This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ukraine C‑class Low‑importance 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 / European 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 European military history task force

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]

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]

100% genuine skin-heads and neo-Nazis, I'm afraid. 135.23.80.41 (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to https://www.jta.org/2022/03/04/global/jewish-ukrainians-gear-up-for-fierce-russia-fight-alongside-the-neo-nazis-they-say-putin-is-lying-about they used the iconography to be anti-Russian, not anti-Jewish. 85.228.98.130 (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is ok to be a Nazi against Russians...

Understandable. 2001:569:5383:BE00:2CB5:6096:5D04:4536 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being Nazi is ALWAYS bad, what are you talking about???? Do you think Russians are an inferior race? 61.9.103.175 (talk) 10:21, 29 March 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]

That’s not quite true. The article says “far-right.” Wikipedia infoboxes define these parties as having “political position: far-right”: Alternative for Germany, National Rally, People's Party Our Slovakia, and Golden Dawn (Greece); “right-wing to far right”: Swiss People's Party, Lega Nord, and Freedom Party of Austria. Browse the articles, and you will see several of these are described as “neo-Nazi,” “neo-fascist,” “antisemitic,” and “criminal.” I’m not arguing Svoboda is necessarily less extreme than all of these, although I don’t think you can show that it isn’t, but that the extreme right has much less support in Ukraine than elsewhere, and the statement “on par” is absolutely inaccurate. —Michael Z. 20:03, 27 March 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. JKWMteam (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is deliberately edited to reflect what wp:rs say. And yes many RS have called them Nazi and extremist. Such as the Guardian, the BBC, and many more. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These claims are older than the current military operation in Ukraine and some of the sources have been discussed and accepted in an RFC. But I agree, disinformation could be a problem during these times, and that is precisely why we should stick to the result of the previous RFC. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point, and I wish I had the answer. Sf46 (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

If the Azov Battalion was officially incorporated into the Ukranian National Guard, I believe it is reasonable to say that the Ukranian government tolerates or supports neo-nazi movements. The Azov Battalion receives funding from the Ukranian government as it is part of the Ukranian National Guard. If that is not an indication of tolerance or support, I wouldn't know what is. As said by Eduard Dolinsky who is the Director General of the Ukranian Jewish Committee, "Our government encourages glorification of nazi collaborators, mass murderers and murderers of Jews" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v32wnEJF_EE&t. Dustey (talk) 19:27, 22 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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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)[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]

1. does not, as far as I can tell, mention either Azov or Ukraine
2. 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.
3. US budget legislation
4. cherry-picked: both sides article, one side quoted
5. 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]

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)[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]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am glad you recognize the effect of Kremlin disinformation on this discussion. I do like your sources and have used one of them elsewhere. I may use the others. But. I still don’t find them convincing as to a statement that the current battalion is “now-Nazi”. I also question your understanding of how long Putin has been talking about the Asimov battalion, and conflating the various players using the name. They have been a thorn in his side since they handed him a military defeat in Mariupol in 2014. I’d have to check the dates on the disinformation campaign against them, but it’s been going on pretty much that long. I am uncertain of their importance at the moment. Depends on whether we’re talking about the political party that lost an election, the Euromaidan fighters, the unit that kept Mariupol Ukrainian in 2014, the National Guard unit that has been fighting there in 2022 and has been accused of blowing up the theatre and the hospital, or the original group of soccer hooligans. You are however correct about trying to make this point in this RFC, so I have started a separate post about the sources. Meantime I will stop commenting here and just vote. Peace out :)

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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]

One thing we could possibly do is state more prominently in the article that the Azov Battalion's significance in Ukraine has been drastically exaggerated and has been used as a justification for the war in a way that has no real connection to reality - most sources are very clear on that point, and it has significant coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• We cannot add "presumably neo-Nazi" because that would violate the WP:NPOV requirement to avoid stating facts as opinions. There's no serious dispute that they are neo-Nazi; the dispute is over Putin's use of them as a rhetorical point to argue for war, which is very different. (Honestly there isn't really a dispute over that either - every independent RS outside of Russia agrees it's an absurd argument - so the question is more whether we want to cover that here and if so how prominently.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[16] 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]

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]

I agree that the request is unclear. I think he is saying that the first reference is totally out of scope, but I am even more unsure about the request if it Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@Hako9: are you sure about that? Please see my deconstruction of the sources in the RFC. They *look* convincing based on the citation but they all fail verification.Elinruby (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The absurdity of your "deconstruction" above, merits no response. The preponderance of sources already present in the article (explicitly mentioning the neo-nazi nature of this group) and hundreds of other western media sources spanning upto 8 years ago, which are a google search away btw, are quite enough. - hako9 (talk) 23:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merit no response it may, I've written one up regardless. The sources cited in the lead are more than enough for the lines they are cited for, especially in conjunction with the body coverage. BSMRD (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BSMRD saw that. You do realize that a source can be reliable in one context and not snother, right? And that even if true - which I question - putting a bullet in pig fat might make you a racist asshole, but it doesn’t prove you’re “neo-Nazi”? I am doing something else right now though; I will come back to this silly argument.Elinruby (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hako9 We are talking about a specific change to a specific sentence in the lede. I am a complete agnostic on whether tbey are or are not neo-Nazis, so stop with the straw men. I am saying that in this specific sentence the words that this editor wants to remove are inadequately sourced. If everybody knows this is correct and there are a lot of RS then use them. I have no idea why this is difficult, but you guys really do need to brush up on the definition of a reliable source, because those sources don’t meet it. If you have some that do, then great. Use them. Don’t refer me to Google. Elinruby (talk) 06:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

btw, note that I am not here asking you to make this change. I could make it myself, but although I currently think the change *should* be made, I am politely asking you to improve the sourcing for the statement, so we can resolve this that way. And also, I am in favor of editor retention and don’t like to see new editors disrespected. Elinruby (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is fine. As I've already explained, your deconstruction is entirely spurious, and several additional sources have been provided on this talk page and in the archived RfC. Not every source needs to be placed in the article (in fact it is better if it is not, there is such a thing as WP:OVERCITE). If you think more citations should be added to the lines then take your pick from those given around here and add them to the page if you feel that strongly about it. Alternatively, if you can, find something that says definitely and incontrovertibly that Azov are not neo-Nazis (in contravention to all the sources given) and we can take the line out. BSMRD (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Azov status changed to National Counter-Terrorist Special forces at the moment. InventingNames (talk) 17:46, 20 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) 17:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently we need to go here. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS says:

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

WP:RSCONTEXT The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.

In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

I don’t have time to fight door to door over the honor of the Asov battalion. Zelenskyy was just talking about information bunkers with respect to the word “neo-Nazi”. I think some of that is going on here. However I also can’t let it go altogether as these people need to be mentioned at several points in a translation from the Ukrainian I have been working on (Russian information war against Ukraine), and I can’t link to this article as it stands. It should be a disambiguation page. It conflates several organizations. I don’t claim expertise on the group but some of the editors here seem to know less. The name is used with respect to a) a group of soccer hooligans who took up the cause of independence and became street fighters in Euromaidan b) a white supremacist political party that spun off and lost an election, whose leader is on record as s white supremacist and c) a military unit in the current Ukraine National Guard that for some reason apparently tweeted a xenophobic video, which it has since deleted, apparently, but which is nonetheless not “neo-Nazi.” Also, according to some news sources, some of its members may have unspecified racist tattoos. I may have some the above description wrong but it is closer to the truth, I think, than some of the concepts people seem to have here who are telling me to do a Google search. This is the fundamental structural problem brought up by another editor. And therefore may violate WP:BLP with respect to the military battalion. But that argument boils down to sources and before we can have that discussion we all need to be clear on “what is a reliable source”.

