Talk:Azov Brigade/Archive 5
This is an archive of past discussions about Azov Brigade. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
False information
This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
| ||
---|---|---|
Editdone (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
References
Certainly the level of political success and influence is relevant, and so I added the fact with this edit. —Michael Z. 19:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC) |
Over-use of the word "Nazi" in the lead
We do not need this long wall of text to continue now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
In the Russian version of the article, the word "Nazi" appears once. In the French version, once. In the German version, zero. In the Ukrainian version, zero. In the Spanish version, zero, but "white supremacism" appears once. Think perhaps the lede as it stands may be somewhat unbalanced maybes? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
|
"Dubious" template
This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
This recently-added template is entirely inappropriate. Consensus on that point was established in this RFC with a clear consensus to use neo-Nazi in the article voice; templates cannot be used as a "badge of shame" on something that has been previously settled. If someone wants to challenge that RFC, open a new one, but simply saying that you disagree with the current consensus is not sufficient to tag it as disputed. Part of the purpose of an RFC is to actually end such disagreements and avoid situations where holdouts who refuse to be satisfied continue to insist that something is unresolved, leaving an eternal template as a badge of shame on an article. --Aquillion (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
|
Could we just add "presumably neonazi"??
This section is redundant/duplicative now that we have an RFC below. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary, so I am collapsing. Please continue to discuss at the RFC "discussion" section below.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
IMO, it's the best way to keep everyone happy.. people just need to know that there are multiple opinions and sources on the batallions ideology Averied (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Crystal ball is about future events. What the article states is that AT PRESENT the batallion is neonazi.. This may be quite ofensive to some people, considering it's part of the National guard of Ucraine, just under the ministry of internal affairs. Also there is no statement in the official website of the batallion about it's neonazi ideology So for respects sake..it's "presumably neonazi" is the correct statement, as not everyone agrees, and Wikipedia is supposed to be a non biased source of information. Averied (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
The batallion is neo-nazi.. is this a fact? Averied (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
So you do not approve the change, but you don't even know if there is a source.. how can you have an opinion then if you haven't even read the article? Averied (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC) The fact is . There are multiple opinions on the batallions ideology. So if you don't like the word "presumably" just use something else. But there is no definitive source saying the batallions has a neonazi ideology. So it must be stated like this in the article. I can't believe biased views are welcomed to Wikipedia Averied (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok.. but I think you guys get the point. What shall we use? I think having the article making this statement as if it's a fact is completely unacceptable Averied (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This sounds ridiculous, all the chatter about “the battalion” which hasn’t been a battalion since September 2014. Does not lend respectability to any resulting determination. —Michael Z. 22:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Is it normal this swarm of brand new accounts trying to remove the Azov Battalion - neo-Nazi link all together?--Mhorg (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
No ToeSchmoker (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Why would you pretend you've actually read the sources? How embarrassing. OK, so now I will quote each one... 1) Umland (2019) the single-most-cited scholar on this very issue, says: "the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group". 1a) Umland is quoted by AFP on March 25, 2022: "In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies. 'But it had since become "de-ideologised"' and a regular fighting unit, he told AFP." 1b) Deutsche Welle, in their March 16 piece, also defer to the leading scholarly authority on the issue, Andreas Umland: "Umland said a legend had grown around Azov because of Russian propaganda. He said that volunteer fighters, including Azov, had been accused of looting and improper behavior in 2014..."Normally, we consider right-wing extremism to be dangerous, something that can lead to war," Umland said. But in Ukraine, it is the other way around, he argued. The war had led to the rise and transformation of marginal comradeships into a political movement. But their influence on society is overrated, he said. For most Ukrainians, they are combatants fighting an overbearing aggressor."
...“You have fighters now coming from all over the world that are energized by what Putin has done,” said Colin P. Clarke, director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm. “That certainly wasn’t the same in 2014,” he added. “So while the far-right element is still a factor, I think it’s a much smaller part of the overall whole. It’s been diluted, in some respects.” ..."Michael Colborne, who monitors and researches the far right and wrote a book about the Azov, said that he “wouldn’t call it explicitly a neo-Nazi movement...“There are clearly neo-Nazis within its ranks,” said Colborne, author of “From the Fires of War: Ukraine’s Azov Movement and the Global Far Right.” ..."The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014. Ever since it was incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard late that year, they “had to purge a lot of those extremist elements,” said Mollie Saltskog, a senior intelligence analyst at the Soufan Group. “There was much more control exerted over who is affiliated with the battalions.” - (April 6th, 2022, oh, and look, more experts!)
EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
|
RfC on the Purported neo-Nazi Nature of the Azov Battalion
We do not need this long wall of text to continue now that we have an RFC below which provides all these options. Running this discussion concurrently is confusing and unnecessary.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
I think it is dangerous and irresponsible to claim in an authorial voice that the Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi group. Azov representatives have publicly stated on multiple occasions that they are not a neo-Nazi group and reliable sources back this up.[1][2][3] Russia is committing genocide in the Ukraine right now based on false claims that Ukraine is a neo-Nazi country.[4][5] Russia uses the word Nazi to mean "doesn't want to be part of Russia."[6] I think that in this situation it might be important to avoid authorial-voiced claims that support the propaganda of a country currently committing genocide based on that propaganda.[7][8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 05:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
"'is a neo-Nazi' references 2016-2019 sources, so rather 'was' than 'is'. Two of them are from The Nation, a Bernie Sanders supporter. Not exactly mainstream. Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC) I agree that we need a new RfC, but we need a properly worded one. We could do it one of two ways, I think. Either (1) we could give multiple options, winnowed down via the talk section above which is designed to gauge support for alternative wordings, or (2) we could have a straight yes/no for whether we should say "is neo-Nazi" in wikivoice and if the consensus is no then work out new wording. Would be good to have guidance from editors more experienced in framing RfCs. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
We are discussing what to ask above, and this RFC is badly flawed. Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
In less than a week, I will be launching an RFC based upon the opinions expressed about the wording to choose in 39.1 Options (I will aslko base it only on Yays, and no other comments), I will not be taking into account anything else, in any other thread. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for giving everyone a perfect demonstration of how not to curate a search for WP:RS. Please note that "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" as per WP:ONUS. More importantly, please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and keep in mind that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:AGE MATTERS. Wikipedia is not - or at least an encyclopedia ought not to be - a mere summation of all that can be found on Google. Please remind yourself of what it is we're actually supposed to be doing here (WP:PURPOSE). EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
References
|
Symbol: Is it a wolfsangel? Does it resemble a wolfsangel?
