![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I've noticed that a possible fake statement was present in the article without necessary notes. The text was: «Roman's father, in an interview with "Nastoyashee Vremya" channel, claimed that his son was in the Donbass fighting alongside the Ukrainian army. He later denied these claims». It's true that the statement is given according to the link. But there's a very big problem: there is no direct identification of the person in the video with Roman's father Dmitry. Strana.ua or its sources just called this man "Roman's father". It was reported that Roman's father looks and speaks differently. So I made a necessary clarification of this situation but one may offer to delete this passage completely as a fake. Any thoughts? — Homoatrox ( talk). 12:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
According to Ukrainian Wikipedia "According to research by the Institute of Mass Media in February 2017, Strana.ua has the worst balance of opinions and professional journalistic standards in the news format, along with the sites Korrespondent.net, Obozrevatel and the newspaper Vesti. In a 2018 study by Texty.org.ua , the publication was named one of the leading pro-Russian publications in Ukraine." Why do we want to have anything to do with Strana.ua? This is probably just another Viktor Medvedchuk side-project or other Kremlin tool to just generally confuse us, misinform us and give us " and you are lynching blacks" stories. There are thousands of RS news sources about Protasevich at this point, using Strana.ua for a backstory about his father is just silly. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The case of Human Rights Watch [...] Western sources.No problem with that. The Western RS are near-unanimous in their voice, though. The issue of Azov Battalion is being discussed separately and I don't want to bring the discussion here.
Szmenderowiecki's answer: the father actually said those words to Current Time TV.Nope. My answer was:
However, no phrase as presented in the strana.ua source (which is actually a compilation of several opinion pieces, from what I read) was mentioned in the Current Time report.
About the "discussion" the section name is "Interview with a person whose identification with Roman's father is possibly wrong", no, it was not wrong, the father acutally said that words to Current Time TV, this is why I said that the debate here has ended.The problem was that Strana.ua was quoting from an excerpt of a video footage which the poster on social media purported be an interview with Protasevich's father (but it was not verified for authenticity), and that is the reason the discussion is named as it is and the debate could not end there. The interviews are different, and most probably with different people. The one that i.a. Strana.ua mentioned (and which was making rounds in social media) was the one fact-checked; August 2020 interview was not. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 23:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
There are two strong international sources, one Italian and one French, which clearly speak of Protasevich in Azov uniform or armed. They don't use the term "alleged" so these newspapers recognize that the one in the photos is him. The French newspaper clearly recognizes him, but says there is no evidence that he fought. Currently in the section "Azov Battalion allegations" all references to those photos have been removed. [9] I am in favor of a restoration of this content.
People wear costumes to make a photo for a variety of reasons.Yes they do, for example neo-Nazis often wear SS uniforms or similar Nazi memorabilia, because they identify with the ideology. This might also be the reason why Roman decided to wear Azov uniform. Also, please stop POV-pushing, both here and on Azov Battalion, you can't just remove content from an article because it contradicts your world view. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 14:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
These are apparently two specific sources with the same information available to dozens or hundreds of others. This is not some scoop, new analysis or expert’s opinion, nor is it presented as such. It is merely a different interpretation than virtually all other sources, and possibly a failure to adhere to good journalistic practices. It is an outlier and should be treated as such. Using them to present information without some explanation is cherry-picking sources. — Michael Z. 16:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Many more sources say that these photos resemble Pratasevich, [...] that wearing combat dress is not evidence of membership in Azov, that there is no real evidence that he was a member of Azov, that Azov members have said he was not a member.do not contradict the proposed edit, I do not believe the edit makes a claim that Pratasevich is a member of Azov, it only says that "
Roman's father, in an interview with Current Time TV, claimed that his son went in Donbass fighting alongside the Ukrainian army. After the arrest of his son, he said that his words where misinterpreted. Italian Journalist Agency stated that there are photos of Protasevich in an Azov uniform. Radio France Internationale reported that there are several photos of Protasevich in combat gear, but that there is no evidence that he has taken up arms."
