Talk:Azov Brigade/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Reliable sources - let's just ignore them for this article hey?

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

---

Why am I not surprised that the usual requirement for RS for an article have been abandoned in order for pro-Ukranians to do damage control on the views and actions of the Azov Battalion? How on earth are any of these on the RS list??? Kyiv Independent, Ukrayinska Pravda, NCSC.gov.uk, mythdetector.ge, RfEurope, voxukraine.org, Meduza.io, thepage.ua, mk.ru, et al. Apeholder (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

... we shouldn't be relying on those kinds of sources here. I'd tag and/or remove them. -Darouet (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest whatever sources you don’t like you check on WP:RSP and search the archives, or post a query on WP:RSN.

The Kyiv Independent, Ukrainska Pravda, Meduza are reliable sources. If you mean RFE/RL http://rferl.org then that is reliable too. Please don’t tag or remove them before discussing.

MK.ru is supposedly not bad for reporting attributed statements, but like everything else still published in Russia, it is subject to Russian state censorship.

And let’s not go down the route of badmouthing “pro-Ukrainians” or otherwise calling out national groups, okay, @Apeholder? —Michael Z. 21:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, your posting comments on separate lines makes it look as if different people have entered this discussion but not posted their username at the end of the comments. This is misleading and should not be continued. The Kyiv Independent, Ukrainska Pravda, Meduza et al are NOT on the RS list. As for Radio Free Europe, this is literally a state-funded outlet, so if we accept that one, then we need to accept state-funded outlets from other countries, but that wouldn't allow us to promote the western bias here would it? As for "pro-Ukranians", I have never in my life seen as much propaganda over an issue like we are currently being bombarded with Ukraine. So yes, there are "pro-Ukranians", of course people have bias, nobody here is being badmouthed - come on - but I have a problem with only ever being told one side. And "pro-Ukraine" is not a national group! Just stop. The above links will be removed in due course because they don't meet Wikipedia's own guidelines. Apeholder (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Since you’re defending labelling editors, then I guess you’re choosing to represent yourself as a pro-Russian in the subject area of Russia’s unprovoked imperialist attack on Ukraine, @Apeholder? Where do you stand on the Russian state’s incitement of genocide, pro or con?  —Michael Z. 17:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't identify as anything in particular, to claim I'm pro-Russian just because I have challenged some of the narrative on Ukraine is so very childish. Please do better in the future. And no, the invasion of Ukraine wasn't unprovoked. It is wrong, before you try and claim I'm in support of it, but the expansion of NATO and Russia's clear message that Ukraine being added to NATO would be a step too far. What did the west do? Belligerently carried on by funding a nazi coup, dismissed all opportunities to talk and recklessly pushed us towards WW3. That's hardly unprovoked, but because I can use critical thinking skills, I haven't ignored the big picture and don't use words like "genocide" when they're unfounded because I'm not a child. Meanwhile, if you want to use words like "genocide", then I need to talk to you about the fascist leanings of the Azov Battalion and the Right Section Apeholder (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I was going to write if you don’t like being called pro-Russian, then please apologize for promoting a WP:battleground by referring to some undefined group of editors by the national category of “pro-Ukrainians.”

But then you literally read off a list of pro-Russian anti-Ukrainian propaganda points and tried to push my buttons. @Apeholder, I suggest you stop, and desist from editing and discussing articles related to the Russo-Ukrainian war, because it is subject to WP:GS/RUSUKR. I also recommend against the random complaints about Wikipedia, because this is WP:NOTCHAT. Take it to your favourite public forum. —Michael Z. 21:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:INTERSPERSE: “Separate multiple paragraphs with whitespace.”  —Michael Z. 17:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Use of sources is not limited to any list. There is an open list at WP:RSP that are frequently used, and there are lists of sources that are unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted. State-funded sources are represented in both (e.g., NPR and BBC are both listed as generally reliable, TASS as generally unreliable).  —Michael Z. 17:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Distinguish state-funded media from state media, and public broadcaster from propaganda organization.  —Michael Z. 17:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe - 100% state run propaganda Apeholder (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN.  —Michael Z. 21:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

RFE is literally a US state-funded propaganda outlet. It is hardly reliable. By the line of argumentation put forth above we should accept Sputnik News and RT as RS. RFE and RFA repeatedly publishes fabricated stories sourced by "anonymous source in country X". Both have been instrumental in US imperialism in the past and continues to be to this day. KetchupSalt (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

RFE/RL has been discussed several times in the WP:RSN. As far as I know it has never been determined to be other than reliable.

Certainly nothing like RT and Sputnik, whose “editors” report directly to the Russian “president” and get medals for supporting foreign invasions.

Do you have any reliable sources backing your accusations?  —Michael Z. 19:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

get medals for supporting foreign invasions

As does the CIA. As for RS, how about the US government? KetchupSalt (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

RT.com appears in 16 Wikipedia articles, while rferl.org is in hundreds. If you’re hoping to turn that around, I’m not the ideal editor to expend your energy on convincing with such persuasive arguments. Good luck.  —Michael Z. 03:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Wikipedia doesn't use unbiased on reliable sources to begin with, per it's requirements that secondary sources are used (as in news media, not peer reviewed studies or direct sources themselves). Interestingly, this rule is broken by several of the entries on this page, pulling from political journals directly (such as all the sources in source 13, as of this writing). Along with that, I'm particularly fascinated by the idea that "alt-right" and "Neo-Nazi" are used like they're at all related. They're on literal opposite ends of the political spectrum and make no sense. But then again these are sensationalized sources being used too.

Honestly makes me surprised there isn't legal action taken against Wikipedia. Plenty of defamation being presented on the site from other sources, sure, but Wikipedia also specifically only takes biased sources that are known to offer defamatory views regularly. Sarstan (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The articles about the alt-right and neo-Nazism tell us these are both politically far-right movements, and both are in neo-Nazi and white supremacy categories. The former article mentions neo-Nazism 20 times and sheds light on the relationship of the two movements, implying they overlap on the spectrum and are sometimes considered to be the same thing.  —Michael Z. 15:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use reliable sources, it meets with Government organizations and is told what to post. --2603:90C8:503:BE18:EC35:7418:36EA:F36B (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are right. Wikipedia was great up to say 2008, now they are just another mouthpiece for propaganda. There are accounts that pretend to be random people but they have more than a full time job by editing pages literally all day long, always to a pro-establishment narrative. Apeholder (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - if weaker sources are to be used, we shouldn't use them for highly controversial statements. So, for instance, a niche or partisan source might be cited and used, with attribution, as a source for something other outlets don't want to cover. But those sources shouldn't be cited for extraordinary claims, e.g. that the Azov Battalion isn't actually neo-Nazi in its ideology. -Darouet (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

True, this article is worse off than it was in January 2022. I'm too tired to fix it.Alexysun (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry friends, when Russia wins like it did Nazi Germany (Nazi Germany, not Germany, huge differences) the article will most surely go back to saying the truth. Or, let's be pessimistic; they're gonna turn Azov into a "was heroes" instead, which would be ridiculously funny. Mark my words, please. 213.194.147.206 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Azov now 3rd Separate Assault Brigade

Reports now confirm that the Azov Regiment has been reformed as the 3rd Assault Brigade (Ukraine). These articles will have to be merged. Sources here and here. Milblogger and OSINTs also allege that the Azov Regiment purged far-right members in order to officially integrate into the AFU, but no articles on that at the moment, but keep eyes peeled for any info. Javierbrugue (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, this promo video released by 3rd Assault/Azov SSO confirms the transition, along with a new emblem of three diagonal stripes. I'm not an experienced editor and do not have edit access, so someone please look into this info and update the article. Thank you Javierbrugue (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That's just reporting on something said by the founder of the regiment (who is not part of the regiment anymore). He also says the Azov SSO Regiment. The Azov SSO regiment is a new unit that was created after the invasion of Ukraine, and is part of the Armed forces of Ukraine. It's different to the Azov regiment, which is part of the National Guard of Ukraine Tristario (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Under Azov_Regiment#Other_activities we already include information about these new units and we can add some information about this. But I think we need better sourcing than reporting on something that Biletsky said Tristario (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, thank you both very much! Javierbrugue (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, if there are two Azov regiments, shouldn't there be a second page for the Azov SSO Regiment? Seems pretty notable Javierbrugue (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Azov Regiment and 3rd Azov Brigade are different units Matias Taboadaxx (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The two articles should be merged, they seem to be related. Mhorg (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It is its own brigade and should therefore not be merged. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Support merge as it's already covered in Azov_Regiment#Other_activities and there is not much info in 3rd Assault Brigade anyway. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Azov SSO and Azov Regiment are different units under different branches of the Ukrainian military. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Azov Brigade

Two things are being conflated above.

• Azov Brigade of the National Guard of Ukraine (NHU MVS), under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ukraine).[1] The unit was officially promoted to a brigade formation at the beginning of February 2023, as part of the formation of the Offensive Guard (uk:Гвардія наступу).[2]
• 3rd Separate Assault Brigade (Ukraine), a relatively new unit of the Special Operations Forces (Ukraine) (SSO ZSU), under the Armed Forces of Ukraine, formed November 1, 2022.

(This is on top of the other well-established conflation in this article of the military Azov Brigade and the political Azov movement).

This article should be moved, following WP:NAMECHANGES.  —Michael Z. 19:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The article should be moved to Azov Brigade? The guidance in WP:NAMECHANGES seems to suggest we should see which name reliable sources use following the name change

But it looks like we should at least update this article to reflect the new status of the unit as a brigade Tristario (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It now mentions it in the lead. TylerBurden (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the first name mentioned in the lead is neither the single most common nor the current official name. It seems unsatisfactory to me, and I anticipate an imminent update once secondary sources confirm the change. It has been reported in independent outlets Ukrainska Pravda[3] NV,[4] TSN.[5]  —Michael Z. 14:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Meduza[6] & Interfax-Ukraine.[7] This seems sufficient to me to update the first sentence. —Michael Z. 14:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point in delaying the move either, similarly to how the change from "battalion" to "regiment" wasn't, especially not if secondary sources are already starting to use brigade. TylerBurden (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the lead. Since there are so many names, I interspersed them with the summary of the history in the first paragraph, associating them with organizational changes. The previous version had the names starting from newest, but the brief history from the oldest.  —Michael Z. 16:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

When should the article name be changed to brigade? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Whenever if you ask me. It continues to grow in use with secondary references. TylerBurden (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

On the Idea of the Nation symbol

The unit's insignia features the Wolfsangel (or a mirrored variation of it), a German heraldic charge inspired by historic wolf traps adopted by the Nazi Party and by WW2 German Wehrmacht and SS units.

