This is an archive of past discussions about Alexei Navalny. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
While the headlines this year may have been dominated by WikiLeaks, these three activists led their own transparency campaigns, largely without the same spotlight and in countries where they made a difference. In a society where muckrakers are regularly beaten up and even killed, Russian lawyer and blogger Alexey Navalny has turned his crowdsourced anti-corruption site RosPil.info into a heat-seeking missile against bloated and rapacious government contracts. By this fall, Navalny had saved the Russian government nearly 7.7 million rubles by calling attention to and then torpedoing wasteful deals, not to mention offering a mainstream face for the growing Russian anti-corruption movement.
... arrested in Moscow and St. Petersburg ... United Russia—dubbed the “party of crooks and thieves” by Navalny ... Vladimir Putin was booed after taking the stage at a mixed martial arts event ... . Pro-Kremlin rallies are also being organized and many fear a broader crackdown is imminent.
Opinion of Novodvorskaya seems to be overplayed. The old lady is known to be kind of a nut. Need to add opinions by other people or remove that paragraph entirely. Gritzko (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Removed entirely, cause that is definitely unrelated to activities of the subject. In case a separate section is created ("Opinions"/"Critics"/whatever) may recover that video back. I personally don't think her opinion is of any worth, but in case it is properly balanced with other opinions, it may be included. Gritzko (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Criticism?
Controversies, opinions of authorities, civil society and other opposition leaders, allegations of nationalism and so on. There are several prooflinks in ruwiki. Without such a section the article can't be complete and unbiased--213.208.170.194 (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree that such material should probably be added, but I don't know that a criticism section is the best solution here per WP:CRITS. Unfortunately, I don't have the Russian chops to go see these sources for myself. Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
On a related note, the page on Vladimir Putin doesn't have a criticism section. :)
It seems some pages do and some don't..I don't know what's better.
Generally I think it's better to avoid it if that material can be integrated normally (chronologically or by topic); it makes the article a bit odd to have all the positive stuff in the first half and negative stuff in the second. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I put in a compact section "Nationalistic tendencies" in which i linked a interesting to read New York Times and a daily mail newspaper article. I think it should better be mentioned anywhere in the article soon than not at all, so i just started. But feel free to modify and rephrase it since I am not an native English speaker.
I tried to not dramatize his words in the video, by mentioning that it was half a joke (similar to the daily mail Article..) --Saimondo (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Keeping inportant aspects of the following paragraph Nationalistic tendencies
(former paragraph "Nationalistic tendencies":)
Alexei Navalny compared militant people from the Caucasus to cockroaches that he would suggest to kill in a supposed jokey statement [1]. He participated and also co-organized a "Russian March" [2] and appeared as a speaker alongside Nationalists[3]
A13ean is giving the following reasons for his deletion:
(Undid revision 563815653 by Saimondo (talk) last two are already included elsewhere, first is not a RS for such a contentious statement in a BLP, please gain consensus on talk first per WP:BRD)
Please give a reason - why you think its contentious? Its the New York Times and daily mail against..? He received honors I guess for being an important opposition member, which might be "healthy pluralism" and activist against corruption. But there are also has nationalistic tendencies and in wikipedia we need to stick to the complete picture..
I will include the section as sub chapter of activism to avoid the Russian March being mentioned a second time. If you have reasons to moderate/modify the national tendencies do so. But, please discuss before you take out correct, quoted and in relevant (according to NYT and this article in other languages) information completely.
--Saimondo (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi User:Saimondo, The Daily Mail is a borderline RS as best, for more information about it see the previous discussions of it at WP:RS/N. In this particular instance, the article, despite being filed under news on their web site, is clearly an opinion piece which makes is inadmissible for sourcing controversial statements in BLPs. If this statement is true and notable, surely it is covered in a RS somewhere. The last two sentences are already in the article -- I simply moved them to another section where they fit better. (PS: I very nearly missed this, if you want to make sure I or any other user catches a post mentioning them on a talk page you can write their name as [[User:a13ean]] and it will give them a notification.) a13ean (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: I have no complains about the new NYT source, although the daily mail link is then superfluous. The current position is awkward, and it should be better worked into the article. a13ean (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi a13ean , I just didn´t want the NYT Article be quoted 2 times, because I think there still is no automated handling of cross references, and that caused complaints in the past.. I background checked before, that daily mail is rather right wing, rather tabloit than "quality" newspaper, and I see your point in this being an opinion article. But I thought, using it to purely cite a fact rather than a position/perspective/rating would still be ok.
Maybe it would be less awkward if we make 2 subsections of the activism chapter,
==== activism against corruption ==== and === nationalistic activism /nationalistic tendencies === . It would structurize it and still enables a overview, which is in my opinion not given with that big chunk of text alone.. I plan to do that in the next time - what do you think about that?
I found more interesting articles about his positions. I would mention that it is somewhat in debate whether Navalnys nationalists tendencies are rather populist strategy or real convince, quoting the Jounal of democracy article :
I added aspects that I think are founded by quality sources, since I think no one would have complaints against more points of views. I think using the telegraph blog article as a source that a debate about Navalnys positions take place would be ok. But since it´s quality/objectivity might be challenged, I leave it to others to include it, if desired.--Saimondo (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Problems with introductory paragraph
The claim of Navalny's "prominence" in Russia and Russian media is contradictory to other sources linked in the article. Based on the Levada statistics released this year, his recognition is at 37%. This doesn't quite fit the term "prominence" which Google defined as "The state of being important or famous." Much less than half of the population are even aware of his existence - that is hardly prominent.
Rather than using the word "prominence", we could use more exact statistics and say that his notoriety has increased from 6 percent in April 2011 to 37 percent in April 2013, as sourced in the article under Presidential Bid. That is a significant increase and worth mentioning, rather than giving false impressions. We should remember to watch our WP: WORDS.
In general, the entire introductory paragraph reeks of promotion and advertising, rather than a historical/factual account of Navalny. Instead of focusing on awards and commendations from the media (only one of which comes from the aforementioned "Russian Media"), the focus should be more on who he is and what he does. The other information should be covered in depth throughout the rest of the article. Otherwise, it comes off as a promotional piece, rather than an encyclopedia article. Again - we shouldn't delete the sourced/valid information contained in the introduction; I propose it should instead be moved to a more appropriate section.
Over the next few days, depending on feedback to this comment, I'll be making (and thoroughly documenting) changes as described in this comment to the introductory paragraph to reflect a more neutral and factual representation of Navalny. Please comment if you have concerns/questions/suggestions. Sashaarrabi91 (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the long list of quotations from Western media in the lead section should be greatly trimmed down and replaced by summaries of his actions. Things like the Yale World Fellows are comparatively trivial and not what he's best known for. I'd suggest a detail or two like the mention of his appearance on the Time 100 or FP 100 remain, however, to give some sense of the international praise he's gotten for his work. This definitely needs some work, though, so thanks for taking it on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Khazar2 The Yale part is quite trivial indeed, but unfortunately Navalny's critics used it to build upon anti-American sentiments of the wider (and less educated) population in Russia. While there might be no need to mention it in the lead section, it should remain somewhere in the article, probably mentioning what that it is now used against him. Cosainsé (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, in my book, if 50mln people know who you are then you are prominent, famous and important. Exception: being infamous, i.e. famous for misdeeds, which is not the case here. We may naturally expect >90% recognition for heads of states and older pop stars, also religious leaders in some cases. Obviously, we cannot restrict the usage of adjective "prominent" to those three categories. Gritzko (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I've made changes, primarily to hammer out a four-paragraph intro section where each paragraph is internally coherent. But also I eliminated some of the facts that are just not important enough, in the context of a Navalny Wikipedia entry, to be put into the intro section. For example that he 'writes for Forbes' and attended Yale for 6 months. I've tried to use the talk page to inform my changes.Haberstr (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I twice removed an IP edit adding to the source sections a link to a Montenegrin register site which lists a company allegedly founded by Navalny. Navalny himself repeatedly said it is a fake. In a BLP article, just giving this link is not acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The text near the start of the Activism section says of the 2006 Russian March that it was "noted for its use of swastika symbols", with this Russian article as a source. Forgive my lack of Russian, but doesn't that article actually say that Nazi symbols were forbidden and one "professional provocateur Alex Dyomushkin" was expelled for showing a swastika? Am I reading it wrongly? If not, then "noted for its use of swastika symbols" is extremely misleading and needs correction or deletion. Zerotalk13:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeeed, this is what the article says, and in addition this is a strongly POV article published by a ultra-nationalist author in a ultra-right-wing medium. I think the swastikas can be safely removed from the article. I do not think Navalny himself ever user swastikas or smth similar.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I changed the name in the infobox, but someone needs to write down the whole story about registration and renaming (the party is still mentioned in the text as unregistered).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
His association with neither the "People's Alliance" nor the "Progress Party" is not supported by sources now in the article. If any of the sources are in the Russian language, I would not be able to confirm. — Arthur Rubin(talk)23:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
News from December 30, 2014
Can someone add this info to the article? I don't think I've ever edited this wiki article even though it's on my watch list, so a "regular" would be better at incorporating the info: [1]. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, Ymblanter (or anyone), I think the lede needs to be updated. Was the February house arrest only for two months? My impression is that it was longer; or that he is still or currently under house arrest. I'm saying that because the wiki article says "Navalny broke his house arrest to attend the [December 2014] rally". Anyway, can you update the lede to include events to date? If so, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it was initially for two months and thn extended, but I would need to dig this out. Anyway, it will be removed in the near future since Navalny was already sentenced.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
To all of you who watch this page and everyone else: your opinion is needed
Good day, everyone. The statistics shows this page is watched by 55 people. One of them is myself; but there are 54 more people, and, at least for some of them, the quality of this article is more or less important, and I hope, these people could help establish a wide discussion. And, of course, side commenters are also welcome.
The article, as I found it, did not follow any particular English variety, heavily mixing both British English and American English (and maybe others). And, of course, it is better to follow one rather than mix many. This article is about a Russian person not related to any English-speaking country, so any variety would be fine. I eventually started to move the article toward AmE, because I am currently writing the article and it would be easier for me to write an article in AmE. The spellings have been shifted to AmE, I added serial commas, and the text I keeping adding to this article, is, I believe, closer to AmE than any other variety. I also started to move dates from the day-month-year format to the month-day-year format. I agree the former is generally easier to follow, as I myself come from a country using the dmy format; however, the mdy format is a common part of AmE as we know it today. However, soon the changes of the date formatting were undone, which leads me to the general question of whether we should follow the dmy format or the mdy format.
I argue we should use the mdy format, because it would make little sense to have an article written in AmE, but for some reason use the BrE-styled dates for it. I would love to hear input from all of you reading this very line on the question to establish a consensus on this question, whether you agree with me or not.
P.S. I myself started to watch this aticle some time in 2014, having in mind I would later edit and improve it. If there is at least one of the 54 other watchers, who watches the article for the same reason, this is a great time to join in. It would be much easier to do the job for two (or maybe even more) people, rather than for just one, but still just as interesting :-) --R8R (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
As I started to actually read this article, it became obvious to me it does not follow a particular English variety. That's bad, it's always better to be consistent at this. I initially started to move towards British English, because my idea was, we're talking about a Russian, so it makes sense to suggest many Russians will see, and some will edit this article, and for them, it could be easier to use BrE. Except after having started this, I noticed how much needed to be improved, and realized I was wrong. I did the basic "-ise/-ize", serial commas, and similar stuff; yet it was not a complete move because it did feature some lexicon you would except to see in AmE, but not in BrE. Since I decided BrE wasn't all that important after those changes, and the move was not completed, I decided to move towards AmE, because I was (and am) going to work on this article, and for me, it's easier to use AmE.
Now there was one thing: date formatting. In BrE, you just go with straight "day month year" (dmy); in AmE, you typically use the "month day, year" (mdy) construction. A format was established before I came in, and it was dmy. As I started to fill this article with more content, I used the mdy format; I did it that way because it seemed suitable for AmE. It, in general, makes little sense to use the dmy format (a BrE thing) in AmE.
On April 30, those changes were undone, so I did the best thing about it I could think of: I followed WP:BRD and started a discussion. Unfortunately, within a week, only one person replied to me, who had no opinion on the matter (still, Ymblanter, thank you very much for replying, this is appreciated). So I went ahead and changed the formatting to the mdy format. Why?
As I said, the article currently uses AmE for most, if not all (and eventually, it certainly will become "all"), other things that may appear differently in BrE and AmE. Again, just applying common sense: it is not right to use AmE for everything except the date formatting, for which we should (we shouldn't) use BrE. What is the point of some consistency if it annuls a larger consistency?
Why wouldn't I just use BrE, so the problem does not arise in first place? For two reasons: 1) I am poor at BrE and it doesn't feel natural to me, and 2) why would I. Dates are a small thing even compared to just the whole BrE/AmE thing, not to mention the whole article; it shouldn't be the ultimate reason why we should do anything or not.
(And I will say that I consider the mdy format to be not superior to dmy in general. Because it is not linear (dmy goes "smallest to largest", mdy does whatever it does) and because I myself come from an dmy-using country, so dmy is natural to me. However, it's not about what I like, it's about consistent grammar, which is important for any article.)
See Talk:Alexei Navalny/Text only. Intended for quick measuring the length of the article's prose and other similar tasks. These read-only versions will include [21] and the like, for quick measurement. Subtract a couple of kilobytes to find out the actual size.
