Talk:Azov Brigade

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2024

Азов ранее подразлеление отряда милиции особого назначенмя МВД Украины, создан для борьбы с террористической угрозой из от организованой преступности (рекет, теракты,заказные убийства, оборот наркотиков, оружия, торговля детьми и людьми), в военное время трансформировался в военную единицу, они имеюи ценный опытом в этом деле.

Brigade to Corps

It seems that azov has now re-branded itself as a corps by adding new units. I do not know how many or how big, but it is clear that azov identifies itself as a corps (https://www.instagram.com/azov.media/). Moreover, this rebranding will NOT dispel the accusations of neo-Nazism. I mean, the new logo of azov is just the Nazi Reichsadler, if you remove the bottom and the right part of it and add the azov version of the Wolfsangel. Korean991 (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

This may not be an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to ask, but what do you mean by "RS"? Relevant Subject? If so, to that I would say that the structure heading has these changes stated as part of the history of Azov, but my point is just to at least bring this up to be added later, but I am most certain that Azov is/will be a corps in military terms. So in conclusion, if you mean Relevant Subject, then I do not understand how this is not relevant when similar changes were relevant, such as when it went from a battalion to a regiment and from a regiment to a brigade. Korean991 (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

He means reliable sources, WP:RS. TylerBurden (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I did a bit of digging and found an article supporting the formation of a "1st Corps of the Ukrainian National Guard Azov" here and here. I noticed that a page for the 1st Azov Corps has been created which makes my brigade to corps proposal useless, tho I was a bit wrong, I didnt realise that the Azov Brigade exists within the 1st Azov Corps and I think this is going to be a problem, so I would like to add redirect warnings on both pages redirecting to each other to remove confusion. Korean991 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Can we call Azov a far-right formation in the lede?

WP:RS regularly and consistently refer to Azov as a far-right brigade/battalion/formation and state in their own voice they have a far-right ideology.

A far-right battalion ... the far-right Azov movement ... While the far-right worldview of the Azov movement is clear CNN

far-right Azov regiment ... Azov regiment, a controversial Ukrainian far-right voluntary military group ... Azov is a far-right all-volunteer infantry military unit AlJazeera

Ukrainian units with far-right histories are now deeply integrated into Ukraine’s armed forces and eschew foreign recruitment, and one of those units, the Azov Regiment Westpoint.edu

Right-wing Azov Battalion ... Azov Battalion, which has been connected with a far-right ideology ... the battalion’s far-right nationalist ideology ... He enlisted in Azov because he shared its far-right nationalist ideology. Washington Post

far-right Azov Battalion France24

the unit is composed of nationalists and far-right radicals Deutsche Welle

a Far-Right Ukrainian Army Unit The Intercept

far-right Azov movement ... Olena Semenyaka, the head of international outreach for the Azov movement. On a tour of the Cossack House in 2019, she told TIME that Azov’s mission was to form a coalition of far-right groups across the Western world ... no other far-right militia in the world could claim TIME

The Azov movement has long been a symbol of the far-right in Ukraine. Atlantic Council

Azov Battalion, a unit of the Ukrainian National Guard that has drawn far-right fighters from around the world NYT TurboSuperA+_(connect) 20:44, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree, the org have been named a far-right group multiple times, by multiple RS, just before and during the current events. Should be mentioned.Mr.User200 (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

It is mentioned and if you look at the content of this page there is clearly not a consensus among sources on this. Tristario (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There was an RFC in 2021 where the consensus was to call them "neo-nazi". TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

See the more recent rfc here. That consensus was overturned Tristario (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I just found that one. The two RFCs discussed calling them "neo-nazi", while I am talking about adding a "far-right" descriptor. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I note that most (all?) of those talk about the battalion, not the brigade. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a nitpick. Just because they changed their name/designation, doesn't mean they changed themselves qualitatively. The Wikipedia article refers to them as a "formation". I don't think it matters whether they are designated a unit, brigade, battalion, formation. By your logic, we'd have to remove and rewrite all the information that depends on sources from when they were called something else. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:14, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Not really as at least one of those sources mentions the fact, and how after that they tried to clean up their image. So it's clear RS thinks the distinction is important enough to mention. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

These two sources refer to them as "militia" and "battalion", while this source calls them a "brigade". With all due respect, the argument that they are now a completely different unit because they have changed their designation/size from "battalion" to "brigade" is silly and it wouldn't fly on any other part of wikipedia. You should also note that sources above also use the neutral term "military unit" which ignores whatever their current designation is and considers them to be the same unit. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:22, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I have made my point and sources that are 4 years old do not talk about current situations, thus has been discussed at length more than once. I will not bludgeon the process and am now out of here with "NO, nothing has changed since the last time". Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

am now out of here with "NO, nothing has changed since the last time"

What a surprise. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

RFC: Can we refer to the Azov formation as "far-right" in the lede?

Relevant previous RFCs: 1 2
Previous discussion: 1

Currently the lede states: The 12th Special Operations Brigade "Azov" ... is a formation of the National Guard of Ukraine.

RFC question: Should the first sentence in the lede be changed to The 12th Special Operations Brigade "Azov" ... is a far-right formation of the National Guard of Ukraine?

