Talk:Azov Brigade: Difference between revisions
→Survey: +1 |
|||
Line 376: | Line 376: | ||
*:*'''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). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 14:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
*:*'''Comment''' There is nothing to suggest that they haven't addressed the balance of sources, nor is there a need for them to limit themselves to what was cherry picked for them. The !voters are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions after analysing what has been covered extensively over the years (in many languages). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:CurryCity|CurryCity]] ([[User talk:CurryCity|talk]]) 05:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
*'''C''' but '''not''' E nor draft #2: More sources indicate "contain elements" compared to other characterizations. [[User:CurryCity|CurryCity]] ([[User talk:CurryCity|talk]]) 05:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
*'''Support A''' there are many RS published in the recent past, claiming it |
*'''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 [[User:Cinadon36|<b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b>]][[User Talk:Cinadon36|<b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b>]] 05:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)<small> (moved "lost" vote to the proper location by <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 11:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC))</small> |
||
*'''Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, or E.''' '''Oppose A.'''[[User:Mihaiam|Mihaiam]] ([[User talk:Mihaiam|talk]]) 13:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC) |
*'''Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, or E.''' '''Oppose A.'''[[User:Mihaiam|Mihaiam]] ([[User talk: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]] [[User:Cononsense|Cononsense]] ([[User talk:Cononsense|talk]]) 21:26, 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]] [[User:Cononsense|Cononsense]] ([[User talk:Cononsense|talk]]) 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
Line 424: | Line 424: | ||
:::See first sentence in last paragraph of the lead: {{tq|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 [https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraines-anti-russia-azov-battalion-minutemen-or-neo-nazi-terrorists says] "many" but warns this label should not spread to "all". It is also safe to assume that [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/ 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 [https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d ''Financial Times''] and [https://wyborcza.pl/magazyn/7,124059,28354674,bylem-bialym-radykalem-ale-mi-przeszlo-kim-sa-zolnierze.html ''Gazeta Wyborcza'']. |
:::See first sentence in last paragraph of the lead: {{tq|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 [https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukraines-anti-russia-azov-battalion-minutemen-or-neo-nazi-terrorists says] "many" but warns this label should not spread to "all". It is also safe to assume that [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/ 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 [https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d ''Financial Times''] and [https://wyborcza.pl/magazyn/7,124059,28354674,bylem-bialym-radykalem-ale-mi-przeszlo-kim-sa-zolnierze.html ''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. [[User:Szmenderowiecki|Szmenderowiecki]] ([[User talk:Szmenderowiecki|talk]]) 18:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC) |
:::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. [[User:Szmenderowiecki|Szmenderowiecki]] ([[User talk: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 |
*'''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. --[[User:Yoonadue|Yoonadue]] ([[User talk: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 [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/04/ukraine-russia-putin-azov-neo-nazis-western-media 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. [[User:Wikisaurus|Wikisaurus]] ([[User talk:Wikisaurus|talk]]) 21:13, 24 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 [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2022/04/ukraine-russia-putin-azov-neo-nazis-western-media 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. [[User:Wikisaurus|Wikisaurus]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:CPCEnjoyer|CPCEnjoyer]] ([[User talk:CPCEnjoyer|talk]]) 18:17, 27 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. [[User:CPCEnjoyer|CPCEnjoyer]] ([[User talk:CPCEnjoyer|talk]]) 18:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
Line 434: | Line 434: | ||
*'''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. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 03:41, 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. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk: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. ~[[User:Asarlaí|Asarlaí]] 08:52, 5 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. ~[[User:Asarlaí|Asarlaí]] 08:52, 5 May 2022 (UTC) |
||
* '''Strongly Oppose A'''; and '''support E and Alternative Draft #1''', the Draft #2 is also fairly good. Next best solution I think is a combination of B or D (all have grammar issues). Personally, the claims should just go in the second sentence, rather than force it into a run-on jumble, if they are going to be brought up. This page is far too ideologically driven, plenty of room to give air to controversial claims outside of the absolute first sentence, and to all neutral observers, the group is obviously not “neo-nazi” in any way outside of tangential symbolism. Weight should be given to experts on the matter (for example, Shekhovtsov) who have disavowed the description, or the media, who never try to bring this up anymore; and significantly less weight should be given to sources from 2014-16, as that is dated information now.--'''[[User:Lvivske|LeVivsky]]''' <small><span style="color:#FF0000">(</span>[[User talk:Lvivske|ಠ_ಠ]]<span style="color:#FF0000">)</span></small> 14:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
===Discussion=== |
===Discussion=== |
Revision as of 14:57, 8 May 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Azov Brigade article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the use of neo-Nazi descriptor in the lede. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic. |
Q1: Why is the Azov Regiment described as having neo-Nazi elements?
A1: The consensus among editors is that the preponderance of reliable sources describe the group as such. For the discussion that led to this consensus, see here (May 2022), and for the previous discussion on the topic see here (July 2021). |
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||
|
RfC about the neo-Nazi descriptor
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived until 20:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC). |
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)
|
RFC: political ideology of the Azov
- 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.
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
Should the article lead describe the political ideology of the Azov? Infinity Knight (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
previous RFCs:
- Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion
- Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_1#Far-right,_neo-Nazi_as_result_of_WP:NPOV_rule_ignoration
- No, "Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group." ref Infinity Knight (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Bad RfC and Yes Do you have any evidence that anything has changed since the last (very comprehensive in participation) RfC? Typically one should discuss a change on the talk page prior to taking it to an RfC. Also, the JPost article you pulled that quote from above calls them "NeoNazi" in the headline, it's clearly an important descriptor. BSMRD (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Infinity Knight, please, not again. Nothing has changed since the last RFC, and your argument was even disproved in that discussion.--Mhorg (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Something has changed, but maybe not that. Has something changed? Hell, yes. It's called the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Looks like Ukraine's Jewish people have made peace with Azov. See [2]. Money quote: They had no anti-Jewish ideology. This should be reflected in the lead. Adoring nanny ([[User >talk:Adoring nanny|talk]]) 02:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but a quote from a random Ukrainian is not sufficient for inclusion in the lead. Some guy saying they aren't anti-jewish is worth as much as the org themselves "eschewing Nazism". Nothing. The invasion is not a valid excuse to whitewash Nazis. BSMRD (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with BSMRD. Also, Infinity Knight used a very old article from 2016. In the last RFC we just talked about how "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" (2020, Atlantic Council[3])--Mhorg (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, this is a mess. The current text is Azov, is a right-wing extremist,[1][2] neo-Nazi,[3][4][5] formerly paramilitary, unit of the National Guard of Ukraine,[6][7][8].
- BSMRD said "JPost article you pulled that quote from above calls them "NeoNazi" in the headline" however actually the article uses scare quotes and in its body the article says Azov was called a “neo-Nazi paramilitary militia” by two US Congressmen and describes Simon Wiesenthal Center objections. There are opposing opinions quoted, and the fact that the US goverment works with Azov. If you read carefully, actually JP says that since 2016, "Neo nazi Azov" is no longer the consensus view.
- Mhorg suggests to use Atlanti Ccouncil blog by Oleksiy Kuzmenko, appears as an opinion, which is not spoiled by an abundance of primary sources.
- The point is, quoting opinions and then writing them as facts in Wikipedia voice is not the way to go. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
JP says that since 2016, "Neo nazi Azov" is no longer the consensus view.
No they don't? Not a single time does any sentiment to that effect appear in the article. The "opposing opinion" quoted from the researcher speaking for the Vaad just says "well they are officially part of the military now so they can't be neo-nazis, and anyways Russia is the real problem". Your view seems to be WP:SYNTH, unless you can pull a quote from the article that actually says what you claim it does. BSMRD (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)- Synth? Not sure how it applies here. Re consensus, JP reports the news that the Azov Battalion is now legally able to receive American aid and summaries the opinions as Not everyone was so upset. The point remains, quoting opinions and then writing them as facts in Wikipedia voice is not the way to go. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- And this is truly the biggest problem of Wikipedia today when it comes to politics - it is used to spread a narrative based on someones opinions without any factual prove just on assumption that a person/source "would not lie". It sad that any change here called "vandalism" when people are trying to remove or at least make a paragraph about "nazi" marked "as a potential lie spread by Russian propaganda" (which in my opinion is absolute BS).
- P.S. Nazis didn't hide that they are nazis because of its nature. That would be a first sign that there may be something wrong with this nazi claims. Baylrock (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Synth? Not sure how it applies here. Re consensus, JP reports the news that the Azov Battalion is now legally able to receive American aid and summaries the opinions as Not everyone was so upset. The point remains, quoting opinions and then writing them as facts in Wikipedia voice is not the way to go. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with BSMRD. Also, Infinity Knight used a very old article from 2016. In the last RFC we just talked about how "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" (2020, Atlantic Council[3])--Mhorg (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but a quote from a random Ukrainian is not sufficient for inclusion in the lead. Some guy saying they aren't anti-jewish is worth as much as the org themselves "eschewing Nazism". Nothing. The invasion is not a valid excuse to whitewash Nazis. BSMRD (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes - The lead is a place where key elements of the article are summarized. Ideology is very much a part of that. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, per Butlerblog, Cinadon36 06:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, or at least not without making some clarifications. But yes or no doesn’t solve the article’s structural problem. Like many sources, it doesn’t clearly distinguish Azov former volunteer battalion, its two successors the Azov current National Guard regiment and the National Militias (Natsionalni Druzhyny), the National Corps political party, or the umbrella Azov Movement. —Michael Z. 17:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes the lead should cover ideology, the coverage from WP:RS almost always touches on it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it must be called "neo-Nazi" as it is part of a larger political project of the "Azov Movement", which is neo-Nazi, as all first-class sources certify (it is unbelievable that we are repeating an RFC when nothing has changed on the subject).--Mhorg (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes Any attempt otherwise is akin to whitewashing/rewriting history. Overwhelming number of sources have been presented already. - hako9 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment on sources
Leaning to no(Changed to definitely not below)Ce - the references in the lede appear to fail verification, came here to post about that. You can’t extrapolate an ideology based on what some separate organization with the same name did in 1942. I have an open mind but the more I look the less convinced I am. I will add some detail about the sources below this comment. They do not convince me. Possibly others exist that would, but these dont Elinruby (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)- does not, as far as I can tell, mention either Azov or Ukraine
- I usually consider Al-Jazeera a good source, but wow. Do editors realize that fake videos about Azov are an ongoing theme in Kremlin rants about Nazis? This new one turns out to apparently not have been debunked by Bellingcat yet, but in 2014 CyberBerkut said they smeared a pig’s head on a Koran. Sound familiar? But let’s assume just for a moment that the video is authentic. Somebody please explain to me like I am five why this would make them specifically neo-Nazis. Oh and they also bombed the maternity hospital in Mariupol, right? Because Nazis.
