Talk:2011–2013 Russian protests

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article uses British English dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Broad unsupported generalization[edit]

This language, "This set off anger accross much of the Russian Federation and citizens began to take to the streets." implies a general uprising. It does not seem to be supported by reliable sources at this time. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what to compare to. Russians are known for their political apathy, so the wave of protests that took place in the last couple of years is indeed remarkable. Also, the Dissenter's Marches took place all over Russia. Numbers of attendees did vary, but we must keep in mind differences in population and previous history of protests (or lack of thereof).69.119.232.155 (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL[edit]

This is WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:ADVERTISEMENT. When and if these events happen tomorrow it would be then appropriate to write about them, not now. GreyHood Talk 14:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. It's all over the news. A number of reliable sources. A planned event to which 28,000 people have declared their intent to attend is not speculation. Nor are threats to them. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This source from a top Russian Internet news page tells that the government of Moscow postponed the decision to sanction the meetings in question until Friday, and it proposed to use a different location, so your sources are outdated and even more WP:CRYSTALBALL. We do not know whether the event will actually take place at supposed location and date, especially given the information on postponement, and we do not know how much people actually will engage. We will know that on Saturday, and no need to write it until then. Especially there is no need to give false information about sanctioning the meeting. GreyHood Talk 19:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All that says is that negotiations about the site of the demonstration are in progress, but unsuccessful so far. You could include that in the article I suppose. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Included. I've inserted the new negotiated location and new supposed numbers. GreyHood Talk 20:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the problem now? We have new place and new numbers announced, and looks like you do not want them to be inserted into the artice on a formal pretext. Even in my previous revert it was clear that your information was outdated, and the meeting has been sanctioned just a few hours ago. GreyHood Talk 20:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have misunderstood the source:

Вечером ряд СМИ, ссылаясь на пресс-службу мэрии, распространил информацию, что организаторы согласились на перенос митинга. Представители оппозиционных движений в социальных сетях объявили подобные сообщения провокацией. Наконец, одна из переговорщиков со стороны оппозиции, представительница "Левого фронта" Анастасия Удальцова сообщила от имени организаторов, что предложение мэрии отвергнуто. Вместо этого оппозиционеры предложили мэру Сергею Собянину расширить площадку митинга на площади Революции за счет парковок. Мэрия даст свой ответ по этому поводу завтра.

The suggested change was rejected. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the source and it firectly says that the meeting was sanctioned on Bolotnaya Square:

Мэрия Москвы разрешила оппозиции проведение митинга за честные выборы с участием 30 тысяч человек в столице в субботу, 10 декабря./blockquote>

The source even provides a link to the permission document. The news item appeared on 08.12.2011, 23:56:40. Perhaps this is a newer info, or perhaps this is just wrong info. But it was published and confirmed by many independent opposition outlets as well.
Anyway information in the article is wrong and outdated. We need to update it. GreyHood Talk 20:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It goes on with this: "В интервью "Новой газете" Удальцова уточнила, что организаторы готовы рассматривать в качестве возможной альтернативы площади Революции только одно место - Манежную площадь." but nothing seems to have been decided. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, updated, but not by removal of the information about the Facebook group. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the permission. Google translate does not work on that though. What does it say? Google translates it as "the swamp". User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article at lenta.ru seems to have been updated while we were discussing this matter. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, where is the update, and in a better chosen section, than the Domestic reaction? and do you realise that mentioning facebook group is WP:ADVERTISEMENT? The "swamp" is translated from "болото" (boloto), and they speak about Bolotnaya Square. It was on the Lenta article from the very beginning. GreyHood Talk 21:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand proper application of that section of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Even The New York Times article has a link to the Facebook page, which links to its new name.
Please explain how I misunderstand that. And the ref with a new name must have appeared only recently, or the page was updated. GreyHood Talk 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If our article plays a significant role in promoting something it doesn't belong here. In this case, 32,000 people say they will attend. The NYT's article is ambiguous, it says Revolution Square but links to the current Facebook page which says Bolotnaya Square. We've been quite careful with advertising events, for example the Chinese Jasmine Revolution, something which seemed to exist mostly in the Western media was not. And, in fact, that observation was made, that there was no internal Chinese support. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Greyhood here. The section on the Saturday protest violates WP:CRYSTAL. Linking to a facebook page for sourcing is also inappropriate (I'm very surprised an admin is insisting on using a primary source like this). So what if NYT links to it? They're not a tertiary source, whereas we are. I also cannot find support in the source given for the very CRYSTALy statement "There is considerable doubt that the Russian public has sufficient morale to mount continuing mass protests in the face of strong government opposition despite increase in promised participation in the projected Saturday demonstration in Moscow in excess of 20,000". We are not supposed to deal in rumour and speculation about future events like this. We're an encyclopedia. Why don't we just wait until after Saturday.
This is the language in The New York Times article:

On Triumfalnaya, a popular protest site here, a certain euphoria noticeable earlier in the week was clearly absent among the few dissenters who showed up. Caught amid throngs of helmeted police, some pointed gloomily up at a huge poster recently hung across from the square. It was advertising the latest installment of the movie, “Mission Impossible.”

that was paraphrased to reflect skepticism by an informed outside observer regarding the potential for staying power by the Russian public. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a paraphrase, that's original research based on a journalist trying to paint a bit of atmosphere (the "Mission Impossible" poster should have been a clue. I doubt very much he was arguing that the poster or the film were influencing the morale of protesters). The journalist does not make any kind of prediction or in-depth analysis. Your responses in the past hour give the strong impression that you're trying to do your own research here, by putting your own spin on events and using primary sources. We should not do that. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also concerned that we're giving so much credence to numbers based on facebook invite counts as if they mean something. Are there any academic studies showing the relationship between accepting a facebook invite to a political event and actually turning up? There's a lot of newsmedia noise about social networking sites and protests, but we're supposed to sift through that kind of noise. The use of the numbers in places like NYT and the Guardian really are "NYT pointed to - the Guardian noted that" territory, and are of questionable importance.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, facebook is a dubious source, and NYT is ambiguous and outdated, since the article appeared before the new location was announced. Are there any serious reasons to have this problematic information in the article, especially when tomorrow we will have more credible post-factum info? GreyHood Talk 12:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We report factual information from reliable sources. There is no serious question that a major demonstration, now permitted for 30,000 people is in the works. There a number of reliable sources. The use of the Facebook page as a reference is to show the change of name and place. No doubt we will have additional information to add on December 11. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a link to a policy page or an RS noticeboard discussion which describes Facebook as a reliable source? Thanks. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"NYT pointed to - the Guardian noted that" - is enough to mention it. Reliable sources mentioning a future event. We can report that figures are vague. It's all notable.Malick78 (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How does everyone feel about the changes I made. Greyhood - is that enough for you to accept the tags being removed? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, your changes have been reasonable. Since the event already happened we don't need facebook numbers now, likely. GreyHood Talk 15:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook ref[edit]

Can someone please find a secondary source for this - seems like there should be one out there. a13ean (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/world/europe/putin-accuses-clinton-of-instigating-russian-protests.html?_r=1&nl=afternoonupdate&emc=aua2 User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link in the article to the changed name of the Facebook page. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<ref name=NYT4 /> User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Impact of the Arab Spring[edit]

