Talk:Azov Brigade

Reliable sources - let's just ignore them for this article hey?

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

---

Why am I not surprised that the usual requirement for RS for an article have been abandoned in order for pro-Ukranians to do damage control on the views and actions of the Azov Battalion? How on earth are any of these on the RS list??? Kyiv Independent, Ukrayinska Pravda, NCSC.gov.uk, mythdetector.ge, RfEurope, voxukraine.org, Meduza.io, thepage.ua, mk.ru, et al. Apeholder (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

... we shouldn't be relying on those kinds of sources here. I'd tag and/or remove them. -Darouet (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest whatever sources you don’t like you check on WP:RSP and search the archives, or post a query on WP:RSN.

The Kyiv Independent, Ukrainska Pravda, Meduza are reliable sources. If you mean RFE/RL http://rferl.org then that is reliable too. Please don’t tag or remove them before discussing.

MK.ru is supposedly not bad for reporting attributed statements, but like everything else still published in Russia, it is subject to Russian state censorship.

And let’s not go down the route of badmouthing “pro-Ukrainians” or otherwise calling out national groups, okay, @Apeholder? —Michael Z. 21:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, your posting comments on separate lines makes it look as if different people have entered this discussion but not posted their username at the end of the comments. This is misleading and should not be continued. The Kyiv Independent, Ukrainska Pravda, Meduza et al are NOT on the RS list. As for Radio Free Europe, this is literally a state-funded outlet, so if we accept that one, then we need to accept state-funded outlets from other countries, but that wouldn't allow us to promote the western bias here would it? As for "pro-Ukranians", I have never in my life seen as much propaganda over an issue like we are currently being bombarded with Ukraine. So yes, there are "pro-Ukranians", of course people have bias, nobody here is being badmouthed - come on - but I have a problem with only ever being told one side. And "pro-Ukraine" is not a national group! Just stop. The above links will be removed in due course because they don't meet Wikipedia's own guidelines. Apeholder (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Since you’re defending labelling editors, then I guess you’re choosing to represent yourself as a pro-Russian in the subject area of Russia’s unprovoked imperialist attack on Ukraine, @Apeholder? Where do you stand on the Russian state’s incitement of genocide, pro or con?  —Michael Z. 17:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't identify as anything in particular, to claim I'm pro-Russian just because I have challenged some of the narrative on Ukraine is so very childish. Please do better in the future. And no, the invasion of Ukraine wasn't unprovoked. It is wrong, before you try and claim I'm in support of it, but the expansion of NATO and Russia's clear message that Ukraine being added to NATO would be a step too far. What did the west do? Belligerently carried on by funding a nazi coup, dismissed all opportunities to talk and recklessly pushed us towards WW3. That's hardly unprovoked, but because I can use critical thinking skills, I haven't ignored the big picture and don't use words like "genocide" when they're unfounded because I'm not a child. Meanwhile, if you want to use words like "genocide", then I need to talk to you about the fascist leanings of the Azov Battalion and the Right Section Apeholder (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I was going to write if you don’t like being called pro-Russian, then please apologize for promoting a WP:battleground by referring to some undefined group of editors by the national category of “pro-Ukrainians.”

But then you literally read off a list of pro-Russian anti-Ukrainian propaganda points and tried to push my buttons. @Apeholder, I suggest you stop, and desist from editing and discussing articles related to the Russo-Ukrainian war, because it is subject to WP:GS/RUSUKR. I also recommend against the random complaints about Wikipedia, because this is WP:NOTCHAT. Take it to your favourite public forum. —Michael Z. 21:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:INTERSPERSE: “Separate multiple paragraphs with whitespace.”  —Michael Z. 17:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Use of sources is not limited to any list. There is an open list at WP:RSP that are frequently used, and there are lists of sources that are unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted. State-funded sources are represented in both (e.g., NPR and BBC are both listed as generally reliable, TASS as generally unreliable).  —Michael Z. 17:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Distinguish state-funded media from state media, and public broadcaster from propaganda organization.  —Michael Z. 17:32, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Radio Free Europe - 100% state run propaganda Apeholder (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Take it to WP:RSN.  —Michael Z. 21:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

RFE is literally a US state-funded propaganda outlet. It is hardly reliable. By the line of argumentation put forth above we should accept Sputnik News and RT as RS. RFE and RFA repeatedly publishes fabricated stories sourced by "anonymous source in country X". Both have been instrumental in US imperialism in the past and continues to be to this day. KetchupSalt (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

RFE/RL has been discussed several times in the WP:RSN. As far as I know it has never been determined to be other than reliable.

