Jump to content

Talk:Roman Protasevich/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Name

In regards to WP:COMMONAME, is "Raman Pratasevich" used more often? Because from what I have seen, the Russian transliteration "Roman Protasevich" is most commonly used. Mellk (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, you are right. Most common English spelling is "Roman". Raman (name) is something very different. There is "Raman" as spelling of the Belarussian first name, but I think WP:COMMON NAME should prevail.My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

risk

Was he warned about being aboard a plane in Belorussian airspace? Any sources? 104.169.31.99 (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I did not not see it in sources, but apparently not. As described in sources, he was utterly unprepared and gave his notebook and other electronics (with info about other members of opposition) to his girlfriend, and they were confiscated. He had to physically destroy all devices. Giving them to anyone else on the plane would not work because everyone from the plane was searched later at the airport. My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@104.169.31.99: I doubt that. I seen on a video some Russian-speaking passengers saying that he was definitely caught off-guard. He wasn't prepared for sure. Nobody could. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Interception

Some details with photo and videos are provided here (Russian), the intercepting fighter jet was Mikoyan MiG-29. That was basically a piracy by Lukashenko. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Let's avoid WP:RECENCY and wait for more sources scrutinizing it thoroughly. What we know so far is no more than an aircraft hijacking. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Nexta" Page

I have created a small page for Nexta, which I believe is warranted given the central role it has played in the events of the past year in Belarus, and thus removing the redirect to this page that is no longer necessary. I invite you to add your own contributions there. SageMint (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@SageMint: Thanks. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"Heart attack"?

I am reading BBC [1], and it say the following: "the editor of Nexta, the media outlet Mr Protasevich used to work for, has tweeted that "according to his mother, Roman Protasevich is in hospital in critical condition - heart disease... On Friday, Belarusian political activist Vitold Ashurak reportedly died in prison of heart failure. The 50-year-old was jailed after taking part in demonstrations against President Lukashenko's disputed re-election in 2020. His wife reportedly said he had no history of heart problems.". Sure, Protasevich also did not have any heart problems. My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

State media reports that government denies this, so I suppose we will later see what is the case. Mellk (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
And here is he himself (a video) [2] saying (in Russian) that he is in a good health and admits all his political "crimes". Of course. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Not long ago such a similar method was seen with detained protesters and rally coordinators in pro-Navalny rallies. Mellk (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
And in the former Soviet Union too. This is a well known routine. Investigator: "If you publicly admit your guilt, this will be only 14 years, not the firing squad". The accused (thinking): "Will Big Brother live for so long? Let's say what they want. No one will believe anyway." Investigator (thinking): "I lied. After the admission of the guilt the accused will be liquidated if that is what Big Brother wants". Which brings the question: why do they need the admission of guilt? Yes, they do. Probably the best explanation was given by Orwell in his "1984".My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Such confession from torture and threats. After all, they have his girlfriend. Also reports of what happened to detainees after protests last year is gruesome to say the least. Mellk (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
And an article on this. Mellk (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. The girlfriend just admitted her "guilt" of editing a Telegram channel [3], [4], after an interrogation. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Roman Protasevich's embedded history with the Azov Battalion is unwarranted

While it may seem uncontroversial here, Roman has a history of aligning himself with ultra nationalists. It is verifiable that he was in Ukraine in 2014 per his own social media and his photojournalist credentials show that he has been documenting Azov activities. The source is reliable as well. Scrubbing the content doesn't fit the guidelines, as not only is the claim not exceptional, it is within character.

I don't think Marc Bennetts (The Times' Moscow correspondent) nor his editor would publish this excerpt:

>In 2014 Protasevich is reported to have travelled to eastern Ukraine, where he joined the Azov Battalion, a far-right group that fought Russian-backed separatists.

>“He did not participate in hostilities but he was with the battalion in the Donbas. He was a photographer and, as I understand it, a volunteer,” a Belarusian journalist said.

