Talk:Ruslan Kotsaba: Difference between revisions

And right off the bat...

... we have misrepresentations of sources. "Prisoner of conscience" has three inline citations which pretend that this is based on reliable sources. But of course not a single one of these actually says he is a "prisoner of conscience". In fact, not a single one says he is a prisoner at all! The third source is about how local townspeople didn't want him at a city council meeting (folks can figure about why that would be)!

Also, notability. Volunteer Marek 18:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

radiosvoboda: “Amnesty International also recognized Kotsaba as a "prisoner of conscience" - the first case in the last 5 years” (Також Amnesty International визнала Коцабу «в’язнем сумління» – перший випадок за останні 5 років). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Amnesty International:

Amnesty International considers Ruslan Kotsaba a prisoner of conscience and calls on the Ukrainian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release the journalist. A prisoner of conscience is a person whose physical freedom is restricted by imprisonment or otherwise because of his political, religious or other beliefs. People who resort to violence or promote violence and hostility are not considered prisoners of conscience. The term was coined in the early 1960s by Amnesty International founder Peter Benenson”. (Amnesty International считает Руслана Коцабу узником совести и призывает украинские власти немедленно и безоговорочно освободить журналиста. Узник совести - человек, физическая свобода которого ограничена тюремным заключением или иным способом из-за его политических, религиозных или иных убеждений. Узниками совести не считаются люди, прибегающие к насилию или пропагандирующие насилие и вражду. Этот термин был введен в начале 1960-х основателем Amnesty International Питером Бененсоном).

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that this edit [1] clarifies the misrepresentations of sources issue with regard to "prisoner of conscience". Amnesty is a reliable source on the notion of "prisoner of conscience", which basically they invented. A plausible alternative would be "political prisoner", but prisoner of conscience is more precise and supported by sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Misrepresentations of sources

• The object of this edit [2] is this is manipulation too. Prokhasko just said that Kotsaba was voicing the fact that many people were afraid of the war. The text you removed says Ukrainian writer Taras Prokhasko ... said that Kotsaba had voiced what others were afraid to admit.

This is the google translation of the source Radio Liberty [3]:

Taras Prokhasko , a writer from Ivano-Frankivsk , was one of the few who partially supported Kotsaba in the conflict with activists, and later with law enforcement officers. The writer says that in his address, Kotsaba voiced what others were afraid to admit. "A person has the right to express his opinion, if that opinion is not destructive for society. And Kotsaba's words are not devastating, because they expanded the spectrum of different views and visions. In fact, people avoided mobilization. Most conscious and intelligent people avoided joining the army because this war was unclear," says Prokhasko. Reluctance to go to war due to its incomprehensibility and at the same time the desire to protect Ukraine were combined in the same people, the writer is sure. "Ruslan got into such circumstances because he said things that showed the ambivalence of the position of many people. They were nervous listening to him because he was exposing their secret desires that were masked by some other motivations. The paradox is that one person could at the same time believe that there is no need to go to war, and that the war is necessary and must be won," Prokhasko ponders aloud.

I restore the text you removed because the source is not misrepresented. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Here [4] you removed {{tq|stated that ... the local population largely supported the [[Russian people's militias in Ukraine|pro-Russian militias}]}} claiming in the edit summary "not in source". Here's what the source [5] says:

Kotsaba, who does not have much sympathy for the Russian authorities, nevertheless stated that there are no regular Russian troops in the LPR, that local residents mostly fight in the ranks of the militia, that the militia are by no means terrorists, but quite adequate people who categorically disagree with the coup in Kyiv. Kotsaba, who spoke with the local population, honestly admitted that the vast majority of Luhansk residents support the militias.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Criticisms of Kotsaba

You added These statements were criticisized even by journalists sympathetic to Ktosaba, who referred to him as a "liar" who often made "false arguments" [6]. However, the source [7] says that it was only one journalist, Denis Kazansky, and not many, who used these words. So using the plural here would be misrepresenting the source; I doubt that the views of one non-notable journalist are UNDUE. However, since many have said that Kotsaba was lying, I would have no objection to replacing the text with something verifiable and will do so myself as soon as I find a source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Removals of text per UNDUE, SYNTH, PRIMARY

• Here [8] you removed As of December 2022, Kotsaba is included in the Myrotvorets database of "enemies of Ukraine". The primary source is this [9]. The text is there because my article is a partial translation of the corresponding article on uk.wiki (as well as ru.wiki and in the near future also de.wiki with regard to Kotsaba's antisemitism allegations). As you can see, uk:Kotsaba Ruslan Petrovych provides this information in the opening sentence of the lead. If it is vital information for them, I belive that it is also interesting for us, and inclusioon in the lead is justified - the fact that today he is regarded as an "enemy of Ukraine" by Myrotvorets is relevant (by the way, today he's under trial; I haven't had the time to finish the article: more to come). With regard to WP:PRIMARY, primary sources can be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts, as in this case. There's absolutely no SYNTH, no OR here.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)