Talk:Death and funeral of Alexei Navalny

How to word the (claim of) death correctly?

As the death hasn't been independently confirmed by sources independent from Russia's government (notably, even Navalny's family is still hesitant about the claim), what precautions should be taken as to the potential BLP/BDP issues of reporting the death? Should it be announced as a death in wikivoice, or described with more nuance regarding the veracity of Russia's claims, only labeling it as reports and/or allegations for now? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be an international consensus involving his death with public figures paying their respects. Wouldn't this cause lawsuits if the information were false? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87 Lawsuits by whom, against whom, and on what grounds? FPTI (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that right now the information is presumed to be true. While it is possible that the Russian government is just faking the information, for now it is known as true information. This article could be changed or deleted anytime if the information turns out to be false. Additionally, how did this entire article get written in one day? 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:D91E:467B:BB1F:A3DF (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

"Presumed to be true" doesn't mean "known to be true". The question is not whether it's more likely to be true or false (indeed, it's more likely to be true), it's whether we claim this as a statement of fact, which we can't given that even Navalny's family has questioned it. Wikipedia doesn't state as fact things that we only presume to be true, and sometimes "we're not sure" is the best way to put it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

"whether we claim"

I would say that "we" as Wikipedians don't claim anything. We only say what the media says. If the media says that he's "presumed" dead, then we write that he is "presumed" dead. Nakonana (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I was talking about wikivoice, no need to be obtuse about it. In any case, the death has been confirmed by Navalny's team, so the point is moot. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 16:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia are supposed to give information. No one would be penalised for stating that fact as true, unless it is proven false. Right now, the only source is that Navalny died. Wikipedia (as well as most sources) say that Amelia Earhart died after crashing. However, we don’t know that to be fact precisely. Same deal here. 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:A8CA:A300:A50C:3511 (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The "international" (aka, "Western") press regularly reports that the DPRK has executed high officials, only for them to resurface months or years after the fact, frequently on camera. I can assure you no one, in all the history of these instances of gross journalistic malpractice, has ever been sued for their mendacity. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Then again, if accounts of his death are to avoid attempts at pushing anti or pro-Russian agendas - then should not the article make every attempt at highlighting the TRUE cause of death? 95.147.153.118 (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does this get its own article?

Can someone explain why this merits its own article, separate from Alexei Navalny? Brusquedandelion (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in an RFD discussion. Please see above. Borgenland (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland: I don't see anything of relevance above this. But I found the RfD. Why was it closed after (less than) a day? Isn't the normal time period for these things 7 days? Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Ask them. As far as I'm concerned this matter has been finished with consensus. Borgenland (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Technically, WP:SNOW should probably have been cited in the closing summary (I guess you could suggest to Fuzheado to add that to the closing summary for clarity), but browsing the list of arguments for/against shows that it's clearly WP:SNOW anyway. The normal period is 7 days. If you think that the closure is invalid, you can (publicly) appeal against the closure with a Wikipedia:Deletion review, but my prediction is that the chance of overturning the closure is negligible. Boud (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, the closer script didn't have a "SNOW" option so I've gone back and modified the close message to indicate it was WP:SNOW. - Fuzheado | Talk 14:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Possible additions to the article

I am unable to edit this article but here is some information that might be useful to add.

• (1) conflicting information from RU authorities about the death indicates that they are lying.
• (2) Navalny had no history of blood clots, the first officially reported cause of death.
• (3) Prisoner at the same penal colony reported highly unusual movements and heightened security the night before.

More info in the extended box:

Extended content

From an investigation by Dagens Nyheter –––––––––––––––––––––– 🇬🇧 The Russian authorities are giving conflicting information about the cause of Alexei Navalny's death - usually a sign that they don't know what to say and are lying. –––––– 🇸🇪 Original text: De ryska myndigheterna ger motstridiga uppgifter om orsaken till Aleksej Navalnyjs död – vilket brukar vara ett tecken på att de inte vet vad de ska säga och ljuger. –––––––––––––––––––––– 🇬🇧 At first, prison authorities claimed that Navalny died due to a blood clot. He was not previously reported to have any such health problems. It is very common that when prisoners of conscience die under unclear circumstances in Russia, the authorities report that they died of a sudden illness, such as a heart attack. –––––– 🇸🇪 Original text: Först påstod fängelsemyndigheterna att Navalnyj dog på grund av en blodpropp. Några sådana hälsoproblem har han tidigare inte rapporterats lida av. Det är mycket vanligt att när åsiktsfångar dör under oklara omständigheter i Ryssland så rapporterar myndigheterna att de avled i något plötsligt sjukdomsanfall, till exempel hjärtattack. –––––––––––––––––––––– 🇬🇧 Novaya Gazeta Europa has managed to interview a prisoner in the same penal colony in Kharp, Siberia, where Navalny died. This prisoner says that the prison management behaved strangely already the night before. - We were all locked in our barracks in the evening. We were forbidden to move between the barracks and they added more guards," the prisoner told Novaya Gazeta Europa. During the night, three times the prisoner heard cars driving in and out of the colony. –––––– 🇸🇪 Original text: Novaja Gazeta Europa har lyckats intervjua en fånge som sitter i samma straffkoloni i sibiriska Charp där Navalnyj dog. Denna fånge säger att fängelseledningen uppträdde konstigt redan kvällen innan. – Vi blev alla inlåsta i våra baracker på kvällen. Vi förbjöds röra oss mellan barackerna och de satte in fler vakter, säger fången till Novaja Gazeta Europa. Under natten hörde fången tre gånger hur bilar körde in och ut ur kolonin. ––––––––––––––––––––––

88.118.103.139 (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

These are already mentioned in the article under "Events" Jaguarnik (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to use {{SPER}} to make a specific requested edit based on the current state of the article, though I agree that the info already seems to be present. Boud (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Reactions

Nadezhdin's political party released a statement calling Navalny's death "a political murder".

Without first rate information, is there not a real danger of this article being used to push political statements? 95.147.153.118 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

If you see something in this article that is violating Wikipedia guideliness, then feel free to use {{SPER}} to propose a specific edit. Whether Navalny's death itself constitutes a political statement by Putin is up to political scientists to decide - and then their analyses and arguments can be added to the article. Boud (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a neutral statement describing a reaction from a Russian political party without commenting on whether it's true or not. We also have a section dedicated to the statements of Russian politicians that do not feel this way.Jaguarnik (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Excessive reliance on meduza.io

A large portion of this article rely exclusively on meduza.io as a source. This should be corrected. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Meduza is a reliable independent Russian media source. It's unsurprising that Russian sources have more information than e.g. BBC or NYT who are less likely to have in-depth contacts and knowledge. You're right that having other sources too would be good; you're welcome to provide other reliable sources: e.g. Novaya Gazeta and Moscow Times. Boud (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it is a partisan source with an anti-Kremlin agenda, and it is quite explicit about this. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

If you have an issue with Meduza, what sources would you propose using instead?

Would like to also note that the consensus of the RuWiki is that Meduza is one of the few Russian news outlets that is listed as a reliable source. Jaguarnik (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Western

85avenue In your edit, you asked for a definition of "Western". The term is in the WP:RS. It comes from the second fragment of the title: "West holds Russia responsible". You could contact the authors, Guy Faulconbridge and Felix Light, and ask them. I have provided more WP:RS that uses the same term. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Did not check the source, my bad. okay, Russia is not that "Western" or "European" in some way, we learn that for sure tho.

85avenue (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Imprisonment section's RS

I believe the Death_of_Alexei_Navalny#Imprisonment section's WP:RS should only include WP:RS that also mentions his death. I put in some WP:RS that did not mention his death,[1],[2] because the text in the section was so far off from what the RS actually said and because one ref was WP:PRIMARY. The CNN source is one of the better ones that mention his detention -and- his death.[3] The text about the EU's position should be curtailed IMHO. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Currently seems to be fine, to be honest. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Body being held?

