Talk:Pussy Riot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Illegal performances

"collective that stages illegal performances" -- what is "illegal performance", if there is elsewhere public places, and nobody charged against such performance. I remove "illegal" word. Also, it is relevant that charging 213/2 Criminal Code by officials is illegal, as there is no material damage, no vandalism, no health damage to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaris (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would go further and say even "unauthorized" is POV. "Impromptu" is better, and is supported by at least one media source.43hellokitty21 (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

We don't not know and we shall not speculate on it. They are "impromptu" until you provide a reliable, independent, unbiased source that states otherwise. benzband (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• I guess "illegal" means "unlawful" and I guess the word "law" here designates local law and since Russian Criminal Code is local law in Russia, we have every right to call anything, that is unlawful according to Russian Criminal Code, "illegal". What is irrelevant here is your personal judgement of what is and what isn't illegal in Russia. Thank you. 2.60.148.91 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Name

Is there any more information about the band name? Is their actual name the Latin characters "P U S S Y R I O T", or is this a translation of their name in Russian and Cyrillic characters? If so, what is the original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.198.170 (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• "Pussy Riot" is the band's official name. This exact form is used both by the court and the press, because to translate it into Russian proper would be to exclaim profanity on the national TV. 46.0.50.254 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Not true. Pussy Riot was translated into Russian in the court as "бунтующие кошечки", which translates pussy as kitten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.195.137 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 August 2012‎
    • Still, "Pussy Riot" is the band's official name which is usually not translated, but transliterated in Russian media. Please see discussion in Russian at ru:Pussy Riot#Перевод названия группы, proper translation would be «Бунт кисок» or «Кискин бунт», which preserves two meanings of word "pussy" [1]. -- Ace111 (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      • «Бунт кисок» or «Кискин бунт» implies only one meaning of the word "pussy" - a kitten. In Russian language, a female vagina is never called kitten, only a Russian person familiar with English can create this association. Majority of the russian public would not create this association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.219.222 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 8 August 2012‎
        • Unfortunately, modern Russian language in Russia has also a different meaning of the word "киска" - please see e.g. ru:киска (значения) or Google search result. By the way, please don't forget to sign your message at the talk pages in Wikipedia by putting ~~~~ at the end of your message. -- Ace111 (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
          • This is your personal view which is not supported by the official dictionary "Большой толковый словарь русского языка. Гл. ред. С. А. Кузнецов": http://www.gramota.ru/slovari/dic/?bts=x&word=%CA%E8%F1%E0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.219.222 (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
            • • Ha. If you knew anything about linguistics, you wouldn't be so quick to try and win an argument about linguistic usage by reference "the official dictionary." Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 08:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
            • On Russian Wikipedia the name being used is literally the English transliterated with an explanation / translation. For example if I was to say Spasibe; Russian for thanks, rather than just to say thanks. Should it be mentioned somewhere in the article that they are using an English name with the Russian press transliterating this name?--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why reverse?

I see that 92.13.49.9 had reversed my bold edit. Why? 92.13.49.9, if you are out there, care to explain? I think the structure of the article as it is now is faulty - it mixes different aspects as the trial and various reactions. I tried to separate the different aspects int o separate sections. If there were some infelicities or missing items - they could have been added later. But why dismiss the whole attempt summarily? I think some reason ought to be given. Thanks. Bazuz (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't the reverter, but just as a passing comment, though I appreciated your attempt to restructure the article, it did seem to me that subsections for each "reaction" bit were unnecessary. I agree that the section's getting a bit unwieldly though. Perhaps later today I can find a new proposal. Khazar2 (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do! Bazuz (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

"Pro-Kremlin" director

An editor inserted an unrelated citation to label a Pussy Riot critic as "pro-Kremlin", which seems to me WP:SYNTH; if our reliable source isn't casting his criticism in those terms, I think it's not for us to do so either (any more than it would be for us to research whether any of their supporters could be described as "anti-Kremlin" by unrelated sources). I was reverted on my first try to remove this so I thought I'd open the discussion here--do other editors see this as useful? If so, should we try to research whether anyone else referenced in the article has made pro- or anti-Putin statements in the past for consistency? My own preference would be to remove it, but if others feel strongly that it should remain, I can live with that. Khazar2 (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Appears resolved. Cheers, Sayerselle! Khazar2 (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What was exactly the resolution? I see that the 'Pro-Kremlin' bit has been removed - I didn't find any further discussion that supported the removal; maybe I didn't know where to look?

By the way, putting my 2 cents in: N.M. is very well-known in Russia but Pro-Kremlin would be a less adequate description of him than something like 'arch-conservative'? Look up his record to see what I am talking about. He also (used to be, some would argue) a very famous and talented director - I think both his (to me invidious) politics and his (old) artistic reputation should be mentioned. What do you think? Bazuz (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It was removed by the original editor. I personally think it's best to leave out all qualifying information about these people. For example, Madonna is very famous as well, but it seems silly to say "the very famous and talented singer Madonna" before mentioning her support... it would seem like we were trying to endorse her views. Similarly, I don't think we should label NM as talented, famous, conservative, etc.; better to just let his views speak for themselves, and those interested in more info on him can click the wikilink. Just my own take, though, so if others disagree, I'm up for hearing counterargument. Khazar2 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sounds reasonable to me. But I still think it's paramount to categorize the information; otherwise it's just a formless heap. Any progress on that front, perhaps? Bazuz (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Madonna

may want to add this, madonna throws her lot in with the girls at a recent concert in moscow...I am far to lazy to add it myself

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120809/175089230.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.34.87.168 (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Madonna's already briefly mentioned here, but perhaps that can be expanded. Khazar2 (talk) 19:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Gang Bang, offending the Patriarch and blasphemy

I see that a number of users delete references to the participation of Tolokonnikova in a gang bang in 2008. This element is crucial as it shoes that what she did is only part of a row of performances which a far from being socially acceptable.

I also see that references to blasphemous words of the performance and offending remarks towards the Patriarch are deleted as well.

Unless you have any solid justification, Sayerslle, Fred Bauder and Khazar2, please do not delete my contributions. I also see that you are foreigners and the first two even do not speak Russian to be able to understand the full content! How can you make an unbiased article if you turn a blind eye to obivous facts?! It now takes me ages to include information which is obvious to a Russian speaker!

