This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did he back the Russian war in Georgia or not?
Reading the sources, from The Spectator: Not only did he back the invasion, he also called for the expulsion of Georgian people from Russia and called them ‘rodents’ (grizuni) – a common ethnic slur used by Russian nationalists..
The Atlantic: He also supported Russia in its war against Georgia in August 2008.
From Navalny's blog: Russia should take the following steps (at least):
1. Provide serious military and financial assistance to South Ossetia and Abkhazia (to the extent that Abkhazia is ready to actually fight in South Ossetia).
2. Declare South Ossetia a non-fly zone and immediately shoot down all aircraft that are in this zone.
3. To declare a complete blockade of Georgia. Stop any communication with her.
4. To expel from the Russian Federation all citizens of Georgia who are on our territory.
I suppose that the answer is "Yes". What do you think about it?--Mhorg (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Mhorg, your sources support that he backed the Russian war in Georgia. I also found a recent article from the Irish Times that support your claim. Please see https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/alexei-navalny-iron-willed-pragmatist-with-a-nationalist-streak-1.4470222 Jurisdicta (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Jurisdicta. As I see, your article does not confirmed that Navalny "wished that all ethnic Georgians would be expelled from Russia", as Mhorg claimed in his edits [1]. The article in the Irish Times just states: "in 2008 he wrote in support of Russia’s war in Georgia and used an ethnic slur to describe its people". I read the entries in the blog of Navalny and I think this is quite a correct reflection (unlike the claims of Mhorg).--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus fair point, I should have specified which point was supported by my citation. I appreciate your comment. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, this section isn't about the deportation but whether or not he backed Russia in the Russo-Georgian war but at this point we can talk about that too. However, you continue to focus on my edit that I have already fixed as soon as you pointed it out to me by removing the word "ethnic", the result of a translation error of mine from the Navalny blog, and I have reported the words found in The Atlantic. The source that Jurisdicta found confirms that "he supported the war". I agree with you that the source from The Spectator should be removed (I didn't add it to the article, I found it already there), but we've still different sources backing up exactly all the statements above (The Atlantic, for sure an RS). I also found other sources confirming those things:
- · South China Morning Post: He also expressed support for Russia during the Russo-Georgian war of 2008 and used a derogatory term for Georgians in blog posts calling for them to be expelled from Russia.
- · The Post Internazionale (ITA): Another controversial point in Aleksey Navalny's nationalist past is support for the 2008 war operations against Georgia in favor of the Russian intervention in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the demand for the expulsion of all Georgian citizens from the Russian Federation.
- · RollingStone (ITA): traits of chauvinism and unbridled nationalism led Navalny to take extreme positions on issues such as immigration (to the point of calling Georgians "rodents")
- · Mischa Gabowitsch (historian and sociologist): During the war with Georgia in the summer of 2008, he called for all Georgian citizens to be deported from Russia. In a pun on the ethnonym gruziny, he called them "rodents"
- At this point, I think it should be specified that he backed Russia in the war and that he specifically asked for all Georgian citizens to be expelled.--Mhorg (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Mhorg. We both know, you have read the original post in the blog, so you know for sure that deportation was suggested instead of open invasion of Russian troops, not as an additional measure, as you are trying to show.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to show anything, just showing multiple sources (RS) that state exactly that he backed Russia in the war. Specifically, he argues that no additional invasion troops should be brought in, but that weapons, equipment and no-flyzones (even taking down Georgian airforce) should be provided to the pro-Russian warring faction. And it is precisely for this reason that he is rightly pointed out as a figure who supported Russia in the Russo-Georgian war.--Mhorg (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
additional invasion troops
- Your statement is incorrect again. There were Russian "peacekeepers" in South Ossetia legally, but they could not be any "invasion troops" in principle (there were very few of them). Navalny says that "there is no question of any additional Russian ground troops in the South Ossetia now.", i.e., he opposed the invasion. The date of the post is 8 August 2008, i.e. this is the very beginning of events, no Russian-Georgian war has yet begun, there was only a Georgian operation to retake the separatist region. The Kremlin has spent a lot of money to demonize Navalny, so I suggest you follow WP:WEIGHT and see if the most of the first-class media (BBC, Reuters...) write in such a detail about this episode.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)- Ok, here we go, now the Kremlin is sponsoring also The Atlantic Council:Navalny’s alarming foreign policy pronouncements are not restricted to Ukraine alone. He has declared his support for the independence of Kremlin-backed breakaway regions throughout the former USSR and cheered Russia’s 2008 war against Georgia.. Please, let's stay on the RS and stop giving personal interpretations. You are basically saying that all sources found are unreliable.--Mhorg (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to show anything, just showing multiple sources (RS) that state exactly that he backed Russia in the war. Specifically, he argues that no additional invasion troops should be brought in, but that weapons, equipment and no-flyzones (even taking down Georgian airforce) should be provided to the pro-Russian warring faction. And it is precisely for this reason that he is rightly pointed out as a figure who supported Russia in the Russo-Georgian war.--Mhorg (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Mhorg. We both know, you have read the original post in the blog, so you know for sure that deportation was suggested instead of open invasion of Russian troops, not as an additional measure, as you are trying to show.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- The source from the "The Spectator" is placed on Coffee House, i.e. on a Spectator's platform for blogs. According to WP:BLP: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs".--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- About this ref: [2]. As I see, here is infinished discussion for GlobalVoices.org on RSN: [3] I myself tend to think that although Global Voices is well-respected journalism organization, but in this case I see rather something like Andrey Tselikov's personal column (user-generated content). I'm not sure if this is suitable for WP:BLP.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- It is hard to say what are his views about it. In a number of statements he actually criticized Putin and Russia for attack on Georgia, i.e. just the opposite. Given that, I think it is safer just remove this thing per BLP. Done. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- There are 3 RS The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico who speak clearly of support for the Georgian war, or at least allude to the fact that he has called for the expulsion of all Georgians. We can't just remove everything.--Mhorg (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Its evident through the sources provided above that the sources support the content, lets not whitewash.PailSimon (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- From the sources presented, it is obvious that the main media do not support this interpretation of Navalny's post. Despite the Kremlin's best efforts to demonize his opponent, only a few publications follows this narrative. Here is a scientific article devoted entirely to Navalny's nationalism on his blog [4]. This point is not even mentioned there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Here it is anything but "obvious", it is your opinion that the mainstream media did not interpret Navalny's words that way. And, as you said earlier, this is not a blog and the RS do matter. We have 3 RS about his support for the Russo-Georgian war and at least 1 RS about the "rodents" therm, and many other anti-Kremlin sources such as "The Atlantic Council". As I proposed in the comment before, we can simply translate the measures proposed by Navalny on his blog, so we avoid misunderstandings. Pretending that nothing has happened is a way to politically defend the figure of Navalny, and this is not the role of the members of Wikipedia.--Mhorg (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Here is another article, in Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, devoted specifically to Navalny's foreign policy views: [5]. It mentions the other post of Navalny in his blog, where he proposes to recognize the independence of South Ossetia, but not the post under discussion. The further I go, the more it seems to me that this episode simply does not correspond to WP:WEIGHT.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- We do not have a problem of WP:WEIGHT as you are saying, there are no discordant versions between RS, there are only RS that have dealt with the Navalny's statements and others have not. And all the RS (and tons of anti-Kremlin sources) that have dealt with the subject have a common vision. However, I propose to bring the translated text of Navalny's post, without interpretations of the RS, since you previously added parts of the primary source to the article to specify what the RS were claiming.--Mhorg (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mhorg: No, there is a problem with weight as major news organisations have not reported such comments, only a few handpicked fringe sources do. That means that including the content, whether referenced to these few sources or just solely to 'translations' of his blog, would constitute undue weight. Also, referencing Navalny's blog is not a good enough source on its own.LauraWilliamson (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- Why is his blog not a good source? As far as I can understand it's allowed in this case Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. Alaexis¿question? 11:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Alaexis: because unless certain comments on the blog have been reported by major news outlets, their inclusion constitutes undue weight.LauraWilliamson (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- I dunno... It's just one paragraph in a big article, are you sure WP:UNDUE applies here? Alaexis¿question? 11:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're referring to, could you elaborate?LauraWilliamson (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- Alaexis, at the beginning the use of the blog suited Nicoljaus, (and LauraWilliamson did not object) when he corrected the RS, now not anymore. I agreed with his edits and I agree even now to add parts of the primary source. On the other hand there is nothing to be misunderstood, they are a few clear words, and it is from his blog (100% certified).
LauraWilliamson, you said: "only a few handpicked fringe sources do", literally 3-4 internationally known RS. Assuming what you are saying we should remove half of the contents of all Wikipedia articles. And no, that's not the case.
Nicoljaus, you previously said on the other discussion:You need just 2-3 RS, directly saying that..., after 3 RS now the problem is the weight. How can I not doubt about your sincerity?--Mhorg (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)@Mhorg: users are allowed to object to questionable content changes on articles. The 3-4 sources are not as reliable as you think, as several problems with them have been highlighted:- The Irish Times article does not confirm that Navalny "wished that all ethnic Georgians would be expelled from Russia"
- The source from the "The Spectator" is placed on Coffee House, i.e. on a Spectator's platform for blogs. According to WP:BLP: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs".
