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 previous RfC has come to the conclusion the Azov Battalion can't be described as neo-Nazi, but several editors have noted that a new RfC is needed to settle the matter.

1. In the first sentence (Azov Battalion is a ___________ Ukrainian National Guard regiment), which adjective, if any, should be used to describe the political ideology of the military unit?

a. Right-wing/nationalist;

b. Far-right;

c. Neo-Nazi;

d. Do not use any adjective.

e. neo-fascist

2. How should the article handle reports on Azov's links to neo-Nazi groups and descriptions as being such? (Note. You may combine answers from A-C with D-E).

a. Mention that many political observers and news outlets have described it as a neo-Nazi organization;

b. Mention that many political observers and news outlets have reported extensively on its links to neo-Nazi groups;

c. Mention that many political observers and news outlets have described it as neo-Nazi and reported extensively on having links to neo-Nazi groups;

d. State in wikivoice it is linked to neo-Nazis;

e. State in wikivoice it is neo-Nazi;

f. Do not include the information in the lead.

g. Mention that many political observers and news outlets have described it as a neo-fascist organization. (Using "Nazi" has baggage, since there may be weaker ties to WWII-era Hitlerism than to other modern neo-fascist groups, who may be as inspired by, say, Mussolini as by Hitler).

Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 18:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

h. Mention that it is far-right but predominantly not neo-nazi. e.g. “The Azov Battalion has been described as a far-right militia with connections to neo-Nazism”.

Options 1.e. and 2.g. added.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Option h added mostly to avoid false dichotomy of new-nazi or nothing... there are other words in English. And there was no choice in part 2 to match the “far-right” choice in part 1 Markbassett ( talk) 22:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinions (question 1)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: VikingDrummer ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi ·  lta) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

• B. I have written above about numerous mentions that Azov Battalion is neo-Nazi; however, I've seen many other articles saying they are merely far-right or even nationalist (the comprehensive list is in the appropriate. Since Nazis are already far on the right, I believe a milder version (far right) should describe them relatively well and at the same time we will not be making such extremely strong statements that might be seen as WP:POV Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 18:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• C. The term "neo-Nazi" is widespread among the RS and clearly describes what the Azov Battalion is. The organization is defined in this way not because the 100% presence of neo-Nazi fighters is guaranteed (although Deutsche Welle reported [16] that the military chants of the battalion "glorify their race", and all foreign fighters appear to come from neo-Nazi and neo-fascist far-right circles [17]), but because the battalion is an integral part of a neo-Nazi political project. The battalion is none other than the armed wing of the "Azov movement", which also includes the " National Corps" party, commanded by the founder of Azov, Andry Biletsky (which states that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade... against Semite-led Untermenschen". Source The Guardian). And no, the fact that the formation joined the National Guard doesn't mean that the battalion has been depoliticized: "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. Source Atlantic Council. For example, to show how this military formation also acts as a political organization and why it is correct define its political agenda as "neo-Nazi", Azov leaders make visits to the major neo-Nazi and neo-fascist organizations around the world. In this well-known case, they went as guests to the Italian CasaPound. [18] Here are some of the important sources which can be useful in the debate:

The Nation: Post-Maidan Ukraine is the world’s only nation to have a neo-Nazi formation in its armed forces.

The Nation: neo-Nazi groups, such as the Azov Battalion

The Guardian Neo-Nazi groups involved in the fighting in Ukraine are actively seeking to recruit British far-right activists [...] At least two Britons are thought to have travelled to the war-torn eastern European country in recent months after encouragement by people linked to the Azov battalion, a notorious Ukrainian fascist militia

NY Times: Another, the Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi

Center for Strategic and International Studies: a paramilitary unit of the Ukrainian National Guard, which the FBI says is associated with neo-Nazi ideology

The Hill: Ro Khanna: “I am very pleased that the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion fighting in Ukraine.”

The Telegraph: Ukraine crisis: the neo-Nazi brigade fighting pro-Russian separatists

TIME: How a White-Supremacist Militia Uses Facebook to Radicalize and Train New Members

Wired Azov Battalion, a Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary group

Foreign Policy The Azov Battalion [...] this openly neo-Nazi unit

Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (POL) Azov is a real problem. The neo-Nazi regiment

National Post The amendments, passed unanimously by members of both parties, blocks “the training of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia Azov Battalion,”

Deutsche Welle Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi volunteer regiment

Junge Welt (DE): The Ukrainian neo-Nazi battalion

Il Messaggero (ITA): Ukraine, pro-Nazi units alongside the army

Il Manifesto (ITA): Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion

SCHOLARLY SOURCES

Ukraine's neo-Nazi summer camp: Unknown to most Americans, the US government is channelling financial support, weapons and training to a neo-Nazi entity - which is part of The Ukraine National Guard - The Azov Battalion

The Information Blitzkrieg — “Hybrid” Operations Azov Style: What sets the Azov Battalion apart from other volunteer units in Eastern Ukraine is its outspoken neo-Nazi views

CasaPound Italia - The Fascist Hybrid: The conference was used by Ukrainian neo-Nazi, Azov Regiment, and their international branch Reconquista

Patterns of Far-Right and Anti-Muslim Mobilization in the United Kingdom: Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi brigade fighting Russian separatists in Ukraine

The conflict in Ukraine: Vadim Troyan, deputy commander of the neo-nazi Azov Regiment and active member of the neo-nazi paramilitary organisation Patriot of Ukraine

NATO threatens war over Ukraine: the Ukrainian forces backed by Western governments include groups such as the neo-Nazi Azov battalion

Seven. From Crimea to Donbass: according to Stern, commanders of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion were close to the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior

Underground waterlines: In 2016, the KVPU officially built an alliance with the neo-Nazi regiment Azov-- Mhorg ( talk) 20:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• D First of all, should we place a contentious label in the first phrase? No, we do not. See WP:Terrorist. There are also three other reasons. First, their ideology is described already in a couple of next paragraphs of the lead in appropriate details, and it should be described there. More can be added if needed. No need to label them in any way in the first phrase. Second, making any simple definition upfront would be to some degree misleading because one can easily find a lot of sources to support any of these versions. Third, this is not a political party, but a military detachment. Such detachments as a whole normally do not have an official ideology or political platform. Sure, many members of the unit can hold supremacist views (just as members of units in other armies), but it does not mean that the whole unit has an official ideology. If this is army, they just suppose to follow their orders. No need to define it in the first phrase. There is also "Azov" as a political movement (see my comment above [19]), but this page is about only the battalion. Yes, for the movement one would have to say something upfront, e.g. "their ideology was described as far-right, ultranationalist or neo-Nazi". My very best wishes ( talk) 21:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  Comment to closer. Please do not close this RfC until this SPI request will be resolved because this may be a case of illegitimate voting on the RfC. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Opening a SPI against users who think Neo-Nazis should be described as Neo-Nazis, based on this similarity? Hogwash. VikingDrummer ( talk) 04:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Striked through as a confirmed sockpuppet account. My very best wishes ( talk) 12:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter what they think. When two accounts make nearly the same edit in the same page and make very long (~20 words) identical (word-to-word) edit summaries [20], [21], is not it WP:DUCK? My very best wishes ( talk) 22:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@ My very best wishes: Might want to strike out this comment, considering it no longer is valid. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 02:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No, because according to evidence and discussion in this SPI request, some of the contributors were not new users and WP:MEAT was clearly taking place. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If the "evidence" really was damning, action would be taken at SPI. You are trying to block this RfC just because you don't like the outcome. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 17:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No, the closing admin said WP:MEAT was probably happening [22]. Action on SPI was not taken only because it addresses only same person editing from several accounts, not WP:MEAT. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

SPI addresses both sock-puppets and meat-puppets, read more about it here. Please do not misinterpret the policy, you've been here for 10+ years, there is no way you didn't know this. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 18:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You know the SPI policy better than me. It tells: "for the sole purpose of supporting one another". I do not think it was "for the sole purpose of supporting one another", and probably admins thought the same. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not think it was "for the sole purpose of supporting one another" Your opinion matters very little.

SPI has been closed with no action, so the comment should be struck out, as it is no longer relevant, simple. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 18:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No. The SPI report was closed and therefore does not prevent closing this RfC. Actually, even if SPI was not closed, that would not prevent closing this RfC. This is just a link to be checked by the closer if they want. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• As a note of order, there is another active SPI case [23] that involves user VikingDrummer who voted during this RfC; a significant evidence was provided that he is a sockpuppet. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hogwash. The only evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek is my initial post. Everything else there are long posts on how every other user is a sock, just like the mess in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MPSCL. VikingDrummer ( talk) 19:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC) Striked through as a confirmed sockpuppet account.

• C, per Mhorg. I do not understand how anyone can call them anything else when their founder literally paraphrases Hitler and says Ukraine's mission is to: lead the white races of the world in a final crusade... against Semite-led Untermenschen. Further sources which call them neo-Nazi:

BuzzFeedNews: This Neo-Nazi Group Is Organizing On Facebook Despite A Year-Old Ban

The Guardian ...two neo-Nazi extremist movements operating from Ukraine: Azov Battalion and Misanthropic Division.

Homeland Security Today ...with Ukrainian-based neo-Nazi groups like the Azov battalion...

The Canada Files Recently detained Belarussian neo-Nazi “journalist” Protasevich served in Canadian backed neo-Nazi Azov Battalion. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 21:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This question and article re not about the battalion’s founder. The first quotation is not referring to Azov regiment, but to the civilian Azov movement. The second is referring to the Azov movement broadly, conflating a “movement,” “battalion” (this article’s subject no longer is), “paramilitary force” (it is a military unit), and “network.” The third cited source is an anonymous blog anonymous editorial by a political lobby. The fourth is a WP:FRINGE blog, written and hosted by a contributor to the blacklisted Global Research website, contains a number of statements that are just fabricated out of thin air, and its content and extremist POV are somewhat offensive. — Michael  Z. 14:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The first quotation is not referring to Azov regiment, but to the civilian Azov movement. The second is referring to the Azov movement broadly, conflating a “movement,” “battalion” (this article’s subject no longer is), “paramilitary force” (it is a military unit), and “network.” There is no consensus in RS that distinguishes the two.

