Talk:2011–2013 Russian protests

Broad unsupported generalization

This language, "This set off anger accross much of the Russian Federation and citizens began to take to the streets." implies a general uprising. It does not seem to be supported by reliable sources at this time. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL

This is WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:ADVERTISEMENT. When and if these events happen tomorrow it would be then appropriate to write about them, not now. GreyHood ^Talk 14:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. It's all over the news. A number of reliable sources. A planned event to which 28,000 people have declared their intent to attend is not speculation. Nor are threats to them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This source from a top Russian Internet news page tells that the government of Moscow postponed the decision to sanction the meetings in question until Friday, and it proposed to use a different location, so your sources are outdated and even more WP:CRYSTALBALL. We do not know whether the event will actually take place at supposed location and date, especially given the information on postponement, and we do not know how much people actually will engage. We will know that on Saturday, and no need to write it until then. Especially there is no need to give false information about sanctioning the meeting. GreyHood ^Talk 19:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

All that says is that negotiations about the site of the demonstration are in progress, but unsuccessful so far. You could include that in the article I suppose. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Included. I've inserted the new negotiated location and new supposed numbers. GreyHood ^Talk 20:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So, what's the problem now? We have new place and new numbers announced, and looks like you do not want them to be inserted into the artice on a formal pretext. Even in my previous revert it was clear that your information was outdated, and the meeting has been sanctioned just a few hours ago. GreyHood ^Talk 20:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You appear to have misunderstood the source:

Вечером ряд СМИ, ссылаясь на пресс-службу мэрии, распространил информацию, что организаторы согласились на перенос митинга. Представители оппозиционных движений в социальных сетях объявили подобные сообщения провокацией. Наконец, одна из переговорщиков со стороны оппозиции, представительница "Левого фронта" Анастасия Удальцова сообщила от имени организаторов, что предложение мэрии отвергнуто. Вместо этого оппозиционеры предложили мэру Сергею Собянину расширить площадку митинга на площади Революции за счет парковок. Мэрия даст свой ответ по этому поводу завтра.

The suggested change was rejected. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the source and it firectly says that the meeting was sanctioned on Bolotnaya Square:

Мэрия Москвы разрешила оппозиции проведение митинга за честные выборы с участием 30 тысяч человек в столице в субботу, 10 декабря./blockquote>

The source even provides a link to the permission document. The news item appeared on 08.12.2011, 23:56:40. Perhaps this is a newer info, or perhaps this is just wrong info. But it was published and confirmed by many independent opposition outlets as well.

Anyway information in the article is wrong and outdated. We need to update it. GreyHood ^Talk 20:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It goes on with this: "В интервью "Новой газете" Удальцова уточнила, что организаторы готовы рассматривать в качестве возможной альтернативы площади Революции только одно место - Манежную площадь." but nothing seems to have been decided. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, updated, but not by removal of the information about the Facebook group. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is the permission. Google translate does not work on that though. What does it say? Google translates it as "the swamp". User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article at lenta.ru seems to have been updated while we were discussing this matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So, where is the update, and in a better chosen section, than the Domestic reaction? and do you realise that mentioning facebook group is WP:ADVERTISEMENT? The "swamp" is translated from "болото" (boloto), and they speak about Bolotnaya Square. It was on the Lenta article from the very beginning. GreyHood ^Talk 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand proper application of that section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Even The New York Times article has a link to the Facebook page, which links to its new name.

Please explain how I misunderstand that. And the ref with a new name must have appeared only recently, or the page was updated. GreyHood ^Talk 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If our article plays a significant role in promoting something it doesn't belong here. In this case, 32,000 people say they will attend. The NYT's article is ambiguous, it says Revolution Square but links to the current Facebook page which says Bolotnaya Square. We've been quite careful with advertising events, for example the Chinese Jasmine Revolution, something which seemed to exist mostly in the Western media was not. And, in fact, that observation was made, that there was no internal Chinese support. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Greyhood here. The section on the Saturday protest violates WP:CRYSTAL. Linking to a facebook page for sourcing is also inappropriate (I'm very surprised an admin is insisting on using a primary source like this). So what if NYT links to it? They're not a tertiary source, whereas we are. I also cannot find support in the source given for the very CRYSTALy statement "There is considerable doubt that the Russian public has sufficient morale to mount continuing mass protests in the face of strong government opposition despite increase in promised participation in the projected Saturday demonstration in Moscow in excess of 20,000". We are not supposed to deal in rumour and speculation about future events like this. We're an encyclopedia. Why don't we just wait until after Saturday.

