Talk:Azov Brigade/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This article has incorrect links

This article has incorrect links: Russian invasion of Ukraine "Russian invasion" does not correspond to article header, nor is it NPOV, being inflammatory. Changing for consistency with target article.

176.46.125.190 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

In view of current events (2014, 2022), Russian invasion tag seems well justified. 172.93.94.68 (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi Symbology

Is this really the emblem of the battalion? http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-kiev-regime-is-not-officially-a-neo-nazi-government/5384722 It looks a bit overburdened with fascist symbols. Thalb2003 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe it was a proposed one that they wanted people to vote for online. Also, do yourself a favour and don't read globalresearch, it's a hoax site.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not able to find any photo depicting the actual use of the "composite" symbol, but the symbol itself is quite spread across the web. Should we mention this? Mach1988 (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You can find the emblem on a placard for a solidarity concert headlined by Nokturnal Mortum, a National Socialist Black Metal band. On their website here. Dancemucke (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a new Telegraph article which contains a picture showing fighters close to the leader with that emblem on their uniforms. I think it's save to add it to the article now. Dancemucke (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There is interesting video on Youtube where Azov volonteers are giving oath under Ukrainian flag which is upside down and mirror image of German Wolfsangel sign. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4491UVE_bM Upside down Ukrainian flag was used by SS division "Galician" in 1943.Arcpeter (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfsangel#Pre-1945

The symbol is an inverted Wolfbane as identified from the other wikipedia article . This simple inversion device is also present in the "Social National Assembly" use of "national socialist". This would be the same as using the alternative rotation in the swastika — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.148.163 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of BBC report on recruitment of Swedish neo-Nazi, Skillt

I've restored the removal of text about the Azov Battalion's recruitment of the neo-Nazi Michael Skillt. The removal was justified by stating that referring to the presence of a single person was undue. However, the person's notoriety was the reason it was reported by the BBC in the first place, and the report was addressed by the Ukrainian Ministry of the Interior. I've therefore restored the information, especially since it's consistent with other reporting on Azov and helps build a fuller picture of the organization. -Darouet (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Second emblem

Do we have any evidence that the new emblem - prominently featuring neo-Nazi symbols - actually has anything to do with the Azov Battalion? -Darouet (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see my question was answered above. Thank you User:Dancemucke! -Darouet (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Article for further expansion:

here. (I have no time to expand the article at this moment...) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

amazing

amazing article and amazing talk.. nobody mentions the far-right neo-fascist background of the azov batallion.. its formed by groups as "patriots of ukraine", "prawy sektor", "social-national assembly". The Emblem shows the "Wolfsangel" and the "Black Sun", which are both on the list of forbidden Neo-Nazi-Symbols in Germany. These groups were involved in terror-bombing-attacks as the Vasylkiv terrorists case. In fact these groups are ultra-nationalist terror groups. Patriots?? Seriously?? Is the english wiki ran by the pentagon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.206.251 (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're talking about, since the page is well sourced and is blunt regarding the Azov battalion's far right politics and its connection to neo-Nazi politics. -Darouet (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think neo-nazi is completely out of left field when referring to this battalion as there's been no reporting about any hate crimes or advocating of nazism covered by the news, mostly from what I've seen it's both RT and Russian news sites that have referred to them as neo-nazi's they're at worst nationalist based on their connections with ukrainian political parties. 71.190.28.83 (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you speak about vandalized version, I restore this edit.Cathry (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not Neo-Nazi symbol authentication

Okay honestly can we get some real research on both the symbol and the neo-nazi claims as there has been no statement by the battalion or it's founders expressing any form of neo-nazi ideology, at best they are nationalist. Not neo-nazi's also the referred emblem has not shown up in any pictures along with the battalion itself in it. This article is heavily bias and attempting to push the russian POV of neo-nazis in the ukrainian army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.28.83 (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Here we go. Very fine video by Vice News where you can see all of Azov's current symbolics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKnFSzMefIY&list=PLw613M86o5o7DfgzuUCd_PVwbOCDO472B&index=3#aid=P-yv_PZD0QM Arcpeter (talk) 08:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

They are Nazis and fully admit this. Saying they are not, and dismissing analysis by experts and their own testimony, is just poor form. That they say its not Nazi is irrelevant because they can say the sky is not blue as well. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 19:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There you go, there are swashbuckling Nazi adventurers fighting for the Ukraine. What's to say they won't pull another Bohdan Khmelnytsky? 69.142.222.250 (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

I would like to insert this video I filmed in Mariupol when I was embedded with the Azov Battalion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS68MYHWrMo&feature=youtu.be Bobomatto (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Article not protected —72.244.200.230 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright could be an issue, Bobomatto. "Copyrights: Agenfor Media. Reportage by Fausto Biloslavo e Roberto Di Matteo." --Dervorguilla (talk) 03:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Disputed

Is Azov Battalion a "law-enforcement agency"?

Is it a "special police company"?

Does the battalion have a "national socialist [Nazi] ideology"?

Are its members white supremacists and anti-Semites? Are some of its members?

May men and women without "National Socialist views" join? --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made a few changes based on these questions, Dervorguilla, and more changes may be needed. -Darouet (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Good points! 1) It is an official police unit now led by a Lieutenant-colonel of police. 2) The majority of volunteers are Ukrainian social-nationalists. Ukrainian social-nationalism is a right-wing, nationalist ideology which strikes at building a social-nationalist state in Ukraine. What does it mean nobody knows for sure. Hope nothing wrong! ;) 3) Nobody can tell if all of them are white supremacists and anti-Semites since people don't usually flash such credentials. 3) Yes, anybody can join but as the case of Yaroslav Honchar, «AZOV» battalion's former deputy commander shows, you won't stay there for long if you are not a hard core nationalist, precisely, not a social-nationalist! And Honchar was a hero of Euromaidan, one of the original founders of the battalion which did not help him much. Usually, «AZOV» takes young boys in, and then Oleh Odnoroshenko, who by the way holds a PHD in history and went through habilitation, successfully turns them into social-nationalists at the «AZOV»'s training center in Kiev. Hope that will help. I checked the article, updated it, and think that it is completely kosher now! ;) Which means that this menacing tag scaring people away can be safely removed. Good luck with your work, guys! Best, --Nabak (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"3) Nobody can tell if all of them are white supremacists and anti-Semites since people don't usually flash such credentials."

Thank you for bringing up this argument, Nabak. I think you're not alone in this belief. It may perhaps justify some otherwise unexplained edits by some editors who've been contributing to articles in the 'Far-right politics in Ukraine' category. Has anyone found any factual evidence or logical argument to support it?

Along these lines, has the government of Israel published any information that would suggest that Azov or SNA (or affiliated groups) are anti-Semitic? --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Thank you for bringing up this argument" it is not argument Cathry (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

http://rid.org.ua/?p=256 try to read here Історична місія нашої Нації у це переломне сторіччя – очолити й повести за собою Білі Народи всього світу в останній хрестовий похід за своє існування. Похід проти очолюваного семітами недолюдства. The historical mission of our Nation in this watershed century - lead and lead the White nations of the world in the last crusade for their existence. Сampaign against undermen led by Semites .Cathry (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Nabak, Вы правда считаете что "ничего плохого" - это Після встановлення панування Білої раси на теренах свого проживання Арійська конфедерація провадить ряд заходів щодо відновлення свого політичного та економічного домінування в країнах з небілим населенням" (с) Однороженко и "Відповідно, лікування нашого Національного організму необхідно починати з Расового очищення Нації. І тоді в здоровому Расовому тілі відродиться здоровий Національний Дух, а з ним культура, мова і все інше. Крім питання чистоти, ми повинні звернути увагу також на питання повноцінності Раси. Українці – це частина (причому одна з найбільших і найякісніших) європейської Білої Раси. Раси-Творця великої цивілізації, найвищих людських досягнень. Історична місія нашої Нації у це переломне сторіччя – очолити й повести за собою Білі Народи всього світу в останній хрестовий похід за своє існування. Похід проти очолюваного семітами недолюдства." ? (с) Билецкий и прочее Возможно, я не поняла вашей иронии, но вот выше ее тоже не очень поняли. Cathry (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the halpful source material, Cathry. The content page http://rid.org.ua/?p=256 that you cited is now archived at "Ukrayinsʹkyy Sotsial-Natsionalizm" ("Український Соціал-Націоналізм") ("Ukrainian Social-Nationalism"). An English-language translation of the homepage http://rid.org.ua is archived at Network Edition Reed. Note: The title of the original Ukrainian-language homepage, Merezheve vydannya Rid (Мережеве видання Рід), could also be translated as ‘Network Edition Family’. The homepage of February 2007 is archived at Slava Nashomu Rodu! (Слава Нашому Роду!) (Glory to Our Family!).

In your opinion, is this an official site? --Dervorguilla (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The homepage of February 2007 is archived at Slava Nashomu Rodu! (Слава Нашому Роду! Not it is not family site. "Rod (Rid)" in slavic paganism and nationalism has special meaning not common as somebodys family In ukrainian family is "родина". Cathry (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

These are Biletsky and Odnorojenko words, and it was on official site http://snaua.info/ and now that was cleaned off) ând Coogle cleaned cash too:). But do you not believe to journalist of Daily Telegraph, who cited these words? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html Meanwhile this is cash of page of snaua.info http://www.archive.today/nzjKy Cathry (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again, Cathry. The answer to your inquiry is no, I don't "believe the journalist of Daily Telegraph". Nor should I. From WP's article about The Daily Telegraph: "In June 2014, The Telegraph was criticised for its policy of replacing experienced journalists and news managers with less-experienced staff and search-engine optimisers."

Here the evidence indicates that Parfitt did not read what he says he read. I'm tagging his statement for removal. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it is not evidence of any deeds by Parfitt, and WP article is not reliable source. And still you can read this here http://www.archive.today/nzjKy or copy http://snaua.info/ukrayinskiy-sotsial-natsionalizm-2/ link to Bing or Yahoo, there is cash of page still. It is very interesting, that Google has not its cash. Do not you think it is strange? Cathry (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat strange, Cathry; maybe Google had last crawled the site during the time when the domain name service was interrupted?

To clarify my comment above: Parfitt says he read a commentary by Biletsky that uses the term "Semite-led Untermenschen" ("A crusade against the Semite-led Untermenschen"). The evidence indicates that Parfitt did not read what he says he read. --Dervorguilla (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What evidence? it was on this site when Parfitt wrote his article. http://www.archive.today/nzjKy They cleaned site only this week. "maybe Google had last crawled the site during the time when the domain name service" i hope, it is true) Cathry (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you translate the original Ukrainian-language passage for us, Cathry? --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Відповідно, лікування нашого Національного організму необхідно починати з Расового очищення Нації. І тоді в здоровому Расовому тілі відродиться здоровий Національний Дух, а з ним культура, мова і все інше. Крім питання чистоти, ми повинні звернути увагу також на питання повноцінності Раси. Українці – це частина (причому одна з найбільших і найякісніших) європейської Білої Раси. Раси-Творця великої цивілізації, найвищих людських досягнень. Історична місія нашої Нації у це переломне сторіччя – очолити й повести за собою Білі Народи всього світу в останній хрестовий похід за своє існування. Похід проти очолюваного семітами недолюдства." "So, treatment of our national body should begin with Racial cleaning of Nation. And then healthy Racial body will give birth to healthy National spirit, and culture, language and everything else. In addition to issues of purity, we must pay attention to the issue of Racial usefulness. Ukrainian people - are belong to (and are of the largest quantity and highest quality) European White Race. The Creator-Race of the great civilization, the highest human achievement. The historical mission of our Nation in this critical century - is to lead White nations of the world in the last crusade for their existence. Crusade against subhumanity( Untermenschen) led by Semites " I used google translate with some edits. Cathry (talk) 12:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What I meant to say, Cathry, is: Can you translate the cited Ukrainian-language passage?