Azov claim the symbol is intended to be NI for "national ideal" or "idea of nation." It does look like a reversed wolfsangel, which is to say it is a rotated mirror image of the wolfsangel used by the Nazi panzer division that used a wolfsangel as a symbol. A Nazi wolfsangel looks like a Z on its side with shorter terminal lines, not like an N.[1] Disconnected Phrases (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Disconnected Phrases (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Let's put it this way: what chance do you think there is that it was just a happy coincidence? From Umland (2019, p. 121), the leading academic on Azov and other irregular militias in the conflict:
- "Yet, the symbol of the “Idea of the Nation,” with its occult Black Sun image in the background, has an obvious connection to the pre-history, quoted statements, international links, and political behavior of Azov’s [early] leaders. Azov’s wolf hook has a more than coincidental semblance with far right symbols of other countries and from other eras. The early Azov emblem’s significance is an indication of continuity between the early battalion and SNA/PU...
- ...The ideological imprint on the early Azov battalion was strong enough to let some Russian neo-Nazis, including Roman Zheleznev, Aleksei Kozhemyakin, and Aleksandr Parinov, to find their way into the battalion’s so-called Russian Corps, while a Russian reporter with similar views, Aleksei Baranovskii, who had moved to Ukraine, was allowed to observe Azov’s daily routine. It is notable that Parinov and Baranovskii had previously been linked to one of Putin’s Russia’s most notorious neo-Nazi groups, the so-called Combat Organization of Russian Nationalists known under its Russian abbreviation BORN which, amongst other things, carried out targeted killings of Russian anti-fascists... the legal wing of BORN, Russkii Obraz ("The Russian Image") had at one time been under the indirect protection and direction of the Kremlin." [emphasis mine]
- I slightly simplified the lead so it now says:
It has used controversial symbols,[16][17][18][19][20] including Wolfsangel insignia.[21][22] Azov representatives deny links with neo-Nazism and state that the logo is an abbreviation of the slogan "National Idea" .
Probably we should say why controversial, i.e. because of fascist links, but also clarify the Wolfsangel. Would it be better to phrase asIt has used symbols with fascist links.[16][17][18][19][20] Its "National Idea" insignia is a version of the Wolfsangel, although Azov representatives deny its Nazi links.
? BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)- I disagree as we are saying what they claim is true, it may not be. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. What's a better way of phrasing it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not really sure as the whole issue seems to be this self identification as a symbol for "National Idea", while it may in fact just be a resuse of the Nazi symbol. I think it's kind of OK the old way. Its all a bit convoluted. I am unsure we can really do much to untangle it, its not as if most NAzis would ever admit to it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Good point. What's a better way of phrasing it? BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree as we are saying what they claim is true, it may not be. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- References
"That's enough of that"
Is this explanation of removal of 5,271 characters acceptable? Xx236 (talk) 06:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Might be helpful to say which diff you're referring to Xx236. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=1081521729&oldid=1081521590 Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I challenge you to present what value an IP making 7 separate posts in an hour on the exact same subject soapboxing about how the page is all propaganda and disinformation and a disgrace to Wikipedia is adding. They were disrupting the page, I reverted the disruption, and it stopped. BSMRD (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe not the best edit summary but don't see the value of those extra sections, making an already cluttered talk page harder. Alternative would be to collapse or archive, which might be better for transparency although outcome not substantially different. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Quote from Haaretz (formerly 'a Nazi symbol')
This Talk page is dominated by the quote. This suggests the quoted phrase contains the COMPLETE TRUTH. Please remove the quote. BTW the article is about Russian censorship, not about Ukrainian nazim, but who would read the article?Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- It is not obvious that the symbol is Nazi.
- Russia (150 millions) uses Z in a Nazi way. The Russian Armed Forces page does not discuss in the lead if the Forces are Nazi.
Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Frankly I have no idea what to do with this. What are you talking about? BSMRD (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Frankly, start to read from the beginning - the Haaretz (mis)quote.Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
I don’t know what the actual issue is here. Possibly it would be best to close this section and keep the discussion in the “Symbol: Is it a wolfsangel? Does it resemble a wolfsangel” section above, as this talk page is already very cluttered. Xx236, please be clearer about what you’re actually requesting. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- good point being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I mean "This article has been mentioned by a media organization:".
- This article should be discussed like other references. Now the quote is some form of external pressure. Haaretz has some leftist bias, so it writes exactly the same as many left-wing media do.
- The same Haaretz has published https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-fake-nazi-death-camp-wikipedia-s-longest-hoax-exposed-1.7942233 by the same writer. Xx236 (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am unsure what their politics have to do with it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am unsure why is the Haaretz article quoted here, suggesting it is reliable. In fact it quotes stereotypes. The politics may be 'Omer knows everything' https://www.haaretz.com/misc/writers/WRITER-1.4699329.Xx236 (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is "left-wing" a stereotype? M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry, I do not understand you. Please explain.Xx236 (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is "left-wing" a stereotype? M.Bitton (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Football roots of the Azov battalion?
I havent searched the literature to the fullest extent possible, but I failed to find a paper that highlightens the connection to football roots. What I have found, is the catalyst effect Euromaiden and Russia's involvement to Ukraine. (See for example Umland, A. (2019). Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1), 105–131. doi:10.1080/09546553.2018.1555974). I think the details of the current version are in line with the "just the facts mam" approach of historical events, but I think WP could do better. Cinadon36 08:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Sidestepping the impasse
- We have a text which reads:-
is a neo-Nazi[2][3] unit of the National Guard of Ukraine based in Mariupol in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov
- This states in wiki’s voice that the statement is a fact. Therefore the crucial policy is WP:NPOV
- Many sources state this as a fact. Numerous sources challenge it, or historicize it.
