Talk:Alexei Navalny/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

No Mention of Navalny's Current Imprisonment

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)

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)

Retention of photo of prison where Navalny is currently incarcerated

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:

[1] - 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 [2]. They say their content is in the public domain [3] [4]. 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)

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)

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 [5]. 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)

No, I'm saying that you should follow the rules of Wikipedia, in particular the WP:WEIGHT. A huge number of leading media outlets have written about Navalny, but I don't see that the interpretation you insist on has been widespread.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:33, 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: [6]. As I see, here is infinished discussion for GlobalVoices.org on RSN: [7] 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)

To avoid misunderstandings and interpretations, we can simply report the measures proposed by Navalny on his own blog during the Russo-Georgian war. We cannot simply pretending that nothing happened.--Mhorg (talk) 10:07, 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 [8]. 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)

As I said earlier: "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) 10:34, 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: [9]. 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 [10]. 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)

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)

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.

— [11]

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 [12]. 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 [13] and how Nicoljaus did in the beginning [14], 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: [15], [16]. 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 [17] 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)

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)

What actually is the point of including this stuff? The point of his page is not to list every good/bad thing he's ever done. Beanom (talk) 16:39, 11 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 [18]), 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)

• 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)

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"[19][20] (Global voice is a reliable source) and compared Russia’s majority-Muslim North Caucasus to "cockroaches."[21][22] 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)

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.

Closing this early per WP:SNOW/WP:BURO. Discussion should continue in Talk:Alexei Navalny#Foreign policy section before resorting to an RfC, and it is eminently clear that this RfC was not going to resolve in favour of keeping the text as it was written. Endwise (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

---

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

1. WP:V: the misrepresentation of sources
   1. 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").
   2. This is another reference for the same statement. While critical of Navalny it does not say he supported the annexation.
2. WP:NPOV
   1. 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.")
   2. It's a POV fork of the Political positions section which already describes his foreign policy views and discusses Navalny's nationalism
   3. 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”.[23]

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,[24][25] 2) supported war on Georgia and called Georgians "rodents",[26][27][28] 3) supported Crimea to be a part of Russia.[29][30]

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• [31] - please do not reinsert content rejected at the RFC above. Thanks. My very best wishes (talk) 02:21, 28 May 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)

He is not been in office so it is strange to have such a section here. It also misrepresents his views. Mellk (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, and I have already said this for a year ago, the only part to add would be "called them 'rodents' (grizuni)", referring to Georgians. It has been talked about in the media and it is quite a remarkable fact. Mhorg (talk) 09:12, 17 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”. In the same year, Navalny said "We have a right to be (ethnic) Russians in Russia. And we'll defend that right."

In 2008, Navalny supported Russia's conflict with Georgia; he referred to Georgians as "rodents" and also demanded the bombardment of the territory of Georgia with cruise missiles. He has later apologized for his statements on Georgia.

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". Yet in 2022 he called for anti-war protests against the war in Ukraine.

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 [32]. 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.[33]

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.[34]

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".[35]

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[36] 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[37] 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)

“ 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.[38] ❯❯❯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)

• 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 [39]. 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 [40] 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, 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 [41] 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)

Pravega, at this point I think you can add the parts where you got consensus. Mhorg (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Poor source

I made a few small changes (all content is there), but excluded one source in the process [42], that one [43]. 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.[44] 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,[45] Navalny sympathised with the anti-immigration movement and commented that ethnic tensions and crimes are inevitable because of failing immigration policies by the state.[46]

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)

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: [47] and [48]. You guys need WP:Consensus to include. There is no such consensus to include, as pretty much obvious from old [49] 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 [50]. 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[51] 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)

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 [52]. 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 [53]: 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:

1. 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.
2. 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)

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 [54], 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)

Contrary to what you claim, recent reliable sources\perennial sources from 2022[55] continue to speak in detail about his past. I'd say it's time to stop this whitewashing. Mhorg (talk) 09:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes "whitewashing" is the correct word here. Just like Bob, I don't see where exactly "BLP" has been violated.❯❯❯Pravega ^g=9.8 12:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2022

Navalnyi is currently, in June, 2022 housed in the IK-6 penal colony.[56]. Please edit. Qprstuw (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Done Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  The last sentence of the introduction is still "In June 2022, Navalny disappeared after being allegedly transferred to another prison with his whereabouts unknown." Pendragon (talk) 15:14, 18 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 [57] 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 [58] 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 [59] 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 [60]. 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 [61]. 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 [62]. 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 [63]. 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 [64]. 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)