• 1. Yes
• 2. No

Notified WP:Ukraine and WP:NPOV/N. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because in addition to WP:RS consistently referring to them as "far-right" throughout their existence (2021, [1] [2]) (2022, [3] [4] [5]) recent WP:RS refer to them that way also. Some WP:RS don't even refer to them as a brigade or battalion, but use the neutral and timeless "military unit", like this AlJazeera article (updated June, 2024).

• "far-right Azov Battalion" (October, 2024) France24
• "a Far-Right Ukrainian Army Unit" (June, 2024) The Intercept

They have been called a "regiment", "brigade", "battalion", "military unit", "formation", I don't think anyone thinks that RSes are referring to a different unit and the Wikipedia article currently doesn't make that distinction because the lede refers to them as "a formation". TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I don’t know enough either way to weigh in, but I do know that Ukraine has tried dealing with the far right element of Azov, so it’s worth considering weighting more recent sources discussing it more heavily if those sources agree with a change over time. Sources from three years ago may be out of date now. There’s a discussion of that here. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

There’s a discussion of that here.

Thank you for contributing an academic source to the discussion. The book that article is in, The Palgrave Handbook of Non-State Actors in East-West Relations, is available on Anna's Archive and Library Genesis. I just read the article you linked. The article reads more as an analysis of Azov as a (former) non-state actor, with the author trying to place them on the liberal-illiberal axis in the context of Europe. I could be wrong, of course. Could you copy-paste the part of the text that you think disputes that Azov is currently far-right (or discusses it)? TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• No based on the sources provided, they are either too old or make it clear that in fact the two are separate (but one at least says the formation says they are the same). Movoer these sources were available for last year, and thus don't present new information for the last time we had an RFC on this. Moreover, we do say it in the lead, so it's hard to see why it needs to be added. Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  these sources were available for last year, and thus don't present new information for the last time we had an RFC on this.

  Not true, the RFC was in 2022, the sources are from 2024.

  Moreover, we do say it in the lead, so it hard to see what wants to be added.

  Perhaps you should read the RFC question before commenting, because the question is quite clear on what's to be added. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  We say it, we do not need to say it again, I have had my say with a firm no, and will not engage in another back and forth with you, let others have their say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  We say it

  No, we don't. The second paragraph uses the word "allegedly", whereas this RFC is about describing them as "far-right" in WikiVoice in the first sentence of the article.

  will not engage in another back and forth with you

  Discussion is part of the collaborative process. You made two errors and I corrected you. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  OK then I will respond again. Exactly, this is an allegation made (by both the recent sources) against the battalion (which both sources make clear is not regarded as the same formation by everybody). Thus, this does not change the situation from the last RFC, that some people accuse it of being far right, not that it is. Thus my main objection stands: we already say it had been accused of being far-right, and that actually reflects the RS, some say yes, some say no, and some say maybe.So this WILL be my last word, I have explained my thoughts and you need to let others have their say without you correcting them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• No per Slatersteven, it's not really due for the first sentence, especially since the far-right characterization seems to have faded and further be putting Russian propaganda in Wikivoice. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, per the reasons given by TurboSuperA+, multiple RS describe Azov as a far right group.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• No: RSes disagree about whether the Azov Brigade in its current form is still far-right, and to what extent it has been depoliticised and deradicalised. This controversy is covered in detail in the "Neo-Nazism allegations" section of the article, with sources arguing for both sides. To write The 12th Special Operations Brigade "Azov" ... is a far-right formation of the National Guard of Ukraine as proposed in the first sentence of the lede would be to take one side in the controversy, which would not be NPOV. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 13:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes Neo-nazis are a far-right political movement and thr Azov Brigade are notoriously neo-nazis. WP:SKYBLUE very nearly applies. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think WP:SKYBLUE here can't apply if we're considering post-2023, where it gets a lot muddier. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  We absolutely need to cite a contentious label such as far-right/neo-Nazi, and we should be doing better than citing mass media and focus on academic sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• No (Summoned by bot) There is no consensus that the group in its current form is far right. There are as many sources that say they are far right as sources that say they're a "group with links to" or "group that is no longer associated with" or "group that has distanced itself from" the far right, as far as I can tell. Without the sources agreeing, we should not be using WP:WIKIVOICE to say they are far right. TheSavageNorwegian 18:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• No it is a military battalion, since when do we refer to battalions as having political leanings? Do we refer to any USSR battalion as far-left/communist, do we refer to any Fascist Italian battalion as far-right/fascist, do we refer to American battalions as neo-liberal? No because that would be stupid. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No. WP:VOICE: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." It is seriously contested that Azov is, today, a far right movement. Example: Michael Colborne cited in Ha'aretz: "In spite of this, Colborne says that the Azov Battalion has undergone changes and become established over the years. In the first few years after it was founded, just a small minority of its soldiers had a connection to the far right; today, these numbers are even smaller and the use of neo-Nazi symbols among its members has been reduced greatly, he says." (June 2022) Colborne has written a book about Azov, he's clearly a credible expert, not WP:Fringe - and in 2019 he wrote that the Azov movement was "a dangerous neo-Nazi-friendly extremist movement", so he's willing to make harsh judgments if they seem justified. Same goes for Shekhovtsov, cited in the article. Listing various ordinarily-reliable outlets describing Azov is far right is irrelevant. The case for No isn't that lots of sources don't call them far right, it's that there is a serious dispute over whether that's true.