without some verification from the anonymous journalist in question. It would be out of character for this journalist specifically to toe the line for a regime he generally criticizes. I don't understand why this isn't considered a reliable source or exceptional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerkcs (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks Zerkcs (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Because first time this statement about the history appeared in a Lukashenko-aligned telegram channel on 20 September 2020, and then is basically reposted verbatim in the multiple places. More like the question now is, when it's claimed that Protasevich was involved with Azov from 2014, there's no sources earlier than 2020 that verify at least a small part of that?
The issue is hinges here at, basically, "has been documenting Azov activities", which is normal for a journalist, but also which is actually at odds with a huge jump to the "where he joined" and "a volunteer". Needs a bit more verification to that. --115.188.90.254 (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
[5] The issue arose earlier than that on the anglonet. Not saying that this is reliable, but this is an earlier mention than a Lukashenko source Zerkcs (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
This is interesting. But even then, by them he looks like a journalist, not a commander as some sources tried to claim. Some explicitly Russian sources claimed in the past that Protasevich was a deputy commander of "2-ая ударно-штурмовая рота" in '15. It does not seem to me that such a unit ever existed in Azov, however. 115.188.90.254 (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Alexander Davronov: How about this? "Нет сомнений, что Россия постарается воспользоваться ситуацией для дискредитации Украины, проводя параллели с «делом Чауса» и «вагнеровцами», а также разыгрывая украинскую страницу в биографии Протасевича: белорус одно время работал в пресс-службе «Азова»." or translated through Google Translate: "There is no doubt that Russia will try to take advantage of the situation to discredit Ukraine, drawing parallels with the Chaus case and the Wagnerites, as well as playing the Ukrainian page in Protasevich's biography: the Belarusian at one time worked in the Azov press service." Acalycine (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Acalycine: Wait. But why is this important that he had worked as press secretary for that Ukraine's organisation? I think you can safely put this into the quote along with its translation. You also have to translate the title. See WP:NOENG. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Alexander Davronov: Azov Battalion is a neo-Nazi organisation. I think it's a relevant biographical detail. Thank you for the link and advice. Acalycine (talk) 12:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Acalycine: yes, it is commonly recognized as "neo-Nazi organisation", so it is quite interesting. I think it's important as a fact, as even Bellingcat[6] and other (anti-Lukashenka) journalists and sociologist[7] from different countries are talking about it. As I wrote in the other discussion,[8] Dzerkalo Tyzhnia is a liberal and pro-Western newspaper, and Kravchenko isn't of course pro-Lukashenka[9] so it is quite reliable. For now we could specify that "Ukrainian journalist Vladimir Kravchenko stated that Protasevich worked in the Azov press service.". When and if we get more statements on this matter, we can remove the attribution to this journalist.--Mhorg (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mhorg: I agree, but how about simply attributing it to zn.au in general, not specifically the journalist? I already added it in, so feel free to change it. Acalycine (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I must remind editors about Wikipedia's BLP policies. These allegations require multiple high-quality sources, and these allegations are potentially libellous. The allegations should be removed immediately, as they are not adequately sourced (see WP:EXCEPTIONAL). Tāwhiwhi (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tāwhiwhi: Well even though there are much lower standards for white supremacy linked people I agree that such allegations would require more reliable sources WP:RS. The man behind the second link[10] says that the fact bears little importance. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Acalycine: I think you will have to bring more WP:BLP-compliant sources for that. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Alexander Davronov: if you're referring to the statement I added that didn't include attribution to the newspaper, I agree with the reversion. What I'm now confused about is why a modified addition (that includes attribution to the newspaper) is not acceptable. Editor Mhorg agrees that this source is reliable, are you and Tāwhiwhi disputing this? I also don't see how random Twitter opinion that "the links to neo-Nazi aren't relevant" is at all relevant to this discussion about the inclusion of a biographical detail. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Acalycine: Bring more WP:RS-sources and be done with it. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Acalycine: I for one disagree with treating this source as reliable: WP:RS specifically warns against relying on opinion articles regardless of reliability of the site they are published on, and regardless of Kravchenko's personal biases he's an opinion writer, not a reporter, and can't be used as an original source.--Angdraug (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So, we just leave an unexplained gap in his (short) resume, and hope nobody notices? Keith McClary (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

No, we pay very close attention to make sure we are only using information that can be verifiably sourced to reliable sourcing, particularly given BLP concerns. This is an active discussion where new info is quickly being investigated -- there's no reason speed in getting it into the article needs to take preference over verifiability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Keith McClary: The problem here is that some Kremlin media are pushing him along with some crappy Ukranian neo-nazi agenda.[12][13]. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@BSMRD: Literally, Andriy Biletsky stated that Protasevich worked as a reporter in Azov: "Yes, Roman really, together with Azov and other military units, fought against the occupation of Ukraine. He was with us near Shirokin, where he was wounded. But his weapon as a journalist was not a machine gun, but a word."[14] So, I think it's a matter of time before some journalist gets the news. Let's wait.--Mhorg (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mhorg: This may turn out to be true. Let's wait. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
As these claims start to get reflected in mainstream, reliable sourcing, we can definitely start adding in (although it may require with the context of "X reported that Y said Protasevich is XYZ.") An IP just added info from BBC reporting on the Belarusian presidency's newspaper, which I've adjusted.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

More diverted plane cases

There is similar case when Russian opposition figure was flying over Russia to Moscow when his plane was diverted to a different (from a destination) airport in order to keep him away from meting his fellows/supporters. Anyone mind to add Alexei Navalny link to the See also subsection? There are plenty of sources on that.[15][16][17] --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they are similar. Navalny's plane was supposed to land in Moscow in the first place with expectation of him being arrested. Plane was diverted to different airport in the city with false excuse of technical problems, for reason you mentioned. Not too unusual. Protasevich's plane was supposed to land in Lithuania, but was forcibly landed in Belarus by Belarusian Air Force with false bomb threat and this arrest was not expected at all, so it has been described as a hijacking. In other words, Navalny willingly went to Russia to be arrested. Protasevich did not willingly go to Belarus to be arrested. Mellk (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mellk: I just want to make it sure that the abuse of authority is taking place in both Belarus and Russia. That's the point. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeh, redirecting a plane with a dissident to arrest him... But you need RS that directly make such connections. Otherwise this is WP:SYN. My very best wishes (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Don't think there's any point in adding that; there would be if it was done by the same country. Cases of diverting planes to arrest individuals are more common than you'd think - note President Evo Morales' plane diverted in 2013 in an attempt to seize Edward Snowden (landed in Austria and searched), or the case of Armen Martirosyan, an Armenian reporter in 2016 whose plane was forced to land in Ukraine (arrested by Ukrainian government).Knightoften (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

Information to add to this article:

  • Belarusian authorities claimed that the supposed bomb had been placed by Hamas.
  • Four Belarusian KGB agents tailed Protasevich onto the plane.

Why are neither of these widely reported facts included in the current version of the article?

173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

This belongs to Ryanair_Flight_4978 AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Photo

Can you anyone try to get a photo of Raman by requesting some agencies? Please see: Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. I would like to do it by myself but I got little time. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vaish7848: Well, I don't think that this photo is good enough.

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: I tried my best to find photos. But the free ones are as screenshots in Youtube videos published under CC BY License. But now it is nominated for deletion due to claims that those are propaganda channels using photos which probably the channels dont have copyright claim or have no permission to publish the photos - Vaish7848 (talk) 01:52, 26 May 2021

@Vaish7848: You have to comply with Wikipedia policy on images. You have to get the license. See the link above. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: Let's wait and see if we can get a CC BY license photo. - Vaish7848 (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2021

Some editors seem obsessed with making Mr. Protasevich look like a Neo-Nazi or having an association with Neo-Nazism

I do apologise for this remark; obviously Yaksar and My very best wishes are not like this...... but some editors seem obsessed with making Mr. Protasevich look like a Neo-Nazi or having an association with Neo-Nazi..... Why is that?