This is the language in The New York Times article:

On Triumfalnaya, a popular protest site here, a certain euphoria noticeable earlier in the week was clearly absent among the few dissenters who showed up. Caught amid throngs of helmeted police, some pointed gloomily up at a huge poster recently hung across from the square. It was advertising the latest installment of the movie, “Mission Impossible.”

that was paraphrased to reflect skepticism by an informed outside observer regarding the potential for staying power by the Russian public. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not a paraphrase, that's original research based on a journalist trying to paint a bit of atmosphere (the "Mission Impossible" poster should have been a clue. I doubt very much he was arguing that the poster or the film were influencing the morale of protesters). The journalist does not make any kind of prediction or in-depth analysis. Your responses in the past hour give the strong impression that you're trying to do your own research here, by putting your own spin on events and using primary sources. We should not do that. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also concerned that we're giving so much credence to numbers based on facebook invite counts as if they mean something. Are there any academic studies showing the relationship between accepting a facebook invite to a political event and actually turning up? There's a lot of newsmedia noise about social networking sites and protests, but we're supposed to sift through that kind of noise. The use of the numbers in places like NYT and the Guardian really are "NYT pointed to - the Guardian noted that" territory, and are of questionable importance.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

So, facebook is a dubious source, and NYT is ambiguous and outdated, since the article appeared before the new location was announced. Are there any serious reasons to have this problematic information in the article, especially when tomorrow we will have more credible post-factum info? GreyHood ^Talk 12:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

We report factual information from reliable sources. There is no serious question that a major demonstration, now permitted for 30,000 people is in the works. There a number of reliable sources. The use of the Facebook page as a reference is to show the change of name and place. No doubt we will have additional information to add on December 11. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to a policy page or an RS noticeboard discussion which describes Facebook as a reliable source? Thanks. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

"NYT pointed to - the Guardian noted that" - is enough to mention it. Reliable sources mentioning a future event. We can report that figures are vague. It's all notable.Malick78 (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

How does everyone feel about the changes I made. Greyhood - is that enough for you to accept the tags being removed? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your changes have been reasonable. Since the event already happened we don't need facebook numbers now, likely. GreyHood ^Talk 15:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Facebook ref

Can someone please find a secondary source for this - seems like there should be one out there. a13ean (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/world/europe/putin-accuses-clinton-of-instigating-russian-protests.html?_r=1&nl=afternoonupdate&emc=aua2 User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a link in the article to the changed name of the Facebook page. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

<ref name=NYT4 /> User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Category: Impact of the Arab Spring

The Russian post-election protests are not related to the Arab Spring. - Sikon (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they are, modern mass protest movements, including the color revolution, the Arab spring, and Occupy Wall Street are horizontally organized movements, a form which probably originated in the December 2001 riots in Argentina. We have to show it by finding authority, of course, but even Putin thinks he's dealing with a color revolution, and he's right. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that no authority has been provided, I've removed the category. You as a Wikipedia editor may think this is the case, but you're not a reliable source. In any case, it's not as if the Argentinians invented political protest. That's a very odd idea. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

According to Marina Sitrin author of Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina the modern mass protest movement began in Argentina in 2001 User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here the BBC have an article called Viewpoint: Are post-poll protests a Russian Spring?, so a link is being put forward by some (the author of this article isn't sure there is one, but mentions that "US and European colleagues" have been suggesting one "over and over again in recent days"). The category seems justified.Malick78 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The question mark should tell you that this is not a definitive statement, and the statement at the beginning that "I am not certain that developments in Russia will mirror those in the Arab world" makes it clear that the author does not place this as part of or descended from the Arab Spring. The only connection he makes is that the protests are unusually strong for in recent history. Personally, I find it quite a strange suggestion that there's any profound connection - it's the kind of lazy thesis one finds in The Economist rather than serious scholarly analysis. The social, political, geopolitical and religious contexts are completely different. (There is a western media myth that Russians are secretly pining for people like Nemtsov - there's no evidence for this at all. It's the usual beguiling trick of speaking good English for the press.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I undid your re-introduction of the category. Please read sources before using them for content.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And please read comments before responding to them. I didn't say the source's author said there was a link ("the author of this article isn't sure there is one"), I said his "colleagues" suggested there was. Either way, the name of the category can be interpreted two ways: either the protests are caused by the Arab Spring, or the Russian governments harsh crackdown on the protests is influenced by fears caused (at least in part) by what they've seen in the Arab Spring. The former is debatable, but the latter seems highly likely.

