Jump to content

Talk:Femen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vermondo (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 24 June 2013 (→Stop putting all their actions into this Wiki-article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A question

Talking with some friend in Kyiv about FEMEN recently I got the idea that FEMEN is not that big there... Did I get that right? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you're absolutely right, noclador (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only problem is, we don't write articles based on our own personal experience. We write articles based on reliable sources. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intending too, I was just curious... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 02:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They might have a small membership, but they are rather well known. Whether they accomplish their goals might be questionable, but they definitely bring attention to certain issues.69.119.232.155 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Regarding recent edits,[1] there needs to be discussion rather than edit warring. I'm certain there is room for improvement and compromise, but there appears to be a problem communicating. The lead currently says:

The organisation became internationally known for going topless to protest against sex tourists, sexism and other social ills."

Unless this is disputed, that is generally how we write a lead section, preferring to summarize what is notable about an organization in a succinct manner from reliable sources. Recently an editor change this to the following:

The organisation is internationally known for topless protests against sex tourism, sexism, lack of hot water in student dormitories, Ukraine not winning any medals at the 2010 Olympic Winter games in Vancouver, modern erotic art at the Pinchuk Art Centre and other topics.

As far as I can tell from the sources, the organization is not internationally known for these things. For example, USA Today writes:

Femen's initial targets were prostitution and discrimination against women. It has branched out to tax policy, freedom of speech and, as seen with Putin's visit last month, foreign affairs.[2]

It's best to go with the sources. Clearly, the group is not known internationally for protesting against a lack of hot water. Further issues with this set of edits are as follows:

  • Recently, an editor changed "FEMEN has more than 15,000 followers in Ukraine and beyond, but they do not have any financial or political backers" to "FEMEN claims to have more than 15,000 followers in Ukraine and beyond." The source for this statement was not FEMEN but RT,[3] and I've added the appropriate attribution per best practices.[4] Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An editor moved the statement, "The organisation stated it received small funding from "Some DJ from Germany and publisher Jed Sunden" from the bottom of the paragraph to the top, in the process combining and synthesizing two different statement to make it appear that the group is lying about their finances.[5] This is not only poor editing, but violates our best practices regarding citing sources accurately and avoiding WP:SYN. As a result, I've restored the previous version. Further violations of this nature will be reported. According to RT, FEMEN does not have financial or political backers. And yet, according to Pravda, the group receives small funding from a DJ in Germany and a publisher. Both should be attributed, however one wonders about the reliability of both. Interestingly, the claim that the group receives funding comes from this source, and although I tried to translate it[6] the claim appears associated with the word "rumor", so I am wondering if it should even be in the article. I've removed the statement until someone can properly translate it from the primary kommersant.ru source linked here. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. quick notes: regarding the intro: FEMEN began as a protest group financed by DJ Hell from Germany and Jed Sunden, the former editor of the Kyiv Post weekly, aiming their protests against prostitution and sex tourism at first... but since then has staged around 50-60 protests against anything making news in that particular week in Ukraine. The last protest against sex tourism was months back; i.e. the most recent activities were in August about "Secret Service of Ukraine Fucked us up!", in September 2 girls stormed a science congress discussing health issues in Ukraine, and in early October a girl ran around naked to protest against the IMF bail out of Ukraine. Thus in my view the USA Today intro is much more correct and truthful than the old wikipedia entry, as the wikipedia intro lacks the subsequent indiscriminate branching out from their original protest topic. As far as I am concerned you can rewrite the intro, just take into consideration that FEMEN by now has branched out into anything they deem protest worthy. (i.e. Hillary Clinton refusing to talk to them, made them picket Clintons State Visit to Kyiv with a naked girl).
  2. as the FEMEN followers: "The FEMEN movement has more than 15,000 followers in Ukraine and beyond" actually means that this amount of people "like" the FEMEN group on vkontakte.ru. A number that has been fallen to around 13,500 already; but I doubt that one can speak of real followers in that case.
  3. I did a very good job of combining the statement by RT with the Jed Sunden and DJ Hell information as in fact they do get financing from these to men! Your threats are out of order here, as you do not have the facts and do not speak Russian and therefore can neither read the sources nor know the sources. Actually the paragraph at Kommersant is translated into English as: "Although there are rumors that the girls are generously rewarded for all of their performances, in fact the FEMEN budget is very modest: 600-700 euros per month. Through "The Board of Trustees" a DJ from Germany makes a contribution of 400 euros per month and publisher Jed Sunden, owner of the holding company KP Media, contributes 200 euros a month." The RT statement that they do not have "any financial or political backers." is factually wrong. However the RT article is a year older than the Kommersant article and thus supersedes the RT article anyways.
  4. as you seem to intend to control the editing to the article, I ask you to edit the article according to my points above. If need arises for more info and sources let me know; however keep in mind that the starting point for my edits was, that the article was lacking current information about FEMEN and was having some FEMEN claims (i.e. number of followers) as truth.
noclador (talk) 13:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me that I intend to control the article, yet you demand that I edit according to your command. Who is controlling who here? All I ask is that you use the best sources and attribute appropriately. If indeed, the RT claim is older, then we should favor only the most current sources. And if the numbers are unclear, let's avoid stating them until we get better sources. You say that the statement claiming they do not have any backers is outdated and wrong, but does receiving a modest contribution that pays for food and rent amount to a political backing? No. Feel free to use the USA Today or any other current source for the lead, but be fair and reasonable. They are not internationally known for protesting against a lack of hot water in student dormitories or for Ukraine not winning medals at the Olympics, that much is clear. Follow the sources closely, and there won't be any problems, but don't pick and choose negative information while ignoring the positive either. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree FEMEN "receives small financial backing by individuals" as I put it in the article. As for the "Internet and email contacts indicate a support base of about 25,000 people" as stated in the Reuters article. I agree with noclador that that is not an indication of much; for example: some (non famous) Facebook members have 19.000 Facebook friends, I doubt those people hang out (in real life) with more then 20 of them..... So unless they start to have some sort of membership program it is unclear to me how to indicate there actual suportbase (hence my question on top of this page). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 02:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated a sentence (plus references) which had been deleted by Yulia Romero. The text as amended by Yulia Romero seemed to present a sanitised portrayal of Femen, as it suggested that they confine their protests to going ‘topless’. The sentence which I have reinstated confirms that this is not the case and at least one of Femen’s leading members goes further. I think that this is worth including, as several people who would not find ‘topless’ protests offensive might be offended by ‘bottomless’ protests or full nudity. AlanD1956 (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what this 1 "‘bottomless’ protests" demonstartion says about FEMEN; so I deleted it yesterday because of WP:DUE and WP:DETAIL. I trimed it down today because Alan explanation makes sence; I do not see the need to name woman of the "‘bottomless’ protests" here on wikipedia since she might not want that and it has no added value to the article (to much details makes for unreadable articles in my perception). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"exposing her buttocks outside a locked toilet", that sounds more like a drunk girl on Independence Day or a mentally unstable lady or the combination of both... but nothing of encyclopedic relevance! noclador (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth keeping for two reasons: 1) the woman in question seems to be one of Femen’s leading activists (she is also one of the two women arrested in the protest on 16 August 2011), 2) the protest in question has frequently been cited by Femen’s critics as an example of ‘tastelessness’ (see the article by Maria Danilova referred to in the reference: a search on Google will reveal several similar articles). I am not in a position to assess the activist’s mental state, but the photos on http://www.vkblog.nl/bericht/351139 seem to make it clear that this was a deliberate act rather than a moment of drunkenness. I have no objection to Yulia removing the activist’s name (anyone interested can find it by following the reference). AlanD1956 (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of 'bottomless' protests, there was another such protest by four activists in Feb 2011: see the photos on http://kievconnexions.blogspot.com/2011_02_01_archive.html . However this does not seem to have attracted the same publicity as Oksana Shachko's solo protest did. On the question of naming activists, I see that the Russian version of Wikipedia currently names three activists (Oksana Shachko and the Shevchenkos) in addition to Anna Hutsol. AlanD1956 (talk) 08:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC) Incidentally Inna and Alexandra Shevchenko are not sisters, as at least one newspaper article has mistakenly reported: they come from different parts of Ukraine, and there respective backgrounds are outlined in Gail Ackerman's recent book on Femen. AlanD1956 (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has anybody seen an opinion poll (in Ukrainian or Russian) or something? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 22:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Win a wife" competition

