UMN (Ukrainian Media Network), the Azov Regiment's chief of staff responded to a question about why Azov was so well supplied and looked better than other parts of the National Guard: "We have a leader, Andriy Biletsky, an independent MP in the Verkhovna Rada [Ukrainian parliament]. On top of being an MP, he is always visiting us at the shooting range encampment, for example. [...] Andriy, unlike others, isn't preoccupied with his own business but is always visiting, always helping us." Here's Biletsky at the Azov Regiment's fourth anniversary celebration, standing with Prokopenko in front of Azov's modified Wolfsangel, the ancient medieval rune famously adopted as a symbol by the Nazi SS. Azov insists with an implied wink that that the figure is merely a combination of the letters "N" and "I," for "the idea of the nation." "formerly": Young, Cathy (4 April 2022). "The Bucha Atrocities and the Kremlin Apologists". The Bulwark. Retrieved 13 April 2022. While Azov has a shady history—it started out as a volunteer battalion with ties both to neo-Nazis and to Jewish billionaire and politician Ihor Kolomoyskyy—most experts believe its current incarnation is not extremist. "neo-nazi": Miller-Idriss, Cynthia (27 March 2022). "How Russia spurred Ukraine's global neo-Nazi recruitment". MSNBC News. Retrieved 25 April 2022. Ukraine's embrace and normalization of the neo-Nazi pro-state militia Azov Battalion has created a global problem. Attributed: "formerly": Nycz, Maciej (18 March 2022). "Facts and myths about the Azov regiment. "Making them a 'Death Star' is a big exaggeration"". RMF24 (In Polish). Retrieved 12 April 2022. I have the impression that the regiment is being blamed for the far-right actions of the Azov Movement and the National Corps party, and the links between them, this umbilical cord, have long been cut off to a large extent. This does not prevent the Russians from heating up this topic and saying that this is some great socio-political movement that has its militia in the form of this regiment. This is not the case. No one in Kiev, no politruk, no fascist, No Ukrainian nationalist or anyone is giving orders to this regiment. It is in normal command structures" - Dr. Kacper Rękawek from the Center for Research on Extremism at the University of Oslo. "neo-nazi": Katz, Rita (14 March 2022). "Perspective Neo-Nazis are exploiting Russia's war in Ukraine for their own purposes". Washington Post. Rita Katz is the executive director of the SITE Intelligence Group and a terrorism analyst. [...] recruited by groups like the Azov Battalion, a far-right nationalist Ukrainian paramilitary and political movement. [...] It has openly welcomed Westerners into its ranks via white-supremacist sites. [...] Neo-Nazi chat groups and channels in various languages have echoed Azov's calls. "neo-nazi": Machanick, Philip (7 March 2022). "Russia has a fascism problem and it's not Ukraine". The Mail & Guardian. Retrieved 26 April 2022. More seriously, the neo-Nazi Azov regiment, formed to fight separatists, was integrated into the National Guard by former president Petro Poroshenko in 2018. 2021 "with neo-nazi elements": Colbourne, Michael (2 June 2021). "Why Designating the Azov Movement as an FTO Is Ineffective". Fair Observer. Retrieved 28 April 2022. The accurate descriptor would, of course, be the "Azov Movement." I've described the Azov Movement, which grew out of the original battalion and regiment, as a heterogenous radical-right social movement. At its core, the movement encompasses the regiment itself, the National Corps political party, the Centuria (formerly the National Militia) paramilitary organization as well as a number of affiliated subgroups and initiatives including a book club, youth camps, a "leadership school" and a (temporarily closed) three-story social center just off Kyiv's central Independence Square. 2014 "neo-nazi": Karatnycky, Adrian (2014-12-30). "Warlords and Armed Groups Threaten Ukraine's Rebuilding". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2022-04-27. Amazingly, in September he even named a leader of the neo-Nazi Azov brigade to head the police in the Kiev region. "neo-nazi": "Look far right, and look right again". Euro Maidan Press. 11 July 2014. Retrieved 11 April 2022. The Division considers that, rather than liberating Eastern Ukraine from illiberal and undemocratic (pro-)Russia separatists, their 'black squadrons are fighting in the ranks of the pagan battalion Azov against the residues of modern society represented by khachi [racist slur for natives of the Caucasus region], chavs, communists, liberals, Asians and other Untermenschen.' Discussion of JournalismOpEd sources, quotations, and assessments

[]  · Government, Policy, and NGO
Keep in mind, these are primary sources and thus should be used with caution! This section was last edited (diff) on 30 April 2024 at 15:39 by PrimeBOT (talk • contribs • logs)
2022 "formerly": Lykhachov, Vyacheslav (3 April 2022). "Euromaidan SOS: honest answers to the most common questions about AZOV in the West". Center for Civil Liberties. Retrieved 12 April 2022. So, the short answer to the question is no, Azov is not a neo-Nazi regiment....there are were individuals with neo-Nazi background and Far-Right views among Azov founders and fighters from the very beginning. However, not all the founders of the battalion had such a background. Among the first fighters of Azov, activists from the Automaidan groups, there were several ethnic Jews (and at least one Israeli citizen) even, for example. Most of the Far Right fighters left the regiment by the end of 2014. The rest of the Right Wing radicals, who clearly articulated their views, were deliberately "cleaned out" by the new commandment of the regiment in 2017. In recent years, there are absolutely no grounds for accusations that neo-Nazis serve in the Azov regiment. 2021 Attributed: "with neo-nazi elements": Weijenberg, Gijs; Zuijdewijn, Jeanine de Roy van (16 July 2021). "The Forgotten Front: Dutch Fighters in Ukraine". International Center for Counter-Terrorism. Retrieved 12 April 2022. Already in the autumn of 2014, The Guardian reported that a large group of Azov members would adhere to far-right or neo-Nazi ideas. They glorified Adolf Hitler's leadership, denied the Holocaust, and the battalion symbol showed the sonnenrad – a common symbol among neo-Nazis. "with neo-nazi elements": Rekawek, Kacper (14 April 2021). "Don't Designate Azov. Why the U.S. should not include the Azov Movement on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list". Counter Extremism Project. Retrieved 27 April 2022. Azov Movement is a multi-faceted entity which comprises not only the aforementioned Regiment, firmly within the command and control structures of the Ukrainian ministry of interior, but also a political party, a paramilitary arm, a charity wing, discussion club, etc., with its backers in the government in Kyiv....The Regiment's veterans have a track record of parading in rows, dressed in black, masked, with torches at political events. Most recently, its political outlet, the National Corps, organized paramilitary trainings for "representatives of veterans' and patriotic organizations, as well as owners of weapons" so that "the Ukrainian army, as well as every citizen of Ukraine […is] ready for any development." 2020 "with neo-nazi elements": Beirich, Heidi (12 November 2020). "The Transatlantic Connections Between American and Southeastern Europe's White Supremacists". Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. Retrieved 12 April 2022. The Azov Battalion's politics are infamous. The regiment has been accused of engaging in torture and war crimes and for using neo-Nazi symbology. Azov representatives claim this has nothing to do with Nazism, but in 2014 a spokesman for the regiment said 10 to 20 percent of the unit were neo-Nazis. Other reporting has documented members' neo-Nazi beliefs and widespread use of Nazi symbols, including the Wolfsangel and the Black Sun, by its adherents. "with neo-nazi elements": Aliyev, Huseyn (12 November 2020). "Opportunities in Ukraine Too Limited to Provide White Supremacists With Military Training". Russia matters (Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs). Retrieved 29 April 2022. It is noteworthy that Saltskog and Clarke seem to brand all volunteer battalions as ultranationalist and white supremacist. However, only Azov, UNA-UNSO and DUK/UDA (Right Sector) espouse ultranationalist views. In fact, Azov's ideology is a mixture of old Slavic (pre-Christian/Nestorian) paganism and modern Ukrainian nationalism. The authors have also omitted the evidence that one of the founders and senior leaders of the Azov battalion, Natan Khazin, is a practicing Jew, which was presented in my original contribution to Russia Matters. Of course, all of the above evidence does not preclude that there are individuals in either Azov or in other ex-battalions with anti-Semitic views. However, individuals with anti-Semitic views were also present in the ranks of the U.S. Army, which cannot serve as evidence that it is a "hub for white supremacists."...While I have encountered individuals with neo-Nazi and far-right views, the majority of Azov's former and active members with whom I communicated had no clearly defined ideological background, apart from broader Ukrainian patriotic views. "with neo-nazi elements": Kuzmenko, Oleksiy (19 March 2020). "The Azov Regiment has not depoliticized". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 11 April 2022. "The close alignment between the Azov Regiment and the National Corps continues under the Zelenskyy presidency. In March 2020, soldiers from the regiment were featured alongside leaders of the National Corps in a video ad for a rally meant as a warning to Zelenskyy’s government. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to “depoliticize." This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps." "formerly": Shekhovtsov, Anton (24 February 2020). "Why Azov should not be designated a foreign terrorist organization". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 12 April 2022. But, while the ideologically inimical nature of Azov's roots is indisputable, it is likewise certain that Azov attempted to de-politicize itself; the toxic far-right leadership formally left the regiment and founded what would become a far-right party called "National Corps." 2019 "neo-nazi": OSCE - Human Dimension Implementation Meeting 2019 - Information Group on Crimes againts the Person (16 - 27 September 2019) "There is only one viewpoint on both «Azov» Regiment and the «National Corps» («Natzionalnyy Korpus») political party affiliated to it: they are neo-Nazis and racists, and any kind of cooperation with them is impossible." Here it is noted that the Azov regiment is still the armed wing of the National Corps political party and therefore has not been "depoliticized". "with neo-nazi elements": Legieć, Arkadiusz (25 October 2019). "The Risks of Foreign Fighters in the Ukraine-Russia Conflict" (PDF). PISM Bulletin. (Polski Instytut Spraw Międzynarodowych). 1898 (150). Retrieved 12 April 2022. ...recruiting other fighters in Ukraine and abroad(e.g.,Azov Regiment recruited volunteers during neo-Nazi festivals in the UK and Germany)...At the same time, foreign fighters on the Ukrainian side have been the subject of Russian propaganda, especially the participation of neo-Nazis in the Azov Regiment or ISIS veterans in Tatar battalions. "neo-nazi": Koehler, Daniel (7 October 2019). "A Threat from Within? Exploring the Link between the Extreme Right and the Military". His own involvement in the militant extreme right movement predated his enlistment and Smith also was trying to join the neo-Nazi paramilitary Azov battalion and fight on their side in the Ukrainian conflict. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) 2018 Attributed: with neo-nazi elements": Jones, Seth G. (7 November 2018). "The Rise of Far-Right Extremism in the United States". www.csis.org. Center for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved 11 April 2022. In Ukraine, RAM members met with groups like the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology. 2015 "with neo-nazi elements": Puglisi, Rosaria (9 March 2015). "Heroes or Villains? Volunteer Battalions in Post-Maidan Ukraine". Istituto Affari Internazionali. Retrieved 13 April 2022. While Biletsky and the top leadership of the Azov are defined by experts as "biological racists," it is generally excluded that the whole battalion is aligned along the same ideological lines. Discussion of Gov, Policy, OpEd sources, quotations, and assessments

[]  · Discussion of the overall template

Source formatting key description Can we add a column to the table in "Source formatting key" that makes it clear when a source should - and should not - be given a label? e.g. when should a source be labeled ""with neo-nazi elements""?  selfwormTalk) 16:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC) As this is a collective effort, and that is a very subjective measure, I would rather that we require each entry has a quotation justifying the label, and that we then cross-check entries editing out ones with poor justification. Each person who reads this should read the quotation and decide for themselves. Egregious offenders can be removed. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC) New label suggestion promotes neo-Nazism According to the following source Mapping Militant Organizations. “Azov Battalion.” Stanford University. Last modified March 2022. the group promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism This source is already listed about and tagged "with neo-nazi elements", which I presume means "part of the group is composed of neo-nazis" (is this correct?). But this source doesn't merely say that the group has neo-Nazi members. It says that the group "promotes" "neo-Nazism". Neither the label "with neo-nazi elements" nor any of the other 5 labels fully captures this assertion, which I think is important enough that it should be clearly indicated whenever a source states it. And it isn't just this source that indicates this. I remember reading at least a couple others sources that indicate the same thing (although I've only inspected a handful of the 100+ sources listed). Should a new label be introduced for sources that state the group promotes neo-Nazism?  selfwormTalk) 16:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "with neo-nazi elements" would also cover "has some aspects of neo-nazi ideology, but is not solely neo-nazi or even mostly neo-nazi" which would encompass "promotes neo-nazism but is not a straight-up neo-nazi organization" in my understanding. A corollary would be the Alt-right group The Proud Boys. There are proud boys who are neo-nazis. Some of the proud boys promote neo-nazism (such as Kyle Chapman). But they are not in essence a neo-nazi organization. They just have "neo-nazi elements" to their makeup. Similarly, none of these sources are saying "The entirety of the Azov Battalion promotes neo-nazism". Or at least, in context, I have not read any sources to justify that. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Exactly what Shibbolethink says is what I was about to say. Plus we need to use the categories in the RfC, otherwise it doesn't help that process. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Concerns about formatting and content Cambial, instead of making the closer redo all the work done here collectively, why not propose amendments in the discussion section of each section and work towards making the colours fit better? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Instead of falsely trying to imply that I am imposing some burden upon the closers, why not simply give your view, rather than bludgeoning the RFC as others have pointed out. I’ve not made anyone "redo" anything, as you already know. The note is clear that voters and closers should concentrate on the source content, rather than any ambiguous and dubious coding scheme on which editors will disagree. If you believe editors/closers should pay less attention to what is written in the sources then, well, you're wrong and you may need to rethink your approach here. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC) @User:Cambial Yellowing, If you are concerned, then add your comments to the subsections in the individual collapses, and we can come to a consensus about labels. It was inappropriate for you to add your comments to the template like that, instead, add your comments to the overall discussion section of the RFC or to the individual sections of the source review. But nothing makes your opinion more important than everybody else's. Replying to the source review directly puts your comment ahead of everyone else's in a way inconsistent with consensus building.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC) As I said in my comment, which does not posit any opinion about what the labels ought to be/how they should differ, readers should use their own judgement and not rely on the views of a far smaller contingent of editors than the more general RFC page attracted. Even if collectively edited, the "source review" is not an official or conclusive statement on the sources, yet it gives off that sense with its formatting. A reminder for people to read the sources is not controversial. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC) FYI, this source review is a transcluded template. It is not part of the RFC. I also did not edit your comments, I moved them to the appropriate location (the discussion section for this template). You added your comments to the source review title, as though it were a discussion. It is not. It's akin to replying to my user page instead of its talk page. No one is saying that the source review is definitive. No one is saying that it is official or conclusive. You are interpreting it that way. It's a straw man that you're attacking. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC) @User:Cambial Yellowing, one of the things I think you're confused about here is that the closer should not even read or incorporate the source review. It is not part of the close, it should not be part of the close. It was only intended to assist discussion participants in their votes. The closer should be reviewing the discussion and its participants and their views, not the specific sources. Likewise, closers should not be taking sides on the content itself in other discussions, they are only here to summarize what participants think about the content. This is an important distinction which is also why closers cannot be involved. It gives a layer of protection to how discussions are closed. This is why the source review should not be part of the closing summary itself, only in how others have interpreted it. To do otherwise would constitute a !Supervote. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC) assist in this context is a value term. I’ve not attacked anything, but gave a different view to yours in which you present your framework as value neutral or settled. If you’re unwilling to have differing views respond to your comments, or feel the need to move responses to your important comments in a Request for Comments away from your own, this may not be the ideal website for you. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC) Again, you appear confused. This was not created as a comment in the RFC. It was added to the RFC many days later, after it had been created as a separate thing entirely.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC) It’s unfortunate that you’ve misread my comments in such a way that I appear confused to you, but I’ll live with it. As to your notion that the closer should be reviewing the discussion...not the specific sources. That’s not correct and would be absurd. The RFC is not a vote. See WP:DETCON and WP:NHC. Closer is asked to ascertain the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue and to discard irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding. If ten people’s comment is something like “Source A and B say Jerry is a banana, so we should describe Jerry as a banana” and source A says Jerry might be a banana but is most likely an orange, and source B says Jerry is definitely an apple, that illogical reasoning or false premise will affect the weight given to their argument. So closers have to look at what sources or quotes from sources are referred to in comments. Obviously. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC) @User:Cambial Yellowing: I never said RFCs were a vote. The exact passage you've cited about summarizing arguments is why I know that the closer should not be evaluating the content itself, but rather arguments about the content. They will look at how discussion participants have argued about the sources, not the sources themselves.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 09:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• C or D not draft 2 as it goes into too much detail to replace one word in the lede. C and D seem to sum it up. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• A, no change, the current definition "is a neo-Nazi unit" is very accurate. The battalion\reggiment is the armed wing of the neo-Nazi project called "Azov Movement" and its political project "National Corps", led by the neo-Nazi Andrey Biletsky (original founder of Azov Battalion that said that Ukraine's national purpose was to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade... against Semite-led Untermenschen"[15]). It does not matter the percentage of enlisted soldiers who have a neo-Nazi faith of either 90% or 10%.

The investigative work by the expert Kuzmenko of the Bellingcat group says:[16] "The relationship between the regiment and the National Corps is also blurred in the political messaging of Biletsky, who has posed with active duty Azov soldiers in political videos. National Corps figures routinely visit the regiment, and the party’s ideologists lecture Azov troops. Their blogs are published on the regiment’s site, while Azov’s social media pages promote the National Corps. According to an August 2017 video, ostensibly recorded at Azov’s base, emigre Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin lectured the regiment. The close alignment between the Azov Regiment and the National Corps continues under the Zelenskyy presidency. In March 2020, soldiers from the regiment were featured alongside leaders of the National Corps in a video ad for a rally meant as a warning to Zelenskyy’s government. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to “depoliticize”. This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps."

The most recent sources that speak of a depoliticization of unit come substantially from Shekhovtsov, quoted by the Financial Times:[17] "Azov's history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself." Shekhovtsov's version appears to go against the facts, while Kuzmenko's claims is easily verifiable by doing simple fact-checking:

Fact-checking

1. The Azov Battalion commander "Kalina", calls Andriy Biletsky "the leader"! In a video called "In Azov they told how Andriy Biletsky helps the regiment" the same thing is certified:[18] "We have a leader, Andriy Biletsky, an independent MP in the Ukrainian parliament. On top of being an MP, he is always visiting us at the shooting range encampment, for example. Taxpayers haven’t contributed a dime to its improvement, development, and functioning. Andriy Biletsky looks for sponsors, businessmen that can contribute to what we have now, for instance, good clothes, procuring, good shooting ranges, etc. . . . A lot of volunteer battalions stopped existing in the same way as we do, and we remained in this sphere, because Andriy, unlike others, isn’t preoccupied with his own business but is always visiting, always helping us." 2. Biletsky himself, with a statement (2019) certifies that the regiment and the Azov movement remain connected:[19] "I will forever remain in the ranks of the large Azov family, which over the past five years has formed around the regiment, bringing together volunteers, volunteers and veterans" 3. And again, the official website of the "National Corps" there is constant mention of Azov soldiers.[20] 4. On March 2022, Azov Battalion and National Corps flags are holded by the fighters of Azov Battalion[21]. Moreover, "National Corps" official channel releases hundreds of videos dedicated only to Azov Battalion:[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]and so on....  5. During the siege of Mariupol, The Economist reports Biletsky's statement showing how clearly he is still in charge of the Azov regiment: "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.”"[31] 6. 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."[32] 7. Azov Battalion members are indoctrinated (19 april 2022) 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."[33] Daniil Koval is "the head of ideological department" of the National Corps.[34]

It is important to note that it is in the interest of the Azov Movement to give the impression that the "National Corps" and "Azov Battalion" are two separated entities. It is clear when the Western media goes to show the links between the two organizations, as for the Time article[35], this is the response of the "National Corps":[36] "National Corps’ Statement on the Information Provocation by TIME Magazine: The Azov Regiment is an official unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, and, therefore, under the Ukrainian legislation, cannot have a “political wing” or “its own political party,” as stated in the article."--Mhorg (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Lots of WP:Original research here. Few notes, Kuzmenko himself doesn't even call Azov regiment explicitly "neo-nazi". Also the National Corps, being a marginal political party with no electoral success, do have strong motivation to grab a share of Azov's military prestige for additional public popularity, so them making youtube videos about the regiment doesn't really prove anything.--Staberinde (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

What Biletsky said or is alleged to have said in 2010 before Azov even existed is not a usable justification for the nature of Azov today, so no good for supporting A, which uses the present tense. (At any rate, his comments were antisemitic but not specifically neo-Nazi.) Kuzmenko is a very strong source, but he is arguing against the claim Azov has "de-politicised" not for the claim it is "neo-Nazi"; nowhere does he describe it as neo-Nazi. Shekhovtsov is a strong source too, and choosing Kuzmenko over Shekhovtsov is either NPOV or OR. The "Fact-checking" is ALL WP:OR which we certainly can't use in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps." - obviously false, there exists a clear line, the regiment fights in Mariupol and dies, does the movement the same in the same place? Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The Battalion and the movement are two separate and distinct entities. There is a relationship between the two. It's not complicated. We don't need a lot of hot air and suspicions and conspiracy theories when people disagree about the nature of the relationship. Feel free to cite RS which indicates tight coordination and RS to the contrary. This applies whether you regard them as heroes or villains. Let's get on with the unique WP approach to things. Wikidgood (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to prove the political branch and the military branch of the same overarching "Azov" are separate. A summary of RS can be found in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Azov_movement already. With lack of consensus, status quo sticks. This entire talk section feels very WP:Activist; you need very compelling evidence to prove the neo-nazi regiment whose emblem was taken directly from the SS has changed. H51bjCKERK (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

How do you respond to reporting from BBC News that indicates that has falsely portrayed [Azov] as Nazi? This seems to be a high-quality reliable source that argues that they are not a Nazi group. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I assume we have 4 for Alternative Draft #1. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support A - This most succinctly summarizes the available sources, without leaving anything out or watering anything down. Support Alternate Draft 2 as a second, because it does what A does, but much less succinctly. C as a distant third, given that it represents the current concern about nazi elements. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC) After carefully building this source review (with help from several others!), I have decided the most accurate depiction is using some form of C with better grammar, but also incorporating some of B. Such as "with neo-nazi and other far-right political elements." The group was originally incorporated as the neo-nazi group..." This is the version which best reflects the sources. If this RFC is closed without action, I will repropose based on that review and with this as an option.—edited by  Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  'available sources'? Who exactly has studied all available sources? The referenced list of pro'neo-Nazi' sources is cherrypicked. We need sources discussing the problem, rather than annuntiating the Final Truth. Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion Stanford does not say neo-Nazi.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Xx236 See my below comment on the Stanford source. I strongly suggest you strike this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Xx236 I made that assessment after looking at all the sources provided which say neo-nazi and also those which say "formerly" or do not say it at all. These are provided in the dropdowns in the discussion section so everyone can make their own assessment and vote accordingly. if you feel there are sources which are not mentioned there, you are free to add your own. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support A per the many sources provided below, in addition to the fact that this issue was already settled previously. --eduardog3000 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A per the overwhelming usage of that term in reliable sources. We can note statements by the group or sources that demur further down the article, but the few sources that say otherwise are not strongly-worded enough or high-quality enough to trump the plain fact that the group is overwhelmingly described as a neo-Nazi one in the article voice of WP:RSes. As far as the problems with the other ones go, B is completely unacceptable because it flat-out ignores the numerous sources describing the group as neo-Nazi today and reads too much into a small number of sources that are cautious about its current state and discuss how it has changed over time but largely do not say so concretely that it has definitely and completely changed - and, more importantly, those sources generally acknowledge, at least implicitly, that it is considered neo-Nazi by others. D is unacceptable per WP:CLAIM and WP:WEASEL, and beyond that dismissing a huge number of academic sources describing the group as neo-Nazi as a mere vaguely-attributed "claim" is misleading. E is the worst of all; no matter which sources you choose, neo-Nazism is the most notable thing about the group and needs to be in the first sentence in some form. Even the tiny number of sources that are more cautiously-worded still make it a major focus - no sources have been presented that could justify complete exclusion.

Collapsing reply to a ping for length

EDIT: I've said this already, but since people seem to think pinging others is going to help - the sources people have presented below to try and argue that the group isn't widely-described as neo-Nazi are unconvincing. Most of them simply do not actually contradict that descriptor; things like "it has toned down its extremist elements" or such verbiage doesn't challenge the basic definition described in the sources. Furthermore, the sources people are trying to use to argue this point are generally weaker - very few academic sources present the point as something seriously disputed, and the ones that do are generally worded in a way that makes it clear that the authors recognize that they are challenging an established academic consensus. Furthermore, the more serious problems I identified with every alternative remain; in particular E is completely unacceptable because it omits a core element of the subject's notability entirely, while B (or any variation on it, such as alternative draft 1) is completely unacceptable because they falsely present it as a fait accompli that the group is no longer neo-Nazi or that it was merely an "early association" with it when numerous high-quality academic sources directly state otherwise.

In short, I still oppose both alternative drafts, B, D, and E in strongest possible terms as a flat and unambiguous misrepresentation of the sources. Even if the weak and unconvincing sources that people have presented to try and argue against A were accepted, nothing anyone has presented remotely supports any of those alternatives, which would require directly ignoring large amounts of recent high-quality scholarship (or, in the case of D, casting them as mere opinion per WP:CLAIM.) Option A remains the most accurate representation of the best sources out of the choices presented. Also, kindly stop bludgeoning people who have expressed support for A; if the scattershot and unconvincing sources people keep using to argue against it were actually as strong as you say, they would be capable of standing on their own. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, E, and B in that order. Oppose A. A used to be a good interpretation of the sourcing, but per recent sourcing, it no longer is. If we go with "E", it should say shortly afterwards that Azov used to be neo-Nazi. I will add that sourcing elsewhere in the discussion of this RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, or E. An overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources would describe the unit in this way. Oppose A. This has been well refuted by reliable, contemporary sources. I agree with adoringnanny that if E, clarification should appear soon after the opening sentence.

