Talk:Azov Brigade/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

RFC: political ideology of the Azov

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Given that the same question is being discussed below, so as to avoid any divergent closures, I make a technical closure of this RfC. This closure does not rule on the merits of the question, nor does it establish the existence of any consensus whatsoever, but whoever decides to close the main RfC below is directed to take this RfC into account. (non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

---

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

previous RFCs:

• Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_2#RfC:_Azov_Battalion
• Talk:Azov_Battalion/Archive_1#Far-right,_neo-Nazi_as_result_of_WP:NPOV_rule_ignoration

• No, "Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group." ref Infinity Knight (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Bad RfC and Yes Do you have any evidence that anything has changed since the last (very comprehensive in participation) RfC? Typically one should discuss a change on the talk page prior to taking it to an RfC. Also, the JPost article you pulled that quote from above calls them "NeoNazi" in the headline, it's clearly an important descriptor. BSMRD (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Infinity Knight, please, not again. Nothing has changed since the last RFC, and your argument was even disproved in that discussion.--Mhorg (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Something has changed, but maybe not that. Has something changed? Hell, yes. It's called the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Looks like Ukraine's Jewish people have made peace with Azov. See [2]. Money quote: They had no anti-Jewish ideology. This should be reflected in the lead. Adoring nanny ([[User >talk:Adoring nanny|talk]]) 02:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, but a quote from a random Ukrainian is not sufficient for inclusion in the lead. Some guy saying they aren't anti-jewish is worth as much as the org themselves "eschewing Nazism". Nothing. The invasion is not a valid excuse to whitewash Nazis. BSMRD (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with BSMRD. Also, Infinity Knight used a very old article from 2016. In the last RFC we just talked about how "the available evidence indicates that the regiment remains joined at the hip to the internationally active National Corps party it spawned, and the wider Azov movement associated with the regiment" (2020, Atlantic Council[3])--Mhorg (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Well, this is a mess. The current text is Azov, is a right-wing extremist,[1][2] neo-Nazi,[3][4][5] formerly paramilitary, unit of the National Guard of Ukraine,[6][7][8].

  BSMRD said "JPost article you pulled that quote from above calls them "NeoNazi" in the headline" however actually the article uses scare quotes and in its body the article says Azov was called a “neo-Nazi paramilitary militia” by two US Congressmen and describes Simon Wiesenthal Center objections. There are opposing opinions quoted, and the fact that the US goverment works with Azov. If you read carefully, actually JP says that since 2016, "Neo nazi Azov" is no longer the consensus view.

  Mhorg suggests to use Atlanti Ccouncil blog by Oleksiy Kuzmenko, appears as an opinion, which is not spoiled by an abundance of primary sources.

  The point is, quoting opinions and then writing them as facts in Wikipedia voice is not the way to go. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  JP says that since 2016, "Neo nazi Azov" is no longer the consensus view. No they don't? Not a single time does any sentiment to that effect appear in the article. The "opposing opinion" quoted from the researcher speaking for the Vaad just says "well they are officially part of the military now so they can't be neo-nazis, and anyways Russia is the real problem". Your view seems to be WP:SYNTH, unless you can pull a quote from the article that actually says what you claim it does. BSMRD (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Synth? Not sure how it applies here. Re consensus, JP reports the news that the Azov Battalion is now legally able to receive American aid and summaries the opinions as Not everyone was so upset. The point remains, quoting opinions and then writing them as facts in Wikipedia voice is not the way to go. Infinity Knight (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

  And this is truly the biggest problem of Wikipedia today when it comes to politics - it is used to spread a narrative based on someones opinions without any factual prove just on assumption that a person/source "would not lie". It sad that any change here called "vandalism" when people are trying to remove or at least make a paragraph about "nazi" marked "as a potential lie spread by Russian propaganda" (which in my opinion is absolute BS).

  P.S. Nazis didn't hide that they are nazis because of its nature. That would be a first sign that there may be something wrong with this nazi claims. Baylrock (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - The lead is a place where key elements of the article are summarized. Ideology is very much a part of that. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per Butlerblog, Cinadon36 06:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• No, or at least not without making some clarifications. But yes or no doesn’t solve the article’s structural problem. Like many sources, it doesn’t clearly distinguish Azov former volunteer battalion, its two successors the Azov current National Guard regiment and the National Militias (Natsionalni Druzhyny), the National Corps political party, or the umbrella Azov Movement. —Michael Z. 17:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes the lead should cover ideology, the coverage from WP:RS almost always touches on it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, it must be called "neo-Nazi" as it is part of a larger political project of the "Azov Movement", which is neo-Nazi, as all first-class sources certify (it is unbelievable that we are repeating an RFC when nothing has changed on the subject).--Mhorg (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Any attempt otherwise is akin to whitewashing/rewriting history. Overwhelming number of sources have been presented already. - hako9 (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment on sources Leaning to no (Changed to definitely not below)Ce - the references in the lede appear to fail verification, came here to post about that. You can’t extrapolate an ideology based on what some separate organization with the same name did in 1942. I have an open mind but the more I look the less convinced I am. I will add some detail about the sources below this comment. They do not convince me. Possibly others exist that would, but these dont Elinruby (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  1. does not, as far as I can tell, mention either Azov or Ukraine
  2. I usually consider Al-Jazeera a good source, but wow. Do editors realize that fake videos about Azov are an ongoing theme in Kremlin rants about Nazis? This new one turns out to apparently not have been debunked by Bellingcat yet, but in 2014 CyberBerkut said they smeared a pig’s head on a Koran. Sound familiar? But let’s assume just for a moment that the video is authentic. Somebody please explain to me like I am five why this would make them specifically neo-Nazis. Oh and they also bombed the maternity hospital in Mariupol, right? Because Nazis.
  3. US budget legislation
  4. cherry-picked: both sides article, one side quoted
  5. Passing mention deep in report on the US, attributed to FBI, whose purview is limited to the US, cited to a court case against a US person

Perhaps the references get better. But those are the one that support “right-wing extremist” and Neo-Nazi. Superficially very plausible as RS, until you go look at them. Elinruby (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

1. Mentions Azov in passing on page 35. It's not a particularly strong source for Azov in particular, but is a good source in its own right, and calls them neo-fascist unqualified (i.e. good enough to substantiate the "far-right extremist" line it is cited for).

2. IDK why you are focusing on "fake videos", there are no videos in the profile and the coverage is more than enough to substantiate the line it is cited for.

3. US budget legislation specifically relating to the Neo-Nazi nature of Azov. Not once in the article is the notion that Azov are neo-Nazis called into question. Indeed the assertion is repeated often by this RS as fact. I have no reason to believe the Nation has a vested interest in somehow making Azov seem like Nazis when they are not.

4. I don't know what cherry-picked: both sides article, one side quoted means in this context. The article says in it's own voice that Azov are neo-Nazis. It calls them a minority yes, but no view is provided quoted or in article voice that challenges the assertion that they 'are' Nazis. The only mildly opposing view is quoted from the State Department, and all it says is that they couldn't be certain they had committed human rights violations, which does nothing to challenge the organizations ideological character.

5. Again not a particularly in-depth source for the org, but CSIS is a strong RS that felt no need to qualify the designation of neo-Nazism when mentioning Azov. A supplementary source to be sure, but one that only strengthens the others given.

I seriously question how deeply you interrogated these sources when you dismiss all of them. All they are cited for is calling Azov far-right and neo-Nazi in wikivoice, and they are more than enough for that. BSMRD (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it is their main source of notability so it obviously has to be covered in the lead in some form. If people take issue with the exact wording then that can be hashed out, and if they take issue with the sources then we can find better sources (and then hash out a wording that uses those sources), but obviously it can't be omitted completely. In that regard this is also a bad RFC insofar as it's not asking the right question - complete omission, which is basically what this RFC is asking to approve, is obviously a nonstarter and doesn't seem to be the main crux of discussions. The question is how, not if, their ideology should be described, and what sources should be used for that. See my list of sources here for reference. --Aquillion (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  comment on this - I am in this because a slightly related page I am working on is grappling with the bombing of the hospital in Mariupol. I am pretty damn sure the Azov Battalion wasn’t using it as a hideout and the firehose of falsehoods the Russians are emitting about Ukraine made me come over here to look up whether in fact they are Neo-Nazis. Right now it looks like a big lie sufficiently repeated. Is Joe Biden a segregationist due to the history of his party? Is the FBI a reliable source for foreign extremists? IF, and right now it’s a big if in my eyes, the group that can be referred to in the present tense - a Ukrainian military unit - can be shown to be Neo Nazi through reliable sources, then it belongs in the lede. If it had neo-Nazi ties in the past — and there may well be sources for this — then that belongs in a History section and the lede becomes a matter of due weight. I do not claim to fully grasp the nature of this group, but I’ve done some reading on Russian disinformation and I am getting a whiff of it here. That is all. Elinruby (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I strongly recommend people review the last RfC on this page here which provides cites for calling Azov a Neo-Nazi organization dating from 2014 to 2021 from a variety of RS. Unless anyone can definitively prove that in the last 6 months Azov has suddenly dropped all ties to Nazism, there's really nothing to do here. BSMRD (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  in that case I strongly suggest that you put some of them after the word neo-Nazi in the lede! I have my hands full and really don’t care one way or the other. I know who *I* think the fascists are in Mariupol and I currently have my hands full with that. But fwiw the current sourcing of the statement in the lede is completely unconvincing and I go by sources not preconceptions. You asked for comment. You have mine. At the moment these people are fighting totalitarian forces. The aren’t Nazis just because Putin says so Elinruby (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  They were described as neo-Nazis by WP:RSes long before Putin started talking about them, eg. . Obviously Putin (and his government) is a fountain of disinformation right now and shouldn't be used as a source for anything, but we can't just reflexively go with the opposite of whatever he says, that doesn't work. In any case, as I said above, it's useless to discuss this here because the RFC is bafflingly asking the question of whether we should describe their ideology in the lead at all, which we clearly have to do. Even if it were all some sort of lie originating from Putin, that would still be the most notable thing about the group, we would just have to completely change how we cover it using secondary sources that document the truth. But right now most secondary sources say it is true as far as it goes, eg. - according to the best sources, Putin is drastically exaggerating their significance and using them as a justification in an absurd way, but that does not change the fact that they are still neo-Nazis. --Aquillion (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  First source (Irregular Militias… ), expressly says in its abstract "This paper briefly sketches the origins of Azov, biographies of some of its founders, and particulars of its creation, without touching upon such issues as Azov’s military performance, later integration into the National Guard under Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior, and political development after 2014" So it could at best only be used as what Azov WAS, not what azov IS - which I think no one disputes was as an extreme nationalist para-mlitary force. The Vox says "The Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia, played an important role in fighting Russia’s invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014; since then, it has been integrated into the Ukrainian national guard. Again is that WAS or IS neo-Nazi ? Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

