Talk:Azov Brigade

Biletsky said in 2010

From the article: The founder of the battalion, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … against Semite-led Untermenschen. But Ukraine's National Militia: 'We're not neo-Nazis, we just want to make our country better' | Ukraine | The Guardian Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric in recent years. Why to keep it at all? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

That sentence was a big scandal and is often quoted in first-class sources, a sign that it is an important passage. Mhorg (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

is often quoted in first-class sources
I haven't seen that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Why would the historical rhetoric be undue? This is an article which cover's Azov's history and it received significant coverage in RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Azov's, not Biletsky. I don't see the "significant coverage". The whole article is pushing "They are Neo-Nazis" too much, highlighting everything that has "Neo-Nazi" in their surrounding. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Biletsky... The founder of Azov? The Guardian article is significant coverage. Thats not an article about Biletsky, thats an article about Azov. If the RS highlight/push then so do we, thats how due weight works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian article is significant coverage
No, it's called a single coverage :) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Washington Post,[1] Al Jazeera,[2] CNN[3] and much more. Mhorg (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me repeat the original argument which has not been attended and which is - given Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric in recent years, why to keep it at all? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Biletsky was fundamental in the creation of the Azov. Mhorg (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If the argument above is not addressed, as well as The whole article is pushing "They are Neo-Nazis" too much, highlighting everything that has "Neo-Nazi" in their surrounding, those arguments remain. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You have offered nothing which substantiates that argument, first you need to establish that it actually does that... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

You have offered nothing
We did. See the article itself. Academic researchers argue that the regiment has changed since its integration into the National Guard, tempering far-right elements and distancing from the movement. Alexander Ritzmann, a Senior Advisor to the Counter Extremism Project, wrote of the Azov Battalion: "when your country is under attack by foreign invaders, it is understandable that Ukrainians will not focus on the political views of their co-defenders, but on who can and will fight the invaders". Researchers note that since its formation, Azov has been through general depolitization, acted "with considerably less neo-Nazism and extremism", "and included Muslims, Jews, and other minorities within its ranks".
ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Who else is included in "we"? And none of that says that this article gives undue weight to their far right links. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

We the authors. Your argument posted above is answered.

You have offered nothing which substantiates that argument ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Who are the other authors you believe have substantiated this argument beyond yourself, be specific. Again none of that says that this article gives undue weight to their far right links. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

See academic references given above. Any of those mentions he founder of the battalion, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric in recent years in their conclusions? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

None of them seem to mention wikipedia at all in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

They don't need to be that specific. If they don't mention Biletsky's changed past, why should we. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

They do actually need to be that specific. You've already been presented with a number of sources which talk about Azov's founding principles, that some other sources are less specific isn't reason not to include. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

They do actually need to be that specific
Let's concentrate on the argument. Which is that you need to prove the need for The founder of the battalion, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric in recent years.

You've already been presented with a number of sources which talk about Azov's founding principles
Those are press, we don't need to look at them given abundance on academic sources on the subject.

that some other sources are less specific isn't reason not to include.
Not just "some". Academic sources, contrasted to the press.

Now, let me remind you of another argument you are trying to move off from: you asked to substantiate The whole article is pushing "The whole article is pushing "They are Neo-Nazis" too much, highlighting everything that has "Neo-Nazi" in their surrounding , and you got academic sources which don't mention the contested "fact". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

An absense of evidence is not evidence, that substantiates nothing. Also none of those are full academic sources unless I'm missing something, I see two popular press articles (France 24 and Euro News), one think tank piece (Atlantic Council), and one which I'm not entirely sure about which seems to be a commentary piece. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

An absense of evidence is not evidence, that substantiates nothing
If academic sources don't mention the contested "fact", why should we?

Also none of those are full academic sources
(99+) Vol. 419 Far Right Extremist Movements Fighting in Ukraine Implications for Post conflict Europe | Andreas Wimmer - Academia.edu is from an academic book - Chapter 7: Far-Right Extremist Movements Fighting in Ukraine: Implications for Post-Conflict Europe in: A Research Agenda for Far-Right Violence and Extremism (elgaronline.com)

We have more. Like Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: (taylorfrancis.com)

Like Foreign Fighters in Ukraine: The Brown–Red Cocktail - Kacper Rękawek - Google Books . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

So you agree that you misrepresented three of those sources as academic? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Once again you haven't addressed the argument. If we are down to claiming that books published by Edward Elgar Publishing, Routledge and Taylor & Francis are not academic than we should stop here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