- US budget legislation
- cherry-picked: both sides article, one side quoted
- Passing mention deep in report on the US, attributed to FBI, whose purview is limited to the US, cited to a court case against a US person
- Perhaps the references get better. But those are the one that support “right-wing extremist” and Neo-Nazi. Superficially very plausible as RS, until you go look at them. Elinruby (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Mentions Azov in passing on page 35. It's not a particularly strong source for Azov in particular, but is a good source in its own right, and calls them neo-fascist unqualified (i.e. good enough to substantiate the "far-right extremist" line it is cited for).
- 2. IDK why you are focusing on "fake videos", there are no videos in the profile and the coverage is more than enough to substantiate the line it is cited for.
- 3. US budget legislation specifically relating to the Neo-Nazi nature of Azov. Not once in the article is the notion that Azov are neo-Nazis called into question. Indeed the assertion is repeated often by this RS as fact. I have no reason to believe the Nation has a vested interest in somehow making Azov seem like Nazis when they are not.
- 4. I don't know what
cherry-picked: both sides article, one side quoted
means in this context. The article says in it's own voice that Azov are neo-Nazis. It calls them a minority yes, but no view is provided quoted or in article voice that challenges the assertion that they 'are' Nazis. The only mildly opposing view is quoted from the State Department, and all it says is that they couldn't be certain they had committed human rights violations, which does nothing to challenge the organizations ideological character. - 5. Again not a particularly in-depth source for the org, but CSIS is a strong RS that felt no need to qualify the designation of neo-Nazism when mentioning Azov. A supplementary source to be sure, but one that only strengthens the others given.
- I seriously question how deeply you interrogated these sources when you dismiss all of them. All they are cited for is calling Azov far-right and neo-Nazi in wikivoice, and they are more than enough for that. BSMRD (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it is their main source of notability so it obviously has to be covered in the lead in some form. If people take issue with the exact wording then that can be hashed out, and if they take issue with the sources then we can find better sources (and then hash out a wording that uses those sources), but obviously it can't be omitted completely. In that regard this is also a bad RFC insofar as it's not asking the right question - complete omission, which is basically what this RFC is asking to approve, is obviously a nonstarter and doesn't seem to be the main crux of discussions. The question is how, not if, their ideology should be described, and what sources should be used for that. See my list of sources here for reference. --Aquillion (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- comment on this - I am in this because a slightly related page I am working on is grappling with the bombing of the hospital in Mariupol. I am pretty damn sure the Azov Battalion wasn’t using it as a hideout and the firehose of falsehoods the Russians are emitting about Ukraine made me come over here to look up whether in fact they are Neo-Nazis. Right now it looks like a big lie sufficiently repeated. Is Joe Biden a segregationist due to the history of his party? Is the FBI a reliable source for foreign extremists? IF, and right now it’s a big if in my eyes, the group that can be referred to in the present tense - a Ukrainian military unit - can be shown to be Neo Nazi through reliable sources, then it belongs in the lede. If it had neo-Nazi ties in the past — and there may well be sources for this — then that belongs in a History section and the lede becomes a matter of due weight. I do not claim to fully grasp the nature of this group, but I’ve done some reading on Russian disinformation and I am getting a whiff of it here. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I strongly recommend people review the last RfC on this page here which provides cites for calling Azov a Neo-Nazi organization dating from 2014 to 2021 from a variety of RS. Unless anyone can definitively prove that in the last 6 months Azov has suddenly dropped all ties to Nazism, there's really nothing to do here. BSMRD (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- in that case I strongly suggest that you put some of them after the word neo-Nazi in the lede! I have my hands full and really don’t care one way or the other. I know who *I* think the fascists are in Mariupol and I currently have my hands full with that. But fwiw the current sourcing of the statement in the lede is completely unconvincing and I go by sources not preconceptions. You asked for comment. You have mine. At the moment these people are fighting totalitarian forces. The aren’t Nazis just because Putin says so Elinruby (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- They were described as neo-Nazis by WP:RSes long before Putin started talking about them, eg. [1][2][3]. Obviously Putin (and his government) is a fountain of disinformation right now and shouldn't be used as a source for anything, but we can't just reflexively go with the opposite of whatever he says, that doesn't work. In any case, as I said above, it's useless to discuss this here because the RFC is bafflingly asking the question of whether we should describe their ideology in the lead at all, which we clearly have to do. Even if it were all some sort of lie originating from Putin, that would still be the most notable thing about the group, we would just have to completely change how we cover it using secondary sources that document the truth. But right now most secondary sources say it is true as far as it goes, eg. [4][5][6] - according to the best sources, Putin is drastically exaggerating their significance and using them as a justification in an absurd way, but that does not change the fact that they are still neo-Nazis. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- First source (Irregular Militias… ), expressly says in its abstract "This paper briefly sketches the origins of Azov, biographies of some of its founders, and particulars of its creation, without touching upon such issues as Azov’s military performance, later integration into the National Guard under Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior, and political development after 2014" So it could at best only be used as what Azov WAS, not what azov IS - which I think no one disputes was as an extreme nationalist para-mlitary force. The Vox says "The Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia, played an important role in fighting Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014; since then, it has been integrated into the Ukrainian national guard. Again is that WAS or IS neo-Nazi ? Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- They were described as neo-Nazis by WP:RSes long before Putin started talking about them, eg. [1][2][3]. Obviously Putin (and his government) is a fountain of disinformation right now and shouldn't be used as a source for anything, but we can't just reflexively go with the opposite of whatever he says, that doesn't work. In any case, as I said above, it's useless to discuss this here because the RFC is bafflingly asking the question of whether we should describe their ideology in the lead at all, which we clearly have to do. Even if it were all some sort of lie originating from Putin, that would still be the most notable thing about the group, we would just have to completely change how we cover it using secondary sources that document the truth. But right now most secondary sources say it is true as far as it goes, eg. [4][5][6] - according to the best sources, Putin is drastically exaggerating their significance and using them as a justification in an absurd way, but that does not change the fact that they are still neo-Nazis. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- in that case I strongly suggest that you put some of them after the word neo-Nazi in the lede! I have my hands full and really don’t care one way or the other. I know who *I* think the fascists are in Mariupol and I currently have my hands full with that. But fwiw the current sourcing of the statement in the lede is completely unconvincing and I go by sources not preconceptions. You asked for comment. You have mine. At the moment these people are fighting totalitarian forces. The aren’t Nazis just because Putin says so Elinruby (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, definitely not Not until article is re-written to clarify which of several groups it refers to, based on sources that actually are reliable. Elinruby (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- You've already stated "leaning no" up above. You're entitled to change your view, but you need to be clear that your opinion is singular. (These are set far apart and separated by other comments - someone not paying attention may count your views twice. I'd suggest you strike the first one above so it is clear your opinion has changed and is only counted once.) ButlerBlog (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough; I now just realized you were asking me to do something and that you are right. I only changed it from “leaning not” to “definitely not”, but I have now processed your point about vote counting, and will go do that Elinruby (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Umland, Andreas (2 January 2019). "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the "Azov" Battalion in 2014". Terrorism and Political Violence. 31 (1): 105–131. doi:10.1080/09546553.2018.1555974. ISSN 0954-6553.
- ^ Saressalo, Teemu; Huhtinen, Aki-Mauri (2 October 2018). "The Information Blitzkrieg — "Hybrid" Operations Azov Style". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 31 (4): 423–443. doi:10.1080/13518046.2018.1521358. ISSN 1351-8046.
- ^ Risch, William Jay (2015). "What the Far Right Does Not Tell Us about the Maidan". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 16 (1): 137–144. doi:10.1353/kri.2015.0011. ISSN 1538-5000.
- ^ "Profile: Who are Ukraine's far-right Azov regiment?". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
- ^ Beauchamp, Zack (24 February 2022). "Putin's "Nazi" rhetoric reveals his terrifying war aims in Ukraine". Vox. Retrieved 2022-03-20.
- ^ Jackson, Paul (22 February 2022). Online activists. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-1-5261-5673-0 – via www.manchesterhive.com.
