THC Science

Ukraine C‑class Low‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: National C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force

RfC about the neo-Nazi descriptor

Here's the link to the RfC, in case it comes up again: Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation

How much of this is actually true and how much is Russian propaganda? It would be good to have this article reviewed in light of current events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.135.14 (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is deliberately and regularly edited with disinformation describing Azov as extremist and neo-nazi guilty of military crimes, with questionable sources as proof. 96.250.56.147 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming The Nation, BBC, FBI, US Congress, and UN Human Rights Office are all questionable sources? Lvsz (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If only those were sources for the claims that the *entire* organization is a neo-nazi organization. From what I've read on this topic - the roots of the Azov Battalion are undoubtedly neo-nazi. The founder, as well as a significant percentage of members are neo-nazi. However, none of their current leaders are neo-nazis, and the group itself denies the label of neo-nazi though members of it estimate that 10-20% are absolutely unabashed neo-nazis.

The original logo uses the Black Sun for example, which is absolutely a Nazi symbol, but the Wolfsangel is *not* a nazi symbol and is one of those reappropriated by them, unlike the Black Sun which was exclusively used by the Nazi party of Germany and thus explicitly associated with Nazism. I find the rhetoric that claims that the Wolfsangel is a nazi symbol to be exceedingly weak - the Iron Cross is even more strongly associated with Germany's former Nazi party, but is used by the Bundeswehr to this day as their official insignia.

War crimes on the other hand...there's not really a doubt about those. Far-right, ultra-nationalistic ideals also are not in doubt. When I look at origins of sources in Al Jazeera and The Nation for why they claim Azov Batallion is a neo-nazi group, it is usually in connection to a mass-shooting somewhere else in the world - which is wholly bizarre to me, as even the roots of Azov are entirely focused on Europe. Even if neo-nazi members were networking outside of Ukraine instead of fighting separatists, why would they care to get Americans or British to conduct mass shootings or murders of other ethnicities?

My conclusion is that the group as an organization is not strictly neo-nazi as their current focus is on fighting the separatists. I don't think we will truly know if it will bounce back to the pre-2014 rhetoric it once openly espoused until the civil war (and now the Russian invasion) is concluded, as their membership numbers in 2014 and onward swelled. Furthermore, leadership explicitly is trying to roll back and in some cases denounce the white supremacy rhetoric. I believe that Stanford has the most complete picture of the group - although they still define it as being a neo-nazi organization, which is contrary to my opinion. https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion Metalsand (talk) 22:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Nation, BBC, FBI, US Congress, and UN Human Rights Office are all questionable sources 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:3CA6:E113:2D46:90F1 (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azov has become so integrated into Ukrainian culture that any attempts to call them out as the festering disease they are results in being marked an enemy. - D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:9E04:CB00:96A:8160:B1B4:8B90 (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be a bit better sourced and balanced than what is in this wiki. The group appears to be pretty fringe, other than having some folks in the national guard due to their role in Maidan. They political wing received less than 2% of popular vote last election. That seems about on par with right wing groups in other western countries these days. (sadly) https://www.vice.com/en/article/3ab7dw/azov-battalion-ukraine-far-right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.135.14 (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is nowhere even close to “on par.” As of 2016, Switzerland 29%, Austria 21%, Denmark 21%, Hungary 21%, Finland 18%, France 14%, Sweden 13%, Netherlands 10%, Slovakia 8%, Greece 7%, Germany 4.7%, Italy 4%.[1] As of 2021, Russia 7.55% (LDPR), although one wonders whether that should include United Russia’s 72%, now that it has endorsed the war to “denazify” Ukraine. —Michael Z. 22:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

now you are comparing "far right/extremists" with regular conservative/right wing.