Again. reliable sources may well exist to support the designation. But I caution you that the Kremlin has for years been making fake videos about this group, alleging that it desecrated the Dutch flag, had ISIS members, and befouled a Koran with a pig’s head, for example. My source for the word fake is Bellingcat, and they are experts. It would be better to use peer-reviewed publications as sources for this, if they exist.Elinruby (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds reasonable to me. Why wound not you make some changes on the page? Then it will be more clear what exactly you suggest to do. My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am already supposedly trying to whitewash the group and I haven't touched the page! Big scare flag on it saying discuss first but then when I do I am not worthy of a reply ;) definitely not going to ask why this article about a military unit doesn't discuss its military actions outside of the info box? But ok. Baby steps.

the reference published at West Point does not discuss the Asov Battalion and there is no sign that the single sentence about it has received any specific scrutiny as to how it describes the group, since it is actually about the arrest of an American soldier.Elinruby (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The *main opening description of this group* states, without evidence, that "in 2015, a similar ban on aid to the group had been overturned by Congress." Where does the Nation article, or any other source, actually support that the 'ban' was 'overturned?' Change the sentence by deleting it. 2600:1700:FC80:1CC0:AC3E:483F:EEDA:F394 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: In the future, please read articles before you request edits on them. See Azov Battalion#U.S. Arms and training where this is described and sourced. Cannolis (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest changing "As of late March 2015, despite a second ceasefire agreement (Minsk II), the Azov Battalion continued to prepare for war, with the group's leader seeing the ceasefire as 'appeasement.'" to "As of late March 2015, the Azov Battalion continued to prepare to defend Mariupol from pro-Russian forces, expressing doubt in the validity of any ceasefire, calling it 'appeasement.'"

To be honest, the first version is filled with political editorialization. Minsk II is not mentioned in the sourced Reuters article and was signed a month before the Reuter's article was written, and had already failed or not been adhered to.

Claiming the Azov battalion was "continuing to prepare for war" is largely a false statement since they were instead preparing to repel an invading pro Russian/Russian force on Mariupol. Again, the Reuters source is not consistent with this characterization. 2600:1700:FC80:1CC0:AC3E:483F:EEDA:F394 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Elinruby (talk)

 Done Infinity Knight (talk) 10:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently doesn't really talk at all about the group's usage in Russian propaganda, which is a major source of their notability today and which has extensive coverage. This source, a paper about Azov Battalion itself and the very first Google Scholar result on the group, says that it was created, in May 2014, by an obscure lunatic fringe group of racist activists but that it became instantly popular targets of the Russian propaganda campaign against Kyiv’s post-Euromaydan political leadership. I feel like we're getting too hung up on the group's descriptor (which is largely uncontroversial) and ignoring the actually important recent development, which is the massive focus and attention the group has gotten as a result of Putin implicitly using it as a justification to start a war; given the massive long-term implications it seems likely to be a major aspect of the group's reputation and coverage in the future. See eg. [17][18][19][20] as possible sources that could be used to flesh out a small initial section. --Aquillion (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree it was used almost like a casus belli for the invasion by Russian propaganda (and that contributes to notability of the unit), but it does not mean we should follow this Russian propaganda narrative on this page. The lead of this WP page does read like Russian propaganda. It starts: "Azov, is a right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi formerly paramilitary unit of the National Guard of Ukraine". Then, wording like "Neo-Nazi" is repeated in almost every phrase of the lead, over and over again. I think this needs some editing for neutrality. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, In recent years Azov has produced perfect content for Russian state television, putting a face to the Kremlin’s claims about the rise of the far-right in Ukraine, where recent presidents and prime ministers have all been regular centrist politicians. and The National Corps never ran for national elections but its candidates have shown dismal performance at local elections in a clear sign of just how far Azov’s ideology is from concerns of ordinary Ukrainians who have for years viewed them as a marginal, selfie-happy group. Telegraph Infinity Knight (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem with Russian propaganda in this article, only first-class RS from the Western world are used (Time, Telegraph, WashingtonPost...). The international attention was gained by the group precisely for the neo-Nazi ideology which is behind the regiment and behind the political organization (which is a situation that worries several countries around the world, even the United States, as stated in the sources used), Russia has very little to do with it.--Mhorg (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhorg: the point is that the group's usage in Russian propaganda should be covered. Infinity Knight (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again, I think the lead is written as a piece of propaganda to justify the invasion. First of all, this is not a proper summary of page. Secondly, it is written very much as propaganda:

The Azov Special Operations Detachment or simply Azov..., is a right-wing extremist, neo-Nazi,[3][4][5] formerly paramilitary unit of the National Guard of Ukraine,[6][7][8] based in Mariupol, in the Azov Sea coastal region.[9] Azov initially formed as a volunteer militia in May 2014,[10] and has since been fighting Russian separatist forces in the Donbas War. It saw its first combat experience recapturing Mariupol from pro-Russian separatists in June 2014.[6] On 12 November 2014, Azov was incorporated into the National Guard of Ukraine, and since then all members have been official soldiers serving in the National Guard.[11][12]

In 2014, the battalion gained attention after allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as neo-Nazi sympathies.[13][14] The group has also been criticized for use of controversial symbols,[15][16][17] as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel,[3] one of the Nazi symbols used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich.[18] Azov representatives said their logo is an abbreviation for the slogan "National Idea" (Ukrainian: Ідея Нації, romanized: Ideya Natsiyi) and deny any connection with Nazism.[14] In March 2015, a spokesman for the battalion said around 10–20% of the unit were neo-Nazis.[19] A provision in Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, passed by the United States Congress, blocked military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology; in 2015, a similar ban on aid to the group had been overturned by Congress.[3][4] Members of the battalion came from 22 countries and are of various backgrounds.[20][21] In 2017, the size of the regiment was estimated at more than 2,500 members,[22] but by 2022, it has been estimated to be 900 members.[2]

In 2016, veterans of the regiment and members of a non-governmental organization called the Azov Civil Corps created the political party National Corps.[23] The unit's first commander was far-right nationalist Andriy Biletsky, who led the neo-Nazi organisations Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine.[24][25] In its early days, Azov was a special police company of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, led by Volodymyr Shpara, the leader of the Vasylkiv, Kyiv, branch of Patriot of Ukraine and Right Sector.

My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily fix the lead, so it would be a more proper summary of the page and without "Neo-Nazi" in every phrase. Would other users allow me? My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly need to say Neo-nazi only once. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I thought. There are two additional issues here. First, it was defined in sources in a variety of ways like "ultra-nationalist" (most common), "far-right" (very common) and yes, as Neo-Nazi. Secondly, it was described like that before officially joining the Ukrainian National Guard. Chances are it remains as it was, but most sources about "neo-Nazi" are outdated. Looking at the recent sources, most of them do not describe the regiment as Neo-Nazi but rather nationalist/ultra-nationalist. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unuisre they are still, not as sources like this [[21]] seem to say they may still be. So I would be unsure about removing it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are probably right, so that "Neo-Nazi" should remain in the lead, along with other descriptions (I did not suggest to remove it completely). My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Neo-nazi kind of covers it anyway so they could be removed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I fixed it a little, after a few improvements by someone else. My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead has been like that (more or less) for over a year, and the second paragraph, which is the one that focuses most directly on that aspect, dates back to at least 2019, possibly 2018 depending on how you consider its changes; the main RFC on the topic was held in July 2021 - it is at least not based on Russian propaganda related to the current war. Either way I think just glancing up should make it clear that those changes are not going to be uncontroversial - and we're already discussing (and have discussed, extensively) that aspect. The point of this section is to focus on something else, ie. I think we can uncontroversially add a lot about the group's use by Russian propaganda, which will balance out any description of its ideology in a way that most recent sources are careful to do (regardless of what the discussions above settle on.) If we turn every discussion into a debate over the use of "neo-Nazi" nothing on the page is going to get done because they're all going to collapse into the same discussion, which has repeatedly failed to go anywhere; and that's a serious problem when there are recent developments that need to be added, including ones that (even if you don't feel it completely solves the problem) will at least counterbalance the concerns of people who feel that our description of the group plays into Russian propaganda. --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it seems to me that some users are trying to act on a political level as they need to take sides for or against the events that are taking place in Ukraine. This article has remained unchanged for a long time, and only now someone decided to intervene. Why? In the lede, terms are used to precisely describe the political roots of certain organizations such as the Social-National Assembly and Patriot of Ukraine, for example. Hundreds of reliable Western sources speak of this battalion solely for its connection with supremacism and neo-Nazism, and some users would like to eliminate precisely that precise information (all the bolded words). It seems to me the opposite of the work we should be doing here: we should report data on Wikipedia in proportion to how much space the reliable sources give to certain information.--Mhorg (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhorg: "some users are trying to act on a political level..." is not a valid reason for exclusion of Russian propaganda usage of Azov. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be that people want it not to be neo-nazi, because they are supposed to be the "good guys". Sometimes the neo-nazi do good things. It occasionally happens! It is not strange if they fight for their country, its basically what a supposedly neo-nazi ideology is all about, after all. The same thing would probably also happen if someone invaded USA, there are lots of far-right (and occasional neo-nazi) that has been prepping for war all their lives over there. It's not strange if ukraine also has such groups..? Just be careful and be honest to yourselves, or something · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think a lot of people here really want it to be Nazi, because then they can blame those other people over there for the violence in the US. I mean. I have been through this talk page in pretty close detail and (gasp) Azov trains fighters! Yeah well those citizen soldiers are saving Europe’s butt. They have been at war since 2014, you realize that right? But anyway my opinion is irrelevant and so is the opinion of everyone who thinks that way. I don’t doubt that some recruits join because Aryans, or that bad stuff has happened, or that given members actually might be card-carrying Nazis. Maybe some of the bad stories are true, but I also know that a bunch of them aren’t, and that yes, there is actual real Russian propaganda. So it behooves to read critically. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yours is the typical message of those who want to act on the encyclopedia by carrying a political message. Here we do not have to deal with the war but with what the reliable sources report. If there are tons of Western sources claiming Azov is neo-Nazi, there's nothing you can do about it. This is not a blog.--Mhorg (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the most recent stories about the group https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/the-azov-battalion-the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/article65239935.ece https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/28/ukrainian-fighters-grease-bullets-against-chechens-with-pig-fat https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgd73j/ukraine-neo-nazi-battalion-azov-bullets-pig-fat-chechen-russia https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ukraines-azov-fighters-seen-greasing-bullets-in-pig-fat-for-chechen-muslim-invaders Persesus (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone going to edit this in to the article Persesus (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vice and the Washington Examiner are marginally reliable if at all; see WP:RS/P. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fox reported on this https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-azov-battalion-ukraine-russia-conflict.amp This news site too https://overtells.com/msnbc-report-on-the-conflict-between-russia-and-ukraine-shows-a-ukrainian-neo-nazi-armed-group-training-civilians/ And this one https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/02/16/ukra-f16.html Persesus (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to MSNBC report, members of Azov train civilians in Mariupol. So what? My very best wishes (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