Certainly nothing like RT and Sputnik, whose “editors” report directly to the Russian “president” and get medals for supporting foreign invasions.

Do you have any reliable sources backing your accusations?  —Michael Z. 19:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

get medals for supporting foreign invasions

As does the CIA. As for RS, how about the US government? KetchupSalt (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

RT.com appears in 16 Wikipedia articles, while rferl.org is in hundreds. If you’re hoping to turn that around, I’m not the ideal editor to expend your energy on convincing with such persuasive arguments. Good luck.  —Michael Z. 03:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Wikipedia doesn't use unbiased on reliable sources to begin with, per it's requirements that secondary sources are used (as in news media, not peer reviewed studies or direct sources themselves). Interestingly, this rule is broken by several of the entries on this page, pulling from political journals directly (such as all the sources in source 13, as of this writing). Along with that, I'm particularly fascinated by the idea that "alt-right" and "Neo-Nazi" are used like they're at all related. They're on literal opposite ends of the political spectrum and make no sense. But then again these are sensationalized sources being used too.

Honestly makes me surprised there isn't legal action taken against Wikipedia. Plenty of defamation being presented on the site from other sources, sure, but Wikipedia also specifically only takes biased sources that are known to offer defamatory views regularly. Sarstan (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The articles about the alt-right and neo-Nazism tell us these are both politically far-right movements, and both are in neo-Nazi and white supremacy categories. The former article mentions neo-Nazism 20 times and sheds light on the relationship of the two movements, implying they overlap on the spectrum and are sometimes considered to be the same thing.  —Michael Z. 15:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use reliable sources, it meets with Government organizations and is told what to post. --2603:90C8:503:BE18:EC35:7418:36EA:F36B (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are right. Wikipedia was great up to say 2008, now they are just another mouthpiece for propaganda. There are accounts that pretend to be random people but they have more than a full time job by editing pages literally all day long, always to a pro-establishment narrative. Apeholder (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - if weaker sources are to be used, we shouldn't use them for highly controversial statements. So, for instance, a niche or partisan source might be cited and used, with attribution, as a source for something other outlets don't want to cover. But those sources shouldn't be cited for extraordinary claims, e.g. that the Azov Battalion isn't actually neo-Nazi in its ideology. -Darouet (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

True, this article is worse off than it was in January 2022. I'm too tired to fix it.Alexysun (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't worry friends, when Russia wins like it did Nazi Germany (Nazi Germany, not Germany, huge differences) the article will most surely go back to saying the truth. Or, let's be pessimistic; they're gonna turn Azov into a "was heroes" instead, which would be ridiculously funny. Mark my words, please. 213.194.147.206 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Why has this been removed from the lede?

Why has the fact that Azov battalion is a far-right, neo-nazi group been removed from the lede? Could it be that such a thing became politically inconvenient? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.230.141.24 (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You would need to ask the wp:rs that changed their opinions. We go by what RS say, and RS seem to now say they no longer are Neo-nazi. Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

No they do not. What they say is that Azov has been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. Western liberals take this to mean that Azov is no longer fascist, which is not the case. KetchupSalt (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, if you'd actually look at the references you'd see the references saying it depoliticised, not just being incorporated into the armed forces. TylerBurden (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

While reliable source may and do change their opinion, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and we should not disregard everything published before 2022 since now the media no longer use the N-word. Alaexis_¿question? 13:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

True, but then the problem becomes what do we say "used to be "alledged to be" "Used to be alleged"? Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

"Historically characterised as" would do the job. Alaexis_¿question? 15:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The lede is already providing this information, and we also had an rfc on this. There were also multiple strong sources prior to 2022 that pushed back on the neo-nazi label Tristario (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As in "the group has drawn controversy over its early and allegedly continuing association with far-right groups and neo-Nazi ideology", so yes we already say it has these roots historically. This is what you get for AGF, and assuming people have actually read the lede before asking a question. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The first issue is acting like neo-Nazis are "far right" when they blatantly push for extreme left wing political positions. At least Nazism itself is extreme left wing anyway.

Second, the currently cited source is some dubious publication. I won't get into its value, but seems to have some serious bias.