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

• No, definitely not Not until article is re-written to clarify which of several groups it refers to, based on sources that actually are reliable. Elinruby (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You've already stated "leaning no" up above. You're entitled to change your view, but you need to be clear that your opinion is singular. (These are set far apart and separated by other comments - someone not paying attention may count your views twice. I'd suggest you strike the first one above so it is clear your opinion has changed and is only counted once.) ButlerBlog (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough; I now just realized you were asking me to do something and that you are right. I only changed it from “leaning not” to “definitely not”, but I have now processed your point about vote counting, and will go do that Elinruby (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

References

• Bad RfC, and Yes, we need to accurately convey what nearly innumerable reliable sources have clearly written since 2014: the Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi outfit. We amply demonstrate that in our section on the topic and it's been litigated many times here on the talk page. Elinruby: the invasion of Ukraine by Russia may be a crime and tragedy (I believe it is), and that doesn't change the fact that the Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi group. It remains so even when defending Mariupol against bombardment. -Darouet (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  So people keep saying. It should therefore be no problem to cite this with sources *on this topic* that say so. But let’s discuss that in the section on sourcing I have just started. I actually have bigger fish to fry than this but just saying it doesn’t make it so. Let’s deal with this outside of the bad RFC Elinruby (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• No, or at least not as in the current version of the lead. The current version conflates several different subjects: Azov as a former volunteer battalion, Azov as the current National Guard regiment and "Azov" as a political movement [4],[5]. Speaking about the current regiment, I think a citation from a statement by a Jewish Ukrainian organization explains it [6]: "It must be clearly understood: there is no kind of ‘neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia’ now. Azov is a regular military unit subordinate to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. It is not irregular division neither a political group. Its commanders and fighters might have personal political views as individuals, but as an armed police unit Azov is a part of the system of the Ukrainian defense forces.” My very best wishes (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Except that it doesn't conflate them, it explicitly distinguishes them: "former paramilitary group that is now a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine". Is "the current version of the lead" ideal? Clearly not, it's a tortured mess, and IMO needs to be refactored for basic scoping clarity, if nothing else. But what you characterise as an "explanation" is clearly a highly partisan POV, as your own source makes clear: "known for its nationalist stance on many issues". Simply accepting their analysis and repeating it in Wikivoice would transparently be a travesty. And bear in mind the basic timeline here: the block lifted in 2016 was reimposed in 2018, on precisely those grounds: "Congress bans arms to Ukraine militia linked to neo-Nazis", as The Hill put it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, but last RfC needs re-doing and lead needs major edit: Of course the ideological orientation should be included, but the current phrasing, resulting from a 2021 RfC is flawed. Things have clearly changed since the sources hitherto used were written, as the military unit's composition has dramatically changed. The description of the ideology in the lead doesn't distinguish between the the National Guard unit, older battalion and wider movement. The sources used for "neo-Nazi" in the lead are among the weakest from the previous RfC, including two non-expert opinions. We need to clearly spell out the different historical shifts in the the role of ideology and use past tense voice for material supported by older sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Please check the sources I brought in the 2021 RFC,[7] even scholarly sources from 2019. They all call the group "neo-Nazi".--Mhorg (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Do you have evidence that they have actually changed at all? I grabbed a smattering of recent sources from around the world, they seem the same as ever.

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/03/14/neo-nazi-ukraine-war

  https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/the-azov-battalion-the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/article65239935.ece

  https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/1/who-are-the-azov-regiment (we already use this one)

  https://www.jpost.com/international/article-700396

  https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/18/inside-azov-neo-nazi-brigade-killing-russian-generals-playing/

  These are all RS from the past few weeks, surely if there was a drastic ideological shift since the RfC at least one of them would have reported on it in their profiles of Azov? BSMRD (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not as in the current version of the lead. First source in one list above, Irregular Militias … , specifically says "This paper briefly sketches the origins of Azov, biographies of some of its founders, and particulars of its creation, without touching upon such issues as Azov’s military performance, later integration into the National Guard under Ukraine’s Ministry of Interior, and political development after 2014.". Also the Jerusalem Post, immediately above says: "which in the past was a hotbed of extreme right-wing ideology" and "However, since its incorporation into Ukraine's official armed forces it has moved away from neo-Nazism, and a Ukrainian Jewish group as early as 2016 did not oppose lifting the US ban" both of which seem to endorse My very best wishes' comment that The current version conflates several things: Azov as a former volunteer battalion, Azov as the current National Guard regiment and the Azov as a political movement and that some of the criticism is more aptly "was" rather than "is"-neo Nazi. Pincrete (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, as this is what our WP:BESTSOURCES tell us, and mention as part of the notability of the group: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Per these sources, the group started as a far-right nationalist paramilitary organization with ties to Neo-Nazism. That is how the group should be represented, and via proportionality dictated by WP:DUE and WP:LEAD, this should be mentioned in the lead. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• No. Azov Battalion is a military unit, not a political organisation. It doesn't represent a specific ideology. EricLewan (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• No. Azov Battalion is a military unit and does not have political objectives nor does it have a political ideology. Ergzay (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• Yes — The preponderance of reliable sources describe the Azov Battalion as "far-right" and "neo-Nazi" when discussing them. This is enough to warrant these descriptors in the lead. None of the arguments to the contrary are policy based. Many of the arguments for their exclusion cite WP:NPOV as their basis, but this is just a misunderstanding of what WP:NPOV is and more akin to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It does not matter if what you consider reliable sources is contrary to what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, because mainstream news sources and academic sources from both "the West" and Russia describe the Azov Battalion as specifically a Neo-Nazi and/or far-right unit. Also the arguments above that "[The] Azov Battalion is a military unit and not a political organisation" not only contradicts the reliable sources other editors have cited again and again, but this argument itself is ridiculous on its own. Should we remove all mentions of Nazi ideology in the lead of the article Schutzstaffel because the SS was primarily a security unit? As many people before me have said more elegantly, the Azov Battalion is not just a random military unit of apolitical volunteers with a few neo-Nazis amongst them; people volunteer for the Azov Battalion in particular because they are neo-Nazis. CentreLeftRight ✉ 02:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Not as in the current version of the lead - I don't necessarily oppose discussing political ideology, but the current version is very much subpar and fails NPOV as pointed out by My very best wishes and Pincrete.--Staberinde (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
• Yes They have a political wing so retain the parameter. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• yes As said above they have a political wing, so why not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• No. The "political wing" is necessarily and by design a separate entity and not actually affiliated with the regiment. The regiment is a part of the Ukrainian National Guard and the "political wing" does not currently hold any office or exist in the political sphere in any meaningful way. The political party formed by former Azov members is called the National Corps and conflating a party called the National Corps and a military regiment called the Azov Battalion is confusing and pointless. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Additionally, the National Corps already has its own article, so I don't see why its existence is being used to justify using political language to define an explicitly not politically aligned regular military unit. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  supporting comment Under Ukrainian law, Biletsky had to leave the military unit when he ran for a seat in the parliament. I am not certain whether it’s in the constitution but there is some sort

of iron-clad requirement for separation of the military from the government. Elinruby (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• Not in the current form - Azov's founding political ideology no longer characterizes it after it was integrated into the Ukrainian military. Many soldiers serving in the regiment have rejected the neo-Nazi association. Russian propaganda has of course polarized this issue, so WP:NUANCE is required. CutePeach (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Not in the current form As above, Azov was a bunch of Nazi soccer hooligans with guns many years ago. They are now a regular fighting unit part of Ukraine defence forces - fighting Russia. They stil lhave some Neo Nazi members, but that have plenty who aren't. They are not a nazi organisation per se.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't we need to get this closed urgently? If closed as "No" then the RfC down the page is redundant? If closed as "Yes" or "Not in current form" then we can carry on. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Not in the current form, per above. Further, the current weight provided to it is WP:UNDUE; it is now better known for its defence of Mariupol than for its political history. BilledMammal (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• No. It's disrespectful to the Ukrainian government and gives undue weight to Russian propaganda.

The designation is mostly used in the press for its shock value, justified mainly by the unit's historical roots.

Maybe we should give more weight to those closer to the scene:

"The movement emerged in 2014 and has gone through a notable transformation, which significantly changed its nature and its ideological basis.

(...)

a comprehensive interpretation of any social movement requires attention to what it is doing in a given period, not what its leader used to say or do.

(...)

uncritical reports about neo-Nazis within the movement (...) and agenda-driven research were instrumental to and immensely facilitated the launch of the “denazification campaign in Ukraine.” - Ivan Gomza, Head of the Department of Public Governance at Kyiv School of Economics

https://krytyka.com/en/articles/too-much-ado-about-ukrainian-nationalists-the-azov-movement-and-the-war-in-ukraine Mihaiam (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - Per Shibbolethink. It's WP:DUE to include the core ideology of the Azov in the lead sentence, which of course is verifiable by our WP:BESTSOURCES, and certainly isn't a part of the Russian propaganda. Fighting against the Russian forces doesn't make them any less Nazi, and any such attempt is white washing of history and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 13:21, 24 April 2022 (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.

