Open main menu

Talk:Alexei Navalny/Text only. Intended for quick measuring the length of the article's prose. These read-only versions are obtained by just plain copy-pasting the text from the page (reader's view; from "Alexei Anatolievich Navalny (Russian: Алексе́й Анато́льевич Нава́льный..." to the end of the Notes section), so they will include [21] and the like. The page is designed to get the result quickly, so it's okay. Subtract ~3 KB to get the actual size.

Contents

potential resourceEdit

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/11/28/the_fp_top_100_global_thinkers?page=0,23#thinker24 with Daniel Domscheit-Berg and Sami Ben Gharbia of Tunisia, for "shaping the new world of government transparency", excerpt ...

While the headlines this year may have been dominated by WikiLeaks, these three activists led their own transparency campaigns, largely without the same spotlight and in countries where they made a difference. In a society where muckrakers are regularly beaten up and even killed, Russian lawyer and blogger Alexey Navalny has turned his crowdsourced anti-corruption site RosPil.info into a heat-seeking missile against bloated and rapacious government contracts. By this fall, Navalny had saved the Russian government nearly 7.7 million rubles by calling attention to and then torpedoing wasteful deals, not to mention offering a mainstream face for the growing Russian anti-corruption movement.

99.190.81.65 (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resourceEdit

99.181.141.143 (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

From Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin deletions, some wikilinks; BBC, newspaper Vedomosti, Revolution Square, anti-corruption activist, Saratov in the south to Siberia, ...

... arrested in Moscow and St. Petersburg ... United Russia—dubbed the “party of crooks and thieves” by Navalny ... Vladimir Putin was booed after taking the stage at a mixed martial arts event ... . Pro-Kremlin rallies are also being organized and many fear a broader crackdown is imminent.

99.190.85.111 (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Even shorter. 99.19.45.160 (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT resourceEdit

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/world/europe/aleksei-navalny-freed-from-jail-drives-anti-kremlin-movement.html page A5 in print, 22.December.2011 Navalny, Freed From Jail, Drives Anti-Kremlin Movement "Aleksei Navalny moved quickly to promote a huge antigovernment protest against United Russia, the party of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin. by David M. Herszenhorn

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Smear campaign resourcesEdit

99.19.45.64 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

NovodvorskayaEdit

Opinion of Novodvorskaya seems to be overplayed. The old lady is known to be kind of a nut. Need to add opinions by other people or remove that paragraph entirely. Gritzko (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. Removed entirely, cause that is definitely unrelated to activities of the subject. In case a separate section is created ("Opinions"/"Critics"/whatever) may recover that video back. I personally don't think her opinion is of any worth, but in case it is properly balanced with other opinions, it may be included. Gritzko (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Source for a future "Political positions" chapterEdit

Criticism?Edit

Controversies, opinions of authorities, civil society and other opposition leaders, allegations of nationalism and so on. There are several prooflinks in ruwiki. Without such a section the article can't be complete and unbiased--213.208.170.194 (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that such material should probably be added, but I don't know that a criticism section is the best solution here per WP:CRITS. Unfortunately, I don't have the Russian chops to go see these sources for myself. Khazar2 (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


On a related note, the page on Vladimir Putin doesn't have a criticism section. :) It seems some pages do and some don't..I don't know what's better.

Justice and Reason (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally I think it's better to avoid it if that material can be integrated normally (chronologically or by topic); it makes the article a bit odd to have all the positive stuff in the first half and negative stuff in the second. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I put in a compact section "Nationalistic tendencies" in which i linked a interesting to read New York Times and a daily mail newspaper article. I think it should better be mentioned anywhere in the article soon than not at all, so i just started. But feel free to modify and rephrase it since I am not an native English speaker.
I tried to not dramatize his words in the video, by mentioning that it was half a joke (similar to the daily mail Article..) --Saimondo (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Keeping inportant aspects of the following paragraph Nationalistic tendenciesEdit

(former paragraph "Nationalistic tendencies":)

Alexei Navalny compared militant people from the Caucasus to cockroaches that he would suggest to kill in a supposed jokey statement [1]. He participated and also co-organized a "Russian March" [2] and appeared as a speaker alongside Nationalists[3]

A13ean is giving the following reasons for his deletion: (Undid revision 563815653 by Saimondo (talk) last two are already included elsewhere, first is not a RS for such a contentious statement in a BLP, please gain consensus on talk first per WP:BRD)

@A13ean: I put in my thoughts in the talk section above.. Why exactly do you think a (relatively big= daily mail) newspaper would be no a reliable source for political topics / BLP? Would you prefer quotation by http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/world/europe/the-saturday-profile-blogger-aleksei-navalny-rouses-russia.html?_r=1& ?