Besides even if Azov Battalion is Neo-Nazi.... Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky is Jewish and there are regularly pride parades and rallies in Ukraine, so they can hardly be called influential Neo-Nazis. (When was the last pride parades or rally in Russia and Belarus? There governments do look to me to be very effective Neo-Nazis.....).

I am sorry if you want Wikipedia to be a form of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. It is not and should not become one.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but can we please not spin this off into a third discussion section about the same thing? I personally don't care about how anyone is describing anyone, as long as we are sticking to verifiable reliable info from the sources on Protasevich.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
You seem very interested in softening Azov. While I think that keeping the connections to Azov in the article should be handled with care and we should really have some better sources, the President of Ukraines Judaism has nothing to do with how Neo-Nazi Azov is, and if Azov is mentioned their politics absolutely need to be as well. Calling the Russian or Belarussian governments "Neo-Nazis" because they don't have pride is patently ridiculous, that would make half the countries on the planet "Neo-Nazis". BSMRD (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I am merely claiming that the government's of Russia and Belarus have neo-nazi features. Or is beating up anti-government protesters (like in Russia and Belarus in 2020) not a sign of Neo-Nazism BSMRD? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This isn't an article about Russia or Belarus. Please stop bringing up unrelated things. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I fail to see the point of this section, you do not propose any changes, you go around not assuming good faith, presenting original research and making a forum-like post. @My very best wishes: I can see how my crude removal might come off as rude, but I believe this section will devolve into more WP:SYNTH and original research. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
We are not here to discuss politics. If protasevich has some relationship with Azov, well, this report must be shown (otherwise I don't understand why journalists around the world are fooling on this issue). If there are no links between them, if Protasevich has never had contacts in Azov, then we will only need to mention the accusations from the Belarusian government.--Mhorg (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
According to RS (such as BBC article), he simply worked as a journalist and photographer in Ukraine, which does not make him officially affiliated with any extremist group. My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
According to BBC, [18] Mr Protasevich confirmed in an interview last year that he had spent a year in the conflict-hit Donbas region and was wounded, but said he was covering the conflict as a journalist and photographer. A former commander of the Azov unit has backed Mr Protasevich's version of events, confirming that he spent time with them as a journalist and was wounded.
Emphasis on with them. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Exactly. That means (as I said) he simply worked as a journalist and photographer in Ukraine, which does not make him officially affiliated with any extremist group. Of course he contacted with people from Azov, and possibly a lot, but this is normal journalist work. Consider a journalist who is taking an interview from a member of Hamas and spend some time with Hamas group. Does it make him a supporter of terrorism? My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    I have never claimed that he is "officially affiliated" with the Azov Battalion, not in the article, nor here. What I meant by "affiliation" is his work with the group. We do not even mention the word "affiliation" in the article, instead we attribute the claim of working with them to Belarus' state-run newspaper. I do not see the problem with keeping that in the article. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The Biletsky declaration suggests that there is a proximity between Roman and the Azov organisation. However these contacts are not clear. I say to wait for reliable sources on the case. For now, the article seems to be neutral. The allegations of the Belarusian government are reported, although I would have preferred to maintain what was written in the Ukrainian liberal newspaper Dzerkalo Tyzhnia (that seems to be confirmed from Biletsky statement), and which has been removed. For now, let's wait.--Mhorg (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Biletsky might be exaggerating the proximity between Roman and the Azov organisation in his statement. He is a politician and his political career is very unsuccessful the last years, it might be that he is trying to look close to Protasevich to get back in opinion polls/public opinion.

I am not interested in softening Azov (as clumsy suggested above), nor in making them look good. But the fact is that they have become irrelevant in Ukraine. I am simply trying to NOT make Wikipedia a boy who cried wolf. (And yes, I do believe that there are bigger criminals/sc**bags in Eastern Europe than the Azov battalion and associated organisations (and yes I am including the current Russian and Belarusian governments in that list).) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I removed a claim that he worked for an orgs press service. The source was an passing claim in op-ed, and I couldn't find any other details about this other than on credible sites. Using ties to various groups to discredit someone is a common tactic used by autocrats, so stuff like this needs to be properly vetted and sourced before being added. If the claim was indeed true, it should be re-added with proper sources. Øln (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