Was this ""Win a wife" competition" really that noticeable? Wikipedia is not a newspaper; hence I deleted this section. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the section to The Rock (New Zealand); seems to belong there. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 23:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Noticeable' is surely in fact itself more a news issue than an encyclopedia issue. But: culturally significant?--46.65.8.106 (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "culturally significant" for New Zealand or Ukraine's image abroad... But this Wiki article is about FEMEN not Ukraine's image outside Ukraine... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Hutsol is not called Anna Gutsol

Anna Hutsol gets 2x as much google hits then Anna Gutsol. Romanization of Ukrainian has beat Romanization of Russian.
— Yulia Romero (formerly Mariah-Yulia) • Talk to me! 21:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yulia. And I am puzzled as to why someone has begun a page on Wikipedia giving her name as Hanna Hutsol rather than Anna Hutsol, without any explanation. Her name is normally given as анна Гуцол not Ганна Гуцол, and is (for example) shown as анна Гуцол on her own blog. AlanD1956 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hutsol, she was the founder but does not claim to be FEMEN's leader

On the subject of Anna Hutsol, she was the founder of Femen and still acts as a spokesperson, but does not take an active part in its protests and does not claim to be its leader. In an interview in Gail Ackerman's recent book on Femen (p 263), she states that it would be more correct to regard Inna Shevchenko as the current leader. I have therefore described Hutsol as 'founder' rather than 'leader' of Femen. AlanD1956 (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "girls Tymoshenko" and/or "Putin's agents"

Not sure that Табло ID is the world most reliable source either.... Should the sentence in this article In Ukraine the FEMEN activists have been labeled "girls Tymoshenko" and/or "Putin's agents" be deleted? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, they are just stupid - i read an article about them in Der Spiegel this week... and the writers were meeting them and for the writers it was clearly a joke they had to tell the world (which was easy thanks to Hutsol over-the top "We conquer the world" lines)... noclador (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Der Spiegel article does say they where rumored to be "girls Tymoshenko" and/or "Putin's agents" though. Can you send the link to the Der Spiegel article you (=noclador) mean (I can read German by the way) please? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:22, 6 May 2011