Історична місія нашої Нації у це переломне сторіччя – очолити й повести за собою Білі Народи всього світу в останній хрестовий похід за своє існування. Похід проти очолюваного семітами недолюдства.

Straightforward translation, without edits. Thanks! --Dervorguilla (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"The historical mission of our Nation in this critical century - is to lead White nations of the world in the last crusade for their existence. Crusade against subhumanity( Untermenschen) led by Semites." or "Semite-led Untermenschen" (i hope grammar is correct) Do you pretend youn do not understand what I mean about edits according to google translate? Cathry (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not your Google Translate skills I'm questioning, Cathry!

With your assistance, I've now worked out an accurate English-language translation. Belitsky wrote: "... A campaign against Semite-led subhumanity."

Not "Semite-led Untermenschen".

The Ukrainian word "nedolyudstva" can be translated as "subhumanity" (English) or "Untermenschheit" (German). But not "Untermenschen". --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the difference? they are synonyms. Cathry (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Good question, Cathry. Menschen (people) and Menschheit (humanity) are synonyms but not precise synonyms. Far more important: Belitsky wrote in Ukrainian, not German, and we're writing in English, not German.

And the terms "Menschen" and "Untermenschen" are not found in any American- or British-English dictionary.

AP policies are given in "Associated Press Statement of News Values and Principles":

• Quotations must be accurate, and precise.

Standards and practices

• We do not alter quotations, even to correct grammatical errors or word usage.

• Quotes from one language to another must be translated faithfully.

AP Stylebook (2010). --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Below is my translation of some passages in Belitsky's statement on Ukrainian Social-Nationalism; they may or may not be important to the article.

From the mass of individuals must arise the nation; and from weak modern man, Superman...

The historic mission of our Nation ... is to head and lead the White peoples of the world in the last crusade for their existence: a campaign against Semite-led subhumanity... The task of the present generation is to create a Third Empire – Great Ukraine... If we are strong, we take what is ours by right and even more, we will build a superpower empire...

Is this translation reasonably accurate and precise? Is the material significant or consequential? If so, I think we could add at least some of it to the 'Ideology' section. --Dervorguilla (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC) 00:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is precise, and i think it is significant to this article and to Social-National AssemblyCathry (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Which of these two interpretations would be more accurate, Cathry?

A. If we are strong, we take what is ours by right and even more; and we will build a superpower empire.

or

B. If we are strong, we take what is ours by right; and we will do even more: we will build a superpower empire. --Dervorguilla (talk) 10:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"A" variant. Cathry (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, if you don't believe that a journalist for a respected publication is "telling the truth" or something like that, you need to take your concerns to the reliable source noticeboard. -Darouet (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, the terms "untermensch" and "untermenschen" (pl.) are both recognized in English as Nazi descriptors of supposedly inferior people. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), "Esp. with reference to the Nazi régime (1933–45): a racially inferior person, a sub-human person." The OED gives multiple examples of the terms' use in English, e.g. "To the Germans, Lithuanians were Untermenschen, a second-class people to be exploited and, when politically expedient, enslaved." -Darouet (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to help, Darouet. But do you mean to use the Oxford English Dictionary as a source for supporting the statement that the Ukrainian word nedolyudstva (singular) should be translated as the English word "Untermenschen" (plural)?

Granted, there is no Oxford Ukrainian Dictionary; and neither the Ukrainian Practical Dictionary nor the Oxford Russian Dictionary lists nedolyudstva or its cognate nedolyudskaya as a Ukrainian or Russian word. But the ORD does list nedochelovek, which it translates as "subhuman" (sing.); and the UPD lists lyudstvo, which it translates as "humanity" (sing.). The evience suggests that nedolyudstva should be translated as "subhumanity".

Do you think that Parfitt is a reliable source for the statement that nedolyudstva (sing.) should be translated as "Untermenschen" (pl.)? You can post the question at RSN yourself, but I'd ask you to first study WP:CONTEXTMATTERS ("Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made.") and WP:RSN ("Many sources are reliable for statement 'X', but unreliable for statement 'Y'."). --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 00:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Quotation tagged as {Failed verification|reason=Wording altered} and {Disputed|for=mistranslation}. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dervorguilla, your argument is an exercise in original research: you don't like Parfitt's published translation, and earlier argued that "untermenschen" isn't a word used in the English language (it is). Now you're simply arguing that your own translation is superior to that of Parfitt and The Telegraph. In any event your statements above only tend to corroborate the professional translation. -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The Ukrainian term lyudstva means "humanity" or "humanities", Darouet. Ukrainian Practical Dictionary (1991). The coined Ukrainian term nedolyudstva can be faithfully translated as "subhumanity" or "subhumanities". Parfitt mistranslates it as "Untermenschen". "Untermenschen" means "subhuman persons." The Ukrainian term for "subhuman persons" would be nedolyudyna, not nedolyudstva. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dervorguilla - well I'm not sure what we should do in this case. If you don't want to take it to RSN, then maybe I should. The problem is, you may be right about the translation, but the terms "subhumanity" and "untermenschen" are similar, and it's hard to figure out a basis on which to challenge the translation. I'm actually curious about what RSN might propose. -Darouet (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

RSN good to me, Darouet. The question I'd ask is whether Parfitt is reliable for the statement that nedolyudstva means "Untermenschen".

(We could also ask whether pokhid means "crusade" rather than "campaign" in this context. And there is a real difference in meaning. But here the Parfitt translation is in accord with some dictionary translations, so in any case we'd end up using either the Parfitt translation or both.)

Meanwhile I'm adding some material that gives more context. Perhaps we may not even need to ask at RSN. --Dervorguilla (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Salary

Why does a "volunteer" Battalion's members get a salary from the ministry of internal affairs? Isn't that almost the definition of "professional" instead?B01010100 (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"volunteer. 1a. One who enters into military service voluntarily but who is then subject to discipline and regulations like other soldiers — opposed to conscript." --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

So a professional soldier? Checking other articles of professional armies it seems that the word volunteer is not commonly used to describe these soldiers. Perhaps we should clarify its use here? B01010100 (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

We wouldn't want anyone to think that the use of the word volunteer here is meant as opposite to paid employee or something.B01010100 (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Article is wildly incorrect

It is very clear that this article has been edited and maintained by elements working for the Kremlin. Many of the assertions are bizarre and completely unsupportable. Unclear how this has been tolerated by wikipedia mods. Look at the IP addresses.
[Added by 24.87.162.95 (talk), 04:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)]

Unsubstantiated assertion

"much of what Azov members say about race and nationalism is strikingly similar to the views of the more radical Russian nationalists fighting with the separatist side."[21] is an assertion from an article by Shaun Walker of The Guardian. Reading the article reveals it to be completely unsubstantiated. It appears that Mr. Walker sees his opinion that Igor Stelkov sees himself as a Czarist general because of his interest in the Imperial Russian Army as a substantiating argument. It isn't. It's like saying that interest in the Eastern Front of WWII is a sign of Stalinism. If the article is going to report Mr. Walker's opinion, it needs to be clear that it is his opinion and only his opinion.

Shaun Walker is one source that needs to be vetted very carefully, since he promoted the "weapons of mass destruction" falsehood in the runup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

75.111.20.66 (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Defected FSB lieutenant is FAKE

Two sources provided, both from Ukrainian mass media and are barely reliable. The only proof presented is picture of his ID with information hand written in it. Real FSB ID looks different and have all info printed on it, not hand written.

Try to find any info about this "FSB lieutenant" in any serious Western mass media.

Ylia Bogdanov's story is a FAKE which was already busted many times and should be removed from an article. Arcpeter (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Volunteering

How long do they volunteer for? Is there a contract? Ledboots (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Azov Regiment

Azov battalion has been reorganized into the "Azov Regiment of the Ukrainian National Guard." Most Russian and Ukrainian media now refer to it as "Azov Regiment" and not "Azov Battalion." Should the title of the article change from Azov Battalion to Azov Regiment?Koonter (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between a battalion and a regiment? 69.142.222.250 (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Regiment is made up of several battalions. Usually the military structure goes team headed by a corporal or a sergeant, 2-3 teams make a squad headed by a staff sergeant, ~4 squads make a platoon headed by a lieutenant, ~4 platoons make a company which is headed by a captain, ~4 companies make a battalion headed by a lt. colonel, ~2 battalions make a regiment headed by a colonel, ~4 regiments make a division, headed by a major general, ~2 divisions make a corps, headed by a general, and ~2 corps make an army.Koonter (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, the unit now is part of the Ukrainian regular formations of the National Guard and not a volunteer. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Claimed Jewish member

The sourced USA Today article only establishes that a Jewish trainer "for the Ukraine's military" taught a group of Azov Battalion members for two weeks. Can a source for Jewish members be found, or should the claim be reworded or removed? 220.233.40.161 (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. -Darouet (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This article also makes the false claim that the Battalion is funded by Jewish oligarch Ihor Kolomysky. An interview with its Commander falsifies this claim:

Lyashko and Kolomoysky never helped Battalion "Azov" - Commander

MP Oleg Lyashko never helped battalion, regiment and now "Azov". This, answering users' questions during online konferenntsiyi Online TSN.ua , said the regimental commander Andrey Beletsky. "MP Lyashko, Kolomoysky Akhmetov, the CIA and" Mossad "never helped battalion" Azov ". These are characters who battalion - a minimum of material assistance - not involved, "- said Beletsky. Also commander denied involvement in the creation Lyashko battalion.

TheDJW001 (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi TheDJW001, this is a different article you're talking about now, and the contention was never that newsweek or USA Today printed false material; rather, that the material was being cited here incorrectly. I can't evaluate the reliability of pohlyad.com by the way. -Darouet (talk) 14:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

References

one thing i noticed about the photo on the right was that the azov member was holding a Tavor assault rifle, that is a rifle made in, you guessed it, Israel. I find it ironic that a neo nazi battalion is armed with jewish weapons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.206.111 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Regiment or Battalion

As has already been noted above, it seems that the Azov Battalion has become part of a larger entity. Essentially, this means that the article needs to be moved, plus that the content be reorganised to reflect the nature of the history of the formation as a volunteer battalion to current information as to whether/how this expansion has impacted on prior right-wing ideologies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Good question: maybe the new format will be rid of their far-right neo Nazi ideologies. --Mondschein English (talk) 11:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Azov battalion existed, its ideology and actions have been widely covered. If a new unit is formed out of its soldiers, we can start a new article, but Azov battalion still needs to be covered. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mondschein English and MyMoloboaccount: Agreed. I see this as being parallel to the Novorossiya (confederation) which should be treated as being historical until/if the 'project' is resumed in some format or another. While I initially objected to the Novorossiya project being treated as being 'in the real world', it did evolve as WP:GNG for context, although I still firmly of the conviction that it needs to be cleaned up, as does United Armed Forces of Novorossiya.

