Talk:Azov Brigade/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

POV tag

A tag requires a current discussion in talk, where is it? And what would be in this discussion that has not been discussed already as part of the RFC? The tag has been applied to the entire article, which parts of the article are allegedly not NPOV? Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

See the section right above. And the section right above that one. Volunteer Marek 03:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It should be removed as editors are already working on this page, aware of issues concerning neutrality and are discussing these issues on the talk page. The template usage notes say "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article." Yet this was a rationale given when adding it: [1]. Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope, not how it works. Fix the neutrality issue, stop removing well sourced info, stop playing WP:POINTy games, then it goes. (This refers to the editors who are currently doing this). Volunteer Marek 03:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

<snip>(off topic blocked troll comment removed)

Woah! This is hilarious! A week-old account H51bjCKERK goes into a personal attack on ~12 years old account Volunteer Marek, showing a surprising knowledge of some non-widely-known around-wiki history? Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring over a tag is a bit dismal. It's a double edged sword, I could make a null edit supporting the tag for the opposite reasons or I could join in and revert it. Anyway, the point is there is supposed to be a discussion, the (original) tagger needs to specify the reasons for the tag and then editors sort through, applying remedies if/as needed, aiming for a removal of the tag. Selfstudier (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, actually that tag seems to be used as a "badge of shame"... Mhorg (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not ashamed:) We can wait a while, if there is no current discussion in talk after that, then that is a sufficient reason to remove the tag. Selfstudier (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Tag is there because the article does not satisfy NPOV. That’s it. Volunteer Marek 03:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

No it's being used to reflect the reality that it is a heavily disputed article. TylerBurden (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

What opposite reasons? There are several editors actively working on the article that think it has neutrality issues, no matter what "reasons", be it that it is being whitewashed to remove Nazi claims or that it is being edited for Azov to be presented purely as an objectively "Nazi Battalion". The whole climate here is a mess, and the article is too. I don't see how you could disagree with the tag with the article and climate around it in the current state. That's something that is being constantly discussed, and until those discussions are finished and a consensus is reached, the tag belongs to reflect the reality of it instead of pretending everything here is fine and dandy. TylerBurden (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It's very simple, a tag requires a discussion with a view to remedy problems identified, I don't see how that is controversial. Per Wikipedia:NPOV dispute:

The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Instead, I see no specific discussion, just hand waving assertions, Tag is there because the article does not satisfy NPOV. That’s it.. It is of interest that the POV tag was added only very late in the proceedings such that it appears as nothing more than a pointy addition, just read the edit summary for the addition of the tag, yeah this is ridiculous. Sourced constructive changes get reverted while other editors try to make WP:POINTy edits The same with the neo nazi tag, also added late and again apparently only to make a point, since an RFC has already been set in motion to deal with that particular issue. Selfstudier (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The neo-nazi inline tag served a practical purpose by linking directly to the RfC, allowing interested readers to see the RfC process and (prior to closure) participate in it, even if it was added late in the day. Given that the POV tag doesn't link to any clear, actionable discussion (this discussion is about the tag, not the POV issues), the template guidance says it can be removed by at any time. Jr8825 • Talk 09:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yea, judging by the edit summary it was probably added in frustration. But it still holds true nonetheless, and the RFC is still taking ages even though it has been closed. You should also note that the essay you are quoting is not policy, "this page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community" so every word on it doesn't need to be treated as gospel. I think for now the tag is appropriate, hopefully the RFC will improve the consensus and at that point there would be no need for it, but in the current state I'd say we're at these "last resorts" depths unfortunately. Of course that doesn't mean that issues shouldn't be specifically pointed out and discussed though. TylerBurden (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: So at first you say that you support the tag, but for the "opposite reasons", then you raise it here, says we can wait a while, and then you suddenly remove it citing the talk page and an explanatory essay that isn't even a policy or guideline. Do you think that the neutrality of the article is not disputed? TylerBurden (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

judging by the edit summary it was probably added in frustration. But it still holds true nonetheless that's...not how that works at all. Tags should only exist on pages if they are actively being discussed and fixed. Not just to display our frustration with the way a page is. A tag can be removed at any point if consensus supports it. I would support removing it, especially after the RFC is resolved, as it is very evidently a drive-by tag without clear and (most importantly) actionable justification. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is actively being discussed and fixed. So what's your point? TylerBurden (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

