This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Azov Brigade article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the use of neo-Nazi descriptor in the lede. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic. |
Frequently asked questions Q1: Why is the Azov Regiment described as having neo-Nazi elements?
A1: The consensus among editors is that the preponderance of
reliable sources describe the group as such. For the discussion that led to this consensus, see
here (May 2022), and for the previous discussion on the topic see
here (July 2021). |
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
On 11 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Azov Regiment to Azov Brigade. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |||||
|
Let's try to find out what are today's views among the recent sources regarding the issue.
ICWSM_Eluosi.pdf (hanshanley.com) The Azov military battalion was a paramilitary group launched by the Ukrainian ultranationalist groups “Patriot of Ukraine” and “Social National Assembly” in 2014. Azov was considered a neo-nazi organization and it was often referenced as a justifcation for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to “denazify” the country (Thompson and Myers 2022). However, we note that despite the Russian call to “denazify” Ukraine by ridding it of Azov, this has largely been labeled an attempt to delegitimize Ukrainian interests (Thompson and Myers 2022). After being reorganized under the National Guard of Ukraine and additional efforts in 2017, the Azov battalion has been largely considered depoliticized (Shekhovtsov 2020).
#Azovsteel: Comparing qualitative and quantitative approaches for studying framing of the siege of Mariupol on Twitter (sagepub.com) The Azov battalion was originally a paramilitary group formed at the start of Russia’s war in 2014. Among its original members, there were a number of football ultras as well as right-wing personalities, such as Andrii Biletskii. After the incorporation of the battalion in the Ukrainian National Guard and the subsequent expansion of Azov into a regiment, the majority of its extreme members left Azov. However, Russian propaganda kept framing Azov as a neo-Nazi armed group posing existential threat to Russia. For more information, see McCallum (2022).
Much Azov about nothing: The ‘Ukrainian neo-Nazis’ canard – Monash Lens Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent. There isn’t space to canvas all these in a short piece, but this is the conclusion of Anton Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. For a concise summary, Likhachev’s point-by-point rebuttal of the Azov-Nazi narrative comes highly recommended. The Azov Regiment of 2022 bears little relation to the ragtag militia the Azov Battalion of 2014, formed from a few dozen football hooligans, and – yes – far-right extremists. Manyareasexpert ( talk) 14:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. The Deutsche Welle article also isn't an opinion piece. Tristario ( talk) 00:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Please read wp:forum, and make an edit suggestion. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
why is his view so important, sorry this is just one writer's opinion
It also belies the presence of neo-Nazi elements within Russia's military apparatus, which include - Wagner Group and Lieutenant Colonel Timur Kurilkin, who Pushilin honoured for military heroism" quoted from "Putin's War on Ukraine, Russia's Campaign for Global Counter-Revolution by Samuel Ramani". Ramani confused Kurilkin with Senior Lieutenant of the Somalia Battalion Roman Vorobyov. Let's just say that he does not seem to be a reliable source. [4] Mhorg ( talk) 19:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Why are you listing these sources though?
Since 2014, Azov has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard with state control, removed of far-right elements, and is an example of successful deradicalizationin wikivoice, since to some extent that's disputed, and I think there's some more nuance to the views on this that have been expressed by experts than that Tristario ( talk) 22:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we can saySince 2014, Azov has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard with state control, removed of far-right elements, and is an example of successful deradicalizationin wikivoice
strong Nazi leanings
the manifest connection between these new nationalist extra-state projects with [the Azov regiment]
The Azov Battalion stands out among these because of its Nazi rhetoric and symbolismin the present tense.
“ | The unit has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology, its use of controversial symbols linked to Nazism, and early allegations that members of the unit participated in human rights violations. Some experts have been critical of the regiment's role within the larger Azov Movement, a political umbrella group made up of veterans and organizations linked to Azov, and its possible far-right political ambitions, despite claims of the regiment's depoliticization. Others argue that the regiment has evolved, tempering its neo-Nazi and far-right underpinnings as it became part of the National Guard. | ” |
The Guardian's most recent reporting on the Azov Brigade claims "The 5,000-plus strong brigade has shed any far-right associations" [7], could be considered as a source in "Others argue that the regiment has changed, tempering its far-right underpinnings as it became part of the National Guard" sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction of the article. Skdkkh ( talk) 09:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
References
bbc-20140905
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).telegraph-20220318
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Azov Battalion, a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology.
parfitt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Walker
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Greetings! I'm not sure why the article should say "other sources emphasise the presence of former Patriot of Ukraine activists" [8], while the source is the only one, and it's not emphasizing that, but football hooligans and ultras .