good thing too Elinruby (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This guy made a video on azov https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cuBeABAprlo Persesus (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Командир полку «Азов» Андрій Білецький: Ті, хто проливає кров за Україну, повинні мати свій голос у владі (Commander of the Azov Regiment Andriy Biletsky: Those who shed blood for Ukraine must have a voice in power)

Unian seems to be generally accepted as RS. (Or if I am wrong please educate me) if you dig deep enough an oligarch owns 70% of the holding company it belongs to, according to us, and the oligarch also subsidizes the Ukrainian military units in the east, but almost all of the media in Ukraine is owned by one oligarch or another. Elinruby (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User My very best wishes deletes controversial content from the article and voluntarily ignores the 2021 RFC verdict,[22] in which he even participated, which says the battalion should be defined like this: In the first sentence "Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi Ukrainian National Guard regiment". The user changed the text into: Azov, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine".[23] Is there an explanation for this behavior? I also ask other users to better understand the situation.--Mhorg (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That change was made not by me, but by another contributor who edited just before [24]. I started from editing his version. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'm seeing this might be about an edit I made. Nothing was mass deleted, just structured to be coherent. The phrasing in the rFc was untouched (the cited descriptors of the battalion), but the first sentence is a rats nest that needed disambiguation. That we're having a split discussion now is proof of the conflict between the battalion and current successor. While there was consensus on one thing, it can't fly in the face of Reliable Sources. It can't be both paramilitary and military, both battalion and regiment, or both its government structure and its previous extremist group structure. There's a notice above the article requesting copy-editing for a reason.

The RFC stated consensus to define the Battalion immediately as "neo-Nazi" and the article phrasing previously defined it as "right-wing extremist,[1][2] neo-Nazi,[3][4][5][6] formerly paramilitary unit" (which was a detour itself) In fact, the RFC states "The descriptor "Right-wing/nationalist" attracted no support and the descriptors "Far-right" little more.". The rfc also showed rough consensus to handle neo-N links as defined by observers. From what I'm seeing here, the scope of that consensus was already altered, and combined with the mangling of reliable sources it needed some good-faith copy tweaking. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to wonder if moving the article to just 'Azov' (or like 'Azov (Military formation)') as a title might be warranted. That way we can avoid all the confusion of if it is a battalion or a brigade or a regiment or a group or whatever. For what it's worth I've seen all used (including the unadorned 'Azov'), but I think an analysis of RS would reveal 'Battalion' as the WP:COMMONNAME, but I'm not 100% sure, and haven't done a super in depth comparison. As for it can't be paramilitary and military, it sort of is both, owing to it's inclusion in the National Guard, which is itself a national paramilitary force. While the group has gone through some restructuring owing to joining the National Guard, it is still fundamentally the same organization. I think it is a mistake to try and draw a distinction between pre and post National Guard Azov in anything but an administrative sense. BSMRD (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth discussion. There's an overarching issue you touched on, where 'Azov Battalion' is the most common, because it has its own history in a sense, the most content to write about. Almost all the notoriety from symbols to far-right connections came out of 2014 when it used that name so IMO it's its own animal. The article now tries to cram past and present together all at once into one confusing jumble.

I disagree though on the 'paramilitary' issue, as it implies an unofficial, ad hoc nature (like a right wing militia...which they were); right now they are an official military group under the Ministry of Interior. And that's the thing, when they were paramilitary and independent that's when they had the most members, the international far-right supporters, the war crimes allegations, etc.

The article weight presents this like 2014 defines the group and the next 8 years are irrelevant, which I think is an issue. BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, dusted off my ancient account to get to the talk page here as the way the article is currently structured has been bothering me. I'm not a Ukraine expert but I do have a background in twentieth-century Eastern European history and the way the page currently reads does seem largely based on sensationalist articles from 8 years ago. To get to the heart of the matter: as the above conversation shows, some authors seem invested in making sure Azov is equated with neo-Nazism (on this note, I noticed that in the second paragraph as it is currently written someone actually wrote that the battalion is comprised 10-20% of "Nazis", which would be an impressive feat of necromancy). I by no means wish to minimize white supremacist sentiment, which I have no doubts exists among Azov and more widely in Ukraine as it does all over Eastern Europe and (it most be recognized especially for the purposes of editing this page) all the way up to the Kremlin (see Aleksandr Dugin). If there is a swift resolution to this conflict in which Russia fails to swallow Ukraine, we will be seeing fallout in the form of nationalist and extremist politics from this war for decades, but that is a much more broad issue.

However, Azov as it currently exists seems maligned by what I think is symbolism that is seen differently in Eastern Europe than in the West and a lack of education on the part of the country bumpkins that I assume accounted for most of their neo-Nazi membership in 2014. I've gone through some of the old and newer articles on this page and I get the sense that a number of editors didn't bother to read the cited article past the often sensationalist headline. A number of the articles seem to be based on one old and mysterious quote from the founder, who has not been associated with the org for at least half a decade and who himself later denied ever saying it. I also wonder the degree to which people are actually falling for Russian propaganda that is heavily invested in making Ukrainians out to be Nazis.

To cut to the chase, I think that some chronological layout of information about Azov would be a good start in dealing with this problematic organization. Second, I'd maybe separate war crime accusations such as torture from accusations of neo-Nazism. There is a second issue of war crimes that I think needs to be split from accusations of white supremacy to begin to clear up this pejorative jumble. This Human Rights Watch report from many years ago mentions a forthcoming report on Azov torture but I don't know if they ever published it: https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/07/21/you-dont-exist/arbitrary-detentions-enforced-disappearances-and-torture-eastern

I'll try to remember to check in here again soon and also try to lend a hand if help is wanted, but I thought I'd leave this preliminary note of support for a restructuring that could afford this topic some nuance and a bit more clarity. These are problematic people in a tragic situation and I think simply calling Azov neo-Nazis over and over does no one any favors (well, except the Russian state). Lukasz Chelminski (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The statement you quote is attributed to Ulrich Schmid in his own voice, not DW's. - hako9 (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 saying The 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)[reply]
• 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.[25]--Mhorg (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait wait did you just say that Deutsche Wells is unreliable? And produce a YouTube link to prove it?