To add as well, it seems like you guys are using the person it was added by and their edit summary as an excuse to label it as simply a "drive-by tag" and advocate for its removal, ignoring that it has been added by two other seperate editors. One of which has a thread at the bottom currently attempting to address the issues but no one is engaging with them. TylerBurden (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Afaics, the consensus is to remove the tag. Your edit summary, Maybe finish the discussion on the talk page before removing it., I know of no non NPOV issues except the neo nazi label, which is already tagged and subject of an RFC. So what discussion? The tagging editor declined to engage, you as the new tag editor are now required to engage. Kindly specify which parts of the article are not NPOV along with your suggestions for fixing those parts. And please stop wikilawyering about not being a policy or a guideline, it describes a process for dealing with tags, why would anyone not follow it? Selfstudier (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

As for So at first you say that you support the tag, but for the "opposite reasons" kindly show me where I said that. And just who is "you guys"? Selfstudier (talk) 09:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

There are 3 editors who added or readded the tag, the latest reversion being yours and the second time you have done so, edit warring (about a tag). 4 editors have either removed the tag or support it's removal so you are as well edit warring against consensus. I would remind you that this page is subject to discretionary sanctions. I suggest a self revert is in order here.Selfstudier (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

So when you are attempting to cite an explanatory essay as an excuse to remove the template that is all good, but when I point out that it is not policy and shouldn't be treated as gospel that is "wikilawyering". Huh. "You guys" as in the people who are removing the tag, or advocating for its removal. Consensus is not a democracy vote remember? So I am not sure why you are trying to use a number here as an additional excuse for the removal of the appropriate tag. "I agree with the POV tag on the article but probably for the opposite of the reason that it has been placed :) And yea, please stop trying to push Tablet into the lead.Selfstudier (talk) 00:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)". That's a direct quote from you above, it is only now that you have decided to be against it suddenly, for whatever reason. Edit warring? Really? I suppose report me to WP:AN/3 then for making two reverts on the article over the span of three days. You know of no NPOV issues you say while on the same day making edits to counter POV edits, it's a constant issue and I believe you know that as well as I. You didn't answer my question, is the neutrality of the article not disputed? The RFC is a joke, it has been closed for a week with its closer saying it would be done within a couple of days. Until that RFC is fully completed, the tag more than fits, hell, it will probably still fit afterwards also regardless of which option because of the endless POV pushing on the article. TylerBurden (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is the specific WP:NPOV issue you are wishing to raise through this tag? You need to point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies per Template:POV. According to your edit summaries the reasons you have added this are: Maybe finish the discussion on the talk page before removing it. and In the current state it is, why shouldn't readers of it be aware of that? The latter of these reasons contravenes the NPOV template guidelines and the former requires you to actually explain the specific issue you wish to resolve. If you do not make clear what the neutrality issue is then according to the template's guidelines it can be removed. The issue of neo-Nazi usage in the lede is already the subject of a soon to be closed RfC and is flagged with an inline tag. Again, what specifically does your NPOV tag refer to? Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why it is so difficult to use WP:COMMONSENSE to see why the tag is appropriate for the article. I am being accused of wikilawyering but it is you who oppose the tag who are ignoring the point and instead obsessing over minute template and essay details, some of which are not even policy. The issue you mentioned is obviously the main one, and I strongly feel that the tag is appropriate until the RFC is fully done, no not just closed with some vague "Doing... during the next couple of days" that seems to be turning into a couple of weeks. But fully done and dusted. I don't see the mention where it has to specifically be the editor that adds the tag, or does so most recently that has to be the one pointing out specific examples either. Like Marek said, look at the discussions above and tell me that there are not neutrality disputes being discussed. TylerBurden (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That's my bad it does say that in the template notes, I feel I have outlined my reasons for why I feel the tag is appropriate. Like I said, the lead situation is not solved. That's my reasoning. TylerBurden (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Know how it could be easily solved? Team "neo-Nazi" admit that the Wikivoice neo-Nazi lead is a complete breach of WP:5P2, which is not just policy, but a pillar of Wikipedia and the lead is altered to better reflect the variety of reliable sources. But obviously this is Wikipedia, so endless bureaucracy and useless RFC's are apparently of preference. TylerBurden (talk) 05:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