In view of their two recent protests in Russia (three of the group have recently received short prison sentences for protesting at the presidential election), I think it is clear that they are not "Putin's agents". AlanD1956 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In Ukraine the FEMEN activists have been labeled "girls Tymoshenko" and/or "Putin's agents"; just because they protested against Putin does not mean they can not be labeled Putin's agents (or used to be labeled that).... This sentence was about there image not about there motives.... (the name of the chapter is= "Cultural and political image"). (About your other recent edits) for your information Hanna is the Ukrainian form of the name Anna (Anna is the Russian form of the name Anna). Anna Hutsel seems to be her WP:COMMONNAME, but that is something different then "the correct spelling of Anna Hutsol", if you would spell her name in Ukrainian as Anna Hutsol (=Aнна Гуцол) it would be wrong. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your earlier question "Should the sentence in this article In Ukraine the FEMEN activists have been labeled "girls Tymoshenko" and/or "Putin's agents" be deleted?" my answer is still 'yes', but I see that you have reinstated the "Putin's agents" reference (I agree with the clarification which you have added). We have also discussed Anna Hutsol on the page relating to her: to avoid any confusion, I think that her WP:COMMONNAME should be Anna Hutsol (ie Anna not Hanna; and Hutsol not Hutsel or Gutsol). So while I am grateful for your additional information, I still disagree with the editor who changed the English version of her name to Hanna. AlanD1956 (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very interesting for the reader what the image of this group is in Ukraine... I tried to find sources on that to expand that section... But could find close to none information on that... From WP:OR I can conclude that nobody in Ukraine seems to care what FEMEN does or does not.... (Foreign) media only seems to be interested in FEMEN because of how the conduct there rallies... not on why and if they have any affect on society... (if any of them is reading this: do a better job when reporting about these girls and if you want to see breast go to a strip club...). Let's keep the small indications on there image in Ukraine in the article please.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed this. They are neither Putin's agents nor "anti-Russian" per sources. My very best wishes (talk)

Curse of nakedness

So what if they never mentioned it? Their history supports what they're doing and the information is sourced. What do you think about adding it to "See also"? USchick (talk) 03:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not real

Some journalists told me they paid FEMEN to get pictures and write articles about it. Seems these girls are kind of hookers that protest against anything you want - if you pay them well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foerdi (talk • contribs) 09:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a gossip forum. So where are your sources? 109.178.189.209 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same allegations exist about pretty much any opposition movement (at least in the former Soviet Union region). 69.119.232.155 (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proof: russian media http://german.ruvr.ru/2012_09_22/89046818/ --95.88.236.187 (talk) 12:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they get paid. That doesn't make them 'hookers.' In fact, that's abusive, in my book.--46.65.8.42 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proof "http://german.ruvr.ru/2012_09_22/89046818/" provided was done by an Ukrainian TV channel.... Ukrainian TV channels are not part of the "russian media"; if the IP 95.88.236.187's dictionary translated the German words "ukrainischen Fernsehkanal" into "russian media" he needs to buy a new one... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't make flesh flashers 'hookers' or unreal.--46.65.8.42 (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was merge Anna Hutsol into FEMEN. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the article Anna Hutsol be merged into FEMEN, that article does give close to no information that can not be found in FEMEN and this article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of this article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The only aditional information the Anna Hutsol page gives is 2 short sentences.... Any other wikipedia articel with 2 sentences of new information would have been deleted almost right after its creation.... There is room enough in this article for those 2 sentences. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this proposal. There is little new information in the Anna Hutsol article, and it contradicts itself in giving two different dates of birth for her. AlanD1956 (talk) 08:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Wrong closure

A fork is never a "controversial merging" as far as I now... And since when is 9 May the day after 6 March? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

abduction?

Is this true? Were some abducted? Malick78 (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Anna Hutsol for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anna Hutsol is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Hutsol until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too much filled with more details then needed per WP:DETAIL

Can't help to think that lately this article is getting too much filled with more details then needed per WP:DETAIL. (Per Example) the exact place of the cross they put down seems redundant information in Wikipedia; if readers want to know that they can check the sources (a.k.a. References) in this article. (Per Example 2) If readers want to know more about Holodomor they can click on the link to that article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your recent removals, and slightly modified a sub-title. They protest not against Christianity per se, but against Church establishment, inappropriately of course. I removed more poorly sourced stuff and removed some cats. A majority of sources does not describe FEMEN as anti-Islamic or anti-Christian organization, but rather as a feminist protest organization. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is so much fun, how could I miss this? My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that the article is beginning to go into too much detail. btw I am not clear why this discussion appears in the coloured box under the 'merger proposal' heading? AlanD1956 (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I made a few changes to the Cultural and political image section, but a number of those changes were recently reverted here. I think my edit summaries were fairly clear, but I'll reiterate them here in case I'm wrong. Prior to my edits, the section was an abysmally poor representation of the sources it was using. In many cases, it took an article which was largely supportive of the group, and cherry picked a single negative quote to use as a summary. We simply can't do that. In other cases, it used a poorer quality, lower impact and partisan source (such as interfax-religion.com) over a higher quality news outlet (like the huffington post, or cnn). In that case, interfax-religion was unduly negative relative to the other mainstream publicity, so is a poor representation of the literature on that issue.