Third, Wikipedia is well known to support confirmed biased sources. One of the issues of having self-appointed moderators I suppose. Especially on a political issue like this that desperately needs a different narrative. And just like the rest of hot topic Wiki, it's whoever is willing to sit there all day and "correct" the article against "vandalism" is who wins. This is one great example. Tempting as it is to at least remove "right wing" from the article since there's absolutely no right wing involvement of Azov, there's a garbage citation that is used. And using direct sources is prohibited on Wiki. You can only use secondary and opinion pieces. Sarstan (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Nazism itself is extreme left wing

This is so hilariously wrong I suggest you read the words of Adolf Hitler himself as to the NSDAP's political position and the way they deliberately appropriated socialist rhetoric because it was popular at the time. Good grief. KetchupSalt (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Azov now 3rd Separate Assault Brigade

Reports now confirm that the Azov Regiment has been reformed as the 3rd Assault Brigade (Ukraine). These articles will have to be merged. Sources here and here. Milblogger and OSINTs also allege that the Azov Regiment purged far-right members in order to officially integrate into the AFU, but no articles on that at the moment, but keep eyes peeled for any info. Javierbrugue (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, this promo video released by 3rd Assault/Azov SSO confirms the transition, along with a new emblem of three diagonal stripes. I'm not an experienced editor and do not have edit access, so someone please look into this info and update the article. Thank you Javierbrugue (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That's just reporting on something said by the founder of the regiment (who is not part of the regiment anymore). He also says the Azov SSO Regiment. The Azov SSO regiment is a new unit that was created after the invasion of Ukraine, and is part of the Armed forces of Ukraine. It's different to the Azov regiment, which is part of the National Guard of Ukraine Tristario (talk) 01:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Under Azov_Regiment#Other_activities we already include information about these new units and we can add some information about this. But I think we need better sourcing than reporting on something that Biletsky said Tristario (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I see, thank you both very much! Javierbrugue (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, if there are two Azov regiments, shouldn't there be a second page for the Azov SSO Regiment? Seems pretty notable Javierbrugue (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Azov Regiment and 3rd Azov Brigade are different units Matias Taboadaxx (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The two articles should be merged, they seem to be related. Mhorg (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It is its own brigade and should therefore not be merged. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Support merge as it's already covered in Azov_Regiment#Other_activities and there is not much info in 3rd Assault Brigade anyway. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Azov SSO and Azov Regiment are different units under different branches of the Ukrainian military. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

On the Idea of the Nation symbol

The unit's insignia features the Wolfsangel (or a mirrored variation of it), a German heraldic charge inspired by historic wolf traps adopted by the Nazi Party and by WW2 German Wehrmacht and SS units.

I believe, the phrasing is wrong here: it's either Wolfsangel or not it. With this logic, it can also be said that it is a swastika (with angles skewed, and couple lines removed). In my opinion, the better phrasing would be something like this

The unit's insignia features the Idea of the Nation symbol that may resemble the Wolfsangel (or a mirrored variation of it), a German heraldic charge inspired by historic wolf traps adopted by the Nazi Party and by WW2 German Wehrmacht and SS units.

This makes more sense, taking into account the regiment members' statements on the symbol's origin. Your thoughts on it?..

Regards. Steffuld (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"Nation symbol"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Ідея Нації, that is "Idea of the Nation" or "National Idea". The symbol is claimed to be a combination of the letters I and N, the first letters of the words. Steffuld (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I and N, for a nation wholes language, is not English? Source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, actually, sources are already given down the text, in the next paragraph. Nonetheless, I can give an additional citation. Here's a timecode of the interview of Maj. Bohdan Krotevych, who is the acting commander of the brigade. Here's the transcript in my translation.

Look, if you take a window, the way a window is drawn, and remove some four lines, you get a swastika. That is, a person sees something that is not there when they want to see it. And our chevron says "The Idea of the Nation". This is the letter I, this is the letter N. And the letter N, if you look at it, it was actually like this in our alphabet. It was actually, you know, like the Latin letter N. All other letters were, like, Cyrillic, but the letter N was Latin for some reason, I don't know. I mean, I did not make the decision myself when the chevron was designed, actually, I was not part of Azov back then, I enlisted as an ordinary soldier. Yeah, but if you mirror it, look at it, turn it a bit, cut it a bit, and tighten it a bit, it looks like one of the symbols, like it's called a wolf... Wolfsangel or something like that, the wolf's hook.

Steffuld (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is little more than Azov attempting to whitewash its own history. To take Krotevych at his word would be naïve at best, given also the use of the black sun. Indeed Krotevych trips over his words why they would supposedly use Latin script. If what he is saying is true then the logo would be НИ. Perhaps in time they will correct this, thus completing the whitewash for clueless liberals to fall for more easily. KetchupSalt (talk) KetchupSalt (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

As pointed out above, the Ukrainian is Ідея Нації, Ideia Natsii, initials ІН or ін. The iota letterform was also used in pre-1918 reform Russian, and the characters had slightly different forms in the old Slavic alphabet, with Cyrillic N a bit more like Latin N, both sharing descent from Greek nu (letter) (example).