You'd be hard pressed to find political parties in Europe with the numbers you just wrote that have even remotely rhetoric as Svoboda has. 188.61.88.226 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the article with similar questions, although I have sn open mind. Russia does keep saying that but it calls the whole idea of an independent Ukraine extremist. Three references follow the word in the lede, but they amount to random parts of the US government. The FBI’s purview is domestic extremists - if there is such a group in the US, is it even affiliated at all with the Ukrainian military unit, or are they just wannabes? The other two sources are about legislative budget maneuvers, which aren’t exactly authoritative either. The description may be accurate but those references aren’t convincing me Elinruby (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picture without proof

The linked picture have the notice "citation needed" i understand it like a proof is missing. The soldier / guy in the picture wearing german military clothes, helmet and helmet cover (Helmbezug). Non combatant signs are visible. That means it isn't sure that he is a combatant = regular forces and official member of any state or military organisation. Since it has already an questionmark i would recommend to remove the picture. --89.145.60.157 (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is no western press in this article?

no mention of western support for a neo-Nazi terrorist group? 2804:D59:9012:4700:DCE:DE03:8D70:D06B (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't talk about that here, it's very inconvenient for western interests. You should know that Wikipedia is part of western media, and so must conform to our interests. We can't allow facts about our support for Azov to get out 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:F42D:85DD:AAF:FFD (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2804:D59:9012:4700:DCE:DE03:8D70:D06B right okay 🙄 2600:1008:B149:7AEC:FD6C:BEF4:411D:F89 (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP please ignore the other IP (that sounds weird). That's not true whatsoever. See WP:NOTCENSORED. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This. We do not censor anything and encourage fair and unbiased access to everyone. Except for those Chinese wikipedians, we don't talk about them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:4EE0:A201:D165:AAF1:3D25:3E2C (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do. Please be nice. While Chinese Wikipedia may not be nearly as large (or possibly as uncensored, I don't know I don't speak Chinese) as enWiki, they're still part of Wikipedia. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Azov

This article does not give a lot of information. Most of it is repeating itself several times. Sjould be shortened to 2-4000 words. 89.8.93.233 (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP edit, 27 February 2022

Are they fighting at the moment in the war? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F2:BF0F:5900:50A8:435E:6BA1:9029 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a late reply, but yes, they are. —AFreshStart (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

False information

Operating in Ukraine this Azov movement appears to have little public support. Only one far-right party, Svoboda, is represented in Ukraine’s parliament, and only holds one seat.^[1]

President Putin is trying to paint Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's government, who is both Jewish and had family members die in the Holocaust as “Nazis supported by NATO,”^[2]

Biased sourced information
This article is being used for propoganda^[3]

Editdone (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the level of political success and influence is relevant, and so I added the fact with this edit. —Michael Z. 19:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 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.

Can you please provide a credible source as to how this group is “right-wing extremists”?Thanks! I believe they’re neo-nazi fascists and in no way represent the right wing. My source being the only evidence I have seen regarding the verbiage of them being right wing extremists are all from media outlets. Unless Wikipedia is as corrupt as rest of the world, which wouldn’t surprise me given the extremely growing presence of government intervention in censorship. Hope to hear back sooner than later. 98.253.192.54 (talk) 07:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Neo-Nazism and fascism are far-right ideologies. This is well established. wwklnd (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is right. Nazism (National Socialism) is a hybrid mix of left and right-wing ideas. Interestingly, the existence of the Azov Battalion does lend credibility to Putin's statement that he's invading Ukraine to rid it of Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.10.198 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting my reply from my User Talk page: I'm sorry, but this position is contrary to essentially all established political science, and the idea that Nazism and fascism aren't right-wing is a pretty fringe position to take. Regardless of the word "socialism" present in their name, the German Nazis were strongly opposed to communism and labour unions. They did oppose laissez-faire capitalism, but the economic system of Nazi Germany was quite solidly capitalist. Similarly, the economics of fascism are generally corporatist and focused on class collaboration rather than the class struggle of leftist politics. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a fringe position, it's a literal fact. No legitimate political scientist thinks the Nazis or Fascists were right wing. Mussolini was a literal communist before creating Fascism. The vast majority of the Nazi party leaders were socialists. The right wing believes in natural hierarchy and the individual when it comes to property and fiscal rights; that's the LITERAL definition per the original meaning of the term in France, you can even read this on Wikipedia. To say otherwise is a lie, I don't care if you're a professor or a self-proclaimed "political scientist." I like how your laughable logic is "white racism or nationalism = right wing" yet Arab nationalism, Black nationalism, etc, are never called this. Wikipedia is a joke because of people like you; racism and/or nationalism are NOT automatically right wing. To say this is a lie. Right and Left are concepts that LITERALLY only deal with property and fiscal ownership, with far left being communal ownership, and far right being individual ownership. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. Stop lying, stop citing liars and pseudoscientists. 50.245.51.73 (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you are wrong and your comment shows a profound lack of familiarity with the subject. Despite your claims to the contrary, it is a fringe position, and Mussolini being a communist earlier in his life does not mean that fascism is not a right-wing ideology, and the claim that the majority of Nazi party leaders were socialists is just flat out wrong. Ernst Röhm and the Strasser brothers were opposed to capitalism, yes, but they were staunchly anti-communist and their anti-capitalism was rooted in anti-semitism and the idea of "Jewish finance capital". Claiming that political Left and Right only have to do with property relations and ownership is also inaccurate, both in a historical context and in contemporary political science. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The very first Nazi prison camp, Dachau, was built to imprison Communists, Social Democrats, and trade unionists. Kind of an odd strategy for a supposedly left-wing party. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not odd at all. It is a logical fallacy to assert that to be a rival to communists necessarily made one a member of the right wing. Don't forget that at this time the "far right" in Germany was composed mainly of monarchists. Hitler was just as anti-right-wing as he was anti-communist. He was anti-capitalist as well. Stalin executed Bukharin and murdered Trotsky, not because 'Uncle Joe' was such a staunch anti-communist but because all three headed (communist) factions competing for the same real estate on the political spectrum. This is also true of Nazis and Communists, both of whom stemmed from similar philosophical foundations.