- Given the mere existence of evidence, amply attested, that there is a notable degree of disagreement over whether the Azov battalion is intrinsically neo-Nazi (‘is’ here is ‘ontological’) or not, NPOV has been self-evidently violated by asserting a contested claim to be an undisputed fact.
- Numerous RfCs have not resolved the impasse of conflict between editorial views and source disagreement. Threads with alternatives and voting are, to this editor, virtually illegible in their complexity or unsatisfactory choices between formulations.
- This argufying can go on forever, remain indeterminate, while the clear fact that the text as it stands is problematical for one of our core policies, means that a provisory edit is required, which espouses not a factual statement, but a fair description of the conflicted viewpoints of our sources.
- If we, aware of this, haggle over the perfect solution rather than simply fix in the meantime the flaw, the POV statement will remain stable in violation of policy
- An interim solution that restores NPOV, without claiming to resolve the contention, is therefore obligatory per core policy
- I will therefore emend the text as follows:-
is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, often described as neo-Nazi, based in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov.
- I don’t regard this as a solution, or the highly restrictive description of its operational area satisfactory. But at least the patent NPOV-violation of the received text is eliminated as we await some emerging consensus for a formulation consonant with all of our sources. If someone has a serious argument that NPOV allows contentious (per sources) viewpoints to be written up as facts, please clarify that here.Nishidani (talk)
- Comment This is what the ongoing RfC is meant to solve. Consensus, as a core policy, trumps all others. M.Bitton (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Per the above, the RFC will resolve this. And no they have revolve the impasse, as a lot of people will also disagree with this solution (as the RFC has shown). Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus cannot trump NPOV. Several RfCs have not resolved it. Per WP:Crystal we have no guarantee now as before that RfCs will resolve this. I would ask both of you to explain in policy terms why the text, in stating as a fact what is a viewpoint, not a clear violation of a core policy, one requiring simple remedial action. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Well actually it does if consensus is that saying X obeys NPOV. Yes (by the way) several RFCs have said it is NPOV, and continuing to argue in the face of multiple RFC's is wp:tenditious. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- In fact, I find it bordering on it to imply that already people are getting ready to reject the result if it does not give them what they want. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then please provide us with the links where the closure states that is Neo-Nazi '(said it) is NPOV.'Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- It isn't a loophole to try and find any reason after the fact to try and dispute an RFC result, instead of overturning it. You have to re-run the RFC (which we have now done twice) to try and supersede the consensus. Please participate in the ongoing RFC, and abide by the results as everyone is obliged to do. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Then please provide us with the links where the closure states that is Neo-Nazi '(said it) is NPOV.'Nishidani (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus cannot trump NPOV. Several RfCs have not resolved it. Per WP:Crystal we have no guarantee now as before that RfCs will resolve this. I would ask both of you to explain in policy terms why the text, in stating as a fact what is a viewpoint, not a clear violation of a core policy, one requiring simple remedial action. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please, all, answer my question above. Where in the closure of the RfCs is it asserted, as opposed to other claims, that stating Azov is a neo-Nazi group, as opposed to any number of other conclusions, conforms to WP:NPOV. That policy reads:
- What RfCs may randomly conclude, we have a source conflict (not disputed by anyone) over the nature of the Azov battalion, yet we write that one, as opposed to the other viewpoint, represents the truth. I don't know how much experience editors have here, but there is no margin for doubting that this violates a core policy. Please focus therefore on this precise question, and provide me with a policy explanation for why, apparently, we are allowing for an infraction of a core policy requirement. (As I said, close reading of all these RfCs leaves me in a state of perplexity. They are unintelligible or as many note, two complex in their options, all tweaked, to allow a third neutral party like myself to 'vote')Nishidani (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note that if a valid NPOV argument had been made it would have been accepted, if one was made and was not accepted then it was not valid. As the RFC's have come down to "is Neo-nazi" that means no valid NPOV objections were raised. If they are rejected again, it (again) means they are not valid. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Consensus cannot trump NPOV" Um, the idea is that given a well attended RFC, editors will/should put forward well reasoned policy arguments for their opinions and then the closer needs to make sense of that, which would include NPOV issues. A close can be contested of course, that's also part of the process.Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- WP Policy - determining consensus: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Consensus, therefore, is determined by the "quality of arguments", that quality depending on how the arguments relate to Wikipedia policy. It emerges after considering policies. And whether a consensus has been established and what it is, is not judged by vote counting. ← ZScarpia 16:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Or, to reply to Slatersteven was it, and Self, the policy cited above is specific. No subsidiary policy can trump NPOV :-
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.]'