- Navalny's blog could be a problem as according to WP:BLP: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs". Additionally, the blogs shows that deportation was suggested instead of open invasion of Russian troops, not as an additional measure, as you are trying to show, which is weasel wording (something which you do quite a lot)
More importantly, major reliable international news outlets, like the BBC, Association Press, Reuters do not report these comments, so its clear that the inclusion of this content by reference to a tiny number of questionable sources when most major news outlets do not report on it constitutes undue weight. So there is a number of reasons as to why the inclusion of this content is highly questionable, and as such explains why various users have objected to its inclusion on a number of grounds. Its not about being insincere, it's about wanting content to be neutral, not misrepresented or undue.LauraWilliamson (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- Once again, stop distorting what I write, because it is clearly legible above. The 3 RS are The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico. And RollingStone, also RS, talks about the "rodents" word. The fact that BBC, Association Press, Reuters do not report these comments doesent mean nothing, as I said earlier, In that case we should remove half of Wikipedia article.--Mhorg (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- And again, The Irish Times, reported correctly by @Jurisdicta: says: "in 2008 he wrote in support of Russia’s war in Georgia and used an ethnic slur to describe its people", please at least read the articles rather than repeating each Nicoljaus's answers, otherwise you seem "coordinated".--Mhorg (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well no because in ALL Wikipedia articles, the appropriateness of certain content's inclusion is judged on whether it constitutes undue weight. In these "half of Wikipedia articles" that do not use sources such as the BBC, Association Press or Reuters, the information will have been seen to have been justly included because it the consensus of reliable sources agree on the point. In this case, the majority of reliable sources do not agree on the point, only three sources do, and there is differences of opinion on the matter. As the most experienced contributor by far in this thread, User:My very best wishes, stated, "It is hard to say what are his views about it. In a number of statements he actually criticized Putin and Russia for attack on Georgia, i.e. just the opposite. Given that, I think it is safer just remove this thing per BLP." We need to see a consensus of reliable sources on a matter before it is included in a BLP, and there certainly isn't a wider consensus here, just a few sources which are countered by other sources.LauraWilliamson (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- LauraWilliamson please note that I added that Navalny was against sending Russian troops to South Ossetia [6]. I'm not sure about the undue weight issue you have raised - I haven't edited BLP articles a lot. Alaexis¿question? 12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Alaexis, in my personal opinion, you did the right thing by adding context. But the question is whether to include this episode in the wiki article at all. And here LauraWilliamson is right - we should follow most sources, including scientific articles in a peer-reviewed journal, which do not attach any special significance to this episode.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- LauraWilliamson, once again, you continually take comments from other users and repeat them dozens of time to give them more importance. Of course I agree that if we have RS reporting Navalny's opposition to Russia's intervention in Georgia, the issue can certainly be explained on the article with neutrality, showing the plurality of information. Currently no one has brought RS on this thing. Regarding the deportations of Georgian citizens, it is a fact reported by several RS and is present on the primary source. The issue is in the public interest and cannot be removed.
Nicoljaus, there is no Kremlin conspiration, just 3 or more RS, and anti-Kremlin media talking about Navalny in this context. I understand that you are trying to protect Navalny's image, but as a matter of neutrality and the importance of the issues dealt with, this information, dealt with by several well-known RS, must be reported.--Mhorg (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)@Mhorg: Wikipedia is not a place to WP:Right great wrongs, and this is not a place to add content simply as you think it's "in the public interest", Wikipedia is for building an encyclopaedia. All you seem to do as an editor is add negative comments about Navalny, so stop trying to right what you see as great wrongs.LauraWilliamson (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- The "negative comments" comes from multiple RS, not from me. And I'm taking care of this job to ensure Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It just seems you just want to avoid controversial facts in the article. There was never a mediation proposal from you.--Mhorg (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well no that's the thing, the negative comments aren't just coming from three sources but from you misrepresenting the content in those sources, and using weasel wording to make the things sound more negative. You've previously been blocked for edit waring on this article and only ever add negative comments about Navalny - you've never been interested in ensuring a neutral point of view. Not only are you misrepresenting content from sources but are now misrepresenting yourself.LauraWilliamson (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)And I'm taking care of this job to ensure Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
-- You need to read this rule carefully, that's what we're telling you: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Yes, exactly. What Nicoljaus says above is the fundamental point here. Regardless of other points in this debate, regardless of whether you think the news reports in question are reliable and the content is verifiable, the overall fact remains that the very few news reports that do report on this issue makes the event's inclusion disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. There is no wide reliable-sourced based consensus on this issue, and its inclusion is highly questionable.LauraWilliamson (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- LauraWilliamson, again, you continue with this bullying, carefully avoiding that I agreed with Nicoljaus's clarifications on the word "ethnic", which I promptly removed, I agreed when Nicoljaus spoke of the fact that he did not support the intervention of the Russian Armed Forces, information taken from Navalny's blog (although he clearly asked to pursue a pro-Russian agenda, like arming pro-Russian separatist forces, called for a no-fly zone and deportation of Georgian citizens). I remind you that I "won" a 24h ban just because I didn't know the revert rules (my fault), I was just preventing you from removing RS like "The Atlantic" without explanation. You are clearly portraying me as a malicious user despite bringing tons of sources.
Nicoljaus at the time, we have at least 5 RS, including Al Jazeera (that you just deleted), talking about the Georgian question: Al Jazeera He ... also made a number of racist statements, including calling Georgians “rodents”, during Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008. How many other RS do you need to be able to say that the matter is of sufficient public interest?--Mhorg (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)@Mhorg: in response to "How many other RS do you need to be able to say that the matter is of sufficient public interest?": Well, for a BLP we need a consensus of a wide range of reliable sources on the matter. As we have seen, there is not a consensus on the issue, as some sources imply he was opposed to the war against Georgia overall. Furthermore, for the content to be included in this article it should not constitute undue weight, and since this particular issue is not discussed or mentioned in the major news sources, it is clear that is not the case. I'm not participating in "bullying", I am explaining Wikipedia's rules and guidelines to you, which as you've just said you're not all too familiar with (you said you didn't know the revert rules). What is bullying, however, is edit warring and continually reinstating your content when other users disagree and thus forcing your content into articles and disregarding other user's concerns.LauraWilliamson (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- I understood that you repeatedly skip my comments, but when you write: "as some sources imply he was opposed to the war against Georgia overall" I already answered: "Of course I agree that if we have RS reporting Navalny's opposition to Russia's intervention in Georgia, the issue can certainly be explained on the article with neutrality, showing the plurality of information. Currently no one has brought RS on this thing." So, let's see your source about his opposition of the Russia's intervention in Georgia (because, for now, the only source claming the he called for arming pro-separatist forces, for the Georgian airforce to be shot down, and expelling Georgian citizens (and it is like supporting the Russia's war against Georgia), come from the Navalny's blog, the same source that you called "unreliable". Then, if we find these sources, we could simply represents the two interpretation with neutrality.--Mhorg (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mhorg: There would be no point in doing that, because there would still be the issue of undue weight. It is clear that the content in its entirety should not be included on this BLP at all, so there is no need for any new rewriting or re-addition of the content, even if it is reworded.LauraWilliamson (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)@Mhorg: Furthermore, I think it's very suspicious that a brand new IP with no previous edits has just sprung up to reinstate your content to the article - I hope you are aware of the Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, because if that is you editing in another guise you will receive another block.LauraWilliamson (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- It is very funny how you talk about some hypotetical sources claiming the contrary of 5 Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then you cannot find one. I sincerely hope that other users will intervene in this discussion, because you are clearly disrupting the democratic process of Wikipedia.
About Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, and your disrespectful accusations, please put evidence about your statement, because you are really offending me, and I ask, is some admin is reading, to stop this bullying because behaviour like this it is a shame for our community. Here, the only strange thing is a [user registered from 27 January 2021] (around 13 days of activity, mostly about Navalny's article), that knows every complicated Wikipedia rule, of course better than a 5 year user like me (I know, I'm lazy, sorry), a user that only back other user comments likely in a coordinated way and that clearly doesn't want to discuss, but to win.--Mhorg (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- It is very funny how you talk about some hypotetical sources claiming the contrary of 5 Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then you cannot find one. I sincerely hope that other users will intervene in this discussion, because you are clearly disrupting the democratic process of Wikipedia.
- I understood that you repeatedly skip my comments, but when you write: "as some sources imply he was opposed to the war against Georgia overall" I already answered: "Of course I agree that if we have RS reporting Navalny's opposition to Russia's intervention in Georgia, the issue can certainly be explained on the article with neutrality, showing the plurality of information. Currently no one has brought RS on this thing." So, let's see your source about his opposition of the Russia's intervention in Georgia (because, for now, the only source claming the he called for arming pro-separatist forces, for the Georgian airforce to be shot down, and expelling Georgian citizens (and it is like supporting the Russia's war against Georgia), come from the Navalny's blog, the same source that you called "unreliable". Then, if we find these sources, we could simply represents the two interpretation with neutrality.--Mhorg (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- LauraWilliamson, again, you continue with this bullying, carefully avoiding that I agreed with Nicoljaus's clarifications on the word "ethnic", which I promptly removed, I agreed when Nicoljaus spoke of the fact that he did not support the intervention of the Russian Armed Forces, information taken from Navalny's blog (although he clearly asked to pursue a pro-Russian agenda, like arming pro-Russian separatist forces, called for a no-fly zone and deportation of Georgian citizens). I remind you that I "won" a 24h ban just because I didn't know the revert rules (my fault), I was just preventing you from removing RS like "The Atlantic" without explanation. You are clearly portraying me as a malicious user despite bringing tons of sources.