We have two reliable sources, one of which is a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, showing links to Azov. So, that part shoud be restored.
  • The Times: "In 2014 Protasevich is reported to have travelled to eastern Ukraine, where he joined the Azov Battalion, a far-right group that fought Russian-backed separatists."[19]
  • Dzerkalo Tyzhnia is a liberal and pro-Western newspaper (so it cannot be accused of being biased) quite reliable: "Belarusian at one time worked in the press service of "Azov"."[20] and it is even quoted by a famous Italian journalistic project[21]--Mhorg (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The Times seems to have removed the stuff about him being involved with Azov from the article now, leaving only the op-ed which is also a bit unclear whether it's actually claiming he was or just saying that propagandist will claim that about him. (maybe it's clearer in the original language). Øln (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
There appears to be a lot of ongoing discussion about the verifiability (or potential lack thereof) to these claims (ex, ex, ex), which very well may have prompted the change in the Times article. Including about facts being sourced to a single op-ed without much credibility. I'm not saying I fall into any specific stance here, but this is clearly not a "reliable sources say so, so it is verifiable" case, particularly for a current events BLP.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The Dzerkalo Tyzhnia article is an opinion piece (WP:RSP "Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces, which mainly represent the personal views of the author, and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source.") and offers no reference or evidence of Pratasevich's alleged involvement with Azov. The Italian outlet that quoted it is rated "mixed factuality / right-center bias" by Media Bias Fact Check. The Times article by Marc Bennets is behind a paywall, there is no mention of Azov in the publicly visible preview part and it's not clear if that article's source isn't the same Dzerkalo Tyzhnia article. Angdraug (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Using Media Bias Fact check as a basis for fact checking, is ironically, not a reliable method. I would advise against it, as it is an amaeturish program. Always remember, who fact checks the fact checkers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check
Further, you can see the Times' initial reporting in the archive to get around the paywall, but it seems as if they have removed the excerpt. Zerkcs (talk)
Angdraug, what does the newspaper "Il Giornale" have about? I haven't even mentioned it... the link I reported is from "InsideOver", specialized in Eastern Europe.--Mhorg (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
InsideOver's website carries this copyright notice: "© IL GIORNALE ON LINE S.R.L. - P.IVA 05524110961". I am not leaning on MBFC as an authority on what sources are reliable, but a negative rating on MBFC is as good an indicator as you can find for sources that are not. FWIW the talk page about MBFC also indicates that the neutrality of the current contents of MBFC's Wikipedia page is itself in question.Angdraug (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Assuming it makes sense to check sources in this way (which would exclude tons of sources each time), there is absolutely no connection between the editorial line of "Il Giornale" and this project. InsideOver is a completely separate project.--Mhorg (talk) 21:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Alright I dug up what I could on his Azov ties, heres what I found.
https://jamestown.org/program/belarus-stages-what-it-sees-as-major-security-operations/
https://www.foiaresearch.net/person/roman-protasevich
https://english.pravda.ru/world/47688-belarus_protasevich/
https://zn.ua/international/zona-zapretnaja-dlja-poletov.html
Additionally, I found this interview him talking about being present for Maidan and working for a year as a journalist in Donbass, so it is not implausible that he could have associated with Azov. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrOxsjdeccw&t=3556s (relevant section is 45 mins in)
Looking at it, not the most reliable bunch(though I find Jamestown commenting on Azov connections curious, they are not friends of the Belarussian government by any means), however it is not impossible that he could have been with them, I would keep an eye out for any better sources on this but for now it should stay out of the article until better RS are found.BSMRD (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
As already mentioned above, the Dzerkalo Tyzhnia article is an opinion piece and offers to evidence, reference, or any specifics of Pratasevich's alleged involvement with Azov. Foiaresearch is accurately described below as an obvious disinformation site. Pravda is the flagship newspaper of the Communist Party (i.e. biased and unreliable). And Grigory Ioffe of Jamestown is referencing riafan.ru, definitely not a reliable nor unbiased source, as the source of the Azov claim, and Ioffe himself is not a reliable source on Belarus (should be clear from his choice of putting the Soviet-time Belarus flag on the cover of his book about Belarus and opening the book's intro with the reiteration of Soviet revisionism of Belarusian history).Angdraug (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I have added a reference to the statement by Andriy Biletsky, an Azov commander, who on his official Telegram today claimed that Protasevich was wounded while with Azov, though he assures his followers that he was there as an embedded journalist and not as a combatant. This is as official a statement as you're going to get. The Ukrainians aren't shying away from it. 96.230.13.185 (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a misleading misquote of Biletsky's statement. The verbatim quote as included and referenced in the current version of the article only goes as far as to confirm that Pratasevich was in Ukraine as a journalist on the Ukrainian side of the war, and that he was wounded near Shyrokyne. Biletsky doesn't claim that Pratasevich was "with Azov" (a very different claim from "fought against the occupation of Ukraine with Azov and others").--Angdraug (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

Regarding the photos of Roman fighting as an Azov soldier, there are now claims that the person in the photos is not Roman, but another youth named Andriy Snitko, and this information was confirmed by one Azov veteran. Source: http://euromaidanpress.com/2021/05/26/protasevich-is-a-dissident-not-a-neo-nazi/ Raikyu (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done""Euromaidanpress"" is not a reliable source, especially in this matter. [22] Discussion on this claim is already taking place above. BSMRD (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

this was also published in the Kyiv Post, the bigger problem is it's an op-ed—blindlynx (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Regardless, the request needs to be reformatted to X -> Y as well. BSMRD (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
True—blindlynx (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

"Accused of neo-Nazi links"

It doesn't matter what this one random source says. The preponderance of high-quality sources at Azov Battalion state plainly that it is a neo-Nazi organization, no equivocating. We should here as well. Some of those sources could even be brought into this article to back it up. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, I just took the liberty of doing just that. Feel free to change if need be Meeeeeeerzfu (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Disagree. Our own page on the topic seems to have had its own recent edit war on how to describe it. I personally would probably do so, but given the serious BLP concerns involved here (we're actively noting that we are discussing efforts designed to defame the subject) we should conform to sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Sources have now been added, and the text "conforms" to that. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
This cannot be doubted, the organization has been defined by academic sources as "neo-Nazi". The battalion article is fairly accurate in defining it that way.--Mhorg (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mhorg: What's the importance in this very context? You have to be careful with Kremlin's propaganda. They are intentionally trying to misrepresent everyone who is disloyal to the Russian regime. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 10:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Kremlin's propaganda? Scholarly sources and Western journalists consider the battalion as "neo-Nazi". All the English Wikipedia has been purged of sources like RussiaToday, so the problem does not arise. There is no Kremlin propaganda here.--Mhorg (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mhorg: Why mentioning R. Protasevich as azov's member is important here? I'm seeing right now how some Russian state propaganda jornos are trying to mock him as "fighter' on twitter.[23][24] I can't ignore the fact that this is coordinated disinformation campaign. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC

@93.37.135.156: Please, don't add (20:21, May 25, 2021) this information as it's currently disputed. and the consensus is to bring more sources. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The use of these not Protasevich related sources in this article is WP:SYNTHESIS. Besides Wikipedia is not a tool to help Belarusian authorities confirm there point. If you got a problem with the Azov Battalion you should go to a court in Ukraine and try to get it banned..... Wikipedia is not the Simon Wiesenthal Center where we try to get people to notice that some organisations have Neo-Nazism features (something that the Azov Battalion denies having). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Yulia Romero: Just a side note, mentioning Azov's relationship may explain why Russian and Belorussian govts are so jealous about his abduction. This explains their motives behind the crime. So it's worth keeping it. We are safe to close this discussion I think. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Besides putting a lot of information here about the Azov Battalion is also Wikipedia:Content forking (of the article on Azov Battalion); which is best to avoid. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