Now an update can be just a plain copy-paste of the text from the page (reader's view; from "Alexei Anatolievich Navalny (Russian: Алексе́й Анато́льевич Нава́льный..." to the end of the Notes section). Subtract ~3 KB to get the actual size.--R8R (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alexei Navalny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just modified 7 external links on Alexei Navalny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The Levada Centre has a recent survey from the 20th March, about Navalny. [1] It shows the latest rating of approval - 1% definitely, 9% possibly, 20% probably not, 63% definitely not for 'could you vote for Aleksey Navalny in the presidential elections?' (of those who know who he is - 47%). This is a decrease from before. Mellk (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I see a direct connection to nationalism solely in the second paragraph "In 2011, Navalny stated he considered himself a "nationalist democrat" ...". What does the rest of the section have to do with nationalism? (Analogous section in the German Wiki was until recently artificially blown up with unrelated information to make up to 1/3 of the whole article, so that I am quite suspicious about the neutrality in this case as well.) --Max Shakhray (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I suggest the following: (1) Deleting the topic "Nationalism", so that all paragraphs belong to "Political views". (2) Discussing which paragraphs should belong to "Nationalism" subsection (if one is necessary). --Max Shakhray (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
To editor Chris troutman: Russian "й" is English "y", not "i". Because "i" is just "и". Every Russian word that ends with "ий", "ый" or just "й" got English "y" in transliteration. For example: "последний" = "posledny", "каменный" = "kamenny", "твой" = "tvoy". And please, take a look at Alexey's name on his Twitter here. Thanks. L Trey (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@L Trey: I know nothing of the Russian language and I can see the subject prefers your spelling. The thing here is, a lot of the cited sources use the spelling with "i" and per WP:COMMONNAME we name articles as most readers would expect, not necessarily what's correct. For example, we keep finding Ukrainian nationalists trying to move Kiev to Kyiv. I don't know the transliteration but I do know the common English-language spelling. Generally, articles should always reflect the sources, not the preferences of some editors. When this article was created originally in October 2010 it had your preferred version but was changed here in April 2013 by Rothorpe to using the status quo ante spelling. I'd be curious to hear what other editors think before we settle on one solution or another. Per WP:BRD, we ought to discuss this now before making more changes. I don't care either way. I just assume changes should not be made without explanation. Chris Troutman (talk)06:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
My mistake, so I've moved it back. Help with correcting the article spelling (why I moved it) would be appreciated. Rothorpe (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
No Rothorpe, I moved it back. You then made the undiscussed move again. Please restore it to "Alexei", which is the way its been stably for the past four years: [2]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I only moved it once, from I to Y, or at least that was my intention. It seems there needs to be more discussion. Rothorpe (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've reread this page, and understand how I was confused. People should always spell things out! I'll move it back. Rothorpe (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the alternative spelling, Alexey (which it does seem he uses), should be mentioned near the beginning of the article. It might discourage further moves. Rothorpe (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 3 external links on Alexei Navalny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
I have just modified 6 external links on Alexei Navalny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 11 external links on Alexei Navalny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Here is the link. According to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, Normally, only one official link is included. That's fine, but this is not a "normal" case. Here, the YouTube link is actually more important than his official web site because of his political activities. Basically this is an additional link helpful for a reader, like myself. The Wikipedia:External links is only a guideline. It does not preclude participants from including links that would improve the page. ("External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.") - yes, it is "meritable". My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, we don't need a directory of every official page affiliated with this person and I'm not sure how it improves the article. Can you elaborate? CHRISSYMAD❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
No one suggests providing directory of every official page. I suggest adding only one specific link and for that one page. To answer your question, I need to know how well you are familiar with the subject of the page, meaning the anti-corruption campaign by Alexei Navalny. But here is simple answer. Providing a direct link allows user to access most important information in one click. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Why not? I thought one should actually provide links if they are informative, precisely on the subject of the page, help reader, and not a copyright violation. What's the problem? No one suggests multiple linking to the same website, but even that could be an option if that helps to improve the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I can only assume you are a partisan. While I understand your desire to advertise for Navalny, that is not our purpose here. Perhaps you should seek consensus to change the wording of the guideline, since you don't have consensus here to ignore it. Chris Troutman (talk)20:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not suggest to change wording of the guideline. I suggest to follow it. It tells "Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information". That is what I do on all pages, including that one. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
From ELMINOFFICIAL: "For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation." navalny.com links to Navalny's Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube pages. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to add the YouTube link to the article. Chris Troutman (talk)22:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I read this of course. But providing a direct link would be appropriate in this case, given the importance of his YouTube site in the current political discourse in Russia (are you guys familiar with the subject?). I am not sure why you are so insisting to the degree of falsely accusing me of advertisement, even though I rarely edited this page before. Why do you take such an issue with providing an additional link on a single page by someone familiar with the subject? My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I am talking about WP:NPOV. The content of the page (including links) must reflect what reliable sources tell on the subject. If you need some numbers (in addition to RS which described him as an important YouTube personality - see above), he has 1,7 million YouTube subscribers. My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
It is you who violate WP:NPA here by making completely unsubstantiated personal accusations. I stand by my edits on this page as completely legitimate per WP policies. There is no consensus whatsoever to not include the link as a reference - that is what I did [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I have replaced the reference, which is a very trivial thing to do. However, I still believe that his involvement in social media should be more prominently included on the page. How exactly - I am not sure; there are different ways to do it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Good. I have closed Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Alexei Navalny#Link to his official YouTube site since you now seem to want to discuss this. I have no objection to including content about his social media accounts if there are reliable sources that discuss it. Since you have found independent sourcing for the number of views of the YouTube channel, there's no reason to include the YouTube link. I'm glad you removed it; I only wish I didn't have to go to a noticeboard for you to accept consensus. Chris Troutman (talk)01:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue to argue with you if you deny reason. You wanted to insert the link. Chrissymad and I both disagreed. Per WP:CONSENSUS, that's the end of it. You continued to insist. I don't know that I can change your mind about it and I don't have to. The moment I went to an outside venue (as I suggested and you rejected), you reverted your edit. Since you have removed the link, I consider the matter settled. Chris Troutman (talk)02:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Does the Russian Government or Ministry of Justice publicly publish court transcripts? does anyone have these available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.13.161 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Loeb&Loeb analysis
"In April 2013, Loeb&Loeb LLP issued "An Analysis of the Russian Federation's prosecutions of Alexei Navalny", a paper detailing Investigative Committee accusations.[155] The paper concludes that "the Kremlin has reverted to misuse of the Russian legal system to harass, isolate and attempt to silence political opponents"."
I would request a review of the importance of this line. the reference doesnt examine direct sources. Instead nearly every reference is either Navalny's personal blog or a tabloid article which references his blog. the analysis is represented as containing statements of fact when it merely copies Navalny's personal opinions. As such it is clearly biased. the inclusion of their final conclusion as a quote contributes to the bias of the article.
Loeb & Loeb's view is consistent with the mainstream view, which credibly holds that Navalny wouldn't have been prosecuted if he hadn't been a political opponent. I added a citation to ft.com, which used the report as a source. With the addition of ft.com, inclusion of the report seems to satisfy WP:DUE. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Yandex
@Rolf h nelson: You must have missed my comment on your talk page which explains that the information is now quite broadly sourced by TV Rain, Meduza and Yandex himself[4] as well as the edit adding all remaining sources in the article itself[5]. Please discuss before deleting anything with factually incorrect explanation. Cloud200 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for opening a discussion on the Talk page. No, I don't consider Yandex nor Yandex competitor Meduza to be WP:RS for establishing that this coverage is WP:DUE. We can ask for a third opinion if you like. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but your personal opinion or lack of knowledge does not replace the WP:RS guidance. Your first revert was justified by the fact that "TV Rain is not WP:RS", which demonstrates either bias or poor knowledge of Russian media as TV Rain is one of the most popular non-government-controlled media in Russia and is used as reference in dozens of articles on Wikipedia. However, because it's a Russian-only reference, I provided you with further two references which was rather easy as the case was widely discussed in Russia. You have not bothered to even respond to that but continued edit warring with justifications that were just as vague as factually false. Now, claiming that Meduza or Yandex are not WP:RS, and describing Meduza as "Yandex competitor", clearly demonstrates lack of basic knowledge about media in Russia. Meduza is not "Yandex competitor" but second primary non-government-controlled media platform in Russia while Yandex is the primary search platform there. And now Meduza has also English-language coverage for the case. Therefore I'm restoring the paragraph now with four references and if you have any issues with this please discuss here rather than edit warring. Cloud200 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I feel that you're the one edit-warring here. Popularity doesn't automatically make a source an WP:RS, also non-government-controlled media in Russia aren't allowed to get very popular in the first place so it's a weird statistic. I am not an expert on Russian media, so feel free to inform me with citations, what is TV Rain's fact-checking policy? As far as Meduza, the Guardian stated [6] that Maduza "will aggregate news from Russian-language media as well as producing its own content", which seems to me like a competitor to Yandex. This doesn't outright disqualify Meduza as a source, but it does suggest caution unless there's strong evidence that meduza is WP:RS. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Notes section
I am confused about the notes section. Could someone clarify what it is referring to? Is there a link I a missing to a certain section of the article? Thanks. -10:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, NO. " Despite condemning the xenophobic nature of The March, the Deputy Chief of the Moscow branch of Yabloko Alexey Navalny advocated for the permission of the event in the framework of freedom of assembly " ... 104.169.17.20 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m in favor of cleaning up this part of the fourth paragraph of the main section:
“As of 21 August 2020, Navalny is in hospital in a serious but stable condition after a suspected poisoning during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow. His flight was diverted to Omsk. Later in the day, he was put on a medical plane bound for Berlin, where he arrived the next day. As of August 22, he remains in a coma.”
This is time-sensitive and will develop and have to be changed. I might recommend a statement closer to “on August 20, 2020, Navalny fell ill during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow and was taken to a hospital in Omsk where he fell into a coma...” but kept short because the article goes in to more detail later. I can’t wrangle the sources to edit this right now but if someone else would do that it would be greatly appreciated. Maivea (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Splitting Suspected poisoning from the Alexei Navalny article
Though this has only been open for two days, events are moving quickly here, and consensus has formed that the material is already far too long for this page and is quite notable. I will split the page out myself after this close, it will take just a bit so please be patient :) CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓16:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I propose that the section Alexei Navalny#Suspected poisoning be split into a separate page called Alexei Navalny suspected poisoning. The content about the poisoning seems to me to be sufficiently different and would draw enough attention to need its own article. This section is currently large enough to make its own page.
On 20 August 2020, Navalny fell ill during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow and was hospitalised in the Emergency City Clinical Hospital No. 1 in Omsk (Russian: Городская клиническая больница скорой медицинской помощи №1), where the plane had made an emergency landing. The change in his condition on the plane was sudden and violent, and video footage showed crewmembers on the flight scurrying towards him and him crying in pain loudly.[1]
Afterwards, his spokeswoman said that he was in a coma and on a ventilator in the hospital. She also said that Navalny only drank tea since the morning and that it was suspected that something was mixed into his drink. The hospital said that he was in a stable but serious condition, and after initially acknowledging that Navalny had probably been poisoned, the hospital's deputy chief physician told reporters that poisoning was "one scenario among many" being considered.[1]
A plane was sent from Germany to evacuate Navalny from Russia for treatment at the Charité in Berlin, after the doctors treating him in Omsk had initially declared he was too sick to be transported[2] but later released him.[3][4]
The entire Suspected poisoning section in the current article, including all sub-sections, would be moved to the article Alexei Navalny suspected poisoning. The In the News section of the main page would have to be altered as well. -RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I would not object to this, particularly if the section keeps growing. But yes, the fundamentals of the events should also remain on this article. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I would oppose at this point and I would imagine a Speedy Delete would result from such a move. The material is far too slight and it properly goes under this man's article.104.169.17.20 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd think that 8 paragraphs in 3 sections would be more than enough to avoid a Speedy Deletion using criteria WP:A7. The event is definitely notable and well-sourced. We will leave sufficient information in the main article so that casual readers will be satisfied. -RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Weak oppose, for the moment. I'll admit it is a very borderline case: certainnly it's hard to argue that the event itself doesn't at least technically pass muster under WP:GNG for a notable event. However, establishing notability is only beginning of the inquiry into when to spin out. I think the information is best contextualized here at present, and the content has not yet hit a length that is unmanageable--though to be sure, it's getting borderline in that respect as well. Still, all factors considered, and even granting that the topic is likely go grow to a point where it will need to be spun out eventually, I think we need to be careful of the WP:CRYSTAL in that presumption. For the moment, anyway, the media and interested party narratives are held in stasis as the next few medical decisive days or weeks play out. For the time being, I think, on balance, this is the place for the content. Snowlet's rap05:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
And actually I'll go further and say that some small portion of the "background" section could probably stand to be omitted for now--or at least reworked a little. At present, the first two paragraphs of that section have just a slight veer towards what I would call subtle WP:synthesis: we lay out a series of facts about the events of the man's life in the weeks leading up to the poisoning (in the context of section about that poisoning), and then just one single source that expressly ties these threads together and explicitly calls the spade for the spade and says this is clearly state retialiation. But the prose treats that narrative like it has near-ubiquitous acceptance, whereas the overwhelming majority (and therefore WP:WEIGHT) of the various primary and secondary sources are (for better or worse) a bit more guarded in the manner in which they evaluate the situation, so new is the event and so little empirical evidence/time for expert weigh-in has occurred. So I'm not sure it makes sense to have this whole theory laid out as if it is empirical fact in Wikipedia's own voice, rather than pairing this section back until the narrative is more robustly and universally asserted. At a minimum it should be utilizing more attribution I feel.
Lest it be said that my perspective on this has the potential to whitewash away some very relevant context here, I'll say this much: I'm sure we're probably mostly all on the same page as individuals about the likely broadstroke facts behind what is an apparent attack on a political dissident. But I just can't see those two paragraphs as they are currently worded as being a completely neutral distillation of what the broader selection of reliable sources are saying right now (not unless someone wants to make a much more robust weight argument with a much larger source selection)--not based on what I have seen of those sources. Maybe the world where the sources were less equivocating in this regard and on this topic would be the better one, but right now the narrative that is presented as the 'obvious explanation' is actually regarded by most sources (if mentioned at all in any given one) as a popular theory: one which certainly seems intuitively likely to many (including no doubt many of us here), but which is not validated by any evidence as yet and which most sources have therefore held off on expressing more than very vague speculation regarding, if even that.