- Bad RfC, and Yes, we need to accurately convey what nearly innumerable reliable sources have clearly written since 2014: the Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi outfit. We amply demonstrate that in our section on the topic and it's been litigated many times here on the talk page. Elinruby: the invasion of Ukraine by Russia may be a crime and tragedy (I believe it is), and that doesn't change the fact that the Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi group. It remains so even when defending Mariupol against bombardment. -Darouet (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- So people keep saying. It should therefore be no problem to cite this with sources *on this topic* that say so. But let’s discuss that in the section on sourcing I have just started. I actually have bigger fish to fry than this but just saying it doesn’t make it so. Let’s deal with this outside of the bad RFC Elinruby (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, or at least not as in the current version of the lead. The current version conflates several different subjects: Azov as a former volunteer battalion, Azov as the current National Guard regiment and "Azov" as a political movement [4],[5]. Speaking about the current regiment, I think a citation from a statement by a Jewish Ukrainian organization explains it [6]: "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.” My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Except that it doesn't conflate them, it explicitly distinguishes them: "former paramilitary group that is now a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine". Is "the current version of the lead" ideal? Clearly not, it's a tortured mess, and IMO needs to be refactored for basic scoping clarity, if nothing else. But what you characterise as an "explanation" is clearly a highly partisan POV, as your own source makes clear: "known for its nationalist stance on many issues". Simply accepting their analysis and repeating it in Wikivoice would transparently be a travesty. And bear in mind the basic timeline here: the block lifted in 2016 was reimposed in 2018, on precisely those grounds: "Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis", as The Hill put it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but last RfC needs re-doing and lead needs major edit: Of course the ideological orientation should be included, but the current phrasing, resulting from a 2021 RfC is flawed. Things have clearly changed since the sources hitherto used were written, as the military unit's composition has dramatically changed. The description of the ideology in the lead doesn't distinguish between the the National Guard unit, older battalion and wider movement. The sources used for "neo-Nazi" in the lead are among the weakest from the previous RfC, including two non-expert opinions. We need to clearly spell out the different historical shifts in the the role of ideology and use past tense voice for material supported by older sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please check the sources I brought in the 2021 RFC,[7] even scholarly sources from 2019. They all call the group "neo-Nazi".--Mhorg (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have evidence that they have actually changed at all? I grabbed a smattering of recent sources from around the world, they seem the same as ever.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/14/neo-nazi-ukraine-war
- https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/the-azov-battalion-the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/article65239935.ece
- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment (we already use this one)
- https://www.jpost.com/international/article-700396
- https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/18/inside-azov-neo-nazi-brigade-killing-russian-generals-playing/
- These are all RS from the past few weeks, surely if there was a drastic ideological shift since the RfC at least one of them would have reported on it in their profiles of Azov? BSMRD (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not as in the current version of the lead. First source in one list above, Irregular Militias … , specifically says "This paper briefly sketches the origins of Azov, biographies of some of its founders, and particulars of its creation, without touching upon such issues as Azov’s military performance, later integration into the National Guard under Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior, and political development after 2014.". Also the Jerusalem Post, immediately above says: "which in the past was a hotbed of extreme right-wing ideology" and "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" both of which seem to endorse My very best wishes' comment that
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. Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC) - Yes, as this is what our WP:BESTSOURCES tell us, and mention as part of the notability of the group: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Per these sources, the group started as a far-right nationalist paramilitary organization with ties to Neo-Nazism. That is how the group should be represented, and via proportionality dictated by WP:DUE and WP:LEAD, this should be mentioned in the lead. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. Azov Battalion is a military unit, not a political organisation. It doesn't represent a specific ideology. EricLewan (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. Azov Battalion is a military unit and does not have political objectives nor does it have a political ideology. Ergzay (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes — The preponderance of reliable sources describe the Azov Battalion as "far-right" and "neo-Nazi" when discussing them. This is enough to warrant these descriptors in the lead. None of the arguments to the contrary are policy based. Many of the arguments for their exclusion cite WP:NPOV as their basis, but this is just a misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV is and more akin to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It does not matter if what you consider reliable sources is contrary to what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, because mainstream news sources and academic sources from both "the West" and Russia describe the Azov Battalion as specifically a Neo-Nazi and/or far-right unit. Also the arguments above that "[The] Azov Battalion is a military unit and not a political organisation" not only contradicts the reliable sources other editors have cited again and again, but this argument itself is ridiculous on its own. Should we remove all mentions of Nazi ideology in the lead of the article Schutzstaffel because the SS was primarily a security unit? As many people before me have said more elegantly, the Azov Battalion is not just a random military unit of apolitical volunteers with a few neo-Nazis amongst them; people volunteer for the Azov Battalion in particular because they are neo-Nazis. CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not as in the current version of the lead - I don't necessarily oppose discussing political ideology, but the current version is very much subpar and fails NPOV as pointed out by My very best wishes and Pincrete.--Staberinde (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes They have a political wing so retain the parameter. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- yes As said above they have a political wing, so why not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- No. The "political wing" is necessarily and by design a separate entity and not actually affiliated with the regiment. The regiment is a part of the Ukrainian National Guard and the "political wing" does not currently hold any office or exist in the political sphere in any meaningful way. The political party formed by former Azov members is called the National Corps and conflating a party called the National Corps and a military regiment called the Azov Battalion is confusing and pointless. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Additionally, the National Corps already has its own article, so I don't see why its existence is being used to justify using political language to define an explicitly not politically aligned regular military unit. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- supporting comment Under Ukrainian law, Biletsky had to leave the military unit when he ran for a seat in the parliament. I am not certain whether it’s in the constitution but there is some sort
- Additionally, the National Corps already has its own article, so I don't see why its existence is being used to justify using political language to define an explicitly not politically aligned regular military unit. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
of iron-clad requirement for separation of the military from the government. Elinruby (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not in the current form - Azov's founding political ideology no longer characterizes it after it was integrated into the Ukrainian military. Many soldiers serving in the regiment have rejected the neo-Nazi association. Russian propaganda has of course polarized this issue, so WP:NUANCE is required. CutePeach (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not in the current form As above, Azov was a bunch of Nazi soccer hooligans with guns many years ago. They are now a regular fighting unit part of Ukraine defence forces - fighting Russia. They stil lhave some Neo Nazi members, but that have plenty who aren't. They are not a nazi organisation per se.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Don't we need to get this closed urgently? If closed as "No" then the RfC down the page is redundant? If closed as "Yes" or "Not in current form" then we can carry on. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not in the current form, per above. Further, the current weight provided to it is WP:UNDUE; it is now better known for its defence of Mariupol than for its political history. BilledMammal (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- No. It's disrespectful to the Ukrainian government and gives undue weight to Russian propaganda.
- The designation is mostly used in the press for its shock value, justified mainly by the unit's historical roots.
- Maybe we should give more weight to those closer to the scene:
- "The movement emerged in 2014 and has gone through a notable transformation, which significantly changed its nature and its ideological basis.
- (...)
- a comprehensive interpretation of any social movement requires attention to what it is doing in a given period, not what its leader used to say or do.
- (...)
- uncritical reports about neo-Nazis within the movement (...) and agenda-driven research were instrumental to and immensely facilitated the launch of the “denazification campaign in Ukraine.” - Ivan Gomza, Head of the Department of Public Governance at Kyiv School of Economics
- https://krytyka.com/en/articles/too-much-ado-about-ukrainian-nationalists-the-azov-movement-and-the-war-in-ukraine Mihaiam (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes - Per Shibbolethink. It's WP:DUE to include the core ideology of the Azov in the lead sentence, which of course is verifiable by our WP:BESTSOURCES, and certainly isn't a part of the Russian propaganda. Fighting against the Russian forces doesn't make them any less Nazi, and any such attempt is white washing of history and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 13:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Split proposal
- 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.
I'm seeing some evidence that sources are treating the Azov Battalion and the Azov movement as explicitly separate things, though Azov Movement is currently a redirect title from this article. A Deustche Welle fact check from February 2022 states a similar thing noting that after 2014 there was a separation of the movement and the regiment
, and it is by far not the only source that makes a distinction between the political movement and the actual military group. I propose that the article be split so that the movement, which is different than the national guard unit, can be covered more specifically and in-depth without taking up WP:UNDUE weight in the space that would otherwise be required in this article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not strictly opposed to a split like this, however I think we must be careful not to strip this article of ideological info. While the movement and unit are conceivably separate topics (though I'd like to see a more comprehensive list of sources for a potential movement article first), they are still inextricably linked. The Azov Movement is a neo-fascist one, and the Unit is it's military arm. Both are Neo-Nazi groupings, and I worry some might use a split to whitewash one or both. BSMRD (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhawk10:!thank you for starting from sources. Mine suggest there was a formal split. There may still be unofficial ties; unsure. You may wish to look at the source I suggested in another section of this page; it’s a long interview transcript on unian with the founder of the original Asov, and includes a discussion of various spinoff groups. Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- That’s misinformed. The National Militia (Natsionalni Druzhyny) is the Azov movement’s paramilitary arm. The Azov Regiment is a government paramilitary unit. Yes, there remain informal links between members. But “inextricably linked” is verging on a WP:crystal ball prediction that ignores the last five years of history.
- Yes, the article should retain the unit’s history as a volunteer battalion (for four months eight years ago), but not based on undisciplined misunderstandings like the above. No whitewashing, but no conspiratorial demonizing either. —Michael Z. 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- The statement you quote is attributed to Ulrich Schmid in his own voice, not DW's. - hako9 (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. While sources exist that use both sources, some specifically treat them as interchangeable (eg.
The Azov Battalion, sometimes referred to as the Azov regiment or Azov movement
[1]); or unambiguously use Azov Battalion as the English-language name for the movement (eg. the Washington Post sayingThe would-be militants have been recruited by groups like the Azov Battalion, a far-right nationalist Ukrainian paramilitary and political movement.
[2]) Even the few sources that try to make a distinction often do so while acknowledging that most people don't. But most of all, there simply isn't much coverage under the term "Azov movement" at all; it's mostly treated as a minor subtopic of the Azov Battalion or as an alternative way of looking at it. If you feel there are actually enough sources clearly talking about it as a distinct thing to cover the Azov movement in-depth, I think the correct thing to do would be to expand the section on it on this page, and eventually, if it becomes large enough, it could be spun off into another article. But based on the sources I can see, I do not think it will ever reach the size or depth where that would make sense, and it certainly makes no sense to argue spinning it off when it is currently just a handful of sentences - I think we would mostly end up with a smaller, weaker-sourced copy of this article using sources that happen to use the term "Azor movement", plus constant argument over sources that are often not dividing the terms in a rigorous way. Even the sources you're citing seem to be treating it as a subtopic of the sort that would be better covered on this page for now. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC) - Oppose. I read that article on DW a few days ago, absolutely unreliable and I would declare any material that will be produced by that authors unreliable, as it goes against all the first class reliable sources we have that certify that there is no separation between the Azov Movement and the Azov Regiment, indeed the latter continues to be the armed wing of the movement. See for example what Time documented in 2021.[16]--Mhorg (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wait wait did you just say that Deutsche Wells is unreliable? And produce a YouTube link to prove it?
- You’re wrong. Please check the archives at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
- I somewhat disagree with Wikipedia’s policy on YouTube if the account is indeed held by s reliable source, but generally speaking no YouTube video is a reliable source.