Vyacheslav Likhachev, Anton Shekhovtsov, and Andreas Umland are the most prominent researchers of the far-right in Ukraine. After reading their papers and books on the subject, you will arrive at the conclusion that some of the founders of Azov were neo-fascists and possibly/probably neo-nazis and some of the early members were neo-nazis. In 2014 (months after the group's founding) many of the neo-nazis and fascists left the group. In 2017 some openly neo-nazi members were kicked out of the group for espousing neo-nazi beliefs. Some of the veterans of the unit have founded or joined questionable groups. The regiment has never been known to engage in neo-nazi activity or make neo-nazi statements. They have kicked people out for being neo-nazis. They are under the direct command of the Ukrainian National Guard. Calling the regiment neo-nazi seems like a serious violation of WP:NPOV.Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support alternative draft 1, Oppose A(which is a ridiculous and outdated simplification). The Ukrainian government has repeatedly said they have no neo nazi units in their defence forces (despite what Russian propaganda says about "Nazi Ukraine"), including Azov. As has been said *many* times, even though people choose to ignore it, Azov were previously a Neo Nazi buch of soccer holligans, but have since been reformed, neo nazi leadership have been purged, and the govt has made them now a regular part of the Ukrainian defence forces. Certainly there are some members of the unit who are Nazis, but that's no different to US units or Russian who have Nazi members... and they aren't designated Neo Nazi. There are numerous sources to support this, and the article presently is filled with older sources (some going back to 2014) that simply call them Neo Nazi, that don't factor in changes of the last years.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support alternative Draft #1 (preferred), 2 or E, oppose to A. This is for two reasons. (1) As covered in RS, some or many members of the unit had Neo-Nazi views, at least in the past. This is not surprising. I am sure that some members of other military units in Ukraine and other countries (US including) have such views. But this is not the reason to define the whole military unit as "Neo-Nazi" in the first phrase in WP voice. This is just a unit of Army, not a political party. Such description in our article only helps anti-Ukrainian Putinist propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC) So, for example, according to this, 82nd Airborne Division of USA Army, "formed a Neo-Nazi group" in 1995, and so on. But should it be described as a "Neo-Nazi Division" on WP page? Of course not! My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  (2)The detachment and even the related organizations are not described as "Neo-Nazi" in the most recent sources. Due to the ongoing events in Mariupol, the coverage of this unit is changing. Hence, the description in the lead must also change. This is something unusual. The majority of population of Mariupol (just as Kharkiv and Eastern Ukraine in general) are ethnic Russians who speak Russian, etc. So that Putin's forces now exterminate very same people they vowed to protect. On the other hand, the Ukrainian nationalist forces bravely protect the Russian-speaking population in Mariupol from Russian forces who behave just as Nazi during WW II. My very best wishes (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Close as fatally flawed, by indecision and interference during and after the posting of the Rfc. It was initiated on 12:42, 10 April and only after these 21 edits was the first vote cast at 13:23, 10 April 2022 (at which time, the Rfc was *already* a giant mess), including poorly discussed wholesale replacements of the options. In its current state, it's a sprawling mess with multiple collapses, and, imho, none of the options present a balanced view of the evolution of the Azov Batallion from its extremist origins to its complex, flawed present with continued extremist ties though less important, and less numerous, than before. As a second choice, Draft 1 is closest, but still not ideal. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. I think in an ideal world, a longer discussion of the various options would exist, and then an experienced, neutral, and uninvolved editor would make an RfC based on the options reached. I also agree that alternative draft 1 is the best written. I think a lot of the problem stems from trying to collapse complex realities into small spaces. Disconnected Phrases — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support A Aquillion summed it up pretty well. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support E This discussion may be influenced by Russian-Ukrainian information war. The alleged complete list of reliable sources is far from being complete:

  https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion Stanford does not say neo-Nazi.

  https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  The Stanford source repeatedly talks about AB's Neo-Nazi ideology and says The Azov Battalion is an extreme-right nationalist paramilitary organization that promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism through its National Militia paramilitary organization and National Corps political wing in its first two sentences. The first sentence of the France 24 starts with Some call them war heroes, others neo-Nazis. If you search hard enough you might be able to find sources to support the entire removal of neo-Nazism from the lead but it is definitely not these ones. These sources argue the opposite and it is incorrect to represent the Stanford source like this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  This is a database entry, and I do not see who was the author. Not a best source. One issue here: is it a [political] organization (as this source say) or is it a military unit (as most other sources say)? If there are both, then perhaps we need two separate pages. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support A Per overwhelming usage in reliable sources.Anonimu (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A for now, perhaps they are a leopard trying to change their spots but it is soon to say so. If we are going to have the movement as a redirect here then it might be useful to say something about it somewhere in the lead and perhaps clarify more in the article body.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support E or Alternative draft 1, strictly Oppose A - Should Azov’s far-right and neo-nazi associations be discusses in the article and in the lede – yes. Should we declare them neo-nazi in the very first sentence – no. First sentence should be about undisputed basic facts. In order to describe Azov as a neo-nazi unit in the opening sentence, this descriptor should be applied uniformly and unequivocally across international reliable sources. That is not the case. Substantial number of sources have been presented below suggest Azov has moved away from neo-Nazism, and even more sources while discussing Azov’s far-right links simply do not apply neo-nazi label with no additional qualifiers. Also, the list of sources presented to support the label doesn’t stand up to scrutiny very well, with majority of entries being dated, unreliable, or simply not supporting the “neo-nazi” label [37]. Therefore, it is very clear that the topic of Azov being neo-nazi is by no means actually settled among reliable sources, and calling it unequivocally "neo-nazi" in the first sentence would be violation of WP:NPOV. I would also note that Azov is a military unit. If we look at first sentences of some other wikipedia articles of military units then one can see that we don’t call LSSAH “nazi”, or Red Guards “communist”, or Al-Qassam Brigades “islamist”, even though all those units are/were very strongly associated with those ideologies.--Staberinde (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• I would prefer a very nicely written Alternative Draft #1 but if that is no go then I would support A (no chance) due to the present sources. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Alternative Draft #1 as nominator. I do think this group is part neo-Nazi, but AFU regulars in the unit reject this characterization, so it should not be stated in Wikivoice. CutePeach (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC) (moved to the proper section by GizzyCatBella - pinging CutePeach to notify) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A Kuzmenkos article gives strong evidence. Recent influx of ideologically non-committed members does little to change the nature of the battallion. NSDAP also was diluted by fellow-travellers, opportunists and people compelled to join. In a military unit, the leadership is the central factor. --Jonund (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

  Jonund but Kuzmenko doesn't call them neo-Nazi, so his article gives strong evidence against A. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Alternative Draft 1 That's the closest to most recent sources I think. Otherwise E with more elucidation farther on in the text. Volunteer Marek 20:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A Every other option is dubious and not reflective of WP:RS. CharlesWain (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A, oppose E. Clearly there are RSs which say "is neo-Nazi", so E would be totally wrong. However, the RSs which support "is neo-Nazi" are outweighed quantitatively and generally weaker qualitatively than those which do not support this. If we say "is neo-Nazi" in the present tense than sources from 2014 are not useful, given other sources which change. WP:HEADLINES which support "neo-Nazi" but have bodies that say something more nuanced (neo-Nazi links, neo-Nazi symbols, some neo-Nazi members) are also no good for A. And RSs reporting on other things that only mention Azov in passing are weaker than RSs which focus analytically on Azov. Looking at the preponderance of sources, it is clear that something like B/C/D or one of the alternative drafts are far closer to the sources. (I may !vote later on which of these is best depending on the arguments put forward.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC) As we move to close and I still haven't !voted, I think a better worded 1 or 2 is the best but C and D are fine and could live with B. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support A or an improved D with a preference for the latter. Sources are not clear that Azov has moved on and in many ways question if Azov and others are right when they say they have depoliticised. Sources asserting depoliticisation are usually presented as claims which often trace back to Azov themselves or individual academics. Journalists have openly questioned the depoliticisation with Oleksiy Kuzmenko writing despite claims to have moved away from far-right ideology, the available evidence indicates that the regiment remains joined at the hip to the internationally active National Corps party it spawned, and the wider Azov movement associated with the regiment. Sources that do not use neo-Nazi usually talk about others using the description such as the oft quoted France 24 piece which starts Some call them war heroes, others neo-Nazis. Hence my support for D (despite valid claims of WP:WEASEL) as even if not all sources call them neo-Nazis, all sources do say many others describe them as such. Sources presented below show the continued and recent use of neo-Nazi to describe Azov so I am also happy to stay with the status quo for now. In the strongest possible terms I oppose E which erases one of the largest factors of the battalion's notability. Every single source about Azov addresses it's neo-Nazi aspects regardless of where they fall on it. I wouldn't oppose a term like "extreme far-right" or similar instead. However, it appears the opposition to A and support for E or Draft #2 is not because the term "neo-Nazi" is inaccurate but because Azov is no longer political - something which is not supported by the majority of sources and is a fringe viewpoint. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• A The group literally has Nazi symbols on its logo. --Firestar464 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  And your source is? Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  See below comment. Firestar464 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  I am asking about the source (Nazi symbols), not about opinions. Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Please compare Rorschach test. Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Here's a couple of them. Plenty more could be added (if necessary). M.Bitton (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  There is plenty of reliable sourcing for Azov using Wolfsangel and Black Sun, and plenty of reliable sourcing for these being Nazi symbols (although Azov says its similar symbol is not actually a Wolfsangel but the initials of "National Idea"). However, reliable sources for "looks like a duck" are not the same as reliable sources for "is a duck" and if we want to go for option A ("is neo-Nazi") rather than something more specific (e.g. "neo-Nazi elements") I don't think use of symbols is enough. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support A or C. Strong sourcing and the use of two Nazi symbols (Wolfsangel and Black Sun) in their logo justifies keeping the current version. EDIT: Per BobFromBrockley's comment below I took a look at the sourcing above and have revised my vote accordingly and support C as an option. The majority of the sources listed under scholarship (which I would consider to be the strongest sources) and journalism describe Azov as either "neo-nazi" or with "neo-nazi elements".--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  It has been discussed here, but there is more to the "Nazi" symbols. Firstly, the organisation has changed and is no longer Neo Nazi, however it is still using the old symbols - but that doesn't make it a neo nazi organisation - because otherwise, where it really counts, it isn't. Secondly, from what I understand, these symbols AREN't seen as Nazi symbols in Ukraine. They have some Ukrainian traditional meaning...so we appear to be giving some innaproproate non Ukrainian meaning to these symbols - so strictly equating these symbols with Nazism, when they may more correctly be associated with Ukrainian Nationalism (?) is incorrrect. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think that depends entirely on what the experts on these symbols and this movement tell us about the situation. For one, I have not found a particularly high quality source that says their use is entirely unconnected to the popular meaning. Nor have I found a high quality source which shows these alternative "traditional Ukrainian" meanings that the Azov people speak of. And we also have sources which say the movement was told to stop using Nazi symbols, and decided to rebrand them or alter them slightly instead. I would put all of this together to think that it's fair to say the group has "some neo-nazi connections" but is not itself "neo-nazi" in character. Much like how the proud boys have some neo-nazi connections but are not themselves a "neo-nazi" group. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  The Wolfsangel is used mostly by neo-Nazi groups and others associated with the far-right, but is not itself a Nazi symbol. The Black Sun, on the other hand, is exclusively a Nazi symbol.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  @C.J. Griffin [38] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose A, support C and D. To maintain core article policy WP:NPOV and WP:VER the article shouldn't categorically use the label neo-Nazi when reliable sources are conflicted on this issue, plus its use here seems like contentious opinion WP:CONTENTIOUS so should not be included in WP:VOICE. IndigoBeach (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A. The balance of the decently-reliable sources found so far indicates that use of the straight-up label with no qualifications or modifications is misleading. There are simply too many of those sources in the "has/had neo-Nazi elements" bucket for "is a neo-Nazi battalion" to be a fair summary. Is there unanimity among the sources? No. But that means that the situation is complicated, which in turn means that our article can't take an easy way out. XOR'easter (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  There are other options you could choose from. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Pretty much the core argument I made "Azov = Nazi" is a (sorta lazy and stupid) oversimplification that the Daily Mirror should use, but we here at Wikipedia need to be more accurate, explaining the actual situation with qualifications. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Does 'decently' suggest that any other opinions are undecent? Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: can I urge editors who have not been following the discussion to look at the review of sources at the top of this page (and/or the two lists of sources below here in the discussion) before !voting on the basis of sources. I note three or four editors have briefly !voted for A with comments such as "reflective of WP:RS" or "Per overwhelming usage in reliable sources", but don't appear to have addressed the balance of sources as documented on this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

  Bobfrombrockley, what is the correct course of action for the closer when !votes are not made on basis of sources? Should they discard the !votes as WP:IDL and risk being accused of a WP:SUPERVOTE, or lean on some other policy for these situations? I'm genuinly interested in knowing as there is RFC with this exact problem. CutePeach (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  Can we please avoid cluttering the !Vote section and move this discussion to where it belongs? M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: One (admittedly imperfect) way to assess how they are described by the overwhelming majority of reliable news organizations would be to go to the perennial sources page, make a list of the reliable for political news outlets, select a representative number of outlets using a random number generator and catalogue how they are characterized (described the first time they appear in the body) by the news outlet in articles (not blogs or opinion pieces) from the last few years. I did not find neo-Nazi to be an at all common descriptor. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    We have this: Talk:Azov Battalion/Sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

    Those sources are cherry-picked and do not represent the majority of RS opinion. Some of them do not appear on the perennial sources list. It is not what I described. I encourage the closer to research outside this talk page. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment There is nothing to suggest that they haven't addressed the balance of sources, nor is there a need for them to limit themselves to what was cherry picked for them. The !voters are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions after analysing what has been covered extensively over the years (in many languages). M.Bitton (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• C but not E nor draft #2: More sources indicate "contain elements" compared to other characterizations. CurryCity (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A there are many RS published in the recent past, claiming it is a neonazi group. So, we will need a more recent, well cited review paper published in a peer revied journal, that examines the nature or ideology of Azov battalion, and states that they have moved from neonazism to something else Cinadon36 05:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC) (moved "lost" vote to the proper location by GizzyCatBella🍁 11:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC))
• Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, or E. Oppose A.Mihaiam (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support alternative draft 1, Oppose A From a perusal of recent sources in Talk:Azov Battalion/Sources, it seems like there is debate surrounding the best characterising ideology of the group, especially recently (WP:AGE MATTERS). The current description seems to have problems with WP:NPOV because it is direct contradiction with many recent sources. I like alternative draft 1 because it is fairly matter of fact and avoids anything contentious WP:CONTENTIOUS Cononsense (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  — Cononsense (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose A, as reflecting Russian propaganda not current sources, and being WP:UNDUE given the groups current notability comes from their defence of Mariupol. BilledMammal (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Recent news reports such as by the BBC describe it as once had links to the far right. Considering this, I think either E, or B, either in the proposed form or preferably in the form which used to have links to the far right, would be best. BilledMammal (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support alternative draft #2 or alternative draft #1. The reliable sources are sufficiently split (and actually tend towards "formerly" when biasing in favour of more recent sources) that some level of nuance is warranted. Strongly oppose A as too black-and-white. --Tserton (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Close as inept, like the other RfCs. A is absolutely prposterous and shouldn’t even be considered. The only point of all this is to stall any change that might rid the lead of a blatant NPOV violation, when the provisory ‘has often been described as neo-Nazi’ easily slices the endlessly entangled Gordian knot. My expectation is that the RfCs will drag on tactically until Russian wins its territorial gambit, and then we can coldly face the facts and rid the page of propaganda.

There is little evidence of careful source deliberation here. Both Russia and the Ukraine, as heirs to Slavophile traditions field numerous neo-Nazi or fascist groupuscules, the former with explicit régime backing. Wikipedia has obsessed over the Ukrainian version, feeding into, inadvertently or not, Russian propaganda with its pot calling the kettle black. The major and authoritative book on this topic by Michael Colborne, which almost no one appears to have read (and which should be the default source for an article like this) tells you everything about the Ukrainian far-right in detail that would embarrass it. But itincludes an account of an historic caesura of sorts that appears to have occurred on Zelenskyy's election in 2019, when Azov, once incorporated into the Ukrainian army, was 'purged' – as the Azov leadership complained- with the Nazi element estimated to constitute now about a fifth of its force.

Colborne himself, as we note, on being interviewed in 2022, was cautious about the use of the epithet. Editors have being giving undue weight to a flurry of meme-reproducing sources from 2014 that ignore changes, nuances, and the scepticism of several area specialists – the usual laziness or POV pushing . The A proposal which has garnered so much Pavlovian backing, is farcically at odds with a significant body of research which admits its undoubted pro-Nazi origins, but notes that over 8 years, due to considerable political changes and ideological shifts, Azov, in Colborne’s words , has not been presenting for some time the hardline views attached to its formative period. In the meantime, Nazi behaviour is thoroughly evidenced by units flourishing on the ground in the barbaric Russian assault, as far-right mercenaries, Wagner, Islamic militants, Chechens and embedded members of the advowedly Nazi Russian Imperial Movement get only minor press coverage, though mirroring even now behaviour we once associated with Azov. I can’t remember such a consistent NPOV violation, in the face of extensive contrary sources by eminently solid researchers, since I began editing here in 2006. We know from Polish articles and Arbcom that this area is subject to extreme POV jockeying, and therefore, NPOV should be absolutely obligatory to avoid any hint of manipulation.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• A' There are enough sources to support the status quo.[39] Agletarang (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment. The wisdom of 116 edits in 9 years. Read the thread. By the same token 'there are enough sources to change the status quo,' which would (dis)likewise be, as an obiter dictum, a non-argument as the above is.Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment. How about you stop attacking those who disagree with you? M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• A per use in RS. ToeSchmoker (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  Again, use in RS is conflicted. Editors should remember that this is not a polling booth, but an area where consensus is not a matter of numbers, but grounded in the quality of reasoned analyses that justify a conclusion drawn.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  This editor takes issue with your suggesting that this editor hasn't already performed a reasoned analysis of the situation. This editor will not engage you further in dialogue as this editor is not convinced you are acting in good faith. Kind regards, ToeSchmoker (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I am noticing that there are users who are spamming comments against those who vote for solution "A". Repeating your point of view under each vote is almost becoming spam. This is disrespectful. You should begin to accept that users have seen the sources provided and that they have made a decision.--Mhorg (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

  While making no comment as to the merit of these arguments, I would agree with @Mhorg that this is indeed problematic, and amounts to WP:BLUDGEONing. If your arguments have merit, making them once or twice should be enough. Others will pick up the banner. Individual users repeatedly spamming like this is an issue, and a violation of WP:TPG. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose A. Per User:Shibbolethink's revised !vote above, also User:XOR'easter who puts it well. Given the sources Shibbolethink and others have now assembled (as of this edit, 18 April), in particular in the balance of 2022 and other recent sources, especially those that consider the question with more discussion that just a passing epithet, it is clear that any flat unqualified statement in WP voice that "the Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi unit" cannot be held compatible with WP:NPOV. (more to follow). Jheald (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

As regards what text should replace it, it looks like this RfC may be heading to No Consensus. That might be no bad thing. For myself I would oppose any particular form of words being locked in with the authority of an RfC.

IMO a useful way forward could be to re-visit the "Ideology" main section, re-work the first sub-heading to focus on the ideology of the Azov movement broadly as a whole (perhaps also looking into its origins), and then introduce a new sub-heading to look at the competing claims as to what extent the Azov batallion or regiment specifically still reflects that movement ideology -- this would be somewhere with the space to quote and assess in depth e.g. the strong 2020 testimony of Kuzmenko on the one hand, and contrast it with countervailing claims of others that (to a greater or lesser extent) the unit has been actively "de-politicized", and/or diluted ideologically by an influx of less political recruits.

The lead should ultimately be re-written to reflect whatever balance is found in more detailed main text. In the meantime, holding text along the lines of "a militia created by far-right nationalists that was later incorporated into the national guard" (Guardian 15 April), or (less preferred) "a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, that has sometimes been described as neo-Nazi, based in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov". I also think that Shibbolethink's recent suggestion The regiment is controversial due to its far-right and neo-nazi associations. Some consider it to still be an extremist organization, while others regard it as largely de-politicized. The regiment itself claims to be apolitical. would be a useful addition, perhaps towards the end of the lead.

Finally, to other contributors, in particular @Eduardog3000, Aquillion, M.Bitton, Anonimu, Selfstudier, CharlesWain, Vladimir.copic, Agletarang, and ToeSchmoker: Please remember that (I) an RfC is not a vote (WP:VOTINGISEVIL). Closing admins are directed to assess "the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", not to count votes; also (II) as evidenced by eg Shibbolethink's changed !vote above, the balance of sources being raised for consideration had changed considerably by eg 13 April compared to the opening of the RfC on 10 April. Given the above two factors, it seems to me that bare !votes for A such as some above are likely to be on track to be either ignored completely or heavily downweighted by any closing admin, as either (i) not reflecting policy (NPOV), or (ii) not reflecting the full currently available sources. If you still believe A is the best way forward, and you still want your views to count, IMO you could be well advised to add to your !votes above to explain why you think that is the right way to read the sources, despite the wider sources that have since been brought to the discussion (many on 13 April, perhaps after your initial !votes had been made). Jheald (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment @Jheald: Since you pinged me, I will respond here. My !vote is not based on the cherry picked sources that some editors have collected. Like I said previously, this subject has been covered widely in multiple languages (most of which, I don't expect the average editor to understand). In any case, my !vote stands. M.Bitton (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @M.Bitton: If you believe there are particular sources that are particularly relevant or revealing, and/or others that should not be given such weight, you should cite them and make the argument in your !vote. If you don't make the argument, it won't be taken into account. Your vote counts for little; your argument counts for everything. Jheald (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Jheald: I'm not here to teach the basics. If editors want to learn about the subject, then they do their own research and draw their own conclusion. For example: just 5 days ago, Efraim Zuroff described the members of the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazis.[40] M.Bitton (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

      Actually in the link Zuroff says "“There is no question that there are neo-Nazis in different forms in Ukraine, whether they are in the Azov regiment or other organizations.”" He does not say Azov is' neo-Nazi. This supports the "elements" wording (option C). BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

      Wrong. When asked specifically about the Azov regiment, Efraim Zuroff said "It’s not Russian propaganda, far from it... these people are neo-Nazis" M.Bitton (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

      I stand corrected. (Full quotation: Others have claimed allegations made against the Azov regiment are part of a Russian disinformation campaign. Zuroff dismisses such claims. “It’s not Russian propaganda, far from it,” he explained. “These people are neo-Nazis. There is an element of the ultra-right in Ukraine and it’s absurd to ignore it.” So this source supports option D, as it's clear it is contested. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

      Utter nonsense! The source that you misunderstood and still do clearly supports option A. The only way to make it clearer would be for him to draw it in crayons. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Since you pinged me directly, I'll respond here, too. The sources you are unconvincingly trying to argue have changed everything to the point where you believe the closer should outright disregard everyone who disagrees with you are neither new nor convincing; many of these were presented in the prior discussion, and the ones that weren't are of no higher quality and share the same flaws that I exhaustively detailed both above and in the already-massive (and now even moreso) statement you believe should be disregarded as a bare vote. Many of them don't contradict the fact that the group is a neo-Nazi one, merely documenting ways in which it has tried to downplay that fact; and virtually all of them are clearly lower-quality than the sources describing it outright as neo-Nazi in the article voice. Please be more cautious in the future. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Jheald:, if we were to write in the article that the battalion has been "de-politicized" we would be promoting disinformation directly from Wikipedia. As I demonstrated in the fact-checking section of my answer above, that claim is pure hoax, as well as a gift to the Azov Battalion, which has been trying for years to hide its ties to its neo-Nazi National Corps party. Mhorg (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

There are certainly experts who believe that they have been depoliticised.

I believe because this is in dispute, the current characterisation (A) makes it violate WP:NPOV.

For example, here is a excerpt of an interview with polish researcher Dr. Kacper Rękek, from the Center for Research on Extremism at the University of Oslo:

I have the impression that the regiment is hit by the far-right actions of the Azov Movement and the National Corps party. The links between them, this umbilical cord has long been severed to a large extent. This does not prevent the Russians from heating up this topic and saying that this is some great socio-political movement that has its militia in the form of this regiment. It is not so. Nobody in Kiev, no politician, no fascist, Ukrainian nationalist or anyone else gives orders to this regiment. It is in the normal Ukrainian command structure.

this is from a interview (in polish) conducted last month that is in the source list. Cononsense (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• I see no reason to alter my !vote or what I wrote there. There is no dispute that it was neo-Nazi and the only question is whether the prior RFC may be overturned by way of argument based on relatively recent events. I am not persuaded as yet that this particular leopard has changed its spots. And all this "discussion" stuff should be in the relevant section not clogging up the survey.Selfstudier (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support A: I don't see the highly respected West Point Academy's Center for Counterterrorism April 2020, Vol 13, Issue 4, Pg 34 in the sources. [41]. The oppose A voters, in my view, need to produce multiple high quality sources that say explicitly that it was a neo-nazi group, but now it isn't, for me to consider any other options. Claiming that they now rid themselves of neo-nazis, just before the invasion, is an extraordinary claim that would need support of overwhelming evidence. - hako9 (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support D: I believe, it only would be adequate to call an organization neo-nazi, or any other label, if this is written in their statute, and all members have to swear the cause to join. This is obviously not the case. I believe the option D is the most adequate lead: it tells what Azov Battalion certainly is officially, and it mentions the claims of it being neo-nazi. This lead variand does not hide anything from the reader, does not pretend to be the ultimate judgement on the case, and leaves it to the body of the article for all points for and against considering the organization neo-nazi or not. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

  It would be completely inappropriate to use the weasel-wording it has been claimed in the lead, when multiple instances of the most reliable source type states, correctly, that it is neo-Nazi, with close to zero reliable scholarship stating otherwise. This is WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopaedia where we use the most reliable sources for facts. Your suggestion that it only would be adequate to call an organization neo-nazi, or any other label, if this is written in their statute is contrary to how we select content on this website. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Alternative Draft #2: Unquestionably, the set of sources compiled between February 2014 and February 2022, have sustained that the regiment has a neonazi origin, however, placing the affirmation of an "is" for the community is a bit irresponsible, given that between these dates, there are an ongoing warlike conflict, where sources chose a side, its supposed origin could be placed, but not the "is" stated as its current state.--Berposen (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If the alternative is illegal, my opinion in the survey would be for option D.--Berposen (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Move from the current version. As I've expressed earlier while compiling sources the previous time (see previous RfC, section Sources, from which Shibbolethink seems to have drawn), there is no doubt a substantial neo-Nazi element within the battalion and some ties here are undeniable (such as the use of symbols). But when sources diverge on whether to call someone/some organisation a neo-Nazi, the relevant guideline in MOS says we should err on the side of caution. Arguably even "far-right" is a pretty contentious label, but it is appropriate given the overwhelming consensus, as I assessed back in 2021, that the army formation is either far-right or neo-Nazi. The recent news coverage simply confirms what I've been saying back then; scholars don't seem to have substantially changed their mind (and the sources I compiled showed anything but consensus for "neo-Nazi" label). In fact, while back then I supported some label for the battalion given that it is known for its rather extreme views, now that malicious actors have potential and strong incentives of using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes, I would consider simply attributing the neo-Nazi links, remove it from the first sentence and discuss the scholarly and journalist usage in a dedicated section for that purpose (with a short summary elsewhere in the lead). I didn't challenge the previous closure at the time given that I was already tired perusing 100+ sources on the topic, but its assumption that far-right and neo-Nazi fundamentally mean the same thing was thoroughly flawed - it's more or less like to say that communism, anarchism and just far-left politics are monolithic, which of course they are not. Marine Le Pen is not Benito Mussolini is not Adolf Hitler is not Vladimir Zhirinovsky is not Marjorie Taylor Greene is not Eduard Limonov.

Draft 2 is the closest to what I am willing to support. It is not ideal, but certainly much better than stating outright the Azov Battalion is neo-Nazi. Too much nuance to paint it as neo-Nazi as a whole, in particular as most of its members aren't neo-Nazi after all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

"as most of its members aren't neo-Nazi after all" - how do know that @Szmenderowiecki? Chrystal ball? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

See first sentence in last paragraph of the lead: In March 2015, Andriy Diachenko, a spokesman for the Azov Brigade, told USA Today that 10% to 20% of the group's members are Nazis. For independent estimates: Likhachev says "many" but warns this label should not spread to "all". It is also safe to assume that the number of extremists is lower than reported even a year or two ago and likely does not constitute a majority. Same thing reported by the Financial Times and Gazeta Wyborcza.

In other words, if we don't deal with an overwhelming majority of people having a certain behaviour, it is better policy-wise to refrain from contentious labels such as this. We don't even have a majority here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support A Largely per Aquillion at 21:21, 18 April 2022 and Hako9. I think it is better to focus on the rest of  parts the article tagged with maintenance templates. --Yoonadue (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A, leaving just "is a neo-Nazi unit" (although RfC is rather ambiguously organized). Reliable sources before February 24th are quite clear on this points, and even as, unfortunately, some RS started downplaying the established fact that Azov is a neo-Nazi unit, it should not affect Wikipedia coverage. By the way, the Azov Battalion#Ideology section is a complete mess, it would be nice if somebody rewrote it with RS provided here and elsewhere. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A per last RFC and numerous sources, very weird that the people trying to wipe legitimate sourced statement (addet to the article before the whole russia ukraine conflict) claiming it is russian propaganda, yet their only source to this is, ironically, mostly recentist propaganda. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support A per abundant reliable sources over time, including both old and recent sources, also including scholar sources. MarioGom (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
• Alt Draft 1, with C as a second choice. There are enough sources that dispute "neo-Nazi" that A presents a WP:VOICE-flavored NPOV problem. I am not counting "neo-Nazi elements" sources as directly disputing the label, so this analysis is just based on sources that directly refute the label or use "formerly neo-Nazi"-type language. Even with such a restriction, there are enough reliable sources presented to show that "different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter" and we should therefore "not present them as direct statements".
  Alt Draft 1 needs some work, but it's the closest. My main issues with it are that it ties controversy to the groups incorporation into the National Guard, which I don't think is exclusively the case, and that it makes it seem like that incorporation happened during the 2022 invasion, which is not the case. I think all of the proposals could use some rewriting if adopted. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Some add-ons: I want be clear that I oppose A for the VOICE reasons listed above. I also oppose D E as the connection to neo-Nazism is a significant controversy and a contributor to notability; it deserves a first paragraph mention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC) striking and inserting 00:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Firefangledfeathers Do you mean "Oppose E" rather than "Oppose D"? E Is the only option which omits a mention of neo-nazism. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support alternative draft 2, C or D while opposing A and E – Finds a balance between mentioning Nazi connections without stating in Wikipedias voice that it is objectively Nazi, despite content in the body of the article mentioning that the current Nazi Azov claim is disputed the lead as of now states it as fact. There should be a balance. TylerBurden (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A, prefer C – Most of the newer scholarly and journalistic sources do not call them a "neo-Nazi battalion", but instead say it has "neo-Nazi elements" and has went through a process of de-politicizing – see under "Collective source review" (above). Therefor we should not say, in Wikipedia's voice, that this is a "neo-Nazi battalion". Saying it has "neo-Nazi elements" or something similar is fine. Also, remember that this is a regiment of a country's armed forces, not a political party with an official ideology. ~Asarlaí 08:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support alternative draft #2 or B. A useful and credible source in support of this is Shekhovtsov, who was warning against the dangerous right-wing aspects of Azov in the past but has researched and published thoroughly on the relevant changes taken place over the recent years. Ingwe Ndlovu (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• I hope im not too late. Support option 1 or 2': stating it's neo nazi without any qualification looks quite biased Fourdots2 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support A > C > all other options: Per Shibbolethink's excellent summary of the sources above, it seems to me like the academic sources are split between "neo-nazi" and "neo-nazi elements", with hedging on this fact increasing mainly as we go to poorer quality sources and not really with time. This suggests to me that there's an academic consensus that Azov is still neo-nazi, though the many sources that refer to it having neo-nazi elements only means I can't really oppose that option too strongly. Loki (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support E Neo-Nazism is not defining for the current National Guard regiment. The unit’s reputation can be described in the lead with as much detail and nuance as is appropriate. —Michael Z. 14:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support A Under normal circumstances I would support A or C, there is sourcing for either and I'm not wholly opposed to C, but frankly a neo-Nazi organization and an "organization that contains neo-Nazi elements" are the same thing, especially when said elements are as prominent as they are in Azov. B simply isn't supported by any sources and D is woefully minimizing, and I Oppose E in the strongest possible terms. Azov is not "just another unit" of the National Guard, considering nearly every source about them is about their ideology, one way or another. BSMRD (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support C or D or possibly alternative draft 1, which at least explains itself. I was summoned to the previous RfC and in both I'm confused - to be honest I don't even understand what a neo-nazi regiment is. Surely an army regiment either exists under its nation's military command or it exists independent of the political structure of the state, with its own political ambitions, programme, agenda - ie a para-military org. Nobody suggests the latter currently AFAI can see, even though the organisation may have arisen as the para-military wing of an ultra-nationalist movement. What are these people doing that is neo-nazi in character does not even seem to be touched on - beyond a taste for nazi-like tattoos and other insignia which offends western sensibilities. On the previous RfC I endorsed this comment The current version conflates several things: Azov as a former volunteer battalion, Azov as the current National Guard regiment and the Azov as a political movement" and that some of the criticism is more aptly "was" rather than "is"-neo Nazi.. I also endorse this one Azov Battalion is a military unit and does not have political objectives nor does it have a political ideology.. A regiment with neo-nazis in it is not the same as a neo-nazi regiment, any more than a regiment with gays in it is a gay regiment. Sorry to be cynical, but most armies attract 'hard-men', who may include some whose views are 'less than wholly liberal'. Armies customarily don't pry into the private political beliefs of their soldiers, who in turn put aside their own political beliefs to carry out the orders of the government. What is Azov doing which is different from any other army in the world? Who are they invading and who do they seek to send to gas chambers? Pincrete (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support C- C Seems to best reflect the sources provided. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Alternative Draft #2 , E, B, C. Strongly oppose Option A which is by far the most simplistic and poorly documented option, especially when we're talking about post 2018/2019 scholarship from experts on extremism or Eastern European / Ukrainian/ Russian studies. Also, as Staberinde remarked in a previous comment, the first sentence should be about undisputed basic facts. In order to describe Azov as a neo-nazi unit in the opening sentence, this descriptor should be applied uniformly and unequivocally across international reliable sources. That is definitely not the case here, as XOR'easter also makes the case. The regiment is made of 900-2500 people. Are there some far-right extremists / neo-Nazi among them? Probaly! Is there quantitative evidence from RS that the Azov regiment is neo-Nazi, particularly after Zelensky's election as Ukraine's president?? Nope! A regiment having some neo-nazis in it it's not the same as an actual neo-nazi regiment ... just like a soccer team with a goalkeeper in it is not a team of goalkeepers. Mcrt007 (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  The source review above shows six scholarly sources in 2022 of which four call Azov neo-Nazi, one says they promote neo-Nazism and one that they use neo-Nazi symbolism. There are similar scholarly sources every year going back to 2015. I'm not sure how this squares with your comment. How can anyone look at the source review and think that "scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely 'de-politicized'" as in Alt Draft 2? Apoligies for the bludgeoning but as someone who has contributed a fair deal to the source review, I am going a bit crazy seeing some of these rationales. Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  +1 to that. There is no dispute that it was neo-Nazi, the only question is whether it is still neo-Nazi and given that there is current contact between Biletsky and the Regiment, it is simply too soon imo to say what the reality might be. To those saying that the entire regiment must be neo-Nazi in order to call it that, it was never the entire regiment in the past either, it was that it contained as well as recruited neo-Nazis.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Vladimir.copic, the "scholarship" section particularly the books (which seem to have been added at the top of the section for no real reason) is rather poor and lacking focus for the subject matter. The sources mentioned at the top of the section don't quite offer serious analyses, either (usually they only reference Azov briefly, in a passing sentence). In most cases, the "evidence" seems to consist of a few passing mentions about the group here and there, just enough to hide with word-noise the more serious research from those who have sudied the phenomenon of extremism in Ukraine for year. Besides, a lot of those included as "scholars" are dubious, a least. A few examples:

  -Glenn Diesen - per wikipedia: 'is known as a regular commentator on Russia Today.' 'has been widely described as promoting Russian propaganda by Scandinavian media, Russia experts and other academics. 'He also writes for Steigan, a self-described "anti-globalist" website that is known for publishing conspiracy theories and pro-Russian views.' - interestingly, i see nobody else brought this issue up yet, though is well documented. Why is he presented as a top source?