No one even suggested that? It is not content forking to call spade a spade and describe the organisation as neo-nazi when it has been called that before by reliable sources. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there is no need to make a controversy for this. The Azov Battalion is commonly defined as "neo-Nazi", it isn't "Content forking" and there is no problem defining it as such in the article.--Mhorg (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
We can very clearly use how it is described in the actual sources describing the efforts to connect him to it (the BBC story, for example), but we shouldn't be making this page the place for debate on how to describe it within its text. Users can easily see how we describe the battalion on its page.--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Users can easily see how we describe the battalion on its page. The reader shouldn't have to click the article to know that it is a neo-nazi group, we do the same for QAnon, calling it a far-right QAnon conspiracy, not just QAnon. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mhorg: It's fine, take this into another article. In this one it has WP:UNDUE weight. linking to it is enough. Let's readers judge what that means. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Here is the text from the BBC article we use to cite the claims from the presidential newspaper. It is not at all problematic to use how our sources actually describe things:
    • Belarusian authorities have muddied the waters over the detention of Mr Protasevich, both over his background and how the Ryanair flight was forced to land. Aside from a new air traffic control transcript that contradicts the version of events given by Belarusian state TV, the pro-Lukashenko press has portrayed the dissident journalist as an extremist with right-wing sympathies. Belarus Segodnya, a newspaper published by the presidential administration, has claimed that Mr Protasevich was a mercenary who fought in eastern Ukraine with the nationalist Azov Battalion, which has been accused of neo-Nazi links.
--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
No, the definition of an organization does not depend on what the specific source is saying, but with the overall content of the organisation inside the article in Wikipedia. The Azov Battalion is defined as a neo-Nazi in Wikipedia, so that is the definition.--Mhorg (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Using "has been accused of neo-Nazi links" is a weasel statement which implies that the multitude of sources on the Azov Battalion wikipage aren't reliable enough to be used in wikivoice, if you have an issue with it being called neo-nazi, you should take that up with the corresponding reliable sources and demand they remove or correct their story. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
While I don't necessarily feel strongly either way, the literal source we use to cite his alleged links to the group, the BBC, says ""has been accused of neo-Nazi links." That's not the only way we can phrase this, but that is just silly.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
The source is there to cite his link to the group, not the group's description. The group has been characterized by neo-nazi by many reliable sources which are included at Azov Battalion, if the reader doubts our classification of Azov Battalion as a neo-nazi group, he will read the Azov Battalion article and read through our sources there. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Can we at least agree that we can cite the BBC claim here, regardless of whether we describe the org as neo nazi or neo nazi linked?--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Which BBC claim? If you mean the "has been accused of neo-Nazi links." then I disagree, per what I stated above. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
No, the BBC article does not say that Roman had neo-Nazi links. Quite the opposite. This is WP:SYN or something claimed in other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Please do read the whole thread, the "had been accused of neo-nazi links." is talking about Azov Battalion, not Roman. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If supported by good RS, this simply means that Roman traveled to Ukraine as a journalist to cover the political events there. This is all, and it can be included to the page. Simply covering actions by "Azov" does not make any journalist a neo-Nazi supporter. My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Fixed per WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Information is starting to come out. This would be a 2015 interview with Protasevich,[25] nom de guerre "Kim": "A fighter with the callsign Kim told Focus about the Belarusian unit "Pagonya" [...]: «I am a Belarusian, Ukrainian and Pole by origin. I was on the Maidan for about a month. During the clashes he received a head injury and went home to Minsk.as confirmed in this interview[26] I ended up in Azov. I arrived in Ukraine in July. In the battalion, we underwent tactical and medical training. Then there was the course of a young soldier and sending to the ATO. [...] I took part in all Azov's operations and was wounded. I have never regretted that I got involved in all this. I do not feel like a foreign body within the organization: I am a fighter like everyone else. [...] In Shirokino,as confirmed by Biletsky statement[27] while cleaning warehouses, the guys recently discovered a patch with the logo of a Belarusian opposition organization»" I suppose more precise information will arrive soon.--Mhorg (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, these are questonabe sources, an interview with someone who hided his identity and WP:SYN at worse. Wait until RS like BBC will report something, and then we can include what they say. My very best wishes (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I never wrote to put this stuff in the article, I'm just saying that the information is starting to come out about the fighter "Kim" from Belarus. Other stuff too.[28]--Mhorg (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, after reading this interview, I do not see anything to suggest that "Kim" (whoever he is) holds neo-Nazi or supremacist views. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
That was never the point. Reporters are trying to figure out if he fought in Azov or not. If it were confirmed that this "Kim" is him, those 3 articles are full of confessions.--Mhorg (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
This is even worse than WP:SYN, it's straight up WP:OR: there are no mentions of Pratasevich in the focus.ua article, and no mentions of "Kim" in any of the other links offered by Mhorg.--Angdraug (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
FYI.... there is no ban on WP:OR in talk page discussions, only in article space. OR posted in discussions can assist editors with weighing decisions on whether or not some content already being discussed should go in an article: and this is perfectly acceptable process. Mhorg explicitly pointed out to y'all that he wasnt suggesting putting this in the article, so I think you guys need to calm down a few notches.. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Name Change Not Needeed

Not Really Necessary to do that really.