Again, dependent on the details regarding how the Azov battalion has been merged into a regiment, if there have been significant changes to the newer 'regiment', this article merits being a stand alone historical overview of the battalion from its inception as it also meets WP:GNG. Once we have a grasp of the details, we can establish whether it should be an historical WP:SPINOFF of the 'regiment' or vice versa. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

If the Ukrainian Government distances itself from those sporting Neo-Nazi Symbols (like I hope it will, although I cannot say this otherwise I am doing my SOAP thing), then the article needs to be re-written. Praying for Peace, --Mondschein English (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the circumstances, for the purposes of Wikipedia it's essential to find reliable sources for changes. At this point in time, I haven't found the time to search through Russian language and Ukrainian language articles addressing the situation and would like to see information that can be used for the content of the article in order to establish reliably reported facts. There have been a number of editors contributing to this article's content who are in possession/are aware of changes as they've been making changes without addressing other editors as to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. In order to move ahead with article content decisions, we all need to know what's going on.

If no other contributors engage here within the next couple of days, I'll have my work cut out for me in searching for this information (which is an editor time and energy sinkhole considering that others must be aware of the situation). Nevertheless, if I have to spend time researching the issue, I'll do so. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The cite I recently improved [1] (ref name=reuters-20150325) uses both batallion and regiment, so might be partial sourcing. It says "Azov battalion [used 3 times] ... Azov was enrolled as a regiment of Ukraine's National Guard in September". It seems to imply both names might be valid, but I think you'd need further sourcing to be sure enough for a titel name change here. Hope that helps a bit. Rwendland (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for joining in, Rwendland. Yes, I've read through that article which states that "Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric" since the battalion was incorporated... which indicates that there have been changes in what's tolerated. As there doesn't appear to be much info in the English language press, it looks as if I need to trawl through reliable Russian and Ukrainian sources (i.e., KievPost and the Russian press that aren't directly in the pockets of their governments and freely criticise their governments). Details of the conditions of being 'merged' into another regiment need to be examined carefully in order to establish how deeply the changes actually run to establish how to approach the subject, and whether it requires a spin-off article or whether it all remains in the same article with the historical context for the Azov component. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello to everybody, well, I had the chance to meet two Ukrainians who are serving in AZOV Regiment (Yes, it is a Regiment) and they told me lot about current situation of this unit. I made a little research and I found several sources with fresh, updated informations about "Azov"'s current status and organisation, so I took the initiative and today I added them. I leave to Editors' judgement to review and check them. Personally, I don't think that it's up to Wikipedia to convict or solve from alleged accusation of Neonazism: otherwise we will enter in an "edit war" and in inflamations. "Azov" Regiment still has in its ranks element who openly declare themselves Neo-nazi or whatever, but also many others who are not (as the two Volunteers I met), and who limit to define themselves "true Ukrainian nationalists". But none of the officials of this unit has ever released nazi-like comments or statements, on the contrary: on all sources I have always found journalists asserting it, and ukrainian military sources strongly denying it. Seriously, I wouldn't label an entire organization just because some press troupe met and interviewed 2-3 guys with nazi tattoos and some swastika on their helmets, they just can't possibly be all like that. Wikipedia is not a tribunal: opinions and statements should obviously be reported, but from both sides. Stay neutral. --Claudiocare (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This is great that you have done your own research, but would you please stop removing Neo-Nazi from the lede. This is how the battalion is characterized in independent reliable sources. I am sorry that you do not like it, but you need to reach consensus first.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking an interest, Claudiocare. As noted by Ymblanter, we are in need of reliable sources, not personal research. Until we have verifiable and reliable secondary sources in order to further develop the article, the content of this article stands as is. Wikipedia is not a 'tribunal', but it is most certainly WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your observation. Take notice that mine was not altogether my own research: I certainly have taken interest from what reported by actual Azov servicemen to me personally, but what I have added was taken from reliable and verifiable sources, and I duly quoted them.

As for "neo-nazi", you can certainly restore the term in the lead, but I removed not because I don't like it (it's not a problem of mine) but because I feel it is not true. You stated that "independent reliable sources" all agree about this, but what are "reliable sources"? To my opinion, official authorities can be so defined, certainly not all the press articles quoted as references, to whom I presume you refere as "reliable" and "independent", but being, as said, press reports are hardly that and they express more the opinions of their authors than actual facts. Let's be honest, a few comments released somewhere by some individuals cannot, for no reason, reasonably be taken for an expression of ideology of an organization composed by 1000 people, no matter how many times these comments bounced on the web.

Moreover: 1) none of Azov's Regiment spokesmen or officials have ever defined the unit as "neo-nazi" neither have they advocated to pursue nazi ideology or anything related to national-socialism or fascism, 2) Ukrainian Government sources have always decisively rejected any allegation of nazi ideology within any of their military units, including Azov Regiment.

Therefore I consider deeply incorrect and, actually, not neutral to label as "neo-nazi" (which is actually something serious) an entire organization just because some of its members have been pictured of filmed with nazi tattoos or symbols. And what of the 70-80% of Regiment's servicemen who don't feel themselves "neonazis" at all? WP should report facts, and opinions, if cited, must be cited as such, and separated from actual facts.

I feel more correct stating this: "Azov is a military unit whose strong nationalist views and indoctrinement have attracted, among others, also elements coming from Ukraine's extreme right-wing parties and movements, and that has been often subject of controversy because in early stage of its existance, some of its members publicly claimed to have neo-nazi sympathies. However, Azov's spokesmen as well as Ukrainian Armed Forces sources have always strongly denied any pursue of nazi ideologies".

This would be just. Defining this unit in a certain way only because, in its past, some members issued stupid statements, seems to me excessive and, above all, untrue. WP has to stay neutral, even with those whom you clearly despise. Personally I feel repulsive any reference to nazism, fascism, and I couldn't be more distant from people expressing simpathy for such ideologies. But I feel just as repulsive to hastily issue labels based only on "one-sided" reports. But, I say t again, I leave to your mature and careful consideration to choose the best way to deal with this matter. Sorry for the long thread, and thanks again for your attention!--Claudiocare (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiocare (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The battalion itself and the Ukrainian government officials are clearly not independent in this case, and their opinion should not be given much weight (though it should obviously be stated in the article). The question is, as discussed elsewhere on this page, where the majority of independent reliable sources call the unit "neo-Nazi". I did not perform a thourough research, but I see that there are plenty of pretty reliable sources which do call it neo-Nazi, and, in addition, the US congress denied any aid to them on the basis that they are neo-Nazi organization. This is not actually related with how many people in the unit share actual neo-Nazi views (as I said elsewhere, this fraction is possibly very low), but with the perception of the unit in the media. I would certainly welcome a careful analysis of the world media with respect of the Azov Battalion.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't base Wikipedia articles on personal feelings and anecdotes. Your proposal is highly POV as it omits that reliable sources consider Azov to be neo-Nazi, or that its founder and main commander is a well known neo-Nazi calling for "crusade" against "untermenschen", that the denials that they are neo-Nazis are not seen as credible by journalists who interviewed them and so on.Azov is a military unit whose strong nationalist views and indoctrinement have attracted-that is highly misleading-Azov didn't attract Neo-Nazis-it was founded by them. As to Nazis claiming to be innocent, nothing new. We had the "Clean Wehrmacht Myth" a long time ago, where Nazi officers would claim post-WW2 that Wehrmacht was clean of war crimes, didn't knew about atrocities, didn't rape civilians, and didn't engage in program to exterminate Slavs and Jews, or even that they weren't Nazis at all.Which we all known to be untrue.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"We don't base Wikipedia articles on personal feelings and anecdotes"(!?) followed by OR parallels and your own personal diatribe. Please get off your hobbyhorse. Ymblanter's response to Claudiocare was clear and concise enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Care to explain what you mean? Sources about Azov clearly state that it was founded by Neo-Nazis, and Nazi ideology and atrocities are well known. What is in your view OR about this?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You've been a Wikipedia editor long enough to know better than to leave forum-style comments such as this: "As to Nazis claiming to be innocent, nothing new. We had the "Clean Wehrmacht Myth" a long time ago, where Nazi officers would claim post-WW2 that Wehrmacht was clean of war crimes, didn't knew about atrocities, didn't rape civilians, and didn't engage in program to exterminate Slavs and Jews, or even that they weren't Nazis at all.Which we all known to be untrue." Which RS are you quoting here? Enough soapboxing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a question. Was going to move the page but figured I would ask first. It's a regiment, right? Why does this article still call it a battalion? I understand common use has a role, but if it's dated, we cannot just leave it in the old name, right? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Do the Azov Folks still report to Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs?

Hello everyone, Do the militia folks form the Azov Battalion/Regiment still report to Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs? Are there any reliable sources that they no longer do? Thanks in advance! --Mondschein English (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Per the observation left by Rwendland in the section above (an article I'd already encountered), the answer would be yes, they do. It's the change in the tone of their commanding officer's 'rhetoric', and what are obviously directives from above (i.e., dropping the "Patriot of Ukraine" supremacist crud) that indicate some form of pressure to conform to another ideology. How deeply this 'change' runs is what needs to be addressed in order to get this article back on track.

As Aleksandr Grigoryev was the first to bring the change in status to the table, I'm hoping he can shed further light on the subject and point us in the right direction for other language sources (Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, etc.) offering more in the way of detail. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a scholarly article in German on Azov battalion, it notes no changes after it was made a regiment. Sine all major media and researchers still use the name battalion, even after the re-organization it is for the best to leave it under current name.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Mondschein English, I tried to correct it, but the user "Ism schism" called it a "POV" for whatever reason and stated that I need to provide some kind of references. The National Guard of Ukraine is still under development and there is a scarce information about its structure. However it is a fact that the battalion was transformed into regiment and moreover it is not a voluntary unit but actually a regular government unit of the National Guard of Ukraine since the autumn of 2014. The native language Wikipedia as well as the Russian Wikipedia calls it a regiment. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: Do you have a link to the German article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Stolen Symbols and Ideology

Before calling a symbol "fascist", please do a basic research on it. The German Nazis have adopted and ruined good reputation of many symbols, most of which are not even of Germanic origin. Just do yourselves a favor and search Google for <ancient Slavic symbols>, I promise the result to be educational. Also, the difference between fascists and boys from "Azov", that "Azov" does not care about ethnic purity, nationality or race, only intentions and deeds matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bread&Solt (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your private opinion. I am sure you will be delighted to learn that earlier this week the US House of Representatives classified Azov as a neo-Nazi organization.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not bite the newcomers Ymblanter. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Usually this topic does not attract genuine newcomers, but let us see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ymblanter, it is a nonsense. The US House of Representatives adopted a bill about it and it does not really mean anything. The United States has to fix their own issues by stopping to pay pension to the former Nazi soldiers who reside in the US. Azov is a government organization in Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You are a US citizen, not me. Phone your congressman. If the Netherlands starts supporting Nazi soldiers, I will intervene.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The House of Representatives may have adopted a bill as to the Azov Battalion, however there's a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH happening around the purported 'Wolfsangel' symbol. Considering that op-ed articles written about the subject, most particularly interviews with the hard-core members who enlisted from the beginning - have them on record as stating that they've used in terms of its runic (not Nazi) reference - it strikes me as bizarre and highly unlikely that hard-core neo-Nazis would deny the relationship. They had no qualms about expressing extreme right, fascistic positions, yet the so-called 'Wolfsangel' is something they preferred to cover up? Calling planet earth! There's something not quite right going on here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is your personal view IH, there are dozens of mainstream reliable sources confirming the use of this Nazi symbol by this neo-Nazi militia. In addition they use SS runes, swastikas and openly support Nazi ideology. This is all covered by reports from such respectable media as The Telegraph, BBC, ZDF, Die Welt and many, many others. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Point taken, MyMoloboaccount. We follow what secondary RS tell us and, if that's what they're telling us, it's in accordance with Wikipedia policy that that's the position represented. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@Molobo. While certain members of this unit may indeed be "right-wing", nationalist and supremacist (as described in publications), I believe that the claim about "fascists in Kiev" holds significantly less ground than the claim about putinist Hitler-like aggression against other countries from Moscow: Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine ... who is next? My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what we are arguing about here - are there concrete changes being proposed? My very best wishes, in this edit you removed some primary source text from the SNA website. That's probably correct, but I'm making a bookmark since the writings are worthwhile to have on record. -Darouet (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of external links

I've just removed the external links section here. I've never encountered the use of links to external images in a Wikipedia article, mainly as it probably breaches copyright and is an undesirable method to get around it.