Also, you forgot to mention that Dachau imprisoned tens of thousands of Jews, Catholic priests, industrialists, and political prisoners of all persuasions, which I must say is a quite common (and sadly familiar) strategy for far left-wing parties. 2600:1700:13C0:938:79E3:15F9:CF65:5F75 (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Communism is not the same as socialism. There are indeed socialist ideas in nazism. An openness to state expenditure and investment is an obvious one.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What left winged ideas does Nazism use? Genabab (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the far-left persecuted/persecutes political enemies, it doesn't change the fact that nazism is inherently far-right, its also true that they had some left wing aspects like the hatred for lassez-faire, but they truly hated leftism in general (socialism, communism, anarchism, trade unionism, social-democracy, etc), though they also persecuted right-wing moderate capitalists and liberals due to ideological differences, also, while the thing about the Azov Batallion being neo nazi should give Russia a bit of credibility on the part of "denazifying Ukraine", everyone forgets the Interbrigades of the Russian national bolshevist (NazBol) party, and the volunteers from the Neo-Nazi Russian party fighting for the Donbas separatists.

in addition, many political scientists say that nazism and fascism are mainly far-right, although having a few far-left ideals. and yes, mussolini was a socialist, although he abandoned the class struggle stuff for a more nationality-focused idea, and, no, although the strasserites (more left-leaning nazis, although they werent staunch communists) existed, most were purged in the Night of the Long Knives, which means that probably all of the nazi high command was, inherently, not left-wing or left-leaning. also, although there is anti-communist opposition in the left, most of it comes from the right itself, monarchism also can be moderate (parliamentary monarchism), so not all monarchists in Germany were far right, Hitler was not "anti-right wing", and he wasnt "anti-capitalist", he was, in fact, a state capitalist (state companies existed but also private ones and a lot of monopolies), in the end, while nazism, fascism and communism have similarities, they arent the same ideas, and they dont come from the same philosophical teaching (class struggle for communism and racial/national struggle for fascism and nazism) now, the rest of your comment is basically personal attacks and revisionism, no one said that racism and nationalism is all right wing (it also exists in extremist leftist ideologies like stalinism, maoism, juche, etc), Wikipedia isn't a joke, and, again, right and left aren't only market stuff, no one is citing liars and "pseudoscientists". EpicWikiLad (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of thinking of it as a political spectrum with left and right 'wings,' it might be better to think of it as a ring. The Nazis and Fascists (not the same thing) are so 'right wing' that they circle back round to the far 'left wing' as well, occupying a bit of both spaces. This is precisely how der Fuher himself described Nazi ideology. 2600:1700:13C0:938:79E3:15F9:CF65:5F75 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know about that, so i guess ill pull out of the discussion and let you two fight it off... EpicWikiLad (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any claim that fascism and Nazism are not right-wing ideologies is solidly WP:FRINGE, and it is clearly specified with citations in the Wikipedia articles for neo-Nazism and fascism that they are far-right ideologies. If you want to keep up this insistence, go start a discussion there instead. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Treating this as a single-axis line from far-left to far-right is stultifying. Think instead of "left-wing" as being redistributive, social provision; and right-wing as being low-tax. Then add a Y-axis: liberal->authoritarian. Then you can compare liberal and authoritarian socialists, and liberal and authoritarian low-taxers.

