Talk:2017–2018 Russian protests

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Politics and law High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Move logs: 2017 Russian protests
2017–18 Russian protests

Discussions:

RM, 2017 Russian protests → 2017–18 Russian protests, moved to 2017–2018 Russian protests, 30 January 2018, discussion
RM, 2017–2018 Russian protests → 2017–18 Russian protests, not moved, 6 May 2018, discussion

Table of protests

I'm closing this because it's just turning into nitpicking. We'll have a discussion when the stuff actually happens, as WP:CRYSTALBALL. 'Tis better to have a discussion when it actually happens. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I added to the table info on whether the rallies were sanctioned or not, which is sourced to reliable sources. An IP started an edit-warring [1] removing that. The argument of the IP is that if we have further protests they will be added up to this table but the future rallies may be sanctioned or not, and thus the column becomes redundant. My argument is that adding up the number of participants at different rallies is (i) original research (ii) makes no sense since there is a big overlap of participants between the rallies.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who added that entire table in the first place and filled most of it out. Look at the table at Euromaidan. That is where I took the format from. That whole crisis had numerous protests but that table is a list of cities and their peak attendance, which is why I included peak attendance and date rows. That table was never meant to be one that only shows protests of a single day, it was meant to show a list of cities and their protests of most numbered people. If at the next protest, 40,000 people will be in Moscow, then the number will be replaced with 40,000. It's completely redundant to include every single day of protesting, especially if this will be a lengthy issue. Plus you were the one who added that information without any sort of discussion, so don't only blame me for edit warring. You were the one who kept pushing for your addition to remain in place despite the fact that not everyone agreed with it. Plus the column was and still is barely filled out. You're inserting information that barely hold any information. --2607:FEA8:559F:FD61:C9E8:749D:6483:C35A (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Euromaidan was a continuous action. In this case, the peak attendance makes sense. 2017 Russian protests is not a continuous action.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely that there will be more protests. More protests are planned to be held this Sunday and possibly the next. --2607:FEA8:559F:FD61:C9E8:749D:6483:C35A (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they will not be continuous. There will be March 26 protests and April 2 protests. I do not see any reason to put them to the same table. It is a completely different story from the Euromaidan, where people brought tents and lived there.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no evidence that the protests will stop after April 2. There had already been some plans made for April 9. --2607:FEA8:559F:FD61:C9E8:749D:6483:C35A (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say they are going to stop after April 2. It is not relevant for my argument.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You said that there are March 26 protests and April 2 protests. There will most likely be protests after that. If it's not relevent to your argument then explain yourself. --2607:FEA8:559F:FD61:C9E8:749D:6483:C35A (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is just degenerating into jabs at each other and nitpicking about who said what, so I'm going to collapse this. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced Viewpoints

The article seems to be possibly unbalanced / biased in it's viewpoints. It fails to elaborate on any pro-government stances, and makes claims about government statements without citations or of police actions - again without citations - and includes lines such as "and the increasingly internet-savvy Russian people are not impressed."

This doesn't seem like a neutral article - and it should try to elaborate on minority view points which only get one or two lines in this entire article, and avoid making claims without proper citation or provocative statements about Russians emotions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp00n exe (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still no citations

Multiple paragraphs still, do not have any citations, such as March 26 in Events. A mess that is. It has been months, if there are still no citations added, they will have to be removed. Mellk (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2017 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170503221924/https://77.xn--b1aew.xn--p1ai/news/item/9732355/ to https://77.xn--b1aew.xn--p1ai/news/item/9732355/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing?

Are these protests really ongoing? I haven't heard anything about them for awhile. Charles Essie (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last time there seems to have been any coverage was in June, so 'ongoing' is highly dubious. RU Wikipedia has a dab page for the May 26th and June 12th protests, although there's a proposed merge of the two articles as being an extension of the same issue. I can't find anything on the outcome, but they're certainly 'over' in any effective sense. What is missing is the outcome of the court cases for the 1,700 arrested. There's at least one person who was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment as reported only a few days ago, therefore the 'Aftermath' and 'Government reaction' sections are in need of being updated. I think the end date is a little tricky, but should possibly be either June 12th or 13th. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 January 2018