Xenophobic past

Wow. Noticed that every single part of Navalny's rich history of racism, has been thoroughly and completely censored from the article multiple times. It doesn't change the fact that as an encyclopaedia, you cannot just omit anything negative especially of politicians. On BBC, Amnesty International stripped the Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny of his "prisoner of conscience" status because of his xenophobic comments that he has made in the past and has not renounced. Stuff like calling Muslims as cockroaches that needs pest extermination or referring to non white immigrants as teeth cavities ruining his country. These are verified need-to-know facts that shouldn't be hidden away. People obviously only censor it because they know it's messed up and don't want people to be aware of his history. Which is against NPOV. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56181084 49.179.71.19 (talk) 08:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You are behind. Amnesty reinstated the prisoner of conscience status because of pro-Kremlin campaign against him (and other people like Kazbek). 2000s stuff he is not notable for. I do think there should be a bit more in the article about it and some other things as there was media attention on it, also Ukrainians keep shitting on him over "buterbrod" comment (well it is twisted for anti-Russian purposes but whatever), but previous attempts have misrepresented what is said in RS and also pushed a POV. Mellk (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

His far right past has been covered in reliable sources. See for example, "Has Alexey Navalny moved on from his nationalist past?" in Al Jazeera

The article should mention his far right activism, at least in the early life section and mention that he has disowned it. Based on coverage in sources, it does not warrant extensive emphasis in this article. I had been unaware of it, although it doesn't surprise me, so thanks for bringing it up.

TFD (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The Yabloko section already mentions Russian march, NAROD, etc. Mellk (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The Yabloko section says he was thrown out of the party for demanding the president's resignation, but the cited source doesn't say that at all, only that if was for harming the party and nationalist activities. Has that been cleaned up as well? Messlo (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop the whitewash!

A lot of editors try to delete/minimize the description of Navalny radical nationalist views! Stop this by reinstating the information with citations. 2A02:8108:1640:5282:6501:C80F:15EC:EADD (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

He is a nationalist

Add the Information about him being a nationalist. 2A02:3030:809:C854:1:0:A798:E00 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The information is in the article. Ymblanter (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Membership in "Rodina"

He was part of the Rodina (political party) coalition in 2013. 2A02:3030:817:84EF:1:0:6BEE:57CA (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Add a Criminal information section.

Criminal status Incarcerated since XXX

Criminal charge XXX Date apprehended XXX Imprisoned at XXX 79.116.5.34 (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This would probably be a violation of BLP and NPOV. Mellk (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of people with criminal status in here. It's factual information, he is incarcerated and he is in custody in a colony. So don't get the Npov part. People may not agree on the fairness but it doesn't change the fact. 79.116.122.153 (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you propose to add? The article already describes the charges and the dates of imprisonment. Alaexis_¿question? 12:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Has the ECHR also ruled that those other people were convicted unfairly? Mellk (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a status: Incarcerated to the infobox. It makes sense, and the information is quicker to find. What are the reasons this isn't in the infobox? Opok2021 (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Parenthetical in the lead

Why is the statement "(who avoids referring directly to Navalny by name)" in the first paragraph of the lead? It breaks the flow of the paragraph and doesn't seem relevant in the first paragraph in the place where it's mentioned. Imzadi23 (talk) 11:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Where would you move it to? Alaexis_¿question? 14:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Should add "Political Prisoner" to the lede

you can say "Alleged Political Prisoner" instead if neutral POV is relevant here. Stuffmaster1000 (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Alaexis_¿question? 07:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Latest Prison location

Latest Prison location details on Russian wiki here: IK-3. Yadsalohcin (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

And now here: FKU IK-3, Kharp. Yadsalohcin (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2024

Change “navalny is” to “Navalny was”, Russian state penetentiary announced his death. 2601:98A:D82:BE0:3125:D7D0:F57B:85B8 (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done seemingly. There may be a few stray "is"es, but the one in the lead is changed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

New article created Death of Alexei Navalny

A new article created recently may be of interest, and has been linked to in the "Death" section - Death of Alexei Navalny. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Please correct the obviously wrong date?

> On 27 January 2021, Navalny was again arrested as he was returning to Russia

It was 17 January 2021, exactly 3 years ago, as even indirectly mentioned elsewhere in the page. How do such obvious typos make it through? 185.147.238.3 (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. FPTI (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

2 Death Sections

One of them should be removed but i am not sure which one should be the one. Multiverse Union (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Death

Unless this article has access first-hand accounts, might not the statement read: According to unconfirmed reports, prior to his death, Navalny had been treated in hospital after complaining of malnourishment and other ailments "due to mistreatment in the prison"? 95.147.153.118 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Voice sample

I propose changing the sample of Navalny´s voice to the recording of his statement of encouragement to the Russian people that plays at the end of Navalny the documentary. Timmytim6912 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