I believe, the phrasing is wrong here: it's either Wolfsangel or not it. With this logic, it can also be said that it is a swastika (with angles skewed, and couple lines removed). In my opinion, the better phrasing would be something like this

The unit's insignia features the Idea of the Nation symbol that may resemble the Wolfsangel (or a mirrored variation of it), a German heraldic charge inspired by historic wolf traps adopted by the Nazi Party and by WW2 German Wehrmacht and SS units.

This makes more sense, taking into account the regiment members' statements on the symbol's origin. Your thoughts on it?..

Regards. Steffuld (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"Nation symbol"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ідея Нації, that is "Idea of the Nation" or "National Idea". The symbol is claimed to be a combination of the letters I and N, the first letters of the words. Steffuld (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I and N, for a nation wholes language, is not English? Source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, actually, sources are already given down the text, in the next paragraph. Nonetheless, I can give an additional citation. Here's a timecode of the interview of Maj. Bohdan Krotevych, who is the acting commander of the brigade. Here's the transcript in my translation.

Look, if you take a window, the way a window is drawn, and remove some four lines, you get a swastika. That is, a person sees something that is not there when they want to see it. And our chevron says "The Idea of the Nation". This is the letter I, this is the letter N. And the letter N, if you look at it, it was actually like this in our alphabet. It was actually, you know, like the Latin letter N. All other letters were, like, Cyrillic, but the letter N was Latin for some reason, I don't know. I mean, I did not make the decision myself when the chevron was designed, actually, I was not part of Azov back then, I enlisted as an ordinary soldier. Yeah, but if you mirror it, look at it, turn it a bit, cut it a bit, and tighten it a bit, it looks like one of the symbols, like it's called a wolf... Wolfsangel or something like that, the wolf's hook.

Steffuld (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is little more than Azov attempting to whitewash its own history. To take Krotevych at his word would be naïve at best, given also the use of the black sun. Indeed Krotevych trips over his words why they would supposedly use Latin script. If what he is saying is true then the logo would be НИ. Perhaps in time they will correct this, thus completing the whitewash for clueless liberals to fall for more easily. KetchupSalt (talk) KetchupSalt (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the Ukrainian is Ідея Нації, Ideia Natsii, initials ІН or ін. The iota letterform was also used in pre-1918 reform Russian, and the characters had slightly different forms in the old Slavic alphabet, with Cyrillic N a bit more like Latin N, both sharing descent from Greek nu (letter) (example).

(None of this trivia affects arguments about whitewashing.) —Michael Z. 15:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The explanations given by the regiment of its symbols do not matter much, what matters instead is what the RS reports about those symbols. Mhorg (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Your rants about western liberals are really veering into WP:NOTFORUM territory. TylerBurden (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

My point is, the article should not say that the insignia features the Wolfsangel, but rather a symbol that resembles it to some extent. The earliest mention of the symbol in English I managed to find on the Internet is this article dated to 2011 long before Azov was founded. It was the Svoboda party's symbol back then and the article describes it as “the letters I + N (Idea of ​​the Nation)”, which fits the detailed description provided by the party on the official site of Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. (Archived on 22 March 2014. Please keep in mind that Azov Battalion was founded in May 2014.)

Historically, the letter N was indeed written “in a Latin manner”. For instance, the book Das Buch der Schrift, which is basically a collection of writing systems, published in 1880 contains both the Ruthenian p. 186, which, as far as I am aware, is an exonym for Ukrainian and maybe Belarusian, and the Russian p. 187 alphabets. It can be seen that, firstly, the letter I was present in both alphabets at the time, and, secondly, Ukrainian alphabet, as opposed to Russian, had the letter N with the skewed middle stroke that makes it look a lot like its Latin counterpart.

And at last, having had viewed some images of Wolfsangel, I made some observations. Counterexamples and counterarguments are encouraged. Firstly, the middle stroke (the letter I) does not tend to be that long. Usually, its length does not exceed the length of the two parallel strokes (the letter N's “legs”) and tend to be even shorter, whereas here we have it twice as long. Secondly, the slant stroke connecting two parallel lines tends to be overwhelmingly long compared to them (the Z/И part may be inscribed in a rectangle), while here the N is inscribed in a square. Thirdly, a horizontal variant of Wolfsangel (having the previous points held true) does not feature N part, but rather И part instead.

So, with this amount of differences from the “Wolfsangel proper” and multiple claims on the symbol's meaning and origin by its original adopters preceding even the creation of Azov itself, I believe it is reasonable not to directly call the symbol Wolfsangel.

Regards. Steffuld (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Azov Regiment → Azov Brigade – Since the unit is not a regiment but a brigade, it should be changed. (https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/02/9/7388707/) Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Support: I see the current name in use in some reliable sources in the last month since the WP:NAMECHANGE, especially ones about Ukraine’s establishment of the Offensive Guard.  —Michael Z. 09:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support: Logical after it became a brigade and is already seeing increased use in references. --TylerBurden (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Support: as stated in the source. Mhorg (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Support — Per above. Yue🌙 05:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

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

militaryland.net

Militaryland.net does not pass WP:BLPSPS, I will be removing all citations by them in this article, please do not re-add them. Scu ba (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Why has this been removed from the lede?

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

---

Why has the fact that Azov battalion is a far-right, neo-nazi group been removed from the lede? Could it be that such a thing became politically inconvenient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.230.141.24 (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You would need to ask the wp:rs that changed their opinions. We go by what RS say, and RS seem to now say they no longer are Neo-nazi. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No they do not. What they say is that Azov has been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. Western liberals take this to mean that Azov is no longer fascist, which is not the case. KetchupSalt (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, if you'd actually look at the references you'd see the references saying it depoliticised, not just being incorporated into the armed forces. TylerBurden (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

While reliable source may and do change their opinion, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we should not disregard everything published before 2022 since now the media no longer use the N-word. Alaexis_¿question? 13:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

True, but then the problem becomes what do we say "used to be "alledged to be" "Used to be alleged"? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Historically characterised as" would do the job. Alaexis_¿question? 15:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The lede is already providing this information, and we also had an rfc on this. There were also multiple strong sources prior to 2022 that pushed back on the neo-nazi label Tristario (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As in "the group has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology", so yes we already say it has these roots historically. This is what you get for AGF, and assuming people have actually read the lede before asking a question. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The first issue is acting like neo-Nazis are "far right" when they blatantly push for extreme left wing political positions. At least Nazism itself is extreme left wing anyway.

Second, the currently cited source is some dubious publication. I won't get into its value, but seems to have some serious bias.

Third, Wikipedia is well known to support confirmed biased sources. One of the issues of having self-appointed moderators I suppose. Especially on a political issue like this that desperately needs a different narrative. And just like the rest of hot topic Wiki, it's whoever is willing to sit there all day and "correct" the article against "vandalism" is who wins. This is one great example. Tempting as it is to at least remove "right wing" from the article since there's absolutely no right wing involvement of Azov, there's a garbage citation that is used. And using direct sources is prohibited on Wiki. You can only use secondary and opinion pieces. Sarstan (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Nazism itself is extreme left wing

This is so hilariously wrong I suggest you read the words of Adolf Hitler himself as to the NSDAP's political position and the way they deliberately appropriated socialist rhetoric because it was popular at the time. Good grief. KetchupSalt (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Source for your claim? Vedisassanti (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If we assume for a moment that Hitler himself knew more about Nazi-ideology than modern randoms on the internet, then the following quote disproves your entire argument. Nazis and more broadly fascists in general have always been a far-right ideology.

"Our [Referring to the NSDAP] adoption of the term 'socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian socialism." -Adolf Hitler, December 28th, 1938 Valdorel (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Vedisassanti: Try reading the post below yours, which you might have seen had you added your contribution at the end of the discussion (as is conventional) rather than inserting it retrospectively into the middle. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Which Azov?

@TylerBurden following the beginning of the invasion new "azov" units (formed by and asssociated with veterans of the azov regiment) began to be organized, which aren't actually part of the Azov Regiment/Brigade. These new units are part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, rather than the National Guard of Ukraine. Given that the "Azov" referred to in this source is talking about a battle near Kyiv, whereas the Azov regiment of this page was located in mariupol, this is likely one of these new units. As far as I can tell these units already existed by April 2022, this source says they began to be organized on February 24, for instance. It's also questionable whether this should be in here since it's just a quote from a spokesperson for the National Corps political party Tristario (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@Tristario Thanks for the clarification, I agree the source is rather vague so with that in mind I guess it'd be ok to remove. TylerBurden (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Multiple entities using the name "Azov" makes things confusing Tristario (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2023

Add the slogan of the Azov battalion "Unbreakable, unconquerable, unstoppable!" (in Ukrainian: Незламні, нескорені, неспинні) to the Infobox military unit at the top

sources: https://gur.gov.ua/content/nezlamni-neskoreni-nespynni.html

https://mvs.gov.ua/news/nezlamni-neskoreni-nespinni-legendarnomu-azovu-vipovniujetsia-9-rokiv

https://krrda.dp.gov.ua/novini-ta-podiyi/novini/nezlamni-neskoreni-nespynni-azov-prodovzhuie-trymaty-rubezhi-na-pivdennomu-napriamku Ihor Frex (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. 73.93.5.246 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Summary of new sources