And I know the rejoinder here is "Well, we only say that Kremlin involvement in suspected, not that it's fact." Which, fair enough--but considering the exact present wording and all context, I still think our approach needs tightening here for the moment--whether that is pairing down or just some more careful attribution. Anyway, reducing the profile of the subsection is a somewhat separate issue: I mention it here because it interfaces with the above WP:SUMMARYSTYLE discussion, based on section size, but I do think the content should be retained here in this article for now regardless of whether it is ever paired down or altered as I advocate for immediately above. Snowlet's rap05:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Support - the linked article will initially be fluid, and can evolve to cover the emerging information, without cluttering the main biographic article. FredV (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Yet BBC says: “Doctors in Germany, where Mr Navalny is being treated, said he had "probably" been poisoned but Mr Peskov questioned why they had "rushed" to that opinion.”[1] — Pietadè (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2020 (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.
Sobyanin was mayor from 2010 and asked Putin in 2013 to resign who then appointed him as acting mayor to hold a snap election. Mellk (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The lead is clearly referring to the 2013 mayoral election where Navalny was a candidate. Before that election, Sobyanin was appointed acting mayor by Putin. Mellk (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, he proposed it, and it did work to some degree. But right now this is just a generally known strategy. no longer just "his thing"; it should be a separate page I think. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
On the contrary, shouldn't the whole his comparing "dark-skinned Caucasus militants to cockroaches" be a bigger deal on this page than it is? 3:32, 23 January 2021 (EST)
political placement
My addition to the introduction that Navalny is a right-wing politican was deleted. It's not common to label a politician just as a "opposition politician". By general standards Navalny is clearly right-wing as he is known to oppose migration and to support a nation based on ethnical unity. --Jazzman (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the WP:BLP policy. Please read WP:ORIGINAL. And there is no such thing as "general standards" in this case. You must provide reliable sources for your statements.--RenatUK (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"He is frequently described by media as Russia's opposition leader."
The line in the introduction, "He is frequently described by media as Russia's opposition leader" seems problematic to me. The sources used do not describe him as "Russia's opposition leader" bar the one BBC source, instead they describe as a "opposition leader" which is not to say he is the leader of the Opposition. Such a claim would be ludicrous of course given Navalny's status as a fringe figure in Russia's politics despite the West's astroturfing of him. The actual opposition leaders would be someone like Zhirinovsky or Zyuganov, in fact as the article itself notes only 50% or so of the Russian population know who he is and out of those 50% only 18% intended on voting for him. Strange for the supposed opposition leader! This should be corrected.PailSimon (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Though Alexei had finished a university program focusing on finance (security and stock exchange business) that alone wouldn't qualify him as a 'jurist'. A lawyer maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.43.165.10 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
"Palace for Putin. History of the biggest bribery"
Navalny just released a new video with such title here. Text about it on his website [9]: "Alexey came up with the idea of doing this investigation several months ago, when he had not even been discharged from intensive care. He decided to release it on the day he returned to Moscow. In order to tell you this breathtaking story while in Russia. About the man who decided to kill him."
As far as I can see, information about this investigation has already been added to the article, and it seems to me that no one objects (and I also approve). So - "This page is not a forum for general discussion"--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Political views
Some recent edits about his political views seem questionable. For example, this edit misrpresents him as a supporter of annexation of Crimea. In fact he did not support it. He did criticize Putin's actions with regard to Ukraine (as currently correctly included on this page). Moreover, he strongly supported the related sanctions. As noted here,
"Saying that previous U.S. and EU sanctions in response to Russian military forces in Crimea were "mocked" and acted as "tacit encouragement to Mr. Putin and his entourage," Navalny urged further sanctions "freezing the oligarchs' financial assets and seizing their property." Navalny's suggested sanctions list included billionaire businessmen Gennady Timchenko, Arkady and Boris Rotenberg, Yury Kovalchuk, Roman Abramovich, Alisher Usmanov, Russian Railways head Vladimir Yakunin, Gazprom head Alexei Miller and Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin."
OK, this is an improvement. BTW, this is an impressive list of people who probably considered Navalny their enemy. Not mentioning this man who created a hit list of politicians, together with Murov [10]. Meanwhile, Prigozhin said "he intended to “ruin” Navalny if the opposition activist recovers" [11]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Political aspects. Effect of aging of <des Serien>. A political leader. In a continental climate.
Mr. Navalny. To some extent. The average political leader. Appears frequently in public. In front of cameras and camcorders. What will the public notice? To the people of Russia. WikiUser545678975 (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Bad grammar.
The article reads::
"On 2 February, a Moscow court replaced Navalny's three and a half year suspended sentence with a prison sentence, minus the amount of time he spent under house arrest, meaning he would spend two and half years in a penal colony."
In June 2012, Navalny was ordered by Moscow's Lyublinsky District Court to pay 30,000 rubles (approximately US$1,000) as compensation for "moral harm" to United Russia State Duma Deputy Vladimir Svirid, after Svirid filed charges against Navalny for comments he made in an article written for Esquire magazine about the United Russia party: "In United Russia, there are people I come across that I generally like. But if you have joined United Russia, you are still a thief. And if you are not a thief, then you are a crook, because you use your name to cover the rest of the thieves and crooks." Svirid had originally sought one million rubles in the case.[1]
Well, I think even RT (TV network) did a better work in describing this incident than text above. According to RT [12], "An activist supporting United Russia is set to “calm down” opposition leader Aleksey Navalny by filing an avalanche of lawsuits against him for insulting the majority party.", etc. But I have no objections to include if properly described in proper section. There was an appeal: [13]. BTW, what was the result of the appeal? I see [14]: "not only the court found his accusation unfounded, but publicity...". Sure, that can be included, but must be properly written. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
References
^[... "Navalny Must Pay for 'Crooks and Thieves' Comment"]. The Moscow Times. 2012-06-05. Retrieved 2020-12-17. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
Yves Rocher thing doesn't make sense
I think it's been written by someone for whom English is not a first language, and the references look like Russian squeezed through Google translate so I cannot work out what the crime is supposed to be (otherwise I'd have a go at editing it myself).
Company A makes a product it needs delivering to a new market where it has no delivery partners.
Company B operates in the new market and agrees to arrange delivery, even though it is not a delivery company. They ask for X amount of money to do this.
Company B gets companies C to Z to do the delivery for Y amount of money, X>Y so company B pockets the difference, Z.
Isn't that just doing business? even if they were making a fortune it's up to Company A to either accept that or find a different Company B. If there's some detail that makes this different it is not explained anywhere.
There's then some talk of what happens to Z amount, but that is described as hiding the evidence not as a crime in itself (money laundering, tax evasion, whatever). I do understand Navalny says it had nothing to do with him anyway, but still, no crime is described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.22.199 (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I guess this is probably the closest to real answer that's out there, but surely the prosecutor/judge are supposed to point to specific violations of Russian criminal law? Or is it really just "because we say so" over there? "Criminal Intent" can disguise a multitude of sins, or none at all, but it still should point to an intent to break *some* codified law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.22.199 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not know a complete enough review in English, but the Russian one is here [15]. According to the investigation, everything that Navalny did was with "criminal intent", they "imposed" their services, and the difference between the money received by Navalny's company and the services of the carrier was simply written into the indictment. In fact, "At the end of December, Bruno Leproux instructed the financial director of "Yves Rocher Vostok", Christian Melnik, to conduct an internal audit, whether the cooperation with Glavpodpiska had brought losses. Melnik calculated everything and reported to Lepre that the services of Glavpodpiska were even cheaper than the services of many other contractors of Yves Rocher Vostok."--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
One thing that seems to be missing from the article and would clarify the case a bit is that Oleg Navalny seems to have been working for the Russian postal service at the time the deal was made, don't know if that is common practice in Russia nor the legality of it but in a lot of jurisdictions that's a bit iffy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:1C9:DCB4:799A:3260:5EDB:D079 (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
What is this? "cockroaches", "shoot them" ("dark-skinned" people), "rotten teeth"? This is all wrong. I said this already a couple of times, but if you want to include something, here is the scholarly source about his views on Russian foreign policy. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Your repeated removal of controversial facts about Navalny's article, [16] includes "wrong narratives" that appears to come from 6 sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources:
The Guardian: "And a video that Navalny recorded for Narod several years ago called for arming the population to shoot Chechen bandits."
Telegraph: "[He] appeared in a video that compared migrants to cockroaches"
NYTimes: "[He] starred in a video that compares dark-skinned Caucasus militants to cockroaches. While cockroaches can be killed with a slipper, he says that in the case of humans, “I recommend a pistol."
Financial Times: "he also compared people from Russia’s mostly Muslim North Caucasus to “cockroaches” and mimicked shooting one."
Politico: "In 2008, he appeared in a video dressed as a dentist, with an on-screen caption describing him as a “fully-trained nationalist,” and compared illegal immigrants to rotten teeth that needed to be “carefully but forcibly removed” from Russia."
The Guardian: "he released a number of disturbing videos, including one in which he is dressed as a dentist, complaining that tooth cavities ruin healthy teeth, as clips of migrant workers are shown."--Mhorg (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, not every sourced defamatory content about living persons belongs to WP. For a very big BLP page (such as that one), one should not cite every blog post by the subject (more than 10 years ago), even if it was covered in RS. Instead, one should use a scholarly secondary RS (such as that one), where the actual views by Navalny on the subjects of migration and foreign policy were analyzed and properly summarized. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
You have literally accused the biggest newspapers of the world journalism of having produced defamatory content (If that had been the case, Navalny could have earned billions of dollars in compensation by suing them). At this point I seriously wonder what we are discussing about, only the intervention of an administrator can be able to understand what you are really trying to do in this article.--Mhorg (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Mhorg can you write what exactly you'd like to add to the article (either give a link to a prior version of the article or just write it here)? I think that the main concern had to do with WP:UNDUE so you should probably explain that the proposed additions satisfy this policy. Alaexis¿question?16:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Alaexis the part that My very best wishes deleted [17] is an old part inserted not by me in December 2020 [18]. I just added multiple well-known RS to the fact reported. This is the part, I didn't add a single word, all is taken from the RS: In 2007 he starred in several videos recorded for the NAROD movement, expousing Russian nationalist views. In one of them he compares dark-skinned Caucasus militants to cockroaches and calling for arming the population to shoot them. In another video he is dressed as a dentist, with an on-screen caption describing him as a “fully-trained nationalist,” and compared illegal immigrants to rotten teeth that needed to be “carefully but forcibly removed” from Russia. This has nothing to do with the WP:UNDUE, we can discuss where to place it, whether up or down if you want. These are videos that the Guardian refers to as "disturbing videos",[19] and which are of enough value to show what kind of person he was at that time. Then did he repent? Okay, let's write it down that he repent, but we can't erase history, especially history that has an important and precise meaning. About My very best wishes, calling these RS defamatory it seems to me that your goal is to protect Navalny's reputation, and this is not fair behavior for a Wikipedia editor.--Mhorg (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, this makes it clear. We should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" per WP:UNDUE. We should look at recent articles to understand what weight is given to facts or interpretations. The 2017 Guardian article you linked earlier dedicates two paragraphs out of ~40 to his nationalism. Consider this very recent NYT article as well: it dedicates a similar proportion of article to Navalny's links with nationalists.
Importantly, both articles provide context for this: that it was his political opponents who criticised him and that this was used by the Kremlin in a smear campaign against him. The NYT article also quotes someone who says that the nationalist rhetoric was a device to engage people who otherwise would not have listened to him. The article already states the most important facts: Navalny's participation in Narod, participation in Russian marches etc. If we add more information it would violate WP:UNDUE as we would give undue weight to this specific topic. Alaexis¿question?17:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Alaexis let's not forget that the user has already destroyed the NAROD part,[20] freeing up a lot of space. Adding 3 lines for these two disturbing videos it isn't a problem of WP:UNDUE. And of course I am in favor of adding some text where it is specified in what context he made those nationalist statements.--Mhorg (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, as you can see these newspapers also chose not to mention them in the way you propose to do it when writing about Navalny. Feel free to initiate an RfC to get an outside view. Alaexis¿question?18:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for reasonable comments! I do not think there are any significant disagreements. I made a couple of minor fixes though. Welcome to correct whatever you want. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@User:RenatUK: Every corrective labor colony is a penal colony but not every penal colony is a corrective labor colony. By your logic we could use an even more generic term, e.g. "colony". An encyclopedia deserves more precision. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I also have a problem with including "Narod movement". There is no such organization, and apparently never was. Please give me a link to website of this organization if you think it really exists or existed. My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
And what did they say about this "Narod", exactly? Some of these links lead nowhere or require subscription. Others (dated 12 years ago) only say that he founded "Narod" and nothing else. This is the only detailed RS about views by Navalnyi on foreign policy (I am even surprised it exists), but it tells nothing about "Narod". Nothing. We do not really have any info about it. Now, I did check this page on ruwiki about "Narod". There is no any "tons of sources". All sources are either inaccessible, questionable and old (I can not verify anything) or totally unreliable (like LiveJournal). The only remotely good Russian language source is this. But... it does not say anything about "Narod" and quotes Navalny who said that he wants stay away from extreme nationalists. Of course. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
It appears that many RS state that Narod existed. In addition to deleting any controversial parts, with the excuse that the article is already big, you are questioning any RS provided.
The Guardian: Next, he co-founded a movement called Narod (The People) and started attending the Russky Marsh, an annual march to promote the rights of ethnic Russians.