I did a very light touch restructure on the section on allegations of Neo-Nazism, bringing it closer to, but not quite into, chronological order, and adding a couple of sub-headings - but not adding or removing any content. There might be value in doing more to make it chronological, especially distinguishing between pre and post 2015 (integration into the National Guard), and maybe making a sub-section just for the symbols. A few of the sources just aren't very high quality - e.g. Golinkin and Davidzon, whose views are opposite. The section intro could better summarise the section as a whole. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I did little search and recent sources still calling them "far right" Shadow4dark (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

What that source actually says:

". . . has far-right and ultra-nationalist roots" - i.e. it's saying they were far right in the past/at their origin.

It also notes that "Current members of the group reject any ties with the far-right . . ." Sonnyvalentino (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem here is the whitewashing of azov brigade. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

No per Sonnyvalentino above. There’s an unambiguous sentiment that they’re historically far right, but the contemporary sources are much more conflicted and we have a lot of WP:RS-passing sources that discuss the shift away from far right elements over the case of the Ukraine War, and as it’s seriously and credibly contested WP:VOICE applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrenmck (talk • contribs) 08:01, April 21, 2025 (UTC)

• No per Slatersteven and others. Also, this is a military unit, not a political party. No doubts, some servicemen have such views, but it does not mean that the whole unit has such an ideology. My very best wishes (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes - It should be said as such in wikivoice. There are many sources for supporting it. There is no issue with WP:NPOV. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• No - There's obvious debate among RS about whether Azov is still actually "far-right". If the RS don't agree then we shouldn't state anything in narrative voice, but instead just describe the issue in the body, which is what we're currently doing. NickCT (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes - Their right-wing nationalistic nature is well documented. Even if they were not right-wing anymore (although they are still being called that by some sources as Shadow4dark pointed out) they are definitely ultra-nationalistic still. At the very least, if they are not officially considered that anymore, their right-wing (neo-Nazi?) roots should be pointed out in the lead because they were highly notable. EkoGraf (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Did you bother actually reading the lead before casting in your vote? The lead very clearly already does discuss the association. TylerBurden (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes I did bother to actually read the lead and saw it was already mentioned there. But I wanted to point out that their roots at least need to be preserved in the lead, if the general current description of them as far-right isn't accepted, because I wouldn't put it past some editors in the current atmosphere to try and remove even the paragraph regarding their neo-Nazi roots. EkoGraf (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• No - Because Wikipedia has a WP:NPOV policy, which prevents this exact kind of WP:SOAPBOXING where editors that want to push certain views want to say things in Wikipedia's voice despite there not being consensus in WP:RS to do so. Since there is disagreement amongst sources, the responsible thing to do is the current solution, where this split is described. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• No - Per WP:NPOV. There are quite a few sources that dispute this. Eg. Shekhovtsov: It is certain that Azov [the battalion] has depoliticised itself. Its history linked to the far-right movement is pretty irrelevant today" [6], Umland In 2014 this battalion had indeed a far-right background, these were far-right racists that founded the battalion" but it had since become "de-ideologised" and a regular fighting unit. [7], Colborne: 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. [8]. This is only a few of the sources and experts that dispute this. Tristario (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• No: RSes disagree about whether the Azov Brigade in its current form is still far-right, and to what extent it has been depoliticised and deradicalised per Helpful Cat & others. The brigade's origins, history and the related controversies are very comprehensively covered in the second para of the lead. To make the proposed addition in WPVOICE in the opening sentence would be POV, besides contradicting the present balanced coverage of a controversy. I also endorse it is a military battalion, since when do we refer to battalions as having political leanings?, there appears to still be some muddling of the brigade and the movement it sprang out of. Pincrete (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• No. Echoing the point raised by Traumnovelle and Pincrete. The lede frames the subject in relation to battle formation, rendering any political label inconsequential. The "far-right" element is also already covered in the body so that should do. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, we should cover the controversy over their politics in the first sentence in some form, although I'm not tied to any one wording. I can understand some of the objections regarding disputes over this, but the fact is that this topic is not primarily notable simply for being a brigade; it is mostly notable, internationally, because of the controversy over its association with far-right politics. Therefore, saying "oh we don't put stuff like this in the header of a brigade" doesn't make sense - this isn't some random brigade, it's one that is mostly notable at the level it is because of its politics. Leaving it out of the first paragraph doesn't make sense, and it probably belongs in the first sentence somehow. We could add qualifiers to indicate that it's disputed if necessary, but even if it is, that dispute is far more relevant than eg. when it was founded or even the details of where it is based, and deserves higher prominence in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• 1st preference: "a regiment associated with a far-right movement" (see my comment below and sources); 2nd preference: "a far-right regiment" (Yes), it's better than ignoring the its ideological leanings altogether. Alaexis_¿question? 18:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