Either way, many are making such links. For example, here it says regarding John McCain: "Within this context, we find that the work of McCain’s IRI recently manifested itself when it was caught meddling in Russia’s elections. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US government funded umbrella organization under which the IRI falls and the IRI itself, were behind several US-backed NGOs, particularly Golos, seeking to “expose voting irregularities.” The purpose of this was of course to cast doubts on the validity of the elections and justify street mobs brought out by the Russian opposition groups the IRI had been cultivating in an attempt to trigger an “Arab Spring” in Russia." And then of course there are the 23,000 hits for "Russian Arab Spring" on Google. To pretend there's no link, at least in the eyes of some reliable sources, is absurd and disingenuous.Malick78 (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

If your BBC source did not mean to say that, then you should not have made the edit - "some unnamed people made an unjustified connection" is not grounds for stating the connection! The McCain reference is also not good enough. It does not say that these protests are a result of the Arab spring. It does not even suggest that the attempt to foment something like the Arab spring was inspired by it. It's plainly using "Arab spring" as this year's shorthand for "anti-government movement" without actually making any kind of analytical connection. Were protests against Putin before the Arab spring also inspired by it? If these bits and bobs are all you have, you don't have much at all. Google hits is meaningless. If you've been paying attention, you'll have noticed the Russian government has had a few things to say during the year. Try find in-depth pieces by Russia specialists about Russia that specifically state that these protests would not have happened without the Arab spring happening first. If it's so obvious, you should be able to find half a dozen easily. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with your take on what I said, but even if the writer thinks the connection is unjustified, the comment shows many people (other than the author) must think it is justified. As for the McCain thing - I think it shows clearly the IRI is perceived to be seeking to create new "Arab Springs" elsewhere - here, in Russia.

Unfortunately, you still seem to be under the illusion that the category "Impact..." means that these protests were caused by the Arab Spring. Why do you think that? "Impact" means "affected by" - it seems clear to me that this encompasses more than just causation. As I said above, this could mean, for example - that the authorities are cracking down harder because of the Arab Spring (for example - the use of twitter there as led to attempts to spam twitter users in Russia). Well, either way - even Nezavisimaya Gazeta has made comparisons according to the reliable BBC - "In its report on the unrest in Moscow, the heavyweight daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta speaks of "an Egyptian scenario"." Anybody else have a view? VK and I clearly disagree. Malick78 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Also, the original Impact of the Arab Spring page states: "The impact of the Arab Spring concerns protests or attempts to organise growing protest movements that were inspired by or similar to the Arab Spring". While the definition there is just "similar to", I think we can include Russia (since it implies the criteria for the category), and therefore we can keep this page in the category.Malick78 (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the category as there is no neutral reliable source drawing parallels between these protests and the Arab Spring. They are totally unrelated. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 12:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. We need to do some work on related categories. The history books are not written, but this is the latest in a new form of democratic mass protest which includes not only the color revolutions, the Arab spring, and Occupy Wall Street. What this upsurge will be called remains to be seen; we don't need to be the ones who name it. User:Fred Bauder Talk

After a bit of investigation I have settled on Category:Democracy movements of which Arab spring is a subcategory. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In a dramatic reversal of opinion, we are now asked to subsume the Arab spring in something called "Democracy movements" Fred, could you give details of this investigation? In particular, I'd love to hear of how the Muslim brotherhood is meaningfully part of a globally valid and uncontroversial "democracy movement". I ask this in the context of no original research. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Only if the circle is square? Fair majority votes in North Africa, including Egypt will return Muslim majorities. That was the cause of the rejection of elections in Algeria some years ago. Also the basis for American support of strong men like Mubarak. Muhammad made no pronouncements about democracy but was a generous and tolerant man. Hopefully the Muslim Brotherhood will take him and his ways as an inspiration. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/world/middleeast/salafis-in-egypt-have-more-than-just-religious-appeal.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT's discussion "Is This the Arab Spring?". User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Russian sping??

I didn't go in depth into the election protests against Putin, however, I think the masss demonstrations in Egypt began also due to opposition to spurious elecetions and a demand to annul the election results. --85.250.87.18 (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mid importance

• Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. Russia, Soviet Union, Moscow
• High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. 1812 Overture, Anadyr River
• Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. 35th Army (Russia)
• Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.