- Could editors please focus, not dodge, skirt or sidestep the very specific point or order raised here. Not waffle.Nishidani (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nishidani, to answer your question: the last closed RfC (this one has a closing comment that acknowledges NPOV-based arguments but finds consensus in favor of "neo-Nazi" as a descriptor. The most relevant quote is probably
"Those in favor of D argued that a descriptor violated WP:NPOV or that the sources for the descriptor were not reliable or that it violates the MOS to include such a descriptor but these arguments did not persuade the other participants who argued that the quality, quantity, and depth of the sourcing for the label overrides the other concerns and therefore complies with NPOV"
, with "D" there meaning using no descriptor at all. Consensus can change, and the currently running RfC will reveal if it has. Part of your opening comment states that you intend to edit your proposed language into the article. I urge you not to do so, and I predict with some confidence that it will lead to an edit war. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nishidani, to answer your question: the last closed RfC (this one has a closing comment that acknowledges NPOV-based arguments but finds consensus in favor of "neo-Nazi" as a descriptor. The most relevant quote is probably
Thanks Firefangled, that is the first focused answer to what I requested. Eminently collegial. Of course, given the above, I will not make the edit because it is only an invitation for reverters.Please note that the RFC closure has consensus trumping NPOV, read closely, by making the majority consonant with it Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think that's a reasonable interpretation of the close; I don't have strong opinions either way, except some positive ones about the experience and judgment of the closer. If you'd like, you could consider challenging the closure at AN, though it's likely the resolution of the close challenge would take as long or longer than the RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- is it a good idea to contest an RFC close, now we have a new one active asking the self same question. would it not be better to change consensus via that method? Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- While Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not work in isolation, WP:CONSENSUS, of which, an RfC is the ultimate expression, trumps every single one of them (the only decisions that are not subject to consensus are listed here). M.Bitton (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Read the NPOV policy,cited above, which affirms the opposite.Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Let's take the specific case of determining consensus by RfC. The closer, if there is a closer, will weigh up the strengths of the various arguments advanced. Those arguments which make a case which adheres to policy will be judged stronger. Arguments which either fail to take policy into account or contradict it will be judged weaker. Above, it's implied that if enough editors merely state that they think that the current wording is NPOV, a closer will just accept that. I doubt that's the case. Any editor who wants their argument to count will have to explain why the current wording is NPOV. The neutrality policy means that, if reliable sources disagree about something, it must be presented in terms of viewpoints rather than as a fact. If sources which would normally be regarded as reliable contradict the current wording, in order to show that the current wording is neutral, editors who think that it is neutral would have to make a very strong case why the contradicting sources should be ignored. If there is no closer, determining what the consensus is, assuming there is one, may be difficult. However, claims about it shoudln't be be based on vote counting. ← ZScarpia 18:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have, but like I already mentioned, WP policies do not work in isolation. I have yet to see a single rule that trumps consensus in practice. M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- All policies and guidelines are themselves backed up by consensus. It's consensus all the way down... It's just "global consensus" versus "local". And here's what you do when you think local consensus is conflicting: WP:1AM. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have, but like I already mentioned, WP policies do not work in isolation. I have yet to see a single rule that trumps consensus in practice. M.Bitton (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- With due respect, Scarpy, this is not a subjective matter. 'Facts' are not, at least in mainstream epistemology, determined by consensus. The earth does not move around the sun because of a consensus, but because it is a verifiable reality.
- Logic allows for zero equivocation here.
- (a) sources disagree over the 'neo-Nazi' epithet.
- (b) when reliable sources are conflicted, per NPOV (see above) we are under an obligation to 'represent(ing) fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views,' not, as here, one of the two views.
- (c) This would not apply only if it were shown that the counter-notion that Azov has a more complex history of development since 2014 than its originative neo-Nazist roots would suggest, is false. I.e., the excellent secondary sources supporting a less reductive take are less reliable (in fact 'insignificant') than those affirming continuity. Making such a preferential judgment is intrinsically subjective, whatever the strength of the consensus,and factual statements are objective, not propositions bartered in a discursive market, as here.Nishidani (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nishidani wrote:"
The earth does not move around the sun because of a consensus, but because it is a verifiable reality
", Yes, speaking of "verifiable reality", are there users who can tell me how we can consider reliable the statements of Shekhovtsov who says that the unit has been depoliticized[20] while there is strong evidence until 2022 that the Azov Battalion continues to be the armed wing of the neo-Nazi "Azov" movement headed by Andiy Biletsky?[21] Having established that Shekhovtsov is lying, or has done a bad job of research, and that Kuzmenko of the Bellingcat group is right, shouldn't we remove all references to "depoliticization" from the RFC? For example, in the Alternative draft 2 I read: "the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized"". If this were to pass in the vote, we would be doing misinformation. Mhorg (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nishidani wrote:"
I expect troubles with the first sentence continue, because the issue is simply too complex for it. Reasonable short summary of neo-nazi problem would be roughly along the lines: "The regiment is controversial due to its far-right associations. Some consider it to be a neo-nazi formation, while others regard it to have largely de-politicized. The regiment itself claims to be apolitical." Good luck pressing that gracefully into the very first sentence of the article.--Staberinde (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would tell you that many on this page (and many of the available sources) would amend this to say: "'
The regiment is controversial due to its far-right and neo-nazi associations. Some consider it to still be an extremist organization, while others regard it as largely de-politicized. The regiment itself claims to be apolitical.
"Is that an effective compromise for you? @Staberinde @NishidaniBecause even many, most of recent best available sources suggest there are some neo-nazi elements which remain within the unit. The regiment claims they are removed, those who stand to gain from the depoliticization claim these elements are removed, but the secondary independent expert sources do not seem to agree. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)- I appreciate these suggestions, but I didn't aspire to find a satisfactory resolution of the lede crux. Ledes summarize the sections where details are given. Editors are wrestling over the details, so I proposed an innocuous and provisory neutral précis of these contentions:'is a unit of the National Guard of Ukraine, often described as neo-Nazi, based in the coastal region of the Sea of Azov.'
- I fail to see why this compromise, which deliberately glosses over the fact that sources exist challenging that epithet (except in writing 'often'), is proving so contentious. The summary style alludes to the its neo-Nazi connections while refraining from making a truth claim, referring readers to the relevant sections where this is discussed. Nishidani (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Basically any topic area, any content question, has at least some sources which dispute the way we have it written on Wikipedia. Universal agreement is almost impossibly vanishingly rare. We go on what the informal consensus of available sources says. If you look at the source review at the top, extremely few sources actually claim that the group has zero neo-nazi links and is completely de-politicized as of the present. And the ones that do this, mainly rely on self-identification (rarely will a neo-nazi tell you they are a neo-nazi). Most say there are probably still some neo-nazis and a lot of neo-nazi imagery and sentiment, but that the group is disputed as of present, with many saying it's de-politicized, and many saying it is still extremist. This is what I think our lede should say. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I do not know what it should say, but it says (since some days at least) "is a neo-Nazi". Why?
- We have one problem - 'is' may become 'was' and we will be still discussing if 'Azov' washes hands before a lunch.