- Please read the reliable sources policy Elinruby (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- DW is a state run news agency and can be considered unreliable. I oppose as some users may try and use the split to whitewash the ideology part of this article, as mentioned above. BritishToff (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- The news coverage provided by BBC News, ABC News (Australia), and PBS come from state-run news agencies as well; what makes them reliable news organizations are their possession of three qualities—editorial independence, strong editorial review processes, and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you believe that Deutsche Welle lacks these three qualities or is otherwise generally unreliable, you are free to open a discussion on WP:RSN. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- just did it for him. Not that it will get more than an eyeroll, because of course it’s reliable, but it might attract some attention to this problem here. And by the way, I guarantee they haven’t heard of Meduza either, but I just looked into it for my translation of Russian information war against Ukraine, and at least for that topic it definitely is reliable. Probably for your article too as it’s at least somewhat related Elinruby (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- The news coverage provided by BBC News, ABC News (Australia), and PBS come from state-run news agencies as well; what makes them reliable news organizations are their possession of three qualities—editorial independence, strong editorial review processes, and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you believe that Deutsche Welle lacks these three qualities or is otherwise generally unreliable, you are free to open a discussion on WP:RSN. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- The video by Time has an accompanying article.[17] It seems to be factual, but makes some leaps and omissions: while acknowledging the unit entered the National Guard in the war’s first year, it ignores that Biletsky left the unit, uses “Azov” interchangeably to refer to the NG regiment and the civilian political movement, repeatedly calls the NG regiment a “militia,” and implies that the civilian movement has access to NG weapons. These are the kind of sources that have led this article to be an undisciplined and confusing mess. This is borderline sensationalism and borderline NPOV, and we should prefer more academic sources. —Michael Z. 18:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- DW is a state run news agency and can be considered unreliable. I oppose as some users may try and use the split to whitewash the ideology part of this article, as mentioned above. BritishToff (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- It ain't just DW (which is a highly respected German news agency, by the way) that draws some distinction between the military movement and the unit. USA Today also makes a distinction between the national guard unit and the movement (the movement is a broader political movement, per USA Today). The Guardian also doesn't put forward that the Azov Regiment and the Azov movement are numerically identical, but says that the two are linked. It's also very clear to me that this Haaretz report is distinguishing between the original battalion (which has been incorporated into the national guard) and some broader Azov movement. Meduza also makes a distinction between the battalion and the greater Azov movement (National Druzhyna is not a part of the military regiment, but it's a part of the Azov movement). That there is a distinction between the two (i.e. they are numerically identical to each other) seems to be relatively uncontroversial. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- "The Azov Regiment is part of Ukraine's broader "Azov Movement,"", that does not say they are separate. Also "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." ios drawing a discnti0on between one unit (it does not say which,m but its logical to assume this one) and the wider National Militia. Sorry, but it seems to me they are saying that the Azov battalion (the military wing of the Azov movement) does not relfct the wider national militia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- "X is only part of Y" means that X and Y are not the same thing. My reading of the DW source is not that they have become so separated as to have erased the ideology wholesale. The DW report refers to the Azov Battalion as being among
Right-wing Ukrainian combat units
and that the regiment still uses right-wing symbols. My reading of the word "separation" is not that the two unrelated, but that there is a difference between the two. The difference between the Provisional Irish Republican Army and 1980s-era Sinn Fein comes to mind. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)- Don't manipulate my words. I have written clearly that those "authors" of DW's article should be declared unreliable (and not the entire journal), as they go against the majority of the data shown by the reliable sources, without even bringing a proof.--Mhorg (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- DW isn't a journal, it's a WP:NEWSORG with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The whole point is that they report on the news. I'm also not sure what dataset you're referring to here, would you mind sharing? — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- The authors of this article are the DW fact check team, with the lead author being the head of that team. This is as gold standard a source as we can find for Wikipedia purposes and those editors arguing it isn't are either very ill-informed or have a very poor understanding of reliability, which is worrying considering their contributions to this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Fringe theories:"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The DW article proves nothing, it's just a line of text that goes against hundreds of reputable sources (who even certify with videos that nothing has changed in the Azov Battalion).--Mhorg (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Odd, an edit of mine was not saved, I note the DW article does not in fact say they ae not linkned. It says according to one academic they are not. This is not sufficient for a split. It would be to add to this article an attributed statement. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Fringe theories:"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The DW article proves nothing, it's just a line of text that goes against hundreds of reputable sources (who even certify with videos that nothing has changed in the Azov Battalion).--Mhorg (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Which is why we have wp:v and wp:or, I do not interpret them that way, but as saying what I have said. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Don't manipulate my words. I have written clearly that those "authors" of DW's article should be declared unreliable (and not the entire journal), as they go against the majority of the data shown by the reliable sources, without even bringing a proof.--Mhorg (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- "The Azov Regiment is part of Ukraine's broader "Azov Movement,"", that does not say they are separate. Also "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." ios drawing a discnti0on between one unit (it does not say which,m but its logical to assume this one) and the wider National Militia. Sorry, but it seems to me they are saying that the Azov battalion (the military wing of the Azov movement) does not relfct the wider national militia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- That video is sensationalist nd presents several claims broadly refuted elsewhere. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait wait did you just say that Deutsche Wells is unreliable? And produce a YouTube link to prove it?
- Oppose: Never heard of a 'movement' beyond the National Corps political wing. If anything, the 'movement' on a political basis should be folded in there, or a sub-section on the azov page leading into the Nat Corps movement content. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. After looking at sources, including books and recent articles, such as [18] or [19], it seems that Azov (rather than "Azov battalion") is a political movement. No need in split. One can simply create new page, Azov (political movement). There is also Azov Civil Corps (I am not sure if it is different from the political movement). It appears on a separate page in Ukrainian WP, uk:Цивільний Корпус «Азов» and in this subsection of this page. National Corps is yet another, but an entirely different organization. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Aquillion (mostly treated as the same by RS so far) and BSMRD (can become a POV fork). Alaexis¿question? 21:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I said in my reply, I'm not strictly opposed to the idea, though maybe not right now. I have seen the distinction made in some (certainly not all) sources, though I am not convinced it is the majority view. I think perhaps an expansion of the subsection of this article dedicated to the movement beyond the unit would be warranted instead, and if that becomes to large we can come back to talks of a split then. BSMRD (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "What Is Ukraine's Azov Battalion?". Snopes.com. Retrieved 2022-03-22.
- ^ "Neo-Nazis are exploiting Russia's war in Ukraine for their own purposes". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2022-03-22 – via www.washingtonpost.com.
I agree, but where does it say that the Azov movement and the Azov Regiment are not the same thing, as far as I can tell it says that one academic has said this. That might be enough for a "but according to Ulrich Schmid..." in this artoce. It is not (to my mind) enough to support a split. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Split if he wants If you guys don’t think the movement is a thing, well and good. It is in fact barely mentioned in this article, so it isn’t even really a split. He seems quite familiar with it and I don’t see why he needs you guys to vote on whether it exists or not. He doesn’t need your permission to write an article about something you guys don’t think is important, geez. I don’t think Kim Kardashian is important, but this is me not caring whether somebody else writes an article about her Elinruby (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose split These closely related, overlapping topics tend to be discussed together in sources, according to my Google Scholar searches. Develop the article from RS before considering any split. (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
There really isn’t the necessity for debate on this topic. If the Azov Battalion has changed their name & ideology and have now become the Azov Special Purpose Regiment then that can easily be updated in the historical post. With qualified references. I can’t find any. All the references I’ve found up until November 2021 still classify them as a terrorist extreme right group with ties to neo-nazism. Merge any relevant info with validated reference and move on. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Nevermind. It looks like for some reason Wikipedia has already changed the Azov Battalion to Azov Special Purpose Regiment. Not sure why? No Google search can confirm its existence. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC) My bad, I confused Special Operations with Special Purpose! Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Why is Wikipedia even presenting this debate. I’ve never seen this before. You can’t debate historical fact and Wikipedia should know better. Add your facts and provide legitimate reference. Simple. Done. This forum should not tolerate social media rhetoric. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Forum: A place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Discuss: talk about (something) with another person or group of people. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC) |
Oppose per Alaexis. Forever yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support The civilian political movement and the National Guard regiment are barely distinguished by a lot of borderline tabloid journalism and opinion pieces referenced here, and consequently in much of this article. Maybe having two articles with two clear leads will help. —Michael Z. 18:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- So it's not a scope or a summary style issue, it's a sourcing one, to which the solution is... a WP:POVFORK? Which of the sources do you feel are unsuitable, or are being given undue weight? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I named two distinct subjects that sloppy editing in this article has trouble distinguishing. They are constantly misconstrued and factual statements by sources get blatantly misenterpreted on them.[20][21] Not a POV fork. —Michael Z. 18:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- And those are the pieces of "borderline tabloid journalism" that you feel are inappropriate to use? Or they're OK, but you disagree with how they're being presented by our editors? Your argument seems inconsistent to the point of being ad hoc, and in neither case actually argues for a guideline-compliant split. Arguments of the form "this article's wrong, I want to start over with a different one" are precisely POV forks. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I named two distinct subjects that sloppy editing in this article has trouble distinguishing. They are constantly misconstrued and factual statements by sources get blatantly misenterpreted on them.[20][21] Not a POV fork. —Michael Z. 18:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- So it's not a scope or a summary style issue, it's a sourcing one, to which the solution is... a WP:POVFORK? Which of the sources do you feel are unsuitable, or are being given undue weight? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, it's obvious the "split" article will be a POV fork riddled with recentism and undue, worthless stuff. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you think an article focusing heavily on the political movement is going to be a POV fork? — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Because of [[22]], and because of the 'split the article because I don't like this one' comments here, to start with. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Why do you think an article focusing heavily on the political movement is going to be a POV fork? — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I found this Atlantic Council article, which seemed relevant to this discussion. It draws a distinction between Azov the military unit and the broader "Azov movement" however, it ends like this:
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.
- This seems to support what I said above that, while such a distinction can be made, it seems to largely be a distinction without a difference, and would IMO be better served under on article. BSMRD (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the point. If I'm not mistaken the source was already mentioned in the 2021 RFC. Mhorg (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ideologically, there was (near-)zero space between the Sturmabteilung and the Nazi Party, yet we have two articles on them because the two are not numerically identical entities and both have significant coverage. My point above is more that there not being substantial ideological room between two entities doesn't necessarily mean that we need one article on them. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- And when this article is as substantial and stable as those are it may be appropriate to do so here, in line with the summary-style split guidelines. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Ideologically, there was (near-)zero space between the Sturmabteilung and the Nazi Party, yet we have two articles on them because the two are not numerically identical entities and both have significant coverage. My point above is more that there not being substantial ideological room between two entities doesn't necessarily mean that we need one article on them. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the point. If I'm not mistaken the source was already mentioned in the 2021 RFC. Mhorg (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Given that during the course of this discussion, a split was created, hauled off to AfD, and closed there as merge, shouldn't this be closed in the same manner? Otherwise we've a redundantly lingering tag at best, and venue-shopping at the worst. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Considering that the fork of the article that was created is not in any way similar to the split that is being proposed, calling this
venue shopping
makes no sense. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)- Sorry, misreading of the precise proposal on my part. Too many too similar discussions using too many of the same tropes starting to blur to together after a while. However, the two split ideas seem to me to be uncomfortably close in spirit. Procedurally it perhaps just has to rumble on, though... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Aquillion Also if this is a point of contention, why not simply create a new article? BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Colburne uses the terms Azov Battalion and Azov Movement interchangeably to describe the Azov Battalion before they were incorporated into a regiment in the Ukrainian military and also uses Azov Movement to refer specifically to a group that is not the Azov Battalion. I find it very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Biletsky is a common factor in these entities. There are actually many things in Ukraine named Azov after Sea of Azov, and a few in Russia as well. Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as extremely likely to become a POVFORK — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Not going to change the encyclopedia for better. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 16:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose split, support rename It seems from the sources that the now Regiment is the military wing as distinct from the political wing (National Corps) of the Azov movement. It would likely be better to treat both wings in one article.Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Currently the article is not so big that it would require any splitting. Yoonadue (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not think there is a common notion of Azov movement, and anyway we would need to explain many details in both articles, it would just create more mess. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
RFC designation of Azov "Battalion" as neo-Nazi in lede
Before you close the discussion, please take into account this similar RFC started in March 2022. |
|
Lede as it currently stands[23] (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
|
---|
|
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.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the help page). Active participants in the Revolution of Dignity, the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence,[1] relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism,[2] and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers.[3] 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".[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]</ref>[11][12] - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Comments about alternative draft 2
|
---|
|
Collective source review re: "neo-nazi"
This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
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
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
[ ] · | ||
---|---|---|
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) | ||
|
[ ] · | ||
---|---|---|
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) | ||
|
[ ] · | ||
---|---|---|
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) | ||
|
[ ] · | ||
---|---|---|
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) | ||
|
[ ] · | ||
---|---|---|
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) | ||
|
[ ] · |
---|
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)
According to the following source Mapping Militant Organizations. “Azov Battalion.” Stanford University. Last modified March 2022.