The revert/reworking which was done after my edits made an additional claim, that "It is a Ukrainian organization. So I think Ukrainian opinions are mre important then Western opinions........" That is not true. This is a global wiki, and what is most important is the weight of ideas in the literature as a whole. The edit made with that edit summary buried the "western opinion" 2 paragraphs after the negative comments, despite the fact that it is present in the very same source used in the first paragraph. We are trying to accurately summarize the literature as a whole, not divisively separate out positive and negative comments to give a certain impression.

Lastly, I removed a number of weasel words, and did some rearranging. That was reverted as well, and new weasel words were introduced. We shouldn't be saying things like "Some western feminists..." when the source makes no such caveat: "They have had more luck in the West. Editors have happily given space to topless feminists...Ms Shevchenko says sympathetic Western groups have invited them abroad and helped with their funding." The rearranging is less of an issue, but still pertinent. This is a section devoted to the reception the group has received in the media, so why should we not start the section with a paragraph discussing what media attention they've received? Why should that come last, with a bunch of commentary by admittedly non-notable people up at the top?   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not popular in Ukraine... I know this from personal investigation/asking around in Ukraine... (in my view them Western journalist are not doing there job well by never stating this in there articles about FEMEN (minus the BBC); so if I where you I would not take these Western articles about FEMEN seriously…). So I tried to reflect this into the article. My last edits I cared more about this then about Wikipedia Guidelines.. Sorry about that. Maybe a subchapter “Popularity of FEMEN in Ukraine” should be created? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This could go into that: according to an Ukrainian journalist they spend more money then they claim to get... (see also here). I could not find any Ukrainian polls about there popularity; I do regret that. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yulia. Thank you, but that's original research. We have to go by what the sources say, not by personal investigation. That means reflecting all the sources neutrally and accurately, even the western ones. Please read WP:OR and WP:DUE.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, could you respond to the other issues I raised above? For instance, the reordering issue. I'm not reintroducing those changes while we talk things out. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware what is original research.... But because of lack of sources a subject/person gets too look popular in Ukraine (according to its English Wikipage) while nobody cares about it there can not be one of the goals of Wikipedia.... I do not care enough about FEMEN to think/care about the issues you raised above (sorry; I'm only human; I think FEMEN is a waste of space and only does harm to Ukraine; based on my experiance with Ukrainian NGO's I also expect some of its leaders use the money the organization gets to get a good life for themselves a.k.a. corruption). As long as this article does not become a wp:soapbox it is fine by me. On anothere note: source 67 seems an example of a badly writen article since it fails to report who spoke positively about them sawing down a cross... (I never heard of somethinng called "negative mixed results") I think it is best removed... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yulia. I asked you to respond to the points I raised because when I fixed them, you reverted me. If you don't care about them, then I'll reinstitute the changes. Thanks. Source 67 is written by the USA Today, published FCN. Is that the source you're talking about? USA Today is certainly not an unreliable source. You can inquire at WP:RSN if you disagree, but I imagine they'll say the same thing. I don't know what you mean by "negative mixed results"; I don't see that term appearing anywhere in our article, or in the USA Today source.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the tsn.ua source, I see it discusses the cost they pay for each activist. I don't see them discussing going into debt. We could probably incorporate the cost of each activist into the article, but I can't think of a really good way to do that. Is it really pertinent? Maybe it is. If you could provide some wording for it, maybe we could talk about it more. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this source (an Huffington Post article). That talks about elicited mixed responses but it does not meantion any responses... It links to another article that also gives no responses other then a criminal case that got opened. Others on Wikipedia have questioned the reliableness of Huffington Post. Hence our edit here makes no sence since the article gives no does not cite any positive responces. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 02:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that the article says: "While some have lauded Shevchenko's act of defiance, others say that the activist may have taken things a little too far". Whille I still think that the author of the article has made that up herself.... I guess under Wikipedia guidelines this article can now (still) say: The action attracted mixed responses. But mutch to do with the truth it has not... I would prefer some other sources who talk about "While some have lauded Shevchenko's act of defiance". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 02:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems we agree about the appropriateness of that comment now, so I won't drag the point out, but I think you're approaching this the wrong way. We're not finding sources, interpreting them, and then writing our own content based on our interpretations. In this case, we're paraphrasing directly from the source. The article says, explicitly, that the action "elicited mixed responses", and so that's what we've said too. The source doesn't need to elaborate on every response. We're just reporting what they say... that's all. Anyway, if you can find another source which handles this issue that you'd rather use, feel free to post it and I'd be happy to give my input. For now, it looks like we agree, so let's leave it as-is until we find another source to incorporate. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that these English media reports about FEMEN are terrible... They tell nothing about the impact of FEMEN in Ukraine or what common Ukrainians think of them (with the BBC as exception) or what the results of there actions are in Ukraine. The authors of these (English language) articles seem to have a positive POV towards FEMEN, or are simply lazy.... Sadly I can not find any good articles about FEMEN in the Ukrainian press (or any other Ukrainian source) either... If there is one thing I wish you will learn from our interaction on this page it is: don't trust everything you read in the press... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 02:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But their notability extends outside of the Ukraine. We're interested in notability, not whether they've made their country better. In our personal lives, yes, you definitely shouldn't believe everything you read. But as wikipedia editors, our job is only in reporting what we read... Our job is not to evaluate whether mainstream sources got stuff wrong. If all the good articles you can find talk positively about FEMEN, that should tell you something about how this article should be written. I had never heard of FEMEN before today. I came to wikipedia to read about them, and left with the impression they were a radical feminist group which stirred up tons of controversy, accomplished next to nothing, defaced property and got sent to jail. In sum, I got the impression they were an extremist group that no one liked. That wasn't surprising to me, and if I hadn't researched further, I would have happily believed it. But when I did look further, and read the actual sources, I found an entirely different story. Many people do like them, and many sources describe their activities in a less radical light. That's bad, for us. We can't put together a novel synthesis of sources to paint a picture of a radical group when our quality sources reflect "normal" activism. Yes, it does appear that they've gotten a lot of criticism in the Ukraine (though not all of it has been criticism there either), but this is a global wiki, and we cover their notability in the rest of the world too. We need to fix this problem. I've started, and I'll do more, later. What we really need are more quality sources, from all over the world (Ukraine included), and an audit of the sources we're using to ensure we're accurately reflecting their entire message, not just bits and pieces that fit with a certain storyline. We'll get there. I appreciate the work you've put into the article. We just need that little more to get to WP:NPOV. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Long Wikibreak