Financial Times: ...liberal Yabloko party after he founded Narod, a nationalist movement
TIME: In 2007, he co-founded the National Russian Liberation Movement, known as NAROD, and published its manifesto on his blog.
Charles Clover: He created a movement known as Narod (People), and began attending national rallies;
Corriere della Sera: A few months after Yabloko’s ouster, Navalny founded the patriotic movement Narod, which immediately allied itself with two other formations of nationalist extremism, the Movement Against Illegal Migration and Greater Russia.
Marc Bennetts: Navalny stunned political allies, friends and family alike by launching NAROD, an openly nationalist movement--Mhorg (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
If it helps the discussion, I found an article by NovayaGazeta, an opposition and pretty famous newspaper, which talks about the conference with which Narod movement is inaugurated. So it's was not just a blog post.
It seems to me that no one disputes that the creation of the movement was announced, and the manifesto was written down. And even, it seems, a couple of videos were made. But this idea did not lead to anything else - after that, the "NAROD" did not show themselves in any way, either at the actions or at the elections. Actually, the only thing that this "movement" is now known for - is that Navalny participated in it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
No one is disputing that Navalny was one of the co-founders of this movement. The real question is how much space we should dedicate to it in the article, considering that it was essentially a stillborn organisation. I don't think you will find any mention of it after 2008. Alaexis¿question?14:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Narod's paragraph has already been mutilated, remains only the information found on several RS (quite interesting infos, since they reported them). We are not currently giving it any overexposure.--Mhorg (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I would argue it's still given undue weight. Now it's roughly 1/5 of the section and if you look at the Guardian article which mentions it it only mentioned in 2 paragraphs out of 33 - and there are plenty of article which do not mention it at all when they talk about Navalny. Alaexis¿question?14:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I think you can leave the mention of "NAROD" in the section "Political activity". But in the "Political views" section, the description of the two videos is clearly redundant. --Nicoljaus (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, pretty much this whole day-long discussion is a clash between dozens of RSs and opinions on what matters and what doesn't matter (coincidentally what has no weight are the controversial parts of the politician). No, there are RS who have dealt with the case, there are 4 lines in all in the article now (and are enough): about Narod founding and the controversial alliance with the movement against immigration (Politico), and the videos that have made an international scandal which are quite important to be mentioned (NYTimes, The Times, Telegraph, Financial Times... but who cares?)--Mhorg (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I see Telegraph: "But the 44 year old has come in for criticism for appearances at nationalist events and his anti-immigration views. He has used racist slurs against Georgians, which he later apologised for, and appeared in a video that compared migrants to cockroaches, which he described as “artistic license”. He has also called for the relaxation of gun controls." A well-written, concise. Retell it in your own words and it will be ok. You instead inflate every detail.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't get the point. I also supported you when you specified (I don't know if it was you or My very best wishes) that Navalny apologized for the racial slurs against Georgians. You may not have yet understood that I am here to ensure the neutrality of the article (good or bad news): when he made alliances with the movement against illegal immigration, when he repented, etc. At the moment I only see a huge unmotivated removal of all controversial content, and a series of explanations that do not convince me at all. And I hope that sooner or later someone else will intervene to give an opinion, because I'm exhausted.--Mhorg (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Darkcloud2222, thank you for the refs! So, what do we have about "Narod"? Again, just a declaration of intentions on kasparov.ru and one organizational meeting, as described here. What else did they do? Did they organized any political actions? Did they even publish anything about their deeds? I found nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
What else did they do?, apart from producing two videos that have caused a scandal on an international level [21], there is also, for example:
Politico RS: the movement allied itself with two nationalist groups, the Movement Against Illegal Immigration and Great Russia.
Interfax: Moscow. the 9th of June. INTERFAX.RU - The Great Russia political party, the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI), the Narod movement and the Russian Social Movement, unrecognized by the Russian Ministry of Justice, agreed on cooperation in Moscow on Sunday. The June 8 Pact, signed by the participants of the New Political Nationalism conference, envisages, in particular, the preservation of the organizational independence of the aforementioned forces, "information exchange; coordination of activities; monitoring of manifestations of Russophobia." [...] No less ambitious are the dreams of another conference participant - former deputy leader of the Moscow youth Yabloko, and now co-chairman of the People movement Alexei Navalny: "We need to achieve unification and get to the elections, and then win them." Navalny counts 70% of the country's population as spontaneous nationalists. The ex-Yabloko man suggested that the “new nationalism” be considered a human rights movement. [...] The main thing is that it is directed in the right direction. There is no alternative to nationalism!" - exclaimed at the forum the leader of the DPNI Alexander Belov.”
This only proves my point because: (a) Interfax is a mouthpiece of Russian government; (b) that was published 12 years ago; (c) DPNI was not organized by Navalny, and he did not actually collaborate with them except taking part in a demonstration/protest with many different political forces present, including the right-wing nationalists; (d) it appears that "Narod" just had dissolved precisely because people like Navalny and Prilepin have very little in common. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The Guardian does not mention any "scandal on an international level". But this moment explains a lot about what is happening: "Instead, the Kremlin has gone into attack mode. Last week, Russian news outlets reported a secret Kremlin directive to “blacken” Navalny, and sure enough, a video soon appeared on YouTube comparing him to Hitler, complete with photoshopped images of Navalny sieg heiling, wearing a swastika armband. There were reports that university students had been shown the video as part of “educational events” designed to stop them from protesting."--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
PailSimon Re this my point is that mentioning Navalny's participation in various rallies or commercials more than 10 years ago in the first paragraph constitutes giving it undue weight. He has done lots of things since then and all the reliable sources do NOT start with his supposed nationalist background when writing about him (example).
My very best wishes you wrote: "Please give me a link to website of this organization if you think it really exists or existed." Of course, look here, the Narod website "rusnarod" released articles from 01.11.2007 to 25.05.2009 [22]. This is the article of the last demonstration: "MAY 27 (Wednesday) from 18.00 to 19.00 on Triumfalnaya Square (also known as Mayakovsky Square) a rally "For the police for citizens!" (the event is coordinated with the Moscow Mayor's Office) The organizers of the event are the PEOPLE movement". Look, this is very interesting, there are also photos of the meeting with the racist organization Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI) next to the Narod banner: "On June 8, a conference "New Political Nationalism" organized by the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI), the Great Russia Party, the Russian Social Movement (ROD) and the NAROD took place at the Moscow Hotel Kosmos." [23] So this "Narod" was not such a myth, a year and a half of activity, and we certainly can say they have some weight.--Mhorg (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Funny, it was you who questioned the existence of the movement by asking for the site. I just gave it to you, and now it is "garage" (by the way, do you know what Internet Archive is?). I'm certainly not going to use this primary source.--Mhorg (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Nothing, user My very best wishes simply wrote in the discussion below that Narod "is mostly a myth", and in this discussion he said that the movement did not even have a website (therefore it never existed, right?). Instead it turns out that they had the website, they were organizing demonstrations, etc ... I just wanted to debunk yet another imaginative argument to try to remove the Narod movement from the article. What we have from Politico's source is enough.--Mhorg (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
We were talking about the Political activity section. That Narod videos was in Political views before and it was one of the parts removed by My very best wishes in a big whitewash operation, [24] also distorting the text of a source. [25] Now you removed again with the motivation "such narrative is inappropiate". Clearly what you don't like is that the politic in question has a history of at least 6 years in Russian nationalism (2007-2013). I don't understand why you are trying to remove this aspect from the article.--Mhorg (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This is for three reasons. First of all, his involvement with "Narod" and allegedly nationalistic views are already included on the page in several places. Secondly, you are using polemic news sources. They might be acceptable, unless there are better scholarly sources, with an actual 3rd party analysis of his views. This source. You are welcome to use it. Third, the included content was clearly constructed to disparage a living person, instead of providing a neutral description. This is against WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The other relevant policy here is WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE) which says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Navalny's involvement with the Narod movement is either omitted entirely when reliable sources write about him ([26]) or mentioned briefly ([27]). Therefore we cannot write about in in the first paragraph of the Political views section and dedicate too much space to this episode of his career. Alaexis¿question?21:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
User:My very best wishes Ok, before it was a problem of unreliable sources, then when the RS came, the magic word "undue weight" appeared, now the new magic word "3rd party analysis". I inform you that I have not added a single word to that text, it was all taken from the RS. If Navalny makes a video against immigrants, it's a problem for Navalny, not The Guardian\NYTimes\Politico reporting that video. The way you are defending your removals I find it unfair, you are imposing yourself with arguments that do not stand. @Alaexis: You are right, I wasn't thinking about ordering it by importance. But I'm convinced that those two videos are important, and giving 2 lines to them in a huge article where we talk about practically everything is not a problem at all. It is a problem for those who want to defend the reputation of the politician in question (I'm not talking about you).--Mhorg (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
That's the whole point that we need to look at reliable sources and decide on the due weight based on their coverage. Otherwise it's just one editor's opinion of what is important versus another editor's opinion. Alaexis¿question?22:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Zakhar Prilepin was a co-founder and co-chairman of the NAROD movement [28]. For some reason, it seems to me that if I go to his Wikipedia page, I will not find any traces of Mhorg's attempts to write about Prilepin's connection with this "racist" and "white-supremacist" organization.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Nicoljaus I still don't understand these insinuations. Anyway, I don't know this Prilepin, but if you think it has some relevance, I'm delighted to include the part in his article. If you know him better, just make the edit and I'll support you.--Mhorg (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Great, since in 2015 I added two lines on the "Separatist forces of the war in Donbass" article now I should know all about the subject. But do you realize what you are saying? I urge you to again avoid these constant removals of controversial content,[30] you have been doing it for days. You are removing dozens of RS.--Mhorg (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Do you want to say that since 2015, you have no longer been interested in the topic of the Putin-backed separatists in Ukraine? You are an honest person and if I look at your contribution, I will not find a long-term interest in this topic?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Please, you are just trying to divert attention from the topics covered in the discussion, it has absolutely nothing to do with what you are trying to do here. I inform you that the war in the Donbass is such a broad subject that knowing it all would be almost impossible. My edits are public and I don't know who Prilepin is, your allegations are ridiculous. I ask you once again to remain in the discussion and to answer about the distructive actions you are taking on this article. I remind you that I have hardly added anything to the article, I mainly inserted RS and tried to defend it from your deletions.--Mhorg (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
That's our problem. You notice the "Prizrak" brigade [31], but you don't notice Prilepin's (and, of course, Milchakov's) units. WP:TENDENTIOUS, as I said. In order to avoid it, there are several rules in Wikipedia, like WP:BALASP, but you ignore them all.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The Movement Against Illegal Immigration is a supremacist organization
Anyone who studies Russian history will definitely become a Russian nationalist. My brother and I were fond of history, then I came across "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" I read it and thought: wow!
During the neo-Nazi Russian March 2007 (source Der Spiegel [32]), organized by the DPNI, this was his statement (source Lenta):
We will liberate Europe! Russia will be white! The nation is above all!