How is addressing a misrepresentation of fact in the argument not addressing the argument? If you want to focus on the overall presentation of arguments you appear to be engaged in a gish gallop, you've been given sources which indicate that mention is due... But you keep pivoting and squirming despite multiple other editors telling you the same thing. So just to be clear you think thats its due to note that they've become less radical, but not what being radical entailed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This is not an insignificant detail. Michael Colborne mentions it on p. 27 of his From the Fires of War. Ukraine's Azov Movement and the Global Far Right when he writes about the roots of the movement. Alaexis_¿question? 08:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Finally an argument which has ground. Although In June 2022, Colborne told Haaretz that the battalion has gone through changes over the years. After the first few years that the battalion was founded, only a small minority had far right connections. He noted that today, these numbers are even smaller and the use of neo-Nazi symbols among its members has been reduced greatly.[285]
and Later in 2023, a year after Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Colborne reassessed that the brigade's priority had shifted from ideology to fighting the war effectively. He argued that any far-right elements within the Azov Regiment were likely to continue to become less significant as the unit expands and the war takes priority.[272] ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Yes, this is his opinion which is mentioned in the article, even if it's not shared by everyone. It doesn't follow from this that Biletsky's words should be removed. Alaexis_¿question? 16:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

'driveby commenter familiar with the article history: First of all, based on a very crude Google hit count, "show trial" seems to come up more than "sham trial", but yes, they seem pretty synonymous. "Sham trial" mostly brings up stuff about drug trials, though, but that drops considerably if you search include the quote marks in the search, ie Google "sham trial" not sham trial. Show trial does have Stalinist overtones in my opinion, but maybe that is appropriate. I haven't looked at this topic in a while, but yes, Russian propaganda for the domestic market definitely say that Nazis were running Ukraine and Russia needed to take care of that. Much was made of the fact that some towns in Ukraine welcomed the Nazis in World War 2. Domestic propaganda also said that there was no war in Ukraine, just a special operation. I do not know if that is still true and do not have time to research it -- I am just passing through to look up something that has a deadline.

However, particularly in western Ukraine and Galicia, a lot of Ukrainians thought that the Nazis were there to liberate them from the Soviets, who had been shipping the grain harvests back to Russia, thereby causing artificially-induced famines. I am just the messenger and am completely neutral on this point. However I notice that a lot of the sources are from 2014, when some people still considered the government of Ukraine a plaything of the Russian oligarchy, so there are questions about everyone's affiliations, pretty much. A couple of policy points -- yes we do consider how much weight to give to sources. We do not have to enumerate every single talking point anyone has ever made about them. But surely there are more recent sources than 2014. If they were actually notable and if the unit still exists. I though that the ones in the foundry weretaken prisoner and then the barracks where the Russians were holding them got shelled on night, oops. I could be wrong about that though. Maybe the unit was rebuilt. When I worked on the article before, the sources were pretty bad. A man in Belarus was arrested for wearing a t-shirt with a skull on it. The policeman thought that the skull was an Azov emblem. It wasn't. I kid you not. That police-blotter item was ALL that that source had to say about Azov. This is what we call an in passim reference, and both academic books and serious long-form articles about the military unit itself, not something else, should get more weight than *that* source, if it is still being used. It looks like the one about 40 Congressmen still is, and while that would be an improvement if so, the average US Congressman would not be able to find Ukraine on a map.

I suggest scrutiny of the sources, and a search of some academic databases, to anyone who comes through here with some time on their hands. To be clear, it's entirely possible that the group's soccer hooligan founder once wore Doc Martins and threw a Nazi salute a time or two in his life. But do we have sources that say that? If so hurray; some progress has been made. My next observation is that the names under "Commander" look poorly sourced, and that should be addressed. Don't be afraid to go to RSN and give people a chance to verify the sources. HTH Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

References

None of this is stated

@Genabab, you removed text referenced to 2024 Gomza's work [4] because "None of this is stated in the originally cited source Black Sun Rising." But your objection is regarding As political scientists Ivan Gomza and Johann Zajaczkowski summarize in 2019, the Azov movement gradually moderated toward the formal institutional politics and accepted democracy-ruled norms text. And you should not be removing the 2024 work which follows it and which you have no objections to.

Furthermore, after the text describing 2023 Davidzon's article, you added "others have argued that ..." referenced to 2019 article. But how Gomza in 2019 could argue with 2023 Davidzon?

In regard to "None of this is stated". The Azov Movement | SpringerLink ... others point to the more nuanced nature of Azov’s ideology (Colborne, 2021) and the movement’s moderation and institutionalization, suggesting that the movement has been gradually moving toward formal political arenas, accepting the institutional rules fundamental to democracy (Gomza & Zajaczkowski, 2019). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

> And you should not be removing the 2024 work which follows it and which you have no objections to

In that case, would you revert the edit if I re-added it but with some contekst saying that their opinions may have changed in 2024/

> But how Gomza in 2019 could argue with 2023 Davidzon?

Not a strong argument. They don't have to physically respond to each other to be at odds

> suggesting that the movement has been gradually moving toward formal political arenas, accepting the institutional rules fundamental to democracy (Gomza & Zajaczkowski, 2019).

You don't seem to be aware of how very, very different this is from what your original edit said. This is not the same as saying they are no longer Nazis or Far-right. Just that with the start of the war, they have formalised their approahc to politics within institutions.