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)
@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)
@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"[36]). 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:[37] "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:[38] "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
|
---|
|
- 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[52], this is the response of the "National Corps":[53] "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)
I assume we have 4 for Alternative Draft #1. Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Support A - This most succinctly summarizes the available sources, without leaving anything out or watering anything down. Support Alternate Draft 2 as a second, because it does what A does, but much less succinctly. C as a distant third, given that it represents the current concern about nazi elements. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)After carefully building this source review (with help from several others!), I have decided the most accurate depiction is using some form of C with better grammar, but also incorporating some of B. Such as "with neo-nazi and other far-right political elements." The group was originally incorporated as the neo-nazi group..." This is the version which best reflects the sources. If this RFC is closed without action, I will repropose based on that review and with this as an option.—edited by Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)- 'available sources'? Who exactly has studied all available sources? The referenced list of pro'neo-Nazi' sources is cherrypicked. We need sources discussing the problem, rather than annuntiating the Final Truth. Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion Stanford does not say neo-Nazi.Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Xx236 See my below comment on the Stanford source. I strongly suggest you strike this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Xx236 I made that assessment after looking at all the sources provided which say neo-nazi and also those which say "formerly" or do not say it at all. These are provided in the dropdowns in the discussion section so everyone can make their own assessment and vote accordingly. if you feel there are sources which are not mentioned there, you are free to add your own. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A per the many sources provided below, in addition to the fact that this issue was already settled previously. --eduardog3000 (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A per the overwhelming usage of that term in reliable sources. We can note statements by the group or sources that demur further down the article, but the few sources that say otherwise are not strongly-worded enough or high-quality enough to trump the plain fact that the group is overwhelmingly described as a neo-Nazi one in the article voice of WP:RSes. As far as the problems with the other ones go, B is completely unacceptable because it flat-out ignores the numerous sources describing the group as neo-Nazi today and reads too much into a small number of sources that are cautious about its current state and discuss how it has changed over time but largely do not say so concretely that it has definitely and completely changed - and, more importantly, those sources generally acknowledge, at least implicitly, that it is considered neo-Nazi by others. D is unacceptable per WP:CLAIM and WP:WEASEL, and beyond that dismissing a huge number of academic sources describing the group as neo-Nazi as a mere vaguely-attributed "claim" is misleading. E is the worst of all; no matter which sources you choose, neo-Nazism is the most notable thing about the group and needs to be in the first sentence in some form. Even the tiny number of sources that are more cautiously-worded still make it a major focus - no sources have been presented that could justify complete exclusion.
Collapsing reply to a ping for length
|
---|
EDIT: I've said this already, but since people seem to think pinging others is going to help - the sources people have presented below to try and argue that the group isn't widely-described as neo-Nazi are unconvincing. Most of them simply do not actually contradict that descriptor; things like "it has toned down its extremist elements" or such verbiage doesn't challenge the basic definition described in the sources. Furthermore, the sources people are trying to use to argue this point are generally weaker - very few academic sources present the point as something seriously disputed, and the ones that do are generally worded in a way that makes it clear that the authors recognize that they are challenging an established academic consensus. Furthermore, the more serious problems I identified with every alternative remain; in particular E is completely unacceptable because it omits a core element of the subject's notability entirely, while B (or any variation on it, such as alternative draft 1) is completely unacceptable because they falsely present it as a fait accompli that the group is no longer neo-Nazi or that it was merely an "early association" with it when numerous high-quality academic sources directly state otherwise. |
- In short, I still oppose both alternative drafts, B, D, and E in strongest possible terms as a flat and unambiguous misrepresentation of the sources. Even if the weak and unconvincing sources that people have presented to try and argue against A were accepted, nothing anyone has presented remotely supports any of those alternatives, which would require directly ignoring large amounts of recent high-quality scholarship (or, in the case of D, casting them as mere opinion per WP:CLAIM.) Option A remains the most accurate representation of the best sources out of the choices presented. Also, kindly stop bludgeoning people who have expressed support for A; if the scattershot and unconvincing sources people keep using to argue against it were actually as strong as you say, they would be capable of standing on their own. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, E, and B in that order. Oppose A. A used to be a good interpretation of the sourcing, but per recent sourcing, it no longer is. If we go with "E", it should say shortly afterwards that Azov used to be neo-Nazi. I will add that sourcing elsewhere in the discussion of this RfC. Adoring nanny (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, or E. An overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources would describe the unit in this way. Oppose A. This has been well refuted by reliable, contemporary sources. I agree with adoringnanny that if E, clarification should appear soon after the opening sentence. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)<--- — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternative draft 1, Oppose A(which is a ridiculous and outdated simplification). The Ukrainian government has repeatedly said they have no neo nazi units in their defence forces (despite what Russian propaganda says about "Nazi Ukraine"), including Azov. As has been said *many* times, even though people choose to ignore it, Azov were previously a Neo Nazi buch of soccer holligans, but have since been reformed, neo nazi leadership have been purged, and the govt has made them now a regular part of the Ukrainian defence forces. Certainly there are some members of the unit who are Nazis, but that's no different to US units or Russian who have Nazi members... and they aren't designated Neo Nazi. There are numerous sources to support this, and the article presently is filled with older sources (some going back to 2014) that simply call them Neo Nazi, that don't factor in changes of the last years.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alternative Draft #1 or E. As covered in RS, some or many members of the unit have/had Neo-Nazi views. This is not surprising. I am sure that some members of other military units in Ukraine and other countries (US including) have such views. But this is not the reason to define the whole military unit as "Neo-Nazi" in the first phrase in WP voice. This is just a unit of Army, not a political party. Such description in our article only helps anti-Ukrainian Putinist propaganda. My very best wishes (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Due to the ongoing events in Mariupol, the coverage of this unit will change in the near future. Hence, the description in the lead must also change. I think we could wait and then return to this later. But I personally think that the coverage has already changed in the most recent sources. This is something unusual. The majority of population of Mariupol (just as Kharkiv and Eastern Ukraine in general) are ethnic Russians who speak Russian, etc. So that Putin's forces now exterminate very same people they vowed to protect. On the other hand, the Ukrainian nationalist forces bravely protect the Russian-speaking population in Mariupol from Russian forces who behave just as Nazi during WW II. My very best wishes (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Close as fatally flawed, by indecision and interference during and after the posting of the Rfc. It was initiated on 12:42, 10 April and only after these 21 edits was the first vote cast at 13:23, 10 April 2022 (at which time, the Rfc was *already* a giant mess), including poorly discussed wholesale replacements of the options. In its current state, it's a sprawling mess with multiple collapses, and, imho, none of the options present a balanced view of the evolution of the Azov Batallion from its extremist origins to its complex, flawed present with continued extremist ties though less important, and less numerous, than before. As a second choice, Draft 1 is closest, but still not ideal. Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I think in an ideal world, a longer discussion of the various options would exist, and then an experienced, neutral, and uninvolved editor would make an RfC based on the options reached. I also agree that alternative draft 1 is the best written. I think a lot of the problem stems from trying to collapse complex realities into small spaces. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)<--- — Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Support A Aquillion summed it up pretty well. M.Bitton (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support E This discussion may be influenced by Russian-Ukrainian information war. The alleged complete list of reliable sources is far from being complete:
- https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion Stanford does not say neo-Nazi.
- https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Xx236 (talk) 07:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Stanford source repeatedly talks about AB's Neo-Nazi ideology and says The Azov Battalion is an extreme-right nationalist paramilitary organization that promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism through its National Militia paramilitary organization and National Corps political wing in its first two sentences. The first sentence of the France 24 starts with Some call them war heroes, others neo-Nazis. If you search hard enough you might be able to find sources to support the entire removal of neo-Nazism from the lead but it is definitely not these ones. These sources argue the opposite and it is incorrect to represent the Stanford source like this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is a database entry, and I do not see who was the author. Not a best source. One issue here: is it a [political] organization (as this source say) or is it a military unit (as most other sources say)? If there are both, then perhaps we need two separate pages. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A Per overwhelming usage in reliable sources.Anonimu (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A for now, perhaps they are a leopard trying to change their spots but it is soon to say so. If we are going to have the movement as a redirect here then it might be useful to say something about it somewhere in the lead and perhaps clarify more in the article body.Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support E or Alternative draft 1, strictly Oppose A - Should Azov’s far-right and neo-nazi associations be discusses in the article and in the lede – yes. Should we declare them neo-nazi in the very first sentence – no. First sentence should be about undisputed basic facts. In order to describe Azov as a neo-nazi unit in the opening sentence, this descriptor should be applied uniformly and unequivocally across international reliable sources. That is not the case. Substantial number of sources have been presented below suggest Azov has moved away from neo-Nazism, and even more sources while discussing Azov’s far-right links simply do not apply neo-nazi label with no additional qualifiers. Also, the list of sources presented to support the label doesn’t stand up to scrutiny very well, with majority of entries being dated, unreliable, or simply not supporting the “neo-nazi” label [54]. 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)
- 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)
- See below comment. Firestar464 (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Here's a couple of them.[13][14] 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)
- And your source is? Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 12 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 [55] - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:14, 14 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)
- Oppose A, support C and D. To maintain core article policy WP:NPOV and WP:VER the article shouldn't categorically use the label neo-Nazi when reliable sources are conflicted on this issue, plus its use here seems like contentious opinion WP:CONTENTIOUS so should not be included in WP:VOICE. IndigoBeach (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A. The balance of the decently-reliable sources found so far indicates that use of the straight-up label with no qualifications or modifications is misleading. There are simply too many of those sources in the "has/had neo-Nazi elements" bucket for "is a neo-Nazi battalion" to be a fair summary. Is there unanimity among the sources? No. But that means that the situation is complicated, which in turn means that our article can't take an easy way out. XOR'easter (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are other options you could choose from. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty much the core argument I made "Azov = Nazi" is a (sorta lazy and stupid) oversimplification that the Daily Mirror should use, but we here at Wikipedia need to be more accurate, explaining the actual situation with qualifications. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Does 'decently' suggest that any other opinions are undecent? Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: can I urge editors who have not been following the discussion to look at the review of sources at the top of this page (and/or the two lists of sources below here in the discussion) before !voting on the basis of sources. I note three or four editors have briefly !voted for A with comments such as "reflective of WP:RS" or "Per overwhelming usage in reliable sources", but don't appear to have addressed the balance of sources as documented on this page. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Bobfrombrockley, what is the correct course of action for the closer when !votes are not made on basis of sources? Should they discard the !votes as WP:IDL and risk being accused of a WP:SUPERVOTE, or lean on some other policy for these situations? I'm genuinly interested in knowing as there is RFC with this exact problem. CutePeach (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Can we please avoid cluttering the !Vote section and move this discussion to where it belongs? M.Bitton (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: One (admittedly imperfect) way to assess how they are described by the overwhelming majority of reliable news organizations would be to go to the perennial sources page, make a list of the reliable for political news outlets, select a representative number of outlets using a random number generator and catalogue how they are characterized (described the first time they appear in the body) by the news outlet in articles (not blogs or opinion pieces) from the last few years. I did not find neo-Nazi to be an at all common descriptor. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- We have this: Talk:Azov Battalion/Sources. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- C but not E nor draft #2: More sources indicate "contain elements" compared to other characterizations. CurryCity (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support A there are many RS published in the recent past, claiming it is a neonazi group. So, we will need a more recent, well cited review paper published in a peer revied journal, that examines the nature or ideology of Azov battalion, and states that they have moved from neonazism to something else Cinadon36 05:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC) (moved "lost" vote to the proper location by GizzyCatBella🍁 11:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC))
- Support alternative draft 2, alternative draft 1, or E. Oppose A.Mihaiam (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternative draft 1, Oppose A From a perusal of recent sources in Talk:Azov Battalion/Sources, it seems like there is debate surrounding the best characterising ideology of the group, especially recently (WP:AGE MATTERS). The current description seems to have problems with WP:NPOV because it is direct contradiction with many recent sources. I like alternative draft 1 because it is fairly matter of fact and avoids anything contentious WP:CONTENTIOUS Cononsense (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- — Cononsense (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 00:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose A, as reflecting Russian propaganda not current sources, and being WP:UNDUE given the groups current notability comes from their defence of Mariupol. BilledMammal (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support alternative draft #2 or alternative draft #1. The reliable sources are sufficiently split (and actually tend towards "formerly" when biasing in favour of more recent sources) that some level of nuance is warranted. Strongly oppose A as too black-and-white. --Tserton (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Close as inept, like the other RfCs. A is absolutely prposterous and shouldn’t even be considered. The only point of all this is to stall any change that might rid the lead of a blatant NPOV violation, when the provisory ‘has often been described as neo-Nazi’ easily slices the endlessly entangled Gordian knot. My expectation is that the RfCs will drag on tactically until Russian wins its territorial gambit, and then we can coldly face the facts and rid the page of propaganda.