  - Jens Stilhoff Sörensen is not a scholar on Russia/Ukraine. He seems to write about gender in Sweden, academic freedom, former Yugoslavia but so far has NOT published research on Russia/Ukraine or the extremist groups there.

  - Harsha Walia, is not even a scholar. She has zero peer reviewed research articlez. Why was she even considered a scholar on the topic?

  Some sources seem more focused on the subject matter and their authors have been writing about Ukrainian extremism for years as can be easily checked with Google Scholar, Research Gate, Web of Science.

  e.g.: Fedorenko Kostiantyn, Umland Andreas, Alexandra Chinchilla, Nonjon Adrien, Christian Kaunert, Ivan Katchanovski, Anton Shekhovtsov, etc.

  Those scholarly sources of subject matter experts seem to favor the "formerly" or "with neo-nazi elements" views. Mcrt007 (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Rather than carping about what the books say, what you need are books saying that it isn't neo-Nazi.Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier: Hmm. Discussion and assessment of the relative quality and reliability of different sources seems to me exactly what this RfC should be about. After all, that's the key issue here. Per WP:VOICE we should only be making an unqualified statement in Wikipedia voice if there is a consensus for it in the best sources that is overwhelming, with no significant dispute or disagreement. Critical assessment of the quality of the different sources being presented is therefore fundamental. In particular, if there is a body of credible sources that do not go along with Option A, then we cannot state it in Wikipedia voice -- even if there are other reliable sources that do say that. And the more it turns out that sources been cited for Option A are weak or questionable, the even more cautious we should be before lending Wikipedia's voice to it. Critically assessing and evaluating the different sources being presented is exactly what we are called on to be doing here. Jheald (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Not disputing that, in my experience when people say they don't like scholarly sources, it's because they can't find scholarly sources saying what they want and are reduced to shooting the messenger. Where do you get "overwhelming" from? Afaik we should reflect majority and significant minority views for NPOV. I assume the closer will identify majority/minority and their weight in the close. Selfstudier (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Selfstudier: The article must reflect majority and significant minority views for NPOV. Therefore WP cannot make an unqualified statement in WP voice ("Option A") if there is a significant minority view that that would not reflect. This is the essence of the advice at WP:VOICE. To justify a statement in WP voice the consensus in the best sources needs to be absolutely overwhelming -- a plurality or even a clear majority is not enough. Jheald (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  My thoughts exactly, the current state is a complete breach of WP:NPOV because it states in Wiki voice that it is Neo-nazi, the first thing you see in the lead describing Azov. Not as much as a mention that the current nazi status is disputed despite it being in the body of the article with sources. TylerBurden (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  At risk of repeating myself, the current RFC and its close will determine the current position.Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Mcrt007, Why wouldn't you just add your preferred sources to the source review, if you believe this so strongly? I have removed the more egregious non-experts. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Alternative draft 2 looks good to me. Netanyahuserious (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A. BBC News notes in its reporting that Russia has repeatedly talked of "de-Nazification and demilitarisation" of Ukraine and it may claim defeat of the Azov battalion, which it has falsely portrayed as Nazi (emphasis mine). In other words, a high-quality reliable news organization is affirmatively saying, in the voice of its newsroom, that Azov is not Nazi. There's plenty of sourcing describing various links to ultranationalist groups and sympathies among some members to neonazism, though this is far too complicated to ram into the opening sentence. As such, support E but also be sure to include discussion of the links to neonazism in the lead, particularly with respect to its early history. We cannot give off the false impression that it only attracts far-right members. It just does not make sense to give a Wikivoice description of it as (Neo-)Nazi in the present tense, especially in light of sourcing. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  Relying on that BBC source as the golden bullet is really cherry-picking. In recent months The i, The Times, The Independent, FT and The Age - equally high-quality reliable news organizations - have described Azov as neo-Nazi in the voice of their newsrooms. The source review above shows a variety of sources treating this subject in different ways and editors should interpret these as they see fit. But to claim that because Auntie said so it's a closed case, really doesn't make for a convincing argument. Vladimir.copic (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  To take one of those as an exemplar, the FT has repeatedly described the Azov regiment as NOT neo-Nazi. The article you linked to is a conversational opinion piece by a life & arts columnist from the magazine. He links to a questionable Al Jazeera article to justify the adjective. The political reporters and foreign correspondents at FT describe them as "the military unit that has been leading Ukraine’s resistance"[42] "The Azov battalion has far-right origins but was incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces in 2014 and is considered one of the best-trained parts of the military."[43] To say Financial Times uses neo-Nazi in "the voice of their newsrooms" is pretty misleading when you then link to an opinion piece from the magazine by a life & arts columnist that uses Al Jazeera as a source. Using an older opinion piece over a more recent news piece seems like cherry-picking to me. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  To be clear, FT Magazine is not the FT and a columnist writes from their own personal POV, not in the "voice of the news room." Disconnected Phrases (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Just looked at the The Times article[44] you linked to and it does not mention Azov or neo-Nazi's. Maybe it is the wrong article? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Joe Duggan of inews is using our Wikipedia article as his source. Compare: Wikipedia article: "formed as a volunteer paramilitary militia in May 2014." Joe Duggan of inews: "formed as a volunteer militia brigade in 2014 in Ukraine." This is part of why having false information in a Wikipedia article is dangerous. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Joe Sommerlad of The Independent characterizes them as a "notorious far-right militant group" in the body of the article. Calling a regular army unit militant is unusual. He later says "the group’s neo-Nazi connections" in reference to US Congress, but otherwise does not call them neo-Nazis. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  The Age article refers to them as a militia, which, factually, it hadn't been for seven years at the time of that article's publication. The article contains numerous other factual errors, for instance, the entire premise (Tarrant training with Azov) for the article is made from whole cloth.[45] Linking to articles that don't mention Azov or neo-Nazis, opinion pieces by non-experts, articles that use language from the Wikipedia article, and articles riddled with factual inaccuracies doesn't make for a convincing argument. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Just seen your response. You have misrepresented several sources and presented some floored arguments here but I'll leave it at that lest I clog up this RfC with even more text. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support Alternative Draft #2 , version "E". Article is seriously outdated (by fully eight years!). The fact that some news outlets re-print misinformation should have no bearing on what is - allegedly - an encyclopedia entry. Confusion over NGO/paramilitary ideologies and allegiances is typical, especially when there is a language barrier (not to mention the added hysteria that accompanies an ongoing war). Which makes it all the more crucial that one relies on the highest quality academic/news sources, not random Google hits. MichelParkinboom (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC) — MichelParkinboom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Mhorg (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC) notice also this related edit [46] - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Struck - CU-confirmed sock Girth Summit _(blether) 16:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support E, oppose A per well-articulated rational by Ⓜ️hawk10 above. Infinity Knight (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support A. The analysis of usage in media and scholar articles has been great; regarding the claims of Azov renouncing its past it's worth going one meta level up: this reporting has been described as whitewashing of Azov following the Russian invasion. Alaexis_¿question? 19:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  WP:RSP says about this source Jacobin is a U.S.-based magazine that describes itself as a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture. There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.

  It is leftist press, to them everything to the right of Communism is Nazi :D Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Does a Chicago based reporter for Jacobin who has been an investigative journalist for five years and whose only previous experience was as an editorial intern at In These Times[47] for two years have a better grasp of the situation in Ukraine than, for instance, Kyiv based Vyacheslav Likhachev who has been studying the far-right in Ukraine for 20 years and previously studied the far-right in Russia since the 90s? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2022 (UTC) — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  That chap is a better source than random people on the internet and a reliable source with attribution. He provided analysis of both sides, not just fluff. As for him somehow being a leftie, his book Yesterday’s Man: The Case Against Joe Biden gives the lie to that allegation. Citing Ad Fontes Media, well, that's an unreliable source per WP:RSP. Case closed. Really weird how all the A !voters get bludgeoned allatime.Selfstudier (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  @User:Selfstudier Seriously? The Yesterday’s Man: The Case Against Joe Biden book's synopsis on Google.Books reads: Over nearly fifty years in politics, the man called “Middle-Class Joe” served as a key architect of the Democratic Party’s rightward turn, ushering in the end of the liberal New Deal order and enabling the political takeover of the radical right. Far from being a liberal stalwart, Biden often outdid even Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush, assisting the right-wing war against the working class, and ultimately paving the way for Trump. So, his criticism of Biden is that Biden is not leftist enough, unlike Branko :D Maybe next time read at least the abstract of the staff you refer to :D Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe stop cluttering up the survey? Selfstudier (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose A support literally anything else. Preference is alt draft #2. It is important to include its history, But In light of its contention, "Neo-Nazi" should be removed from the lead. Sources show that Azov’s origins were highly neo-nazi, but that those elements had been removed in 2017 and under new leadership and integration with the National Guard. There has also been historical uses of symbols similar to the wolfsangel in Ukrainian and Polish local coat of arms from the 15th century. This does not detract from the fact that the quote remains “15-20% of the Azov battalion is Neo nazi” which was made in 2015 when the battalion was around 900 people. This means a total of 180 members had Neo-nazi ideology. Does this make the entire battalion Neo-nazi? When it was headed by a far right extremist, maybe yes. Once it was integrated in the national guard and can no longer hold political views, and those original leaders were removed along with other members? My opinion is No. Many sources talk about this, and I think this points to the Neo-Nazi element being in its past, but not completely washed. It has been shown by many trust worthy sources that it is no longer a Neo-Nazi Regiment of the Ukrainian National Guard and calling it such would be unscrupulous. Redandteal (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC) — Redandteal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Support A. Despite the past 2 months of whitewashing by US media, the fact remains that Azov is a neo-nazi regiment. I'm surprised I haven't seen this source yet: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/neo-nazis-far-right-ukraine/ . Notable quote: "In January 2018, Azov rolled out its National Druzhina street patrol unit whose members swore personal fealty to Biletsky and pledged to “restore Ukrainian order” to the streets. The Druzhina quickly distinguished itself by carrying out pogroms against the Roma and LGBT organizations and storming a municipal council. Earlier this year, Kiev announced the neo-Nazi unit will be monitoring polls in next month’s presidential election." I'm very confused why there's such large pushback about calling a group that was committing pogroms at least until 2019 neo-nazi. Many of the Azov soldiers releasing photos from Azovstal (most notably dmytro kozatsky) have later been revealed as tattoo-bearing neo-nazis (https://web.archive.org/web/20220517141112/https://twitter.com/Kozatsky_D/status/1160076695761764352?s=20&t=3UeEUN3rV7vifulzPwZdeg, https://web.archive.org/web/20220517142811/https://twitter.com/Kozatsky_D/status/1045425058368376832) and participating in C14 (another neo-nazi group per WP, I'd find the pic again but it looks like he purged his account) demonstrations and I'm not particularly inclined to think that's just a coincidence. H51bjCKERK (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC) — H51bjCKERK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. IndigoBeach (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am not trying to be a person that responds to every oppose - That article is truly scary. When you dig into the sources that he is providing about this neo-nazi "Azov" groups that are taking over the streets, they are made up of FORMER members of the Azov Militia - ( The people marching are part of the AZOV Movement - which seems to be a sticking point in understanding the difference), which was re-organized in 2017. However it is quite disturbing that Andriy Biletsky (far right politician - neo nazi) was the head of the Ukrainian national guard until 2019. https://khpg.org/en/1517799808 - so that article is talking about the downright scary fact that there were public militias parading with association with far right political parties. But this video he shows is not Azov Regiment as part of the National Guard.Redandteal (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion#Azov_movement:

  Oleksiy Kuzmenko of Bellingcat in a 2020 article, notes that soldiers from the regiment appeared together with leaders of the "National Corps" political party in a 2020 video ad for a rally, and that a 2017 YouTube video appeared to show the émigré Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin giving a lecture to the regiment. Both entities have admitted to being part of the wider "Azov Movement" led by Biletsky, who worked directly with Arsen Avakov (Minister of the Interior until July 2021) on matters relating to the regiment.

  Similarly, Michael Colborne, journalist at Bellingcat and author of a book documenting Azov's links with the global far right, says that it "would be a mistake to claim...that the Azov regiment is somehow not a part of the broader Azov movement" and points to repeated description of the regiment as the "military wing" of the Azov movement by Olena Semenyaka, the main international representative of the movement. Colborne also states "the Azov movement tries to be a one-stop shop for all things far right. There’s also a bevy of loosely affiliated but more extreme subgroups under its umbrella as well, including open neo-Nazis who praise and promote violence".

  There really does not seem to be a difference between azov (political movement) and azov (militia), or at least a big enough difference to warrant a change in the lede. The fact that azov movement and National Druzhina exist as subsections to this article should be a fairly good indication. H51bjCKERK (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Alternative draft 1 sums it up well I think. It's a very hot potato today in particular. I just read more info on Azov than I have ever seen before here: https://twitter.com/MelaniePodolyak/status/1510535081194098691 not cited directly but very well written and addresses many of the questions here. I'll make this comment: If we call Azov neo-nazi we are publishing a statement about the Ukrainian armed forces. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That thread appears to be a screenshot of a facebook post that's repeating the claims made here: https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/04/07/what-is-azov-regiment-honest-answers-to-the-most-common-questions/. Euromaidanpress is hyperpartisan and not a RS; they denied any nazis, period, existed in ukraine in 2014 (https://twitter.com/euromaidanpress/status/510566545035395072). Let's look at the author, Vyacheslav Likhachev. His bio claims he is the head of "National Minority Rights Monitoring Group." From what I can tell, he is the only member - the only results on google yield his biography blurbs and a single report from 2015 (https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Religion/Submissions/UKRAINE_Annex2.pdf) where Likhachev is the sole author. The "newsletter archive" linked in the report has been defunct since 2019, and the only author on any of the contained newsletters is also Likhachev (http://jewseurasia.org/page443). His resume appears to include support for the rehabilitation of banderites (https://www.thejc.com/news/world/row-after-ukrainian-jewish-leader-defends-nazi-collaborators-1.464583).

I wouldn't say any of the above makes him useless as a source, but I'd definitely take anything he says in a hyperpartisan newspaper with a grain of salt. H51bjCKERK (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC) [moved from wrong section below BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)]

• Support A. The description is well-sourced and accurate. That the existence of Azov is being used as a rationale to invade all Ukraine in Russian propaganda is horrible. But the solution is not to whitewash Azov. They are of course not representative of Ukrainian people as a whole, as is well established in articles about Ukrainian politics and elections. But denying their extremely well-established and honestly quite overt neo-Nazi identity would be malpractice. Zellfire999 (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support A In contentious questions such as this we should defer to the available scholarship, especially where there is significant disagreement not just between news organisations but between individuals within news orgs, and between reporting from 2021 and some coverage starting in 2022. A tiny minority (2/34) of scholarly sources in the list above give some non-committal suggestion that the group has ridden itself of its neo-Nazi characteristics – one states "The regiment’s key commanders held, in the past, manifestly fascist views and may still hold them to one degree or another today." The other states "as the battalions became more ideologically mature their radical right-wing ideology gradually toned down" The only source this Glasgow University lecturer cites for this is, quite embarrassingly in a fairly well-established journal, a "battalion recruiter" for the neo-Nazi organisation. WP:MANDY would giggle appropriately. 32 other scholarly sources in equally or better-established academic fora correctly indicate that it is neo-Nazi. It's appropriate for us to properly represent the mainstream scholarship. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  At risk of bludgeoning, this is just factually wrong. First, it's not a binary between "was neo-Nazi" (option B) and "is neo-Nazi" (option A). It's true that a small number of the academic sources (usually written further in the past) in the collective review (in contrast to a much larger part of the RS journalism) are coded blue for "formerly neo-Nazi" - but likewise it's only a (admittedly larger) minority coded red for "is neo-Nazi", and almost all of these are passing mentions in texts by non-experts, so 2/34 for "was neo-Nazi" does not equate to supporting option A. Second, the Glasgow lecturer who you disparage, Huseyn Aliyev, is one of the scholars in that section who has actually done primary research on this region. His article shows clearly that "is neo-Nazi" is inaccurate. It shows both change over time (As explained by a battalion recruiter, “the first wave of recruits had many neo-Nazis, football hooligans and other radicals, but most of them either died on the frontlines, ended up in prisons on both sides of the frontline, or self-transformed into moderate [Ukrainian] nationalists”) and ideological diversity (Some battalions have succeeded in combining radical ideologies with mainstream nationalist ideas). BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Bludgeoning is right (again), please stop bludgeoning the A votes, walls of text belong in the discussion area not in the survey. Selfstudier (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for that missive, but it's you who has your facts wrong; easily checked. I didn't mention this in my comment, because the closers on an extensive RFC such as this will surely the take the time to read the quotes from the sources, but much of the "colour-coding" used in the source listing is egregiously wrong. Take the first entry, coded yellow "with neo-nazi elements", yet the quote reads: the group promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism (my emph) – not an element within the battalion. You make much of the the colour which they are coded, apparently having paid too little attention to the actual content of the sources. In your own comment, you evidently opt simply to give greater weight to those sources which support your conclusion: the RSs which support "is neo-Nazi" are outweighed quantitatively and generally weaker qualitatively [sic] than those which do not support this. This is inaccurate, unless one chooses simply to classify every source which disagrees with your conclusion as weaker qualitatively [sic]. Amongst the scholarship, which as stated we defer to as the most reliable, your weak contention that Looking at the preponderance of sources, it is clear that something like B/C/D or one of the alternative drafts are far closer to the sources [sic] is directly contrary to the facts.

  Lastly, I haven't disparaged a lecturer, but some of his publishing output, and rightly so. It's also the only scholarship mentioned in the list above which explicitly states that the group is no longer neo-Nazi. As the quote you reproduce confirms, he relied upon a statement from one of the battalion's own recruiters for a statement of fact – an error you repeat but which Wikipedia editors surely soon learn not to make: one would think postdocs and the publishing journal would consider their sources more critically. Full quote:

  Although when first assembled in April–May 2014 the DUK/UDA, “Azov,” “Aydar” and many other battalions promoted ultranationalist and even neo-Nazi views, as the battalions became more ideologically mature their radical right-wing ideology gradually toned down. As explained by a battalion recruiter, “the first wave of recruits had many neo-Nazis, football hooligans and other radicals, but most of them either died on the frontlines, ended up in prisons on both sides of the frontline, or selftransformed into moderate [Ukrainian] nationalists” (Aleksiy, Kyiv, Summer 2017).

  In conducting his primary research, Aliyev has evidently neglected to maintain any kind of scholarly detachment, accepting and publishing the views of the battalion's own propagandists as fact. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  Can't keep myself from reminding, it is not for Wiki editors to go into such analysis and argue / cherry-pick sources. If there are RS disagreeing with Nazi label, the label cannot be stated in Wikivoice in the lede as the ultimate truth. Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

  reminding suggests causing someone to remember something. Whereas you've just invented an absurd suggestion: no reminding involved. Your completely backward assertion that it is not for Wiki editors to go into such analysis of sources does not merit much of a response - yes, it obviously is. It's salient to examine what a source relies upon for its information, and editors are encouraged to critically examine sources. As there are more reliable sources stating it is neo-Nazi, we should represent that mainstream scholarship in the encylopaedia's voice. Cambial — foliar❧ 13:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• E The Azov Battalion is a part Ukrainian internal military force, which means members of The Azov Battalion willingly accept and have the obligation to follow the official laws that regulate their existence as a military unit. Which laws I talk about:

"The Law of Ukraine On the Armed Forces of Ukraine" (ЗАКОН УКРАЇНИ Про Збройні Сили України) Specifically "Розділ IV ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ ЗБРОЙНИХ СИЛ УКРАЇНИ Стаття 11. Засади діяльності Збройних Сил України". What it tall us: The Armed Forces of Ukraine conduct their activities on the basis of fidelity to constitutional duty and the military oath, rule of law, legality and humanity, respect for man, his constitutional rights and freedoms. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1934-12

Constitutional rights and freedoms mean: There shall be no privileges or restrictions based on race, skin colour, political, religious, and other beliefs, sex, ethnic and social origin, property status, place of residence, linguistic or other characteristics." (CONSTITUTION OF UKRAINE/ Section II HUMAN AND CITIZENS' RIGHTS, FREEDOMS AND DUTIES Article 24) https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/254%D0%BA/96-%D0%B2%D1%80

This is the official position. So, throwing accusations that conflict with the main documents of the state and the very idea of the existence of this unit, in the first sentence is at the very least questionable.If there are individual members who violate that, we can and should write it down later, for example, in an already existing paragraph.--Bananabisket (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC) — Bananabisket (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Discovered this thread on WP:AN. I support A because there are enough sources that have perfectly described the "neo-Nazi" label without casting any doubt. I am sure we can find reliable sources where we can find coverage about a vast number of Neo-Nazi and White supremacist organizations without being mentioned as such, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be referred to as Neo-Nazi or White supremacist on Wikipedia. Overall, I am not seeing any need to set a new precedent that will be difficult to handle in near future and invite unnecessary wikilawyering in all other similarly racist groups. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A, B, D, alternative drafts #1 and #2, support C or E (with caveats). There are lots of sources that support either A or B, but the options are in conflict and as Jheald said, To justify a statement in WP voice the consensus in the best sources needs to be absolutely overwhelming -- a plurality or even a clear majority is not enough.
  I think the best option from the NPOV perspective would be C ("neo-Nazi elements"), because it's consistent with sources that support either option A or B even though the options are in conflict – I don't think any source has said Azov has cleaned up all neo-Nazi elements from its ranks. E would be okay if neo-Nazi links are otherwise prominently featured in the lead (something like what we have in the second paragraph of the current lead). D looks too weasely and clunky. I don't think the text During the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in Draft #1 is quite right – why would we limit it specifically to 2022? Draft #2 is largely inconsistent with myriad of sources. Politrukki (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose A. OK, so some reliable sources state clearly it is as a whole neo-Nazi (the important thing is how many in 2022 though), other RS state that now clearly it isn't justifiable to give it that description as a whole. The only logical outcome to me to avoid selection biases is to NOT, in "Wiki voice", state it is the former, since it would mean subjectively weighing some RS over the other contradictory ones for no better reason than personal opinion IMO. It may very well be completely and utterly neo-Nazi still, but there exists confusion and disagreements, and this I think is crucial. I would support alternative draft 2, then E, with the caveat that its bad history and recent evolution and scholarly controversy is covered subsequently in a similar manner as in draft 2. Its bad history surely shouldn't be wiped under the rug, nor that there still is Nazis in it, but the strong/definitive conclusion doesn't seem justified in light of the controversy.--Euor (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment – I apologise to the editors who've agreed to close this for my last minute input, I've been meaning to comment here for a while. I've been reading almost all of the Ukraine coverage in The Guardian, Economist and the Financial Times since the launch of the 2022 invasion as I worked on the main article, so I feel I've kept well-abreast of their treatment of the Azov Battalion. I Oppose A, B and D as insufficiently nuanced. My preference is for E. I think the initial sentence should only state that it is a military unit – its far-right links deserve separate, dedicated lead space and it's both unnecessary and impractical to sandwich the topic into the very first sentence. C is acceptable, but insufficient by itself as the lead needs a broader overview of the unit's relationship to the far-right and the ramifications of this. The first lead sentence should be followed by several sentences, or perhaps a paragraph, outlining the following points: (1) the unit has neo-Nazi roots (it was formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi/ultras group and initially attracted far-right volunteers), (2) it has since been incorporated into the national guard, (3) a number of analysts/experts say it has largely depoliticised itself and gained a wider membership, and (4) its neo-Nazi links have been a key part of Russian propaganda. The Financial Times had a particularly good article on this, which is linked in the source review above but which I would like to draw particular attention to for the closing panel: [48]. Pre-2021 sources should be placed in appropriate context, as later sources explicitly state that the unit's make-up has significantly changed. I think it's difficult to determine from recent articles precisely to what extent neo-Nazi elements remain within the battalion; our article should reflect this uncertainty and avoid categorically stating that the unit is either neo-Nazi or historically/formerly neo-Nazi. Alternative drafts 1 and 2 come close to summarising the points I outline above. I don't think they necessarily contain too much information for the lead. They are imperfect (draft 1 is more succinct and better summarised, but places too much emphasis on the 2022 invasion) but a good basis for further editing. Going forward, I'd encourage working on their text through the normal editing process, and wouldn't want to see their draft wording "locked-in" or treated as consensus, as I think that would obstruct necessary improvements to the precise phrasing/content. Jr8825 • Talk 20:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

irrelvant to options.