Many more sources say that these photos [...] are unproven, uncorroborated, they are said to be someone else, could you share some sources which claim that the man in photo is not Pratasevich? I have not found any source straight up denying it, not even Pratasevich himself. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 18:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.How does the identification of a person on a photo as Roman Pratasevich by two different, unrelated sources differ from mainstream? You claim that the mainstream opposes the identification and says that the photos are
unproven, uncorroborated, they are said to be someone else, yet you haven't produced anything that backs your assertion. Furthermore, the statement
If this opinion is worthwhile, why can’t you find a single suitable English-language source to back it?is blatant discrimination and quite laughable when you look at it. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 19:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I added today his most recent appearance in public today where the opposition says he appeared in duress despite his statements and I find it was removed but it was not "Reverted". Where did it go in the article? I think that in the rush of adding information to this article, information is lost or put elsewhere, let's not be hot-headed when editing, please. CoryGlee ( talk) 19:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It would be good to add what protasevich said himself about this episode.- Altenmann >talk 21:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I was not talking about what he will say now. I meant what he was saying when he was with azov. - Altenmann >talk 02:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
As of March 2019, he was a photographer for Euroradio.fm and worked at the meeting of prime ministers of Austria ( Sebastian Kurz) and Belarus ( Sergey Rumas) in Minsk. [1] He also photographed Alexander Lukashenko at least once during 2019 European Games. [2] In addition to photographs, he made at least one video report for Euroradio about Chechen refugees trying to move to the EU through Belarus. [2]
If his photographing is of note, thre must be secondary sources with an analysis.- Altenmann >talk 02:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Whatevr. I am a "drive-by" editor. I merely noticed that the article is of a very low quality. I did what I thought useful. If you dont like it, i dont care and Im no longer touching it. - Altenmann >talk 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This quote from Biletsky: "Roman was indeed together with Azov and other military units that fought against the occupation of Ukraine, though his weapon as a journalist wasn’t an automatic rifle but the written word." was replaced
[21] with this:
"Azov Battalion founder Andriy Biletsky wrote that Protasevich was with Azov and other military units as a journalist, not as a military man".
I think some important details have been omitted, as Biletsky hinted that Roman was some sort of volunteer who sided with them (his weapon), therefore a journalist who "fought the war" with the word. As it was sumarized instead it just seems that he was a random journalist who came to write a few pieces by chance. Either we leave the precise quote from Beletsky or we add something to the sumarized part. This is my proposal.
[22]--
Mhorg (
talk)
22:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Here is a fact that demonstrates zero reliability of biletsky quote. After a quick search i found a 2020 interview of protasevich to Yury Dud. He said there he spent a year in donbas as a photocorrespondent, meaning that the description "fighting with words" is a tall tale of a person who probably didnt even know protasevich until now. And this also nicely explains why we cannot find anything written by protasevich from the front lines. - Altenmann >talk 23:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC) Definitely stick to the quotation. If the quote is unclear, then a WP:BLP is no place to embellish it with misinterpretations and leaps like some in the paragraphs above. By the way, Biletskyi did not say byvsia, “fought,” nor voiuvav, “warred,” but borovsia, “struggled against the occupation of Ukraine.” — Michael Z. 02:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
15:41, June 17, 2021 - «cleaned up last sentence of lead, not sure what happened here.»
-- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)...Belarusian authorities after his flight, Ryanair Flight 4978, was diverted to Minsk on May 23, 2021, after a false bomb threat.
afterwith a
because? BSMRD ( talk) 13:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Why is Wikipedia whitewashing all mention of the Azovs battalions widely believed neo Nazism? Sad that Wikipedia finds itself on the sides of Nazis these days. 31.187.2.127 ( talk) 12:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Wait until RS like BBC will report something, and then we can include what they say.[28] Now that the BBC is speaking, you are raising more questions. No, please, let's not start over with this game. What is written in this BBC article cannot be questioned, I believe. We are speaking of a first-class RS that clearly expresses a view on the "Kim" case. When other more precise information arrives, we will insert that too.-- Mhorg ( talk) 16:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubious sourceslike the BBC that says "The evidence appears to show that "Kim" and Roman Protasevich are the same man", and the statements from Bellingcat quoted by Radio Free Europe? LPR's statement are reported by many RS, because they are important to the case (maybe we can avoid specifying the type of weapons, which are not interesting information). Removing statements from first-class sources, in my opinion, is just a political operation, which has nothing to do with our work here.-- Mhorg ( talk) 14:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
