Talk:Azov Brigade/Sources/ScholarOpEd


 * 2022
 * "neo-nazi": Note: some users question this author's scholarly credibility
 * "formerly": Note: some users do not consider this to argue that Azov is "formerly neo-nazi."
 * "formerly":
 * "formerly":
 * "with neo-nazi elements"/formerly":
 * "neo-nazi":
 * 2019
 * "says not neo-nazi" / "with neo-nazi elements":

====  Krytyka source - does it argue Azov is formerly neo-Nazi ====  
 * I am not sure that Gozma's piece in Krytyka really supports the view that Azov is formerly neo-Nazi. Instead, he argues that Azov has "evolved beyond its origins', undergone a "pro-democratic evolution" and "moderated their ideological fervor or modified it altogether". There is no explicit argument that Azov is no longer a neo-nazi but that they are different in some way to when they started. What that difference is is not elucidated very clearly apart from allusions to things like democracy and animal rights - neither of which preclude an organisation from nazism. The piece does give support to the idea that Azov was founded as a neo-Nazi organisation. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Authoritarianism, or even totalitarianism, are pretty important parts of nazi ideology, and fascism in general. "Pro-democratic evolution" is pretty much exact opposite to what nazism stands for.--Staberinde (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Might be better to file this as had neo-Nazi elements in the past as it is clear that Azov was already ideologically diverse and only included neo-Nazi elements to start with. He talks about a mix of apolitical football hooligans, anti-liberal counterculturalists who flirted with "recognizable Nazi paraphernalia", and anti-Nazi Ukrainian nationalists. He cites the 10-20% Nazi figure to be clear that the majority were not neo-Nazi in the past. He explicitly says that the claim that it is still neo-Nazi are not "well-grounded". It's true he doesn't give a neat answer to how to characterise Azov today, but it's clear that he sees it as pro-democratic and turning moderate, which means it might still be on the further right but definitely isn't neo-Nazi. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

====  Cato Institute ====  
 * I question whether Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute thinktank should be included in this section, as not a scholar or scientist. I'd even question if it should feature in this source review as per RSP there is no consensus on whether Cato has any reliability for anything other than the opinions of its authors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2022 (UTC)