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

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

No, I have started the RFC, those are the options. And you removed my post.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2022 (UTC) All you have just done is confused it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I'm just trying to help. I've offered you help on your Talk page, and we've had long discussions. It's just a question of clarity, that's all. I presented my concerns to you about your planned options, and you didn't respond to me. Would it not be best to let the commenters decide? - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Slatersteven - They removed mine too earlier - [49].Okay, we have a serious issue here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC) If someone does not accept your help, it is resoanble to assume they do not want it, and this has not helped, it has confused the issue. as no one will know (for wxample) which A they are voting for. Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Slatersteven, I actually obtained support from two other editors for my framing of the RfC, and my 1st Draft of my preferred version. I praised you for your efforts, I asked you many questions, offered lots of advice, but you went ahead and did it all by yourself anyway. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, as no one but you wanted the last option. Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Actually "Disconnected Phrases" did, and I'm sure there'll be a few others. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC) And you left out "do not mention at all", which is the main issue we are trying to address. So now they will just argue this is a flawed RFC as it does not address their concearns. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Feel free to add it in. Please, I've never done an RfC before, that's why when I was offering to help, it was solely about the wording and the best structure to use, in order to do justice to the source material. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Then why...no this is for your talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC) @Slatersteven I'm truly gobsmacked. That is by far the single most noble, selfless gesture I have ever seen anybody perform on Wikipedia. Truly heroic, and that's no hyperbole whatsoever. You put the project ahead of everything. This should be highlighted as the epitome of what an editor dedicated to the integrity of the project looks like. Well done mate. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Close this, it may be buggered beyond rescue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I wasn't ready to do an RfC, I'd never done one before in my life! I'm new to Wikipedia. I've been putting notifications of the RfC on WikiProject Ukraine and WikiProject Russia, etc. Alright then, can we agree? Let's just wipe this all clean eh? We'll ask an admin to erase it from the record, permanently. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Good lord, I step away for a few hours. Did EN1792 just replace an RfCs options with his preferred version because he didn't like what was presented? Because that's what it feels like just happened. BSMRD (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC) KInd of (to be fair, I struck my preferred options as he was not going to remove his, and it just confused things to have two sets), he also just changed to options after I have voted. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I second the closing per Slatersteven, sorry this one didn’t work Slatersteven despite your considerable struggles to help. Thanks for that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC) If you second the motion for closing, why did you just restore it? And then accuse me of nefarious intent on my Talk Page, your 3rd blatant Personal Attack in the space of a couple of days. I was trying to do Slatersteven a favor, as I've been trying to help him all throughout this process. You continue to be disruptive, fine. Carry on. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Closing is a formal process, it is not just a deletion (one reason is, you are not allowed to delete other users posts). Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC) This is unbelievable. Is this RFC valid or not? Can we vote now?--Mhorg (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC) As (can be seen below) the key issue is not to what degree they are neo-nazi, but are they even neo-nazi this RFC can't (at this time) answer that. So the RFC is (now) fundemtaly) flawed. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC) The posts have now been removed, but were all saying they are not neo-nazi. Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC) NOte that until a new RFC overturns it the old RFC is still in place, so the line shuls not be altred, please stop. Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I would advise Slatersteven to withdraw this RFC and oversee an attempt at summarising the article into the lede without citations. There is no question this unit associated with far-right and neo-Nazi groups in its early days, and that it could have even been classed as such a group itself, but the incorporation into the National Guard changed that. The 2022 invasion changed that even more when conscripts burst its ranks and the original members and their influence declined significantly. Can we not describe this in the first paragraph of the lede without a RFC? We still have another two or three paragraphs to describe the controversy in more detail. CutePeach (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I wholeheartedly agree. Thanks CutePeach. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I have asked for it to be closed, but NO an RFC can only really be overturned by another RFC. As they represent a wider community input (in theory). Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Why on earth then, did you tell me to "Close this, it may be buggered beyond rescue."??? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC) No matter, Question: Slatersteven, can you point me towards "the rules" that state an article can't be edited while an RfC is underway? You and a couple of other editors have said this, but I've never seen it written anyway. Could be wrong. I'd be surprised though, doesn't make much sense to me. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I did not ask you to do it, I asked for someone to do it. The reason was that having removed the main issue rendered it moot. As to the rules, a number may be applicable such as wp:brd wp:consensus and WP:ONUS may all cover it to some degree. It may also be a wp:npov and wp:undue issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Per WP:RFC: Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. BSMRD (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Right, so not forbidden. Good. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Which is why I pointed out BRD and Consensus, once an edit is reverted it should not be reinstated without discussion. There is no consensus to alter the existing text. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Which part of " Do not remove or alter without prior consensus, see relevant RfC on talk page." is too hard to understand? Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I'm starting to wonder if what's going on is all normal.--Mhorg (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I have no idea what you mean by that, but I am starting to suspect it may be deliberate. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC) I apologize for my English. I meant that I don't understand if these RFC changes are valid or not, and I don't understand why some users are changing the lede before this RFC is done.--Mhorg (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC) The RFC is (to my mind) beyond fixing as we have too many options, but not the one that is the start of this whole issue (they are not neo-nazi, and in its most extreme form never have been). Without that keep option any change we make will be objected to (hell we have had two or three edit requests during this RFC for text leaving out the claim). As such the lede should not be changed until the old RFC is overturned, and I doubt that any edit that includes the claim they are, were, or might be Neo-nazi will stand unless we have a formal consensus to reject the idea they are not neo-nazi. As anyone who has been following this should be able to see. If I do not revert it, someone else will. So we need to stop changing it and get a proper consensus, one that can only be achieved via a properly formatted RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC) If you feel an RfC is improperly worded, ask the originator to improve the wording, or add an alternative unbiased statement immediately below the RfC question template. Do not close the RfC just because you think the wording is biased. An {{rfc}} tag generally remains on the page until removed by Legobot or the originator. A discussion can be closed only when the criteria at Ending RfCs are met. - It's on you Slatersteven. Whenever you're ready to put your toys back in the pram, you can make all the changes you want. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC) Yes, and when told you that your options confused things you dod don't remove them, you left them in place despite the fact they made it impossible for anyone to make a choice. I do not think the RFC is biased, I thought it was confusing (as I told you). But OK, if you want me to just reset the RFC fine. Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC) By the way (I am unsure that you can claim consensus when only three of the editors involved in this page have agreed to an edit, in less than 6 hours. Especially when things have been as confused as this RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, now can we leave the RFC alone now and let people respond? I think this should run for 7 days so as to make sure anyone who wants to respond can. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

People (I.E. the closer) will have to read this, huge walls of sources do not make that task easy. please can we restrict ourselves to not putting walls of text justifying our choice? Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

In this section there are the sources that declare the battalion as "neo-Nazi", if you have other sources, please put them below:--Mhorg (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The Nation, 2019: Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces. Opinion piece but authoritative author (although see discussion here). Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces... While the group officially denies any neo-Nazi connections, Azov’s nature has been confirmed by multiple Western outlets: The New York Times called the battalion “openly neo-Nazi” [in 2015], while USA Today, The Daily Beast, The Telegraph, and Haaretz documented group members’ proclivity for swastikas, salutes, and other Nazi symbols [link is to Daily Beast 2017], and individual fighters have also acknowledged being neo-Nazis. Supports option A. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC) The Nation: neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion Dated, from 2016.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Guardian, 2018: Neo-Nazi groups involved in the fighting in Ukraine are actively seeking to recruit British far-right activists [...] At least two Britons are thought to have travelled to the war-torn eastern European country in recent months after encouragement by people linked to the Azov battalion, a notorious Ukrainian fascist militia Misleading quotation, it is missing "according to Hope Not Hate" which is advocacy group. Also fascist ≠ neo-nazi.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) NY Times: Another, the Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi Dated, from 2015.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2018: a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology Instead of making explicit assessment, FBI uses more qualified "associated with" language.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Telegraph Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists Dated, from 2014.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) TIME, 2018: How a White-Supremacist Militia Uses Facebook to Radicalize and Train New Members While they are both far-right ideologies, white supremacist ≠ neo-nazi.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) This source gives extensive evidence for Nazi links and elements (e.g. describes Patriot of Ukraine and Biletsky as neo-Nazi) focusing on 2014 period. Would be strong source for option C, but does not support option A. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Wired Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary group Wired magazine is considered generally reliable for science and technology., which doesn't cover Azov.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Foreign Policy The Azov Battalion [...] this openly neo-Nazi unit Dated, from 2014.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (POL) Azov is a real problem. The neo-Nazi regiment The statement quoted falls under WP:Headlines, making it unreliable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) National Post The amendments, passed unanimously by members of both parties, blocks “the training of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia Azov Battalion,” Misleading quotation, National Post is merely quoting American politician.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Deutsche Welle, 2021: Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment Generally ok but only a passing mention, there is also newer more in-depth DW piece which doesn't call Azov explicitly neo-nazi: [50].--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) At the time, Samalazau was wearing a T-shirt bearing the skull logo of The Punisher, a Marvel comic book character. Because of the T-shirt, Belarus police accused him of sympathizing with the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment fighting in eastern Ukraine. Discussed on RSN, where consensus was that this is not an RS for option A claim. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Junge Welt (DE) The Ukrainian neo-Nazi battalion Unreliable, Junge Welt is a self-described left-wing and Marxist newspaper.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Il Messaggero (ITA): Ukraine, pro-Nazi units alongside the army Dated, from 2015.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Il Manifesto (ITA) Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion Unreliable, Il Manifesto is a self-described communist paper.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Intercept Neo-Nazi Ukrainian Battalion Al Jazeera neo-Nazi group The statement quoted falls under WP:Headlines, making it unreliable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Discussed at RSN and consensus reached that it is not RS for option A claim. Can probably be used for options B-D. The independent neo-Nazi Azov Battalion The statement quoted falls under WP:Headlines, making it unreliable.--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) The Jacobin the neo-Nazi Azov Regiment Biased source: There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source..--Staberinde (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) ABC (2019): members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi battalion Azov. Arab News Japan, 2022: neo-Nazi Azov Battalion Not sure if this is RS. It is very definite that Azov is neo-Nazi but is reporting that the Japanese government do not consider it such. Japan’s Public Security Intelligence Agency [said] “We are writing to inform you that we have decided to delete the information (on Azov Battalion) from the International Terrorism Guide 2021 on the agency’s website to prevent the spread of (misinformation)... It is regrettable that such misinformation has been spread in some cases…The Public Security Intelligence Agency doesn’t recognize the Azov Regiment as a neo-Nazi organization.” The agency further [said] its previous position on Azov was based on a compilation of public information collected from various domestic and foreign reports and that it didn’t add its assessment, nor did it recognize the Azov Battalion as a neo-Nazi organization. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC) The Age, August 22, 2021 ...he was preparing to fight with the notoriously neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in Ukraine. and he was planning to travel to Ukraine to fight with the Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia fighting Russian forces. James Bacigalupo (UMass Lowell), Robin Maria Valeri (St. Bonaventure University.), Kevin Borgeson (Salem State University) Cyberhate: The Far Right in the Digital Age. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 113, January 2022 The ascendency of a transnational global fascist terrorist network has drawn accelerationists seeking military training with openly neo-Nazi, white supremacist, anti-Semitic organizations like the Azov battalion, who recruited from... Single mention in whole book. Better to use texts that are actually about Azov, no? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC) "A Threat from Within? Exploring the Link between the Extreme Right and the Military", Daniel Koehler, International Centre for Counter-Terrorism (ICCT), 2019 His own involvement in the militant extreme right movement predated his enlistment and Smith also was trying to join the neo-Nazi paramilitary Azov battalion and fight on their side in the Ukrainian conflict. The single passing mention is a quote from NPR, which might be an RS for option A, but also very brief.[51] Better to use texts that are actually about Azov, no? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Elise Giuliano (Columbia University), "The Social Bases of Support for Self-determination in East Ukraine", Ethnopolitics, 2015 More dangerously, as the violence heated up, Kiev allowed semi-private paramilitary groups—such as the far right, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion — to fight in east Ukraine William Allchorn (University of Leeds), Moving beyond Islamist Extremism. BoD – Books on Demand. p. 35. Dec 2021 antisemitic and white-supremacist conspiracy theories circulated by openly neo-fascist and neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion in the Ukraine Stronger source: describes Azov as Nazi or pro-Nazi five times. Author is an academic specialist on anti-Islamic protest movements and radical right social movements in the UK and Western Europe, although not on Ukraine. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Cas Mudde (University of Georgia), The Far Right Today. John Wiley & Sons. 2019 march through the streets of Kyiv, sometimes in torchlight processions, to commemorate old and new far-right heroes, including those of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which fights against the Russian-backed occupation of Crimea. The very same sentence includes a clear and obvious factual mistake, indicating author's serious lack of familiarity regarding Azov and Ukraine: "...which fights against the Russian-backed occupation of Crimea." Azov has never fought in Crimea.--Staberinde (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Author is respected expert on global far right, but not on Ukraine. Passing mention. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Marc Edelman (Hunter College CUNY), "From 'populist moment' to authoritarian era: challenges, dangers, possibilities". The Journal of Peasant Studies. 47 (7). August 2020 Just as hundreds of U.S. and European white supremacists joined Croatian paramilitaries fighting for 'ethnic cleansing' in the 1990s Balkan wars, the current training of foreign white nationalists in Ukrainian military units, such as the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, points to... Passing mention in article on authoritarian populism globally, by scholar who is not expert on either Ukraine or far right. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC) Simon Frankel Pratt (University of Melbourne) and Christopher David LaRoche (Central European University, "Ukraine’s Refugees Are Close Enough for European Solidarity", 29 March 2022 Minority media narratives focusing on the activities of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion participating in Ukraine's defense have not generated broader fears that Ukrainian refugee flows harbor potential terrorist elements i News, March 19 2022 Among them was the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. i News, February 14, 2022 The extremist, neo-Nazi Azov Battalion formed as a volunteer militia brigade in 2014 and was incorporated into the National Guard that same year. Jens Stilhoff Sörensen (University of Gothenburg), Splitting Europe: The EU, Russia, and the West, 2022 including the openly new-Nazi Azov Battalion Alexander Reid Ross (Portland State University) and Emmi Bevensee, "Confronting the Rise of Eco-Fascism Means Grappling with Complex Systems", 2020 neo-Nazi groups like the Azov Batallion Authors are respected experts on global far right, but not on Ukraine. Passing mention. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Paul Jackson (University of Northampton), Pride in Prejudice, Manchester University Press, 2022 it attracted interest from a range of international neo-Nazi groups, including the Azov Battalion in Ukraine Author is respected expert on global far right, but not on Ukraine. Passing mention. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Mapping Militant Organizations. “Azov Battalion.” Stanford University. Last modified March 2022 Founded in 2014, the group promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism through its National Militia paramilitary organization and National Corps political wing. Source also questions depoliticization narrative saying The Azov Battalion denies the symbol’s far-right associations and invokes the reasoning as the PU.[15] However, the Woflsangel is far from Azov’s only allusion to Nazi ideology. ... interviews with members of the Battalion openly espouse neo-Nazi and white supremacist views. The statement about interviews is in reference to the ones the Guardian conducted for this article (reference 17 in the source): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/10/azov-far-right-fighters-ukraine-neo-nazis, which is from 2014 --Tristario (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Tristario (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Incorrect. Reference 17 is appended to the subsequent sentence and is referencing a direct quotation about Ukraine needing a strong dictator. I suggest you strike this comment. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC) This is the full relevant section: "Furthermore, interviews with members of the Battalion openly espouse neo-Nazi and white supremacist views. Many fighters hold an aspirational belief of marching on Kyiv once the war is over, and that Ukraine “needs a strong dictator to come to power who could shed plenty of blood but unite the nation in the process.”[17]" Those two sentences are clearly directly connected, the statement about dictators is clearly in the context of those interviews, and reference 17, which is an article largely dedicated to interviewing Azov Battalion members, is clearly the one that's being used to support the statement about interviews. If you believe that I'm wrong, can you provide the other reference that they are using to support that statement regarding interviews.--Tristario (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent sources that say Azov used to be neo-nazi, or something to that effect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs) 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

WaPo Under pressure from U.S. and Ukrainian authorities, the Azov battalion has toned down its extremist elements. And the Ukrainian military has also become stronger in the past eight years and therefore less reliant on paramilitary groups. Moreover, today’s war against Russia is far different than in 2014, fueled less by political ideology than a sense of patriotism and moral outrage at Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine, especially its civilian population. Extremists do not appear to make up a large part of the foreigners who have arrived here to take up arms against Russia, analysts said. MSNBC youtube Today, Azov is leading the fight against Russia on behalf of a pluralistic, Liberal Ukrainian government, led by a Jewish President. So like I said, this is complicated.They say they've grown to include fighters of many different ideologies. Sudarsan Raghavan (Washington Post): "Everyone [the soldiers] we spoke to believed that this [idea that Azov is neo-Nazi] is part of Russian propaganda...The thinking on the Azov is outdated from what we found. It's based on what happened eight years ago...since then there has been a big effort to alter the Azov...there were strong efforts to weed out extremists within the ranks". Quote from Biletsky, former leader of Azov Battalion: "Today, Ukrainians have only one option of political orientation: for or against Ukraine" CBS"There are no Nazi battalions in Ukraine," said Ruslan Leviev, an analyst with the Conflict Intelligence Team, which tracks the Russian military in Ukraine. "There is [the Azov] regiment... There are [estimated] several thousand people who are in this regiment. It is indeed a group where many members adhere to nationalist and far-right views," Leviev said. "But a lot of people also join it because it is one of the most prepared and fit-for-war units." "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014" by A Umland in book "The 21st Century Cold War" As briefly illustrated below, the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group that today controls a relatively large military unit could present several problems. Jerusalem Post However, since its incorporation into Ukraine's official armed forces it has moved away from neo-Nazism, and a Ukrainian Jewish group as early as 2016 did not oppose lifting the US ban. Foreign Affairs After the union, the government’s first act was to root out two groups within Azov, foreign fighters and neo-Nazis, by vetting group members with background checks, observations during training, and a law requiring all fighters to accept Ukrainian citizenship. Fighters who did not pass this screening were offered the chance to join civilian volunteer corps to help the war effort; these corps assisted police, cleared snow (a crucial task in Ukraine), and even worked on a public radio. BBC Adrien Nonjon (Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales): "Azov opened its recruitment to the whole of Ukrainian society and eventually this radical core was drowned out by the mass of newcomers who joined the regiment because it was an elite unit". Ros Atkins (BBC): "Despite the evolving membership, questions about Neo-Nazi links remain... There is though no evidence such sentiment is widespread [in the regiment]" AFP via France 24 "In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies. But it had since become "de-ideologised" and a regular fighting unit, he told AFP. Its recruits now join not because of ideology but because "it has the reputation of being a particularly tough fighting unit," Umland said...The Azov now function like other regiments "but with better PR," said Vyacheslav Likhachev, a research analyst at the ZMINA Centre for Human Rights in Kyiv. CommonWealth Magazine (Taiwanese magazine, Chinese name: 天下雜誌) “The narrative related to “Azov” is very bizarre. It is wrong to call them Neo-Nazis because even the fact that the unit includes people of different nationalities proves the opposite.” Matviyishyn explains, that the regiment includes very many different people of various ethnicities such as Jews, Ukrainians, Georgians, and even Russians. “Azov” has gone through a transformation in comparison to how it was when it was founded. “In the beginning, it had these right-wing radicals political ideologies, but now, it is depoliticized unit, a part of Ukraine’s Armed Forces.” Radio Télévision Suisse (FR) But the gradual arrival of new apolitical members expanded the regiment to the point that the far-right ideology became marginal. RMF24 (POL) "I have the impression that the regiment is being blamed for the far-right actions of the Azov Movement and the National Corps party, and the links between them, this umbilical cord, have long been cut off to a large extent. This does not prevent the Russians from heating up this topic and saying that this is some great socio-political movement that has its militia in the form of this regiment. This is not the case. No one in Kiev, no politruk, no fascist, No Ukrainian nationalist or anyone is giving orders to this regiment. It is in normal command structures" - Dr. Kacper Rękawek from the Center for Research on Extremism at the University of Oslo. Center for Civil Liberties So, the short answer to the question is no, Azov is not a neo-Nazi regiment....there are were individuals with neo-Nazi background and Far-Right views among Azov founders and fighters from the very beginning. However, not all the founders of the battalion had such a background. Among the first fighters of Azov, activists from the Automaidan groups, there were several ethnic Jews (and at least one Israeli citizen) even, for example. Most of the Far Right fighters left the regiment by the end of 2014. The rest of the Right Wing radicals, who clearly articulated their views, were deliberately “cleaned out” by the new commandment of the regiment in 2017. In recent years, there are absolutely no grounds for accusations that neo-Nazis serve in the Azov regiment. Financial Times Created in 2014 to fight pro-Russian separatists in the eastern Donbas region, the infantry unit first attracted far-right volunteers harbouring anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish views...Now incorporated into the national guard, the regiment has attracted a more diverse crowd and grown more mainstream...“Azov’s history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself,” said Anton Shekhovtsov, a Vienna-based Ukrainian expert on Russia’s connections to Europe’s far-right. “Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today.” The Bulwark While Azov has a shady history—it started out as a volunteer battalion with ties both to neo-Nazis and to Jewish billionaire and politician Ihor Kolomoyskyy—most experts believe its current incarnation is not extremist. Refresher (CZE) They made no secret of their inclination to Nazism...According to analyst Michal Lebduška, however, Azov has since been greatly cleansed of radicals, and even in 2014 neo-Nazis were only in the minority. "It is true that this battalion was considered problematic in the past because it also originated from the ranks of nationalists and Nazis. However, not all members were radicals and formed a significant minority from the beginning. Over time, volunteer units were integrated into the Ukrainian Army or the National Guard of Ukraine...By the time they were included in these parallel structures, they had more or less purged them of radicals. To a large extent, they have disappeared from these units," Lebduška, who specializes in security, social and political developments in Ukraine, told Refresher. Security analyst Vladimír Bednár has the same attitude to the matter. "There is a big difference between Azov in 2014 and now... There was a significant cleansing. People associated with neo-Nazi ideology had to leave Azov after integration into the National Guard. Therefore, the current Azov cannot be associated with this from 2014 at all. It has the same name, but it must be seen as two separate things," he told us.

Hi, @User:Mhorg & User:Adoring nanny please add these to the sources template at the top of the page. But PLEASE check to make sure each one isn't in the template already. I'm slowly adding them when I can find time. Thank you! — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: Regarding the list, I would note that far-right and neo-nazi are not synonyms, neo-nazi is a subset of far-right. So while all neo-nazis belong to far right, not all far-right organizations are automatically neo-nazi organizations. For example National Rally is commonly regarded as far-right, but that doesn't make it neo-nazi.--Staberinde (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Staberinde I very carefully chose quotations that showed the label "neo-nazi" was applicable, for exactly this reason You'll note I chose quotations that are different in many cases from those in the above box. If you have a particular assessment you disagree with, please add your disagreement to the "Discussion" section of each source category and I will happily alter the current assessment in probably most cases. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not questioning any specific quotes. I just noticed that you had created category "neo-nazi or far-right". If a source states "far-right" but does not state "neo-nazi", then it doesn't support applying "neo-nazi" label.--Staberinde (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

If there aren't any specific quotations where this is an issue, then it's probably not worth worrying about. I'll differentiate these into two labels if it makes you feel any better. Edit: should be fixed now — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment https://www.timesofisrael.com/polish-journalist-quits-after-paper-rejects-neo-nazi-term-for-ukrainian-militia/ Disputes all ova da place.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment There is no point saying "we have sources for X" 15 times, please assume people have read your arguments and have rejected them. Thre is no point in repeating them (see WP:BLUDGEON), it does not make them stronger. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment and can we please stop commenting on users here, it is a violation of the rules. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment as there isn’t a consensus view about the Azov Battalion in reliable sources, we should be mindful of upholding core policies, such as: WP:VER: “All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.” WP:VOICE: “If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.” WP:VOICE: “Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." WP:CONS: “The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies…” IndigoBeach (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Comment All of our policies (including wpv and wp:rs) will be taken into account by the closer, there is no need to teach them to suck eggs. Can we please stop telling them what to think? Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC) moved from survey section by — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hako9 have you looked at the collective source review above, because it include multiple high quality sources that say that it was neo-Nazi and is no longer or otherwise contest the "is neo-Nazi" claim. The CTC article should be added to the list, and it documents numerous Azov connections to the global far right, but it calls Azov "far right" and not "neo-Nazi" so does not support option A. It also says "Azov formally separated from its political leadership in October 2016 at a conference in Kyiv at which the National Corps was formed." (It describes National Corps as far right too, and not neo-Nazi.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Azov formally separated from its political leadership in October 2016 at a conference in Kyiv at which the National Corps was formed. Yes, fake news already debunked above (see "Fact-Checking" in my answer). Also, please stop putting pressure on people who vote for "A", as other users before me have pointed out.--Mhorg (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, then, Mhorg, you're saying the CTC article is not a reliable source? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop cluttering up the survey and take this to the discussion section. I also join in the request to desist harassing persons choosing A.Selfstudier (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I just want to clarify @Bobfrombrockley, you cannot use the fact that a source 'does not say "neo-nazi" to mean that it supports "not neo-nazi." This particular source might support "with neo-nazi connections" but I would need to read it more closely. I see that it does detail many connections between the group and neo-nazi affiliated persons, even after that "supposed" separation from political leadership. @Hako9 this is a good source, you should add it to the source review. I hadn't heard of it. Looks like part of "journalism" by my estimation. If it's peer reviewed or has a DOI, it could probably be under "scholarship." If it has no editorial policy, could probably be "NGO or government policy." But I don't know much about CTC. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, yes I agree the fact a source does not say "is neo-Nazi" does not mean we should say "is not neo-Nazi"; we just can't use that source for the "is neo-Nazi" claim. In this case, the source does not back up option A, but does back up "contains neo-Nazi elements" (option C). BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Hako9 FYI, @Tristario added the CTC source to "scholarship" this morning: [52] and labeled it as "with neo-nazi elements." I agree with their assessment. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:46, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink: In my opinion, the quote accompanying the source in the table should be In 2014, as pro-Russian groups began to seize parts of the Donbas, a neo-Nazi group that called itself Patriot of Ukraine formed a battalion to reinforce the beleaguered Ukrainian army. Few qualifications were required, and volunteers came from all walks of life. The group soon became better known as the Azov Regiment. - hako9 (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I just added that to the quote. I kept the existing quote too though, as I think it's important a quote describing the group in the present tense is included Tristario (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: That according to many sources and videos already presented at this point, between February 2014 and February 2022, it is being argued that supposedly all of its members continue to be neonazi... okay. That the rest of its members, in theory, do not mind too much that some of them pose with nazi or neonazi symbols, and that their symbols have a clear nazi reminiscence... I also agree. But from there to define the group, in its entirety, of neonazis, we are being very hasty.

Within the universe of extreme right-wing movements, neonazi imperialism is identified with racial supremacy and anti-Semitism; the other movements of the extreme right are aggressively nationalist and chauvinist, not at all respectful of the rights of minorities; equity rights; worker's justice; they add that in general, they are markedly anti-communist. It is with these tendencies that, without a doubt, all the members of the Azov regiment identify. In theory, it would be a battle in this war, between right-wing, anti-communist forces, in this region of the war, the faction in Mariupol Azov, against the faction in Putin's army, the latter being a larger set of anti-communism (remember that Putin, like almost the entire current government of Russia, are defectors from communist ideology).

In short, it is enough to identify them as "extreme right", which means all of the above, and allege that probably a substantial part of their members identify themselves as neonazis, and forcing the term, to give them their "neonazi" origin, because we would fall into a Strategy of Tension, which would end up making us support the invasion, being more specific in Mariupol, neonazism is very sensitive to our historical memory... and who better than the Germans[53] to put the identity of the regiment on trial? We should not be so restrictive as to affirm that, "as a whole, the regiment continues to be neonazi"--Berposen (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That according to many sources and videos already presented at this point, between February 2014 and February 2022, it is being argued that supposedly all of its members continue to be neonazi... okay. That the rest of its members, in theory, do not mind too much that some of them pose with nazi or neonazi symbols, and that their symbols have a clear nazi reminiscence... I also agree. But from there to define the group, in its entirety, of neonazis, we are being very hasty.