There is a source summarizing latest expert articles on the subject https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2022/08/19/1384992/much-azov-about-nothing-how-the-ukrainian-neo-nazis-canard-fooled-the-world
The “What about Azov Nazis?” canard has become a ubiquitous tu quoque that Russia deploys to problematise Western support for Ukraine, and distract from its own record of atrocities. Literally meaning “you also” in Latin, this logical fallacy is more informally known as “whataboutism”, and has been deployed in Russian propaganda for decades. In cruder terms, one might recall the playground retort, “I know you are, but what am I?”
Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent.
Both Shekhovtsov and Gomza describe Azov as “depoliticised”, with Umland writing “its recruits now join not because of ideology, but because it has the reputation of being a particularly tough fighting unit”.
The Azov-Nazi obsession demonstrates a remarkable failure to engage with Ukrainian sources, including the experiences of its Jewish community, which has long been scathing of the Russian claim that neo-Nazim is widespread in Ukraine. Likhachev notes from that from 2014-2022 there were exactly zero reports of anti-Semitic incidents committed by Azov in Mariupol, despite the city’s sizeable Jewish community.
Shekhovtsov observes that the “Azov Nazi” narrative allows a sense of “moral procrastination” regarding Russia’s invasion. If the war pits two equally problematic sides against each other, inaction becomes morally justified. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Lev Golinkin

Can you oppose an expert with a journalist? This is regarding latest edit [8] where we appeal Shekhovtsov with Lev Golinkin. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In the article Golikin brings several pieces of evidence to argue that the battalion has not been depoliticised, they are not mere opinions. Moreover, what he says is not a solitary point of view, in fact he thinks like Kuzmenko of Bellingcat. Mhorg (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Which expert are you referring to? Shekhovtsov? It's hardly like being an academic makes one immune to bias. What Golikin is highlighting is the fact that Western media before 2022 openly admitted that Ukraine has a neo-Nazi problem, a point that they have since silently dropped. The Guardian goes so far as to take fascists at their words. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This all is summarized in an article by another expert - https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2022/08/19/1384992/much-azov-about-nothing-how-the-ukrainian-neo-nazis-canard-fooled-the-world - Our media’s “obsession” with the Azov Regiment (the volunteer militia the Azov Battalion no longer exists) – a single unit of the Ukrainian National Guard – is based largely on superficial or out-of-date research.
Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent.
There isn’t space to canvas all these in a short piece, but this is the conclusion of Anton Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. For a concise summary, Likhachev’s point-by-point rebuttal of the Azov-Nazi narrative comes highly recommended. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Amusingly this text employs the same kind of tu quoque argumentation that it itself accuses people who rightfully problematize Ukraine's use of neo-Nazi freikorps of doing. Because Russian forces have reactionaries in their midst that makes it OK for Ukraine to do the same. Amazing. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

So we criticize a PhD Candidate, School of Social Sciences, but we prefer a journalist. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Shekhovtsov says the Azov Battalion has been depoliticised, Golikin brings evidence that one of the most notorious commanders such as Propkopenko "came out of the White Boys Club, superfans of the Dynamo Kyiv soccer team (far-right groups organized around soccer teams are common across Europe), who celebrated him when he was given an award in October 2022. The group’s Facebook posts have typically included phrases like “100% White” and “88” (code for “Heil Hitler”), praise for Holocaust perpetrators, and Waffen-SS insignia. During his time in Azov, Prokopenko’s platoon was unofficially called the Borodach Division. Its insignia was the Totenkopf, the skull-and-crossbones design used by the SS, which has become a popular neo-Nazi symbol. (Azov’s version added some fascist whimsy by giving the skull a beard and hipster mustache.)".

It seems that what Golikin claims is verifiable, while what Shekhovtsov says is just his opinion. Mhorg (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you realize “the group’s” refers to a Dynamo Kyiv fan club, c. 2013–2023? When was Prokopenko supposed to be an active member of this club? What is the source about this Borodach patch? Golinkin is pulling threads pretty hard but that doesn’t make this a cogent argument about anything in particular, even if the scattered factoids were demonstrated as verifiable. Can you boil the tortured logic of this paragraph down to what it actually proves about Azov Brigade that’s worth adding to the article?  —Michael Z. 16:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Golinkin is saying that one of the most notable Azov commanders, which according to Shekhovtsov is now depoliticised, cames from neo-Nazi ultras groups who continue to celebrate him. Golinkin therefore means that if you want to depoliticise a battalion, it is at least strange that you make it commanded by people with such background in politics.

About Borodach patch, photos from official Azov page on VK[9][10] and Twitter.[11]

It would be interesting to find out if Shekhovtsov also talked about Borodach Division, since he is an expert on the subject. I couldn't find anything about it, could you? Mhorg (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

So if verified, Golinkin’s paragraph (sorry I haven’t read the article yet) would demonstrate that 1) an officer serving in Azov to 2022 used to be in a soccer club (in 2013?) of which some members (who?) have used neo-Nazi slogans on websites (when?). Is it important to also write about the brigade that 2) the White Boys Club soccer fan club celebrated a certain (ex?-)member of theirs when he was decorated in one of the most famous battles of the war?

It also says that 3) a platoon in Azov used an image derived from the Nazi totenkopf (in 2016–17?). This is potentially scandalous. I hear Australian soldiers were recently reprimanded for something similar.

Which of these facts are notable and DUE about Azov Brigade, if we can confirm the details?

Does this say Azov Brigade is Nazi? Golinkin’s paragraph is not saying that. Does he want readers to think it? Do some readers want to see that in it?

I don’t think the long quote above supports the passage in the first post above.  —Michael Z. 17:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is full of information, if you want to criticise it, you'd better read it first:

• "Palamar’s neo-Nazi roots reach back even further—he belonged to the Patriot of Ukraine gang that formed Azov."
• "Azov’s current acting commander—who took over in June 2022, after Prokopenko surrendered to Russian forces—is also an original Azov veteran."
• "Maksym Zhorin, an Azov TDF commander in Kyiv who’s a veteran of the 2014 battalion and a leader in the National Corps (Azov’s far-right party, which the Western media assures us has been severed from the military units) worked closely with Biletsky."
• "Rodion Kudryashev, the deputy commander of Azov’s army brigade, is also a 2014 veteran and a National Corps leader; he says Biletsky is the first person he turns to for guidance. An Azov SSO Regiment commander, Denys Sokur, previously headed the National Corps’ Sumy branch."
• "Dmytro Kukharchuk, one of the main commanders of Azov’s army brigade (he commands the unit’s Second Battalion), is another 2014 veteran who worships Biletsky and has been photographed with a T-shirt of the Reconquista Club, a thinly veiled reference to the white supremacist movement to “reconquer” Europe."
• "Azov runs its own military school, an example of the enormous autonomy that Kyiv grants the movement. Its commander, Kyrylo Berkal, is another 2014 veteran whose social media featured Nazi symbols."

This does not look like an 'opinion piece' at all, but almost like an academic article, given the amount of data and sources offered. We only have to attribute this part to Golinkin and there is no problem. Mhorg (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

> but almost like an academic article
We the wikipedia editors shall not criticize sources but let other sources criticize sources.

But a journalist shall not criticize nor Shekhovtsov nor a PhD Candidate, School of Social Sciences. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem, because Golinkin never criticises Shekhovtsov. And Golinkin's opinion deserves to be in the article for NPOV. Mhorg (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, this article [12] tells us there is academic consensus [WP:RS/AC] regarding Azov accusations. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

How many academic publications does Alasdair McCallum have? I can't find much on Google Scholar. Mhorg (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.953518003137783 Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

From your link it[13] appears that he has 2 publications. Let's say that he is not yet definable as an 'expert' in this subject. Mhorg (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's apply the same conditions to Golinkin. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

It resembles an academic article. Golinkin’s “sources” in the editorial include a link to Esquire magazine to support the thesis that former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke remains a white supremacist, therefore Azov Brigade was, is, and is destined to remain Nazi. Shall we cite both Golinkin and Esquire on this one to prove it’s true?  —Michael Z. 19:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

And misleadingly associating German-language Nazi terminology for a collection of irregulars with an established regular Ukrainian National Guard brigade is so amusing. What’s the Latin for that?  —Michael Z. 15:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A collection of irregulars perfectly describes them up until their incorporation into the Ukrainian fighting forces. Then we have the case that the Ukrainian leadership knowingly incorporated said freikorps which Western media now tries to pretend isn't the case, even though they had no trouble reporting on this prior to 2022. Which is precisely what Golinkin is pointing out. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I checked five dictionaries and can’t find a definition of the English word freikorps. Are you writing about German Freikorps from the eighteenth to mid twentieth centuries?

Them? Do you think Azov Brigade in 2023 is a set group of people that went to soccer games together in 2013?  —Michael Z. 17:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I am well aware that the people involved have changed over the years, you do not need to talk down to me like a child. KetchupSalt (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

So stop repeating “freikorps” like a child. No reliable source says anything like that, not even your favourite tankie writers. That is nothing but demonizing Ukrainians as Nazis. This isn’t a pro-Kremlin chat group so try to use appropriate language for responsible Wikipedians and you could be treated like one.  —Michael Z. 04:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yet again with the character assassination. Completely unacceptable behavior. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I also think we need to be careful about giving too much weight to Golinkin, a journalist who has a very distinctive Russian-sympathetic take on the conflict that has made him popular with publications such as The Nation, but whose analysis is out of step with the majority of expert commentators on this question. I wouldn't remove him from the article altogether, but we need to be careful not give him too much space in comparison to the more consensual views. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The same issue is with Oleksiy Kuzmenko of Bellingcat, who in our article is made to argue from 2020 with 2022 Shekhovtsov -
He also told the Financial Times that though it was originally formed by leadership of a neo-nazi group, "It is certain that Azov [the battalion] has depoliticised itself. Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today."[204] In a 2020 article on the Atlantic Council's website, however, Oleksiy Kuzmenko of Bellingcat argued that "the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to 'depoliticize.'"[205] Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

All: can we also look at Kuzmenko as per above. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Manyareasexpert could you explain what you would like to do? Would you like to delete all the parts of the text that say that the Azov battalion has not been depoliticised? Mhorg (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

First off we should put those multiple statements into correct chronological order, as per message above. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I just checked this and I don't think it's a problem. The article says that from 2015 it was described as depoliticised, and then chronologically lists a series of sources saying that from 2015 onwards, with a couple of disagreements. There's just one out of sequence Shekhovtsov quote, which is easily fixed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh but the Golinkin insertion is chronologically out - we need to move that down. I'll do so. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I've done that now. Hope that's OK with everyone (didn't touch the text under discussion) BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. There is also the following part
Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert on Russia's connections to Europe's far-right, told the Financial Times that though it was originally formed by leadership of a neo-nazi group, "It is certain that Azov [the battalion] has depoliticised itself. Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today."[204]

Other experts, however, disagree with these assessments, and point to specific cases where there have been interactions between the regiment and the broader movement. Oleksiy Kuzmenko of Bellingcat in a 2020 article, noted that soldiers from the regiment appeared together with leaders of the "National Corps" political party in a 2020 video ad for a rally, and that a 2017 YouTube video appeared to show the émigré Russian neo-Nazi Alexey Levkin giving a lecture to the regiment.