Frankly, if the subject makes worldwide headlines, it has achieved international notability in its field. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Fred, have you ever managed the assessment of articles of any WikiProject? If we would use your criteria, assessing everything which made the world news as Top importance, we would have many thousands of Top-importance articles in every major project, which is wrong, since there always should be a reasonable and manageable quantity of top-importance articles. Your criteria might work for small countries, like Vanuatu or Tuvalu, which rarely are featured in the news globally, but certainly not for countries like Russia. GreyHood ^Talk 17:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a man bites dog event, always very notable. The dead came to life... User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

These are the biggest demonstrations since the end of Communism. Seems to be 'high' or 'top'.Malick78 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

In project Russia tom importance articles are Russia, Moscow, History of Russia and similar topics. This protests are one of many political events in recent Russian political history. I supposed that they are (for now) low importance in Russia project and Mid importance in Russian politics task force.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 21:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, something in between Low and Mid, since on one hand there is no indication of enduring significance, and on the other hand the protests are biggest in years. Since there are the same assessment ranks for both Russia project in general and its task forces we have to choose one assessment mark. GreyHood ^Talk 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Perceived links to Arab Spring" Section

I'd suggest a proper section on this, to justify the category - if the category is to stay. Which it should ;) Malick78 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Kremlin's “Orange Revolution fear” of some years ago

I remember analyst writing at the time of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution and the Russia–Ukraine gas disputes that “the Kremlin” was terrified of an similar “revolution” happening in Russia (and actually was accused of setting up Nashi as a counteract ). In other words: there where afraid mass demonstrations against the regime would occur in Russia; and that did just happen today…. Should this “Orange Revolution fear” be mentioned in the “Background section” (I can find some references on that quite easily)? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Overkill, I think, belongs in the opinion section, which we don't have. The entire political setup, however, is a paternalistic attempt to prevent and avoid disorder, which is a real danger. Not sure where you're going to find a source for that, though. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The "orange fear" is a legitimate topic. The Kremlin have been scared for years... now their fears have come true.Malick78 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless highly reliable sources indicate anything of the such, then it has no place in the article. Otherwise the article becomes a WP:COATRACK, which it is already in danger of becoming. Y u no be Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 05:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I work from sources; I don't start with an idea which I think might be well-founded and then look for a source. I suspect there is political analysis out there, or will be, that supports Kremlin anxiety. What is also missing from the the article and media analysis is genuine doubt as to the ability of Russia to govern itself. We all want something viable to emerge, not just another disaster. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Must admit that in the article's curent lenght mentioning this “Orange Revolution fear”, or in a wider context "fear of mass demonstartions by Putin's regime", looks WP:WEIGHT to me. I am not interested in Russia enough to expand the article . — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a source for this? If so we can look at it, otherwise not much to do. a13ean (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A simple Google search comes up with annalist from respectable newspapers claiming that Nashi was set up because of "fears that the revolutionary bug may be contagious". And a few days ago Putin stated "Russia did not want to see the instability endured by Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, two ex-Soviet states that saw regimes toppled in so-called "colour revolutions" after the fall of the Soviet Union". 'course it was never officially stated that Nashi was set up as the "anti-Orangists", but Putins statement about Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan of 4 days ago is an indication of fear. That is a WP:SPECULATION, I must admit. Hence I asked for comment on this talkpage. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I did make an edit in this article today in which I point out that Putin claims the protest are an attempt to an export of the Orange Revolution. Because I thought that is as remarkable as his claims Hillary Clinton is to blame. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