- Xx236 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Because that's the consensus right now, and we need an RFC to overturn it. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 10:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Basically any topic area, any content question, has at least some sources which dispute the way we have it written on Wikipedia. Universal agreement is almost impossibly vanishingly rare. We go on what the informal consensus of available sources says. If you look at the source review at the top, extremely few sources actually claim that the group has zero neo-nazi links and is completely de-politicized as of the present. And the ones that do this, mainly rely on self-identification (rarely will a neo-nazi tell you they are a neo-nazi). Most say there are probably still some neo-nazis and a lot of neo-nazi imagery and sentiment, but that the group is disputed as of present, with many saying it's de-politicized, and many saying it is still extremist. This is what I think our lede should say. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate Nishidani’s suggestion but don’t know our policy well enough to comment on the procedure. I will add that looking at the last RfC the close must have been hard as the “consensus” was incredibly weak and no single argument dominated. Very few participants actually endorsed “is neo-Nazi” in wiki voice. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Creation of Azov Batallion
Shibbolethink I did provide the source. You can see the information i wrote here on this link --->>>> https://kievvlast.com.ua/text/sergej-botsman-korotkih-legko-stanovitsya-byt-ukraintsem?__cf_chl_tk=BTfY6Xu5A.FTo.ERjIyS6UWNOyTKTtH4W6i.8JN6yp4-1650046299-0-gaNycGzNB70&fbclid=IwAR2FesCEUH0U2gT6EYkf2H3-xNkosSEOEZmOzk-2zqIJWVWg2Hxl2_Q_55U
Source was already visible next to the information, therefore your revert was unjustifiable. --Lemabeta (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it is non-reliable. Citations must be to reliable, independent, secondary sources, preferably scholarly publications. Kievvlast does not appear to have any editorial policy [22]. It has very little circulation or following [23]. It is online-only. There is no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy [24]. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Russian disinformation tainting our sources
This came up in a discussion of Russian disinformation:
[25] Elinruby (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- No please, do not use StopFake as a source. The journalist Katerina Sergatskova was investigating the links between StopFake leaders and Ukrainian neo-Nazis... she was threatened with death and flee the country. This is mentioned even by Human Rights Watch.[26] Mhorg (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Elinruby please do not continue to make new sections for every single source or idea that you have. If it is extremely applicable to a different section, please add it to that section. This practice makes this page really frustratingly long and unnavigable. I will start merging your sections manually after this to comply with WP:TPG#YES. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 12:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Shibbolethink you do not have my permission to edit my talk page posts. You did that once before and separated my reply to a post from the post it was answering. I don't have time to engage with your impenetrable wall of text, and would object to this observation on sourcing being incorporated into a vote on whether two plus two equals five or eight. @Mhorg: according to your own source, it's a nonprofit fact-checker, not a death squad ;) and widely cited, at that. The rules on extraordinary claims would apply here, I think. Elinruby (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you think using a Ukrainian pro-government organization with links with Ukrainian neo-Nazis as a source is a good idea, well, ok... Mhorg (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- And you're using Russian journalist as a source of information about links between StopFake and some neonazis. One person's opinion against an entire platform fighting misinformation at least since 2014. Also, Ukraine had presidental and parliament elections in 2019 which completely changed the government; so when you say 'pro-government' regarding to StopFake and/or Azov (which existed since 2014), you mean pro-Poroshenko-government or pro-Zelenskiy-government? 91.196.52.42 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- That particular prohibition on my editing that you've just stated applies to your personal talk page. it does not apply here. See WP:TPG#Yes and WP:TPO. I appreciate your concerns and that my editing of any comments would upset you. However, this is a thing that we should all be doing for all talk pages, per the guidelines. And it's indiscriminately applied, not just to your particular edits or sections. I mean no offense to you in particular, and I have no plans to edit the actual words you have written anywhere at any time. I would not do that. I also would not remove any of your comments. I would, however, combine redundant sections as we are all permitted (and, in fact, compelled) to do per the guidelines. I would do this replacing one header as a subheading. I am not sure which edits you are referring to. I did not do this to a past section of yours, but I did collapse one of your sections. Someone else chose to recombine it instead (I think it was @My very best wishes? Anyway, what they did was within guidelines as well. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can’t be bothered to go look it up, but I am pretty sure it was you, since you were posting about what a good idea it would be. I have no issue with My very best wishes and don’t appreciate you trying to deflect onto
herthem. This comment is about sourcing. I know you think nothing is important but the lede, but that doesn’t give you license to edit everything else off the talk page Elinruby (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)- If you
can’t be bothered to go look it up
, probably best not to assume. I'm not "deflect[ing] onto them.
" Here are the edits I'm referencing: [27] [28] I don'tthink nothing is important but the lede
, please don't assume what I believe or feel or think on my behalf. Likewise, I am notedit[ing] everything else off the talk page
. I'm collapsing or merging discussions which are redundant. This has very little to do with the RFC, I would have merged this with whichever discussion was closest in topic area. You are not the only person who is making unnecessary sections, and many of them. I will give the same advice to others when/if they do this. I would avoid it for the WP:TPG reason, but also because it creates the appearance of WP:BLUDGEONing these related issues.Please try to stay on topic, and comment on content, not conduct. such comments should be placed on User Talk pages, not here. Please try to continue existing discussions and condense your thoughts into related places. This talk page is already extremely long and dense, which creates a large barrier of entry for new editors. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- If you
- Excuse me. Is this the talk page for Azov Battalion? If so, I am not off-topic. And I am not sure why you would suggest I am. Elinruby (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- What they mean is that we have one discussion about something at a time, not 15 separate threads all asking the same question. Per WP:EXHAUST we try to keep discussions focused, which is very hard when spread over multiple threads. Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Banderism
The basic grasroot radical Ukrainian nationalism is Banderism. This article mentions only 'Jewish Bandera', which is something different. Either the editors have no idea about Ukrainian nationalism or the Azov has no Banderite connections. Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- RS? Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Sources, please. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have asked - is Azov Banderite? I assume it is not, because your sources do not support such thesis.
- The Banderism is a real danger: red-black flag, trident, UPA tradition, monuments, street names, accepted by hundreds thousands or millions.
- A perfect description of this whole Azov discussion (in Germany, but not only) https://twitter.com/AliceBota/status/1506588983073124360
- My summary: Azov is bad but "Das Reden über Asow ist eine Ablenkung", 'a diversion'.
Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- We need RS saying it is, none have been provided. What we have (and use to say) is one source saying they have Jewish members. So what is it you are asking? Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Where does this article say Jewish Bandera. Based on our past interactions, I am sure you're right, but I don't remember seeing that. I thought the Russians didn't like him because he thought the Germans would help him defeat the Soviets? And I suspect you are right, most of us don't understand Banderism. Please explain. Elinruby (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- WE do not we say "Some members of the Jewish community in Ukraine support and serve in the Azov Battalion. A 2018 BBC report gave the example of one of its most prominent members, co-founder Nathan Khazin, a leader of the "Jewish hundreds" during the 2013 Euromaidan protests in Kyiv.". Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. That answers my question, perhaps. Nonetheless, this editor tends to provide very good input, even though they don’t seem to be a native English speaker and sometimes have to be asked to clarify. @Xx236: what part of the article are you talking about, first of all? Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am human. I am unable to discuss with virtual reality generation editors at the time when Azov people die. It is not a computer game.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- So no then we do not use the term 'Jewish Bandera'. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am human. I am unable to discuss with virtual reality generation editors at the time when Azov people die. It is not a computer game.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Is Azov Battalion actually pagan?
I see the section on their pagan ideology was removed from the article due to citing Russian propaganda sources https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&oldid=1078187164 do we have any reliable sources that support them even having a pagan ideology at all? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Here are some other articles mentioning Azov battalion being/having large amounts of pagans, Aljazeera one particularly relevant:[1]*[2][3]
- The Black Sun is intrinsically neo-pagan but I suppose the question is whether or not they are believers in that or just like the way it looks.
- note not sure if SPZH is reliable source but I checked and some articles here use it 24.44.73.34 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- No it is intrinsically NAzio as they actually created that specific design, you are thinking of the sun Wheel. Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, by neo-pagan I meant the nazi kind. I know not all neo-pagans are nazis. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Then say neo-nazi? By saying "neo-pagan" you're including every single neo-pagan in with racists.199.192.158.98 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- We would need wp:rs to draw that conclusion for us to mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Al Jazeera is on WP:RS/P (in a good way), not at all sure about the other two. They might be worth including anyway, but the key thing is all three cases is they're not saying this editorially, they're attributing it to a given source in each case. And one with an obvious axe to grind, at that. ("Christian Taliban" don't think Azov are Christian enough, film at 11.) So we should very clearly not say this wikivoice, nor attribute it to those outlets, but as the view of those being quoted. If at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, by neo-pagan I meant the nazi kind. I know not all neo-pagans are nazis. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- For the Black Sun, as well as the [[29]], these are both purely Nazi imagery, and have no ties to historical or modern Paganism intrinsically. While they are used by far-right Norse Pagan branches, and they are derived from runic symbols and sunwheels, they are not historical Heathen symbols.199.192.158.98 (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://spzh.news/en/news/35596-azov-nationalist-party-nests-extremely-brutal-neo-pagans-sectologist
- ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2015/4/15/christian-talibans-crusade-on-ukraines-front-lines
- ^ https://euromaidanpress.com/2014/07/11/look-far-right-and-look-right-again-azov-batalion-neo-pagan-neo-nazi/
unsolicited opinion: anything that says "corpse" when they (presumably) mean "corps" probably doesn't get a lot of editorial review Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The Wolfsangel is not purely Nazi. In fact they specifically altered their version away from either of the Nazi formats.
This is literally what we (Pagans, glad to finally be part of the discussion) talk about when reclaiming the symbols.
The Black Sun is also problematic, but we can also see quite a few Belarussians and other Foreign Volunteers sporting this symbol on their patches. At which point we have to ask ourselves if these can be considered Nazi symbols in this context given the people sporting them and giving them significance aren't really acting like Nazis at the moment, or for the past couple years. 104.165.250.120 (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- We go with what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Is Azov still neo-nazi?
Can we still consider the Azov Regiment to be completely neo-nazi? It appears to me that right now it should be considered "ultranationalist with neofascist and neo-nazi elements inside it".-Karma1998 (talk)
- See the RFC above. Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Fighting for the right cause is a chance for them to try to rebrand themselves (with the help of those who believe that their enemy's enemy is a friend), it doesn't make them any less neo-nazi. M.Bitton (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
*Answer
1) Umland (2019) the single-most-cited scholar[30] on this very issue, says: "the formerly neo-Nazi leanings in the leadership of this group".
1a) Umland is quoted by AFP on March 25, 2022: "In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion," said Andreas Umland at the Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies. 'But it had since become "de-ideologised"' and a regular fighting unit..."
1b) Deutsche Welle, in their March 16 piece, also defer to the leading scholarly authority on the issue, Andreas Umland: "Umland said a legend had grown around Azov because of Russian propaganda. He said that volunteer fighters, including Azov, had been accused of looting and improper behavior in 2014..."Normally, we consider right-wing extremism to be dangerous, something that can lead to war," Umland said. But in Ukraine, it is the other way around, he argued. The war had led to the rise and transformation of marginal comradeships into a political movement. But their influence on society is overrated, he said. For most Ukrainians, they are combatants fighting an overbearing aggressor."
2) Fedorenko (2022), in the second-most-widely-cited paper on the issue, quotes the alleged field-commander of Azov in early 2015 (Roman Zvarych) as saying he recruited "Georgian, American, Lithuanian, and British instructors, and to have advised the Azov movement to refrain from using symbols and ideas that could be linked to Nazism..."
3) Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015), another widely-cited paper, wrote: "However, only some of the members of the Azov association, which has now become a regiment, as well as other nationalist volunteer battalions, are racist..."
4) Gomza, I., & Zajaczkowski, J. (2019) carried out an in-depth study of Azov members' activity online, and their results attributed a characterization of "Radical" far right nationalist to 38% of members, and precisely 0% as Nazi or neo-Nazi.