The Russian post-election protests are not related to the Arab Spring. - Sikon (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are, modern mass protest movements, including the color revolution, the Arab spring, and Occupy Wall Street are horizontally organized movements, a form which probably originated in the December 2001 riots in Argentina. We have to show it by finding authority, of course, but even Putin thinks he's dealing with a color revolution, and he's right. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that no authority has been provided, I've removed the category. You as a Wikipedia editor may think this is the case, but you're not a reliable source. In any case, it's not as if the Argentinians invented political protest. That's a very odd idea. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Marina Sitrin author of Horizontalism: Voices of Popular Power in Argentina the modern mass protest movement began in Argentina in 2001 User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here the BBC have an article called Viewpoint: Are post-poll protests a Russian Spring?, so a link is being put forward by some (the author of this article isn't sure there is one, but mentions that "US and European colleagues" have been suggesting one "over and over again in recent days"). The category seems justified.Malick78 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question mark should tell you that this is not a definitive statement, and the statement at the beginning that "I am not certain that developments in Russia will mirror those in the Arab world" makes it clear that the author does not place this as part of or descended from the Arab Spring. The only connection he makes is that the protests are unusually strong for in recent history. Personally, I find it quite a strange suggestion that there's any profound connection - it's the kind of lazy thesis one finds in The Economist rather than serious scholarly analysis. The social, political, geopolitical and religious contexts are completely different. (There is a western media myth that Russians are secretly pining for people like Nemtsov - there's no evidence for this at all. It's the usual beguiling trick of speaking good English for the press.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I undid your re-introduction of the category. Please read sources before using them for content.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And please read comments before responding to them. I didn't say the source's author said there was a link ("the author of this article isn't sure there is one"), I said his "colleagues" suggested there was. Either way, the name of the category can be interpreted two ways: either the protests are caused by the Arab Spring, or the Russian governments harsh crackdown on the protests is influenced by fears caused (at least in part) by what they've seen in the Arab Spring. The former is debatable, but the latter seems highly likely.
Either way, many are making such links. For example, here it says regarding John McCain: "Within this context, we find that the work of McCain’s IRI recently manifested itself when it was caught meddling in Russia’s elections. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a US government funded umbrella organization under which the IRI falls and the IRI itself, were behind several US-backed NGOs, particularly Golos, seeking to “expose voting irregularities.” The purpose of this was of course to cast doubts on the validity of the elections and justify street mobs brought out by the Russian opposition groups the IRI had been cultivating in an attempt to trigger an “Arab Spring” in Russia." And then of course there are the 23,000 hits for "Russian Arab Spring" on Google. To pretend there's no link, at least in the eyes of some reliable sources, is absurd and disingenuous.Malick78 (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If your BBC source did not mean to say that, then you should not have made the edit - "some unnamed people made an unjustified connection" is not grounds for stating the connection! The McCain reference is also not good enough. It does not say that these protests are a result of the Arab spring. It does not even suggest that the attempt to foment something like the Arab spring was inspired by it. It's plainly using "Arab spring" as this year's shorthand for "anti-government movement" without actually making any kind of analytical connection. Were protests against Putin before the Arab spring also inspired by it? If these bits and bobs are all you have, you don't have much at all. Google hits is meaningless. If you've been paying attention, you'll have noticed the Russian government has had a few things to say during the year. Try find in-depth pieces by Russia specialists about Russia that specifically state that these protests would not have happened without the Arab spring happening first. If it's so obvious, you should be able to find half a dozen easily. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your take on what I said, but even if the writer thinks the connection is unjustified, the comment shows many people (other than the author) must think it is justified. As for the McCain thing - I think it shows clearly the IRI is perceived to be seeking to create new "Arab Springs" elsewhere - here, in Russia.
Unfortunately, you still seem to be under the illusion that the category "Impact..." means that these protests were caused by the Arab Spring. Why do you think that? "Impact" means "affected by" - it seems clear to me that this encompasses more than just causation. As I said above, this could mean, for example - that the authorities are cracking down harder because of the Arab Spring (for example - the use of twitter there as led to attempts to spam twitter users in Russia). Well, either way - even Nezavisimaya Gazeta has made comparisons according to the reliable BBC - "In its report on the unrest in Moscow, the heavyweight daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta speaks of "an Egyptian scenario"." Anybody else have a view? VK and I clearly disagree. Malick78 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the original Impact of the Arab Spring page states: "The impact of the Arab Spring concerns protests or attempts to organise growing protest movements that were inspired by or similar to the Arab Spring". While the definition there is just "similar to", I think we can include Russia (since it implies the criteria for the category), and therefore we can keep this page in the category.Malick78 (talk) 12:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the category as there is no neutral reliable source drawing parallels between these protests and the Arab Spring. They are totally unrelated. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. We need to do some work on related categories. The history books are not written, but this is the latest in a new form of democratic mass protest which includes not only the color revolutions, the Arab spring, and Occupy Wall Street. What this upsurge will be called remains to be seen; we don't need to be the ones who name it. User:Fred Bauder Talk
After a bit of investigation I have settled on Category:Democracy movements of which Arab spring is a subcategory. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In a dramatic reversal of opinion, we are now asked to subsume the Arab spring in something called "Democracy movements" Fred, could you give details of this investigation? In particular, I'd love to hear of how the Muslim brotherhood is meaningfully part of a globally valid and uncontroversial "democracy movement". I ask this in the context of no original research. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the circle is square? Fair majority votes in North Africa, including Egypt will return Muslim majorities. That was the cause of the rejection of elections in Algeria some years ago. Also the basis for American support of strong men like Mubarak. Muhammad made no pronouncements about democracy but was a generous and tolerant man. Hopefully the Muslim Brotherhood will take him and his ways as an inspiration. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/world/middleeast/salafis-in-egypt-have-more-than-just-religious-appeal.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NYT's discussion "Is This the Arab Spring?". User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian sping??[edit]

I didn't go in depth into the election protests against Putin, however, I think the masss demonstrations in Egypt began also due to opposition to spurious elecetions and a demand to annul the election results. --85.250.87.18 (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mid importance[edit]

  • Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. Russia, Soviet Union, Moscow
  • High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. 1812 Overture, Anadyr River
  • Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. 35th Army (Russia)
  • Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.

Frankly, if the subject makes worldwide headlines, it has achieved international notability in its field. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, have you ever managed the assessment of articles of any WikiProject? If we would use your criteria, assessing everything which made the world news as Top importance, we would have many thousands of Top-importance articles in every major project, which is wrong, since there always should be a reasonable and manageable quantity of top-importance articles. Your criteria might work for small countries, like Vanuatu or Tuvalu, which rarely are featured in the news globally, but certainly not for countries like Russia. GreyHood Talk 17:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a man bites dog event, always very notable. The dead came to life... User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are the biggest demonstrations since the end of Communism. Seems to be 'high' or 'top'.Malick78 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In project Russia tom importance articles are Russia, Moscow, History of Russia and similar topics. This protests are one of many political events in recent Russian political history. I supposed that they are (for now) low importance in Russia project and Mid importance in Russian politics task force.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 21:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something in between Low and Mid, since on one hand there is no indication of enduring significance, and on the other hand the protests are biggest in years. Since there are the same assessment ranks for both Russia project in general and its task forces we have to choose one assessment mark. GreyHood Talk 21:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Perceived links to Arab Spring" Section[edit]

I'd suggest a proper section on this, to justify the category - if the category is to stay. Which it should ;) Malick78 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Kremlin's “Orange Revolution fear” of some years ago[edit]

I remember analyst writing at the time of the Ukrainian Orange Revolution and the Russia–Ukraine gas disputes that “the Kremlin” was terrified of an similar “revolution” happening in Russia (and actually was accused of setting up Nashi as a counteract ). In other words: there where afraid mass demonstrations against the regime would occur in Russia; and that did just happen today…. Should this “Orange Revolution fear” be mentioned in the “Background section” (I can find some references on that quite easily)? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overkill, I think, belongs in the opinion section, which we don't have. The entire political setup, however, is a paternalistic attempt to prevent and avoid disorder, which is a real danger. Not sure where you're going to find a source for that, though. User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "orange fear" is a legitimate topic. The Kremlin have been scared for years... now their fears have come true.Malick78 (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless highly reliable sources indicate anything of the such, then it has no place in the article. Otherwise the article becomes a WP:COATRACK, which it is already in danger of becoming. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 05:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I work from sources; I don't start with an idea which I think might be well-founded and then look for a source. I suspect there is political analysis out there, or will be, that supports Kremlin anxiety. What is also missing from the the article and media analysis is genuine doubt as to the ability of Russia to govern itself. We all want something viable to emerge, not just another disaster. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must admit that in the article's curent lenght mentioning this “Orange Revolution fear”, or in a wider context "fear of mass demonstartions by Putin's regime", looks WP:WEIGHT to me. I am not interested in Russia enough to expand the article . — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for this? If so we can look at it, otherwise not much to do. a13ean (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search comes up with annalist from respectable newspapers claiming that Nashi was set up because of "fears that the revolutionary bug may be contagious". And a few days ago Putin stated "Russia did not want to see the instability endured by Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, two ex-Soviet states that saw regimes toppled in so-called "colour revolutions" after the fall of the Soviet Union". 'course it was never officially stated that Nashi was set up as the "anti-Orangists", but Putins statement about Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan of 4 days ago is an indication of fear. That is a WP:SPECULATION, I must admit. Hence I asked for comment on this talkpage. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did make an edit in this article today in which I point out that Putin claims the protest are an attempt to an export of the Orange Revolution. Because I thought that is as remarkable as his claims Hillary Clinton is to blame. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kremlin has started an "anti-orange" campaign now, depecting the demonstrators being paid by America [1]. They also plan to demonstrate for Putin on Saturday in Moscow. Närking (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the biggest protests[edit]