Naomi Westland quote

Naomi Westland says: "Western countries are more accustomed than those in the Eastern Hemisphere to seeing naked or semi-naked bodies in the media and on the streets. But in countries where nudity is taboo, the protests have more profound impact" If Westland ever would have been in Ukraine she would have noticed that Ukrainian woman tend to wear "more revealing cloths" then Western European woman... and there is just as much nudity on Ukrainian TV then Western European TV… What she says has nothing to do with Ukraine... nor is it close to any truth... The quote only proofs that Naomi Westland knows nothing about Ukraine... Should we really quote people who clearly have not a clue where they are talking about? I say no to that. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+ she fails to say what the impact of FEMEN in Ukraine is then.... I know from OR there is none.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted section title so it wasn't 2 full lines long  — Jess· Δ♥ 23:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yulia. That puts us back into OR territory. We're just quoting her assessment of the impact of this group. Her article is printed in a reliable source, and it is relevant to the topic, so we can't dismiss her opinions on the basis of disagreeing with them. Remember, the goal is to accurately reflect the media coverage this group has received, not to interpret the news coverage and paint our own picture.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yulia, you just added a relevance tag to this quote. I'd appreciate it if you discussed the issue rather than tagging without discussion. The quote is relevant because it pertains to the perception of the group in various parts of the world, and it directly coincides with the quote before it. I'm not sure how the perception of FEMEN globally would be irrelevant to a section titled "cultural and political image" in an article about FEMEN. Could you please elaborate on your concerns? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to insert a discussion here... I still fail to see what the quote in your opinion teels about FEMEN... It says that somebody thinks the group has an impact... So it says that in the USA the image of FEMEN is that it has an impact whille in reality it has no impact? 1 USA person claiming the group has an impact says nothing about the image of FEMEN in the USA if you can not find more people from the USA who say the same thing... Is that not a Fringe theory and thus it should not be in Wikipedia? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not "one person" saying this... it's an article posted by USA Today which says that it is a general phenomena with respect to FEMEN. Naomi is just the author of that article, but we could just as easily say "According to USA Today..." Did you read the full article? It gives plenty of examples, and discusses lots of other quotes. Right now we have at least 3 sources saying that FEMEN has better reception in the West than in the East, and none disputing it. Do you have any sources which dispute that claim?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. Ands after reading it again I think what Westland is trying to say that in general "Western countries are more accustomed..." and that her quote is not conected with Ukraine; after she makes the quote Ukraine does not gets mentioned in the article... And they only people who make positive remarks about FEMEN in Westland's article are FEMEN members. I don't want to be a burden... but I do believe the quote should be removed since it is misleading and is used in a way that Westland did not intended it to be used in (I do believe). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am not disagreeing with the fact "the group is seen more positively abroad"; but the quote that follows it is misleading and was not meant to be used for that claim.
PS2 No; I am not Rush Limbaugh File:Navy.gif! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a much better argument, and one we can definitely look at. (It wouldn't be synthesis if true, by the way, since we're only using one source). However, re-reading that section, I see no way you could possibly interpret the author's words as applying to anyone but FEMEN. To quote:

The quote follows directly after 8 paragraphs discussing FEMEN, and directly after a paragraph talking about reactions to the group. If you really disagree strongly, we could get a 3rd opinion via WP:3O, or try an RfC... RSN may even be able to help... but the issue seems pretty plain to me. Anyway, let me know if you want to move forward with one of those options, or you think there's more to discuss between us. I'd be happy to talk about it more or get some outside input. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess under Wikipedia guidelines this quote can (also) stay. But again much to do with the truth it has not... As a female friend from Kyiv ones said to me: "Ukraine is not Iran".... In real life Ukraine is not less accustomed to seeing naked or semi-naked bodies in the media and on the streets then Western European countries. I would strongly advice you to remove the quote since it is at best nonsense. “Don’t judge a person till you know the man” is something not practised by Westland… — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 02:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we disagree. No worries, that happens sometimes. :) Just let me know if you think getting outside input would be a benefit. We can definitely do that. I think RSN would be our best bet, but 3O or RFC might work too, if you want something more 'formal'.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a bit to early to go to them RSN, 3O or RFC's yet (this discussion only started yesterday), besides the problem is that in general I do think that the sources used in the article (USA Today, The Guardian etc.) are reliable... But in this case the employer (the sources) is not to blame but the employee (the author of the articles); but that would be a case of my WP:OR against consensus that the sources are reliable... So I do think I have no change to win discussions about the reliableness of the sources... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background info