Being foreigners and not speaking Russian has nothing to do with it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Including information here about the "gang bang" event, which appears to have nothing to do with Pussy Riot, seems to me clearly WP:SYNTH. Is it possible to find multiple sources that see that as relevant background here? If not, this seems like giving an odd piece of background undue weight. Khazar2 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it does have something to do with Pussy Riot. But what the OP needs is reliable sources that contain the information (the link provided doesn't, its just a video) and an interest in writing from a neutral perspective (i.e. providing proper context and not using terms such as "gang bang"). Formerip (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fred, the fact that you do not speak Russian is a clear problem because you delete information which is present in Russian press. What is obivous to a Russian speaker is unfortunately not obivous to foreigners who base their contributions on distorted English sources where only the side of the victim is present. Now I have to spend my free time to explain you the obvious and correct your biased contributions. If I do not comply with wikipedia's formal rules fine - but then as wikipedia-geeks please tailor the text to make it acceptable in place of deleting it. 1) Tolokonnikova did participate in the 2008 orgue (if you may call it like that) and admitted that during one of her interviews in jail. If The Guardian did not write about it, it does not mean it did not take place. This is part of her biography: as much as her education, information about her husband, daughter, etc. and therefore it should be mentioned in the article. Here where you can find all the relevant information, including photos and her interview (you can see her pregnant from the back): http://plucer.livejournal.com/168286.html?page=2; http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D1%80%D1%83%D0%BF%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81_%D0%B2_%D0%91%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BC_%D0%BC%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%B5_%D0%B8%D0%BC._%D0%9A._%D0%90._%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D1%8F%D0%B7%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B0; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck_for_the_heir_Puppy_Bear!; http://plucer.livejournal.com/61945.html#cutid1 (her interview following the gang bang) All this information is important for a fair coverage of the case and the people involved. 2) What the sang is blasphemous and you should not be a lawyer to understand it. 3) They offend the Patriarch. The word "сука" in Russian literally means "bitch".

None of the sources you just listed qualify as reliable sources, unfortunately. It's not necessary to have The Guardian, but it would help to have something beyond a blog or Wikipedia article. The English language wikipedia link does not appear to even exist. You can see reliable sources for more details. Khazar2 (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

What about these ones? http://lenta.ru/lib/14206363/; http://hao.ru/archives/583 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.236.115 (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Neither of those count. The first one is a wikipedia mirror and the second is farmed content on a web-design site. You said it had been mentioned in the Russian newspapers, and one of these sources mentions Gazeta.ru. Those would be reliable sources. Formerip (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lentapedia [2] is not a Wikipedia mirror. It is a "newsmaker encyclopedia" composed by the editors of Lenta.ru. Quite good source in my opinion. GreyHood ^Talk 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The best, if possible, would be a newspaper source that mentions both the orgy and an explicit connection to Pussy Riot. If the orgy is truly notable, it's surely been mentioned again in this context, given the amount of coverage Pussy Riot is receiving international. If we can't find a source mentioning them both together, it seems to me that including it here would be synthesizing information and adding undue weight to a past incident. If it's not important to any reporters in Russia or internationally, why should it be important to our article? Khazar2 (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this good enough? It has several recognizable photographs of Nadezhda Tolokonnikova in case of any doubts. http://www.1tvnet.ru/content/show/blogeri-vspomnili-zaderjannoi-aktivistke-pussy-riot-tarakanov-v-sude-i-seks-v-biologicheskom-muzee.html

I am afraid we are speaking about a pornographic trash performance. As you may guess, respectable media sources do not cover that. I am not sure whether an international source would pick up that either. And I have never said anything about Russian newspapers. The picture and video clearly show the face of Tolokonnikova and there is huge evidence online including an interview with Tolokonnikova herself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6vCHXQlRig; 3:44) proving that she was involved in the orgue and that she is even proud of herself for having done that. If the provided evidence is not enough to you, please include the word "ostensible" or "arguably" next to my contribution or whatever. An outward deletion of all references can only be interpreted as a censorship. I will not spend my time anymore explaining to the English-speaking people something which is obvious to a Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.236.115 (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

you delete information which is present in Russian press

As you may guess, respectable media sources do not cover that

Seems to me that only one of these statements can be correct. Formerip (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify (and for the record - yes, I do speak Russian and know the матчасть well enough). The orgy/artistic performance/call it whatever you like was performed by Voina and not by Pussy Riot. There is some personnel and ideas overlap between the two groups but they are far from equivalent. Therefore I suggest not to include material about the o/ap/ciwyl in this article, as it would be a bit of 'guilt by association'. The o/ap/ciwyl was indeed reported in mainstream Russian media and I can find links for that - but, to stress the point again, it would be a matter for inclusion in the Voina article, not here. Bazuz (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. By the way, reliable Russian language sources are acceptable. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think we follow the sources. Whether we have suitable context for this article depends on the context sources put it in. Formerip (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't quite catch you drift...Bazuz (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, just type "Война Pyssy Riot" into Google and you will instantlty get tons of sources, including tons of reliable ones, connecting Pussy Riot and Voina. [3] - this one is quite good for example. The connection between the two groups is typically drawn by critics/opponents of Pussy Riot and carefully omitted by their supporters. But there is no reason not to provide the readers of Wikipedia with notable background, and the sources (the same source [4]) note that the connection between Pussy Riot and Voina is an aggravating circumstance in the eyes of conservative public. I'd say that it is very important part of their public perception in Russia (of course the western media tried to downplay this unflattering connection) and this should be reflected in the article. GreyHood ^Talk 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The article now has an entire section devoted to this topic. Kaldari (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Information about Voina should be in the Voina article, not here. Mcarling (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

I initially removed category 'Political repression in Russia' here. It was re-applied here with edit summary 'no reason provided for removal', which is not the case. Am happy for this issue to be debated, but can't see how such a category while a legal case is being prosecuted can be considered WP:NPOV in the Wikipedia sense. RashersTierney (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak to that particular category, but sometimes accusations are enough to include a category. I was surprised to learn recently that Category:Police brutality included all accusations, even against people who were definitively cleared, for example. This might be a comparable case; groups like Amnesty have at least put that accusation out there. Still, I'm fine with leaving it off, too. Khazar2 (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And I'm fine with puting it back. Initiating legal cases is a standard form of political repression in Russia: just about everyone sent to the Gulags was sent there as a result of a "legal case". Meowy 20:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Statements of support

The list of artists supporting Pussy Riot is starting to outstrip its sourcing; edits like this [5] don't appear to have sources at all. Perhaps today we could try to go through that list and add individual footnotes to sourced supporting artists, and remove unsourced claims of support? I believe I'm near three reverts on this article, so need to take a break myself. Khazar2 (talk) 07:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Reviewing the sources, the only four that appear sourced in their support are RHCP, Sting, Madonna, and Yoko Ono. I'll remove the others from the list and move them here later today if there are no objections. Khazar2 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Kathleen Hanna could be added to the list - if blackbookmag is a RS - Hanna 'we-are-all-pussy-riot-' [6] Sayerslle (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For something like this, I find it hard to believe the information would be challenged. Thanks! I may run the others through Google to see if anything notable turns up for them. Also, Yoko Ono's support is currently only sourced to her Twitter account. Is it legit to use a primary::source here, or should I pull it? Khazar2 (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact just searching 'musicians who support PR' , theres this bbc article also so i dont think Jarvis Cocker, Corinne Bailey Rae, Kate Nash, Pete Townshend, Neil Tennant , The Joy Formidable, should be removed either - [7] The Kathleen Hanna link mentions Yoko Ono support too.Sayerslle (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, good. I'll just use those sources. Khazar2 (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Faith No More and Peaches also among the supporters.[8]. Khazar2 (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, in the end I found everyone save Tegan and Sara, who I marked as citation needed. Khazar2 (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Good. Tegan and Sara have tweeted their support , according to this , I think its from the canadian equivalent of the BBC - and it mentions Stephen Fry supporting Pussy Riot too [9] Sayerslle (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the Fry part, but not Tegan and Sara--am I missing it? Khazar2 (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