Please give a reason - why you think its contentious? Its the New York Times and daily mail against..? He received honors I guess for being an important opposition member, which might be "healthy pluralism" and activist against corruption. But there are also has nationalistic tendencies and in wikipedia we need to stick to the complete picture..

I will include the section as sub chapter of activism to avoid the Russian March being mentioned a second time. If you have reasons to moderate/modify the national tendencies do so. But, please discuss before you take out correct, quoted and in relevant (according to NYT and this article in other languages) information completely. --Saimondo (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi User:Saimondo, The Daily Mail is a borderline RS as best, for more information about it see the previous discussions of it at WP:RS/N. In this particular instance, the article, despite being filed under news on their web site, is clearly an opinion piece which makes is inadmissible for sourcing controversial statements in BLPs. If this statement is true and notable, surely it is covered in a RS somewhere. The last two sentences are already in the article -- I simply moved them to another section where they fit better. (PS: I very nearly missed this, if you want to make sure I or any other user catches a post mentioning them on a talk page you can write their name as [[User:a13ean]] and it will give them a notification.) a13ean (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Update: I have no complains about the new NYT source, although the daily mail link is then superfluous. The current position is awkward, and it should be better worked into the article. a13ean (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi a13ean , I just didn´t want the NYT Article be quoted 2 times, because I think there still is no automated handling of cross references, and that caused complaints in the past.. I background checked before, that daily mail is rather right wing, rather tabloit than "quality" newspaper, and I see your point in this being an opinion article. But I thought, using it to purely cite a fact rather than a position/perspective/rating would still be ok.
Maybe it would be less awkward if we make 2 subsections of the activism chapter,
==== activism against corruption ==== and === nationalistic activism /nationalistic tendencies === . It would structurize it and still enables a overview, which is in my opinion not given with that big chunk of text alone.. I plan to do that in the next time - what do you think about that?
I found more interesting articles about his positions. I would mention that it is somewhat in debate whether Navalnys nationalists tendencies are rather populist strategy or real convince, quoting the Jounal of democracy article :
Further Article: Navalny calls himself a “nationalist democrat.” His stands against corruption and authoritarianism, and in defense of ethnic Russians, tap a deeply popular root here among people who are mistrustful of the Western-oriented liberal old guard. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-12-06/world/35286895_1_alexei-navalny-russian-alexei-venediktov If everybody is ok with it, I will include some of the above facts.--Saimondo (talk) 09:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I added aspects that I think are founded by quality sources, since I think no one would have complaints against more points of views. I think using the telegraph blog article as a source that a debate about Navalnys positions take place would be ok. But since it´s quality/objectivity might be challenged, I leave it to others to include it, if desired.--Saimondo (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Problems with introductory paragraphEdit

The claim of Navalny's "prominence" in Russia and Russian media is contradictory to other sources linked in the article. Based on the Levada statistics released this year, his recognition is at 37%. This doesn't quite fit the term "prominence" which Google defined as "The state of being important or famous." Much less than half of the population are even aware of his existence - that is hardly prominent.

Rather than using the word "prominence", we could use more exact statistics and say that his notoriety has increased from 6 percent in April 2011 to 37 percent in April 2013, as sourced in the article under Presidential Bid. That is a significant increase and worth mentioning, rather than giving false impressions. We should remember to watch our WP: WORDS.

In general, the entire introductory paragraph reeks of promotion and advertising, rather than a historical/factual account of Navalny. Instead of focusing on awards and commendations from the media (only one of which comes from the aforementioned "Russian Media"), the focus should be more on who he is and what he does. The other information should be covered in depth throughout the rest of the article. Otherwise, it comes off as a promotional piece, rather than an encyclopedia article. Again - we shouldn't delete the sourced/valid information contained in the introduction; I propose it should instead be moved to a more appropriate section.