  1. You’re wrong. Please check the archives at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
  2. 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The video by Time has an accompanying article.[26] 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  "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)[reply]

please provide a source for your statements, thanks. Elinruby (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

speaking of proof please provide some for your contention that Deutsche Welle is unreliable. Elinruby (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I have just made another post at the Reliable Sources board about the mischaracterizations of the RS policy on display here. I am sure I will be s brainswashed Nazi or something all over again but I really feel strongly that Wikipedia should be guided by more than whoever can stamp their feet the loudest. Please read the reliable sources policy before describing it again

• 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)[reply]

• Comment. After looking at sources, including books and recent articles, such as [27] or [28], 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Have you looked at any of the results? And are you including Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and Slovakian? Elinruby (talk)

Oppose per Alaexis. Forever yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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.[29][30] Not a POV fork. —Michael Z. 18:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  No, I think you’re missing the point. —Michael Z. 22:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Because of [[31]], 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The current version of the article is perpetually defended to include the sentence "their logo features the Wolfsangel,[1] a Nazi symbol used by the 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich." Now, my objection is a) it's a variant of a wolfsangel, so including WW2 original research / synth to say it's the same logo the SS Panzer division used is misleading, and factually incorrect to boot. b) They of course deny any association with the reference implied here, so having a debate in the intro isn't helpful. It doesn't help that their current logo looks nothing like the cited SS one.

I think it's fair to include accusations of its similarity of their old logo to that division in the relevant body section containing neo-nazi accusations & ties, but in its current form it seems forced. I feel simply stating that they have been accused of using controversial symbols such as the Wolfsangel in the intro is sufficient on its own. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 17:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they deny it. But RS must make the connection. Whilst I have not yet found any that link the SS to Azov, this links the symbol to the NAzis Wolfsangel, that therefore need to be made clear. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From an Italian RS:[32] "a formation of clear neo-Nazi inspiration, whose symbol is the Wolfsangel, Nazi icon of the 2. SS-Panzer-Division "Das Reich"--Mhorg (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a win, use this as the source. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Already used...--Mhorg (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are we certain eunews.it is a reliable source? I can't find out much about it. It doesn't seem the best source for hanging something on in the lead. Better to move to the relevant section and just mention wolfsangel resemblance in lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The wolfsangel was (as far as I know) used much more broadly than the one division of the SS. While one RS singles out the specific SS division, that division being mentioned by name is still undue in the lead as it was more broadly used (the Wolfsangel page lists a bunch). If there are a bunch of sources that connect the use of the symbology to that division, rather than to (Neo-)Nazism more broadly, then it should, but I really don’t think that is so dominant that one specific SS division should be mentioned in the lead. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was, but not in Ukraine, as it is a Franco-Germans symbol. But I would be happy to change it to "used by several units of the German army in ww2". Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a historical note, the 19th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) fought in Western Ukraine and Poland when it broke out of the Kamenets–Podolsky pocket. It used a wolfsangel with a line in the middle. I don't have an issue with that phrasing provided that there is sourcing for it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure what you think you have just said, as that seems to back up the claim, this is not a UKRANIAN symbol, you are aware Ukranians fought the Nazis?Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of Ukrainians also fought on the nazi side and collaborated with them. Also who removed far right extremist from the lead? BritishToff (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Ukrainians were civilians during World War II. To say that the majority of the members of the ethnic group fought alongside Nazis or were Nazi collaborators is a gross distortion of history. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Majority of Ukrainians fought against the Nazis as part of the Red Army. There were more ethnic Russian collaborators than Ukrainian ones. Volunteer Marek 06:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NO they did not, and nazi means "far right extremist ", it is in fact praticaly a definition of it. Its like saying Wet Water. Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven That is not even close to the definition of what nazi is... Ergzay (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, they are not far-left are they? Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it/edited it to just mention it refers to several World war 2 german military units. It wasn't uniquely representative of any specific unit. Ergzay (talk)10:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhorg Please discuss rather than reverting. Ergzay (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You made a change without providing a source.--Mhorg (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergzay: thank you for adding the Wikilink to the symbol. Now I think the text is ok. Mhorg (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ergzay, you've made four reverts in three hours on this article -- conservatively, counting the direct 'undos' alone. You should consider following your own advice -- rather than blanking talk-page messages on the topic. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could comment with your real account rather than using a VPN to write your comments. Ergzay (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should revise your understanding of WP:AGF, too. There's a venue for addressing (legit, founded) suspicions of inappropriate use of accounts. There's also places elsewhere where you could work out what static IP addresses are associated with VPNs, and which are standard domestic internet accounts. Doubtless there are places for baselessly attacking anyone pointing out your own problematic editing behaviour, but this isn't intended to be one of them. (The theory doesn't even begin to make sense, anyway. The article is semi-protected, so I'm ganging up on you by... logging out and thus not being edit it at all?) Feel free to consider striking the above entirely. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see the section on their pagan ideology was removed from the article due to citing Russian propaganda sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&oldid=1078187164 do we have any reliable sources that support them even having a pagan ideology at all? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other articles mentioning Azov battalion being/having large amounts of pagans, Aljazeera one particularly relevant:^[1]*^[2][3]

The Black Sun is intrinsically neo-pagan but I suppose the question is whether or not they are believers in that or just like the way it looks.

• note not sure if SPZH is reliable source but I checked and some articles here use it 24.44.73.34 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it is intrinsically NAzio as they actually created that specific design, you are thinking of the sun Wheel. Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, by neo-pagan I meant the nazi kind. I know not all neo-pagans are nazis. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We would need wp:rs to draw that conclusion for us to mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera is on WP:RS/P (in a good way), not at all sure about the other two. They might be worth including anyway, but the key thing is all three cases is they're not saying this editorially, they're attributing it to a given source in each case. And one with an obvious axe to grind, at that. ("Christian Taliban" don't think Azov are Christian enough, film at 11.) So we should very clearly not say this wikivoice, nor attribute it to those outlets, but as the view of those being quoted. If at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unsolicited opinion: anything that says "corpse" when they (presumably) mean "corps" probably doesn't get a lot of editorial review Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Azov Battalion: How Putin built a false premise for a war against "Nazis" in Ukraine[33] Adoring nanny (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of this unjustified Russian invasion of Ukraine but seeing CBS use quotation marks when referring to the Azov Battalion as Neo-Nazi when there are multiple concrete examples of the battalion and its soldiers using Nazi insignia such as the Sonnenrad aka the Black sun symbol (which was also used by the white supremacist Brenton Harrison Tarrant)^[1] says a lot about the neutrality of CBS. One can criticize Russia without resorting to defending actual neo-Nazis. 27.113.43.41 (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to CBS above this is Russia's alternate reality: References to "Nazi battalions" appear in virtually all Russian news reports about the war in Ukraine. The Kremlin has doubled down on the narrative that Russia is "liberating" Ukraine from Nazis, and that narrative has maintained a consistent focus on one extremist militia in particular - the Azov Battalion.. Note semantically those are scare quotes used by CBS. Infinity Knight (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article adds nothing. It only says that Russia is using the presence of the Azov battalion to legitimize the invasion. This is not about our article here, which is about a battalion made up of numerous neo-Nazis, which attracts neo-Nazis from all over the world, and which is the armed wing of a political movement headed by neo-Nazis.--Mhorg (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it adds to reliable content available about Azov's usage by Russian propaganda to paint Russia's alternate reality. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would be one good RS (along with others) that could be used in a short new section on the use of Azov in the Russian propaganda war, as very sensibly proposed by Aquillion in a talk section above. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article reads correctly, the "Nazis" claim is of course ridiculous because it is mad across the board at every part of society, not to a few hundred guys in Azov itself, which is also described accurately and neutrally by CBS in that article (unlike this article). BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And another one from Ros Atkins BBC news, What untruths is Russia spreading about Nazis in Ukraine?. "Azov opened its recruitment to the whole Ukrainian society and eventually this radical core was drowned out by the mass of newcomers who joined the regiment because it was an elite unit" Adrien Nonjon, inalco Infinity Knight (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an edit war going on by a couple users to avoid attributing who (the heck) "Lev Golinkin" is or why his opinion matters. Attempts to tag the content requesting attribution have been subsequently reverted on sight. Golinkin makes the claim that "Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world's only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces." Who is he to make an authoritative statement such as this, so that readers can know if this is factual or opinion? He is not notable enough to have a wiki bio, so so attribution is needed.

Per attribution guide,[34]:

"In making an in-text attribution to a person, it is usual to establish their "credentials" and why their opinion is of consequence. Identifying them as an author, historian, critic, company president, manager or such, establishes their credentials and, the relevance and credibility of their opinion or other statement."

Is he a science-fiction writer? Historian? Professor? Blogger? Credentials need to be established, not omitted. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 18:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His credentials can be established by anyone who cares to look by clicking the link in The Nation article.