As it stands, there's a WikiCommons link for any readers interested in viewing the gallery there.

There was also a YouTube video being used as an external link which was of no merit. There's no point in linking to ephemera which is also likely to be a copyright violation (as it was taken from a Ukrainian news channel and uploaded by an unaffiliated individual).

If any editors feel that there are relevant external links and wish to create an external links section, please make sure that the content is genuinely relevant and does not breach WP:COPYVIO. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Iryna. -Darouet (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing and adding information, plus removal of dead links

Please take care not to editorialise and introduce WP:UNDUE content, WP:WORDS, etc... and do not remove dead links per WP:REDDEAL. Zumoarirodoka, please follow WP:BRD. I'm quite prepared to copyedit and fill in refs after going through the content I've reverted, so don't revert before discussion. Simple copyediting is easily redressed: restoring content and eliminating heavily WP:POV content is not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. Which content do you claim I added which is WP:POV? – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 22:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologise, Zumaorirodka, but I didn't have enough time to address the fact that your copyediting is primarily reasonable, but that you need to check on the content other editors have introduced prior your clean-ups. By this, I mean Cathry's WP:UNDUE and undiscussed entries here and here, then MyMoloboaccount's further UNDUE and addition here.

In the meantime, in your first edit, you'd changed a wikilink to a WP:EUPHEMISM (a period of unrest in Ukraine), plus WP:SYNTH (also the head of two neo-Nazi political groups), and changed "Azov has since been incorporated into and is armed by Ukraine’s interior ministry" to "Azov has since been armed by Ukraine's Interior Ministry, as well as forming part of its structure", entirely removed "The unit has denied being a Ukrainian nationalist group and states that a majority of its members are Russian-speaking Ukrainians and that multiple Russian citizens have joined the unit." plus, plus, plus.

I realise that you're trying to balance the content in good faith, but you're tampering with the integrity of the article by introducing WP:ALLEGED on one hand, simultaneously trying to redress WP:CLAIM in other areas. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain what is wrong with our edits? I saw you reverted a big amount of information based on reliable and NPOV sources. Cathry (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? Where's the 'big amount' of WP:DUE content I removed. Also, don't restore plain links, overwriting properly {{cite}}ed references. Go through the content you wish to restore/add without making a mess of the citations.

Incidentally, Cathry, I'm glad to see that you and MyMoloboaccount as so keenly onboard with the use of Anton Shekhovtsov as an irrefutable authority on Eastern Europe. I know that I can now count on both of you to assist in supporting me in updating the Racism in Poland article which currently reads predominantly as an article on how much racism Poles have endured. With a little help from Shekhovtsov, we can redress the POV unbalance of that article. For example, we can reference this, this, this, and this, along with information from here would make for a good start. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It is article about Azov, not about something else. Cathry (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to discuss edits on different articles, please take it to their pages. As to information on Azov's ideology and background of its members, this is obviously relevant.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Also if you believe that Richard Sakwa is an unreliable source,take it please to Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Here is his biography:Prof. Sakwa joined the School in 1987, was promoted to a professorship in 1996 and was Head of School between 2001 and 2007, and in 2010 he once again took over as Head of School until 2014. While completing his doctorate on Moscow politics during the Civil War (1918-21) he spent a year on a British Council scholarship at Moscow State University (1979-80), and then worked for two years in Moscow in the 'Mir' Science and Technology Publishing House. Before moving to Kent he lectured at the University of Essex and the University of California, Santa Cruz. Prof. Sakwa is an Associate Fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, and since September 2002 a member of Academy of Learned Societies for the Social Sciences. This is highly reliable source and I don't see any reason why it should be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 05:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am well aware of Sakwa and there's no need to replicate his bio here. What is in question is the recently published book you are sourcing which has only been reviewed by a few news sources with mixed responses (i.e., here, here, here, plus numerous others)... but academic discussion has been lean. While I don't doubt Sakwa's credentials, I don't condone cherry picking. I'm about to log off for the day, but I will be bringing the content and context to the RSN tomorrow.

Looking forward to working with you and Cathry on improving the "Racism in Poland" article as I know you have a very passionate interest in it. Until we speak again (soon)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

As your mentioned earlier Shekhovtsov and Umland rather russophobian, so it is not very pleasant for me to use their articles (in Ukrainian case it is forced necessity), but if you want to use that sources in Racism in Poland i do not mind. Cathry (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No no, Cathry. I have no intention of doing so as I consider it to be UNDUE to the point of FRINGE. I realise that I was being WP:POINTy, for which I sincerely apologise to both you and MyMoloboaccount. I'm extremely cautious about the use of 'experts' just because they have a high internet profile, which is why, as I've explained to MyMolobo before, I refused to budge on the use of Shekhovtsov regarding the characterisation of the Donbass general elections here. As you've noted, his views, Umland's views, etc. are undoubtedly extremist. Essentially, most of the material regarding issues in Poland is confined to his blog. In the instance of the Azov Battalion he is being cited by multiple RS specifically as to his views, therefore, on merit of context, it is appropriate cite him here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think their views are extremist (?), they are recognized experts, i only mean their personal views can be read in their works (as personal views of any human specialist). In this article Shekhovtsov is cited only three times and Umland one, and i don't see problems in this information Cathry (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about my own interpretation of their academic positions, I'm talking about what mainstream academia accepts as the popular position regarding any area of research. This doesn't automatically mean that, as recognised academics in specialised fields, any work by them is ripe for plucking. Context is of primary concern for Wikipedia articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV and BLP problems

• Here is my problem with this. This page tells (first phrase in introduction): "The Azov Battalion is a far-right neo-Nazi all-volunteer paramilitary militia." This sounds like a statement of fact. No, this is not fact, but a claim in certain media. Moreover, after looking at the quoted sources, it becomes clear that authors only tell that a few members of the unit apparently professed supremacist views, and so on. Given that Ukrainian authorities and a number of publications in other sources said this is not a neo-Nazi militia, claiming this as a fact is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Now, given that many living members of the unit apparently do not share such views, I believe this is also a potential BLP issue. My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It is claim of a large number of mainstream media and also of the US congress. I think you have to accept this.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure, I accept it. Now, let's check WP:NPOV. It tells: "Avoid stating opinions as facts" (as this article currently does) and later tells even "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.". That is what I am talking about. In particular, the assertion about "Neo-Nazi militia" was contested by the Ukrainian ministerial adviser, Anton Geraschenko, who explained why exactly this claim is entirely wrong - as supported by a number of RS currently used on this page. If this is not enough, one can bring more RS to challenge/disprove the assertion. Is it needed? Here is one of the problems. Current version declares the entire unit "neo-Nazi", while even the most critical RS claim only one or two people be neo-Nazi. I am sure one can find enough people with antisemitic and supremasist views in Russian Army or US Army. Obviously, there are publications about this. Does it make the entire force or certain units in these armies "Neo-Nazi"? My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a fine line between attribution and WP:COATRACK... and that's my primary concern (aside from potential BLP violations). It's become a common factor on all articles surrounding events in Ukraine: the moment a new opinion or report comes through, we have POV-ers from all sides jumping in without any thought for research, reasonable attribution, RECENTISM and NOTNEWS. They've all become dumping grounds for megabytes of UNDUE content. Nevertheless, My very best wishes, so long as it's attributed we have to go with the flow simply because sane Wikipedians won't touch this or Middle East current affairs (and who'd blame them). The cleaning up process will have to take place after some form of perspective develops after the fact(s!). Of course that shouldn't prevent us from agonising over how far any of the articles have been dragged in one direction or the other as they're further developed, but accountability lies with the sources first and foremost. Unlike paper encyclopaedias, Wikipedia is anyone's to edit, and popular conceptions (whether or not they are misconceptions) get first priority. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

" I am sure one can find enough people with antisemitic and supremasist views in Russian Army or US Army. " Maybe, but you cannot find there units with tipical neo-nazi symbols. And it is doubtful there are units lead by leader of neo-nazi organization and with such hig percentage of its members Cathry (talk) 04:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Reality check here, please. If you'd actually read the articles being cited for this article, I'm stunned and amazed by the fact that you haven't noticed that some make a point of marvelling at the hypocrisy of 'fascism' vs 'fascism'. Unless you've been personally involved in both psychological evaluations and body checks of the Azov Battalion and separatist 'volunteers', you've missed the boat entirely.

