Talk:Alexei Navalny

Yandex

@Rolf h nelson: You must have missed my comment on your talk page which explains that the information is now quite broadly sourced by TV Rain, Meduza and Yandex himself[1] as well as the edit adding all remaining sources in the article itself[2]. Please discuss before deleting anything with factually incorrect explanation. Cloud200 (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion on the Talk page. No, I don't consider Yandex nor Yandex competitor Meduza to be WP:RS for establishing that this coverage is WP:DUE. We can ask for a third opinion if you like. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but your personal opinion or lack of knowledge does not replace the WP:RS guidance. Your first revert was justified by the fact that "TV Rain is not WP:RS", which demonstrates either bias or poor knowledge of Russian media as TV Rain is one of the most popular non-government-controlled media in Russia and is used as reference in dozens of articles on Wikipedia. However, because it's a Russian-only reference, I provided you with further two references which was rather easy as the case was widely discussed in Russia. You have not bothered to even respond to that but continued edit warring with justifications that were just as vague as factually false. Now, claiming that Meduza or Yandex are not WP:RS, and describing Meduza as "Yandex competitor", clearly demonstrates lack of basic knowledge about media in Russia. Meduza is not "Yandex competitor" but second primary non-government-controlled media platform in Russia while Yandex is the primary search platform there. And now Meduza has also English-language coverage for the case. Therefore I'm restoring the paragraph now with four references and if you have any issues with this please discuss here rather than edit warring. Cloud200 (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel that you're the one edit-warring here. Popularity doesn't automatically make a source an WP:RS, also non-government-controlled media in Russia aren't allowed to get very popular in the first place so it's a weird statistic. I am not an expert on Russian media, so feel free to inform me with citations, what is TV Rain's fact-checking policy? As far as Meduza, the Guardian stated [3] that Maduza "will aggregate news from Russian-language media as well as producing its own content", which seems to me like a competitor to Yandex. This doesn't outright disqualify Meduza as a source, but it does suggest caution unless there's strong evidence that meduza is WP:RS. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Notes section

I am confused about the notes section. Could someone clarify what it is referring to? Is there a link I a missing to a certain section of the article? Thanks. -10:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Poisoned!

https://abc11.com/society/russias-navalny-in-coma-in-icu-after-alleged-poisoning/6379561/

But also other medical issues are discussed--92.117.149.90 (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean by the 'officials' of the state? LOL! Let's not be naive.104.169.17.20 (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

RT do a fairly impartial piece on this noting that medical officials' tests say he was not poisoned. If this involved western nations Wikipedia would of course report that some conspiracy theorists believe poisoning but offical medical examination says otherwise. While no-one would rule out poisoning particularly considering the background, we should consider what the real reliable sources are, and if Wikipedia's history raises questions about its editorial team's reliability (hint: it's highly problematic). 90.206.39.148 (talk) 17:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Russia Today is a Russian-gov't controlled service, and is not a Reliable Source on Wikipedia.104.169.17.20 (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Just putting a reference here to affirm that RT (formerly "Russia Today") is in fact an explicitly deprecated source on Wikipedia. --Jhertel (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• RT should definitely not be used as a source. It is state propaganda controlled by Putin. Softlavender (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Note also that BBC is also state propaganda controlled by the Boris Johnson's personal friend Oliver Dowden;
• And the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is also state propaganda controlled by the Canadian Cabinet;
• We could go on and on with this pointless debate, but it would be better if we could be consistent when bashing other people's reliable sources so our editing could be more credible. Otherwise the thoughtless intervention advocated by Softlavender et al comes across as clumsy, partisan, censorship Santamoly (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Both BBC News and CBC are reliable sources. And RT is not. If you have any doubts about those assertions, post a query on WP:RSN -- Softlavender (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya#Poisoning

Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

According to Vladimir Kara-Murza, the symptoms of Navalny are similar to symptoms Kara-Murza experienced himself when he was poisoned in 2015 and 2017 (twice), see Vladimir_Vladimirovich_Kara-Murza#Illnesses - ref: [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sergei Sobyanin, a Putin appointee .

How can one speak of appointee about the result of an election by vote ?Chiloa (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sobyanin was mayor from 2010 and asked Putin in 2013 to resign who then appointed him as acting mayor to hold a snap election. Mellk (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

In 2018 , " On 8 September he was re-elected as Mayor with 51.37% of votes and on 12 September Sobyanin was again sworn in as Mayor of Moscow.[5]". according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Moscow_mayoral_electionChiloa (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead is clearly referring to the 2013 mayoral election where Navalny was a candidate. Before that election, Sobyanin was appointed acting mayor by Putin. Mellk (talk) 15:29, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Russian Marches

From 2009 to 2013 he took part in the far-right Russian marches — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.149.90 (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russian_march — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.149.90 (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, NO. " Despite condemning the xenophobic nature of The March, the Deputy Chief of the Moscow branch of Yabloko Alexey Navalny advocated for the permission of the event in the framework of freedom of assembly " ... 104.169.17.20 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Zakhar

His sons name means "sugar"? how is it spelled in Russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.230.16.45 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

More probably it is the Russian equivalent of the biblical name Zacharias.--~~

... or, Zechariah (Захар → Захария)—Pietadè (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Splitting Suspected poisoning​ from the Alexei Navalny article

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

---

I propose that the section Alexei Navalny#Suspected poisoning be split into a separate page called Alexei Navalny suspected poisoning. The content about the poisoning seems to me to be sufficiently different and would draw enough attention to need its own article. This section is currently large enough to make its own page.

I would leave behind something like this:

=== Suspected poisoning ===

Main article: Alexei Navalny suspected poisoning

On 20 August 2020, Navalny fell ill during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow and was hospitalised in the Emergency City Clinical Hospital No. 1 in Omsk (Russian: Городская клиническая больница скорой медицинской помощи №1), where the plane had made an emergency landing. The change in his condition on the plane was sudden and violent, and video footage showed crewmembers on the flight scurrying towards him and him crying in pain loudly.

Afterwards, his spokeswoman said that he was in a coma and on a ventilator in the hospital. She also said that Navalny only drank tea since the morning and that it was suspected that something was mixed into his drink. The hospital said that he was in a stable but serious condition, and after initially acknowledging that Navalny had probably been poisoned, the hospital's deputy chief physician told reporters that poisoning was "one scenario among many" being considered.

A plane was sent from Germany to evacuate Navalny from Russia for treatment at the Charité in Berlin, after the doctors treating him in Omsk had initially declared he was too sick to be transported but later released him.

References

The entire Suspected poisoning section in the current article, including all sub-sections, would be moved to the article Alexei Navalny suspected poisoning​. The In the News section of the main page would have to be altered as well. -RoyGoldsmith (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• I would not object to this, particularly if the section keeps growing. But yes, the fundamentals of the events should also remain on this article. Softlavender (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• I have removed an invisible Unicode character breaking the red links above (diff) and in the article (diff). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, provided we don't omit important material from this article. - MrX 🖋 11:47, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per MrX's conditions. 0qd (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, MrX's proposal. --Conrad Kilroy (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support Perhaps “Suspected poisoning of Alexei Navalny would be a better title for an article? Maivea (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support, what MrX suggested. Nukers473 (talk) 22:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• I would oppose at this point and I would imagine a Speedy Delete would result from such a move. The material is far too slight and it properly goes under this man's article.104.169.17.20 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd think that 8 paragraphs in 3 sections would be more than enough to avoid a Speedy Deletion using criteria WP:A7. The event is definitely notable and well-sourced. We will leave sufficient information in the main article so that casual readers will be satisfied. -RoyGoldsmith (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose, for the moment. I'll admit it is a very borderline case: certainnly it's hard to argue that the event itself doesn't at least technically pass muster under WP:GNG for a notable event. However, establishing notability is only beginning of the inquiry into when to spin out. I think the information is best contextualized here at present, and the content has not yet hit a length that is unmanageable--though to be sure, it's getting borderline in that respect as well. Still, all factors considered, and even granting that the topic is likely go grow to a point where it will need to be spun out eventually, I think we need to be careful of the WP:CRYSTAL in that presumption. For the moment, anyway, the media and interested party narratives are held in stasis as the next few medical decisive days or weeks play out. For the time being, I think, on balance, this is the place for the content. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

And actually I'll go further and say that some small portion of the "background" section could probably stand to be omitted for now--or at least reworked a little. At present, the first two paragraphs of that section have just a slight veer towards what I would call subtle WP:synthesis: we lay out a series of facts about the events of the man's life in the weeks leading up to the poisoning (in the context of section about that poisoning), and then just one single source that expressly ties these threads together and explicitly calls the spade for the spade and says this is clearly state retialiation. But the prose treats that narrative like it has near-ubiquitous acceptance, whereas the overwhelming majority (and therefore WP:WEIGHT) of the various primary and secondary sources are (for better or worse) a bit more guarded in the manner in which they evaluate the situation, so new is the event and so little empirical evidence/time for expert weigh-in has occurred. So I'm not sure it makes sense to have this whole theory laid out as if it is empirical fact in Wikipedia's own voice, rather than pairing this section back until the narrative is more robustly and universally asserted. At a minimum it should be utilizing more attribution I feel.

Lest it be said that my perspective on this has the potential to whitewash away some very relevant context here, I'll say this much: I'm sure we're probably mostly all on the same page as individuals about the likely broadstroke facts behind what is an apparent attack on a political dissident. But I just can't see those two paragraphs as they are currently worded as being a completely neutral distillation of what the broader selection of reliable sources are saying right now (not unless someone wants to make a much more robust weight argument with a much larger source selection)--not based on what I have seen of those sources. Maybe the world where the sources were less equivocating in this regard and on this topic would be the better one, but right now the narrative that is presented as the 'obvious explanation' is actually regarded by most sources (if mentioned at all in any given one) as a popular theory: one which certainly seems intuitively likely to many (including no doubt many of us here), but which is not validated by any evidence as yet and which most sources have therefore held off on expressing more than very vague speculation regarding, if even that.