In the final section, there are a lot of redlinked names. Until articles are written on these people, it would be useful for readers unfamiliar with them to have some kind of characterization attached, "Ukrainian TV commentator" and so forth. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... I tried to do this last November but these characterization where then deleted by Mann jess... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology

About half the time when I hear about Femen on the news, the reportage is basically a reiteration of “Yesterday Femen conducted yet another topless protest in (insert random city here). They raised havoc and drew a lot of attention and stuff, but we're still trying to figure out what it was exactly that they were protesting about.” My main motive for coming here was to find out what the group actually stood for. There are some valuable tads and bits revealed throughout the article (e.g., about their anti-clericalism or their pro-choice position), but it's presented in a fragmented form. My suggestion is to organize it all into a cohesive section listing their stances on all these issues. Might that be unnecessary? EIN (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion is an excellent idea! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done at FEMEN#Ideology; they are more Ukrainian nationalistic then I thought before my last research on them. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 02:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed it to "Goals and stances"; that is a better name for the section. I am not sure (like other protests groups of its time; for example Occupy Wall Street) FEMEN actually has an ideology... Since they are a protest group and not a political party I think they don't need one and they don't seem to want one... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, glad I could help, one way or another. I was thinking about something more concise, but readers probably will appreciate the section in its present, more elaborate format. I'll make a few minor additions. EIN (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Countries with taboo for naked bodies"

The quote about taboo is wide off mark. Naked bodies are not taboo in Ukraine or Russia. The author probably thuinks in terms of Communist times long gone. There is a second postcommunist generation already. On the other hand I didn't hear FEMEN rpotesting in Iran and other places where bare ass is taboo for real. The reverter wrote "we don't revert opinions just because we disagree". Yes we dont'. But in this case it is not a matter of dicagreement: it is a matter of the opinion being provably false. We don't collect false opinions in wikipedia: it will be a huge heap of garbage otherwise. If you still insist that bare tits are taboo in Ukraine, I am happy to prove otherwise, with abound references about post-Communist sexuality. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I've asked for sources to the contrary. Something specifically relating to FEMEN would be preferable. Otherwise, we'd be engaging in OR.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to ignore my argument. The quote is taken out of context. FEMEN did not perform in countres with naked body taboo. Therefore the quotation is irrelevant. Please explain how it is relevant. (As for "profound impact", well, people were leering and laughing. Impact, sure, but this is beyond the point.) As for engaging ijn WP:OR, I am not adding text to artcle, hence no OR. On the other hand, verifying validity of added information is common sense. Also, what exactly "to the contrary" you have in mind? Like I said there are zillions of papers which talk about destroying sexual taboos in post-communist Europe. YOu may start from with this book, which says "after 1987 the taboo was broken"... "liberalization of sexual morality began in 1960s-197s" and so on. Meaning that this lady you want quoted did not get her facts straight, hence the quote is based on false premises hence has no place in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not taken out of context. It is a quote about FEMEN, which we are republishing in an article about FEMEN. The sources you listed have nothing to do with FEMEN, so using them to contradict a source about the topic would, again, be original research. Our content policies (like OR) do not suddenly vanish just because you're removing content instead of adding it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is taken out of context, therefore looks OK. The context talks about FEMEN and Russia and Belarus and Ukraine. In this context the quote is false, because there is no sexual taboo in Russia and Ukraine, as my quote demonstrated. To prove that the author writes nonsense is not original research; it is due diligence. I never heard taht removal of false content constitutes OR. If it is so, please cite the corresponnig line in the policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what "out of context" means. You mean to say that the author of the USA Today article is wrong. I understand that. You've provided sources saying that specific countries had a sexual revolution back in the 80s. That doesn't change the author's point that demonstrating in Eastern countries where there are taboos is typically more effective than demonstrating in Western ones where there are fewer taboos. I'm not assessing whether she is right or not, I'm just reporting what she said in a reliable and relatively high profile source. If we could do original research in order to remove sourced content, then we could make pretty drastic changes that would be unwarranted. I could do my own research and conclude that Evolution was clearly unrealistic, so all the sources we have that say it is must be thrown out. We don't do that here.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. But we are talking about simple yes/no fact, not about a theory. If there is an evidence that the author got his fact wrong, it must be thrown out. Otherwise I can add a huge number of wrong blurbs published by the New York Times, which contradict everything known. You cannot cover rational judgement of a wikipedian by policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes my second point: did FEMEn demonstrate in countries with sexual taboos? If not then this quoted opinion is irrelevant. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to say. I feel like I could just copy/paste my last reply to this one; we're not getting anywhere. I think the next step would be to post at WP:RSN for outside input. The crux of your argument, it seems, is that the USA Today source is unreliable. RSN handles that sort of thing. I'll be happy to participate over there too, and we can get some outside input.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be entrenced in policies: you identified a wrong crux; the real crux is that reliable sources can make mistakes; good journalists may have wrong stereotypes, and we must not blindly accept all what is written in the USA Today. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be particulary against this quote but for its apparent perpetuation of the stereotype about backwardness of East Europe: no sex, Dracula, Polaks and Polish mlumbers, and bears in the streets of Russia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May be the following pinpointing will help you to understand my objection. Please notice I am not arguing against the conclusion of the author, which it is ratthed disputable (one may well say that in sexually-repressed countries people would rather look at the bare pussies rather than at the slogans they carry). But it is her opinion, and she is entitled to it, and it may be cited as such. Instead, I am arguing against her wrong premise: that FEMEN acted in sexually repressed countries: it is her provably erroneous knowledge, and it has no place in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "entrenched in policy"; I'm not citing policies here just to cite them... I'm citing them because I believe they are relevant and prevent us from making poor content decisions. Really, Staszek Lem, the next step is RSN. We can get outside input there, and see if there is agreement from others that the source is being misused. I didn't add the source, by the way. I just think it would be a bad idea to remove it on the basis of OR, and I don't think USA Today is typically unreliable. How about you make a post at RSN, and we can discuss it further over there with other contributors?   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself used cautious phrasing: "(not) typically unreliable". And sorry, I still think you have a too large desire to apply a policy, even with big overstretch. I am not questioning any sources. I am questioning a single statement, which is provably wrong. And you are misusing the terminology: OR applies only to text added to article, not to discussions in talk pages. Please step away from policies and consider the issue in its core: is the assertion of the journalist that Ukrasine and Russia are full of sexual taboos correct or not? Such descisions are made every day in many articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well I've told you what I need to move forward. I've been trying to be as nice about this as I can, but you haven't provided any good justification to ignore policy, and WP:OR doesn't work the way you're claiming. Go to RSN, and I'll discuss it there. Otherwise, I have other things to work on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are OK with keeping this bullshit based on my lack of knowledge of wikilawyereing, fine with me: small matter. I just wanted to discuss it with you hoping you would listen to reason, but I would not sweat on it. I understand that wikipedia needs wikilawyers, along with proofreaders, deletionists, inclusionists, etc. But as I said, wikilawyering is not my strong. See you next year. I've just fixed a yet another bullshit in this article which was based on sources you would consider just as "reliable" (in big scary quotes that is). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wikilawyering, and I'd appreciate you reading through WP:AGF. You need to see WP:DR when there is a dispute where no agreement can be reached, and one option (the appropriate one in this instance) is to go to RSN to discuss it with a broader array of editors. I've been very nice about this and directed you to the correct channel. If you won't go there, and insist on calling my activities "bullshit", then I absolutely won't be continuing this discussion further.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the term "bullshit" was applied to artcle fragment in question, not to activities. If you have read my arguments in the same way, no wonder we could not come to agreement. I don't want to drag other people into this because of lesser importance. I merely wanted an intellectual discussion about the essence of the text, not intricacies of wikilaws. Despite your allegations I didn't violate any policies here: I didnt engage in revert wars, pushing POV, doing OR, etc. Once again, since I have no desire to engage in wikilawyering, I backed off, and your drama queen outburst is misplaced. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While in France FEMEN key activist Inna Shevchenko had bought shoes for €800...