the biggest protests

"Russia saw the biggest protests in Moscow since the fall of the Soviet Union". I doubt that it's correct. At least in 1993 during 1993 Russian constitutional crisis there were days-long mass-scale protests and demonstrations. --Nekto (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That event was part of the fall of the Soviet Union, the last gasp, as it were. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it was not! The Soviet Union dissolved in December 1991! It is better to say "biggest protest during the presidency of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev" Oleg-ch (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's also questionable considering there were large protests against Yeltsin in a politically much freer era, but it's certainly something of a news meme. See here, for example, where 90,000 went through Petersburg, and this reuters report about "tens of thousands" in Moscow in 1998. And yes, the Soviet Union ended in 1991. Kind of important to get that right. I would agree with Oleg-ch and phrase it something like "Since the Putin-Medvedev era began" to be safe.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think "since 1990s" would be the most accurate description.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, one of our more exuberant editors just added this, repeating the meme. My various tinkerings put me at two reverts; edit warring has been a problem here and I have no wish to take part in that. Would someone else put in "since the 1990s" in place of "since the fall of communism" ? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that since some news sources say that possibly 100,000 turned out in Moscow, that would then lead them to use the phrase "biggest since the fall of Communism". It all depends on how many really did turn out, but the point is that the 'meme' may not be wrong. Feel free to correct my phrasing if you like, I'm not too attached to it :) Malick78 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It might not be wrong, but it very probably is, which is why "since the 1990s" is a good finesse (hats off to Ymblanter). Which RS state definitively 100,000? We have 90,000 for Petersburg in 1998 (halcyon days...I was there, taking vox pop interviews from marchers), which suggests the "tens of thousands" in Moscow is at the higher end, if not going over 100,000. It's very important to remember that in the 1990s press stories about non-liberal opposition to Yeltsin got pretty poor coverage. Don't be deceived by the fairy tale that Putin is straightforwardly a wicked uncle. He was almost certainly genuinely popular in his first term (who wouldn't have been after Yeltsin), not least because before him was a terminally ill drunk for a President and a Prime Minister famed for both his massacre of the Russian language and his massive appropriation of state assets. When we look at Putin's unpopularity in historical perspective, he's got some very stiff competition.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And many thanks for making the edit.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Pozhalujsta ('any time', for non-Russian speakers. End of lesson :) )Malick78 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Cites do not say this

This edit which removed what seems to me to be well-sourced information, has an edit comment: "Cites do not say this"

It converts "By 10 December, however, in a major change in policy, having ignored and distorted coverage of the opposition for years, all the main state-controlled channels were covering the protests in a professional and objective manner." to "10 December, however, all the main state-controlled channels were covering the protests." The language which was removed was based on The New York Times article "On Russian TV, a Straightforward Account Is Startling" which contains the following language:

For more than a decade, television news in Russia has been used to support the government of Vladimir V. Putin. Nightly newscasts are typically consumed with the bland minutia of government: Mr. Putin meeting with the minister of transportation or health or education about some problem of the day. Critics of the government, when they get airtime at all, are mostly portrayed as radicals or buffoons.

The three main government-controlled channels each led their evening broadcasts on Saturday with reports about the protests. They showed the huge crowds and their anti-Kremlin posters. In interviews, people at the rallies complained about their votes having been stolen and expressed their desire for new elections. Each of the channels also broadcast calls for the ouster of Vladimir Y. Churov, the leader of Russia’s Central Election Commission, an ominous signal about his future employment.

as well as other information which supports the language which was removed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

No question about it. The original text should be back again. I've also heard that journalists at NTV demanded that they should broadcast the demonstration. I think the source was Echo of Moscow. Närking (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Alexey Pivovarov, an NTV journalist, reportedly refused to host the evening news without a report on the Bolonaya Square events. "Пивоваров отказался выходить в эфир НТВ, если не будет освещен митинг на Болотной площади" "Пивоваров поставил ультиматум НТВ: не выйдет в эфир без освещения митинга протеста" - Sikon (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll add that, if someone else has not already done so, but would appreciate someone who is fluent touching it up and completing the citations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The text that was removed said "in a major change in policy, having ignored and distorted coverage of the opposition for years", which really is a couple of steps too far in paraphrasing what the sources say (I don't know where the "distorted for years" bit is at all. As far as I understand, in the main, opposition in the past few years has basically been ignored on Kremlin-controlled TV rather than caricatured, which is something rather different.) We also don't know if there has been a "major change in policy" or whether these are temporary measures that will be put to one side should the protests subside. The reports of this express suprise and clearly don't actually know what's going on behind the scenes. We should not be editorialising (or worse, trying to fit what's happening to one's preferred narrative), but paraphrasing. I suggest "breaking with practice in recent years, television channels with ties to the Kremlin covered the Saturday protests extensively, and after initially negative coverage earlier in the week, did so objectively. NTV, controlled by the state gas company Gazprom, was even characterised by a BBC reporter as describing the protests in a positive light." As for the Pivovarov quote:

Пивоваров отказался выходить в эфир НТВ, если не будет освещен митинг на Болотной площади

— Pivovaraov refused to go on air on NTV if there was no coverage of the meeting in Bolotnaya Square.

and

Пивоваров поставил ультиматум НТВ: не выйдет в эфир без освещения митинга протеста"

— Pivovarov gave NTV an ultimatum: he would not go on air unless there was coverage of the protest meeting.