(None of this trivia affects arguments about whitewashing.) —Michael Z. 15:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The explanations given by the regiment of its symbols do not matter much, what matters instead is what the RS reports about those symbols. Mhorg (talk) 10:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Your rants about western liberals are really veering into WP:NOTFORUM territory. TylerBurden (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

My point is, the article should not say that the insignia features the Wolfsangel, but rather a symbol that resembles it to some extent. The earliest mention of the symbol in English I managed to find on the Internet is this article dated to 2011 long before Azov was founded. It was the Svoboda party's symbol back then and the article describes it as “the letters I + N (Idea of ​​the Nation)”, which fits the detailed description provided by the party on the official site of Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. (Archived on 22 March 2014. Please keep in mind that Azov Battalion was founded in May 2014.)

Historically, the letter N was indeed written “in a Latin manner”. For instance, the book Das Buch der Schrift, which is basically a collection of writing systems, published in 1880 contains both the Ruthenian p. 186, which, as far as I am aware, is an exonym for Ukrainian and maybe Belarusian, and the Russian p. 187 alphabets. It can be seen that, firstly, the letter I was present in both alphabets at the time, and, secondly, Ukrainian alphabet, as opposed to Russian, had the letter N with the skewed middle stroke that makes it look a lot like its Latin counterpart.

And at last, having had viewed some images of Wolfsangel, I made some observations. Counterexamples and counterarguments are encouraged. Firstly, the middle stroke (the letter I) does not tend to be that long. Usually, its length does not exceed the length of the two parallel strokes (the letter N's “legs”) and tend to be even shorter, whereas here we have it twice as long. Secondly, the slant stroke connecting two parallel lines tends to be overwhelmingly long compared to them (the Z/И part may be inscribed in a rectangle), while here the N is inscribed in a square. Thirdly, a horizontal variant of Wolfsangel (having the previous points held true) does not feature N part, but rather И part instead.

So, with this amount of differences from the “Wolfsangel proper” and multiple claims on the symbol's meaning and origin by its original adopters preceding even the creation of Azov itself, I believe it is reasonable not to directly call the symbol Wolfsangel.

Regards. Steffuld (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Azov Brigade

Two things are being conflated above.

• Azov Brigade of the National Guard of Ukraine (NHU MVS), under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (Ukraine).[1] The unit was officially promoted to a brigade formation at the beginning of February 2023, as part of the formation of the Offensive Guard (uk:Гвардія наступу).[2]
• 3rd Separate Assault Brigade (Ukraine), a relatively new unit of the Special Operations Forces (Ukraine) (SSO ZSU), under the Armed Forces of Ukraine, formed November 1, 2022.

(This is on top of the other well-established conflation in this article of the military Azov Brigade and the political Azov movement).

This article should be moved, following WP:NAMECHANGES.  —Michael Z. 19:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The article should be moved to Azov Brigade? The guidance in WP:NAMECHANGES seems to suggest we should see which name reliable sources use following the name change

But it looks like we should at least update this article to reflect the new status of the unit as a brigade Tristario (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It now mentions it in the lead. TylerBurden (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the first name mentioned in the lead is neither the single most common nor the current official name. It seems unsatisfactory to me, and I anticipate an imminent update once secondary sources confirm the change. It has been reported in independent outlets Ukrainska Pravda[3] NV,[4] TSN.[5]  —Michael Z. 14:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Meduza[6] & Interfax-Ukraine.[7] This seems sufficient to me to update the first sentence. —Michael Z. 14:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is much point in delaying the move either, similarly to how the change from "battalion" to "regiment" wasn't, especially not if secondary sources are already starting to use brigade. TylerBurden (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the lead. Since there are so many names, I interspersed them with the summary of the history in the first paragraph, associating them with organizational changes. The previous version had the names starting from newest, but the brief history from the oldest.  —Michael Z. 16:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

When should the article name be changed to brigade? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Whenever if you ask me. It continues to grow in use with secondary references. TylerBurden (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2023

Azov Regiment → Azov Brigade – Since the unit is not a regiment but a brigade, it should be changed. (https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/02/9/7388707/) Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Support: I see the current name in use in some reliable sources in the last month since the WP:NAMECHANGE, especially ones about Ukraine’s establishment of the Offensive Guard.  —Michael Z. 09:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Support: Logical after it became a brigade and is already seeing increased use in references. --TylerBurden (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Support: as stated in the source. Mhorg (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Support — Per above. Yue🌙 05:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)