Over the next few days, depending on feedback to this comment, I'll be making (and thoroughly documenting) changes as described in this comment to the introductory paragraph to reflect a more neutral and factual representation of Navalny. Please comment if you have concerns/questions/suggestions. Sashaarrabi91 (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the long list of quotations from Western media in the lead section should be greatly trimmed down and replaced by summaries of his actions. Things like the Yale World Fellows are comparatively trivial and not what he's best known for. I'd suggest a detail or two like the mention of his appearance on the Time 100 or FP 100 remain, however, to give some sense of the international praise he's gotten for his work. This definitely needs some work, though, so thanks for taking it on. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Khazar2 The Yale part is quite trivial indeed, but unfortunately Navalny's critics used it to build upon anti-American sentiments of the wider (and less educated) population in Russia. While there might be no need to mention it in the lead section, it should remain somewhere in the article, probably mentioning what that it is now used against him. Cosainsé (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree it should be mentioned in the article's body. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, in my book, if 50mln people know who you are then you are prominent, famous and important. Exception: being infamous, i.e. famous for misdeeds, which is not the case here. We may naturally expect >90% recognition for heads of states and older pop stars, also religious leaders in some cases. Obviously, we cannot restrict the usage of adjective "prominent" to those three categories. Gritzko (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Agree, he's clearly 'prominent' if 37% of Russians know of him. That's a huge amount.Malick78 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I've made changes, primarily to hammer out a four-paragraph intro section where each paragraph is internally coherent. But also I eliminated some of the facts that are just not important enough, in the context of a Navalny Wikipedia entry, to be put into the intro section. For example that he 'writes for Forbes' and attended Yale for 6 months. I've tried to use the talk page to inform my changes.Haberstr (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Montenegrin companyEdit

I twice removed an IP edit adding to the source sections a link to a Montenegrin register site which lists a company allegedly founded by Navalny. Navalny himself repeatedly said it is a fake. In a BLP article, just giving this link is not acceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • It was repeatedly confirmed by numerous sources recently. --ssr (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    Then it should go together with the sources and with the comments from Navalny. This is completely unacceptable.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

accuracy questionEdit

The text near the start of the Activism section says of the 2006 Russian March that it was "noted for its use of swastika symbols", with this Russian article as a source. Forgive my lack of Russian, but doesn't that article actually say that Nazi symbols were forbidden and one "professional provocateur Alex Dyomushkin" was expelled for showing a swastika? Am I reading it wrongly? If not, then "noted for its use of swastika symbols" is extremely misleading and needs correction or deletion. Zerotalk 13:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeeed, this is what the article says, and in addition this is a strongly POV article published by a ultra-nationalist author in a ultra-right-wing medium. I think the swastikas can be safely removed from the article. I do not think Navalny himself ever user swastikas or smth similar.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Political party name updateEdit

Current edit of article states that Navalny's party is called "People's Alliance", although it was renamed to "Progress Party" recently: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/navalny-changes-party-name/494246.html + http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=485096 (in official documents party's called "Progress Party", not "Party of Progress": http://minjust.ru/sites/default/files/basetype/2014/03/ustav.doc) Руслан Руденко (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I changed the name in the infobox, but someone needs to write down the whole story about registration and renaming (the party is still mentioned in the text as unregistered).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the case, isn't it time we give that party it's own article? Charles Essie (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
His association with neither the "People's Alliance" nor the "Progress Party" is not supported by sources now in the article. If any of the sources are in the Russian language, I would not be able to confirm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

News from December 30, 2014Edit

Can someone add this info to the article? I don't think I've ever edited this wiki article even though it's on my watch list, so a "regular" would be better at incorporating the info: [1]. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I did add a new section about that yesterday.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
OK thanks, Ymblanter; somehow I missed seeing that. Softlavender (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi again, Ymblanter (or anyone), I think the lede needs to be updated. Was the February house arrest only for two months? My impression is that it was longer; or that he is still or currently under house arrest. I'm saying that because the wiki article says "Navalny broke his house arrest to attend the [December 2014] rally". Anyway, can you update the lede to include events to date? If so, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it was initially for two months and thn extended, but I would need to dig this out. Anyway, it will be removed in the near future since Navalny was already sentenced.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The text-only version of the articleEdit

See Talk:Alexei Navalny/Text only. Intended for quick measuring the length of the article's prose and other similar tasks. These read-only versions will include [21] and the like, for quick measurement. Subtract a couple of kilobytes to find out the actual size.