The third cited source is an anonymous blog. False, you can find the editorial board and contributors on the same website.

The fourth is a WP:FRINGE blog Fringe does not equal anything that disagrees with your world view. written and hosted by a contributor to the blacklisted Global Research website Does not make this source blacklisted or unreliable by default. contains a number of statements that are just fabricated out of thin air You haven't presented these. its content and extremist POV are somewhat offensive. Interesting you'd call a canadian news organization extremist but struggle to call a neo-nazi battalion neo-nazi. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 15:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

No RS says that the Azov movement is this article’s subject, a military unit in the National Guard of Ukraine. Your quotation of the first source misrepresents it, which actually spends several paragraphs explaining the distinction.

WP:BURDEN is on you to present reliable sources (and thus demonstrate the value of your contribution). That last one is junk: some Canadian tankie’s personal website demonizing a kidnapped Belarusian to help justify his torture by a rogue regime, name-checking every other tankies’ boogymen. All one has to do is follow a few of his links to see he doesn’t care if they even support his (counter-)factual assertions and false connections. — Michael  Z. 15:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Your quotation of the first source misrepresents it, which actually spends several paragraphs explaining the distinction. Which paragraph claims that they aren't referring to the same Azov Battalion this article refers to?

some Canadian tankie’s personal website demonizing a kidnapped Belarusian to help justify his torture by a rogue regime, name-checking every other tankies’ boogymen. All one has to do is follow a few of his links to see he doesn’t care if they even support his (counter-)factual assertions and false connections. This sounds more like your personal grudge and not an objective assessment of the source. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 00:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

1. You quoted the headline. The subhead makes it clear it is not referring to Azov battalion at all. I assume you read that far, so why are you asking, if not to bloat discussion and waste time? 2. Nope. My assessment is spot on. This “reliable source” you chose is horrendous. — Michael  Z. 01:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• D - Do not characterize them in the lede in the voice of Wikipedia. Let the readers characterize them based on the body of the article. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• C Per the plethora of sources above. Despite the groups modern status as an "official" part of the Ukrainian military they are still very much the same organization as they were when they where a Neo-Nazi paramilitary in 2014, and we should not allow their "official" military status to obfuscate that. BSMRD ( talk) 21:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• C, the group should be described as neo-Nazi. Azov was founded by Andriy Biletsky, who also founded the neo-Nazi group Social-National Assembly and who declared [24] that his mission in Ukraine was to

"lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhumans]"

Azov's military emblems employ multiple swastikas / neo-Nazi symbols, and various governmental bodies in the United States have designated Azov as a white nationalist organization.

Importantly, Mhorg has shown that many high-quality, reliable sources describe Azov as a neo-Nazi group. It doesn't matter if 49.99 % of reliable sources describe Azov as "neo-Nazi" and 51.01 merely describe it as "far-right:" the "far-right" designation doesn't contradict but is instead wholly consistent with Azov's neo-Nazi politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darouet ( talk • contribs) 21:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• D It sounds like this is a defining phrase in the first line. As a regiment in the Ukrainian National Guard, Azov does not currently have a right-wing political mandate or manifesto. But it should not be ignored, and definitely needs some factually supported statement about its history, its reputation, about the ideology of members, or about members’ connections to far-right civil group or former political wing. Which I guess leads to question 2. — Michael  Z. 23:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  There’s a fundamental problem with identifying the subject. Since 2016 the political movement has separated itself from what became a regular National Guard unit, and very few sources recognize this at all. The Azov movement’s leadership and ideology is in the National Corps, a political party with activist and paramilitary wings, belonging to a bloc with a collective 2% of electoral support. It is not the same entity as the National Guard unit that is under the interior ministry’s civilian chain of command. The whole debate on whether to slap a single political label on both is severely problematic. — Michael  Z. 23:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Mzajac: If very few sources recognize it, I don't see how it belongs on Wikipedia. I thought a sysop might be familiar with WP:DUE? -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 14:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@ EuanHolewicz432: Sorry; my description was imprecise, and I haven’t done a survey to determine what proportion of sources get this right or wrong. Non-expert news sources and propaganda are more likely to refer to the civilian Azov movement (see Azov Battalion#Azov movement) as “Azov Battalion,” and being unclear on or completely unaware of the distinction. But it is far from some obscure secret, but it is the fact understood by more informed and specialist sources. Azov battalion has been a regiment in the chain of command of the National Guard for years, and it doesn’t have any ideology, although there are individual members or former members who participate in the civil movement. Yes, these organizations have common roots. Perhaps we need to fork the article into Azov movement, but broad-brush labels of “neo-Nazi” that ape the worst sources are not helpful to the readers. — Michael  Z. 15:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Mzajac: You speak of this with a lot of confidence, yet you are yet to provide meaningful sources to back this thesis up. If what you were saying was correct, it would surely be reflected in recent, high-profile RS on the subject. Do you mean to say that reputable outlets such as The Guardian, NYT, TIME etc. are not only omissive, but outwardly wrong in their presentation? I don't think it'd be controversial to say extraordinary (amounts of) evidence would be required to back up such claims. So far I've seen that one article you've posted below, but a single article constitutes FRINGE, not meaningful opposition to what is clearly the mainstream RS consensus. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 15:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@ EuanHolewicz432: This article itself explains it with cited sources. Let me know if some of it needs clarification. — Michael  Z. 16:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify then; this article you have posted is in direct opposition to the vast majority of RS. You can't expect us to accept a single article against a trove of evidence to the contrary, regardless of how well worded or sourced (the article does not source most of its claims, by the way) it is. Taking this article as a refutation of every other source posted here would be an enourmous violation of WP:DUE. Not only this, but the article mainly argues against paramilitary classification of the unit, in the context of it being classified as a terrorist organization by the US, which is not at all under consideration here. The sources describe it as such; Wikipedia should describe it as such. Until you can (at this point) conjure up a meaningful amount of RS that seek to dispute that the unit is at all ideologized, this is moot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuanHolewicz432 ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

When I said “this article,” I meant “ Azov Battalion”, the Wikipedia article we are discussing. Not sure what you’re referring to, but if you think it is “in direct opposition to the vast majority of RS,” then it needs a lot of other work before a poll about a single adjective will fix it. — Michael  Z. 18:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Then it was my mistake - I was under the impression you were speaking of the article by Anton Shekhovtsov you posted not that far below. At the same time, the Azov Battalion article does a good job of neutrally presenting the facts seem to be speaking of - of Azov's integration into the National Guard and no-longer-paramilitary status. As I already said, this does not have much to do with how the vast majority of RS still consider it an ideologized military unit and ascribe to it adjectives such as "neo-Nazi" or "far-right" and the article, including the lead, should reflect this RS consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EuanHolewicz432 ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Look at it this way. Vague sources (and outdated sources) make these errors of precision and specificity (among others) when they apply whatever ideological adjective: they refer to “Azov battalion” when they mean the 2014–16 non-government volunteer battalion which is no more, or when they mean the civilian Azov movement which comprises a political party an activist organization and a paramilitary organization which does not institutionally the National Guard regiment, or when they have a vague idea of any of this and don’t know what they mean. An encyclopedia article shouldn’t prefer the vague statements of sources that are less reliable on this subject, in favour of the view of sources that are actually aware of the specifics. You’ll notice that many of them also skirt the specific truth by referring, for example to a leader who left the unit years ago, and so on. It is may be accurate to say with specific references that former Azov special tasks police battalion had an ideology, or that Azov regiment’s former members and members have ties with ideological organizations, but it is simply false to say “Azov National Guard Battalion [sic] is neo-Nazi.” By analogy, I don’t care how many hundreds of vague sources you find that say centrifugal force pulls a spun rock on a string outwards: the encyclopedia article has to specifically and accurately state that the force pulls it inwards. — Michael  Z. 16:11, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

You are still not convincing me as to this not being an example of ignoring DUE weight, or OR even. It is a matter of debate whether these sources are 'vague', and clearly at least part of the sources in all categories is recent enough to not be considered 'outdated'. Your analogy isn't really valid as physical phenomena can be analyzed empirically and have ascribed specialists who are entrusted to do so; physics is a science. This is a journalistic matter, and ultimately a matter of opinion to an extent. It all boils down to this - if it is true that this many RS are outright wrong on the matter, there should exist a sizable portion of specialists or journalists who would report on these mistakes. If these errors you speak of cannot be sourced (and comprehensively, considering the extent to which RS are wrong according to your view), they might as well not exist for the purposes of Wikipedia. This is purely a matter of policy; if your view prevails, I believe it would have grave implications for sourcing controversial claims on Wikipedia. Unless this is some sort of IAR gambit or otherwise you can provide a comprehensive, non-SYNTH body of evidence that proves all of these sources wrong, this line of questioning will lead us in circles. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 16:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

