Open main menu


External links modified (January 2018)Edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Alexei Navalny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Link to his official YouTube siteEdit

Here is the link. According to WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, Normally, only one official link is included. That's fine, but this is not a "normal" case. Here, the YouTube link is actually more important than his official web site because of his political activities. Basically this is an additional link helpful for a reader, like myself. The Wikipedia:External links is only a guideline. It does not preclude participants from including links that would improve the page. ("External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.") - yes, it is "meritable". My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, we don't need a directory of every official page affiliated with this person and I'm not sure how it improves the article. Can you elaborate? CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
No one suggests providing directory of every official page. I suggest adding only one specific link and for that one page. To answer your question, I need to know how well you are familiar with the subject of the page, meaning the anti-corruption campaign by Alexei Navalny. But here is simple answer. Providing a direct link allows user to access most important information in one click. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Chrissymad. This sounds like salami tactics against ELMINOFFICIAL. Wikipedia does not link to other sites simply because they might be informative. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Why not? I thought one should actually provide links if they are informative, precisely on the subject of the page, help reader, and not a copyright violation. What's the problem? No one suggests multiple linking to the same website, but even that could be an option if that helps to improve the page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I can only assume you are a partisan. While I understand your desire to advertise for Navalny, that is not our purpose here. Perhaps you should seek consensus to change the wording of the guideline, since you don't have consensus here to ignore it. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I do not suggest to change wording of the guideline. I suggest to follow it. It tells "Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information". That is what I do on all pages, including that one. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
From ELMINOFFICIAL: "For example, if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three. Instead, provide only the main page of the official website in this situation." links to Navalny's Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube pages. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to add the YouTube link to the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I read this of course. But providing a direct link would be appropriate in this case, given the importance of his YouTube site in the current political discourse in Russia (are you guys familiar with the subject?). I am not sure why you are so insisting to the degree of falsely accusing me of advertisement, even though I rarely edited this page before. Why do you take such an issue with providing an additional link on a single page by someone familiar with the subject? My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I simply think that every person included in the Category:Russian YouTubers (and it was not me who placed him in this cat) should have a link to his official YouTube site. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
You can have your belief about including links to YouTube, but so far the consensus does not agree with you. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This is is not my belief. That is something RS tell. I am making a policy-based argument here. And remember that ELMINOFFICIAL is NOT a policy, but only a guideline. My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"I am making a policy-based argument here." What policy? IAR? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I am talking about WP:NPOV. The content of the page (including links) must reflect what reliable sources tell on the subject. If you need some numbers (in addition to RS which described him as an important YouTube personality - see above), he has 1,7 million YouTube subscribers. My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
To My very best wishes: This is your final warning. If you want to start an RfC, or seek help at WP:DRN or WP:3O to resolve this content issue then let's do that. Otherwise, I'm going to take this to ANI if you persist. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
It is you who violate WP:NPA here by making completely unsubstantiated personal accusations. I stand by my edits on this page as completely legitimate per WP policies. There is no consensus whatsoever to not include the link as a reference - that is what I did [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, I have replaced the reference, which is a very trivial thing to do. However, I still believe that his involvement in social media should be more prominently included on the page. How exactly - I am not sure; there are different ways to do it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Good. I have closed Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Alexei Navalny#Link to his official YouTube site since you now seem to want to discuss this. I have no objection to including content about his social media accounts if there are reliable sources that discuss it. Since you have found independent sourcing for the number of views of the YouTube channel, there's no reason to include the YouTube link. I'm glad you removed it; I only wish I didn't have to go to a noticeboard for you to accept consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Actually, it was you who said you are going to stop discussion (edit summary), which is fine (I feel this is not a subject of your interest). My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not going to continue to argue with you if you deny reason. You wanted to insert the link. Chrissymad and I both disagreed. Per WP:CONSENSUS, that's the end of it. You continued to insist. I don't know that I can change your mind about it and I don't have to. The moment I went to an outside venue (as I suggested and you rejected), you reverted your edit. Since you have removed the link, I consider the matter settled. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I only provided a better reference to support the statement. What I think is this: we need a second "YouTuber" infobox for the page; see page Clint Eastwood with two infoboxes, for example. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand. There is only one infobox at Clint Eastwood. Are you referring to Template:Clint Eastwood sidebar? That links to other articles about Eastwood. There's only one article about Navalny. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Good point - I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Loeb&Loeb analysisEdit

"In April 2013, Loeb&Loeb LLP issued "An Analysis of the Russian Federation's prosecutions of Alexei Navalny", a paper detailing Investigative Committee accusations.[155] The paper concludes that "the Kremlin has reverted to misuse of the Russian legal system to harass, isolate and attempt to silence political opponents"."

I would request a review of the importance of this line. the reference doesnt examine direct sources. Instead nearly every reference is either Navalny's personal blog or a tabloid article which references his blog. the analysis is represented as containing statements of fact when it merely copies Navalny's personal opinions. As such it is clearly biased. the inclusion of their final conclusion as a quote contributes to the bias of the article.

my previous edit was reverted so i bring it to the talk page for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Loeb & Loeb's view is consistent with the mainstream view, which credibly holds that Navalny wouldn't have been prosecuted if he hadn't been a political opponent. I added a citation to, which used the report as a source. With the addition of, inclusion of the report seems to satisfy WP:DUE. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

kirolev and yves roche court transcriptsEdit

Does the Russian Government or Ministry of Justice publicly publish court transcripts? does anyone have these available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Alexei Navalny" page.