Jump to content

Talk:Alexei Navalny

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

Censorship on immigration

[edit]

Why is there censorship over the fact that Navalny had made videos where he compared Muslim immigrants in North Caucasus as “cockroaches” and also dresses up as a dentist and compares immigrants with cavities that need to be removed? It's not like he ever denounced those sick videos and later still refused to denounce them when asked about it. It's disappointing to see the important finer details be censored, and seems more political and not impartial to hide such vital historical info in Wikipedia. This article shouldn't become a biased PR article that hides those actions in the past. Is it some white privilege where one can call immigrants as cavities and cockroaches and yet not have this mentioned at all on his page?

a 2007 video in which Navalny rails against “cockroaches” while images of apparently Muslim men were flashed on screen. He then goes on to “shoot” an actor playing an attacker who seemed to be wearing traditional Muslim clothing. Jung said: “Let’s be very clear, he advocated shooting dead Muslims.” In another video, Navalny dressed as a dentist, appearing to compare immigrants to rotten teeth.

[1]49.186.84.166 (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The evolution of his views on immigration is covered in the relevant section. There is no need to describe one 17-years old video in such detail. Alaexis¿question? 13:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no. When obituaries are published it gives a useful check on WP:DUE (and WP:BALASP). Here's what our article says (I think it's worth giving the full text to get the full flavour): In 2007, he released several anti-immigration videos,[444][445][446][447] including one where he advocated the deportation of migrants.[448] According to Leonid Volkov, Navalny later regretted making the 2007 video.[449] In 2013, after ethnic riots in a Moscow district took place, which were sparked by a murder committed by a migrant, Navalny sympathised with the anti-immigration movement and commented that ethnic tensions and crimes are inevitable because of failing immigration policies by the state.[450][451] However, he later said that "The basis of my approach is that you have to communicate with nationalists and educate them... I think it's very important to explain to them that the problem of illegal immigration is not solved by beating up migrants but by other, democratic means".[452] In a 2017 interview, Navalny declared support for regulated immigration from Central Asia, but did not see it as valuable.[453] In a 2020 interview, he reiterated support for regulated immigration.[454] In 2021, Alexander Verkhovskiy said that Navalny's statements on immigration were 'a long time ago' and that he was a 'different man'.[203]
Here's how the Financial Times obituary covers the same subject: Critics have pointed to his nationalist views and statements against immigrants made early in his political career, for which he was expelled from Yabloko. For years he attended and spoke at an annual far-right nationalist rally, and he later steadfastly refused to denounce a video in which he compared people from Russia’s mostly Muslim North Caucasus with “cockroaches” and mimicked shooting one with a pistol.[2]
Here's what the The Guardian's obituary says (in totality): Navalny started to move gradually to the right, and in 2007 he was expelled from Yabloko after clashing with Yavlinsky over Navalny’s increasingly nationalist and anti-immigrant views.[3]
Here's The Hill yesterday: He is later expelled from Yabloko after attending an ultranationalist, anti-immigration protest. Navalny is known to have anti-immigrant views.[4]
And the Foreign Policy obit: In 2007, he was ejected from the liberal Yabloko party for attending the Russian March, an annual demonstration of far-right and ultranationalist groups. Briefly establishing his own party, Narod (“people”), Navalny released YouTube videos in which he likened Islamic militants to cockroaches, called for the deportation of immigrant workers, and vowed to defend the rights of ethnic Russians in Russia. While calls for greater immigration controls remained part of his platform, Navalny’s use of more extreme rhetoric seems to have peaked in the late 2000s. More charitable interpretations have suggested that as liberal parties struggled to gain ground, Navalny looked to nationalism as a mobilizing force. As later noted by Al Jazeera, his remarks came as nationalist sentiment was surging in Russia—and so too were hate crimes, with more than 100 people killed in racially motivated attacks in 2008. His overtures toward nationalism haunted him for the remainder of his career—causing Amnesty International to revoke his “prisoner of conscience” status in 2021. At the same time, Navalny did little to disavow his past remarks. “My idea is that you have to communicate with nationalists and educate them,” he told the Polish journalist Adam Michnik in 2015.[5]