As is well known there is Azov Brigade and Azov Movement and even the defenders of the former usually acknowledge the far-right nature of the latter (One key factor missing in all of the analyses of the Azov: the difference between the Azov movement and the Azov regiment... Certainly, the Azov movement is a dangerous key player of the transnational extreme right. [9]). This article's title is Azov Brigade but its scope evidently includes the movement, which doesn't have a dedicated article (enabling the motte-and-bailey fallacy in various discussions). I would suggest to make it explicit in the article. Rather than arguing whether the regiment is far-right or not we can say that it's a regiment associated with a far-right movement. Alaexis_¿question? 19:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't put that in the lede, precisely because the level of that association is one of the things disputed by the sources - see the section on the movement, which is mostly about that question. But the two should be distinguished more clearly in the section on Neo-Nazi allegations. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see any caveats there (Certainly, the Azov movement is a dangerous key player of the transnational extreme right. The movement has served as a network hub for several years now, with strong ties to far-right extremists in many EU countries and the US. Their activities — including mixed-martial-arts tournaments, music festivals, merchandise shops, political events, and paramilitary training — are of great concern because their disregard for universal human rights is a threat to minorities, opponents and public safety in general.) [10]. Alaexis_¿question? 18:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• I think that this discussion may have been poorly-served by leaping straight to "far-right" in the article voice with no qualifiers. While I think the sources probably do support that, it's more important that the dispute over its politics be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph, ideally in the first sentence, since it is central to the topic's notability - I'm concerned that this RFC could result in it being left out entirely, so if it fails I would suggest some workshopping and then a followup RFC to add more cautious language. --Aquillion (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Has anyone suggested removing mention of this from the lede? Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Currently it is only mentioned in the second paragraph; I think that it ought to be in the first, perhaps even the first sentence, given its centrality. It's simply more significant, in terms of "why is this otherwise random-ass brigade so notable", than most of the details that the first paragraph currently covers. --Aquillion (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it is fine in the second paragraph. The first paragraph provides all the basic details relevant for any military unit, and the second paragraph immediately gets into the controversy. The second paragraph of the lede is already a very prominent position.

The second paragraph also summarises well the dispute about whether Azov is still far-right, and I fear collapsing it into the first sentence or even paragraph would require shortening it and erasing the nuance. Because this is an ongoing controversy among RSes, I think a separate paragraph is needed to do it justice. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 18:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Azov Movement is a redirect to Azov Brigade. Either there's no distinction between the two, in which case we can add the "far-fight" adjective or the movement should be mentioned in the first paragraph. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 10:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Then I suggest someone create the Azov Movement article, rather than changing this article to push the disputed POV that there is no distinction between the two. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 10:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you'll find that what is disputed is the claim that there was some sort of epistemological break between the two. Many academics and WP:RS treat them as intertwined. While there is a brigade that does the fighting and a movement that does the PR, to claim that they are completely separate ideologically or that there is no coordination between the two would require consensus among WP:RS that this is the case.

For example, in his 2022 book From the Fires of War: Ukraine’s Azov Movement and the Global Far Right (Analyzing Political Violence), Michael Colborne (journalist from bellingcat]) writes:

A relatively ragtag gang of men from the far right, including open neo-Nazis from Ukraine and abroad, took up arms with blessing of Ukraine’s authorities, becoming a battalion, then a Regiment and, eventually, growing into a broader far-right social movement without much parallel anywhere else in the world.

“This movement will outgrow the Azov Battalion,” Biletsky said. It would be, he said, “all-encompassing”: sports clubs, socalled patriotic education and everything in between. Soon after, in 2015, the Azov Civil Corps was formed, a broader social movement that did everything from host marches and protests to disrupt anti-fascist rallies. This movement would quickly expand: in October 2016, the Civil Corps gave way to the National Corps, a political party that, at least on its face, eschewed the more radical imagery and rhetoric of its forebears. The National Militia (Natsionalni Druzhyny) was formed in 2017 as a quasi-paramilitary street patrol and, in the words of one senior Azov representative (quoted in Colborne, 2019c), an “affiliated paramilitary structure” (it would be rebranded as Centuria in 2020). Alongside this, other projects that had begun over the previous few years, from youth camps and sports training to publishers and book clubs, continued to not only expand, but dominate Ukraine’s far-right scene and make the Azov movement the envy of far-right activists around the world.

I've said my opinion, I'll give others a chance to voice theirs. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it is disputed that there was a break between the movement and the brigade. It is also disputed that there was no break between the movement and the brigade. (In fact, this is how disputes work in general) Therefore, the article should not state in wikivoice that there either was or was no break, but should cover the dispute using RSes for both sides. This is what it does currently.

to claim that they are completely separate ideologically or that there is no coordination between the two would require consensus among WP:RS that this is the case - no one is advocating this; this is just a strawman.

Most no-voters in the RFC have argued that we shouldn't label the Azov Brigade as far-right in wikivoice, not because it is not far-right, but because there is serious, legitimate dispute among RSes about whether it is far-right, and therefore this is a "seriously contested assertion" that should not be presented as fact per WP:VOICE. No one is proposing that we write in wikivoice that the Azov Brigade is not far-right. I'm not sure why you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the discussion. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 11:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

It is also disputed that there was no break between the movement and the brigade.
The onus is on those making the claim that there was a break.
No one is proposing that we write in wikivoice that the Azov Brigade is not far-right.
You are however against mentioning the movement in the first paragraph and against labeling the brigade as far-right, which pretty much amounts to the same thing when you take into account that the article is mostly a defense of Azov against neo-nazi allegations and a series of justifications for their use of Nazi symbology.
The first sentence of the 2nd paragraphs is: The unit has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology,
Note the use of "early" and "allegedly". TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The onus is on those making the claim that there was a break.