It depends on whether the voice sample you mention is protected by copyright. If it is, it can’t be uploaded to Wikipedia. Slamforeman (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No mention of Chechen cockroaches?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's not credible that there is no mention of Navalny's comment about Chechen cockroaches. In the context of Putin's brutal war against Chechens and especially Navalynys recent conversion to anti Russian imperialism, it is highly significant. Furthermore, though the comments are old, Amnesty International removed Navalny from its list of prisoners of conscience recently (2021?) on the basis of these statements. It is ridiculous that the article would not mention a highly credible international human rights organisation like Amnesty. My comment is not about Navalny, its about wikipedia. This article looks like it has been written by PR people close to Navalny. It reinforces the global image of wikipedia as absolutely unreliable on major political topics, especially where US interests are involved. The purpose of wikipedia is to provide fair factual information, not to add to the sea of propaganda on social media. This article falls far below that standard. Felimy (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manual of Style

In the Death section, there is some issues with MOS:SANDWICH, as there is quite a few images sandwiching the text in. I presume this will be fixed as more information becomes available, but, just a little think to take into account for any editors. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 14:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Day of death probably wrong

see https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/02/17/neponiatnyi-kipezh-nachalsia-eshche-vecherom-15-fevralia / https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/02/18/a-mysterious-commotion-en and https://t.me/NetGulagu/6772 Jhartmann (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I heard that too on YouTube, an WP:EXPLNOTE can be added to the death date in the lead and infobox. Brandmeister^talk 22:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Sentences" or "convictions"?

This article says "The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) later ruled that the cases violated Navalny's right to a fair trial, but the sentences were never overturned."

If it's about a right to a fair trial, shouldn't this be about whether the convictions were overturned, rather than whether the sentences were overturned? Overturning the sentence, as opposed to overturning the conviction, would mean leaving the verdict of guilt intact but deciding that the punishment to which he was sentenced was wrong, so that he might be sentenced to some different punishment, or perhaps to no punishment but still have a criminal record. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

He was "convicted" by a Kangaroo court. Therefore, "sentenced" is better. My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Removed unsourced paragraph

I removed the following paragraph because it had two sourcing problems: "In early 2012, Navalny stated on Ukrainian TV, "Russian foreign policy should be maximally directed at integration with Ukraine and Belarus ... In fact, we are one nation. We should enhance integration". During the same broadcast Navalny said "No one wants to make an attempt to limit Ukraine's sovereignty"."

The Eastbook source is defunct. The other source is in Russian and provides no verifiable origin for the claim. It doesn't say when it was broadcast, on what channel or station, on what program, etc. Siberian Husky (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC) Siberian Husky (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I reinstated the section because both sources are still available in their archived versions. The section should stay until a consensus on the quality of the sources is reached. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

One could add the Washington Post for reliability: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/27/navalny-ukraine-putin-russia/ Nakonana (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There are other sources that reference those or similar remarks. If I remember correctly:

- Alexei Navalny: a genuine alternative to Vladimir Putin? https://www.ft.com/content/16df421e-72c1-11e7-aca6-c6bd07df1a3c

- https://unherd.com/newsroom/alexei-navalny-is-no-liberal-hero/

- https://mycountryeurope.com/opinions/alexei-navalny-fake-champion-russian-democracy/

- https://www.euronews.com/2023/07/07/racist-or-revolutionary-is-alexei-navalny-who-many-westerners-think-he-is

- https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/alexei-navalny-is-a-russian-nationalist-but-he-may-still-be-good-news-for-ukraine/ Nakonana (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Further discussion is taking place at Talk:Alexei Navalny#Censorship on immigration up above also. JackTheSecond (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, this can be sourced. However, Navalny had zero influence on the policies by Russian state with regard to Ukraine an Belarus. Therefore, whatever he might think about it is not so important. All such content can probably be removed as less important to improve readability of this page which is very long. Hence, I think that was a good removal, but one needs to remove a lot more. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmn, not so sure about that rationale. Is there any evidence that Navalny has had any influence on the Russian state's policies on any topic? His expressed views on any political topic should be fair game for this article. The article is a bio rather than the Influence and legacy of Alexei Navalny, which is maybe something for the future. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeh, you are probably right, and I reflected this on the page [65]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2024

Navalny was stripped of his prisoner of conscious title by amnesty back in February of 2021 according to the BBC 2A02:6B63:11B8:0:C47B:442C:5EF0:7D5B (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Navalny made videos where he dresses up as a pest exterminator and a dentist and respectively called immigrants as cockroaches and rotten teeth. These videos are of an obvious hateful nature and had been criticised. Navalny had refused to renounce those sick videos even when asked to in numerous interviews. These are facts that should be added in.