The flavour of our piece is "he changed" or "he didn't really mean it". That's not what I'm picking up from the RS obits which is either silent on change (and therefore conveys a sense that there was no change) or like the FT explicitly that he didn't resile from those earlier views. Is what we say WP:UNDUE? I suspect so. DeCausa (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are also obituaries that don't mention his anti-immigration stance at all The Washington Post NPR reflecting its relative insignificance. The treatment of the issue in the Guardian and the Hill is also rather brief. Alaexis¿question? 22:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much the extent of the mention, it's the theme. We're presenting it by reference to the opinion of two individuals that he changed. That's the bit I think doesn't meet WP:DUE. As far as I can see the sources, generally, see to indicate that he didn't resile these exreme views. DeCausa (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Verkhovskiy's opinion might not be due, I agree. Btw the wikilink is wrong, it's ru:Верховский, Александр Маркович and not Alexander Verkhovskiy. Alaexis¿question? 22:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These statements have received plenty of coverage. There's absolutely no reason to scrub any mention of it. Dylanvt (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think those specific sources not mentioning this fact about Navalny indicates the fact itself is not important, and not that the source believes such facts should be marginalized? Also, why do you think only obituaries are worthwhile sources of information on a person's life? The editorial concerns of someone writing an obituary vs. someone writing a biography (whether on Wikipedia or elsewhere) are necessarily different. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the fact that it was 17 years ago relevant here? Wikipedia biographies cover events throughout a person's life. Is there some magical number of years before which point a person's statements are excluded from mention on Wikipedia? Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BrusquedandelionIt's not relevant. It just seems like a poor excuse to remove it. What's actually relevant is that throughout the past 17 years, Navalny never once apologised and repeatedly refused to renounce it and these things are still mentioned in the more recent media articles still as they're obviously not insignificant even to this very day where media articles still mention it. Yet the Wikipedia article doesn't even mention that crucial fact. [6][7] 49.180.164.128 (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is bizarre. Why can't the incident be mentioned in the Yabloko section? This seems a basic WP:NOTCENSORED issue. Navalny made the comparison and refused to apologize for it — there's no way mentioning those two basic historical facts should be controversial. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is bizarre about it? The weight we're giving to this incident is in line with the weight that reliable sources give. Looking at the obituaries, some of them give zero weight and most of them give very little weight. Alaexis¿question? 08:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that we do cover it in fact - but we cover it differently than the RS. We have a section on "Immigration" which has one sentence on the videos followed by 6 sentences excusing/minimising them. That's not how the RS have treated it when they do report the issue. DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this framing. Navalny's opinion as of 2017 is not less important than his opinion as of 2007. Mentioning the former does not minimise or excuse the latter.
I agree with you regarding the last sentence, I think it can be removed without much loss to the article. Alaexis¿question? 21:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not the death of Alexei Navalny article; we have to look to more than just obituaries. Zanahary (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The replies to the original criticism of Navalny are white-washing. It is obviously nonsense to exclude hateful comments based on their age when profiling a major political figure. More importantly its is dishonest. Amnesty International , in 2021, removed him from its list of POCs based on the old comments. Is 2021 too old? Is Amnesty ignorable? It is also highly disingenuous to say that his highly controversial comments should be tucked away under a paragraph headed "immigration". This doesn't look like a 'mistake', it looks like careful writing PR writing. Other figures similar to Navalny would have an entire section labelled "Controversies". The problem with this article isn't about Navalny, it's about the credibility of Wikipedia. It looks like people favourable to Navalny who are professionals at political PR are writing the article. That totally undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. Furthermore comments here in Talk such as "some of them give zero weight and most of them give very little weight" are highly opinionated. Obviously its easy, in the context of the Ukraine conflict, to find dozens of major, right-wing news outlets that support Navalnay unconditionally. That is not evidence. Using selected propaganda outlets to justify propaganda is not what wikipedia is supposed to be about. People organising the PR on this page should be banned from wikipedia,. Felimy (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to comment so stridently you need to get your facts right. As has already been pointed out on this page, Amnesty restored his PoC status a few weeks after removing it and apologised to him.