The sentence: While in France FEMEN key activist Inna Shevchenko had bought shoes for €800 was deleted yesterday by Alison with the reason: rm: totally not a reliable source (the source was an Ukrainian newspaper). I am not sure what she exactly meant (since Alison appears to be mostly active on Irish Wikipedia I doubt she knows which Ukrainian newspapers are reliable and which ones are not) but I presume she meant the source did not correspond with the Wiki-rule:

* The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors.

I think in this case the rumor key activist Inna Shevchenko had bought shoes for €800 should be in this article since if an UNICEF key member would spend €800 on shoes with money most likely coming from UNICEF it would be big news (too). A.k.a. it seems notable.

PS If you think it is unlikable an Ukrainian NGO member would steal money from their NGO you might want to read Corruption in Ukraine; I personaly have some experience with Ukrainian NGO's and I have the feeling it happens a lot... (WP:OR; I know) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not Topless

These women are not 'Topless' - media accounts not withstanding - they are exercising Topfreedom, an important distinction --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On their official website they claim to be topless women activists and all media describes them as "Topless" hence per Wikipedia:No original research Wikipedia should describe them as "Topless"... I am willing to believe that FEMEN and media might use the wrong name, but unless they change that... we have to use the wrong name... (if it does not work this way why do we have the Talk:Kiev/naming-page?) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, you are splitting hairs here: "topfreedom" is a right to go topless. Also, I agree with Yulia. Also, topless became a loanword in ukrainian, but I doubt that they knwow the word "topfreedom" (and its translation would sound really weird). Also, I dont think they are "exercising topfreedom": they are using their boobs for political and drama-queen purposes, so they are indeed exactly as they say: "topless women activists". Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They will end up topless/topfree if they keep on at Islamism!--46.65.8.42 (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not splitting hairs - people involved in the topfreedom equality movement feel quite strongly about this. The word "topless" became associated with adult entertainment and they want to distinguish their right to equal treatment from any negative associations the former has. Now I will grant you that these women are not primarily asking for top equality, but rather using their breasts as a form of protest. I was responding to concerns expressed by topfree activists. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have to go by what reliable sources call them, not by what people involved in the topfreedom equality movement might label them as. Otherwise, it's original research. Icarus of old (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yulia, Staszek and Icarus. In the many interviews quoted in Gail Ackerman's recent book on Femen, they repeatedly refer to themselves as going 'topless' and never once use the word 'topfree'. (My impression is that the word 'topfree' is only used in America, and is not in common use in Britain or among English-speaking Europeans.) AlanD1956 (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversial"