"Russia saw the biggest protests in Moscow since the fall of the Soviet Union". I doubt that it's correct. At least in 1993 during 1993 Russian constitutional crisis there were days-long mass-scale protests and demonstrations. --Nekto (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That event was part of the fall of the Soviet Union, the last gasp, as it were. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not! The Soviet Union dissolved in December 1991! It is better to say "biggest protest during the presidency of Vladimir Putin and Dmitry Medvedev" Oleg-ch (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also questionable considering there were large protests against Yeltsin in a politically much freer era, but it's certainly something of a news meme. See here, for example, where 90,000 went through Petersburg, and this reuters report about "tens of thousands" in Moscow in 1998. And yes, the Soviet Union ended in 1991. Kind of important to get that right. I would agree with Oleg-ch and phrase it something like "Since the Putin-Medvedev era began" to be safe.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think "since 1990s" would be the most accurate description.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, one of our more exuberant editors just added this, repeating the meme. My various tinkerings put me at two reverts; edit warring has been a problem here and I have no wish to take part in that. Would someone else put in "since the 1990s" in place of "since the fall of communism" ? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth mentioning that since some news sources say that possibly 100,000 turned out in Moscow, that would then lead them to use the phrase "biggest since the fall of Communism". It all depends on how many really did turn out, but the point is that the 'meme' may not be wrong. Feel free to correct my phrasing if you like, I'm not too attached to it :) Malick78 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be wrong, but it very probably is, which is why "since the 1990s" is a good finesse (hats off to Ymblanter). Which RS state definitively 100,000? We have 90,000 for Petersburg in 1998 (halcyon days...I was there, taking vox pop interviews from marchers), which suggests the "tens of thousands" in Moscow is at the higher end, if not going over 100,000. It's very important to remember that in the 1990s press stories about non-liberal opposition to Yeltsin got pretty poor coverage. Don't be deceived by the fairy tale that Putin is straightforwardly a wicked uncle. He was almost certainly genuinely popular in his first term (who wouldn't have been after Yeltsin), not least because before him was a terminally ill drunk for a President and a Prime Minister famed for both his massacre of the Russian language and his massive appropriation of state assets. When we look at Putin's unpopularity in historical perspective, he's got some very stiff competition.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And many thanks for making the edit.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pozhalujsta ('any time', for non-Russian speakers. End of lesson :) )Malick78 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cites do not say this[edit]

This edit which removed what seems to me to be well-sourced information, has an edit comment: "Cites do not say this"

It converts "By 10 December, however, in a major change in policy, having ignored and distorted coverage of the opposition for years, all the main state-controlled channels were covering the protests in a professional and objective manner." to "10 December, however, all the main state-controlled channels were covering the protests." The language which was removed was based on The New York Times article "On Russian TV, a Straightforward Account Is Startling" which contains the following language:

For more than a decade, television news in Russia has been used to support the government of Vladimir V. Putin. Nightly newscasts are typically consumed with the bland minutia of government: Mr. Putin meeting with the minister of transportation or health or education about some problem of the day. Critics of the government, when they get airtime at all, are mostly portrayed as radicals or buffoons.

The three main government-controlled channels each led their evening broadcasts on Saturday with reports about the protests. They showed the huge crowds and their anti-Kremlin posters. In interviews, people at the rallies complained about their votes having been stolen and expressed their desire for new elections. Each of the channels also broadcast calls for the ouster of Vladimir Y. Churov, the leader of Russia’s Central Election Commission, an ominous signal about his future employment.

as well as other information which supports the language which was removed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No question about it. The original text should be back again. I've also heard that journalists at NTV demanded that they should broadcast the demonstration. I think the source was Echo of Moscow. Närking (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexey Pivovarov, an NTV journalist, reportedly refused to host the evening news without a report on the Bolonaya Square events. "Пивоваров отказался выходить в эфир НТВ, если не будет освещен митинг на Болотной площади" "Пивоваров поставил ультиматум НТВ: не выйдет в эфир без освещения митинга протеста" - Sikon (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add that, if someone else has not already done so, but would appreciate someone who is fluent touching it up and completing the citations. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text that was removed said "in a major change in policy, having ignored and distorted coverage of the opposition for years", which really is a couple of steps too far in paraphrasing what the sources say (I don't know where the "distorted for years" bit is at all. As far as I understand, in the main, opposition in the past few years has basically been ignored on Kremlin-controlled TV rather than caricatured, which is something rather different.) We also don't know if there has been a "major change in policy" or whether these are temporary measures that will be put to one side should the protests subside. The reports of this express suprise and clearly don't actually know what's going on behind the scenes. We should not be editorialising (or worse, trying to fit what's happening to one's preferred narrative), but paraphrasing. I suggest "breaking with practice in recent years, television channels with ties to the Kremlin covered the Saturday protests extensively, and after initially negative coverage earlier in the week, did so objectively. NTV, controlled by the state gas company Gazprom, was even characterised by a BBC reporter as describing the protests in a positive light." As for the Pivovarov quote:

Пивоваров отказался выходить в эфир НТВ, если не будет освещен митинг на Болотной площади

— Pivovaraov refused to go on air on NTV if there was no coverage of the meeting in Bolotnaya Square.
and

Пивоваров поставил ультиматум НТВ: не выйдет в эфир без освещения митинга протеста"

— Pivovarov gave NTV an ultimatum: he would not go on air unless there was coverage of the protest meeting.
The second one sounds better to me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on with inserting the Pivovarov quotes. The story may not be true. See here from Ekho Moskvy:

Телекомпания НТВ опровергает появившиеся сообщения сайта газеты Коммерсант об отказе Алексея Пивоварова вести выпуск новостей в 19.00, если в нем не будет материала о митинге на Болотной площади в Москве. Об этом сообщает РИА Новости со ссылкой на пресс-службу телеканала.

— The TV station NTV repudiates the information given on the website of the newspaper Kommersant about the refusal of Aleksei Pivovarov to anchor the news at 7pm if there was no material about the meeting in Bolotnaya square in Moscow - according to RIA Novosti, referring to the station's press service.
VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, obviously I don't understand the intricacies and subtleties of the situation. However, this edit is inappropriate, as, however, it is phrased, there is support in the source for it. The language is

Critics of the government, when they get airtime at all, are mostly portrayed as radicals or buffoons.

If the change in policy is only for one broadcast, it is nevertheless a major change in policy. Reestablishment of a policy of censorship, distortion, and misinformation is likely to prove very difficult in any event. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This prognosis on "policy" and the future is, as ever, your own research. If the reports are true that Pivovarov forced the coverage through his ultimatum, this is not a change in policy, this is by definition an ad hoc response. It may become policy. Alternatively, Pivovarov may not be on NTV for much longer and "normal service" will be resumed. Or NTV are telling the truth. Your comment that "Reestablishment of a policy of censorship, distortion, and misinformation is likely to prove very difficult in any event" does not match what's actually happened in Russia over the past couple of decades; I think your comment about not understanding the complexities was meant sarcastically, but I'll take it at face value. It's not as if Russian media has been on a continual upward path to openness since the end of the Soviet Union (1991, not 1993, remember) - go read press freedom reports about its fluctuating fortunes. As for your "radicals and buffoons quote", the key part of the phrase is "if they get airtime at all", which is precisely the point I was making - that it is wrong to characterise coverage as distorting the opposition for years. It's been almost entirely simply ignoring them. Someone reading your version of events would expect that news coverage regularly satirised government opponents. That's not been the case. Zyuganov basically gets almost no airtime. My suggested phrasing nuances this, while yours misrepresents the situation.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No sarcasm intended; it has been very difficult for me to read news from Russia for decades; thus, I am objectively ignorant. I think this: "It's been almost entirely simply ignoring them. Someone reading your version of events would expect that news coverage regularly satirised government opponents. That's not been the case. Zyuganov basically gets almost no airtime.", while no doubt perceptive, is a personal observation, a primary source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of the government, when they get airtime at all, are mostly portrayed as radicals or buffoons.