As you're presenting yourself to be knowledgeable in this field, could you please point to the salient information as to the estimated percentage of neo-Nazis and sundry supremacists noted anywhere? I haven't seen any such calculations in the articles unless treated as a generic interpretation of 'Azov Battalion'. Could you please provide RS on which to base WP:CALC for the infobox? My thanks in advance. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe the actual number of people with neo-Nazi views there is very small, the problem is that reliable sources just call the whole battalion neo-Nazi, not just on the basis of the prevalent views of its members. Obviously Ukrainian sources do not do it, and this should be clearly indicated, but i am not sure it should necessarily go to the lede.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Here this number estimated as half of battalion "Примерно половина бойцов щеголяют откровенно нацистскими и скинхедскими тату: свастиками, рунами СС — двойными молниями" http://reporter.vesti-ukr.com/art/y2014/n21/8299-azov-mariupol-zachistka.html Cathry (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Reliable and mainstream sources name this unit as neo-Nazi and point out statements and symbolism belonging to Neo-Nazi ideology. That the unit and some officials dispute this won't change this. For example we have North Korea described as Stalinist dictatorship despite claims by officials that it is not.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

void stating seriously contested assertions That Azov is neo-Nazi isn't seriously contested by mainstream and reliable sources. Current version declares the entire unit "neo-Nazi", while even the most critical RS claim only one or two people be neo-Nazi.RS name the whole unit as Nazi not "only one or two people". --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Unfortunately, none of you responded to my concern. An opinion by a significant number of sources (that was disputed by other sources, including a Ukrainian official - quoted in this page), has been (mis)represented as a fact, which goes against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. OK, Perhaps I will find some time to fix it later. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Molobo. Would you agree rewriting introduction exactly as in Russian wikipedia? It complies with WP:NPOV much better than this English version. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collective effort; 2 editors should not decide anything on their own (see WP:OWN). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't use other Wikipedias as source for English Wikipedia, neither am I able to read or understand Russian.Unfortunately that beautiful language wasn't tought to me in school.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

However: yes I think the introduction as in Russian wikipedia complies with WP:NPOV much better than the current English version. The English version first declares them Neo-Nazi's and the fact that the Azov Battalion has dismissed accusations that their unit promotes fascist symbolism is burried deep down in the article... How the hell can that be NPOV? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This of course CAN be NPOV. For example, if you take a page on a fringe theory such as New Chronology (Fomenko), the lede would state this is a fringe theory, and the counter-statements that creators of the theory do not consider it fringe will be buried up down in the body (or not even given at all). The question is whether the current version IS NPOV, which in the end of the day comes to whether the majority of independent reliable sources (and Russian and Ukrainian sources are obviously not independent) calls them Neo-Nazi. My impression is this this is indeed the case, but I did not perform a careful analysis. It would be great to perform it, but I just plainly have no time.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I see your point Ymblanter; but being called Neo-Nazi is a big thing, bigger then being called a bad historian.... I did some patching up of the lead; removing only trivial or double info; I hope this helps a bit already... I too lack time.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream view and sources confirm that this is a Neo-Nazi unit. While they deny it, it is nothing special. After all Nazi Germany also claimed it was fighting conspiracy by Allies, but we do not present its views as valid fact. I also note that you included Daily Beast. I wouldn't consider it particularly reliable source, but if we are using it,the article makes a very lengthy and strong argument that Azov's denial of being Nazis isn't credible as the journalists observed a massive amount of Nazi symbols and tattoos among Azov soldiers.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

There are neo-Nazi's who don't deny this it. I just think we should tell all sides of the story. If members of Azov deny being neo-Nazi this should be mentioned in the lead. If not Wikipedia is simplifying too much. I want to stop simplifying, not whithwash Azov. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

PS I do not know much of Daily Beast. But I only used 1 sentence of 1 of its articles. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Yulia. Thank you! I do not think anyone can blame our colleagues on ruwiki of sympathy to Ukrainian neo-Nazi. Russian version refers to the same sources and tells about all these claims and (partly) counter-claims. It is just written more logically and in a more neutral style - this English version reads like a blatant propaganda. I think we should fix it. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time at the moment. My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't use Wiki as a source MVBW, take note that all mainstream western sources confirm that this is a neo-Nazi unit with neo-Nazi ideology being its dominant background.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MyMoloboaccount per WP:WINARS. To nominate a preferred rendition from another wiki is CHERRY: English language Wikipedia is accountable to itself and its readers when dealing with the presentation of the under-sourced current affairs subject matter this article deals, and should not cater to the hype. The lead needs to provide context and attribution as a safeguard against NOT#JOURNALISM and RECENTISM rather than adopt a strident SYNTH interpretation of self-referencing sources (even the John Conyers press release draws on dated sources that had already been cited in the content). The lead should not reflect generalisations (also covered by CHERRY) based on the small number of refs being recycled, particularly as the fundamental sources being re-used explicitly reflect that only a minority of recruits are self-defined neo-Nazis. As I have always understood it, our position as editors is innately conservative and must not be misleading. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

fundamental sources being re-used explicitly reflect that only a minority of recruits are self-defined neo-Nazis. Not really, there is denial by one spokesman but sources take care to point out that this is not a credible denial in face of what was seen at the unit. Furthermore we know the unit is under parent agency of neo-Nazi radical organizations and is led by a neo-Nazi activist itself who is the top commander.All reliable sources agree this is a neo-Nazi organization, there are no reliable sources denying this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Social-National Assembly

If this is the parent agency in infobox I believe we should mention that it is(as per the article itself)-assemblage of the ultra-nationalist and neo-Nazi radical organizations --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Current lead seems to assume all people who read Wikipedia are stupid....

The current lead of this article states: "The Azov Battalion (Ukrainian: Батальйон Азов) is a far-right neo-Nazi all-volunteer paramilitary militia forming part of military reserve of National Guard of Ukraine". The rest of the lead is filled with information that indicates that the Azov Battalion is Neo-Nazi. The lead is suppose to be a summary of the article: it is not meant to constantly remind readers of how true the first sentence of the article is... Unless we assume they all greatly distrust us or have the attention span of a baby.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion. The nature of neo-Nazism of this nazi unit is important. You will get similar treatment in other articles about neo-Nazi groups. The issues about their particular use of SS tattoos, Nazi symbolism and founders statements about "crusade of White race" are important to describe the nature of the particular brand of Nazi thought Azov unit follows. Just saying "neo-Nazi" isn't enough,as this is a white range of beliefs and ideologies(for example some Nazis are pagan, some are christian-both currents are at odds with each other).Interestingly-are Nazis from Azov the pagan or christian branch ones?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm; leads are summaries.... Now On 11 June 2015 the United States House of Representatives passed amendments blocking any training of Azov by US forces, citing its neo-Nazi background as the reason. On 26th June, Canadian defense minister declared as well that training by Canadian forces or support won't be provided to Azov. is only mentioned in the lead... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Yulia. Yes, this is exactly the problem I talked about in section above. There has been a controversy with certain sources claiming some people from the unit be supremcisr/right-wing/neo-Nazi/whatever, an accusation that has been denied by Ukrainian authorities with explanation. This takes some space to explain and must be described in the body of the page and only briefly mentioned in introduction (as on ruwiki). Under no circumstances one can state as a fact that "it is a neo-Nazi unit". Even Russian Wikipedia does not do it. My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

There has been a controversy with certain sourcesThere are no reliable sources stating that there is a controversy regarding this.

claiming some people from the unit be supremcisr/right-wing/neo-Nazi/whateverNot some, but the unit itself. The unit itself is led by well known neo-Nazi activist making statements about "crusade against semitic untermenschen" and its parent agency is a collection of neo-Nazi radical organization. This is well established by reliable sources. n accusation that has been denied by Ukrainian authorities with explanation.So far one adviser who has been only reported as "angry" at the information and stating that they are patriots. Under no circumstances one can state as a fact that "it is a neo-Nazi unit". This is what reliable sources state. Even Russian Wikipedia does not do itPer wiki policies wikipedia itself can't be used as a source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. I just did a little test because I was bored, and my god is this page bad. Seriously, go to the page for the Waffen SS or the Wehrmacht and those pages, which are considerably longer mind you, only use the word "Nazi" 18 and 58 times respectively while the page of Azov Regiment uses the word 40 times. This article shoves Nazism down the throats of anyone who comes to read it. It's beyond keeping in mind the fact that they might be Nazis (once again, something not yet proven), it goes beyond hand holding and just makes the page unbearable. FR4NCH3K (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)FR4NCH3K

The title of article

It's not controversial changes. Battalion Azov does not exist. The title should be the official name. And it is given according to the current state of affairs. Since this is governmental structure, there should be full official name (see the site of the National Guard of Ukrane http://ngu.gov.ua/ua/news/rozyasnennya-shchodo-statusu-specpidrozdilu-azov).A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy that the title of the article should be the official name. Instead, we are using WP:CONSENSUS here.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a governmental structure, so the name should be the official. In addition, the battalion Azov does not exist, since it has been converted twice: 1) to the regiment, and then 2) in the special unit. A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it should not. There is no such policy.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The battalion Azov does not exist, since it has been converted twice: 1) to the regiment, and then 2) in the special unit. That is why the name wrong. And it needs to be changed to the right.A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but reliable sources like The Guardian, The Telegraph and US House of Representatives confirm existence of the neo-Nazi unit called Battalion Azov. While within its ranks it might have recently refer to itself in different way, this unit is widely known under well established name.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is outdated information for 2014. In 2015, there is not a battalion, but a special unit.A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sources are from 2015, sorry.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Battalion - was with 400 people. A special unit has more than 1,000 people. You see the difference?A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

And a special unit has employees on the contract, but not volunteers.You see the difference again?A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources state. Reliable sources use the name Azov Battalion and refer to it as a neo-Nazi militia. We don't base Wikipedia on personal views.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

::::::: And no more than six months in the media does not call it the battalion Azov. Because he is not the battalionA.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is Ukrainian media which hardly represents the global coverage or is neutral in the portrayal.The Telegraph, The Guardian refer to the neo-Nazi militia as Azov Battalion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's ukrainian media and news agency.A.Skromnitsky (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

References

The Battalion is 400 people. A special unit has more than 1,000 people. If there was a replacement name, it needs to be displayed. For 1000 is a not a battalion. What we see from government sources and from the official media.A.Skromnitsky (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on mainstream worldwide coverage, not only on Ukrainian sources and statements of its government.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

If known media gave information about the earthquake in March and the new earthquake occurred in April. That is to write about a new earthquake? And if the world media do not follow in detail the events of the earthquake, and local residents watched. So who is more authoritative? And there is no such rule that the more authoritative international media. After all, they write in English, but in Ukraine speak Ukrainian and Russian languages. Then who will be the primary source? The government, which is the first to know about the local earthquake? Or international media? And the event is not just in the world but in Ukraine. And if the world media the attention deigned a separate military unit, it is very rare and distortions. In Ukraine, it is better known. A.Skromnitsky (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Skromnitsky. You would be right if the unit was officially disbanded, renamed and given a different commander. But it did not happen. Should a unit be disbanded and renamed just because of the poor reputation in media and the opinion by US Congress (who prefers funding dictatorships like in Egypt)? Apparently not because the unit just has been staffed by a larger number of soldiers. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, now that the user has been blocked for edt-warring, I hope he will resume the discussion based on our policies and not on his own ideas what should be in Wikipedia. My own position is that if the website of the Ukrainian army has been updated this is likely not a fake, and reliable secondary sources will use this terminology soon. I think it can be added to the body of the article, however, for the time being I would be against moving the article and adding the new first paragraph of the lede based entirely on the Ukrainian primary sources. I would have no problem with movng the article and possibly modifying the lede (though not in the way it was modified yesterday) once secondary reliable sources become available.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• As I said in previous sections, the introduction is ridiculously biased and violates WP:NPOV because it describes a disputed claim in media as a fact. It should be re-written at least as in Russian Wikipedia where no one can suspect contributors of supporting the "Ukrainian Nazi". That would solve the problem. My very best wishes (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2015

This part must be removed as it is one of the Kremlin propaganda definitions. <The Azov Battalion (Ukrainian: Батальйон Азов) is a far-right neo-Nazi[1][2][3][4]>