Are we? If a group has several Nazis, is covered with Nazi symbols, espouses a far-right ideology, and is comprised of people who don't mind any of the previous items, what exactly is it if not a neo-Nazi organization? BSMRD (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Then, as Azov Battalion is a part of National Guard of Ukraine, you can tell the same about the larger organization: "National Guard has some nazis, nazi symbols, and people following far-right ideology, and is comprised of people who don't mind any of the previous items", thus following your argument National Guard of Ukraine is neo-nazi. Then, as National Guard is a part of Ukraine state machinery, you can continue with your logic: "Ukraine state has some nazis, nazi symbols, far-right ideology, thus Ukraine state is neo-nazi". Thus, I guess you should conclude the Russian propaganda is correct, and Russia leads a justified war against a neo-nazi state? Or, probably, there is some defect in your logic? Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You know? In order not to lengthen the discussions so much, what does the primary source say? I am referring to the official page of the movement, regiment, or party, they are those that are identified with a "mission" "vision" "objective" and there they usually have a section that specifies their current position in the political spectrum and its socio-economic doctrines. --Berposen (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

it is never a good look to take someone else's argument that you disagree with, and mischaracterize it to the point where it is easily "knocked down." This is what is commonly known as a "straw man" argument. No one here is arguing that every single member is a neo-nazi. And if you see that argument here, i would love to see quotes showing it's what someone here thinks. It's, in general, a good practice to quote others when referring to their arguments. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you? but he don't "knock me" down. My argument is specific, since you mention logic, in set theory, sister of logic, it is easy to discern the definition of a set, for its entirety, here there is an evident mixture in its elements, where the definition of its totality remains fallacious in "is". Best regards.--Berposen (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink, Birdofpreyru was using reductio ad absurdum not a straw man. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: 1/ Responding here to something in the Survey above to avoid cluttering that section. M.Bitton said "Utter nonsense" in response to the suggestion that this source supports option D rather than option A. However, it seems to me that a source which says "Some say A is X; others don't" cannot support us saying in wikivoice that "A is X" (option A); it can only support us saying in Wikivoice that "some say A is X" (option D). 2/ Responding to BSMRD above question If a group has several Nazis, is covered with Nazi symbols, espouses a far-right ideology, and is comprised of people who don't mind any of the previous items, what exactly is it if not a neo-Nazi organization? This feels like a case study in WP:SYN. If sources say all those things, that's exactly what we should say, and not go beyond it to "is neo-Nazi". (Especially as neo-Nazi is a subset of far right, not a synonym.) In other words, these claims amount to "neo-Nazi elements (option C). In short, lots of the sources being used in this discussion to support option A really support some combination of B/C/D. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Bobfrombrockley: Please don't misrepresent what I said by taking it out of context. The source here is Efraim Zuroff (as mentioned right at the start of the discussion). You questioned my interpretation of what he said and I proved you wrong. That he described them as "neo-Nazis" is the only fact that matters, everything else is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  I originally misread the source and missed the quote to which you were referring and you indeed proved me wrong, as I acknowledged. However, I continue to question your interpretation, because in determining what we say in wikivoice I don't think all that matters is what Zuroff thinks. We can attribute the view that Azov is Nazi to him: he is an authoritative and relevant expert. But he is not the only expert, and the article notes that "others" dispute this characterisation. That's all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  This is what happens from someone's comment is taken out of context. Here's what I said (before you questioned my interpretation of what he said): I'm not here to teach the basics. If editors want to learn about the subject, then they do their own research and draw their own conclusion. For example: just 5 days ago, Efraim Zuroff described the members of the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazis M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment@Szmenderowiecki: Too much nuance to paint it as neo-Nazi as a whole, in particular as most of its members aren't neo-Nazi after all. That is possibly quite true of the now Regiment, even in prior times the %age of neo-Nazis was perhaps not that high. I am still working on the material but if the supposed clean up involves merely relocating bad apples from the military wing to the political wing of the Azov movement, then in some respects that is even worse because that way they get direct political influence.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  Parliamentary elections are due in 2024 (unless called earlier), we will see. So far the only far-right party in Ukraine that garnered enough support to get to parliament was Svoboda (got there in 2012, got more or less obsolete after 2014). Two years, as we know, is hell of a lot of time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: I noticed the previous RfC has now been archived. Most of the !voters there have also contributed to the discussion here, but not all of them. Editors who contributed there but have not here are as follows. Pinging them to see if the discussion here, which presumably is heading to a close soon, makes them want to specify their position. Those who argued "No" there, which I think is equivalent to a !vote for something like option E (no mention of ideology in the key lead sentence) here: Infinity Knight, Mzajac, EricLewan, Ergzay. Those who argued "Yes" there, which I think is equivalent to a !vote against option E here: ButlerBlog, Horse Eye's Back, Darouet, CentreLeftRight, Dhawangupta, WikiLinuz. Those who argued "Yes, but not in this form", which I think is equivalent to a !vote against option A (the status quo) and against option E here: Pincrete. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• commentUntil this RFC is closed the last RFC result stands. Please stop altering this text until THIS RFC is closed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• comment WP is not a democracy, it is not votes that count, but policy-based arguments. Any closer will base their decision on that alone. Sox any edit based on "number of votes) would not be valid, so stop altering this text until this is closed. Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• comment If people, keep ignoring "do not remove" I will ask for PP. We have an RFC running so stop. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

PP now requested, there is an RFC running the text shous be left alone until this is closed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• I see Mhorg you've just added a point no.5 to your 10 April comment above in the collapsed "fact-checking" box, which unlike no.1-4 cites a reliable secondary source rather than being original research. During the siege of Mariupol, The Economist reports Biletsky's statement showing how clearly he is still in charge of the Azov regiment: "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.” (archive.org link) As Selfstudier noted below, we can use that in fleshing out Biletsky, but it very much doesn't show he is "in charge" just that he is currently in daily contact. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I asked for the RfC to be closed

If you disagree with the request here is a place to say so Elinruby (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Support closing. This confusing mess of an RfC should be closed and carefully redone.--Staberinde (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Where did you request it to be closed? Regardless of that, what I see above is a complete mess - the RfC statement is neither neutral nor brief (with this effect); it is unsigned; there is a big red error message in the "Alternative Draft #2:"; and there appears to be a second {{rfc}} tag inside one of the comllapsible boxes, producing this effect. Frankly, I don't see any chance of anybody wanting to work on a satisfactory closure. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing request was made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#RfC_at_Azov_Battalion.--Staberinde (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I made a post at AE. I didn't ask for sanctions but after subsequently going through the history I now think maybe I should have. There is a lot of arrogance on display here and the newbie trying to help, although not immune to this, is the least of it. I really shouldn't comment right now, as I really feel ill now, but I *will* mention the poor slob who tried to vote with an edit request, not realizing that these are always treated with contempt on this page. No doubt I will be told again that my comments aren't needed or are somehow inappropriate, but right now I despair of Wikipedia. I have urgent offline matters.Elinruby (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That AE "request" is also a complete mess. Just look at the line following "User against whom enforcement is requested" - there are some seriously broken links there. Then there is the entry under "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it" - it's just a link back to this page, and worse still, it forces us off to mobile wikipedia. Please stop wasting people's time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

how does it waste your time? Possibly if you were an admin. But ugly as it may be, it makes its point and says what it says, which is that there seems to be a consensus, which was true at the time. A couple of other people have chimed since, and I think they may disagree, but. It's a truthful request for help and they can do what they want to about it over there. That said, peace out.Elinruby (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

how does it waste your time? Possibly if you were an admin......@Elinruby, @Redrose64 is indeed an admin. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh. I did look at their page, but obviously not well enough if I missed that. The statement still stands however. That admin can do what they want. Elinruby (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Redrose closing without change is clearly not appropriate. Someone says they contend there is "arrogance" among the many who are disatisfied with the clearly incorrect lede? Methinks the dude doth protest too much. Even if someone sincerely believes that Azov Battalion is nothing but a neo-Nazi operation, that Zelinskiy is a liar, or a pawn, or whatever, and that we who argue for a more nuanced characterization are arrogant idiots, such a person would have to admit that RS is divided on the issue. To move for closure, and characterize those who want to work this out as arrogance, strains the presumption of good faith. Wikidgood (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree. Whatever its previous state, it wasn't like that for long and is fine now; and we need to end this already. Let the RFC run its course. --Aquillion (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree. The RFC was launched, then huge changes were made to the text by other users. There are already complex comments in the vote section, why should we close it?--Mhorg (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• The fact that it was changed is one thing. The other is that it isn't neutral to begin with and people with.no sense of irony are complaining about being edited on the one hand while deleting votes on the other. I say people stop telling other people to shut up, and we have Deathlibrarian and/or Bobfrombrockley draft a proposed RfC. They seem to be among nature's diplomats and are already up to speed on the discussion, so that might not take long at all. Then we can discuss the proposed options, amend if needed, and vote on what to include in the public RfC. I have to vote none of the above on this one, as there is at least one thing wrong with all of the choices, and I am not about to vote for a slightly better BLP violation. Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• it is one thing (and entirely reasonable) to request that the RFC statement be amended or edited to make it more neutral. It is quite another to just state that it should be closed and redone. Let's not waste more time here. Just suggest edits to the RFC statement to make it more neutral, and let us all get on with editing this encyclopedia.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  Been there, tried that. At great length, I am told. And yet here we are. I still have urgent non-wiki matters, and am turning my phone off this time. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Agree if the convoluted nature of the RfC will impede its closing. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree - People have largely been content to vote on this RFC without issue, I don't see a major issue, and there was a fair bit of preparation done by slatersteven and others to get it to this point. I guess its not perfect, but I think it should run its course. That said, if it does get voted down, I'm happy to assist with a new one as per Elinruby's suggestion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Disagree, might as well let it finish when it has gotten this far. TylerBurden (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: With no offence meant to the poster, the spelling and grammar in the proposed options is quite bad making most of the options given unviable. (This is to say nothing of the alternatives - this kind of thing is what comments are for.) If I tidy up the spelling and grammar of the numbered options and collapse the alternative drafts would editors be happy to continue with this RfC? Please bear in mind no RfCs are perfect or give perfect options hence WP:NOTAVOTE. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The Flying Cloud held the speed record for 130 years

• I've already voted "Close" in the #Survey section, so I won't bold it again here, to avoid the appearance of a double vote. This is a very contentious article, in what is probably one of the most contentious topic areas under WP:AC/DS currently, so I strongly respect and support the efforts by the Rfc initiator to create something to move this article forward, while facing all these headwinds. I feel the ship has been nearly wrecked in the storm (if I stumble into a metaphor, I'm gonna stick with it), and before it founders completely, we'd better head to port, and either make major repairs in drydock, or start out with a newer, slimmer, but stronger model. Whew; now what? "Ahoy", I think... Mathglot (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no issue with arguing over a better way of wording what we eventually choose. But the key issue was and is "do we call them Neo-nazi" and "how do were put it". Once this is decided we can work on a better text, that still obeys the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

* Alternative Draft #1 as nominator. I do think this group is part neo-Nazi, but AFU regulars in the unit reject this characterization, so it should not be stated in Wikivoice. CutePeach (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC) Comment moved [54] to the proper section (above this one) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for admin close filed

• As the RfC has now run for a month, I have filed the following closure request at WP:CR:

  (Initiated 1162 days ago on 10 April 2022) High visibility/newsworthiness article. Strongly-held disputed views. Messy RfC. Policy questions. Overflow and further disputation in additional sections now archived. Also previous RfCs and former discussions. Panel close by experienced admins could be valuable.

  Feel free to add more there if there is more to be said or more that should be highlighted. Jheald (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

References from posts above

References

Support A there are many RS published in the recent past, claiming it is a neonazi group. So, we will need a more recent, well cited review paper published in a peer revied journal, that examines the nature or ideology of Azov battalion, and states that they have moved from neonazism to something else Cinadon36 05:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Moved to the proper section above - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I hope im not too late. Support option 1 or 2 stating it's neo nazi without any qualification looks quite biased Fourdots2 (talk) 07:05, 7 May 2022 (UTC) Moved to the proper section above - BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)GizzyCatBella🍁 11:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Alternative draft 2 looks good to me. Netanyahuserious (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Alternative draft 1 sums it up well I think. It's a very hot potato today in particular. I just read more info on Azov than I have ever seen before here: https://twitter.com/MelaniePodolyak/status/1510535081194098691 not cited directly but very well written and addresses many of the questions here. I'll make this comment: If we call Azov neo-nazi we are publishing a statement about the Ukrainian armed forces. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That thread appears to be a screenshot of a facebook post that's repeating the claims made here: https://euromaidanpress.com/2022/04/07/what-is-azov-regiment-honest-answers-to-the-most-common-questions/. Euromaidanpress is hyperpartisan and not a RS; they denied any nazis, period, existed in ukraine in 2014 (https://twitter.com/euromaidanpress/status/510566545035395072). Let's look at the author, Vyacheslav Likhachev. His bio claims he is the head of "National Minority Rights Monitoring Group." From what I can tell, he is the only member - the only results on google yield his biography blurbs and a single report from 2015 (https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Religion/Submissions/UKRAINE_Annex2.pdf) where Likhachev is the sole author. The "newsletter archive" linked in the report has been defunct since 2019, and the only author on any of the contained newsletters is also Likhachev (http://jewseurasia.org/page443). His resume appears to include support for the rehabilitation of banderites (https://www.thejc.com/news/world/row-after-ukrainian-jewish-leader-defends-nazi-collaborators-1.464583).

I wouldn't say any of the above makes him useless as a source, but I'd definitely take anything he says in a hyperpartisan newspaper with a grain of salt. H51bjCKERK (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[Moving to correct section above BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)]

Bludegoning

Is just making it harder for any closer to want to bother to close this, thus it will not overturn the last RFC., thus option A wins. Comments should be in the comments section (for the same reason, we need to make this easy for closer to read), but at the same time please stop fucking about with the format. If this RFC is closed as no result (for whatever reason) those who want to text to change will not have the consensus to do so. I suggest you now let the RFC run its course with no further comments by users whose views are already well known on this issue, saying the same thing 15 times does not make your case stronger. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close delay

Update: Apologies to all for the long wait. Real life sometimes comes in the way of Wikipedia, and as such we weren't able to deliberate for some days. I expect we will be able to post a closure in the next couple days, though. Again, our apologies. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 15:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This is how ridiculous some of the sourcing in this article is. In addition to vanity press books, one of the sources used to cite "Nazi" in the lede is.... Journal of Peasant Studies. What the hey do Peasants have to do with this topic? Why is this suppose to be a quality source used to source a WP:REDFLAG claim? The amount of WP:TENDENTIOUSness on this page is just mind blowing. Volunteer Marek 12:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Is that addressed to Isabelle? Selfstudier (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the last sentence though.Selfstudier (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Changing the definition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nicholas Velasquez proposal is sort of the obvious thing to do pending final resolution. Almost any of the proposed changes are far, far better than the clearly biased lede. This has been sitting there for 37 days? Wikipedia may be not only rendering itself obsolete, it may be socially dangerous. Remember how Facebook has been used to promote genocide against Rohingya and to assist the Belarus secret police round up dissidents? Well if we continue to let this blunt "neoNazi" characterization sit in WP we are doing something similar. Time to fish or cut bait. Wikidgood (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Fourdots2: Forget about it. This article, as well as this whole talk page, are clear symptoms of Wikipedia's complete failure at achieving balance through self-regulation, and this problem is systemic. What was once meant as a project able to reject propagandistic narratives via a strict community supervision, has now become a tool of propagandists, carefully and coordinatedly exploiting the Wikipedia guidelines to the advantage of their clients. The only thing which can fix this is time. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This is just your personal opinion and has no foundation in any fact whatsoever. Please read WP:FORUM.Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

See wp:npa wp:soap and wp:forum, you do not attack other editors. You comment on the content not users. Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

What is there to say that the mere insertion of the word "allegedly" in front of "neo-Nazi" would be wrong. I know in the hypertext it says "do not change without consensus" but whoever wrote that is whoever wrote that. Wikidgood (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

April 2022: Symbology

Wolfsangel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This source has this to say:

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

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

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

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

off topic discussion

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

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

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

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

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

It turns out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you making an argumentum ad populum? That should not be the basis of an encyclopedic article. Tallungs (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I just removed another image [55]. How do we know that it shows that it is claimed to show? Who are all these people? What is this place? Was it checked by any reputable news organization? This is WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

  It seems the image is part of the same set of pictures from where other parts of the article came from (File:Soldiers in truck reinforced with steel plates.jpg) and (File:Soldiers from the Azov Battalion move into position.jpg), by Carl Ridderstråle. If you look closely, you recognize the same soldier with glasses and green fatigues kneeling at the BMP picture is on the right in the File:Donbass villagers rounded up for interrogation.jpg. Furthermore, a soldier on the BMP picture has a sleeve insiginia of the "Black Corps", a symbol used by Azov. ~~Danm, I feel like a detective.~~ Considering visual evidence and that is part of a large image set, we can infer they are indeed Azov, but at the same time, the source here are claimed by the author of the picture himself, so yeah. LordLoko (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Black Sun (edit request)

The emblem with the black sun is no longer used officially by the Azov Battalion, and the article should be editing to reflect that (I notice that was just adjusted because there weren't previously references for that). Here are some references for support:

https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/asow-regiment-ukrainische-helden-oder-extremisten,T2nKOyA

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/manifestations-en-ukraine/guerre-en-ukraine-quatre-questions-sur-le-regiment-azov-ce-bataillon-ukrainien-accuse-de-compter-des-neonazis-dans-ses-rangs_5004578.html

https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/11/04/is-the-azov-battalion-a-terrorist-organization-as-40-us-house-democrats-claim/

Specifically, "Its insignia have featured the Black Sun" could be changed to "used to feature the black sun", and "Azov emblem featuring a combination of a mirrored Wolfsangel and Black Sun, two symbols associated with the Wehrmacht and SS, over a small Tryzub" could be changed to "The former Azov emblem....This emblem is no longer in official use". The Euromaidan Press source says it was only in use in 2014-2015, which could be included. I don't care about the specific wording. Thanks Tristario (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

DO any of these actually say it is no longer used? Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Bayerischer Rundfunk: "Extremism researcher Alexander Ritzmann of the "Counter Extremism Project" told ARD in March 2022 that the regiment had also disarmed in symbolism. The Wolfsangel - a symbol used by right-wing extremists - is still in the Azov emblem, but other extremist symbols have been removed. The Wolfsangel means in Ukrainian as much as "Our Nation"

France Info: "These are former emblems of the paramilitary group, still used by some soldiers, says Adrien Nonjon"

Euromaidan Press: "The Azov Battalion included the Black Sun in its emblem in 2014-2015, however, removed it later" Tristario (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven [56]

Maybe they officially dropped it but if you browse Azov’s official channel -->[57] you can see black sun all over. Watch the promo movies on that channel too. You’ll easily spot a black sun [58] These are recent videos. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I looked at their youtube channel and their website, and the only example of the emblem with the Black Sun I could see was the one in the background of the picture in one of your links. The url of that image indicates it's from 2017. The video in the link to the azov site you gave is also dated from 2016, if you click through to it on youtube. I also skimmed that video, and I didn't see the black sun emblem in it, but maybe it was in it briefly. So I'm not seeing it "all over"

The researcher Adrien Nonjon says that it's still in use by some soldiers, and I have seen it being used by some soldiers, so that is true Tristario (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

There was an official newspaper called the Black Sun (https://issuu.com/nikolay222/docs/3_the_black_sun_english_version). Is that still going? Selfstudier (talk) 11:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to avoid original research on whether it's still used. We have a couple of secondary RSs but at the moment they're a little vague, so it would be good to see if there are others. The CBS source at the moment, as Selfstudier notes, doesn't mention the symbol, but has a photo showing a slightly faded flag in the recent photo, so it feels like OR to hang anything on it. The Black Sun magazine seems important too (is it official to the regiment, the movement, or...?) but it is weirdly not mentioned in secondary sources that I can see. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/issues/resources/hoov-22-02-combined_issue_compressed.pdf It is discussed in there along with a copy of an an earlier issue. "In the case of the Azov regiment, we have an unusual publication in English: The Black Sun: newspaper of special purpose regiment "Azov,"" Think that might be where the "pagan" stuff comes from.Selfstudier (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand 🙂 Finland's air force used swastika symbol until 2020 -->[59] but we don’t call them Nazi’s, do we? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Did RS? Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a good one :D

@User:Slatersteven Just google it! E.g. March 2018, Finish Airforce celebrating 100 years, just look at the photos from the reception :D Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Read wp:or, do RS say they are Nazi? Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it is more about the coverage of Azov's symbol in the article, which gives undue weight to it being Wolfsangel with the only possible Nazi meaning, and going all length to silence alternative explanations. Oddly enough it was User:GizzyCatBella who replied me in another section A swastika was used as a symbol before too. Who in Europe is using swastika after WW2 :) Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wolfsangel and the black sun are not the same thing. Nor are we silencing anything, bring fourth RS that says it is not the black sun (or that they no longer use it and I will say we can say that (you will note now sources have been provided I have not opposed saying they no longer use it). Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you are silencing the vast RS which disputes the characterization of Azov Battalion as "neoNazi". 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC) Wikidgood (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Finland did 🙂 GizzyCatBella🍁 00:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Finland did what, say they were Nazi? THis is now going round in circles. We need RS to say X, not what we work out by looking at pictures. with that I am out of here, RS are clear these were nazi symbols, chosen because of that association.Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There is RS that says that but also RS that says the opposite of that. But you write "I am out of here" so fine you made your point, we feel you bro, but please honor your assertion "I am out of here" and we will respectfully continue the debate, bearing in mind that you may disagree with our decisions. You are clearly in good faith and making good points, but there seems to be a clear consensus for actions which you may not be 100% in concurrence with. Thank you for your contributions, they will be respected and duly considered. Good day, sir or madame. Wikidgood (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. BSMRD (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Source [9] does not provide any supporting context for its claim.

Remove source [9] as it is used to claim evidence for Azov soldiers "wearing SS symbols and" badges, etc... The source does not provide any evidence, rather only casually mentions it (also claimed but not provided proof) in its narrative. 35.138.253.30 (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Source 9 has 5 uses (a through e), which use is the one you are objecting to? Selfstudier (talk) 12:25, 24 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 [60]. Another was excluding quotation of Biletskiy that he allegedly made in 2010, i.e long before creation of Azov (that belongs to his page) [61]. 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 [62], 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 [63], 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,[64] 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[65]). They catfish people on the internet and believe what those people say. Read Vyacheslav Likhachev, Anton Shekhovtsov, Andreas Umland -- particularly[66]. 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 [67],[68]; 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)

Name change request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

@Firefangledfeathers: Is this an incorrect reading?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page protection

Will I have to ask for full protection, or can users please stop removing Neo-Nazi until the RFC is concluded? It says it quite clearly "do not remove", so please stop. Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Full protection seems unneccesary, a single user who was of course immediately reverted has removed it since the protection was increased. People are still working on the article so unless it becomes extreme there is no need, just revert them until the RFC is done. TylerBurden (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be reverted. The people being slandered on this WP page are in custody of the Russian invader. Their lives are in danger. They are living persons. At what point does it become "extreme", dude? Wikidgood (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Just change the wording in the lead already, and then full-protect the page. It is just getting more and more ridiculous every day that the article states in Wikivoice the widespread consensus on the subject being Nazi, and the talk page with edits history clearly show there is no consense on the matter. Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS, I realize this might be a novel idea, but there it is.Selfstudier (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe read No consensus sub-section of WP:CONSENSUS? It says: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However: In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it.. Sure, some will argue living people case does not apply to Azov subject, however in the spirit of this norm, no consnenus does not prevent the contentious claim to be removed. Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Instead of following the RFC route to consensus (which is what we did to arrive at the present consensus), we should instead just follow your opinion? Selfstudier (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you arrive to a consensus? I believe, this page shows clearly no "true consensus" were achieved, that's why the new RFC, which no admin wanna touch so far, and that's why recurrent attempts to edit the piece in question :D Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there was a consensus reached at that time and we will know what the new consensus is when the current RFC is closed, possibly by a panel.Selfstudier (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

In an RFC last year. We now have another, and if the attitude is "gives what we want or we will continue" then full PP will be needed, no one can be allowed to[wp:bludeon]] a dispute. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes leaving that descriptor amounts to slander. It is simply wrong. There may be some individuals in the battalion who have some neonazi leanings but the battalion itself is subject to the Ua government. It is simply false to characterize it as "neoNazi" per se. That is widely disputed. RS is split so WP is in disgrace every moment it leaves this falsity to sit there at the top of the page. Wikidgood (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct, Birdof...there absolutely is no consensus in RS and no consensus in the WP talk page. This false, or at least, controversial, assertion that the battalion is "neoNazi" should be removed asap. It is really just propaganda. Disgusting that thousands of people in the English speaking world think that if it is on WP it must be true. The facts, and also the RS, is far more nuanced. This may be one of the most disgraceful chapters in the history of WP. Wikidgood (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wikidgood Do not continue to disruptively edit this page to prove a WP:POINT or to further your own beliefs, agendas, or thoughts about the war. WIkipedia is not the place for this war to be fought. We are all about portraying facts. If you believe that wikipedia is killing people, you should probably find a way to provide the world a better source of information, because you are unlikely to singlehandedly change wikipedia's processes or procedures to fit your agenda. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Cossack House

I was looking through the sources again and saw this in the the Time source from last year ("neo Nazi elements"):

The main recruitment center for Azov, known as the Cossack House, stands in the center of Kyiv, a four-story brick building on loan from Ukraine’s Defense Ministry. In the courtyard is a cinema and a boxing club. The top floor hosts a lecture hall and a library, full of books by authors who supported German fascism, like Ezra Pound and Martin Heidegger, or whose works were co-opted by Nazi propaganda, like Friedrich Nietzsche and Ernst Jünger. On the ground floor is a shop called Militant Zone, which sells clothes and key chains with stylized swastikas and other neo-Nazi merchandise.

This Bellingcat article from 2019 confirms

Semenyaka was recently in Croatia along with other Azov figures to make preparations for an international far-right conference Azov plans to host in Zagreb in the fall of 2019. The two have helped organize a neo-Nazi record label and shop that sells neo-Nazi music and paraphernalia with open Nazi symbolism at the Azov movement’s Cossack House in central Kyiv.

Maybe we should incorporate this into the article, seems relevant background? Is it still like that, anyone know? Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The first link leads to unrelated The Problems With Israel's Version of the Killing of Reporter Shireen Abu Akleh article. The second article seems to have just passing mentions of Azov Batallion, and a few people who allegedly played some role in the Battalion, but mostly speaks about loosely defined "Azov movement". In the nutshell I understood it this way: some Russian neo-Nazis moved to Ukraine, opened an underground club called "Cossack House", filled with nazi artifacts, and claim that they are a part of Azov Movement. No allegations that is anyhow connected with the Battalion, not speaking about it being a "main recruitment center". IMHO, it does not belong to the Battalion article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the link. It says it's their HQ on loan from the Ministry of Defense? So how would that be an "underground club"? Do you have a source for that? There are more sources, would you like to see them? Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So how would that be an "underground club" < read carefully, that was my take back from the second article you posted (while the first one was a wrong link). What Bellingcat wrote, definitely does not confirm accusations in the Time article.

The Time article... well, it is long, it mixes together everything, from Azov Battalion and Movement, to a world-wide neo-Nazi plot to conqure the planet. To me it reads far from neutral, I guess the authors are on far-left side of political spectra, and before using such material in a Wikipedia article, I'd say it should be fact-checked & verified by independent sources from other parts of political spectra. If it is as it is claimed by Times authors, then Cossack House is definitely not a secret place hidden by Azov from everybody but a lucky few, and there should be independent materials about the place, etc. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

WP has a wikilink, Far-right social centre#Ukraine "In 2014, during the Revolution of Dignity Ukrainian nationalists occupied a building in Kyiv city centre and used it as the headquarters of the Azov Battalion and later Cossack House (Template:Lang-uk).

References

Selfstudier (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, for what it worth, I did my independent research on the subject. Here is what I took out of it:

The Cossack House used to be an hotel "Cossacks" before the last revolution in Ukraine, squatted during the revolution and used as the original HQ for Azov. Azov Regiment later moved to a new base in Kiev, aka ex-factory ATEK, which is given as a point of contact on the Azov's website, and is mentioned as their base (and I believe the main recruting center) in mulitple independent articles I saw. The Cossack House then was organized in the freed building as a Cultural Hub for youth, endoursed by National Corps, but unrelated per se to the Regiment, I believe. So far this looks like neutral facts, which can be included into the article in the history of Azov Battalion.

Regarding the place being neo-Nazi center nowadays, I still believe it is a huge exaggeration by Time authors. From materials I googled up, it looks like a right-conservative-nationalist-patriotic hub at most, but not a neo-nazi place. Probably, it looks nazi to journalists with strong leftist bias, but NPOV requires to balance it out with views from other part of the spectra. I found official statements of Azov Battalion[69] and National Corps[70] denying accusations in Time's article, and stating that neo-nazis their authors talked to are not connected with the regiment and organization beyond a few initial contacts on their arrival to Ukraine. I could not find the website of Cossack House (the one mentioned in one of the references I gave is down), but here is the web[71] and FB[72] of the literature club Plomin. At the first glance they are sure right-wing oriented, but do not look extremist-right / neo-nazi stuff. I'd point your attention that the long-read from Times does not come with phootos / videos supporting their extreme claims, all their illustrations are from routine of Azov regiment, and do not show anything extreme / nazi. The Belingcat article shows lots of openly nazi illustrations, but if you read captions, there is no claim that they are related to Cossack House, they are related to some music band / whatever past of the individuals Belingcat discsuss.

While looking into it, I also arrived to think that it would be best indeed to split the material into Azov Movement and Azov Regiment, as it was proposed somewhere in this talk page already. It definitely looks to me now that Azov Movement is a huge francise many different people may freely associate themself with, and many of the stuff you may dig on the Movement has nothing to do with the regiment, while can be used to discredit the regiment. Birdofpreyru (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

it would be best indeed to split the material into Azov Movement and Azov Regiment [...] the Movement has nothing to do with the regiment, while can be used to discredit the regiment. Literally Azov fighters holding Azov Regiment and National Corps (Azov Movement) flags together (4 march 2022).[73] Mhorg (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The video title literally says Territorial Defence unit "Azov" in Cherkasy (which is a city in-between Kyiv and Mariupol). Do these armed men identify themselves with Azov Movement - yes; are they fighters of Azov Regiment this article talks about - that's your suggestion, but the video / title do not prove, nor claim it. IMHO, it highlights the need for the split: Azov Movement article can list all sorts of organisations and formations which identify themselves as Azov Movement, including Azov Battalion, go into connections between them, and their ideological tints; and then Azov Regiment article can focus on the military regiment. Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It may or may not be the case that the relationship between the movement and the regiment has cooled, the sources don't really indicate that tho. Besides, if using the same name, it is not unnatural to conclude that there is a relationship there and my interpretation is that the relationship is a continuing one although others may look at it differently.Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to steer clear of original research and rely heavily use what reliable sources - which includes Bellingcat and Time magazine - say. We definitely should pay more attention to what actual Ukraine-focused experts say than to weaker sources and passing mentions say. I also don't think Time has particular left-wing bias (it's not Jacobin). However, I do think that there's a problem with the blur between the specific military unit and much less boundaried movement, and the more this issue comes up, the more I lean towards splitting the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I would be amenable to a split if and only if it can be demonstrated that the relationship is arm's length. If it is blurred, let's seek to unblur it, rather than bury it somewhere else. Idk where everyone gets the idea that left wing = unreliable, total bollox, all sources are biased, right wing ones as well.Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, why a split will blur anything? I am thinking in analogy of a media franchise and its separate installments. Usually every franchise gets its dedicated article, and then every movie in the franchise gets its article, and it contributes to keeping stuff clear. In our case entire Azov movement section may go into the new article, and Azov Battalion article clearly states that it is an origin and a part of Azov Movement, and then every resonant claim about neo-nazi / sensitive stuff may go in one of the articles based on whether it happened in the regiment, or it is related to some other element of the movement.

Idk where everyone gets the idea that left wing, unreliable, total bollox, all sources are biased, right wing ones as well yeah, and leftist bias tend to evaluate everything right wing as nazi, as well as right-wing bias evaluate everything left wing as communist. So for WP:NPOV when a left-wing author sees something as nazi it is better to double-check how a right-wing author sees it, and describe the subject as something in-between of their POVs. Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Bias is a different metric to reliability. Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I never said it was blurred, Bob did. Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

in my opinion, there should be a separate "azov movement" article as well, which should give more organizational space to cover the wider umbrella of groups. That's not to say we can't cover the controversy surrounding the links between the movement and the regiment in this article, since it's a contentious issue and are experts who have different interpretations of the linkage between the groups.