Split proposal

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The proposal lacks meaningful support, and if anything, the consensus seems to be against spinning off/splitting the material about the Azov movement from the military unit article.(non-admin closure) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

---

I'm seeing some evidence that sources are treating the Azov Battalion and the Azov movement as explicitly separate things, though Azov Movement is currently a redirect title from this article. A Deustche Welle fact check from February 2022 states a similar thing noting that after 2014 there was a separation of the movement and the regiment, and it is by far not the only source that makes a distinction between the political movement and the actual military group. I propose that the article be split so that the movement, which is different than the national guard unit, can be covered more specifically and in-depth without taking up WP:UNDUE weight in the space that would otherwise be required in this article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not strictly opposed to a split like this, however I think we must be careful not to strip this article of ideological info. While the movement and unit are conceivably separate topics (though I'd like to see a more comprehensive list of sources for a potential movement article first), they are still inextricably linked. The Azov Movement is a neo-fascist one, and the Unit is it's military arm. Both are Neo-Nazi groupings, and I worry some might use a split to whitewash one or both. BSMRD (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mhawk10:!thank you for starting from sources. Mine suggest there was a formal split. There may still be unofficial ties; unsure. You may wish to look at the source I suggested in another section of this page; it’s a long interview transcript on unian with the founder of the original Asov, and includes a discussion of various spinoff groups. Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

That’s misinformed. The National Militia (Natsionalni Druzhyny) is the Azov movement’s paramilitary arm. The Azov Regiment is a government paramilitary unit. Yes, there remain informal links between members. But “inextricably linked” is verging on a WP:crystal ball prediction that ignores the last five years of history.

Yes, the article should retain the unit’s history as a volunteer battalion (for four months eight years ago), but not based on undisciplined misunderstandings like the above. No whitewashing, but no conspiratorial demonizing either. —Michael Z. 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

• Oppose for now. While sources exist that use both sources, some specifically treat them as interchangeable (eg. The Azov Battalion, sometimes referred to as the Azov regiment or Azov movement); or unambiguously use Azov Battalion as the English-language name for the movement (eg. the Washington Post saying The would-be militants have been recruited by groups like the Azov Battalion, a far-right nationalist Ukrainian paramilitary and political movement.) Even the few sources that try to make a distinction often do so while acknowledging that most people don't. But most of all, there simply isn't much coverage under the term "Azov movement" at all; it's mostly treated as a minor subtopic of the Azov Battalion or as an alternative way of looking at it. If you feel there are actually enough sources clearly talking about it as a distinct thing to cover the Azov movement in-depth, I think the correct thing to do would be to expand the section on it on this page, and eventually, if it becomes large enough, it could be spun off into another article. But based on the sources I can see, I do not think it will ever reach the size or depth where that would make sense, and it certainly makes no sense to argue spinning it off when it is currently just a handful of sentences - I think we would mostly end up with a smaller, weaker-sourced copy of this article using sources that happen to use the term "Azor movement", plus constant argument over sources that are often not dividing the terms in a rigorous way. Even the sources you're citing seem to be treating it as a subtopic of the sort that would be better covered on this page for now. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I read that article on DW a few days ago, absolutely unreliable and I would declare any material that will be produced by that authors unreliable, as it goes against all the first class reliable sources we have that certify that there is no separation between the Azov Movement and the Azov Regiment, indeed the latter continues to be the armed wing of the movement. See for example what Time documented in 2021.[16]--Mhorg (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

  1. You’re wrong. Please check the archives at the Reliable Sources noticeboard.
  2. I somewhat disagree with Wikipedia’s policy on YouTube if the account is indeed held by s reliable source, but generally speaking no YouTube video is a reliable source.

  Please read the reliable sources policy Elinruby (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  DW is a state run news agency and can be considered unreliable. I oppose as some users may try and use the split to whitewash the ideology part of this article, as mentioned above. BritishToff (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  The news coverage provided by BBC News, ABC News (Australia), and PBS come from state-run news agencies as well; what makes them reliable news organizations are their possession of three qualities—editorial independence, strong editorial review processes, and reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you believe that Deutsche Welle lacks these three qualities or is otherwise generally unreliable, you are free to open a discussion on WP:RSN. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  just did it for him. Not that it will get more than an eyeroll, because of course it’s reliable, but it might attract some attention to this problem here. And by the way, I guarantee they haven’t heard of Meduza either, but I just looked into it for my translation of Russian information war against Ukraine, and at least for that topic it definitely is reliable. Probably for your article too as it’s at least somewhat related Elinruby (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  The video by Time has an accompanying article.[17] It seems to be factual, but makes some leaps and omissions: while acknowledging the unit entered the National Guard in the war’s first year, it ignores that Biletsky left the unit, uses “Azov” interchangeably to refer to the NG regiment and the civilian political movement, repeatedly calls the NG regiment a “militia,” and implies that the civilian movement has access to NG weapons. These are the kind of sources that have led this article to be an undisciplined and confusing mess. This is borderline sensationalism and borderline NPOV, and we should prefer more academic sources. —Michael Z. 18:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  It ain't just DW (which is a highly respected German news agency, by the way) that draws some distinction between the military movement and the unit. USA Today also makes a distinction between the national guard unit and the movement (the movement is a broader political movement, per USA Today). The Guardian also doesn't put forward that the Azov Regiment and the Azov movement are numerically identical, but says that the two are linked. It's also very clear to me that this Haaretz report is distinguishing between the original battalion (which has been incorporated into the national guard) and some broader Azov movement. Meduza also makes a distinction between the battalion and the greater Azov movement (National Druzhyna is not a part of the military regiment, but it's a part of the Azov movement). That there is a distinction between the two (i.e. they are numerically identical to each other) seems to be relatively uncontroversial. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  "The Azov Regiment is part of Ukraine's broader "Azov Movement,"", that does not say they are separate. Also "They are members of the National Militia, an ultranationalist organisation closely linked to Ukraine’s Azov movement, a far-right group with a military wing that contains openly neo-Nazi members, and its political spin-off, the National Corpus party." ios drawing a discnti0on between one unit (it does not say which,m but its logical to assume this one) and the wider National Militia. Sorry, but it seems to me they are saying that the Azov battalion (the military wing of the Azov movement) does not relfct the wider national militia. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

  "X is only part of Y" means that X and Y are not the same thing. My reading of the DW source is not that they have become so separated as to have erased the ideology wholesale. The DW report refers to the Azov Battalion as being among Right-wing Ukrainian combat units and that the regiment still uses right-wing symbols. My reading of the word "separation" is not that the two unrelated, but that there is a difference between the two. The difference between the Provisional Irish Republican Army and 1980s-era Sinn Fein comes to mind. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Don't manipulate my words. I have written clearly that those "authors" of DW's article should be declared unreliable (and not the entire journal), as they go against the majority of the data shown by the reliable sources, without even bringing a proof.--Mhorg (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

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

  DW isn't a journal, it's a WP:NEWSORG with a strong reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The whole point is that they report on the news. I'm also not sure what dataset you're referring to here, would you mind sharing? — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  The authors of this article are the DW fact check team, with the lead author being the head of that team. This is as gold standard a source as we can find for Wikipedia purposes and those editors arguing it isn't are either very ill-informed or have a very poor understanding of reliability, which is worrying considering their contributions to this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Fringe theories:"Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." The DW article proves nothing, it's just a line of text that goes against hundreds of reputable sources (who even certify with videos that nothing has changed in the Azov Battalion).--Mhorg (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Odd, an edit of mine was not saved, I note the DW article does not in fact say they ae not linkned. It says according to one academic they are not. This is not sufficient for a split. It would be to add to this article an attributed statement. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  Which is why we have wp:v and wp:or, I do not interpret them that way, but as saying what I have said. Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  That video is sensationalist nd presents several claims broadly refuted elsewhere. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose: Never heard of a 'movement' beyond the National Corps political wing. If anything, the 'movement' on a political basis should be folded in there, or a sub-section on the azov page leading into the Nat Corps movement content. --BLKFTR (tlk2meh) 16:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. After looking at sources, including books and recent articles, such as [18] or [19], it seems that Azov (rather than "Azov battalion") is a political movement. No need in split. One can simply create new page, Azov (political movement). There is also Azov Civil Corps (I am not sure if it is different from the political movement). It appears on a separate page in Ukrainian WP, uk:Цивільний Корпус «Азов» and in this subsection of this page. National Corps is yet another, but an entirely different organization. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Aquillion (mostly treated as the same by RS so far) and BSMRD (can become a POV fork). Alaexis_¿question? 21:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  As I said in my reply, I'm not strictly opposed to the idea, though maybe not right now. I have seen the distinction made in some (certainly not all) sources, though I am not convinced it is the majority view. I think perhaps an expansion of the subsection of this article dedicated to the movement beyond the unit would be warranted instead, and if that becomes to large we can come back to talks of a split then. BSMRD (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

References

I agree, but where does it say that the Azov movement and the Azov Regiment are not the same thing, as far as I can tell it says that one academic has said this. That might be enough for a "but according to Ulrich Schmid..." in this artoce. It is not (to my mind) enough to support a split. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Split if he wants If you guys don’t think the movement is a thing, well and good. It is in fact barely mentioned in this article, so it isn’t even really a split. He seems quite familiar with it and I don’t see why he needs you guys to vote on whether it exists or not. He doesn’t need your permission to write an article about something you guys don’t think is important, geez. I don’t think Kim Kardashian is important, but this is me not caring whether somebody else writes an article about her Elinruby (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose split These closely related, overlapping topics tend to be discussed together in sources, according to my Google Scholar searches. Develop the article from RS before considering any split. (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Have you looked at any of the results? And are you including Ukrainian, Polish, Russian and Slovakian? Elinruby (talk) 24:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Collapse as WP:NOTFORUM.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