By “this many,” or do you mean this few, are right, or is it wrong? Has someone done a comparative count? The reason we are participating in this vote is because there isn’t a clear consensus in reliable source (mainly news media and opinion pieces), so please don’t expect to fool us into treating your opinion as factual just because it is yours. In fact many sources have reported this correctly, and with nuanced and detailed explanations. I suggest it doesn’t take a physicist to see the ones that refer to a National Guard regiment as “paramilitary” or a “battalion” are in error, factually in error and not in a bad “opinion,” and perhaps have made other lapses in the disciplined use of English as well as formulation of their “opinions.” — Michael  Z. 19:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This line of argumentation is truly worrying coming from a sysop. The sources all agree with my viewpoint - there's a treasure trove of them posted above and below. As of yet, you have brought up no sources, yet you keep insisting you are correct. You are attempting to implement what appears to be OR into an article. It's very simple: If RS are wrong, there exist other RS discussing this, otherwise - they are right. Source your claims. Do not bother replying if you don't. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 19:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Mzajac: Just a short notice: The reason for such a name is that the media still habitually refer to it as " battalion" (батальйон) even as it technically and officially qualifies now as a regiment (полк). It is certainly not because of malice or ineptitude of journalists. The name "Azov Battalion" simply stuck to what is now a regiment in the Ukrainian National Guard (see here. If you want to change the article's name, post a request for moving the article. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 19:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Aren’t most of the sources cited in this discussion and in the article media? You seem to be telling me that media call it that because media call it that. But not all of them do. (This article title would be a separate discussion.) — Michael  Z. 23:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• C Abundantly clear per the several sources editors have found. I would recommend bundling those sources following the descriptor "neo-Nazi" in text. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 10:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• C as per Mhorg. Describing it solely as "nationalist" and/or "right-wing" is disingenuous given both the amount of nationalist movements - e.g. Cornwall, Wales, Scotland, Catalonia etc. - and right wing groups that don't advocate for leading crusades against supposed "Untermensch" or use Nazi regalia. "Far right" lands a bit closer to the mark but Neo-Nazi hits it even closer. ToeSchmoker ( talk) 12:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• F. It has been absorbed as a regular unit into Ukrainian army. Not to mention all the Jewish volunteers it had all along.-- Aristophile ( talk) 13:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lute88: there is no "option F" for question 1. Did you mean D? Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 13:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• C There are so many reliable sources that classified them as a neo-Nazi group. Sea Ane ( talk) 20:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• D There are a few problems with pinning the group down, and the sources (as I explain in my !vote for question 2) don't actually appear to lean towards calling Azov a neo-nazi group in their own voice, even among scholarly sources. A descriptive mention of the group in the lead as being "linked to neo-nazi groups" would be fine by me, but, owing to current disagreement among scholars, it's a bit too strong to call it neo-nazi outright. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• B and just a note that Neo-Nazi is more a loose movement than a specific political ideology, the ideology of Neo-Nazis is primarily regular old Nazism. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• D I would note that the article on Adolf Hitler does not state in the first sentence that he was a Nazi. This does not prevent the article from quickly getting into that. Adoring nanny ( talk) 17:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• D - while Azov membership's nazi links are real and should be discussed in the article, we don't really use such adjectives in lead sentences of wikipedia articles of specific military units, not even in cases where those units were openly and intentionally tied to specific political ideology like LSSAH. Also, while some sources do call it outright "neo-nazi", many others use more nuanced language like "with neo-nazi links" etc.-- Staberinde ( talk) 18:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• C. A multitude of sources describe the Azov battalion as Neo-Nazi, as evidenced by the high quality vote by Mhorg. I think some editors here are forgetting the core values Wikipedia appeals to - I'm not seeing many sources here posted in opposition to the stance presented by the aforementioned multitude of RSes from all around the world. I am sure, would such sources exist, they would have already appeared here. What I see instead in the votes is a whole bunch of whataboutism and special pleading. This isn't a difficult question - Wikipedia seeks to represent the RS consensus. There have been next to no polemic sources presented for these claims, so I find it difficult to understand what exactly the debate is revolving around here. "Neo-Nazi", being a subset of "far-right", is more precise, therein lies my support for the descriptor over the other; a RS branding the unit as "far-right" is not polemic with branding it as "Neo-Nazi" unless otherwise stated. What I find especially puzzling are the users referencing its military status as a cause not to use any descriptor - how on Earth is that relevant? Wikipedia does not give special status to military units as such or give "the benefit of the doubt"; that's on journalists and other such RS. We deal in sources here; I see a wide variety of sources to choose from that describe the unit as Neo-Nazi, I see no sources of any note disputing the following; omitting the majority nomenclature would be omitting DUE weight. A lot of the votes here simply reek of OR justification instead of delegating their opinion - as they should as WP editors - to the sources. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 20:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Here’s a short one that addresses the nut, by one of the preeminent experts on Eastern European fascists: Anton Shekhovtsov, “ Why Azov should not be designated a foreign terrorist organization.” The fundamental problem is that almost no sources acknowledge that the Azov Regiment, officially formed in 2016, is a regular unit of Ukraine’s National Guard: it is not active in the far-right politics, street demonstrations, and violence. Sure, there may still be individual members with extreme views – I don’t know. But the leadership and political and civil activism previously in the 2014–15 volunteer battalion are now in the non-military Azov movement: the National Corps political party, Azov Civil Corps activists, and National Militia paramilitary. Perhaps the article should be split, because slapping “neo-Nazi” on an article about the unit currently in the interior minister’s chain of command, but also about these other things, seems tone-deaf at best. — Michael  Z. 23:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"it is not active in the far-right politics" What the Azov Battalion does is explained to you by the same newspaper, in an article the following month. Yes, the battalion is active, not depoliticized, it makes propaganda events in schools [25] and on young people [26] [27]... a whole series of activities that are useful to a political organization: "the role of the far-right leadership in the regiment remains evident. Both the National Guard unit and the political party admit to being part of the wider “Azov movement” led by the regiment’s first commander and current National Corps party leader Andriy Biletsky. The unit routinely hosts Biletsky (and other former commanders) at its bases and welcomes his participation in ceremonies, greeting him as a leader. Biletsky positions himself as the curator of the regiment, and has claimed to deal directly with Ukrainian Interior Minister Arsen Avakov on related matters – a claim that Avakov appeared to confirm in early 2019." [28]-- Mhorg ( talk) 00:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The article helps round out the picture, although please note what it factually does and does not say. The videos are not useful: primary sources that you are interpreting. When did the events take place? Did the regiment (not battalion) conduct these events (apparently no), or did serving members show up as individuals, or were they even serving National Guard members not veterans? What does the third one have to do with the regiment? — Michael  Z. 15:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Most to the point, the article cited by Mhorg does not call the Azov regiment c. “neo-Nazi.” — Michael  Z. 14:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Wonder why an Ukrainian anti-Russia writer (hardly notable too) would write a piece defending an anti-russian Ukrainian battalion. Does not sound like a very reliable source. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 14:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please don’t start into the Ukrainian bashing and labelling, unless you plan to compile a dossier on every source’s passport and place of birth, and start rating the reliability of each national group. The article isn’t “defending” Azov, it is pointing out factual errors being written into US laws, and if you read to the end of the reply by Kuzmenko (why haven’t you analyzed his ancestry?) you’ll see it agrees with its main thesis: “nothing indicates that the Azov movement engages in terrorist activity or has such intent.” — Michael  Z.

I am sorry if you felt this was any sort of labeling or bashing, I was merely pointing out that a source who has a history of writing anti-Russian content where he links Russia to far-right groups might have a biased opinion which shouldn't be given undue weight, more so than uninvolved sources. I felt it was important to add that this might not be the best source. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 15:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You’re attacking an article by slagging the author’s ancestry or citizenship, and implying he’s racist because you apparently dislike his field of study including Russian fascism. Does this expression of your biased opinion merit any weight? I suggest you abandon this line of thought. — Michael  Z. 17:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not slagging anyone's ancestry or citizenship nor implying he is racist. Please re-read what I said without casting aspersions. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 09:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

You said he’s unreliable (and tried to tag the citation with innuendo) because he’s “Ukrainian” and “anti-Russia,” without any rationale. Your attempt at an explanation was to identify his perfectly valid field of study and label it “anti-Russian content.” You’re literally acting out what you want to portray him as being. Try to appreciate the irony. — Michael  Z. 15:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have explained my "rationale" many times, yet you continue to ignore it and keep on with your insinuation that it is somehow "Ukrainian bashing and labeling", that I am "slagging his ancestry and citizenship" and other stuff. If you truly believe that he is being objective in his assertions, feel free to take a look through his twitter or the about us page on his website. This will be the last reply I will make regarding this as I do not want to turn this into a WP:FORUM. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 15:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Seen those, don’t find anything wrong there. His last book was published by Routeledge in 2018 and widely reviewed. I think you are implying there is something inherently wrong with the study of Kremlin far-right links (by a Ukrainian!), while you are eager to indiscriminately label a Ukrainian National Guard unit as “neo-Nazi,” while citing an anonymous blog, above. You are trying to use character assassination by innuendo to discredit a source. Maybe you can explain in less vague terms, but that is what seems plain to me. — Michael  Z. 15:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

His last book was published by Routeledge in 2018 and widely reviewed. Except the source you included is not a widely reviewed book, but a blog post with a disclaimer at the bottom "The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters."

I think you are implying there is something inherently wrong with the study of Kremlin far-right links (by a Ukrainian!) No, I never implied that, I can say that the author is biased and unreliable in one area, while regarding him as reliable in other areas. Same practice is used on Wikipedia, as I am sure you know.

while you are eager to indiscriminately label a Ukrainian National Guard unit as “neo-Nazi,” while citing an anonymous blog, above. The anonymous blog is not the only source, I am citing 10+ sources which call Azov Battalion neo-nazi.

You are trying to use character assassination How exactly? Did I ever lie about anything he does? I said he makes anti-Russia articles, which is evident. Your entire point of focus seems to be on the fact that I mentioned his nationality, which was not even a part of the argument I am presenting. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 16:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Then why did you identify his nationality? — Michael  Z. 21:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• E. This was over-specific in using the term "Nazi", which really pertains to WWII-era Germany specifically.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@ SMcCandlish: Perhaps it would be better to also give a second choice, since for the "E" you are the only one to have given this answer.-- Mhorg ( talk) 00:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Nah. The others are inadequate, and I'm the only one who's given E as the answer because I just added it.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