But Kuzmenko's article is from 2020 preceding Shekhovtsov's (2022). Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an opinion piece isn't it? What makes Golinkin's opinion due? He doesn't have any expertise as far as I can tell, he seems to primarily write contrarian opinion pieces Tristario (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The article is full of information about this alleged depoliticisation and you want to remove 2 lines produced with first-class reliable sources because they claim the opposite? This violates WP:NPOV. Mhorg (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS says Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact, and When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.

And the listing for the nation at WP:RSP says The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article. This is why I'm asking these questions. Tristario (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

What is "Russian-sympathetic" in Golinkin's article? Golinkin even points out that the invasion has been a boon to Ukrainian fascists, something that runs counter to the Kremlin's stated aims. I also see his name is misspelled as "Golikin" in one place. KetchupSalt (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Golinkin is not pro-Kremlin. He wrote quite a good piece about Ukraine right after the big invasion[14] (hard to believe it’s the same writer). But his Nazis in Ukraine! pieces are mainly run by The Nation which associates him with the editorial position of Stephen F. Cohen, Noam Chomsky, and others that have a reputation as the “anti-globalist,” pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian liberal fringe. His opinion pieces can be cited to say that there is a range of opinions, not to say what they say.  —Michael Z. 17:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky isn't pro-Russian, nor is he a liberal (except maybe in the Marxist sense). Where are you getting this from? I don't even like Chomsky, the man is a tool of US empire (in my opinion).

have a reputation

This reads like personal opinion. KetchupSalt (talk) 07:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I can’t make sense of that, but Chomsky persistently argues that Ukraine should not be helped in defending itself from Russian aggression, framing such aid as a disservice to Ukrainians. What a fucking asshole. Pretty sure he is willing to excuse any crime against humanity as long as he can use it in his rhetoric against the USA. That is not just my personal opinion.

Heh, “US empire.” Was that really stated without irony?  —Michael Z. 04:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• I completely agree with BobFromBrockley. He may be cited somewhere, but certainly not as appear in the diff under discussion [15], i.e. as a highly biased opinion (essentially an accusation), without a reference to any facts. My very best wishes (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  "without a reference to any facts" The article is full of links to verify each of Golinkin's assertions. Please, before you give your support to some other user, could you at least read the article? Mhorg (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

So, after all that, and reviewing the disputed edit in context, I stand by everything I’ve written above but I’m not opposed to the proposed edit (except that “is of the same opinion [as Shekhovtsov]” is obviously wrong), as long as Golinkin is clearly identified as an editorial journalist opposing statements by subject experts.  —Michael Z. 20:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Why include Golinking when we can include Umland who says
"In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies. But it had since become "de-ideologised" and a regular fighting unit, he told AFP. Its recruits now join not because of ideology but because "it has the reputation of being a particularly tough fighting unit," Umland said. ... The unit, numbering 2,000 to 3,000 troops, has kept the same wolf-hook insignia, but Umland said in Ukraine there was little confusion about its links to the past."It doesn't have the connotation of being a sort of fascist symbol anymore," he said. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

All I see is continued desperation to press association between Ukraine and Nazis, by an editor that is partially topic banned due to their disruption in this area. The Nation doesn't seem like a good source when it comes to the Ukraine conflict, just type in "Russia" as a keyword and see how selective they are with their coverage. Being included on WP:RS/P doesn't automatically make something a "first-class reliable source". TylerBurden (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've actually now read Golinkin's article more carefully and this whole discussion. My view is that the new article should be mentioned, and in more or less the place where it is now, but that the text we have is not useful. It accuses the West of having an agenda, which isn't helpful in this article. Better to use the words to say something like "Lev Golinkin, writing in 2023, believes that there has never been a true depoliticisation, giving examples such as---", and then concisely precis the key info that is in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobfrombrockley (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think I'm fine with including this briefly, but we should be giving it very little weight. It's an opinion piece in a biased source from someone that has no expertise on the topic (see some of the relevant guidance about this I quoted above). We should not be treating it as equal to the views of established subject matter experts. Tristario (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Above User:Bobfrombrockley refers to Golinkin, a journalist who has a very distinctive Russian-sympathetic take…": I am assuming that means sympathy for Putin's government, not for (for example) Russian-speaking people, who are presumably no less deserving of sympathy than any other people. I've read a number of his Golinkin's, and the only such "sympathy" I've seen him express is with reference to the broad issue of the eastward expansion of NATO, not any of Russia's specific claims with reference to Ukraine, and certainly not with their making war on Ukraine. Perhaps I've missed something, but if he is going to be dismissed as a sympathizer with Russia's war in Ukraine, there ought to be an example or two to back that up.

Further: Golinkin's specific examples of publications and institutions rapidly changing their characterization of the Azov Brigade seem to me to be simply factual. He doesn't have to be an academic to be citable for specific, easily verified facts. In this case, I view him more as a convenient source to avoid the issue of disallowed synthesis by Wikipedia editors in order to state something that is simply true.

Clearly the Nation has (openly) left politics. However, NPOV isn't "centrist POV". The centrist or center-left New York Times has hardly been immune to getting war coverage wrong: Judith Miller famously got the Iraq WMD story very wrong in 2003. Expressing only centrist points of view is not neutral. Uncontestable facts (in this case the flip-flops) remain facts even if they were documented in a left- or right-wing publication.

Given the amount of the article dedicated to whether or not the Azov Brigade is or is not still tied to the neo-Nazi right, I think it is important to indicate overtly why one might want to be skeptical of some of the opinions currently being expressed, and Golinkin's examples give us a way to put that in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead, again

early allegations that members of the unit participated in ... and war crimes unsupported by sources, can somebody please remove. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be sourced in the body, where it should be. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Where? Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

"Human rights violations". Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The section appear to correctly relay sources without mention of said war crimes. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Then change it to Human rights violations. Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have rights, we need an extended-confirmed editor for that. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll leave it 24 hours and then change it is there are no objections. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Russian disinformation

@Mellk, your changes were reverted [16] , can we please discuss before forcing your changes with edit war. There was a discussion regarding McCallum Talk:Azov Brigade#NPOV and WEIGHT issues and he seems to be in line with general academic consensus regarding the topic. You can always add content to article body instead of removing the text from the lead. Thanks! Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not a good source. He does not have the degree, "PhD candidate" means something else. Looking at his other articles on the blog, he looks like a non-expert. I am not opposed to elaborating further on the propaganda in the body but there needs to be better sources for claims like these. Mellk (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

You repeat "blog" as if that automatically disqualifies the source, but it is not a blog. As the Lens "About page shows, the Lens is a part of the Monash University webs site and contains "expert commentary framed by current affairs" and more. It not McCallum's personal blog as you implied in your edit comment when you removed it. Sjö (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

What "expert commentary" is this? The format is clear. Like I said, he is a non-expert and there is no good reason to not use better sources instead. Mellk (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's try to find better sources. Which statement of McCallum you find dubious and requiring better source? Manyareasexpert (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

A PhD candidate has a master’s degree and is an expert conducting research at an academic institution.  —Michael Z. 17:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it is too early to call an academic with 2 publications[17] an "expert". Shall we rewrite the whole article with this academic? I don't think there is the right weight to do that. Mhorg (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I asked which statements of McCallum are dubious and require better source but no answer was given. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

He does have more than two.[18][19][20][21] When do we call academics experts?  —Michael Z. 20:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone doing a PhD does not necessarily have a master's degree. Even if they did, it is a low bar. Mellk (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Could Mhorg or Mellk please explain the problem with this? A lengthy section of the article deals with Russian propaganda about the Azov Regiment and how Russian disinformation uses Azov to paint Ukraine as a fascist state. It has numerous sources. Yet Mhorg removed the following from the lead: "Russian disinformation claims the regiment is evidence of Ukraine being a neo-Nazi state; despite there being neo-Nazi units on the Russian side". They removed the link to Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the link to the article about far-right Russian units. – Asarlaí ^(talk) 20:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Already answered here.[22] We are talking about whether the Azov is neo-Nazi or not. There is a dedicated section on Kremlin propaganda, whereas this one must be based solely on academic studies. Mhorg (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. The sentence doesn't even say whether the Azov Regiment are neo-Nazi or not. It makes no judgement, it simply notes that they're a big part of Russian disinformation against Ukraine, despite there being neo-Nazis fighting for Russia. So, again, what's the issue with this sentence: Russian disinformation claims the regiment is evidence of Ukraine being a neo-Nazi state; despite there being neo-Nazi units on the Russian side ? – Asarlaí ^(talk) 20:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Is the connection between Neo-Nazis fighting for Russia and Azov so significant to warrant its inclusion in the lede? The two sources that do mention it (Euronews and Monash university) make little more than a passing mention of Russian neo-Nazis. Alaexis_¿question? 21:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The first half of the sentence is due, as there's plenty in the body supporting it. The bit after despite is undue and not NPOV. BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sure, I agree with your edit [23]. This is important and long-standing info on the page. It is described in a large section and therefore should be summarized/mentioned in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. Just to be clear, I never suggested to remove the first part (Russian disinformation claims the regiment is evidence of Ukraine being a neo-Nazi state). Alaexis_¿question? 06:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is fine, the last part was not mentioned in the body and sounds odd to mention. Mellk (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Allegations of Nazism

Hi, there are reliable sources relating article subject (Azov) to allegations of nazism.
https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2022/08/19/1384992/much-azov-about-nothing-how-the-ukrainian-neo-nazis-canard-fooled-the-world An analysis of more than eight million Russian media pieces charts how the bogeyman of “Nazism” in Ukraine has saturated their media post-invasion, with the supposed threat of Azov “neo-Nazis” weaponised to justify Russia’s brutal destruction of Mariupol.
We should either return back this wikilink [24] or add more info on Russia's allegations as per source.