The second one sounds better to me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hold on with inserting the Pivovarov quotes. The story may not be true. See here from Ekho Moskvy:

Телекомпания НТВ опровергает появившиеся сообщения сайта газеты Коммерсант об отказе Алексея Пивоварова вести выпуск новостей в 19.00, если в нем не будет материала о митинге на Болотной площади в Москве. Об этом сообщает РИА Новости со ссылкой на пресс-службу телеканала.

— The TV station NTV repudiates the information given on the website of the newspaper Kommersant about the refusal of Aleksei Pivovarov to anchor the news at 7pm if there was no material about the meeting in Bolotnaya square in Moscow - according to RIA Novosti, referring to the station's press service.

VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, obviously I don't understand the intricacies and subtleties of the situation. However, this edit is inappropriate, as, however, it is phrased, there is support in the source for it. The language is

Critics of the government, when they get airtime at all, are mostly portrayed as radicals or buffoons.

If the change in policy is only for one broadcast, it is nevertheless a major change in policy. Reestablishment of a policy of censorship, distortion, and misinformation is likely to prove very difficult in any event. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This prognosis on "policy" and the future is, as ever, your own research. If the reports are true that Pivovarov forced the coverage through his ultimatum, this is not a change in policy, this is by definition an ad hoc response. It may become policy. Alternatively, Pivovarov may not be on NTV for much longer and "normal service" will be resumed. Or NTV are telling the truth. Your comment that "Reestablishment of a policy of censorship, distortion, and misinformation is likely to prove very difficult in any event" does not match what's actually happened in Russia over the past couple of decades; I think your comment about not understanding the complexities was meant sarcastically, but I'll take it at face value. It's not as if Russian media has been on a continual upward path to openness since the end of the Soviet Union (1991, not 1993, remember) - go read press freedom reports about its fluctuating fortunes. As for your "radicals and buffoons quote", the key part of the phrase is "if they get airtime at all", which is precisely the point I was making - that it is wrong to characterise coverage as distorting the opposition for years. It's been almost entirely simply ignoring them. Someone reading your version of events would expect that news coverage regularly satirised government opponents. That's not been the case. Zyuganov basically gets almost no airtime. My suggested phrasing nuances this, while yours misrepresents the situation.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended; it has been very difficult for me to read news from Russia for decades; thus, I am objectively ignorant. I think this: "It's been almost entirely simply ignoring them. Someone reading your version of events would expect that news coverage regularly satirised government opponents. That's not been the case. Zyuganov basically gets almost no airtime.", while no doubt perceptive, is a personal observation, a primary source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Critics of the government, when they get airtime at all, are mostly portrayed as radicals or buffoons.

plainly says they get little or no airtime. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

You could have asked me for sources instead of presuming I was talking purely from personal experience. This is wikipedia, where opinions without sources are pretty much worthless. Here it says "Leading opposition politicians regularly complain that they do not have access to television networks that reach the largest audiences". This book on page 218 (the conclusion) describes how Putin's second term led to a gradual "strangling" of criticism of his government in television media. The strategy was silencing people, not ridiculing them.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

More than 100 Russian and more than 30 foreign cities

...are participated in actually world-wide protest at 10 December 2011. Main organization VKontakte page: vk.com/topic-364976_25568511 Please correct this article, since I fear to take chance to spoil this page. Fedorkov Dmitry (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Unacceptable edits by Greyhood