- The "negative comments" comes from multiple RS, not from me. And I'm taking care of this job to ensure Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It just seems you just want to avoid controversial facts in the article. There was never a mediation proposal from you.--Mhorg (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- LauraWilliamson, once again, you continually take comments from other users and repeat them dozens of time to give them more importance. Of course I agree that if we have RS reporting Navalny's opposition to Russia's intervention in Georgia, the issue can certainly be explained on the article with neutrality, showing the plurality of information. Currently no one has brought RS on this thing. Regarding the deportations of Georgian citizens, it is a fact reported by several RS and is present on the primary source. The issue is in the public interest and cannot be removed.
- Alaexis, in my personal opinion, you did the right thing by adding context. But the question is whether to include this episode in the wiki article at all. And here LauraWilliamson is right - we should follow most sources, including scientific articles in a peer-reviewed journal, which do not attach any special significance to this episode.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- LauraWilliamson please note that I added that Navalny was against sending Russian troops to South Ossetia [6]. I'm not sure about the undue weight issue you have raised - I haven't edited BLP articles a lot. Alaexis¿question? 12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- And again, The Irish Times, reported correctly by @Jurisdicta: says: "in 2008 he wrote in support of Russia’s war in Georgia and used an ethnic slur to describe its people", please at least read the articles rather than repeating each Nicoljaus's answers, otherwise you seem "coordinated".--Mhorg (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Once again, stop distorting what I write, because it is clearly legible above. The 3 RS are The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico. And RollingStone, also RS, talks about the "rodents" word. The fact that BBC, Association Press, Reuters do not report these comments doesent mean nothing, as I said earlier, In that case we should remove half of Wikipedia article.--Mhorg (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Alaexis, at the beginning the use of the blog suited Nicoljaus, (and LauraWilliamson did not object) when he corrected the RS, now not anymore. I agreed with his edits and I agree even now to add parts of the primary source. On the other hand there is nothing to be misunderstood, they are a few clear words, and it is from his blog (100% certified).
- I dunno... It's just one paragraph in a big article, are you sure WP:UNDUE applies here? Alaexis¿question? 11:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Why is his blog not a good source? As far as I can understand it's allowed in this case Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. Alaexis¿question? 11:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see what's wrong with this information it's properly soured about him.220.253.99.152 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see what's wrong with this information it's properly soured about him.220.253.99.152 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
To sum up, a long quote from the article mentioned above. It explains well why the vast majority of sources do not mention Navalny's attitude to the Russian-Georgian war - it is simply outside his sphere of interests:
Perhaps the primary thing that will be remembered about the Putin/Medvedev regime’s foreign policy is the two military conflicts that Russia has waged in the former Soviet republics, namely the 2008 Russo-Georgian war and particularly the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian war. Alexei Navalny’s stand on them is peculiar in two ways. Firstly, he tends to pointedly stress their relative unimportance compared to Russia’s domestic affairs. Even in 2014-15, when foreign policy issues (especially Crimea and Donbas) were significantly dominating the country’s public discourse, Navalny’s focus was primarily on internal problems: in October 2014, for example, he posited that “the issue of illegal immigration is 100 times more important than any Ukraine,” believing that “[i]t’s not in the interests of Russians to seize neighbouring republics, it’s in their interests to fight corruption, alcoholism and so on — to solve internal problems.” Secondly, Navalny usually does not seem to want to canvass foreign policy in general and Ukraine in particular, frequently eschewing answering foreign affairs related questions as clearly and knowledgeably as he normally does whenever asked on other topics (e.g. Russian ruling elite, elections, corruption, etc.), preferring giving vague replies and trying to drive the conversation towards internal issues instead.
— [7]
As a result, here is an article Who is Mr. Navalny? on the website of the Institute of Modern Russia, which discusses whether Navalny is a nationalist [8]. His manifesto for the NAROD movement is discussed, but the Russian-Georgian war is not mentioned at all. I once again ask the Mhorg to analyze the whole body of sources and show whether most of the RS that write about Navalny's biography include references to this episode. I see that it is used to criticize Navalny, but, as the rule of WP:BALASP says: "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic"--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. The source is good and provides proper balance. His views on this subject seem to be misinterpreted. In addition, this is a matter of due weight. He is mostly known as an anti-corruption activist, and yes, involved in Russian politics in general ("smart voting"), etc. But he never was an officially registered presidential candidate, for example. Given that, his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant, and especially if his views on something are not really clear. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- 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.--Darkcloud2222 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, here is single source that is more or less "scholarly" and qualify as research (cited by Nicoljaus above). It can be used, I agree. Others are outdated (12 years old) news and personal commentaries. My very best wishes (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- It would be great if the new participants who appeared in the discussion did not resume going around in circles, but spoke out on the current issue - compliance with the rule WP:BALASP.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- As you can see, I crossed out all the text of the sockpuppet User: LauraWilliamson that was trying to influence the conversation in a malicious way, and the whole discussion is now also difficult to read. I will try to summarize my position, given that the discussion has assumed enormous proportions, as all the controversial aspects of the politician in question are being eliminated and all with the accusation of being without RS at the beginning, then the sockpuppet talked about undue wight, and now we are on WP:BALASP.
We currently have 3 RS (The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico) who argue precisely these things: "He backed Russia in the war and that he specifically asked for all Georgian citizens to be expelled"
and 2 RS ( Al Jazeera, RollingStone) argue that "He called Georgian people "rodents"."
Now you argue that this part should be removed from the article for undue weight. But we're talking about a statement of a politician, about which several international RS have spoken, that clearly says what his point of view was about an important event like the Russo-Georgian war. We are talking about a man who has become famous all over the world after the poisoning, and these are facts of his political career. Proposing to arm pro-Russian separatist groups, call for a no-flyzone and take down the Georgian Air Force, propose deporting all Georgian citizens from the Russian Federation, it's not something he said on his own while watching television, it was a precise political position, unambiguous, and it was clearly a position in favor of a form of war by Russia against Georgia, he did not ask Russia to refrain from the conflict: which is why the RS correctly reported it that way.
I repeat, I am in favor of integrating what we have found in the RS with what can be found on the primary source, Navalny's blog (which is what User:Alaexis was doing [9] and how Nicoljaus did in the beginning [10], before the part was completely deleted), so that all the passages are clear and that they cannot be misunderstood. And if you have sources claiming that later he opposes the war, well, let's add everything to the article to ensure the WP:BALASP, of course I agree with you. Instead, removing every negative aspect with the accusation of undue weight or what, is something that I consider deeply wrong, and also for the neutrality of the article and for the valuable content of these aspects. For this reason I propose for now to restore the part about the Georgia, combining the primary source with the RS. For the parts you say you have found, you can then add it to balance and give a more balanced version (if the sources are reliable).
Lastly, I point out that the whole article is very well done, there are tons of informations, the only small parts, crushed to the bottom, that receive this attack are the controversial ones, which however have RS and are very important to describe the career of the politician in question.--Mhorg (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- I see no problems with it provided the WP policies are followed (see my suggested version), that is
- 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. Alaexis¿question? 22:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Greetings, Alaexis. At first, I thought exactly like you and corrected the text in the same way as you did. But then I paid attention to the choice of sources made by Mhorg. If you clean up all the questionable blogs and private columns, there is only The Atlantic, Politico, and South China Morning Post. These are not the sources I turn to to read about Russian politics in English. I usually use the BBC, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, CNN, maybe The Guardian, Forbes. I looked at these sources - and there was no mention in any first-class media that Navalny supported the invasion of Georgia and offered to deport all ethnic Georgians. Next, I tried to look at the scholar literature about Navalny's views, and found two articles devoted to this particular moment: [11], [12]. There, too, no significance is attached to this episode. So I changed my mind, and I think this episode just doesn't belong in the article. Perhaps when Navalny becomes president of Russia and a separate article "Political Views of Navalny" appears, there will be a place for this. Perhaps if this was an article about a long-dead political figure of the past, I would not pay attention, but the requirements for articles about living persons are much stricter.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus Thanks for the explanation. I have little experience with the intricacies of the WP:BLP policy, so I can't argue about it. If we end up including it, we should be precise: Navalny explicitly did not support attacking Georgia and he did not suggest deporting ethnic Georgians (but rather citizens of Georgia) as a way to stop the Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Alaexis¿question? 08:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right about the position of Navalny. That is why serious works and authors do not pay much attention to this episode - if you describe the situation as it is, there will be no sensation and no breaking news.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, you wrote "These are not the sources I turn to to read about Russian politics in English.", so based on your tastes we decide if 3 reliable sources are truly reliable. If something is not written on your preferred RS (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, who cares about this?), we remove it. Ok, truly democratic attitude and in line with Wikipedia's policies. However, I am in favor of what Alaexis said. We just can write that part on the article and specify what Navalny really meant.--Mhorg (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Ok, truly democratic attitude and in line with Wikipedia's policies
-- Yes, my position regarding your choice of news sources is based on Wikipedia's policy: WP:NEWSORG. And your personal attacks and distortion of the opponent's views are unacceptable.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)- Nicoljaus, I have nothing against you, and maybe the discussion between us was ruined by the sockpuppet who constantly backed you up. As for the allegations of distorting the thinking of other users, I remind you that it was you first who distorted my thinking. You even avoided acknowledging that I accepted your objections to the word "ethnic" which I promptly removed from my edit. In this discussion, I have attempted mediation with you several times. You did nothing but question many RS, then you moved on with "Undue weight". You spoke of "Kremlin propaganda", you accused me of wanting to put ugly aspects on the figure of Navalny, but this is also our job, we must report the information, bad or good, concerning a political figure. Otherwise we would be curating the political campaign for the elections here on Wikipedia, and again, that's not our role. I'm sorry if it occurs to me that you want to protect the article from controversial issues at any cost. But let's start over, discuss peacefully, and also consider mediating.--Mhorg (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I still don't understand how it was possible to get the text that you made [13] from the original post on Navalny's blog, i.e. where you got the word "ethnic" from. You present the situation as if you did me a favor by dropping this word, but in less obvious matters you continue the same line of behavior.