Now an update can be just a plain copy-paste of the text from the page (reader's view; from "Alexei Anatolievich Navalny (Russian: Алексе́й Анато́льевич Нава́льный..." to the end of the Notes section). Subtract ~3 KB to get the actual size.--R8R (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

To all of you who watch this page and everyone else: your opinion is neededEdit

Good day, everyone. The statistics shows this page is watched by 55 people. One of them is myself; but there are 54 more people, and, at least for some of them, the quality of this article is more or less important, and I hope, these people could help establish a wide discussion. And, of course, side commenters are also welcome.

The article, as I found it, did not follow any particular English variety, heavily mixing both British English and American English (and maybe others). And, of course, it is better to follow one rather than mix many. This article is about a Russian person not related to any English-speaking country, so any variety would be fine. I eventually started to move the article toward AmE, because I am currently writing the article and it would be easier for me to write an article in AmE. The spellings have been shifted to AmE, I added serial commas, and the text I keeping adding to this article, is, I believe, closer to AmE than any other variety. I also started to move dates from the day-month-year format to the month-day-year format. I agree the former is generally easier to follow, as I myself come from a country using the dmy format; however, the mdy format is a common part of AmE as we know it today. However, soon the changes of the date formatting were undone, which leads me to the general question of whether we should follow the dmy format or the mdy format.

I argue we should use the mdy format, because it would make little sense to have an article written in AmE, but for some reason use the BrE-styled dates for it. I would love to hear input from all of you reading this very line on the question to establish a consensus on this question, whether you agree with me or not.

P.S. I myself started to watch this aticle some time in 2014, having in mind I would later edit and improve it. If there is at least one of the 54 other watchers, who watches the article for the same reason, this is a great time to join in. It would be much easier to do the job for two (or maybe even more) people, rather than for just one, but still just as interesting :-) --R8R (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I personally nave no preference Am/Br and dmy/mdy, I am not an Emglish native speaker.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The recent change in date formattingEdit

As I started to actually read this article, it became obvious to me it does not follow a particular English variety. That's bad, it's always better to be consistent at this. I initially started to move towards British English, because my idea was, we're talking about a Russian, so it makes sense to suggest many Russians will see, and some will edit this article, and for them, it could be easier to use BrE. Except after having started this, I noticed how much needed to be improved, and realized I was wrong. I did the basic "-ise/-ize", serial commas, and similar stuff; yet it was not a complete move because it did feature some lexicon you would except to see in AmE, but not in BrE. Since I decided BrE wasn't all that important after those changes, and the move was not completed, I decided to move towards AmE, because I was (and am) going to work on this article, and for me, it's easier to use AmE.

Now there was one thing: date formatting. In BrE, you just go with straight "day month year" (dmy); in AmE, you typically use the "month day, year" (mdy) construction. A format was established before I came in, and it was dmy. As I started to fill this article with more content, I used the mdy format; I did it that way because it seemed suitable for AmE. It, in general, makes little sense to use the dmy format (a BrE thing) in AmE.

On April 30, those changes were undone, so I did the best thing about it I could think of: I followed WP:BRD and started a discussion. Unfortunately, within a week, only one person replied to me, who had no opinion on the matter (still, Ymblanter, thank you very much for replying, this is appreciated). So I went ahead and changed the formatting to the mdy format. Why?

As I said, the article currently uses AmE for most, if not all (and eventually, it certainly will become "all"), other things that may appear differently in BrE and AmE. Again, just applying common sense: it is not right to use AmE for everything except the date formatting, for which we should (we shouldn't) use BrE. What is the point of some consistency if it annuls a larger consistency?