And I know the rejoinder here is "Well, we only say that Kremlin involvement in suspected, not that it's fact." Which, fair enough--but considering the exact present wording and all context, I still think our approach needs tightening here for the moment--whether that is pairing down or just some more careful attribution. Anyway, reducing the profile of the subsection is a somewhat separate issue: I mention it here because it interfaces with the above WP:SUMMARYSTYLE discussion, based on section size, but I do think the content should be retained here in this article for now regardless of whether it is ever paired down or altered as I advocate for immediately above. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support - the linked article will initially be fluid, and can evolve to cover the emerging information, without cluttering the main biographic article. FredV (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Wait The event won't have a lasting effect, if he survives it. No harm in waiting it out and seeing how it unfolds. Per WP:EVENTCRIT. - hako9 (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - This section is already too long to be part of his biography.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Should suspected be omitted already from the proposed title? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 01:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, as the poisoning was confirmed. 0qd (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Yet BBC says: “Doctors in Germany, where Mr Navalny is being treated, said he had "probably" been poisoned but Mr Peskov questioned why they had "rushed" to that opinion.” — Pietadè (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

References

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.

“As of”/clean up main part

I’m in favor of cleaning up this part of the fourth paragraph of the main section:

“As of 21 August 2020, Navalny is in hospital in a serious but stable condition after a suspected poisoning during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow. His flight was diverted to Omsk. Later in the day, he was put on a medical plane bound for Berlin, where he arrived the next day. As of August 22, he remains in a coma.”

This is time-sensitive and will develop and have to be changed. I might recommend a statement closer to “on August 20, 2020, Navalny fell ill during a flight from Tomsk to Moscow and was taken to a hospital in Omsk where he fell into a coma...” but kept short because the article goes in to more detail later. I can’t wrangle the sources to edit this right now but if someone else would do that it would be greatly appreciated. Maivea (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Political views

Some recent edits about his political views seem questionable. For example, this edit misrpresents him as a supporter of annexation of Crimea. In fact he did not support it. He did criticize Putin's actions with regard to Ukraine (as currently correctly included on this page). Moreover, he strongly supported the related sanctions. As noted here,

"Saying that previous U.S. and EU sanctions in response to Russian military forces in Crimea were "mocked" and acted as "tacit encouragement to Mr. Putin and his entourage," Navalny urged further sanctions "freezing the oligarchs' financial assets and seizing their property." Navalny's suggested sanctions list included billionaire businessmen Gennady Timchenko, Arkady and Boris Rotenberg, Yury Kovalchuk, Roman Abramovich, Alisher Usmanov, Russian Railways head Vladimir Yakunin, Gazprom head Alexei Miller and Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin."

That should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The link you provided is from March 2014. My edit reflects an interview from October 2014 however I have now changed it slightly with the new source. Mellk (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, this is an improvement. BTW, this is an impressive list of people who probably considered Navalny their enemy. Not mentioning this man who created a hit list of politicians, together with Murov [5]. Meanwhile, Prigozhin said "he intended to “ruin” Navalny if the opposition activist recovers" [6]. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll look into those, thanks. Mellk (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Political aspects. Effect of aging of <des Serien>. A political leader. In a continental climate.

Mr. Navalny. To some extent. The average political leader. Appears frequently in public. In front of cameras and camcorders. What will the public notice? To the people of Russia. WikiUser545678975 (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Opposition leader?

His share is 2% of the national vote. Yes he is a darling of the West but not because he is "anti-corruption" but because he is "pro-European". One's imagination will fill in the banks from this point. His party has a membership of 18,000 which is even less than the Soviet Communists who exceed 200,000 members. Putin's United Russia has representation in every federal subject and has a membership of more than 2 million. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

So another pro-Western establishment lackey performs a hit-and-run style mugging. He churns out disinformation, goes to 3RR, gets blocked and doesn't appeal, Happy Days, while I too am at risk of edit-warring if I touch the article for most of the next 24 hours. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If anything, the spread of ignorance is a by-product of this predilection for "reliable sources" when it is abundantly clear across all language's Wiki sites that something's "reliability" is pigeonholed on arrival and not subjected to intellectual scrutiny. When the community has discerned which sources accommodate their imperatives and which don't, they start scavenging for differences between Set 1 and Set 2. Seeing that there are no global properties, they resort to adding footnotes to move Source A from "unreliable" to "reliable" and Source B the other way. I've followed the history and have asserted myself at the project page and so can demonstrate this observation. Either way, I believe you have done well with your rewriting of the passage. Nobody denies he is referred to as Opposition Leader and what you have done is far better that the unmitigated assertion from the account which turned out to be a troll. Cheers. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what NYT article said [7]. Many other RS say the same. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

If anything, the spread of ignorance is a by-product of this predilection for "reliable sources" when it is abundantly clear across all language's Wiki sites that something's "reliability" is pigeonholed on arrival and not subjected to intellectual scrutiny. When the community has discerned which sources accommodate their imperatives and which don't, they start scavenging for differences between Set 1 and Set 2. Seeing that there are no global properties, they resort to adding footnotes to move Source A from "unreliable" to "reliable" and Source B the other way. I've followed the history and have asserted myself at the project page and so can demonstrate this observation. Either way, I believe you have done well with your rewriting of the passage. Nobody denies he is referred to as Opposition Leader and what you have done is far better that the unmitigated assertion from the account which turned out to be a troll. Cheers. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Merge

Smart voting (Russia) could be merged to this article, since so far it is Navalny's initiative. (t · c) buidhe 23:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he proposed it, and it did work to some degree. But right now this is just a generally known strategy. no longer just "his thing"; it should be a separate page I think. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

"Racist attacks against Georgians"

Why is this under political activity? Mellk (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced. Removed. My very best wishes (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, shouldn't the whole his comparing "dark-skinned Caucasus militants to cockroaches" be a bigger deal on this page than it is? 3:32, 23 January 2021 (EST)

political placement

My addition to the introduction that Navalny is a right-wing politican was deleted. It's not common to label a politician just as a "opposition politician". By general standards Navalny is clearly right-wing as he is known to oppose migration and to support a nation based on ethnical unity. --Jazzman (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

• This article must adhere to the WP:BLP policy. Please read WP:ORIGINAL. And there is no such thing as "general standards" in this case. You must provide reliable sources for your statements.--RenatUK (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
• This is hard to define. Some RS say he is using left-wing rhetorics [8], which is only natural for an anti-corruption activist. My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"He is frequently described by media as Russia's opposition leader."

The line in the introduction, "He is frequently described by media as Russia's opposition leader" seems problematic to me. The sources used do not describe him as "Russia's opposition leader" bar the one BBC source, instead they describe as a "opposition leader" which is not to say he is the leader of the Opposition. Such a claim would be ludicrous of course given Navalny's status as a fringe figure in Russia's politics despite the West's astroturfing of him. The actual opposition leaders would be someone like Zhirinovsky or Zyuganov, in fact as the article itself notes only 50% or so of the Russian population know who he is and out of those 50% only 18% intended on voting for him. Strange for the supposed opposition leader! This should be corrected.PailSimon (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

• Done.--RenatUK (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Jurist?

Though Alexei had finished a university program focusing on finance (security and stock exchange business) that alone wouldn't qualify him as a 'jurist'. A lawyer maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.43.165.10 (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• He studied law at Moscow's Peoples' Friendship University.--Renat (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Palace for Putin. History of the biggest bribery"

Navalny just released a new video with such title here. Text about it on his website [9]: "Alexey came up with the idea of doing this investigation several months ago, when he had not even been discharged from intensive care. He decided to release it on the day he returned to Moscow. In order to tell you this breathtaking story while in Russia. About the man who decided to kill him."

This movie covers a lot. Must see for anyone interested in Russian politics; it is with English subtitles. My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand how this relates to the work on the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean it should be used on page Putin? I would rather wait for additional publications. Obviously, this is something on the subject (and by the subject) of this page. I guess this is going to be another "Notes from the Gallows" (by Julius Fučík (journalist)). My very best wishes (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see, information about this investigation has already been added to the article, and it seems to me that no one objects (and I also approve). So - "This page is not a forum for general discussion"--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead photo

Option A (status quo)

Option B

There are two candidates for the lead photo, and it's been going back and forth. Which should we use? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option A looks better to me. His expression looks weird in B, and the colors/lighting is extremely washed out. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• I prefer Option B (actually, I uploaded it here). Here the color correction is better (in that image it is too yellow), the quality is higher. This "Navalny style stuff" is fell, the rally is in the background. However, in both photos, he has a strange face one as if he has something bad happened to him, and the other as if he "had become an angel". Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option B but I'm not a fan of either, as mentioned, his face looks strange in both. Mellk (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC) I think the newly introduced Option C is the best one out of these options. Mellk (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• A photo with an open mouth? Unacceptably. So, option A. But aren't there any normal optoins? Here is Trump on the lead photo - such a handsome man.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Russian wiki article has this photo of him. It is better than both of the mentioned.

Option C

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.74.55.84 (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option A is my vote out of the original two, for basically the same reason as stated above: Option B has a weird "deer in headlights" look to it. I had reverted the change to B, which was in turn reverted, but I wasn't going to get in an edit war over it, so thanks for setting up a discussion. However, I also agree with Mellk that neither are A or B are really that great, and I actually like Option C that was just added by 128.74.55.84 a lot more. So that has my vote now. WestCD (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Option C seems to be the superior picture of the options to choose from. That being said, it looks like a photo from an action movie for whatever that is worth. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• It seems like people are still changing the image every day, this is getting annoying at this point. Mellk (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option C, second choice, Option B I don't like Option A because of the yellow coloring, but mostly because he has an expression, as though he is experiencing some sort of gastric distress. In Option B, his face is relaxed, and it is a good likeness...but Option C is a much more artistic photograph, and a good likeness, and a more human character. So, C or B, but not A, with the weird expression of tension around the mouth. My opinion, and we all seem to have one! Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option C, is the only one that looks normal.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yves Rocher thing doesn't make sense

I think it's been written by someone for whom English is not a first language, and the references look like Russian squeezed through Google translate so I cannot work out what the crime is supposed to be (otherwise I'd have a go at editing it myself).

Company A makes a product it needs delivering to a new market where it has no delivery partners.

Company B operates in the new market and agrees to arrange delivery, even though it is not a delivery company. They ask for X amount of money to do this.

Company B gets companies C to Z to do the delivery for Y amount of money, X>Y so company B pockets the difference, Z.

Isn't that just doing business? even if they were making a fortune it's up to Company A to either accept that or find a different Company B. If there's some detail that makes this different it is not explained anywhere.