For the future, I'd ask you not to add any options to an RfC, or change wording, without prior consultation. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 08:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• D - As others are noted, their exact relationship with the far right is detailed in the article. People can read than themselves to ascertain the story, rather than trying to artificially sum it up in the lede. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 08:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• C. If not then "B or E as second choices". This is the way they are described, the precise far right adjective varies a bit between sources but all reasonable sources mention their extremist character. VikingDrummer ( talk) 06:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Striked through as a confirmed sockpuppet account. My very best wishes ( talk) 12:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• C, overturning the previous RFC. The previous RFC looks like a mess that barely discussed the sources; as shown above, there's pretty extensive sourcing describing them as neo-Nazis. And some of that sourcing has appeared in the five years since the last RFC anyway, which gives further weight to the idea that we should simply overturn it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C would be the best option since they've been described by many like this, sources that Mhorg posted above clearly show that. -- Vacant0 ( talk) 09:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• DThe sources used only apply labels and do not discuss substance of these labels. Moreover, there seems to me very little factual basis shown to apply any of them. -- 2A00:1028:83B4:E476:85E:7915:865F:B7D5 ( talk) 10:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC). — 2A00:1028:83B4:E476:85E:7915:865F:B7D5 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• C, per review of available sources in this RFC. As an aside, the battalion's official publication is and/or was Black Sun, i.e. the neo-Nazi Black Sun (symbol). Link to the uk.wiki article: Чорне Сонце (часопис), with the symbol shown on the cover of the publication. Please see picture at right. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
• B and B. As by the sources in question. Ip says ( talk) 00:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• C It is absurd to pretend Azov is NOT Neo-Nazi when it uses Nazi icons, members do Nazi salutes, and its founder is openly Nazi. A spade is a spade and a duck is a duck. Not a single credible source denies that they are a Neo-nazi organization, and they shouldn't get to polish their image by pushing (via their editathon) to be described by more broad adjectives to hide such fact. They're Neo-Nazi, and that fact belongs in the lede.-- PlanespotterA320 ( talk) 01:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
• C or possibly B, and a or e. After taking a look at Google Scholar, I discovered one paper stating, "The Azov Battalion stands out among these because of its Nazi rhetoric and symbolism..." [29] another (in German) calling it "neonazistischen" [30] and a third that notes that the reason Azov has attracted international media attention is not because of its military performance but controversial views of its founders, also remarking on the "formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group...The regiment’s key commanders held, in the past, manifestly fascist views and may still hold them to one degree or another today." [31] These are the top three results on Google Scholar. I believe that phrasing like "founded by neo-Nazis" would assuage concerns (as alluded to by the third source) these neo-Nazi views are no longer as prominent as they were in the past. However, the wording "linked to neo-Nazis" is not appropriate as RS don't say it was just linked to neo-Nazis, but actually was founded by neo-Nazis. ( t · c) buidhe 06:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Buidhe:, I don't know if you noticed but there is also a "question 2" to vote, just below.-- Mhorg ( talk) 08:48, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The Saressalo paper is already mentioned in the source list. Umland's paper (19), from my imperfect understanding of German, does not call the whole regiment neo-Nazi but extensively describes the neo-Nazi symbolics and the what he sees as neo-Nazi ideology professed by those commanding the battalion. That is some difference, and I will therefore classify it as "ultranationalist" (far right) but note that he describes the ties extensively. The other Umland's paper is already in the list. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 13:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You know the saying about duck, right? No reason for hair-splitting . Lembit Staan ( talk) 00:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:DUCK (or WP:SPADE) are essays, which I have used indeed used previously amid good quality evidence and near-universal consensus on i.e. Xinjiang; there, however, the situation is different, because we actually do not have unanimity, or even consensus, to say they are neo-Nazi (ca. 50% say "neo-Nazi", 50% "far right"). The sources are assembled for convenience of commenters and the closer.

"Far right/nationalist" is nothing but a soft synonym [of neo-Nazi]. I agree with that view (probably without the "nothing but"). But the thing is, neo-Nazi and far right have the same relation to each other as the words "starving" and "hungry" - technically both designate hunger, but they don't mean the same thing and certainly we can't call a person who simply "wouldn't be against" a sandwich on a nearby petrol station a "starving" person. "Neo-Nazi" designation simply violates WP:BALANCE, and dismissing sources that say "far-right" as simply being politically correct is not supported by anything I have read from all the sources on the Azov Battalion, so I believe that journalists and scholars use their best judgment and say the things as they believe they are. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 12:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure if WP:BALANCE even applies here, since there are very few, if any, sources opposing the neo-nazi designation, and WP:BALANCE talks about [...] when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 13:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd put it this way - if they had considered Azov a neo-Nazi battalion, they would have written it straightaway or at least clearly implied that this is the case. Since they haven't, there are valid reasons to believe otherwise. Also, it would be defamation for the majority (60-70%) of people who were in the battalion but were not willing to adopt Nazi ideology or were not attracted by it in any way. It would be more or less trying to say that because 37% of people voted NSDAP in 1932 German election, Germany was a Nazi country in November 1932, which is nonsense. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 15:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You can't compare citizenship of a country with membership of a group. You make a conscious decision whether to join a group that exhibits neo-nazi behavior and symbols. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 16:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

You can't compare citizenship of a country with membership of a group. But of course you can - citizenship is itself membership of a group. The fact it is larger than a regiment isn't that important once you zoom to the local level (just about size of a regiment), where the same 37% figure could be cited. What then? Is it a Nazi town? Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 03:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said. When you are born a citizen of the country, you do not have a choice, you simply belong to that group now, so if the country becomes "nazi", we can't say all people are nazi. However, if you make a conscious choice to join a battalion that has historically exhibited neo-nazi characteristics, was created by neo-nazis and its creators paraphrased Hitler, then you CAN be called a neo-nazi. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 11:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You only become neo-Nazi when you willfully exhibit a certain kind of ideology that is associated with neo-Nazis. If you don't, you are not - to claim otherwise means being not compliant with the WP:GUILT standard, which says explicitly that guilt by association is never by itself a good reason to include negative information about people. Besides, taking your standard, people who are in Azov are not being asked whether they want to have that sign on their military form, and transfering to another unit is not all that easy (just like a change of citizenship). Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 18:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You only become neo-Nazi when you willfully exhibit a certain kind of ideology that is associated with neo-Nazis. You mean like consciously joining a battalion which uses neo-nazi symbols and whose leader has paraphrased Hitler? CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 19:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The volunteers don't really "choose" the military units just like you'd do so with cheese in a supermarket, unless you know the commander well, in which case he could ask the authorities to admit that particular person in that specific unit (including foreigners, where they have special procedures to do before serving in a foreign military). So no, that is not the thing. This is exactly what WP:GUILT is about. And besides, most people who went there didn't join it because of ideological reasons, but because they wanted to fight in Donbas against separatists backed by Russia, which is a point Umland makes in one of his works. Of course, the more notorious elements were recruited on far-right festivals, other neo-Nazi organisations and so on, but they are a minority. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 23:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

DW reported [32] that the military chants of the battalion "glorify their race". So, I would say that those who enlist in Azov must have some ideological closeness. Please, let's avoid denying any evidence.-- Mhorg ( talk) 10:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

That is what Likhachev (a scholar on Russian/Ukrainian far-right movements) in his Youtube conference video (see in sources) has fairly accurately referenced to as "ideological indoctrination", but it is not the same as holding the ideology. In other words, even if 100% of people are subject to propaganda, it by no means says that 100% will believe what they are told to say/chant under that propaganda - what it does say that those who peddle propaganda promote white supremacy and that probably some of the guys become convinced, but we can't assume that everyone does. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 20:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• C definitely, per sources with convincing arguments. And the nail inn the coffin is the resolution of the US House of Representatives. "Far right/nationalist" is nothing but a soft synonym, and "far right" is way too weak. Lembit Staan ( talk) 00:17, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• C, As described by the many reliable sources shared above. BristolTreeHouse ( talk) 11:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• D - we don't customarily describe fighting units in political or ideological terms - even usually irregular ones which this one may have stated out as - I'm not clear on that point how "irregular" they were, nor how "regular" they now are. I'm not even sure what a neo-nazi regiment is, does it only fight for 'neo-nazi' causes and against 'neo-nazi' enemies Even actual Nazi military units, which may well have been serving fascist govts or rulers, or may have contained many actual National Socialists, are not themselves 'nazi' as regiments. That Azov may contain many far-right nationalists, may have, or have had links to fascist leaders or ideologues etc, and if so all of this should be recorded briefly in para 2 of the lead. It is probable that almost everyone in the Greek Volunteer Guard was Gk orthodox and almost all were right-wing nationalists politically, but we don't describe them as an Orthodox right-wing Nationalist forec in the lead. One could almost certainly find refs specifying the political leanings and religious affiliations of almost any fighting unit on the planet, but that does not define their essential political character. the masters they serve have political ideologies, not the units. Many of the sources given are single sentence 'mentions' - they necessarily are very brief. We are not obliged to be so crude. Pincrete ( talk) 15:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• D then B - do not *start* with a pejorative or judgemental adjective as the first thing, as if a definition or clear signal of article bias, and particularly avoid “Neo-nazi” to respect the mentioned prior RFC plus it’s just an inflammatory WP:LABEL and sensationalizing. Do have a mention of “far-right” in the back of the first line, said as what they are known for per MOS:FIRST “For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence”. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 22:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Obviously C. I am not sure how anyone can justify voting for anyone other than C after Mhorg's excellent comment showing how the sources overwhelmingly call them neo-Nazis. Loki ( talk) 02:42, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you LokiTheLiar for your comment. The RFC has become huge, you may not have noticed that below there is a another section [33] where you have to cast another 2 votes: "You may combine answers from A-C with D-E".-- Mhorg ( talk) 08:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• C per the secondary sources. SportingFlyer T· C 11:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinions (question 2)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: VikingDrummer ( talk ·  contribs ·  block log ·  spi ·  lta) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

• C and D. Links to neo-Nazis have been reported on extensively from my review of RS, therefore, we wouldn't err much by stating that in wikivoice. Descriptions as neo-Nazi should also not be dismissed, as a significant portion of RS labeled them as such. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 18:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Fper WP:Terrorist. A, B, C or F Noticing that the RfC question 2 is not about the lead, but about the body of the page. We should not label every organization or person. We should simple say some factual information about what they actually did. For example, if a unit has committed war crimes or other specific nefarious actions, just say it. No need in labels like "terrorists", "fascists" or whatever. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

From WP:Terrorist: may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. Convocke ( talk) 00:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

It means that a specific label can be used if there a very strong agreement of sources about it. This is not the case. All these labels (i.e. Right-wing/nationalist, Far-right, Neo-Nazi) were used by sources (the Right-wing/nationalist is most often). And again, one does not need any labels. Is enough to say what exactly the subject have done, and allow the reader to judge. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Being far-right and being a neo-Nazi aren't exclusive. They can be both. If you have a problem with all sources not calling it the same thing, we can include all the labels, like in Proud Boys. I believe we should use their lead sentence as an example, I like how the whole paragraph has a single reference which includes all the sources and they're sorted by how they describe them. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 12:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Huh? All neo-Nazis are, by definition, far-right. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 05:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