we must report the information, bad or good, concerning a political figure
-- No, we should not "report information", especially tendentiously selecting and presenting it in the most negative way possible. We must "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". In other words, there are two ways to write an article - right and wrong. The right way is to study the most reliable sources and write an article. The wrong way is to have a ready-made fact that you need (for some reason) to insert into the article and look for sources for it, ignoring the entire ""body of reliable, published material on the subject". You follow the second path.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, I have nothing against you, and maybe the discussion between us was ruined by the sockpuppet who constantly backed you up. As for the allegations of distorting the thinking of other users, I remind you that it was you first who distorted my thinking. You even avoided acknowledging that I accepted your objections to the word "ethnic" which I promptly removed from my edit. In this discussion, I have attempted mediation with you several times. You did nothing but question many RS, then you moved on with "Undue weight". You spoke of "Kremlin propaganda", you accused me of wanting to put ugly aspects on the figure of Navalny, but this is also our job, we must report the information, bad or good, concerning a political figure. Otherwise we would be curating the political campaign for the elections here on Wikipedia, and again, that's not our role. I'm sorry if it occurs to me that you want to protect the article from controversial issues at any cost. But let's start over, discuss peacefully, and also consider mediating.--Mhorg (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus, you wrote "These are not the sources I turn to to read about Russian politics in English.", so based on your tastes we decide if 3 reliable sources are truly reliable. If something is not written on your preferred RS (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, who cares about this?), we remove it. Ok, truly democratic attitude and in line with Wikipedia's policies. However, I am in favor of what Alaexis said. We just can write that part on the article and specify what Navalny really meant.--Mhorg (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right about the position of Navalny. That is why serious works and authors do not pay much attention to this episode - if you describe the situation as it is, there will be no sensation and no breaking news.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus Thanks for the explanation. I have little experience with the intricacies of the WP:BLP policy, so I can't argue about it. If we end up including it, we should be precise: Navalny explicitly did not support attacking Georgia and he did not suggest deporting ethnic Georgians (but rather citizens of Georgia) as a way to stop the Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Alaexis¿question? 08:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Greetings, Alaexis. At first, I thought exactly like you and corrected the text in the same way as you did. But then I paid attention to the choice of sources made by Mhorg. If you clean up all the questionable blogs and private columns, there is only The Atlantic, Politico, and South China Morning Post. These are not the sources I turn to to read about Russian politics in English. I usually use the BBC, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, CNN, maybe The Guardian, Forbes. I looked at these sources - and there was no mention in any first-class media that Navalny supported the invasion of Georgia and offered to deport all ethnic Georgians. Next, I tried to look at the scholar literature about Navalny's views, and found two articles devoted to this particular moment: [11], [12]. There, too, no significance is attached to this episode. So I changed my mind, and I think this episode just doesn't belong in the article. Perhaps when Navalny becomes president of Russia and a separate article "Political Views of Navalny" appears, there will be a place for this. Perhaps if this was an article about a long-dead political figure of the past, I would not pay attention, but the requirements for articles about living persons are much stricter.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- If we want to include something about this, I think it should be based on this source because this is the only recent scholarly secondary RS which analyzes this issue in proper context. This way we can avoid WP:OR. But again, I feel this whole thing is probably "undue". My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's been 12 days since the discussion started. Taking into consideration that users Jurisdicta (at least on the war support part), PailSimon, Alaexis, OhNoitsJamie, Darkcloud2222, and I (Mhorg) agree with what the RS claim (and also considering the Kober's brilliant comment on racist slurs against Georgians [14]), considering that the contrary users are My very best wishes and Nicoljaus, I am about to reinsert the part (which was a merge between the multiple RS and the primary source) and I add the armaments to the separatist faction. If you want to insert more text later to better contextualize Navalny's position, I am certainly in favor.--Mhorg (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't misrepresent my position. I never said that Navalny supported the war and I think that no reliable sources say it as well. The current version is better than what was suggested previously but it still includes and highlights certain things that the majority of RS do not include - not because they are not true but because of due weight considerations. Alaexis¿question? 07:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry Alaexis, I saw your comment here, regarding the text as it was before it was removed: "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."
Forgive me if anyway if I misunderstood.--Mhorg (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)- It's all right. It's just that the section title is "Did he back the Russian war in Georgia or not" and it's a bit hard to understand what are the alternatives you were referring to in your 07:12, 15 February 2021 comment. Cheers. Alaexis¿question? 08:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Alaexis true, the problem is that the discussion has evolved a lot and we have talked about many things inside. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion(s). This is the text I inserted in the article:
At the start of the Russo-Georgian War in 2008, Navalny was against sending Russian troops to South Ossetia but said that Russia should put pressure on Georgia to end the war. Among his proposed measures were the arming and financing of the separatist faction, and he also proposed to deport all Georgian citizens and calling them "rodents", for which he has subsequently apologised--Mhorg (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Alaexis true, the problem is that the discussion has evolved a lot and we have talked about many things inside. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion(s). This is the text I inserted in the article:
- It's all right. It's just that the section title is "Did he back the Russian war in Georgia or not" and it's a bit hard to understand what are the alternatives you were referring to in your 07:12, 15 February 2021 comment. Cheers. Alaexis¿question? 08:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry Alaexis, I saw your comment here, regarding the text as it was before it was removed: "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.
- I strongly object. Mhorg , you have no right to sum up in your favor in a discussion where you are a supporter of the most radical point of view. This should be done by a more neutral participant.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, the most radical point of view, it was not mine, but that of all the RS who dealt with the subject that greatly simplified Navalny's position, categorizing it as a pro-Russian position (rightly so). They weren't wrong, they were just simplifying. You have already forgotten that it was me who welcomed your edit which incorporated more accurate information from the primary source. But who cares? WP:NOTLISTENING is better.--Mhorg (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please don't misrepresent my position. I never said that Navalny supported the war and I think that no reliable sources say it as well. The current version is better than what was suggested previously but it still includes and highlights certain things that the majority of RS do not include - not because they are not true but because of due weight considerations. Alaexis¿question? 07:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This war was a proxy war between US and Russia so Navalny who is financed by the NED couldnt said the truth about it.--92.74.230.42 (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mhorg and PaliSimon: Can we resume this discussion with regards to ethnic/racial slurs Navalny has used since they were mentioned above but they haven't been addressed. He referred to Georgians as "rodents"[15][16] (Global voice is a reliable source) and compared Russia’s majority-Muslim North Caucasus to "cockroaches."[17][18] All of this should be covered at Alexei Navalny#Foreign policy. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 14:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Pravega, yes, I think that part should be included. Seems quite important to me. Mhorg (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Early life and career
The request on 1 September 2021 is still not answered. 5.129.59.116 (talk) 09:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Could you be more precise on what request was made? I did a search and did not see the change you requested. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- Right above this paragraph. It is entitled "Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2021". The request has been answered, even though I disagree with the answer made by ScottishFinnishRadish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.129.59.116 (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Whitewashing of his videos
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 [19].
- 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 [20] 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)
Fanboyism
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. — Mainly 03:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, I attempted to remove this earlier but was reverted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
ties to American ngos
Why does no one mention that Navalny was given a fellowship by an NED-funded NGO in 2010 to study political activism at Yale. Is it not relevant? 2A00:1370:810C:A73:6196:EB60:528C:342C (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Navalny's current imprisonment for the past year. It should be part of the opening summary, shouldn't it? He's also currently on trial. Shouldn't that be included in the summary, also? Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Suggested edit to title of 6.2
The title of sub section 6.2 is very long - can we use the acronyms for the two organizations named (FBK and ?). 78.18.237.114 (talk) 10:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Someone removed the photo of the penal colony where Navalny is currently incarcerated from the "Family and personal life" section with the seemingly irrelevent rationale that, "(the prison colony already) has its own article."
The fact that the leader of the opposition in Russia is currently incarcerated does not need to be hidden. I have re-inserted back into the article the photo of the prison colony where Navalny currently resides. Please do not remove it again without providing a clearer rationale for its removal here.
Thanks,
Silly-boy-three (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I removed these images. In your post below (Talk:Alexei Navalny#Retention of New Party logos) you said that I did not provide "any valid reasons" "for the deletions" and "
... this is beginning to look a little more like vandalism than good faith editing.