There really isn’t the necessity for debate on this topic. If the Azov Battalion has changed their name & ideology and have now become the Azov Special Purpose Regiment then that can easily be updated in the historical post. With qualified references. I can’t find any. All the references I’ve found up until November 2021 still classify them as a terrorist extreme right group with ties to neo-nazism. Merge any relevant info with validated reference and move on. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Nevermind. It looks like for some reason Wikipedia has already changed the Azov Battalion to Azov Special Purpose Regiment. Not sure why? No Google search can confirm its existence. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC) My bad, I confused Special Operations with Special Purpose! Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Why is Wikipedia even presenting this debate. I’ve never seen this before. You can’t debate historical fact and Wikipedia should know better. Add your facts and provide legitimate reference. Simple. Done. This forum should not tolerate social media rhetoric. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 04:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC) This isn't a forum, it's a page that editors use in order to discuss changes to the article and related proposals in light of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Forum: A place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Discuss: talk about (something) with another person or group of people. Theodore G-Bone (talk) 05:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

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

• Support The civilian political movement and the National Guard regiment are barely distinguished by a lot of borderline tabloid journalism and opinion pieces referenced here, and consequently in much of this article. Maybe having two articles with two clear leads will help. —Michael Z. 18:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

  So it's not a scope or a summary style issue, it's a sourcing one, to which the solution is... a WP:POVFORK? Which of the sources do you feel are unsuitable, or are being given undue weight? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  I named two distinct subjects that sloppy editing in this article has trouble distinguishing. They are constantly misconstrued and factual statements by sources get blatantly misenterpreted on them.[20][21] Not a POV fork. —Michael Z. 18:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  And those are the pieces of "borderline tabloid journalism" that you feel are inappropriate to use? Or they're OK, but you disagree with how they're being presented by our editors? Your argument seems inconsistent to the point of being ad hoc, and in neither case actually argues for a guideline-compliant split. Arguments of the form "this article's wrong, I want to start over with a different one" are precisely POV forks. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

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

• Oppose, it's obvious the "split" article will be a POV fork riddled with recentism and undue, worthless stuff. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why do you think an article focusing heavily on the political movement is going to be a POV fork? — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Because of [[22]], and because of the 'split the article because I don't like this one' comments here, to start with. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I found this Atlantic Council article, which seemed relevant to this discussion. It draws a distinction between Azov the military unit and the broader "Azov movement" however, it ends like this:

  The close alignment between the Azov Regiment and the National Corps continues under the Zelenskyy presidency. In March 2020, soldiers from the regiment were featured alongside leaders of the National Corps in a video ad for a rally meant as a warning to Zelenskyy’s government. Based on this evidence, it is clear that the Regiment has failed in its alleged attempts to “depoliticize." This makes it next to impossible to draw a clear line between the regiment itself and the wider Azov movement, including the National Corps.

This seems to support what I said above that, while such a distinction can be made, it seems to largely be a distinction without a difference, and would IMO be better served under on article. BSMRD (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. If I'm not mistaken the source was already mentioned in the 2021 RFC. Mhorg (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ideologically, there was (near-)zero space between the Sturmabteilung and the Nazi Party, yet we have two articles on them because the two are not numerically identical entities and both have significant coverage. My point above is more that there not being substantial ideological room between two entities doesn't necessarily mean that we need one article on them. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And when this article is as substantial and stable as those are it may be appropriate to do so here, in line with the summary-style split guidelines. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Given that during the course of this discussion, a split was created, hauled off to AfD, and closed there as merge, shouldn't this be closed in the same manner? Otherwise we've a redundantly lingering tag at best, and venue-shopping at the worst. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Considering that the fork of the article that was created is not in any way similar to the split that is being proposed, calling this venue shopping makes no sense. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, misreading of the precise proposal on my part. Too many too similar discussions using too many of the same tropes starting to blur to together after a while. However, the two split ideas seem to me to be uncomfortably close in spirit. Procedurally it perhaps just has to rumble on, though... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Aquillion Also if this is a point of contention, why not simply create a new article? BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Colburne uses the terms Azov Battalion and Azov Movement interchangeably to describe the Azov Battalion before they were incorporated into a regiment in the Ukrainian military and also uses Azov Movement to refer specifically to a group that is not the Azov Battalion. I find it very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  Biletsky is a common factor in these entities. There are actually many things in Ukraine named Azov after Sea of Azov, and a few in Russia as well. Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as extremely likely to become a POVFORK — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Not going to change the encyclopedia for better. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 16:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose split, support rename It seems from the sources that the now Regiment is the military wing as distinct from the political wing (National Corps) of the Azov movement. It would likely be better to treat both wings in one article.Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Currently the article is not so big that it would require any splitting. Yoonadue (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not think there is a common notion of Azov movement, and anyway we would need to explain many details in both articles, it would just create more mess. Wikisaurus (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2022 (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.

Non-admin closes

Imo, it is not proper to direct a closer to take into account a prior RFC with a different question nor to close the prior RFC with the same directive as part of the close. Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

While I somewhat understand your frustration and see why you would be dissatisfied, this is unfortunately not the proper venue for any dispute. The proper process is to take any disagreements to @Szmenderowiecki's talk page, and then if it cannot be resolved amicably, to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard where you can request a formal closure review. But keep in mind, such reviews are based upon the circumstances and overall understanding of whether the closer accurately interpreted consensus. I have seen few such cases actually be overturned. But if you sincerely believe it's a bad close, go ahead, I think it's always good to have more eyes. Regardless, this talk page is not the proper venue. I would also, though, remind you that WP:RFC dictates that we should not have multiple concurrent RFCs on the same topic. In that, Szm is correct. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:19, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I think @Selfstudier's issue is not the close itself, but @Szmenderowiecki posting a header over the active RfC pointing to their own closure. While I can understand why it might rub someone the wrong way, I don't think anything is technically wrong with it. BSMRD (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That header is part of the close. Oh I see what you mean now. I've softened that wording and made it extremely neutral. I think it's entirely reasonable to ask the future closer to take into account a past RFC from a few days prior that is already on this talk page. It is entirely within that closer's rights to completely ignore it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea of that warning flash is not to point to my closure (which, as I've noted, does not rule on the merits of the question), but rather to draw the closer's attention to that RfC's arguments, which I found to be duplicating the more extensive one, with source tables and more discussion. Unfortunately, simply moving the answers to the larger RfC was not possible due to the formulation of the question (yes/no vs. multiple-choice), but both RfCs are (or rather, were) debating essentially the same thing, i.e. whether Azov should be called neo-Nazi, and if so, how. That's the reason for the technical closure.

Thanks for rewording the template.

I'd ask to debate the closure on my talk page if you have any further questions. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with User:Selfstudier, the closure is inappropriate. An uninvolved editor should assess, summarize, and formally close that discussion, see Wikipedia:Closure requests. Infinity Knight (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I have submitted my own closure to review here. If they say the RfC should continue, or they overturn it themselves, so be it. I'd propose, however, to spend less time arguing, and if you have to, not to do that all over the place. Let's see what they say. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This [23] appears to be a poorly judged closure by Szmenderowiecki. Asking for a closure review might be required - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Chemical weapon allegation

Re this edit by Mohrg, which I believe removed text added by LordLoko: this seems to me extremely noteworthy. CNBC is a reliable source and it was reported by multiple other RSs.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] We are not saying in wikivoice that a chemical attack happened (I doubt it did) but that they made the allegation, which was widely reported. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Revert the edit: as you say, as per RS, Azov made such accusations, that's what the removed text told, no more, no less. Removing the mention of it is just a soft whitewashing of Russian army image, similar to a soft anti-Azov PR with neo-nazi label being attached to its name any time it is mentioned. Birdofpreyru (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not noteworthy, it is a statemenet of a besieged military formation that has a huge interest in declaring sensational events to attract attention and somehow break the siege of Mariupol. They are just claims without any evidence brought. We cannot report any speculation in the article, it is just stuff declared by people who would do anything right now to save themselves. Please, less politics and more facts. Mhorg (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what this tells us about the subject of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It was in the section about Azov during the Russian invasion Ukraine, so any events, and any notable declarations by Azov are relevant to the section. Even if 100% invented by Azov PR department, it is still worth to mention as an example of Azov PR department in work. Birdofpreyru (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Unsure, as I can think of lots of things we do not mention in all kinds of articles about military units. Im am unsure what this tells us about them, or their actions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for this post. I think it's my fault, the source is reliable but I think I should have mentioned that the allegations of chemical weapons use weren't confirmed by indepedent sources. We should revert the edit and add a blurb saying that the allegations weren't confirmed.LordLoko (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

NB NBC reported on 6 April that three US intelligence officials told them (unofficially) re the chemical weapon stories about a month ago there was "no evidence Russia has brought any chemical weapons near Ukraine" and the "U.S. released the information to deter Russia from using the banned munitions". Essentially the article said there was an information war going on. I think we should be very wary with using such claims, even now. Rwendland (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I would say overall we can say the allegations were made, say Azov made them, but should also say they are unconfirmed and that intelligence sources have cast doubt on the claims. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely we should say it was unconfirmed and yes we should be wary of the infowar. We don't need details on the process of confirmation and who is skeptical in this article, as it takes us off the topic of the Regiment. What is relevant is simply that Azov made the allegation and this was widely reported. It is definitely noteworthy, by virtue of it being heavily reported on. Since the start of the current invasion, it is one of the main contexts in which news media has mentioned the unit. One or two sentences therefore should go into the section about the current war. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

See Siege of Mariupol#Alleged use of chemical weapons. Selfstudier (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That is the right place for what this. Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That is the right place for any extended description of what happened and any investigation. This is the right place for a brief reference to the fact Azov made the allegation, which was widely reported. Azov's role in the Siege is relevant to both articles. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE tells us we need to clarify any fringe claims with the mainstream narrative. That applies here, so we cannot just say "azov claimed X" here, we also need to say what the experts think. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Azov claimed the chem attack on April 11, a week after NBC article. So, maybe an info war, or maybe the Russia brought and used the stuff after US intelligence told they were sure Russia won't use it, or maybe US intelligence just missed Russia brining the stuff. Also the truth can be halfway: probably Russian forces used a tear gas or whatsoever which is not a chem weapon technically, but Azov fighters were not eager to spend more time breathing it to be sure whether it is a chem weapon or not, can't blame them for that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Birdofpreyru (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

First casualty of war is the truth, it does seem clear that most sources treated this particular claim cautiously, unlike claims that were made by official Ukrainian sources, anyway we do not need to reinvent the wheel, if we do want something in this article, we can just copy paste.Selfstudier (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

We should not endorse Azov's claim. We simply need to note that they made the allegation, which has not been confirmed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

As shown by Bob's sources, this story passes the WP:DUE threshold, and they should simply be covered as allegations. CutePeach (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think Shibbolethink is right, we can say the allegations were made, say Azov made them, but should also say they are unconfirmed and that intelligence sources have cast doubt on the claims. After a spate of news reporting on 12, the whole thing has died down so there seems no lasting news impact. A precis of the material from the Mariupol article would be as below (Can some one check if the source of the allegation was Biletsky?) Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Suggested edit

On 11 April 2022, Andriy Biletsky accused Russian forces of using “a poisonous substance of unknown origin” in Mariupol. The United States stated that it could not confirm the allegations. Experts are sceptical about the alleged attack.