There's then some talk of what happens to Z amount, but that is described as hiding the evidence not as a crime in itself (money laundering, tax evasion, whatever). I do understand Navalny says it had nothing to do with him anyway, but still, no crime is described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.22.199 (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody understands what the crime is. The investigator just inserted the reference to "criminal intent" everywhere.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess this is probably the closest to real answer that's out there, but surely the prosecutor/judge are supposed to point to specific violations of Russian criminal law? Or is it really just "because we say so" over there? "Criminal Intent" can disguise a multitude of sins, or none at all, but it still should point to an intent to break *some* codified law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.22.199 (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I do not know a complete enough review in English, but the Russian one is here [10]. According to the investigation, everything that Navalny did was with "criminal intent", they "imposed" their services, and the difference between the money received by Navalny's company and the services of the carrier was simply written into the indictment. In fact, "At the end of December, Bruno Leproux instructed the financial director of "Yves Rocher Vostok", Christian Melnik, to conduct an internal audit, whether the cooperation with Glavpodpiska had brought losses. Melnik calculated everything and reported to Lepre that the services of Glavpodpiska were even cheaper than the services of many other contractors of Yves Rocher Vostok."--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

One thing that seems to be missing from the article and would clarify the case a bit is that Oleg Navalny seems to have been working for the Russian postal service at the time the deal was made, don't know if that is common practice in Russia nor the legality of it but in a lot of jurisdictions that's a bit iffy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BB:1C9:DCB4:799A:3260:5EDB:D079 (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Did he back the Russian war in Georgia or not?

Reading the sources, from The Spectator: Not only did he back the invasion, he also called for the expulsion of Georgian people from Russia and called them ‘rodents’ (grizuni) – a common ethnic slur used by Russian nationalists..
The Atlantic: He also supported Russia in its war against Georgia in August 2008.
From Navalny's blog: Russia should take the following steps (at least):
1. Provide serious military and financial assistance to South Ossetia and Abkhazia (to the extent that Abkhazia is ready to actually fight in South Ossetia).
2. Declare South Ossetia a non-fly zone and immediately shoot down all aircraft that are in this zone.
3. To declare a complete blockade of Georgia. Stop any communication with her.
4. To expel from the Russian Federation all citizens of Georgia who are on our territory.
I suppose that the answer is "Yes". What do you think about it?--Mhorg (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg, your sources support that he backed the Russian war in Georgia. I also found a recent article from the Irish Times that support your claim. Please see https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/alexei-navalny-iron-willed-pragmatist-with-a-nationalist-streak-1.4470222 Jurisdicta (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jurisdicta. As I see, your article does not confirmed that Navalny "wished that all ethnic Georgians would be expelled from Russia", as Mhorg claimed in his edits [11]. The article in the Irish Times just states: "in 2008 he wrote in support of Russia’s war in Georgia and used an ethnic slur to describe its people". I read the entries in the blog of Navalny and I think this is quite a correct reflection (unlike the claims of Mhorg).--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Nicoljaus fair point, I should have specified which point was supported by my citation. I appreciate your comment. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, this section isn't about the deportation but whether or not he backed Russia in the Russo-Georgian war but at this point we can talk about that too. However, you continue to focus on my edit that I have already fixed as soon as you pointed it out to me by removing the word "ethnic", the result of a translation error of mine from the Navalny blog, and I have reported the words found in The Atlantic. The source that Jurisdicta found confirms that "he supported the war". I agree with you that the source from The Spectator should be removed (I didn't add it to the article, I found it already there), but we've still different sources backing up exactly all the statements above (The Atlantic, for sure an RS). I also found other sources confirming those things:

· South China Morning Post: He also expressed support for Russia during the Russo-Georgian war of 2008 and used a derogatory term for Georgians in blog posts calling for them to be expelled from Russia.

· The Post Internazionale (ITA): Another controversial point in Aleksey Navalny's nationalist past is support for the 2008 war operations against Georgia in favor of the Russian intervention in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the demand for the expulsion of all Georgian citizens from the Russian Federation.

· RollingStone (ITA): traits of chauvinism and unbridled nationalism led Navalny to take extreme positions on issues such as immigration (to the point of calling Georgians "rodents")

· Mischa Gabowitsch (historian and sociologist): During the war with Georgia in the summer of 2008, he called for all Georgian citizens to be deported from Russia. In a pun on the ethnonym gruziny, he called them "rodents"

At this point, I think it should be specified that he backed Russia in the war and that he specifically asked for all Georgian citizens to be expelled.--Mhorg (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mhorg. We both know, you have read the original post in the blog, so you know for sure that deportation was suggested instead of open invasion of Russian troops, not as an additional measure, as you are trying to show.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not trying to show anything, just showing multiple sources (RS) that state exactly that he backed Russia in the war. Specifically, he argues that no additional invasion troops should be brought in, but that weapons, equipment and no-flyzones (even taking down Georgian airforce) should be provided to the pro-Russian warring faction. And it is precisely for this reason that he is rightly pointed out as a figure who supported Russia in the Russo-Georgian war.--Mhorg (talk) 10:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

additional invasion troops - Your statement is incorrect again. There were Russian "peacekeepers" in South Ossetia legally, but they could not be any "invasion troops" in principle (there were very few of them). Navalny says that "there is no question of any additional Russian ground troops in the South Ossetia now.", i.e., he opposed the invasion. The date of the post is 8 August 2008, i.e. this is the very beginning of events, no Russian-Georgian war has yet begun, there was only a Georgian operation to retake the separatist region. The Kremlin has spent a lot of money to demonize Navalny, so I suggest you follow WP:WEIGHT and see if the most of the first-class media (BBC, Reuters...) write in such a detail about this episode.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, here we go, now the Kremlin is sponsoring also The Atlantic Council:Navalny’s alarming foreign policy pronouncements are not restricted to Ukraine alone. He has declared his support for the independence of Kremlin-backed breakaway regions throughout the former USSR and cheered Russia’s 2008 war against Georgia.. Please, let's stay on the RS and stop giving personal interpretations. You are basically saying that all sources found are unreliable.--Mhorg (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that you should follow the rules of Wikipedia, in particular the WP:WEIGHT. A huge number of leading media outlets have written about Navalny, but I don't see that the interpretation you insist on has been widespread.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The source from the "The Spectator" is placed on Coffee House, i.e. on a Spectator's platform for blogs. According to WP:BLP: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs".--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

About this ref: [12]. As I see, here is infinished discussion for GlobalVoices.org on RSN: [13] I myself tend to think that although Global Voices is well-respected journalism organization, but in this case I see rather something like Andrey Tselikov's personal column (user-generated content). I'm not sure if this is suitable for WP:BLP.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

• It is hard to say what are his views about it. In a number of statements he actually criticized Putin and Russia for attack on Georgia, i.e. just the opposite. Given that, I think it is safer just remove this thing per BLP. Done. My very best wishes (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There are 3 RS The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico who speak clearly of support for the Georgian war, or at least allude to the fact that he has called for the expulsion of all Georgians. We can't just remove everything.--Mhorg (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

To avoid misunderstandings and interpretations, we can simply report the measures proposed by Navalny on his own blog during the Russo-Georgian war. We cannot simply pretending that nothing happened.--Mhorg (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Its evident through the sources provided above that the sources support the content, lets not whitewash.PailSimon (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

From the sources presented, it is obvious that the main media do not support this interpretation of Navalny's post. Despite the Kremlin's best efforts to demonize his opponent, only a few publications follows this narrative. Here is a scientific article devoted entirely to Navalny's nationalism on his blog [14]. This point is not even mentioned there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here it is anything but "obvious", it is your opinion that the mainstream media did not interpret Navalny's words that way. And, as you said earlier, this is not a blog and the RS do matter. We have 3 RS about his support for the Russo-Georgian war and at least 1 RS about the "rodents" therm, and many other anti-Kremlin sources such as "The Atlantic Council". As I proposed in the comment before, we can simply translate the measures proposed by Navalny on his blog, so we avoid misunderstandings. Pretending that nothing has happened is a way to politically defend the figure of Navalny, and this is not the role of the members of Wikipedia.--Mhorg (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said earlier: "I suggest you follow WP:WEIGHT and see if the most of the first-class media (BBC, Reuters...) write in such a detail about this episode".--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is another article, in Central European Journal of International and Security Studies, devoted specifically to Navalny's foreign policy views: [15]. It mentions the other post of Navalny in his blog, where he proposes to recognize the independence of South Ossetia, but not the post under discussion. The further I go, the more it seems to me that this episode simply does not correspond to WP:WEIGHT.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

We do not have a problem of WP:WEIGHT as you are saying, there are no discordant versions between RS, there are only RS that have dealt with the Navalny's statements and others have not. And all the RS (and tons of anti-Kremlin sources) that have dealt with the subject have a common vision. However, I propose to bring the translated text of Navalny's post, without interpretations of the RS, since you previously added parts of the primary source to the article to specify what the RS were claiming.--Mhorg (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: No, there is a problem with weight as major news organisations have not reported such comments, only a few handpicked fringe sources do. That means that including the content, whether referenced to these few sources or just solely to 'translations' of his blog, would constitute undue weight. Also, referencing Navalny's blog is not a good enough source on its own. LauraWilliamson (talk) 11:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is his blog not a good source? As far as I can understand it's allowed in this case Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source. Alaexis_¿question? 11:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Alaexis: because unless certain comments on the blog have been reported by major news outlets, their inclusion constitutes undue weight. LauraWilliamson (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I dunno... It's just one paragraph in a big article, are you sure WP:UNDUE applies here? Alaexis_¿question? 11:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're referring to, could you elaborate? LauraWilliamson (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, at the beginning the use of the blog suited Nicoljaus, (and LauraWilliamson did not object) when he corrected the RS, now not anymore. I agreed with his edits and I agree even now to add parts of the primary source. On the other hand there is nothing to be misunderstood, they are a few clear words, and it is from his blog (100% certified).
LauraWilliamson, you said: "only a few handpicked fringe sources do", literally 3-4 internationally known RS. Assuming what you are saying we should remove half of the contents of all Wikipedia articles. And no, that's not the case.
Nicoljaus, you previously said on the other discussion:You need just 2-3 RS, directly saying that..., after 3 RS now the problem is the weight. How can I not doubt about your sincerity?--Mhorg (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: users are allowed to object to questionable content changes on articles. The 3-4 sources are not as reliable as you think, as several problems with them have been highlighted:

• The Irish Times article does not confirm that Navalny "wished that all ethnic Georgians would be expelled from Russia"
• The source from the "The Spectator" is placed on Coffee House, i.e. on a Spectator's platform for blogs. According to WP:BLP: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs".
• Navalny's blog could be a problem as according to WP:BLP: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs". Additionally, the blogs shows that deportation was suggested instead of open invasion of Russian troops, not as an additional measure, as you are trying to show, which is weasel wording (something which you do quite a lot)

More importantly, major reliable international news outlets, like the BBC, Association Press, Reuters do not report these comments, so its clear that the inclusion of this content by reference to a tiny number of questionable sources when most major news outlets do not report on it constitutes undue weight. So there is a number of reasons as to why the inclusion of this content is highly questionable, and as such explains why various users have objected to its inclusion on a number of grounds. Its not about being insincere, it's about wanting content to be neutral, not misrepresented or undue. LauraWilliamson (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Once again, stop distorting what I write, because it is clearly legible above. The 3 RS are The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico. And RollingStone, also RS, talks about the "rodents" word. The fact that BBC, Association Press, Reuters do not report these comments doesent mean nothing, as I said earlier, In that case we should remove half of Wikipedia article.--Mhorg (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And again, The Irish Times, reported correctly by @Jurisdicta: says: "in 2008 he wrote in support of Russia’s war in Georgia and used an ethnic slur to describe its people", please at least read the articles rather than repeating each Nicoljaus's answers, otherwise you seem "coordinated".--Mhorg (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well no because in ALL Wikipedia articles, the appropriateness of certain content's inclusion is judged on whether it constitutes undue weight. In these "half of Wikipedia articles" that do not use sources such as the BBC, Association Press or Reuters, the information will have been seen to have been justly included because it the consensus of reliable sources agree on the point. In this case, the majority of reliable sources do not agree on the point, only three sources do, and there is differences of opinion on the matter. As the most experienced contributor by far in this thread, User:My very best wishes, stated, "It is hard to say what are his views about it. In a number of statements he actually criticized Putin and Russia for attack on Georgia, i.e. just the opposite. Given that, I think it is safer just remove this thing per BLP." We need to see a consensus of reliable sources on a matter before it is included in a BLP, and there certainly isn't a wider consensus here, just a few sources which are countered by other sources. LauraWilliamson (talk) 12:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

LauraWilliamson please note that I added that Navalny was against sending Russian troops to South Ossetia [16]. I'm not sure about the undue weight issue you have raised - I haven't edited BLP articles a lot. Alaexis_¿question? 12:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis, in my personal opinion, you did the right thing by adding context. But the question is whether to include this episode in the wiki article at all. And here LauraWilliamson is right - we should follow most sources, including scientific articles in a peer-reviewed journal, which do not attach any special significance to this episode.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

LauraWilliamson, once again, you continually take comments from other users and repeat them dozens of time to give them more importance. Of course I agree that if we have RS reporting Navalny's opposition to Russia's intervention in Georgia, the issue can certainly be explained on the article with neutrality, showing the plurality of information. Currently no one has brought RS on this thing. Regarding the deportations of Georgian citizens, it is a fact reported by several RS and is present on the primary source. The issue is in the public interest and cannot be removed.
Nicoljaus, there is no Kremlin conspiration, just 3 or more RS, and anti-Kremlin media talking about Navalny in this context. I understand that you are trying to protect Navalny's image, but as a matter of neutrality and the importance of the issues dealt with, this information, dealt with by several well-known RS, must be reported.--Mhorg (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: Wikipedia is not a place to WP:Right great wrongs, and this is not a place to add content simply as you think it's "in the public interest", Wikipedia is for building an encyclopaedia. All you seem to do as an editor is add negative comments about Navalny, so stop trying to right what you see as great wrongs. LauraWilliamson (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The "negative comments" comes from multiple RS, not from me. And I'm taking care of this job to ensure Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It just seems you just want to avoid controversial facts in the article. There was never a mediation proposal from you.--Mhorg (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well no that's the thing, the negative comments aren't just coming from three sources but from you misrepresenting the content in those sources, and using weasel wording to make the things sound more negative. You've previously been blocked for edit waring on this article and only ever add negative comments about Navalny - you've never been interested in ensuring a neutral point of view. Not only are you misrepresenting content from sources but are now misrepresenting yourself. LauraWilliamson (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And I'm taking care of this job to ensure Wikipedia:Neutral point of view -- You need to read this rule carefully, that's what we're telling you: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. What Nicoljaus says above is the fundamental point here. Regardless of other points in this debate, regardless of whether you think the news reports in question are reliable and the content is verifiable, the overall fact remains that the very few news reports that do report on this issue makes the event's inclusion disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. There is no wide reliable-sourced based consensus on this issue, and its inclusion is highly questionable. LauraWilliamson (talk) 13:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

LauraWilliamson, again, you continue with this bullying, carefully avoiding that I agreed with Nicoljaus's clarifications on the word "ethnic", which I promptly removed, I agreed when Nicoljaus spoke of the fact that he did not support the intervention of the Russian Armed Forces, information taken from Navalny's blog (although he clearly asked to pursue a pro-Russian agenda, like arming pro-Russian separatist forces, called for a no-fly zone and deportation of Georgian citizens). I remind you that I "won" a 24h ban just because I didn't know the revert rules (my fault), I was just preventing you from removing RS like "The Atlantic" without explanation. You are clearly portraying me as a malicious user despite bringing tons of sources.
Nicoljaus at the time, we have at least 5 RS, including Al Jazeera (that you just deleted), talking about the Georgian question: Al Jazeera He ... also made a number of racist statements, including calling Georgians “rodents”, during Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008. How many other RS do you need to be able to say that the matter is of sufficient public interest?--Mhorg (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: in response to "How many other RS do you need to be able to say that the matter is of sufficient public interest?": Well, for a BLP we need a consensus of a wide range of reliable sources on the matter. As we have seen, there is not a consensus on the issue, as some sources imply he was opposed to the war against Georgia overall. Furthermore, for the content to be included in this article it should not constitute undue weight, and since this particular issue is not discussed or mentioned in the major news sources, it is clear that is not the case. I'm not participating in "bullying", I am explaining Wikipedia's rules and guidelines to you, which as you've just said you're not all too familiar with (you said you didn't know the revert rules). What is bullying, however, is edit warring and continually reinstating your content when other users disagree and thus forcing your content into articles and disregarding other user's concerns. LauraWilliamson (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I understood that you repeatedly skip my comments, but when you write: "as some sources imply he was opposed to the war against Georgia overall" I already answered: "Of course I agree that if we have RS reporting Navalny's opposition to Russia's intervention in Georgia, the issue can certainly be explained on the article with neutrality, showing the plurality of information. Currently no one has brought RS on this thing." So, let's see your source about his opposition of the Russia's intervention in Georgia (because, for now, the only source claming the he called for arming pro-separatist forces, for the Georgian airforce to be shot down, and expelling Georgian citizens (and it is like supporting the Russia's war against Georgia), come from the Navalny's blog, the same source that you called "unreliable". Then, if we find these sources, we could simply represents the two interpretation with neutrality.--Mhorg (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: There would be no point in doing that, because there would still be the issue of undue weight. It is clear that the content in its entirety should not be included on this BLP at all, so there is no need for any new rewriting or re-addition of the content, even if it is reworded. LauraWilliamson (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: Furthermore, I think it's very suspicious that a brand new IP with no previous edits has just sprung up to reinstate your content to the article - I hope you are aware of the Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, because if that is you editing in another guise you will receive another block. LauraWilliamson (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It is very funny how you talk about some hypotetical sources claiming the contrary of 5 Wikipedia:Reliable sources, then you cannot find one. I sincerely hope that other users will intervene in this discussion, because you are clearly disrupting the democratic process of Wikipedia.
About Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, and your disrespectful accusations, please put evidence about your statement, because you are really offending me, and I ask, is some admin is reading, to stop this bullying because behaviour like this it is a shame for our community. Here, the only strange thing is a [user registered from 27 January 2021] (around 13 days of activity, mostly about Navalny's article), that knows every complicated Wikipedia rule, of course better than a 5 year user like me (I know, I'm lazy, sorry), a user that only back other user comments likely in a coordinated way and that clearly doesn't want to discuss, but to win.--Mhorg (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with this information it's properly soured about him.220.253.99.152 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-involved opinion (I ran across this issue from a recent ANI post); the material about his prior stance on Georgia is backed by several sources that easily meet WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

To sum up, a long quote from the article mentioned above. It explains well why the vast majority of sources do not mention Navalny's attitude to the Russian-Georgian war - it is simply outside his sphere of interests:

Perhaps the primary thing that will be remembered about the Putin/Medvedev regime’s foreign policy is the two military conflicts that Russia has waged in the former Soviet republics, namely the 2008 Russo-Georgian war and particularly the 2014 Russo-Ukrainian war. Alexei Navalny’s stand on them is peculiar in two ways. Firstly, he tends to pointedly stress their relative unimportance compared to Russia’s domestic affairs. Even in 2014-15, when foreign policy issues (especially Crimea and Donbas) were significantly dominating the country’s public discourse, Navalny’s focus was primarily on internal problems: in October 2014, for example, he posited that “the issue of illegal immigration is 100 times more important than any Ukraine,” believing that “[i]t’s not in the interests of Russians to seize neighbouring republics, it’s in their interests to fight corruption, alcoholism and so on — to solve internal problems.” Secondly, Navalny usually does not seem to want to canvass foreign policy in general and Ukraine in particular, frequently eschewing answering foreign affairs related questions as clearly and knowledgeably as he normally does whenever asked on other topics (e.g. Russian ruling elite, elections, corruption, etc.), preferring giving vague replies and trying to drive the conversation towards internal issues instead.