- There is little evidence of careful source deliberation here. Both Russia and the Ukraine, as heirs to Slavophile traditions field numerous neo-Nazi or fascist groupuscules, the former with explicit régime backing. Wikipedia has obsessed over the Ukrainian version, feeding into, inadvertently or not, Russian propaganda with its pot calling the kettle black. The major and authoritative book on this topic by Michael Colborne, which almost no one appears to have read (and which should be the default source for an article like this) tells you everything about the Ukrainian far-right in detail that would embarrass it. But itincludes an account of an historic caesura of sorts that appears to have occurred on Zelenskyy's election in 2019, when Azov, once incorporated into the Ukrainian army, was 'purged' – as the Azov leadership complained- with the Nazi element estimated to constitute now about a fifth of its force.
- Colborne himself, as we note, on being interviewed in 2022, was cautious about the use of the epithet. Editors have being giving undue weight to a flurry of meme-reproducing sources from 2014 that ignore changes, nuances, and the scepticism of several area specialists – the usual laziness or POV pushing . The A proposal which has garnered so much Pavlovian backing, is farcically at odds with a significant body of research which admits its undoubted pro-Nazi origins, but notes that over 8 years, due to considerable political changes and ideological shifts, Azov, in Colborne’s words , has not been presenting for some time the hardline views attached to its formative period. In the meantime, Nazi behaviour is thoroughly evidenced by units flourishing on the ground in the barbaric Russian assault, as far-right mercenaries, Wagner, Islamic militants, Chechens and embedded members of the advowedly Nazi Russian Imperial Movement get only minor press coverage, though mirroring even now behaviour we once associated with Azov. I can’t remember such a consistent NPOV violation, in the face of extensive contrary sources by eminently solid researchers, since I began editing here in 2006. We know from Polish articles and Arbcom that this area is subject to extreme POV jockeying, and therefore, NPOV should be absolutely obligatory to avoid any hint of manipulation.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- A' There are enough sources to support the status quo.[56] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.[57] 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)
- I stand corrected. (Full quotation:
- 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)
- 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)
- @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.[57] M.Bitton (talk) 21:36, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. [58]. The oppose A voters, in my view, need to produce multiple high quality sources that say explicitly that it was a neo-nazi group, but now it isn't, for me to consider any other options. Claiming that they now rid themselves of neo-nazis, just before the invasion, is an extraordinary claim that would need support of overwhelming evidence. - hako9 (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support D: I believe, it only would be adequate to call an organization neo-nazi, or any other label, if this is written in their statute, and all members have to swear the cause to join. This is obviously not the case. I believe the option D is the most adequate lead: it tells what Azov Battalion certainly is officially, and it mentions the claims of it being neo-nazi. This lead variand does not hide anything from the reader, does not pretend to be the ultimate judgement on the case, and leaves it to the body of the article for all points for and against considering the organization neo-nazi or not. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Alternative Draft #2: Unquestionably, the set of sources compiled between February 2014 and February 2022, have sustained that the regiment has a neonazi origin, however, placing the affirmation of an "is" for the community is a bit irresponsible, given that between these dates, there are an ongoing warlike conflict, where sources chose a side, its supposed origin could be placed, but not the "is" stated as its current state.--Berposen (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- If the alternative is illegal, my opinion in the survey would be for option D.--Berposen (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Move from the current version. As I've expressed earlier while compiling sources the previous time (see previous RfC, section Sources, from which Shibbolethink seems to have drawn), there is no doubt a substantial neo-Nazi element within the battalion and some ties here are undeniable (such as the use of symbols). But when sources diverge on whether to call someone/some organisation a neo-Nazi, the relevant guideline in MOS says we should err on the side of caution. Arguably even "far-right" is a pretty contentious label, but it is appropriate given the overwhelming consensus, as I assessed back in 2021, that the army formation is either far-right or neo-Nazi. The recent news coverage simply confirms what I've been saying back then; scholars don't seem to have substantially changed their mind (and the sources I compiled showed anything but consensus for "neo-Nazi" label). In fact, while back then I supported some label for the battalion given that it is known for its rather extreme views, now that malicious actors have potential and strong incentives of using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes, I would consider simply attributing the neo-Nazi links, remove it from the first sentence and discuss the scholarly and journalist usage in a dedicated section for that purpose (with a short summary elsewhere in the lead). I didn't challenge the previous closure at the time given that I was already tired perusing 100+ sources on the topic, but its assumption that far-right and neo-Nazi fundamentally mean the same thing was thoroughly flawed - it's more or less like to say that communism, anarchism and just far-left politics are monolithic, which of course they are not. Marine Le Pen is not Benito Mussolini is not Adolf Hitler is not Vladimir Zhirinovsky is not Marjorie Taylor Greene is not Eduard Limonov.
- Draft 2 is the closest to what I am willing to support. It is not ideal, but certainly much better than stating outright the Azov Battalion is neo-Nazi. Too much nuance to paint it as neo-Nazi as a whole, in particular as most of its members aren't neo-Nazi after all. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- "as most of its members aren't neo-Nazi after all" - how do know that @Szmenderowiecki? Chrystal ball? - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- See first sentence in last paragraph of the lead:
In March 2015, Andriy Diachenko, a spokesman for the Azov Brigade, told USA Today that 10% to 20% of the group's members are Nazis.
For independent estimates: Likhachev says "many" but warns this label should not spread to "all". It is also safe to assume that the number of extremists is lower than reported even a year or two ago and likely does not constitute a majority. Same thing reported by the Financial Times and Gazeta Wyborcza. - In other words, if we don't deal with an overwhelming majority of people having a certain behaviour, it is better policy-wise to refrain from contentious labels such as this. We don't even have a majority here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- See first sentence in last paragraph of the lead:
- "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)
- 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
DE 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)
- @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)
- Some add-ons: I want be clear that I oppose A for the VOICE reasons listed above. I also oppose
- 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)
- Strongly Oppose A; and support E and Alternative Draft #1, the Draft #2 is also fairly good. Next best solution I think is a combination of B or D (all have grammar issues). Personally, the claims should just go in the second sentence, rather than force it into a run-on jumble, if they are going to be brought up. This page is far too ideologically driven, plenty of room to give air to controversial claims outside of the absolute first sentence, and to all neutral observers, the group is obviously not “neo-nazi” in any way outside of tangential symbolism. Weight should be given to experts on the matter (for example, Shekhovtsov) who have disavowed the description, or the media, who never try to bring this up anymore; and significantly less weight should be given to sources from 2014-16, as that is dated information now.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
irrelvant to options.
|
---|
|
RfC is underway whether we like it or not. Need to clear away the clutter.
|
---|
@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)
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)
This is unbelievable. Is this RFC valid or not? Can we vote now?--Mhorg (talk) 14:07, 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)
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)
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
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)
|
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 MSNBC youtube CBS "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" Jerusalem Post Foreign Affairs BBC AFP via France 24 CommonWealth Magazine (Taiwanese magazine, Chinese name: 天下雜誌) Radio Télévision Suisse (FR) RMF24 (POL) Center for Civil Liberties Financial Times The Bulwark Refresher (CZE) |
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
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: [62] 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)
- @Shibbolethink: In my opinion, the quote accompanying the source in the table should be
- To clarify, then, Mhorg, you're saying the CTC article is not a reliable source? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:22, 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)
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[63] 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)
- 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)
- it is never a good look to take someone else's argument that you disagree with, and mischaracterize it to the point where it is easily "knocked down." This is what is commonly known as a "straw man" argument. No one here is arguing that every single member is a neo-nazi. And if you see that argument here, i would love to see quotes showing it's what someone here thinks. It's, in general, a good practice to quote others when referring to their arguments. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you? but he don't "knock me" down. My argument is specific, since you mention logic, in set theory, sister of logic, it is easy to discern the definition of a set, for its entirety, here there is an evident mixture in its elements, where the definition of its totality remains fallacious in "is". Best regards.--Berposen (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: 1/ Responding here to something in the Survey above to avoid cluttering that section. M.Bitton said "Utter nonsense" in response to the suggestion that this source supports option D rather than option A. However, it seems to me that a source which says "Some say A is X; others don't" cannot support us saying in wikivoice that "A is X" (option A); it can only support us saying in Wikivoice that "some say A is X" (option D). 2/ Responding to BSMRD above question
If a group has several Nazis, is covered with Nazi symbols, espouses a far-right ideology, and is comprised of people who don't mind any of the previous items, what exactly is it if not a neo-Nazi organization?