plainly says they get little or no airtime. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could have asked me for sources instead of presuming I was talking purely from personal experience. This is wikipedia, where opinions without sources are pretty much worthless. Here it says "Leading opposition politicians regularly complain that they do not have access to television networks that reach the largest audiences". This book on page 218 (the conclusion) describes how Putin's second term led to a gradual "strangling" of criticism of his government in television media. The strategy was silencing people, not ridiculing them.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than 100 Russian and more than 30 foreign cities[edit]

...are participated in actually world-wide protest at 10 December 2011. Main organization VKontakte page: vk.com/topic-364976_25568511 Please correct this article, since I fear to take chance to spoil this page. Fedorkov Dmitry (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable edits by Greyhood[edit]

Here, Greyhood took this source, ""Интерфакс" со ссылкой на пресс-службу ГУ МВД по Москве сообщает, что в митинге приняли участие 25 тысяч человек. В то же время блогеры усомнились в этих данных. Корреспондент "Ленты.ру" оценил количество собравшихся в 5-7 тысяч человек. В правоохранительных органах отметили, что мероприятие проходило без происшествий." and wrote in the article, "On 12th December [...] the 25,000 meeting of pro-Kremlin youth groups supported Putin and United Russia and celebrated the Constitution." He meant, presumably, "25,000 strong". The source, for the benefit of non-Russian speakers, says that Interfax reported 25,000 at the meeting, but that Lenta.ru (the publishers of the $%#@ing article!) thought there were 5-7,000 at the demo. Why the hell did you ignore the writer of the article and only quote the higher number, Greyhood? This is your most blatant POV edit so far. Please cease your overly-pro-kremlin edits and stick to the facts, or we'll have to go back to the NPOV noticeboard. It's simply unacceptable. Moreover, another edit of yours quotes 15,000 at a Dec 6th meeting, when other sources have much lower figures.Malick78 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's obvious the Moscow police count demonstrators like the Russian election committee count votes. A video of the demonstration can be seen here [2] and anyone who can count can see there are not 25.000 people there. Närking (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malick, the figure of 25,000 has beeing already removed and I have no problem with that. I just used the first figures in the article, without reading it properly. At the same time, apparently you have done a mistake in this your edit. The article clearly says about 15,000 came to the city to Moscow’s Forum of Civil Activists (and that is repeated twice), and the number of 5000 refers to those who beat drums and chanted slogans in one particular action on one particular square. There is nothing in the article about any supposed difference between the number of participants from organizers and estimates by someone else, you just have invented that or misinterpreted the 5000 figure. Should we consider your own edits biased and ubacceptable, or should we simply fix everything according to the source without stirring conflicts on talk pages? I've already asked you not to discuss other editors but discuss articles, facts and policies, since this approach could be easily turned against yourself, and we need more constructive discussion here. GreyHood Talk 21:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have trouble understanding many texts ("I just used the first figures in the article, without reading it properly."), so I'll highlight the para from the above link:

By December 4, election day, Nashi had brought about 15,000 young people from some 20 regions to Moscow’s Forum of Civil Activists, held in the All-Russia Exhibition Center (VVTs) in order to “supervise the election process and maintain order on the streets.” The members who traveled to Moscow voted with absentee ballots. They held meetings and concerts on the Revolution and Manezhnaya Squares to show their devotion to President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

On December 6, Nashi and other pro-Kremlin youth groups stepped forward to support United Russia amid allegations of vote-rigging, first gathering on Manezhnaya and then walking to Triumfalnaya Square, a space traditionally used by opposition groups.

About 5,000 activists beat drums and chanted “Russia! Putin!” and “Russia! Medvedev!” to show their support for the government.

One thing happens on Dec 4, with 15,000. The other on Dec 6 with 5,000. What exactly don't you understand? Unfortunately, due to your repeated bias in editing, I and other editors have had to refer to you by name. Please stop being disruptive and/or edit more accurately. If you can't be bothered to read an article "properly", please don't bother to edit based on that article.Malick78 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop supposing bad faith and stirring conflicts instead of simply fixing the wording and discussing unclear points neutrally.
Firstly, by By December 4 (I liked how you bolded these words above ;)), doesn't mean on December 4.
Secondly, Moscow’s Forum of Civil Activists seems to be a rally in itself, though hold from December 4 rather than on concretely December 6, so we need just fix the dates instead of numbers, don't you think? GreyHood Talk 22:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Correcting 'on' to 'by' is petty, since that was the least important part of the text (the point was the 15,000 wasn't the Dec 6 march!). The problem, though, is that you consistently edit in favour of the authorities - even inflating 5-7,000 to 25,000! It is simply unacceptable. (And did you mention that the pro-kremlin protests were bussed in and probably paid-for, while the anti-kremlin ones were mainly spontaneous? Of course not.) It is not a one-off occurrence, you keep doing it and other similar things. Why should other editors keep "fixing" your mistakes? (Especially when you frequently revert! Have some respect for us.) Please refrain from editing if you cannot be neutral and use RS correctly. If I knew how to report you I would. I guess there'll have to be a first time for it anyway...Malick78 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why me and most other editors have to fix mistakes of others daily throughout editing, and why most people don't complain of that? Have some respect to Wikipedia, which is a collaborative work in collaborative environment, and don't make personal attacks please.
You haven't answered on suggestion to correct dates instead of numbers. We also could describe 4th December and 6th December as separate rallies. But seems you are just set on interpreting the information in the way against the authorities, which is not really wonderful following your open declaration of negative attitude to Russian government. I haven't seen a single edit from you "in favour of the authorities", which is according to your own receipt is a part of Positive + negative = overall neutrality. And now explain me why I was the first to add the information on the supposed size of the 10th December meeting to the article? Why it was me who got the image of the 10th December protests posted on the Main Page? Why it was me who nominated the Russian legislative election, 2011 article to be posted on the Main Page while the controversy was already expected then? I just try to reflect all primary and due weight points of view in the article, and it is not my fault that some editors here are mostly intent to bring negative information or simply have no other information after reading sources like BBC, and all that needs to be balanced. GreyHood Talk 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I put a bottom line on this: I would like to discuss issues with neutrality in my editing and listen to advices in this respect from neutral editors, not from editors who have declared their non-neutral attitude. So please, one final call from me: engage in discussing articles, policies and facts. Forget about discussing the editors. This only leads to discussion of yourself as well and ruins the constructive atmosphere. Remember that constructive editors will always be ready to engage in discussion and accept your corrections in the article if well-argumented. GreyHood Talk 00:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We all fix others' mistakes, but usually these are one-off mistakes. You seem to be repeatedly deleting others' edits with inaccurate edit summaries, spurious summaries, misapplying policy, and now... using unlikely statistics from sources, when the sources themselves disown those stats and suggest better ones in the very same paragraph. These are not isolated events - but a pattern. As for my "negative" attitude - you link to a talkpage. NPOV is about article pages, so that link has much less relevance here. Besides, we all are biased in a way - the important thing is how we show it in edits. You consistently show it in edits in my view (and the view of others, it seems) - and that's the problem. I have a feeling my bias, if visible, is less apparent :)
As for your other points: I didn't mention the Dec 4 pro-kremlin protest because it was largely irrelevant: it would have been pre-arranged and therefore not a response to the 2011 Russian protests against the government (which it happened before!). As for your neutral posts on the main page - well, I never said you were all bad and on every page ;) It's mainly here and on Putin that you are disruptive and POV. Finally, I'd love to talk just about the article, but for the aforementioned reasons your behaviour keeps bringing me/us back to you. That you talk about the "constructive atmosphere" being ruined seems like a bitterly ironic joke. You only on occasion seem to be cooperative or constructive. Usually you just delete others' edits. Finally, as for my "lack of" edits "in favour of the authorities", I've added refutations from Putin and others to accusations, but of course, in an article about protests against the authorities, surprise, surprise, there's more info against them. Who'd have thought it? Malick78 (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Supporters of the protests responded with guerrilla theater by FEMEN and circulation of a photoshopped image of Putin dressed as Muammar el-Qaddafi"[edit]

This Wikipedia entry know claims: "Supporters of the protests responded with guerrilla theater by FEMEN and circulation of a photoshopped image of Putin dressed as Muammar el-Qaddafi". Although well sourced this info makes no sense to me; first off all:

  • it suggest that FEMEN worked close together with the organizers of the protests, which is doubtful cause they seem to prefer to work alone.
  • it suggest that FEMEN’s "guerrilla theater" was one of the most noticeable events of the day... Since it involved only 3 girls and probably 3 minutes I don't think it was noticeable enough to mention here.