That has been disputed in a number of sources (the Stalinism and Nazism aka "national socialism" comparisons as left-wing movements, see "Russia under Bolshevik regime" by Richard Pipes, for example), but in that case the organization was indeed described as "far-right". So yes. But not all far-right are neo-Nazi. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this template, used as the FAQ on Nazism, is germane here. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 05:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• C and E per above. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 21:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• F - Leave the characterizations out of the lede. The readers can do their own characterizing, based on what we say the reliable sources say. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• C, D, and E at the very least C is indisputable across RS, and I would argue lends itself accordingly to D and E. BSMRD ( talk) 21:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• C and E per above.-- Mhorg ( talk) 21:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• C and D and E. The article should mention what observers report, should describe links to neo-Nazis, and should also describe the Azov Battalion as neo-Nazi. This would be replicating exactly what reliable sources do. - Darouet ( talk) 23:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
• Magic 8-Ball says “ask again later.” Probably any of A through C, maybe E, reflecting a balance of the best reliable sources. Sorry that I can’t answer this definitively without taking a lot more time to review the article and sources. I do believe 1) you can’t leave the far-right associations out of the intro, 2) it’s not good enough to just slap a label on the unit, because it’s more complicated. I’m not opposed to using the term neo-Nazi in the article, but just calling the unit that does not seem fair. — Michael  Z. 00:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• C and E as this is the overwhelming consensus among sources. Citations should be used to verify all claims, preferably bundled. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 10:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• C and E per above. Sea Ane ( talk) 20:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• Support B and D, oppose E and F. After taking time to review the sources offered above, I don't think that the analysis provided by Mhorg takes into account a more complete look at the sources. The sources provided appear to be diverse, of differing quality, and published in different time periods. Because this !vote is long, I've tried to keep the sources in collapsible containers and to group them by what it appears that the source is saying to save (some) visual space. For a full disclosure, my analysis of non-English sources partly relied on machine translations, and I've excluded headlines as reliable in line with WP:HEADLINE (which states that they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article). My lists below incorporate news sources listed above that I could obtain access to:

Given that the news sources appear to be fairly evenly mixed on this, and given that it's generally better to consider academic sources anyways (see WP:SOURCETYPES), I think that analyzing what academic sources say would be more helpful than analyzing news sources. To start, I have concerns regarding the classification of some of the "academic" sources put forward by Mhorg. Each of the sources that link to an Informit page don't actually appear to be scholarly journals. The first ( link informit) appears to be a link to a page run by [ Green Left], which is an eco-socialist newspaper that does not appear to have any attempt at being an objective source; it's very much an advocacy source and it's certainly not an academic journal. The second such citation ( link informit) appears to be a source put up by the Communist Party of Australia that has been republished from the generally unreliable globalresearch.ca. I really can't come up with an explanation for why these would remotely be considered to be reliable, scholarly sources.

It also appears that scholarly consensus on the issue doesn't exist at this current moment. A journal article from 2019 appears to describe the group's leadership as "formerly neo-nazi". A think-tank source from 2015 indicates that While Biletsky and the top leadership of the Azov are defined by experts as “biological racists,” it is generally excluded that the whole battalion is aligned along the same ideological lines. Another journal article, this one published by Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, calls the group "White supremacist" but does not link the group's ideology to that of neo-nazis. A 2018 scholarly source states that The unclear legal status of the volunteer battalions was furthermore systematically used to discredit the Kyiv government in both international media and ceasefire negotiations. Volunteers were portrayed as criminals and neo-nazis of uncertain legal status in a manner that discredited the Ukrainian war efforts and the Kyiv government’s ability to exert its legal obligations of exercising sovereignty. The same source does not assign the value of "neo-nazi" (or even neo-fascist or some other similar moniker) to the group.

Overall, at a minimum, it appears that there is scholarly disagreement on whether the group is neo-nazi, though it's not contested that scholars agree that the group is linked to neo-nazis. As a result, I favor D over E/F. It also looks like there's extensive reporting on the links. "Many" feels a bit odd for the "described it as neo-nazi" portion of the question if there doesn't appear to be an overall general lean one way or the other, so I prefer B to A/C. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Funny how you omit the News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. of WP:HEADLINE policy, under which all of the headlines are able to be used, as the contents support the claim that Azov Battalion is indeed neo-Nazi. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 10:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If the headline uses an eye-catching label for a group and that label is not repeated in the article body, then that is a classic example of when NOT to use the headline as a reliable source for the use of that label. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 14:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It does not have to be repeated, it has to be supported, which it is. It is fine per WP:HEADLINE policy, the one you linked and seemingly missed the first sentence, please stop trying to game the system. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 14:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

How is it gaming the system? If you look at the RfC that led to the creation of that exact guideline, you'll see that the close indicates that headlines are unreliable. Many editors noted this exact problem, with the close explicitly noting the problem of headlines containing exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. There seems to be a wide consensus against using headlines as a reliable source for a claim where an article's text itself doesn't affirm that same claim. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 02:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You are gaming the system by intentionally leaving out parts of policy that do not suit your need. You claimed that [...] and I've excluded headlines as reliable in line with WP:HEADLINE (which states that they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article), yet conveniently left out the part that made this usage of headlines fine according to the policy. Again, the articles you linked support the claim, hence why they contain multiple commentators calling Azov Battalion neo-nazi.

Please do read the RfCs and guidelines you actually send, it is clearly stated my Mz7 that: there is broad consensus here that we should avoid citing information in a headline that is not supported by the body of the article, meaning that it is not against the policy to cite them if they are supported. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 14:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I never heard of Azov Battalion before, I have not looked at the sources, and I have no position on this RFC at this time.
Mikehawk10 is correct. I supported the HEADLINE RFC, and as an experienced RFC closer I just reviewed the !votes on that RFC and the discussion to translate it into language for the WP:HEADLINE section. There is consensus that headlines are not a reliable source for information. CPCEnjoyer you are attempting to claim an exception to source info from headlines if - in your opinion - the body "supports" the headline in some vague sense. That is not what the guideline means. The guideline is worded poorly, but the key word you are skipping is explicitly supported. What it is attempting to say is that if you can source the info from the body then, in principal, the headline would not be unreliable for that info. That doesn't apply if you can't explicitly source the info from the body.
In short: Never source info from the headline. If you can't source it from the body then you can't source it at all. Alsee ( talk) 16:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

CPCEnjoyer you are attempting to claim an exception to source info from headlines if - in your opinion - the body "supports" the headline in some vague sense. That is not what the guideline means. Then perhaps it should be rewritten to reflect its actual meaning, it shouldn't be guesswork to interpret policy. I see you've already made an RFC regarding that, which I am fine with, however please do refrain yourself from personal attacks, such as calling me a "new account wikilawyering" please. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 17:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Where did Alsee state that you are a new account wikilawyering? I can't find the quote in this discussion. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 17:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Here. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 18:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mikehawk10 they are referring to my edit at WT:Reliable_sources#Proposed_reword_for_WP:HEADLINE.
CPCEnjoyer I said relatively new account, and my mention of "wikilawyering" was directly inspired by you accusing Mikehawk of gaming the system on this exact issue. [34] If you find it objectionable, perhaps you should be more careful. Alsee ( talk) 18:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• C and E given amount of agreed to be reliable sources that describe it as such + their former commander's own admission that Ukraine must lead a "crusade" against the "subhumans". Yours with undying love, ToeSchmoker ( talk) 08:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• D, I think the coverage of their links has been widespread enough for us to use wikivoice. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• Ok with any of A-D. Oppose E and F. The sourcing for this looks good to me, but I still wouldn't say in WikiVoice that they are neo-Nazi. It sure looks like a lot of their members are, but I'm still hesitant to paint the entire organization with that particular brush. Adoring nanny ( talk) 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• B or D seem like most appropriate ways to discuss it in the lead.-- Staberinde ( talk) 18:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• C, E. Again, deferring to the RSes here - seeing as near no outright opposition to the use of term has cropped out among sources, only different classification (far-right or Neo-Nazi - going through some journal search engines the results for "far-right" outweight the ones for "Neo-Nazi", although not by a large number - personal note), it is appropriate to use the more precise descriptor since no real debate on its nature is present therein; my support for Wikivoice also stems from this relative uncontroversial status - the sources that outright dispute the far-right/Neo-Nazi label are few and far between, and hardly make up for DUE weight. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 20:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
• G. This was over-specific in using the term "Nazi", which really pertains to WWII-era Germany specifically. And since various news and political sources do label it a neo-fascist group (or a neo-Nazi one, which is a subset), and we know that neo-fascist groups are in communication with each other, there is no reason to say it is a neo-fascist group and has ties to other neo-fascist groups; that would just be redundant.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

They specifically harken to WWII Germany though, see the not one but two SS symbols on their logo and their founders campaign against "Semitic Untermenschen". BSMRD ( talk) 01:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is, I have seen no reliable source saying they are "fascists" or "neo-fascists" - they were either described as "far-right", "ultranationalist", "extreme right" or as "neo-Nazi" (I have seen it appearing on RT, The Grayzone and a few blogs but all of these are unreliable, so I omitted them). It is therefore that you don't see the option with neo-fascists, and anyway in preliminary consultations, no one proposed me to include "neo-fascist" as the fifth option. I also doubt that we can say "if half of sources say they are neo-Nazi and half that they are far-right, they should be called neo-fascists because that's the middle way" or something to that effect. Therefore I'd ask you to reconsider the votes you gave.

