Talk:Odessa Brigade

This unit is not the same as the Odesskaya Druzhina

Just a general note for anyone interested, seeing as the latest edit appeared to confuse these subjects. The Odessa Brigade was not the Odesskaya Druzhina. "Odesskaya Druzhina" was a collective term of a movement which included several groups. The Odessa Brigade was one of these groups, but not even the largest. Applodion (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is your source for that? The article and the sources I've read all suggest that Odesskaya Druzhina formed the core of the Odessa Brigade. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 13:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

The Odessa Brigade was one group of many within the Odesskaya Druzhina. This article, and the 2014 Odessa clashes article, literally say this. Read the sources. Also, the "Hybrid Warriors" book by Anna Autunyan gives a good overview on the splintered nature of the Odesskaya Druzhina. Applodion (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

"The Odessa Brigade was one group of many within the Odesskaya Druzhina" - can you please provide a source for that? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 14:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Asarlaí: If you really want to, keep the 2014 clashes article largely as you edited it (I disagree with your changes, but I'm not going to start an edit war over it) - but the Odessa Brigade is not the same as the Odesskaya Druzhina. The Odessa Brigade is, per all sources about the group, a subfaction of the Odesskaya Druzhina. They are not equal.
And here are the sources:

• This article outlines that the Odesskaya Druzhina (called «народных дружин» in the article) was composed of several factions: The first one ("Youth Unity") was less violent and founded/led by Anton Davidchenko; however, even this one had militant splinters mentioned by the site (translated "Stalin's Party", "Zubr", "Eye of the Diamond", "Jews against Hurwitz", etc.). The second force were the more violent radicals. Here, the source again mentions several sub-groups, including one called the "army of the faithful Black Sea Cossacks" and the "White Army".
• "The Ukrainian Security Service, or SBU, accused Rayevsky of attempting to create a "subversive" group in Odessa during his stay there and to provoke ethnic conflicts between Odessa's Russian and Ukrainian residents." [1] - Note the "attempting" here. The Odesskaya Druzhina were active around at this point; the SBU did not equal Rayevsky's group to the already existing militant protestors.
• This article outlines that the head of Odesskaya Druzhina was Denis Yatsyuk (not Rayevsky or Fominov who led the first Odessa Brigade).
• This article outlines that the Odessa Brigade as a proper militia was founded by ex-members of Odesskaya Druzhina when the protest movement in Odesa was no longer active.

I can search out more sources, if you would like. Applodion (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Asarlaí: So, I have added various pro-Russian groups I could find to the 2014 Odesa clashes article. One of the most interesting sources I found was this interview with one of the main Russian militants in Odessa; he claims that there were many militant factions, and identifies two main groups/movements: Odessa Militia (Odesskaya Druzhina) and the People's Militia of Odessa. Note that these share nearly identical names. The interview's editor also notes that Rayevsky (the founder of the Odessa Brigade) was a member of the Odesskaya Druzhina whose proposals for even more violent attacks were turned down by the Odesskaya Druzhina leadership. Applodion (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Applodion, thankyou for finding those sources. This new information should be added to the article. I still think we should name Odesskaya Druzhina somewhere in the lead, without implying they're the same group.

Aside from that, the lead is missing important details. Although it might be obvious to you and I, the lead doesn't tell readers where it formed (the Ukrainian city Odesa), it doesn't explain the context in which it formed (during the pro-Russian unrest that followed the Ukrainian Revolution), it doesn't say what it did in Luhansk (fought on behalf of the Luhansk People's Republic in the Donbas War), and it doesn't mention the Russian invasion. It only says that it was originally an "anti-Maidan" group, without explaining what that means, and that it reorganized in Luhansk. I propose that this detail be re-added.

Also, the lead says it was re-founded in 2022, but the sources are skeptical about this, which is why I prefer the wording "claimed to have been founded". – Asarlaí ^(talk) 15:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Asarlaí: I have adjusted the lede per your suggestion which I now better understand (thanks for outlining your reasoning). I hope you also understand now why I was hestitant to suggest that the Odessa Brigade and Odesskaya Druzhina were the same. Regarding the 2022 unit. Yes, it's true that this could be a lie, but there actually exists photos of the unit -including their own uniform patches- and the second unit's leader appears to be an actual Russian collaborator. However, I have adjusted the wording to leave it a bit more open to interpretation.
Also, I think the best option regarding Odesskaya Druzhina would be to create a new article called "Anti-Maidans during the 2014 Odesa clashes". There, we could collect information not just on Odesskaya Druzhina, but also all the other splinter factions (some of which were notable in their own right). What do you think? Applodion (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that I've seen these new sources, I understand why you undid some of my changes. Overall I think this discussion has helped make the article better.