Add in the following paragraph (that's highlighted in bold) to an already existing paragraph in political position chapter /immigration subchapter.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny#Immigration

'In 2007, after leaving the socialist-democratic party Yabloko, Navalny started his own movement and recorded two videos to introduce his new movement to the public. It was also his YouTube debut where his two videos consisted of a guns rights video where he appeared to advocate for gun ownership as well as comparing Muslim immigrants in Russia as "cockroaches" that needs to be shot, and the other having Navalny dressed up as a dentist, and likening non Russian ethnic migrants as cavities and made a case for fascism to deport those non Russian ethnic migrants from Russia. Those anti-immigration themed videos will later be criticised as being ultranationalist and racist.'[66][67] According to Leonid Volkov, Navalny later regretted making the 2007 video.[434] However Navalny himself has never apologized for making those videos nor renounced them, and instead had repeatedly declined to disavow them and stated that he feels no regrets on making them in numerous interviews.[68][69] 49.180.164.128 (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. The article has a subsection about his view on Immigration and another subsection on his activity as part of Narod movement. Navalny has published hundreds of videos and articles, describing just one of them in such detail is counter to WP:BALANCE. The sources you've provided do not give an overview of Navalny's views but rather describe isolated events. Compare them to the sources from the latest discussion here #Censorship on immigration. Alaexis_¿question? 09:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

He has never once denounced those videos and when asked about it in interviews if he disavows it, he repeatedly made it clear he will not disavow his videos and said he had no regrets. This is just a historical fact. And omitting that info yet only quoting third party people, who are not him, but had contradicted his own words and "claimed he regretted it" is what's imbalanced as those words didn't come from him. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Also I was stating that he has never apologized or renounced those videos despite he had 17 years to do so. That's just a fact. Whether he regretted it or not and felt extremely sorrowful, doesn't change the fact that he had on multiple occasions told interviewers that he will decline from disavowing them.[70] Readers should be aware of that and make up their own minds, instead of hiding it from them. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 09:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Also those weren't just any videos. Those two were his very first debut videos to introduce his new movement. So yes, they also have historic significance. [71] as well as being the only primary two cited by the media constantly. The shocking nature of those videos themselves additionally are also enough to make it historically significant.49.180.164.128 (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point, but I'm going to have to close this as there is already a discussion around this topic open. (Talk:Alexei Navalny § Censorship on immigration) Please use that thread to communicate your position instead -- Notice how other threads made since then have been closed also. Thank you.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 12:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why "Alexei" instead of "Aleksei"?

His name is written as "Алексей" in Cyrillic. Wouldn't "Aleksei" be the more accurate translation? AwkwrdPrtMskrt (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Navalny's first name is normally Alexei in English-language media (rightly or wrongly). Because of WP:COMMONNAME we follow that. We don't come to our own view of what's "more accurate". DeCausa (talk) 09:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

"prisoner of conscience" status

Per Al Jazeera, Amnesty International revoked Navalny's "Prisoner of conscious" status based on past "hate speech." Please edit the intro of this article to reflect that. It is misleading to mention that the status was conferred without mentioning that it was later revoked. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/24/amnesty-strips-navalny-of-prisoner-of-conscience-status?_gl=1*kjsppi*_ga*cXEtUjBXeVJBdjA5Q0FXaE9HTDl3X0pCVHZPUXVQLVRWN3lHLXVUb2ZVWkdybTVpV09zOWZUOGpuNV9saHJ5bw.. RoseIsEros (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it was confirmed after being revoked apparently by mistake [72]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There are sources describing how he was deprived of POC and how he was given it back. So these steps must be described in the article. Mhorg (talk) 13:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No they should not because this is mostly a controversy about Amnesty itself, and it is described already on that page, see Amnesty_International#2021_alteration_of_Alexei_Navalny's_status. But this story is probably given undue weight even on the page about Amnesty. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

How is it given undue weight? It's about a racist who showed very disturbing xenophobic videos. And Never denounced it. Amnesty international was obviously pressured by the politics to ignore this despite he still never denounced it and it's Orwellian to act like it's no big deal. And suggest anyone who does these things, should not be condemned for it. Which obviously many will not go along with. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

According to most recent and best RS (such as [73]), he was not a racist. Neither Amnesty was saying he was a racist. In fact, Amnesty supported him all the time as a prisoner of conscience, including after the official retraction of their unfortunate statement. If some people are trying to paint Navalny as a racist on this page, they are acting against our WP:BLP policy. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Your best RS is an op-ed from someone who makes it clear from the first sentence that they are suffering from the cognitive dissonance of all liberals (in the broad, original sense) who (somehow, over and over again) find themselves in bed with Fascists, ultra right ethno-nationalists, etc., and are seeking to remedy this cognitive conundrum by any means necessary- and even despite these efforts, the best they can come away with, while still maintaining a fig leaf of journalistic integrity, is this:

He has never apologized for his earliest xenophobic videos or his decision to attend the Russian March. At the same time, he has adopted increasingly left-leaning economic positions and has come out in support of the right to same-sex marriage. This strategy of adopting new positions—without ever explicitly denouncing old ones—is probably the reason the suspicion of ethno-nationalism continues to shadow Navalny.

This should not a cause for concern, though, because, per the following paragraph, the last in the article, (quoting Alexander Etkind), the entire world know Navalny as someone who fights against corruption. And corruption is the leading threat to the global world. What a wonderful non-sequitur, truly one for the books.