There is more, what is the reliability of Eastjournal which was re-introduced?
"Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov issued a decree authorizing the creation of new paramilitary forces of up to 12,000 people. [1]" - anything here on article subject?
What's wrong with Arel, Dominique; Driscoll, Jesse (2023-01-05). Ukraine's Unnamed War: Before the Russian Invasion of 2022. Cambridge University Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-316-51149-7. ?
Thanks! ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 09:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Not sure. What is their address? Where is their phone number? What is their editorial board? Who is the author of the particular article referenced https://www.eastjournal.net/archives/78786 ? ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Eastjournal is an Italian-language source. I spent several minutes looking into them (unfortunately Italian WP doesn’t have an RSP or at least not linked) and they seem to be pretty solid as best as I could tell. Their contributors are all academics and policy/analytics bitplayers.
— User:RadioactiveBoulevardier 14:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Can you explain the reason for this edit in more detail? The Daily Beast is not an unreliable source. The RSP entry advises caution when using it for controversial statements, but I don't think that this particular passage is particularly controversial, given other sources in the article. Alaexis ¿question? 20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The Daily Beast is not an unreliable source
Why is there such one-sided footnote-commentary right in the lead after "The unit has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology"? Where is the neutralizing the POV collection of sources saying the opposite? Not quite NPOV. What to do with that? ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 22:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Others argue that the regiment has changed.... Alaexis ¿question? 20:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Greetings @ F.Alexsandr, why have you removed [11] "Allegations" from the section title? ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 13:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I see sources are pretty solid in characterizing these developments as "Sham trials". I'll add another one - Trials of Ukrainian Prisoners of War in Russia: Decay of the Combatant’s Immunity (justsecurity.org) . ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 16:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
No mention of the fact that the US Congress banned funds to Ukraine over Azov ( https://khanna.house.gov/media/in-the-news/congress-bans-arms-ukraine-militia-linked-neo-nazis) and the ADL's assessement in 2019 ( https://www.adl.org/resources/report/hate-beyond-borders-internationalization-white-supremacy). This article is a post-2022 whitewashing propaganda piece. 167.142.48.84 ( talk)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Azov Brigade article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about the use of neo-Nazi descriptor in the lede. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting on that topic. |
Frequently asked questions Q1: Why is the Azov Regiment described as having neo-Nazi elements?
A1: The consensus among editors is that the preponderance of
reliable sources describe the group as such. For the discussion that led to this consensus, see
here (May 2022), and for the previous discussion on the topic see
here (July 2021). |
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
On 11 March 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Azov Regiment to Azov Brigade. The result of the discussion was moved. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Let's try to find out what are today's views among the recent sources regarding the issue.
ICWSM_Eluosi.pdf (hanshanley.com) The Azov military battalion was a paramilitary group launched by the Ukrainian ultranationalist groups “Patriot of Ukraine” and “Social National Assembly” in 2014. Azov was considered a neo-nazi organization and it was often referenced as a justifcation for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to “denazify” the country (Thompson and Myers 2022). However, we note that despite the Russian call to “denazify” Ukraine by ridding it of Azov, this has largely been labeled an attempt to delegitimize Ukrainian interests (Thompson and Myers 2022). After being reorganized under the National Guard of Ukraine and additional efforts in 2017, the Azov battalion has been largely considered depoliticized (Shekhovtsov 2020).
#Azovsteel: Comparing qualitative and quantitative approaches for studying framing of the siege of Mariupol on Twitter (sagepub.com) The Azov battalion was originally a paramilitary group formed at the start of Russia’s war in 2014. Among its original members, there were a number of football ultras as well as right-wing personalities, such as Andrii Biletskii. After the incorporation of the battalion in the Ukrainian National Guard and the subsequent expansion of Azov into a regiment, the majority of its extreme members left Azov. However, Russian propaganda kept framing Azov as a neo-Nazi armed group posing existential threat to Russia. For more information, see McCallum (2022).