This is not how it works. Wikipedia should not make the claim either that there was a break or that there was no break. Wikipedia should explain that some RSes claim there was a break and some claim there was no break. I'm not sure how many times people need to explain the concept of wikivoice and NPOV.

You are however against mentioning the movement in the first paragraph and against labeling the brigade as far-right, which pretty much amounts to the same thing

Not labelling the brigade as far-right is not at all the same as saying it is not far-right. Sorry, this claim is simply absurd.

The article does not label the brigade either as far-right or not far-right; it says it began as far-right, and some observers claim it is still far-right while some claim it is not, and cites RSes for both sides.

The first sentence of the 2nd paragraphs is: The unit has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology,
Note the use of "early" and "allegedly"

This is an entirely accurate explanation of the controversy: the early far-right nature of the unit is not disputed, but whether this association continues is disputed; therefore the "continuing association" is qualified with "allegedly" while the early association is not.

Sorry, Wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 12:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

cites RSes for both sides.
I believe the coverage is skewed in favour of one POV. I've started a thread about it.
and some observers claim it is still far-right while some claim it is not
There is a lot of editorialising in the way this information is presented, for example:
Some experts have been critical of the regiment's role within the larger Azov Movement, a political umbrella group made up of veterans and organizations linked to Azov, and its possible far-right political ambitions, despite claims of the regiment's depoliticization.[19][10]
MOS:OFCOURSE: "When used to link two statements, words such as ... despite ... may imply a relationship where none exists, possibly unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second."
Notice how even there it takes as a given that the regiment has a role within the larger Azov movement.
Sorry, Wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs.
Apology accepted. It is not a place to push a point of view either. I don't think you and I are going to agree here or change one another's mind. I'm in no hurry. I honestly do want to hear from as many as editors as possible, because I genuinely think there are NPOV issues here. Given enough time and visibility, I believe that will be the consensus. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 13:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Some experts have been critical of the regiment's role within the larger Azov Movement, a political umbrella group made up of veterans and organizations linked to Azov, and its possible far-right political ambitions, despite claims of the regiment's depoliticization.[19][10]

FWIW, I don't think "despite" here is necessarily favouring the claims of depoliticisation (it could equally be read as arguing that those claims are wrong). But I think the wording of that sentence is quite unclear in general - I'm fine with tweaking the wording of this and later parts of the article, to reflect the balance of views among RSes without any POV connotations.

For example:

The unit has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology, its use of symbols linked to Nazism, and early allegations that members of the unit participated in human rights violations. At its origin as an independent militia, the unit was part of the far-right Azov Movement. After its integration into the National Guard, the unit was brought under Ukrainian government control[11], and observers noted a government strategy of integrating far-right militias into the regular military while attempting to limit ideological influence.[12] Some experts argue that the unit has depoliticised, deradicalised and distanced itself from the Azov Movement; others remain critical and argue that the unit remains linked to the movement and to far-right ideology. The Azov Regiment has been a recurring theme of Russian propaganda.

Notice how even there it takes as a given that the regiment has a role within the larger Azov movement.

As Alaexis pointed out above, I think coverage of this topic on Wikipedia suffers from a lack of differentiation between the brigade and the movement. No one disputes that the brigade originated from within the movement; the main controversy among RSes is whether and to what extent the brigade has separated itself from the movement, but we can't explore this dispute if we treat these entities as interchangeable. So we would benefit from having a separate article about the Azov Movement that's not just a redirect to the brigade's article.

Apology accepted. It is not a place to push a point of view either.

Thank you, but I didn't mean to apologise for my own behaviour. You're right that Wikipedia is not a place for POV-pushing. To that end, I hope we can avoid actions that promote POV-pushing, such as stating disputed assertions as fact in wikivoice or, yes, distorting the selection and coverage of RSes in any direction.

I don't think you and I are going to agree here or change one another's mind. I'm in no hurry. I honestly do want to hear from as many as editors as possible, because I genuinely think there are NPOV issues here. Given enough time and visibility, I believe that will be the consensus.

Absolutely, let's await the consensus of the community. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 16:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"Undue"

@Slatersteven can you please stop removing information backed by multiple WP:RS. Claims of an elected member of the European Parliament on what is going on in her own country is absolutely due for the section. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes as A there are 22 members of the European Parliament for the Czech Republic, so one of them having an opinion is not significant. 2 We also need to have the fact that a far morem imprant person (the czech foren minister) criticized her views (if we even need it, which I doubt). 3 Her party only gor 6% of the vote. No her opinion is far too insignificant, she isn't a major politican. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Her statements were widely reported on in Czechia [13] [14] [15] and then it was reported on by the New Voice of Ukraine [16]. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

So? What makes her views more relevant than the Czech foreign minister? Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

If you wished to add the statements of the Czech foreign minister, you could have done so. Don't expect others to do the work for you. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I am saying her views are not important, she is not a major political figure or academic expert, just one MEP. And you need to revert as you do not have a consensus. I will not be having around anotreh back and forth with you, I have objected now it's time for others to chip in. Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

she is not a major political figure

That's debatable. It is not up to you to decide who is important and who isn't. There are four RS (probably more) who thought her statements were worthy of reporting on. If she wasn't a "major political figure" she wouldn't have gotten so much coverage. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

It's up to editors in general to decide how important sources are with regard to the WP:UNDUE criteria. That's the premise of the policy. Who else is going to decide?

