Talk:Azov Brigade

US
No mention of the fact that the US Congress banned funds to Ukraine over Azov (https://khanna.house.gov/media/in-the-news/congress-bans-arms-ukraine-militia-linked-neo-nazis) and the ADL's assessement in 2019 (https://www.adl.org/resources/report/hate-beyond-borders-internationalization-white-supremacy). This article is a post-2022 whitewashing propaganda piece. 167.142.48.84 (talk)
 * "In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives again passed a provision blocking any training of Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi connection" Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * IN fact we have a whole section on the allegations. Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably this should be under allegations of antisemitism. The article puts the allegations all over the place to make the pre-2022 allegations less definitive then they are. 167.142.48.84 (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, the statement "In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives again passed a provision blocking any training of Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi connections." is under "International arms and training controversies" 167.142.48.84 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

NeoNazi designation
shouldn't we include a note that they are/were a neo nazi group? [Https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/the-azov-battalion-the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/article65239935.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/the-azov-battalion-the-neo-nazis-of-ukraine/article65239935.ece][Https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-battalion-russia/ https://theintercept.com/2022/02/24/ukraine-facebook-azov-battalion-russia/] BarakHussan (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Try reading through the talk page archives if you really think this is the first time someone asks this, or better yet, read the article itself which contains 137 instances of the word "Nazi". TylerBurden (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2024
There's a random piece of orphan text in the middle of the list of references. Please either move it to wherever it may belong or remove it:

. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't find that text anywhere in the article. Could you be more precise? Sjö (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's in the references section. You need to view in edit mode, not while reading the article 76.14.122.5 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

✅ I looked through the page history and couldn't figure out where that snippet was supposed to go, so deleted it. PianoDan (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks! 76.14.122.5 (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Offtopic
Greetings @Mhorg, what is the point in your edit, which adds sources such as  , some website ("naso"), and so on? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * It is the primary source, the website of Ukrainian National Union (political party), where you can see their logo with the Wolfsangel searching for the label "Збори Харківського обласного відділення Українського Національного Союзу". Of course it is better to find a secondary source. Mhorg (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, it's unrelated to the article. Can you please filter out and remove content and sources from your edit which are unrelated to this article. Thanks. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing this one. Why the article still references the work mentioned in the first message? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove sentences discussing symbolics of other groups, like "It was used by the Patriot of Ukraine organization" and so on, as not related to Azov. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong Meta link
The References link number 115, about Meta's Facebook and Instagram, seems to be linking to information about a Leopard Tank and nothing about Facebook. Looking at the history, soon after the news article was written, someone added the information in with a wrong link. I guess later, the archive link used the wrong link as well. Can someone please correct both links? The dates seem to be correct, 19 January 2023. The correct link seems to be this article. https://kyivindependent.com/meta-azov-regiment-no-longer-meets-criteria-for-dangerous-organization-on-facebook-instagram/ - cyalknight 174.21.101.22 (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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


 * That sentence was a big scandal and is often quoted in first-class sources, a sign that it is an important passage. Mhorg (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * is often quoted in first-class sources I haven't seen that. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Why would the historical rhetoric be undue? This is an article which cover's Azov's history and it received significant coverage in RS. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Azov's, not Biletsky. I don't see the "significant coverage". The whole article is pushing "They are Neo-Nazis" too much, highlighting everything that has "Neo-Nazi" in their surrounding. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Biletsky... The founder of Azov? The Guardian article is significant coverage. Thats not an article about Biletsky, thats an article about Azov. If the RS highlight/push then so do we, thats how due weight works. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article is significant coverage No, it's called a single coverage :) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Washington Post, Al Jazeera, CNN and much more. Mhorg (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat the original argument which has not been attended and which is - given Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric in recent years, why to keep it at all? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Biletsky was fundamental in the creation of the Azov. Mhorg (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the argument above is not addressed, as well as The whole article is pushing "They are Neo-Nazis" too much, highlighting everything that has "Neo-Nazi" in their surrounding, those arguments remain. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have offered nothing which substantiates that argument, first you need to establish that it actually does that... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You have offered nothing We did. See the article itself. Academic researchers argue that the regiment has changed since its integration into the National Guard, tempering far-right elements and distancing from the movement. Alexander Ritzmann, a Senior Advisor to the Counter Extremism Project, wrote of the Azov Battalion: "when your country is under attack by foreign invaders, it is understandable that Ukrainians will not focus on the political views of their co-defenders, but on who can and will fight the invaders". Researchers note that since its formation, Azov has been through general depolitization, acted "with considerably less neo-Nazism and extremism", "and included Muslims, Jews, and other minorities within its ranks".  ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Who else is included in "we"? And none of that says that this article gives undue weight to their far right links. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We the authors. Your argument posted above is answered.You have offered nothing which substantiates that argument ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Who are the other authors you believe have substantiated this argument beyond yourself, be specific. Again none of that says that this article gives undue weight to their far right links. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See academic references given above. Any of those mentions he founder of the battalion, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric in recent years in their conclusions? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * None of them seem to mention wikipedia at all in this context. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They don't need to be that specific. If they don't mention Biletsky's changed past, why should we. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They do actually need to be that specific. You've already been presented with a number of sources which talk about Azov's founding principles, that some other sources are less specific isn't reason not to include. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * They do actually need to be that specific Let's concentrate on the argument. Which is that you need to prove the need for The founder of the battalion, Andriy Biletsky, said in 2010 that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade … Biletsky has toned down his rhetoric in recent years.You've already been presented with a number of sources which talk about Azov's founding principles Those are press, we don't need to look at them given abundance on academic sources on the subject.that some other sources are less specific isn't reason not to include. Not just "some". Academic sources, contrasted to the press.Now, let me remind you of another argument you are trying to move off from: you asked to substantiate The whole article is pushing "The whole article is pushing "They are Neo-Nazis" too much, highlighting everything that has "Neo-Nazi" in their surrounding, and you got academic sources which don't mention the contested "fact". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An absense of evidence is not evidence, that substantiates nothing. Also none of those are full academic sources unless I'm missing something, I see two popular press articles (France 24 and Euro News), one think tank piece (Atlantic Council), and one which I'm not entirely sure about which seems to be a commentary piece. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * An absense of evidence is not evidence, that substantiates nothing If academic sources don't mention the contested "fact", why should we?Also none of those are full academic sources (99+) Vol. 419 Far Right Extremist Movements Fighting in Ukraine Implications for Post conflict Europe | Andreas Wimmer - Academia.edu is from an academic book - Chapter 7: Far-Right Extremist Movements Fighting in Ukraine: Implications for Post-Conflict Europe in: A Research Agenda for Far-Right Violence and Extremism (elgaronline.com)We have more. Like Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: (taylorfrancis.com)Like Foreign Fighters in Ukraine: The Brown–Red Cocktail - Kacper Rękawek - Google Books . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So you agree that you misrepresented three of those sources as academic? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again you haven't addressed the argument. If we are down to claiming that books published by Edward Elgar Publishing, Routledge and Taylor & Francis are not academic than we should stop here. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How is addressing a misrepresentation of fact in the argument not addressing the argument? If you want to focus on the overall presentation of arguments you appear to be engaged in a gish gallop, you've been given sources which indicate that mention is due... But you keep pivoting and squirming despite multiple other editors telling you the same thing. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)