Selfstudier (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Andriy Biletsky? Wasn't Denys Prokopenko (current Azov commander in Mariupol) that accused Russia of commiting the attack ? Your two sources don't mention Biletsky. LordLoko (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Some sources said it was Andriy Biletsky (the nbc did originally but they have changed it, TOI, Guardian and https://kyivindependent.com/national/azov-says-russia-used-chemical-weapons-in-besieged-mariupol/), others said it was "the battalion" (on social media) and I wondered if anyone had a source specifically identifying the originator of the allegation (I can't see it in those two sources you give). That's why I asked the question.22:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

After some rooting around I found https://www.newsweek.com/ukrainian-battalion-accuses-russia-using-chemical-weapons-civilians-1697052 which says on 11 April "About an hour ago, Russian occupation forces used a poisonous substance of unknown origin against Ukrainian military and civilians in the city of Mariupol, which was dropped from an enemy UAV," the Azov Regiment posted on Telegram on Monday." So the source of the allegation is someone with access to the Telegram account of the Azov regiment. Then everyone, starting with the Ukranian authorities, followed by the US, UK and a bunch of experts, lined up to say that the claim was a) unverified and b) unlikely. Do we really want to put this in? Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Understood. His wiki page does mention that he accused Russia and there's a direct link to a youtube post by Azov of Denis himself (primary source) which I'd rather not use it. I do found some secondary sources that affirm Denys was the accuser (https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/808869.html, https://kyivindependent.com/national/azov-says-russia-used-chemical-weapons-in-besieged-mariupol and https://www.infobae.com/en/2022/04/12/more-allegations-of-a-russian-chemical-attack-in-mariupol-a-ukrainian-commander-said-that-there-are-several-affected-by-a-poisonous-substance/). If we don't think these sources are reliable, then we don't mention Denis, just "Azov".

Otherwise, I think we should put this line from Siege_of_Mariupol#Alleged_use_of_chemical_weapons ("Later, Ukraine stated that it was investigating the allegations, but that early assumptions suggested the weapon used was phosphorus ammunition, which is not considered a chemical weapon. Three Ukrainian soldiers were injured in the incident".) . Again this is highly controversial and unbased so we should emphasize how some specialists are skeptical. LordLoko (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

We cannot put any claims in the article. This stuff is pure fantasy, as Selfstudier proved. Mhorg (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Most sources just say Azov Regiment made the allegation so best to stick with that and not name a source, otherwise happy with something like Selfstudier/LordLoko proposed wording above. How about: On 11 April 2022, the Regiment accused Russian forces of using “a poisonous substance of unknown origin” in Mariupol. The allegations have not been confirmed. Ukraine stated that it was investigating the allegations, but that early assumptions suggested the weapon used was phosphorus ammunition, which is not classed as a chemical weapon in international law. footnoting a couple of the better RSs provided above. Doesn't matter whether the attack happened or not; we only report the allegation, which we attribute, as it is obviously due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

this week this incident was brought up by the US Permanent Representative to the OSCE

https://english.nv.ua/nation/russian-invaders-could-have-used-chemically-altered-tear-gas-in-mariupol-warns-us-rep-to-osce-50236347.html Cononsense (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Now that I have seen where the allegation originated and how it was first reported, I tend to regard this as an allegation without any serious foundation, why so many sources are at pains to say it is unverified. Personally I think we should not give it credence but if there is a consensus to do so, and I don't see that as yet, then I think it should be fully explained. The phosphorus extension of the original claim seems of no relevance whatsoever afaics. Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Support: I think that's fine. We should add that, LordLoko (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

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

---

"is a neo-Nazi[3][4] unit of the National Guard of Ukraine" is incorrect! ("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 Azov battalion, named after the Sea of Azov to Ukraine's south, became famous for winning back Mariupol from Russian-backed separatists in 2014.

Eight years later, it is again fighting for the city that Russian President Vladimir Putin hopes will give him his first major victory in the Ukraine campaign.

Beating the Azov Regiment could also help him justify the "denazification" claims prominent in Russian propaganda, which also labels Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish, as leading a "gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis".

Such attacks try to build on Russia's collective World War II memory of what it calls the Great Patriotic War, and thus whip up nationalist support for the invasion, experts say. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war ) 104.152.28.55 (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please take any discussion of this issue to the ongoing RfC above. BSMRD (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2022 (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.

Mariupol steelworks

Given Azov's role in the battle to defend the steelworks could this be put more prominently in the article, as right now it simply says they are involved in the siege of Mariupol right at the bottom of the first para? Additionally, could details about this protest be added, involving Prokopenko's wife plus the relatives of injured Azov soldiers? She is campaigning to evacuate them from the steelworks and id say this is pretty notable given the protest today on the subject was broken up in Kyiv

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/06/wives-mariupol-soldiers-dispersed-police-kyiv-protest-ukraine-russia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/wives-of-mariupol-defenders-appeal-for-soldiers-evacuation/2022/04/30/9d970ff6-c859-11ec-8cff-33b059f4c1b7_story.html Fourdots2 (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Denys Prokopenko.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

Azov are not Neo-Nazi, this is statement of russian propaganda and pro-russian journalists, Azov is just Ukranian military unit 188.163.7.197 (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Please see RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion[a] (Ukrainian: батальйон «Азов», romanized: Bataliyon "Azov"), is a neo-Nazi[6][7] unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol

2A02:830A:5900:4900:B5EA:3FA3:DC6C:CFD (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Azov is not a neo-Nazi unit. This article is incorrect and has a false meaning. Please check official information before writing such things.

Not a request.Selfstudier (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

See RFC above, comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2022 (2)

Hello! You are calling Azov néo-nazis in the definition, repeating russian propaganda. At the same time it is a well-known fact, that this information does not match the truth. Please remove it cause it's false, harming the reputation, and does not allow us to save more than 600 injured people from Azovstal. There are a lot of publications proving this fact is false. Read at least this one https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/ukraine-russia-war-azov-battalion-putin-premise-war-vs-nazis/

Please do something. Now a lot of people is interested to help, or at least to read more info and the first thing they see - is a well-payed russian fake. This is not what Wikipedia stands for, right? 188.163.28.188 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Please get consensus for this change.Selfstudier (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

See RFC above, comment there. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

the CBS article you linked shows a picture of azov training in front of an azov flag containing the neonazi 'black sun'. That isn't a particularly convincing argument they aren't nazis. H51bjCKERK (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2022

Please, delete information about Azov. It’s a Russian propaganda for creating a picture about neo-nazi government, army, people in Ukraine and excuses to kill them. It was one of the reason why Putin started the war.

Articles about not neo-Nazi of Azov:

https://dif.org.ua/en/article/the-azov-regiment-is-not-neo-nazi-extremist-and-far-right-what-is-this-special-forces-unit-really

https://dif.org.ua/en/article/the-azov-regiment-is-not-neo-nazi-extremist-and-far-right-what-is-this-special-forces-unit-really MV743 (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Not done. See an ongoing RFC. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Are we going to need a FAQ? Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Time is of the essence. Notwithstanding RfC, lede should not use "neoNazi" as blunt, a provisional modification is in order - now.

It is obvious that there is no consensus to continue the slanderous, sophomoric over-simplification which characterizes the subject as "neoNazi" in direct contradiction of substantial RS to the contrary. To sit around dickering over the exact language while these living persons are being dragged off the Russian POW camps is a disgrace. Let's agree to disagree on the final revised wording and come up with something provisional, and perhaps a new template warning readers that the matter is under dispute. It is a disgrace to WP to let this sit as is and may have bad real world consequences. Because of the pre-ponderance of wikilawyering and people grinding axes I have not been on WP much in recent years so I would appreciate some suggestions aside from the unhelpful piety of "well we had an RfC in March..." Any ideas? The clock is ticking and these boys' lives are in danger, Wikifolks...Wikidgood (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit conflict, slow connection, I hit cancel but this went through. Checking to make sure I did not inadvertantly delete anything.Wikidgood (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikidgood your message is loaded with political messages and reveals your need to "defend" these people. Sorry, Wikipedia is not made for these things. Please read Wikipedia:Activist. Mhorg (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with their statement Mhorg. In particular, unlike you, Wikidgood addresses content, not editors. You're making personal attacks and I suggest you strike them. Volunteer Marek 21:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If you think "To sit around dickering over the exact language while these living persons are being dragged off the Russian POW camps" is a legitimate way of arguing, I don't know what else to add. Mhorg (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is as it addresses content (“exact language”). Now, “reveals your need to defend these people” unnecessarily comments on an editor and does so in an offensive way, as if you could read another editor’s mind or motivations. Seriously, strike it. Volunteer Marek 04:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, maybe my message was too harsh, however, see the messages below. As I thought, this thread produced other comments which seems to be on a WP:FORUM. Mhorg (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Mhorg I am surprised by the vehemence of your statement. There is nothing "political" in my remarks. After >15 years with WP I don't need your recommended reading. WP exists in the real world. People refer to it, read it and there is breaking news on this very topic. People who are confused, and the question of how to frame the "neoNazi" characterization is confusing even to specialists, such people are likely to rely upon WP. I suppose it suits you to leave the unsatisfactory characterization but you know that consensus is nearing to modify the lede.