We seem to have a small edit war on our hands. where 1 IP (I suspect it is always the same person with different IP-adresses) tries to put in the lead of this Wiki article the word "Controversial"; since most English sources I saw about FEMEN never describe them as "Controversial" 1 source claiming them as controversial does not seem enough to put this word in the lead. And I feel it is POV-pushy also that we value them "Controversial" in the lead of the article. Per example in the lead of the Wiki article about the Nazi Party the word "Controversial" is not used.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Every interest group of every stripe is inherently "controversial" because they're trying to pressure society/politics/etc. in whatever direction they intend. The term is so universal as to be meaningless. The Sierra Club is "controversial," the NRA is "controversial," the Red Cross is "controversial," the March of Dimes is "controversial." polarscribe (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but we have a misunderstanding here. It is absolutely true that every interest group may be inherently controversial, but in the case of some groups (and in this case FEMEN) the WAY in which the pressure is being made is controversial. It is a quite unconventional interest group, and it is possible to find many sources where it is deemed controversial. By the way I am not the same user as the previous one, I didn't even notice these edits. 141.136.240.95 (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the word "controversial" is inherently subjective and could be applied by anyone, anywhere to any group. It is a meaningless word in this context. End of story. If you want to discuss the particular actions they have been involved in that have created controversy, then certainly we should do that. But we do not describe groups or people as "controversial." It is a contentious label which tends to create negative implications.
Also, given that your IP is very close to the previous IPs used to push this POV, you're not really likely to convince anyone that you're independently editing. polarscribe (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have the right to threaten and discriminate somebody solely based on the IP or fact that you don't like somebody's edit. The the Wiki article about the Nazi Party does not contain the word "controversial" because it is very obvious. In this case, it is not. How don't you understand that "controversial" can not be applied to any group? Please find some other interest group displaying topless nudity and infuriated protests, which in fact has a negative connotation from objective point of view. Aren't these controversial? Please don't revert that edit, or at least find some apropriate term instead of the term "controversial". It should be definitively discussed. Thank you. 141.136.240.95 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess why the word the Wiki article about the Nazi Party does not contain the word "controversial" seems wrong; I suspect it is because the editors there try to maintain a neutral point of view (PS Nazi's where so obviously evil that it would seem silly to describe them as "controversial"). To label FEMEN "controversial" in the 4th word of their Wiki-article does not look like maintaining a neutral point of view. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See blocks:

141.136.240.95 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 31 hours
141.136.248.67 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 24 hours
141.138.38.202 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)): blocked 24 hours
141.136.222.121 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

DVdm (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember

No one "owns" articles/content within Wikipedia. Icarus of old (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No relatedness between Inna and Alexandra

Inna Shevchenko, who established FEMEN France in Paris on 18 September 2012, is not related to Alexandra Shevchenko, who established FEMEN Germany in Berlin on 24 January 2013. 91.61.197.68 (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting all their actions into this Wiki-article per WP:NOTEVERYTHING

This article is spinning out of control.... I do not see the need to archive all the actions of FEMEN into this Wikipedia article because an encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details (per WP:NOTEVERYTHING). Also (per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK) it reduces the readability and neatness of our articles. So I don't see any need to list "activists interrupted a lecture given by the Belgian archbishop André Léonard at the ULB University in Brussels on 23 April 2013" into this article.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last hours I have routed out all non-encyclopedic info from this article; please do not fill it again with André Léonard at the ULB University non-notable info again... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the mention of the "ambush" of Putin and Merkel, which you took out with this edit and was based on this source should be put back, for at least three reasons: (1) bare-breasted protestors getting within a few meters of the leaders of two major countries is a notable event; (2) Shevchenko said this was the group's "most successful action yet"; (3) what they had written across their chests was "Fuck the dictator". The latter point alone means this event should be mentioned by an encyclopedia, because calling Putin a dictator, when no one really denies that he was democratically elected, gives one insight into FEMEN's politics. Sure, Wikipedia is not FEMEN's personal "almanac", but what Shevchenko considers to be the group's most successful action should be mentioned. Descriptions of all the other actions you deleted can stay deleted, however. – Herzen (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done; a few seconds away. (Because) this "ambush" gives insight in the "line of thinking" of the group (they seems to have given up on doing something concrete for Ukrainian woman). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done too number 1 of your points. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Alexandra Shevchenko is not quoted in the interview in the source saying "Hanover trade fair was feminist group's most successful action yet", but instead she is quoted saying "it got great coverage". Hence I think the source lead ("Alexandra Shevchenko says stunt at Hanover trade fair was feminist group's most successful action yet") is a mistake by (the journalist) Kate Connolly; so we should not use that lead in this Wiki-article (another mistake in the article is "Shevchenko was once abducted by Ukrainian secret services"; this was the Belorussian secret services). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For what it's worth, the article body does place "most successful action yet" in quotes, and I think we can assume that Kate Connolly is not making up that Shevchenko used that phrase; Connolly just didn't quote the whole sentence. – Herzen (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that now too... I overlooked it earlier. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why name in all capitals?

I don't understand why the article is FEMEN and not Femen. Is it an acrostic or something alike? In the Russian and Ukrainian Wikis it is spelled as a normal noun («Femen» или «Фемен» in Russian, «Femen» («Фемен») in Ukrainian). --Vermondo (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Femen&oldid=561397431"