Talk:Azov Brigade/Sources/Journalism


 * 2022
 * Attributed: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "has been accused":
 * "with neo-nazi elements"/"has been accused":
 * ""formerly":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * ""formerly far-right militia"/""has been accused":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "has been accused":
 * "Does not mention"
 * "Does not mention"
 * "Does not mention"
 * with neo-nazi elements"/"has been accused":
 * "says not neo-nazi":
 * "with neo-nazi elements"/Attributed: "formerly:
 * "neo-nazi": Note: The Daily Beast is considered to be a biased or opinionated source that should be used with caution.
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * Attributed: "neo-nazi":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "neo-nazi"/"has been accused":
 * "formerly/with neo-nazi elements":
 * Attributed: "formerly/with neo-nazi elements":
 * Attributed: "neo-nazi":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "neo-nazi"/Attributed: "formerly":
 * Attributed: "formerly":
 * "formerly/with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Attributed: "formerly/with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Attributed: "formerly/has been accused":
 * "formerly/with neo-nazi elements":
 * Attributed: "formerly/has been accused":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Attributed: "formerly":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "formerly":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Attributed: "neo-nazi":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * Attributed:"with neo-nazi elements"/"formerly?":


 * 2021
 * Attributed: "neo-nazi": Note: some users participating in an RSN discussion do not consider this source reliable.
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":


 * 2020
 * "neo-nazi": Note: at least one user considers this source unreliable for this claim: 


 * 2019
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * Attributed: "neo-nazi":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * 2018
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Attributed: "neo-nazi":
 * 2017
 * "has been accused":
 * "formerly":
 * Attributed: "not neo-nazi":
 * 2016
 * "has been accused" / Attributed: "neo-nazi"/Attributed: "says not neo-nazi":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * 2015
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "neo-nazi/with neo-nazi elements":
 * "with neo-nazi elements":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * Attributed: "says not neo-nazi"/with neo-nazi elements":
 * 2014
 * "neo-nazi":
 * "neo-nazi":

This is an excellent list, and the chronological ordering adds considerable value. I would move Branko Marcetic in The Jacobin to "Opinion-based editorials written by journalists". He is writing in an opinion website and has no relevant expertise. (RSP says There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when Some are extreme already, such as the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, which fights on the pro-Kiev side.using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others'.) Possibly also true of the two pieces in The Nation (RSP: Most editors consider The Nation a partisan source whose statements should be attributed. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. Take care to ensure that content from The Nation constitutes due weight in the article and conforms to the biographies of living persons policy.) Lev Golinkin's piece is opinion, but I would say his opinion is noteworthy as he is an expert on Ukraine. Carden's piece is more newsy, but highly partisan and there's no reason to think he has any relevant expertise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair, will move it to OpEd, because you're right it's clearly a biased source by RSP!— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I would strike "Belarus torture survivors take legal action in Germany", which has been rejected by RSN, or at the very least add "attributed" as this is the opinion of the Belarus police. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Will add Attributed, and a link to the RSN discussion. If we get a consensus that we should remove the source entirely I'm happy to do that too.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think sources from 2014 and 2015 (e.g. Parfitt, Luhn) that are currently tagged red "neo-Nazi" are better tagged blue "formerly" as 2015 can't be source for present tense given other sources show clear changes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand this criticism, but I would ask, in return, "Shouldn't we let users decide that for themselves?" My policy is almost always to lay as much as possible out in the open. And in this case, we have the year and timing right there in the source, listed right next to the author name. What if we added years to the list, as subheadings? Would that help? I don't want to define when we transition from "present" to "past" because it's clearly a spectrum, and each user would likely define it differently based on their own opinion of the group.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Let’s leave as is. The chronological arrangement does the work. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thakur is an opinion piece by a journalist, so I’d move to that section. Katerji might be too, although his article includes primary reporting so I’d leave here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed about Thakur, The Features section is definitely an OpEds section as is most of that magazine. So I moved it to OpEd. But disagree about Katerji, I don't think it's opinion, I would consider it "analysis" which basically most of this section is along with basically all longform journalism. This is the kind of stuff that is less useful for questions like this, but basically all we have on both sides. Hard-hitting factual reporting tends to sidestep these issues or only give it passing mention.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

====  April BBC Source ====   This BBC source which I recently added: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61201548 was removed on the grounds that it "makes no mention of neo-nazi ideology", and my label of "formerly" was changed to "with neo-nazi elements" before that was done. In terms of removing it for "no mention of neo-nazi ideology", I don't think that is a reasonable grounds for removing it. There's no requirement that sources in this collection need to explicitly mention neo-nazi ideology, and whatever way that a source refers to the battalion is useful. It is referred to as "originally a far-right group" in the article. I think that far-right is certainly relevant to the question of neo-nazism, and that description is useful for seeing how the group is described in reliable sources. In terms of changing the label from "formerly" to "with neo-nazi elements", I'm more sympathetic to that interpretation. However, the wording in the article does almost exactly match the definition of "formerly". Saying that someone "was originally something" is almost exactly what formerly means. Formerly is defined as "in the past, earlier times"--Tristario (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC) — Tristario (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * #1 This source review is to assist with an RfC regarding the usage of the specific term "neo-Nazi" in the lede. #2 This BBC source does not use this term so, while it may still be useful to this discussion, it is misleading to claim it as an example of how the term is applied to Azov (other than it not being used - for which there is no category.) #3 Look at the following sentence: "Microsoft was originally a privately-owned technology company before being taken public in 1986." Does this sentence support the claim that Microsoft is "formerly a software company"? Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * #1 This source review is "particularly focused on description of the group re: the "neo-nazi" question", and the rfc is not solely about whether Azov is neo-nazi or not, but how it should be described generally. This source is relevant for those things. #2 I agree that none of the labels fit the description of this article perfectly, however that applies to many of the other sources used here too. That isn't a good enough reason not to include them. And, there is actually a label for "does not mention"- this one: "Does not mention". #3 That doesn't support the claim that Microsoft is formerly a software company, but it certainly does support that it's formerly a "privately owned software company". I agree that formerly isn't a perfect description for how BBC refers to azov here, but it's the closest there is. If you required a stringent enough application of the categories that would just mean the exclusion of many relevant and useful sources.


 * I think that the concerns that you have about the labelling of this source are legitimate. So I would like the propose that the source be included, with the relevant quote, and either be labelled with ""Does not mention"" or ""with neo-nazi elements"", whichever you prefer. Perhaps if others disagree with the labelling they could give their thoughts too.--Tristario (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)