Talk:Ruslan Kotsaba: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:38, 4 December 2022

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

He is not a prisoner of conscience. He is not even a prisoner. Why does this even have to be pointed out??? Volunteer Marek 08:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To be a prisoner of conscience or a political prisoner you have to be a prisoner first. Volunteer Marek 08:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International also recognized Kotsaba as a "prisoner of conscience", case closed.Just Prancing (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, that’s not a very good translation of the source. Volunteer Marek 08:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Again, the word here is POV for reasons which should be obvious. Also the source is not RS (see below). Volunteer Marek 08:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removals of text per UNDUE, SYNTH, PRIMARY, POV

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)[reply]

No. This is a violation of both WP:PRIMARY and WP:LEAD. I neither know nor care what Ukrainian Wikipedia does. They have different rules and standards than we do - as do all other language wikipedias. Volunteer Marek 08:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re this removal [10] I don't see anything POV here; these are the subject's views, for which he was persecuted, as reported by good sources: Deutsche Welle [11] (In this video, he also denied Moscow's responsibility for the killings in Donbas), Meduza [12] (he refused to join the army and called on all “adequate people” to do the same) and Radio Liberty [13] (Ivano-Frankivsk journalist Ruslan Kotsaba continues to assert that the war in the east is a civil war ... In January 2015, the journalist recorded a video message to the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, in which he called on Ukrainians to refuse mobilization and service in the ATO zone. "It is easier for me to spend 2 or 5 years in prison than to go to civil war").Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t see anything POV there then that’s a problem. “Pointed out” is obviously POV as it implies that his claims were true. Also see the other part of the explanation. It’s redundant because same thing is already mentioned previously in the article. Volunteer Marek 08:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide any justification/edit summary for this removal [14]. Since the source is missing, you'd better had the tag:cn instead of removing straightaway.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the edit is self explanatory. Volunteer Marek 08:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an encyclopedia isn't the same thing as Youtube Analytics [15], and I know well how high and demanding your conception of the encyclopaedia is. However, the number of "likes" and views is indicative of the notability, or lack of notability, of the subject. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, no it’s not. No idea where you getting that from. Volunteer Marek 08:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sources

With regard to this edit [16], I don't understand your question, what even is this? It's the following source: "Відомого закликами проти мобілізації Руслана Коцабу не пустили на захід - ЗМІ від нього відхрещуються" [Ruslan Kotsaba, known for calls against mobilization, was not allowed to the event - the media deny it]. Телекритика. 2 April 2015. Archived from the original on 4 February 2015. Please expain what's the problem with this source. According to uk:Телекритика,
"Telekritika" is a former Ukrainian online publication of media journalism that existed from 2001 to 2020. The publication covered the media market of Ukraine. "Telecritics" played an important role in the "journalistic revolution" that preceded the Orange Revolution of 2004. The site was initially created in 2001 with the financial assistance of the US Embassy in Ukraine and the international public organization "Internews-Ukraine", subsequently during the first few years, the site was financially supported by the "National Institute of Democracy" Foundation (USA), the "Renaissance" Foundation and other Western donors .

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was being used to falsely cite the “prisoner of conscience” claim. Without that claim it’s not necessary. Volunteer Marek 08:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here [17] you removed the following source:

KRAINIY, Ivan. "«Влада рахується лише з сильними. Так будьмо ними»" ["Government reckons only with the strong. So let's be them"]. Ukrayina Moloda. Archived from the original on 5 March 2015. Retrieved 1 December 2022. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 5 March 2016 suggested (help)

uk:Україна_молода describes Ukrayina Moloda as Kyiv newspaper close to Viktor Yushchenko which is aimed at a nationally conscious Ukrainian audience of various ages. The article is an interview with Kotsaba and is useful because at the bottom there are biographical information. Why did you remove it?

