Talk:Roman Protasevich/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Interview with a person whose identification with Roman's father is possibly wrong

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)

If these sources contradict each other, they both deserve to have their own space in the article. The article should have different point of views.--Mhorg (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There was an August 2020 interview to Current Time TV (7:52-8:30 in the video), where his father claimed that his son has fought in Donbass, while his mother interrupts him to say he was a freelancer, and that apparently he was grilled by Belarusian KGB for that. 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. Probably they took some other part of their coverage, but its authenticity has not been verified and they didn't post any information that it could make easier to find. It might be a good idea to ask Current Time TV whether they made the coverage sometime ago.

PS. Strana.ua is a pro-Russian source to the point of severely affecting reliability, so for pro-Russian/pro-Belarusian sources, please refer to Russian and Belarusian publications that are considered RS in their respective countries. Ukrainian pro-Russian sources are unfortunately, in 99%, crap (Segodnya at least used to be mildly pro-Russian but was nevertheless (edit: among the better pro-Russian resources, even as in general it was marginally reliable)). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and it adds nothing important to the content. I removed it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

So speaking about reliabilty, it turns out that Strana was right, and Euronews reported incorrect information: the father actually said to Current Time TV that his son fought in Ukrainian Army. I found an artice on Meduza that clearly talk about this. And no, please, do not remove something that matter to understand his role in Azov.--Mhorg (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP if its not a high quality independent source we generally remove it on sight no matter what the subject matter is. You can’t change that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. So removed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That one by Meduza is a little more reliable and in English [1]. But again, the story about the alleged words by his father adds nothing and murky. It needs to be excluded. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. FWIW AFAICT in the earlier interview with Current Time TV, Pratasevich's father is talking based on what Belarusian KGB told him about his son's activities (that's the general context of that fragment of the interview), not based on first-hand knowledge.--Angdraug (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No, please, that's not the case. In the interview he clearly says those words, in fact later he is obliged to give an absurd explanation to justify what he said. If you know Russian you already know what it says, if you don't, ask me and I will translate it for you. It is not possible to interpret it in any other way. This is the statement, and continues with the absurd explanation.[2] Yes, it is due, he is his father, his statements are really "curious" and talk about his allegedy involvement.--Mhorg (talk) 11:08, 30 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)

@Yulia. Thank you, this is very helpful. I quickly checked sources on the page of Ukrainian WP. It appears that Страна.ua is indeed a disinformation channel. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

According to the Ukrainian wikipedia Stepan Bandera is a national hero who has never collaborated with the Nazis. So, no, please, let's never mention Ukrainian wikipedia again. Indeed, I would like to warn colleagues that in Ukraine any newspaper not aligned with the government is branded as pro-Russian: this is precisely the example of Zaborona, where a Ukrainian journalist was investigating neo-Nazis and was accused of being pro-Russian forced to flee. home. Human Rights Watch talks about it.[3] Speaking instead of Strana.ua, everything reported in that article is verifiable, as demonstrated by the link from Current Time TV.--Mhorg (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch reports on all countries. You sound like you’re trying to demonize Ukraine on Wikipedia talk pages, and not contributing to this discussion. Please stop. —Michael Z. 20:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the Ukrainian Wikipedia cannot be used to understand which sources in Ukraine are pro-Russian or not, especially if we are talking about anti-government sources. The fact that the Ukrainian Wikipedia is totally different in content than the English one is a fact and it is indicative, I am certainly not the only one to say it. The case of Human Rights Watch speaks precisely of how any anti-government sources in Ukraine are silenced with the accusation of being pro-Russian, therefore, I repeat, I invite users to use sources other than Ukrainian ones in disputes concerning Ukrainian issues, at the same the way we analyze Russian sources mainly through Western sources. Speaking of "contributing to this discussion", the question is already closed with Szmenderowiecki's answer: the father actually said those words to Current Time TV.--Mhorg (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

There is noting wrong with evaluating reliability of Ukrainian sources (Страна.ua in this case) using pages about them from Ukrainian WP because such pages contain links to publications about the source that need to be checked (along with other information). Same with Russian language sources (one can use ruwiki), etc. Also, there is nothing so special about the Ukrainian project. Yes, some of the pages follow views and sources predominant in specific culture and language. One can reasonably argue that the page in English WP about Bandera is biased. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I've linked to the Russian version, which also mentions extensive criticism of Strana.ua. Anti-government =/= reliable, and, as I said and I will reiterate, 99% of Ukrainian pro-Russian sources are crap, and that's not because they are not supportive of the current government, but because of profound quality and COI issues, which unfortunately are not dealt with at all in these media (presumably on purpose). They also happen to be targets of recent media closures in Ukraine, but that is another story. Just because their offices are being raided by SBU (Ukrainian FBI) doesn't mean that their coverage suddenly becomes of better quality, either in prospect or retrospect.