There are plenty of sources that states the fact that the DPNI is a supremacist organization. The Seattle Times: “Russia will be white,” said Alexander Belov, leader of the Movement Against Illegal Migration. His last name, based on the Russian word for “white,” is a nom de guerre.--Mhorg (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I quickly checked the sources, and did not see any claims that the DPNI is based on the ideology of white supremacism. It could be held by some organizations affiliated with the DPNI, mainly located outside of Russia. In fact, white supremacism was not relevant for the nationalists in Russia - their main "enemy" was the Caucasians.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mhorg: you really need to stop misrepresenting statements from sources, or adding things from unreliable or questionable sources. You've already been blocked once for edit warring on this article, and appear to have an agenda.LauraWilliamson (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
So, literally, the leader of DPNI, the main organizer of the russian marches (source "Russian Nationalism and the National Reassertion of Russia" by Marlene Laruelle), says on the stage of his own demonstration (source The Seattle Times): "Russia will be white, our ultimate goal is our race and nation." and you really wrote that the DPNI isn't "based on the ideology of white supremacism" and "white supremacism was not relevant for the nationalists in Russia", showing very little knowledge of the Russian nationalist movement. At this point I ask other users if this "The Seattle Times" is a reliable source or not, because what it says is very clear.--Mhorg (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Times is a realiable source?: “We will free Europe! Russia will be white! We came here to say simple words: We are sick and tired of the power of occupants, of conquerors, and now it’s enough, we are the real power, not those who are hiding in this Torah!”--Mhorg (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The wording there does not necessarily correspond to what you are trying to say in the article. Stating Navalny supports a white supremacist group is not really verified by the fact that the leader of that group once said "Russia will be white, our ultimate goal is our race and nation". As user:Nicoljaus says, the sources do not make any claims that the DPNI is based on the ideology of white supremacism, and fact, white supremacism was not relevant for the nationalists in Russia - their main "enemy" was the Caucasians. This is what I'm saying about misrepresenting, your putting your own spin on content from already questionable sources, which themselves dont state that group is white supremacist in those exact terms.LauraWilliamson (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
So speaking about the edit... I do agree that DPNI is a bad organization, but Navalny has very little to do with it. There was a demonstration many years ago where DPNI and Navalny took a part, as far as I remember. This is all. But the problem for the statement (diff above) is sourcing. Lenta.ru was included to Wikipedia:Spam blacklist see [[33]] in category "State sponsored fake news". My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I think that whole subsection "The People" movement" is too poorly sourced for a BLP page. Also, that "movement" did not actually materialize as a real movement or an organization. That was just an idea, various claims by Navalny and others which are of no significance right now. Hence "undue" on this large page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Just added an RS for "The People" movement. Also, the videos that caused a international scandal, such as the video about "cockroaches" and "the dentist", were produced by the channel of the "Narod" movement.--Mhorg (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this can be sourced, but this is mostly a myth, as discussed here. People are saying a lot, then tell something different, etc. Also a lot depends on who the subject is. If that's a President, something like that might worth noticing. But if this is just an anti-corruption activist saying 12 years ago something not from the area of his fame and expertise (corruption in Russia), then I think this is definitely undue on the BLP page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2021
This edit request to Alexei Navalny has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
[34] - While I am more or less neutral about the Narod section, but would be inclined to remove (it would be OK on another page, but hardly due on this very big page), the addition of "anti-Georgia" paragraph I think is not acceptable. This is because such text does not properly reflect his views on foreign policy (including Georgia) as explained in a much better scholarly source on this subject [35]. Please get WP:Consensus for your change.My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
First you removed every negative aspect of the politician in question [36][37], you also deleted all the "Russo-Georgian war" part with a click [38], and you come here talking about WP:Consensus (I'm tracking in this report all your movements User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article), then the discussion has ben engulfed for 12 days (you started the 9 February contributing) [39] without offering real solutions (start making text proposals). I, as I have already said, am not contrary to contextualizing the Navalny's statement, but what has already been included on the Georgian question are facts found merging 5 RS and Navalny's blog, so that should be on the article.--Mhorg (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Speaking on the diff above [40] ("Navalny has also expressed his support for pro-Russian secessions in Georgiaand Moldova..."), I agree that his views on the secessionist territories might be included, but not as you did. They must be included as summarized in the scholarly source on the subject (link above), i.e.:
"Common in his treatment of all those secessionist territories is that he mostly considers them not from identity-related or geopolit-ical, but from a purely economic perspective, as territories on which Russian taxpayers’ money are being spent. In this vein, he supported the statement that Crimea is de-facto Russian on the grounds that pensions and salaries on the peninsula are paid from the Russian budget. When facing the question of how he will interact with Abkhazia and South Ossetia once elected president, the first thing he said was that the money Russian taxpayers are currently paying to those territories amounts to 200,000 roubles (about 2,900 Euro) monthly per a local citizen, the practice which he wants to stop." My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
He is not a presidential candidate, but he is the best-known Russian political opponent leader in the world. For me there is no problem in including this part to specify how Navalny considers the issues inherent in the "disputed territories".--Mhorg (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
"best-known Russian political opponent" of Party of crooks and thieves? Yes, certainly. Therefore, any aspects related to this should be emphasized on the page, exactly as they are. But what he is going to do with the secessionist territories if he becomes a president? Well, this is so far-fetched. He will be lucky to survive a few months. My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
As about WP:CONSENSUS, my reading of the long discussions above is that your suggestions were not supported by almost all contributors who commented on this page, not only by me. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This constant distortion of the truth is becoming a serious problem, you are forcing me to trace your every single move (User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article) to understand what you have in mind. You force me to waste more time again. Regarding to your (new) removal of the Russo-Georgian war[41]:
✓ User:Jurisdicta: "Mhorg, your sources support that he backed the Russian war in Georgia." (He reported the Irish Times: "in 2008 he wrote in support of Russia’s war in Georgia and used an ethnic slur to describe its people" - then User:Nicoljaus tried to confuse him\her talking about the "ethnic" word, but that had already been removed by me [42] and was out of the question. A recurring feature of User:Nicoljaus: WP:NOTLISTENING)
✓ User:PailSimon: "Its evident through the sources provided above that the sources support the content, lets not whitewash"
✓ User:Darkcloud2222: "Those five reliable sources are sufficient to consider the text previously entered valid. I also believe you can also use the blogger's source, it will not be difficult for someone who translates Russian to report the statements, and it should not violate any WP rules."
✓ User:Ohnoitsjamie: "Non-involved opinion (I ran across this issue from a recent ANI post); the material about his prior stance on Georgia is backed by several sources that easily meet WP:RS"
✓ User:Alaexis: "WP:NPOV: it's phrased in a neutral way, it's mentioned that he was against sending Russian troops to Georgia/South Ossetia and that later he apologised for the words he used. WP:UNDUE: this does not occupy too much or too prominent space in the Policies section, we should basically follow the RS when deciding the importance of this particular position."
Everyone (me including) agree that the sources you used on this page are RS. The disagreement is about "due weigh" of such content, which sources to use, and how exactly this should be phrased on the page if included. That is where most contributors (me including) disagree with you. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
You wrote: "That is where most contributors (me including) disagree with you" Most contributors, who exactly?--Mhorg (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, you keep distorting everything. The discussion on Georgia has clearly reached consensus and you have removed it from the article again.[43] Not being able to justify this, talking about opposing users who are not there. To be precise, I only opened the discussion on Georgia and the DPNI. You triggered the other discussions yourself, attempting to remove any controversial parts from the article.--Mhorg (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
There is consensus that the sources are RS, but there is no consensus to include content exactly as you want it to be included. However, if you can convince any uninvolved WP administrator (excluding anyone who already commented on your talk page) to actually read this thread and summarize consensus, I will agree with their closing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Please read the answers given by the users (you speak English better than me, of course). They speak about "previously entered content" "the sources support the content" "it's phrased in a neutral way, it's mentioned that he was against sending Russian troops to Georgia/South Ossetia and that later he apologised for the words he used" "his prior stance on Georgia is backed by several sources". This is pratically the text removed by you and Nicoljaus. WP:NOTLISTENING again, and again, and again. Why?--Mhorg (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Because according to the policy, we must rely on scholarly sources whenever possible, and especially on contentious subjects. There is such source (see above). Let's use it. This is because only such sources properly summarize the subject (his views in that case). My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
You wrote: "That is where most contributors (me including) disagree with you", you said there was no WP:Consensus, instead this is confirmation that you were lying. We had Consensus, but now the problem is the "scholarly sources". Again, more distortions... and me standing here wasting my days with a person who does not want to argue, but wants to win at any cost.--Mhorg (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I can not agree. The text you are trying to include misrepresents Navalny and his supporters as far-right ultra-nationalists, almost Nazi. But the reality (at least recently) is exactly the opposite. See here by Human Rights Watch, for example. Navalny campaigners and offices across Russia have also faced an increasing number of attacks by ultra-nationalist groups and activists. The attacks range from vandalizing campaign offices or campaigners’ homes, storming into meetings, destroying equipment, blocking the entrance to campaign events, and severely damaging or even burning campaigners’ cars. This is all well known. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I think the main concern here is that when we talk about Navalny's views and relationship with nationalists of all kinds there is a lot of nuance: what kind of nationalism we are talking about (civic vs ethnic), to what extent his views have shifted over time, whether it was a political device to attract otherwise unreachable people, what are the nationalists' attitude towards Navalny etc. There are reliable sources discussing all that and to do justice to this topic that we would have to write a separate article Navalny and nationalism. However I would argue that all that is not *that* important. As we see from recent overview articles Navalny's dealings with nationalists are discussed only briefly. In other words including all the information to satisfy WP:NPOV would lead us to failing WP:UNDUE, as a big portion of the article would describe a relatively obscure topic. Alaexis¿question?11:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Alaexis, look what User:My very best wishes is trying to do. He is superimposing all the discussions, so that everything is engulfed. He accused me of putting in content without Consensus, but it was the part about Georgia where there was Consensus. Please talk about this, then we will think about the question of nationalism.--Mhorg (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Mhorg what consensus, as other users say there may be consensus that the sources are reliable, but not on whether to include the content as you want it to be included/worded. I would like to point out to everyone that whenever users have opposed Mhorg's viewpoint then he disregards them (e.g. says they are "superimposing all the discussions") or, in my case, helps get me blocked for baseless accusations (I've now been rightly unblocked as there was no evidence to support the block).Beanom (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Read the previous comments carefully, I made a summary. Most users are in favor of previously posted content, prior to removal. Anyway, you have just been unblocked and already make defamatory allegations. I remind you that I have not done anything to report you as sockpuppet, I thanked an anonymous user who reported you when you were already blocked with the accusation of sockpuppet.--Mhorg (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
There are two candidates for the lead photo, and it's been going back and forth. Which should we use? {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Option A looks better to me. His expression looks weird in B, and the colors/lighting is extremely washed out. {{u|Sdkb}}talk17:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I prefer Option B (actually, I uploaded it here). Here the color correction is better (in that image it is too yellow), the quality is higher. This "Navalny style stuff" is fell, the rally is in the background. However, in both photos, he has a strange face one as if he has something bad happened to him, and the other as if he "had become an angel". Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Option B but I'm not a fan of either, as mentioned, his face looks strange in both. Mellk (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC) I think the newly introduced Option C is the best one out of these options. Mellk (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
A photo with an open mouth? Unacceptably. So, option A. But aren't there any normal optoins? Here is Trump on the lead photo - such a handsome man.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Russian wiki article has this photo of him. It is better than both of the mentioned.
Option A is my vote out of the original two, for basically the same reason as stated above: Option B has a weird "deer in headlights" look to it. I had reverted the change to B, which was in turn reverted, but I wasn't going to get in an edit war over it, so thanks for setting up a discussion. However, I also agree with Mellk that neither are A or B are really that great, and I actually like Option C that was just added by 128.74.55.84 a lot more. So that has my vote now. WestCD (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Option C seems to be the superior picture of the options to choose from. That being said, it looks like a photo from an action movie for whatever that is worth. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Option C, second choice, Option B I don't like Option A because of the yellow coloring, but mostly because he has an expression, as though he is experiencing some sort of gastric distress. In Option B, his face is relaxed, and it is a good likeness...but Option C is a much more artistic photograph, and a good likeness, and a more human character. So, C or B, but not A, with the weird expression of tension around the mouth. My opinion, and we all seem to have one! Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!09:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Option D We have a wonderful new image, presented by Полиционер, which I consider to be the very best choice. Alexey Navalny (cropped) 2Obviously taken at the same time as Option C, but he is facing the camera, and the right side of the face is not so shadowed. Respectful thanks to Полиционер, for adding this excellent image!! Tribe of TigerLet's Purrfect!22:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
His share is 2% of the national vote. Yes he is a darling of the West but not because he is "anti-corruption" but because he is "pro-European". One's imagination will fill in the banks from this point. His party has a membership of 18,000 which is even less than the Soviet Communists who exceed 200,000 members. Putin's United Russia has representation in every federal subject and has a membership of more than 2 million. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
So another pro-Western establishment lackey performs a hit-and-run style mugging. He churns out disinformation, goes to 3RR, gets blocked and doesn't appeal, Happy Days, while I too am at risk of edit-warring if I touch the article for most of the next 24 hours. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
If anything, the spread of ignorance is a by-product of this predilection for "reliable sources" when it is abundantly clear across all language's Wiki sites that something's "reliability" is pigeonholed on arrival and not subjected to intellectual scrutiny. When the community has discerned which sources accommodate their imperatives and which don't, they start scavenging for differences between Set 1 and Set 2. Seeing that there are no global properties, they resort to adding footnotes to move Source A from "unreliable" to "reliable" and Source B the other way. I've followed the history and have asserted myself at the project page and so can demonstrate this observation. Either way, I believe you have done well with your rewriting of the passage. Nobody denies he is referred to as Opposition Leader and what you have done is far better that the unmitigated assertion from the account which turned out to be a troll. Cheers. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
If anything, the spread of ignorance is a by-product of this predilection for "reliable sources" when it is abundantly clear across all language's Wiki sites that something's "reliability" is pigeonholed on arrival and not subjected to intellectual scrutiny. When the community has discerned which sources accommodate their imperatives and which don't, they start scavenging for differences between Set 1 and Set 2. Seeing that there are no global properties, they resort to adding footnotes to move Source A from "unreliable" to "reliable" and Source B the other way. I've followed the history and have asserted myself at the project page and so can demonstrate this observation. Either way, I believe you have done well with your rewriting of the passage. Nobody denies he is referred to as Opposition Leader and what you have done is far better than the unmitigated assertion from the account which turned out to be a troll. Cheers. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The post of opposition leader is generally reserve for the biggest opposition party of the legislative branch of the government. In the case of Russia, Duma represents the legislative branch. Three major opposition parties in Duma in Russia are the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (42 seats), the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (39 seats), and A Just Russia (23 seats)[1]. A journalist from NYT does not have the right to decide who is the elected leaders from another country. Only people from Russia can decide that. I see similar "mistakes" "misleading" and "deliberate misinformation" from articles from these "reputable" publications. We are here to provide the most accurate information and not to support the political games of west or Russia. Cheers!Lipwe (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I believe "opposition politician and a leder" is more appropriate usage considering "an opposition leader" almost always displays as "the opposition leader" in every major search engine. This is an unacceptable distortion of facts.Lipwe (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Lipwe: please, familiarise yourself with this content guideline - Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Reliable sources (RS) generally refer to Navalny as "opposition leader". If you think that some RS are unreliable and you have evidence of that - you can start a discussion there - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you personally disagree with how RS call him - it is also okay, but it should not affect the article, since original research is unacceptable.--Renat11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This is often what he is described as in RS, so I don't think this can be disputed. There is also no bigger anti-Putin figure than him. Mellk (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the notion that the way how US media describe Aleksei Navalny is considered undisputed. US media has an obvious political agenda and cannot be considered as nonpartial. There are 196 member states in the UN, and 95% of the world population lives outside the US. Thus, his designation should be backed up by news sources from multiple countries. Moreover, the legislations of most of the countries have a formal position called opposition leader, and I need to check this in regards to Russia. NYT is not a primary reference source and only be considered when primary sources are not available, or information is undisputed. I will check to see any primary sources on Duma and get back to you. Until that, I will not make any changes. Cheers!Lipwe (talk) 04:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Russia does not have a formal position of the leader of the opposition. Navalny has often been described as "an opposition leader" (оппозиционный лидер) and "the opposition leader" (лидер оппозиции) in Russian media as well: [45], [46], [47], [48]. Alaexis¿question?06:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
What Lipwe said is indisputable, Navalny is not the "leader of the opposition", the opposition parties in Russia are numerous and Navalny's party does not even come close to the support that those parties have. Navalny is probably the one who has the most radical and anti-system position, but the term "opposition" should not be superimposed on "radical". However, it is a fact that on many RS it is defined that way. As with the question of the Georgian war, I was in favor of using primary sources rather than secondary ones (which were wrong to report his positions: sometimes our work could be better than what we find on RS). I am always in favor of reporting reality, when it is easily verifiable by observing some simple data, and this not falls under WP:Truth. In this case, I see it the same way.--Mhorg (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The statement that someone is "the/a leader of opposition" inevitably involves subjective judgement. It depends a lot on what is your definition of opposition (many would not consider parties who hardly ever challenge the government as belonging to the opposition). This is why we should follow the reliable sources, and I have shown previously that Russian media also often characterise Navalny in this way. Note that "a leader of opposition" is a weaker statement and I don't think that any serious source would contradict this.