Also, on what question "there is still an academic debate"? Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

You have already mentioned that article several times and you have already been told that that author has two academic citations,[25] so he cannot be considered an expert. And, no, to put that wikilink in would be to claim that academics are consensus that Azov has no connection to neo-Nazism, which it does not. Mhorg (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Strange how it seems to be only you interpreting it that way, MOS:BUILD clearly states readers should have access to relevant articles, that neo-Nazism and Azov has been a topic of Russian disinformation campaigns and war propaganda is well established. Readers being able to access relevant articles is more important than your defensivness over Russian disinformation. TylerBurden (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

In the "Neo-Nazism" section, sourced with only first-class Western sources, you are imposing a "See also: Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine". Are you saying that Western sources are collaborating with the Kremlin? In addition, we already have a section called "Use in Russian propaganda and information campaigns". It seems to me that your contibutions are making the article worse. Mhorg (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

What a bizarre take, are you going to claim that specifically neo-Nazism and Azov are not connected to Russian disinformation? As for my editing, I am sure you feel that way, then again, I am not the one with a topic ban and formal warning relating to this subject. TylerBurden (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Mhorg made a good point that the ways Azov is used by Russian propaganda is discussed in a separate section. The addition of seealso links to another section seems rather pointy. We should be able to discuss the ideology of Azov without reminding the reader every time "hey, actually Russian propaganda talk about this a lot." I would suggest incorporating the wikilinks into the text of the section. Alaexis_¿question? 05:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

We just discussed Talk:Azov Brigade#NPOV and WEIGHT issues that Neo-Nazism section should be reworked and reworded as per latest sources. Manyareasexpert (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

It was discussed indeed but there was no consensus about it. Alaexis_¿question? 11:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

What objections are still need to be taken care of? Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Consensus does not occur when you've successfully bludgeoned your opponents into silence... See WP:CONSENSUS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to be more vague just because another section exists that discusses Russian propaganda, Azov and specifically its links with nazism has been one of the primary topics in Russian disinformation campaigns and war propaganda, therefore it makes perfect sense to link it in a section specifically covering said ties as a relevant article. This is a large article, and with the recently revised MOS:DUPLINK it can have more than one link to something where it makes sense. You and Mhorg interpreting it as "pointy" are your own interpretations, my interpretation is giving the reader easy access to a relevant article, which is supported by MOS:BUILD. TylerBurden (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown Notifying the administrator that sanctioned and formally warned User:Mhorg regarding Eastern Europe, the current edit warring to keep a link to the specifically connected Russian disinformation regarding Azov's links with nazism away from its relevant section and attitude above may be of your interest. TylerBurden (talk) 10:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I kindly ask Dennis Brown to check this discussion. TylerBurden's changes are being imposed against consensus. Note that user Alaexis considered my arguments valid and note that in the process of editing I moved the link to the correct section.[26] Mhorg (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

> TylerBurden's changes
What do u mean? He was reverting to a version before the changes. During your reverts [27], you, among other, re-introduced and Russian disinformation claims the regiment is evidence of Ukraine being a neo-Nazi state and The battalion's far-right links have been a recurring theme of Russian propaganda against Ukraine removal for which there is no consensus. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Please note that that version, which both Alaexis and I restored, was the stable one. All other changes are currently being discussed in the many discussions opened these days. Mhorg (talk) 12:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

You are right about that particular change but the stable version is actually one of June 9th [28] because with the next edit you added Golinking for which there is no consensus - Talk:Azov Brigade#Lev Golinkin Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• • • • @Mhorg No, you stopped responding as soon as your logic was questioned, and instead took to edit warring removing the link without explanation, and then moving it to a less specific section. Alaexis made the same point as you, not backed by any policy, but by your concern of how readers choose to read into information. Links do not comment on the content, perhaps I could see your point if it said "main article" but it says see also, any remotely neutral encyclopedia will offer readers relevant information, which neo-Nazism, the Azov Brigade, and Russian disinformation all are. Your efforts to censor the link is clearly more of a POV issue with you than anything policy related.

TylerBurden (talk) 10:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Explain how linking ″#Allegations of Nazism″ in ″Use in Russian propaganda and information campaigns″ is more relevant than the specific matter at hand Neo-Nazism? What about Azov's role in Russian disinformation warrants a more vague location than its specific section? TylerBurden (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure M.Bitton will answer this too, but I think that he's right.

The Azov brigade has an ideology. If we had had an article Ideology of Azov movement we would have left a summary here and added a seealso wikilink in the beginning of the section.

The ideology of Azov brigade is exploited by Russian propaganda to paint Ukraine as a neo-Nazi regime. This doesn't give us any new information about the ideology of Azov! Therefore it's irrelevant to the section which describes this ideology.

Fortunately we have a dedicated session about the Russian propaganda and it makes a lot of sense to place the wikilink to Disinformation_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Allegations_of_Nazism there. Alaexis_¿question? 15:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: the purpose of the "See also" template is to point to other related topics (that are not covered in the article). As such, it makes no sense to use {{see also|Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Allegations of Nazism}} at the top of the "Neo-Nazism" section when we already have a section that is dedicated to it. If anything, the "See also" in this instance is redundant and should be replaced with a "Further" template (as recommended by our guidelines). M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• I was pinged, but I don't have the time to pour through all this and get a fair take on the situation. I haven't worked any Arbitration Enforcement cases in a while due to having insufficient time. You need to find another party or file at AE if it is that bad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and WEIGHT issues

The Neo-Nazism section starts with
The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia,[63][14] with connections to neo-Nazism[236] and members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia, and expressing neo-Nazi views.[61][237]
introduction and proceeds with elaborating on it.

There seems to be a consensus however that Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent. There isn’t space to canvas all these in a short piece, but this is the conclusion of Anton Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. For a concise summary, Likhachev’s point-by-point rebuttal of the Azov-Nazi narrative comes highly recommended. - [29] .

This contradicts to what our wiki article suggests. Let's work on fixing that. Manyareasexpert (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Article written by Alasdair McCallum, 2 pubblications.[30] He does not look like an expert in the field. Mhorg (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Right now the article suggests that The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia,[63][14] with connections to neo-Nazism[236] and members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia, and expressing neo-Nazi views.[61][237] . Let's check dates and reliability of sources for this claim and compare to Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Some sources, like this article from The Nation, say that the Western media started white-washing Azov after the war started, so we should be careful with using only recent sources. Alaexis_¿question? 18:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Is he a candidate in Social Sciences, like McCallum? Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know but Euromaidan Press where Likhachev's rebuttal was published is much more likely to be biased than an outlet like The Nation. Alaexis_¿question? 19:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The article originally published here https://ccl.org.ua/en/claims/euromaidan-sos-honest-answers-to-the-most-common-questions-about-azov-in-the-west/ and there is more
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war The Azov now function like other regiments "but with better PR," said Vyacheslav Likhachev, a research analyst at the ZMINA Centre for Human Rights in Kyiv.
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-725351 In 2016, when the US decided to lift its ban on funding for the regiment, antisemitism researcher Vyacheslav A. Likhachev, speaking on behalf of the Vaad of Ukraine, stated that "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 an irregular division or 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."
In an article in the Euromaiden Press from earlier this year, Likhachev stressed that most of the far-right members of the regiment left the regiment by the end of 2014 and the rest were discharged in 2017. "As of today, there are absolutely no grounds for accusations that neo-Nazis serve in the Azov Regiment." Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, here Ted Galen Carpenter who holds a PhD makes the same point [31] Alaexis_¿question? 19:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This opinion could be included. He doesn't addresses Likhachev however but
Amazingly, Melchior let that absurd, self‐​serving statement pass without making an effort to provide a clarification or rebuttal. Even a brief counterpoint might have mentioned that the Azov regiment uses banners and insignia that bear a striking resemblance to counterparts used by the Nazi SS and other portions of Adolf Hitler’s regime. Most Americans (much less the US military) do not openly display KKK regalia. The rest of the story is nearly as defective, allowing Krotevych to come across to readers as a heroic figure. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hilarious: unglossed “the Ukraine issue” in the lead.

The author of the opinion piece explicitly frames himself as WP:FRINGE when he writes that his opinion is different from that of the Washington Post and New York Times, and “throughout much of the US news media.” Elsewhere he argues that Ukraine should give up its territory to appease Russia,[32] that responding to Ukraine’s request for support is “the last thing Ukrainians need,”[33] and advocating permanently carving up Ukraine and making it a Russian vassal just days after the invasion.[34] All his works on the site are political advocacy, not analysis.

The publisher is a “libertarian think tank.” There’s a top-line bragging that “This article appeared in Antiwar.com.”  —Michael Z. 21:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't see anybody referring to Carpenter while historian refers to McCallum https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00085006.2023.2202565 Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Ted Galen Carpenter holds a PhD in diplomatic history but has zero expertise on Ukraine or the far right. He is generally published by unreliable sources such as antiwar.com. This is an opinion piece published by a fringe thinktank. Avoid. Can we focus on the substantive issue raised in this section instead please? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

We've discussed that source above, it's not a particularly good source (opinion piece by non subject matter expert in biased source), and not equal to the views of actual subject matter experts.