5) Shekhovtsov is quoted by the Financial Times:[31] “Azov’s history is rooted in a volunteer battalion formed by the leadership of a neo-Nazi group. But it is certain that Azov has depoliticised itself,” said Anton Shekhovtsov, a Vienna-based Ukrainian expert on Russia’s connections to Europe’s far-right. “Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today.” (Kyiv, March 29, 2022)
6) The BBC says "there is no evidence such sentiment [white supremacism] is widespread..." and quotes Vitaly Shevchenko of BBC Monitoring as saying: "all they talk about is fighting the Russian forces... there's very little in terms of extremist, anti-migrant, or xenophobic rhetoric there." (26 March, 2022 in "‘Don’t confuse patriotism and Nazism’:Ukraine’s Azov forces face scrutiny Nationalist regiment with neo-Nazi roots has been instrumental in the resistance to Russia’s invasion)
7) CNN: "For Putin, who has falsely claimed Ukraine's government is run by "drug addicts and neo-Nazis," Azov presents an obvious target. Moscow has given the regiment an outsized role in the conflict, routinely accusing it of human rights abuses...In the Russian disinformation playbook, the Azov movement is a tempting target -- one where fact and disinformation can be elided...Rekawek, an expert on foreign fighters at C-REX, said Azov has only been able to recruit 20 foreign fighters since the start of the 2022 invasion."
7) WashPo: "Under pressure from U.S. and Ukrainian authorities, the Azov battalion has toned down its extremist elements... Moreover, today’s war against Russia is far different than in 2014, fueled less by political ideology than a sense of patriotism and moral outrage at Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine, especially its civilian population. Extremists do not appear to make up a large part of the foreigners who have arrived here to take up arms against Russia, analysts said...
...“You have fighters now coming from all over the world that are energized by what Putin has done,” said Colin P. Clarke, director of research at the Soufan Group, an intelligence and security consulting firm. “That certainly wasn’t the same in 2014,” he added. “So while the far-right element is still a factor, I think it’s a much smaller part of the overall whole. It’s been diluted, in some respects.”
..."Michael Colborne, who monitors and researches the far right and wrote a book about the Azov, said that he “wouldn’t call it explicitly a neo-Nazi movement...“There are clearly neo-Nazis within its ranks,” said Colborne, author of “From the Fires of War: Ukraine’s Azov Movement and the Global Far Right.”
..."The Azov battalion is also not what it was in 2014. Ever since it was incorporated into Ukraine’s National Guard late that year, they “had to purge a lot of those extremist elements,” said Mollie Saltskog, a senior intelligence analyst at the Soufan Group. “There was much more control exerted over who is affiliated with the battalions.” - (April 6th, 2022)
EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, @EnlightenmentNow1792 please add these to the sources template at the top of the page. But PLEASE check to make sure they aren't in the template already. Thank you! — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
is a neo-Nazi group
is as gross a violation of NPOV given the source conflict evidenced throughout these discussions. On last looking, further, it was buttressed by two inferior newspaper sources of dubious relevance. Something like 'with neo-Nazi roots' is required. As it stands it endorses the boring Russian spin on the whole resistance, given the undue prominence accorded it (as opposed to the virtual silence on neo-Nazi elements in several Russian donbass units.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Apparently, Zelenskyy's speech at the Greek parliament was overshadowed by the "white bunnies'" video. M.Bitton (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- So, according to this source, a man from Azov battalion said on video:
- “I was born in Mariupol, and I take part in the defence of the city from the Russian Nazis. I will not talk about the difficulties we have in defence, participating through the Azov Battalion. This is my debt to my city, my debt as a man and I must talk about the catastrophic conditions in which the Greek Mariupol is experiencing.”
- OK. Does that qualify him as a Neo-Nazi? I do not think so. But what really counts is not words but actions. And their actions do qualify them as defenders of the city from Russian Neo-Nazi who act exactly as real Nazi by killing thousands of civilians in the city. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Their actions today, which consists of doing what they like best (killing and maiming) with the moral support of those who should know better, do not change a thing; just like those of Al Qaeda jihadists when they were fighting the Russians (yes, they were portrayed as the good guys back then).
The Greek government irresponsibly undermined the struggle of the Ukrainian people, by giving the floor to a Nazi. The responsibilities are heavy. The government should publish a detailed report of preparation and contacts for the event
The speech of members of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion in the Greek Parliament is a provocation. The absolute responsibility lies with the Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis. He talked about a historic day, but it is a historic shame. The solidarity with the Ukrainian people is a given. But the Nazis cannot have a say in Parliament
- M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- "Their actions today, which consists of doing what they like best (killing and maiming)". Who are you talking about? Russian Army in Mariupol? A comparison of Ukrainian military units who protect Mariupol with Al Qaeda? Wow! My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- As about Mujahideen who fought against Soviet Army, one of their leaders was Ahmad Shah Massoud. Al Qaeda had to kill him just before the September 11 attacks for well-known reasons. Saying "they are all Al Qaeda" is almost as wrong.My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any disagreement about the fact that some Greek politicians think Azov is neo-Nazi. Our discussion is of whether Azov is actually Nazi, a claim for which Greek politicians are not a reliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- What I draw from this is that some Greek politicians maybe read Wikipedia, and then declared a Ukrainian National Guardsman begging for help defending his home a “Nazi” based on no direct evidence. So your argument must be implying that we should edit the lead to reflect NPOV and not contribute to this happening in the future. Thanks.