Lev Golinkin is the author of A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka, Amazon’s Debut of the Month, a Barnes & Noble’s Discover Great New Writers program selection, and winner of the Premio Salerno Libro d’Europa. Golinkin, a graduate of Boston College, came to the US as a child refugee from the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkov (now called Kharkiv) in 1990. His writing on the Ukraine crisis, Russia, the far right, and immigrant and refugee identity has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, The Boston Globe, Politico Europe, and Time (online), among other venues; he has been interviewed by MSNBC, NPR, ABC Radio, WSJ Live and HuffPost Live.

The important part of attribution is that we say "X wrote/said Y in/at Z". We don't need to add a hype reel before every attributed statement. You may note every other attributed statement in the article is done similarly, including the ones directly above and below. What is your particular objection to Golkin? BSMRD (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a valid objection, what is their relevant area of expertise? It may well not pass wp:undue or wp:fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be a decently common author on the subject of Ukraine and the far-right, I found some collections of his articles

https://foreignpolicy.com/author/lev-golinkin/

https://forward.com/author/lev-golinkin/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/opinion/ukraine-putin-stalin-history.html

https://www.salon.com/writer/lev_golinkin

https://www.politico.eu/author/lev-golinkin/

If nothing else he's been writing about it for a while, and has been published around a variety of RS. I can't speak to any particular schooling or training, it's not like he's publishing his resume with every article, but if he's good enough for the sources above he's likely good enough for us. BSMRD (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we say "Lev Golinkin (a writer on Ukrians affairs)"? Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair enough (though change to "Ukrainian affairs"). Can't come with anything better off the top of my head. BSMRD (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am at 3rr. Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I wrote it as "Ukrainian affairs writer Lev Golinkin" since I felt that flowed better than the parenthetical. BSMRD (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would have helped if you had stated this to start with, as we do in fact say who said it (what we usually mean by attribution), which we do. This is why when placing tags that may not be clear you need to make a case. Now I agree we need to know why his views are relevant. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wildly unlikely that be might pass WP:AUTHOR, but on the basis of a strict reading of it, and some hasty googling, my guess is not quite. (If we were as inclusive of writers as of sportspeople though...) Certainly seems to write in a range of RS, and has published a fairly prominent memoir, but I'm not seeing a lot of evidence of him being the subject of a great deal of coverage himself. There is NYT book review, which I got a brief glance at before the payportcullis slammed back down... Just in case someone were thinking about firing up their editor on Lev Golinkin... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Lev Golinkin reliable? From what I read, I think so, and the fact that The Nation hosts his articles seems to me a good sign too.--Mhorg (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is more a case of wp:undue, is he really a significant enough person for his views to be relevant here? Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Nation is a green tick on WP:RS/P, so unless there's some particular red flag in this case (like it being presented as a blog, wild-eyed guest editorial, or it appears to present outlandish views notably out of line with other sources), it shouldn't come down to his personal significance. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the current version is a "minor" copyedit -- Spurnshalt apparently has marked all of their edits to date as "m" -- which included, inter alia, flipping all the BrEng spellings to AmEng. There's no particular reason why this article would necessarily be in the one rather than the other, but it's poor form to flip between the two, and especially in an edit that seems to minimise what's being done. It certainly reads awkwardly to me to see the Minister of National Defence (Canada) now described as "the Canadian defense minister". If editors think there's a good reason for AmEng to be used here, an enlightened compromise might be to use her actual MOS:JOBTITLE in caps with the correct spelling.

I do appreciate that this is the least of this article's concerns right now, and editors may well also feel they have to ration this use of reverts right for tactical reasons, but I thought I'd mention that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my flipping the Br and AmEng spellings. As I was going through the article, my American spellchecker highlighted "organised" as a misspelling, and I modified it to the American "organized" unaware that "organised" was simply how the rest of the world spelled the word. Ditto occurred with the change from "defence" to "defense". Spurnshalt (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Elinruby (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the term neo-Nazi from the article, it is factually incorrect and is russian propaganda. 93.77.153.161 (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See all the previous discussions about this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just a 'term', it's an entire well-sourced section. So this isn't really an edit request, it's a somewhat ill-defined goal. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikehawk10: Can you please elaborate as to why that sentence belongs in "antisemitism"? I am not quite sure why it should in the ideology section, as it is more closely related to funding and support of the group. Thanks, CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

1. That isn't my current username, so I'm not going to receive a ping about your comment if you try to ping "Mikehawk10".
2. The sentence clearly relates to the topic of antisemitism, and it is in a paragraph about Jewish support for the Azov Battalion. I think it is self-evident why this is relevant under a section entitled "connection to antisemitism". The Algemeiner puts the individual's Jewish identity prominently forward. Older reports (such as a 2015 report from Tablet) do similarly, as does a report from Jerusalem Post that talks about how he funded a different nationalist battalion (Dnipr-1). Tablet explicitly points out how odd it is that the primary purveyor of the ultra right wing in Ukraine is a citizen of Israel.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, my bad, seems you've had a re-branding. Regarding the placement of the content, while it is nice that the sources mention the nationality, the only "self-evident" reason I would see for inclusion of this specific fact (especially in this section) would be the whitewashing of antisemitism in the Azov group. I am sure we could find a better place for this content in the article, no? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the sources didn't frame it as such, I'd find it odd to include there. But the sources do, so I don't really see a better place to put them. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove fake russian "Neo-Nazi" propaganda from the article. Sources:

• [35] [36] Polk Azov: Мы презираем нацизм и сталинизм (We despise Nazism and Stalinism)
• [37] The Azov Battalion: How Putin built a false premise for a war against "Nazis" in Ukraine

Remove fake russian propaganda from the article. 46.211.101.54 (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That CBS source does not say they are not Neo-nazi. It says not many of them are. What it says is the claim that a few nazis means the whole of Ukraine is neo-nazi is false. Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note as well this claim goes back to well before the invasion and is well-sourced (to non-Russian sources). Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That CBS source does not take sides. CBS quotes Ruslan Leviev There are no Nazi battalions in Ukraine" Therefore, "Neo-Nazi Azov" is an opinion not a fact. Re old (non-Russian sources), Ros Atkins says for BBC It [Azov] is also not the same force it was in 2014 and quotes Adrien Nonjon to explain the reason, see here. This page must not take sides either, but should explain the sides, i.e. represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not say it is a fact we say the allegation had caused controversy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The intro says "Neo-Nazi" without attribution, in neutral Wikipedia voice Azov is a neo-Nazi[2][3][4][5] former paramilitary group that is now a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine,[6][7][5]... Infinity Knight (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No the lede say "The battalion drew controversy over allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as neo-Nazi sympathies.". This has been discussed at length (see the talk page archive), you have brought nothing new to the debate. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says both. There are four "Neo-Nazi" mentiones in the lede only currently. The first mention, poisoning the well, is the one quoted above as a fact. Infinity Knight (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are correct, the problem is we have RS saying its true, But maybe we should change it to accused. I will let others chip in (as I have said this was recently discussed, more than once). But what it is not is Russian propaganda, the unit used (and may still use) symbolism associated with the Nazi's, as a number of RS pointed out. As such I will now let others chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit difficult to sum up in a snappy lead sentence, especially as it's already trying to cover three different incarnations of Azov (and maybe implicitly a fourth, the movement), and arguably the later ones have undergone some degree of neo-Nazi-dilution from the earlier. Not all the sources given for the wikivoice statement seem to be saying this in editorially unqualified terms themselves. (They're "linked to neo-Nazis", "associated with neo-Nazi ideology", as well as two that do state flatly that they are.) Given that we already have a sixty-word sentence -- to quote a former colleague, "more than twenty and you're crazy" -- I think we're going to have to admit defeat and throw some more punctuation at the problem. I think on the basis of those sources, I'd suggest some median wording like "with neo-Nazi elements". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(trying again) the last time I looked, the lede was still using that West Point source with a single mention of Azov, as a unit that a neo-Nazi American soldier was thinking of joining. The sentence is footnoted to PBS, which links to the prosecutor's case (not neutral), which cites the FBI, which is authoritative about American extremists, sure, what the single sentence of the West Point report discusses. They are not however known for their keen understanding of the nuances of international politics; that would be the bailiwick of the CIA. Elinruby (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we discuss something like:

Azov Battalion was the precursor of the Azov Regiment. The regiment, like the battalion before it, is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine. Both are known for the ferocity of their defense of Mariupol against multiple Russian invasions. The battalion was formed of ultras, skinhead football fighters who participated in the Euromaidan protests leading to the Revolution of Dignity that overturned the Kremlin-backed oligarchic government of Ukraine in 2014. The battalion suffered casualties of up to 25% in some of its campaigns and is credited with giving the Armed Forces of Ukraine time to organize against a invasion that took place days after the country's first elected president took office.(cites)

At least one of its founders still has ties to the unit and publicly espoused ultranationalist and anti-Semitic views in the 2014-2016 period, when he founded a far-right party and became a member of the parliament. Russia has spread propaganda, including fake videos, about the unit ever since. In 2022 Russia also accused it of actions such as bombing a nuclear power plant and a hospital that Western journalists agree were Russian actions.(major citations here)

Obviously the above needs work (and paragraph breaks) but I have sources for it. Elinruby (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress! I see the West point source has been removed, actually. Thank you to whoever did that. I still say that American politicians are even more dubious as reliable sources, but that is a matter for a different post.