no, I can't find them there either. sorry about that. it mentioned them in the article link on the page returned by the search - if the link to their twitter account is enough [10] their support is there 6:15 pm 8 August and they re-tweet a link to a petition tweeted by Mia Farrow, so she supports them too - they support Pussy Riot clear enough so there should be other mentions somewhere. Sayerslle (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I don't have a source yet for Die Antwoord either. Marked as . Khazar2 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

is a photo on tumblr - wearing a 'free pussy riot' T-shirt - any good as a ref [11] - scroll down to last 2 photos Sayerslle (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That's probably pushing it, unfortunately. Khazar2 (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, added T&S per Twitter source. Khazar2 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There is some sort of protest being planned by artists participating at the Edinburgh International Festival. Probably involving the Russian consulate in Edinburgh. Meowy 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In what order do the supporters appear, surely not in alphabetical order - but why not? -- 194.95.117.68 (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's been pretty random. If you wanted to alphabetize them, that would be very welcome. Khazar2 (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it seems like every famous person outside Russia supports them, would it be easier just to link to categories? Or the WP mainpage, maybe? Formerip (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not many Russians in there? Seems to be easier to jump on the bandwagon if you live somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.186.203 (talk) 15:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Im from russia and not very good in english so i cant do good editing. But i need mention strong bias of this article, because widely shown support of this band in western world, while support or even opinions in russia are not mentioned. Even more, in article, in the part of russian public opinion there is a note that - "Russians get their information from television, and therefore perceive the event in accordance with the state's "official version". So not only dictators from Kremlin are villains, but simple people are dumb. But this "version" was created by exalted western mass media. So please anybody who can translate russian, please take a look at russian article http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE_Pussy_Riot it's very informative. For example there is citation for the subject from some public people: Vladimir Putin said: Тем не менее, я не думаю, что уж так нужно их строго судить за это. Но надеюсь, что они сами сделают какие-то выводы. Its can be translated that "he think that there is no need to judge them too strict" Chairman of the federation council Valentina Matviyenko: назвала панк-молебен в храме Христа Спасителя «возмутительным» и «безнравственным» поступком[227] и заявила, что их можно и отпустить, несмотря на всю безнравственность их поступка[227] She said that what they do is bad, but they may be released And many others. In ovetview i must say that most politics, artists, or any other public person in Russia make statement about subject and that they must be released. Girls get two years, its almost minimal period for article "hooliganism". They already sit in SIZO for 6 months, that count like 1 year in prison. 1 year to go. I agree that its too hard, but its not bloody KGB crimes! And almost everybody here, in Russia, state that they must be released but there is a court and a law. Why media is not exalted about Julian Assange pursiut? So i must tell you my english speaking friends that you get a lot more propaganda than you think and declare. Rusia just have worse PR. Big problem that you cant take even a chance to get full information for subject like this. Be careful and think for yourself, dont believe your "independed mass media"!! There is non. Read several non-independend and take a picture. 178.162.105.245 (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

removed unsourced information

ref: 'Khazar2‎ .. (Undid revision 507745489 by Dgharmon`

That information is fully cited in two sources in The Guardian and one in the Boston Globe. See here, where it states that Maria Alyokhina is the unofficial spokeswoman for Pussy Riot. In her opening statement Tolokonnikova has this to say: "We [Pussy Riot] had no intentions to offend anyone". Now where in the article is it sourced that they are not 'alleged' members of same? Finally, in her own words and as reported on the Boston Globe, Tolokonnikova took part in the museum orgy because she ‘‘wanted to stimulate birth by making love.’’

Dgharmon (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Usually in Wikipedia the source follows the information instead of appearing with another sentence, which was the reason for my confusion. I'm fine with including the orgy detail, but as background about one of the individuals, I'd suggest including it in the subsection "defendants" under Tolokonnikova's name. Khazar2 (talk) 22:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Toward consensus on the orgy incident

(Restored section deleted by another editor) There's been a good deal of conflict over the last 3-4 days on this article on whether it's appropriate to include the fact that Tolokonnikova once participated in an orgy; this has been exacerbated by the insertion of this fact into its own subsection and even the lead section, and by the poor sourcing. But as an editor above points out, this has appeared in clearly reliable international media as well as background for NT, such as the Associated Press [12] and The Guardian [13]. It seems appropriate to me to include it in some form without giving it undue weight. Perhaps a one- or two-sentence mention in the "defendants" section, which already gives background info on each defendant? Khazar2 (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me as long as it has a reliable source. It certainly doesn't need the kind of emphasis or details, especially in the early part of the article, that the IP editor wants. Afterwriting (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your efforts to keep the article fair-and-balanced are quite commendable, but I don't think someone who would video herself stuffing a frozen chicken up her vejay (ytvid==qoj4IfiaNuQ) is too concerned with her reputation. Dgharmon (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Before this too ends up in the article, be aware that the YouTube vid Dgharmon linked to is mistaken. According to the Voina article the member who, I don't know... liberated?... the chicken, was Natalia Sokol, not Tolokonnikova. There's a link to a gallery of images of the incident on the Voina page, and I don't remember seeing Tolokonnikova in any of them. But then I only had to see a few of them before I realized there were probably far better things out there I could be fapping too with my time. 173.58.37.123 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This incident is frequently used to attack Pussy Riot members, however even a cursory examination of the video shows that it is neither Sokol (who also appears in the video) nor any of the 3 pussy riot members on trial who steals the chicken. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the alleged orgy incident should be mentioned in an article about Tolokonnikova, not in the Pussy Riot article. Yes, the three who have been arrested and convicted are noteworthy enough to have their own articles. All of the personal details now in the Pussy Riot article should be moved to personal articles and deleted from the Pussy Riot article. Mcarling (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Too much of the article focuses on the personal details of the arrested members of the group. This material should be moved elsewhere - either to the Viona article or personal articles. Kaldari (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Voina article suffers from the same problem of too much personal information about the participants, so let's not move the personal information there. I'll start moving the personal information from this article to articles for the three convicted members. Mcarling (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with this move. Basic background information about the accused is surely relevant to an article on Pussy Riot? Major changes to an article (such as removing information and transferring it to another article) should be run past wikipedia users first. Note that the request to move the details about the trial to a separate article was voted down.MaxBrowne (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Public perception of Pussy Riot