As for your suggestion, it depends how much information is available. I think it would be best to start a section in 2014 Odesa clashes about the anti-Maidan and pro-Maidan groups. Then if there's enough detail we could think about making a spin-off article. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 19:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is a good idea. I think the 2014 Odesa clashes article is actually really long already, so we could make a spinoff article about those groups. I've already made a redirect at Odesskaya Druzhina that goes to the section in this article, but it could be retargeted or turned into a full article itself depending on changes in other articles. HappyWith (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Scope

This article is essentially about two barely-related groups with seven whole years of discontinuity between them. I think we should restructure the article to treat them separately, devoting the main bulk of the article in one big chunk to the original group, then having a small section at the end that mentions the new group called something like "Legacy", or "Later groups". There's not much here about the second group anyway. HappyWith (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Applodion You reverted the changes - can you discuss why? HappyWith (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

a) Just because you consider it unrelated, does not mean it is so. IMO, your changes did not improve the article, at all. The sections of "history" became too small, grouping "war crimes" with "Leadership, ideology" is just plain odd, and "Legacy" is not a good term to talk about a secondary unit. b) Also, Odesskaya Druzhina should not be redirected to this article, as they were not the same. Applodion (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Redirects don't have to be for the exact same group, they can be for related topics. I think my changes to the structure did improve the article, because - as far as I can tell - the only evidence for the existence of this "second unit" is some TASS interview the article itself refers to as Russian propaganda. It makes the most sense to have them as a small note at the end, rather than equivocating them in apparent importance with the original. HappyWith (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: The TASS interview also featured photos and videos of the group, and its leader was a known local collaborator. The Frontier Post regarded the second unit as propaganda not due to doubting that it exists, but because the second group suddenly appeared around the same time when Russia wanted to act like its southern offensive had regional support. Regarding the redirect, I'm aware that it can redirect to related topics; my issue is just that this unit was often mixed up with the larger Odesskaya Druzhina movement in the past, and by pointing the redirect here, the assumption of them being the same is reinforced. I'm also sorry for being a bit touchy in this regard; past edit wars over this article left me a bit resistant to large-scale changes. Applodion (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Good point about the redirect. I'm going to retarget it to 2014 Odesa clashes instead. HappyWith (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, you already did that. Nvm HappyWith (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: After thinking about it, though, you had a point in pointing out that the second Odessa Brigade appeared to be ephemeral. Though I would not label this part "legacy", and change to the article structure along your position could be better. Beforehand, I will look whether I can find evidence that the second unit still operates. If I find nothing, we can do a bit of a makeover to address your points. Applodion (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I see - so it seems like the group does exist in some capacity. Still, I think we shouldn't equate them in importance to the Donbas War group. Not much info even exists about them, and I don't think they have much continuity to the original group. That's my main issue with putting them under the same "History" header and putting the info all in the same infobox. The Russian and Ukrainian version of this article don't even mention the 2022 group. HappyWith (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Yes, I just thought so too (see my comment above). I will try to find something more recent, and if I cannot find anything, we can adapt the article. Applodion (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll check back later then. HappyWith (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Another option if it turns out to be totally unrelated: we could potentially remove the second unit from this page completely and just give it an entry at Russian irregular units in Ukraine, which would be linked to from Odessa Brigade (disambiguation). HappyWith (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: I just reverted all your recent changes, as we had just agreed to first discuss this stuff before changing it. I was in the middle of adding a lot of new content when you completely changed the structure.
As to the updates and previous talking points: Considering they do have the same name, I think it would be best to keep it here. This might also be related to what I discovered:
As far as I can tell, the 2nd Odessa Brigade has not appeared since August 2022 (in that month, it was still referenced as being active by Russian propaganda). However, articles have been published which have directly confirmed that the 2nd unit's commander, "Igor Markov" was always Ihor Markov. I had already suspected as much in 2022, but the more recent reporting confirmed it. Notably, Markov played a "major" role in coordinating pro-Russian groups in Odesa during the 2014 unrest; this would suggest that the unit's name was not randomly chosen, as Markov was basically overseeing the people who had founded the first unit. Additionally, Ukraine has officially charged Markov in 2023 for high treason due to his involvement with the 2nd Odessa Brigade.
So, as to your changes: Can you please list what exactly you want to change below? I really cannot see your concrete adaptions when you restructure the article this much with every edit. Applodion (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't think my edits would be controversial, I was trying to just rewrite and restructure things to flow more naturally. I was doing a huge edit and it conflicted a ton with whatever you just did, so something might've been lost - I'll try to go through the history and make sure any relevant info is preserved. HappyWith (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Again: Please state your intented changes here one-by-one. I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Rayevsky's group, for example. Applodion (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Applodion I believe you have just passed the three-revert rule with that last revert. Please self-revert, so we can discuss. I didn't think I would need to explain every single change I wanted to make when editing this article. HappyWith (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it's really annoying when I spend half an hour researching and rewriting stuff to try to improve the article, only to have it all mass-reverted with zero explanation of why you object to those specific changes. Was it really necessary to change the infobox back to the old inaccurate-scope one? HappyWith (talk) 22:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Re. your first issue: Please, you are literally breaking large sections of the article. Could you just, like, be a little patient? I could also argue that you reverted my restoration of the status quo three times, namely with your 20:17, 20:19-21:43, and 22:14 edits. But I was not immediately pointing this out. And btw, if you don't want to discuss controversial changes, you should probably not edit controversial topics.