That is the subject of an RFC above; we can wait for a closure, but unless it has a no-consensus outcome, the dispute will no longer be an appropriate reason to put a POV tag on the article after that - per WP:WTRMT, a consensus on talk page leads to related maintenance tags being removed; you can't retain it indefinitely just because you disagree with that consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not advocating for the tag to remain forever, I'm saying that it is appropriate right now. I have already mentioned the RFC, so I am not even going to repeat myself anymore at this point. TylerBurden (talk) 05:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It is WP:POINTY in the extreme to add a POV tag for an issue that already has an inline tag and for which the RfC is already in the process of being closed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, in my opinion the RFC is slow to the extreme. TylerBurden (talk) 05:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this will make more sense to you: As long as the current RFC is used as an excuse to maintain the NPOV violation, it is hypocritical to say that the tag is not valid. You can't use the RFC as an excuse both to keep the Wikivoice neo-Nazi label and to not add disputed neutrality tags. It's ridiculous. TylerBurden (talk) 06:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems then that you have a problem with Wikipedia's procedures and policies for dispute resolution. I don't think anyone here can help with that. Maybe try the Village Pump? Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say that a group of editors grouping together to form "consensus" in order to violate one of the pillars of the website they are editing on is somewhat of a sign of a broken system yea, but that is not exactly for this thread. So wouldn't it be better to address my points than to attempt to redirect me elsewhere? I guess not, because all this Wikipedia bureaucracy keeps the article looking the way you want it to. TylerBurden (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What the the (active) NPOV issues then? Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Read this whole thread when you have time and you will find out, even the people in it have acknowledged it. TylerBurden (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

What I see is a lot of talk about how consensus has not been achieved or is being abused. What I am not seeing is an active discussion about how exactly this article does not reflect a NPOV. Yes (by the way) the tag is used for active discussion, not the fact you disagree with a closed one. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Past a certain point I think WP:SATISFY applies; if there's a clear consensus, the fact that some people disagree with it doesn't allow them to keep a POV tag on an article indefinitely. Articles on controversial subjects are always going to have people who disagree with them; what matters is whether there's a consensus for the current version. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Which there is not. TylerBurden (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes there is, you may not like it, but that does not German its not there. Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  I am not sure what German you are talking about. TylerBurden (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's an obvious autocorrect mistake. They most likely wrote "mean". M.Bitton (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that is what I meant. There was a clear consensus for everything here. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yea no kidding, it was a ridiculous response to a ridiculous claim. There is an ongoing RFC, after that we will see what the consensus is. TylerBurden (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  What ongoing RFC? I see a closed one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's in the process of being closed no? So it's still not done yet. Anyway, I removed the tag. My opinion has not changed on it fitting, but I am evidently not able to convince other people that it does and a tag is no hill to die on. TylerBurden (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  Its not active, so there is no discussion, the tag is supposed to have a discussion about what the NPOV issue are, as had been pointed out it is not a badge of shame. Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No there's still POV problems as discussion above shows and at *very least* tag should stay until the closure of the RfC is actually done. Volunteer Marek 22:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And removing the "disputed" inline tag from the designation is nothing short of disruptive since there's a whole freakin' RfC exactly about that issue and it hasn't been closed and just eye-balling consensus suggests that the current wording is POV. Volunteer Marek 22:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

In particular this edit summary is simply false since no decision has actually been made in the RfC and there's been absolutely no effort to "address" anything. Please refrain from making false claims in edit summary Gitz. Volunteer Marek 22:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

And let me be 100% clear on what the POV issue is - the info based on all the recent sources which say that the battalion of 2022 is a different animal than the one of 2014 are being consistently edited war out of the lede per some kind of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Certain editors insist that only the image of the battalion from 2014 - which is the image that is actively pushed by Russian propaganda - is allowed to be mentioned in the lede. This despite the fact that the article itself does in fact cover the changes that have taken place since 2014 (though there's some obnoxious attempts at removing that info as well). This is all stuff based on reliable sources.

Additionally information on usage of the "neo-Nazi" designation by Russian propaganda is missing from both the lede and the article itself (where it doesn't get enough coverage). And of course you get the cherry picked quotes from sources which actually say the opposite of what's being claimed, as already explained in detail.