[14] we may use this source for example. It mentions the connection between Pussy Riot and Voina, the actions in which Tolokonnikova and Samutsevich took part in, and says that it is an "aggravating moral circumstance" in the eyes of conservative public. The same source also says that according to a Levada poll 44% of Russians believe that the trial is "fair" and 17% believe otherwise, 36% believe that the decision would be based on the evidence and 18% believe that the decision would be influenced by the state. I suggest creating a section which would explain the public perception of Pussy Riot in Russia and which would include all this stuff. GreyHood ^Talk 15:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this should be included but, for my sins, I have watched the video. It's not really an "orgy". It features people being filmed having sex (or trying to). We should be accurate about it. Formerip (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, your proposal sounds reasonable to me. As for the nomenclature, many reliable sources do describe it as an orgy, regardless of the participants' (non)talents. Haven't had the guts to watch it myself yet, though. Khazar2 (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, reliable sources can be wrong. I'd say if you don't have sex with more than one person you're not in an orgy. That's just a general life rule, isn't it? In all seriousness, we have a responsibility to write conservatively about living people and not just follow the sensationalist language used in sources. "Orgy" makes it seem like something that it isn't. Formerip (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

OK I've added the proposed stuff and tried to do that in neutral way. Feel free to correct it and to propose better wording. Not sure how the "orgy" incident should be properly described. It indeed did look more like a simulation, but seems anyway it was the group's intention to simulate an orgy as part of their performance, and the media heavily used the term to describe the action. GreyHood ^Talk 16:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Since the sources say orgy, I'm fine using the same word here. If it can be demonstrated that a number of reliable sources use different wording, we can revisit the issue. Khazar2 (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Four protestors question

The photos of the protest show four protestors but apparently only three were arrested. What is the explanation for this? Afterwriting (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The explanation is that one of the 4 members was pregnant and thus not charged. I do not see this information included in the article, though. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, it would be good to add. Khazar2 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Link to Vladimir Putin page named Vladimir Stalin? GOOD PROPAGANDA, EDITORS OF WIKIPEDIA! You are trustful like an old whore.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.156.185 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2012

 Fixed. Thanks for pointing out the vandalism: it has been reverted and the user responsible was warned. However your attacks against the editors of Wikipedia don't do you any credit. benzband (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The vandal who added that is obviously very ignorant because Stalin was a Communist and opposed religion. He never would have arrested someone who protested against a church! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WutWhaat (talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Kasparov

The article currently says:

• Chess champion Garry Kasparov ..., who w[as] protesting in support of the band, w[as] detained by police.

According to [15], Kasparov was not protesting. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Y. benzband (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov try went to the court and was arrested. But Garry Kasparov many times expressed support for Pussy Riot. You can see it here: http://kasparov.ru/ (russian).

Members??

Is there any information out there as to the exact number of members and their full names? This strikes me as being pretty basic. Justinreview (talk) 11:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's very simple: Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. If the published sources do not contain certain information, then the Wikipedia article does not contain it either. Invertzoo (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So to confirm then: There is absolutely no information out there as to who these people are? 77.102.245.14 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

All we can say is that nobody has yet added it to the article. If you'd like to search, additional information would be welcome. Thanks, Khazar2 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Names of alleged members were leaked, but I won't give any links. They received death threats etc MaxBrowne (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The mysterious disappearing Alexei Kudrin quote

The quote by Alexei Kudrin that "Huge damage has been done to the country's image and attractiveness for investors" is shown in the Google caches for articles on several news sites. However, the quote has been removed from all of them in their current live versions. I actually can't verify this quote any more except from Google caches (and non-RS blogs). Can anyone find it in any Russian language sources? If so, please add a citation for the quote to the article. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Found it in a live article finally.[16] Kaldari (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS HEAVILY SLANTED

When I write "slanted", I do not mean biased in any way, but this article is heavily slanted towards the prosecution of 3 members of Pussy Riot and then focuses on the international reaction to that prosecution.

What did they actually do? Why are the Russian people in favor of the trial and why do they feel the sentencing is fair? Hooliganism is a broad and vague criminal charge in Russia, from what I understand. I do not speak Russian so I cannot even try to help this article out, I can only read English news articles. I wish that there were more articles focusing on what exactly they did at the church. Did they barge in while a service was in session and play music? If so, that is obviously offensive even if you are not a church goer. I wonder why that aspect isn't covered too.

THE DUKE

You can find that information under "church protest". Khazar2 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Your attempt at humor has failed, and miserably so. This entire article fills up 19-20 *pages* on my computer monitor. Five sentences cover the protest, the remainder (30 paragraphs) cover the reaction and public perception aspect. My point stands.

THE DUKE — • (contribs) 20:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, not an attempt at humor; I thought your statement that you couldn't find a description of what happened in the church was legitimate. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Obviously, any additions you'd like to make to this section from reliable sources would be welcome. Khazar2 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone good at Wikipedia (and typing in all the ref stuff, work this into the article to unslant it? Lyrics: "Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit! Shit, shit, the Lord’s shit!" -- source: http://freepussyriot.org/content/lyrics-songs-pussy-riotMickeyDonald (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What's so important about those lyrics? Kaldari (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

They were included at various points in the past, but repeatedly removed. benzband (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

They're indicative of why PR was sentenced for "incitement of religious hatred". Suppression of them is POV. Thanks.MickeyDonald (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not "suppression" when you haven't shown that they've appeared in any reliable source, much less a significant number of reliable sources. There's a thousand details here we could include--is this one commonly quoted in the massive coverage of the band? (An honest question). Khazar2 (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Google / Google news. benzband (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Stalinism

Undid revision 507896583

I fail to see what this page has to do with stalinism. Countered (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

[17] - show trial Moscow Trials -they offended the leader -- 'all dictators sooner or later become irrational' - its in that tradition maybe - i dunno..Sayerslle (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

this link has note on power linkup of russian orthodox/conservative putinist state and in this article russian orthodox/authoritarian conservative russian hatred of Tolstoy is mentioned and russian orthodox role in current set-up - link with stalinism here too is- authoritarian hatred of a left wing that points out how fascist, and un-Christian (love/forgiveness, turn the other cheek/let him without sin cast the first stone etc etc ) they are [18] Sayerslle (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• To imprison people for hooliganism in a church, that was rebuilt after being demolished under Stalin surely is very stalinist. 2.60.148.91 (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"See also"

Why are people adding and deleting what they see fit from the see also? I see this as directly related to feminism. Countered (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The See Also section is for topics not already linked to from the article. The first sentence links to Feminism in Russia, which covers the topic. Kaldari (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kaldari. No need to link to a more general article below. Khazar2 (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Native name

Russian sources seem to refer to the band as "Pussy Riot" (as does the band itself). I couldn't find any source for the recently added "Пусси Райот", but the Russian wiki article (titled "Pussy Riot") apparently mentions "Бунт киски" as their name translated into Russian. Unless there is a source showing that they use either of those Russian names, however, I don't think it's appropriate to use either in the article. Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like "Пусси Райот" is the transliteration, while "Бунт киски" is the translation. Like I said though, unless the band actually uses either of those, I think it's original research for us to use them in the article (and potentially misleading). Kaldari (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Russian name was - as I said in my edit summary - copied from their website (the first external link, at the time I added it). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see it. If we do include "Пусси Райот", we should make it clear that it's just a Cyrillic transliteration, not a Russian name for the band. Kaldari (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced information