Secondly:

  • it suggest that "photoshopped images of Putin dressed as Muammar el-Qaddafi" was set up by the organizers in some grand scheme to outmaneuver the people who where plotting against them... (?...)
  • where there that many "photoshopped images of Putin dressed as Muammar el-Qaddafi" that it was noticeable?
    — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Huffington Post article clearly shows that the protest was directed at the Putin regime. As to it being not noticeable, It is notable simply for its dramatic quality and the possibly prize winning images in the Huffington article. Perhaps coverage of that demonstration, supported by the Huffington reference, could be separated out to show that it was an independent event, yet it does remain part of the 2011 Russian protests. Photoshopped images tend to be on the internet, somewhere, although "passed around" suggests a printed leaflet. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done; just now. It actually maked the article better readable. It gave it a better flow. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Russian-speaking editors[edit]

There's a symbol of tomorrow's rally. Maybe you put this as a section like with "5–7 December" rallies. --87.225.60.176 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitriyeva[edit]

I changed back the names according to WP:RUS.--Ymblanter (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a source[edit]

Found on Talk:Politics of Russia ... Vast Rally in Moscow Is a Challenge to Putin’s Power by Ellen Barry and Michael Schwirtz published New York Times December 24, 2011

99.19.40.123 (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Used in the article now. <ref name=NYT24December /> User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

potential resource[edit]

from Portal:Current events/2011 December 24, RIA Novosti 99.181.157.27 (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to contribute to the article yourself instead of copy-pasting URLs here and expecting others to add the information into the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
URLs 99.181.143.133 (talk) 08:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

potential resources[edit]

99.109.125.85 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name change from 2011 Russian protests to 2011 - 2012 Russian protests (or something similar)[edit]

Thoughts on this ? (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait and see if there are any more big ones and if have as much or more affect. CarolMooreDC 01:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 12.000 people have already said they will demonstrate at the next planned rally in early February. [3]. Närking (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Russian protests → 2011-2012 Russian protests
Requested - 99.181.147.68 (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I suggest not moving the article until there have actually been protests in 2012. If and when they occur, I advocate adopting a title similar to that used on other-language Wikipedias: Protests after the 2011 Russian elections. That title would be more accurate because this article is specifically about the post-election protests and doesn't include other concurrent Russian protests (such as the unrelated Strategy-31 demonstrations). - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, if and when (but, hey, they will happen so let's be prepared). How about Protests following the 2011 Russian elections?Malick78 (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"After" shorter and easier to remember, more likely to be typed in. CarolMooreDC 18:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"After" doesn't sound natural to me in English, actually. 'After' could mean any time (even decades later), whereas 'following' underlines the causality and temporal closeness :) Malick78 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Following" is fine by me. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A move to For Fair Elections movement[edit]

I think a move to For Fair Elections movement is more appropriate, see "For Fair Elections plans Moscow demonstration in early Feb." User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For Fair Elections is also a possibility, but it is being used for another subject. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now they seem to be using the name "Citizens Movement", see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/world/europe/russian-liberals-weigh-alliance-with-nationalists.html User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


2011 Russian protests → For Fair Elections movement – 18:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose, doesn't cover the content. The article includes demonstrations by other organizations than For Fair Elections, e.g. Yabloko, the Communist Party and Nashi. Renaming this article to For Fair Elections movement is like moving 2011–2012 Syrian uprising to Syrian National Council. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose The movement is but one part of the protests. There are also people protesting for the return of a snowy winter, and other such things. In addition, there are quite a few splintered groups participating. However, as per Fred's previous suggestions on how to deal with such things, I wouldn't oppose redirecting For Fair Elections movement to clowns ;) Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
  • Oppose. There were protest meetings by various parliamentary and non-parliamentary parties and by groups protesting both against the government and the so-called "For Fair Elections movement". Clearly 2011 Russian protests are not restricted to one movement. GreyHood Talk 15:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Umarov[edit]

To avoid further edit wars, lets discuss unclear points. Umarov is terrorist, he voiced his support for the protesters, the media reported about that in connection to the protests with some directly claiming he was supporting protesters [4] [5] [6]. What's the problem? GreyHood Talk 23:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I doubt the protesters want or value his support, so, it seems rather off the point. We can't just include anyone offering support. If I offer my support, will you include it in the article?Malick78 (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it matter here whether protesters value his support or not? He supports them, and media reports on that. Umarov is highly notable and as the last Chechen terrorist he plays certain role in Russian political situation. The phrase on your support is irrelevant. GreyHood Talk 23:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed Greyhood, everything you said is spot on. There is no reason this information should not be in the article, especially given that it was widely reported. Please go ahead and add it. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 02:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To include a long subsection with the title "Support by terrorists" is POV-pushing and surely WP:UNDUE.Närking (talk) 10:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it is widely reported it isn't undue, and so long as we keep NPOV it's ok. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 11:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's only been reported in some sections of the (Pro-Putin) Russian press. The western press have ignored it completely. Also, the title would have to be "support from a terrorist" ;) Malick78 (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O rly? Because I see news reports from RFE/FL (American propaganda machine), Reuters, AFP, WSJ, and others have covered the story. I really didn't know that RFE/FL and WSJ were pro-Putin press? As to "pro-Putin press", it has been covered by Kommersant, Vedomosti, Izvestia, Lenta.ru, Newsru, Ekho Movsky, and a whole host of others. The terrorist Umarov's comments can probably be placed in the "reaction" section, rather than in a separate section -- either way, the terrorist words have been widely reported. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can add it to the reaction section of course, but to add a whole separate section called "Support by terrorist" is clearly not NPOV. Närking (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, we certainly do not discount information from articles, based upon whether editors believe they are pro- or anti- any given person or government or whatever. For every "pro-Putin" source, there is an "anti-Putin" source, so if one wants to discount "pro-Putin" sources, I would insist that we also discount "anti-Putin" sources. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about "For fair elections" movement only[edit]

See the move request above.

On 4 February there were four protests in Moscow: "Anti-Orange", "For fair elections", LDPR action and a protest by Valeriya Novodvorskaya. "Anti-Orange" leader Kurginyan is anti-government, LDPR's leader Zhirinovsky is also both anti-Government and anti-Orange, Novodvorskaya is anti-government and anti-nationalist that's why they set up a different meeting. GreyHood Talk 23:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malick78, re-read what is written above. The protesters were not entirely pro-government. Communists, such as Kurginyan and Prokhanov, and nationalist like Holmogorov are not pro-Government. They were united by "anti-Orange" goal, that's the term used by them and the media. No need to invent other terms. And the word regime is too obvious POV - see Loaded_language#Examples. GreyHood Talk 23:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some quotes from the "anti-orange" meeting: "Владимир Путин – это умный человек, который ведет нашу страну по правильному пути. Я верю в Путина, Я знаю его. Это умный человек, который ведет нашу страну по правильному пути. Мы можем сегодня где угодно отдыхать, где угодно учить людей, свободно передвигаться по всей планете." "Путин может навести порядок в стране, голосуйте за Путина." Does it sounds very anti-government? This meeting so clearly organized by the state structure is not a protest meeting against the falsification of the elections.Närking (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore the Russian Wiki has the more correct title Протесты против фальсификации выборов в России (2011—2012). Närking (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ruwiki has it's own policies and guidelines, and they don't have any say over ours. As to article content, there is clearly two sides of protesters, and this is evidence in the press---which is our only source at the moment. I do take issue with your posting of the NPOV tag on the article, and calling it hijacking of the article, when in fact all that has been done is Greyhood has presented both side of the story, rather the one side that you obviously think should only be present on the article? Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 11:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is adding a long subsections like "Support by terrorists" or adding an even longer section about so called "anti-orange" meetings without mentioning its very close connection to the state structure NPOV? It should be mentioned of course but the way it's been presented now is highly WP:UNDUE.Närking (talk) 11:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The tag is currently valid. If Greyhood tones down his rhetoric, maybe it can be removed.Malick78 (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What rhetoric? In this section he has done nothing but present the facts and the reality. Thr "anti-Orange" protests were not in their entirety pro-Putin protests. Please present a valid reason for the placement of the POV tag on the article, otherwise there is no valid reason for it, and it should be removed. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 12:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is clearly, and should be, about all protests related to the elections. The "anti-Orange" movement definitely belongs in here. Nanobear (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one is saying it shouldn't include other protests, Nano. It's just that anti-protest editors quote too selectively (eg giving police estimates of protest numbers, without mentioning their dubious nature; or calling it Anti-orange instead of "Anti-orange"). Hence the POV tag. As for Russavia's defence of Greyhood, he hasn't presented just 'facts', he has skewed them. That's the problem.Malick78 (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So "calling it Anti-orange instead of "Anti-orange"" is "rhetoric"? That's the most minor point one could imagine. Numerous Russian media publications use the term without quotes, and the word "orange" has long entered Russian political discourse and is used mostly without quotes. And in fact it really doesn't matter much how we use it in the article. GreyHood Talk 16:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact you see no difference between English and Russian usage worries, but doesn't surprise, me. Trust me, we're using English here. Malick78 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American embassy visit by organizers[edit]