NONE of this has been addressed. If anything, certain editors have made efforts to make the article even more skewed, taking advantage of the fact that someone somewhere reverted constructive changes or by engaging in WP:POINT behavior ("I won't let you use a reliable source unless you let me misrepresent this source too! For, uh, "balance"") Volunteer Marek 22:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

So you disapprove of the current consensus as well as some of the editors responsible for it and believe that tagging will result in things being more to your liking, that about the size of it? Selfstudier (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Stop making claims of false consensus. Volunteer Marek 09:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Russian propagandists from Time (magazine).[2] Right? Mhorg (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Its clear there are *Multiple* discussions going on here, on this talk page, that relate to the POV issue for this article.I don't see that tag going anywhere until they are resolved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's strip out the WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors, the hyperbole and the irrelevant from the above rant and see what is actually left as justification for edit warring a tag:

(a) WP:RECENT sources that say that 2022 battalion is not the 2014 battalion are not sufficiently reflected in the lead of the article even though they are in the article body.

(b) Insufficient coverage of Russian propaganda in the lead and to a lesser extent in the body of the article.

Afaics, these are the only two substantive points raised, all the rest is aspersions about editors motives and such. As for the "multiple discussions", where are they and what point is being made in them that would justify the tag? Selfstudier (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you refrained from calling other editors' good faithed, on topic, statements, as "rants" as that is a personal attack. Volunteer Marek 09:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• I agree that POV tag is very much justified here. Basically, we define Azov as a "Neo-Nazi" military unit in the first phrase of the lead in WP voice. This is regardless to the history of the unit, i.e. we say it is currently a Neo-Nazi unit as a matter of fact. I think this is an outright violation of our WP:NPOV policy. Even worse, such claim, as an absolute indisputable "truth" (that is what first phrase of the lead implies) is a key thesis from the misleading Putinist propaganda used to justify the military aggression and genocide of Ukrainian people. This absolutely must be corrected. The appearance of the claim in 3rd paragraph of the lead (i.e. as "The battalion drew controversy over allegations of torture and war crimes, as well as association with neo-Nazi ideology and symbolism") is more than sufficient.My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  The tag pro/con is just another version of the RFC. The RFC will decide though, not the tags. Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• I agree the tag should stay for now. Regardless of my personal stance on the issue, there is active discussion on whether we are overemphasizing certain views and under-weighting others. For the record, I continue to feel there's an obvious WP:VOICE case against the status quo language: that Azov is neo-Nazi is plainly a "seriously contested assertion". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:REDFLAG the *proper* way to have done the whole thing was to have removed the designation DURING the RfC, since WP:ONUS applies. But at the insistence of some editors who bullied their way through by edit warring, this was done ass-backwards. But better late than never I guess. Volunteer Marek 09:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Its long stading content, so ONUS would be on those wanting to remove. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  Ultimately it is a consensus issue, that's what the RFC is about. Anyone can claim that there is no consensus but such claims have no foundation. Selfstudier (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Volunteer Marek my edit summary was very much justified. The issue has been thoroughly discussed, the RFC is closed and there's no point in linking to a close discussion. The reason why we have those tags is fostering discussion, not undermining the article. You claim Certain editors insist that only the image of the battalion from 2014 ... is allowed to be mentioned in the lede ... Additionally information on usage of the "neo-Nazi" designation by Russian propaganda is missing from both the lede and the article ... NONE of this has been addressed. You're wrong. This edit of mine was not reverted and everything is still there in the lead: Other experts argue that the regiment has evolved beyond its origins as street militia tempering its neo-Nazi underpinnings as it became part of the National Guard. Since 2014, criticism of the Azov battalion is a recurring theme of Russian propaganda. We should just add a couple of references (no citation cluster please) so as to provide the best, most recent and authoritative sources on the point. Once we've done that, the only contentious issue still remaining is the "neo-Nazism" allegation. On this we're waiting for the outcome of the RFC and there's no need of further discussion among editors. So I insist we should remove the tags. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The POV tag belongs to an article if there's POV issue in it. That's it. Whether or not an RfC has been closed is irrelevant, especially if "closed" here only means that it was put in a little box with no decision made. This is acerbated by the fact that per WP:REDFLAG and WP:ONUS the policy compliant way to proceed is to REMOVE the controversial designation UNTIL a decision is made, not vice versa. We have WP:TENDENTIOUS edit warring by some to thank for the fact that from the beginning this was done ass-backwards and in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Volunteer Marek 23:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

References

The same article https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/us-lifts-ban-on-funding-neo-nazi-ukrainian-militia-441884 is quoted 4 times, an unification would be useful.Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)