— [17]

As a result, here is an article Who is Mr. Navalny? on the website of the Institute of Modern Russia, which discusses whether Navalny is a nationalist [18]. His manifesto for the NAROD movement is discussed, but the Russian-Georgian war is not mentioned at all. I once again ask the Mhorg to analyze the whole body of sources and show whether most of the RS that write about Navalny's biography include references to this episode. I see that it is used to criticize Navalny, but, as the rule of WP:BALASP says: "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic"--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree. The source is good and provides proper balance. His views on this subject seem to be misinterpreted. In addition, this is a matter of due weight. He is mostly known as an anti-corruption activist, and yes, involved in Russian politics in general ("smart voting"), etc. But he never was an officially registered presidential candidate, for example. Given that, his views on various political events that had happen many years ago are unimportant, and especially if his views on something are not really clear. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Those five reliable sources are sufficient to consider the text previously entered valid. I also believe you can also use the blogger's source, it will not be difficult for someone who translates Russian to report the statements, and it should not violate any WP rules.--Darkcloud2222 (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No, here is single source that is more or less "scholarly" and qualify as research (cited by Nicoljaus above). It can be used, I agree. Others are outdated (12 years old) news and personal commentaries. My very best wishes (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It would be great if the new participants who appeared in the discussion did not resume going around in circles, but spoke out on the current issue - compliance with the rule WP:BALASP.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• As you can see, I crossed out all the text of the sockpuppet User: LauraWilliamson that was trying to influence the conversation in a malicious way, and the whole discussion is now also difficult to read. I will try to summarize my position, given that the discussion has assumed enormous proportions, as all the controversial aspects of the politician in question are being eliminated and all with the accusation of being without RS at the beginning, then the sockpuppet talked about undue wight, and now we are on WP:BALASP.
  We currently have 3 RS (The Atlantic, South China Morning Post, Politico) who argue precisely these things: "He backed Russia in the war and that he specifically asked for all Georgian citizens to be expelled"
  and 2 RS ( Al Jazeera, RollingStone) argue that "He called Georgian people "rodents"."
  Now you argue that this part should be removed from the article for undue weight. But we're talking about a statement of a politician, about which several international RS have spoken, that clearly says what his point of view was about an important event like the Russo-Georgian war. We are talking about a man who has become famous all over the world after the poisoning, and these are facts of his political career. Proposing to arm pro-Russian separatist groups, call for a no-flyzone and take down the Georgian Air Force, propose deporting all Georgian citizens from the Russian Federation, it's not something he said on his own while watching television, it was a precise political position, unambiguous, and it was clearly a position in favor of a form of war by Russia against Georgia, he did not ask Russia to refrain from the conflict: which is why the RS correctly reported it that way.
  I repeat, I am in favor of integrating what we have found in the RS with what can be found on the primary source, Navalny's blog (which is what User:Alaexis was doing [19] and how Nicoljaus did in the beginning [20], before the part was completely deleted), so that all the passages are clear and that they cannot be misunderstood. And if you have sources claiming that later he opposes the war, well, let's add everything to the article to ensure the WP:BALASP, of course I agree with you. Instead, removing every negative aspect with the accusation of undue weight or what, is something that I consider deeply wrong, and also for the neutrality of the article and for the valuable content of these aspects. For this reason I propose for now to restore the part about the Georgia, combining the primary source with the RS. For the parts you say you have found, you can then add it to balance and give a more balanced version (if the sources are reliable).
  Lastly, I point out that the whole article is very well done, there are tons of informations, the only small parts, crushed to the bottom, that receive this attack are the controversial ones, which however have RS and are very important to describe the career of the politician in question.--Mhorg (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no problems with it provided the WP policies are followed (see my suggested version), that is

WP:NPOV: it's phrased in a neutral way, it's mentioned that he was against sending Russian troops to Georgia/South Ossetia and that later he apologised for the words he used.

WP:UNDUE: this does not occupy too much or too prominent space in the Policies section, we should basically follow the RS when deciding the importance of this particular position. Alaexis_¿question? 22:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, Alaexis. At first, I thought exactly like you and corrected the text in the same way as you did. But then I paid attention to the choice of sources made by Mhorg. If you clean up all the questionable blogs and private columns, there is only The Atlantic, Politico, and South China Morning Post. These are not the sources I turn to to read about Russian politics in English. I usually use the BBC, Reuters, Deutsche Welle, CNN, maybe The Guardian, Forbes. I looked at these sources - and there was no mention in any first-class media that Navalny supported the invasion of Georgia and offered to deport all ethnic Georgians. Next, I tried to look at the scholar literature about Navalny's views, and found two articles devoted to this particular moment: [21], [22]. There, too, no significance is attached to this episode. So I changed my mind, and I think this episode just doesn't belong in the article. Perhaps when Navalny becomes president of Russia and a separate article "Political Views of Navalny" appears, there will be a place for this. Perhaps if this was an article about a long-dead political figure of the past, I would not pay attention, but the requirements for articles about living persons are much stricter.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Nicoljaus Thanks for the explanation. I have little experience with the intricacies of the WP:BLP policy, so I can't argue about it. If we end up including it, we should be precise: Navalny explicitly did not support attacking Georgia and he did not suggest deporting ethnic Georgians (but rather citizens of Georgia) as a way to stop the Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Alaexis_¿question? 08:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about the position of Navalny. That is why serious works and authors do not pay much attention to this episode - if you describe the situation as it is, there will be no sensation and no breaking news.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, you wrote "These are not the sources I turn to to read about Russian politics in English.", so based on your tastes we decide if 3 reliable sources are truly reliable. If something is not written on your preferred RS (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, who cares about this?), we remove it. Ok, truly democratic attitude and in line with Wikipedia's policies. However, I am in favor of what Alaexis said. We just can write that part on the article and specify what Navalny really meant.--Mhorg (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, truly democratic attitude and in line with Wikipedia's policies -- Yes, my position regarding your choice of news sources is based on Wikipedia's policy: WP:NEWSORG. And your personal attacks and distortion of the opponent's views are unacceptable.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, I have nothing against you, and maybe the discussion between us was ruined by the sockpuppet who constantly backed you up. As for the allegations of distorting the thinking of other users, I remind you that it was you first who distorted my thinking. You even avoided acknowledging that I accepted your objections to the word "ethnic" which I promptly removed from my edit. In this discussion, I have attempted mediation with you several times. You did nothing but question many RS, then you moved on with "Undue weight". You spoke of "Kremlin propaganda", you accused me of wanting to put ugly aspects on the figure of Navalny, but this is also our job, we must report the information, bad or good, concerning a political figure. Otherwise we would be curating the political campaign for the elections here on Wikipedia, and again, that's not our role. I'm sorry if it occurs to me that you want to protect the article from controversial issues at any cost. But let's start over, discuss peacefully, and also consider mediating.--Mhorg (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I still don't understand how it was possible to get the text that you made [23] from the original post on Navalny's blog, i.e. where you got the word "ethnic" from. You present the situation as if you did me a favor by dropping this word, but in less obvious matters you continue the same line of behavior.
• we must report the information, bad or good, concerning a political figure -- No, we should not "report information", especially tendentiously selecting and presenting it in the most negative way possible. We must "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". In other words, there are two ways to write an article - right and wrong. The right way is to study the most reliable sources and write an article. The wrong way is to have a ready-made fact that you need (for some reason) to insert into the article and look for sources for it, ignoring the entire ""body of reliable, published material on the subject". You follow the second path.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If we want to include something about this, I think it should be based on this source because this is the only recent scholarly secondary RS which analyzes this issue in proper context. This way we can avoid WP:OR. But again, I feel this whole thing is probably "undue". My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

:What actually is the point of including this stuff? The point of his page is not to list every good/bad thing he's ever done. Beanom (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• It's been 12 days since the discussion started. Taking into consideration that users Jurisdicta (at least on the war support part), PailSimon, Alaexis, OhNoitsJamie, Darkcloud2222, and I (Mhorg) agree with what the RS claim (and also considering the Kober's brilliant comment on racist slurs against Georgians [24]), considering that the contrary users are My very best wishes and Nicoljaus, I am about to reinsert the part (which was a merge between the multiple RS and the primary source) and I add the armaments to the separatist faction. If you want to insert more text later to better contextualize Navalny's position, I am certainly in favor.--Mhorg (talk) 07:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my position. I never said that Navalny supported the war and I think that no reliable sources say it as well. The current version is better than what was suggested previously but it still includes and highlights certain things that the majority of RS do not include - not because they are not true but because of due weight considerations. Alaexis_¿question? 07:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Alaexis, I saw your comment here, regarding the text as it was before it was removed: "WP:NPOV: it's phrased in a neutral way, it's mentioned that he was against sending Russian troops to Georgia/South Ossetia and that later he apologised for the words he used.
WP:UNDUE: this does not occupy too much or too prominent space in the Policies section, we should basically follow the RS when deciding the importance of this particular position."
Forgive me if anyway if I misunderstood.--Mhorg (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's all right. It's just that the section title is "Did he back the Russian war in Georgia or not" and it's a bit hard to understand what are the alternatives you were referring to in your 07:12, 15 February 2021 comment. Cheers. Alaexis_¿question? 08:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis true, the problem is that the discussion has evolved a lot and we have talked about many things inside. Thanks for your contribution to the discussion(s). This is the text I inserted in the article:
At the start of the Russo-Georgian War in 2008, Navalny was against sending Russian troops to South Ossetia but said that Russia should put pressure on Georgia to end the war. Among his proposed measures were the arming and financing of the separatist faction, and he also proposed to deport all Georgian citizens and calling them "rodents", for which he has subsequently apologised--Mhorg (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly object. Mhorg , you have no right to sum up in your favor in a discussion where you are a supporter of the most radical point of view. This should be done by a more neutral participant.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the most radical point of view, it was not mine, but that of all the RS who dealt with the subject that greatly simplified Navalny's position, categorizing it as a pro-Russian position (rightly so). They weren't wrong, they were just simplifying. You have already forgotten that it was me who welcomed your edit which incorporated more accurate information from the primary source. But who cares? WP:NOTLISTENING is better.--Mhorg (talk) 16:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Narod movement

I also have a problem with including "Narod movement". There is no such organization, and apparently never was. Please give me a link to website of this organization if you think it really exists or existed. My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Many RS talks about Narod such as The Guardian, Financial Times, TIME. Other journalist talked about the movement too: Black Wind, White Snow: The Rise of Russia's New Nationalism by Charles Clover, in Kicking the Kremlin: Russia's New Dissidents and the Battle to Topple Putin, by Marc Bennetts, and tons of realiable journals like Corriere della Sera. Narod, existed, and become internationally famous for the two video scandal: the one with the cockroaches of the Caucasus to be shot (source The Guardian), and the other one, with Navalny "dressed as a dentist, complaining that tooth cavities ruin healthy teeth, as clips of migrant workers are shown." (source The Guardian). And I'm not bringing tons of Russian sources because I don't want to open discussions on the reliability. Even for this alone, the Narod movement has encyclopedic importance.--Mhorg (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• And what did they say about this "Narod", exactly? Some of these links lead nowhere or require subscription. Others (dated 12 years ago) only say that he founded "Narod" and nothing else. This is the only detailed RS about views by Navalnyi on foreign policy (I am even surprised it exists), but it tells nothing about "Narod". Nothing. We do not really have any info about it. Now, I did check this page on ruwiki about "Narod". There is no any "tons of sources". All sources are either inaccessible, questionable and old (I can not verify anything) or totally unreliable (like LiveJournal). The only remotely good Russian language source is this. But... it does not say anything about "Narod" and quotes Navalny who said that he wants stay away from extreme nationalists. Of course. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Also keep in mind that the page is way too big. We must focus on facts, on actual events here, not on the opinions or barely notable episodes. My very best wishes (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• It appears that "Narod" did not exist. There was only a declaration in ... LiveJournal. My very best wishes (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears that many RS state that Narod existed. In addition to deleting any controversial parts, with the excuse that the article is already big, you are questioning any RS provided.