I would however like to discuss the above suggestion. I think there may be more than one person who could conceivably be considered a founder, but this is the lede, and I'm. talking about the one who has recently attended their events wearing questionable insignia.Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a new RfC to change the wording of that key sentence in the lead, as it is there because of a 2021 RfC. However, I think we can change the footnotes currently being used to sustain the first "neo-Nazi". Two of them are opinion pieces and one is Ro Khanna's opinion which is not RS. As RSs were cited in the RfC, it would be better to remove at least three of the four footnotes there now and insert instead citations of neutral news sources that actually say it is neo-Nazi. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This whole question is absurd and is just someone trying to push their views on others. Here are some more independent sources clearly stating Azov Battalion is neo-nazi. It isnt propaganda but its the truth and that seems to be making the IP cope and cry.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-azov-battalion-mariupol-neo-nazis-b2043022.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment 85.255.233.185 (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera "independent", thank you for the laugh! And the text of "The Independent" only mentions Nazi attire before 2017. So the current version "regiment of the National Guard that emerged from a neo-nazi paramilitary group" ist the exact description.--Chianti (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera is a WP:RS/P. If you wish to dispute that, this isn't really the place (and "I laugh to scorn!" isn't really the most persuasive line of argument either, come to that). If there were something to indicate that this was notably opinion-piece in nature, or if there were some evident Qatari dog in this fight, we should take that into account. But it's not appropriate to simply blanket-WP:IDONTLIKEIT the source. If the Independent states they're neo-Nazi in editorial voice, then they've stated it in editorial voice, end of. Trying to unpick their evidence for doing so is classic WP:OR. So the question is rather, what weight to give those and other sources, which as Bobfrombrockley says, is something that was gone over rather extensively, and fairly recently. Unless consensus has changed, we should stick with the result of that, and unless it's changed drastically, it certainly seems like the ultimate result is highly likely to be something in and around "neo-Nazi" or "linked to neo-Nazism", and not at all to be "used to be a little bit neo-Nazi but now they totally aren't". Having another RfC so soon does seem a little soul-destroyingly bureaucratic to be sure: welcome to Wikipedia, and enjoy. Those seem the only realistic options to me. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that WP:HEADLINES are not reliable sources, the Independent has the following: Following its victories in Mariupol and Marinka in the summer of 2014, the battalion – known for wearing black fatigues, sporting Nazi tattoos and going into battle with swastikas drawn on its helmets – was officially absorbed into the Ukrainian National Guard in November of that year, soon becoming a regiment... Having fought under an explicitly Nazi symbol – a tilted version of the Wolfsangel, borrowed from the Third Reich’s 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich, which the group has insisted is simply an “N” and an “I” to stand for “National Idea” – the regiment was always highly controversial... [In 2015,] the group’s neo-Nazi connections became more widely known... So this would be a good source for "has had neo-Nazi connections" and "has used Nazi symbols", but not actually for "is neo-Nazi". My sense is that if we did a thorough review of recent RSs, we'd end up with some wording like that. Not sure if anyone has appetite for a new RfC, but t he justification for doing one just a year after the last is that the current war has led to a large number of updated overviews in RSs, enabling us to give a balanced, up-to-date description. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, Al-Jazeera: Azov is a far-right all-volunteer infantry military unit whose members – estimated at 900 – are ultra-nationalists and accused of harbouring neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology... In 2015, Andriy Diachenko, the spokesperson for the regiment at the time said that 10 to 20 percent of Azov’s recruits were Nazis. The unit has denied it adheres to Nazi ideology as a whole, but Nazi symbols such as the swastika and SS regalia are rife on the uniforms and bodies of Azov members. For example, the uniform carries the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol, which resembles a black swastika on a yellow background. The group said it is merely an amalgam of the letters “N” and “I” which represent “national idea”... Individual members have professed to being neo-Nazis, and hardcore far-right ultra-nationalism is pervasive among members... In June 2015, both Canada and the United States announced that their own forces will not support or train the Azov regiment, citing its neo-Nazi connections. And DW: Umland said Azov had drawn early attention by using the the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol as its emblem. "The Wolfsangel has far-right connotations, it is a pagan symbol that the SS also used," said Umland. "But it is not considered a fascist symbol by the population in Ukraine."... So again, "is far right" rather than "is "neo-Nazi", plus "uses/has used Nazi symbols" and "has had Nazi members". BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera is absolutely not a reliable source, regardless of the results of some straw poll on some obscure Wikipedia noticeboard says. If you don't know this, you shouldn't be editing in this area. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EnlightenmentNow1792: RSP says: Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization. Editors perceive Al Jazeera English (and Aljazeera.com) to be more reliable than Al Jazeera's Arabic-language news reporting. Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Al Jazeera's news blogs should be handled with the corresponding policy. What is it about "this area" that means we should locally depart from the project's consensus, established over 9 discussions on the RSP? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BobFromBrockley: Uhuh, yep. By "this area" I mean absolutely anything that could be broadly considered as politically contentious. Like I said, if you are not aware of AJ's well-documented failings in this area - and I take your reply to be an admission of that - then you ought to do your research first, and then think about whether it is appropriate to use it as a source on such a politically sensitive issue. I'm not going to do it for you (I tried to do similar things for editors before, and ended up being banned for, essentially typing an unacceptable amount of words and citing too many sources, so.... "TextWall" they called it.) - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I started to write something here about collegiality, civility, and consensus, in general and as regarding assessing sources in particular, but as this editor themself expressly refers to having been told this at much greater length, that seems unlikely to be productive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. My view of AJ is irrelevant. If EnlightenmentNow1792 wants to challenge consensus established by nine RSN discussions, this isn't the place to do it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i am aware that a source is cited for this figure, however if you click through and actually read it, you will notice that THEIR source is no one. seriously. they are not citing anyone at all. therefore, how can this be considered reliable? you can say what you will about the reputation of the press outfit, but i don't see how a statement which has NO evidence provided whatsoever is reliable in any way96.2.225.5 (talk)

NOTE: I am not arguing for or against any particular number of fighters here, i am simply arguing for evidence of any figure given. real evidence, not just a journalist saying something.96.2.225.5 (talk)

imo we should remove this citation. they do not cite any source. its just an assertation based on nothing. if i said azov had a million fighters i could provide exactly as much evidence as did this "source" 96.2.225.5 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources don't always give their primary sources, for good reasons and bad. Nothing unusual about that. The difference is that even if you had a primary source, and wrote up something on that basis, it'd still be WP:OR. We're citing a new agency, on the basis -- I assume -- that they're an independent, published and reputable secondary source, as required by Wikipedia policy. The Jewish Telegraph Agency isn't listed on WP:RS/P, so we might have a discussion as to whether they should or shouldn't be, but not by second-guessing individual articles and replacing them with our own conclusions. Additional sources would be good, for that number or any. Though not the "scores of thousands" claim by Andriy Biletsky, clearly. CBS News says "several thousand". Snopes says "anywhere from 900 to 2,500". I'd recommend we have a range and several sources in the infobox, a sentence in the lead section, and any more detailed discussion can go latter in the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Azov was originally neo-nazis or at the very least far-right nationalists, but they were regularized and normalized and integrated into the military and the most extreme members/leaders were removed. Or is it in the opinion of the editors that "once a nazi, always a nazi"? These attempts to repeatedly try to label this group as CURRENTLY neo-nazis strike me as just blatant propaganda by editors with either Russian attachments, Russian funding or far-right (but Nazi-hating) party membership. Notably the majority of attacks on this group come from far-right political parties in at least both the US (fringe portions of Republican party) and AfD members in Germany. If the group is being attacked by the far right, then that says something. Ergzay (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ergzay, this is not a blog. Please provide sources. What you say goes against even the controversial cases that have involved the Azov battalion in recent days. For example with the racist video (shared by the official account of the National Guard of Ukraine) in which an Azov soldier greases the bullets with pork fat to be used against the Muslim troops of the Russian army.[38]--Mhorg (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that is not "racism". I'm not sure you know the meaning of the word. Though it is certainly an attack against a religion. Further, that has nothing to do with "neo-nazi" unless you can point to some piece of evidence that shows this is a common belief among "neo-nazis". There are Chechan troops on both sides and the Russian ones are well known for previous wartime atrocities. Ergzay (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ergzay, you may be under the mistaken impression that Wikipedia is a place where we argue our opinions and interpretations of those opinions to determine what is suitable for inclusion in our articles. This is not the case. We determine this based on reliable secondary sources, preferably academic ones. Please provide sources to back up your arguments. Thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate question: what do you call a far-right ultranationalist organization that uses Nazi iconography, has neo-Nazi members, was founded by a neo-Nazi, and is tied at the hip to explicitly neo-Nazi political parties? BSMRD (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BSMRD They're Ukrainian nationalist so a "Ukrainian nationalist" label works. They currently only use pagan iconography, not nazi iconography. The unit has jewish as well as muslim members. The founder is much disgraced and failed in his attempt to move into politics and is no longer part of the unit nor in politics. And the unit has no current relation to political parties. Ergzay (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They currently only use pagan iconography, not nazi iconography.