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it’s not a reliable source. Read that description again. Volunteer Marek 08:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what about this [18]? The source: Manchuk, Andriy (7 April 2016). "Ukraine's political trials". liva.com.ua. Retrieved 2022-12-01.. It's a leftist online magazine, and I used the article for biographical info on Kotsaba, spec. "In the camp of the "Aydar" battalion, the journalist conducted video interviews with Nadiya Savchenko, which can now often be seen on the central TV channels." It's not important and we could drop this per WP:TOOMUCH if the content is disputed. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a trash source. Volunteer Marek 08:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

whatever this might have been once, it doesn't exist [19]. But I have no problem accessing this source: just click on the link to the archived copy:

"Руслан Коцаба повторно оправдан". 2000.ua. Archived from the original on 29 May 2018. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 12 June 2018 suggested (help) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is “2000.ua”? If you don’t know what a source is, why are you using it? How can you tell if it’s reliable? And if it doesn’t exist anymore, with no mentions, even if you can access some archived version of, how can you tell? Why are you using sources that you have no idea about? Volunteer Marek 08:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here [20] you didn't even bother to explain the reason (yeah, no). I guess the problem is that Argumenty i Fakty is owned by the Russian government - right? Yet, it's not deprecated; the only reference to it at RSN is User:My very best wishes saying Argumenty i Fakty look OK to me in this discussion; I doubt he would turn a blind eye to Kremlin propaganda. Anyway if you feel it's unreliable you are welcome to open a discussion at RSN. I believe we can use it because it is not making WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims:
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
— Сидорчик, Андрей (2015-02-09). "Враг народа. Украинский журналист Руслан Коцаба арестован за «шпионаж»" [Enemy of the people. Ukrainian journalist Ruslan Kotsaba arrested for 'espionage']. Аргументы и Факты (in Russian). Archived from the original on 12 February 2015. Retrieved 2022-12-01.

In fact, it is quite likely that these were Kotsaba's views at the time, as seems to be confirmed by Ukrainian sources. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was obvious - it’s Russian government propaganda outlet, obviously not reliable. “Not deprecated” does not mean “reliable”. “Not deprecated” is the absolute minimum requirement for use of a source. MVBW was referring to an article from … 1993. A lot has changed since then. Not RS. Volunteer Marek 08:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nope to Open Democracy, here [21]. You might well be right, I found only this discussion. Is there a consensus on OpenDemocracy being unreliable? The source is this: Kravchuk, Zoya (9 February 2015). "Ukrainian journalist faces 15 years in jail after calls to boycott the draft". openDemocracy. Retrieved 2022-12-02.. To be honest, I don't need this source (other sources support could have faced a sentence of 5 to 15 years in prison, but if there's no reason for removing it, I won't remove it.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look man. You did a complete blind revert of all my edits [22]. You then added a couple sources here or there. The problem though is that in your revert you restored a ton of non reliable sources as well as undid all my copy edits. Adding sources *does not require* restoring unreliable sources so I am not even clear on why you made that blind revert. I mean, aside, from, you know, WP:BATTLEGROUND reasons. You could’ve just added your sources without reverting me. Frankly, this just seems petty. Normally I would go to the trouble of restoring the portions of your edit that I think are worthwhile but since you’re not willing to show me that courtesy I’m not sure why I should bother. Volunteer Marek 08:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the couple sources that you added here or there - which in no way required you to blind revert me - where not even necessary. Volunteer Marek 08:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

You didn't provide any justification for the tag:Notability, so this [23] looks like tag-warring. I haven't finished writing the article yet. Spoiler: he was the victim of a Zelyonka attack in 2021 [24]; he is president of an association called Ukrainian Pacifist Movement, affiliated with War Resisters' International; he is still under trial for the video, and on 22 January 2021 he was attacked near the courthouse; he still faces 5 to 15 years in prison; in 2019 the German "Aachener Friedenspreis" was not awarded to him because of some anti-Semitic statements he made in 2011 - coverege includes Deutsche Welle and FAZ. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He may very well be notable enough for Ukrainian Wikipedia (they can decide that) but I don’t see much coverage in non-Ukrainian sources, especially recent ones. Volunteer Marek 08:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :::I think that this edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruslan_Kotsaba&diff=1125438100&oldid=1125428623&diffmode=source] clarifies the {{tq|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. [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz]] ([[User talk:Gitz6666|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Gitz6666|contribs]]) 00:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 ::::To be a prisoner of conscience or a political prisoner you have to be a prisoner first.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 08:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
+:Amnesty International also recognized Kotsaba as a "prisoner of conscience", case closed.[[User:Just Prancing|Just Prancing]] ([[User talk:Just Prancing|talk]]) 09:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 == Misrepresentations of sources ==