The Guardian: Next, he co-founded a movement called Narod (The People) and started attending the Russky Marsh, an annual march to promote the rights of ethnic Russians.

Financial Times: ...liberal Yabloko party after he founded Narod, a nationalist movement

TIME: In 2007, he co-founded the National Russian Liberation Movement, known as NAROD, and published its manifesto on his blog.

Charles Clover: He created a movement known as Narod (People), and began attending national rallies;

Corriere della Sera: A few months after Yabloko’s ouster, Navalny founded the patriotic movement Narod, which immediately allied itself with two other formations of nationalist extremism, the Movement Against Illegal Migration and Greater Russia.

Marc Bennetts: Navalny stunned political allies, friends and family alike by launching NAROD, an openly nationalist movement--Mhorg (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

If it helps the discussion, I found an article by NovayaGazeta, an opposition and pretty famous newspaper, which talks about the conference with which Narod movement is inaugurated. So it's was not just a blog post.

https://novayagazeta.ru/news/2007/06/25/14935-na-politicheskom-pole-poyavilis-novye-natsionalisty

I also found the Narod manifesto on Kasparov's website:

https://www.kasparov.ru/note.php?id=467FC4AE350E0

Darkcloud2222 (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that no one disputes that the creation of the movement was announced, and the manifesto was written down. And even, it seems, a couple of videos were made. But this idea did not lead to anything else - after that, the "NAROD" did not show themselves in any way, either at the actions or at the elections. Actually, the only thing that this "movement" is now known for - is that Navalny participated in it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No one is disputing that Navalny was one of the co-founders of this movement. The real question is how much space we should dedicate to it in the article, considering that it was essentially a stillborn organisation. I don't think you will find any mention of it after 2008. Alaexis_¿question? 14:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Narod's paragraph has already been mutilated, remains only the information found on several RS (quite interesting infos, since they reported them). We are not currently giving it any overexposure.--Mhorg (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I would argue it's still given undue weight. Now it's roughly 1/5 of the section and if you look at the Guardian article which mentions it it only mentioned in 2 paragraphs out of 33 - and there are plenty of article which do not mention it at all when they talk about Navalny. Alaexis_¿question? 14:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you can leave the mention of "NAROD" in the section "Political activity". But in the "Political views" section, the description of the two videos is clearly redundant. --Nicoljaus (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, pretty much this whole day-long discussion is a clash between dozens of RSs and opinions on what matters and what doesn't matter (coincidentally what has no weight are the controversial parts of the politician). No, there are RS who have dealt with the case, there are 4 lines in all in the article now (and are enough): about Narod founding and the controversial alliance with the movement against immigration (Politico), and the videos that have made an international scandal which are quite important to be mentioned (NYTimes, The Times, Telegraph, Financial Times... but who cares?)--Mhorg (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I see Telegraph: "But the 44 year old has come in for criticism for appearances at nationalist events and his anti-immigration views. He has used racist slurs against Georgians, which he later apologised for, and appeared in a video that compared migrants to cockroaches, which he described as “artistic license”. He has also called for the relaxation of gun controls." A well-written, concise. Retell it in your own words and it will be ok. You instead inflate every detail.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't get the point. I also supported you when you specified (I don't know if it was you or My very best wishes) that Navalny apologized for the racial slurs against Georgians. You may not have yet understood that I am here to ensure the neutrality of the article (good or bad news): when he made alliances with the movement against illegal immigration, when he repented, etc. At the moment I only see a huge unmotivated removal of all controversial content, and a series of explanations that do not convince me at all. And I hope that sooner or later someone else will intervene to give an opinion, because I'm exhausted.--Mhorg (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Darkcloud2222, thank you for the refs! So, what do we have about "Narod"? Again, just a declaration of intentions on kasparov.ru and one organizational meeting, as described here. What else did they do? Did they organized any political actions? Did they even publish anything about their deeds? I found nothing. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

What else did they do?, apart from producing two videos that have caused a scandal on an international level [25], there is also, for example:

Politico RS: the movement allied itself with two nationalist groups, the Movement Against Illegal Immigration and Great Russia.

Interfax: Moscow. the 9th of June. INTERFAX.RU - The Great Russia political party, the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI), the Narod movement and the Russian Social Movement, unrecognized by the Russian Ministry of Justice, agreed on cooperation in Moscow on Sunday. The June 8 Pact, signed by the participants of the New Political Nationalism conference, envisages, in particular, the preservation of the organizational independence of the aforementioned forces, "information exchange; coordination of activities; monitoring of manifestations of Russophobia." [...] No less ambitious are the dreams of another conference participant - former deputy leader of the Moscow youth Yabloko, and now co-chairman of the People movement Alexei Navalny: "We need to achieve unification and get to the elections, and then win them." Navalny counts 70% of the country's population as spontaneous nationalists. The ex-Yabloko man suggested that the “new nationalism” be considered a human rights movement. [...] The main thing is that it is directed in the right direction. There is no alternative to nationalism!" - exclaimed at the forum the leader of the DPNI Alexander Belov.”

But who cares, right?--Mhorg (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

This only proves my point because: (a) Interfax is a mouthpiece of Russian government; (b) that was published 12 years ago; (c) DPNI was not organized by Navalny, and he did not actually collaborate with them except taking part in a demonstration/protest with many different political forces present, including the right-wing nationalists; (d) it appears that "Narod" just had dissolved precisely because people like Navalny and Prilepin have very little in common. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian does not mention any "scandal on an international level". But this moment explains a lot about what is happening: "Instead, the Kremlin has gone into attack mode. Last week, Russian news outlets reported a secret Kremlin directive to “blacken” Navalny, and sure enough, a video soon appeared on YouTube comparing him to Hitler, complete with photoshopped images of Navalny sieg heiling, wearing a swastika armband. There were reports that university students had been shown the video as part of “educational events” designed to stop them from protesting."--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, exactly, and a lot more. They even mobilized "independent" politicians (like Yavlinsky) to condemn Navalny. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

PailSimon Re this my point is that mentioning Navalny's participation in various rallies or commercials more than 10 years ago in the first paragraph constitutes giving it undue weight. He has done lots of things since then and all the reliable sources do NOT start with his supposed nationalist background when writing about him (example).

Don't get me wrong, I don't support removing it altogether, this simply needs to be given due weight. Alaexis_¿question? 17:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• My very best wishes you wrote: "Please give me a link to website of this organization if you think it really exists or existed." Of course, look here, the Narod website "rusnarod" released articles from 01.11.2007 to 25.05.2009 [26]. This is the article of the last demonstration: "MAY 27 (Wednesday) from 18.00 to 19.00 on Triumfalnaya Square (also known as Mayakovsky Square) a rally "For the police for citizens!" (the event is coordinated with the Moscow Mayor's Office) The organizers of the event are the PEOPLE movement". Look, this is very interesting, there are also photos of the meeting with the racist organization Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI) next to the Narod banner: "On June 8, a conference "New Political Nationalism" organized by the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI), the Great Russia Party, the Russian Social Movement (ROD) and the NAROD took place at the Moscow Hotel Kosmos." [27] So this "Narod" was not such a myth, a year and a half of activity, and we certainly can say they have some weight.--Mhorg (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is internet garbage. Nothing is RS. If anything, this confirms the content under discussion should not be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Funny, it was you who questioned the existence of the movement by asking for the site. I just gave it to you, and now it is "garage" (by the way, do you know what Internet Archive is?). I'm certainly not going to use this primary source.--Mhorg (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

What "garage"? Well, I saw only one source that actually explains something of substance about "Narod" rather than just mentioning it in passing, that one. It can be used I think. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg I think that their site confirms that they were inactive since 2009. What exactly do you propose to add to the article at this moment? Alaexis_¿question? 18:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing, user My very best wishes simply wrote in the discussion below that Narod "is mostly a myth", and in this discussion he said that the movement did not even have a website (therefore it never existed, right?). Instead it turns out that they had the website, they were organizing demonstrations, etc ... I just wanted to debunk yet another imaginative argument to try to remove the Narod movement from the article. What we have from Politico's source is enough.--Mhorg (talk) 18:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm all right with the current version as well. Alaexis_¿question? 19:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I was too more or less OK with version which existed at 19:17 PM (time of your comment). But Mhorg made this edit later, and it is not OK. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