- Obviously, you can’t be suggesting that two Greek politicians are reliable secondary sources on this article’s subject. Unsourced quotations might come from Euractive.[32] —Michael Z. 19:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're confirming what I said earlier (see bottom of this thread): in this crazy world we live in, Nazis are quoted with no issue, while a European politician who taught at various prestigious universities is labelled and dismissed. M.Bitton (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- We have srcs that call it neo-Nazi or white nationalist outright as well as ones that describe it as containing such elements. See RfC above and amend lists where appropriate as Shibbo suggested. It doesn't appear Putin is referencing Azov widely; most people still have no idea one way or the other. CurryCity (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- From quite a bit of research on the topic... simply saying "Azov Battallion are Nazis"... without ANY qualifitcations, is pretty much what Russia is doing when they say the "Ukraine are Nazis". Its a stupid generalisation, without any qualifiers, and Wikipedia can do better than put itself in the a smiliar league to Putin and his buddies. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Russian propaganda is not widespread unless you are in Russia or a couple of other countries in its sphere. Most global media is English-based. Also I don't think we want to go down the route of pressuring / guilt-tripping would-be readers or editors. The other camp can easily say something similar such as "we can do better than trying to whitewash Nazi elements in Ukraine" (plenty sources above). CurryCity (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Russian propaganda is widespread (RT, Sputnik) and more or less supported by some Indian, Pakistani and Chinese media (much more than two billion inhabitants). It used to be present is Germany (Putin-versteher), but Russian crimes made it unpopular. I do not follow Spanish media, but Spain is allegedly the most pro-Russian and anti-Ukrainian EU member.Xx236 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- From quite a bit of research on the topic... simply saying "Azov Battallion are Nazis"... without ANY qualifitcations, is pretty much what Russia is doing when they say the "Ukraine are Nazis". Its a stupid generalisation, without any qualifiers, and Wikipedia can do better than put itself in the a smiliar league to Putin and his buddies. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- That should actually be: English wiki editors (properly) mainly use English sources from and the US. Italy has several mainstream channels that give each, every day, several sometimes 12 hours coverage with dozens of reporters in both the Ukraine and Russia. Both viewpoints are covered, with of course mre detail on the Ukraine. Numerous public intellectuals challenge the 'Western' narrative. The Russian Azov talking point is frequently raised, even to the point of absurdity, arguing that the devastation of Mariupol and the huge death toll there is caused by the Azov battalion, perhaps several hundred combatants in an original population of 500,000, whom refugees transported/deported to Russia claim held the entire population in a regime of terror and had sufficient munitions to raze the city (mathematics alone show that to be nonsense).Nishidani (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is Russia's talking points so much more widespread than mainstream English media narratives that we need to offset it here? CurryCity (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- All I am noting is that continental European mainstream sources give a very broad and in depth coverage. La7 for example just rebroadcast a discussion on Russia's Channel 1 where the consensus was that Ukrainians don't exist; the 'denazification' (russification) programme will take 20 years to complete; that the 'fascist bandits' must be all 'beheaded'; that the several million 'bandits' who have sought refuge in Europe will not be allowed to return (ethnic cleansing). This is the quality of several mainstream Russian sources I have been watching for a month, as wikipedians fuss with enormous concern over the 900 (of 200,000 Ukrainian serviceman) strong Azov battalion's fascism.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- "continental European mainstream sources" in what language, local, Russian, or in English? CurryCity (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- All I am noting is that continental European mainstream sources give a very broad and in depth coverage. La7 for example just rebroadcast a discussion on Russia's Channel 1 where the consensus was that Ukrainians don't exist; the 'denazification' (russification) programme will take 20 years to complete; that the 'fascist bandits' must be all 'beheaded'; that the several million 'bandits' who have sought refuge in Europe will not be allowed to return (ethnic cleansing). This is the quality of several mainstream Russian sources I have been watching for a month, as wikipedians fuss with enormous concern over the 900 (of 200,000 Ukrainian serviceman) strong Azov battalion's fascism.Nishidani (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is Russia's talking points so much more widespread than mainstream English media narratives that we need to offset it here? CurryCity (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- This is not a forum to discuss Greek Parliament. Both quoted poliiticians are members of 'radical' left Syriza.Xx236 (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course not. This is a place where Nazism is whitewashed and Nazis are quoted with no issue, while a European politician who taught at various prestigious universities is labelled and dismissed. M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- 'Of course not' - what do you mean? Which 'place'? Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Of course not. This is a place where Nazism is whitewashed and Nazis are quoted with no issue, while a European politician who taught at various prestigious universities is labelled and dismissed. M.Bitton (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Not this thread will not be able to overturn or ignore the above RFC, so comment there if you want to have your say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
As I see it, there are many RS published in the recent past, claiming it is a neonazi group. So, we will need a more recent, well cited review paper published in a peer revied journal, that examines the nature or ideology of Azov battalion, and states that they have moved from neonazism to something else . Cinadon36 14:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- The RFC closer will examine all of the arguments and judge them based upon their merit with regard to our policies. Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not that many RS do independent research of the subject, I bet many just copy the neo-nazi label from this very article. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Birdofpreyru (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Azov movement
I created a section for this in the article. Based on an November 1918 article from the U.S. funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty [1], "Combined, these groups are known as the "Azov movement,".
I can see above (the split proposal, for example) there are other, better sources we could use to fill this section out. I think it is difficult to understand the battalion without understanding how it fits together/into the "movement".
If anyone wants to work on it? I will try but no guarantees on the result :) Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
[2] Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC) Opinion article by Ivan Gomza, one of the authors of Black Sun Rising above [3]
Andreas Umland, 2020 [4]
- This is very interesting, the "Azov Movement" is in my opinion a pivotal topic to understand what the Azov Regiment is. If I find something I try to contribute. Mhorg (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.rferl.org/a/azov-ukraine-s-most-prominent-ultranationalist-group-sets-its-sights-on-u-s-europe/29600564.html
- ^ Black Sun Rising: Political Opportunity Structure Perceptions and Institutionalization of the Azov Movement in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine Ivan Gomza and Johann Zajaczkowsk, Nationalities Papers (2019), 47: 5, 774–800 doi:10.1017/nps.2019.30
- ^ Ivan Gomza, https://raamoprusland.nl/dossiers/oekraine/2093-a-short-history-of-azov-and-ukrainian-fascism, A short history of Azov and Ukrainian fascism, 16 April 2022
- ^ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andreas-Umland/publication/341966641_The_Far_Right_in_Pre-_and_Post-Euromaidan_Ukraine_From_Ultra-Nationalist_Party_Politics_to_Ethno-Centric_Uncivil_Society/links/5edb6f0392851c9c5e874203/The-Far-Right-in-Pre-and-Post-Euromaidan-Ukraine-From-Ultra-Nationalist-Party-Politics-to-Ethno-Centric-Uncivil-Society.pdf?origin=publication_detail The far right in Ukraine, p.262