That's bullshit and everyone knows it. Zero genuine pagans are running around with Black Suns and Wolfsangels unless they are also Nazis. Azov is not running around worshiping Odin or Svarog.

The founder is much disgraced and failed in his attempt to move into politics and is no longer part of the unit. And the unit has no current relation to political parties.

Biletsky is still very much involved in Azov, and the military unit and the National Corps are very much a part of the same overall movement. To call them simply "Ukrainian nationalists" as if they just really liked Ukraine is irresponsibly detached from what Azov really is and the ideology it represents. BSMRD (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, members do still carry a neo nazi emblem on their uniforms. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven Do you have a source for that? Ergzay (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one [[39]] which we already use in the article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

> That's bullshit and everyone knows it. Zero genuine pagans are running around with Black Suns and Wolfsangels unless they are also Nazis. Azov is not running around worshiping Odin or Svarog.

Then you should go read the Wolfsangel article. It's in active use in many places of the world that aren't made of Nazis.

> Biletsky is still very much involved in Azov, and the military unit and the National Corps are very much a part of the same overall movement. To call them simply "Ukrainian nationalists" as if they just really liked Ukraine is irresponsibly detached from what Azov really is and the ideology it represents.

The source of that is 2 years old at this point and things have been changing rapidly as this group is only 8 years old. Do you have anything more recent?

Ergzay (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should go read the Wolfsangel article. It's in active use in many places of the world that aren't made of Nazis.

Per the Wolfsangel article, literally no one since WWII uses it that isn't a neo-Nazi (aside from a brief and misguided effort by some Gen Z kids to use a similar symbol that was, surprise surprise, coopted by neo-Nazis). If it was 1743 you might have a point, but the meaning of the symbol has obviously and irrevocably shifted into one representing fascism.

The source of that is 2 years old at this point and things have been changing rapidly as this group is only 8 years old. Do you have anything more recent?

Do you have anything that isn't from Azov themselves concretely saying they are separated? Or, in fact, that anything has substantively changed since 2020? BSMRD (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look Ergzay, the group has a neo-Nazi record [40], glorifies (among other things) Nazi collaborators such Bandera and carry Nazi logos [41] so who are they? It’s hard to ignore this reality despite Azov's remarkable role in defending Ukraine. Don’t confuse patriotism with Nazism Ergzay --> [42] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has neo-Nazi origins. Bandera in all my research I've done thus far appears to be a Soviet and Nazi collaborator depending on whoever helped with Ukrainian nationalism. Claims of him being a nazi appear unfounded. I won't deny that they continue to use Bandera as a symbol and this is not surprising given their nationalism goals. I would respond to you the same to not confuse nationalism with Nazism. Just like Bandera they are anti-Muscovite but they don't appear to be against any other ethnic group. Ergzay (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also here's some words that aren't good enough to put in Wikipedia but would be nice to source the original in some way. https://twitter.com/mdmitri91/status/1508371490827345933 Ergzay (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding what I wrote in my comment here about people with possible Russian-connection. Both @BSMRD and @Slatersteven seem to be sharing similar goals in trying to criminalize this battalion given their edit histories. Notably with regard to trying to get a very good editor (Elinruby) banned from Azov-related articles. I have just found this. Ergzay (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edited above comment to more accurately reflect things. Ergzay (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend you review WP:AGF before you call someone a Russian shill again. BSMRD (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ergzay, please reserve your discussions of editor conduct for the appropriate pages. Such places would include: the talk page of either user, the talk page of an admin (preferably) or other user, WP:ANI, or WP:AE. Everywhere else, such discussions are WP:TALKOFFTOPIC and may be removed or collapsed to ensure proper flow and succinctness of on-topic discussion. Article talk pages, like this, are reserved for discussions of content, not conduct. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is a kind of pointless conversation unless anyone starts a new RfC. However, using the phrase "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice needs to be based on the majority of RSs saying it "is neo-Nazi" (and when I say "is", this should include recent RSs, as many editors have argued for change over time). It cannot be based on us arguing "well it uses Nazi symbols plus it glorifies Nazi collaborators" etc, as that's SYNTH. If all most RSs say is "it uses Nazi symbolism" and "it has neo-Nazi connections", then that's what we should say in wiki voice. However, we can argue that out if we have another RfC, and should bring this argument to a close. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BobFromBrockley stating it is "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice seems to be conjecture, emotive, and is perhaps a view based on older/outdated sources. I don't think current sources support it- eg

• (1) "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." [[43]] and
• (2)" "There are no Nazi battalions in Ukraine," said Ruslan Leviev, an analyst with the Conflict Intelligence Team, which tracks the Russian military in Ukraine."There is [the Azov] regiment... There are [estimated] several thousand people who are in this regiment. It is indeed a group where many members adhere to nationalist and far-right views," Leviev said. "But a lot of people also join it because it is one of the most prepared and fit-for-war units."[[44]]
• (3)"“I appreciate this decision. It must be clearly understood: there is no kind of ‘neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia’ now. Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group. Its commanders and fighters might have personal political views as individuals, but as an armed police unit Azov is a part of the system of the Ukrainian defense forces,” said anti-Semitism researcher Vyacheslav A. Likhachev, speaking on behalf of the Vaad." [[45]]

