Talk:Azov Brigade/Sources

I'm starting this as a source review of the Azov Battalion group/movement, particularly focused on description of the group re: the "neo-nazi" question. It can later be expanded to any other purpose! Please add sources to the following drop downs in chronological order, based on the type of source. And then note with the following key, how the source falls on the spectrum of "is a neo-nazi group" to "is not a neo-nazi group" and everywhere in between:— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to closers and !voters: some of the colour-coding used in the below does not closely follow the content of the sources. While a coding scheme such as that used has its merits, editors should remember to focus on the source itself or at least the quote reproduced, and not be swayed by an interpretative framework which may be seriously contested. Cambial — foliar❧ 12:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Source formatting key description

Can we add a column to the table in "Source formatting key" that makes it clear when a source should - and should not - be given a label? e.g. when should a source be labeled ""with neo-nazi elements""? selfworm Talk ) 16:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As this is a collective effort, and that is a very subjective measure, I would rather that we require each entry has a quotation justifying the label, and that we then cross-check entries editing out ones with poor justification. Each person who reads this should read the quotation and decide for themselves. Egregious offenders can be removed. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * New label suggestion: promotes neo-Nazism

According to the following source [https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/azov-battalion Mapping Militant Organizations. “Azov Battalion.” Stanford University. Last modified March 2022.] "the group promotes Ukrainian nationalism and neo-Nazism" This source is already listed about and tagged "with neo-nazi elements", which I presume means "part of the group is composed of neo-nazis" (is this correct?). But this source doesn't merely say that the group has neo-Nazi members. It says that the group "promotes" "neo-Nazism". Neither the label "with neo-nazi elements" nor any of the other 5 labels fully captures this assertion, which I think is important enough that it should be clearly indicated whenever a source states it. And it isn't just this source that indicates this. I remember reading at least a couple others sources that indicate the same thing (although I've only inspected a handful of the 100+ sources listed). Should a new label be introduced for sources that state the group promotes neo-Nazism? selfworm Talk ) 16:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "with neo-nazi elements" would also cover "has some aspects of neo-nazi ideology, but is not solely neo-nazi or even mostly neo-nazi" which would encompass "promotes neo-nazism but is not a straight-up neo-nazi organization" in my understanding. A corollary would be the Alt-right group The Proud Boys. There are proud boys who are neo-nazis. Some of the proud boys promote neo-nazism (such as Kyle Chapman). But they are not in essence a neo-nazi organization. They just have "neo-nazi elements" to their makeup. Similarly, none of these sources are saying "The entirety of the Azov Battalion promotes neo-nazism". Or at least, in context, I have not read any sources to justify that. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly what says is what I was about to say. Plus we need to use the categories in the RfC, otherwise it doesn't help that process. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Concerns about formatting and content


 * Cambial, instead of making the closer redo all the work done here collectively, why not propose amendments in the discussion section of each section and work towards making the colours fit better? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of falsely trying to imply that I am imposing some burden upon the closers, why not simply give your view, rather than bludgeoning the RFC as others have pointed out. I’ve not made anyone "redo" anything, as you already know. The note is clear that voters and closers should concentrate on the source content, rather than any ambiguous and dubious coding scheme on which editors will disagree. If you believe editors/closers should pay less attention to what is written in the sources then, well, you're wrong and you may need to rethink your approach here. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@User:Cambial Yellowing, If you are concerned, then add your comments to the subsections in the individual collapses, and we can come to a consensus about labels. It was inappropriate for you to add your comments to the template like that, instead, add your comments to the overall discussion section of the RFC or to the individual sections of the source review. But nothing makes your opinion more important than everybody else's. Replying to the source review directly puts your comment ahead of everyone else's in a way inconsistent with consensus building.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said in my comment, which does not posit any opinion about what the labels ought to be/how they should differ, readers should use their own judgement and not rely on the views of a far smaller contingent of editors than the more general RFC page attracted. Even if collectively edited, the "source review" is not an official or conclusive statement on the sources, yet it gives off that sense with its formatting. A reminder for people to read the sources is not controversial. Cambial — foliar❧</b> 05:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, this source review is a transcluded template. It is not part of the RFC. I also did not edit your comments, I moved them to the appropriate location (the discussion section for this template). You added your comments to the source review title, as though it were a discussion. It is not. It's akin to replying to my user page instead of its talk page. No one is saying that the source review is definitive. No one is saying that it is official or conclusive. You are interpreting it that way. It's a straw man that you're attacking. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Cambial Yellowing, one of the things I think you're confused about here is that the closer should not even read or incorporate the source review. It is not part of the close, it should not be part of the close. It was only intended to assist discussion participants in their votes. The closer should be reviewing the discussion and its participants and their views, not the specific sources. Likewise, closers should not be taking sides on the content itself in other discussions, they are only here to summarize what participants think about the content. This is an important distinction which is also why closers cannot be involved. It gives a layer of protection to how discussions are closed. This is why the source review should not be part of the closing summary itself, only in how others have interpreted it. To do otherwise would constitute a !Supervote. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * assist in this context is a value term. I’ve not attacked anything, but gave a different view to yours in which you present your framework as value neutral or settled. If you’re unwilling to have differing views respond to your comments, or feel the need to move responses to your important comments in a Request for Comments away from your own, this may not be the ideal website for you. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 19:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, you appear confused. This was not created as a comment in the RFC. It was added to the RFC many days later, after it had been created as a separate thing entirely.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s unfortunate that you’ve misread my comments in such a way that I appear confused to you, but I’ll live with it. As to your notion that the closer should be reviewing the discussion...not the specific sources. That’s not correct and would be absurd. The RFC is not a vote. See WP:DETCON and WP:NHC. Closer is asked to ascertain and to discard . If ten people’s comment is something like “Source A and B say Jerry is a banana, so we should describe Jerry as a banana” and source A says Jerry might be a banana but is most likely an orange, and source B says Jerry is definitely an apple, that illogical reasoning or false premise will affect the weight given to their argument. So closers have to look at what sources or quotes from sources are referred to in comments. Obviously. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 05:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@User:Cambial Yellowing: I never said RFCs were a vote. The exact passage you've cited about summarizing arguments is why I know that the closer should not be evaluating the content itself, but rather arguments about the content. They will look at how discussion participants have argued about the sources, not the sources themselves.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 09:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)