" - That is not very nice. And I think that your description of my edits is not true. What kind of response do you expect after this? Is that how you usually start a discussion about something? Renat 11:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Now to the point:
- [21] - this is how the article looks like with the image of the colony.
- 1) WP:IMGCONTENT
- 2) MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE
- 3) MOS:SANDWICH
The fact that the leader of the opposition in Russia is currently incarcerated does not need to be hidden.
- Who told you that someone is trying to hide it? Renat 12:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- We may use the photo from this Voice of America article instead [22]. They say their content is in the public domain [23] [24]. Alaexis¿question? 18:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- This photo belongs to Agence France-Presse. We can not use it. But we can use this photo - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Navalny_zelenka_(cropped1).jpg Renat 18:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Where do you see that it belongs to France Press? The zelenka photo was made before he was imprisoned. Alaexis¿question? 19:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the lower right corner or in the upper right corner if you click on the photo. Renat 19:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yep, you're right. Alaexis¿question? 19:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- In the lower right corner or in the upper right corner if you click on the photo. Renat 19:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Where do you see that it belongs to France Press? The zelenka photo was made before he was imprisoned. Alaexis¿question? 19:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- This photo belongs to Agence France-Presse. We can not use it. But we can use this photo - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Navalny_zelenka_(cropped1).jpg Renat 18:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- We may use the photo from this Voice of America article instead [22]. They say their content is in the public domain [23] [24]. Alaexis¿question? 18:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Retention of New Party logos
The same user has removed logo for Navalny's party for the same reason that was given above. Without any discussion in advance, and without any valid reasons being provided for the deletions, this is beginning to look a little more like vandalism than good faith editing. Please stop removing images from this article that are relevant to the article's subject without first providing any advance discussion here, and also without first providing a reasonable explanation. Why does the usage of a good image elsewhere mean that it cannot be re-used in the Navalny article? Silly-boy-three (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
New article by The Sunday Times
A new biography of Navalny, by a respected source, The Sunday Times. perhaps this may be of use, hope the link works: https://apple.news/AlEQ6Oe0kTuSl1eWtFHbfGg Best wishes, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 20:30, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Foreign policy section
Navalny's general views on Russia's foreign policy are included in the Political position section, if needed it can be expanded. The Political activity part is a chronological account of his, well, activity and appending a section on foreign policy there doesn't make sense.
It was also a clear violation of NPOV. As you can see yourselves, there is not a word about Navalny's general foreign policy views and sharp criticism of the Russian government's foreign policy. It's basically the narrative pushed by Kremlin which paints Navalny as a nationalist. Alaexis¿question? 16:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Alaexis: The section was written after clear consensus on Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Did_he_back_the_Russian_war_in_Georgia_or_not?. There is no mention of his support for Georgia war, chechen war and Crimean annexation anywhere else in the article. You are wrong with saying that reliable sources like Al-Jazeera, Global Voices, etc. are on the payroll of Kremlin. Even if they were, you are still wrong because Alexei himself admits all these convictions. I have restored the section since Chechen was not fully under control of Russia until 2009 and other places like Georgia, Ukraine, are obviously foreign countries thus "Foreign policy" is the right section for all this.❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 07:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Proposed addition to "Political position" section
- @Mellk: While I agree that "Foreign policy" is not a correct heading, and I consider the RfC below to be very premature I would still like you to tell where we should inlcude the following reliably sourced content:
In 2007, Navalny presented himself as a “certified nationalist” in a pro-gun rights video wanting to exterminate Chechens Chechen rebels he referred to as “flies and cockroaches”.[1][2] In the same year, Navalny said "We have a right to be (ethnic) Russians in Russia. And we'll defend that right."[2]
In 2008, Navalny supported Russia's conflict with Georgia; he referred to Georgians as "rodents"[3][4] and also demanded the bombardment of the territory of Georgia with cruise missiles. He has later apologized for his statements on Georgia.[5]
Navalny supported the annexation of Crimea, and said "Crimea will not be able to return to Ukraine because it is not a boomerang that is being thrown here and there"
On Russian annexation of Crimea, Navalny said he would not return the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine if he had the power to do so, by saying that "Crimea will not be able to return to Ukraine because it is not a boomerang that is being thrown here and there".[6] Yet in 2022 he called for anti-war protests against the war in Ukraine.[7]
References
|
---|
References
|
It hasn't been covered anywhere else. Can I add this to Alexei_Navalny#Political_positions? ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 12:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding his nationalism, we have a paragraph in the Political positions section which discusses it. The sentence you'd like to add is not supported by your own sources: Al Jazeera says that "In a 2007 pro-gun rights video, Navalny presents himself as a “certified nationalist” who wants to exterminate “flies and cockroaches” – while bearded Muslim men appear in cutaways." He did not call for the extermination of Chechens. Here's the original video which is about legalising small arms [25]. Of course his use of ethnic stereotypes 15 years ago is rather unfortunate but it doesn't mean that this is the single most important thing to know about his foreign policy views.
- Regarding Crimea, as I wrote in my RfC vote, your sources do not say that he supported the annexation - because he didn't (see the quote from his program below)! And this is also covered in the fourth paragraph of the Political positions section. Alaexis¿question? 13:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- Again, this does not accurately portray those views. As already mentioned, there was no calling for extermination of Chechens, source there doesn't say this, you can probably find the video with translated subtitles where he does not say this at all. There is a paragraph in political positions that describes those nationalist views and how it has changed. It is also mentioned where his prisoner of conscience status was revoked and then reinstated. Because pro-Kremlin media like to use that to falsely paint him as some kind of extremist or fascist. And of course some in Ukraine and Georgia try to paint him as some kind of imperialist who is not different to Putin. Maybe Georgia war can be mentioned as he later apologized for the slur but did not reverse his other comments. Mellk (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Mhorg, Mellk, and Alaexis: Navalny was talking about Chechen Rebels as supported by cited NPR above, that "
Navalny compares Chechen rebels to "cockroaches" and suggests that a pistol is the best way to eliminate them.
" I have fixed that part above to avoid confusion. This has been also covered by academic sources.[26] - I wonder what Alaexis meant mean by "15 years ago is rather unfortunate but it doesn't mean that this is the single most important thing to know about his foreign policy views"? Are you saying we should get rid of anything related to "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" from George Wallace because he made them 20 years before he became 45th Governor of Alabama? What we know is that those remarks have been covered by several mainstream reliable sources so they should be mentioned and Navalny himself recognized saying them. It is also covered by academic sources.[27]
- Below, Alaexis hasn't addressed this source from Georgia Today but only addressed an opinion piece which is not significant anyway. Georgia Today say "
we remember most painfully this chauvinistic statement made by him at a most difficult time. Navalny had a similar stance on the occupation of Crimea. He said that “Crimea will not be able to return to Ukraine because it is not a boomerang that is being thrown here and there”.
" - See this link from Georgia Today if you can't access archive as it also supports the above. Then there is another source here from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty which also describes that he supported annexation of Crimea. Moscow Times summarizes his views as well that he "would not return the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine if he had the power to do so".[28]
- Mellk, there are a total of 3 issues that need to be mentioned with the wording I am using: 1) comments on Chechen rebels, 2) Georgia war, 3) support for the annexation of Ukraine. None of this reliably sourced content has been mentioned so far at Alexei Navalny#Political positions. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 07:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- On 1), I agree with you:
Navalny compares Chechen rebels to "cockroaches" and suggests that a pistol is the best way to eliminate them
[29] from NPR is sufficient sourcing, and this should be included. To Mellk and Alaexis, Wikipedia has a policy against original research. It is irrelevant that you have watched the video yourself and you personally believe a different interpretation is more accurate. - On 2), I also agree with you. It appears there was consensus for mentioning his support for the war in Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Did_he_back_the_Russian_war_in_Georgia_or_not?, and it agrees with what reliable sources say:
He also supported Russia in its war against Georgia in August 2008, using a derogatory term for Georgians in some of his blog posts and calling for all Georgians to be expelled from Russia
[30] This should therefore be mentioned too. - On 3), I don't think I agree with you entirely. We can include his quote "Crimea will not be able to return to Ukraine because it is not a boomerang that is being thrown here and there" or just say
he would not return the Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine if he had the power to do so
like Moscow Times, but that doesn't mean he supported the annexation in the first place. He's saying that after the annexation, it should stay in Russia's hands. - This should all go in the "political positions" sections though, I don't see a reason to split this out into a foreign policy section. Endwise (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- On 1) I agree with Pravega
- On 2) With other collegues we found 1 year ago that this was his real opinion: "At the start of the Russo-Georgian War in 2008, Navalny was against sending Russian troops to South Ossetia but said that Russia should put pressure on Georgia to end the war. Among his proposed measures were the arming and financing of the separatist faction, and he also proposed to deport all Georgian citizens and calling them "rodents", for which he has subsequently apologised" He was also "Proposing to arm pro-Russian separatist groups, call for a no-flyzone and take down the Georgian Air Force".