Thegibuspyro (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Due to overwhelming opposition the consensus is to keep Roman Protasevich as current title of the article. (non-admin closure) --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Roman Protasevich → Raman Pratasevič – Current page uses the Russified version of his name. We should use his native Belarussian name like we do with other heroes of the current fight against Lukashenko, like Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, Maria Kalesnikava, Viktar Babaryka, Tadevuš Kandrusievič and so on Daikido (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Certainly not in the current version. Per WP:BELARUSIANNAMES BGN/PCGN_romanization_of_Belarusian is to be used, which means that it becomes Raman Pratasevich. Despite the warning that the proposal is dormant in general, the Belarusian version has been discussed just a month or two ago on the talk page, and there seemed to be no consensus to change the proposal, so I assume it to be authoritative as is. I find it necessary to revive discussion and establish consensus, though.
As for the general concept of renaming Protasevich to Pratasevich, my issue is that the former version has almost 4.5 million results in Google, while the latter has only just over 500 thousand (Edit. The version with č has just below 500 thousand results, still way fewer than the Russian romanised version, even if we count the "ch" and "č" versions together). I nevertheless vote in favour of the proposal, due to my will of differentiating names of Russians and Belarussians; we must leave Roman Protasevich as an alternate option, as Russian, want it or not, is an official language of Belarus - when it stops being one, I will change my mind.
EDIT: As of 30 May, the Google Search numbers changed to 4.06 million, 780 thousand and 370 thousand, which yields a proportion of 3.5:1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szmenderowiecki (talk • contribs) 13:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:BELARUSIANNAMES is used for geographical names, not for personal names. Belarusians have their names spelled in the Latin alphabet in their passports, Wikipedia editors must not assume they can decide for Belarusians how to write their names. In this particular case, however, the choice will be between Roman Protasevich (what he seemed to use on Twitter) and Raman Pratasevich (what global media and the Belarusian human right organisations sensitive to such matters use).--Nieszczarda2 (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Not that I am particularly happy with this guideline as it exists (I personally believe that official spellings from each respective country, or the UN spelling, should be used), but the policy exists as is now, so I'm bound by it. PS. The example they give under the Belarusian section about Francysk Skaryna proves you wrong. It's just the policy that uses two different systems for some reason. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Those Google Web Search numbers are completely wrong. Please read WP:SET. The respective results, showing only on the last page, are currently 124:135:72 for me. With quotation marks and excluding Wikipedia, I get 117, 129, and 58. Furthermore, we should be gauging usage in reliable sources, not the general web. Anyway, there the proposal is more common or there is no single clear common name, so other factors come into play. —Michael Z. 23:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as you can see by a Google News search, the spelling Roman Protasevich is by far the more common form used in English. The proposed spelling appears to be used exclusively by Czech and Slovak language news[29]. I don't know what the Belarusian MOS says but it doesn't override WP:AT policy, specifically WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. (t · c) buidhe 13:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
If you want to know the Belarusian Wikipedia standard, the one that is in standard Belarusian uses the official MFA transliteration (that changes nothing, in fact, because in names ч is still transliterated as ch, see the rules for names here (in Russian)), while Taraškievica version, which is preferred by those who oppose Lukashenko as well as some other people not content with the Soviet-style rendering, uses š and č throughout. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Commenting on this, the current standard on English Wikipedia is BGN/PCGN romanization of Belarusian. There is a discussion to change it on the talk page at WP:BELARUSIANNAMES which is nowhere near a consensus. Note that, regardless of the standard of romanization, when it comes to people's names, WP:COMMONNAME is the guideline. 162 etc. (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should we associate Roman Protasevich with neo-nazis?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus against describing Protasevich as "associated" with the Azov battalion in the article. Some editors support a different statement saying that he worked as an embedded journalist attached to the Azov battalion; a statement to that effect is not precluded by this close. Whether to describe the Azov battalion as Neo-Nazi in Wikivoice is currently under discussion at Talk:Azov_Battalion#RfC:_Azov_Battalion. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


Should we explicitly state that Raman Protasevich is an associate to the Ukrainian neo-nazi group called Azov Battalion? Should we also use neo-nazis phrase in this context? --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

There are at least three discussions above concerning the question all but one of which ended up in weak WP:CONSENSUS :

  1. #Removal of Roman Protasevich's embedded history with the Azov Battalion is unwarranted
  2. #"Accused of neo-Nazi links"
  3. #Some editors seem obsessed with making Mr. Protasevich look like a Neo-Nazi or having an association with Neo-Nazism