[8]. Per WP:CRITS, "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies... the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged." Our WP:DUE policy requires us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Hence, your statement that it is "easy, in the context of the Ukraine conflict, to find dozens of major, right-wing news outlets that support Navalnay [sic] unconditionally" seems to support the article as it stands. To make a meaningful criticism you need to actually present evidence (with links) to WP:RS media which shows that there are "dozens" more with the opposite point of view (and if you can't do that that shows it currently has the right balance). But that requires research and effort rather than just tossing out opinion. DeCausa (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it would be beneficial to include a brief reference to the topic (Criticism of Amnesty International#Alexei Navalny). This is particularly relevant given the frequent mentions of Amnesty International throughout the article. Including this could provide a more comprehensive and balanced perspective. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty International restored the status several months later (February -> May), not just a few weeks, as per your source. And their reasoning might be noteworthy in the context of this discussion, because they made a point about distancing themselves from his political views. Quoting your source:
"But in a new statement on Friday the organisation apologised and said their decision had been used to "further violate Navalny's rights" in Russia."
" "Some of Navalny's previous statements are reprehensible and we do not condone them in the slightest," it went on."
" "By confirming Navalny's status as prisoner of conscience, we are not endorsing his political programme, but are highlighting the urgent need for his rights, including access to independent medical care, to be recognised and acted upon by the Russian authorities.""
It has a bit of a "even a criminal should have the right to have a defender in a court trial against them" type of vibe. I mean, I agree with them on that one, but it's not like Amnesty International just brushed his problematic statements off, pretending that they didn't happen or that they weren't problematic.
I think, the issue here is that Navalny never distanced himself from those statements, even after being asked to. That's probably why people feel like those statements shouldn't be trivialized. As far as I've heard (but that's definitely anecdotal evidence), those statements actually drove some supporters away from him and they stopped seeing him as an actual alternative to Putin. Nakonana (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of cockroaches is extensively dealt with in first-class sources. There is no reason to omit it in the article, it is a factual description of what is seen in the video. Mhorg (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of the prisoner of conscience status came after a lobbying campaign by pro-Kremlin accounts on social media including following a post by an RT contributor Katya Kazbek. See for example this. Mellk (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear what this has to do with the fact that Amnesty actually removed the POC designation. There is an abundance of sources. Mhorg (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just context for the decision. Mellk (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is an issue for the Amnesty article not this one. Apart from a few weeks in 2021 when Amnesty withdrew it then restored it with an apology he had PoC status. The ins and outs of it why it was withdrawn and restored (much of which appears to be WP:OR speculation) is pretty irrelevant here. DeCausa (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wp:or. The reasons for restoring the status are explicitly stated in your own source by Amnesty International representatives. And given that it comes of as "we are restoring his status, but..." I wouldn't call it irrelevant. Why should that only be included in the Amnesty article? The decisions were concerning Navalny and could have had a significant impact on how he would be perceived and supported in the future, so why should it not be in this article? And as you might have noticed, there are several threads here on this talk page that raise the issue that his