Noticeably absent from anywhere in this article, despite the author's own best attempts, is a claim such as the one you are making: he was not a racist. On the contrary, if anything, the article admits he was a racist, but that this is ok because, hey, at least he's a racist who... (supports gay marriage | fights against corruption | is anti-Putin | is a civic nationalist, not an ethnic one | has a Jewish friend)- take your pick.

Genocidal statements at a time when Navalny was less in the international public eye and thus less likely to camouflage his statements in the garb of political correctness should, if anything, be taken as more indicative of his views, but insofar as it arguably isn't for Wikipedia to make such judgements, neither should Wikipedia omit such crucial information on the basis of the contrary judgement: that he's a changed man now. That's not how WP:UNDUE works.

On the contrary, the very fact that this rather ineffective piece of apologia needed to be published so soon after his death is evidence for, as the author freely admits, the fact that the suspicion of ethno-nationalism continues to shadow Navalny. Which is to say, contrary to your argument, this article provides evidence of the continued notability of Navalny's racism, and is in fact an argument for giving more weight to a discussion of the matter, not less. Brusquedandelion (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid this is WP:OR on your part. To label someone a racist, one needs strong multiple RS saying that "person X is/was a racist". I do not see any source saying this about Navalny. The source I linked above [74] was a review article by Masha Gessen where she criticizes and analyses the nationalistic views by Navalny. This is not an apology of Navalny, quite the opposite, as she says herself ("On the other hand, he had allied himself with ultranationalists and had expressed views that I found extremely objectionable and potentially dangerous."). Yes, one can say he was a Russian nationalist, at least at some point of his political career, but the sources do not call him "racist", quite simply. And this source says that Navalny "has publicly apologized for his comments on Georgia", contrary to the claims by the IP on this and other pages. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

To summarize, you introduced this RS in order to argue that (1) Navalny is not a racist (2) that this story- Navalny referring to Muslims as cockroaches- is "given undue weight" in this article (amongst others). Regarding (1), note that you very explicitly said this! Specifically, you said, According to most recent and best RS (such as [75]), he was not a racist. I pointed out the article says nothing of the sort. To be clear, I am not saying this WP article should outright say "Navalny is a racist." That would likely be OR (at least based on this singular source). But, conversely, the Gessen article does NOT say he was NOT a racist, something you very explicitly claimed. If "Navalny is a racist, look at this article" is OR, so "Navalny is not a racist, look at this article." Bottom line, the article simply never says anything of the sort. Two, regarding the WP:UNDUE claim: the very fact such an article was published 15 years later, shortly after his death (of all times), especially when it asserts that Navalny has never apologized for such statements- all this indicates reliable sources are, in fact, placing a great deal of weight on Navalny's statement.

This is my point. Does that make sense? Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am happy we both agree that sources do not claim that Navalny was a racist. If so, you should not call him such on article talk pages per WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I am happy we both agree that sources do not claim that Navalny was not a racist. If so, you should not call him such on article talk pages per WP:BLP.

Since you have also not addressed anything else I said, I will take it to mean you agree with me on those points as well. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

NAROD affiliation

I restored sourced info about 2007-2011 affiliation to NAROD, together with all the paragraph about that period (including the controversial "cockroaches" claim): since the motivation for removal had been the lack of connection with Yabloko, I also changed the section name to "Yabloko and NAROD" to reflect its wider scope. MostroDellaLaguna (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

And I've reverted you because all that is already in there, with almost identical text. We don't need it twice. DeCausa (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right, it was moved to the "Political positions" section, that's why I didn't see it.

While discussing there its nationalist views is appropriate, I think the "Political career" section still misses a brief mention to his activities for 2007-2011. Right now we have some kind of "timeskip".

Maybe we could move back to "Political career" the first paragraph:

In 2007, Navalny co-founded the National Russian Liberation Movement, known as NAROD (The People), which sets immigration policy as a priority. The movement allied itself with two nationalist groups, the Movement Against Illegal Immigration and Great Russia.

while keeping the controversy on immigration on the "Political positions" section. MostroDellaLaguna (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• That was a short-lived, now defunct organization, http://www.rusnarod.info/. He was only one of co-founders. Perhaps it deserves to be briefly mentioned somewhere, but the way it is currently framed by DeCausa is fine, unless there is a consensus to remove it completely. My very best wishes (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Uhm, the brief mention should be in the right place. A reader would expect to find in the "Career" section all relevant info about the timeline of his career, not to have some piece scattered over other sections in a disorderly way. MostroDellaLaguna (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

But how important that episode was for his career? Not much. It is indeed just an example that he had friendly relations with certain Russian nationalists 15 years ago. Therefore, it seems to be in the proper context in the version by DeCausa.My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This has crept back in and it is now in both places, Political activity and Political positions. I don't have a strong opinion as to where it should go, but it shouldn't be in two places. Or if it is one should just be a brief mention and the other should have all the detail. GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