The page Azov Battalion is full of inaccurate statements like "neo-Nazi" and so forth and makes an impression that it has been created by the Kremlin propaganda, which pushes to precept Ukraine and its new government as a fascist and Nazi. Azov battalion is a multi-ethnic and multi-lingual (Russian speakers included as well) volunteer formation which has created itself in the midst of the Kremlin invasion of the Ukrainian East. Nationalism and Nazism are different categories. And if some of the soldiers of the Azov Battalion are the members of the nationalistic parties, none of those parties are worshiping a Nazi doctrine. In contrary, Kremlin aggression in Eastern Ukraine has a goal to eliminate everything Ukrainian in the Eastern Ukraine so, Azov is fighting on the land of its own country against the real (Nazi) Russian aggression. http://emorywheel.com/yale-professor-talks-russian-propaganda-in-ukraine/ http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/mar/01/ukraine-haze-propaganda/ 47.23.138.46 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Looking at the numerous discussions further up the page, it's clear that consensus does not support any such change at this time. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Could we please lay this to rest once and for all, unless reliable sources start stating something other than what they are stating? A) The article you've pointed to does not discuss the Azov Battalion. B) Understand that none of the editors involved in this article (or any other article surrounding events in Ukraine) are oblivious to a two-sided propaganda war being waged... but we're not party to the war. Our only objective is to reflect what reliable secondary sources are saying, not to engage in original research. We're not WP:TRUTH, nor are we a news source. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not news applies equally to this series of content changes here, here and here. Furthmore, it is an exercise in WP:SYNTH and a blatantly WP:POINTy refactoring content in order to use the article as a WP:COATRACK. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I really think that a WP:POV tag should be placed in the article lead-in. The entire article is very contentious and needs further debate. 5.56.31.175 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Flag of the Azov Detachment

Noting that you've added a flag, SkoraPobeda, have you been able to verify that it's still in use? I checked the source for the flag image and, in as far as I can establish, it dates back to mid-2014. I'll ping MrPenguin20 regarding the svg as he created it. Thanks, in advance, to you both for helping to sort this out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as RS use, these articles with photos date back to September 2014 [1] and December 2014 [2]. Personally as a vexillologist, I wouldn't see any reason for the Azov Battalion to not use this flag anymore. Otherwise if it was replaced, we would have seen the new flag online. SkoraPobeda (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I've seen plenty of recent photos in RS showing the sleeve badge, but not the flag... As you say, unless there's been a replacement, there'd be no reason for it to have changed. Cheers for the response! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This Article Needs a Heavy Look Over

All I needed to figure this out is the opening sentence of the article.

"The Azov Battalion (Ukrainian: Батальйон Азов) is a far-right neo-Nazi[1][2][3][4] all-volunteer infantry military unit forming part of military reserve of National Guard of Ukraine.[5][6][7][8]"

First of all, Azov is now a regiment, not a battalion. That alone is a pretty major mistake. To further this, Azov regiment is a group of far-right neo-Nazis? To me it seems like someone has been heavily inhaling propaganda. There are quite a few videos and articles where Azov has made some explicitly anti-Nazi and anti neo-Nazi statements. They've talked about the meanings behind their symbols, none of which related back to Nazism. If we're going to say that Azov is a neo-Nazi group, maybe we should look into calling Donbas the same as they have a bird of prey on their patch, which is totally a neo-Nazi symbol or something, right? The purpose of this article is to inform, not to mislead, and as far as I can tell, calling Azov neo-Nazi is misleading.

As for all-volunteer, are we sure this is still the case? Last time I checked and, as the article states, they are a military unit of the Ukrainian National Guard. I also believe that they are now a paid organization as well, but I'm not exactly sure who gets paid and who is or if there are still volunteers.

As a throwback to the second paragraph as well as to talk about Mikael Skillt (as I've seen that there's some talk about him on here already,) I've personally communicated with the dude recently and he seems like a fine guy. That's a personal experience, but there was also an article written about him recently and how, in his own words, this war has made him a better person. He appears to have dropped his neo-Nazi ideology since joining Azov Regiment. http://dailysignal.com/2015/08/10/meet-the-former-neo-nazi-spokesman-who-now-fights-for-freedom-in-ukraine/

Oh yes, one more thing: would anyone be able to find/create an .svg file of Azov Regiment's subdued shoulder patch? It's another useful piece of information as far as I see it. FR4NCH3K (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)FR4NCH3K

New emblem

I'm adding a 'cn' tag to the new emblem. While it's unsourced at the moment, the most recent visual media coverage of the Azov Battalion confirms that the previous emblem has been usurped. [EDIT] I'm not asking for a citation as it occurred to me that the previous versions of both the sleeve badge and flag were no more WP:OR than this version. All of the images used depicting the various banners, flags and emblems for various groups involved in the War in Donbass (DPR, LPR, etc.) were sourced based on the most recent images. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, having spent a couple of hours searching the web for some form of confirmation of a single version of the flag, the sleeve badge, and any other emblem... I think we've gone OR with depicting these as if there were a singular version. There is ample evidence of 3 variations on the flag (the black 'rune'/'wolfsangel' on a yellow flag; the purple and yellow sunburst and people; the one currently depicted in the infobox) being used as often as each other or concurrently in actual photos and footage of the battalion itself. While there are ample POV and OR interpretations littering the web, only representations from real footage and photos constitute genuine material.

As regards the sleeve badge, it seems to have been fairly consistently used up to Mariupol, but there seems to have been a change to this in footage of combatants by September. I'm going to ping MrPenguin20 as to whether he can shed more light on the subject (with thanks to him for his ongoing hard work in keeping on top of changes to flags, emblems and maps for our use). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I just realised that I meant to ping SkoraPobeda as well regarding this issue. My thoughts on the matter are that A) We use the sleeve badge only in the infobox and set up a gallery of flags, emblems and sleeve badge(s?); B) We restore the sleeve badge and flag, but qualify that it is 'One of the flags of the Azov Battalion'. All of these variants in the infobox are pure clutter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of leaving the new emblem in the infobox, while creating a gallery for all of the previous shoulder sleeve insignias and flags. SkoraPobeda (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for de-cluttering the infobox and creating a gallery. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem! SkoraPobeda (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

In case there is any bewilderment left about their new sleeve patch, I talked to Mikael Skillt himself and he says the government pressed on them to change up their emblem a bit in an attempt to make it harder to use their logo for anti-Ukrainian propaganda. Just felt like it's an insight worth noting. Of course, many soldiers aren't going to give up the old patch because they prefer it. -FR4NCH3K

Interesting. The flag in the article gallery that is described as "Second Azov Battalion Flag" is actually much older and was introduced by the Social-National Party of Ukraine founded by the just elected speaker of parliament Andriy Parubiy (yes, a Nazi) in 1991. It should be removed from the "gallery". Dancemucke (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Far-right, neo-Nazi as result of WP:NPOV rule ignoration

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.

There is consensus against defining the Azov Battalion as neo-nazi. The majority opinion is that it violates WP:NPOV, is made up of historical references that dont quite fit and no current high quality sources saying it is. AlbinoFerret 17:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Should Azov Battalion be defined as a neo-Nazi military unit in the introduction? (added later--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Seriously guys, who smoked what to think that this does not violate WP:NPOV so high that Laika corpse can still smell it? I just scrolled through history of discussion and saw NO instance of WP:CONSENSUS being achieved anywhere, and those using it are willingly ignorant of the rule. Where has been any mediation process requested? Where has been WP:3O requested? When did any of you requested WP:RFC?

I am willing to go blind here and pretend that I don´t see strong POV pushing from small number of editors, but anyone using this rule as justification for keeping it, and having a balls to add "DO NOT REMOVE" into article, ignoring the first paragraph of the rule (Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus) simply will not fly with me.

Either provide proof of CONSENSUS being achieved (as the section is being reverted and subsections are being created on talk page) anywhere or admit that we do not have consensus and this is violation of WP:NPOV. There is already subsection of the article which deals with the ideological view on the group and the group defense. Oh and FYI, I will keep reasonable time this comment here. No one raising any objections to my proposal of removal that part qualifies as new consensus. If dispute will be raised and consensus will be failed to achieve (what is most likely) than I will request mediation and third party comment on this matter. For Christ sake, even russian version of wiki does not go as far as this one. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the WP:POINTy hidden comments. Even if there were CONSENSUS of sorts that the article is following RS descriptions, the fact is that consensus can change. Leaving threatening missives in hidden comments is antithetical to the project per Inappropriate uses for hidden text. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

As was already argued above, the intro is extremely POV-ish by labeling the entire unit as "Nazi". Please compare with intro of this page on ru-wiki, which is not a "pro-Ukrainian" version by any account. But it is significantly more "NPOV" My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources call the unit "neo-Nazi", consequently, for us it is neo-Nazi. Obviously most Ukrainian users have difficulties accepting this, so that there will be no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

See also #NPOV and BLP problems, where good-faith users could not agree on the point.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I was going to argue that we should keep the description as is, but reading through the sources, I've changed my mind. Some sources do describe Azov as neo-Nazi, but most speak about neo-Nazi political leanings, neo-Nazi members, symbols, adoration of Hitler, National Socialism, unease within the Ukrainian, Russian, and within western Governments, etc. It's more reasonable to write that many of their members have these beliefs, that they use these symbols, and that various sources have called them neo-Nazi. We don't need to label them as neo-Nazis in the first sentence of the article, though this material should certainly be in the lead.

As an aside, "most Ukrainian users" certainly do not have a problem correctly identifying Azov's politics. It's true that the battalion has fought alongside and now under the command of Ukrainian government forces, due to their mutual enemy Russia and eastern separatists. But most Ukrainians hate this kind of politics - they've historically done terribly in elections there - and there's no reason to assume that Azov represents Ukraine, or vice versa. -Darouet (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

According to ref 11 (Ukrainian language), Azov is not "under command" of the Ukrainian government forces, but simply a regular military unit of the Ukrainian government forces, more precisely of National Guard of Ukraine (it was more independent in the past). Multiple reports tell only that certain members of the unit held neo-Nazi views, at least in the past, - according to the journalists. Telling that the entire unit was ever "neo-Nazi" is not really consistent with sources. Now, speaking of the amendment by US legislature, this is not really important (although should be mentioned in the body of page), being reflection of political games in US. They have no problem with supporting some oppressive political regimes... My very best wishes (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

So what? My question about consensus has been directly aimed at you as you used it in argument. Now, you say could not agree. I keep the good faith by believing that people here are knowledgable enough about word consensus so, please, scrap that argument when defending your position. Next - "some sources call it" is not encyclopedic, period. Not to mention that, for instance, not one source listed in header calls it such.

You have been here long enough to be knowledgable about Wiki policies. First, WP:NPOV that has been broken here. Second, WP:UNDUE. And third, and final, that is 101 for anyone on wiki is WP:LEAD. What I have in mind is It is not a news-style lede. FYI, the lead is too long as well.

Azov relations with far-right (ukrainian) scene are sourced and talked about in Azov_Battalion#Neo-Nazi_ideology_and_symbols. What sources refer to is not a fact of the unit, but connection between various members of the official military unit of governing body to the far-right scene. Azov regiment official policies, guidelines, ROE etc. do not qualify it, and sources are careful to not say it, to any ideology aside of that towards the state. You can WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but that is not what we are here for.

Now, since I assume that you will not agree, should I call for 3O and RFC now or later?