PS. While "Nazi" does pertain to the NSDAP and Germany in 1933-45 only, "neo-Nazi", by definition, refers to the post-World War II militant, social, and political movements seeking to revive and reinstate Nazi ideology (emphasis mine), therefore the label can be justified from a historical standpoint if enough sources are given for that and there is consensus among them. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 20:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• C - Pretty obvious from the RS, any google search will support this. Deathlibrarian ( talk) 09:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
• E, if not then C. Reasonable reliable sources describe them as neo-Nazi. VikingDrummer ( talk) 06:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)Striked through as a confirmed sockpuppet account. My very best wishes ( talk) 12:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
• E per the sources above and the requirement in WP:RS to not state facts as opinions; I'm not seeing enough sourcing saying otherwise to justify treating it a matter of dispute. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
• C and E Again, this seems to be the most-sourced option -- Vacant0 ( talk) 09:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• D & E, clear enough to state this in wiki-voice. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@ K.e.coffman: please check this note from the RFC starter: "You may combine answers from A-C with D-E".-- Mhorg ( talk) 20:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• F Readers can mae up their own mind. Moreover "links" is too vague and prone to provide inaccurate framing. Meeting someone should not be used to frame an organization as being somehow beholden to that person's views. 2A00:1028:83B4:E476:85E:7915:865F:B7D5 ( talk) 18:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC) — 2A00:1028:83B4:E476:85E:7915:865F:B7D5 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• B and B. As by the sources in question. Ip says ( talk) 00:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
• The question is moot. Lede is summary of the article. Strong claims, like the one in question, must be strongly supported by the article body. It seems it already does. Lembit Staan ( talk) 01:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• C and E, Per above. BristolTreeHouse ( talk) 11:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
• C or D, Per others, in fact I would "flesh out" substantially what the links are. One of the Gdn sources best summarisesd for me "Many of its members have links with neo-Nazi groups, and even those who laughed off the idea that they are neo-Nazis did not give the most convincing denials. The uncertainty about the extent to which this is actual ideology and how much macho-posturing seems to run through a number of the more detailed sources, but if the latter, they definitely like the posturing. The Gdn piece also covers the irony that they have very similar extreme nationalist views to the seperatists they are fighting. Pincrete ( talk) 15:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• H - there was no option for the A or B above, so I added H for “far-right”. It is inappropriate or dishonest to use wiki voice on an item that externally is not agreed, so none of those choices. No wikivoice - Report what is said as something said, do not proclaim WikiJudgement, so none of those choices. And nothing phrased simply about the Battalion here in anything phrased neo-nazi for the Battalion, because the article body indicates the Battalion is said to have only 10% neo-nazi so anything phrased simply ‘Battalion’ would be 90% wrong. Just report the external facts as external facts and things said as said - it is as a whole said far-right, with neo-nazi ties. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 23:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  That is supposed to be answer B (Mention that many political observers and news outlets have reported extensively on its links to neo-Nazi groups). The adjective we are going to use (if any) will be determined in question 1, and probably, if justified, we will append the "far-right" label to the organisation somewhere else, because we have more than enough resources that say so. I'd propose you to change your vote. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 19:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  My point being there was no option in question 2 to match the question 1 wordings ‘right-wing’ or ‘far-right’ ... this question inherently presumes “neo-nazi” be said (or g “neo-fascist”) or that nothing be said, question 2 did not have any way to say “right-wing”, “far-right”, or none-or-the-above. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 15:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Courtesy pinging @ My very best wishes, AllegedlyHuman, Iryna Harpy, BSMRD, Mikehawk10, Horse Eye's Back, and Darouet: that the RfC on the Azov Battalion has started.

For some reason, the ping did not come through to me. It might be best to leave notices on the relevant talk pages. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 19:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy didn't join the discussions. It is correct to ping them?-- Mhorg ( talk) 19:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

On a separate note from Mhorg, would it be appropriate to notify the users who took part in the 2015 RfC? — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 19:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe so, as she was one of the main participants of the previous RfC; also, I've left a notice on her talk page for her to participate. However, she has a banner posted on her talk page saying that for medical reasons, she might not be able to answer quickly. I suspect that was the case there, so I left the ping anyway, not knowing if the lack of answer was because she was not interested in the new RfC (which I personally doubt) or that she has that delay of several days. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 19:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think they might be interested in the new RfC, so I believe all of those who participated in 2015 RfC should be notified. Even if they don't participate, I believe that a notification like that might be of interest for them. EDIT: Sent notifications to all users who seem to be active editors and to those who contributed to the draft. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 19:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Proposition, how about including all the options from question 1 in the lead? We can create a cite note at the end of the paragraph where we include which sources have called the battalion far-right, neo-Nazi and right-wing, this way we ensure that each view is represented and the reader is able to find all the references in one place. An example of how I imagine this could work can be found at the Proud Boys article, specifically citation number one. I believe this would fix the issue of "some sources call it X, but some sources call it Y", since all those descriptors aren't inherently contradictory. Would like to hear your thoughts on this, please. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 14:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposed, but I would argue that Neo-Nazi inherently includes Ultranationalist and Far-Right, so we could simply save space by just using Neo-nazi. BSMRD ( talk) 14:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, however, being a far-right party/movement does not mean it becomes neo-Nazi - it's the same difference between being a Marxist and a Stalinist. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 15:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I mostly brought it up since the proposal was about using all three at once, so I figure you could save time by using Neo-Nazi instead of all three at once. BSMRD ( talk) 15:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly due to this distinction I believe we should include all of the terms, even if it takes more space. We give the reader descriptors and sources who have used them, this is the best solution to this problem, in my opinion. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 15:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

To explain my motives behind the vote, I will mention RS which said Azov Battalion is far right, and which say it is nationalist. The sources saying "neo-Nazi" are still valid and are, as I said in my vote, still plentiful (and I've even found more of these). The list is below in the "Sources" section. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 15:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The first link, by example, Golinkin’s article in the Nation: is that journalistic reporting, analysis, independent opinion, or editorial opinion? I see no label or disclaimer, so I am not sure which. But “in their own voice” can mean very different things depending on the nature of the work. — Michael  Z. 18:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I applied the same criteria of inclusion of each article in each category. The first link appears to be partly journalistic reporting and partly analysis; that's what I would assume. If there is no explicit disclaimer, I believe it should be treated as routine reporting.

The links are for you to review and comment on; I tried to mark editorials/opinion pieces as such, but I may have missed some of these - you are free to correct them/enhance the list if I am wrong, though I tried my best. Really, the links are for your reference. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 20:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I hate to nitpick on this, but I'd comment on is that "neo-nazi" and "white supremacist" aren't identical ( Apartheid was a despicable form of white supremacist governance, but it wasn't neo-nazism). Neo-nazis are a particular form of white supremacist, and being white supremacist is a fundamental part of being a neo-nazi, but I don't know that conflating the two is ideal here. — Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

In the sources I saw, at least some of those who wrote "white supremacist" were nudging towards the suggestion it was neo-Nazi. I believe that white supremacist isn't exactly "far-right", because far-right can concern any nation, but white supremacists are mostly white people; overtly racist nature is what I believe nudges the group closer to neo-Nazis, though I agree that not every racist is Nazi. But, you know, I was a little tired reading through so much sources (I had to reject one scholarly article because it was citing mostly to Pravda.ru and 112 Ukraine, which are both unreliable). As I said, I'm fine with your editing the list and correcting my mistakes.

Could I please ask you to copy the new scholarly articles to the list of scholarship? It would be great to have all of them in one place? Thank you for your in-depth analysis. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 05:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Mzajac: I request you move the Polish Institute of International Affairs source to "Neo-Nazi" in light of this passage:

Niektóre [z tych formacji], odwołując się do ideologii neonazistowskiej, rozwijały kontakty z innymi radykalnymi organizacjami w Europie (jak brytyjskie National Action, niemiecka Narodowa Partia Demokratyczna, włoskie CasaPound czy polscy Szturmowcy) i organizowały szkolenia, działania propagandowe, rekrutację na Ukrainie i poza nią (np. Pułk „Azow” rekrutował ochotników podczas neonazistowskich festynów w Wielkiej Brytanii czy Niemczech).

For clarity, this translates to (hand translated):

Some [of these formations], by referencing Neo-Nazi ideology, expanded contacts with other radical organizations in Europe (such as the British National Action, German National Democratic Party, Italian CasaPound or the Polish Stormtroopers) and organized trainings, propagandist actions, recruitment in Ukraine and outside it (for example the "Azov" battalion recruited volunteers during Neo-Nazi festivals in Great Britain or in Germany).

As such, the source clearly places Azov (using it as an example) as an organization referencing Neo-Nazi ideology, which should place it the Neo-Nazi section, not far-right; indeed this is one of the few places that refers to Azov directly. One of the only passages that does use the term "far-right" is the following:

15 lipca br. włoska policja, prowadząc śledztwo wobec skrajnie prawicowych grup, które walczyły na Ukrainie [...]

Note that there are no examples named, and the passage simply refers to "far-right group fighting in Ukraine" - for all we know that might include any group one could imagine (on both sides of the conflict), with or without Azov. I think the passage above this one is quite clear, and this source should be either moved to Neo-Nazi or otherwise moved out of that section as there simply isn't meaningful backing in that source for "far-right". -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 10:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@ EuanHolewicz432: I am the author of the list (see my signature at the very beginning), knowing you might want to add/(re)move sources, which I said was absolutely fine.

The Polish Institute of International Affairs, which I read in Polish, did not explicitly say "Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi regiment" nor "Azov Battalion is described as a neo-Nazi organisation" nor something similar to that, which is why it landed into the "far right" category as the closest to those. To be fair, it does not assign any label to Azov at all, but from the context of the research paper, and the regiments it names ( Aidar, Azov, Donbas, and Right Sector, of which only Donbas doesn't have a distinct political viewpoint), I deduced that the focus is on the far-right groups, which are not necessarily neo-Nazi. Moreover, sources naming the battalion nationalist have not mentioned ties to neo-Nazis at all. I do agree, though, that the placement was more of an approximation/best guess, so I will move it to an "unassigned" category. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 15:00, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Sources

1. Far-right (ultra-nationalist, extreme right and the like also here)

Stating in their own voice: The Nation; attributes links, The Irish Times, Foreign Policy, Der Standard (Austria), TVN (Poland, similar to USA's CNN), ProPublica, Deutsche Welle, Deutsche Welle (2) Associated Press, WaPo, NPR, The Straits Times, Financial Times, Radio Canada (French), Slate (French), Le Figaro, Le Monde, Bellingcat, Politico, Al Jazeera, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Meduza (dissident Russian-language source), BBC, Bloomberg, THe Sydney Morning Herald, The Globe and Mail, Der Spiegel (Germany), The Guardian, opinion, far right/neo-Nazi (undetermined), The Guardian (2)

Of which not mentioning neo-Nazi links: The Irish Times, WaPo

Attributing the claim: Wiener Zeitung (Austria, govt newspaper), BBC, La Presse (Canada, French), The Economist