The info here insinuates that those visiting the Ambassador (who wasn't yet ambassador, which the para neglects to mention) are under the influence of the US. There is no evidence that they are or that their behaviour has been affected in anyway by their interaction with the man who was due to become the ambassador - so I'd say it's UNDUE weight. That an ANONYMOUSLY PRODUCED video on Youtube is linked to, is absurd. Who produced it? We need to know in order to weigh up their motives and therefore it's reliability (the captions, for instance, are highly prejudicial to those appearing in the video). More importantly, this section also breaks BLP - the insinuations could be highly damaging to the subjects' reputations in a non-democratic state like Russia that has no free media (the section offers no real comment by those filmed either, so their side isn't heard. Just the insinuations are). So two or three good reasons to delete. Malick78 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was Ambassador by then. I've fixed the date in the para, there was mistake with month. The video was widely covered by reliable media sources, and apparently it was produced by professional journalists - some journalist said they are from NTV (Russia) in the video, though perhaps there were other journalists too.
There are no insinuations. Just facts as described in the reliable Russian media. Also there is no claim "that their behaviour has been affected in anyway by their interaction with the man" - just the fact that they visited McFaul and discussed the protests with him, and that that produced a scandal.
"A non-democratic state like Russia that has no free media" are you joking? "Non-democratic state" where the opposition and protest leaders freely visit controversial ambassadors in foreign embassies during the elections campaign? Where the media widely covers the protests and gives say to their leaders in both the news and in talk shows, including the central TV channels? GreyHood Talk 16:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the visit is notable and the section is well-sourced. It should stay in the article. Nanobear (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, "apparently it was produced by professional journalists" shows you don't know who produced it. That's shoddy and shows your sources aren't reliable (they discuss a video but don't say who made it!). "There are no insinuations" - yes there are - the title of the video is "receiving instructions". Where's the proof they received instructions? There's none. It's chernyj piar - propaganda - to make the activists look bad. It doesn't say that McFaul visited the Kremlin the same day, btw. As for free media... we'll never agree on that - just have a look at Russia's rank on international leagues of media freedom and you'll see my point. Malick78 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who produced the video after all the media covered it. Most likely it was NTV, since journalist in the video said so, and NTV then widely used the video and other videos shot at the same place and time in their documentary movies.
"Receiving instructions" is just the name of the video covered by reliable sources. The para does not say they received instructions.
International rankings of Russia in respect of media, democracy and corruption are highly biased and contradict to reality. GreyHood Talk 17:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Malick, the BLP is no way applicable here. Should we start removing any inconvenient facts from every politician's article on WP? There was no slander, no controversy regarding whether the event happened or not, no talk about whether McFaul influenced them. Just bare facts - they visited him (100% sure), the video of certain name was released (100% sure) and it produced a scandal (100% sure). They are political activists and should be prepared for media criticism, and the mention of widely known facts in the article can no way damage their reputations more than themselves and the media already damaged them. If you think otherwise, to be consistent you should start remove all things from the article damaging anybody's reputation: Nemtsov, Putin, anyone. GreyHood Talk 17:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all know about your unusual view on democracy. And what you are doing here and in numerous other articles is to put undue weight in minor news that has very little effect on the future events. This is also the case about the Nemtsov phone conversations in this article.Närking (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speak for facts or for yourself please, you are not aware of my view on democracy. If you are unable to properly answer the arguments above, better avoid discussion at all than start discussing other users. It was not me who added Nemtsov controversy to the article btw.
Re: "undue weight in minor news that has very little effect on the future events" is totally wrong, since in fact there is big ongoing political scandal. The speakers at anti-Orange protest discussed the scandal at embassy as well, "stop jackaling at foreign embassies" was one of the slogans there chosen by online vote, the scandal was prominently featured in all the Russian media, widely discussed in blogs and noted by BBC and elsewhere abroad, and helped spurring the anti-Orange movement. GreyHood Talk 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have just given your view again above. And by the way, I know it was probably not the meaning by the one who added it but the picture from the "anti-orange" meeting with the pre-made "Putin - Our Choice" banner tells more than words about the nature of the meeting.Närking (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol that's just the only Commons image of that action available (as of yesterday at least), and that's a joke of an illustration. At the same time I was the first to add an image with a huge crowd of anti-government protesters on 4 Feb. GreyHood Talk 19:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Narking above. Until Greyhood can say who produced the video (and edited it!), surely there's a huge hole in the authority of the source? The producers of the video had reasons for what they did... and Greyhood don't seem to want to pursue that, or help other editors. That is not how WP works. Also, how have the activists explained the meeting since? Expecting a detailed explanation when they are accosted in the street is absurd, and prejudicial to their point of view. It was a set-up, and WP shouldn't endorse it. Not without further material at least. Lastly, it is a minor issue in the overall scale of things. The meetings took place after the start of the protests, and therefore had little influence on them. Undue weight.Malick78 (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream Russian and world media covered it, and the video shows what it shows. The journalists in the video said they are NTV, it was also covered by mainstream media [7]. As mentioned in the answer above, not only it prominently was featured in the media, it affected the speeches and slogans and overall escalation of the anti-Orange movement. GreyHood Talk 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your question on the source thus answered, and anyway it is irrelevant since we the story is based on wide coverage on secondary sources, not on the video itself. Your arguments on undue weight totally fail. Such a large event should not stay out of this article. The para stays as relevant, notable and neutral. GreyHood Talk 18:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greyhood - please don't move my comments out of order so they make no sense. I followed Narking's comment - and now it makes no sense because you added something between them. Find another way to respond to him/her.Malick78 (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted Malick78's removal of the section. It is not a BLP violation to describe the visit, and any other information appears to be referenced suitably. Scholars have already made comments on the visit, as per this, so the section should not be deleted, without having good reason to do so -- we don't delete suitably referenced information from articles, simply because one does not like it. Y u no be Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 04:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers of protesters[edit]

This question needs to made clear.

  • Bird-eye view of the "For Fair Elactions protest", Sakharov Avenue, 24 Dec 29,000 claimed by police, 120,000 claimed by organisers (a physically impossible at such a space), various figures in between named by journalists and experts.
    • 10 Dec protest at Bolotnaya is generally considered to have had smaller numbers than 24 Dec on the Sakharov Avenue. 25,000 claimed by the police, 50,000-60,000 claimed by activists. Bird-eye panoramic view
    • 4 Feb protest at Bolotnaya was claimed by the police to be 38,000 and by organisers to be 160,000 (again physically impossible at such a small space). Photographic evidence didn't show, however, significant increase of numbers on 4 Feb Bolotnaya as compared to 10 Dec.

It is pretty much obvious that organisers of the "For Fair Elactions protest" freely exaggerate the figures, multiplying them 2-4 times to physically impossible scale, and they are often supported by some Russian liberal media and Western press. It is pretty possible though, that police could exaggerate figures for pro-government protests and decrease figures for anti-government (even state owned Ria Novosti writes on that, though strangely I've seen it only on its English version). But on the other hand it is not organizers, but the police who controls entrances to the protests, guards them has professional skills at counting people. While organisers exaggerate the numbers out of proportion and contrary to photographic evidence.