Much Azov about nothing: The ‘Ukrainian neo-Nazis’ canard – Monash Lens Multiple expert assessments made in 2022 conclude the modern Azov Regiment is a fairly typical fighting unit, with little, if any, political bent. There isn’t space to canvas all these in a short piece, but this is the conclusion of Anton Shekhovtsov, Ivan Gomza, Anders Umland, and Vyacheslav Likhachev. For a concise summary, Likhachev’s point-by-point rebuttal of the Azov-Nazi narrative comes highly recommended. The Azov Regiment of 2022 bears little relation to the ragtag militia the Azov Battalion of 2014, formed from a few dozen football hooligans, and – yes – far-right extremists. Manyareasexpert ( talk) 14:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. The Deutsche Welle article also isn't an opinion piece. Tristario ( talk) 00:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Please read wp:forum, and make an edit suggestion. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
why is his view so important, sorry this is just one writer's opinion
It also belies the presence of neo-Nazi elements within Russia's military apparatus, which include - Wagner Group and Lieutenant Colonel Timur Kurilkin, who Pushilin honoured for military heroism" quoted from "Putin's War on Ukraine, Russia's Campaign for Global Counter-Revolution by Samuel Ramani". Ramani confused Kurilkin with Senior Lieutenant of the Somalia Battalion Roman Vorobyov. Let's just say that he does not seem to be a reliable source. [4] Mhorg ( talk) 19:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Why are you listing these sources though?
Since 2014, Azov has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard with state control, removed of far-right elements, and is an example of successful deradicalizationin wikivoice, since to some extent that's disputed, and I think there's some more nuance to the views on this that have been expressed by experts than that Tristario ( talk) 22:44, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we can saySince 2014, Azov has been integrated into the Ukrainian National Guard with state control, removed of far-right elements, and is an example of successful deradicalizationin wikivoice
strong Nazi leanings
the manifest connection between these new nationalist extra-state projects with [the Azov regiment]
The Azov Battalion stands out among these because of its Nazi rhetoric and symbolismin the present tense.
“ | The unit has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology, its use of controversial symbols linked to Nazism, and early allegations that members of the unit participated in human rights violations. Some experts have been critical of the regiment's role within the larger Azov Movement, a political umbrella group made up of veterans and organizations linked to Azov, and its possible far-right political ambitions, despite claims of the regiment's depoliticization. Others argue that the regiment has evolved, tempering its neo-Nazi and far-right underpinnings as it became part of the National Guard. | ” |
The Guardian's most recent reporting on the Azov Brigade claims "The 5,000-plus strong brigade has shed any far-right associations" [7], could be considered as a source in "Others argue that the regiment has changed, tempering its far-right underpinnings as it became part of the National Guard" sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction of the article. Skdkkh ( talk) 09:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
References
bbc-20140905
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).telegraph-20220318
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Azov Battalion, a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology.
parfitt
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Walker
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Greetings! I'm not sure why the article should say "other sources emphasise the presence of former Patriot of Ukraine activists" [8], while the source is the only one, and it's not emphasizing that, but football hooligans and ultras .
There is more, what is the reliability of Eastjournal which was re-introduced?
"Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov issued a decree authorizing the creation of new paramilitary forces of up to 12,000 people. [1]" - anything here on article subject?
What's wrong with Arel, Dominique; Driscoll, Jesse (2023-01-05). Ukraine's Unnamed War: Before the Russian Invasion of 2022. Cambridge University Press. p. 159. ISBN 978-1-316-51149-7. ?
Thanks! ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 09:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Not sure. What is their address? Where is their phone number? What is their editorial board? Who is the author of the particular article referenced https://www.eastjournal.net/archives/78786 ? ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 15:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Eastjournal is an Italian-language source. I spent several minutes looking into them (unfortunately Italian WP doesn’t have an RSP or at least not linked) and they seem to be pretty solid as best as I could tell. Their contributors are all academics and policy/analytics bitplayers.
— User:RadioactiveBoulevardier 14:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
References
Can you explain the reason for this edit in more detail? The Daily Beast is not an unreliable source. The RSP entry advises caution when using it for controversial statements, but I don't think that this particular passage is particularly controversial, given other sources in the article. Alaexis ¿question? 20:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The Daily Beast is not an unreliable source
Why is there such one-sided footnote-commentary right in the lead after "The unit has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology"? Where is the neutralizing the POV collection of sources saying the opposite? Not quite NPOV. What to do with that? ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 22:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Others argue that the regiment has changed.... Alaexis ¿question? 20:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Greetings @ F.Alexsandr, why have you removed [11] "Allegations" from the section title? ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 13:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I see sources are pretty solid in characterizing these developments as "Sham trials". I'll add another one - Trials of Ukrainian Prisoners of War in Russia: Decay of the Combatant’s Immunity (justsecurity.org) . ManyAreasExpert ( talk) 16:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
No mention of the fact that the US Congress banned funds to Ukraine over Azov ( https://khanna.house.gov/media/in-the-news/congress-bans-arms-ukraine-militia-linked-neo-nazis) and the ADL's assessement in 2019 ( https://www.adl.org/resources/report/hate-beyond-borders-internationalization-white-supremacy). This article is a post-2022 whitewashing propaganda piece. 167.142.48.84 ( talk)