Here, Greyhood took this source, ""Интерфакс" со ссылкой на пресс-службу ГУ МВД по Москве сообщает, что в митинге приняли участие 25 тысяч человек. В то же время блогеры усомнились в этих данных. Корреспондент "Ленты.ру" оценил количество собравшихся в 5-7 тысяч человек. В правоохранительных органах отметили, что мероприятие проходило без происшествий." and wrote in the article, "On 12th December [...] the 25,000 meeting of pro-Kremlin youth groups supported Putin and United Russia and celebrated the Constitution." He meant, presumably, "25,000 strong". The source, for the benefit of non-Russian speakers, says that Interfax reported 25,000 at the meeting, but that Lenta.ru (the publishers of the $%#@ing article!) thought there were 5-7,000 at the demo. Why the hell did you ignore the writer of the article and only quote the higher number, Greyhood? This is your most blatant POV edit so far. Please cease your overly-pro-kremlin edits and stick to the facts, or we'll have to go back to the NPOV noticeboard. It's simply unacceptable. Moreover, another edit of yours quotes 15,000 at a Dec 6th meeting, when other sources have much lower figures.Malick78 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious the Moscow police count demonstrators like the Russian election committee count votes. A video of the demonstration can be seen here [1] and anyone who can count can see there are not 25.000 people there. Närking (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Malick, the figure of 25,000 has beeing already removed and I have no problem with that. I just used the first figures in the article, without reading it properly. At the same time, apparently you have done a mistake in this your edit. The article clearly says about 15,000 came to the city to Moscow’s Forum of Civil Activists (and that is repeated twice), and the number of 5000 refers to those who beat drums and chanted slogans in one particular action on one particular square. There is nothing in the article about any supposed difference between the number of participants from organizers and estimates by someone else, you just have invented that or misinterpreted the 5000 figure. Should we consider your own edits biased and ubacceptable, or should we simply fix everything according to the source without stirring conflicts on talk pages? I've already asked you not to discuss other editors but discuss articles, facts and policies, since this approach could be easily turned against yourself, and we need more constructive discussion here. GreyHood ^Talk 21:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems you have trouble understanding many texts ("I just used the first figures in the article, without reading it properly."), so I'll highlight the para from the above link:

By December 4, election day, Nashi had brought about 15,000 young people from some 20 regions to Moscow’s Forum of Civil Activists, held in the All-Russia Exhibition Center (VVTs) in order to “supervise the election process and maintain order on the streets.” The members who traveled to Moscow voted with absentee ballots. They held meetings and concerts on the Revolution and Manezhnaya Squares to show their devotion to President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

On December 6, Nashi and other pro-Kremlin youth groups stepped forward to support United Russia amid allegations of vote-rigging, first gathering on Manezhnaya and then walking to Triumfalnaya Square, a space traditionally used by opposition groups.

About 5,000 activists beat drums and chanted “Russia! Putin!” and “Russia! Medvedev!” to show their support for the government.

One thing happens on Dec 4, with 15,000. The other on Dec 6 with 5,000. What exactly don't you understand? Unfortunately, due to your repeated bias in editing, I and other editors have had to refer to you by name. Please stop being disruptive and/or edit more accurately. If you can't be bothered to read an article "properly", please don't bother to edit based on that article.Malick78 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please stop supposing bad faith and stirring conflicts instead of simply fixing the wording and discussing unclear points neutrally.

Firstly, by By December 4 (I liked how you bolded these words above ;)), doesn't mean on December 4.

Secondly, Moscow’s Forum of Civil Activists seems to be a rally in itself, though hold from December 4 rather than on concretely December 6, so we need just fix the dates instead of numbers, don't you think? GreyHood ^Talk 22:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Correcting 'on' to 'by' is petty, since that was the least important part of the text (the point was the 15,000 wasn't the Dec 6 march!). The problem, though, is that you consistently edit in favour of the authorities - even inflating 5-7,000 to 25,000! It is simply unacceptable. (And did you mention that the pro-kremlin protests were bussed in and probably paid-for, while the anti-kremlin ones were mainly spontaneous? Of course not.) It is not a one-off occurrence, you keep doing it and other similar things. Why should other editors keep "fixing" your mistakes? (Especially when you frequently revert! Have some respect for us.) Please refrain from editing if you cannot be neutral and use RS correctly. If I knew how to report you I would. I guess there'll have to be a first time for it anyway...Malick78 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why me and most other editors have to fix mistakes of others daily throughout editing, and why most people don't complain of that? Have some respect to Wikipedia, which is a collaborative work in collaborative environment, and don't make personal attacks please.