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.

To illustrate my point, Strana.ua quotes the passage in the following way: "Дела заводили на сына еще в 2014 году, когда он был на территории Донбасса и воевал на стороне украинской армии". (The [criminal] complaints were [lodged] against [my] son in 2014, when he was in Donbass and fought with the Ukrainian army).

Current Time TV interview quote is the following: "...и еще когда в четырнадцатом году он был на территории Донбасса, на территории, и воевал на стороне украинской армии, вот, со мной неоднократно встречались и собеседовали сотрудники Комитета Государственной Безопасности. Конечно же, уклон был такой, что молодой, неопытный, и так далее... но сейчас, сейчас это все, конечно, достают из своих... своих темных столов, сейфов, эти все документы -" "он фрилансер, фрилансером был" "...и никто не даст гарантию, что под любым надуманным предлогом нас, к нам применят тоже санкции". (...and when in 2014 he was on the territory of Donbass, on that territory, and he fought on the Ukrainian army's side, well, I've had several meetings and interviews with the officers of the KGB. Of course, they were talking that he was young, inexperienced and so on... but now, all this, of course, they take [it] from their... dark tables and safes, all these documents -" "he was freelance, he was freelance" "...and no one will guarantee that under some false pretext they [won't] also apply sanctions."

See the difference? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

"he was freelance, he was freelance" is the sentence of the mother, who interrupts the husband. While the husband said clearly that his son "fought on the Ukrainian army's side". Precisely for this reason Current Time TV (an RS) reiterates the point (given that it has been accused of having misrepresented the words of Roman's father): that is, it is not their problem if the same father clearly stated those words. 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. Speaking of Strana.ua, I don't have much to say and nobody is saying to reintroduce it.--Mhorg (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

Strana.ua is citing the Current Time TV interview (there is also the video interview piece) "В Сети ходит ролик, на котором отец Протасевича говорит изданию "Настоящее время" дословно следующее: "Дела заводили на сына еще в 2014 году, когда он был на территории Донбасса и воевал на стороне украинской армии".[4] Then Homoatrox cited Euronews who quoted the same video from Current Time TV saying that the father is not the one talking. [5] Current Time TV confirms that the father was the one being interviewed[6] and asks him for confirmation on that statement given earlier.[7] In all three cases we always talk about the same video.--Mhorg (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• According to a number of sources, such as one discussed above [8], main accusation by Lukashenko is literally that "the arrested journalist killed people in the brotherly Ukraine" ("задержанный журналист «убивал людей в братской Украине»."). If we have reliable sources (such as BBC, etc.) claiming that he did kill people (who, where and how?), then it might be included, but I do not see it at all even in poor sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the fact that there are photos of Protasevich in Azov uniform and armed

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.

• Italian Journalist Agency: "Protasevich was in Donbass and there are photos of him in an Azov uniform"[10]
• Radio France Internationale: "Several pictures show the young Belarusian in combat gear. [...] There is no evidence that he has taken up arms. [...] Regarding the photos with the Azov battalion: Roman Protassevich left for this region as a journalist in 2015. Some images are more ambiguous, but we never see him clearly on the ground, bearing arms."[11]--Mhorg (talk) 11:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• No, the entire section about Azov allegation must be kept very short (shorter than it is right now) per "due weight" on the BLP page. Some participants are blowing this "controversy" out of proportion. The most important (and significantly covered in RS) story of the page is the downing the plane to arrest the subject. Even if he fought against Russia-sponsored forces in Ukraine, that does not change much, and therefore was covered in best mainstream sources (such as BBC) very little. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• • The article should be moved to an title that indicates the subject is the plane downing incident to arrest him, rather than a general biography article on this journalist himself. If the journalist were notable enough to warrant having his own article, past association with a neo-nazi paramilitary group would surely be notable; if he has an article only because of the plane incident (and I see he didn't until after this happened), then there should just be an article strictly about the plane incident. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Right now we have zero reliably sourced information on what exactly Roman did in Ukraine. The information must be specific. For example, just a photo in a uniform does not mean anything. People wear costumes to make a photo for a variety of reasons. If he was a journalist (as some say), what exactly did he publish while being there? If he was fighting with Ukrainian forces (as others say), then in which regiments exactly, for how long, and what exactly did he do? All of that should be published in RS in sufficient detail, but it is not. In particular, the claims by Biletsky and his father do not provide details, contradict each other, and in general do not deserve any trust as sources of information, given a huge COI (to say this politely) for the both people. Given that, this is currently just a questionable claim/rumor that can be noted only as a propaganda effort. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  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)

