(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Jump to content

Talk:Azov Brigade

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tristario (talk | contribs) at 12:34, 11 May 2023 (→‎Which Azov?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


    CLOSED
    Non-admin closure per WP:NOTFORUM since thread has devolved into editors debating ideologies, in addition consensus was reached to remove the Wikivoice labels discussed. TylerBurden (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "Historically characterised as" would do the job. Alaexis¿question? 15:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Source for your claim? Vedisassanti (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we assume for a moment that Hitler himself knew more about Nazi-ideology than modern randoms on the internet, then the following quote disproves your entire argument. Nazis and more broadly fascists in general have always been a far-right ideology.
    "Our [Referring to the NSDAP] adoption of the term 'socialist' has nothing to do with Marxian socialism." -Adolf Hitler, December 28th, 1938 Valdorel (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vedisassanti: Try reading the post below yours, which you might have seen had you added your contribution at the end of the discussion (as is conventional) rather than inserting it retrospectively into the middle. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

    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.

    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)[reply]

    "Nation symbol"? Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    I and N, for a nation wholes language, is not English? Source? Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Your rants about western liberals are really veering into WP:NOTFORUM territory. TylerBurden (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Azov Brigade

    Two things are being conflated above.

    (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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    It now mentions it in the lead. TylerBurden (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Meduza[6] & Interfax-Ukraine.[7] This seems sufficient to me to update the first sentence. —Michael Z. 14:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

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

    Requested move 11 March 2023

    The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    The result of the move request was: moved. Favonian (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    Support: Logical after it became a brigade and is already seeing increased use in references. --TylerBurden (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: as stated in the source. Mhorg (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support — Per above. Yue🌙 05:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    militaryland.net

    Militaryland.net does not pass WP:BLPSPS, I will be removing all citations by them in this article, please do not re-add them. Scu ba (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Which Azov?

    @TylerBurden following the beginning of the invasion new "azov" units (formed by and asssociated with veterans of the azov regiment) began to be organized, which aren't actually part of the Azov Regiment/Brigade. These new units are part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, rather than the National Guard of Ukraine. Given that the "Azov" referred to in this source is talking about a battle near Kyiv, whereas the Azov regiment of this page was located in mariupol, this is likely one of these new units. As far as I can tell these units already existed by April 2022, this source says they began to be organized on February 24, for instance. It's also questionable whether this should be in here since it's just a quote from a spokesperson for the National Corps political party Tristario (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Brigade&oldid=1154282309"