Thus, I propose this as a compromise edit:

For instance, Ivan Gomza and Johann Zajaczkowski have in their research of Azov identified them as part of Ukraine's far-right and argued that as much as 57% of its members are political actors. By 2024, Ivan Gomza and Johann Zajaczkowski have argued that Azov has moved to influence politics through formal institutions and within the wider democratic system in Ukraine. (you can then add whatever this source is from, as I cannot find it)

@Manyareasexpert I hope this is a good enough compromise for you. As it includes both the statements from Gomza that they are far-right, and that they are operating withink Ukrainan institutions. Genabab (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

> But how Gomza in 2019 could argue with 2023 Davidzon?
Not a strong argument. They don't have to physically respond to each other to be at odds
Apparently it is strong enough since you haven't addressed it and raised your own instead.

> suggesting that the movement has been gradually moving toward formal political arenas, accepting the institutional rules fundamental to democracy (Gomza & Zajaczkowski, 2019).
You don't seem to be aware of how very, very different this is from what your original edit said. This is not the same as saying they are no longer Nazis or Far-right. Just that with the start of the war, they have formalised their approahc to politics within institutions.
Very different? Let's compare
The Azov Movement | SpringerLink ... others point to the more nuanced nature of Azov’s ideology (Colborne, 2021) and the movement’s moderation and institutionalization, suggesting that the movement has been gradually moving toward formal political arenas, accepting the institutional rules fundamental to democracy (Gomza & Zajaczkowski, 2019).
to my text
As political scientists Ivan Gomza and Johann Zajaczkowski summarize in 2019, the Azov movement gradually moderated toward the formal institutional politics and accepted democracy-ruled norms. [5]

Thus, I propose this as a compromise edit:
For instance, Ivan Gomza and Johann Zajaczkowski have in their research of Azov identified them as part of Ukraine's far-right and argued that as much as 57% of its members are political actors.^[1] By 2024, Ivan Gomza and Johann Zajaczkowski have argued that Azov has moved to influence politics through formal institutions and within the wider democratic system in Ukraine. (you can then add whatever this source is from, as I cannot find it)
@Manyareasexpert I hope this is a good enough compromise for you. As it includes both the statements from Gomza that they are far-right, and that they are operating withink Ukrainan institutions.

What is your suggested text in full? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: "Sham Trials in Russia" -> "Show Trials in Russia"

The phrase "sham trials" doesn't have the formal tone expected of a Wikipedia article. If we are going to take the stance that the trials are illegitimate, we should be using the formal term "show trial". People and organizations might use the phrase "sham trial" to describe the trials, but it is an informal term and not an academic one. XxSaraWuzHerexX (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Let's see what sources are saying? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this is just different variations of english but don't sham trial and show trial mean the same thing and have about the same amount of formality? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems that way, and just by a quick Google search I found the term being used in plenty of WP:RS including an Amnesty report. TylerBurden (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes it seems like both are widely used and used to mean the same thing. The informal pejorative which comes to mind is Kangaroo court, which we don't use. I don't have an opinion either way on sham vs show, but if it matters for others it matters for them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It's quite possible that I'm being pedantic here, and I'm no longer as certain about this as I was previously. I think what the issue boils down to for me is that "show trial" is a specific term in common use, whereas "sham" as used in the linked article and the sources provided here seems to be more of a descriptor. It's like if we were calling them "fraudulent trials" or "illegitimate trials", where even though the descriptor is an accurate one, it would be better to use the more established term.

Specifically, I would contest that "sham trial" is not really a widely used phrase in the way that show trial is. Show trial is defined in the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English dictionaries, while sham trial is not. Among reliable sources, it seems like Amnesty is one of the only ones that consistently uses the phrase as a synonym for show trial. I'm not so sure anymore, since I suppose Amnesty's use of it is significant enough to justify it, but "show trial" is certainly a much more common phrase.

As a more subjective note, just to give insight into my gut reaction that made me ask for the edit: I have never heard the phrase "sham trial" in common speech. I have heard "show trial" many times. "Sham" itself also sounds informal to me, but this might not be true for everyone and there's not much indication it is considered informal. Definitely open to hearing more opinions on this. XxSaraWuzHerexX (talk) 04:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

More academic articles with better terminology on a subject will arrive in a future. We'll update this article then. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that if show trials is a good enough term for Stalin's trials then it would work here as well. I don't feel strongly about it but I agree that it sounds more encyclopaedic. Alaexis_¿question? 08:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2024

Add Pokrovsk Offensive to list of engagements of the Azov brigade. CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

source:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/09/06/ukrainian-reinforcements-are-counterattacking-outside-pokrovsk/ CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done TylerBurden (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you CrazyFruitBat911 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

there's an error

it needs to say brigada not brihada in the infobox 2600:1700:12F0:8270:81F6:C38A:EE7F:2C77 (talk) 02:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Where in the info box? Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume they mean in the romanized portion of the Ukrainian spelling. TylerBurden (talk) 19:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)