Talk:Azov Brigade/Sources/Scholarship


 * 2022
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": Note: some users consider this a passing mention of the term "neo-nazi."
 * Book: "neo-nazi": Note: some users consider this a passing mention.
 * Book Chapter: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Book: "neo-nazi": Note: some users consider this a passing mention.
 * Book: "neo-nazi": Note: some users consider this a passing mention of the term "Azov".
 * Book: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * 2021
 * Book: "neo-nazi": Note: some users consider this a passing mention.
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Book: "neo-nazi": Note: some users consider this a passing mention.
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Book Chapter: "with neo-nazi elements"/"neo-nazi":
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * 2020
 * Primary: "has been accused":
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Primary: "neo-nazi": Note: some users consider this a passing mention.
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Primary: "neo-nazi":
 * Primary: "neo-nazi": Note: some users consider this a passing mention.
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements/formerly":
 * Book chapter: "formerly/with neo-nazi elements":
 * Secondary : "with neo-nazi elements":
 * 2019
 * Book:  "neo-nazi":  Note: some users consider this a passing mention.
 * Primary: "neo-nazi":
 * Primary: "Does not mention"/Attributed: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * 2018
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * 2017
 * Primary: "has been accused"/"Does not mention":
 * Primary: "neo-nazi":
 * Book: "neo-nazi":
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements": "Zheleznov emerged from his first prison term after two years, a rising star of the far right. He was recruited by perhaps the most prominent Russian neo-Nazi of the time, Maksim Martsinkevich. Also known by his nickname, Tesak, meaning "The Hatchet," Martsinkevich was as much a showman as a militant. He was even featured on Russian TV shows and on the British documentary series, Ross Kemp on Gangs. He appointed Zheleznov as PR man for his new organization, Restruct, which became known for harassing people whom it claimed were pedophiles—though most of them, Zheleznov now admits, were just "regular gays."" (Note: Zheleznov, along with many other Russian neo-nazis, are prominent members of the Azov Battalion )
 * 2016
 * Primary: "neo-nazi":
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements:
 * 2015
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements":
 * Secondary : "neo-nazi":
 * Primary:: "has been accused":

====  Glenn Diesen has been widely criticized for promoting Russian propaganda ====  


 * Somehow, Glenn Diesen is listed as a top-scholar and the first source in the "Scholarship" section. Yet, he is widely known as a Russian Today speaker, for allegedly promoting Russian propaganda (according to Scandinavian media, Russia experts and other scholars) and for being a contributor for a conspiracy theory website. Surprised nobody brought this up, in more than one month. Mcrt007 (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And not only is Diesen considered highly unreliable, this is a passing mention in a text about "Russophobia" not a text about the Ukrainian right. I think we should remove this source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the source..— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

==== ''' What does 'Between frontline...' say? ==== '''


 * The quoted academic source https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/nationalities-papers/article/between-frontline-and-parliament-ukrainian-political-parties-and-irregular-armed-groups-in-20142019/90BAFE7AA179511DA2B58240D943D8C4 is used  her to quote one word 'neo-Nazi'. But the paper is not about the word, please read the Conclusion rather.
 * Our page should describe the (lack of) influence of IAGs on Ukrainian politics with at least the same ardour it describes 'neo-Nazism'.

Xx236 (talk) 08:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @User:Xx236 The entire question is about how academics refer to this group. I will note your dispute on the source itself, because it is entirely reasonable to say that it is a "drive-by" which is not as helpful to determining coverage. (I will say i dispute this characterization and I think it is a perfectly fine quotation showing that the authors considered this question and weighed in on it. Conclusion sections aren't everything for our purposes.) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

====  Cyber Hate ====  

Source two - https://books.google.pl/books?id=vQxUEAAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
 * It is a book, I am unable to verify the source. None of the US authors is an Eastern Europa expert.Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The USA has a real problem with neo-Nazism https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/02/christopher-hasson-coast-guard-neo-nazi-far-right Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@User:Xx236 Books are part of scholarship. Do you have a higher quality RS which backs up your assertions here? We rely on RSes to determine who is and is not an expert.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not criticize books, but I have access to selected pages by Google only, not to whole books.Xx236 (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Authors are experts on far right, but not on Ukraine. Is an RS, but not the strongest. One brief mention of Azov in a whole book: counts as drive-by I think. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Will add it to the entry — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

====  Harsha Walia is a (radical) Canadian activist  based in Vancouver ====  

Walia is a radical activist and the quoted book 'Border and Rule' demands no borders politics. 'The system... must be dismantled.' This Wikipedia is a part of the system, so let's dismantle it. No EE knowledge expected, so she quotes probably someone.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @User:Xx236 do you have an RS (preferably one higher in quality (see WP:PARITY) which states this? We trust our RSes' assessment of expertise, not our personal opinions.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Walia's radicalism and her position on borders is not at all relevant here. However, this is clearly a not particularly informed passing mention in a book about something completely different. She has no specific expertise on Nazism or Ukraine. I'd strike this source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

====  2014 Battalion ====   Please do not mix up 2014 and 2022.

Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1060586X.2015.1023004?journalCode=rpsa20
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/44936628
 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17449057.2015.1051813?journalCode=reno20
 * @User:Xx236 this is the crux of the entire sourcing question (Are these two groups contiguous wrt members, etc). By showing the chronology of the souricng, we help answer that question objectively and without bias. If these two groups are completely separate, it should become clear in the sources and how our best available RSes cover this content.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right. However Umland, Andreas (June 2020) is (title) about 2014. The DOI was wrong, I replaced it, now it works but looks bad. Xx236 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you format it correctly? The text uses the words "today" referring to 2020, and also refers to the past (as in 2014). I see no problem there. Everyone can read the title for themselves and the quotation and make their own conclusions to verify the assessment. Hence why the characterization says "formerly."— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 10:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

====  Moving beyond Islamist Extremism - Combat 14/8 ====  

The book criticizes Azov and Combat 14/8. Google does not know such group, does someone know it?Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Both Allchorn and Mudde are highly regarded experts on the global far right, but neither of them has any specific expertise on Ukraine, so I would count these as less weighty than more expert takes such as Umland's. See also my comments in source discussion in RfC below. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

====  Nationalities Papers ====  
 * Primary: "with neo-nazi elements/says not neo-nazi": : carried out an in-depth study of Azov members' activity online, and their results attributed a characterization of "Radical" far right nationalist to 38% of members, and precisely 0% as Nazi or neo-Nazi.

I've removed the above source from the list as I have read through the paper and consider the summary and categories attached to it to be a gross misreading of the text. The journal, as far as I can parse, never studied the neo-Nazism of the group. The paper is a study of political opportunity structure as it relates to Asov. I'm not actually sure that this paper can even be used to add to this particular RfC. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case we definitely have remove Jackson, Stilhoff Sörensen, Bacigalupo, Walia, Allchorn, Edelman, Reid Ross, Mudde, and probably Buckholz, because none of them studied Azov and none of them (except maybe Buckholz) have any expertise on Ukraine or access to Ukrainian or Russian sources. They’re passing mentions in books/articles about other things. Some of them are experts on fascism; others (Walia, Edelman, Stilhoff Sörensen) aren’t even that BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The quotes show they considered Nazism and Azov. Their expertise is a question that needs to be answered with RSes, not our opinions. And expertise in extremism is enough for our purposes. I'm definitely open to the idea that Walia or others aren't experts in any of these or adjacent fields, but we need RSes to show that. It's not a high bar, if we have RSes which show that their training is in something else and they don't work in this area, that's enough to exclude them.
 * However, if they have expertise in extremism, that is enough to include them. If all we accepted was experts in Azov AND experts in Nazism, then we basically lose everything in this list. One does not need to be an expert in the narrowest thing in order to be worth listening to. They just need to be a reasonably-trustworthy expert which our sources trust as an expert. Jackson and Sörenson covered Azov because the quote shows they did.
 * If it's a passing mention that's a different matter and will happily note that. But we can't just remove sources because you or someone else thinks the person who wrote them is not trustworthy, that's an extremely subjective measure. We either need RSes or a local/global wiki consensus to support that action. Otherwise it's a mechanism that's too easy to abuse. And I mean that for any source of any kind in this list.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do also want to say I agree that this Black Sun Rising source should be excluded, and I will revert if someone re-adds it as well. The criticism from VC is accurate, they do not include "Nazi" or "Neo-Nazi" in their categories, so we should NOT be saying that it was "0% Neo-nazi". That's extremely misleading and inappropriate. Worse than cherry-picking, it is willful mis-understanding.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 11:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reread Vladimir comment and realise I misunderstood it. I’ve also read the Nationalities Papers article and agree the summary is misleading. It says “far right” but is neither here nor there on the question of “neo-Nazi”. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It's okay! I think pretty much everyone here has made mistakes while making this source review. And that's why it's so important to have multiple contributors all helping out from different perspectives.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I've finally gotten around to reading this carefully. My strong conclusion is that Vladimir is correct that it was mischaracterised before, but wrong to remove it. It should return but with the tag "Does not mention". It's true it is not focused on characterising the group's ideology, but that is also true of most of the articles which say "neo-Nazi" which simply mention the group in passing. The other issue is that it looks at the whole Azov movement, not the Battalion/Regiment. The article exhaustively examines the group and describes it repeatedly as "far-right". It also indicates shift over time: "originally a far-right groupuscule", they note a shift towards mainstream politics. "We argue that although Azov kept part of its subcultural nationalist thrust, this did not preclude conversion into a pragmatic movement well integrated into conventional politics." In short, this strong source would give us "far-right" and "nationalist" but not "neo-Nazi" and definitely not in the present tense. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * you are right. Removing the Nationalities Papers article was unjustified. Not including an article from a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Cambridge University Press because is not scholarly enough, while including much weaker sources from non-academics is ridiculous. Mcrt007 (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

==== ''' Some non-experts are being presented as experts. Why? ==== ''' Harsha Walia, for examples, is not an academic nor a researcher/scholar. She has zero peer reviewed research articles on extremism or Eastern European studies, and no reliable source seems to present her as such. Why was she even considered a scholar on the current topic? Mcrt007 (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)