A user has just deleted a large section of sourced information [19] with the edit summary "removed a large list that used twitter and facebook for much of its references". I would observe that 1) this user also deleted information sourced to groups like the BBC, etc., without explanation of any kind and 2) Twitter appears to me an accceptable reference to show the views of the Twitterer. (If need be, secondary sources repeating the tweets can be found in most cases). I would suggest that the deletion of this sourced information be reverted. Second opinion? Khazar2 (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If they have problems with certain citations, they should discuss them, but there's no reason to delete the entire section. I could also see an argument for culling the list down to the more notable figures. Kaldari (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I deleted some material and merged the rest for the following reasons

• I don't think Twitter and Facebook are appropriate references. A large amount of this material was from these sites.
• A a solid block of names does not convey useful information. Not sure is much of that material was very notable anyway.
• The international support section as it stood could easily be merged with the international reaction section. I moved the Germany related material to that section. XantheTerra (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

While you might not find it personally notable, please remember that notability on Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Some version of this info appears to me to have been mentioned in most news stories about Pussy Riot from the past week, and many articles have been devoted only to this topic (just click on any of the references you just deleted from the article). In the future, when you want to see more citations in an article, you might consider using the tag for information that you're skeptical of, or removing only the disputed claim, instead of deleting it as well as any sourced information you find above and below it. Khazar2 (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I admit to hasty removal. However, I do not think that we need a paragraph that is just 30+ names in a row; we can trim the list somewhat. XantheTerra (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this--we could copy the list of names here to this thread, so there's an easily accessible record to double-check later. We can add a sentence to the front of the paragraph mentioning the general trendiness of pro-PR support among Western musicians, giving context. Then we can remove anyone from the list not sourced to a reliable secondary source. (I agree that some examples in this list border on trivial). Musicians who got mentioned in secondary sources but are currently sourced only to primary sources (like Paul McCartney, etc.) can be re-added as people find better references. Does this sound fair? Thanks, Khazar2 (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

" mentioning the general trendiness of pro-PR support among Western musicians.." ?? that doesmnt sound very npov language itself to me. i find the list eloquent in its way - probably why certain elements want it 'trimmed' - send all the names down some Putinistmemory hole Sayerslle (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the flip phrasing; obviously the actual text would be neutral. I agree with you that it's worthwhile to include much of this list, but a few entries we had to really scrape to find a reference for. If it's not covered in secondary sources, it's just not notable enough for an article on a subject with this much coverage. I'd feel the same way if we were listing anti-PR statements from Twitter, FWIW. Khazar2 (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The text in question

Protests in Moscow in June

The accused have received support from musicians such as Kate Nash, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Sting, Peter Gabriel, Cornershop, Faith No More, Alex Kapranos of Franz Ferdinand, Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys, Patti Smith, The Beastie Boys, Refused, Zola Jesus, Die Antwoord, Jarvis Cocker, Pete Townshend, The Joy Formidable, Peaches, Madonna, Genesis, Tegan and Sara, Johnny Marr, Courtney Love, Iiro Rantala, Propagandhi, Anti-Flag, Rise Against, Corinne Bailey Rae, Peter Hammill, Kathleen Hanna, Björk, Paul McCartney, Yoko Ono, British comedian Stephen Fry, Reykjavík Mayor, Jón Gnarr and Warren Kinsella. XantheTerra (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I hope I am not negatively adding to this discussion, but while this list does have citations, I find the layout & ordering to be confusing on a few levels. Visually, it is so dense with the citations & links it’s hard to read. Also, the order seems haphazard at best. Shouldn’t it be in alphabetical order. Regardless, I would like to re-order the list alphabetically & add some column formatting to make it easier to read & parse. Thoughts? --SpyMagician (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetizing would definitely be helpful, and I think I like the idea of columns, too. I say go for it. Khazar2 (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the 4-6 with no secondary sources. Those with obvious notability (Love, Bjork), I quickly found a source for and restored. I'd still be up for alphabetizing and columnizing if anyone wants to tackle it. Khazar2 (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks! So I have alphabetized based on name of band/entity or the last name if it is a name of a person. I also combined the musician/non-musician lists because there is really no reason I cannot find to combine them all. One thing is there is no reference for the Mayor of Reykjavík, but left in place since it seems reasonable that a reference can be found. Hope this helps! --SpyMagician (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Remember that on an issue like this we should not attempt to be comprehensive but to summarise the most important people. Less is more! --John (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me, and I would welcome a suggestion for the best way to shorten the list. The problem I've run into so far is that news sources from different countries tend to prioritize different people from the list. Khazar2 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to merge the material in this section with the International Reaction section? After all, support is a subset of reaction and all of the people listed are out side of Russia. This would also make the section seem better structured as it jumps from singers and bands to an official government body. We could qualify the reactions by saying the following bands expressed support, the us state department expressed concern, etc. This way, we could more easily determine what groups or singers to remove by finding those that do not have enough material to flesh out their statement of support. XantheTerra (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Russia Today claiming double standards

Russia Today criticized what it called "double standards". I want this inserted, but I'm not sure where it would fit. Russian Today criticized the western reactions to the sentence and said it showed double standard, because Nabeel Rajab, a Bahraini activist was sentenced one day earlier in a similar case, but according to RT it "was not as publicized as the former". Oh, and I'm sure they can't say this about Wikipedia LOL. Opinions? Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem - that interview is with what appears to be a crank (remember, anyone can call themselves a journalist and an activist - what makes one NOTABLE?) - I've never heard of the guy - but here's a 'clip' from it - "DDB: ... I have concerns that as they move from Cote d’Ivoire to Libya to Syria and eventually Iran, that they may well have Russia in their target, that is the US senior policymakers. And they may well be softening the ground right now to try to show that the Russian government is hostile to its own people, that it lacks legitimacy, all of the things that they accused each other country of as they moved their military forces in. " Uh-huh. Right - the USA is preparing for a military attack on the Russian Federation. (rolls eyes) There's been no USA military support in Syria to-date, and the situation in Iran is entirely up to the Iranian gov't to resolve (a whole 'nother subject). Appears to be just another ultra-leftist with a beef and an agenda. If you can find a Reliable Source that has a notable figure(s) that has some valid points on the issue, that would be worth utilizing in the article. I'm sure that such material is out there, because although the official view of the State Dept. is one thing, American public opinion is another, and I can tell you I've personally found little sympathy for the band's actions here either on the university campus or my own circle of acquaintances, despite some "stars" throwing in their support. Give the media time to "catch up" a bit. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

REMOVED - Wikipedia is not a Forum nor a place for personal Soapboxing - please use the Talk Pages only for the discussion of how Reliable Sources can be used to improve the article.