the so called "rebels" (who acted under direct command of Russian Army officers since September 2015)As usual, political comments that have nothing to do with the subject and the content removed. If Protasevich joined Azov it must be written that he did. If for you that means "painting him like a Nazi", that's not the problem of Wikipedian editors. About the
baseless persecution, according to BBC and Bellingcat it seems not so baseless, [32] you manage to reject even first-class sources. Amazing.-- Mhorg ( talk) 12:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m simply just amazed that editors here are still trying to censor this about Roman. It all looks political and ironically looks like an attempt to “muddy the water” in regards to Roman’s affiliation with Azov, whatever that may be. Zerkcs ( talk) 17:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I've noticed that a possible fake statement was present in the article without necessary notes. The text was: «Roman's father, in an interview with "Nastoyashee Vremya" channel, claimed that his son was in the Donbass fighting alongside the Ukrainian army. He later denied these claims». It's true that the statement is given according to the link. But there's a very big problem: there is no direct identification of the person in the video with Roman's father Dmitry. Strana.ua or its sources just called this man "Roman's father". It was reported that Roman's father looks and speaks differently. So I made a necessary clarification of this situation but one may offer to delete this passage completely as a fake. Any thoughts? — Homoatrox ( talk). 12:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
According to Ukrainian Wikipedia "According to research by the Institute of Mass Media in February 2017, Strana.ua has the worst balance of opinions and professional journalistic standards in the news format, along with the sites Korrespondent.net, Obozrevatel and the newspaper Vesti. In a 2018 study by Texty.org.ua , the publication was named one of the leading pro-Russian publications in Ukraine." Why do we want to have anything to do with Strana.ua? This is probably just another Viktor Medvedchuk side-project or other Kremlin tool to just generally confuse us, misinform us and give us " and you are lynching blacks" stories. There are thousands of RS news sources about Protasevich at this point, using Strana.ua for a backstory about his father is just silly. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
The case of Human Rights Watch [...] Western sources.No problem with that. The Western RS are near-unanimous in their voice, though. The issue of Azov Battalion is being discussed separately and I don't want to bring the discussion here.
Szmenderowiecki's answer: the father actually said those words to Current Time TV.Nope. My answer was:
However, no phrase as presented in the strana.ua source (which is actually a compilation of several opinion pieces, from what I read) was mentioned in the Current Time report.
About the "discussion" the section name is "Interview with a person whose identification with Roman's father is possibly wrong", no, it was not wrong, the father acutally said that words to Current Time TV, this is why I said that the debate here has ended.The problem was that Strana.ua was quoting from an excerpt of a video footage which the poster on social media purported be an interview with Protasevich's father (but it was not verified for authenticity), and that is the reason the discussion is named as it is and the debate could not end there. The interviews are different, and most probably with different people. The one that i.a. Strana.ua mentioned (and which was making rounds in social media) was the one fact-checked; August 2020 interview was not. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 23:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
There are two strong international sources, one Italian and one French, which clearly speak of Protasevich in Azov uniform or armed. They don't use the term "alleged" so these newspapers recognize that the one in the photos is him. The French newspaper clearly recognizes him, but says there is no evidence that he fought. Currently in the section "Azov Battalion allegations" all references to those photos have been removed. [9] I am in favor of a restoration of this content.
People wear costumes to make a photo for a variety of reasons.Yes they do, for example neo-Nazis often wear SS uniforms or similar Nazi memorabilia, because they identify with the ideology. This might also be the reason why Roman decided to wear Azov uniform. Also, please stop POV-pushing, both here and on Azov Battalion, you can't just remove content from an article because it contradicts your world view. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 14:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
These are apparently two specific sources with the same information available to dozens or hundreds of others. This is not some scoop, new analysis or expert’s opinion, nor is it presented as such. It is merely a different interpretation than virtually all other sources, and possibly a failure to adhere to good journalistic practices. It is an outlier and should be treated as such. Using them to present information without some explanation is cherry-picking sources. — Michael Z. 16:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Many more sources say that these photos resemble Pratasevich, [...] that wearing combat dress is not evidence of membership in Azov, that there is no real evidence that he was a member of Azov, that Azov members have said he was not a member.do not contradict the proposed edit, I do not believe the edit makes a claim that Pratasevich is a member of Azov, it only says that "
Roman's father, in an interview with Current Time TV, claimed that his son went in Donbass fighting alongside the Ukrainian army. After the arrest of his son, he said that his words where misinterpreted. Italian Journalist Agency stated that there are photos of Protasevich in an Azov uniform. Radio France Internationale reported that there are several photos of Protasevich in combat gear, but that there is no evidence that he has taken up arms."