Even before the invasion you had experts effecively saying it wasn't a "neo-nazi" unit. In 2015: Andreas Umland [35]. In 2016: antisemitism researcher Vyacheslav A. Likhachev there is no kind of ‘neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia’ now [36] In 2020: Political scientist Huseyn Aliyev (Glasgow University): In my own experience of conducting fieldwork among the members of the Azov regiment, the group is a “melting pot” of ethnicities, religions, views and ideologies. While I have encountered individuals with neo-Nazi and far-right views, the majority of Azov’s former and active members with whom I communicated had no clearly defined ideological background, apart from broader Ukrainian patriotic views. [37]. In 2021: Anton Shekhovtsov it is likewise certain that Azov attempted to de-politicize itself; the toxic far-right leadership formally left [38]

I'm not sure what the best way to introduce and structure that section is - but it isn't true that we're just looking at recent sources saying things like this. Tristario (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The notion that any military group can be depoliticized beggars belief. War is politics by other means. But beside that, there are some problems with the Monash Lens article, as evidenced by the articles it links in turn:

• The piece by Anton Shekhovtsov in Atlantic Council claims to be dated February 24, 2020, yet talks about the present war and uses the more recent insignia without the black sun etc. It makes clear Kiev recruited Azov despite knowing the organization's fascist character. The following argument is also.. interesting: "No organization, apart from the historical Nazi party, can claim a monopoly over the Black Sun symbol". Apparently any group can use the Black Sun, it is not political at all, and to imply otherwise are "grave mistakes" and "gifts to the Kremlin".
• The piece by Ivan Gomza in Krytyka... well the ingress speaks for itself really: "It looks like the incorporation of the organization into the National Guard and the Armed Force of Ukraine, a move initially not welcomed by all pundits, was a serendipitous idea by the state officials. They managed to coopt Azov and channel its militancy in a useful way. Now, it is a powerful unit within the Ukrainian army.". The entire article is full of apologetics. It is aggressively liberal in for example comparing Irgun (later Likud) to the Sandinistas. "Both sides!" says Gomza, not realizing Likud is carrying out the politics of its predecessor. National chauvinism and the struggle for workers' liberation are the same in Gomza's world. Gomza also speaks of the "real fascism" in the east, presumably Russia, and while there is little doubt that Russia too has a fascism problem it does not mean that fascism in Ukraine isn't "real". Apparently we are to take this article seriously. I invite Gomza to eat an ice cream that has only 15% shit in it.
• Finally the piece by Alex Boutilier (which Monash Lens credits as Anders Umland for some reason). There are some non-sequiturs like the far-right ticket receiving fewer than 3% of the vote and Zelensky being Jewish, neither of which pertains to Azov. Indeed much of Europe has a fascism problem. This does not absolve Ukraine like Boutilier seems to imply. The claims of chemical weapons use I am in no position to judge, though personally having some knowledge of chemistry I consider the use of phosphorus to be chemical warfare (and inhumane to boot).

The Likhachev article I cannot access due to euromaidanpress.com being aggressively CrimeFlare'd. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree that Alex Boutilier doesn't add anything and it was clearly linked to in error. Umland, however, is a widely respected expert. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to Shekhovtsov. Nothing in it indicates it was written later than 2020. Our article already says (with several sources) that the Black Sun was not used after 2015. The Black Sun precedes Azov and is used by other groups, so what he says about the link to Tarrant makes perfect sense. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Against the background of Russia’s armed invasion of eastern Ukraine" indicates it was written 2022 at the earliest, no? Or at least updated since the invasion. Or does it refer to the annexation of Crimea? KetchupSalt (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

There was Russian armed invasion in 2014. Against the background of Russia’s armed invasion of eastern Ukraine and the total inefficiency of the regular Ukrainian army (which was weakened and plundered by the previous pro-Kremlin regime), the state needed anyone who would be ready to join volunteer units and fight. Yes, “anyone,” included far-right activists, but also anarchists, liberals, conservatives, and apolitical people. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The objection to Gomza makes no sense. He's an expert expressing his well considered views; it so happens you disagree with him but that's not a reason not to give him his due weight. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call comparing diametrically opposed movements "well considered". It's not that I disagree with Gomza but rather that he cannot be taken seriously. KetchupSalt (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Head of the Department of Public Governance at Kyiv School of Economics. Trained as a political scientist, he received his Ph.D. in 2012 after studying at the Joint Franco-Ukrainian PhD Program at the University of Paris X-Nanterre and the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.
...
Dr. Gomza’s scholarly interests comprise democratization, authoritarian regimes, contentious politics, and good governance. His articles have been published in international academic journals (e.g. Communist and Post-Communist Studies and Nationalities Papers: The Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity). Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That's little more than an appeal to authority. Having a PhD does not make Gomza above criticism. I've noticed this tendency on WP towards inability to be critical of sources, something that academics are trained to be. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Appeal to authority is pretty much our reliable source policy. We assess the reliability of sources based on things like academic credentials, specific subject area expertise, peer review, reputable publishers. Gomza ticks these boxes well. He has very specific subject area expertise on nationalism and the far right in Ukraine and transnationally, and is widely published in scholarly platforms. It's not our job to be "critical" of such sources on the basis of our own original research; rather, we should weigh them against other reliable sources to identify due weight etc. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

He is not above criticism but the criticism should come from an expert, and we see an expert agreeing with him. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Gomza published his work in Krytyka, a Ukrainian outlet, after the start of the war. While it doesn't disqualify it, and we know that biased sources can be reliable, we should be wary of using it. There are real restrictions on reporting on the army in Ukraine ([39]) which is understandable, but certainly impacts the output. Alaexis_¿question? 21:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I recommend looking at the WP article for Krytyka. Just because it is Ukrainian does not in itself make it a biased source. While in any war, there are some restrictions on reporting about the military, there is nothing in that Guardian article that would lead us to think the Krytyka piece is unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Here Umland is recommending Gomza's article https://umland.livejournal.com/2842981.html , in addition to McCallum. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is that should follow WP:NPOV and report different views as they are described in RS. Since there are reliable sources which tell us that the tenor of the reporting on Azov changed after the 2022 invasion, and that the reporting is restricted in the countries at war, we should take it into account too. Alaexis_¿question? 22:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That's right. McCallum pays attention to western press POV in his article -
The Azov Regiment (sometimes erroneously still termed the Azov Battalion, though the latter folded in 2014) and the threat of “Ukrainian neo-Nazis” has attracted considerable Western press coverage since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February.

The Azov Regiment is frequently invoked to conjure what Russian-Israeli historian Vyacheslav Likhachev calls the “myth [of] Ukrainian fascism”, and many Western press sources in 2022 continue to treat the association between “Azov Regiment/Battalion” and “Neo-Nazi” as axiomatic, with some even attempting to draw unsubstantiated links between Azov and white supremacist terrorists in the West.

Our media’s “obsession” with the Azov Regiment (the volunteer militia the Azov Battalion no longer exists) – a single unit of the Ukrainian National Guard – is based largely on superficial or out-of-date research.

Although Ukrainian sources have been withering about the Azov-Nazi connection for years, a “Western gaze” and a lack of area knowledge has enabled this myth to persist in both journalistic and academic spheres.

Shekhovtsov observes that the “Azov Nazi” narrative allows a sense of “moral procrastination” regarding Russia’s invasion. If the war pits two equally problematic sides against each other, inaction becomes morally justified.

and so on Manyareasexpert (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism section addressing WEIGHT issues

If there are no objections left regarding Talk:Azov Brigade#NPOV and WEIGHT issues may we process with rewriting the section.

One of proposals could be

The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia, with connections to neo-Nazism and members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia, and expressing neo-Nazi views. In 2022 however, nationalism researchers say that Azov Regiment is a typical military unit with little, if any, political issues. Since 2014, Azov has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard with state control, removed of far-right elements, and is an example of successful deradicalization. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"Nationalism researchers" is rather vague. I also wouldn't call it successful given that we see fascist iconography being displayed again and again by especially Azov troops, unpunished. For example a soldier in this recent report on Swedish state controlled media displays a what appears to be a variant of the UPA's flag. Or this Vice report from March 2022 also replete with fascist symbolism. I could go on. KetchupSalt (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. No doubt you could, but WP:NOTCHAT.  —Michael Z. 18:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Having at least one (1) functioning eyeball is not WP:OR. Citing just one source, an opinion piece at that, not say a peer reviewed meta study, to make it seem that there is academic consensus that Azov has been "successfully deradicalized", and despite evidence and sources to the contrary, is WP:POV at the very least. KetchupSalt (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, photographs of both Ukrainian and Russian soldiers sporting tattoos or patches with far-right imagery aren’t difficult to find. As uncomfortable as this can sit with us, Gomza writes that the gravity of many of these symbols simply isn’t widely known in Ukraine, and can be “likely just an emblem of a successful fighting unit that protects Ukraine”, rather than a politically charged symbol.
Marlene Laruelle, author of Is Russia Fascist?, notes that symbols like pseudo-pagan imagery and Nordic runes common among Azov fighters are widespread in military units worldwide. https://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2022/08/19/1384992/much-azov-about-nothing-how-the-ukrainian-neo-nazis-canard-fooled-the-world Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Nationalism researchers" is rather vague.
That's how I summarized McCallum's Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent. There isn’t space to canvas all these in a short piece, but this is the conclusion of Anton Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. For a concise summary, Likhachev’s point-by-point rebuttal of the Azov-Nazi narrative comes highly recommended.
Your suggestion? Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

For “successful deradicalization,” could also cite the directly relevant link in McCallum, which is Mironova and Sergatskova 2017.[40]  —Michael Z. 18:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, such a text would be an unbalanced synth of the enormous amount of academic documentation that sees the Azov Battalion as still having political aspects of the neo-Nazi far right. The article would suffer an enormous deterioration in quality. Mhorg (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

enormous amount of academic documentation that sees the Azov Battalion as still having political aspects of the neo-Nazi far right
But you gave no such recent source. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that the McCallum article is an opinion piece by a PhD candidate and therefore unusable in this situation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Already asked several times. Which sentences proposed to include are dubious and require better sources? No answer given. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean besides the ones sourced to McCallum? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a proposal to change Neo-Nazism section at the beginning of this talk section. Which new sentences there require source better then McCallum? Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

All of them, everything which is to be included on this page requires a source better than McCallum. Thats how WP:V works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Well let's have a look at the second. You prefer it to be rewritten like this? Since 2014, Azov has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard with state control, removed of far-right elements, and is an example of successful deradicalization.[41] Manyareasexpert (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Too dated, we have sources post 2017 which say that far-right elements and radicalization remains an issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Let's see those. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean besides for the dozens of 2017 or later sources in the Azov Brigade#Neo-Nazism section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Most of those need to be removed if we are about to be that strict regarding the sources as we are here.