"The statement that someone is "the/a leader of opposition" inevitably involves subjective judgement" I don't believe this is subjective designation. Generally, most legislations have a position of opposition leader which is often held by the second biggest party of the legislative assembly. Moreover, Russia has a unique situation. The second most popular party of Russia is the Communist Party of Russia and which is the successor of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Thus, your statement "many would not consider parties who hardly ever challenge the government as belonging to the opposition" is disputable. Because your many=west. It is undeniable that the Communist Party of Russia is anti-western (party of Stalin and Lenin)so they do not represent the type of opposition western median wants. But, here we should primarily concern about the opinion of Russians and a viable second party that can grab power if "United Russia" would lose election. Not a darling of the west.Lipwe (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
A mayoral election has never shown the general trend of a country. Furthermore, the greatest support for Navalny comes from Moscow, even if we look at the protest reactions following the poisoning.--Mhorg (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
As Alaexis has shown and explained, this label is also used in Russian media that can be considered RS (not state-controlled media as this label goes contrary to the state narrative). It is also widely used by international media outlets. You see this with BBC News, Reuters, DW and so on. Why? The political system in the country is very tightly-controlled; it is authoritarian. There are opposition parties represented in the parliament but they are only allowed to be there to present an illusion of democracy and not properly challenge the government. As a result, they are often not considered to be opposition and Navalny is called "opposition leader". Mellk (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
And in regards to the January protests, the government does not give right for citizens to protest freely. Before the protests, the government promised to crackdown like previously. They also warned of expulsion from universities, jobs etc, so it is no surprise many people were scared away from attending any rallies. Mellk (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, sure. Except that none of these sources uses "a". They simply say "opposition leader". In some places they define him as "the most prominent opposition leader" or "face of Russian opposition". For example, here, here, etc. So perhaps he should be defined as such in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
"Putin critic Alexei Navalny has been detained... The activist..." – so it is wrong to call him "a Putin critic" and "an activist"? Or does that make him "THE Putin critic" and "THE activist" (so "Alexei Navalny is THE activist" rather than "Alexei Navalny is an activist")? Or to describe him it should be written "Alexei Navalny is Putin critic" for example? I don't understand. Mellk (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Alleged parole violation
[49] - was not that the reason? And a lot of sources said this directly. For example, NYT, "he repeatedly violated parole by failing to report properly to the authorities in person — in some cases while he was in Germany recovering from being poisoned, and in others because he did so on the wrong day of the week." Or here:
Not only did Navalny’s parole period expire last year, but he also supposedly breached his parole by not attending meetings with parole officers while he was being treated in Germany for the poisoning. Russia’s Federal Penitentiary Service alleges it could not establish his whereabouts, even though his transfer to Germany for medical treatment had been supported by the Kremlin, and made international headlines.
Outdated in what way? Where has he said he completely rejects those past views? I do not see any evidence that his views have changed much since then. He has abandoned openly nationalist rhetoric, but I do not think this means his views have changed. This recent RFE/RL article does a good job of discussing these views. Navalny said in an interview last year that his views have not changed. So if he called himself a "nationalist democrat", should this be removed from the article? Even if he renounced them, that does not mean this should be completely scrubbed. This includes early 2010s, when he was very active in politics, and is still quite recent, not "very old". I think you should look at other articles for inspiration, as they include past/changed views, such as political positions of Donald Trump. I think that paragraph should be shortened, but not completely removed. For complete removal, other editors will need to agree on this. However, I changed the name from "political views" to "political positions" as I think "positions" better reflects this, as he took on those positions during his political career and it is difficult to say what his true views are. Mellk (talk) 05:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I will say though that this section needs to be redone. Navalny is a politician, the main opponent of Putin in fact, and he has ran for Moscow mayor and had a presidential campaign, so I think more important points needs to be included, such as his policy for the economy, political system, religion, healthcare, foreign policy and so on. His program for the 2018 presidential election gives a good idea of this. Currently it is written as if it is an article for a non-political figure with random comments he made. So structured with subsections for different policy areas. What do you think about this? Mellk (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, I now removed only the most obviously outdated content. As about your another edit (in the lead), no his bad health is essentially a matter or fact (per sources), not just a claim by his supporters. My very best wishes (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I included the accusations of torture as that is most significant (which involves his health), however of course I had to mention that these were accusations. Again, I'm not sure what can be considered "outdated". Can you elaborate on this please? Mellk (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Link that you provided to his program - yes, I 100% agree, that is what should be described in this section. As a side note, no one is here to protect anyone (it would be ridiculous to think this page may affect his fate). As about my most recent (smaller) removal, well, OK, maybe the actual issue here is not the outdated information. I simply tried to follow the WP:BLP policy, which tells: Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Some key words here: "summarize" (as opposed to indiscriminate citation), "actions and achievements" (as opposed to empty-worded claims), and do not label people "unless a person is commonly described..." [as such]. If so, I can try to fix this differently later. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Here we go again, removal of controversial content on the past of the politician, obviously DUE and "outdated" means nothing. We are not here to protect the figure of the politician, they are controversial facts reported by numerous RS.--Mhorg (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that the paragraph about Navalny's nationalism with accusations and counter-accusations *is* too long, taking up one half of the Political positions section. I think it doesn't contain innaccuracies, so it should be trimmed by removing less relevant information. My very best wishes, do you want to draft something? Alaexis¿question?15:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Please, write here your draft. Given your tendency to mass-removing anything controversial about this politician, let's try to summarize without whitewashing his past (this time).--Mhorg (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that the paragraph about Navalny's nationalism with accusations and counter-accusations *is* too long, taking up one half of the Political positions section. I think it doesn't contain innaccuracies, so it should be trimmed by removing less relevant information. My very best wishes, do you want to draft something? Alaexis¿question?15:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Here is the issue. Actually, 5 paragraphs (2, 3, 4, 6 and 7) in this section describe his views on nationalism and related subjects (Ukraine, Foreign policy, etc.). And I think that all of them are actually fine, except too long 2nd paragraph. Let's just reduce it slightly as follows (the idea is just to briefly summarize the content per sources):
In 2011, Navalny stated that he considered himself a "nationalist democrat".[2][3] He has participated in the annual "Russian march" from 2006.[4][5][6] and was one of the co-organizers of the 2011 march.[7][8][5] Navalny has suggested that his ability to engage nationalists as well as liberals was part of his strength as a politician. He said: "The basis of my approach is that you have to communicate with nationalists and educate them... I think it's very important to explain to them that the problem of illegal immigration is not solved by beating up migrants but by other, democratic means: a return to competitive elections that would help us to get rid of the crooks and thieves getting rich off of illegal immigration."[9] Navalny has also called for ending federal subsidies to the "corrupt" and "ineffective" governments of Chechnya and other North Caucasus republics.[4][10][11] In 2013, after ethnic riots in a Moscow district took place, which were sparked by a murder committed by a migrant,[12] Navalny commented that ethnic tensions and crimes are inevitable because of failing immigration policies by the state.[13][14] In February 2021, Amnesty International reportedly stopped recognizing Navalny as a prisoner of conscience due to his past statements. However, an Amnesty International representative noted there was a coordinated campaign to discredit Navalny.[15][16] In recent years, pro-Kremlin media have used Navalny's past to discredit him as well as his allies, increasing this campaign after he returned to Russia in January 2021.[9]
Just to reiterate, I also think that this paragraph needs to be trimmed. It is worth mentioning a few things like Russian march, he considered himself a "nationalist democrat" and maybe what he said about working with nationalists and liberals. Others are not needed. Amnesty controversy should be in other section and some background to this, but not too long, and noting Kremlin campaign against him. Again, this doesn't need to be long. More importantly, the section needs much more about his programs (2013, 2018, etc) with other positions such as economy, political reform and so on. Mellk (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
So, let's summarize the parts you removed (accidentally all the controversial ones):
1 About the Russian march: "a parade uniting Russian nationalist groups of all stripes", so that it is not understood that he was a co-organizer of a nationalist march.
2 About the anti-immigration videos and anti-immigration policies: "In 2007, Navalny released anti-immigration videos, which he now regrets, according to his aide Leonid Volkov. In later years, Navalny softened his tone but continued to promote conservative immigration policies.", so that its anti-immigration stances are softened
3 "Navalny endorsed a nationalist-led campaign called "Stop Feeding the Caucasus"", so that it is not understood that it is a nationalist campaign.
4 About the 2013 ethnic riots in Moscow: "He sided with the anti-immigrant movement, lashing out against the "hordes of legal and illegal immigrants" and stating that "they're not going to die of hunger when they can't find work, not when they can snatch a purse in the subway or take somebody's money at knifepoint in an elevator".", so that it is not understood that he clearly sided with anti-immigration movement who were attacking civilians.
So, I'm against this draft because it is clearly a way to protect the reputation of the politician.--Mhorg (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I simply followed our WP:BLP policy which say: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources." Key word here: "unless a person is commonly described that way". He is not commonly described this way. Note that the essence of his views/comments was reflected in my summary. What I removed was only "contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision". So, for example, instead of saying "Stop Feeding the Caucasus", we say "Navalny has called for ending federal subsidies to the "corrupt" and "ineffective" governments of Chechnya and other North Caucasus republics", and that is indeed exactly what he suggested. Instead of saying "lashing out against the hordes...", we say: "Navalny commented that ethnic tensions and crimes are inevitable because of failing immigration policies by the state" (and it is indeed proper summary of his view - per the sources if one tries to summarize whole content instead of citing something out of context). And no, he did not advocate "attacking civilians" as you seem to imply. Quite the opposite, as follows from quotation in the version. My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The "lack precision" is what you introduced in your draft, trying to make vague concepts that are instead very specific in the article. Also, you have not removed anything that describes a person uncommonly. About the removal of "Stop Feeding the Caucasus" campaign and ethnic riot, you want to clear his ties with nationalist movement and the support he gave to it.--Mhorg (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
No. Saying that "Navalny has called for ending federal subsidies to the "corrupt" and "ineffective" governments of Chechnya and other North Caucasus republics" is specific.. Saying "Stop Feeding the Caucasus" is not. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
About the "attacking civilians" I didn't say it, and I do not imply anything, I just read from Time: "Navalny again showed his sympathy for the anti-immigrant movement, lashing out against the “hordes of legal and illegal immigrants”"[50] Another fact that you want to remove. About the "Stop Feeding the Caucasus", the part now actually: "Navalny endorsed a nationalist-led campaign called "Stop Feeding the Caucasus" that has called for ending federal subsidies to the "corrupt" and "ineffective" governments of Chechnya and other North Caucasus republics.", we can summarize how much do we like, but we cannot remove that the campaign was nationalist-led.--Mhorg (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that we should mention his anti-immigrant rhetoric. What we should not do is to make it seem that this is the core or even a large part of his political views. This is contradicted by nearly every article in reliable sources mentioned on this page and therefore violates NPOV.
So it's fair to say that Navalny expressed anti-immigration views and sided with nationalist movements. It is not fair to list every single episode as it's done now in the article. Alaexis¿question?17:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Per BLP, we must neutrally summarize claims by multiple sources, instead of indiscriminately citing passages with the most loaded language from individual sources. This is especially the case if we are using polemic journalistic publications, rather than scholarly sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Alaexis, there are few well-known cases that link Navalny to nationalist movement, and few well-known cases that link Navalny with anti-immigration policies. You are talking like there are those cases inserted everywhere on the article, while they really occupy a little small part of it, and they are also squeezed to the bottom of it. When we discussed these controversial issues some time ago, I was in favor of putting them into context. Now that they have been contextualized, do you want to remove them because they have been given too much weight?--Mhorg (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
there are few well-known cases that link.... This is because the subject is mostly known for something else, the anti-corruption activism. Hence undue. @Alaexis, you are welcome to correct my version. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
He is also known for his nationalist past: they are few (few, compared to other arguments of this article) but really serious cases, and this is why the international media gave so much attention to those cases (about 7 years of pro-nationalist views), contrary to what you have been trying to prove for months.--Mhorg (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Since Alaexis suggested to make a version, I would rather wait and see if he would like to make any changes. Frankly, I feel that finding consensus with Alaexis and Mellk should not be a problem. And I just included your #2 above. My very best wishes (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
My very best wishes, considering that you have been engulfing the discussion about the Navalny's position on the Russo-Georgian war for months,[51][52] and that we still haven't been able to find a solution, now you want to solve everything in a matter of hours. I guess this is your concept of democracy. Back to us: the Russian march and the campaign against federal subsidies are nationalist-led projects, and this is why they gained so much attention by the international media. There are no reasons to be vague on it and I still don't understand why do you want to omit such informations. About the 2013 Biryulyovo riots, 2 RS (perennial) point out that he supported the attackers, so this should not be omitted. As for the BLP: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." currently, I would like to point out that the article on this politician is almost promotional, the only criticisms present are those under attack. Of the approximately 11868 words of which the article is composed, 285 are dedicated to his (well-sourced) nationalist period (2006-2013), which is the 2.5% of the article, so, let's try not to manipulate reality.--Mhorg (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
saying that "Navalny endorsed a nationalist-led campaign..." is misleading because it creates false impression that he supported everything unidentified "nationalists" said (he did not; he suggested only one specfic thing, and it is included);
we have a page about Russian march, no need in qualifiers;
"lashing out" does not add anything meaningful;
"human rights activists" in source means Amnesty International; statement you included is partly misleading because Amnesty said it will continue demanding to release Navalny since he was prosecuted for political reasons. I am not even sure this story with Amnesty should at all be included. This story is not really about his "political positions" (the title of the section); the statements by Amnesty about Navalny should be included elsewhere, but I think they are included already. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that it's fair to give a brief description of what the Russian march is in the article ('a parade uniting Russian nationalist groups of all stripes'). I agree that the statements by Amnesty International should not be included, at least in the political views section. Likewise, "lashing out" is not found in the source so we should not paraphrase it in a non-neutral way. Alaexis¿question?13:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Navalny again showed his sympathy for the anti-immigrant movement, lashing out against the “hordes of legal and illegal immigrants” who live and work around the city’s bazaars. (Time[54])
Alexei Navalny played up his populist nationalism as he championed the rioters’ for confronting “hordes of legal and illegal immigrants” on his blog. (The Nation[55])
We can also avoid the words "lashing out" or "championed", if you prefer so, but should not be omitted that he practically sided with those who attacked civilians.