As per these and other sources, my understanding is that Azov WAS originally Neo Nazi, and it has since been "cleaned up". It's been made part of the regular Ukrainian forces, and it even has Jewish and Arab members. It still has a minority of Neo nazi members, but that isn't the whole organisation, that's a minority (apparently 20 - 30%) Simply describing it as "a Neo Nazi" organisation in effect seems to be incorrect. Most people seem to join it because it has a rep as being effective, not because they are nazis. The added issue is, it is also supporting Russian propaganda about the Ukraine and thus WP:BIAS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian - Really? --> Ukraine's Nazi problem is real, even if Putin's denazification' claim isn’t. - [46] - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read this please ---> [47] - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and exactly my point, the article you referred me to is out of date, and that's part of the issue here. It says "In 2018, the U.S. Congress stipulated that its aid to Ukraine couldn’t be used “to provide arms, training or other assistance to the Azov Battalion.”" That decision was reversed after the Azov battallion was reformed and no longer found to be problematical, and the AZOV battallion is no longer on the US ban list - please see [lifts ban on funding neo nazi ukrainian militia] [[48]] and perhaps the three articles I posted, for more detail. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RS’s describe Azov as neo-Nazi -->The neo-Nazi Azov regiment is part of the forces today combatting the Russian invasion ([49]) and that’s what we should follow. Anything else would be WP:OR. Please keep in mind that among other things we continue seeing marches there openly glorifying Bandera [50]. This is a painful reality in Ukraine today. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted three RS that say its not, with excerpts, and explain why, with detail.... so that's what we should follow. Your RS would appear to be incorrect. Also, keep in mind Russia is continuing to pose the "denazification" of Ukraine as a reason to be in Ukraine, and so by only supporting their side of the proposition, we are supporting Propaganda, and thus WP:BIAS. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The neo-Nazi Azov regiment is part of the forces today combatting the Russian invasion". That's from an opinion piece (which mentions Azov in passing). IF it had due weight we could use it to say "David Matas described it as neo-Nazi in 2022" not that it is in wikivoice. "Ukraine's Nazi problem is real" is the WP:HEADLINE of another opinion piece which says "neo-Nazis are part of... the Azov Battalion, founded by an avowed white supremacist", so again this doesn't help us say "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice. And the piece about "marches there openly glorifying Bandera" doesn't mention Azov; it is an RS for veneration of Ukrainian nationalists who collaborated with Nazis, but not for Azov "is neo-Nazi". The question is: does the weight of RSs say "Azov is neo-Nazi" or does the weight of RSs say something more like "Azov has some neo-Nazi members, has neo-Nazi links, white supremacist roots and has used Nazi imagery"? I think it's obviously the latter. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're rather in the territory of RS say it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, was clearly explicitly and entirely originally a duck, claims it's now 'only' 10-20% duck when it's clearly in its self-serving interests to do minimise its duckness, albeit it does now contain at least some non-duck elements. But only some of them say "yes, it's a duck" in terms. And we have the further difficulty of trying to sum this up in already over-long opening sentence. As I said earlier, I think we need some fairly concise upsum here, whether that be "neo-Nazi group", "group with neo-Nazi elements", or similar. (I'd favour something on the latter lines.) The twisty details we can -- and indeed must -- get into later in the article. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BSMRD The logo is no longer in use and was only used from 2013 to 2014. The fact that a volunteer gymnasium somewhere found the flag and dug it out of storage does not make it a current symbol of Azov. Please stop reverting my edit. Ergzay (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this claim? Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven I went by the exact original Russian language description on Wikipedia of the image itself. I'm now looking for an original source. It will of course be a statement from Azov themselves as the design came from Azov. Hopefully that will be sufficient. I'm rather against this whole idea of denying any information about a group that comes from the group itself when that should in fact be the primary source for information about the group. Ergzay (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but how does a source saying "we have used this" means they no longer are, please read wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you trust a source when they say they are using it but won't trust a source when they say they aren't using it? Isn't that rather WP:NPOV on your part? Ergzay (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a way yes, as WP:MANDY comes into play. But we are nosing them as a source, we are using CBS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly in use still, as the linked article shows. If Azov didn't want it to be used they wouldn't have flags with it plastered on in their facilities. BSMRD (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BSMRD It's not "plastered" nor is it "facilities" plural. The image shows a single facility, and also assumes the image is even accurately dated (I sent an email to the photographer just now to inquire on if the date is correct). It was clearly just taken out of a box (wrinkle lines are visible) and is being held in place with stacks of gym weights. That is very obviously temporary.

Also to clarify, the first two times I edited and then reverted I did not in fact see that image. I checked the page looking for the source and did not find it. Ergzay (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source [[51]] note the caption in the picture "Civilian volunteers for a new group of Territorial Defense Units, set up by veterans of the Azov regiment, train with members of the regiment in a secret location in Dnipro, Ukraine, March 6, 2022.", so yes it does seem to still be in use. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that would be wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit, this seems like a slim source for a big claim. Website is offline for me. What is Nah News? BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as wise as you on the source. My best guess from the google cache, Internet Research Agency#Additional activities of organizers, and the phrase "Kharkiv News Agency" common between them would be "Russian troll farm". "Most" seems like a claim big to the point of prima facie infeasibility, but I think there's a grain of truth to this. Firstly, of course the group itself uses "not Nazi, pagan!" as a rationale for their, well, flagrantly Nazi iconography. Secondly, I believe I happened across another article in which a Ukrainian Orthodox priest type was bigging up a different far-right unit on the basis of being good Christian boys, as opposed to those naughty Azov pagans. If I can find it again that would clearly have to be at the least attributed, if it's usable at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meduza has a report on the group's ties to the Russian troll farm operations targeting Ukraine, which a Johns Hopkins-published source confirms. A [In other words, it's likely a state-sponsored fake news website. I will be removing it promptly. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not asn RS then, but maybe take it to RSN to be sure? Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems somewhat redundant to me, I think it's very clearly not an RS itself, and we're not writing about it as a topic here, so we don't need to find RS on it. And fair warning, I've asked about a considerably more marginal case over there in the past, and been helpfully told (to loosely paraphrase from memory, but it'll be in my contribs for the curious) "well durr! we don't list everything, work it out yourself". Making one wonder what it's even for then, but there we are. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the russian article doesn't call the battalion neo Nazi and the sources after calling it a neo Nazi in the English version are of one russian prowar propaganda article and others are some American sources just mentioning Azov in passing and they do not give any explanation to why this battalion is neo Nazi at all. Those sources are bad and don't provide any explanation. 5.151.43.38 (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the actual edit you're requesting is what? But essentially this strikes me as yet another take on the endless discussions above, right back to the actual RfC on this precise point, which came to a wildly different conclusion from your assertions above. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or it does not matter how many times this point is made, not how it is reworded, the answer will be the same as it was the 15 times before. Maybe we need a FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the FAQs is no one reads them. At least then you can save some typing by replying with "see FAQ." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of my idea. Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pieces by individuals writing in The Nation are nots appropriate sources for politically contentious articles in an encyclopedia. The wire services (AFP, Reuters, AP), BBC, DW, et al (WP:NEWSORG) and academic sources (WP:SCHOLARSHIP) trump politically partisan, parochial periodicals such as The Nation.

In this spirit, I offer the following sources as far more authoritative than sources 2-5 which, quite hilariously, denote the regiment, as categorically, without qualification, as "neo-Nazi"!

News Orgs

AFP (via F24): https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war

BBC feature: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404

Deutsche Welle: https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151

CNN's reputation has suffered in recent years, but, all the same: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movement-far-right-intl-cmd/index.html

Scholarly articles/chapters

Clapp, A. (2016). "The Maidan Irregulars". The National Interest, 143. (p. 27)

"The distinction between the territorial and ideological units quickly became trivial. Members of the Azov Battalion, based in the eastern city of Mariupol, are reputed to be Aryan racists. But most members I met were foreigners who joined because Azov—allegedly funded by Rinat Akhmetov, a Donetsk steel tycoon—pays five hundred dollars per month. If there is a shared sense of mission among the volunteers, it may be best described as anti-Putinism. Almost every volunteer I have met this winter at the Donetsk front bears a personal grudge against him."

Shapovalova, N., Fowler, G., LAROK, A., MARCZEWSKI, P., VIJAYAN MJ, G. N., SHAPOVALOVA, N., SOMBATPOONSIRI, J., VON BÜLOW, M., & ZIHNIOĞLU, Ö. (2018). THE TWO FACES OF CONSERVATIVE CIVIL SOCIETY IN UKRAINE. In R. YOUNGS (Ed.), THE MOBILIZATION OF CONSERVATIVE CIVIL SOCIETY. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. (p. 36)

"The most visible radical far-right groups appeared in the wake of the Euromaidan protests and the armed conflict in Donbas... The Azov Battalion was formed in May 2014... Out of this organization grew the National Squads, a civic association whose mission is “to provide order on the streets of Ukrainian cities,” and the National Corps political party... [which] advocates the idea of “economic nationalism"... Both the National Corps and the Right Sector are against Ukraine seeking membership of the EU."

"The core supporters of the Azov Battalion are the Kyiv-based Social National Assembly (established in 2008 by Kharkiv-based paramilitary group the Patriot of Ukraine) and other small ultraright groups that have their roots in the early 1990s. The Azov Battalion’s emblem is the overlapping letters I and N to symbolize the “Idea of Nation,” which is also a mirror image of the Wolfsangel symbol used by some Nazi SS divisions during World War II and post-1945 neofascist organizations."

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). (p. 105-107)

"This paper does not deal with all the multifaceted and dynamic features of the new Ukrainian armed voluntary movement that emerged in 2014. Instead, I will focus here on the background and rise of one particular battalion and later regiment that constitutes, as will be illustrated, a somewhat aberrant example of the Ukrainian post-revolutionary volunteer phenomenon — the pre- and early history of one of the most famous of these units, the “Azov” Battalion and now Regiment... A political researcher and not a military expert, I am not in a position to adequately assess the latter issues although they are, in the view of most Ukrainian observers, far more important than its pre-history and ideological orientation. In contrast to the regiment’s fame within Ukraine, it is less Azov’s military performance, but rather the eccentric political views of the unit’s founders as well as the various symbols associated with Azov which are the reason for the high media attention in the West."

"As briefly illustrated below, the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group that today controls a relatively large military unit could present several problems..." (p. 107)

EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]