  Prince Harry famously wore a Nazi uniform to a costume party in 2005, does that mean we should call them a neo-Nazi? You seem to be ignoring the fact that our WP:BLP policy exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  I never said only neo-Nazis wear SS uniforms, I merely said that the reason most of them do is due to their identification with ideology. Please do not put words in my mouth. Also, I really fail to see how the image of Roman in Azov uniform is a violation of WP:BLP policy, are you claiming that it is not him on the picture? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  But most neo-Nazis don’t wear SS uniforms, do you mean the majority of neo-Nazis who do wear SS uniforms do it due to their identification with that ideology? I’m seeing sources in the deleted passage which do not meet our standards for BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  You are dodging around the question, are you claiming that the person on the photo is not Roman Protasevich? CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Given the BLP nature of that question I’m not allowed to express any opinion I may have on that subject other than to reference reliable sources. Why do you ask a question that clearly can’t be answered on a wikipedia talk page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  My apologies, of course you could not claim that the person is not Roman, no reliable source has disputed these claims. Reliable sources have only confirmed them, this is supported by: Radio France Internationale and Italian Journalist Agency CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Which piece of speculation is this meant to support? Your assertion that wearing this uniform is meant to be an identification with an ideology? I must be missing something here, I asked you to review WP:BLP (which apparently you did not do)... I made no claim about whether or not its him in the picture. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  The "speculation" I meant, and the one you are reverting, is the fact that there is a picture of Roman in Azov uniform, I am, for the third time now, asking you to explain to me how you think it is not Roman when I have presented sources supporting my edit and you haven't refuted it in any way. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Why do you think I think that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The same goes to you. Azov is a regular army unit, and it has no uniform of its own.--Aristophile (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Roman said he was a journalist in Donbass. There are photos of him in the uniform of the Azov Battalion: no, this is not how journalists do in war, they must have recognizable signs that they are press operators, that is, using colors such as blue, or having readable banners that read "Press". No, it is difficult to think of a journalist "wearing a military uniform" and "armed". So yes, if any source reports that there are photos of him in that condition, that becomes quite an important issue. In the text then no assumptions are made about the fact that he fought (except what his father undoubtedly says to an anti-Putin TV), we only talk about photos of that type.--Mhorg (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Embedded reporters are always put in uniforms.--Aristophile (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Do embedded reporters wield automatic weapons as well?[12][13] And if he was an embedded journalist, then this data should be included in the article. A reporter is different from an embedded reporter. Don't you think?--Mhorg (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

BLP applies to talk pages as well, no linking to unreliable sources claiming to have a picture of the subject. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

They are not always put in uniform, it does vary, but they do *often* wear the uniform of the group they’re embedded with and posing for a picture with a gun is well inside what journalists have historically done... Now if he was fighting thats an entirely different matter, journalists tend to not do that although of course there are always exceptions to the rule. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Those links are the primary source of what Meduza reporded[14] that was present in the article (now removed), to show you that what is being said is verifiable. Yes, both the Italian and French sources refer to those photos, the cover photo of Azov 2015 magazine, and the photo found on Roman's cell phone during the arrest. These are the 3 contexts in which Roman is accused of being in uniform and armed. However, if neither the French nor the Italian source deserves to be placed in the article, saying only that there would be photos of Roman in uniform and armed (neutral and verifiable), I wonder why there is not even in the article that he was an embedded journalist. Don't you think this thing has any relevance?--Mhorg (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• If it was him on the photo, it only proves he indeed was in Ukraine. But this is is something no one, including him denies. And this is written already in the previous paragraph. Whole this addition [15] serves only to debate a photo of a questionable origin and meaning. This is clearly undue on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  How is it undue? Those statements are attributed to their respective sources, they do not make any outrageous claims, they do not claim he participated in the war or has taken up arms, they merely say there are photos of Roman in an Azov uniform. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 15:27, 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)

What "interpretation"? No source contradicts them, no source claims that the photos are false or that it is not Roman who is on the picture. Please explain. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Many more sources say that these photos resemble Pratasevich, that they are unproven, uncorroborated, they are said to be someone else, 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. These two are outliers, in that they have stated a dubious interpretation of the photos, contrary to prevailing journalistic treatment of them, and without any additional evidence. This is quite important when this person only started to be demonized as an Azov member by propaganda after his kidnapping by a régime known to torture dissenters. —Michael Z. 18:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

These 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."