I feel like it would improve coverage of both the regiment and movement in more detail. Cononsense (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You can see in the archives it was discussed several times already and not agreed to. Once the fuss has died down a bit (consensus established), I wouldn't object to that, at this point, I think we will just lose focus.Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the info, might be good to potentially revisit it after the current RFC is done then Cononsense (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Cononsense I was thinking the same thing. I don't think that there is any reason to oppose having a separate article for the movement is objectionable except to people who are intent on proving that they are hand-in-glove in order to promote a Putinist POV. There are separate WP pages for Republican Party and QAnon, for instance. Some people will become apoplectic on the contention that they overlap to a greater or lesser degree. I think it is a no-brainer to at some point create the Azov Movement page. Anyone can probably do it right now if they are willing to put in enough time to write and cite it. A mere stub will probably be candidate for deletion as redundant but a detailed WP page would probably stand. In fact, it may ultimately prove out that split between Azov Battalion (militia) and Azov Battalion (UNG unit) will eventually be a way forward, to minimize confusion. That would be three pages, in addition to Azov Movement. Wikidgood (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Bob you have nothing but respect for your many sage edits but I think that the TIME reporting has been both opinionated and biased on this topic over the years. Bellingcat, which has a strong specific viewpoint, obviously, is much more precise. As Bird of Prey stated " a huge exaggeration by Time authorS " in one instance above and that appears to be the pattern. Someone else quoted the Jan 2021 TIME article, which National Corps does a surprisingly credible job of disputing, and the article webpage is full of anecdotal evidence, gish galloping and reference to a galaxy of unrelated right wing phenomena. I think that we need to bear in mind that while TIME may be generally regarded as RS for more provincial topics, their demonstrated bias in their reporting on Azov should prod us to heightened scrutiny of assertions which cite them. Wikidgood (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Concerns about the RFC and the neo-nazi label in the lede

It is obvious that there is no consensus to continue the slanderous, sophomoric over-simplification which characterizes the subject as "neoNazi" in direct contradiction of substantial RS to the contrary. To sit around dickering over the exact language while these living persons are being dragged off the Russian POW camps is a disgrace. Let's agree to disagree on the final revised wording and come up with something provisional, and perhaps a new template warning readers that the matter is under dispute. It is a disgrace to WP to let this sit as is and may have bad real world consequences. Because of the pre-ponderance of wikilawyering and people grinding axes I have not been on WP much in recent years so I would appreciate some suggestions aside from the unhelpful piety of "well we had an RfC in March..." Any ideas? The clock is ticking and these boys' lives are in danger, Wikifolks...Wikidgood (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict, slow connection, I hit cancel but this went through. Checking to make sure I did not inadvertantly delete anything.Wikidgood (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikidgood your message is loaded with political messages and reveals your need to "defend" these people. Sorry, Wikipedia is not made for these things. Please read Wikipedia:Activist. Mhorg (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with their statement Mhorg. In particular, unlike you, Wikidgood addresses content, not editors. You're making personal attacks and I suggest you strike them. Volunteer Marek 21:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If you think "To sit around dickering over the exact language while these living persons are being dragged off the Russian POW camps" is a legitimate way of arguing, I don't know what else to add. Mhorg (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is as it addresses content (“exact language”). Now, “reveals your need to defend these people” unnecessarily comments on an editor and does so in an offensive way, as if you could read another editor’s mind or motivations. Seriously, strike it. Volunteer Marek 04:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, maybe my message was too harsh, however, see the messages below. As I thought, this thread produced other comments which seems to be on a WP:FORUM. Mhorg (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Mhorg I am surprised by the vehemence of your statement. There is nothing "political" in my remarks. After >15 years with WP I don't need your recommended reading. WP exists in the real world. People refer to it, read it and there is breaking news on this very topic. People who are confused, and the question of how to frame the "neoNazi" characterization is confusing even to specialists, such people are likely to rely upon WP. I suppose it suits you to leave the unsatisfactory characterization but you know that consensus is nearing to modify the lede.

My post was responded to by the placement of a dispute tag in the main body of the text. I am satisfied for the time being. Someone has pointed out that you are engaging in a personal attack, and that is probably what your remark would be classified as. But I don't feel inordinatedly attacked, I know what I am signing on for editing on a hot topic here at WP.

You might be surprised that you and I share many points of view in common, but you seem so intent on criticizing my style that I think you might overlook that. Please focus on the questions at hand. If you thing "to sit around dickering over the exact language" is somehow inappropropriate then feel free to sit around and dicker over the exact language. I am not stopping you. But as stated elsewhere, I am of the view that it is despicable to have "NEO-NAZI" as an unqualified adjectival qualifier in the lede. There is clearly consensus to change that. It does happen to be a fact out there in the real world that these boys are in fact being dragged off in custody of the Russian Federation. You may think that is irrelevant but Russian propaganda frequently quotes Putin apologists in the US. It is not at all inconceivable that Lavrov et al might even say "Even in the English language Wikipedia it says that these are neo-Nazis". You know as well as I do that labelling living people as neo-Nazis can cause them harm, in this case could get them killed. It is very reckless. You can do better. Wikidgood (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And you should read WP:AGF. TylerBurden (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikidgood, from what I have learned over the years on Wikipedia is that we discuss sources and not talk about how to save people or how our contributes can harm people. If we have hundreds of sources saying that Azov is made up of neo-Nazis and that it is part of a neo-Nazi project, we cannot avoid writing it to us because otherwise their lives are endangered. Speaking of consensus, it does not seem to me at all that the majority of colleagues are in favor of removing that adjective. Most of your comments seem to me almost WP:FORUM but maybe I'm wrong. I appreciate the comment you left me on the talk page, there is no problem for me and I have nothing against you personally. Just, simply discuss the sources and leave everything else apart. Mhorg (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

A close has been requested. At some point, even if a panel has to be convened, it will be closed. I disagree that time is of the essence, at least that's not any policy that I recognize. Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There are probably 3-4 editors that would immediately revert any attempts to change the wording right now, as they will cite the ongoing RFC, even though like you said it seems the consensus is that the current state is...not optimal. I would not be against changing it at least to not state objectively in Wikipedias voice that the Azov Battalion is neo-nazi before the RFC closes completely. But clearly this article is a heated topic and people have dug in greatly to keep it the way they prefer, so there seems to be little point in attempting this before the RFC closes. Unless you want people to yell at you on Wikipedia I guess. TylerBurden (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree with you @wikidgood. I think in general RFCs etc. Need to be made easier to use, I managed to vote but I didn't have a clue where to put my comment or what I was doing, the whole process needs to be altogether more user friendly. Fourdots2 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry RFC's are the way to go, and we can all decide "we don need no stiking RFC's" when they go against us (I am unsure this on actually; is, but three we are). And consensus is not a majority vote, we are not democracy. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I added another fresh article by a fellow of the Atlantic Council, in the "journalism" section. Reading it now, its a strong attack on the continuing designation of Azov as "neo-Nazi" ("Branding the Azov Battalion as ‘neo-Nazi’ long after it shed its far-right origins is part of a deafening corruption of public discourse"). Given there seems to be so strong opinions (either way), and is so controversial, I do think its strange that the Wiki as of now puts it so strongly and "conclusively" in the article that they are a neo-Nazi battalion. It doesn't really reflect the dispute going on adequately, and probably serves as ammo for those denigrating the Ukrainian struggle ("look, Wikipedia even says!..."). Whatever the decision, I hope the RfC resolves quickly at least, since time is of the essence as stated above.--Euor (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The Atlantic Council is not a RS about this conflict, it is essentially state media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council#Connections_and_funding H51bjCKERK (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You are right it is not a majority vote, and enough people have expressed concern with it being described in Wiki voice as Neo-nazi that it will likely need to be changed in some way. TylerBurden (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That is my opinion too. I don’t really know whether or not they’re completely neo Nazi (although I doubt it based on the most recent conflicting RS’s). But the main point is there is a large controversy/discrepancy among the RS, which makes it slightly absurd to fall down heavily in wikivoice on one side, for no better reason I can see than some subjective bias. Remove ‘neo Nazi’ wikivoice from opening sentence, then cover the controversy and history amply further down. I don’t get the opposition to it.--Euor (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

All of which will be taken into account by the closers, so can we please stop trying to second guess them? Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This real world consequence is a concern to me when a friend of mine said he supported Russia, I asked why and he said he supported the killing of any Nazi. I investigated deeper and he mentioned me sources that was used in this Wikipedia article, but that was translated to the portuguese wikipedia that is way more biased than the english one, the english version is much more neutral. They can have NeoNazi views, and it would be good to make clear specifically what that means, the Neo-Nazism article says: antisemitism, ultranationalism, racism, xenophobia, ableism, homophobia, anti-Romanyism, anti-communism. Do they have all of those beliefs or not all of them? There are many jews among them that it doesn't make much sense they would be antisemitist. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You would need to ask the RS why they call them neo-nazi, we can only reflect what they say. Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Survey of other Wikis

So I became interested in how other Wikis describe Azov in lead sentence, i.e. whether the lean on the explicit "Neo-Nazi" term or not in the beginning, to describe it now. Here's how various languages cover it:

• Danish: "is a nationalist unit of the Ukrainian National Guard"
• Spanish: "is a military unit" in the National Guard of Ukraine
• Russian: "is a unit" in the National Guard of Ukraine
• Turkish: "is a far-right, Neo-Nazi, formerly paramilitary unit"
• French: "is a unit ... formed in 2014 as a far-right unit with neo-Nazi affiliations"
• Portuguese: "is a neo-Nazi unit" in the National Guard of Ukraine
• Dutch: "was a Ukrainian far-right militia"
• German: "volunteer battalion" (stating further on the far right elements have largely been overcome after integration into Ukrainian military.
• Polish: "a special sub-unit" in the National Guard of Ukraine
• Norwegian: "a special unit" in the National Guard of :::Ukraine
• Italian: "is a Ukrainian military unit".
• Swedish: "is a far-right, sometimes called Neo Nazi"
• Finnish: "is a volunteer force"
• Greek: "far-right and Neo-Nazi"

Most, if not all, of the other articles then subsequently mention its far right origins, in lede. Some, like Germany, conclude its origins is not representative of current status, also in lede. So out of total 14 major languages checked, four languages (Portuguese, Greek, Swedish and Turkish) call it Neo-Nazi, while two mention far-right in first sentence (French and Dutch). I find this interesting. It means only 4/14 of the major Wikis in other languages explicitly say it is Neo Nazi in wikivoice at the beginning sentence, while the rest choose to tackle that controversy and history later, starting simply off by calling it a unit in the National Guard. I think it is worth considering what influence the English article has on the two that mention Neo-Nazi, as English often acts as an influence on other smaller Wikis, but apparently the influence is not that large considering only 4/14 follow suit. An example of English Wiki influence can be found in Arabic, I think, which is a very short article (only lede), mirroring what I think is an earlier version of the English article. I am not totally sure though, so I didn't include it in sample (although it wouldn't make a big difference).

Now I know English wiki doesn't have to follow what other wikis do, but I thought it might be interesting to check. So, to sum up, about 29% of the sample uses "Neo Nazi" to describe it in the first sentence; all go on to cover its far-right origins, with some (German for example), concluding it is no longer representative of the unit as of now. Also, this is in no way meant to be conclusive. The selection is fairly small, and mostly the largest wikis, to avoid other languages that simply copy-translate the English one. I had to use Google Translate for most articles, and if I missed something, please let me know.--Euor (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

See the RFC above, and no what other articles (or wiki's do) should not inform what we do. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I know no other article or Wikis should inform what we do, but I believe it is worth sampling other Wikis to get further perspectives. Mostly did this out of curiousity, though.--Euor (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Here is yet another concern. It says: "is a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol...". It is no longer based in Mariupol. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  It does? Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently, many members of the unit (this is not a battalion, but "polk") are still involved in the war in other parts of Ukraine. Perhaps one should say "based in Ukraine", but not sure. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I am asking where do we say it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I copy pasted it from the RfC on this page. That is how it should appear if option "A" prevails. But this is wrong. Yes, "originally" may fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems that they have overlooked that I changed it in the lead to "originally" after a request in talk. Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This is why NPOV tags need to have discussion linked to them, and not just be an expression of general dislike for the tone. Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. But why this is a non-admin closure by a single person? My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Its not, and it is hard to not make what might seem a snarky comment at this stage, if you had read the request for close you would have seen it is by a panel, not one person. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I did not see it (this page is a mess), and I have no idea who the closers are if that's a panel. My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter if you know who they are, what relevance does that have? Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Heroic Azov's actions

As Mhorg just removed "heroic" word from my bold edit[74], saying neutral (no surprise here), let's talk about it. A growing number of RS calls Azov Regiment's actions heroic, from more neutral way some call them war heroes, others neo-Nazis[75], to straight defenders of Mariupol are the heroes of our time[76] (and sure you may google up more). I believe, if we say that it is within WP:NPOV to call them nazi when RS say so, we should accept that is is within WP:NPOV as well to call them heroes when RS call them so.Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You forgot to sign. The second ref is a quote from a statement by the general staff of Ukraine’s armed forces (and another one from Zelensky). The first one is a (sub) headline, WP:HEADLINES refers and your edit anyway omitted the neo-Nazi part. Do I need to explain this further? Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The second ref is a quote from a statement by the general staff be so, lots of Ukrainians call them heroes already, and more and more will be calling them so. RS will pick it up. Do you intend to censor it in the Wikipedia article, or are you fine to place heroes in the lead as soon as we see an RS calling them heroes in RS's own voice in the main text body? Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It will require rather more than a single RS for wikivoice. As for attributed quotes, it is rather easy to find such that are less complimentary. Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If someone is willing to put in the time assembling citations, at least two on each side and preferably three, we could include mention of their frequent characterization as "heroes of Ukraine". Our friend who inserted that is on to something in that the characterization of them as heroes is indeed "a thing", ie., a notable phenomena. So his desire to note that in the encyclopedic is in now way frivolous. But you are correct that it is not a universal viewpoint and needs more than one citation due to its' controversial nature. Wikidgood (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Friend, it is not OK to call them "Nazis" without a more nuanced NPOV balance and thanks to one of our editors, after a flurry of complaints by myself and several others, a "disputed" tag was placed upon the controversial designation. Which, for the moment, satisfies my impulse to throw a shoe at the computer screen. However, to insert a not-very-NPOV characterization of "heroic" is, according to your explanation, "Two Wrongs Make A Right". This edit should not really even require a talk page section! I appreciate your appreciation of the heroism - which may exist simultaneously with despicable neo-Nazi views [or not]. But come on, you know that this is not the way to fix the problem of the unduly perjorative, biased and propagandistic painting them with a broad brush as nothing but "neoNazi". Perhaps you are somewhat tongue in cheek with your edit? Does not bother me but there are others who won't be so amused. I suggest you turn your attention to the bottom of the article where "NEONAZISM" is placed at the top of the stack of outside links. That seems unduly perjorative and misplaces emphasis. Perhaps you can support placing that to the bottom of the stack? That would satisfy your eagerness to show some respect for their current plight, and heroism, while remaining withing the customs and conventions of Wikipedia. Wikidgood (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"Friend" meaning Bird of Prey. In this matter, I support Mhorg in the removal, for now. Wikidgood (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I think "heroic" is sensationalism. I 'm for removal. Cinadon36 14:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

As per Cinadon36, Wikidgood, Selfstudier: oppose use of "heroic" as sensational POV language. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

Under "2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine," there are two sentences that say, "On 16 May, the Ukrainian General staff announced that the Mariupol garrison, including remnants of the Azov regiment stationed in Mariupol, had "fulfilled its combat mission" and that evacuations from the Azovstal steel factory had begun. The military said that 264 service members, 53 of them "seriously injured," had been taken by bus to areas controlled by Russian forces."

However, according to the economist, "But on May 16th the troops holed up in tunnels beneath the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol, a Ukrainian port city, began to capitulate. By the end of the day 264 Ukrainian fighters had surrendered to surrounding Russian units, according to Ukraine’s defence ministry. Of those, 52 were severely wounded and evacuated to a hospital in Russian-occupied territory. Iryna Vereshchuk, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, said they would be exchanged for Russian prisoners of war when their condition stabilises."

https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/05/17/mariupols-last-ukrainian-defenders-begin-to-surrender

The Battalion surrendered to Russian forces and will be used to exchange POWs when conditions stabilize. Replace the current sentences with something on the lines of: "On 2022 May 16, 64 Ukrainian fighters had surrendered to surrounding Russian units. Of the 264 service members, 53 of them seriously injured and moved to a hospital in Russian-occupied territory. Iryna Vereshchuk, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, said that Ukraine would exchange them for Russian prisoners of war when their condition stabilizes. Whether that will happen is not clear."

the language should make it clear that they surrendered. LilAhok (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Will we end up having another RFC about this? The propaganda machines appear to be working overtime on this issue as well. It's very recent, let's see if we can determine what most sources are saying. WP is not a source but which other WP article(s) have material on this? Selfstudier (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

other sources that reported the surrender of Ukrainian soldiers:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-backed-separatists-say-256-ukrainian-fighters-surrendered-azovstal-2022-05-17/

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/fears-for-mariupol-defenders-after-surrender-to-russia

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/5/17/russia-says-mariupol-plant-fighters-surrendered-fate-uncertain

Each source says Russia said the Ukrainian soldiers have surrendered. Ukrainian politicians, including Zelenskyy, have said they want to exchange prisoners. LilAhok (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-avostal-mariupol-evacuation-russia-wounded-zelenskiy/31854681.html ("Ukraine says more than 260 of its fighters were moved from the besieged Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol after surrendering to Russian forces. Many of the wounded were taken to areas held by Russia-backed separatists on May 16. The surrender marked the end of the months-long Russian siege of the strategic port city, now in ruins.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 10:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into many of the sources, fwiw I have the impression this is two separate things, firstly a surrender with that aspect being emphasized by the Russian side and and the subsequent evacuation being emphasized by the Ukranian side. This might explain why a number of sources are using both terms, after all they are not synonyms. Selfstudier (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to wait, after all we do not know yet how many, or what their final fate will be. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Another discussion at Talk:Battle of Azovstal. And at Talk:Siege_of_Mariupol#"Evacuation"_euphemism.... Sigh. Selfstudier (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with comments that we need to wait for the situation to unfold. The Geneva Convention and International Humanitarian Law for evacuating wounded and besieged military personnel has been negotiated for Azovstal, involving the Red Cross and United Nations, as mentioned here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/16/europe/azovstal-siege-halt-mariupol-intl/index.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/russia-agrees-to-evacuation-of-wounded-soldiers-from-mariupol-steelworks-1.4879468

IndigoBeach (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems they were ordered to surrender by their own side. If that is the case, then why wouldn't we just say that? (note that NYT refers to their evacuation as well "Ukrainian servicemen in a bus after they were evacuated..." Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• According to all sources, no one saw the soldiers with their hands up. This is apparently not just an unconditional surrender, but some kind of a previously negotiated agreement, exactly as most sources say. Therefore, no. My very best wishes (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  According to Merriam Webster, surrender means "to yield to the power, control, or possession of another upon compulsion or demand."

  Therefore, "soldiers with their hands up" is irrelevant. According to all sources, they use the word surrender. Many also say a negotiated surrender. The current wording downplays what happened, and the numbers have increased to as high as 900. The current wording doesn't represent the complexity of the situation.

  surrender/negotiated surrender/order to surrender should be used. The surrendered Ukraine troops are Russian prisoners, a prisoner swap is not guaranteed, some Russians/separatists want them to stand trial. it's not clear what their fates will be. Current wording needs to be changed, but we should wait for more information.

  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/18/ukraine-mariupol-azovstal-soldiers-russia

  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surrender LilAhok (talk) 22:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  I can see two problems with this. First, some Ukrainian soldiers still remain there and continue the fight, while Russian forces are shelling the building. Secondly, for example CNN [77], mostly refers to this as an "evacuation operation" and say that "surrendered militants" is an expression used by Russian Investigative Committee. My very best wishes (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  Current wording needs to be changed, but we should wait for more information.

  I see two problems with your objections

  I'll address your first point: "First, some Ukrainian soldiers still remain there and continue the fight, while Russian forces are shelling the building."

  According to the CNN article you've provided, it is titled "The battle for Mariupol nears end as Ukraine declares 'combat mission' over" the fight is almost over, and it doesn't change the fact that up to 900 Ukrainian troops are Russian prisoners with an uncertain future.

  Your second point: "...refers to this as an "evacuation operation" and say that "surrendered militants" is an expression used by Russian Investigative Committee."

  Plenty of the sources I've provided use surrender or attribute the statement to Russian officials. According to abcnews, Azov was ordered to surrender. consensus needs to be built on this issue. Why are certain sources more important than others?

  https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ukraine-hopes-swap-steel-mill-fighters-russian-pows-84798867 LilAhok (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

  The NYT is categoric (17 May), both in headline and in content, title is given as "Surrender at Mariupol" and content is given as "More than 200 Ukrainian soldiers in the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol surrendered and were taken into custody by Russian forces." They also report that ..Ukraine’s military ordered them to surrender. The surrender directive, issued late Monday, made the soldiers prisoners and ended the most protracted battle so far of the nearly three-month-old Russian invasion of Ukraine.. I think this is clearcut, they were ordered to surrender and they did.Selfstudier (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

My 5 cents, the current wording On 16 May, the Ukrainian General staff announced that the Mariupol garrison, including remnants of the Azov regiment stationed in Mariupol, had "fulfilled its combat mission" and that evacuations from the Azovstal steel factory had begun. says what Ukrainian Gen staff said, thus should stay as is. It should be followed by a sentence similar to Following the announcement Azov fighters began surrender to Russian forces on the order of Ukrainian high command. - that's what de facto happened there, might be a part of a larger plan / arrangement, but still they surrendered them to Russian forces. That should be followed by a few sentences about the reported number of surrendered fighters over few days (the current one says about the first day of surrender only, at the moment sources say about ~2k fighters surrendered, with details on how many on each days, and whereabouts where they were taken by Russians). Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I will copy this down below if that's OK, because the editreq is closed and there is an open one there.Selfstudier (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2022

Information on this page is wrong and untiukrainian. It's russian propaganda that bothers Ukraine to fight in the information war. Link to the true information: https://www.dw.com/ru/polk-azov-mify-i-pravda-ob-ultrapravyh-zashhitnikah-mariupolja/a-61205446 2A00:F41:1866:EFF:404F:E9A0:C44B:E7A1 (talk) 12:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

One of the sources, Andreas Umland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Umland) is a member of a hyperpartisan political action committee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Euro-Atlantic_Cooperation). The other (Adrien Nonjon) appears to be a current graduate student - hardly an expert. DW itself is german state media. H51bjCKERK (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

edit request on 20 May 2022 v2

Under "2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine," there are two sentences that say, "On 16 May, the Ukrainian General staff announced that the Mariupol garrison, including remnants of the Azov regiment stationed in Mariupol, had "fulfilled its combat mission" and that evacuations from the Azovstal steel factory had begun. The military said that 264 service members, 53 of them "seriously injured," had been taken by bus to areas controlled by Russian forces."

This should be replaced with, "On 2022 May 16, more than 200 Ukrainian soliders in the Azovstal steel plant were ordered by the Ukrainian military to surrender to Russian forces Of the 264 service members, 53 of them seriously injured and moved to a hospital in Russian-occupied territory. Iryna Vereshchuk, Ukraine’s deputy prime minister, said that Ukraine would exchange them for Russian prisoners of war when their condition stabilizes. Whether that will happen is not clear."

I'll repeat what was said under "Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022" by user Selfstudier as my reason for the change.

The NYT is categoric (17 May), both in headline and in content, title is given as "Surrender at Mariupol" and content is given as "More than 200 Ukrainian soldiers in the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol surrendered and were taken into custody by Russian forces." They also report that ..Ukraine’s military ordered them to surrender. The surrender directive, issued late Monday, made the soldiers prisoners and ended the most protracted battle so far of the nearly three-month-old Russian invasion of Ukraine.. I think this is clearcut, they were ordered to surrender and they did. LilAhok (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I agree, Zelenskyy and the Ukr govt have spoken about "evacuation", but that seems to be just spin. Everything (including video evidence) indicates the Mariupol defenders surrendered and are in custody of the Russians as POWs. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

'evacuation' terminology is consistent with a negotiated humanitarian corridor for the movement of besieged and wounded military under the Geneva Convention and International Humanitarian Law, which it was in this case as reported here [78].

Would be better to move this discussion to LilAhok's first Extended-confirmed-protected edit request of 18 May so that it's easier to follow the comments there rather than repeat the same info and references again. IndigoBeach (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Evacuation is what follows surrender (or some other event), not a synonym. The other req was closed pending consensus, which I think we have, tbh, I am not even sure we really need it given the available sourcing (it's not just NYT) but I have refrained from just editing it in myself until now, in case someone wants to contest the sourcing.Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

NYT isn't consistent on the terminology - this NYT reference says evacuation [79] and today the Independent reports that Russia says 'surrender' and Ukraine says 'mission fulfilled' [80]. To maintain NPOV we could just leave the current wording as is, as it already reflects the two sides' version of events.

Again suggest that it's better to move this discussion to LilAhok's first Extended-confirmed-protected edit request of 18 May, so that it's not split across 2 sections. IndigoBeach (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We can reach consensus here (3 to 1 atm, anybody else?). That NYT is from 16th so it is not correct to say NYT is inconsistent unless you have NYT using evac as a synonym after the 17th. I am not paying that much attention to Russian reports of surrender or Ukrainian reports of evacuation (used as synonym). Better to have newsorgs saying stuff in their own voice as much as possible, there are quite a few now. NPOV is not "two sides" it is what the balance of sources say. Selfstudier (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

'Copy of post from above closed edit req'

My 5 cents, the current wording On 16 May, the Ukrainian General staff announced that the Mariupol garrison, including remnants of the Azov regiment stationed in Mariupol, had "fulfilled its combat mission" and that evacuations from the Azovstal steel factory had begun. says what Ukrainian Gen staff said, thus should stay as is. It should be followed by a sentence similar to Following the announcement Azov fighters began surrender to Russian forces on the order of Ukrainian high command. - that's what de facto happened there, might be a part of a larger plan / arrangement, but still they surrendered them to Russian forces. That should be followed by a few sentences about the reported number of surrendered fighters over few days (the current one says about the first day of surrender only, at the moment sources say about ~2k fighters surrendered, with details on how many on each days, and whereabouts where they were taken by Russians). Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC) 'End copy'

The NYT articles are written by different journalists, so it's fair to say that they as individuals are inconsistent in their use of terminology. Also, to clarify that evacuation isn't a Ukrainian synonym, it's the terminology used in Humanitarian Law, that through negotiation agreement is reached to set up a humanitarian corridor to evacuate people. IndigoBeach (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

NYT takes editorial responsibility for its articles and you did say that NYT was inconsistent, which I think is not the case. I never said that evacuation was a Ukranian synonym for surrender, read what I said more carefully.Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be evacuation if they set up a humanitarian corridor by means of which Azov fighters leave their position with their personal arms and belongings straight to Ukraine-controlled territory. It is de facto surrender because they handed themselves to Russians. Politicians and journalists are keen to bend vocabulary meaning of words to suite their agenda, and it is right for us to tell in the article how they pictured the situation, but we also should make it clear what happened de facto. Birdofpreyru (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with your proposed wording Birdofpreyru. I think we should include the information about the negotiations that were held, so that the context's clear that this was a facilitated negotiation to end the siege and save lives. IndigoBeach (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No problem to include info about any related negotiation(s), do you have any particular source(s) in mind for that? Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a good source that we can use for the negotiations https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/16/europe/azovstal-siege-halt-mariupol-intl/index.html IndigoBeach (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

References

 Note: Marking template as answered procedurally. This discussion appears to be moving along well and multiple editors with relevant permissions to edit the page are involved. Feel free to re-open if my assessment is inaccurate. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Tablet magazine source

Recent article from Tablet (magazine) which goes into lots of detail [81].

This is both a reliable source which obviously has no interest in whitewashing the battalion and unlike most of the stuff used in this article is of very recent vintage. These are the kinds of sources which we should be using to write this article not outdated stuff from 6 years ago. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The author of the slate article is a member of the atlantic council (https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/vladislav-davidzon/), which is not a RS about this conflict - they are essentially state media.

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council#Connections_and_funding -

"In September 2014, Eric Lipton reported in The New York Times that since 2008, the US organization had received donations from more than twenty-five foreign governments. He wrote that the Atlantic Council was one of a number of think tanks that received substantial overseas funds and conducted activities that "typically align with the foreign governments’ agendas". and "In 2015 and 2016, the three largest donors, giving over $1 million USD each, were US millionaire Adrienne Arsht (executive vice chair), Lebanese billionaire Bahaa Hariri (estranged brother of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri), and the United Arab Emirates. The Ukrainian oligarch-run Burisma Holdings donated $100,000 per year for three years to the Atlantic Council starting in 2016. The full list of financial sponsors includes many military, financial, and corporate concerns."

The header image of the article is credited to "DMYTRO ‘OREST’ KOZATSKYI" who is a proud neo-nazi member of Azov (https://web.archive.org/web/20220517141112/https://twitter.com/Kozatsky_D/status/1160076695761764352?s=20&t=3UeEUN3rV7vifulzPwZdeg, https://web.archive.org/web/20220517142811/https://twitter.com/Kozatsky_D/status/1045425058368376832)

Digging further into this article, it comes off as entirely unsourced anecdotes about his... Odinist (https://www.adl.org/resources/glossary-terms/odinism-asatru) drinking buddies? If he's close friends with Azov members, he isn't exactly an impartial source to consult on this matter. H51bjCKERK (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

1. The source is the Tablet, not "Slate".

2. The source is the Tablet, not "Atlantic Council"

3. The Atlantic Council is indeed reliable, despite your own personal opinion.

4. Who the image of the article is credited to is completely irrelevant.

5. I have no idea what you think some twitter photo has to do with anything.

6. "Digging further into this article" is just your own personal expression of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The Tablet is a reliable source.

Please make policy based arguments rather then posting your own personal unsupported opinions. Volunteer Marek 03:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

"the source is not the article's author" is certainly a take. From your other recent comments, it's clear you aren't able to objectively engage with this topic. Wiki editors are not "arms of russian propaganda." H51bjCKERK (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, except I said nothing of the sort (on both counts). And I don’t think you really get to lecture anyone on “objectivity”, particularly when you seem to insist that any western sources except fringe ones aren’t “reliable”. Volunteer Marek 08:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Also please bother making more then ten edits before jumping into controversial topics. Volunteer Marek 03:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Please point out this rule on the wikipedia editing guidelines. H51bjCKERK (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a rule, but telling. Volunteer Marek 08:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Telling of what? Please complete your violation of wp:npa. H51bjCKERK (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Asov ended by capitulation, so it´s historically, isn´t it?