Survey

  • Yes, the question isn't whether he was an associate, but to what extent. I have explained this in the sections above. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, with qualification we should clearly qualify the known extent of his involvement, which is his reporting embedded with them, rather than a simple "he is associated", which could lead to a false impression of membership. If mentioned, Azov should absolutely be mentioned as "Neo-Nazi", instead of nationalist, far-right, or some other term per WP:SPADE BSMRD (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No. Which RS say that "Roman Protasevich is an associate to the Ukrainian neo-nazi group called Azov Battalion"? I do not see any. And no, we can not describe Azov Battalion as neo-Nazi in WP voice. That was already discussed in an RfC. If the cited source about Protasevich (e.g. a BBC article) calls it a "nationalistic" in such context, that is exactly what we should do on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait, even if my intuition tells me that there is some connection between Protasevich and Azov, I would await more reliable information that better explain this relationship. As for the definition of Azov, if the multiple scholarly sources weren't enough, I would like to quote from the former commander of Azov Battalion, Andriy Biletsky, from the Guardian, where he said that the Ukrainian nation's mission is to "lead the white races of the world in a final crusade... against Semite-led Untermenschen".[34] So, yes, definitely, a neo-Nazi battalion.--Mhorg (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, there is another anti-Lukashenka source that clearly states that "he cooperated with Ukraine's Azov battalion as a journalist".[35] So yes, what is certain is that he wasn't there documenting the war as a journalist, (for now) he worked for Azov Battalion as a journalist.--Mhorg (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong yes Even if this "relationship" is BS/propaganda/disinfo/agitprop/fake news, that doesn't at all change the fact that the Azov Battalion itself, whether or not Mr. Protasevich was ever a part of it, is a neo-Nazi organization, as plainly stated on its page and attributed with several high-quality sources. Discounting the qualifier we use there from this page just because we think the rumor might not be true hinges on absurdity. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Sure, but which RS would you use to source the RfC statement that "Roman Protasevich is an associate to the Ukrainian neo-nazi group called Azov Battalion"? The BBC article does not say it. It say he was a journalist who just covered actions by Azov and other groups. That does not make him an associate of neo-Nazi, just as a journalist who covered actions by Hamas would not automatically qualify as a terrorist supporter. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Upon rereading this, the RFC is worded extremely poorly. Everything we say of course should be in fact what the sources say; we don't go to the talk page for "consensus" to make stuff up. The previous conversations were not about this as the RFC implies they were. However, we should include the accusations of him being affiliated with the Azov Battalion, as reliable sources have covered them, and when referring to that group we should call them neo-Nazis, as reliable sources have done. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While there is good evidence and substantial consensus from the scientific community that says Azov is neo-Nazi (see Ukrainian Wikipedia article, from which expert opinion could be added), I oppose it on the grounds the evidence that he was part of the movement is too weak and there is reasonable doubt as to whether the information about being part of Azov was actually true and not an invention of Belarusian authorities. See here, here (the latter source is already in the text).
If any editor can prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was part of Azov/was neo-Nazi (not that Azov is neo-Nazi, which we know quite well), I will change my mind; in other cases, it does not warrant inclusion in contexts other than allegations.
EDIT: Also here. What is interesting that one of the main arguments that Protasevich was fighting in Azov (his purported photo on front cover of Azov's magazine) comes i.a. from Anatoliy Shariy, who is known for his staunch pro-Russian views and is about as reliable for information as Tucker Carlson. I reaffirm my vote. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, sure, the Azov, even as an official/regular regiment of the Ukrainian National Guard, has or had a number of soldiers with neo-Nazi views (including Bieletsky), and even the symbol of the detachment is similar to symbolic by Nazi. I am sure that many members of other armies (such as in Russia or even in the USA) also have supremacist views. But it does not mean that every soldier in the army is neo-Nazi. The discussions on this page (see above) seem to imply that everyone affiliated with this detachment must be a neo-Nazi. This is wrong. But again, whatever RS say. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Everyone voluntarily in the Azov Battalion (which is all of them) is a Neo-Nazi, or at best doesn't see a problem with fighting alongside Neo-Nazis. The Azov Battalion is not the Ukrainian Military, but within the Battalion the iconography and ideology are entirely consistent with Neo-Nazism, despite attempts to white wash them as just "nationalist" or "far-right". The page on this very website opens with "The Azov Battalion is a Neo-Nazi Ukrainian regiment", their iconography is coated in SS and Nazi symbols, and several of their members have espoused racism, antisemitism, and even a direct belief in National Socialism. Any mention of Azov should call them Neo-Nazis, if it walks like a Nazi, looks like a Nazi, and talks like a Nazi, it's a Nazi. BSMRD (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Two different names exist for these types of argument: one is ecological fallacy (in formal context), while informally, that's association fallacy. A journalist who covers Parti Québécois isn't necessarily a supporter of Québec's independence. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, clarifying that the he worked as a journalist. The sources for it are contaminated by RT and similar media predictably making the most out of this, but I managed to find reliable sources confirming his work in the press service: Euronews article which says that Protasevich worked as a journalist and did not take part in fighting (I can't find it on the English-langauge Euronews site unfortunately), and the Jamestown foundation article (The Jamestown Foundation is usually very critical of Russia and has the status of an undesirable organisation there). Note that the commander of Azov battalion Andriy Biletsky (politician) is saying that Protasevich fought together with Azov as a journalist against the Russian occupation of Ukraine: [36]: "Так, Роман справді разом з Азовом та іншими військовими частинами боровся проти окупації України. Він був з нами під Широкиним, де отримав поранення. Але його зброєю як журналіста був не автомат, а слово." Alaexis¿question? 06:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No as proposed. The proposal as worded would be obvious BLP violation. First "is an associate" suggests active or at least very recent connection, which clearly isn't backed by sources. Second "associate" itself is fairly vague and questionable term, is a foreign journalist accompanying a military unit automatically an "associate"? Third, was he even exclusively accompanying Azov batallion specifically? Like Biletsky's statement "with the Azov Battalion and other units" [emphasis mine] is quite ambiguous on the matter. It could be reasonable to say something roughly along the lines: "during War in Donbass, Protasevich accompanied Ukrainian units, including Azov battalion, as a journalist". But that's about it, at least until more information becomes available in reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Btw, after checking Azov Battalion article talk and history, it appears that labeling it as "neo-nazi" with no additional qualifiers is not such a clear cut case either. Last RfC on the topic in 2015 actually had consensus against using such label, and current inclusion of the label in the lead sentence is a result of slow running edit war that has been running in that article since early 2021. Until that issue is properly settled at Azov Battalion page first, preferably with a new RfC, we should refrain from using such label here in a BLP.--Staberinde (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you feel that eight citations is not enough to declare a group exhibiting neo-nazi characteristics as neo-Nazi in wikivoice? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Not necessarily, although I have no firm opinion on that issue at this moment, as it would require some more serious studying of available sources. Relevant factors would be whether sources explicitly call it "neo-nazi" or do they use more qualified terms like "linked with neo-nazis" or "with neo-nazi connections". Additionally, how common is usage of term "neo-nazi" in overall amount of reliable sources covering the unit, including how usage of term "neo-nazi" compares to usage of more encompassing terms like "far-right" or "nationalist". To give a quick example, it is not hard to find numerous reliable sources calling Fidel Castro a "dictator", but RfC on the topic decided that usage of the term is not wide enough to warrant calling him as such in wikivoice.--Staberinde (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Of these The Nation (linked twice) and BBC stated neo-Nazi in their voice, CSIS and The Hill say they are linked to neo-Nazis, while The Telegraph only said about one of the guys wearing a Nazi symbol. I've removed two of eight resources - Sky News didn't mention it at all, while a Swedish military report called them "nationalist" - a far cry from neo-Nazi. Still, other sources can be found for the claim. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