Why wouldn't I just use BrE, so the problem does not arise in first place? For two reasons: 1) I am poor at BrE and it doesn't feel natural to me, and 2) why would I. Dates are a small thing even compared to just the whole BrE/AmE thing, not to mention the whole article; it shouldn't be the ultimate reason why we should do anything or not.

(And I will say that I consider the mdy format to be not superior to dmy in general. Because it is not linear (dmy goes "smallest to largest", mdy does whatever it does) and because I myself come from an dmy-using country, so dmy is natural to me. However, it's not about what I like, it's about consistent grammar, which is important for any article.)

I am open for any discussion on this, if anyone wishes to have one.--R8R (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alexei Navalny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

NationalismEdit

I see a direct connection to nationalism solely in the second paragraph "In 2011, Navalny stated he considered himself a "nationalist democrat" ...". What does the rest of the section have to do with nationalism? (Analogous section in the German Wiki was until recently artificially blown up with unrelated information to make up to 1/3 of the whole article, so that I am quite suspicious about the neutrality in this case as well.) --Max Shakhray (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I suggest the following: (1) Deleting the topic "Nationalism", so that all paragraphs belong to "Political views". (2) Discussing which paragraphs should belong to "Nationalism" subsection (if one is necessary). --Max Shakhray (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Too much about his nationalism, although he is indeed a nationalist. I removed a couple of things. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Ratings of approvalEdit

The Levada Centre has a recent survey from the 20th March, about Navalny. [1] It shows the latest rating of approval - 1% definitely, 9% possibly, 20% probably not, 63% definitely not for 'could you vote for Aleksey Navalny in the presidential elections?' (of those who know who he is - 47%). This is a decrease from before. Mellk (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Name changeEdit

To L Trey: You don't have consensus for moving this article. Please explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

To Chris troutman: Russian "й" is English "y", not "i". Because "i" is just "и". Every Russian word that ends with "ий", "ый" or just "й" got English "y" in transliteration. For example: "последний" = "posledny", "каменный" = "kamenny", "твой" = "tvoy". And please, take a look at Alexey's name on his Twitter here. Thanks. L Trey (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@L Trey: I know nothing of the Russian language and I can see the subject prefers your spelling. The thing here is, a lot of the cited sources use the spelling with "i" and per WP:COMMONNAME we name articles as most readers would expect, not necessarily what's correct. For example, we keep finding Ukrainian nationalists trying to move Kiev to Kyiv. I don't know the transliteration but I do know the common English-language spelling. Generally, articles should always reflect the sources, not the preferences of some editors. When this article was created originally in October 2010 it had your preferred version but was changed here in April 2013 by Rothorpe to using the status quo ante spelling. I'd be curious to hear what other editors think before we settle on one solution or another. Per WP:BRD, we ought to discuss this now before making more changes. I don't care either way. I just assume changes should not be made without explanation. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Just move it back. A contested move that did not go through WP:RM is always moved back. File it at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_technical_requests and an admin will move it back. Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
My mistake, so I've moved it back. Help with correcting the article spelling (why I moved it) would be appreciated. Rothorpe (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
No Rothorpe, I moved it back. You then made the undiscussed move again. Please restore it to "Alexei", which is the way its been stably for the past four years: [2]. -- Softlavender (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
No, I only moved it once, from I to Y, or at least that was my intention. It seems there needs to be more discussion. Rothorpe (talk) 03:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've reread this page, and understand how I was confused. People should always spell things out! I'll move it back. Rothorpe (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Done, from Y to I (spelling it out). Rothorpe (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the alternative spelling, Alexey (which it does seem he uses), should be mentioned near the beginning of the article. It might discourage further moves. Rothorpe (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, guys, I got it. He just spells his own name wrong. Ok. L Trey (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Start a WP:RM if you want to move the article. Softlavender (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
WP is not about truth. It's about reliability. Or something like that. Rothorpe (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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) 00:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Place of birth?Edit

The article says where he grew up, but not where he was born.77Mike77 (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

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." navalny.com 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 [3]. 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 49.198.13.161 (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 ft.com, which used the report as a source. With the addition of ft.com, 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 49.198.13.161 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Alexei Navalny" page.