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-68316979 Victor Grigas (talk) 12:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hashtags censored in Russia

If you use a translation tool, you can see the hashtags being censored here:

Навальный АлексейНавальный FreeNavalny СвободуНавальному ЯМыНавальный НавальныйLive ФБК ФондБорьбыСКоррупцией УбийствоНавального ДелоНавального НавальныйВТюьме ПыткиНавального ЦензураВРоссии ПолитическиеРепресии РоссияБезПутина ЗаСвободнуюРоссию Навальный2024 НавальныйНашПрезидент ГеройРоссии СимволСпоротивления НадеждаРоссии

https://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/%D0%92_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%BE%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8E%D1%82_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B8_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%8F_%D0%9D%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE Victor Grigas (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Timeline overview and update

In case someone wants to add info that we don't have yet, e.g. the Mediazona report on Labytnangi to Salekhard transport of Navalny's body at 9:54 pm MSK = 18:54 UTC 16 Feb 2024: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2024/02/18/timeline-alexei-navalnys-final-hours-a84137 Boud (talk) 03:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

This is already in the Death section, with a direct reference to the Mediazona report in English Jaguarnik (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

True, I missed that. Boud (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Reactions

Hello, it seems that all the international reactions, and the reactions of the opposition of Russia and other countries are not mentioned in this article. Please add these reactions to make the article more complete. 151.235.232.13 (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you please give specific examples? There is quite an extensive "reactions" section dedicated to all the reactions to Navalny's death, that includes many international reactions, and the reactions of notable members of russia's opposition and other nations' opposition. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jaguarnik For example, the foreign minister of Portugal reacted to Navalny's death in X, or Garry Kasparov, who also reacted. 151.235.232.13 (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Y Done I added the minister of foreign affairs of Portugal's reaction. For now I think it's better to not add Garry Kasparov, as there are so many reactions from different members of the Russian opposition that they cannot all be included in the article; plus the reactions of the Russian opposition is well-documented already.Jaguarnik (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Excessive reactions

While I support including a range of international reactions does anyone else feel the section is excessive? For example including reactions from multiple leaders per country, including in the case of the US the National Security Advisor describing it as a tragedy or reporting that the UK summoned the Russian ambassador. Any thoughts on what should be included and what should not? AusLondonder (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think reactions from governments should be limited to reactions from Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Foreign Ministers/Secretaries of State. I don't think the reaction of vice presidents or security advisors or whoever is really very relevant; I also would not include reactions of candidates for prime minister/president or former prime ministers/presidents. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Candidates for prime minister/president could be interesting because they might give an insight in the tone of future relationships to Russia in case that the candidate wins the election. But I'd only include the candidates that have a realistic chance to win, meaning, the "finalists" among the candidates (if there's a multilayer election process). I agree that the reactions from other people than the highest political positions don't need to be mention (unless they are somehow relevant or interesting/unusual). Nakonana (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Should the message from Navalny's mother be added to the article?

‘Let me finally see my son’: Alexey Navalny’s mother releases video statement demanding Putin release his body

It could be relevant but I don't know whether to add it in "Death" or "Reactions", plus, the refusal of the authorities to release his remains and the appeals (including from Yarmysh) to release the remains to his family are already well-documented in the article. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Death is better since it directly deals with post-mortem issues. Borgenland (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Navalny

Shouldn't there be a section detailing about his health before his suspicious execution? Was he malnourished or not fed properly or possible torturous methods that lead to his untimely death? Is there any relevant study about it? Or am i missing that portion if it's in the article already? zoglophie^•talk• 07:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Commons category

The foot of this article links to a Commons category (via Wikidata, I assume) which is currently Commons:Category:Murder of Alexey Navalny. I know that Commons is a separate Project but it seems premature to call this a "murder". Can this be fixed by editing the article here or does there have to be a discussion on Commons? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Commons doesn't have a policy under which to nominate that category for renaming to "Death of Alexei Navalny" in a Commons CfD. It can be tried, but I think that the outcome is highly uncertain. I added the custom text parameter to the template. —Alalch E. 10:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Unconfirmed and potentially damaging Navalny's reputation information

On 26 February 2024, the User Borgenland has added into the text of the article the following text:

"She [Maria Pevchikh] later added that the murder was part of a plot by Putin to thwart the release of Navalny and two American citizens in an exchange with former FSB officer Vadim Krasikov, who killed former Chechen field commander Zelimkhan Khangoshvili in Germany in 2019."

I would like to draw special attention to this statement.

