This is an archive of past discussions about Azov Brigade. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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)