PS: I am not Ukrainian, I am Slovak and I couldn´t care less what nationality you, or anyone else, belongs to. If you are unable to follow WP:AGF, WP:CIV or WP:NPA than I suggest you take a WP:WIKIBREAK. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@EllsworthSK: The only editor here breaching WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA is you. I haven't read a single response to you that is anything other than uncivil. P.S. No one here cares whether you're Slovak, Korean or Fijian. Ethnic slurs, plus an assumption of neutrality because you're not from one of the ethnic groups involved is a non-argument (as well as a violation of NPA). What is under discussion is what RS tell us: and that's actually equally important as NPOV when taking the basic subjects in Wikipedia 101. At the moment, I can't help but see your own analysis presented in an antagonistic manner, yet you're accusing other editors of WP:IDONTLIKEIT?! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Did we really get into the point where I should point out what there is for everyone is to see? I don't have time to be on wiki every day like someone else and when I am, I will not be dragged into red herring. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@EllsworthSK. I am not sure what you suggest, exactly. Could you please correct on the page whatever you think needs be corrected, so that others will be able to look and agree/disagree or correct your edits? My very best wishes (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Here EllsworthSK (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

OK. I agree with this edit. Claiming this as a fact is wrong, especially at present time when the battalion became a regular unit of Ukrainian forces. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@EllsworthSK: While it is understood that editors have different amounts of time they're able to dedicate to editing Wikipedia, please do not use the talk page to vent as you have been doing. You are welcome to be WP:BOLD in your editing (and you'll soon be made aware of any objections, meaning that WP:BRD is then followed), but you are not welcome to engage in unprovoked abuse of others because you're frustrated. Thank you for making bearing in mind that engaging with other editors is not best served by pre-emptive strikes, and for understanding that your time is not necessarily more valuable than anyone else's. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

For the last time - not interested in red herring discussion, nor am I here to pinpoint you in this short exchange what and where is ad hominem. If you have thoughts on actual topic, that would be nice, but so far I fail to see it. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Er, um... You'll have to excuse me if I seem confounded, but so far I've seen a lot of ad hominems, ad hocs, ad nauseams, et als from you on this talk page, but you haven't actually ever edited the article. For someone who doesn't have the luxury of time on their hands, I've only seen you point to one diff which you're not responsible for... Are you editing, or are you trying to delegate work to other editors? How is anyone to judge whether your making improvements or not if you're not doing anything. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with the edit. I am sorry for the Ukrainian forces which accepted a neo-Nazi organization as its unit, but we have too many neutral RS's calling the whole organization neo-NAZI, not just separate people.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's why I have no intention of touching it. If a hidden comment needs to be inserted, it should not come in the form of an aggressive warning. I don't have any objections to instating an informative hidden comment to the effect of its being reliably sourced, and to please read the talk page and archives. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether the hidden comment should be there or not, but having IP removing this info on the daily basis, sometimes with sources and sometimes without sources, but always without any discussion and ignoring the talk page, is IMO unacceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The status of the unit has changed after its incorporation to the regular Ukrainian forces. On the highly dynamic and controversial subjects, such as that one, probably the best idea is to avoid partisan sources (such as Russian and Ukrainian ones) and use only the most recent and most reputable 3rd party sources. Such sources typically call this unit "right-wing Azov Battalion" [3] (New York Times and other US newspapers [4]) or "a former volunteer militia now included in the National Guard" [5] (RFE/RL). Hence I would definitely agree with calling it "right-wing" in the first phrase, as was suggested by EllsworthSK. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be revisited for a clean up at some point soon. The RS being used should still be retained for the background in the body of the article, but they're essentially WP:HISTRS. Even the congress decision cites old articles (but I'll refrain from voicing my opinion about token gestures to pacify the public, so I didn't say/type that out loud). Given that current affairs article information moves quickly, the sources date way back into 2014 up to early 2015 (and we're literally about to move into 2016), the article is still treating an essentially defunct 'battalion' as if it were a fact in the here and now. In all seriousness, why is "History" a subheader, while "Current status" is a sub-subheader of "The Organisation" section?

Nevertheless, as Ymblanter has observed, we're experiencing a fresh POV-push with IP and SPA contributors poised to pull the article apart and delete RS in an edit war that'll inevitably end up creating a complete mess, then the article needing to be locked down. I'd prefer to leave it as it stands for the time being until things quieten down in order that a thoroughly discussed and relatively controlled clean up based on policy and guidelines can take place. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

You are very much welcome to improve this page (please do, no objections from me), and I do not really see anyone poised to pull the article apart. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I have restored information about Neo-Nazi character of this unit deleted under pretext of "cosmetic change". Please do not delete sourced information about Neo-Nazi character of this unit.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The status of the unit has changed after its incorporation to the regular Ukrainian forcesThere are no RS claiming that the unit ceased to be Neo-Nazi.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent article in New York Times that I mentioned above [6] does not call this unit "Neo-Nazi". None of recent publications by other respected 3rd party sources I checked (excluding Russian state-controlled source, like RT TV) calls it "neo-Nazi". In the last version (one that you reverted) we described the unit as "far-right nationalist", which is more consistent with recent sources and WP:NPOV. We also mention older claims that many members of the unit apparently held neo-Nazi views - directly in the introduction. That should be sufficient. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any sources that claim it stopped being Neo-Nazi, as I have requested from you. Perhaps we will return to this topic once US Congress and others reverse their views, for now, please don't delete this information.For the record, plenty of sources confirm it is a Neo-Nazi unit[7][8],[9][10],[11][12]. Of course the coverage today is not as intense as the fighting has toned down.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I clicked on your first link, it provided a quote from the interior minister who oversees the regiment:

"And anyone who's going to tell me that these guys preach Nazi views, wear the swastika and so on, are bare-faced liars and fools."

--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Does this source actually mention Azov? I haven't been able to find it but it's in German and the design with the alternating scrolling of text and photos makes it very hard to search. Volunteer Marek  20:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC) It reads fine on my web browser and it is a whole article about the Neo-Nazi unit and its connections to Nazis in Switzerland.Hint:in German it is Asow, not Azov.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, ok. It does call them "far right extremist" but where does it say that human rights have accused Azov, specifically, of "war crimes, including torture of prisoners and plunder"? I'm not saying it doesn't say that, just want to know where. The three instances of "Asow" in the article I can find just say that "they do Peroshenko's dirty work". Volunteer Marek  20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the quote. It's fine now. Volunteer Marek  21:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also de.ukraine-human-rights.org is not a reliable source. It's a fake propaganda/disinformation/blog website which pretends to be about "human rights in Ukraine" but really is just a bunch of nationalistic anti-Ukrainian bullshit. Volunteer Marek  20:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"It's a fake propaganda/disinformation/blog website which pretends to be about "human rights in Ukraine" but really is just a bunch of nationalistic anti-Ukrainian bullshit" Really? Could you provide a reliable sources confirming this?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A quick look through it's contents makes this pretty evident. And the burden of proof is on you that this is a reliable source rather than some random shitty website on the internet. Volunteer Marek  21:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"bullshit, shitty"-would be kind enough to stop using such vulgar language? It is not suitable to the environment of encyclopedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'll continue to use the kind of language and words which I believe accurately describe things. Volunteer Marek  21:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Can attest, "ukraine-human-rights.org" is indeed a Russian shill website, not a real group, strictly for propaganda news. The trolling network is so large we can't just sit around and get sources to wackamole ever one that pops up. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: 1) The use of mild expletives in 'discussions' is neither here nor there.
2) Please don't challenge other editors to prove that ukraine-human-rights.org is not a legitimate RS. Their site is not affiliated with any legitimate NGO: in fact, I can't find any information on any affiliations. It's a stand-alone site bearing no information about them, their sources, the veracity of their information under a copyright of © Ukrainian Committee for Human Rights 2014. I could start a site with a copyright (you don't need to apply to any legal body to create your own), but it's meaningless. Their banner is just an amalgam of the Ukrainian flag, stylised map, and a logo hand that resembles identifiable human rights logos. The WP:BURDEN is on anyone wanting to introduce anything from their site to demonstrate that they're anything more than one man and his dog promoting propaganda. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as "consensus" goes regarding calling it a "neo nazi battalion" - this is blatantly false, you can't use consensus to insert false information into an article on wiki. I try not to involve myself in this stuff these days but whoever is advocating putting fake information into the lede of an article, cut it out, you can't vote to turn these articles into a joke. All sources say that 10-20% of the members are far-right, and that its founders are among these guys, but this minority does not define what the unit is - and that is a volunteer military regiment that provides security services. Everything else is secondary and should be covered in unbiased detail in the body. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoever get engaged into an edit-warring on the basis of IDONOTLIKEIT, gets quickly blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You reverted edits and sources I added because YOUDONTLIKEIT, stop being a hypocrite. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not correct. I reverted it because everybody else are discussing this issue, and you have chosen to revert. If you continue, I am going to file an arbitration enforcement request.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Do it. I came here by chance and you blanket reverted a number of edits I did because apparently 1 of them was previously mentioned in talk. Your conduct and threats are making for a nice pattern here. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• I am not sure what's the problem. Lvivske actually broght this page in a better compliance with WP:NPOV. And he only did a couple of things: (a) he removed stating as a fact something which is not a "majority view" (see my comments above), and (b) he moved materials which do not belong to the introduction into the body of the article. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  The problem was that he was not willing to discuss anything, and gave the basis of his edits that "info is just falseg". Info is reliable sourced and can not be false. We are discussing in my understanding whether it should be in the lede, not whether it should be in the article. However, it is no problem for me if the community decides to take it from the lede. This is why I added an RFC template, which nobody cared to do before me. I am opposed to the blank reverts though, and if Lvivsky reverts again after the protection expires, I will file an arb enforcement against them. We all have to behave in a civil way.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

At no point was I never willing to discuss. I had no idea there was even a discussion ongoing for the lede in the first place. I haven't edited in a while, but this page was being shared on Facebook as an example of how bad & unreliable Wikipedia has gotten, so felt it necessary to help. The basis of my edits were true: calling it a "neo-nazi battalion" is false when the sources clearly explain that at most 1/5th of the unit have these political leanings and there is no official application of this label. "Info is reliable sourced and can not be false" - not true and you know this, info that is cherrypicked while neglecting better sources, to paint a skewed narrative, can be false; just as the original source could be false, creating a game of telephone where bad info creates more bad info. Also as it stands, only one person (or two, including yourself?) are advocating keeping the POVy lede, so why revert to the problematic version rather than discuss? The cycle should be bold (adding the nazi stuff in the first place), revert, discuss. Not add it, revert, re-add it and lock the page.