I think that it will continue to be a forum for soapboxing until stricter standards are followed regarding talk page content. Articles on ongoing events or articles on subjects that have had a sudden surge in media coverage always get an influx of new editors who come here merely to voice their personal opinions the talk pages. We need to remember that any editor can remove postings from talk pages which is not directly related to content discussion. I have just deleted four postings that contained nothing but soapboxing and unfocused opinions. Meowy 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And one of the deleted posts had some serious BLP issues. Normally there is no great harm in a talk page having a few off-topic postings (and it often makes the pages much more interesting to read) but this article's talk page looks like it is getting out of control and legitimate and ongoing discussion about content is being swamped out by opinion pieces. I hope I have the support of other editors in this. Meowy 17:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Squids

An editor is persistently including the Squids to the list of supporting artists without completing the template or including a secondary source.[20] A first reversion was made without discussion or reason. I don't want to revert a second time without discussion--what are other editors' takes on this? Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that The Squids who, judging from their article, are most notable for having played the North by Northeast festival in 1995? Formerip (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably so. It was entered to the list as The Squid's, though, so who can tell for sure. Khazar2 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I removed it again. They seem like a local group and they may not even be active any more.XantheTerra (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

And the editor has duly inserted it for the third time. Is it agreed here that we have consensus to not include this without a reliable secondary source, at minimum? Khazar2 (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

so your goal is to censor an entry regarding a band in support of a band who has been heavily penalized for censorship just because you have never heard of the band. i have never heard of most of those bands in the article "in support", but to remove their names is disrespect for "pussy riot". instead of calling for deletion of their contribution to this matter, i have chosen to salute their cause.

The key policy here is not censorship but Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources, and giving each its due weight. The next step is for you to provide some significant secondary sources showing that the Squids' role in the case has been a significant one; that will probably get you consensus to insert the name back in. Khazar2 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Members?

Shouldn't there be a list of members? Not just the three convicted, but the other members of the band also? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you know where to find that information? Formerip (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the information should be there.Regards, theTigerKing  16:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Split need

Most of this article is about the protest and trial, not about the Pussy Riot. Split need. Yug 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a lot of non-trial international coverage of Pussy Riot that we're leaving out? If 90% of coverage of Pussy Riot focuses on this incident (which is a conservative estimate, honestly), it seems logical for our article to do the same. Khazar2 (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

We can't have an article about a +5 years old band, focused at 90% on a 2 months event. If, as it is, we consider more the trial than the group, we should have a such article.Yug (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The band is actually only a year old per the source cited in the article; if this is wrong, you might provide some reliable sources to change it. In any case, though, you might join the renaming discussion below; it sounds like this might be a better solution for your issue than a split that would probably leave a mostly empty article at Pussy Riot (pre-trial only). Khazar2 (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal

A split tag was added to the article without a formal proposal here, but the proposal appears to be to split the current article into Pussy Riot (band) and Pussy Riot (trial), with a disambiguation page occupying this page. So that the discussion can move forward, I'm adding a subsection for discussion here. Khazar2 (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The article does not yet show excessive size mandating a split per WP:SPLIT. Nor is the coverage of the trial undue weight, since this is the most widely covered incident in the bands history by a factor of 100. Perhaps if the band continues to be famous, we'll need to split to avoid trimming notable coverage of the trial, but for now I see no conflict, and no mention of Wikipedia precedent/policy by the proposer. Khazar2 (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support split. I have already expressed that the similar article in Russian Wikipedia was splitted (see the local discussion). The rest of their performances (which are not so well-known for English-speaking readers, e. g.) is also caused a great resonance. I am sure that Pussy Riot are notable and with no history of litigation. So it makes sense.--Distant Sun (talk) 06:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reasons given by User:Khazar2, above. Kiwi128 (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of an article shouldn't have information not in its main body. Unfortunately, a number of claims both for and against Pussy Riot are being dumped here by editors who perhaps don't have time to integrate the information properly--for example, the European Union statement. Anybody want to try reducing the lead back to a proper summary?

On a somewhat related note, why do we mention the Levada poll three times in this article? Seems like this is getting rather undue weight, unless that Levada poll is being mentioned constantly in our reliable sources. Khazar2 (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved some of this content together and reduced it slightly. We didn't need two separate sections on Russian public opinion.

I've also tweaked one of the figures. Our article quotes 6% with a favourable view of Pussy Riot and 51% with a negative view. However, the 51% appears to include the response "I wouldn't say anything positive about them", whereas the 6% excludes the response "I wouldn't say anything negative about them". So I have revised it to 41-6. Formerip (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Still far to much in the lead. The lead should be an introduction, not 3 paragraphs of headlines and current events. 71.1.235.109 (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

REMOVED. Discuss Reliable Sources to improve the article, stop using the Talk Pages as a forum!! HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How old is Yekaterina Samutsevich

They New York Times states her age as 30 while the BBC states her age as 29. XantheTerra (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, she must be 29½. Formerip (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

She was born on August 8, 1982. - Ace111 (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Lyrics and BLP

Since this is an article about the criminal trial of three living people, I suggest that we be strict about verifying that any info on Pussy Riot (or for that matter, the trial's judge or prosecutors) be sourced to reliable sources. This includes such things as labelling their performance as "blasphemous" independent of a reliable source (though surely this can be found) or including examples of their lyrics (part of the reason for their criminal charge) from blog sites with no obvious authority, such as freepussyriot.org. In this vein, I've removed the claim that their lyrics included "Shit, shit, the Lord's shit!" [21] until verified by an actual source. If a demonstrable number of reliable sources quote this particular lyric, though, I agree that it should be re-inserted into the article. Khazar2 (talk) 21:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No RS, but the actual lyric is Срань, срань, срань Господня (Shit, shit, holy shit). Господня also translates at "Lord", but it's idiomatic, which you'll see by Google translating this: [22]. It's not talking about Jesus's poo. Formerip (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Where are you getting the Russian version from? Basically I'm hoping to find a news source, or other reliable source, for this claim before putting it back in. (Also, have we confirmed they sang this lyric at the church instead of just posting it on a website of lyrics?) Khazar2 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

They didn't actually sing the song in the church, they just shouted out "shit shit holy shit". You can see this in the video (well, I guess you'll have to take my word for it that that's what they're shouting). Formerip (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

If the Kirill lyrics weren't in the song in the church, they probably shouldn't be in that part of the article (unless we carefully note that these are supplementary lyrics from the website). As for what they actually yelled in church, I do take your word for it, but I'd be curious to see how a majority of English-language sources are translating it (or whether they're including it at all). I'll try to poke around for this in a bit. Khazar2 (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if their lyrics actually qualify as "obscene" by Russian standards. The article and discussion page for Mat_(Russian_profanity) says that the phrase "sran' gospodnya" (literally "shit of the lord") apparently entered the Russian language when used to translate "holy shit" in Hollywood movies! The word "suka" literally means "bitch", but means something like "traitor, scum" when applied to a man. These expressions are considered somewhat crude but not at the top end of the scale - could probably be printed in a newspaper. A Russian speaker may be able to set me straight on this. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Idiomatic expression "sran' gospodnya" entered Russian language quite recently. Probably as result of informal Goblin's translations of Hollywood movies. Informal approach led to rather vulgar translation of "holy shit". I doubt that "sran'" can be printed at Russians newspapers. Also, many (especially older) people wouldn't know that "sran' gospodnya" means just "holy shit", and may understand it literally, as a Lord's poo.Finalyzer (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Important Information Missing