Anyway. From the two first photos above it is seen that Poklonnaya numbers are 2 or several times larger than the Sakharov Avenue. At the max density of 35 people for 10m2 the entire avenue could have provided room for 96,000 protesters [8], but such a high density was never reached and people were able to move freely, so at a more plausible density distribution it would be around 55,000 people. Poklonnaya Hill has a length similar to Sakharov Avenue, but is at least 2 times wider and could provide room for 193,000 at maximum [9] or around 117,000 at more realistic distribution. The photo shows that the entire space at Poklonnaya is filled at a decently high density, so the police numbers may be slightly exaggerated but certainly over 100,000. At the same time no site of the "For Fair elections" protests has such carrying capacity, so the claim that the protest at Poklonnaya was the largest of all is accurate. It is accepted by most Russian media as fact. GreyHood Talk 19:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not only how big the demonstration was but how it was formed and organised. Numerous reports tell about people being forced to participate, which was something you chosed not to mention when you added the news.Närking (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other numerous reports tell that many people came on their free will. Anyway, for some reason even those coerced to come, if there were many, for some reason chose to stay for the most part of the action at -20 degrees C while nobody held them there or prevented to leave. And there were reports that the "For fair elections" protesters also could hire people for money. Everyone exaggerates, accuses other side in something and plays not entirely honest game, that's reality. GreyHood Talk 19:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The photos don't necessarily show the peak amount and there's no point us trying to estimate the numbers (that would be OR). We simply find the min/max numbers cited for each rally and give those with caveats (i.e. both sides have been accused of exaggerating numbers). Couldn't be simpler :) The fact that only one side is paying/threatening people to attend also must be mentioned. Malick78 (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were reports that both sides could be engaged in paying, and many reports blaming "anti-Orange" in coercion were refuted. We do not know the extent to which payed or forced protesters influenced the numbers anyway. GreyHood Talk 22:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for the peak amount, very well, but the problem is that the "For Fair elections" protest sites had twice smaller carrying capacity than Poklonnaya Hill. Even at peak high density attendance (which never happened because it would be on the brink of stampede) they could not have gathered more than 100,000. GreyHood Talk 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our job as Wikipedia editors is not to make a conclusive determination one way or the other, but to report what is said by reliable sources, including ways in which those sources disagree. So our formulation would be something like "according to the police and state-controlled media there were 58,000,000 wildly enthusiastic attendees who walked barefoot through snow 10 meters deep to reach the demonstration, while opposition figures said the rally was attended only by a family of confused tourists and their cat." Well, that's an exaggeration of course, but you get the point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Physically impossible at such a space? Does Greyhood really know dimensions of Sakharov Ave? About 500 m long and 80 m wide, so 40,000 m². 4 persons/m² is a quite moderate estimate for an average people density, and by no means even 6 persons/m² would not be "physically impossible". Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

What are the issues with respect to neutral point of view? User:Fred Bauder Talk 20:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lenta.ru is quoted reporting on reports that authorities investigating allegations of shady activties found such reports to be false. However, it seems there is no mention of Lenta.ru coverage documenting reporters participating in undercover ballot-stuffing (for United Russia) investigations (with said stuffing confirmed). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to move back[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. That being the case, the article shall stay at the most recent stable title, which is the current one. The agreement reached before at Talk:2011–2012_Russian_protests#Name_change_from_2011_Russian_protests_to_2011_-_2012_Russian_protests_.28or_something_similar.29 is simply among 2-3 editors over the course of two days, and so would not be considered a binding consensus on a stable title by Wikipedia standards. Aervanath (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


2011–2012 Russian protests → Protests following the 2011 Russian elections

  • A consensus was reached, albeit an informal one, to name this article Protests following the 2011 Russian elections. Now, User:Greyhood has, without any attempt at obtaining consensus or even giving a prior notice of his intention, moved the article to 2011–2012 Russian protests. Clearly, this is a controversial move that should under no circumstances have been carried out without prior discussion. I therefore propose to move the article back to the name for which there was consensus and only rename it to any new title if and when there is agreement amongst editors. In anticipation of this later discussion I would like to add that I am of the opinion that the fact that there have been protests in response to the presidential election results as well does not invalidate the name Protests following the 2011 Russian elections. Regardless of for how long the protests will endure, the 2011 parliamentary election results were ultimately the occasion that sparked the protests. A title that does not mention the 2011 elections is not specific enough; it does not make clear, for example, that the Strategy-31 protests (which were not sparked by the 2011 election results) are not covered by this article even though they occurred in 2011 and 2012. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus had been reached to use the name Protests following the 2011 Russian elections. Now somebody has moved the page to 2011–2012 Russian protests without iniating any form of discussing and ignoring the previous consensus. I'm therefore requesting this move to be reverted on the ground that it was a controversial move that should never have been carried out without discussion. TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The wave of protests continued well after the 2012 presidential elections. And half or more of the protests occured actually in 2012, not in 2011. And by 2012 the focus of the protests shifted from the legislative election and United Russia to the presidential election and Putin. So no good reason to connect it with one election only. Also, most protest articles' titles start with dates. GreyHood Talk 00:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. That the protests endured well into 2012 doesn't contradict the name Protests following the 2011 Russian elections: the title only mentions that the election took place in 2011, not that the protests all took place in 2011.
    • 2. I wouldn't say the focus of the protests shifted; right from the beginning, protest against alleged election fraud, against Putin running for a third term and demands for 'real democracy' were closely interwoven.
    • 3. Yes, most protests do, but in this case such a title is ambiguous, as there are more protests taking place in Russia in 2011 and 2012 than solely the post-election protests. For instance, the Strategy-31 protests are still staged every 31st of the month, but they are unrelated to the current post-2011-elections protests. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the old name highlighted the initial catalyst for the protests, so is catchier and more descriptive. Malick78 (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the protests go on into 2013... I'd support a more time-dated title :) Malick78 (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, leave it at the usual naming format. —Nightstallion 14:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Protests following the last elections should not be titled in a manner which would conflate them with any protests following the elections just completed. Each election should have its own clear coverage regarding any significant protest from the populace. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

the Lede is a mess .......[edit]