PS. I have posted more of these resources on the talk page of Azov Battalion, as I promised to find. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. Such allegations are libelous and have no basis in fact. Raman Pratasievič worked briefly as a journalist in the ATO zone and covered events in Shyrokyne. Pratasievič never fought in any combat or was in the Donbas in any capacity other than as a volunteer worker. No reliable sources claim otherwise. Do not publish libelous material or material in breach of BLP policies. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • no there is no way that a reader would understand 'associated with' as anything other than a member of and we have no RS saying that—blindlynx (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No All RSs mention about his relationship to Azov is his work as a journalist covering the fighting. It would be very disingenuous to use terms like "associate to" when only unreliable sources made any claims that the relation went beyond journalistic work. We don't refer to journalists who interview ISIS leaders as being "associated to ISIS". Even if there was a more involved and personal relation between him and Azov than in most journalistic endeavors (say, like between Hunter S. Thompson and the Hells Angels), that still doesn't make him an "associate". PraiseVivec (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No I don't see there as being anything beyond him being a journalist from WP:RS. It's an extraordinary claim, and we'd need damn good sourcing to include something like this. We simply don't appear to have that level of sourcing here (especially considering that this is a biography of a living person). Additionally, the last RfC that has been conducted on the Azov Batallion, as pointed out by Staberinde, also went against including the label of "neo-nazi" in the article, and there's currently a dispute on that page regarding whether or not the label is appropriate. Until/unless better sourcing is presented, I don't think that it would be best practice to frame things in the proposed way. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Provisional no. "Explained in sections above" does not cut it. Show us the sources, right here in this RfC. I'll check back later. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No , ' Assosciated with' would mean more than just him being a journalist covering the story.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No. Perhaps just bad wording, but "associate" suggests the allegations are true. RS do not regard him as some sort of "associate" of Azov Battalion, so unless this changes, this should not be the case. Mellk (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes but with further clarification on to the extent his involvement was. Sea Ane (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Comment This RfC is poorly worded. It combines two different questions, and asks us to say yes or no to "should we say he was associated with Azov" which is vague and could mean several things. The "are Azov Nazis" question quite frankly shouldn't even be a question, but saying "he was associated" is poor wording and could lead to BLP violations. Saying however, "He worked as a journalist embedded in the Azov Battalion" is accurate to the sources we have and doesn't paint him with the same brush "association" does. BSMRD (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    Now that I look at it, I agree. The word "associated" especially in a WP:BLP article could have different connotations, perhaps we can use the embedded journalist bit and wait for more information from reliable sources? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    Raman Pratasievič was never embedded with this unit. This allegation is false. He was a journalist covering the conflict in the ATO zone. No reliable sources claim he was embedded with the battalion, and all allegations to this affect stem from a Lukašenka-aligned TG channel in 2020. These allegations are intended to muddy the waters around Pratasievič's kidnapping and torture at the hands of the regime. Tāwhiwhi (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. This RfC is poorly worded and meaningless. Whatever statements we want to include, they must be directly supported by strong RS. No one will object it.My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Yep, given the scope unfortunately I don't think we are going to be clarifying much here other than "the folks who have been arguing over this are arguing over this."--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Attempting to clean this up. What would people think about this wording:
"The Belarus presidential administration's state-run newspaper, Belarus Segodnya, said that Protasevich was a mercenary who fought with the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion during the War in Donbas."
This language solves the MOS:CLAIM issue currently in the article and, most importantly, directly calls the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion just that without false MOS:DOUBT. Citations should be added to verify "neo-Nazi" and of course to verify that this is what the paper in fact said. The rest of that section (beginning with "Protasevich has previously said he spent a year in Ukraine...") is fine IMO. Thoughts? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Delay until consensus emerges on Azov Battalion being called neo-Nazi, on their respective talk page. For now it would be better to say, in my opinion, that: Belarus Segodnya, presidential administration's state-run newspaper, claimed that he was a mercenary in Azov Battalion, which Belarus's authorities recognise as a neo-Nazi organisation[additional sources representing Belarus's position], during the War in Donbas." Don't source to foreign media, because they don't convey Belarus's position on Protasevich or Azov Battalion. I believe that if you want to underline that some foreign media and researchers also say they are neo-Nazis, just include it elsewhere if possible, but stating it in wikivoice (because that is how it might be read, separate from the opinion of Беларусь Сегодня) is, I believe, premature, as no consensus appeared on that (personally though, if I were not writing Wikipedia, I'd be inclined to call them thus). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Just a quick comment, as there is no active RfC on the Azov page, I suspect you will be waiting a long time for "consensus". In the mean time, adding the "Neo-Nazi" designation is easily sourced and is relevant to why the Lukashenko administration and other anti-west groups would want to associate him with Azov, and why that would be so damaging to his image as a "pro-democracy" advocate. BSMRD (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I will start it promptly, no worries. See link to the RfC shortly (EDIT: draft version here. It is important to prevent an edit war over that designation, so that we reach the consensus. The previous RfC is 5.5 years old and we should revive the topic. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, seems about as neutral as we will get. BSMRD (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Please no, Euromaidanpress is pure propaganda trash[37].--Mhorg (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Link you gave does not say this is "trash" and does not provide any reasonable discussion. I would argue this source can be used with explicit attribution to author, i.e. Hanna Hrytsenko. Here is a better version by KyivPost. My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Kyiv Post is propaganda as well. Though judging by your editing history you probably know that, as it is almost entirely dedicated to whitewashing modern Ukraine and blacklegending modern Russia. Daikido (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mention flight in intro?

Do we think we should include there? I don't want to overweight one thing that happened in just the past few days, but that does seem to be the obvious bulk of the coverage, and what prompted our actual article to be created.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

support - This will clarify things. Feel free to add. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roman_Protasevich/Archive_1&oldid=1041636262"