As for the 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)

Pratasevich can’t deny anything because he is in Lukashenka’s dungeon. If this opinion is worthwhile, why can’t you find a single suitable English-language source to back it? Why can’t you state a fact in the article, but rather need to state the fact that some sources made some statement? Please review WP:FRINGE for some terms of reference. —Michael Z. 19:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is fringe and somehow 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)

First post in this talk section explained how it departs. So have you, just now. If they didn’t differ, I suppose you’d be happy with some other. —Michael Z. 21:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

• Let's just say that any new and reasonably disputed content can be included to BLP pages only by WP:Consensus. This is per WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
• New article by Novaya gazeta (Russian): [16]. It covers a lot, but as related to this discussion, Former colleagues of Protasevich in Euroradio also confirmed that Roman was in the combat zone as a freelance photojournalist, and was photographed with a weapon as a souvenir. ("Бывшие коллеги Протасевича по «Еврорадио» также подтверждали, что Роман был в зоне боевых действий как фоторепортер-фрилансер, а с оружием фотографировался на память."). My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Another confirmation that the one in the photos, armed, is Protasevich, just as shown in the removed part (confirmed by the Italian\French sources, that now we can finally restore).--Mhorg (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I do not have doubts that the person on photo is Protasevich. But what does it mean? The "Allegations" section is currently framed as a claim that he fought together with Ukrainian neo-Nazi. The discussion of the photo served only to support this accusation. But the source tells the opposite, that the allegation is false. If this is just a photo for a good memory, why it should at all be mentioned on the page? My very best wishes (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Lost info

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)

That was your edit [17], with a reference to this source [18]. I think it might be restored, except that main idea of the publication, i.e. "jailed Belarusian blogger paraded as 'trophy'" (i.e. no one takes his "confessions" seriously) was lost. So fixed. No need to repeat very same claims over and over again. My very best wishes (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Azov battalion: what does protasevich say himself?

It would be good to add what protasevich said himself about this episode.- Altenmann >talk 21:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Could be interesting... do you know something about this?--Mhorg (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

That depends on the narrative Lukashenko would like to create. Obviously, the accused will "confess" [19],[20], and then as Andrey Vyshinsky said, "confession of the accused is the queen of evidence". My very best wishes (talk) 22:41, 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)

What's the problem?

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. He also photographed Alexander Lukashenko at least once during 2019 European Games. In addition to photographs, he made at least one video report for Euroradio about Chechen refugees trying to move to the EU through Belarus.

Why exclude? Was it wrong info? My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

see my edit summary: original research/primary sources, a conclusion drawn by a wikipedian seeing some photos by protasevich. How do we know that he "was a photographer for euroradio" ? There are many ways how euroradio could have laid their hands on tbese photos. Photographed lukashenko once? Really? May be twice? How do you know. What a pathetic piece of puffery. - Altenmann >talk 02:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

If his photographing is of note, thre must be secondary sources with an analysis.- Altenmann >talk 02:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The first is merely a photo credit; a primary source, but that does seem to reliably show that Pratasevich took the credited photo or photos in a professional capacity. But the facts about Pratasevich’s occupation have certainly become newsworthy and notable this month (*ahem* this very discussion page), and Euroradio has published the second article as a secondary source. —Michael Z. 03:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

it seems you have low reading comprehension or simply ignored what i wrote because you are not addressing my arguments but merely stating obvious trivialities that have no relation to my objections . - Altenmann >talk 17:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I too thought it was OK content. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 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)

I appreciate your mentality and willingness to fix the article, don't leave. Perhaps it would be better to make more cautious changes, passing more through the talk page. As for the discussion, I think some small "ORs" like these ones should be allowed.--Mhorg (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Summarized quote by Biletsky is unclear

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)

I agree that direct quotation of Biletsky is better. Or just remove whole thing. Whatever Biletsky has to say, who trusts him? My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

yes he was a random journalist. There were plenty of them, with strong antirussian attitude. "Fought the war with the word" is propaganda language, not presentation of facts. I see no reason to quote an opinion of neonazi about protas.. In this context all we needed to know that biletsky confirms protasevich was there as a civilian.