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: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Note that an example of 2018 protests was included in the nomination; with the title change, this is now clearly included in the article's scope, but before the change such an addition could have been questioned on the same grounds. Dekimasuよ! 22:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Russian protests → 2017–18 Russian protests – 2017–18 Russian protests redirects here, plus an example Russians Brave Icy Temperatures to Protest Putin and Election (NYT Jan. 28, 2018) ... unless there is a new article for 2018? X1\ (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC); update X1\ (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What 2018 protests, and where are the WP:RS stating that they are ongoing from the 2017 spate of protests dealt with in the article per WP:TITLE? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. The other possibility would, indeed, be the one indicated by the nominator, with the cited New York Times article from January 2018 appended to a newly-created Wikipedia entry, 2018 Russian protests. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - I still see it as being problematic seeing as the original WP:TITLE only just met with WP:PRECISION. One can imagine a potential reader looking up 'Russia/n+protests+2017', or 'Russia/n+protests+2018', but not as 2017-18 without a clearer definition of what the protests are about. In this instance, if the two are merged into one article, some form of WP:NATURALDIS (as in point 4) needs to be applied. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Should be 2017–2018 Russian protests, 2017-18 is sport style. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support - The protest occurring on January 28, 2017 is absolutely a continuation of the 2017 protests as having the same parties involved with Navalny being the one rallying the protests and people protesting the same idea of a more liberal, pro-European, corruption-free Russia without Putin. --2607:FEA8:559F:FA30:4CF1:3279:8ED:2255 (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any of those would work, but we need some place to put this more current info. X1\ (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where are the protests? The article talks exlusively about the 2017 protests. The moment we get at least a single sourced line in this article talking about protests in 2018 we change the name. Not earlier. Naj'entus (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2018 (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.

Requested move 6 May 2018

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.

Not moved. See a good argument to retain this page title. Such detail might be a good addition to the MOS, because this type of request will likely arise again in the future. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Painius ^put'r there 05:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017–2018 Russian protests → 2017–18 Russian protests: Fit what most Wiki pages do. Nixinova T C 20:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 12:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ per MOS:DATERANGE: "Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years..." Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:DATERANGE.[EDIT] Oppose per SMcCandlish's observations as to the guideline (below). I was dubious about the WP:TITLE as being a conflation of a series of protests which were related, but not contiguous, as expressed in my vote! in the January 2018 RM. Indeed, such a change to the formatting does imply a contiguity which does not exist. There were bouts of protests, then renewed protests, and this is certainly not the same thing as an ongoing surge of protests. ~~--Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)~~ --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above/MOS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the same MOS section. Let's quote it in more detail:
"A simple year–year range is written using an en dash (– or {{ndash}}) not an em dash, hyphen or slash; this dash is usually unspaced (that is, with no space on either side); and the range's end year is usually given in full:
1881–1886; 1881–1992 (not 1881–86; 1881 – 1992)."
The part that says "two-digit ending years ... may be used" is primarily about tables and "if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention of reliable sources", which isn't the case here. While it does not rule out using a two-digit ending year in this case, "may" does not mean "must" (this is why may is emphasized in the original). We lose clarity when we do things like this to ill-considered expediency. And we do not make page moves when the current title isn't actually broken. Nothing is wrong with the current version at all, and switching to the proposed version would cause a WP:CONSISTENCY policy problem, for no gain. The average reader is not going to intuit that 2014–2018 Nicaraguan protests is using full numbers but "2017–18 Russian protests" would be at a partial ending date only because the years are contiguous. Worse, in any case like 2000–2001 up to 2011–2012, the abbreviated format is not available (per the same MOS section) because in many fonts it is not distinguishable from 2000-01 (January 2000) or 2011-12 (Dec. 2011), respectively. That is, going with the shortened version just to save two characters in one case is going to introduce two different kinds of consistency and comprehensibility problem. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 03:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the MOS discourages digit elision. Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Striking my "Support" vote above and revoting with an "Oppose" vote per SMcCandlish's detailed analysis, above. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:53, 25 May 2018 (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.

Structure of the Article

In the present variant of the Article, its text is completely devoted to anti-corruption protests, while in the enormously huge infobox (right) the events are included which had another origin and goals. The relative “weight” of the events is also very different. So it may be useful to change the structure of the Article ~~as suggested [please feel free to make corrections there],~~ [link is not more valid --Mikisavex (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)] i.e. to create sections: “Anti-corruption protests”, “Protests against the pension reform” (these two reasons are most important) and “Protests from other reasons”. But before undertaking such changes, a consensus should be found. Any alternative opinions? --Mikisavex (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

As there arose no objections, I afforded to undertake the above change. If somebody decides that this was a wrong step, please revert it, with explanation. In fact, just now, the massive protests due to the pension reform are going on, and it is not worth to mix this information with the anti-corruption events. --Mikisavex (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, somebody created the separate article 2018 Russian pension protests. So, the situation is changed, and the above comments are not actual now. Minimal information on the retirement-age-protests is added here with the link to the specialized article. --Mikisavex (talk) 07:26, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The start of this page

I can't bring it back, because i made it by accident. 12mionas (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do this page have Chinese translation?

Does this page have been translated into Chinese? Jatatng (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]