- On 3) I'm not so prepared on this topic... will take a look later. Mhorg (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Endwise: The initial wording was comparing Chechens (as a whole, not rebels) to cockroaches and that he called for their extermination. This was obviously incorrect, and so I mentioned the video because I am not sure where Pravega got the idea he was advocating for extermination of Chechens as this was not stated in those sources. Not to use it as a source. Mellk (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Most RS that mention this video do not say that he's referring to Chechens BBC, Al Jazeera, Salon, Washington Post. I don't know why NPR chose to interpret the video the way they did, but they are clearly in minority and per WP:DUE we are not obliged to mention their interpretation in this article. Btw the video itself is a valid source. You may want to review WP:PRIMARY.
- More generally, the problem here is WP:BALANCE. The political positions section should represent Navalny's views in their entirety and their various aspects and individual incidents should be covered in line with the weight they get in reliable sources. Consider this Who is Navalny? article at CNN. They don't mention the infamous video or ethnic slurs at all. If you think that this is covered insufficiently please provide recent overview articles which give more weight to it than the section does now. Alaexis¿question? 20:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- You don't have to say "
video do not say that he's referring to Chechens
" anymore because I have already said above that"Navalny was talking about Chechen Rebels"
. It is not for us to decide whether these "represent Navalny's views in their entirety and their various aspects", because what we know is that these views concerned some of the most important issues of Russian politics and Navalny's views got coverage from mainstream and academic sources. - Yes, there would be sources that would avoid mentioning his use of ethnic slurs, just like there are many sources that don't mention his rivalry with Russian government, but it doesn't mean that these aspects does not exist or their existence has been questioned. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 12:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV says (WP:BALASP)
- You don't have to say "
- On 1), I agree with you:
- @Mhorg, Mellk, and Alaexis: Navalny was talking about Chechen Rebels as supported by cited NPR above, that "
“ | An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. | ” |
- Navalny's nationalism and position regarding the conflict with Ukraine are covered in the article already. If we were to add what you propose the coverage of these aspects of his views would be disproportional to their overall significance.
- Also, Navalny didn't mention Chechens or Chechen rebels in the video at all. See all the sources I've provided above. Alaexis¿question? 20:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- We got Al-Jazeera, Moscow Times, NPR, Georgia Today and academic sources discussing the importance of those views, and that is enough for me. NPR source made it clear that Navalny was talking about extramination of Chechen rebels.[31] ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 05:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- You haven't engaged with the WP:BALASP argument, and insisting that he spoke about Chechen rebels when it's clear from the video itself and from the majority of the sources that discuss it that he didn't is a very WP:POINTy thing to do. I would suggest you to clarify how you would like to include the additions into the Political positions section and seek external feedback. Alaexis¿question? 10:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- We got Al-Jazeera, Moscow Times, NPR, Georgia Today and academic sources discussing the importance of those views, and that is enough for me. NPR source made it clear that Navalny was talking about extramination of Chechen rebels.[31] ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 05:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you discuss here. According to the closing below (I should say it was a very poor and hasty one), such Foreign Policy section simply should not exist, so debating what should be included to such section is meaningless. If you guys want to suggest something else, please open new section and properly title it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody is talking about adding the relevant content to "Foreign policy" section anymore, but inclusion of the content to the section of "Political positions". ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 12:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- If so, then one needs to start new thread entitled "Political positions" and suggest specific changes in such thread. I do not see clear, specific and justified suggestions above. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Created. So far everyone has agreed with my proposed changes (with modifications which I implied) except Alaexis. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 05:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- I said new section. Modifying old section on a different subject I think just created a mess. However, if you are talking about your text starting from "In 2007...", then no. This is already briefly summarized on the page, to begin with. Making this that very old stuff much bigger is clearly undue. This section could be expanded by including something more recent about his views on Russian nationalism, i.e. after 2013. I just made it separate for convenience [32]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Entire article makes no mention of Chechen rebels, so no it is not "already briefly summarized on the page". Georgia war also lacks any mention. These things have nothing to do with "Russian nationalism", but "Political position" where they need to be covered. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 03:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with Alaexis above who said "Of course his use of ethnic stereotypes 15 years ago is rather unfortunate but it doesn't mean that this is the single most important thing to know about his foreign policy views.". This is the essence of it. I will also add that all his political views are barely significant except those which are related to corruption in Russia (he is an anti-corruption activist), his videos and elections (he is also well know for "smart voting"), etc. He does not influence foreign policy of Russia. Something like international sanctions against Russian officials? Yes, sure, what he thinks about it can be noted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- You have overlooked my response, which was: "Are you saying we should get rid of anything related to "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" from George Wallace because he made them 20 years before he became 45th Governor of Alabama? What we know is that those remarks have been covered by several mainstream reliable sources so they should be mentioned and Navalny himself recognized saying them."
- If a political view is not noted by reliable sources outside the territory of WP:RECENTISM then it needs to be covered and that is the case here. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 09:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've been saying this for a year now. Justifying removals of text on his political positions because he said those things 15 years ago makes no sense. What he argued long time ago deserves to be written in the encyclopedia, more than his recent thought. Mhorg (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- But he is not Wallace. And this is not just because of timing. I think your suggested changes [33] have been already rejected at the RfC below. My very best wishes (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- No we are not going to have a different set of policies for every individual. Your senseless message does not stop here, because RfC has been rejected for failing to discuss the matter before getting initiated and was misleading contributors through misrepresentation of sources which I accurately explained in my message. If you valued your make-believe result of the RfC so much then you won't be making several messages above. Now that you have realized that your position is indefensible, you are engaging in WP:STONEWALLING. To assess the consensus carefully, there was consensus 1 year ago to keep the content about Georgia that hasn't been overturned. The text I proposed above has been accepted by Endwise, Mhorg, while Mellk appeared to be opposed to mention of "Chechens" but hasn't opposed the mention of "Chechen rebels" and only 2, including you and Alaexis have opposed the text by citing non-policy based justifications. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 06:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Am I right that you propose to add the three sentences at the beginning of this subsection to the Political positions section of the article? I oppose it on WP:BALASP grounds and also due to factual inaccuracies which I've mentioned before. As the discussion doesn't seem to be productive, I think that the best option is to request third-party feedback again. Alaexis¿question? 08:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- No we are not going to have a different set of policies for every individual. Your senseless message does not stop here, because RfC has been rejected for failing to discuss the matter before getting initiated and was misleading contributors through misrepresentation of sources which I accurately explained in my message. If you valued your make-believe result of the RfC so much then you won't be making several messages above. Now that you have realized that your position is indefensible, you are engaging in WP:STONEWALLING. To assess the consensus carefully, there was consensus 1 year ago to keep the content about Georgia that hasn't been overturned. The text I proposed above has been accepted by Endwise, Mhorg, while Mellk appeared to be opposed to mention of "Chechens" but hasn't opposed the mention of "Chechen rebels" and only 2, including you and Alaexis have opposed the text by citing non-policy based justifications. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 06:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- But he is not Wallace. And this is not just because of timing. I think your suggested changes [33] have been already rejected at the RfC below. My very best wishes (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've been saying this for a year now. Justifying removals of text on his political positions because he said those things 15 years ago makes no sense. What he argued long time ago deserves to be written in the encyclopedia, more than his recent thought. Mhorg (talk) 09:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I agree with Alaexis above who said "Of course his use of ethnic stereotypes 15 years ago is rather unfortunate but it doesn't mean that this is the single most important thing to know about his foreign policy views.". This is the essence of it. I will also add that all his political views are barely significant except those which are related to corruption in Russia (he is an anti-corruption activist), his videos and elections (he is also well know for "smart voting"), etc. He does not influence foreign policy of Russia. Something like international sanctions against Russian officials? Yes, sure, what he thinks about it can be noted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Entire article makes no mention of Chechen rebels, so no it is not "already briefly summarized on the page". Georgia war also lacks any mention. These things have nothing to do with "Russian nationalism", but "Political position" where they need to be covered. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 03:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- I said new section. Modifying old section on a different subject I think just created a mess. However, if you are talking about your text starting from "In 2007...", then no. This is already briefly summarized on the page, to begin with. Making this that very old stuff much bigger is clearly undue. This section could be expanded by including something more recent about his views on Russian nationalism, i.e. after 2013. I just made it separate for convenience [32]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Created. So far everyone has agreed with my proposed changes (with modifications which I implied) except Alaexis. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 05:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- If so, then one needs to start new thread entitled "Political positions" and suggest specific changes in such thread. I do not see clear, specific and justified suggestions above. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody is talking about adding the relevant content to "Foreign policy" section anymore, but inclusion of the content to the section of "Political positions". ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 12:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
No, my proposed content is not going to be added as first 3 paragraphs at the "political positions" section but it would be added chronologically. "WP:BALASP" is irrelevant because I have shown that academic sources also cover these sentences because they are a significant part of the subject's biography. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 11:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Once again, your suggested changes [34] have been already rejected at the RfC below. This discussion thread was started prior to the RfC to discuss it. Why discuss it now? Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- See WP:IDHT. I have already told you that the RfC was rejected over technical failure of lacking any discussion necessary before RfC. If you valued your make-believe result of the RfC so much then you won't be making several messages above. What I proposed above has been accepted by Endwise, Mhorg, while Mellk also showed no objection. You shouldn't be misrepresenting RfC just because you are not getting consensus for your edits.❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 05:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
RfC on Foreign Policy section
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should the recently added Foreign policy section
- A be removed
- B stay as is
- C be merged with the Political Positions section (please elaborate what should be retained)
- D other (please elaborate)
Alaexis¿question? 20:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Survey
Option A, due to WP:V, WP:NPOV issues and the duplication of information in the Political positions section
- WP:V: the misrepresentation of sources
- This article is one of the references for Navalny's supposed support of the annexation of Crimea. It says no such thing ("While acknowledging that Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 violated international law, Navalny has only gone so far as to call for a second popular referendum on the peninsula’s status").