NAROD existed for four years and there are sources about it. There is no reason to remove it. Mhorg (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, if there are indeed strong secondary RS about this organization (preferably in English) and they describe what exactly Navalny did as a co-chair of this organization, I do not mind including such content. But the sourcing of "NAROD" so far was very weak. There are some strong sources (e.g. [76]), but they frame the subject as an evolution of views by Navalny on Russian nationalism, i.e. exactly as has been currently framed on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Please do not restore this version [77]. It includes only one presumably good secondary RS [78] that mentioned "Russian National Liberation Movement" in passing and provided incorrect/incomplete info about it ("a nationalist group Navalny had just co-founded with Zakhar Prilepin"). That were also several other co-founders. Also, beyond just being a co-founder, the RS should describe what exactly Navalny did as a member/co-founder of this organization. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Navalny published advertisement videos for NAROD (such as the dentist video that describes immigrants as cavities), according to German state media Deutschlandfunk: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/populismus-und-nationalismus-nawalnys-politische-agenda-100.html and according to the video itself (since you can clearly see the NAROD Logo right at the beginning of the video. The same German source says that Navalny held speeches at nationalist rallies.
• His "cockroaches" video also has NAROD in its title (NAROD za legalizatsiyu oruzhiya - Russian: НАРОД за легализацию оружия), as pointed out by the (admittedly left-leaning) German website: https://www.wsws.org/de/articles/2021/03/03/nava-m03.html But despite the left-bias of this website, the association of this video with NAROD is evident by the fact that the NAROD logo is shown in the beginning. If a less biased source is needed, one could offer the Vienna Newspaper (one of the oldest newspapers of the world and part of Austrian state media, according to Wikipedia): https://www.wienerzeitung.at/h/die-vielen-gesichter-des-alexej-nawalny
• According to openDemocracy https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/is-alexei-navalny-sent-to-spoil-democratic-party/ Navalny was "considered NAROD's main leader".
• He helped organizing the nationalist "Russian Marches" - https://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2103203-2,00.html
• This paper published by Stockholm University reflects on Navalny's stance on the "nation" and "nationalism" and references the NAROD manifesto that Navalny signed: https://www.slav.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.362140.1513607718!/menu/standard/file/erika%20hellsing%20rydeg%C3%A5rd%20nationalism%20as%20oposition%20in%20russia%2020170926-1.pdf This paper published by the George Washington University reflects on Navalny's contribution to the concept of NatsDem (Natsionalnye Demokraty - National/istic Democrats): https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/339974/mod_resource/content/1/pepm_223_Laruelle_Sept2012.pdf

Nakonana (talk) 20:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The "Socialist Site" better be avoided. More important, all these sources mention "Narod" only in passing; they are more about Navalny's views. Apparently, there is nothing to say about Narod because Navalny did not do much in this organization beyond just being one of its co-founders. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

His most controversial videos were advertising NAROD. It's not minor, if it makes Amnesty International change their mind about him. Nakonana (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

They did not change their mind. They made a mistake, reversed it and publicly apologized. But regardless, this is prominently described already in the section about his views. Based on the coverage in RS, his views were notable, but NAROD was not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that we should mention NAROD in the Political activity section, however we must not duplicate the content in the Political positions#Immigration section. The latter covers his views already, so I'd simply add a brief mention about his activity as part of NAROD. Alaexis_¿question? 21:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Navalny leaving Yabloko

With regard to this edit [79]... First of all, per Wikipedia:Perennial sources, Lenta.ru became a poor source only after 2014, when almost the entire editorial board left the newspaper, but the article is dated 2012. Secondly, the claim can be easily verified using other sources, but that should not be news articles that mention the controversy only in passing. That should be a biography book about Navalny that provides a lot more details. For example, Navalny. The man who stole the forest. The history of a blogger and a politician. by Byshok Stanislav Olegovich and Semyonov Alexander Alexandrovich. (Навальный. Человек, который украл лес. История блогера и политика., by Бышок Станислав Олегович, Семенов Александр Александрович.) Книжный мир, 2014, ISBN 978-5-8041-0670-7, pages 5-6: [80]. It says (Google translate):

"“In December 2007, at a meeting of the party bureau, Navalny raised questions about reforming the party and a possible change in its leadership in connection with the failure of Yabloko in the State Duma elections, sharply criticized a number of the party’s actions and demanded the “immediate resignation of the party chairman and all his deputies, re-election of at least 70 percent of the bureau."