Scholarship: Likhachev (cautions against slapping labels, noting they are more fighters and less ideologists), Umland (1), Umland (2), Umland (3); short notice, Lowe, Ware (or neo-Nazi - attitude unclear), Kott, Mokrushyna, Graham Macklin, [ Newline Institute, Shekhovtsov, explicitly warns against naming it neo-Nazi or terrorist, Miller-Idriss, Ishchenko, Bezruk/Umland/Weichsel (German) - extensive description of neo-Nazi ties/ideology of commanders

2. Nationalist.

Stating in their own voice: Politico (opinion), Le Temps (Switzerland), Corriere della Sera (Italy), de Volkskrant (Netherlands)

Attributing the claim:

Scholarship:

3. Neo-Nazi

News: Die Zeit (links to neo-Nazi, attributed), The Nation, The Hill, Wiener Zeitung (Austria, govt newspaper; attributing), Australian Broadcasting Corporation, their voice, Slate (French, links), Libération (reporting on CIA findings), Voice of America, Time, Providence Journal (R.I.), opinion, Meduza (dissident Russian-language source), The Guardian, opinion, far right/neo-Nazi (undetermined), The Daily Telegraph (instead of the one inserted), Foreign Policy, BBC (implies they are neo-Nazis by coverage) Dziennik Gazeta Prawna (Polish newspaper of record), Wyborcza (ditto), Deutsche Welle, Haaretz (implies but doesn't call them outright), Rzeczpospolita (third Polish newspaper of record; same as Haaretz), National Post, Il Messagero (Italy)

Scholarship: Graham Macklin, referring to Daily Telegraph, - article published on Goethe Universitaet website (Frankfurt/Main), Ware, Bandeira, Bandeira 2 (says majority is neo-Nazi), The Soufan Center (private research), Center for Documenting Digital Hate, CSIS, attributes to the FBI Andreas Umland (in Ukrainian, p. 10 on Academia preview), conference (in Russian) a researcher of Ukrainian/Russian far-right movements says folks who were part of Azov were indoctrinated by those at helm of the battalion; Black, Saressalo/Huhtinen, Gorbach, Koch, Mandel (in footnote), Pleshakov, p. 133 of his book - won't link due to copyright concerns.

4. Unassigned: The Polish Institute of International Affairs, describing links to neo-Nazis, not assigning a label, Istituto Affari Internazionali, as quoted by Mikehawk10, Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), white supremacist, not naming "neo-Nazi"; Human Rights Watch (does not explicitly assign category but fits for "white supremacist"), Petro (describes ties)

Last edited: Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 20:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Did we sidetrack in this RFC?

I looked up in the morning, re-read the RFC; started feeling that all this discussion looks kinda fishy, and it dawned on me that I misunderstood it. We usually have standard ideas which characteristics are defining for the article subject to be used in its definition. If writer, then we write "(a) Polish (2) science fiction (3) writer (4) of children's literature." If politician, then "(a) American (b) conservative (3) politician.". If a bug then it is "(a) a member of genus craniopods". If a musician, then <these crappy noise makers> You got the idea.

Now, I do not remember we ever wrote something like "Navy Seals are American democratic and patriotic special ops division". Am I correct?

If yes, than the whole RFC makes little sense beyond establishing that vast majority of independents describe it Neo-Nazi and Far right, but this is well-documented in the article body, and therefore (both) these epithets should go into the lede. But as a separate sentence, and therefore the the discussion is mostly moot. Lembit Staan ( talk) 20:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree that the discussion is mostly moot. While I do agree that stating the neo-nazi label in the lead isn't really necessary the discussion is mostly about whether this label is applicable in general, and indeed arose from its appellation on the Roman Protasevich article. I have no doubt this RfC will be used in the future as reference for whether or not stating "the neo-nazi Azov Battalion" or other such phrases is acceptable, especially as the last RfC was not comprehensive enough in the eyes of many. IMO the question doesn't really matter here, it could be about calling them neo-nazi in wikivoice anywhere in the article, and the discussion would be the same. BSMRD ( talk) 21:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

it could be about calling them neo-nazi in wikivoice anywhere in the article - sorry, no. While I agree that this RFC did a good job at collecting evidence, any RFC must ask/answer a specific question. No, we cannot call them any names in wikivoice at a whim, only if it is important for the context in question. Examples: "Azov is fighting Russians", but "Neo-Nazi Azov desecrated synagogue" or "ukr govt did a good job legalizing neo-Nazis by giving Azov an official status" (as part of criticism). An of course if the sources make this accent (and we use the epithet from the source). Lembit Staan ( talk) 23:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I am too slow to get all the nuance here. But it looks a bit like this: there was no clear consensus so an RFC was held. It failed but was determined to be not good enough, so another RFC is being held. And now we’re being told we don’t need any RFC to gauge consensus at all? — Michael  Z. 22:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Correct. We do not define military divisions in terms of their political leaning, or religious constitution or etc.. Therefore the FRC asking " In the first sentence (Azov Battalion is a ___________ Ukrainian National Guard regiment), which adjective" is malformed and a logical blunder, as explained below. Lembit Staan ( talk) 23:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m going to say we do need consensus for the words in the article. — Michael  Z. 01:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

We do need say what used sources say for each piece of text in the article. We do not need RFC to cite sources. Otherwise we never finish any politics-related artcle. Lembit Staan ( talk) 01:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment: This is RFC is a (fairly common) case of logical fallacy of " compound question", in which a presupposition is hidden: it is presupposed that we have to have a political epithet and we dive into the !voting which one is good. In fact, before that we have to establish the validity of the presupposition first. And, as I wrote, it is pretty much clear that Wikipedia traditions say "NO".] Lembit Staan ( talk) 20:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Before we decide here in a supernumerary RfC discussion that this RfC is invalid, we need to hold an RfC to determine whether or not questioning the RfC is legitimate. If that comes back positive, then we can hold an RfC on whether the above RfC has standing. I hope this is all clear. - Darouet ( talk) 01:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure thing buddy, let's hold an RFC that yours is not a joke and then follow your advice. Have fun. I am out of here until you are done with this fascinating chat. Me better go write a couple more of useless articles, such as Slovene field and house names or Schäfflertanz. Lembit Staan ( talk) 03:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

• @ Lembit Staan: I disagree with the notion that the RfC is nonsense. The thing is, Azov is not really a typical military unit. Unlike the Navy, it has a substantial proportion of openly neo-Nazi people, which I agree is the reason why Azov has had much attention from both the media and scholars. It also has given rise to an informal movement, which still is rather vaguely but still present. Besides, we do assign political ideologies to some military/paramilitary units if ideology is one of their defining traits - National Armed Forces and Armia Ludowa are examples of whole armies being assigned a political category in the first sentence of the lead. I am not aware of any policy that discourages us from making such labels.

The reason this RfC was started was, as MZajac correctly notes, was because of the so-so RfC from 2015, but there was one other reason: increasingly, users were edit-warring over the adjective in the first sentence. At times, I would see no adjective at all or suddenly the wikivoice adjective of it being neo-Nazi. It started more or less when Protasevich was hot news and fresh allegations were flowing about Azov battalion, so automatically, some attention came to Azov as well. This RfC will, I hope, resolve the question for good.

Question 1 does not presuppose the need to answer the question affirmatively (see "if any", which you conveniently omitted for some reason, and answer D); nor does question 2, because it asks not whether but how (and we must somehow deal with the evidence). Question 1 was very specific in its answers; question 2 was deliberately worded as it was so that people would vote for the idea how to implement and not for wording of implementation, which is best determined in local consensus. Citing sources can be surely done without an RfC, but, with both questions concerning the lead, they will serve as a guideline of which edits to allow and which to discard once Azov becomes in the hot edit list of articles again (as it inevitably will someday).

As for the hypothetical of whether an RfC can be challenged, as Darouet proposes, I'll put it this way: if you are going to die or strongly suffer without one, go ahead, but I strongly discourage against multiplying RfCs (and particularly making RfCs on RfCs), which consume our editing energy, time, and halt process on making the articles better, as we are waiting to close results. If there is a clear majority of people saying the RfC is bad, we can ask the admins to close the RfC on the consensus of editors it is no longer needed, without prejudice. But I don't find that a poll is needed on that at all, for the reasons mentioned above. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 03:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Whatever you say. By the way, I didnt omit D, I simply didnt notice it, overwhelmed by passion about ABC. This is a yet another informal fallacy of giving several attractive choices in the beginning, so that people got attention dispersed and fail to consider that the last option is actually correct. My final remark, putting a zillion of options into a single RFC it the best way to screw it up. And it is not "multiplying RFCs", but making questions focused on a single issue. Lembit Staan ( talk) 03:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It could be similarly argued the other way round - if I put the "do not put any adjective" as option A, there could just as well be editors saying I am favoring that option, so I just chose the default way (besides, no one has chosen option A so far, so the argument seems to fall apart). But it's OK if you didn't notice at the first glance, it happens. Anyway, the draft version seemed to be more or less approved by the people and no one in the pre-review complained too much.