P.S. and by the way, where are protasevich reports from the war, if he was "fighting with the word"? I dont remember any mentioned. I start suspecting another dubious piece. - Altenmann >talk 02:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Altenmann, that he was a random reporter, that's your idea. Instead, what the sources say is something else. And no, we cannot use part of a quote and omit other parts that give useful information to the reader. About quoting a neo-Nazi, was not our will, editors of Wikipedia, but the will of pro-Western reliable sources. Speaking of his war reports, that is another interesting question: they are not found. This is also used by the accusers: if you were just a journalist, where are your pieces as a journalist?
1. Please also note that the previous version was stable. If any users disagree with your changes, before reverting, get consensus first here on the talk page.
2. Please, I know that maybe it's just your way of writing, but I ask you to tone it down, there are already many conflicts between users on this article, let's not throw more gasoline on the fire.--Mhorg (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC

what do you mean "my idea"? There were hundreds of reporters there, he was no special. No, there was no useful information in the quote beyond big word puffery. Also, in my opinion, you have a wrong idea about the concept of 'stable version'. If I insulted you, my apologies; i edited out swear words above. - Altenmann >talk 22:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Altenmann: I didn't feel insulted. I was just asking you not to use certain strong terms... as a precaution, so as not to cause conflicts with other users. (Thank you).--Mhorg (talk) 07:42, 16 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)

So, you are not worried to quote a false statement? - Altenmann >talk 07:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources say it’s false then say it’s false or leave it out. But don’t try to make up some new meaning for it. —Michael Z. 07:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not making new meaning. I as wikipedian am judging the reliability of the source. I say biletsky is not a reliable source because he says protasivich 'struggled with words' and I am saying nobody can find these 'words'. If you can, please add the info about them to the article. - Altenmann >talk 15:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead wording

15:41, June 17, 2021 - «cleaned up last sentence of lead, not sure what happened here.»

@BSMRD: I think we need a better wording for the lead. I propose to replace the following highlighted words by something else because now it's really unclear what happened:

...Belarusian authorities after his flight, Ryanair Flight 4978, was diverted to Minsk on May 23, 2021, after a false bomb threat.

--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how the lead is unclear. He was detained after his flight was diverted. Perhaps replace the second after with a because? BSMRD (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit: did just that, think that flows better. BSMRD (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@BSMRD: Alright it looks much better now. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 14:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Nazism whitewashing

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)

Because it's actively under RfC [23]. Until we get consensus on what label to use there it's better to stay vague. I suspect that once consensus is reached there this article will be updated very quickly afterwards. BSMRD (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I see no good reason to overemphasize his participation in Azov battalion. It's enough to mention that he was part of it just because this agenda is heavily WP:POVPUSHed by Russian media. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Exactly for this reason wikipedia must give a reasonably detailed non-propaganda presentation of this topic. - Altenmann >talk 22:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I remind you that there are 3 states (Russia, Belarus and the Lugansk People's Republic) that accuse Protasevich of fighting in Azov. I remind you that the LPR has requested extradition and proposed to institute the death penalty only for the Protasevich case. Whether it's propaganda or not, it's an important part of the Protasevich case. It is impossible to omit anything on this story. Regarding the definition of "neo-Nazi" regarding the battalion, there is an RFC underway. It will be that RFC that will determine how the battalion is to be defined.--Mhorg (talk) 07:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I remind you that’s two states. Let’s not forget that one dictatorship and one authoritarian oligarchy, and their random cheerleaders, are just salivating for Wikipedia to associate the adjective “Nazi” with an independent voice who is being tortured by the KGB and threatened with extralegal execution. Please mind WP:BLP. —Michael Z.