Indeed Navalny said (cited in the book): ""Yabloko" completely failed in these elections ... It's not a matter of counting. The elections are dishonest and unfair. But in conditions of fair elections we would get even less. Because fair elections are not only a live broadcast for Grigory Alekseevich [Yavlinsky, Yabloko leader]. But this also allows everyone who wants to participate. This means that the more popular Kasparov and Ryzhkov would have been on the same live broadcast. This means that Kasyanov with financial resources would take part in the elections. This means that issues of uniting democrats would be resolved not in the Presidential Administration, but in an open dialogue. ... I argue that the main reason for the current collapse is that Yabloko has turned into a dried-up closed sect. We demand that everyone be democrats, but we don’t want to be democrats ourselves. We demand responsibility and resignation from the authorities. But we don’t see that the government has already changed three times. But in Yabloko everything is like in 1996. And the worse the results, the stronger the leadership’s position. And the first decision that I demand as a member of the Federal Council of the party, elected by the Moscow organization: the immediate resignation of the party chairman and all his deputies. I make this demand on behalf of myself and all my comrades. I also call on the Party Congress to resign and re-elect at least 70% of the Bureau, which covers up the incompetent leadership with its silent submission. ..."

Based on that, I would like to expand this info a little on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

So, given no objections here, I fixed that paragraph accordingly. In retrospective, that was an important event for Yabloko. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is slow-motion edit warring. Your edit is wp:synth, because none of the cited sources links his expelling from the party with his criticism of the party. You also omitted the information that the party considered kicking him out before he stated any criticism towards the party leaders. You are making unsupported links between the two events. You indirectly re-introduced the incorrect information about the reasons why he was kicked out. Furthermore, you added the word "alleged" to the reason for why he was kicked out. None of the sources uses this word. The party's website clearly states the reason. There's nothing being "alleged" here. None of the other sources (like Reuters) bothers to even mention his disagreement with the party leadership when citing the reasons for his kick-out, so you had to re-add lenta.ru, which was previously removed for unreliability, to re-introduce the link between his kick out and the dispute. At the same time, as you added back lenta.ru, you removed other sources from that same paragraph because of "excessive referencing". Your edit also contradicts your previous statements on this talk page: you were advocating to shorten the article on multiple occasions, but now you made it longer instead. Nakonana (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

1. First of all, two first cited sources (lenta.ru and the biography book) do connect directly the presentation by Navalny on the meeting with his expulsion. And yes, they seem to imply that at least one of the reasons for expulsion was his speech on that meeting or perhaps he made presentation suspecting the he will be expelled right after his speech (which did happen). These are best sources because they describe the controversy at length and provide a lot of additional details (especially the biography). Do you need more such sources that make such connection? Yes, most sources do not mention this Yabloko meeting and his expulsion in any details. We should use sourced that do.
2. Secondly, what revert war? My last edits about it were not reverts.
3. Third, lenta.ru was removed incorrectly, as explained in the beginning of my previous comment.
4. Finally, yes, there were stated/claimed reasons for his expulsion, as described in all sources, including lenta and biography. But were these stated reasons true? This is anyone's guess. Based on the description in the most complete/detailed sources (lenta and biography), I would say "no", but a reader can decide for himself. Hence the "alleged". My very best wishes (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

   1. Lenta.ru doesn't link them. The direct quote from Lenta is: "В связи с участием в создании движения "Народ" уже в июле 2007 года Навальный был вынужден подать в отставку с поста заместителя главы московского "Яблока" [121]. Тогда же начал обсуждаться вопрос о том, что Навальный должен был покинуть партию [99], [121]. В декабре 2007 года на заседании бюро партии Навальный потребовал "немедленной отставки председателя партии и всех его заместителей, переизбрания не менее 70 процентов бюро" и был исключен из "Яблока" с формулировкой "за нанесение политического ущерба партии, в частности, за националистическую деятельность" [93], [92], [121], [83]." (translation: "In connection with his participation in the creation of the “NAROD” movement, already in July 2007, Navalny was forced to resign from his post as deputy head of the Moscow “Yabloko” [121]. At the same time, the issue began to be discussed that Navalny should leave the party [99], [121]. In December 2007, at a meeting of the party bureau, Navalny demanded “the immediate resignation of the party chairman and all his deputies, the re-election of at least 70 percent of the bureau” and was expelled from Yabloko with the wording “for causing political damage to the party, in particular, for nationalist activities.” [93], [92], [121], [83].") You omitted that his exclusion was discussed since July 2007. The dispute occurred in December 2007. Now, what is WP:SYNTH? To quote the article: "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" (emphasis added by me). So, where does Lenta.ru explicitly say that "Navalny was excluded for criticizing the party leaders"? Please quote the statement in question, because I'm not seeing it. What I do see, however, is, that you yourself know to distinguish between explicit and implicit statements that would be wp:synth. To quote you (with emphasis added by me): "And yes, they seem to imply that at least one of the reasons for expulsion was his speech on that meeting or perhaps he made presentation suspecting the he will be expelled right after his speech". Yeah, that's synthesis. You yourself admit that Lenta.ru does not make an explicit connection between the two events. The rest of the statement is speculation. Furthermore, none of the other reliable sources makes any such connections. You had to get Lenta.ru to even remotely support the claim. But even Lenta.ru doesn't actually support it. So, yes, I need more sources that explicitly link the two events.
   2. You aren't reverting edits directly, you are just re-adding previously removed information back slowly step by step. I'm talking about edits like these: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Navalny; Amnesty International, Talk:Amnesty International#Amnesty international censorship, or diff.
   3. I don't mind Lenta.ru in there, I didn't remove it. It's just that you added it back, while in an edit right after adding lenta back, you removed a different source because of "excessive references". Then why add Lenta.ru back if it's already excessive...? Reuters is certainly a better source than Lenta.ru and Reuters is in there, just like CNN.
   4. "But were these stated reasons true? This is anyone's guess." Correct, making this guess in Wikipedia is wp:synth. And your omition of the July 2007 debate, but inclusion of the December 2007 dispute, leads people to jump to that guess, due to a misrepresentation of the contents of the cited sources. It's not our job to interpret whether Yabloko was saying the truth or not. The word "alleged", however, has the connotation that a statement is being questioned. Yet, Lenta.ru does not explicitly question Yabloko's reason. They quote the reason verbatim without an assessment or judgment of their own. If I'm missing something in the article, then I ask you again, to quote the part where Lenta.ru is explicitly questioning the truthfulness of Yabloko's reason.