Is this discussion referring to the paragraphs posted below in the section titled "WP:BALANCE issues"? If so: IMO, the difference between Golinkin's Nation and Forwards pieces is that the former offers some evidence to conclude the Azov Brigade is a far right organisation. For example: continuity of leading personnel to the post-2022 period (it would be better to quote this material than the stuff that's there now making broad accusations about Western institutions). The Forwards article takes that idea as a premise for an argument about the behaviour of Western institutions. This section of the WP Azov article is about the contested idea of Azov's Neo-Nazi/far-right associations, and cited pieces should themselves say something substantial about that rooted in evidence.

Similarly, about Kateřino Konečná comments IMO: She's not saying anything anyone else hasn't said. Her points are: 1) It was founded by Biletsky (a racist); 2) It is led by Prokopenko, who has far-right roots; 3) the regiment has previously been criticised by OHCHR. The article already covers 1) and 3), and 2) is covered by Golinkin albeit not mentioned in our summary, which just quotes his assertions and criticism of the Western media.

The section shouldn't just be a compilation of anyone who's said anything about the topic - and it doesn't matter, in the case of Konečná, if she was quoted by a reliable source, the source only has to be reliable as to the quotation, whereas the question for us is the reliability of the judgments on Azov they quote. Some writers, such as Colborne, have the expertise to offer overarching judgments, because they've written books, are full-time researchers on the far right, etc. Others like Golinkin dip their toe in and make individual points that contribute to the overall debate and should be recorded on that basis. Konečná is just reading the internet and announcing an opinion (and if you think it's right to identify Azov as far-right, I can't see how you can avoid identifying her as a Communist). How I'd handle it in summary style:

In June 2023, journalist Lev Golinkin argued that the Brigade had not deradicalised. He observed that, despite some personnel changes, some of its contemporary leaders, including Prokopenko and Palamar, had roots in the 2014 formation, and a record of far-right and Neo-Nazi associations. He also pointed to the presence of other 2014 veterans who had expressed far-right or Neo-Nazi views in military formations associated with the Azov Movement.

IMHO the Davidzon piece, which replies to the Forwards piece but not the Nation piece, isn't worth including. It's mostly ad hominem and a broad defence of Ukrainian society as liberal. But some will probably see it as necessary balance - and that would be true if we include Golinkin's criticism of Western media, etc. On the other hand, if you're going to mention Konečná, I think you've got to include the Czech FM's reply for balance. But that just takes us away from saying substantive things about Azov and into recording twitter bunfights. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Being worried about the risk that an inclusion might cause others to insert undue material in a sense of WP:FALSEBALANCE seems an odd reason for excluding otherwise reliable and due material. Simonm223 (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

That's not my point. I'm against including Konečná and the Czech FM in themselves because they substantively contribute nothing to the topic as I understand it. But if one of them is relevant, so is the other one. The balance wouldn't be false, it would be real. The question is just whether they're saying anything substantive about the topic that hasn't already been said. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

"The section shouldn't just be a compilation of anyone who's said anything about the topic"

Which would be fine if the standard was applied to both sides of the argument. As you can see in this comment there don't seem to be WP:DUE concerns when opinions of journalists who think Azov is not neo-nazi/far-right are included. What is also worrying is that the statements are attributed to the publications themselves, rather than the journalists who hold them, thus appearing to give them more importance and an air of neutrality: The Guardian reported, a Reuters report, An article published by Foreign Affairs.

Here's another WP:BALANCE concern: Vyacheslav Likhachev, another leading expert on the far right, writing for a blog called The Ukrainian View, stated in May 2022 that there are no grounds for describing Azov as a neo-Nazi unit [emphasis mine]. That should not be stated in WikiVoice because the source is a medium.com blog who describe themselves as "The Ukrainian View is an independent blog that aims at sharing not news, but views of the Ukrainians." They are in no position to call someone "a leading expert"

Examples of WP:CIVILPOV include Arguing that reliable sources are biased while their own preferred sources are neutral. and engag[ing] in cherrypicking.

"But some will probably see it as necessary balance - and that would be true if we include Golinkin's criticism of Western media"

There is also the fact that another, independent source reported on Golinkin's article, making it at least as notable as the articles published by journalists who did not get any independent coverage.

"if you're going to mention Konečná, I think you've got to include the Czech FM's reply for balance"

I didn't include his statements because he never said anything about Azov, he questioned her allegiances and stated that Nazism is defined by "killing and abducting children". This also begs the question -- why does every allegation of neo-nazism have to be followed immediately by a retort/"debunk"? By consistently giving the last word to the anti-allegation argument is persuasive writing and editoralising, WP:OFCOURSE.