Yes, probably, but we are not here to do politics. We are neither here to save nor to condemn. One fact remains a fact. If Protasevich enlisted in Azov, a neo-Nazi military formation,(defined in this way by plenty first class RSs) this does not make him a Nazi: it makes him one who joined a neo-Nazi battalion.--Mhorg (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mzajac: And this one is too. Thanks for reminding us about that. (Even though I disagree that he was completely independent voice but anyway, ain't gonna dispute this). --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• I understand there is a conflation of two different things here. First, there is a photo of Protasevich in a military uniform. Looking at the photo, I have no doubts this is him. Sure, he posed for a photo. Second, there is an interview with someone else named "Kim", with his face hidden. There is no reason to suggest that "Kim" is Protasevich if I am not mistaken. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Two old interviews of "Kim" for Radio Free Europe[24] and for Nasha Niva[25] where the fighter has the hidden face. The same photo, without the hidden face has been found in the Protasevich smartphone (you cant watch it here,[26] for example). BBC stated that: "The evidence appears to show that "Kim" and Roman Protasevich are the same man, although the question of whether this person was engaged in active combat, as alleged by the Belarusian authorities, is still disputed and has not been independently confirmed".[27] So now what is missing about his role in Azov is whether or not he fought.--Mhorg (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, the last quotation is not according to BBC, but an opinion by "Alistair Coleman, BBC Monitoring Disinformation Specialist" published by BBC. But again, the essence of the allegation by Lukashenko regime is that the Protasevich was killing people in Ukraine, together with neo-Nazi. If this is true, this must be reported by strong RS with details like who he had killed, where and when. Until we have it I think that mongering the photo, someone named "Kim", posts on twitter and other things that have "not been independently confirmed", but imply a serious crime is against our BLP policy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

When I was showing you the first information about "Kim" some time ago you replied: 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)

Yes, it say that the claim "has not been independently confirmed", and the claim implies a crime. Meaning do not monger it over and over again on BLP pages. We included this claim already. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Please use the active voice in your sentences. Above, I see two links to some guy on Twitter and the BBC, and then a conversation that mixes the two up. Who acquired a photo from Pratasevich’s phone, how, and who published it where? —Michael Z. 21:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

"My very best wishes" your removal[29] of anything related to the photos can be called "whitewashing", and it is absolutely unwarranted. That part was neutral (it was also specified that there is no evidence that he fought), sourced with first class RSs like BBC and Radio Free Europe and with important opinions like those of Bellingcat. That part explain to the reader precisely what materials are being used by the Belarusian authorities on the Protasevich-Azov case. I'm restoring it. Michael, the photos were given by the Belarusian authorities, after the arrest, to the pro-govt Telegram channel "Желтые сливы".[30]--Mhorg (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Dubious sources are not to be used per WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPPRIMARY. Respect the WP:BLP’s advice on undue weight, contentious labels, NPOV, and balance. Lukashenka’s state Telegram channels and the so-called LPR’s accusations are all contentious and unsupported. Padding and punctuating the article with a huge section about how someone might not be a Nazi despite why habitual human-rights violators say so is not okay. That Lukashenka and the “LPR” are threatening to kill him might be notable. The “LPR’s” ridiculous list of weapons systems is not.—Michael Z. 13:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Dubious sources like 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 uncorroborated “evidence” that appears to show this is software of unknown reliability being used by a reporter, not facial-recognition expert, were relying on a single photo comparison, and admitting that he got significantly different result using a second reference photo. The evidence is of that he might be on a magazine cover, and not of that he joined the unit, which is what the second part of the quoted fragmentary sentence says. You’re suggesting we add unconfirmed evidence of being photographed, which is circumstantial evidence of membership in a unit. Which could lead readers to reach the conclusion (still not in evidence at all) that maybe he’s a Nazi and deserves to be tortured by Lukashenka. Not acceptable in a WP:BLP. —Michael Z. 16:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I already explained everything above, but once again. Placing very same negative claim about living person (DNR case) twice on a page and debating very same dubious accusation of a crime that "has not been independently confirmed" to infinity, instead of simply noting and explaining the accusation (1 paragraph is enough) goes against WP:BLP I believe. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

There are no doubts that he was in the Ukraine and posed for a photo. But what exactly he did there is a good question. Perhaps he fought together with Azov and other detachments or was just a journalist. In any case we need strong RS saying this assertively and in sufficient details, as opposed to a speculation if he was "Kim" or not. But even if he was "Kim" and fought together with Ukrainian forces against the so called "rebels" (who acted under direct command of Russian Army officers since September 2015 [31]), there is no way to paint him as a neo-Nazi. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Don't waste time on this. This is just another baseless persecution of a political enemy. The everything else is an an attempt to justify this persecution. There is no evidence that he took part in actual combat and even if he did - there is no legal framework to prosecute him outside of the Ukraine or Belarus. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 08:00, 18 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)

@Zerkcs: What "this" exactly? I'm Russian and I can tell you for sure that allegations were done on intent: to demonize Roman and make everything look like it was a justified "retribution". Current neutral "Azov battalion allegations" subsection I think is the best consensual version that we can have unless someone proposes a better solution. Best. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)