FWIW, I don't think the first sentence of the lede should be stating in Wikipedia's voice the political alignment of a military unit ("far-right extremist neo-nazi"). Obviously the unit itself doesn't have political opinions! By stating such things in the very definition of what the unit is, the article discredits itself; an experienced WP user encountering that first sentence will say to herself "Uh-oh, this is one of those WP articles that is a political battleground, I'll take everything that follows with a bushel of salt".

For my part, I *know* it's a political battleground, and I know the 1st Chairborne Division are all over it - like any other political battleground. But it does no credit to Wikipedia to have that fact advertised in the very first sentence of the lede.

MrDemeanour (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should we take any notice of a poster who claims the whole world is corrupt? Netanyahuserious (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

English and french version not correspond to original ukrainian, text has russian nazi propaganda and it should be delete as soon as possible OlgaAlska (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, a lot of the claims in this article are either factually untrue, echo Russian propaganda (eg claiming Azov is neo nazi when there's 3 seperate units called Asov, 2 of which have only existed for a few weeks, and the original unit was purged of nazis. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Russian propaganda. There are sources for these claims, and if you look further up the Talk page, you'll see that there was an RfC where it was decided that the neo-Nazi descriptor was apt and would be kept. Best regards, wwklnd (talk) 01:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to change wording on political orientation of Asov battalion(s)

1. There are now at least 3 entirely separate Azov battalions, the original national guard unit in Mariupol, and Asov territorial defence volunteer units with a separate chain of command in Kharkiv and Kyiv, the latter two being newly formed units of former civillians raised during the war.

2.Reforms to the structure of Asov and changes to the leadership mean that western sources largely no longer define it as a neo-nazi battalion.

3. Restrictions on Asov have largely been lifted, or are not in force on the other two units with evidence that NATO forces and equipment have been supplied to the Asov unit in Kharkiv, including NLAW anti-tank guided weapons with NATO instructors as per Nexta news agency ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PompeyTheGreat (talk • contribs) 19:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1501171543371665408

Do you have more sources for this? A tweet will not cut it, when you have The Guardian and others saying otherwise.. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tweet is from a news agency, it is not just from a random account. As for the sources on Asov having two entirely separate regiments formed in Kyiv and Kharkiv under a different command (classed as Territorial Defence Units Asov rather than the National Guard unit this article mentions, Asov themselves have posted it onto their telegram groups, saying that these are entirely separate units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexta PompeyTheGreat (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nexta is not a reliable news agency. Telegram messages are likewise not usable.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It took me less then a min to find a reliable source about the restriction lifting: Congress is reported to have recently repealed its ban on a Ukrainian militia accused of being neo-Nazi, opening the way for American military assistance. and "Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group." Infinity Knight (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of References!

As of today (10th March 2022) there are a total of 112 references. Number 2 relates to a document dated just a few days earlier. I don't believe the following 110 references have been added in just a few days, so does that mean that ref 2 has been edited? If so, is it still a relevant and reliable source? 86.13.148.233 (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References are not numbered based on date, but rather the order in which they appear in the article. BSMRD (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

Remone the ideology part and Neo-Nazi stuff as this is fake, The Azov battalion is a nationalist volunttering batallion made of volunteering civillians in 2014 to defend Donbass from separatists. The Neo Nazi stuff is a concept created by Russian political oppositors of Ukraine. It should be removed. 82.158.72.121 (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: see cited sources. Cannolis (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: political ideology of the Azov

Should the article lead describe the political ideology of the Azov? Infinity Knight (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

previous RFCs:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Yes, per Butlerblog, Cinadon36 06:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Leaning to no - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --Aquillion (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Could we just add "presumably neonazi"??