About Amnesty, every international RS talked about the removal of 'prisoner of conscience' definition in relation of Navalny, like BBC.[56] I also think that should not be included the "political views" but elsewhere, for example in a "controversy" section, that is used in many other articles. I would also like to point out that Amnesty itself denied any intrusion by the Russian government into this decision. So, that part should be also updated: "Reports that Amnesty’s decision was influenced by the Russian state’s smear campaign against Navalny are untrue. At no point were statements falsely attributed to Navalny, or information solely intended to discredit him, taken into consideration. Propaganda by the Russian authorities is recognizable as such."[57]--Mhorg (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, what does it mean, exactly, "lashing out against" or "he championed"? That is where WP:BLP is handy: "Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision...". Lack precision.
The views by Amnesty are described already in other sections, and they should be described in other sections. If something was missing, please add it there.
"Reports that Amnesty’s decision was influenced by the Russian state’s smear campaign against Navalny are untrue." This is complex. First of all, the statement by Amnesty say:
There should be no confusion: nothing Navalny has said in the past justifies his current detention, which is purely politically motivated. Navalny has been arbitrarily detained for exercising his right to freedom of expression, and for this reason we continue to campaign for his immediate release.
So that is what really matters. Secondly, I do not know if the claim about Amnesty being influenced by Russian state is true, but there were such claims, this is not impossible, and this is something Amnesty officially denied, i.e. Claims that Amnesty's decision on Aleksei Navalny was a response to external pressure are untrue... in your link. So, if this to be included, one should also say that the Amnesty was accused, but denied ... However, I simply think this story is undue and especially in the section about his "Political views". This is more a controversy about Amnesty international then about his views. The propaganda by Russian state - yes, this should be included, but probably not in this paragraph.My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
According to the BBC publication [58], Amnesty was indeed influenced by Kremlin's propaganda (Some of the calls to revoke Navalny's prisoner of conscience status quoted a Twitter thread by Katya Kazbek, a freelance columnist published by the pro-Kremlin channel RT amongst others and so on). Moreover, it tells that In Russia itself, state media and officials have ratcheted up their portrayal of Navalny as a stooge of the West: an enemy agent working to destabilise the country. In what Navalny claims was a crude attempt to tarnish his image, he was also found guilty this month of defaming a war-hero. Extensive coverage of that case on state TV and social media has likened him to a neo-Nazi.. That should be included, yes, but in a different section since this is actually about the anti-Navalny campaign, rather than about his actual and current views on the subject, which are different. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, we can avoid the "lashing out against" or "he championed" but the 2 RS clearly speak about his support to the attackers, and this is the info that really means something. A position of this kind cannot be omitted.
I'm going to move that part in other sections the next days.
No one is denying that Amnesty is continuing to defend Navalny. We are only talking about the removal of designation of "prisoner of conscience". And, yes, I think it should be written that Amnesty was accused of being influenced by the Russian government and that it denied the allegations. This is a matter for both Navalny and Amnesty. Perhaps it should also be mentioned in the Amnesty article.
Talking about the "Stop Feeding the Caucasus", saying that "Navalny endorsed a nationalist-led campaign" it isn't misleading, is the most correct definition of what that campaign is (the RS talk about it explicitly in those terms), and it is the only reason the media talked about it: because it is something very controversial to join a political campaign run by nationalists against other republics of the Russian Fed.
He has also endorsed a nationalist-led campaign called Stop Feeding the Caucasus (RFERL[59])
He "supported the attackers". No, it should stated exactly what did he suggest, and it is already included. And you got it wrong in general, sorry. We absolutely should not indiscriminately cite whatever journalists say in their publications. WP:BLP say: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives and so on (see also citation of BLP above in this thread). My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
More on the Amnesty. It appears it did recognize Navalny as a prisoner of conscience as recently as January 2021: [60]. Then it revoked such status in February [61]. Why? What did happen during this time? According to BBC, the only thing that had happen is the defamation campaign by people with links to Kremlin. And this is just a matter of fact. But the position by Amnesty in fact became even more radical, i.e. Agnes Callamard now accuses Putin personally of killing Navalny through torture [62]. Hence the formal "status" is irrelevant. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
2 reliable sources (perennial) emphasize the support he has given to the anti-immigration movement. Nor is it the only event: Politico (another perennial source) also reports the support given by Navalny in another ethnic revolt, this time against the Chechens: "In 2013, Navalny offered public support to rioters who were demanding the expulsion of Chechens from a town in southern Russia."[63] This episode is the one you removed from the article time ago, if I'm not wrong.[64] It's funny because you accuse me to misunderstanding, when in reality your impressions are going against what 3 perennial sources explicitly say. So, please, be reasonable and stop removing his stance towards these incidents. About Amnesty, according to BBC the "defamation campaign" happened, but Amnesty responded to the accuses. So, each position should be included (accusations and responses). The fact that you would like to remove that they no longer refer to him as a "prisoner of conscience" is just another of your manipulation of reality. What Agnes Callamard says has nothing to do with this matter.--Mhorg (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
In the Politico piece you have linked only one section out of five deals with Navalny's nationalism and it contains the passage you quoted, Volkov's response to that and, importantly, that the Russian government has used these accusations against Navalny. I think this is a reasonable weight given to this topic and would be happy if it occupied 20% of the Political views section of this article too. Alaexis¿question?12:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry Alaexis, I'm not sure I understood what you wrote. May I ask what do you think about:
omitting Navalny's support for 2 ethnic riots against civilians (sourced with 3 perennial RS)
omitting that "Stop Feeding the Caucasus" was not simply an anti-corruption campaign, but a campaign run by Russian nationalists
omitting Amnesty's decision to remove the "prisoner of conscience" designation for its past statements?
I think all of this stuff here can be covered in a "Controversy" or "Criticism" section, as with many other articles. At this point we can devote 20% of the space to "Political views" summarizing his view on nationalism. What do you thing about it? Removing all this stuff would go against the BLP rules: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone." As I said before, criticism occupies 2,5% of the entire article (and it is\was presented responsibly and in a disinterested tone, full of contextualization and responses by Navalny's points of view), every removal finds no justification, in my opinion.--Mhorg (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Re the first two points, I think they can be mentioned in a neutral way (just fyi, no civilians were harmed in the Biryulyovo riots). As I said before, I don't think that the Amnesty decision belongs to the section on Navalny's views.
My main point has to do with the due weight. The section on the political views of Navalny should present his views according to their prominence, as determined by reliable sources. All of them, including the ones you provided, dedicate much more space to Navalny's protests, anti-corruption initiatives, investigations, political organisations and electoral strategies. I don't agree with your calculation of 2.5% as the section on the political views should stand on its own and reflect all of Navalny's views and not serve as a place to put all the negative stuff that has been reported. Alaexis¿question?17:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
2 points: so, it is ok for you to write that "he sympathized with the anti-immigration movement" as reported on RS? And it is ok to write that the campaign was "nationalist-led"? (Al Jazeera reported that shop-owners from northern-Caucasus were attacked during the 2013 Biryulyovo riots.)[65]
About the "Criticism section", thank you for that link, I didn't know about it. I can also agree to avoid a dedicated section, but that can't prevent editors from putting well-sourced criticism into articles ("Criticism and praise should be included..."). So I ask your opinion: where these parts might fit, if not in the political views section?
About the "prominence", I would like to point out that there are articles that are totally devoted to the question of nationalism.[66][67] So I don't know how fair it is to talk about 20% of space to dedicate only in the "political views" section. Otherwise, if we really have to shorten it, then let's try to get all the criticisms in, shortening the part in which the criticisms are contextualized. What do you think about it?
For example, check out the German wiki, which is very well edited. There is an entire subsection (inside "Political views") dedicated to nationalism, which is huge and covers all topics. Even those on the eng have been removed. [68]--Mhorg (talk) 07:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for a delay. Yes, I think that writing "Navalny sympathized with the anti-immigration movement" would be fair. I don't have a strong opinion about mentioning "Stop feeding the Caucasus." While Navalny has certainly said it (primarily referring to Ramzan Kadyrov and other leaders of North Caucasian republics https://navalny.livejournal.com/627082.html) and this is often heard from nationalists of various sorts, I'm not sure that by itself it adds much to the article, in view of the other stuff that is already there.
Sure, there are articles *about* Navalny's nationalism but there are also articles about Navalny in which his presumably nationalist views are not mentioned at all. For this reason I was referring to articles that try to answer the general question "who is Navalny and what his views are" like [69] to gauge their prominence. Alaexis¿question?14:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
"All right" - a refusal of the US government and EU governments to decide on any sanctions against Russia.
Yes. Because of repeated violations of international agreements on chimie weapons.
Old cleaning lady. Who gave an interview for television. A prominent politician. A Wikipedia user. A colonel, double agent. etc We should all follow Mr. Putin. because the difference is quite big. Like a poisoned king and someone from the population.Ah Colonel mon Colonel (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
RT do a fairly impartial piece on this noting that medical officials' tests say he was not poisoned. If this involved western nations Wikipedia would of course report that some conspiracy theorists believe poisoning but offical medical examination says otherwise. While no-one would rule out poisoning particularly considering the background, we should consider what the real reliable sources are, and if Wikipedia's history raises questions about its editorial team's reliability (hint: it's highly problematic). 90.206.39.148 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
We could go on and on with this pointless debate, but it would be better if we could be consistent when bashing other people's reliable sources so our editing could be more credible. Otherwise the thoughtless intervention advocated by Softlavender et al comes across as clumsy, partisan, censorship Santamoly (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The backgrounds . This can be relevant to many people. I mean what is happening? Why do the Russians apply (FSB / GU -GRU). This "Novitschok" stuff now, of all times. So often abroad. Not 40 years before.