We were talking about the Political activity section. That Narod videos was in Political views before and it was one of the parts removed by My very best wishes in a big whitewash operation, [28] also distorting the text of a source. [29] Now you removed again with the motivation "such narrative is inappropiate". Clearly what you don't like is that the politic in question has a history of at least 6 years in Russian nationalism (2007-2013). I don't understand why you are trying to remove this aspect from the article.--Mhorg (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is for three reasons. First of all, his involvement with "Narod" and allegedly nationalistic views are already included on the page in several places. Secondly, you are using polemic news sources. They might be acceptable, unless there are better scholarly sources, with an actual 3rd party analysis of his views. This source. You are welcome to use it. Third, the included content was clearly constructed to disparage a living person, instead of providing a neutral description. This is against WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The other relevant policy here is WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE) which says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Navalny's involvement with the Narod movement is either omitted entirely when reliable sources write about him ([30]) or mentioned briefly ([31]). Therefore we cannot write about in in the first paragraph of the Political views section and dedicate too much space to this episode of his career. Alaexis_¿question? 21:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes Ok, before it was a problem of unreliable sources, then when the RS came, the magic word "undue weight" appeared, now the new magic word "3rd party analysis". I inform you that I have not added a single word to that text, it was all taken from the RS. If Navalny makes a video against immigrants, it's a problem for Navalny, not The Guardian\NYTimes\Politico reporting that video. The way you are defending your removals I find it unfair, you are imposing yourself with arguments that do not stand.
@Alaexis: You are right, I wasn't thinking about ordering it by importance. But I'm convinced that those two videos are important, and giving 2 lines to them in a huge article where we talk about practically everything is not a problem at all. It is a problem for those who want to defend the reputation of the politician in question (I'm not talking about you).--Mhorg (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

That's the whole point that we need to look at reliable sources and decide on the due weight based on their coverage. Otherwise it's just one editor's opinion of what is important versus another editor's opinion. Alaexis_¿question? 22:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Zakhar Prilepin was a co-founder and co-chairman of the NAROD movement [32]. For some reason, it seems to me that if I go to his Wikipedia page, I will not find any traces of Mhorg's attempts to write about Prilepin's connection with this "racist" and "white-supremacist" organization.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Nicoljaus I still don't understand these insinuations. Anyway, I don't know this Prilepin, but if you think it has some relevance, I'm delighted to include the part in his article. If you know him better, just make the edit and I'll support you.--Mhorg (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• This is just another example of your WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. And since you edited the page Separatist forces of the war in Donbass [33], I'm sure you know who Prilepin is. No, I think the episode with "NAROD" is completely irrelevant for both Navalny and Prilepin.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Great, since in 2015 I added two lines on the "Separatist forces of the war in Donbass" article now I should know all about the subject. But do you realize what you are saying? I urge you to again avoid these constant removals of controversial content,[34] you have been doing it for days. You are removing dozens of RS.--Mhorg (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• Do you want to say that since 2015, you have no longer been interested in the topic of the Putin-backed separatists in Ukraine? You are an honest person and if I look at your contribution, I will not find a long-term interest in this topic?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please, you are just trying to divert attention from the topics covered in the discussion, it has absolutely nothing to do with what you are trying to do here. I inform you that the war in the Donbass is such a broad subject that knowing it all would be almost impossible. My edits are public and I don't know who Prilepin is, your allegations are ridiculous. I ask you once again to remain in the discussion and to answer about the distructive actions you are taking on this article. I remind you that I have hardly added anything to the article, I mainly inserted RS and tried to defend it from your deletions.--Mhorg (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• That's our problem. You notice the "Prizrak" brigade [35], but you don't notice Prilepin's (and, of course, Milchakov's) units. WP:TENDENTIOUS, as I said. In order to avoid it, there are several rules in Wikipedia, like WP:BALASP, but you ignore them all.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The Movement Against Illegal Immigration is a supremacist organization

Hi, some users are deleting the word "supremacist", talking about the Movement Against Illegal Immigration (DPNI). This is a well-known fact, the organization is already listed in the List of white nationalist organizations, his leader was Alexander Potkin, a well-knonw supremacist and anti-semite, former member of neo-Nazi organization Pamyat, listed in the Encyclopedia of Right-Wing Extremism In Modern American History by Stephen E. Atkins.
The organization has been accused of racism in Russia (source Pravda), and it is now banned. About anti-semitism, this is a statement by Poktin (source expert.ru):

• Anyone who studies Russian history will definitely become a Russian nationalist. My brother and I were fond of history, then I came across "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" I read it and thought: wow!
  

During the neo-Nazi Russian March 2007 (source Der Spiegel [36]), organized by the DPNI, this was his statement (source Lenta):

• We will liberate Europe! Russia will be white! The nation is above all!
  

Therefore, the correct word is "supremacist" and not just "nationalist", the two concepts are different.--Mhorg (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

However true the information may be, we need to focus on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. If you're going to edit on the English Wikipedia, you really should be looking to add sources written in English, and sources which are known to be reliable, such as those approved on this list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. LauraWilliamson (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that states the fact that the DPNI is a supremacist organization. The Seattle Times: “Russia will be white,” said Alexander Belov, leader of the Movement Against Illegal Migration. His last name, based on the Russian word for “white,” is a nom de guerre.--Mhorg (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes but are any of these sources confirmed to be reliable on this list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources? The Seattle Times certainly isn't. Many Russian news organisations are unreliable, such as Russia Today. LauraWilliamson (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I quickly checked the sources, and did not see any claims that the DPNI is based on the ideology of white supremacism. It could be held by some organizations affiliated with the DPNI, mainly located outside of Russia. In fact, white supremacism was not relevant for the nationalists in Russia - their main "enemy" was the Caucasians.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mhorg: you really need to stop misrepresenting statements from sources, or adding things from unreliable or questionable sources. You've already been blocked once for edit warring on this article, and appear to have an agenda. LauraWilliamson (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

So, literally, the leader of DPNI, the main organizer of the russian marches (source "Russian Nationalism and the National Reassertion of Russia" by Marlene Laruelle), says on the stage of his own demonstration (source The Seattle Times): "Russia will be white, our ultimate goal is our race and nation." and you really wrote that the DPNI isn't "based on the ideology of white supremacism" and "white supremacism was not relevant for the nationalists in Russia", showing very little knowledge of the Russian nationalist movement. At this point I ask other users if this "The Seattle Times" is a reliable source or not, because what it says is very clear.--Mhorg (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times is a realiable source?: “We will free Europe! Russia will be white! We came here to say simple words: We are sick and tired of the power of occupants, of conquerors, and now it’s enough, we are the real power, not those who are hiding in this Torah!”--Mhorg (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is not a FORUM. You need just 2-3 RS, directly saying that "DPNI - white supremathist movement..."--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The wording there does not necessarily correspond to what you are trying to say in the article. Stating Navalny supports a white supremacist group is not really verified by the fact that the leader of that group once said "Russia will be white, our ultimate goal is our race and nation". As user:Nicoljaus says, the sources do not make any claims that the DPNI is based on the ideology of white supremacism, and fact, white supremacism was not relevant for the nationalists in Russia - their main "enemy" was the Caucasians. This is what I'm saying about misrepresenting, your putting your own spin on content from already questionable sources, which themselves dont state that group is white supremacist in those exact terms. LauraWilliamson (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• So speaking about the edit... I do agree that DPNI is a bad organization, but Navalny has very little to do with it. There was a demonstration many years ago where DPNI and Navalny took a part, as far as I remember. This is all. But the problem for the statement (diff above) is sourcing. Lenta.ru was included to Wikipedia:Spam blacklist see [[37]] in category "State sponsored fake news". My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Actually, I think that whole subsection "The People" movement" is too poorly sourced for a BLP page. Also, that "movement" did not actually materialize as a real movement or an organization. That was just an idea, various claims by Navalny and others which are of no significance right now. Hence "undue" on this large page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Just added an RS for "The People" movement. Also, the videos that caused a international scandal, such as the video about "cockroaches" and "the dentist", were produced by the channel of the "Narod" movement.--Mhorg (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, this can be sourced, but this is mostly a myth, as discussed here. People are saying a lot, then tell something different, etc. Also a lot depends on who the subject is. If that's a President, something like that might worth noticing. But if this is just an anti-corruption activist saying 12 years ago something not from the area of his fame and expertise (corruption in Russia), then I think this is definitely undue on the BLP page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Bad grammar.

The article reads::

"On 2 February, a Moscow court replaced Navalny's three and a half year suspended sentence with a prison sentence, minus the amount of time he spent under house arrest, meaning he would spend two and half years in a penal colony."

There is no indirect speech here. "They said he would spend [...]" but "Something happened, meaning he will spend [...] 85.193.228.103 (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Undefined "penal colony".

When I first read the phrase "penal colony", I interpreted it literally, as a penal colony, but the second occurrence of the phrase confused me totally, because it redirected to a corrective labor colony. So, where is the truth? 85.193.228.103 (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• What do you mean you "interpreted it literally ..."? Corrective labour colony is a penal colony.--Renat (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @User:RenatUK: Every corrective labor colony is a penal colony but not every penal colony is a corrective labor colony. By your logic we could use an even more generic term, e.g. "colony". An encyclopedia deserves more precision. 85.193.228.103 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed.--Renat (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
      • @User:RenatUK: Wow, fantastic, thank you! 85.193.228.103 (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Persecution

“ In June 2012, Navalny was ordered by Moscow's Lyublinsky District Court to pay 30,000 rubles (approximately US$1,000) as compensation for "moral harm" to United Russia State Duma Deputy Vladimir Svirid, after Svirid filed charges against Navalny for comments he made in an article written for Esquire magazine about the United Russia party: "In United Russia, there are people I come across that I generally like. But if you have joined United Russia, you are still a thief. And if you are not a thief, then you are a crook, because you use your name to cover the rest of the thieves and crooks." Svirid had originally sought one million rubles in the case. ”

The above was just removed. I object; it's important to cover persecution such as this. A court case like this matters.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think even RT (TV network) did a better work in describing this incident than text above. According to RT [38], "An activist supporting United Russia is set to “calm down” opposition leader Aleksey Navalny by filing an avalanche of lawsuits against him for insulting the majority party.", etc. But I have no objections to include if properly described in proper section. There was an appeal: [39]. BTW, what was the result of the appeal? I see [40]: "not only the court found his accusation unfounded, but publicity...". Sure, that can be included, but must be properly written. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Wrong narrative

What is this? "cockroaches", "shoot them" ("dark-skinned" people), "rotten teeth"? This is all wrong. I said this already a couple of times, but if you want to include something, here is the scholarly source about his views on Russian foreign policy. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Your repeated removal of controversial facts about Navalny's article, [41] includes "wrong narratives" that appears to come from 6 sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources:

The Guardian: "And a video that Navalny recorded for Narod several years ago called for arming the population to shoot Chechen bandits."

Telegraph: "[He] appeared in a video that compared migrants to cockroaches"

NYTimes: "[He] starred in a video that compares dark-skinned Caucasus militants to cockroaches. While cockroaches can be killed with a slipper, he says that in the case of humans, “I recommend a pistol."