The whole section (and frankly, the article) is skewed in the favour of Azov, also with laughable sentences like these though it had far-right connotations, the Wolfsangel was not considered a fascist symbol by the population in Ukraine. Why is that due? It's a Nazi symbol, period. Nobody likes to think of themselves as "the bad guys", WP:SKYISBLUE. The statement is sourced to Deutsche Welle, a state-owned German news outlet. Germany is one of the biggest supporters of Ukraine, they have a vested interest in denying that they are aiding neo-nazis, yet this is included in the article without a second thought. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Not going to reply about everything, but just a couple of comments. About the attribution, IMHO in general attributing news reporting for a newspaper or wire (e.g. Guardian or Reuters) to the publication is standard practice, but that would not be true of an essay or op-ed piece, especially one in Foreign Affairs, which only runs such pieces. Mironova is not a journalist btw, she's an academic and analyst, and she and her colleague could legitimately be named. I doubt anyone would object if you made that change.

Indeed, the Ukrainian View blog is not a dispositive source for whether Vyacheslav Likhachev is a leading expert, but we can easily search and find out that in this case they are correct. He has written two books on relevant topics: one on post-Soviet antisemitism, and another on irregular armed groups in the Russia-Ukraine war. He has graduate degrees and has held academic posts at several credible institutions and per his LinkedIn his literal job title is "expert". He's also from Russia, by the way.

And yes, inclusion should be on a consistent principle, but that does mean deciding whether to lean toward including more Punch & Judy stuff or against it. I'm suggesting to lean against it. Otherwise it will just get unmanageable: more heat, no light, more length. After you get your way on the Czech MP someone else can go and add a quote about how Azov are "not Nazis but heroes of Ukraine fighting ruscism" or something. Nobody learns anything this way.

The section has lots of problems which won't be solved by adding in more partisan views. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Mironova is not a journalist btw, she's an academic and analyst

You're right, I missed it. The co-author of the article, Sergatskova, is a journalist, though.

we can easily search and find out that in this case they are correct

That's WP:OR. We need an independent RS to call them "a leading expert".

and per his LinkedIn his literal job title is "expert"

lol. He put that there himself. Users edit their own profiles on LinkedIn, it's not an authoritative source.

someone else can go and add a quote about how Azov are "not Nazis but heroes of Ukraine fighting ruscism" or something.

That's already in the article.

The section has lots of problems which won't be solved by adding in more partisan views.

We could all collaborate on rewriting/rearranging the section. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 12:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean - I think you could delete "leading" but retain expert.

A collaborative effort sounds good but might be difficult to coordinate. I could have a stab at a basic edit in a sandbox, but maybe not for a couple of weeks. Sonnyvalentino (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I think you could delete "leading" but retain expert.

 Done

I could have a stab at a basic edit in a sandbox, but maybe not for a couple of weeks

Same here. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 17:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:DEUTSCHEWELLE is considered to be a reliable source Tristario (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Right. Nobody is disputing that the political scientist truly believes what he said or that he said it. The question is whether it is WP:DUE to include a single person's opinion that the "population of Ukraine" doesn't think the Wolfsangel is a fascist symbol. The Wolfsangel is widely considered to be a fascist symbol and we have no reason to include a fringe opinion. The opinion was included to lessen the impact of the fact that Azov uses a form of the Wolfsangel as part of their logo. This is persuasive writing, MOS:EDITORIAL. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

An editor has deleted a couple of expert comments on the symbols on grounds of False Balance. Should that happen without consensus at this stage? Sonnyvalentino (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

No, because the arguments that Simonm223 used to do so, made little more sense than their sky is blue Azov is nazi assertion above. TylerBurden (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It's absurd that Wikipedia is supporting the notion that Ukranians are uniquely unable to recognize well-known Nazi iconography. TylerBurden such an extraordinary claim requires more than newsprint to back it up. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Where exactly does it say this and why do you keep ignoring the actual sources? TylerBurden (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Lev Golinkin

Have we not already rejected his comments? Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Eh, why? Alaexis_¿question? 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

As I recall because he was not an expert on politics or war, and was little more than a travel reporter or something. Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Just search the archives, he is not worth even more WP:WEIGHT. Vladislav Davidzon found out some things about him and addressed him in this open letter. In addition, TurboSuperA+ added repeated content, just wordier and less neutral, since Golinkin is already present. TylerBurden (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any objections of including journalists' opinions when their opinion is that Azov aren't far-right/neo-nazis. I think this is a case of WP:CIVILPOV.
e.g.

• This statement "The Guardian reported in 2014 that "many of [Azov's] members have links with neo-Nazi groups, and even those who laughed off the idea that they are neo-Nazis did not give the most convincing denials", citing swastika tattoos among the fighters and one who claimed to be a "national socialist".[292]" is attributed to "The Guardian", when it is actually the opinion of Shaun Walker, a journalist, published by the Guardian.

• This statement "A 2015 Reuters report noted that after the unit's inclusion in the National Guard and receipt of heavier equipment, Andriy Biletsky toned down his usual rhetoric, while most of the extremist leadership had left to focus on political careers in the National Corps party or the Azov Civil Corps.[77]")) is attributed to "Reuters", when it is actually the opinion of Gabriela Baczynska, a journalist, published by Reuters.

• Then this "An article published by Foreign Affairs in 2017 argued that the unit was relatively depoliticized and deradicalized after it was brought into the fold of the National Guard of Ukraine. The government started a process with the objective of ferreting out neo-nazis and foreign fighters, with background checks, observations during training, and a law requiring all fighters to accept Ukrainian citizenship.[76]" is attributed to "Foreign Affairs" when it is actually the opinion of journalists Vera Mironova and Ekatarina Sergatskova.