My post was responded to by the placement of a dispute tag in the main body of the text. I am satisfied for the time being. Someone has pointed out that you are engaging in a personal attack, and that is probably what your remark would be classified as. But I don't feel inordinatedly attacked, I know what I am signing on for editing on a hot topic here at WP.

You might be surprised that you and I share many points of view in common, but you seem so intent on criticizing my style that I think you might overlook that. Please focus on the questions at hand. If you thing "to sit around dickering over the exact language" is somehow inappropropriate then feel free to sit around and dicker over the exact language. I am not stopping you. But as stated elsewhere, I am of the view that it is despicable to have "NEO-NAZI" as an unqualified adjectival qualifier in the lede. There is clearly consensus to change that. It does happen to be a fact out there in the real world that these boys are in fact being dragged off in custody of the Russian Federation. You may think that is irrelevant but Russian propaganda frequently quotes Putin apologists in the US. It is not at all inconceivable that Lavrov et al might even say "Even in the English language Wikipedia it says that these are neo-Nazis". You know as well as I do that labelling living people as neo-Nazis can cause them harm, in this case could get them killed. It is very reckless. You can do better. Wikidgood (talk) 23:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

And you should read WP:AGF. TylerBurden (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikidgood, from what I have learned over the years on Wikipedia is that we discuss sources and not talk about how to save people or how our contributes can harm people. If we have hundreds of sources saying that Azov is made up of neo-Nazis and that it is part of a neo-Nazi project, we cannot avoid writing it to us because otherwise their lives are endangered. Speaking of consensus, it does not seem to me at all that the majority of colleagues are in favor of removing that adjective. Most of your comments seem to me almost WP:FORUM but maybe I'm wrong. I appreciate the comment you left me on the talk page, there is no problem for me and I have nothing against you personally. Just, simply discuss the sources and leave everything else apart. Mhorg (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

A close has been requested. At some point, even if a panel has to be convened, it will be closed. I disagree that time is of the essence, at least that's not any policy that I recognize. Selfstudier (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There are probably 3-4 editors that would immediately revert any attempts to change the wording right now, as they will cite the ongoing RFC, even though like you said it seems the consensus is that the current state is...not optimal. I would not be against changing it at least to not state objectively in Wikipedias voice that the Azov Battalion is neo-nazi before the RFC closes completely. But clearly this article is a heated topic and people have dug in greatly to keep it the way they prefer, so there seems to be little point in attempting this before the RFC closes. Unless you want people to yell at you on Wikipedia I guess. TylerBurden (talk) 00:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree with you @wikidgood. I think in general RFCs etc. Need to be made easier to use, I managed to vote but I didn't have a clue where to put my comment or what I was doing, the whole process needs to be altogether more user friendly. Fourdots2 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sorry RFC's are the way to go, and we can all decide "we don need no stiking RFC's" when they go against us (I am unsure this on actually; is, but three we are). And consensus is not a majority vote, we are not democracy. Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I added another fresh article by a fellow of the Atlantic Council, in the "journalism" section. Reading it now, its a strong attack on the continuing designation of Azov as "neo-Nazi" ("Branding the Azov Battalion as ‘neo-Nazi’ long after it shed its far-right origins is part of a deafening corruption of public discourse"). Given there seems to be so strong opinions (either way), and is so controversial, I do think its strange that the Wiki as of now puts it so strongly and "conclusively" in the article that they are a neo-Nazi battalion. It doesn't really reflect the dispute going on adequately, and probably serves as ammo for those denigrating the Ukrainian struggle ("look, Wikipedia even says!..."). Whatever the decision, I hope the RfC resolves quickly at least, since time is of the essence as stated above.--Euor (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The Atlantic Council is not a RS about this conflict, it is essentially state media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council#Connections_and_funding H51bjCKERK (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You are right it is not a majority vote, and enough people have expressed concern with it being described in Wiki voice as Neo-nazi that it will likely need to be changed in some way. TylerBurden (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2022

Azov is NOT neo nazi group. Azov is volunteer battalion Punchmv (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

That happens to be full of people coincidentally using nazi symbols on their gear, adding nazi tattoos on their skin for joke purposes, and keeping nazi literature and symblos in their barracks and headquarters just to remind themselves that nazi are bad. Right. 95.174.101.83 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Zvezda (TV channel) is not a reliable source re: "keeping nazi literature and symblos in their barracks and headquarters" Cononsense (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

this is very important, because it is Putin's rhetoric that accompanies the large-scale genocide of the people of Ukraine that is taking place right now. Punchmv (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced opinion, not a request. Selfstudier (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC) Please see RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

NEO-NAZI Description is misleading & opinion based

Repeatedly stating Azov Regiment is a Neo-Nazi Battalion of Ukrainian National Guard is an opinion misleading etc. Put that in controversy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:B63E:91A:700E:6E10:9A06:A095 (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

See FAQ #1. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

It's just forum~y chitchat, I was going to delete it but I shouldn't delete your comment (you have my permission to delete mine if you want to delete the whole thing.:)Selfstudier (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Assume good faith: at best, collapsed, not deleted, per WP:BITE, unless there's evidence that the OP is a vandal or has malicious intent. IP 2603: please see the Frequently asked questions section among the boxed material at the top of the page. Mathglot (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

No sources, just personal opinion, WP:FORUM. Selfstudier (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Please comment in the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2022

The claim that Azov Battalion is neo Nazi is unfounded. The citation is from a biased source without factual support 24.100.46.111 (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is frequently discussed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to weigh in on the topic in the large discussion near the top of this talk page, it is a better place to present your arguments than this edit request. TylerBurden (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

Please ... Remove from the description of Azov Battalion that they are neo-Nazi. According to the Wikipedia article on neo-nazism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism nationalism and neo-nazism are different ideologies and the Azov Battalion hasn’t shown any signs of neo-nazism since it was established. They are a part of Ukrainian Armed Forces as all other battalions. Olha Buts (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Not done. There is an ongoing RFC about this (above). Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Olha Buts (talk · contribs) If you want to get this removed, you would be better off participating in the discussion that Selfstudier mentioned above (big one almost at the top) explaining your reasoning there. TylerBurden (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2022

I request to look through the definition of the Azov battalion. Cross out the point “neo-nazi” (https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/03/29/europe/ukraine-azov-movement-far-right-intl-cmd/index.html, https://www.pravda.com.ua/columns/2022/05/7/7344690/), as well as change the battalion to regiment. Thank you. Olhaaaaaaaaa (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

it’s crucially important to change the definition of the regiment!! urgently!! Olhaaaaaaaaa (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Svyatoslav Palamar

I've just created a page on the deputy Azov commander Svyatoslav Palamar who has quite an extensive article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I'm not very used to how this works and don't really know how to add a language link to the Ukrainian page and it would be great if someone could take a look at it and improve it a bit. I'm also wondering why the Azov page is classed as being a low importance Ukraine article, I'd have thought it was pretty important at the moment lol. Fourdots2 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Images

I agree we should not have images where it is not clear who they are, I can see a few that are just pictures of soldiers or vehicles. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

[31] - that one also seems to be a copyvio. If one follows the link, this is a screen shot from a copyrightable video. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

isn't this marked as CC-by?

License: Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWtG2_PVsck Cononsense (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. So that one is probably fine. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

[[32]], [[33]] [[34]] is that the Azov badge?

[[35]] No insignia, could be anyone. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. Some other images however, such as [36], are fine (clearly includes "Azov"), and the image of Skilt does seem to show him. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course, if it clearly shows the name or the insignia. Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Stduent essay from Further reading

I removed this, as it is a student essay published on a website showcasing a commercial study abroad programme which enables US students to study in Russia, so it's not RS. However, it's got a good bibliography that might be worth checking:

• 2021 article by Kate Spencer at GeoHistory

BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

"allegations of torture and war crimes"

The first source for this does not support this, it supports the idea that there were no human rights violations by Azov members.

"The Azov battalion’s general reputation and alleged war atrocities would prompt the U.S. Congress in June 2015 to adopt an amendment that ostensibly forbade US advisors training the Ukrainian army and National Guard from training members of Azov. Anton Gerashchenko, advisor to MVD chief Arsen Avakov, responded to the U.S. Congress’s move by saying there was an “anti-Ukrainian lobby” in Congress. The month after the congressional ban, however, Azov ‘sergeant’ Ivan Kharkiv stated that U.S. military advisors had been and still were training Azov fighters, and a U.S. official stated that any screening would not be for ideology but for human rights violations."

The second source, Colborne, relies on a report [37] of Azov "occupying civilian buildings" during the 2014 invasion and subsequent war and one allegation by four prisoners in Mariupol that they were detained and treated poorly by Azov and the SBU.

"On 23 December, OHCHR met with four detainees held in Mariupol SIZO for their alleged involvement in the 9 May events. They complained that they had been ill-treated by SBU officials and members of the Azov regiment in Mariupol, detained incommunicado for some time in September 2014, and that evidence extracted through torture was being used in their trial. They added that they had been denied medical assistance for the injuries. Such delays violate Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code ... Based on their complaints and other information received,[the Prosecutor for Donetsk region] had opened a criminal investigation into the role of SBU officials in the torture and ill-treatment of the four detainees."

This is a single incident and a criminal investigation was launched into the behavior of the SBU in this case, not the behavior Azov Battalion. I do not think this single accusation against the SBU, not Azov, is good evidence for a prominent accusation of torture and war crimes in an article about Azov. I think we are giving short shrift to the FSB propaganda campaign against this unit and a loving attention to its fruits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 21:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Those four detainees were believed to be pro-Russian saboteurs and were arrested in connection with the seizure of a police station[38], massacre of civilians and police officers, and the abduction and torture of Valery Andrushchuk, the chief of police in Mariupol[39]. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an excellent example of how given to overstatement Colborne is. Always check his sources. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Changing the definition.