Financial Times: "he also compared people from Russia’s mostly Muslim North Caucasus to “cockroaches” and mimicked shooting one."

Politico: "In 2008, he appeared in a video dressed as a dentist, with an on-screen caption describing him as a “fully-trained nationalist,” and compared illegal immigrants to rotten teeth that needed to be “carefully but forcibly removed” from Russia."

The Guardian: "he released a number of disturbing videos, including one in which he is dressed as a dentist, complaining that tooth cavities ruin healthy teeth, as clips of migrant workers are shown."--Mhorg (talk) 00:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Well, not every sourced defamatory content about living persons belongs to WP. For a very big BLP page (such as that one), one should not cite every blog post by the subject (more than 10 years ago), even if it was covered in RS. Instead, one should use a scholarly secondary RS (such as that one), where the actual views by Navalny on the subjects of migration and foreign policy were analyzed and properly summarized. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You have literally accused the biggest newspapers of the world journalism of having produced defamatory content (If that had been the case, Navalny could have earned billions of dollars in compensation by suing them). At this point I seriously wonder what we are discussing about, only the intervention of an administrator can be able to understand what you are really trying to do in this article.--Mhorg (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg can you write what exactly you'd like to add to the article (either give a link to a prior version of the article or just write it here)? I think that the main concern had to do with WP:UNDUE so you should probably explain that the proposed additions satisfy this policy. Alaexis_¿question? 16:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis the part that My very best wishes deleted [42] is an old part inserted not by me in December 2020 [43]. I just added multiple well-known RS to the fact reported. This is the part, I didn't add a single word, all is taken from the RS: In 2007 he starred in several videos recorded for the NAROD movement, expousing Russian nationalist views. In one of them he compares dark-skinned Caucasus militants to cockroaches and calling for arming the population to shoot them. In another video he is dressed as a dentist, with an on-screen caption describing him as a “fully-trained nationalist,” and compared illegal immigrants to rotten teeth that needed to be “carefully but forcibly removed” from Russia.
This has nothing to do with the WP:UNDUE, we can discuss where to place it, whether up or down if you want. These are videos that the Guardian refers to as "disturbing videos",[44] and which are of enough value to show what kind of person he was at that time. Then did he repent? Okay, let's write it down that he repent, but we can't erase history, especially history that has an important and precise meaning. About My very best wishes, calling these RS defamatory it seems to me that your goal is to protect Navalny's reputation, and this is not fair behavior for a Wikipedia editor.--Mhorg (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this makes it clear. We should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" per WP:UNDUE. We should look at recent articles to understand what weight is given to facts or interpretations. The 2017 Guardian article you linked earlier dedicates two paragraphs out of ~40 to his nationalism. Consider this very recent NYT article as well: it dedicates a similar proportion of article to Navalny's links with nationalists.

Importantly, both articles provide context for this: that it was his political opponents who criticised him and that this was used by the Kremlin in a smear campaign against him. The NYT article also quotes someone who says that the nationalist rhetoric was a device to engage people who otherwise would not have listened to him. The article already states the most important facts: Navalny's participation in Narod, participation in Russian marches etc. If we add more information it would violate WP:UNDUE as we would give undue weight to this specific topic. Alaexis_¿question? 17:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Alaexis let's not forget that the user has already destroyed the NAROD part,[45] freeing up a lot of space. Adding 3 lines for these two disturbing videos it isn't a problem of WP:UNDUE. And of course I am in favor of adding some text where it is specified in what context he made those nationalist statements.--Mhorg (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, as you can see these newspapers also chose not to mention them in the way you propose to do it when writing about Navalny. Feel free to initiate an RfC to get an outside view. Alaexis_¿question? 18:24, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reasonable comments! I do not think there are any significant disagreements. I made a couple of minor fixes though. Welcome to correct whatever you want. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:1RR now in effect

Template:Editnotices/Page/Alexei Navalny should now display upon editing. El_C 23:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes

[46] - While I am more or less neutral about the Narod section, but would be inclined to remove (it would be OK on another page, but hardly due on this very big page), the addition of "anti-Georgia" paragraph I think is not acceptable. This is because such text does not properly reflect his views on foreign policy (including Georgia) as explained in a much better scholarly source on this subject [47]. Please get WP:Consensus for your change.My very best wishes (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

First you removed every negative aspect of the politician in question [48][49], you also deleted all the "Russo-Georgian war" part with a click [50], and you come here talking about WP:Consensus (I'm tracking in this report all your movements User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article), then the discussion has ben engulfed for 12 days (you started the 9 February contributing) [51] without offering real solutions (start making text proposals). I, as I have already said, am not contrary to contextualizing the Navalny's statement, but what has already been included on the Georgian question are facts found merging 5 RS and Navalny's blog, so that should be on the article.--Mhorg (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Speaking on the diff above [52] ("Navalny has also expressed his support for pro-Russian secessions in Georgia and Moldova..."), I agree that his views on the secessionist territories might be included, but not as you did. They must be included as summarized in the scholarly source on the subject (link above), i.e.:

"Common in his treatment of all those secessionist territories is that he mostly considers them not from identity-related or geopolit-ical, but from a purely economic perspective, as territories on which Russian taxpayers’ money are being spent. In this vein, he supported the statement that Crimea is de-facto Russian on the grounds that pensions and salaries on the peninsula are paid from the Russian budget. When facing the question of how he will interact with Abkhazia and South Ossetia once elected president, the first thing he said was that the money Russian taxpayers are currently paying to those territories amounts to 200,000 roubles (about 2,900 Euro) monthly per a local citizen, the practice which he wants to stop." My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

But again, since he is not a presidential candidate and this page is already very big, I do not think such content would be due on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

He is not a presidential candidate, but he is the best-known Russian political opponent leader in the world. For me there is no problem in including this part to specify how Navalny considers the issues inherent in the "disputed territories".--Mhorg (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

"best-known Russian political opponent" of Party of crooks and thieves? Yes, certainly. Therefore, any aspects related to this should be emphasized on the page, exactly as they are. But what he is going to do with the secessionist territories if he becomes a president? Well, this is so far-fetched. He will be lucky to survive a few months. My very best wishes (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

As about WP:CONSENSUS, my reading of the long discussions above is that your suggestions were not supported by almost all contributors who commented on this page, not only by me. My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

This constant distortion of the truth is becoming a serious problem, you are forcing me to trace your every single move (User_talk:El_C#Operation_Whitewash_on_Alexei_Navalny's_article) to understand what you have in mind. You force me to waste more time again. Regarding to your (new) removal of the Russo-Georgian war[53]:

✓ User:Jurisdicta: "Mhorg, your sources support that he backed the Russian war in Georgia." (He reported the Irish Times: "in 2008 he wrote in support of Russia’s war in Georgia and used an ethnic slur to describe its people" - then User:Nicoljaus tried to confuse him\her talking about the "ethnic" word, but that had already been removed by me [54] and was out of the question. A recurring feature of User:Nicoljaus: WP:NOTLISTENING)

✓ User:PailSimon: "Its evident through the sources provided above that the sources support the content, lets not whitewash"

✓ User:Darkcloud2222: "Those five reliable sources are sufficient to consider the text previously entered valid. I also believe you can also use the blogger's source, it will not be difficult for someone who translates Russian to report the statements, and it should not violate any WP rules."

✓ User:Ohnoitsjamie: "Non-involved opinion (I ran across this issue from a recent ANI post); the material about his prior stance on Georgia is backed by several sources that easily meet WP:RS"

✓ User:Alaexis: "WP:NPOV: it's phrased in a neutral way, it's mentioned that he was against sending Russian troops to Georgia/South Ossetia and that later he apologised for the words he used. WP:UNDUE: this does not occupy too much or too prominent space in the Policies section, we should basically follow the RS when deciding the importance of this particular position."

✓ User:Mhorg: "I propose for now to restore the part about the Georgia, combining the primary source with the RS."--Mhorg (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Everyone (me including) agree that the sources you used on this page are RS. The disagreement is about "due weigh" of such content, which sources to use, and how exactly this should be phrased on the page if included. That is where most contributors (me including) disagree with you. My very best wishes (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You wrote: "That is where most contributors (me including) disagree with you" Most contributors, who exactly?--Mhorg (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You started this section and a couple of other sections above. Very long tl;dr dicussions followed. If you consider this as an approval of your suggestions, I can not help. My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, you keep distorting everything. The discussion on Georgia has clearly reached consensus and you have removed it from the article again.[55] Not being able to justify this, talking about opposing users who are not there.
To be precise, I only opened the discussion on Georgia and the DPNI. You triggered the other discussions yourself, attempting to remove any controversial parts from the article.--Mhorg (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

There is consensus that the sources are RS, but there is no consensus to include content exactly as you want it to be included. However, if you can convince any uninvolved WP administrator (excluding anyone who already commented on your talk page) to actually read this thread and summarize consensus, I will agree with their closing. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read the answers given by the users (you speak English better than me, of course). They speak about "previously entered content" "the sources support the content" "it's phrased in a neutral way, it's mentioned that he was against sending Russian troops to Georgia/South Ossetia and that later he apologised for the words he used" "his prior stance on Georgia is backed by several sources". This is pratically the text removed by you and Nicoljaus. WP:NOTLISTENING again, and again, and again. Why?--Mhorg (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Because according to the policy, we must rely on scholarly sources whenever possible, and especially on contentious subjects. There is such source (see above). Let's use it. This is because only such sources properly summarize the subject (his views in that case). My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

You wrote: "That is where most contributors (me including) disagree with you", you said there was no WP:Consensus, instead this is confirmation that you were lying. We had Consensus, but now the problem is the "scholarly sources". Again, more distortions... and me standing here wasting my days with a person who does not want to argue, but wants to win at any cost.--Mhorg (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I can not agree. The text you are trying to include misrepresents Navalny and his supporters as far-right ultra-nationalists, almost Nazi. But the reality (at least recently) is exactly the opposite. See here by Human Rights Watch, for example. Navalny campaigners and offices across Russia have also faced an increasing number of attacks by ultra-nationalist groups and activists. The attacks range from vandalizing campaign offices or campaigners’ homes, storming into meetings, destroying equipment, blocking the entrance to campaign events, and severely damaging or even burning campaigners’ cars. This is all well known. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)