As the article correctly states, there were 4 women that protested, but only 3 were arrested and (now) convicted. What happened to the fourth woman? This information is presently missing from the article, even though we know what occurred; she was not arrested because she was pregnant at the time. Now, I'm having a hard time finding both a link and her real name (I originally heard this information a Russian television news program), but can some other editor add it in? Thank you. ChessPlayerLev (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't encountered this information myself, but I agree that it would be a good clarifying point to add if we can find a reliable source that supports what you're saying. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there were more than 4 women participating in "punk prayer", see photo taken from Pussy Riot's own report http://pussy-riot.livejournal.com/12442.html. This report also mentions five participants (Гараджа, Тюря, Шумахер, Серафима, Кот). The case was opened for three known persons and there was another case for not yet found ones (see news here). - Ace111 (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As can be clearly seen in the video of the protest, FOUR members took part in the performance while a fifth member filmed it. Afterwriting (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have provided above several reliable sources that there were FIVE members taking part in the performance. Please restore FIVE members in the text of the article. The video does not show the whole performance, only some moments. -- Ace111 (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a source here (in Russian) which says Samutsevich was stopped by security guards before she actually reached the altar. http://www.topnews.ru/news_id_51932.html MaxBrowne (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just checked the unedited video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grEBLskpDWQ&feature=player_embedded. There were definitely 5 of them. About 15 seconds into the video, a woman in a red balaclava and white jacket carrying a guitar is escorted from the altar by security. The other 4 carry on with the performance for about a minute. Apart from the "Sran' Gospodnya" you can't really hear them saying much. It's not clear who filmed it, possibly Verzilov. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! This woman in red balaclava with electric guitar is Yekaterina Samutsevitch (From the official sentence: "Самуцевич во исполнение своей преступной роли, с ведома и согласия всех соучастников, расчехлила электрогитару и при попытке играть на гитаре была принудительно выведена с солеи охранником ЧОП «Колокол-А» Белоглазовым").
One can see that she was two meters from the Royal gates (which lead to the Altar). The security guard Beloglazov first tried to block Nadezhda Tolokonnikova who was switching on some electronic loudspeaker, but when he saw that Samutsevich opened the guitar, he rushed to her. Tolokonnikova then was able to switch on the music and they started to sing the song ("В это же время Толоконникова, находясь на солее и амвоне, без промедления подключила микрофон к звукопроизводящей аппаратуре и включила фонограмму с заранее подготовленной песней, содержание которой, с точки зрения норм Русской православной церкви, является богохульным и оскорбительным для верующих и священнослужителей. Охранник ЧОП «Колокол-А» Шилин отключил звукопроизводящую аппаратуру и принудительно вынес ее с солеи.").
I think some words from "Черная ряса, золотые погоны" till "Гей-прайд отправлен в Сибирь в кандалах" can be audiable (0:35-0:41), then "срань Господня" is more clear.
There were many camera operators, Pyotr Verzilov probably stood closer and had a better camera, he is possibly shown in this video around 0:55. - Ace111 (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It would appear, then, that the operation was a bit of a failure. They didn't get much usable footage so in the edited video they spliced in footage that was filmed at a different church. Samutsevich didn't get to pose with her guitar (it's just a prop anyway) and Tolokonnikova's microphone and ghetto blaster got confiscated pretty quickly. Security probably didn't even give it much thought at the time and didn't bother calling the police. It was only after the video went viral that they were arrested. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"Пусси Райот"

What is this awful variant?! Where is it from? It's just a transcription to Cyrillic script, and that's not so good.--Distant Sun (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there's no citation tag making it clear, you should feel free to remove it. It appears to me that many Russian language sources are writing "Pussy Riot" in English rather than a transliteration, so I'm not clear where this came from. Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the Russian-language news sources just use the English. Accedie^{talk to me} 00:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Band?

Why isn't Pussy Riot referred to as a "band" in the lead?--24.90.93.13 (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Dunno. But what I would say is that the article for "musical collective" reads very badly and is unsourced. Formerip (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting that. It is referred to as a 'band' in multiple sources.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but a google search reveals numerous reliable sources where PR is referred to as a "musical collective" or other kind of "collective". PR does appear to meet the definition of a collective project or a performance art collective, although it also meets the definition of a "band". Invertzoo (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Google searches will come up with anything. The main articles I have viewed reporting the PR trial (on BBC, Slate.com, and the NYTimes, refer to them as a band. It seems they are primarily referred to as a (punk rock) band, and they fit that definition. Music collective is also a term unfamiliar to many readers and, while not inaccurate, is not necessary here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2012

Under the section, 'Protests', please add:

In Edinburgh, Scotland, Fringe performers read trial testimony of the Pussy Riot women.

DeanFriedman (talk) 07:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. benzband (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong name

This is not an article about Pussy Riot. This is an article about the 2012 Pussy Riot court case. The name should be changed, as single-event celebrities should be covered under the event, not the celebrity. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea--I think it's safe to say that at this point, 90% of the band's total coverage is about this incident. But they did have international notability even before it: this NPR article, for example, was posted two weeks before the church incident. Either way, though you might consider putting up a formal page move proposal per WP:REQMOVE and we can hash it out. Khazar2 (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree: This is an article about the 2012 Pussy Riot court case. See also Talk:Pussy Riot#Split need Yug (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

done! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus here is that the group is notable enough for their own article and should not be treated like a WP:BLP1E case. Content issues such as undue weight can be solved by normal editing. Splitting the article was proposed and gained some support, but it's outside the scope of this RM discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Pussy Riot → 2012 Pussy Riot court case – This is not an article about Pussy Riot. This is an article about the 2012 Pussy Riot court case. The name should be changed, as single-event celebrities should be covered under the event, not the celebrity. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose move / support split. It's better to do like in Russian Wikipedia -> ru:Pussy Riot + ru:Дело Pussy Riot. This band is known not only with "show" in the cathedral.--Distant Sun (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose renaming. That the article is mostly about the court case is a matter of undue weight rather than an incorrect article title. The band are notable enough for an article; the NPR source linked above I think confirms that. The solution is to create an additional article on the incident and edit the PR article to be more balanced.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming: The church event and subsequent court case has certainly massively increased international knowledge of the band, but the band was notable before, as demonstrated above. Recommend expansion of information about the band and expansion of the Pussy Riot#Performances and influences section and adding information about what Pussy Riot criticizes about the conditions in Russia and what they criticize about Putin. Tony Mach (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The rationale for doing this would be WP:BLP1E, but the band has minor notability besides the court case so it doesn't apply. Formerip (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no strong feelings either way, but I'd like to point out that the above comment about the "minor notability" of the band is inaccurate. The article was a fairly robust stub before the March arrest/subsequent trial, with references from NPR and The Guardian, and it probably would have grown more mature even without those events. Accedie^{talk to me} 21:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• "Fairly robust (orphan) stub" = "minor notability". Surely? Either way, my point is unchanged. Formerip (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support split, as in Russian Wikipedia -> ru:Pussy Riot + ru:Дело Pussy Riot, both being notable enough. Yug (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose any rename. If the quantity of content related to the trial is skewing the article away from its primary purpose then a fork article just on the trial events can easily be created, with a condensed version of the content remaining on this article. All the supposed "support" stuff (support is cheap these days, make a tweet with a couple of words and you can call yourself a "supporter") could go over to the fork for example. Meowy 22:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Split the band and the court case can exist in separate articles -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Split. The article on the band can exist on its own. Kaldari (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Pussy Riot is notable and should have its own article and of course should the court case be covered in that article as well. If the coverage becomes too detailed or extensive it could be be outsourced/split into a separate main article on the court case. This article however should keep its current name.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose rename with no objection to the creation of an article for the court case. The punk rock prayer was a separate event from the court case and trial. WP:SINGLEEVENT isn't meant to be applied to two separate events. Besides, the guideline says that two articles are warranted if the subject plays a major role in a major event. The magnitude of the church protest and the subsequent trial probably warrant an article, but Pussy Riot played the central role in both, which were highly significant in light of the current crackdown on protest in Russia (2011–2012 Russian protests). Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 14:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a political group with political goals; a political trial fits right in. User:Fred Bauder Talk 23:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Public opinion in Russia