Re. your second & third issues: What do you think I feel like? I read tons of sources for over two hours, and I had previously also written, like, 80% of this article. I would be happy to adapt the article, and was actually trying to integrate your previous changes (including the infobox, the differing headers, etc.), but gave up when you kept constantly changing more stuff. I'm actually thinking that some of your changes make sense, but I simply disagree with others. We had previously agreed that I first seek out newer content before we rewrite the article, so I naturally assumed that you would adhere to this agreement.
I'm 100% willing to restore many of your changes, but at this point I'm at the limit of my patience. Applodion (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the edit that "broke large sections of the article" was an edit conflict, which I was going to immediately fix if I wasn't reverted right after.

We had previously agreed that I first seek out newer content before we rewrite the article, so I naturally assumed that you would adhere to this agreement.

I think we've had a bit of a misunderstanding. I assumed that the "agreement" only pertained to the controversial material about the "second unit" and how to treat it in the structure, and I don't think I did anything controversial regarding to that aspect. I don't think it's reasonable that I need to check with you for every edit I make while you're looking for sources related to one aspect of the article. HappyWith (talk) 22:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: So, here, I self-reverted. Great job. I'm not going to counter-flag your violation of the three-revert rule because I just don't like this kind of behavior, and I'm just tired. Frankly, I think that your behavior is quite not appropriate, especially as I repeatedly stated that I would like to cooperate and just wished for a previous discussion. Applodion (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Which parts of my edit do you object to? I'll happily get rid of the controversial changes and fix errors if you tell me which parts. HappyWith (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Do you honestly think that I'm currently in the mood to keep talking with you about this stuff? After you threatened me despite me stating that "I'm 100% willing to restore many of your changes"? Yeah, no. Not now. Applodion (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

That's understandable, feel free to take a break for now. I'll try to restore any stuff I accidentally deleted or messed up in the big edit conflict in the meantime, as I'm now seeing a lot more stuff got scrambled than I initially thought. HappyWith (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Rayevsky calling his group “the odessa brigade”

Whoops, I totally didn’t notice that detail in the Moscow Times article before. Thanks for adding that fact back to the article, it’s pretty important for context. HappyWith (talk) 13:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Generally speaking, the exact foundation and overall development of the unit is quite confusing. Strictly speaking, one cannot really call Rayevsky the unit's "founder", as he was not even involved in the group's first militant actions and only ever involved during the chaotic period of the 2014 clashes. In addition, Rayevsky's activities and whatever Fominov was doing also appear to have happened side-by-side instead of coordinated - after all, Rayevsky admitted that he often disagreed with the other pro-Russian nationalists, including Odesskaya Druzhina members. Even weirder is Markov's case: By now we have confirmation that he helped to direct pro-Russian activity in Odesa during the 2014 clashes, but there appear to have been no links between him and Rayevsky or Fominov. Yet all three were linked to Odesa, were engaged in pro-Russian militant forces, and dubbed their groups "Odessa Brigade". IMO, there were probably real links between the groups, but probably due to the common fighters and not due to their leaders. After all, we do know that militants of the Odesskaya Druzhina, possibly including Rayevsky's followers, joined Fominov; and if Markov's claim that his group consisted of locals is true, there were probably some ex-members of Fominov's militia involved. Applodion (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Country parameter in infobox

@Applodion I would like to change the country parameter back to Ukraine, rather than "occupied territories of Ukraine", because the latter is not an actual country. Per template documentation, that parameter is just supposed to have the Name of the country in which the organization was founded and active. We can say they operated in the occupied territories in the article body. HappyWith (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. Done. Applodion (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Split?

The fact that the two groups had different official names (" Separate Brigade of Special Purpose 'Odessa'" vs. "Odessa Volunteer Brigade") seems to be pretty good evidence that they’re not supposed to be the same group. I think we should take the info about the modern group and move it over to Russian irregular units in Ukraine, where a bunch of other similar Russian volunteer battalions are listed. If enough info about the group is added to that page, it could then be split off into its own page, akin to Pavel Sudoplatov Battalion. HappyWith (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: Yes, perhaps that would be the best move. I would still mention the newer unit here, though, as there seem to have been at least some connection - even if it is just the name and the fact that Markov was also involved in the 2014 clashes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applodion (talk • contribs) 10:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll perform the split, then. HappyWith (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)