For one thing, user "Greyhood" seems bound and determined to counter anything that remotely seems critical of the Putin government/dictatorship - countering statements made in the lede in a clumsy way. The two points of view should be cited in the article's body. Anyone coming to this article will see the lede as some sort of editorial battlefield - it reads like an amateurish hack-job. Reliable Sources should be balanced in the article and a very concise opening used for the article. Remember that Wiki should be NPOV as much as possible, with rational, balanced use of Reliable Sources. I don't want to seem to be using a personal attack - but looking at these Talk Pages and the Talk Pages for the Putin article, there is a very strong feel of an agenda-bound Wiki warrior on the loose. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree, there seems to be a variety of editors with what could be called "anti-Putin" views (though they're welcome to object if they dislike the label) trying to balance the article, against one editor who'll do anything to shout down (revert) their edits. No other occasional pro-Putin editor is as active as this Greyhood, so he seems to be, as you say, a 'warrior' fighting a one-man battle. He does not aim for consensus, and engages in little discussion, if any. This is to the detriment of the article, and indeed, the lead.Malick78 (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my share of trouble for Greyhood, even reported him to the conflicts of interest noticeboard. And, of course, strongly support any sign of life in Russia, however, he speaks for the tens of millions, who know nothing better than to cling to the one thing that seems solid, Putin. I'll see if I can't rewrite the lede. The lede should summarize the body of the article, whatever is in it. By the way, when we know whether this is an ongoing political movement and what it is called, in English translation, we need to rename the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, your attacks on Greyhood are below the pale. As an admin you should know better. I will urge you to retract your comments, and you know precisely what comments I am talking about. And before people go on an anti-Greyhood crusade, please remember who the editors were who got photos from a friend from both protests to upload to Commons (me) and which editor it was to insert those photos into this article, and pushed for this article to appear on the front page at ITN (with those photos) (Greyhood). If people actually knew anything about Russia, and the Russian language, they would have noticed that this photo was uploaded by myself (I had dozens to chose from) and was inserted into the article by Greyhood -- it is one of the funniest photos in this article. Someone who was diehard Putin, as you people are suggesting, would not do these things. Perhaps the problem is with you people, because all I see is that Greyhood is wanting to present material into the article in order to neutralise the POV that you guys want to present. If anyone comments on Greyhood in such a way again on this article, I will take it further. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 16:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to defend Fred Bauder here: he's just stating a fact that Greyhood has found himself confronted by/has argued with about a dozen editors who were against his views recently - yet consistently he has waged a one-man war by reverting them with little support from other editors. The only editor who's frequently turned up to defend/back up Grey is you, Russavia. That Greyhood may have added one photo (whose subtle humour can only be appreciated by Russians - so, erm, why not put it on Russian WP?), hardly outweighs the other POV-pushing he has done. He has been disruptive. Don't be surprised that many editors comment on this. Malick78 (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ohoho, Fred Bauder and Malick78. Unlike you guys I am not pro-democracy or anti-democracy in Russia, not pro-Putin or anti-Putin, I simply watch the situation and try to reflect it in fair and neutral way based on facts. I would not have started editing this article at all if it was not so badly skewed and lacking key information. I was perfectly right to add information on the anti-Orange protests, since those were protests just as the "For Fair Elections" protests were. That amended this article, which threatened to go the wrong way, because instead of uprising the events turned out to be civil conflict, and in fact representing them as uprising was wrong from the very beginning, and ever more since not only pro-government rallies, but anti-revolution protests started. Note that in the same edit I added the positive results of the protests - opposition got more coverage on TV and liberal electoral reforms were carried on faster. That is really positive even despite the fact that opposition, including some really nice and respectful persons like Oksana Dmitriyeva, awfully discredited themselves by their visit to American Embassy as well as by multiple other controversies. I simply know the situation in Russia better than you lot, I've read all kinds of coverage of the events: Russian opposition activists and liberal media, Russian state media and pro-government activists, anti-Orangist activists (both pro-government and anti-government), the Western coverage (generally anti-Putin and pro-anti-government activists), and even some sources from the rest of the world.
You guys might have shown some respect to the hard work done on structuring and illustrating this article, and adding the description of many important relevant events. You might have appreciated that I predicted it right that the fall of Putin's rating would be temporary and that the visit to embassy would remain an important issue. You might have appreciated also that I was opposing renaming this article to "For Fair Elections movement" because I was correct in estimating that there were more different protesting groups on all sides. And by the way the "For Fair Elections movement" was never really united and to a great extent it failed - many groups, such as the nationalists and some representatives of the parliamentary opposition refused to participate in further protests, while the League of Voters was not able to present serious evidence of fraud on the presidential elections and discredited itself by manipulations with data. And the real disruption here was uncivility and constant accusations of other editors in bad faith while failing to recognize your own faults. GreyHood Talk 23:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so you're under-appreciated and those who criticise are really at fault. Sounds like a classic case of denial. You may have added some useful info (no one has said you're solely bad), but the overwhelming majority has been one-sided - and you've deleted a lot of good content with spurious objections (that goes for the Putin article too).
As for claiming neutrality, well, I'm flabbergasted that you can say "I am not pro-democracy or anti-democracy" and consider that a source of pride. If you can't back the rule of the people, then you have a blind spot that ignores the greatest achievements of the last 2,500 years of humanity. Democracy. Your true nature is also revealed by suggesting that an opposition activist "discredited" herself by visiting a foreign embassy. There's nothing shameful about that, only a KeGeBeshnik would think contact with foreigners was bad. Anyway, all we ask (and we've asked many times), is that you work toward consensus, not (your) "truth", whatever truth may be, since it varies according to the viewer. If you find yourself reverting a host of other editors, perhaps it's worth asking yourself whether you should be reverting them? Malick78 (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Malick, you appear to be so focused on continuing criticese me that you even can't read attentively what I've written. At least thanks that you admit that I "have added some useful info".
Then, Malick note that I write above about such positive effects as the opposition coverage in the media and the liberal electoral reform. This clearly illustrates that I'm not "anti-democracy". But I refuse to be diehard supporter of everything which calls itself "democratic" either, because the terms "democracy" or "democratic movement" or "democratic activists" are often terribly misapplied. The other thing is that in many "democratic" countries people are living far worse than in countries dubbed "less democratic" or even in openly authoritarian states. This means that democracy is not necessarily something good, or at least not everything called "democracy" is good. Many "democratic" governments at their present level of development are not a pinnacle of civilization, and many "democrats" and "democratic" movements simply discredit the term "democracy". However I must admit that to a great extent I agree with Winston Churchill's words that "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Then, again, read carefully what I wrote - I consider Oksana Dmitriyeva nice and respectful. But in the eyes of a large part of the Russian public she discredited herself by her visit to the American Embassy (and an important fact was not that she visited an embassy, but when it was made, in which company of people, which political context was at that time, and which embassy it was). So your "KeGeBeshnik" is either a misapplied characteristic ignoring the details of the situation, or an attempt to slander the Russian public.
Finally, my reverting of many other users proved to be correct by the course of the events, wasn't it? And I was able to support my edits by reliable sources. So stop your personal attacks please, and if we continue to have editorial disagreements and content disputes, let's resolve them in polite way. GreyHood Talk 23:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly Greyhood is an authentic Russian voice. However, I do contest the ability of anyone on the ground to have the perspective to write objectively. Mostly I have questions, questions only events will answer. I do wish everyone a warm coat, fashionable shoes, and good bread. And hope, above all.User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fred, this is not how Wikipedia works. For if we didn't have, as you call it, "authentic Russian" voices, we would simply have "Wikipedia -- the sum of all non-Russian knowledge" -- and that would inherently lead to a Russophobic Wikipedia -- and many articles are already eliminated of that "Russian POV" so that we have the Baltic-only view of history, or the Ukrainian-view of history, or the American view of Russian history. I am struggling to understand how one could honestly say that one can not have perspective to write objectively just because of their ability to present the mainstream Russian view to articles (as opposed to the fringes of Russian society). Anyone who would say that, I would contest their ability to write objectively. We now have a stalemate. Where to from here? Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 17:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We work toward an international perspective. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. GreyHood Talk 18:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would this fit here, if not someplace else?[edit]

97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See NATO–Russia relations. 99.181.142.150 (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter blocked in Russia 10.05.2012[edit]

This authoritative resource of IT in Russian:

It's no secret that Moscow riots, which, through coordinated Twitter. On the afternoon began to receive reports of blocked twitter all three operators.

Blocked access to the page mobile.twitter.com. The browser (opera mini) observed the message: "Content blocked by operator"

Symptoms in all the same.

Sorry for my english

http://habrahabr.ru/post/143615/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.101.251.183 (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this web page wouldn’t count as a reliable (“authoritative”) source as it seems to be a self-published personal blog entry (WP:USERG). Moreover, it doesn’t say that Twitter has been blocked in Russia (as you’ve put it in the title), but reports some cases when people didn’t manage to access the mobile version of Twitter (via Opera Mini) as it appeared to be blocked by operators. --glossologist (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing?[edit]

Why are the demonstrations still listed as ongoing when it is clear that the movement has been stamped out? Unless I am wrong, are there any major movements of Resistance across the country now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.126.190 (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last big rally was a couple of weeks ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To split?[edit]

I suggest to split "Rallies in support of the government" and ""Anti-Orange" protests" to separate sub-articles and only briefly mention them here, simply because these are slightly different subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT protests[edit]

I think you should mention LGBT as one of the reason behind protests, at infobox as well as summary. Sources[10], [11], [12]. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added to infobox. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New protests[edit]

There have been new protests recently, they've been caused by opposition to the country's anti-gay laws, the ongoing incarceration of avtivists, anger over all the money beign spent on the 2014 Winter Olympics, and inspiration from Ukraine's Euromaidan. Charles Essie (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this should be dealt with in a separate article (if there's enough notability), unless a clear relation to the previous protests is showed. There are protests and demonstrations taking place all the time in different countries, e.g., in the UK, which doesn't mean we should put them all (or some of them) arbitrarily together under one article. --2002:4E54:2588:0:0:0:4E54:2588 (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 May 2015[edit]

The following is a closed 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: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Russian legislative election protests → 2011–13 Russian protests – Article was moved without discussion in Feb 2015. Protests were not only against election results, but against government in general. Also it lasted 3 years, not one. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC) 91.124.170.230 (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about Snow Revolution? Charles Essie (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I came here to find out the name of this article so I could make a link to it; of course, the scope of the protests was not limited to the legislative election, and "2011–13 Russian protests" is the perfect title for the article. "Snow Revolution" is a term that was used by some media during the period of the most active protests, but I'd say, it didn't stand the test of time (unlike, say, Orange Revolution).--R8R (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011–13 Russian protests. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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 10:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2011–13 Russian protests. 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.

checkY 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) 17:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011–13 Russian protests. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Stakeholders' Revolt" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Stakeholders' Revolt. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 20#Stakeholders' Revolt until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011–2013_Russian_protests&oldid=1212827259"