Many more sources say that these photos [...] are unproven, uncorroborated, they are said to be someone else, could you share some sources which claim that the man in photo is not Pratasevich? I have not found any source straight up denying it, not even Pratasevich himself. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 18:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.How does the identification of a person on a photo as Roman Pratasevich by two different, unrelated sources differ from mainstream? You claim that the mainstream opposes the identification and says that the photos are
unproven, uncorroborated, they are said to be someone else, yet you haven't produced anything that backs your assertion. Furthermore, the statement
If this opinion is worthwhile, why can’t you find a single suitable English-language source to back it?is blatant discrimination and quite laughable when you look at it. CPCEnjoyer ( talk) 19:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I added today his most recent appearance in public today where the opposition says he appeared in duress despite his statements and I find it was removed but it was not "Reverted". Where did it go in the article? I think that in the rush of adding information to this article, information is lost or put elsewhere, let's not be hot-headed when editing, please. CoryGlee ( talk) 19:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It would be good to add what protasevich said himself about this episode.- Altenmann >talk 21:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I was not talking about what he will say now. I meant what he was saying when he was with azov. - Altenmann >talk 02:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
As of March 2019, he was a photographer for Euroradio.fm and worked at the meeting of prime ministers of Austria ( Sebastian Kurz) and Belarus ( Sergey Rumas) in Minsk. [1] He also photographed Alexander Lukashenko at least once during 2019 European Games. [2] In addition to photographs, he made at least one video report for Euroradio about Chechen refugees trying to move to the EU through Belarus. [2]
If his photographing is of note, thre must be secondary sources with an analysis.- Altenmann >talk 02:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Whatevr. I am a "drive-by" editor. I merely noticed that the article is of a very low quality. I did what I thought useful. If you dont like it, i dont care and Im no longer touching it. - Altenmann >talk 17:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
This quote from Biletsky: "Roman was indeed together with Azov and other military units that fought against the occupation of Ukraine, though his weapon as a journalist wasn’t an automatic rifle but the written word." was replaced
[21] with this:
"Azov Battalion founder Andriy Biletsky wrote that Protasevich was with Azov and other military units as a journalist, not as a military man".
I think some important details have been omitted, as Biletsky hinted that Roman was some sort of volunteer who sided with them (his weapon), therefore a journalist who "fought the war" with the word. As it was sumarized instead it just seems that he was a random journalist who came to write a few pieces by chance. Either we leave the precise quote from Beletsky or we add something to the sumarized part. This is my proposal.
[22]--
Mhorg (
talk)
22:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Here is a fact that demonstrates zero reliability of biletsky quote. After a quick search i found a 2020 interview of protasevich to Yury Dud. He said there he spent a year in donbas as a photocorrespondent, meaning that the description "fighting with words" is a tall tale of a person who probably didnt even know protasevich until now. And this also nicely explains why we cannot find anything written by protasevich from the front lines. - Altenmann >talk 23:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC) Definitely stick to the quotation. If the quote is unclear, then a WP:BLP is no place to embellish it with misinterpretations and leaps like some in the paragraphs above. By the way, Biletskyi did not say byvsia, “fought,” nor voiuvav, “warred,” but borovsia, “struggled against the occupation of Ukraine.” — Michael Z. 02:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
15:41, June 17, 2021 - «cleaned up last sentence of lead, not sure what happened here.»
-- AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)...Belarusian authorities after his flight, Ryanair Flight 4978, was diverted to Minsk on May 23, 2021, after a false bomb threat.
afterwith a
because? BSMRD ( talk) 13:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Why is Wikipedia whitewashing all mention of the Azovs battalions widely believed neo Nazism? Sad that Wikipedia finds itself on the sides of Nazis these days. 31.187.2.127 ( talk) 12:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Wait until RS like BBC will report something, and then we can include what they say.[28] Now that the BBC is speaking, you are raising more questions. No, please, let's not start over with this game. What is written in this BBC article cannot be questioned, I believe. We are speaking of a first-class RS that clearly expresses a view on the "Kim" case. When other more precise information arrives, we will insert that too.-- Mhorg ( talk) 16:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Dubious sourceslike the BBC that says "The evidence appears to show that "Kim" and Roman Protasevich are the same man", and the statements from Bellingcat quoted by Radio Free Europe? LPR's statement are reported by many RS, because they are important to the case (maybe we can avoid specifying the type of weapons, which are not interesting information). Removing statements from first-class sources, in my opinion, is just a political operation, which has nothing to do with our work here.-- Mhorg ( talk) 14:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
the so called "rebels" (who acted under direct command of Russian Army officers since September 2015)As usual, political comments that have nothing to do with the subject and the content removed. If Protasevich joined Azov it must be written that he did. If for you that means "painting him like a Nazi", that's not the problem of Wikipedian editors. About the
baseless persecution, according to BBC and Bellingcat it seems not so baseless, [32] you manage to reject even first-class sources. Amazing.-- Mhorg ( talk) 12:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I’m simply just amazed that editors here are still trying to censor this about Roman. It all looks political and ironically looks like an attempt to “muddy the water” in regards to Roman’s affiliation with Azov, whatever that may be. Zerkcs ( talk) 17:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)