Clearly there is no issue with including opinions of journalists in the article and section. Therefore the opinion of Lev Golinkin can be included, especially because there are other, independent WP:RS that report on his article. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 07:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Of course you would accuse me of POV pushing, on the contrary, your issue with me is likely that I get in the way of your efforts by not letting you turn Wikipedia into Russian propaganda. The whataboutism on display here doesn't change anything, if you think there are issues with other sources, fix them, giving undue weight to a journalist because you like the narrative he is giving isn't a fix. TylerBurden (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

In one of your recent edit summaries you wrote: A talk page section on this ″journalist″ , who has been discussed before, exists,

Why did you call Lev Golinkin a "journalist" with quotation marks? There are independent sources that describe him as follows: author and journalist Lev Golinkin (SFGate) His op-eds and essays on the Ukraine crisis have appeared in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, and Time.com, among others; he has been interviewed by WSJ Live and HuffPost Live. (Penguin Random House) He has also written for Politico, The Forward, The Nation, and so on. I don't think his journalistic credentials should be doubted. The only reason to do so is to exclude his opinion, an opinion with which you disagree.

"not letting you turn Wikipedia into Russian propaganda"

This is the second time you have accused me of spreading Russian propaganda without any evidence or cause. If you look at the sources I add, none of them are Russian. You need to stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS.

You POV push is apparent because you resort to accusing journalists like Lev Golinkin of not being journalists and putting emphasis on Davidzon's open letter where he also accuses him of spreading Russian propaganda: Golinkin is attempting to make the rest of American Jewry internalize his own immigrant pathologies and fears while playing fast and loose with rhetoric in a way that does not help anyone except the producers of Russian propaganda. The irony is that it is Davidzon who plays "fast and loose with the truth" writing things like The Ukrainian state is, and has been since 2015, at the forefront of the process of dealing with its dark past. Which two seconds of googling exposes as a lie, because in 2016 Ukraine renamed one of Kyiv's "main northern arteries" to Stepan Bandera Avenue. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 20:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The fact that you think only Russians and sources in Russian spread Russian propaganda should probably say enough, there are editors who spend their entire time on Wikipedia pushing pro-Russian narratives, as you should know, and they aren't necessarily Russian. Just because they try to be subtle about it by claiming things like "neutrality" doesn't make this any less disruptive as there quite frankly aren't around enough editors who have the time and patience to deal with editors like you that will WP:BLUDGEON discussions for days on end while simultaneously playing victim and completely lacking WP:AGF about others. Anyway this appears more suitable for WP:ANI, since it appears I'm not the only one that seems to think you have a chronic habit of violating Wikipedia policy as long as you get content to be how you want it to be.

I have already said that Golinkin is on the article, and I am not advocating for his removal, as you make it sound, and I don't see how hyperfixating on quotation marks used in an edit summary is productive either, I am against repeating the same content as that is not only giving undue weight, but poor editing in general. TylerBurden (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Two other editors and I have recognised that the section has issues. You seem to be the only one advocating that it stays the way it is. You say "seek consensus on the talk page", but then refuse to engage with the arguments, except when you barge in every now and then to revert the changes and accuse people of spreading Russian propaganda. The only disruptive editor on this talk page is you. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 21:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE issues

The section on Azov brigade#Neo-Nazi Allegations is mostly about the defense of Azov from the allegations. I wish to add information from WP:RS to balance the article's coverage. These are the two paragraphs I wish to add, but @Slatersteven and @TylerBurden don't wish that they be added. They are disputing the addition (no reason given) and say that I must reach consensus to add this to the article.

So, can these two paragraphs be added to the article?

In July 2024, Czech MEP Kateřino Konečná described the Azov brigade as "the worst manifestation of Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism". She complained about the visit of 3rd Assault Brigade and former Azov soldiers to Prague, as part of their "European tour". She said these events legitimized and promoted neo-Nazism and that they should be banned, particularly in Czechia.

On 23 June, 2023, writing for The Nation, journalist Lev Golinkin claimed that major media outlets in the West are whitewashing the Azov brigade. He says Western institutions "decided that a neo-Nazi military formation in a war-torn nation had suddenly and miraculously stopped being neo-Nazi", but goes on to say that "the truth is that this is an easily debunked fantasy spun out by a handful of propagandists." In a later article for The Forward, published on 3 July of the same year, Golinkin reported on the Azov delegation that was hosted by Stanford university and attended by Francis Fukuyama. Golinkin described Azov as "a neo-Nazi formation in the Ukrainian National Guard."

The first paragraph is also supported by these (Czech language) sources: [17] [18] TurboSuperA+_(connect) 16:15, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Both are being discused above. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Continuing the balance issues. As @TylerBurden pointed out, Golinkin's The Nation article is already mentioned in the section. I did not see The Forward article, however. Nevertheless, I believe that the way Golinkin's statement and Davidzon's response are included is WP:FALSEBALANCE. As a reminder, WP:BALANCE states: "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources."

Lev Golinkin's article, published by The Nation is also discussed in the following sources: [19] [20] and this Democracy Now! youtube video.

Meanwhile, there is no discussion of Davidzon's piece anywhere. This means that Golinkin's article is more prominent than Davidzon's, therefore the inclusion of the second paragraph from the OP is warranted. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 11:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)