I created a very brief section under "Reception" on the issue of Amnesty International's recognition of Navalny as a "Prisoner of Conscience", which links to a more detailed section on the Amnesty International article. I definitely think this article needs some information about this controversy (although I'm not sure if it should have it's own section, if it's in the preferred place or if the section title is the best or most descriptive). Before I made this edit, this article was very out of date because it only contained a references to Amnesty stating Navalny was a "PoC" back in January 2021, when since then they stripped him of this status in February, then reinstated it a couple of days ago in May. Hyuhanon (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, he IS currently recognized as such, and this is important to note, even in the lead (done). However, this entire controversy is probably more about the Amnesty. Given that it was included already on two other pages (about the Amnesty and the "prisoner of conscience"), there is no any reason to duplicate/copy paste it here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it is better to keep a dedicated section on this event, it has been reported in any international media, so it deserves the right space. I'm about to restore Hyuhanon's version. We can also keep the last edit in the lede.--Mhorg (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Amnesty International assessment of Navalny (whether positive or negative) is sufficiently notable to deserve a separate section. It's not a Nobel prize. Alaexis¿question?08:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it deserves a section of its own, but it definitely should be described here. I feel there's too much detail at the AI page, so editors might consider the longest version of that for text to copy/move/summarise. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems that there is now once again no information about the changes of Navalny's status that occurred on this article. There should definitely be at least one sentence referencing it (considering how this has been important in Navalny's image and generated significant amounts of coverage showing it to be notable), and possibly a link to the section on the Amnesty article about it. (Whether this information belongs best on the page for Navalny, or Amnesty, or for the term prisoner of conscience, I'm not sure what is most appropriate, but it should be somewhere.) I definitely agree in hindsight that a whole section on this page about it was excessive though, and the section about it on the Amnesty International is probably still too detailed. Hyuhanon (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I can see two problems with such version. First, this should be not " by government supporters", but "by Russian government agents" (that is what follows from the sources, although they are probably "alleged agents"). Second, "given the fact ...". This is not a fact but an allegation. That allegation existed for 10 years, by the Amnesty did not react to it. It reacted only recently, after the Russian government agents started bringing this very old story again, and it all the sudden agreed with the allegation, only to reverse their decision later. This is a very bad story for AI. But again, I just do not think this story is "due" on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, all this story is due. And no, this part from BBC[70] "Some of the calls to revoke Navalny's prisoner of conscience status quoted a Twitter thread by Katya Kazbek, a freelance columnist published by the pro-Kremlin channel RT amongst others" it is not enough to use the term "Kremlin agent". And no, there are tons of Western journalists who have criticized Navalny's pro-nationalist statements even in modern times. And again, no, Amnesty itself did not claim that was "deceived" by the Russian government but decides to restore the POC on the grounds that the Russian government exploited this for its own interests: "Amnesty took an internal decision to stop using the “Prisoner of Conscience” term for Navalny, due to concerns relating to discriminatory statements he made in 2007 and 2008 which may have constituted advocacy of hatred. The Russian government and its supporters used that internal decision, which we had not intended to make public, to further violate Navalny’s rights"[71]. This is my proposal, @Bobfrombrockley:@Hyuhanon:, what do you think about it?: "In February 2021, Amnesty International strips Navalny of 'prisoner of conscience' status, due to his videos and pro-nationalist statements made in the past that allegedly constitute hate speech. This designation was then reinstated in May 2021, the international organization stated that the withdrawal of the "prisoner of conscience" designation had been used as a pretext by the Government of the Russian Federation to further violate Navalny's human rights." (Please help me with grammar)--Mhorg (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I approve of the content, it looks good. I suggest the terms "prisoner of conscience" and Amnesty International are hyperlinked to their Wiki pages (if that needed to be said).Regarding the grammar, there should be a semicolon or a conjunction at this point to avoid a comma splice, e.g.: "This designation was then reinstated in May 2021; the international organization stated...". However, it's probably clearer to just separate that into 2 sentences (i.e. full stop in place of the semicolon). Secondly, it should be past tense here, as: "Amnesty International stripped... Navalny".Hyuhanon (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I think a dedicated section, like the one made by Hyuhanon was good,[72] but I think we do not have consensus. May it could be placed here?[73]--Mhorg (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure a separate section is warranted. We are adding just two sentences, and probably there won't be any continuation to this story. Instead I'd add them to the criminal cases section - after all AI designated his as a prisoner of conscience because he was imprisoned as a result of these criminal cases. Alaexis¿question?11:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
The status change received significant international coverage in reliable sources, but if we can link to Amnesty International#Removal of Alexei Navalny's 'Prisoner of Conscience' status prominently, i.e. with {{See also}} hatnote or similar template that best applies to the case, two or three short sentences would be due. For that purpose (and I'll skip commenting some minor details) the proposed text by Mhorg looks okay.If there is not a dedicated section, it would indicate that the status should also omitted from the lead (currently the lead says Navalny is a PoC, without mentioning the missing weeks). Politrukki (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I see no problem with removing it from the lead, I don't think that this designation is that important. Sure, there was a lot of coverage recently but 5-10 years from now a lot of it would be forgotten. Alaexis¿question?18:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it needs it's own section or to be in the lead. I would put it in chronologically, in teh section Mhorg suggested. Here is some lightly edited wording with refs In February 2021, Amnesty International stripped Navalny of "prisoner of conscience" status, due to videos and pro-nationalist statements he made in the past that allegedly constitute hate speech.[1][2][6][7] This designation was then reinstated in May 2021: the international organization stated that the withdrawal of the "prisoner of conscience" designation had been used as a pretext by the Government of the Russian Federation to further violate Navalny's human rights.[5] However, what this misses is the active lobbying that led to the February decision, which I think should be noted. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
^ abCarroll, Oliver (2021-02-24). "Anger after Amnesty strips Navalny of 'prisoner of conscience' status". The Independent. Retrieved 2021-05-27. In recent months, as Mr Navalny has gained prominence internationally... Russian state media has stepped up messages emphasising his nationalistic past. Those arguments have been amplified in a broad network of Kremlin-sympathising media at home and abroad. These outlets include Grayzone, an opaquely funded leftist publication based in the United States, which appears to have been privy to lobbying around the Amnesty decision.
^ ab"Amnesty apologises to Alexei Navalny over 'prisoner of conscience' status". BBC News. 2021-05-07. Retrieved 2021-05-27. [In February, AI] said the decision [to remove the status] had been made internally and was not influenced by the Russian state. But in a new statement on Friday the organisation apologised and said their decision had been used to "further violate Navalny's rights" in Russia.
The problem with the link to the text of the decision of 9 June 2021 of the Moscow City Court in the case No.3а-1573/2021
At the moment, the link to the text of the decision of 9 June 2021 of the Moscow City Court in the case No.3а-1573/2021 (PDF file) (the last paragraph in subsection "Return and imprisonment") is inaccessible because of a blocking of the Team 29 website.
So a new account shows up to add "nationalist" in first sentence with very old YouTube video of Navalny's as ref. I reverted this and explained why in the edit summary. Another new account shows up to restore this edit and then adds unsourced content stating that Navalny encouraged the deportation of foreigners and even went to compare it to "Nazi practices". Of course 1RR is in place but these edits are unsuitable (the last edit is nonsense) and the accounts in question raise suspicions. Mellk (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppets aside, for what it's worth I do think that it's a little bit strange for the lead of an article about politician to not really describe his political positions/affiliations. There's a lot to discuss about his relationship with/opposition to/dealings with Putin in the lead, so I do agree that that should fill the bulk of the lead, but surely there's more we can say about his views than just "anti-corruption"? Some of those sources the users added seem fine to base content off of: [74][75][76], and the section on his political positions already in this article describes e.g. his nationalist/anti-immigration views, participation in the Russian march, stuff like that. I don't see why that can't be summarised somewhere in the lead. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Generally he is regarded as part of the liberal opposition. He has flirted with nationalism in the past though this is was many years ago now. But I do agree that there should be some kind of mention of ideology in the lead. Mellk (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2021
This edit request to Alexei Navalny has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I propose that the following sentence (in quotation marks) be added at the end of the last paragraph of the subsection "Return and imprisonment" of the article:
"On 4 August 2021, First Appellate Ordinary Court located in Moscow upheld the decision of the court of first instance (case №66а-3553/2021) and this decision entered into force that day.[1]"
I think the rules of transliteration used for Russian external passport should be taken into account because external passport is official identity document. In accordance with the Ministry of Internal Affairs Order of 26 May 1997 №310, the Russian letter “й” was transliterated with the English letter “y”. This order was repealed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Order of 24 December 2009 №997. The Federal Migration Service Order of 15 October 2012 №320, which was entered into force on 7 April 2013 and was subsequently replaced by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Order of 16 November 2017 №864, which was subsequently replaced by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Order of 31 March 2021 №186, prescribed the use of ICAO Doc 9303, under which the Russian letter “й” should be transliterated with the English letter “i”. Similar rules are provided for by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Order of 12 February 2020 №2113. However, all of these orders allow the change of transliteration in the event that previously issued external passport contained different spelling of Russian citizen’s name in English. Thus, in accordance with current rules, Russian name “Алексей” should be transliterated as “Alexei”, but in the event that Russian citizen received his first external passport during the period when Ministry of Internal Affairs Order of 26 May 1997 №310 was in effect, “Алексей” should be transliterated as “Alexey”. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
Alexei Navalny → Alexey Navalny – The title of the article shall conform to the spelling of individual's name used in official identity document. In that regard, the rules of transliteration used for Russian external passport should be taken into account because external passport is official identity document. In accordance with the Ministry of Internal Affairs Order of 26 May 1997 №310, the Russian letter “й” was transliterated with the English letter “y”. This Order was repealed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Order of 24 December 2009 №997. The Federal Migration Service Order of 15 October 2012 №320, which was entered into force on 7 April 2013 and was subsequently replaced by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Order of 16 November 2017 №864, which was subsequently replaced by the Ministry of Internal Affairs Order of 31 March 2021 №186, prescribed the use of ICAO Doc 9303, under which the Russian letter “й” should be transliterated with the English letter “i”. Similar rules are provided for by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Order of 12 February 2020 №2113. However, all of these orders allow the change of transliteration in the event that previously issued external passport contained different spelling of Russian citizen’s name in English. Thus, in accordance with current rules, Russian name “Алексей” should be transliterated as “Alexei”, but in the event that Russian citizen received his first external passport during the period when Ministry of Internal Affairs Order of 26 May 1997 №310 was in effect, “Алексей” should be transliterated as “Alexey”. You should clarify the spelling of Navalny's first name in his external passport. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Procedural Oppose per Ymblanter. We are under no obligation to consider the arcana of Russian passport transliteration. What matters is the usage in reliable sources (in English) and how Mr. Navalny prefers it to be Latinized. As the nominator is an IP and has made no arguments along those lines, I must procedurally oppose. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't know anything about Russian passport rules, but I'm willing to assume you're correct about "Alexey Navalny" being how his name would appear in English in official documents, given it's the name he uses for himself. However, article titles (including for names of people) are principally governed by WP:COMMONNAME, and from a quick WP:GTEST it does seem like "Alexei Navalny" is the transliteration that's used most commonly by (English language) reliable sources. I do think this should be spelled out better in the lead though, as just a note saying that other transliterations exist is a bit lacking when the spelling he uses for himself is "Alexey". ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
As noted by Volteer1, Navalny uses the name "Alexey" for himself. Wikipedia:Naming conventions state: "when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed". Navalny always uses "Alexey" as his name in English-language texts, so this could be considered a consistent and unambiguous self-published version of his first name. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Support per argument that it is the spelling of the name the article subject himself uses. Russian regulations about transliteration are a distraction from the real issue here, which is that in BLPs we should spell someone's name the way the person themselves spells it. Mr248 (talk) 21:53, 5 September 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.
Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021
This edit request to Alexei Navalny has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I propose the following changes to the section "Early life and career":
1. To add the following words at the end of second sentence of second paragraph (the sentence about Financial University): "graduating in 2001".
2.To add the following sentence at the beginning of the second paragraph: "Navalny graduated from Kalininets secondary school (level 3 according ISCED) in 1993.[1]".
3.To add the following new paragraph: "Since 1998, Navalny worked as a lawyer for various Russian companies.[2] In 2009, Navalny became an advocate and a member of advocate’s chamber (bar association) of Kirov Oblast (registration number 43/547). In 2010, due his move to Moscow he ceased to be a member of advocate’s chamber of Kirov Oblast and became a member of advocate’s chamber of Moscow (registration number 77/991).[3][4] In November 2013, after the judgement in the Kirovles case had entered into force, Navalny was deprived of advocate status.[5]".
The guy made a video featured himself dressed as a dentist, who likened interethnic conflict in Russia to cavities and argued that fascism can be stopped only by deporting migrants from Russia. Navalny stated “We have a right to be [ethnic] Russians in Russia. And we will defend this right.”
It's not false. It's a historical fact yet it's completely missing and embedded in one short sentence despite he has never retracted his statements. I understand some editors here are politically protective of him and why inconvenient facts are censored. But what gives you the right to censor that info? Discuss here if you have a proper reason and don't say I need consensus. That's just stonewalling and not how Wikipedia works. You need to give a solid non political reason why such info needs to be downplayed on Wikipedia. Nvtuil (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
No one is saying that it's false. It's just that it's a small part of his political views. If you look at his investigations, interviews, etc this is a tiny part and should not have undue weight in the article. See for example the weight given to his xenophobic comments in his BBC profile [77].
Notably, painting Navalny as a nationalist is one of the tropes employed by the Russian state propaganda (see here, for example), so we should be extra careful not to give undue weight to it here. Alaexis¿question?
It's a logical fallacy to say just because it's Russian propaganda that the information is not true. Russia is not responsible for what he said or did. Just simply not motivated to hide it away unlike Washington and western media/regime change campaigns who constantly says that he is a saint. And imply that his nationalist past was all a lie. But Navalny has every chance to retract his statements in person and on camera, if he truly has regret that he had earlier advocated for deporting of immigrants as his solution to interethnic crisis. He constantly sides against immigrants. It's not undue weight but simply his real history and nationalist political views. In one video, he plays a pest exterminator and then an actor dressed in a very stereotypical muslim attire, is then being shot down by him.
If you want to censor it. Then go ahead but don't use pretexts of claiming it's undue weight. You're not fooling me that he is not a prejudiced person. I am not the one distrusting the public to let them make up their own minds after knowing the kind of videos he made. Censorship is ironically what Russia wrongfully does yet we are no different when we do the same dirty tricks? Nvtuil (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from ad hominems and insinuations. My argument is based on WP:NPOV which states that "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As you can see in the BBC profile I linked his 2007 videos are mentioned only briefly. Unless you can demonstrate that there are RS which say that this is the most important thing about his political views, these videos are given undue weight in the political views section. Alaexis¿question?14:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
This has been discussed extensively in the past and the article reflects the current consensus. Per WP:ONUS, the "onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Alaexis¿question?14:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the article and this discussion I have to agree with Nvtuil. Alaexis your position seems to be the exact opposite of WP:NPOV. You are deleting all reference to Navalny's ethnic nationalism and reference because you consider that not doing so is "beneficial" to the narrative of the Russian government. This is the very definition of partisan editing. I see no reference to Amnesty International stripping Navalny of his prisoner of conscience status due to his xenophobic position [78] which should be in the article.Sammyeugene (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I believe that Navanly's relationship with nationalists and his own actions and views which have been described as nationalistic need to be mentioned in the article. In fact, they are already mentioned, and occupy a big part of the political views section - proportionally much more than in the coverage by reliable sources.
I never said that something needs to be removed because it's beneficial to the narrative of the Russian government. My argument was about certain things given WP:UNDUE weight. I mentioned that the Russian propaganda pushes this in that context. Regarding supposedly anti-Russian partisan editing, I've been accused of pro-Russian partisan editing a few times, so I guess I'm doing the right thing :)
Regarding the stripping and reinstatement of the prisoner of conscience status, it is already described in the article, so I'm not sure what you suggest to change. Alaexis¿question?08:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The top-of-page, top-of-lede direct quoting of the title of an article from the WSJ opinion page (the "the man Vladimir Putin fears most") is embarrassing to this project and should at least be struck from the opening of the page and moved far down in the article if not struck entirely. — Mainly03:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Done Just integrated above info into the article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
.jpg)
_1.jpg)
_2.jpg)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