In light of the recent open letter published by "Azov" (check the latest edit), changing the definition to "allegedly a neo-Nazi unit" seems like a sensible thing to do, considering their official position strongly says otherwise. Looking for a consensus for that. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There is an RFC about this issue in progress above, you can comment there. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it. However, I consider the letter to be so significant that it requires a new discussion - this is the first time we get a definitive official position on the matter directly from "Azov". In fact, the letter is so comprehensive and historically significant, I consider creating a separate article dedicated to it. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

What's so significant about the guilty pleading innocence? M.Bitton (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you have wide coverage from RS to support your view of the significance of this letter? Or are you just asserting it's importance? WP:PRIMARY sources are treated with caution for a reason. BSMRD (talk) 19:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: I suggest you self-revert this. Regardless of what you think about that statement, it clearly does not belong in the lead. M.Bitton (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It's somewhat concerning to see such a coordinated effort to suppress any information contradicting the "Azov are Nazis" narrative on Wikipedia. But to answer to all of you, firstly, there's no such thing as "guilty/not-guilty" when assessing reliability of a source on Wikipedia, secondly, one doesn't need to have any third-party source support to prove significance of an official statement from an organization inside an article about that organization (it should be obvious to all of you, but it isn't for whatever reason), and, thirdly, it's perfectly normal for Wikipedia to have such statements in the lead of an article, because, naturally, such statements represent crucial pieces of information for forming an opinion about the subject of an article. Thus, the way you're attempting to discuss this has no substance. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and regarding that WP:PRIMARY reference, no point in mentioning this, because what was added to the article meets all the formal criteria: 1) the source is reliable (a pretty old newspaper; not in the list of unreliable sources), 2) there's no interpretation of the original material (the letter itself) either by the editor (me, in this case), or the authors or the news article, 3) the material is presented in the most straightforward form possible, with direct citations from the article. The only semi-valid complaint you can imagine here is the fact that it requires translation, but in the age of advanced automatic translation, other editors should not experience any difficulty whatsoever with validating the material. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Nicholas Velasquez: Who said anything about reliability? That was a metaphor used in a talk page. No, it's not "normal" to stick official statements in the lead of articles, least of all when they are recent and not covered by RS.

 Note: Instead of reverting as I asked you, I see that you are now engaged in edit war (trying to impose chunks of text to the lead as you see fit). M.Bitton (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've absolutely no idea what you mean by "not covered by RS", because the source I've presented is reliable by all the criteria imaginable, which, of course, you should understand. This is why I keep reverting your edits - in my opinion, what you're trying to do here is akin to vandalism (as you keep removing properly sourced material). -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you don't understand what vandalism means and no, you haven't reverted my edits (as I didn't touch yours). In any case, I have now reported you for edit warring (you left me no choice). M.Bitton (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume anything here, because removing a properly sourced material (and it's undoubtedly properly sourced here) with reference to it being "non-reliable", "propaganda" or (which is the most funny part) "produced by the guilty", as you implied in this discussion, is vandalous simply by definition of vandalism on Wikipedia. Well, at least I can't see a rationale behind this - neither from the standpoint of guidelines, nor from what's been said in the discussion. Perhaps, the decision of the administrators would clarify things. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I placed your original edit, a self serving primary source, in the article body (the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body) as being undue for the lead and then in talk pointed you to the ongoing RFC. Whereupon, you simply restored your original edit together with an advice that I should discuss in talk. That is exactly backwards, the way it works is that you make a bold edit (B), some one reverts (R) and then you discuss (D), WP:BRD, if the matter is contentious. Otherwise, you are simply edit warring and I see from the history that is exactly what you have been doing since.Selfstudier (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

As I've told you previously, the RFC you've mentioned here does not take into consideration the recent letter (which is an unprecedented document) with official clarification on the matter, so, naturally, the RFC on this talk page lacks any meaning, even though some its options I'd personally consider acceptable. What's needed here is a new discussion regarding both the definition of "Azov" and balance of the lead (which is just as important), which is exactly why I've created this section. - Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

No new discussion is necessary. Comment in the existing discussion, perhaps some editors will change their opinion following this "unprecedented" "official clarification". Selfstudier (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing special about organizations making claims about themselves and I certainly don't see anything here that would justify halting the ongoing RfC. M.Bitton (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not going to work this way, because, at this point, that RFC is just too cluttered to achieve anything, let alone handle a new discussion. This needs to be done in a freshly made section with the letter as one of the base parameters for a final decision. You severely underestimate its importance, because, considering the scale and circumstances of the Mariupol Siege, this document has a real potential to become as historic as, for example, Kalinowski's "Letters from Beneath the Gallows". I strongly suggest you spend some time studying it, if you haven't already. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

More personal opinions. If and when I hear a reliable source saying those things rather than a random person on the internet, I might pay attention.Selfstudier (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

You would need a source on that, if the proposition was to add to the article that the letter will become historic. No one is proposing that, because that would be an absurd thing to add to a Wikipedia article. And as to the letter itself, once again, it is properly sourced, and, even if you really wanted to, you wouldn't have been able to prove otherwise. I am not sure why keep bringing up the non-existent RS issue over and over. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Because stating your personal opinions without any sources to back them up you severely underestimate its importance and this document has a real potential to become as historic as, for example, Kalinowski's "Letters from Beneath the Gallows". Random nonsense I would expect to see on social media not in WP because WP:FORUM.Selfstudier (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Stating your personal opinion in the article. Here, we freely discuss things, in the broadest sense, related to the article - it's the function of the "Talks" page. You're derailing the discussion into pointless chatter once again. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Nicholas Velasquez proposal is sort of the obvious thing to do pending final resolution. Almost any of the proposed changes are far, far better than the clearly biased lede. This has been sitting there for 37 days? Wikipedia may be not only rendering itself obsolete, it may be socially dangerous. Remember how Facebook has been used to promote genocide against Rohingya and to assist the Belarus secret police round up dissidents? Well if we continue to let this blunt "neoNazi" characterization sit in WP we are doing something similar. Time to fish or cut bait. Wikidgood (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to say I agree with Selfstudier and M.Bitton here. This is from a primary source. It is relevant in the body but should not be in the lead. Following BRD, removal was correct and should not be reverted again without clear consensus here. It does not may make the RfC above irrelevant, though worth mentioning in that section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have quiesced, and the OP has been inactive since, but fwiw I think the correct way to handle this (if at all) may be to store the open letter in Russian Wikisource, with a translation in English Wikisource. If anyone is interested in following up or commenting, see s:WS:S#Transwikifying a Russian source with English translation from Wikipedia. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Can someone replace it with 'Allegedly has neo nazi links' or something more neutral? I don't really understand given the whole neutrality ethos of Wikipedia and there is a controversy around this with Shekhontsov saying they are not, or you could note the controversy in another section Fourdots2 (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Fourdots2: Forget about it. This article, as well as this whole talk page, are clear symptoms of Wikipedia's complete failure at achieving balance through self-regulation, and this problem is systemic. What was once meant as a project able to reject propagandistic narratives via a strict community supervision, has now become a tool of propagandists, carefully and coordinatedly exploiting the Wikipedia guidelines to the advantage of their clients. The only thing which can fix this is time. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This is just your personal opinion and has no foundation in any fact whatsoever. Please read WP:FORUM.Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

See wp:npa wp:soap and wp:forum, you do not attack other editors. You comment on the content not users. Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

What is there to say that the mere insertion of the word "allegedly" in front of "neo-Nazi" would be wrong. I know in the hypertext it says "do not change without consensus" but whoever wrote that is whoever wrote that. Wikidgood (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Cossack House

I was looking through the sources again and saw this in the the Time source from last year ("neo Nazi elements"):

The main recruitment center for Azov, known as the Cossack House, stands in the center of Kyiv, a four-story brick building on loan from Ukraine’s Defense Ministry. In the courtyard is a cinema and a boxing club. The top floor hosts a lecture hall and a library, full of books by authors who supported German fascism, like Ezra Pound and Martin Heidegger, or whose works were co-opted by Nazi propaganda, like Friedrich Nietzsche and Ernst Jünger. On the ground floor is a shop called Militant Zone, which sells clothes and key chains with stylized swastikas and other neo-Nazi merchandise.

This Bellingcat article from 2019 confirms

Semenyaka was recently in Croatia along with other Azov figures to make preparations for an international far-right conference Azov plans to host in Zagreb in the fall of 2019. The two have helped organize a neo-Nazi record label and shop that sells neo-Nazi music and paraphernalia with open Nazi symbolism at the Azov movement’s Cossack House in central Kyiv.

Maybe we should incorporate this into the article, seems relevant background? Is it still like that, anyone know? Selfstudier (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The first link leads to unrelated The Problems With Israel's Version of the Killing of Reporter Shireen Abu Akleh article. The second article seems to have just passing mentions of Azov Batallion, and a few people who allegedly played some role in the Battalion, but mostly speaks about loosely defined "Azov movement". In the nutshell I understood it this way: some Russian neo-Nazis moved to Ukraine, opened an underground club called "Cossack House", filled with nazi artifacts, and claim that they are a part of Azov Movement. No allegations that is anyhow connected with the Battalion, not speaking about it being a "main recruitment center". IMHO, it does not belong to the Battalion article. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the link. It says it's their HQ on loan from the Ministry of Defense? So how would that be an "underground club"? Do you have a source for that? There are more sources, would you like to see them? Selfstudier (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

So how would that be an "underground club" < read carefully, that was my take back from the second article you posted (while the first one was a wrong link). What Bellingcat wrote, definitely does not confirm accusations in the Time article.

The Time article... well, it is long, it mixes together everything, from Azov Battalion and Movement, to a world-wide neo-Nazi plot to conqure the planet. To me it reads far from neutral, I guess the authors are on far-left side of political spectra, and before using such material in a Wikipedia article, I'd say it should be fact-checked & verified by independent sources from other parts of political spectra. If it is as it is claimed by Times authors, then Cossack House is definitely not a secret place hidden by Azov from everybody but a lucky few, and there should be independent materials about the place, etc. Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

WP has a wikilink, Far-right social centre#Ukraine "In 2014, during the Revolution of Dignity Ukrainian nationalists occupied a building in Kyiv city centre and used it as the headquarters of the Azov Battalion and later Cossack House (Ukrainian: Козацький Дім).