We could also be closer to the source and use slight rewording as
Since 2014, Azov has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard with state control, removed of neo-Nazi elements, and is an example of successful deradicalization.[42] Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, IMO we're not being strict at all but you don't have much experience on wikipedia so maybe the basics seem strict to you. Which sources are you thinking don't measure up? Your proposed wording doesn't work any better, you can't ignore contemporary sources in favor of one from last decade. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

we have sources post 2017 which say that far-right elements and radicalization remains an issue. - can we see those still so we can have something to discuss? After I proposed to change "far-right" to "neo-nazi", as per source. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You already saw them... After seeing them you stated "Most of those need to be removed if we are about to be that strict regarding the sources as we are here." but have yet to say which you think need to be removed and which you think are legitimate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The argument is that no sources reliable enough and contradicting the sentence proposed were provided. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes... And now you need to support that argument by saying why the given sources aren't reliable enough. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

You actually gave none. Manyareasexpert (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I did, you then apparently evaluated them and claimed that "Most of those need to be removed if we are about to be that strict regarding the sources as we are here." We have a number of nationalism researchers who say that the unit still has political issues, for example Efraim Zuroff who made that claim in 2022. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Well finally we have something substantial to discuss. So we have Zuroff's opinion and we have Shekhovtsov, Gomza, Umland and Likhachev saying otherwise. That should be represented in our article.

Also, Zuroff holds an opinion that the Srebrenica massacre was not a genocide [43] , and gives interview to Russian propaganda outlet Sputnik [44] - not sure if he is reliable enough? Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The majority of the world holds the opinion that the Srebrenica massacre was not a genocide, that is the scholarly consensus with a minority opinion that it was a genocide. You also appear to hold that opinion, you just called it the Srebrenica massacre not the Srebrenica genocide. We seem to have more than Zuroff holding that opinion, who else holds it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

If you look at more recent sources, and look at people who actually have specific expertise on the regiment (Zuroff doesn't, as far as I'm aware), almost all of them say the regiment has been "de-ideologised" or something to that effect. This includes people like Likhachev, Shekhovtsov, Umland, Kacper Rękawek, Ivan Gomza, Huseyn Aliyev, and adrien nonjon (the last three aren't covered in the article, the rest are). In terms of people with expertise who disagree (to some extent) with that assessment, you have Michael Colborne, but he also states that only a small minority had far right connections. He noted that today, these numbers are even smaller. And besides that, there's also Oleksiy Kuzmenko.

On balance, the general expert view is more on the side of the regiment being "de-ideologised", or something along those lines. Tristario (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

While in general recent sources are preferable, it might not be the case here, as the coverage of Azov in the West has been impacted by the Russian invasion [45]. Also see the Stanford's Mapping Militants profile in my comment below. Alaexis_¿question? 08:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That Mapping Militants project is edited by students - The project relies primarily on research assistance from Stanford undergraduate and graduate students. Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

As I've already pointed out earlier, we also had solid sources from prior to the invasion disputing the "neo-nazi" label. We are not going to dismiss the views of a variety of subject matter experts because of an opinion piece by a non-expert, that is not how WP:NPOV works. Tristario (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I see that you find fault with nearly everyone who doesn't agree with you here. I've added more sources below. Maybe it's worth having an RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 13:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That can be said for several editors here, including those who attempt to discredit anything not calling the Brigade neo-nazi. TylerBurden (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Just looking at the sources already present in the article, it's clear that there is a disagreement regarding the ideology of Azov. We have several scholars claiming that it has fully or largely de-ideologogised (Likhachev, Shekhovtsov, Umland). On the other hand we have others (Zuroff, Kuzmenko) who have the opposite opinion. I'm simplifying it a bit - even the experts in the former group usually acknowledge the presence of some neo-Nazis in the brigade. Stanford's Mapping Militants project does not explicitly call them Nazis but notes the continued use of Nazi symbols and links with far-right groups elsewhere, and does *not* say anything about the de-ideologisation or de-politisation ([46]). There is no scholarly consensus on this issue and therefore the proposed text would violate WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 06:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Two more sources which I'll leave here and we'll think what we can do with these
[47] "A Special Operation": A Quantitative Approach to Dissecting and Comparing Different Media Ecosystems’ Coverage of the Russo-Ukrainian War - Azov was considered a neo-nazi organization and it was often referenced as a justifcation for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to “denazify” the country (Thompson and Myers 2022). However, we note that despite the Russian call to “denazify” Ukraine by ridding it of Azov, this has largely been labeled an attempt to delegitimize Ukrainian interests (Thompson and Myers 2022). After being reorganized under the National Guard of Ukraine and additional efforts in 2017, the Azov battalion has been largely considered depoliticized (Shekhovtsov 2020).

[48] #Azovsteel: Comparing qualitative and quantitative approaches for studying framing of the siege of Mariupol on Twitter - 1. The Azov battalion was originally a paramilitary group formed at the start of Russia’s war in 2014. Among its original members, there were a number of football ultras as well as right-wing personalities, such as Andrii Biletskii. After the incorporation of the battalion in the Ukrainian National Guard and the subsequent expansion of Azov into a regiment, the majority of its extreme members left Azov. However, Russian propaganda kept framing Azov as a neo-Nazi armed group posing existential threat to Russia. For more information, see McCallum (2022). - note how the work references McCallum. Anybody referencing Zuroff? Manyareasexpert (talk) 08:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you missed the key part... WP:NPOV. Also note that just because something is a Russian propaganda claim doesn't mean its wrong (most propaganda claims are actually fundamentally true, its the lack of context or the spin that makes it problematic), for example the Japanese and Nazis in WWII made propaganda hay out of America's anti-black racism and indigenous genocide... Those didn't stop being real because literal Nazis used them to score propaganda points. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Additional sources

Colborne doesn't think that Azov de-politicised (pp. 9-10)

“ ...the Azov movement was not only born in a great hour, but from the fires of war. A relatively ragtag gang of men from the far right, including open neo-Nazis from Ukraine and abroad, took up arms with blessing of Ukraine’s authorities, becoming a battalion, then a Regiment and, eventually, growing into a broader far-right social movement without much parallel anywhere else in the world. Not many of the Azov movement’s international allies can boast of, for example, having ... a namesake military unit that’s an official part of Ukraine’s National Guard ”

This is what Soufan center wrote about Azov in 2019, long after the incorporation of the regiment into the national guard.

“ In Ukraine, the Azov Battalion has recruited foreign fighters motivated by white supremacy and neo-Nazi beliefs, including many from the West, to join its ranks and receive training, indoctrination, and instruction in irregular warfare ”

Alaexis_¿question? 13:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Who are authors of Soufan report? Colborne is a Bellingcat investigator and journalist. If we are accepting Colborne, we accept McCallum. Manyareasexpert (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That not how WP:RS works, Bellingcat is a reliable publication. If McCallum had published an article in a reliable source rather than an opinion piece we could use him, as it stands we can't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

[49] [50] refer to McCallum and so this article can as well. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

We can use what that article says about McCallum but we can't use McCallum directly. Thats just how WP:RS works, you're going to have to understand that if you want to edit wikipedia without running into a wall every five minutes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure it works in a way that a Bellingcat investigator and journalist is reliable in saying who is nazi and who is not, but a candidate in social sciences with published works in a field and referenced by other academic works is not reliable enough? Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Apples and oranges, you're comparing a book published by an academic publisher and an opinion piece unless I'm missing something. If McCallum writes a book and gets it published by a scholarly press of ibidem's class we can use it all day long. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Both (Colborne and McCallum) are valid sources. They have different opinions and that's fine, we should mention both of them in line with WP:NPOV. As for the Soufan center report, you can find the names of the contributors on page 56. Alaexis_¿question? 16:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is what Soufan said about Azov in a report in 2022: According to experts on the European far-right like Anton Shekhovtsov, the Azov of 2022 is nothing like the group from eight years ago, since those seeking to fight with Azov today are motivated, for the most part, by Ukrainian nationalism and not far-right extremism [51].

The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014. Ever since it was incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard late that year, they “had to purge a lot of those extremist elements,” said Mollie Saltskog, a senior intelligence analyst at the Soufan Group. “There was much more control exerted over who is affiliated with the battalions.” [52] Tristario (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I haven't actually commented on what I think of Manyareasexpert's suggested text, which I realise I should. I don't think Manyareasexpert's text is fully WP:NPOV compliant and should be adjusted. But something along the lines of that text could work. Tristario (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Colborne's book is not available to me but I found the following, actually
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/2022-06-01/ty-article-magazine/.premium/understanding-ukrainian-nationalism-and-claims-its-tainted-by-nazism/00000181-1a0c-d9b4-a199-be1e4a3c0000
In spite of this, Colborne says that the Azov Battalion has undergone changes and become established over the years. In the first few years after it was founded, just a small minority of its soldiers had a connection to the far right; today, these numbers are even smaller and the use of neo-Nazi symbols among its members has been reduced greatly, he says.
The Azov Battalion and the entire Azov movement are almost completely untainted by antisemitism now, he adds. “Not only for Azov but for all the far-right movements in Ukraine, especially since 2014, antisemitism has lost its importance. When I compare this to what is happening with the extreme right in other countries in Europe, the level of antisemitism and the open antisemitic rhetoric there is much higher than anything I have seen in the right-wing movements in Ukraine in recent years.” White supremacy is also not an idea that the leaders of the far right, with Biletsky at their head, have been publicly endorsing in the past few years.
Nonetheless, besides for Ukrainian patriotism, the Azov movement and radical right in Ukraine in general have been left with a collection of conservative values that very much remind one of the ideologies the Kremlin relies on today: Opposition to feminism, hatred of the LGBTQ community and devotion to “traditional values.”
“What happened to Russia, and specifically to Putin, in recent years is growing much closer to the ‘Nazis’ against whom he claims he is fighting in Ukraine,” Colborne says. “There are differences between them, but they are much closer on the ideological spectrum that what any of the sides wants to admit.” Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Neither Colbourne nor Soufan Center quotation say they think Azov brigade isn’t depoliticized, so I don’t know why you’d write that as if those quotations supported it.