   I have not yet read the sources you provided in your second reply. But it looks like these sources are not cited in the current version of the wiki article which my comment referred to. It's possible that those dources might resolve the synth issue. Nakonana (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You say that lenta.ru does not connect these events. No, of course it does: "Навальный потребовал "немедленной отставки председателя партии и всех его заместителей, переизбрания не менее 70 процентов бюро" и был исключен из "Яблока" с формулировкой "за нанесение политического ущерба партии, в частности, за националистическую деятельность", as you cited above. But I understand this concern and therefore included an additional ref (see below) to the page even before you posted this comment. Fellow opposition politician Ilya Yashin later said Yabloko kicked out Navalny because he challenged party leader Grigory Yavlinsky. What can be more clear? My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you also add the July 2007 debate about kicking him out for the sake of adding full context and to avoid selection bias. Nakonana (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Just checked your inclusion of Yashin, and I'm OK with the way that is handled. But I feel like the word "official" in "official reason" still has some "this is being questioned" connotation and would prefer a more neutral phrasing. Just something simple, along the lines of "Yabloko excluded Navalny 'for...(quote)', but Yashin claims that...". Nakonana (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Now, if you want more sources about the relationships between Yavlinsky and Navalny after Navalny asked for Yavlinsky to resign, here they are:

1. [81]: Fellow opposition politician Ilya Yashin later said Yabloko kicked out Navalny because he challenged party leader Grigory Yavlinsky.
2. [82]: The attack by Yavlinsky [on Navalny] has split the party he founded and triggered broader opposition infighting.
3. [83] Yavlinsky also rejected the accusation that he had written the article [in which he criticized Navalny] at the Kremlin's behest, responding to conspiracy theories that he might have been promised seats in the next Duma in exchange for helping defuse the political tensions around Navalny's imprisonment.

There is a lot more. Some of the criticism by Yavlinsky may be very much reasonable, I am not saying it was not. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

1. That's only one person's claim. If added, it would likely require attribution or further such statements from other fellow opposition politicians. If this was a biography of a living person, Yashin's statement might not have qualified to be included in the wiki article.
2. Does not state that the dispute was the reason for Navalny to get kicked out. Does not question that Navalny's nationalist views were the reason to get kicked out. This source would not resolve the synth issue.
3. Does not state that the dispute was the reason for Navalny to get kicked out. Does not question that Navalny's nationalist views were the reason to get kicked out.

Nakonana (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

No, of course the explanation by Ilya Yashin is qualified to be included. He is one of the most famous Russian opposition politicians who is now rotting in prison, just like Navalny. Two other sources do not claim this explicitly, but we do not say they do. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

his lawyer Wassili Dubkow was arrested

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/nawalny-anwalt-in-moskau-verhaftet-nach-tod-des-putin-kritikers-19550467.html 88.153.240.29 (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

And not only this lawyer. Three lawyers were placed on the "terrorist list" [84] and two on "wanted criminals" lists [85]. This is a long-standing tradition in Russia. During Stalinist times the defenders were taking a bag with their clothes and other things to the court in case they would be arrested right after their speech (which did happen). My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

There was a lot of people who were arrested and persecuted specifically for working in Anti-Corruption Foundation or for protesting arrests of Navalny. Perhaps this needs to be reflected on the page. Next thing, they will prosecute people who came to his funeral [86]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Picture shows how popular Navalny was in Russia

Navalny meeting his followers in Yekaterinburg, Russia on 16th of September 2017

This picture speaks more that words. The photo shows how popular Navalny was among his followers in big cities of Russia. On this photo the crowd of several thousand people greeting Navalny who arrived to the meeting with his followers in Yekaterinburg, Russia on 16th of September 2017. This image may help the article in a way to balance the overall big picture of this person. With respect to all editors and users of Wikipedia, Kotofski (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)