You haven't answered on suggestion to correct dates instead of numbers. We also could describe 4th December and 6th December as separate rallies. But seems you are just set on interpreting the information in the way against the authorities, which is not really wonderful following your open declaration of negative attitude to Russian government. I haven't seen a single edit from you "in favour of the authorities", which is according to your own receipt is a part of Positive + negative = overall neutrality. And now explain me why I was the first to add the information on the supposed size of the 10th December meeting to the article? Why it was me who got the image of the 10th December protests posted on the Main Page? Why it was me who nominated the Russian legislative election, 2011 article to be posted on the Main Page while the controversy was already expected then? I just try to reflect all primary and due weight points of view in the article, and it is not my fault that some editors here are mostly intent to bring negative information or simply have no other information after reading sources like BBC, and all that needs to be balanced. GreyHood ^Talk 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And I put a bottom line on this: I would like to discuss issues with neutrality in my editing and listen to advices in this respect from neutral editors, not from editors who have declared their non-neutral attitude. So please, one final call from me: engage in discussing articles, policies and facts. Forget about discussing the editors. This only leads to discussion of yourself as well and ruins the constructive atmosphere. Remember that constructive editors will always be ready to engage in discussion and accept your corrections in the article if well-argumented. GreyHood ^Talk 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We all fix others' mistakes, but usually these are one-off mistakes. You seem to be repeatedly deleting others' edits with inaccurate edit summaries, spurious summaries, misapplying policy, and now... using unlikely statistics from sources, when the sources themselves disown those stats and suggest better ones in the very same paragraph. These are not isolated events - but a pattern. As for my "negative" attitude - you link to a talkpage. NPOV is about article pages, so that link has much less relevance here. Besides, we all are biased in a way - the important thing is how we show it in edits. You consistently show it in edits in my view (and the view of others, it seems) - and that's the problem. I have a feeling my bias, if visible, is less apparent :)

As for your other points: I didn't mention the Dec 4 pro-kremlin protest because it was largely irrelevant: it would have been pre-arranged and therefore not a response to the 2011 Russian protests against the government (which it happened before!). As for your neutral posts on the main page - well, I never said you were all bad and on every page ;) It's mainly here and on Putin that you are disruptive and POV. Finally, I'd love to talk just about the article, but for the aforementioned reasons your behaviour keeps bringing me/us back to you. That you talk about the "constructive atmosphere" being ruined seems like a bitterly ironic joke. You only on occasion seem to be cooperative or constructive. Usually you just delete others' edits. Finally, as for my "lack of" edits "in favour of the authorities", I've added refutations from Putin and others to accusations, but of course, in an article about protests against the authorities, surprise, surprise, there's more info against them. Who'd have thought it? Malick78 (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Supporters of the protests responded with guerrilla theater by FEMEN and circulation of a photoshopped image of Putin dressed as Muammar el-Qaddafi"

This Wikipedia entry know claims: "Supporters of the protests responded with guerrilla theater by FEMEN and circulation of a photoshopped image of Putin dressed as Muammar el-Qaddafi". Although well sourced this info makes no sense to me; first off all:

• it suggest that FEMEN worked close together with the organizers of the protests, which is doubtful cause they seem to prefer to work alone.
• it suggest that FEMEN’s "guerrilla theater" was one of the most noticeable events of the day... Since it involved only 3 girls and probably 3 minutes I don't think it was noticeable enough to mention here.

Secondly:

• it suggest that "photoshopped images of Putin dressed as Muammar el-Qaddafi" was set up by the organizers in some grand scheme to outmaneuver the people who where plotting against them... (?...)
• where there that many "photoshopped images of Putin dressed as Muammar el-Qaddafi" that it was noticeable?
  — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The Huffington Post article clearly shows that the protest was directed at the Putin regime. As to it being not noticeable, It is notable simply for its dramatic quality and the possibly prize winning images in the Huffington article. Perhaps coverage of that demonstration, supported by the Huffington reference, could be separated out to show that it was an independent event, yet it does remain part of the 2011 Russian protests. Photoshopped images tend to be on the internet, somewhere, although "passed around" suggests a printed leaflet. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done; just now. It actually maked the article better readable. It gave it a better flow. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

For Russian-speaking editors

There's a symbol of tomorrow's rally. Maybe you put this as a section like with "5–7 December" rallies. --87.225.60.176 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Dmitriyeva

I changed back the names according to WP:RUS.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

a source

Found on Talk:Politics of Russia ... Vast Rally in Moscow Is a Challenge to Putin’s Power by Ellen Barry and Michael Schwirtz published New York Times December 24, 2011

99.19.40.123 (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

• Tens of thousands of people protest across Russia against parliamentary elections that they allege were rigged in favour of the ruling United Russia party. (RIA Novosti)
• Cuba announces that it will release 2,900 prisoners – including some political prisoners – in the next few days. (BBC)

from Portal:Current events/2011 December 24, RIA Novosti 99.181.157.27 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)