Colborne is obviously talking about the Azov movement, although he is not very clear on the distinction, so I see how one might not understand without reading carefully. But he clearly makes the distinction when referring to the namesake military unit.

Incidentally, Soufan supports that statement with a reference to a 2015 source and one to their own 2019 article where they wrongly stated Brenton Tarrant had links to Azov, so, a bad source on this.  —Michael Z. 22:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Colborne does make the distinction between the unit and the movement but he also makes it clear that they are related (see the quote in my 13:09, 12 July 2023 comment). Alaexis_¿question? 06:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As for the Haaretz article, it's certainly good news that they've become less antisemitic but it basically confirms my point that the movement still has a distinct far-right ideology. Alaexis_¿question? 06:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

International Relations

Section can be expanded with Umland https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/handle/document/75396 , section Ukraine's Far Right and Pro-Kremlin Actors in Western Europe Manyareasexpert (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Phew

This article reads like RT propagand. Please fix. 2A02:8108:1640:5282:8107:3579:DFD0:1CA9 (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

What changes are you suggesting? Mhorg (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Andreas Umland

I see Umland being mentioned in here and it bears mentioning that he is involved with the Centrum för Östeuropastudier (CÖS/SCEEUS) (see the CÖS website) which is funded by Utrikesdepartementet, which is part of the Swedish government, a co-belligerent in the present war and a NATO aspirant. Other sources of funding include Särskilda Forskningsprogrammet, Utrikespolitiska Institutet and Nationellt Kunskapscentrum om Kina, with various overlap between these institutions. Umland has a vested financial interest in voicing opinions that are in line with his backers, so please keep this bias in mind. KetchupSalt (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

This is farfetched. Sweden is not a dictatorship where the government dictates the research results and your comment about vested interest is pure ≤speculation. Also, your statement that Sweden is a belligerent innthe war is incorrect and mirrors Russian propaganda. Sjö (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sweden is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, same as Russia. We're sending weapons to Ukraine for free, uncharacteristic for our MIC, and despite the rules saying that weapons should not be exported to states presently at war (p. 100). The Swedish ruling class has been chomping at the bit for 200 years for another war with Russia, which they now have, by proxy. KetchupSalt (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you're making fun of russia today style propaganda. Manyareasexpert (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I admit I do enjoy making fun of all forms of bourgeois propaganda. It is the POV that annoys me. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

You are pushing fringe POV's and violating WP:NOTFORUM, this thread should be closed, and if KetchupSalt continues to use this talk page as a forum for their fringe ideas, they should be blocked from it. TylerBurden (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

This is such a reach it is WP:FRINGE. TylerBurden (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, part of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs. So every researcher that works under the auspices of an institution that received public funding is a POV source? Like every single university? Don’t be silly.  —Michael Z. 03:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Your remark is more correct than you think. Where funding comes from indeed has a profound effect. The same notion can be seen even among these pages, but only lopsidedly (if correctly) applied to Russia. We fund public service, they fund state propaganda. We have governments, they have regimes. Such a mindset is not conducive to NPOV. KetchupSalt (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

“All governments are the same” is literally a key point of the Russian régime’s propaganda. Because they are not. Start with “régime” and “propaganda” in a good English dictionary.  —Michael Z. 04:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that all governments are the same. Stop putting words in my mouth. This is not the first time you have done so, and if you continue to do so then action will have to be taken. I am pointing out obvious POV and questioning the reliability of self-contradictory sources. KetchupSalt (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ll spell out what you don’t acknowledge. Per Oxford Dictionary of English:

• regime. A government, especially an authoritarian one.
• propaganda. Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

These are English words with specific meanings. They do apply to the Kremlin’s authoritarian régime and the highly restrictive information environment it controls much more so than to most other states in the world. This is normal usage of English and your complaint about it that tries to cast Russia (“they”) as no more deserving of this terminology than other states (“we”) has no merit.  —Michael Z. 16:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Posting maps of the imperial core does nothing but strengthen my point about bias and POV.

You should know that Sweden recently passed a "foreign espionage" law that criminalizes publishing things that may "hurt Sweden's relationships with other countries". UI, one of Umland's employers, is therefore forbidden from publishing things that may hurt Swedish foreign policy. KetchupSalt (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

It is enough for us that Umland is recognized authority in a field and is published in and referenced by academic sources. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Maps of Moscow and Saint Petersburg? What?

So no one in a country where foreign espionage violates the law is a reliable source? Or just no one in Sweden? That is what your research has determined? It’s bad research.

But I don’t see reliable sources saying that Sweden has a more restrictive freedom of speech than other states. In press freedom Sweden ranks 4th in the world, Russia 160 places lower. Top 2 percentile vs bottom 11. See the difference between a propaganda régime and a normal country?  —Michael Z. 14:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

For context and clarity, @KetchupSalt apparently refers to my links with maps of press freedom and democracy as “maps of the imperial core,” and reflecting a non-neutral POV.  —Michael Z. 19:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. WP seeks NPOV, which in the present war* means that the only sources that we can hope to not be POV are those aligned to say the African union or the Union of South American Nations. And so on. Places on Earth which are not directly or indirectly involved in the present War. Which is a point I've been making all along.

• ) yes I am so russopbobic as to refer to the present conflict as a War. I freely admit to not liking Putin, in flagrant violation of WP:NOTAFORUM

KetchupSalt (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we should get back to discussing content, putting aside our opinions on bigger issues than our work here. Mhorg (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. And then there’s not much else to say about the OP. Any objection to closing this talk section?  —Michael Z. 16:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

No idea why it hasn't already, unless people want to waste more time arguing with this individual or they want to continue to dig their hole, I am not opposed to anyone closing it. TylerBurden (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Please don't use false statements such as Swedish government, a co-belligerent in the present war while advocating content changes on Wikipedia t/p. Marcelus (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Did Sweden declare war on Russia? If not then they aren't a co-belligerent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

The statement that "the regiment's size was estimated to be around 900 to 2,500 combatants in 2017–2022" is nonsensical. It could be around 900 or around 2,500, but not both. Please change to "The regiment's size has been variously estimated as 2,500 (by Der Spiegel in 2017) and 900 (by Al-Jazeera in 2022)", per the two refs. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:8D5C:E0CF:BB8E:9BFE (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 coat of arms

Add File:Бригада «Азов» лого 2023.svg Zacharpolis (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Conflict between Pro and Anti-Zionist factions during the time of being an informal volunteer battalion

During the time as an volunteer group, the organizations members disagreed about the group's position on Israel. 2A02:3030:805:D90B:1:0:EDEA:A8C0 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

2023.: Azov brigade (within National Guard of Ukraine) reorganized and back on the frontlines

Please note news from 2023.:

"Azov regiment expands to brigade within National Guard of Ukraine", "Ukrainska Pravda",February 9, 2023 https://news.yahoo.com/azov-regiment-expands-brigade-within-195700966.html

"Ukraine’s Azov brigade, designated by Russia as terrorists, returns to battle front", Tuqa Khalid, Al Arabiya English, February 6, 2022. https://english.alarabiya.net/News/world/2023/08/17/Ukraine-s-Azov-brigade-designated-by-Russia-as-terrorists-returns-to-battle-front

"Azov Brigade back fighting at front, Ukrainian National Guard says", "Novaya Gazeta Europe", August 17, 2023. https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2023/08/17/azov-brigade-back-fighting-at-front-ukrainian-national-guard-says-en-news RadioElectrico (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Rostov War crime trial

Why we is their no mention that dozens of Azov members are on trial in russia and every time i add this fact it gets deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirkk 123 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Once. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Because RS do not support war crimes and it is not remarkable that Russia puts enemy combattants on trial, like they do with other POWs. Sjö (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Foreign Fighters in Ukraine: The Brown-red Cocktail

To those interested: I found a book which is both modern and takes a deep dive into the subject - https://books.google.com/books/about/Foreign_Fighters_in_Ukraine.html?id=deZNzwEACAAJ , please help me extract important info from it. Manyareasexpert (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Golinkin fake

Golinkin "Neo-Nazis and the Far Right Are On the March in Ukraine" A mere four months after Applebaum’s essay, Newsweek ran an article titled “Ukrainian nationalist volunteers committing ‘ISIS-style’ war crimes.” references Newsweek, which supports this statement by referring to russian propaganda outlet NTV. I. e. it is simply fake. I'm removing it. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in connection with what it is being cited for. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

No, nevertheless it's better to not to refer to a source spreading fakes. Manyareasexpert (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We do not get to judge if an RS is fake. Also the quoted line does not say the Newsweek article was true, or that it was even used by Golinkin for any information. It is a one line reference to an article, this is inceficiant to dismis a source written by an expert.. Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not an RS, he is not an expert and is spreading fakes. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

This has no basis in policy whatsoever. The source we're citing is The Nation, and it's a reliable source. The article mentions a Newsweek article, which in term uses cites NTV for a specific claim. This is not zombie apocalypse, one mention of NTV doesn't infect everything else in the article and in other articles that quote it with unreliability. Alaexis_¿question? 19:27, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The source we're citing is The Nation, and it's a reliable source
Who is the author? Why is he reliable? Before stating that, we need to address arguments stated before - he is not an expert and is spreading fakes. Manyareasexpert (talk) 19:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We certainly can examine the author's credentials but it has to be based on RS and not on your personal opinion. Lev Golinkin has published articles in multiple highest-quality media outlets (His op-eds and essays on the Ukraine crisis have appeared in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, and Time.com, among others; he has been interviewed by WSJ Live and HuffPost Live [53]). Alaexis_¿question? 20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

none of those publications would meet the proposed Eastern Europe sourcing requirement fyi Elinruby (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

‎Sham trials section

I feel "‎Sham trials" deserves its own section, since the source do not mention "propaganda" at all Russia’s Sham Trial of Ukrainian Prisoners of War | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org) . Another source does metion it Trials of Ukrainian Prisoners of War in Russia: Decay of the Combatant’s Immunity (justsecurity.org) but in absolutely different context. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I'll move it back to its own section and see what the reactions to that are. Sjö (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)