IMO, it's the best way to keep everyone happy.. people just need to know that there are multiple opinions and sources on the batallions ideology Averied (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. That would seem like we're theorizing that they're neonazi. Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL which is what "presumably" implies. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this is exactly what it is - a theory. As long as there is no world wide confirmed actions or public confirmation statement from Azov group, it is a theory. All sources here are questionable and cannot be described as FACTS. There are FACTS that "someone" claimed it is true but there are no FACTS that IT IS true. None of the given material in the page can be called confirming FACT that they are nazis and can be easily be soaked in russian propaganda fakes that you trying to protect here. Baylrock (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball is about future events. What the article states is that AT PRESENT the batallion is neonazi..

This may be quite ofensive to some people, considering it's part of the National guard of Ucraine, just under the ministry of internal affairs. Also there is no statement in the official website of the batallion about it's neonazi ideology

So for respects sake..it's "presumably neonazi" is the correct statement, as not everyone agrees, and Wikipedia is supposed to be a non biased source of information. Averied (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball includes speculation which is what this is. Also, whether or not it's offensive to some people is completely irrelevant as Wikipedia is not censored. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The batallion is neo-nazi.. is this a fact? Averied (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Averied: Does it have a source? If it's mentioned in the lead then the source might be later in the article where it's mentioned again. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you do not approve the change, but you don't even know if there is a source.. how can you have an opinion then if you haven't even read the article? Averied (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is .

There are multiple opinions on the batallions ideology. So if you don't like the word "presumably" just use something else.

But there is no definitive source saying the batallions has a neonazi ideology. So it must be stated like this in the article.

I can't believe biased views are welcomed to Wikipedia Averied (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We would never say "presumably" because that would be editorializing (see MOS:EDITORIAL). ButlerBlog (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.. but I think you guys get the point. What shall we use? I think having the article making this statement as if it's a fact is completely unacceptable Averied (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an actual edit request, then submit it as a Semi-protected edit request and be specific (including sources). ButlerBlog (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it will get reverted right after because of "vandalism"! Informational war going on right here in this page... And wiki admins doesn't bother to verify what is going on. Baylrock (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds ridiculous, all the chatter about “the battalion” which hasn’t been a battalion since September 2014. Does not lend respectability to any resulting determination. —Michael Z. 22:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal this swarm of brand new accounts trying to remove the Azov Battalion - neo-Nazi link all together?--Mhorg (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, because now this wiki page is like a first argument in any debate about the reasons of Russian invasion. What makes this sad is that a lot of people tend to trust everything that in wiki without doing any fact checks. While normally I personally would't care about wiki's content, in a current moment, this page is actually doing a big indirect damage to people who suffer in Ukraine today. I hope none here need an explanation of "how". 24.203.147.159 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No ToeSchmoker (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Welle

[4] DW article (translated to English) about batallion. I'll leave it here for others to figure out how and weather to use it. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 07:40, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022

First reference mentions unclassified relation, but text classifies the relation. Also, the reference has own reference for the relation. The reference is "Allam" which is not Wiki-standard to define facts. So, I guess the first reference grounding and the classification should be removed. Also relation to a person from a group does not define the group relation. InventingNames (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. BSMRD (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2022 (2)

change "right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi, formerly paramilitary unit" to "right-wing formerly paramilitary unit" Wked00 (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Sources are reliable and adequate. - hako9 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC) - hako9 (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-says-he-will-e2-80-98denazify-e2-80-99-ukraine-here-e2-80-99s-the-history-behind-that-claim/ar-AAUgf9L?ocid=uxbndlbing

[2] ttps://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-says-he-will-e2-80-98denazify-e2-80-99-ukraine-here-e2-80-99s-the-history-behind-that-claim/ar-AAUgf9L?ocid=uxbndlbing

[3] ttps://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-do-vladimir-putins-justifications-for-going-to-war-against-ukraine-add-up/a-60917168

[4] ttps://twitter.com/nexta_tv/status/1501171543371665408

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

@@ Line 199: / Line 199: @@
 :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. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 04:06, 19 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. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 22:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 == Could we just add "presumably neonazi"?? ==