" However, 58% of respondents expected the defendants to receive a disproportionate punishment and only 17% supported a prison term of two or more years, as was handed down [1][2]"

There is no 17% if you go to Levada Center. There are 16% who suggested this term and 33% who agreed with this term. It shows how easy Russian public opinion can be manipulated. Also the second ref goes nowhere.--GeorgeRu (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the 16/17% part and fixed the link (it was there, it just wasn't formatted properly). Formerip (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Songs and videos

That section has been thoroughly eviscerated by an editor this morning. I tried to fix this by making the "summary" more NPOV, but it no longer represents either an adequate summary of the original article from which it is derived, or even the title of that section of the Wikipedia article. Until someone can find more sources and citations to create such a section perhaps we ought to put this on hold. Alfietucker (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm the eviscerator. The problem was one of copyright; having a lengthy section that reproduces another article paragraph-for-paragraph in block quotes appeared to me to exceed the bounds of fair use. It also seemed to be undue weight to build a lengthy section from a single source. If you'd like to expand the section with other sources, though, I'd very much support that. I doubt this AP reporter is the final word musically on Pussy Riot's work--it's just all we have so far. Khazar2 (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of removing that section altogether: as it stood, it was - by Wikipedia standards - poorly sourced information which reads more like an opinion piece than a news/hard fact article, including POV statements about the quality of Pussy Riot's music (had the writer never heard of the Sex Pistols, for instance?). The one factual sentence has been transferred to the previous section in the article. Alfietucker (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest restoring that, even if you personally disagree with his review. This is the first mention of reviews of Pussy Riot's music we've yet found; it was clearly attributed in text and from a reliable source. WP:NPOV does not mean we can't include things like music reviews which have their own POVs. Khazar2 (talk) 10:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and did that, because AP is one of the better press sources and this section definitely belongs in the article. Changing of the wording and additional sources are of course possible and welcome, but there is no good reason to delete whoöe section or blocking the AP article from being used.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The substance of the AP article was not the POV comment (provided without byline or substantiation): rather, it was prelude to the main point of the article which was tracing the political significance of each the the Pussy Riot songs. Removing that substance and leaving this - erm - aesthetic judgement made by some anonymous writer is both a poor summary, and unless it can be substantiated by actual comments from a recognized music journo published in a reliable source, surely a violation of WP:UNDUE. I am not blocking the AP article - I am against its misrepresentation. Nor am I against a section on PR's actual songs and criticisms of them: but I don't think an anonymous writer for AP is a meaningful source for such comments when, as I said, they are not substantiated with comments from any named and recognized music journo. So until such material and comments can be found, then I think that section should be suspended. Alfietucker (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

My bad - I hadn't noticed the by-line, but my objections re misrepresenting the substance of the AP article and effectively relying on a single source for this aesthetic judgement still stand. Alfietucker (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well a single source for an aesthetic judgment can be iffy indeed. However as long as it is a notable/reputable source deleting it is usually not the right answer, but rather extending by other (possibly different) judgments. However the general notion about lack of musical quality from a music critic's perspective is something that I've seen over last year stated by other people/sources as well, so the AP description is probably a representative statement anyhow. It should be pointed out however, that working as musical artist is not the group's goal to begin with, but it has to be seen and judged as (political) event art (similar to The Yes man, Billionaires for Bush, Bionic Baking Brigade, Voina, ... ). So judging them on music aesthetics is somewhat missing point (nevertheless a description of their music should be part of the article of course).--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I said, I'd be fine with your finding other sources (in fact, that'd be great), and I agree that another few sentences on the political content of their songs would also be helpful. But AP is a reliable source, and is not required to provide a second subset of citations to verify its claims, whether there's a byline on the article or not. The author states that he is summarizing the opinion of other critics and listeners here, not simply expressing a personal judgement. Most Wikipedia editors, including myself, aren't qualified to fact check these articles; for better or for worse, we rely on their editors for that. If you find a large number of contradictory sources stating that most critics and listeners think Pussy Riot are the next Sex Pistols, obviously we can revise.

If you're not convinced, you're welcome to take your concerns to the reliable sources noticeboard, but I suspect you'll have a hard time convincing them that Associated Press is no longer a reliable source. Khazar2 (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I think it would be good to have other views from reputable critics - if only for my peace of mind - about PR's musical qualities (can you help here, Kmhkmh?). No, I am not suggesting that AP is "no longer a reliable source"; my main complaint is that it seems a clear distortion of the AP article to simply relate what appears to be its in-passing POV comment about the music's quality, and not to even summarize the article's main substance (as I've said earlier). Perhaps we should at least list the songs somewhere in the Wikipedia article, much as is done in "Discography" sections in articles on other bands in Wikipedia. Alfietucker (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have an specific source at hand, it is just vague recollection from what I read about Voina and Pussy Riot over the last 2 years (some of it on sites not really suited for sourcing anyhow). I found one other source after a quick research now but that's by the same AP reporter ([23]), it contains some info on the various songs though.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If we're agreed that Associated Press is a reliable source, then, it seems self-evident to me that it's useful to include a single sentence on the critical reception of the band. Pussy Riot is admittedly an odd case, as they're not really known at all for their music, but mentioning the critical reception is standard for Wikipedia articles on musicians and artists. If you discover through other reliable sources about their critical reception that the AP summary is inaccurate or disputed, we can revise accordingly; I've got no opinion on their music myself. Khazar2 (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I was very tempted to write something snarky about the AP's moronic evaluation of Pussy Riot's music, but instead I let Michael Ivor do it for me :) Kaldari (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW, it might be worth adding to that section that Anti-Flag has released a cover of one of Pussy Riot's songs. Kaldari (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That is an awesome quote--good find. Khazar2 (talk) 09:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)