References

Selfstudier (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, for what it worth, I did my independent research on the subject. Here is what I took out of it:

The Cossack House used to be an hotel "Cossacks" before the last revolution in Ukraine, squatted during the revolution and used as the original HQ for Azov. Azov Regiment later moved to a new base in Kiev, aka ex-factory ATEK, which is given as a point of contact on the Azov's website, and is mentioned as their base (and I believe the main recruting center) in mulitple independent articles I saw. The Cossack House then was organized in the freed building as a Cultural Hub for youth, endoursed by National Corps, but unrelated per se to the Regiment, I believe. So far this looks like neutral facts, which can be included into the article in the history of Azov Battalion.

Regarding the place being neo-Nazi center nowadays, I still believe it is a huge exaggeration by Time authors. From materials I googled up, it looks like a right-conservative-nationalist-patriotic hub at most, but not a neo-nazi place. Probably, it looks nazi to journalists with strong leftist bias, but NPOV requires to balance it out with views from other part of the spectra. I found official statements of Azov Battalion[40] and National Corps[41] denying accusations in Time's article, and stating that neo-nazis their authors talked to are not connected with the regiment and organization beyond a few initial contacts on their arrival to Ukraine. I could not find the website of Cossack House (the one mentioned in one of the references I gave is down), but here is the web[42] and FB[43] of the literature club Plomin. At the first glance they are sure right-wing oriented, but do not look extremist-right / neo-nazi stuff. I'd point your attention that the long-read from Times does not come with phootos / videos supporting their extreme claims, all their illustrations are from routine of Azov regiment, and do not show anything extreme / nazi. The Belingcat article shows lots of openly nazi illustrations, but if you read captions, there is no claim that they are related to Cossack House, they are related to some music band / whatever past of the individuals Belingcat discsuss.

While looking into it, I also arrived to think that it would be best indeed to split the material into Azov Movement and Azov Regiment, as it was proposed somewhere in this talk page already. It definitely looks to me now that Azov Movement is a huge francise many different people may freely associate themself with, and many of the stuff you may dig on the Movement has nothing to do with the regiment, while can be used to discredit the regiment. Birdofpreyru (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

it would be best indeed to split the material into Azov Movement and Azov Regiment [...] the Movement has nothing to do with the regiment, while can be used to discredit the regiment. Literally Azov fighters holding Azov Regiment and National Corps (Azov Movement) flags together (4 march 2022).[44] Mhorg (talk) 09:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The video title literally says Territorial Defence unit "Azov" in Cherkasy (which is a city in-between Kyiv and Mariupol). Do these armed men identify themselves with Azov Movement - yes; are they fighters of Azov Regiment this article talks about - that's your suggestion, but the video / title do not prove, nor claim it. IMHO, it highlights the need for the split: Azov Movement article can list all sorts of organisations and formations which identify themselves as Azov Movement, including Azov Battalion, go into connections between them, and their ideological tints; and then Azov Regiment article can focus on the military regiment. Birdofpreyru (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

It may or may not be the case that the relationship between the movement and the regiment has cooled, the sources don't really indicate that tho. Besides, if using the same name, it is not unnatural to conclude that there is a relationship there and my interpretation is that the relationship is a continuing one although others may look at it differently.Selfstudier (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we need to steer clear of original research and rely heavily use what reliable sources - which includes Bellingcat and Time magazine - say. We definitely should pay more attention to what actual Ukraine-focused experts say than to weaker sources and passing mentions say. I also don't think Time has particular left-wing bias (it's not Jacobin). However, I do think that there's a problem with the blur between the specific military unit and much less boundaried movement, and the more this issue comes up, the more I lean towards splitting the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I would be amenable to a split if and only if it can be demonstrated that the relationship is arm's length. If it is blurred, let's seek to unblur it, rather than bury it somewhere else. Idk where everyone gets the idea that left wing = unreliable, total bollox, all sources are biased, right wing ones as well.Selfstudier (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

IMHO, why a split will blur anything? I am thinking in analogy of a media franchise and its separate installments. Usually every franchise gets its dedicated article, and then every movie in the franchise gets its article, and it contributes to keeping stuff clear. In our case entire Azov movement section may go into the new article, and Azov Battalion article clearly states that it is an origin and a part of Azov Movement, and then every resonant claim about neo-nazi / sensitive stuff may go in one of the articles based on whether it happened in the regiment, or it is related to some other element of the movement.

Idk where everyone gets the idea that left wing, unreliable, total bollox, all sources are biased, right wing ones as well yeah, and leftist bias tend to evaluate everything right wing as nazi, as well as right-wing bias evaluate everything left wing as communist. So for WP:NPOV when a left-wing author sees something as nazi it is better to double-check how a right-wing author sees it, and describe the subject as something in-between of their POVs. Birdofpreyru (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Bias is a different metric to reliability. Selfstudier (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I never said it was blurred, Bob did. Selfstudier (talk) 11:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

in my opinion, there should be a separate "azov movement" article as well, which should give more organizational space to cover the wider umbrella of groups. That's not to say we can't cover the controversy surrounding the links between the movement and the regiment in this article, since it's a contentious issue and are experts who have different interpretations of the linkage between the groups.

I feel like it would improve coverage of both the regiment and movement in more detail. Cononsense (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You can see in the archives it was discussed several times already and not agreed to. Once the fuss has died down a bit (consensus established), I wouldn't object to that, at this point, I think we will just lose focus.Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the info, might be good to potentially revisit it after the current RFC is done then Cononsense (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Cononsense I was thinking the same thing. I don't think that there is any reason to oppose having a separate article for the movement is objectionable except to people who are intent on proving that they are hand-in-glove in order to promote a Putinist POV. There are separate WP pages for Republican Party and QAnon, for instance. Some people will become apoplectic on the contention that they overlap to a greater or lesser degree. I think it is a no-brainer to at some point create the Azov Movement page. Anyone can probably do it right now if they are willing to put in enough time to write and cite it. A mere stub will probably be candidate for deletion as redundant but a detailed WP page would probably stand. In fact, it may ultimately prove out that split between Azov Battalion (militia) and Azov Battalion (UNG unit) will eventually be a way forward, to minimize confusion. That would be three pages, in addition to Azov Movement. Wikidgood (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Bob you have nothing but respect for your many sage edits but I think that the TIME reporting has been both opinionated and biased on this topic over the years. Bellingcat, which has a strong specific viewpoint, obviously, is much more precise. As Bird of Prey stated " a huge exaggeration by Time authorS " in one instance above and that appears to be the pattern. Someone else quoted the Jan 2021 TIME article, which National Corps does a surprisingly credible job of disputing, and the article webpage is full of anecdotal evidence, gish galloping and reference to a galaxy of unrelated right wing phenomena. I think that we need to bear in mind that while TIME may be generally regarded as RS for more provincial topics, their demonstrated bias in their reporting on Azov should prod us to heightened scrutiny of assertions which cite them. Wikidgood (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Heroic Azov's actions

As Mhorg just removed "heroic" word from my bold edit[45], saying neutral (no surprise here), let's talk about it. A growing number of RS calls Azov Regiment's actions heroic, from more neutral way some call them war heroes, others neo-Nazis[46], to straight defenders of Mariupol are the heroes of our time[47] (and sure you may google up more). I believe, if we say that it is within WP:NPOV to call them nazi when RS say so, we should accept that is is within WP:NPOV as well to call them heroes when RS call them so.Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You forgot to sign. The second ref is a quote from a statement by the general staff of Ukraine’s armed forces (and another one from Zelensky). The first one is a (sub) headline, WP:HEADLINES refers and your edit anyway omitted the neo-Nazi part. Do I need to explain this further? Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The second ref is a quote from a statement by the general staff be so, lots of Ukrainians call them heroes already, and more and more will be calling them so. RS will pick it up. Do you intend to censor it in the Wikipedia article, or are you fine to place heroes in the lead as soon as we see an RS calling them heroes in RS's own voice in the main text body? Birdofpreyru (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It will require rather more than a single RS for wikivoice. As for attributed quotes, it is rather easy to find such that are less complimentary. Selfstudier (talk) 22:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If someone is willing to put in the time assembling citations, at least two on each side and preferably three, we could include mention of their frequent characterization as "heroes of Ukraine". Our friend who inserted that is on to something in that the characterization of them as heroes is indeed "a thing", ie., a notable phenomena. So his desire to note that in the encyclopedic is in now way frivolous. But you are correct that it is not a universal viewpoint and needs more than one citation due to its' controversial nature. Wikidgood (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Friend, it is not OK to call them "Nazis" without a more nuanced NPOV balance and thanks to one of our editors, after a flurry of complaints by myself and several others, a "disputed" tag was placed upon the controversial designation. Which, for the moment, satisfies my impulse to throw a shoe at the computer screen. However, to insert a not-very-NPOV characterization of "heroic" is, according to your explanation, "Two Wrongs Make A Right". This edit should not really even require a talk page section! I appreciate your appreciation of the heroism - which may exist simultaneously with despicable neo-Nazi views [or not]. But come on, you know that this is not the way to fix the problem of the unduly perjorative, biased and propagandistic painting them with a broad brush as nothing but "neoNazi". Perhaps you are somewhat tongue in cheek with your edit? Does not bother me but there are others who won't be so amused. I suggest you turn your attention to the bottom of the article where "NEONAZISM" is placed at the top of the stack of outside links. That seems unduly perjorative and misplaces emphasis. Perhaps you can support placing that to the bottom of the stack? That would satisfy your eagerness to show some respect for their current plight, and heroism, while remaining withing the customs and conventions of Wikipedia. Wikidgood (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"Friend" meaning Bird of Prey. In this matter, I support Mhorg in the removal, for now. Wikidgood (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I think "heroic" is sensationalism. I 'm for removal. Cinadon36 14:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

As per Cinadon36, Wikidgood, Selfstudier: oppose use of "heroic" as sensational POV language. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)