This feels like a case study in WP:SYN. If sources say all those things, that's exactly what we should say, and not go beyond it to "is neo-Nazi". (Especially as neo-Nazi is a subset of far right, not a synonym.) In other words, these claims amount to "neo-Nazi elements (option C). In short, lots of the sources being used in this discussion to support option A really support some combination of B/C/D. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)- @Bobfrombrockley: Please don't misrepresent what I said by taking it out of context. The source here is Efraim Zuroff (as mentioned right at the start of the discussion). You questioned my interpretation of what he said and I proved you wrong. That he described them as "neo-Nazis" is the only fact that matters, everything else is irrelevant. M.Bitton (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- I originally misread the source and missed the quote to which you were referring and you indeed proved me wrong, as I acknowledged. However, I continue to question your interpretation, because in determining what we say in wikivoice I don't think all that matters is what Zuroff thinks. We can attribute the view that Azov is Nazi to him: he is an authoritative and relevant expert. But he is not the only expert, and the article notes that "others" dispute this characterisation. That's all. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is what happens from someone's comment is taken out of context. Here's what I said (before you questioned my interpretation of what he said):
I'm not here to teach the basics. If editors want to learn about the subject, then they do their own research and draw their own conclusion. For example: just 5 days ago, Efraim Zuroff described the members of the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazis
M.Bitton (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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 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)
- @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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Closing request was made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#RfC_at_Azov_Battalion.--Staberinde (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree. Whatever its previous state, it wasn't like that for long and is fine now; and we need to end this already. Let the RFC run its course. --Aquillion (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree. The RFC was launched, then huge changes were made to the text by other users. There are already complex comments in the vote section, why should we close it?--Mhorg (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- The fact that it was changed is one thing. The other is that it isn't neutral to begin with and people with.no sense of irony are complaining about being edited on the one hand while deleting votes on the other. I say people stop telling other people to shut up, and we have Deathlibrarian and/or Bobfrombrockley draft a proposed RfC. They seem to be among nature's diplomats and are already up to speed on the discussion, so that might not take long at all. Then we can discuss the proposed options, amend if needed, and vote on what to include in the public RfC. I have to vote none of the above on this one, as there is at least one thing wrong with all of the choices, and I am not about to vote for a slightly better BLP violation. Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- it is one thing (and entirely reasonable) to request that the RFC statement be amended or edited to make it more neutral. It is quite another to just state that it should be closed and redone. Let's not waste more time here. Just suggest edits to the RFC statement to make it more neutral, and let us all get on with editing this encyclopedia.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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 [64] to the proper section (above this one) - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- References from posts above
References
- ^ Saressalo, T., & Huhtinen, A.-M. (2018). The Information Blitzkrieg — “Hybrid” Operations Azov Style. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(4), 423–443.
- ^ Chossudovsky, M. (2015). Ukraine’s neo-Nazi summer camp. Guardian (Sydney), (1701), 7.
- ^ Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.
- ^ Umland, A. (2019). Irregular militias and radical nationalism in post-euromaydan Ukraine: The prehistory and emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1), 105-131.
- ^ Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.
- ^ Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall" Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 33-41.
- ^ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2017-08-01/how-ukraine-reined-its-militias
- ^ AFP in https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war
- ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/
- ^ https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d
- ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404
- ^ https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151
- ^ J. L. Black, Michael Johns (2016). The Return of the Cold War Ukraine, The West and Russia. Routledge. p. 185. ISBN 978-1-317-40954-0.
the Azov Battalion, openly uses Nazi-like symbols (the Wolfsangel) and rhetoric often couched in anti-Semitic terms
- ^ Serhy Yekelchyk (2020). Ukraine What Everyone Needs to Know®. Oxford University Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-19-753210-2.
Azov Battalion, continues to use the Wolfsangel as its official emblem.
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)
Chemical weapon allegation
Re this edit by Mohrg, which I believe removed text added by LordLoko: this seems to me extremely noteworthy. CNBC is a reliable source and it was reported by multiple other RSs.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71] We are not saying in wikivoice that a chemical attack happened (I doubt it did) but that they made the allegation, which was widely reported. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Revert the edit: as you say, as per RS, Azov made such accusations, that's what the removed text told, no more, no less. Removing the mention of it is just a soft whitewashing of Russian army image, similar to a soft anti-Azov PR with neo-nazi label being attached to its name any time it is mentioned. Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, it is not noteworthy, it is a statemenet of a besieged military formation that has a huge interest in declaring sensational events to attract attention and somehow break the siege of Mariupol. They are just claims without any evidence brought. We cannot report any speculation in the article, it is just stuff declared by people who would do anything right now to save themselves. Please, less politics and more facts. Mhorg (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I am unsure what this tells us about the subject of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- It was in the section about Azov during the Russian invasion Ukraine, so any events, and any notable declarations by Azov are relevant to the section. Even if 100% invented by Azov PR department, it is still worth to mention as an example of Azov PR department in work. Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Unsure, as I can think of lots of things we do not mention in all kinds of articles about military units. Im am unsure what this tells us about them, or their actions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for this post. I think it's my fault, the source is reliable but I think I should have mentioned that the allegations of chemical weapons use weren't confirmed by indepedent sources. We should revert the edit and add a blurb saying that the allegations weren't confirmed.LordLoko (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- NB NBC reported on 6 April that three US intelligence officials told them (unofficially) re the chemical weapon stories about a month ago there was "no evidence Russia has brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine" and the "U.S. released the information to deter Russia from using the banned munitions". Essentially the article said there was an information war going on. I think we should be very wary with using such claims, even now. Rwendland (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would say overall we can say the allegations were made, say Azov made them, but should also say they are unconfirmed and that intelligence sources have cast doubt on the claims. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely we should say it was unconfirmed and yes we should be wary of the infowar. We don't need details on the process of confirmation and who is skeptical in this article, as it takes us off the topic of the Regiment. What is relevant is simply that Azov made the allegation and this was widely reported. It is definitely noteworthy, by virtue of it being heavily reported on. Since the start of the current invasion, it is one of the main contexts in which news media has mentioned the unit. One or two sentences therefore should go into the section about the current war. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- See Siege of Mariupol#Alleged use of chemical weapons. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is the right place for what this. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is the right place for any extended description of what happened and any investigation. This is the right place for a brief reference to the fact Azov made the allegation, which was widely reported. Azov's role in the Siege is relevant to both articles. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- WP:FRINGE tells us we need to clarify any fringe claims with the mainstream narrative. That applies here, so we cannot just say "azov claimed X" here, we also need to say what the experts think. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is the right place for any extended description of what happened and any investigation. This is the right place for a brief reference to the fact Azov made the allegation, which was widely reported. Azov's role in the Siege is relevant to both articles. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is the right place for what this. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- Azov claimed the chem attack on April 11, a week after NBC article. So, maybe an info war, or maybe the Russia brought and used the stuff after US intelligence told they were sure Russia won't use it, or maybe US intelligence just missed Russia brining the stuff. Also the truth can be halfway: probably Russian forces used a tear gas or whatsoever which is not a chem weapon technically, but Azov fighters were not eager to spend more time breathing it to be sure whether it is a chem weapon or not, can't blame them for that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Birdofpreyru (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- First casualty of war is the truth, it does seem clear that most sources treated this particular claim cautiously, unlike claims that were made by official Ukrainian sources, anyway we do not need to reinvent the wheel, if we do want something in this article, we can just copy paste.Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- We should not endorse Azov's claim. We simply need to note that they made the allegation, which has not been confirmed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- First casualty of war is the truth, it does seem clear that most sources treated this particular claim cautiously, unlike claims that were made by official Ukrainian sources, anyway we do not need to reinvent the wheel, if we do want something in this article, we can just copy paste.Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would say overall we can say the allegations were made, say Azov made them, but should also say they are unconfirmed and that intelligence sources have cast doubt on the claims. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
As shown by Bob's sources, this story passes the WP:DUE threshold, and they should simply be covered as allegations. CutePeach (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think Shibbolethink is right,
we can say the allegations were made, say Azov made them, but should also say they are unconfirmed and that intelligence sources have cast doubt on the claims.
After a spate of news reporting on 12, the whole thing has died down so there seems no lasting news impact. A precis of the material from the Mariupol article would be as below (Can some one check if the source of the allegation was Biletsky?) Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Suggested edit
- On 11 April 2022, Andriy Biletsky accused Russian forces of using “a poisonous substance of unknown origin” in Mariupol. The United States stated that it could not confirm the allegations.[1] Experts are sceptical about the alleged attack.[2]
- Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Andriy Biletsky? Wasn't Denys Prokopenko (current Azov commander in Mariupol) that accused Russia of commiting the attack ?[3][4] Your two sources don't mention Biletsky. LordLoko (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Some sources said it was Andriy Biletsky (the nbc did originally but they have changed it, TOI, Guardian and https://kyivindependent.com/national/azov-says-russia-used-chemical-weapons-in-besieged-mariupol/), others said it was "the battalion" (on social media) and I wondered if anyone had a source specifically identifying the originator of the allegation (I can't see it in those two sources you give). That's why I asked the question.22:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- After some rooting around I found https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-battalion-accuses-russia-using-chemical-weapons-civilians-1697052 which says on 11 April "About an hour ago, Russian occupation forces used a poisonous substance of unknown origin against Ukrainian military and civilians in the city of Mariupol, which was dropped from an enemy UAV," the Azov Regiment posted on Telegram on Monday." So the source of the allegation is someone with access to the Telegram account of the Azov regiment. Then everyone, starting with the Ukranian authorities, followed by the US, UK and a bunch of experts, lined up to say that the claim was a) unverified and b) unlikely. Do we really want to put this in? Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Understood. His wiki page does mention that he accused Russia and there's a direct link to a youtube post by Azov of Denis himself (primary source) which I'd rather not use it. I do found some secondary sources that affirm Denys was the accuser (https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/808869.html, https://kyivindependent.com/national/azov-says-russia-used-chemical-weapons-in-besieged-mariupol and https://www.infobae.com/en/2022/04/12/more-allegations-of-a-russian-chemical-attack-in-mariupol-a-ukrainian-commander-said-that-there-are-several-affected-by-a-poisonous-substance/). If we don't think these sources are reliable, then we don't mention Denis, just "Azov".
- Otherwise, I think we should put this line from Siege_of_Mariupol#Alleged_use_of_chemical_weapons ("Later, Ukraine stated that it was investigating the allegations, but that early assumptions suggested the weapon used was phosphorus ammunition, which is not considered a chemical weapon. Three Ukrainian soldiers were injured in the incident"[5].) . Again this is highly controversial and unbased so we should emphasize how some specialists are skeptical. LordLoko (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- We cannot put any claims in the article. This stuff is pure fantasy, as Selfstudier proved. Mhorg (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Most sources just say Azov Regiment made the allegation so best to stick with that and not name a source, otherwise happy with something like Selfstudier/LordLoko proposed wording above. How about:
On 11 April 2022, the Regiment accused Russian forces of using “a poisonous substance of unknown origin” in Mariupol. The allegations have not been confirmed. Ukraine stated that it was investigating the allegations, but that early assumptions suggested the weapon used was phosphorus ammunition, which is not classed as a chemical weapon in international law.
footnoting a couple of the better RSs provided above. Doesn't matter whether the attack happened or not; we only report the allegation, which we attribute, as it is obviously due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)- this week this incident was brought up by the US Permanent Representative to the OSCE
- https://english.nv.ua/nation/russian-invaders-could-have-used-chemically-altered-tear-gas-in-mariupol-warns-us-rep-to-osce-50236347.html Cononsense (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Now that I have seen where the allegation originated and how it was first reported, I tend to regard this as an allegation without any serious foundation, why so many sources are at pains to say it is unverified. Personally I think we should not give it credence but if there is a consensus to do so, and I don't see that as yet, then I think it should be fully explained. The phosphorus extension of the original claim seems of no relevance whatsoever afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Support: I think that's fine. We should add that, LordLoko (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Most sources just say Azov Regiment made the allegation so best to stick with that and not name a source, otherwise happy with something like Selfstudier/LordLoko proposed wording above. How about:
- Andriy Biletsky? Wasn't Denys Prokopenko (current Azov commander in Mariupol) that accused Russia of commiting the attack ?[3][4] Your two sources don't mention Biletsky. LordLoko (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Pentagon monitoring reports of possible Russian chemical weapons attack in Mariupol". APR 11 2022. By Christina Wilkie. CNBC. [1]
- ^ Sabbagh, Dan (12 April 2022). "Did Russia really use chemical weapons in Ukraine? Experts are sceptical". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 19 April 2022.