In the german version, one guy - last entry there wrote under AMGA 🇺🇦 (d)

"I am almost certain about the latter."

Any sources there might be a new Jesus aka the armed resurrection of the Asov-regiment?--2003:F2:870F:698:7CB7:2E78:49F2:7CE0 (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you are saying here, but if you are saying the Asov Battallion has ceased to exist because of the fall of Mariupol, Asov have other units elsewhere, this is just part of their force... so no, they are not past tense.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There was not full Azov Regiment and not only Azov Regiment on Azovstal. There was only part of Azov.--Anatoliy (Talk) 21:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

AZOV still listed as a Neo Nazi unit?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I came back here to see what changes had been made here to the description of Azov after them multiple RFCs and was suprised to see, after so much discussion, Azov is still listed as a Neo Nazi unit? Seriously? When did wikipedia become a propaganda arm of the Russian government? Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I am sure that Wikipedia is the propaganda arm of the Russian government which has repeatedly threatened to block access to it and ordered it to take down certain articles (including on English Wikipedia) because of those unfavourable articles... Mellk (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, when wikipedia matches up with what Russia Propaganda is saying... it certainly is. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, articles like 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine definitely match with the propaganda. Mellk (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Did I say anything about 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? I'm talking about this article, and the status of Azov as a "Nazi unit" in particular. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

You were making the assertion that Wikipedia became a propaganda arm simply because of RfC on one article. Anyway this is heading towards WP:NOTAFORUM territory. Mellk (talk) 06:21, 21 M", and such accusaitopnmsd really violate the sport oday 2022 (UTC)

I don't think general Wikipedia is literally a propaganda arm of the Russian government, but arguably, it appears to be pushing a pro Russian line in this article. And yes, I think considering WP:NOTAFORUM, may be we should just agree to dissagree. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Short answer is that while Wikipedia is not a propaganda arm of Russian government (lol) there are enough editors and accounts (some of them newly created accounts) who are willing to parrot the Russian propaganda line and willfully ignore all the recent sources - all which say that while Azov was started as a neo Nazi unit it ceased being one when it was denazified and incorporated into the national guard but it remained a convenient boogey man for Putin’s propaganda - that they’ve been able to hold the page hostage and stonewall the RfC and well, here we are still. Volunteer Marek 06:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, and its unfortunate. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Volunteer Marek. Did you see my fact-checking section in the RFC above? If you haven't seen it yet, what do you think about it? Mhorg (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

While personally I do not think that "neo-Nazi unit" should be stated in wikivoice, there are still plenty of recent RS that still call it neo-Nazi, far-right etc or still having links/elements. I do not think it would be fair to call those sources Russian propaganda agencies or whatever. Mellk (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

No we are not a "propaganda arm of the Russian government", and such statements really violate wp:npa (as you are also saying, in effect, editors are as well) and wp:soap. As to the rest, see the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Being critical about something in Ukraine makes Wikipedia Russian propaganda, really? Calling a Nazi group Nazis is not propaganda. A group that uses the sonnenrad and wolfsangel is hardly apolitical.. as for "moving past that" they did this not too long ago:[82]

Really, this obscurantist behavior many show towards the darker side of Ukraine is not helping Ukrainians, I don't understand.

By the way there's a middle ground between Russian propaganda and denying that there are Nazis in Ukraine... 24.44.73.34 (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

We have an RFC on this, when it is closed it may or may not change what we say. Whatever the closers decide, that is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Where's the hat button? Selfstudier (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 May 2022

Azov Battalion → Azov Regiment – Azov was upgraded from battalion to regiment in 2014. Anatoliy (Talk) 21:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. This seems to be more precise and natural than the current title, while being equally recognizable and concise. It also seems to be relatively consistent with how we refer to other regimental units of national guards, such as the 113th Field Artillery Regiment and the 102nd Cavalry Regiment. There doesn't appear to be a true single dominant name for how the entity is referred to in English based on search results, so an improvement on how the WP:AT criteria are met makes for an improved name. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Remember to always consider WP:COMMONNAME. The official name of the unit is "Special Operations Detachment "Azov"", but we barely see that in reliable sources. In the case of Azov "Regiment" however, I think it's difficult because Azov "Battalion" is a common name that is still used by the media and other reliable sources even post-upgration, but at the same time it has been an uptick on the use of Regiment since the 2022 invasion from Ukrainian sources and other journalists trying to be more accurate. I'll be neutral for now. LordLoko (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. There are stereotypes and informations. The stereotype is 'volunteer batillon Azov' and the information is 'regular regiment Azov'. Who controls the language (the steretypes) rules.Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Many sources (even recent "complimentary" ones such as Tablet) continue to refer to the battalion in a commonname sort of way, and then mention somewhere that it is now officially a regiment. Judging by many comments made up to now, the idea or belief seems to be that all things bad ended when the battalion became regiment but the sources show that things are not so clearcut, a simple renaming will not automatically rehabilitate Azov.Selfstudier (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  I do not mean that 'a simple renaming' will 'rehabilitate'. I mean that there exists a steretype of 'Battalion Azov' so there may be created a separate Nazi Battalion Azov, but this article is about the whole period.

  Becoming an army unit is not 'a simple renaming'.

  Connection or split between the regiment and the movement should be described. Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with LordLoko that battalion does seem to be the WP:COMMONNAME although sources now use both regiment and battalion almost interchangeably. There would need to be a strong case to make this change and demonstrate that regiment is now the common name - especially considering neither battalion nor regiment are the official name. It would also be great for this article to have at least a couple of weeks without some kind of tag at the top. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no need to change the name, it is currently still called "Azov Battalion" by many many sources.--Mhorg (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support  The former name is used by sources that fail to distinguish the 2014 volunteer battalion, the National Guard formation’s history 2014–2022, and political and paramilitary organizations of the Azov movement which are distinct from it. —Michael Z. 22:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support I was doubting as folks above, because WP:COMMONNAME, but I just googled both in "English Google", and it looks like "Azov Battalion" ~4.5M results, "Azov Regiment" ~6.1M results. So, probably "Regiment" to be considered the common name now. However, might be different counts in localized Google versions, if I just open google in incognito tab and don't switch to "English" version I get ~4.1M results for "Battalion" and ~2.7M for "Regiment", thus it might be a bit premature to rename. On the other hand we are editing English Wiki, so results from "English Google" should weight more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdofpreyru (talk • contribs) 23:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  Try NGRAM for books (a lot of recent journalism with a plain Gsearch) Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  Journalism (including journalism published over the past three years) is part of the corpus that we should be considering, especially for a group that's (by all measures) about eight years old and has been the subject of a lot of news reporting. NGRAMS is 3 years out of date at this point; given that its corpus hasn't been updated since 2019 and the start of the sharp jump in the use of the term "Azov Battalion" predates the group's origins by five years, the NGRAMS query that you've linked above isn't a credible counterexample to Birdofpreyru's argument. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support They are not a Battalion anymore. It is better to have the more accurate name.2600:1700:72EA:4400:4D61:2EA0:64EC:61AC (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Reliable sources and especially scholars seem to refer much more often to the "Azov battalion". Check out the Web of Science, Google Scholar and others. For example: "Azov battalion" returns 407 results on Google Scholar, while "Azov regiment" only returns 121. Even with filters to return all matches post 2021 "Azov battalion" seems to be used more than 3 times more often. This confirms @Selfstudier: findings regarding the statistics from the "Google's N-grams for Books" app. Mcrt007 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This is not a battalion, but a much bigger military regiment ("полк" in Russian language sources) - for a very long time already.My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support As it's a regiment, calling it such seems both more natural and precise. Besides, "Azov Regiment" is common enough. As per WP:NCGAL we should use official names in article titles "unless an agency is almost always known by an acronym or different title". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Please correct reference 28

Xx236 (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Done.Selfstudier (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine’s Azov Movement

It seems that the discussed quote describes the movement, not the regiment. The subject should be discussed before putting the text into the article. It does not belong certainly to the lead.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

There have been discussions as to the interplay between battalion and the movement and I would say that no firm conclusion has been reached possibly because people have been focusing their attention only on the neo nazi designation for the battalion, there is less dispute about the neo nazi nature of the movement. There have been discussions about splitting the movement out in its own article but those have not gained traction possibly for the same reason. What we know for a fact is that the movement was born out of the battalion, created by and as a result of the battalion. So it remains to be demonstrated that these entities are now separated, on the evidence I have seen up to now, I personally don't believe that case has been made.Selfstudier (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Azovstal 05.05.2022.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Cherry picking the WaPo source

This [83] keeps getting added to the lede, but the quote from the article is clearly cherry picked and does not reflect the tone of the article over all. Other quotes from the same article:

"“These are guys who simply love their country and Ukrainian people,” said Suliyma, 23, a former construction worker. “I never knew them to be Nazis or fascists, never heard them make calls for the Third Reich.”"

"Extremists do not appear to make up a large part of the foreigners who have arrived here to take up arms against Russia, analysts said."

"Colin P. Clarke, director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm. “And so it’s not even that they’re in favor of one ideology or another — they’re just aghast by what they’ve seen the Russians doing.” “That certainly wasn’t the same in 2014,” he added. “So while the far-right element is still a factor, I think it’s a much smaller part of the overall whole. It’s been diluted"

"Analysts also noted that Ukraine’s far-right movement is not just small in Ukraine, but also is dwarfed by far-right movements in other parts of Europe."

"The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014. Ever since it was incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard late that year, they “had to purge a lot of those extremist elements,” said Mollie Saltskog, a senior intelligence analyst at the Soufan Group. “There was much more control exerted over who is affiliated with the battalions.”"

" It is attracting volunteers of all political stripes, including from the far left as well as the far right. For even the more hardcore elements in the Azov regiments, ideology has taken a back seat for the moment, analysts said.“I honestly don't see them pushing a hard line right now,” says Colborne. “They want people who know how to fight, and that's going to include some people on the far right and some who don't come from far-right backgrounds.”"

And so on and so forth.

So basically, one sentence out of the article is being cherry picked out and presented out of context to push a particular POV, while rest of the article paints a very different picture. Volunteer Marek 19:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Are we, what does "Michael Colborne" say other than what he is quoted for? Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I think something got mistyped here. Anyway, why should we quote Colborne rather than Clarke or Saltskog or others in the article? Why should we include THAT particular Colborne quote rather than the other one above, the one which points out that there's also far-left elements in the battalion?

BTW, User:M.Bitton - can you please show that the Tablet quote is cherry picked? I showed above that the WaPo quote was so if you're going to try to do some tit-for-tat WP:POINT edit warring here you need to actually show that other parts of the Tablet article contradict that particular text (they don't) rather than just assert it. Words (including the phrase "cherry picked") have meaning. Volunteer Marek 21:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Is the tablet article covered in the article's body? What you are doing is adding a cherry picked opinion to the lead that (to push a specific POV) and removing what was added by Selfstudier for balance. You can't have it both ways. M.Bitton (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's the diff of Selfstudier's addition which was meant to balance the cherry picked opinion that you added to the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That part in the lede practically dominates all the different points of view reported in the body of the article. That's no good. Mhorg (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Tablet article provides a good overall summary of the developments regarding the battalion since 2014. As such it provides exactly the kind of summary that should go in the lede. This is not the case with the stuff you're trying to insert as a WP:POINT violation. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This bears repeating: the author of the tablet article is a member of atlantic council, state media with a slate of conflicts of interest in reporting.

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council#Connections_and_funding -

"In September 2014, Eric Lipton reported in The New York Times that since 2008, the US organization had received donations from more than twenty-five foreign governments. He wrote that the Atlantic Council was one of a number of think tanks that received substantial overseas funds and conducted activities that "typically align with the foreign governments’ agendas". and "In 2015 and 2016, the three largest donors, giving over $1 million USD each, were US millionaire Adrienne Arsht (executive vice chair), Lebanese billionaire Bahaa Hariri (estranged brother of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri), and the United Arab Emirates. The Ukrainian oligarch-run Burisma Holdings donated $100,000 per year for three years to the Atlantic Council starting in 2016. The full list of financial sponsors includes many military, financial, and corporate concerns." This clear conflict in interest is even without the fact that the author admitted to being a friendly drinking buddy to azov members.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source

Further, they quote Colin P. Clarke (https://www.rand.org/pubs/authors/c/clarke_colin_p.html), who is a member of the notorious RAND corporation (Dr. Strangelove ring a bell?). The role of WP is not to regurgitate whatever think tanks funded by western governments claim. I could find dozens of articles by RT news contributors calling azov unequivocally neo-nazi and they'd be completely invalid for the same reason; wp:soap exists for a reason. H51bjCKERK (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

"Atlantic council" is completely irrelevant here. Nobody cares except Russian propaganda. It's an RS. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

this is an assertion and your opinion. WP guidelines explicitly say "no propaganda" and by WP standards atlantic council is more than questionable. furthermore, atlantic council does not appear in the registry of WP reliable sources - you'd need to prove the ukrainian-oligarch-funded think tank/mouthpiece is reliable independently before making that claim. H51bjCKERK (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

As has been stated, Colborne's views were added only as balance for the Tablet addition and would not have been added otherwise. If the lead contains neither, that's fine, the whole point of the RFC is to try and resolve this issue, pushing only one side of the debate through the lead is not going to help. Selfstudier (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not "balance" though. The quote from Tablet accurately reflects the Tablet article. The Colborne quote does not accurately reflect the WaPo article. That's the difference. Volunteer Marek 00:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Which Colborne quotes attributed to him don't reflect what Colborne said? Most of it is straight out of his book. While I think of it, why should the views of the culture correspondent for a Jewish news magazine outweigh those of a recognized expert on Azov? I am not disputing the reliability, you understand, but I know who I am paying more attention to, it's a matter of weight. Selfstudier (talk) 01:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Sigh. Let me write this one more time and highlight the relevant part: "The Colborne quote does not accurately reflect the WaPo article." The whole point of the WaPo article, as illustrated with the quotes already provided above is the OPPOSITE of what this torn-out-of-context quote is trying to push. Volunteer Marek 01:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

When I added the material I plainly said I was adding Colborne, not WAPO whose views I did not include at all so I don't see how I could be misrepresenting them, the quotes are what Colborne said, attributed to him, WAPO's only part in the whole thing is as publisher of the material, I can probably get the same quotes from other places, as well as his book. If you want to cite the WAPO article for something, as fact, feel free (in the article body).Selfstudier (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

"(in the article body)" <-- same goes for Colborne quote. Why pick THAT particular piece of the WaPo article? Volunteer Marek 01:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It was a convenient summary of Colborne views, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 09:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I messed up my edit earlier, for which I apologise. I meant to move BOTH long quotes out of the lede and replace with a concise neutral phrase along the lines of "Experts disagree as to the extent to which these far right links remain relevant." footnoting both Colborne and the Tablet. I agree these long quotes are inappropriate in the lead, but probably appropriate in the "neo-Nazi" section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Volunteer Marek: Can you please respect the consensus and refrain from imposing your cheery picked opinion in the lead? M.Bitton (talk) 00:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The text I added accurately summarizes the source. The text you're trying to add as a disruptive WP:POINT edit grossly mischaracterizes the source. Please do not make falsely invoke WP:FALSECONSENSUS as a justification for your edit warring. Volunteer Marek 00:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

What part of the "cherry picked source is a problem" don't you understand? M.Bitton (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The part where you spuriously and falsely claim something is cherry picked without actually explaining why it's supposed to be cherry picked. While blatantly misrepresenting a source yourself. Clare? Volunteer Marek 01:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That you cherry picked an opinion is an undisputable fact. What's so special about that poxy opinion, other than it suits your POV, for it to deserve to be summarized and inserted in the lead section (violating NPOV in the process)? M.Bitton (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the POV tag on the article but probably for the opposite of the reason that it has been placed :) And yea, please stop trying to push Tablet into the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused why tablet - a third tier magazine with pretty miniscule readership - is being used to override the dozens of sources in the RFC. H51bjCKERK (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the lede with your opinion while a closed rfc is pending. H51bjCKERK (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please use your regular account WP:SPA. Volunteer Marek 01:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not a response to edit warring and vandalism. Please stop vandalizing the lede with your opinion while a closed rfc is pending. H51bjCKERK (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop referring to good faithed edits by other users as "vandalism". There's no RfC on this particular text. Volunteer Marek 01:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

attempting to shoehorn propaganda into an article's lede is unequivocally vandalism, especially when overriding dozens of sources from the rfc. if the pending rfc concludes azov is still a neo-nazi regiment (as sources indicate) this cherrypicked source will randomly attempt to contradict the rfc text a paragraph above. H51bjCKERK (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess we got to go through this. Second warning: do not refer to other editors' good faithed edits vandalism. Volunteer Marek 02:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It does not matter if the quote reflects the WP article, it is not being used to say "the WP said" it is being used as a quote for someone they quote. That seems to be perfectly reasonable. Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course it matters. Picking out one quote out of context out of a source which is making the opposite point of the one that someone is trying to convey via the use of the quote is textbook WP:CHERRYpickin’. Volunteer Marek 03:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

How is the quote out of context, what else does he say that would ahnce its context. Again we are not saitng anyone by him said this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Since Tablet has again been readded to lead (claiming to represent unspecified "analysts") I have readded Colborne for balance. Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

At this point this is pure WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from you. So one more time - the text based on Tablet accurately reflects the Tablet article. The Colborne quote however is cherry picked to MISREPRESENT the article and make it seem like it says the opposite of what it actually says. Examples already given above. This isn't "balance", it's just pure POV and misrepresentation of sources. Please stop. Volunteer Marek 15:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Please Volunteer Marek, your contribution in the lede flips all the material shown in the body of the article. Mhorg (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

No, no it doesn't. Not at all. In fact it summarizes good chunk of the "Neo-Nazism" section. Which is exactly what the lede is suppose to do. Volunteer Marek 16:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I've read the discussion perhaps too quickly and I might have missed something, because I don't understand how one could possibly "balance" Colborne's views with the Tablet piece. Colborne might be right or wrong, but he's an expert on the subject; the Tablet piece, on the other side, is clearly a case of WP:BIASED and its reliability must be assessed accordingly. Note that that piece is not "according to analysts", as I read here, but rather should be "according to one analyst", or better a journalist called Vladislav Davidzon. In the summary of my edit I quoted Davidzon's powerful closing, "it is certainly not too much to chant the glory of every Ukrainian hero who continues to resist Russian imperialism and barbarism." One may agree with the sentiments that inspire the piece, but must acknowledge that the author is clearly trying to make a political point - he is entirely explicit and honest in that regard. So having it in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. I also restored Colborne and made a bit of editing here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Gitz, there are additional sources in the "Neo-Nazism" section. Shekstov, Umlad, Etc. The tablet here is being used to summarize these arguments (cuz it's the lede). Volunteer Marek 16:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to summarize those arguments, then you should find a secondary source that summarizes them. You cannot (mis)quote a biased "fighting" editorial and claim that "analysts are speaking there" - they are not. Plus, after the extensive discussions you've had on this page I don't see how a single editor can come and hang up their POV to the lead (and do it again, and again) as nothing had happened before and this was not a collaborative project. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Codswallop. And repetitive at that. Any cherrypicking and POV pushing here is at your door, not mine. If you don't want Colborne in the lead, it's simple, stop pushing Tablet into the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Saying "Codswallop" is not a policy based argument. It's disruptive WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior. The second part of your comment is even more problematic: you're basically saying "I won't let you use your source unless you let me misrepresent my source". That's. Not. How. It. Works. And it pretty clearly illustrates who's doing the POV and pointy agenda editing here. Volunteer Marek 16:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

At least 4 editors have said that WAPO is not misrepresented because the edit is not representing WAPO, it's representing Colborne. WP:IDHT indeed. Apart from tilting the lead in the first place, you then misrepresent your own source by claiming that Tablet represents analysts. Now quit with the nonsense.Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

OK lets make this easy, can some post here his full quote? If we are misrepresenting or cherry-picking what he says demonstrate it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The quote is the quote. The point is that it does not represent the article as a whole. That's what makes it cherry picked. Here are other quotes from the article (some of which you JUST removed):

• "“These are guys who simply love their country and Ukrainian people,” said Suliyma, 23, a former construction worker. “I never knew them to be Nazis or fascists, never heard them make calls for the Third Reich.”"

• "Extremists do not appear to make up a large part of the foreigners who have arrived here to take up arms against Russia, analysts said."

• "Colin P. Clarke, director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm. “And so it’s not even that they’re in favor of one ideology or another — they’re just aghast by what they’ve seen the Russians doing.” “That certainly wasn’t the same in 2014,” he added. “So while the far-right element is still a factor, I think it’s a much smaller part of the overall whole. It’s been diluted"

• "Analysts also noted that Ukraine’s far-right movement is not just small in Ukraine, but also is dwarfed by far-right movements in other parts of Europe."

• "The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014. Ever since it was incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard late that year, they “had to purge a lot of those extremist elements,” said Mollie Saltskog, a senior intelligence analyst at the Soufan Group. “There was much more control exerted over who is affiliated with the battalions.”"

• " It is attracting volunteers of all political stripes, including from the far left as well as the far right. For even the more hardcore elements in the Azov regiments, ideology has taken a back seat for the moment, analysts said.“I honestly don't see them pushing a hard line right now,” says Colborne. “They want people who know how to fight, and that's going to include some people on the far right and some who don't come from far-right backgrounds.”"

Basically what Selfstudier is doing here is picking out the ONE quote from the source which makes Azov look bad and is purposefully ignoring the half dozen + quotes which say something completely different. That's textbook cherry picking. And this is ON TOP of removing other reliable sources from the lede.

You want the Colborne quote in the lede? Why that one? Why not Clarke? Why not Saltskog? Why not these other analysts? They're all in the same exact source that is being edit warred into the lede! Volunteer Marek 17:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• And we do not claim it does, we quote one person, and we do not attribute it to the WP. Now as far as I can see this is not something we should be doing in the lede (I agree, see below). But I do not agree with your chaterisati0on of it as cheery picking. We use the WP< we do not attribute the claim to them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Colborne is only in the lead (he was always in the body anyway) because of Tablet and an attempt to present that in the lead as if it were the only story in town. Well, Tablet isn't the only story in town and it certainly doesn't represent "analysts". If you want to cite WAPO for something else besides Colborne, go ahead, no-one is preventing that, I cited WAPO for what Colborne said, end of.Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• Going over each of these: The first quote is by a non-expert and is obviously accorded less weight. The quote that begins with The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014... is cautiously-worded and doesn't really support what you're saying. But more importantly, most of the other quotes are mostly or completely unrelated to the nature of Azov Battalion, talking either about volunteers in general or about the far-right in general.--Aquillion (talk) 05:04, 27 May 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[84][85] 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:[86] "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.[87]
9. (August 2021) On the official website of the "National Corps" there is constant mention of Azov soldiers.
10. [88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95]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)

POV tag

A tag requires a current discussion in talk, where is it? And what would be in this discussion that has not been discussed already as part of the RFC? The tag has been applied to the entire article, which parts of the article are allegedly not NPOV? Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

See the section right above. And the section right above that one. Volunteer Marek 03:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be removed as editors are already working on this page, aware of issues concerning neutrality and are discussing these issues on the talk page. The template usage notes say "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." Yet this was a rationale given when adding it: [96]. Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope, not how it works. Fix the neutrality issue, stop removing well sourced info, stop playing WP:POINTy games, then it goes. (This refers to the editors who are currently doing this). Volunteer Marek 03:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

<snip>(off topic blocked troll comment removed)

Woah! This is hilarious! A week-old account H51bjCKERK goes into a personal attack on ~12 years old account Volunteer Marek, showing a surprising knowledge of some non-widely-known around-wiki history? Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring over a tag is a bit dismal. It's a double edged sword, I could make a null edit supporting the tag for the opposite reasons or I could join in and revert it. Anyway, the point is there is supposed to be a discussion, the (original) tagger needs to specify the reasons for the tag and then editors sort through, applying remedies if/as needed, aiming for a removal of the tag. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, actually that tag seems to be used as a "badge of shame"... Mhorg (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not ashamed:) We can wait a while, if there is no current discussion in talk after that, then that is a sufficient reason to remove the tag. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Tag is there because the article does not satisfy NPOV. That’s it. Volunteer Marek 03:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No it's being used to reflect the reality that it is a heavily disputed article. TylerBurden (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What opposite reasons? There are several editors actively working on the article that think it has neutrality issues, no matter what "reasons", be it that it is being whitewashed to remove Nazi claims or that it is being edited for Azov to be presented purely as an objectively "Nazi Battalion". The whole climate here is a mess, and the article is too. I don't see how you could disagree with the tag with the article and climate around it in the current state. That's something that is being constantly discussed, and until those discussions are finished and a consensus is reached, the tag belongs to reflect the reality of it instead of pretending everything here is fine and dandy. TylerBurden (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's very simple, a tag requires a discussion with a view to remedy problems identified, I don't see how that is controversial. Per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Instead, I see no specific discussion, just hand waving assertions, Tag is there because the article does not satisfy NPOV. That’s it.. It is of interest that the POV tag was added only very late in the proceedings such that it appears as nothing more than a pointy addition, just read the edit summary for the addition of the tag, yeah this is ridiculous. Sourced constructive changes get reverted while other editors try to make WP:POINTy edits The same with the neo nazi tag, also added late and again apparently only to make a point, since an RFC has already been set in motion to deal with that particular issue. Selfstudier (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The neo-nazi inline tag served a practical purpose by linking directly to the RfC, allowing interested readers to see the RfC process and (prior to closure) participate in it, even if it was added late in the day. Given that the POV tag doesn't link to any clear, actionable discussion (this discussion is about the tag, not the POV issues), the template guidance says it can be removed by at any time. Jr8825 • Talk 09:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yea, judging by the edit summary it was probably added in frustration. But it still holds true nonetheless, and the RFC is still taking ages even though it has been closed. You should also note that the essay you are quoting is not policy, "this page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" so every word on it doesn't need to be treated as gospel. I think for now the tag is appropriate, hopefully the RFC will improve the consensus and at that point there would be no need for it, but in the current state I'd say we're at these "last resorts" depths unfortunately. Of course that doesn't mean that issues shouldn't be specifically pointed out and discussed though. TylerBurden (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: So at first you say that you support the tag, but for the "opposite reasons", then you raise it here, says we can wait a while, and then you suddenly remove it citing the talk page and an explanatory essay that isn't even a policy or guideline. Do you think that the neutrality of the article is not disputed? TylerBurden (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

judging by the edit summary it was probably added in frustration. But it still holds true nonetheless that's...not how that works at all. Tags should only exist on pages if they are actively being discussed and fixed. Not just to display our frustration with the way a page is. A tag can be removed at any point if consensus supports it. I would support removing it, especially after the RFC is resolved, as it is very evidently a drive-by tag without clear and (most importantly) actionable justification. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is actively being discussed and fixed. So what's your point? TylerBurden (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

To add as well, it seems like you guys are using the person it was added by and their edit summary as an excuse to label it as simply a "drive-by tag" and advocate for its removal, ignoring that it has been added by two other seperate editors. One of which has a thread at the bottom currently attempting to address the issues but no one is engaging with them. TylerBurden (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Afaics, the consensus is to remove the tag. Your edit summary, Maybe finish the discussion on the talk page before removing it., I know of no non NPOV issues except the neo nazi label, which is already tagged and subject of an RFC. So what discussion? The tagging editor declined to engage, you as the new tag editor are now required to engage. Kindly specify which parts of the article are not NPOV along with your suggestions for fixing those parts. And please stop wikilawyering about not being a policy or a guideline, it describes a process for dealing with tags, why would anyone not follow it? Selfstudier (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

As for So at first you say that you support the tag, but for the "opposite reasons" kindly show me where I said that. And just who is "you guys"? Selfstudier (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

There are 3 editors who added or readded the tag, the latest reversion being yours and the second time you have done so, edit warring (about a tag). 4 editors have either removed the tag or support it's removal so you are as well edit warring against consensus. I would remind you that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions. I suggest a self revert is in order here.Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