"I am opposed to the blank reverts though" - that's the thing. You blanket reverted EVERYTHING I did. I added sources, I clarified information, I took out some redundant stuff, and so on, in addition to neutralizing the lede. YOU are the one who blanket reverted everything. Please don't talk about arbcom or civility when your accusations show you're the one acting this way, not me. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter. Good idea, but you forget to define the basic question for the RfC. Here is it:

• Should Azov Battalion be defined as a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine in the introduction?. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  To be fair, Should Azov Battalion be defined as a neo-Nazi military unit in the introduction?. I do not think anybody contests mentioning it is a unit of NGU, and I do not think there are any sources for the time being calling it "a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine".--Ymblanter (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. However, a properly formatted RfC should probably start as a separate section? Also, to be fair, Lvivske also made other changes, such as moving some content from intro to the body and modifying text, which does not seem unreasonable to me. I do not think every disagreement can be fixed by making an RfC. I also do not think that everything should be reverted at spot and would let other good contributors in this area, such as Iryna or RGloucester (if unblocked) to look at this and make corrections. My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me move this formulation on top, since we had zero RFC comments so far anyway. Concerning Lvivske's edits, I do not like removing sourced info, which should have been at least discussed. Everything else is fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Emphatic NO, per WP:UNDUE. It is not in its official name, and it is not the most notable aspect of it. It should be mentioned later on.--Lute88 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

calling it a "neo-nazi battalion" is false Take it with US Congress, scholars researching Nazism in Ukraine, and mainstream publications. All of them name it as a Neo-Nazi unit. Perhaps once Azov's abandons Nazi imagery and all of its Nazi members face jail for promoting Nazism and a new unit will be created with same name, which will lead US Congress, scholars and mainstream publications to claim new Azov unit isn't neo-nazi like the old one then we will change the description. For now Neo-Nazi is the term used by RS.Cheers.

It is not in its official name It doesn't have to be. We follow how RS describe it.Also it is very, very due, as Nazi worship and ideology by Azov has accompanied intensely description of this unit.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A single ignorant congressman doesn't get to define a wiki article. There are no scholars studying Nazis in Ukraine who would call it flatly a neo-Nazi battalion, so cite a single source please because I'm calling baloney on that. Also, the imagery isn't all that Nazish; the wolfsangl-ish logo is a stretch IMO and there are no swastikas or literal Nazi worship going on outside of social media or the odd soul's unfortunate tattoo choices. Until the unit engages in ANY neo-Nazi activity in an official capacity, the article needs to stay neutral.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• No for two reasons: (a) most recent and reputable sources (such as that one) call it "right-wing", and (b) this is a highly controversial matter that can not be stated as fact in introduction. BTW, based on the comments above, the only person who unquestionably supports this inclusion and edit war to have it in the article is apparently MyMoloboaccount. My very best wishes (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Very weak no: per My very best wishes. Noting, also, that MyMoloboaccount has tried to introduce de.ukraine-human-rights.org as if it were something other than a pseudo NGO and blatant propagandist site plus, having introduced this article as support for 'neo-Nazi' when it actually characterises them as being 'extreme right', smacks of scraping the bottom of the barrel in order to WP:WIN. I'm all for RS and retaining historical information in the body (where it belongs), but I'm not fine with maintaining an extremist POV lead because that's what appeals to one editor. Reading through the content of the entire article begins, 'middles' and ends with neo-Nazi, swastikas, Wolfsangel, neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly, white supremacists, anti-semites, neo-Nazi, neo-Nazi, neo-Nazi... Yes, we get the point (and so should the reader) without it reading as a WP:POINTy blog article.
  Nevertheless, it is well sourced as a characterisation, therefore my greater quibble is with the repetitive nature of these assertions as irrefutable fact which reads as a POV push. The article currently stands as swinging back and forth between being encyclopaedic and WP:ADVOCACY in ignoring broader aspects of RS analysis other than WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRY from what are essentially op-ed pieces. As with so many of articles surrounding events in the Ukraine (as well as other hotspots in the world), they're plagued by WP:RECENTISM and flout WP:NOTNEWS. In a nutshell, so long as Wikipedia continues jumping on everything in the realms of current affairs, I'm open to being convinced that the use of 'neo-Nazi' in the lead is no less justified than related articles that have become repositories for everything published... and POV edit war zones for any editor with a strong (read as euphemism) opinion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, editing various nationalist groups is not fun. However, this is one of rare examples when an article in English WP is a lot more biased towards an anti-Ukrainian position than the corresponding article in Russian WP. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I did start with a "No", but I find myself hesitant due to its potential precedent as being that of "what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander." being carried through to other articles. As regards how other wikis handle their articles, while parity amongst the wikis is an admirable idea, the theory falls down in practice (I've said it before: it's not a suicide pact). The bias is to be found in English language sources deemed 'reliable'. This is a problem inherent to all articles bypassing NOTNEWS by fulfilling GNG. There are policies in direct conflict with each other. While NPOV should be the overriding consideration, RS and V allow for far too much leverage when covering recent events. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I must tell that Russian language sources are significantly more anti-Ukrainian biased than English language sources. That's why this page surprised me: it is just the opposite here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• No. The use of this label is mainly supported by references to newspapers and newspapers can hardly be regarded as peer-reviewed neutral scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia accepts mainstream newspapers as acceptable Reliable Sources. Peer reviewed scholarly works are not required per Wiki policies.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right that WP:Source says that "Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources", including mainstream newspapers. However, we can hardly ignore that the same policy also says that "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine." The members of this military unit are living people. Consequently, we should be especially careful when labelling them as Neo-Nazis and we should assure that this label is not the subjective invention of some journalist who do not have deeper knowledge of Neo-Nazism. Borsoka (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Whopper of a no - for the aforementioned reasons, it's not a neo-nazi regiment. It isn't made up of a majority of neo-Nazis, it does not have this ideology in any official capacity as a unit of the Ukrainian armed forces, and this label of mostly used by its political opponents. Yes, its founder is one; yes, the SNA-PU who were it's original core are neo-Nazis by the definition of the word; but, only at most a fifth of the regiment ascribe to these political beliefs. It's a multicultural, multinational, and politically broad in its recruitment. It's regionally based, so anyone who wants to volunteer in Mariupol ends up joining them, even if they are opposed to neo-Nazis. I'm sure you can find a regiment of the Russian army that is made up of a bunch of racists or imperialist/nationalists, but you wouldn't then edit their wiki page to say the "44th infantry is a neo nazi nationalist brigade of the Russian armed forces". Bad apples don't define the article here. As for those apples: they are very clearly expanded on in the body of the article, and leaving this title out of the lead doesn't censor any relevant info for readers looking for a neutral, informed overview of the unit. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the above user is now banned from editing this article. Just to note, there are several sources that describe this battalions Neo-Nazi character, Nazi ideology and Neo-nazi symbols used, including SS runes, Nazi uniforms and so on. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Based on the most recent discussion (see above), no one supports old version of the introduction you restored today. So, I reverted your edit. Your version of the introduction is not fair summary of this page content. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus here, and I have added new sources confirming Neo-Nazi affiliation. There was no opinion whatsoever on whetever banned user Lvivske version is acceptable, nor no opinion that human right violation and crimes should be deleted, which you did. If the current version is not acceptable a different one can be worked on, but deleting well sourced info on war crimes and Nazi background like you did is not acceptable.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This info is already completely included in the body of this page. There is no need to repeat everything second time in the introduction that becomes exceedingly large and extremely POV in your version. WP should at least appear and sound neutral, but provide all necessary information. That is what version by Lviske does. I already said above that I like his version much better. Yes, it should be improved further if there is consensus. My reading of the discussion above is that there is no agreement to make changes that you just made. OK, let's wait if others want to tell anything about this or correct the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• 1) See WP:RFC. RfCs should be neutrally phrased, not used as a launching platform for a rant. The concern is, in my view valid, but it shouldn't be delivered this way. 2) I find myself in agreement with Darouet's take on this (see 2 paragraphs beginning "I was going to argue that we should keep the description as is..."). Enough sources identify neo-nazism with members of this unit that it's worth mentioning, but it seems to be correlation not causation; we have no source that the unit is formally neo-nazi in a top-down manner, or that it's lead by neo-nazis, only that it seems to have accreted a number of neo-nazi-leaning members. I agree that this apparent fact about members of one unit doen't tell us anything about Ukrainians in general or Ukrainian politics. 3) The lead has other problems, of course. It says that the Azov Battalion is an all-volunteer unofficial militia, and then in the next breath says that it's not, just that it once was. And "All members of the unit are under contract of National Guard of Ukraine" is not a proper sentence in English; it's probably intended to read "All members of the unit are under contract to the National Guard of Ukraine", though this may be an error of translation still, since military enlistment is not really a contract, just kinda-sorta modelled on one. If these guys are really literally under a contract, this would appear to make them a mercenary militia acting presently in the capacity of a NGoU unit but not one in actual fact (just as I am acting in the capacity of systems and network admin for several companies as a contractor, but am not technically their employee and do not have that job title at those companies). Needs more source research on this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  Well, we have sources that the US Congress and Canadian officials denied any support to the Battalion because it is a neo-nazi organization. It is debatable (and most of the commenters in this RfC argue this way) that this is a result of political games and because of that should not be in the lede, but I do not see how we can conclude that such sources do not exist.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The decision by US congress should be mentioned in the body of the text, and it is currently mentioned (in the last version by Lvivske). However, their press release clearly contradicts facts. In particular, it calls this unit "paramilitary militia", while it is officially a regular unit of Ukrainian National Guard. This is simply a politically biased source which is more biased than a typical article in New York Times, for example. Yes, it qualifies as WP:RS, and the fact deserves inclusion in the body of this article, nothing more.My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This is debatable, but the statement we have zero RS on the subject is clearly plain wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what statement you are talking about, but I agree with all comments by  SMcCandlish above. My very best wishes (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the block of the page has expired, can we restore the fact that the US congress has passed an amendment to prohibit any assistance to the battalion? Also, the lead has been shamelessly emptied of any mention regrading its far-right character (or at least the one of the organisations forming it and its members), which I find amazing. --glossologist (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The user who introduced these edits received a topic-ban on this article.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

This info has been already included in appropriate section. It tells: "On 11 June 2015, the United States House of Representatives passed amendments blocking any training of Azov by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi background as the reason.[49] On 26 June, Canadian defense minister declared as well that training by Canadian forces or support would not be provided to Azov.[50]" If anyone wants to rephrase or expand this, please do. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

This information is quite important and should arguably be concisely present in the lead along with the rest of the description of its far-right character. Many readers use lead for a quick reference (since it's supposed to summarise the article's content) on the subject very much ignoring the rest of the article's text. --glossologist (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Shall we restore the deleted information then? A lead should provide a summary of the article, and, since a big chunk of it is devoted to its neo-Nazi/far-right members, it should be in one form or another covered in the lead as well. If putting the modifier "neo-Nazi" before "military unit" is not OK, another wording must be introduced. What would you suggest? --glossologist (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

My opinion, which does not seem to reflect the opinion of the majority of the editors of this page, is that this information should be in the lede.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I think "far-right" can be included, but it is questionable if a unit of regular army can be described as having its own ideology - see comment by  SMcCandlish above. It appears that the unit is indeed fighting as a part of Ukrainian army based on recent news reports, such as this (October). Unfortunately, I do not know much about it.My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

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

Ukrainian sources describing Azov's war crimes during the conflict?

I have English based publications describing war crimes committed by this unit, but can anyone with Ukrainian language help in providing Ukrainian language sources by NGO's and war crimes reporting organizations covering atrocities by this unit. The war crimes section is definitely lacking in the article(especially with numerous sources that have covered this) and would require expansion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Post the links here.So far I've not seen any mainstream reports of this sort.--Lute88 (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

І tried searching on Azov+zlochyny, but the material that comes up is mostly Serbian (i.e. heavily proRussian).--Lute88 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Where are your English language sources? To my knowledge no real war crimes were ever committed, just roughing some people up, maybe some theft, etc. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 22:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)