- ^ "'The fortress of the Azov': What we know about the Azovstal steelworks siege". ABC News. 2022-04-19. Retrieved 2022-04-23.
- ^ "Ukraine news live: President Zelenskyy says he 'does not fear' meeting Putin; Russian forces 'trying to storm' final holdout in Mariupol". Sky News. Retrieved 2022-04-23.
- ^ "Ukraine War: US 'deeply concerned' at report of Mariupol chemical attack". BBC News. 2022-04-12. Retrieved 2022-04-23.
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)
- 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)
- 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
andthis 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)
- Because stating your personal opinions without any sources to back them up
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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'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)
- 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)
Just to say I agree with Selfstudier and M.Bitton here. This is from a primary source. It is relevant in the body but should not be in the lead. Following BRD, removal was correct and should not be reverted again without clear consensus here. It does not may make the RfC above irrelevant, though worth mentioning in that section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- This discussion seems to have quiesced, and the OP has been inactive since, but fwiw I think the correct way to handle this (if at all) may be to store the open letter in Russian Wikisource, with a translation in English Wikisource. If anyone is interested in following up or commenting, see s:WS:S#Transwikifying a Russian source with English translation from Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Can someone replace it with 'Allegedly has neo nazi links' or something more neutral? I don't really understand given the whole neutrality ethos of Wikipedia and there is a controversy around this with Shekhontsov saying they are not, or you could note the controversy in another section Fourdots2 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
April 2022: Wolfsangel
@Birdofpreyru: Why do you keep adding sources that do not mention either Azov or what "Wolfsangel" means to them? Your edit was reverted twice with an explanatory edit summary, restoring it with a different problematic source doesn't change the issue. I suggest you self-revert (as this is your second revert today). 19:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Can you also please refrain from edit warring? M.Bitton (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- The latest sources I am adding say that Azov says that for them Wolfsangel is an I & N monogram for "The Idea of the Nation", not the Nazi meaning of the symbol. Then, they (and the wiki article about Wolfsangel) mention that the symbol has other meanings, like freedom and fighting against occupation (which is very fitting in the current context), and it is used in the nowaday Germany by a bunch of cities / regions / whatsoever.
- Then I look through Azov article, and I see it presenting the Wolfsangel as exclusively Nazi symbol, which per se proves Azov is a nazi detachment. With somewhat circular logic: Azov is Nazi hence they mean Nazi meaning of Wolfsangel; Azov uses the Nazi meaning of Wolfsangel hence they are Nazi. It looks to me as a soft propaganda montage aiming on a reader who does not know better, and is not interested to investigate the meaning of the symbol.
- Hence, I believe NPOV means alternative meanings of the symbol should be mentioned in this article. If you want to prove Azov is Nazi - fine for me, but unfortunately Wolfsangel does not look as a proof to me, when you need to cherry-pick one meaning, which Azov say they don't consider as the meaning. Birdofpreyru (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wolfsangel and other Nazi symbols (black sun, etc.) were used from day one by Azov as "Nazi symbols". Getting rid of the others and keeping Wolfsangel doesn't change the initial meaning of the symbol for the founders of Azov who think that Semites are sub-humans. M.Bitton (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Source? Re. anti-semitism of Azov, in my current understanding most of it comes down to some rasist quotes attributed to Biletsky, which are not coming from an original source, but more like "somebody in 2015 told that ages ago Biletsky wrote some rasist stuff"... but nobody gives a link to the original source, and Biletsky himself denied that he ever wrote or told anything like that, and says it was invented by Russian propaganda. I tend to believe this because I remember in 2014 the Russian propaganda was all about: we annexed Crimea and a part of Donbas because otherwise Ukraine's Nazi's would enter there to kill everybody Russian-speaking. So, from back then Russian propaganda was actively working to convience everybody that everybody in Ukraine who is not pro-Russian is a nazi. Similarly with the symbols... the guys who use them deny they are using them with nazi meaning, but sure other people know better what the symbol means to them. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Do you honestly believe that the use of all the Nazis symbols was accidental? M.Bitton (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- I believe, if they wanted a nazi symbol with a nazi meaning they would just use swastika, or some variation of it as real neo-nazis do in Russia or Ukraine, and which was legal in Ukraine prior to 2015. Sure, I don't know what was their rational to select Black Sun and Wolfsangel, but it looks plausable to me they were not thinking about the nazi meaning. Btw, I myself grew up in Russia, and never heard of Black Sun and Wolfsangel back in Russia. Everybody there knows swastikas, SS runes, skulls with bones, but not the other stuff. I'd guess the same in Ukraine, so again it is easy to believe that most of people in the organization had no idea about origins / meaning of these symbols when they were put on Azov emblem. Birdofpreyru (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- They might as well since they are quite happy having amongst them those who have tattoos of the Swastika on their bodies. M.Bitton (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- I believe that if they wanted to be able to deny they were nazi's they would would pick one that was not so obvious as a swastika (as so many other Neo-nazi groups have down). This is why we go by what RS say, and not what we believe. 09:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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, 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)
Biletsky himself denied
, Biletsky deniying something is the contrary of an RS Mhorg (talk) 20:16, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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
|
---|
|
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:
- 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 thisPentagon 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)
- 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
- 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)
- Is there a US regiment that has soldiers showcasing the Nazi symbols? M.Bitton (talk) 13:38, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- A swastika was used as a symbol before too. Who in Europe is using swastika after WW2? GizzyCatBella🍁 13:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Where is the black sun in these unsourced fancy looking "things"? M.Bitton (talk) 13:14, 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 justscholar
, 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)
- I don't see
- 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)
Non-admin closes
Imo, it is not proper to direct a closer to take into account a prior RFC with a different question nor to close the prior RFC with the same directive as part of the close. Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- While I somewhat understand your frustration and see why you would be dissatisfied, this is unfortunately not the proper venue for any dispute. The proper process is to take any disagreements to @Szmenderowiecki's talk page, and then if it cannot be resolved amicably, to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard where you can request a formal closure review. But keep in mind, such reviews are based upon the circumstances and overall understanding of whether the closer accurately interpreted consensus. I have seen few such cases actually be overturned. But if you sincerely believe it's a bad close, go ahead, I think it's always good to have more eyes. Regardless, this talk page is not the proper venue. I would also, though, remind you that WP:RFC dictates that we should not have multiple concurrent RFCs on the same topic. In that, Szm is correct. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think @Selfstudier's issue is not the close itself, but @Szmenderowiecki posting a header over the active RfC pointing to their own closure. While I can understand why it might rub someone the wrong way, I don't think anything is technically wrong with it. BSMRD (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
That header is part of the close.Oh I see what you mean now. I've softened that wording and made it extremely neutral. I think it's entirely reasonable to ask the future closer to take into account a past RFC from a few days prior that is already on this talk page. It is entirely within that closer's rights to completely ignore it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)- The idea of that warning flash is not to point to my closure (which, as I've noted, does not rule on the merits of the question), but rather to draw the closer's attention to that RfC's arguments, which I found to be duplicating the more extensive one, with source tables and more discussion. Unfortunately, simply moving the answers to the larger RfC was not possible due to the formulation of the question (yes/no vs. multiple-choice), but both RfCs are (or rather, were) debating essentially the same thing, i.e. whether Azov should be called neo-Nazi, and if so, how. That's the reason for the technical closure.
- Thanks for rewording the template.
- I'd ask to debate the closure on my talk page if you have any further questions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with User:Selfstudier, the closure is inappropriate. An uninvolved editor should assess, summarize, and formally close that discussion, see Wikipedia:Closure requests. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think @Selfstudier's issue is not the close itself, but @Szmenderowiecki posting a header over the active RfC pointing to their own closure. While I can understand why it might rub someone the wrong way, I don't think anything is technically wrong with it. BSMRD (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have submitted my own closure to review here. If they say the RfC should continue, or they overturn it themselves, so be it. I'd propose, however, to spend less time arguing, and if you have to, not to do that all over the place. Let's see what they say. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
This [72] appears to be a poorly judged closure by Szmenderowiecki. Asking for a closure review might be required - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022
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.
This edit request to Azov Battalion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"is a neo-Nazi[3][4] unit of the National Guard of Ukraine" is incorrect! ("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 battalion, named after the Sea of Azov to Ukraine's south, became famous for winning back Mariupol from Russian-backed separatists in 2014.
Eight years later, it is again fighting for the city that Russian President Vladimir Putin hopes will give him his first major victory in the Ukraine campaign.
Beating the Azov Regiment could also help him justify the "denazification" claims prominent in Russian propaganda, which also labels Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish, as leading a "gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis".
Such attacks try to build on Russia's collective World War II memory of what it calls the Great Patriotic War, and thus whip up nationalist support for the invasion, experts say. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war ) 104.152.28.55 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. Please take any discussion of this issue to the ongoing RfC above. BSMRD (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Mariupol steelworks
Given Azov's role in the battle to defend the steelworks could this be put more prominently in the article, as right now it simply says they are involved in the siege of Mariupol right at the bottom of the first para? Additionally, could details about this protest be added, involving Prokopenko's wife plus the relatives of injured Azov soldiers? She is campaigning to evacuate them from the steelworks and id say this is pretty notable given the protest today on the subject was broken up in Kyiv
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/wives-mariupol-soldiers-dispersed-police-kyiv-protest-ukraine-russia
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/wives-of-mariupol-defenders-appeal-for-soldiers-evacuation/2022/04/30/9d970ff6-c859-11ec-8cff-33b059f4c1b7_story.html Fourdots2 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2022
This edit request to Azov Battalion has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request to look through the definition of the Azov battalion. Cross out the point “neo-nazi” (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movement-far-right-intl-cmd/index.html, https://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2022/05/7/7344690/), as well as change the battalion to regiment. Thank you. Olhaaaaaaaaa (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
it’s crucially important to change the definition of the regiment!! urgently!! Olhaaaaaaaaa (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia objectionable content
- C-Class Ukraine articles
- Low-importance Ukraine articles
- WikiProject Ukraine articles
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class national militaries articles
- National militaries task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Wikipedia requests for comment