- This is another reference for the same statement. While critical of Navalny it does not say he supported the annexation.
- WP:NPOV
- It contains a few cherry-picked statements and completely ignores his actual foreign policy views ("Make welfare of Russia and its citizens the primary goal of foreign policy, which will make our economy more competitive. Only economic solvency can guarantee Russia the status of a great and independent nation in the modern world. Among key measures to achieve these goals are: reducing tensions in the relationships with EU, USA and Ukraine, legitimately solving Crimea's issue in favor of the local population, fulfilling Russia's obligations under signed agreements, refusing to support dictatorships untenable regimes, introducing visa regime for the countries of Middle Asia and removing it for developed countries and countries of the EU.")
- It's a POV fork of the Political positions section which already describes his foreign policy views and discusses Navalny's nationalism
- It's well known that Navalny as a nationalist trope has been used by Kremlin-associated media.
Probably it's possible to salvage something from it but considering that the Political positions section already covers this, and in view of the multiple less blatant issues (such as editorializing and unclear scope) it's better to use WP:TNT. Alaexis¿question? 20:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Option A, as explained it is POV especially the text Navalny's views about their neighbors are not always different than Putin's
and very much misrepresents his views. I have removed it for now since it is one editor who added it and restored it. Mellk (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- If you are talking about me, then it is wrong. I never wrote that part. I only wrote this. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 08:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Option A - Blatant WP:NPOV issues. I can't see any scenario in which "X politician is actually not that different from Y politician, really makes you think, eh?" type content would ever be acceptable in an encyclopedia. The fact that much of the info is either duplicated or misrepresented only adds to this. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Option A. First of all, this is a misinterpretation of sources. "Navalny's views about their neighbors are not always different than Putin's... [ref]"? Source does not say it at all. Secondly, this is a partial duplication of content in section "Political positions". Third, this is a POV problem. Why very old comments by N. should be described in such great detail and be framed so negatively? To disparage the subject? This is also the reason some parts of "Political positions" must be shortened. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Bad RfC This RfC fails the requirement of the necessary discussion before initiating the RfC as clear from the history that there was almost ZERO discussion regarding the content in question.
Those who are grasping at straws by supporting the removal of the entire section just because of the sentence "Navalny's views about their neighbors are not always different than Putin's" are not understanding that the section involves just more details than this.
OP is misrepresenting the source the Georgia Today by falsely claiming that "While critical of Navalny it does not say he supported the annexation
" when the source clearly says that " we remember most painfully this chauvinistic statement made by him at a most difficult time. Navalny had a similar stance on the occupation of Crimea. He said that “Crimea will not be able to return to Ukraine because it is not a boomerang that is being thrown here and there”.
[35]
Then OP is falsely claiming that "contains a few cherry-picked statements and completely ignores his actual foreign policy views
" and what is their source? 2018.Navalny.com? Anybody with understanding of WP:RS and WP:VERIFY won't ever resort to primary source that emerged years later to dispute third party sources.
It is even more irrelevant to cite a 2021 Guardian source to discard the information from mainstream reliable sources.
It is undeniable that Navalny has so far supported: 1) Extermination of Chechen rebels and called them coackroaches,[36][37] 2) supported war on Georgia and called Georgians "rodents",[38][39][40] 3) supported Crimea to be a part of Russia.[41][42]
This needs to be covered at Alexei_Navalny#Political_positions, because there is no justification for the blanket content removal.
This is why I suggest closing this RfC and continuing the discussion above. RfC process must be used only when the usual methods to resolve the content dispute have failed. ❯❯❯Pravega g=9.8 08:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Discussion
- [43] - please do not reinsert content rejected at the RFC above. Thanks. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
BLP please
According to WP:BLP, see Restoring_deleted_content, "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.". I am talking about these two edits: [44] and [45]. You guys need WP:Consensus to include. There is no such consensus to include, as pretty much obvious from old [46] and more recent discussions.
- First edit/diff above is currently under RfC above. Speaking on the second edit/diff, this content can be referenced, but the summary is improperly framed as a highly biased presentation through selective citation, and it is undue on the page. It is more than enough to say that Navalny "released several anti-immigration videos" in 2007 and "sympathised with the anti-immigration movement" during a period of time as included in this version [47]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Re to this (edit summary). If to read the BLP policy (link above), it does not say anything about stable or unstable versions. It only tells that any BLP content challenged on good-faith grounds can be reinserted only based on WP:CONSENSUS. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- You have already attempted to remove[48] those parts in 12 February 2021. That part of the text was accepted and stayed in the article for more than a year. Why delete it all again now? Do we have to repeat this discussion every year? Mhorg (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, that specific text about "cockroaches" in your diff did not stay for a year, or at least it is not included in the current version of the page. But my point is different: are you going to respect BLP rules as cited above? My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- In my diff there is also the dentist part, the part that you already deleted the 12 February 2021. I think you cannot make "delete with good-faith BLP objections" of thee same stuff every year. Instead, about the new text of "Pravega" we can discuss it here in the tp, of course. Mhorg (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for self-reverting. Please keep in mind that Navalny is only a famous anti-corruption activist. He is not a president, and the chances for him to became a president are essentially zero. Therefore, all his general "political views" on big subjects like Crimea (which would be entirely appropriate on pages like Zelensky) are of very little "weight" for this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- In my diff there is also the dentist part, the part that you already deleted the 12 February 2021. I think you cannot make "delete with good-faith BLP objections" of thee same stuff every year. Instead, about the new text of "Pravega" we can discuss it here in the tp, of course. Mhorg (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- No, that specific text about "cockroaches" in your diff did not stay for a year, or at least it is not included in the current version of the page. But my point is different: are you going to respect BLP rules as cited above? My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- You have already attempted to remove[48] those parts in 12 February 2021. That part of the text was accepted and stayed in the article for more than a year. Why delete it all again now? Do we have to repeat this discussion every year? Mhorg (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Once again, there is no consensus to include this, which should be obvious after looking at discussions on this talk page above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, no one has talked about these changes. It had been the stable version for over a year. You are removing all the negative (sourced) aspects about the character, like you did one year ago. Mhorg (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did not you read the link to WP:BLP on the top of this thread? It says: the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. I removed it based on good-faith BLP objections, as an outdated defamatory material undue on this very long page. I am not removing all negative aspects, but only excessive quotations and details. I am leaving info that he made several anti-immigration postings 15 years ago. And this is not only me. Another contributor also recently argued this is undue. In addition, the rejected RfC above was on a similar issue/suggestion (i.e. including wording about "rodents", etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Am I wrong here? I can see two problems with including this [49]. First, is it proper summary of cited sources? Of course one can easily find most damaging quotations in sources and throw them on the page, but this is not what we suppose to do. Secondly, why something he said 15 years ago would be due in such details on this very long page? My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- First-class sources have given extensive media coverage to these scandalous cases. There was evidently a reason of public interest and importance of these events. And, yes, you already tried to remove this stuff 1 year ago. Now you are starting over as if nothing had happened. The fact that it happened 15 years ago means nothing, it's part of Navalny's story (also the fact that he never regretted posting those videos... which you removed from the article). Mhorg (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I find "but according to Leonid Volkov, who runs the political-organising part of Navalny's organisation, Navalny has expressed regret..." to be very fishy. Someone saying that someone said something? Drmies (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- This does appear in the ref [50]: But Leonid Volkov, who heads Navalny's network of regional political offices in Russia, told The New Yorker earlier this month that Navalny continues to advocate dialogue with Russia's nationalists, and while he regrets the 2007 video about deporting migrants he hasn't deleted it from YouTube "because it's a historical fact. But including this has two problems I just noted above:
- This is just a selective qoutation, not a proper summary of the source, because the source say just after the text above: The ultimate aim for Navalny, Volkov suggested, is for opposition to Putin in Russia to achieve critical mass."He believes that if you don't talk to the kind of people who attend these marches, they will all become skinheads," Volkov said. "But, if you talk to them, you may be able to convince them that their real enemy is Putin." So that is the essence of this.
- Why this opinion of Volkov should at all be included on the page? This is a very large page, and this is something insignificant. However, if we do consider this significant (I do not think so), then we must either cite this completely or make proper summary per #1. My very best wishes (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, no one has talked about these changes. It had been the stable version for over a year. You are removing all the negative (sourced) aspects about the character, like you did one year ago. Mhorg (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
MVBW is completely correct that with BLP issues, material should not be undeleted with a consensus for inclusion, but I am not clear what the BLP objection is here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking about this edit [51], first of all, I believe this is including undue details to disparage living person. Like I said just above, one can easily find most damaging quotations in sources about a person and throw them on the page, but this is not what we suppose to do. Secondly, as also explained above (see example with quotation of Volkov), this is not a proper summary of the issue as described in the source, but selective quotation, once again, to present the person in a negative light. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- But whatever. If no one else thinks that was a BLP problem, let it stay. My very best wishes (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Poor source
I made a few small changes (all content is there), but excluded one source in the process [53], that one [54]. This is an article in Moskovskij Komsomolets. First, this is not a great source. Second, it does not mention Navalny, not a single word about him. Please do not restore it. My very best wishes (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- That source explains what the 2013 Biryulyovo riots were about, also BBC talked about that.[55] Then there is the part about Navalny's opinion on this matter. You are removing the context of that part of the text. Please restore that part. Mhorg (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- But this BBC article does not even mention Navalny, just as article in Moskovskij Komsomolets. At the very least, it is not needed to support anything. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- You removed the first part, the context of Navalny's statement:
In 2013, after ethnic riots in a Moscow district took place, which were sparked by a murder committed by a migrant,[56] Navalny sympathised with the anti-immigration movement and commented that ethnic tensions and crimes are inevitable because of failing immigration policies by the state.[57]
- That part is also in the same article in The Nation: "Biryulyovo was no different. On October 10, Yegor Shcherbakov, 25, was stabbed to death, allegedly by a Caucasian."