So when you are attempting to cite an explanatory essay as an excuse to remove the template that is all good, but when I point out that it is not policy and shouldn't be treated as gospel that is "wikilawyering". Huh. "You guys" as in the people who are removing the tag, or advocating for its removal. Consensus is not a democracy vote remember? So I am not sure why you are trying to use a number here as an additional excuse for the removal of the appropriate tag. "I agree with the POV tag on the article but probably for the opposite of the reason that it has been placed :) And yea, please stop trying to push Tablet into the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)". That's a direct quote from you above, it is only now that you have decided to be against it suddenly, for whatever reason. Edit warring? Really? I suppose report me to WP:AN/3 then for making two reverts on the article over the span of three days. You know of no NPOV issues you say while on the same day making edits to counter POV edits, it's a constant issue and I believe you know that as well as I. You didn't answer my question, is the neutrality of the article not disputed? The RFC is a joke, it has been closed for a week with its closer saying it would be done within a couple of days. Until that RFC is fully completed, the tag more than fits, hell, it will probably still fit afterwards also regardless of which option because of the endless POV pushing on the article. TylerBurden (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the specific WP:NPOV issue you are wishing to raise through this tag? You need to point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies per Template:POV. According to your edit summaries the reasons you have added this are: Maybe finish the discussion on the talk page before removing it. and In the current state it is, why shouldn't readers of it be aware of that? The latter of these reasons contravenes the NPOV template guidelines and the former requires you to actually explain the specific issue you wish to resolve. If you do not make clear what the neutrality issue is then according to the template's guidelines it can be removed. The issue of neo-Nazi usage in the lede is already the subject of a soon to be closed RfC and is flagged with an inline tag. Again, what specifically does your NPOV tag refer to? Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why it is so difficult to use WP:COMMONSENSE to see why the tag is appropriate for the article. I am being accused of wikilawyering but it is you who oppose the tag who are ignoring the point and instead obsessing over minute template and essay details, some of which are not even policy. The issue you mentioned is obviously the main one, and I strongly feel that the tag is appropriate until the RFC is fully done, no not just closed with some vague "Doing... during the next couple of days" that seems to be turning into a couple of weeks. But fully done and dusted. I don't see the mention where it has to specifically be the editor that adds the tag, or does so most recently that has to be the one pointing out specific examples either. Like Marek said, look at the discussions above and tell me that there are not neutrality disputes being discussed. TylerBurden (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That's my bad it does say that in the template notes, I feel I have outlined my reasons for why I feel the tag is appropriate. Like I said, the lead situation is not solved. That's my reasoning. TylerBurden (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Know how it could be easily solved? Team "neo-Nazi" admit that the Wikivoice neo-Nazi lead is a complete breach of WP:5P2, which is not just policy, but a pillar of Wikipedia and the lead is altered to better reflect the variety of reliable sources. But obviously this is Wikipedia, so endless bureaucracy and useless RFC's are apparently of preference. TylerBurden (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That is the subject of an RFC above; we can wait for a closure, but unless it has a no-consensus outcome, the dispute will no longer be an appropriate reason to put a POV tag on the article after that - per WP:WTRMT, a consensus on talk page leads to related maintenance tags being removed; you can't retain it indefinitely just because you disagree with that consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not advocating for the tag to remain forever, I'm saying that it is appropriate right now. I have already mentioned the RFC, so I am not even going to repeat myself anymore at this point. TylerBurden (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It is WP:POINTY in the extreme to add a POV tag for an issue that already has an inline tag and for which the RfC is already in the process of being closed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, in my opinion the RFC is slow to the extreme. TylerBurden (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this will make more sense to you: As long as the current RFC is used as an excuse to maintain the NPOV violation, it is hypocritical to say that the tag is not valid. You can't use the RFC as an excuse both to keep the Wikivoice neo-Nazi label and to not add disputed neutrality tags. It's ridiculous. TylerBurden (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems then that you have a problem with Wikipedia's procedures and policies for dispute resolution. I don't think anyone here can help with that. Maybe try the Village Pump? Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say that a group of editors grouping together to form "consensus" in order to violate one of the pillars of the website they are editing on is somewhat of a sign of a broken system yea, but that is not exactly for this thread. So wouldn't it be better to address my points than to attempt to redirect me elsewhere? I guess not, because all this Wikipedia bureaucracy keeps the article looking the way you want it to. TylerBurden (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What the the (active) NPOV issues then? Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Read this whole thread when you have time and you will find out, even the people in it have acknowledged it. TylerBurden (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What I see is a lot of talk about how consensus has not been achieved or is being abused. What I am not seeing is an active discussion about how exactly this article does not reflect a NPOV. Yes (by the way) the tag is used for active discussion, not the fact you disagree with a closed one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Past a certain point I think WP:SATISFY applies; if there's a clear consensus, the fact that some people disagree with it doesn't allow them to keep a POV tag on an article indefinitely. Articles on controversial subjects are always going to have people who disagree with them; what matters is whether there's a consensus for the current version. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Which there is not. TylerBurden (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes there is, you may not like it, but that does not German its not there. Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am not sure what German you are talking about. TylerBurden (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's an obvious autocorrect mistake. They most likely wrote "mean". M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that is what I meant. There was a clear consensus for everything here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yea no kidding, it was a ridiculous response to a ridiculous claim. There is an ongoing RFC, after that we will see what the consensus is. TylerBurden (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  What ongoing RFC? I see a closed one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's in the process of being closed no? So it's still not done yet. Anyway, I removed the tag. My opinion has not changed on it fitting, but I am evidently not able to convince other people that it does and a tag is no hill to die on. TylerBurden (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Its not active, so there is no discussion, the tag is supposed to have a discussion about what the NPOV issue are, as had been pointed out it is not a badge of shame. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No there's still POV problems as discussion above shows and at *very least* tag should stay until the closure of the RfC is actually done. Volunteer Marek 22:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And removing the "disputed" inline tag from the designation is nothing short of disruptive since there's a whole freakin' RfC exactly about that issue and it hasn't been closed and just eye-balling consensus suggests that the current wording is POV. Volunteer Marek 22:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

In particular this edit summary is simply false since no decision has actually been made in the RfC and there's been absolutely no effort to "address" anything. Please refrain from making false claims in edit summary Gitz. Volunteer Marek 22:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And let me be 100% clear on what the POV issue is - the info based on all the recent sources which say that the battalion of 2022 is a different animal than the one of 2014 are being consistently edited war out of the lede per some kind of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Certain editors insist that only the image of the battalion from 2014 - which is the image that is actively pushed by Russian propaganda - is allowed to be mentioned in the lede. This despite the fact that the article itself does in fact cover the changes that have taken place since 2014 (though there's some obnoxious attempts at removing that info as well). This is all stuff based on reliable sources.

Additionally information on usage of the "neo-Nazi" designation by Russian propaganda is missing from both the lede and the article itself (where it doesn't get enough coverage). And of course you get the cherry picked quotes from sources which actually say the opposite of what's being claimed, as already explained in detail.

NONE of this has been addressed. If anything, certain editors have made efforts to make the article even more skewed, taking advantage of the fact that someone somewhere reverted constructive changes or by engaging in WP:POINT behavior ("I won't let you use a reliable source unless you let me misrepresent this source too! For, uh, "balance"") Volunteer Marek 22:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

So you disapprove of the current consensus as well as some of the editors responsible for it and believe that tagging will result in things being more to your liking, that about the size of it? Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Stop making claims of false consensus. Volunteer Marek 09:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Russian propagandists from Time (magazine).[97] Right? Mhorg (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Its clear there are *Multiple* discussions going on here, on this talk page, that relate to the POV issue for this article.I don't see that tag going anywhere until they are resolved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's strip out the WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors, the hyperbole and the irrelevant from the above rant and see what is actually left as justification for edit warring a tag:

(a) WP:RECENT sources that say that 2022 battalion is not the 2014 battalion are not sufficiently reflected in the lead of the article even though they are in the article body.

(b) Insufficient coverage of Russian propaganda in the lead and to a lesser extent in the body of the article.

Afaics, these are the only two substantive points raised, all the rest is aspersions about editors motives and such. As for the "multiple discussions", where are they and what point is being made in them that would justify the tag? Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you refrained from calling other editors' good faithed, on topic, statements, as "rants" as that is a personal attack. Volunteer Marek 09:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that POV tag is very much justified here. Basically, we define Azov as a "Neo-Nazi" military unit in the first phrase of the lead in WP voice. This is regardless to the history of the unit, i.e. we say it is currently a Neo-Nazi unit as a matter of fact. I think this is an outright violation of our WP:NPOV policy. Even worse, such claim, as an absolute indisputable "truth" (that is what first phrase of the lead implies) is a key thesis from the misleading Putinist propaganda used to justify the military aggression and genocide of Ukrainian people. This absolutely must be corrected. The appearance of the claim in 3rd paragraph of the lead (i.e. as "The battalion drew controversy over allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as association with neo-Nazi ideology and symbolism") is more than sufficient.My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  The tag pro/con is just another version of the RFC. The RFC will decide though, not the tags. Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• I agree the tag should stay for now. Regardless of my personal stance on the issue, there is active discussion on whether we are overemphasizing certain views and under-weighting others. For the record, I continue to feel there's an obvious WP:VOICE case against the status quo language: that Azov is neo-Nazi is plainly a "seriously contested assertion". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:REDFLAG the *proper* way to have done the whole thing was to have removed the designation DURING the RfC, since WP:ONUS applies. But at the insistence of some editors who bullied their way through by edit warring, this was done ass-backwards. But better late than never I guess. Volunteer Marek 09:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Its long stading content, so ONUS would be on those wanting to remove. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ultimately it is a consensus issue, that's what the RFC is about. Anyone can claim that there is no consensus but such claims have no foundation. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Volunteer Marek my edit summary was very much justified. The issue has been thoroughly discussed, the RFC is closed and there's no point in linking to a close discussion. The reason why we have those tags is fostering discussion, not undermining the article. You claim Certain editors insist that only the image of the battalion from 2014 ... is allowed to be mentioned in the lede ... Additionally information on usage of the "neo-Nazi" designation by Russian propaganda is missing from both the lede and the article ... NONE of this has been addressed. You're wrong. This edit of mine was not reverted and everything is still there in the lead: Other experts argue that the regiment has evolved beyond its origins as street militia tempering its neo-Nazi underpinnings as it became part of the National Guard. Since 2014, criticism of the Azov battalion is a recurring theme of Russian propaganda. We should just add a couple of references (no citation cluster please) so as to provide the best, most recent and authoritative sources on the point. Once we've done that, the only contentious issue still remaining is the "neo-Nazism" allegation. On this we're waiting for the outcome of the RFC and there's no need of further discussion among editors. So I insist we should remove the tags. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The POV tag belongs to an article if there's POV issue in it. That's it. Whether or not an RfC has been closed is irrelevant, especially if "closed" here only means that it was put in a little box with no decision made. This is acerbated by the fact that per WP:REDFLAG and WP:ONUS the policy compliant way to proceed is to REMOVE the controversial designation UNTIL a decision is made, not vice versa. We have WP:TENDENTIOUS edit warring by some to thank for the fact that from the beginning this was done ass-backwards and in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek 23:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

'based in Mariupol' ?

Perhaps 'formerly based'? Is this article about history or about perhaps few soldiers hiding in Azovstal?Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to originally, OK? Selfstudier (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

control of the country by far right forces such as Azov

The statement in the lead is based on two references in the text. Both references use 'false' in their titles. Wouldn't the word useful here?Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It says "alleged", it's enough? Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

A fresh article about Azov

I just came across a fresh (May 25, 2022) article about Azov by Cathy Young (Russian-born American journalist from a Jewish family, liberitarian/conservative) in The Bulwark (center-right news and opion website), "Heroes of Mariupol or Neo-Nazi Menace? - The messy history of Ukraine’s Azov Regiment." IMHO, a nice overview of the regiment history / controvercies. It does not seem to contain anything that is not in the wiki article already, but IMHO may be used to support some of the points in the Wiki article (I am lazy to do it, but probably some fellow editors are?). Regarding the main pain point: the author comes to the conclusion It’s ludicrous to refer to the regiment as “openly neo-Nazi”—words really should mean something!—and it is equally absurd to claim that no one in the mainstream media ever questioned Azov’s Nazism.. Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that (you forgot to sign). I don't know Bulwark, it seems a new (2018) opinion online news mag of some sort and there is no evidence that Cathy Young is an expert in the subject so I think it is not really usable for this article. Selfstudier (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Though, a reputed journalist she seems to be (59yo, deserved a bio-article in Wiki), and also Jewish-liberitarian background, not a sort of person interested to whitewash anything Nazi / easily doubt a prominent PoV that somebody is Nazi, I guess? So, I'd say her article counts as a good tertiary source. Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure she believes what she says, I wasn't doubting her in that sense. However, as you said It does not seem to contain anything that is not in the wiki article already, it seems likely that anything she has said is likely to be found in better sources. Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

she's not an expert, but her content is fine for political commentary as Wikipedia:PARTISAN . she works for Cato Institute, which is very influential, so going to be mainstream american right wing in terms of bias.

here is another related article;

https://www.cato.org/commentary/digging-russias-latest-charge-ukrainian-nazis

actually she's written a number of relevant pieces semi-recently Cononsense (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Cathy Young is most certainly a reliable source. Volunteer Marek 15:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

Please change the title of the article from "Azov Battalion" to "Azov Regiment (National Guard of Ukraine)". The term "Azov Battalion" is obsolete, wrong, and is highly utilized by the russian disinfo machine against Ukrainians and Ukraine. The Russian disinformation describes them as radicals which is a lie, they are part of the National Guard of Ukraine and abide by law. Please remove the false accusation of them being neo-Nazis, it's Russian disinformation, there is an official statement from them. https://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2022/03/28/7335237/

Here is what Ukrainian historian Oleksandr Alfyorov tells about them ("True history of Azov Regiment from Ukrainian historian"). The video is subtitled: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS729WuuofU

Here is a material hosted by BBC's Ros Atkins ("9 mins on the untruths and distortions that Russia is spreading about 'Nazis' in Ukraine - including about the role of the Azov regiment of Ukraine’s National Guard. Produced by Mary Fuller, Michael Cox, Priyanka Deladia"): https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1506988213637890048 Daniel Poirot (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

There is an RM up the page for the namechange, comment there for that.

Ukrainian pravda is not reliable for that material, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 369#Ukrainian Pravda (Ukrayinska_Pravda.

It is not clear that "Oleksandr Alfyorov" is an expert nor is it clear what edit you wish to be made based on a youtube video that appears to be used as click bait to advertise an activist petition.

Ros Atkins is not an expert and twitter is not a reliable source and what edit you want is not specified either.

Not done. Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Alfyorov is a academic historian, but he was (is?) Azov's spokeperson.Xx236 (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

However

The lede is too long, and much of the contested (indeed all of the material) might be better moved to the body. We only need to have one or two lines on this. Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the overlong quoting, we only need to know X has been said, and disputed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The removal made the mention of "symbolism" meaningless. Shouldn't it be "controversial Nazi symbolism"? these links have been disputed could also do with being a bit clearer. M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure that is not a tautology, all nazi symbolism is controverchal by its very nature. Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but you removed the word "Nazi". M.Bitton (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It says Nazi ideology and symbolism. I am unsure where the confusion lies (what it the com,ma I have now removed?). Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I missed the "Nazi ideology" while looking at the diff. M.Bitton (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Do it myself sometimes, huge walls of cites can make it hard to follow the flow. Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Hopefully, the recent removal will put an end to the disruption. M.Bitton (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I am against the removal of the Wolfsangel symbol. 50% of the sources talk about that symbol, it makes no sense to remove it from the lede. Mhorg (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

WE still mention neo-nazi symbols, we do not need to name them. We can leave that to the body, where also three can be a nuanced discussion about interpretation. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

IMHO recent edits were an improvement but there's a couple of points I don't understand/agree with. 1) "Most of the unit members are Russian speakers and come from the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine" - is that so relevant? I don't see the point being expounded in the rest of the article, so perhaps as per MOS:LEAD we should drop it. 2) "These controversies have led to a focus on the unit in Russian propaganda, at the same time these allegations are disputed by some sources" sounds a bit convoluted to me. The old formulation was more informative and notable: "These links have also led to a focus on the unit in Russian propaganda: one of the reasons given by president of Russia Vladimir Putin for the 2022 invasion was the 'denazification' of Ukraine, to remove the alleged control of the country by far right forces such as Azov". I don't think we should drop that significant piece of information and in any case I wouldn't replace it with "controversies have led to propaganda and controversies are controverted/disputed" which doesn't make much sense. 3) I agree with Mhorg that the info on the symbol is significant, because the symbol "catches the eye" and requires explanation, but if there are different views I don't insist; 4) tags "disputed" "discuss" need to go. They all link to discussions that have already been closed: apparently the topic has been discussed quite extensively here. As per WP:WTRMT I'm now removing them. --Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

(1) I don't mind an alternative formulation, but I believe we should keep in the lead these two points: the regiment is largerly Russian-speaking, it has a significant amount of foreign combatants. I believe most sources agree on these, and it is an important insight into the nature of the regiment, also balances out the neo-Nazi controversities, and far-right Ukrainian nationalism of the regiment (in contrast to if the regiment would only speak Ukrainian language and shoot on spot any Russian speaker).

(2) I moved the one of the reasons given by president of Russia Vladimir Putin for the 2022 invasion was the 'denazification' of Ukraine, to remove the alleged control of the country by far right forces such as Azov piece to the next paragraph, as it is more related to the ongoing war, and it makes no sense to repeat it twice in the lead. However, I kept a mention of Russian propaganda in the "controvesies" paragraph, as the it was the aim of propaganda since very 2014. I don't mind a different formulation instead of These controversies have led to a focus on the unit in Russian propaganda, at the same time these allegations are disputed by some sources, but I'd like to keep these points in the pagraph: that Russia actively targets the regiment and amplifies these controversies in their propaganda since 2014; that there is a significant amount of sources / experts / journalists questioning these allegations.

(3) I am against naming Wolfsangel, and especially direct references to SS and WWII in the lead, just because it kind of misleads a reader into believing that symbols were adopted directly from them. While in reality they adopted it from previous organizations in Ukraine which used them for 30 years already. So, most Ukrainians nowadays sure think of those organizations first, and not about SS / WWII when they see them. As it is not possible to summaries it shortly without loosing nuances, it is better keep just "neo-Nazi symbols" in the lead, and refer to the body of the article to the detailed explanation of all symbols, and nuances in the context of Ukraine. Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

thank you. I understand and agree with number 3. Anyway the point on the symbol is clearly explained in section "Neo-Nazism".

I also agree with number 1 but perhaps as per MOS:LEAD, if we want this in the lead then we should also add something to the body of the article: we must explain why and how language and national composition are relevant. Note that the multinational composition of the regiment (presence of foreign combatants) doesn't necessarily balance out neo-Nazi controversies as neo-Nazism today is to a large extent a transnational movement. So perhaps to adequately explain the point about multinational composition we should use RS and don't jump too quickly to conclusions.

With regard to 2, I think we should look for a better formulation. I agree there's no reason for repeating the point twice in the lead. What about the following one? Some experts are also critical of the regiment role in the larger, umbrella-like "Azov Movement", and its possible far-right political ambitions despite the claims of the regiment's depolitization. Other experts argue that the regiment has evolved beyond its origins as street militia tempering its neo-Nazi underpinnings as it became part of the National Guard. Since 2014, criticism of the Azov battalion is a recurring theme of Russian politics ("politics is better then propaganda - no need of overloading the lead of value judgments, as this is clearly a very sensitive topic). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Re.1:

- if we want this in the lead then we should also add something to the body of the article: we must explain why and how language and national composition are relevant. - true. I am a bit surprised now, that the Russian-speaking point is not already present anywhere else in the article. I was sure it was, as in sources it is pretty common to see the mention that the unit is de facto Russian-speaking.

- Note that the multinational composition of the regiment (presence of foreign combatants) doesn't necessarily balance out neo-Nazi controversies as neo-Nazism today is to a large extent a transnational movement - true. I meant that about the "Russian-speaking point". Regarding the multinational composition, I just think it is worth to mention, if we already mention the Russian-speaking point, so we kind of cover entire composition of the unit. I remember seeing in some sources claims that at some point it became the most international unit in Ukrainian army, so many further foreign volunteers were sent there just because of that.

Re. 2: Your version works for me. Birdofpreyru (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Re foreign fighters, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/24/american-fighters-ukraine-white-supremacists-00034860 Politico cites a Customs and Border Protection report of March 7, 2022 "“Ukrainian nationalist groups including the Azo[v] Movement are actively recruiting racially or ethnically motivated violent extremist-white supremacists (RMVE-WS) to join various neo-Nazi volunteer battalions in the war against Russia,”. Selfstudier (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

For evidence that Biletsky remains relevant and in the same context, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/ Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Staying with the recruitment theme, https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-business-europe-race-and-ethnicity-racial-injustice-0b332e01abf61890d5d5458dc9bf2c8b "Recruiting chats on the encrypted Telegram messaging app are run by the Azov Regiment, popular with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, and American neo-Nazis work to recruit for Azov, the respected SITE Intelligence Group says." Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Half of the Washington post article you mentioned give opinions that nowadays their recruites mostly are not nazi extremists, and the political views of newcomers are irrelevant for them compared to the desire and ability to fight against Russian invasion ;) Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I gave WAPO (it's cited multiple times in the article) for evidence about Biletsky continued involvement. The point is not how many extremists there are, it is that they continue to recruit them. Selfstudier (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Though, if we speak about the lead, I guess it is not a matter of more evidences, it is just that a point like "and Biletsky still is involved" kind of does not belong there (say a newcomer reading the lead, would he even know who Biletsky is, and why is he so relevant, without going and reading the article on Biletsky? I mean... he is already mentioned as the founder, so no need to be obsessed with him in the lead beyond that). I'd say the current lead version, in its 3rd paragraph, covers it, mentioning that the role of regiment in "Azov Movement", and its possible political agenda is considered controversial by some experts. It also mentions the controversies re. neo-Nazi idelogy and symbolism. So, it is not hidden from the lead, and who wants to know more will find more regarding Biletsky, and possible world-wide recruitment of far-right extremists in the dedicated sections of the article.

Also, I'd say somebody should remove most of the references after neo-Nazi ideology and symbolism in the lead. Right now there are 10 references - too much for any point the lead. IMHO, it is enough to leave 1 or 2, and keep the rest in the dedicated section of the article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't actually discussing the lead or putting any of this material into it, I was discussing (and providing reliable independent sourcing for) the continued recruitment of neo-Nazis by Azov. Biletsky appears to be involved with that and is thus relevant, as well as for his continued involvement with the regiment.Selfstudier (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the NPOV flag- hardliners seem to rule here

Yesterday I started editing this page for the first time, because I found it quite disorganized, poorly written and full of duplications. The first edit in which I suggested a semantic change, however, (renaming a section heading given the existing sourced content of the section) was IMMEDIATELY reverted. The editor did not think he needed to discuss a different wording of how to better rename the section based on the content, something I would have agreed to! That would have been the civil thing to do, at the very least.

I did not re-revert Mhorg , but drafted a talk page response and continued to make constructive gnomish copy-edits for hours. When I saw how entrenched discussions were raging about the smallest changes here, I deleted my talk page draft, thinking what the heck. Finally, I had added only one brief, well sourced sentence from the Wash Post that the AZOV regiment has changed over the years, to add balance and found now, once again, it was immediately altered by same editor to dilute my addition, and to "push the neonazi theme". Later this was altogether removed by Selfstudier with the reasoning the info was already contained in the article. Wow! 2014 is not 2022 and this can and should well be pointed out in several sections. This page has so many useless, small details, is bulging with unorganized and duplicate and mostly dated information (which I tried to point out by adding dates and organize) and has obvious gaps ( 2020-2021!) and when I added one small sentence that the AZOV regiment has changed over the years it is deleted? This is not just unreasonable but after one day of observing this kind of behavior, I find this is POV-pushing. Look at the section leadership, which states 3 times that the regiment's first commander was Andriy Biletsky. Why did Selfstudier not clean up duplications there? --Deletion and reversal without discussion drives solid and unbiased editors away.

I totally agree with the WP:NPOV flag, based on my experience that hardliners who arrogantly revert, who dont appear to look at the record of editors new to the site, seem to rule here.

I have not always seen eye to eye with Volunteer Marek but here I couldnt agree more with him writing: "The info based on all the recent sources which say that the battalion of 2022 is a different animal than the one of 2014 are being consistently edit-warred out of the lede (but elsewhere too as my experience proves)." Right on.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion re the flag above, along with a putative list of things that might justify this tag, said list appears to include your issue, but feel free to join in there if I have that wrong.Selfstudier (talk) 09:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

"connection with antisemitism" is the topic, "no connection with antisemitism" is an assessment (possibly controversial). If you're looking for a NPOV formulation why not "Allegations of antisemitism"? As the topic is highly sensitive and controversial all editors should do an effort to embrace neutrality themselves and de-escalate editorial conflicts. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC) @Wuerzele: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Antisemitism? Where was that raised, I must have missed that? Selfstudier (talk) 09:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

In the first diff provided by Wuerzele, they renamed the antisemitism section. Connection with antisemitism seems pretty neutral to me since it doesn't make a statement in either direction so I don't really think it needs renaming. TylerBurden (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I didn't see that as the main point being raised by Wuerzele. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

here above by Wuerzele referring to Mhorg undoing their edit to the heading "connection to antisemitism". Achieving a consensus on the heading shouldn't be too difficult. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Where are we discussing this issue? Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Re lead and NPOV I suggest we get rid of that ugly "citation overkill" by selecting the best references (ie. most recent and authoritative ones) and add a few equally well-selected references to the next sentence starting with "Other experts argue that the regiment has evolved..." Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The citer overkill was just laziness on my part, in truth we do not need any cites in the lede, they should be moved to the body. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

In principle I would agree that the better articles (GA, FA) can stand without citation in the lead, not really sure that I would class this one in that category, with people constantly editing/tagging the lead. A couple refs for each POV in the lead seems enough. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Gitz that "connection with antisemitism" is the topic and it is more neutral in this case. —Arthurfragoso (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps Alleged connections with antisemitism? Jr8825 • Talk 15:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we're all waiting for that RfC decision (which was supposed to be in a "couple days"... 9 days ago) but if it's gonna take this long I'm going to get WP:BOLD here and make the appropriate changes myself. Volunteer Marek 09:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

And I will revert, we wait for the RFC to close. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Meaning "I will stonewall and obfuscate in contravention of policy". Happy to hear that people are willing to just throw our actual policies out the window and revert war to get their way. Volunteer Marek 12:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Read wp:npa and no I am not, as we have an RFC, so lets wait for the close. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Diff revert claiming that Books on Demand is a vanity press and removing material sourced to New Statesman at the same time. I have of course restored this material. Editors would be well advised to verify the entirety of the edit made.Selfstudier (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Books on Demand IS a vanity press. Volunteer Marek 12:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It was not published by them, it is avaible via that method. Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, that's what the citation and google books said. And Selfstudier claimed that Books on Demand wasn't a vanity press (it is). Volunteer Marek 12:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier claimed that Books on Demand wasn't a vanity press Where did I claim that? Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I was of course only commenting on the RFC matter, not any other content. But it would be nice if people want to have a NPOV tag to actually discuss what they have an issue with directly rather than just removing it. It might also be nice if those supporting the NPOV tag actually read what they objected to, as (as you say) this removed a source that is not (per the edit summary) a vanity press publication. Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I did summarize the claims made above in the POV tag section, they appear unfounded afaics but edit warring over a tag I will leave to others. Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

From the Fires of War: Ukraine's Azov Movement and the Global Far Right

Was published by ibidem (7 Feb. 2022)

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fires-War-Ukraine%E2%80%B2s-Analyzing-Political/dp/3838215087

So the claim is it POD is misleading at best, and likely just the fact that this edition is, not the actual, publication. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

As is Moving beyond Islamist Extremism by William Allchorn. For some reason Google Books is pulling BoD thus has also been pulled into the citation. It would be good if editors could do just the slightest bit of research (it's on the front cover!) before deleting with an expletive filled edit summary. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be good if editors properly referenced their sources. Volunteer Marek 12:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

True, and it was (and it was still reomoved as self published), eventualy. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

"Eventually" meaning after I pointed it out. Volunteer Marek 12:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

And still reverted using the same excuse afterwards. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Once the error was corrected I did not revert. Volunteer Marek 12:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Colborne's attributed views stand even if he wrote them on toilet paper per WP:SPS, expert opinion. Nothing more than POV editing and obvious at that. Selfstudier (talk) 12:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope. If you have to pay to have your book published through a scam agency then that's actually worse than writing it on toilet paper, which is why we never use vanity press publications. Point is moot now but just for future reference. Also, quit it with the personal attacks. I believe this is a second or third time I've asked you to stop. Volunteer Marek 12:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It was corrected, then changed but with an edit summery of "Reverting back to save academic sources. Will update cites to reflect correct publisher information", and you then then reverted, rather than wait for it to be updated (or updating it yourself once this edit [[98]] pointed out the publisher was wrong). Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

My talk page is available for any complaint you wish to make. You may add it to the false complaint you made there already. Selfstudier (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure why Google Books is listing ibidem titles as Books on Demand - the mistake must have stemmed from here with an editor using a citation tool. Good to bear in mind when using ibidem sources in future or to double check when we come across a BoD cite. Thanks for picking up. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

References

The same article https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/us-lifts-ban-on-funding-neo-nazi-ukrainian-militia-441884 is quoted 4 times, an unification would be useful.Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

New symbol?

Interesting to see a new picture apparently coming out of Kharkiv, showing a new unit of Azov with a new badge. It shows three swords in the shape of a trident, apparently a move away from the controversial older symbol they used. Can be worth looking closer into this for those understanding/navigating Ukrainian sources, or if it pops up in English sources. So far I have only seen it in a Twitter post, but perhaps it has been shared/covered in some Azov media?--Euor (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

They may well have a new symbol, but we need a better source than this, RS need to say they have changed their badge. Slatersteven (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a new minor branch built inside the "127th Territorial Defense Brigade"[99] Mhorg (talk) 10:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

My mini-OR. The badge reads АЗОВ "ССО ХАРКIВ", which should mean Azov "Special Operation Force Kharkiv". Googling for "ССО Азов" I found this Twitter account [100], which reads in its description: "Official page of (SOF) Special Operation Force Azov. Formed February 24, 2022, as a special detachment of SOF of Ukraine". So, it looks to me it is a new Azov detachment, and its badge / symbol, while the "National Idea" symbol probably will be still in use by sub-units which already use it. Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

See this Tweet as well: [101]

A new chevron of @AZOVsof refers to the "Three Swords" monument installed at the base of the #AZOV regiment near #Mariupol. This is where the mysteries were held in honor of the Ukrainians who died in the war. It is a symbol of military glory and a promise of revenge on enemies.

Also there a picture of a "ritual" which the partisans of Azov is neo-Nazi will like, I believe ;) Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

"partisans of Azov is neo-Nazi" is a misdescription, better those that have their doubts about a conversion to holierthanthou. Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Whatever :) Btw, I am not strong in the copy-right policies at Wikipedia / elsewhere, thus not sure whether that image from the tweet can be used in this wiki article, but if it can be, probably it (or some different picture from the same ritual) should be shown in the "Neo-Nazism" section? Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Tweets are not RS unless from a verified recognized expert on the subject (not even then for a living person bio), everything on the net is copyright unless it is specified as not. Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)