First of all, I have to say that this statement seems like a little bit schizophrenic. Vladimir Putin was not obliged to release or exchange Alexei Navalny, and if Putin wanted to disrupt the deal for exchange, he could just say "No" instead the murder. At the same time, Putin had many other reasons to kill Navalny, and - particular - to kill him namely in that moment, and there's no relationship between these reasons and allegeded exchange.

Neither Russian, nor American, nor German officials have confirmed the fact of talks on exchange. After aforementioned statement, made by Maria Pevchikh, the following Western media reported about these alleged talks , but no one of these media have not reported that a deal was concluded. On the contrary, information about the stage of negotiations is inconsistent.

Vadim Krasikov is a Russian citizen and an agent of Russian security services, who killed Zelimkhan Khangoshvili in Germany by the order of the Kremlin. Navalny had only Russian citizenship. If an exchange would take place, this circumstance would have given the pro-Kremlin propaganda a reason to state that Alexei Navalny was an agent of security services of Western countries.

In this regard, I'd like to note that after the Pevchikh's statement, one Russian anonymous source said that Alexei Navalny and his wife were agreed to this deal , despite the fact that Alexei, in his lifetime, said nothing about that, and his wife doesn't confirm that until now.

I consider, that unconfirmed officially such statements devalue Navalny's image as strong, irreconcilable, umbending opposition leader and could be a part of pro-Kremlin narrativ that all Russian opposition activists are "agents of West".

The fact that this statement was made by one of the leaders of Anti-Corruption Foundation, should not mislead us. The Anti-Corruption Foundation before the arrest of Navalny and the Anti-Corruption Foundation after his arrest, in fact, are two different organisations. After the arrest of their leader, they all emigrated to Europe and North America and didn't participate in political processes, which took place in Russia. They also evedad the advocacy of interests of Russians, who fleed the Putin's regime. Whole their work was to make next "investigations" of the next facts of corruption in the activity of next Russian officials that already could not surprise anybody, especially on the background of the war, unleashead by Putin. The statement of Pevchikh is a simple attempt of the Anti-Corruption Foundation to remind themselves and give themselves importance.

We should care about a well-balanced covering such statements, when we edit the articles dedicated to Alexei Navalny, bearing in mind the necessity to avoid unconfirmed information that could damage the reputation of the subject of the article.

Yes, there was no reliable information about any deal that would be close to conclusion. Still, I think this edit by Borgenland was OK. Yes, that was widely reported, and no, it does not damage reputation of Navalny. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

There was a clarification that came out afterwards from RS. Borgenland (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

[4] But it is probably a "fake" by Abramovich that Putin would agree to exchange Navalny to anyone. Navalny was way too important, and he has been already convicted to the death by the regime when he was poisoned earlier. My very best wishes (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

References

K8M8S8 (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Funeral video. CC-BY. Tens of thousands

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNbOCMxYYG0 - says CC-BY at the top:

• "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)"

From Kanal13, news media out of Azerbaijan, I believe. See google search.

Overhead video of huge crowds on streets for very long distances. At 0:42 and 4:55 into the video. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

More CC-BY funeral videos. Youtube search filter

YouTube - Creative Commons. Search videos licensed as Creative Commons Attribution on YouTube by doing a search there. Then a filter menu will show up with one of the choices being "Creative Commons". This search pulls up CC-BY Navalny funeral videos:

• https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=navalny+funeral+&sp=EgIwAQ%253D%253D

The Youtube CC-BY page links to here:

• https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode

This means these videos, or excerpts, can be uploaded to the Commons, and posted in this article.

Videos that aren't CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, or in the public domain can instead be linked to directly from the article. See:

• Template:External media

Here is a Firefox addon I recommend for downloading Youtube videos:

• https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/easy-youtube-video-download

Then you can upload the CC-BY and public domain videos (like VOA videos) to the Commons.

See: c:Commons:Video. And: c:Commons:YouTube files. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Church

Can someone provide an accurate translation of the church where Navalny's funeral was held? Because we currently have two sets of translations, one of which sounds like a rock music title. Borgenland (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

@Borgenland The Temple of the Icon of Our Lady «Soothe My Sorrows». K8M8S8 (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Facial recognition

https://www.semafor.com/article/03/05/2024/russian-authorities-use-facial-recognition-to-detain-navalny-funeral-attendees?utm_campaign=semaforreddit Victor Grigas (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)