- Please revert. Mhorg (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I left info in the page that "Navalny sympathised with the anti-immigration movement and commented that ethnic tensions and crimes are inevitable because of failing immigration policies by the state". That is sourced, and it was not only on one occasion that he "sympathized with the anti-immigration movement". As was written, this seems to imply that he "sympathized with the anti-immigration movement" only after the riots. That is not supported by cited sources, and the first cited source does not even mention Navalny (see above). Why should I revert? My very best wishes (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- But this BBC article does not even mention Navalny, just as article in Moskovskij Komsomolets. At the very least, it is not needed to support anything. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2022
Navalnyi is currently, in June, 2022 housed in the IK-6 penal colony.[58]. Please edit. Qprstuw (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Removal of information in "On Russian nationalism" section
@My very best wishes, why was the content I put in the "On Russian nationalism" section removed? The claim that it was against RfC on Foreign Policy section is not correct; it is neither WP:V (it does not twist the meaning of sources), nor is it WP:NPOV (the information is from Carnegie Endowment, a pro-democracy think tank, Navalny's own LiveJournal, and Echo of Moscow, a source which has, in fact, been targeted by the Russian government due to its refusal to bend). It's also not a duplication of information found elsewhere in the article.
The argument that it's POV is, in my view, not truthful, given the words were written by Navalny himself (in one of the two Echo of Moscow pieces and his LiveJournal). Furthermore, I would argue that they are not irrelevant, given they were cited by Amnesty International in their removal of his status as a prisoner of conscience (see here), though they eventually restored it (see here). Given the statements have been noted both during Navalny's mayoral campaign (see the Echo of Moscow articles in my edit) and his imprisonment, I fail to see how it's anything but NPOV - in fact, should we not show both the good (anti-authoritarian) and bad (racially-charged statements) of Navalny's politics? Mupper-san (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The text suggested at the RfC [59] included the following: In 2008, Navalny supported Russia's conflict with Georgia; he referred to Georgians as "rodents" and so on. Text that you suggested [60] included the same: In 2008, Navalny also supported Russian forces in the Russo-Georgian War, referring to Georgians as rodents and calling to "expel[...] all Georgian citizens on our territory[.]" on his LiveJournal page. Moreover, the corresponding section of the page [61] already describes his anti-immigration stance in the past. Why repeat this several times? This is one of the reasons I object to this inclusion. Others can be found at the RfC [62]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also what you refer to above (with regard to Mayoral elections, etc.) are blogs. They are not RS or at best WP:PRIMARY or WP:SPS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Should the story with Amnesty be included here is a different question. That was not in the RfC - I agree. But it is already included in the page - in this section [63]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- However, a part of that content can be included and reliably sourced, so I just placed it back [64]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- To begin, I want to make clear that I intend to reply to all posts in this reply, rather than individually.
- On immigration: the part I included, at least, was not specifically in regard to Georgian immigrants to Russia, but rather Georgia as a country versus Russia during the 2008 war, and Georgians as an ethnicity. Therefore, I wouldn't call it repetition. If I did include a part about immigrants, then I apologise and agree that that part does not warrant inclusion as it's repetitive.
- On the fact that it's blogs: that is indeed true, but I would argue that there is a difference in this case from a typical blog, as Navalny not only felt that it was significant enough to warrant a response (in the EM posts), but in fact made reference to the remarks on Georgians himself, saying he partially regretted it. On the LiveJournal one, I'd say it constitutes a RS as it's not necessarily making a statement on the matter, but rather using it as evidence that he indeed said such things.
- On the Amnesty matter: I think the two matters compliment one another. Amnesty's reference to his racially-charged comments was vague, and thus could refer to his anti-immigrant rhetoric or his comments on Georgians, but I think that, as I've outlined my views on upwards of here, it's relevant enough to include.
- On the partial restoration of content: yes, I believe it includes most of the content fairly well. The matter I remain concerned about, however, is his incendiary remarks on ethnic Georgians, which I would say does not necessarily fall under his past anti-migrant rhetoric. However, if I missed something in his LiveJournal post where he notes that he's talking specifically about Georgian immigrants, I apologise.
- Mupper-san (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, just to be brief, I think the info you want to be included (about his veiws on war in Georgia) can be included, and I did just that [65]. The rest should not be included as just rejected in the RfC, and no, I can not agree that blogs can be used here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, per WP:ABOUTSELF, is it not acceptable? At least the LiveJournal post by Navalny stating he views Georgians as rodents, and the subsequent recanting on Echo of Moscow - I can agree that the Yabloko blog post does not necessarily need to be included, especially given the conflict between the party and himself. I'd certainly argue his remarks were relevant, as they've been referenced by New Statesman, The Atlantic, and Al Jazeera, and though it must be noted that he partially recanted the statement in which he both called for supporting South Ossetia and referred to Georgians as rodents, he did say "All else, I agree with" (or something along those lines, I don't recall what exactly he wrote) besides what he explicitly outlined. I would argue that, as it's a primary source expressing his own views, it falls under WP:ABOUTSELF and is therefore acceptable to be included per Wikipedia's policy.
- Mupper-san (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, these sources are acceptable, but such wording was rejected at the RfC on this page (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see anything in the RfC specifically relating to Georgians other than a singular mention by Pravega. The section is about the general usage of details being unverified from their respective sources. Given the fact that his anti-Georgian remarks (which were but one part of the RfC, which was primarily focused on the claim that Navalny's views had little difference from Putin's and that he supported the invasion of Crimea) have been mentioned by the sources I showed above, I don't think it's cherry-picking - it has come back to haunt him, unlike his statements on desiring a second referendum on Crimea, which have not been regarded as significantly nor have they come up to such an extent where he has apologised them.
- I believe it is important that we show negative parts of his past when relevant, while at the same time explicitly mentioning that he has apologised for them and not going so far as to imply that he is the same as or worse than Putin.
- I don't believe it's sufficiently discussed in particular by the RfC, and I would say that this in particular furthers NPOV (as it isn't cherry-picking or demonstrably biased), is verified by a primary source, does not repeat information shown earlier in the article, and is, unlike the removed writing on Crimea and Chechnya, clearly sourced - though it absolutely must be noted, if included, that he apologised for these remarks.
- Mupper-san (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is 3rd paragraph in the text proposed and rejected in the RfC [66]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- In the RfC itself, it was only mentioned once, and by Pravega contesting the RfC. The topic of debate was whether the content was NPOV and, and it was concluded that it generally wasn't - something which I agree with wholeheartedly. But the matter of his remarks on Georgians, in my view, is something which must be separated. The issues which were brought up in the RfC were his comments on the annexation of Crimea, the fact that text did not match its sources, and the (frankly ludicrous) claim that he is similar to Putin. These were cases which are cherry-picking, cases which are not discussed - because they are misrepresentations and not truthful.
- His past anti-Georgian statements, on the other hand, are well-documented, verifiable, not based on a misrepresentation of sources, and NPOV. I do not believe it is POV to explain the actual truth behind a commonly-noted part of his past: that he did, in fact, say this, but later apologised for such remarks. In short, I believe that this matter in particular didn't receive sufficient discussion on the RfC, and is much less biased and much more reasonable, if not necessary, to include than the previous information, so as to properly explain the truth behind these remarks.
- Mupper-san (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, all content under this RfC was well sourced. The problem is it has been constructed (including 3rd paragraph) in such way to disparage Navalny. My very best wishes (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I mean that the text was worded in a way that it did not properly match the sources, for example the claim that he supported the annexation of Crimea. And yes, I completely agree that the way it was written was disparaging towards Navalny. This is part of why I think the full truth of his remarks on Georgians must be clarified; so that people do not read about his anti-Georgian remarks in the past and believe he still holds them. The truth must be stated in a way that adequately expresses no bias, and it must not be that these remarks are laid out in detail, but rather that it is clearly shown he has apologised and no longer believes these remarks.
- Mupper-san (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, all content under this RfC was well sourced. The problem is it has been constructed (including 3rd paragraph) in such way to disparage Navalny. My very best wishes (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is 3rd paragraph in the text proposed and rejected in the RfC [66]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, these sources are acceptable, but such wording was rejected at the RfC on this page (see above). My very best wishes (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, just to be brief, I think the info you want to be included (about his veiws on war in Georgia) can be included, and I did just that [65]. The rest should not be included as just rejected in the RfC, and no, I can not agree that blogs can be used here. My very best wishes (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)