My final remark, putting a zillion of options into a single RFC it the best way to screw it up. And it is not "multiplying RFCs", but making questions focused on a single issue. I tried to strike a balance between the breadth of opinions and non-proliferation of options - 5 isn't that much IMHO (A isn't really chosen), and I again have seen not much of complaints in the draft version, so I thought that the general form was good enough. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 05:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@ Szmenderowiecki: I don't doubt you meant and tried best. My point is you mixed "apples and oranges" in a single RFC and din't notice this, because it was buried among several options. One question is to pick an epithet, a completely another question is whether any epithet should be put in the definition. And I explained why I think it is unnecessary. I remember a heated discussion many years ago whether shall we write " Joseph Stalin was a tyrant ruler of the Soviet Union" or something like that, and despite the fact that 99.9% do think he is a tyrant, after very long discussion "tyrant" was out of the first sentence. Most of the discussion was about whether it is proper to use opinion-expressing epithets in the def. Somewhere down the road it was agreed that " dictator" was OK, but eventually the word "dictator" wend from top to the middle of the lede. Lembit Staan ( talk) 20:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It's difficult to take these concerns at face value, as your tone in some of these replies leaves much to be desired in terms of taking the issue seriously. Regardless, it is ridiculous to hold an RfC to support another RfC as RfCs stand on their own as expression of community consensus for best application of policy - if you oppose the idea of labeling this unit as anything an option already exists for you: options D and F, so I don't really see what your issue is - had they not existed, you'd be welcome to insert your own resolutions outside the voting options, which you already did anyway. Obviously, all those that voted against those options (D, F) support labeling the unit - this is implicit in the vote and does not require separate consensus, as that would be a waste of time, since another RfC would have to be held as to what that label would be out of necessity. Wikipedia "tradition" (I believe by this you meant - precedent) bears little meaning with regards to community consensus, as this sort of precedent was often overridden by said consensus (think Stanley Kubrick infobox dispute - ironically, for precedent). Each article stands on its own and other, similar articles might serve as guidelines as to what was done in the past to solve disputes. Obviously, the majority of those who voiced their opinions here don't believe this is applicable here. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 11:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I am ignoring your blatant disrespect to the opinion of a fellow wikipedian and putting your words in my mouth. My experience shows that RFCs with a dozen of options almost never lead to consensus. And this one is an example. Lembit Staan ( talk)

And I am ignoring your "experience". Once you have something useful to reaching consensus instead of actually sidetracking the RfC you may go on ahead. I would suggest hatting this as this it is an utterly unproductive debacle. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 17:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Your blatant disrespect is duly noted again. Lembit Staan ( talk) 17:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how these contribs improve the page or contribute to the discussion. I suggest resuming meaningful edits instead of pointless remarks cluttering the page and edit log. WP:NOTAFORUM applies. With that in mind I resume my question: how exactly will this line of questioning, that leads to an outcome that satisfies exactly no one but yourself, lead to consensus? One can point out "logical fallacies" in RfCs all day long and it won't bring us any closer to actually improving the article. There was no plausible alternative suggested. This is not helpful to anyone. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 17:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

pointless remarks cluttering - it is just an arrogant ( Personal attack removed) way to say that you do not understand my points. Please cite the clause from NOATFORUM I violated. Nobody forces you to participate in this section, which I specifically separated in order not no sidetrack the main discussion. I think my points are important; if other people think otherwise, they are free to ignore them. I am not pushing my opinion down your throat. Lembit Staan ( talk) 18:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Please explain to me how this commit strives to improve the page: [35], and then follow by explaining why you are now violating WP:NPA. Establishing a separate section is the exact opposite of what you're claiming to do - it brings special attention to your points, in comparison to you putting your grievances within your vote in the main body. I ask you to retract the statement attacking me as "arrogant" per NPA. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 18:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Please cite the text where I am attacking you as "arrogant". Yes, I wanted a "special attention" while not cluttering the main discussion and I have a right for that and you don't have any right to shout me down. Lembit Staan ( talk) 19:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Quite obviously in the statement it is just an arrogant way to say that you do not understand my points one nest above, where you attack me as being both ignorant (implicitly) and arrogant (explicitly). Please do not pretend you are not aware of this, and do not even attempt to fidget your way out of this obvious NPA violation above with some semantical ploy. Strike it out or I will do it for you as per NPA policy. You are being disruptive, derailing discussion into unproductive avenues and lodging personal attacks against me. It is you who has absolutely no right to be doing any of this, and I am well within my rights to criticize your section as nonconstructive and nonproductive as well as to point out your policy violations. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 19:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not pretending anything, I am clarifying what you have in mind. I am pretty sure attacking statements is not the same as attacking persons. As for being nonproductive, before you joined, there was a reasonable exchange of opinions. You are in your rights to criticize, but you have to do it in a proper way. Your language "It is difficult to...", "pointless remarks cluttering" , alleging that I am starting another RFC, "do not even attempt to fidget your way out", and so on, up until the suggestion to shut my discussion down - does not sound as a way to work collaboratively, where everybody has equal rights to the expression. Lembit Staan ( talk) 20:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I have struck the remark, as promised, with your attempt at semantics-ing away your NPA violation. No, it does not attack the statement, it clearly attacks the person making it - statements have no agency, they cannot be arrogant, unlike people making those statements. I left the part where you imply I am ignorant - you can keep that one. At no point did I allege that you are starting another RfC. The idea was floated so I referred to it. It is you who misinterpreted what I said and assigned it to yourself even though I have at no point attributed it to you, speaking freely in a general way re. all the discussion in this section at that point in time. Working collaboratively does not mean unabashed acceptance of every idea thrown out there like a hat in the ring - it also involves condemning unproductive avenues of effort, up to and including shutting them down - this happens all the time on WP, and is the main purpose of the collapse templates - you know this quite well. The purpose of talk pages is improving their parent article, not to chit-chat about the logical structure and fallacies of a RfC over a week after it was drafted. I'd like to point out the irony of you condemning my suggestion to hat this unproductive section, while the stated purpose of the section is to literally render a week of discussion and more than a dozen votes moot. All in all, I respectfully suggest to take criticism better in the future. I will likely not be replying in this tree as this section has thoroughly expanded its purpose (such as it was) in bettering the article. Unless you have something to add regarding the article, I insist you do the same. I eagerly await the RfC closure. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 20:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion this RFC is well formulated and the options, although numerous, are still useful to intercept all opinions on the subject. I also think that consensus has been reached by counting the votes.-- Mhorg ( talk) 18:54, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of responses, and the discussion doesn’t seem to be moving anything forward. I have listed this RFC at Wikipedia:Closure requests. — Michael  Z. 18:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Does not look as a clear consensus to me. Although based on the strength of the argument, I think Pincrete nailed it [36]. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

"Strength of argument" is not equal to "argument I agree with the most". Barely any sources have been provided to justify option D; a plethora of sources back up those that opt for descriptors, whether it be far-right or Neo-Nazi. Disregarding all those sources would be an enormous violation of NPOV and drawing comparisons with historical military units is pointless as each article stands on their own with Azov being a special case with special attention given to certain aspects in discourse; Wikipedia is not sanitizer of discourse, it is meant to represent it accurately - hence neutral point of view. The solution (in my view) lies somewhere in the middle, whether it be using both descriptors (I like the idea mentioned here about doing is the way Proud Boys does it) or something entirely different that would at least lead to partial satisfaction of both sides. Whatever it may be, it's clear the consensus is in favour of using descriptors over not using them (even by a headcount it's 23-10 any descriptor vs no descriptor for Q1 - correct me if I'm wrong in counting, but that's a ⅔ majority). -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 13:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you should read the actual responses. No one suggested to disregard the sources or do not include what these sources say. And fortunately, the Proud Boys are not a unit of US Army. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

To vote D is to disregard the sources; it is quite a simple matter. It doesn't matter what eloquent reasoning of "avoiding crudeness" or "it being too strong" you put behind it - the end result is a due claim missing from the correct position in the article and the article therefore being unreflective of mainstream opinion of the subject - which is absolutely unacceptable. The "military" argument repeated so oft here is absolutely unconvincing as Azov is clearly not considered to be in the same "league", so to speak, as (for instance) Western military units by mainstream sources - Wikipedia should reflect that, not some imagined policy of pseudo "neutrality" and disregard for RS. And since when are formatting solutions used for certain topics forbidden to be used in others? It is merely a technical means used to satisfy, at least to some degree, the majority of the users involved. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 16:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia should reflect that...". Yes, of course it should, and it does. It should describe this in sufficient detail the body of the page (which it does), and in the summary (which it does). Emphasizing same thing 100th time in the 1st phrase with strong labels only makes this page sound as an obvious anti-Ukrainian propaganda. Even this page on ruwiki does not do it in the lead. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

"anti-Ukrainian propaganda"? After all the western and first class sources employing clear and firm terms like "neo-Nazi formation" when talking about the Azov Battalion? Do we want to continue with these witch hunts? Am I understanding well and this whole new discussion that is coming out is just a way to not accept the result of the RFC?-- Mhorg ( talk) 19:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@ My very best wishes: I don't quite understand what you are implying here - that over ⅔ of users here is attempting to insert propaganda into the article by giving due weight to Western publications? We're not citing RT here, this is Time, The Guardian, ABC... you get the drill. I'd like you to clarify as to what that statement of yours exactly entails. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 19:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that all participants are acting in a good faith, but it does not mean that all of them are right (the opinions differ). Yes, I believe that making any other choice than D to question 1 will fail WP:NPOV and make this page sound as an anti-Ukrainian propaganda by repeating same thing over and over again, starting from the first phrase. And just to be clear, many other pages in WP sound in the same way precisely because they start from defining various Ukrainian organizations as "fascist"/"Neo-nazi"/whatever, pretty much in line with the narrative of official Russian propaganda. Surprisingly, even ruwiki does not do that. Now, let's consider our page Hitler. It starts from H. "was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party,[a] becoming Chancellor in 1933 ...", and so on. Yes, this is right/encyclopedic way to frame it. Compare to something like this: "Hitler was the leader of Nazi and the biggest murderer of all times". My very best wishes ( talk) 20:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is flimsy, if you can call it that... Nobody is asking for this page to read "Azov are murderers" or "Azov are killers" or whatever it is you have concocted there, and drawing a connection between Hitler and here is ridiculous as they are different pages with different purposes. All of this rests on some supposed Wikipedia precedent that simply does not exist. Each page is its own article, each article has its own "rules" within the confines of WP policy - precedent is a mere guideline, not a binding resolution, and I struggle to even find parallels to draw such guidelines. What's with this "propaganda" nonsense? Stating what the sources state - is that propaganda now? Putting weight where the sources put it - propaganda? Preposterous - simply because it reminds you of something doesn't hold water against the fact that this is a needed change. Moving an element central to this article - the fact that they are a Neo-Nazi, far-right, whatever-you-wanna-call-it organization - downwards is a simple case of due weight violation that would make the page not reflective of mainstream RS consensus; and it seems the majority of users agree with this, the question is what phrase should be used, or how it should be implemented. You keep bringing up the Russian Wiki - why would we care what the Russian Wiki does? It's their business, we're talking about here - the English Wiki. -- EuanHolewicz432 ( talk) 20:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Lembit Staan - I agree that the identification should come first, before any adjective or controversy is mentioned. I think it would be the first thing after identification, at the end of firstline per MOS:FIRST “For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence”, or perhaps be the second line. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 18:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)