nationalistic views are not represented properly in the article, so it seems that people do think that those things are relevant and that they belong in the article about Navalny. Nakonana (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat my post below. Exactly what text are you proposing to be changed with what sourcing? DeCausa (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa The article presently includes no mention whatsoever of the fact that his prisoner of conscience status was revoked and then reinstated. No one has given any good explanation why this should be mentioned on Amnesty-related pages but not on this page. Thus, to answer your question: the article should be amended to discuss the fact that the prisoner of conscience status was revoked, the reasons for its revocation, and the reasons for its reinstatement. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where in the BBC article does it mention racist remarks as you wrote in this edit? It only mentions the accusation of racism by Katya Kazbek, the contributor to the RT propaganda channel. Mellk (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it only uses the word "xenophobic", not racist. I've edited the article accordingly. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may be correct, but it doesn't change the fact that he made those statements, that there are blog posts and opinion pieces in newspapers (?) that say that it drove supporters away, and that AI made sure to distance themselves from his political views while restoring his status. Nakonana (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What (with sourcing) are you proposing should be changed? DeCausa (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, only saw your reply here now after replying in the other thread.
For example...
  • in the section "Alexei Navalny#Yabloko" the article currently says: "[Navalny] was consequently expelled from Yabloko for demanding a resignation of the chairman of the party, Grigory Yavlinsky." However, Reuters writes: "Calls for restrictions on immigration and criticism over what some viewed as his overly nationalist views prompted his expulsion from the liberal Yabloko opposition party in 2007." Reuters repeats the reasoning on other occasions. And so do Al-Jazeera, CNN, Le Monde, Radio Free Europe/RadioLiberty, University College London (which names his nationalist views as Yabloko's "official reason" to expel him), Meduza etc.
  • the Alexei Navalny#Reception sections could be the place to include some critical views of him. Points to be listed could be:
  • the sections Alexei Navalny#Nationalism and Alexei Navalny#Immigration pretty much deal with the same topic, and the lines between the sections are blurry. Calling Muslims "cockroaches" rather fits into "Nationalism" than into "Immigration", if you ask me, and that's also how newspapers usually seem to rate it, for example Euronews: "His ultra-nationalist sentiment was prominent in a video dating back some 17 years filled with xenophobic comments." So, I'm not sure how it was decided to put some statements in the Nationalism sections and others in the Immigration section. And the article itself also doesn't seem to be clear on its own criteria to distinguish between these topics, because the theme of nationalism/racism is picked up again in the section Alexei Navalny#Foreign policy: "In June 2020, he spoke out in support of the Black Lives Matter protests against racism." For some reason, Georgia also doesn't get its own section in "Foreign policies", while Syria does get its own section with just one sentence of content. The article also currently says: "[Navalny] later apologized for his comments about Georgia.", however, CNN, Al-Jazeera, and The Atlantic say that he only apologized for using "ethnic slurs", but not for his other xenophobic statements. Front News Georgia is citing Navalny's apology instead of just summarizing it, and it seems to align more with the assessments made by CNN, Al-Jazeera, and The Atlantic than with what the generalizing statement that the Wikipedia article makes. Navalny didn't apologize for "his comments about Georgia", he only apologized for using slurs against Georgians (but I haven't found any apologies for using slurs against Ukrainians or the people whom he called "cockroaches").
Nakonana (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:BEBOLD but looking over your suggestions you might be overstepping it on WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. It's hard to tell from a long talk page screed like that. That only comes out when edits are actually made. DeCausa (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see what can be included and will try to avoid going too far. The part about Yabloko, however, definitely needs to be changed, because even the currently referenced source says in the second sentence that he was excluded from the party for nationalism and not for "asking to democratically re-elect the leadership of the party". The currently cited source literally says:

в 2007 году его исключили из партии за национализм

and a little further down it says:

В связи с участием в создании движения "Народ" уже в июле 2007 года Навальный был вынужден подать в отставку с поста заместителя главы московского "Яблока" [121]. Тогда же начал обсуждаться вопрос о том, что Навальный должен был покинуть партию [99], [121]. В декабре 2007 года на заседании бюро партии Навальный потребовал "немедленной отставки председателя партии и всех его заместителей, переизбрания не менее 70 процентов бюро" и был исключен из "Яблока" с формулировкой "за нанесение политического ущерба партии, в частности, за националистическую деятельность" [93], [92], [121], [83].

So, I'm first going to fix that, as the claim made in the Wikipedia article clearly does not correspond with the statements made in the alleged cited source for that claim. Nakonana (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares that said accounts are "pro-Kremlin," whatever that means? Did the Kremlin force Navalny to be a racist xenophobe? Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This content belongs only to the section about his views on immigration. However, his views about this have evolved. There is no need to describe this evolution in all details because this page is already too big. It is enough only to describe his most recent views on this subject by using most recent sources. But I think his views on the immigration probably do not belong to this page at all because he was just an anti-corruption activist, not a politician whose views could influence the immigration policies of Russia. Same with all other "Political positions" by Navalny. They should only include "Corruption". I would either remove the rest of this section or significantly shorten it since the page is already very big. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    His views on immigration were prominent, covered by RS and discussed in his obituaries. Absolutely they should be covered in this article. Excluding everything that isn't "anti-corruption" would turn his bio into an WP:UNDUE mess lacking WP:BALANCE. His ideas on immigration didn't evolve that much - see above. Btw, I've moved the section you removed earlier today to the immigation section. DeCausa (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit of an extreme position, I think that many sources have described Navalny as a politician, and as we're seeing in the obituaries and in the previous overview articles, his views on immigration get some attention. However currently the article covers it adequately and increasing it would violate WP:BALANCE.
    Per WP:ONUS, the editors seeking to add more information have to demonstrate that it reflects the weight given to this aspect of Navalny's life by RS, rather than simply asserting it. Alaexis¿question? 21:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we need to make this page readable by reducing its size. How? To create a separate page Political positions of Alexey Navalny? But that would be probably a POV fork. Yes, we can have pages like Political positions of Joe Biden because his positions define policies of an important state. Not so with Navalny. Who cares what he thought about immigration 20 years ago? My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anyone saying that the size of this article needs to be reduced, but there are several threads on this talk page that care about what he said 20 years ago. Nakonana (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Who cares what he thought about immigration 20 years ago?

    Are you serious? Many people do, especially when said views border on genocidal, as do numerous reliable sources who have reported on the matter, as documented up and down this thread. Brusquedandelion (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, it is unreasonable not to include the immigration views of one of the biggest political figures against Putin, especially when multiple reputed outlets like Al Jazeera and Financial Times brought it up. Sayingwho cares is outrageous. His controversies should not be ignored just because he stands opposite to the dictator. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not ignored, they're in there, cockroaches an'all. I'm not sure what the point of this thread is anymore. DeCausa (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You ask: "Are you serious?". Yes, absolutely. I am absolutely not interested in knowing what he thought 20 years ago on the subject where he was not an expert and on which he had no political influence. I therefore assume that a typical reader also would not be interested in. But OK, I can see there is no consensus for excluding these materials. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the one who originally started this whole thread. You recognise there is no consensus for excluding these materials. Well, I hope you stick to those words and don't go back on it months later from now. As I see in old versions of this article that states that Navalny made such ugly videos that was xenophobic and it is (My very best wishes) that removes them all in the past. [9]Not interested in convincing people who wants to hide those facts but you can't expect everyone to overlook the fact that he did some really bad stuff in the past. One can be anti-immigration yet not resort to hateful racist tropes. Saying that he was inexperienced or didn't know what he was doing, is really just apologism for the fact that an inexperience and not being an expert, isn't a valid excuse to make one express such hate-filled racist messages. And if he really was sorry, he would have also renounced those videos in multiple interviews that asked him to but he always declined. So its indeed valid and of interest to many in the public that cares about racism, to include it and not put so much effort in hiding a single sentence that gives mentions of what the video involves. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am absolutely not interested in knowing what he thought 20 years ago on the subject

    Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles are not about what you personally care to know or what you personally prefer to remain ignorant about (here I use "ignorant" as a purely factual self-description, since you stated you prefer not to know these facts). The fact is that reliable sources expend a great deal of ink covering Navalny's statements. This is evinced by the very "reliable source" you yourself keep recommending up and down this thread and also in the article itself, the Marsha Gessen piece, which notes that the suspicion of ethno-nationalism continues to shadow Navalny.

    I therefore assume that a typical reader also would not be interested in.

    This is solipsism, unfortunately. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhorg@Felimy I do thank those who participated in this thread but I see this talk is going nowhere as it's really just the same bunch of people who is clearly doing PR and don't want the public to know about the details of the video (which shouldn't even take more than one sentence). And also they don't want people to know that Navalny has refused to apologise and renounce those videos. But the Media today still brings this topic up because it's not insignificant.[10] I had took a quick look at past article's edit history and it seems like this issue had been a focus of a long edit war. No offence to Mhorg but think you should maybe had really taken this to noticeboard years ago instead of edit warring with them constantly. I don't wish to edit war with them, or argue constantly here as I see they are not likely to budge. So am putting this in Biography Noticeboard to expedite its resolution, and hope it will be resolved fairly.[11]49.180.164.128 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a straw man. The detail that you think is missing is in the article and has been for some time. There is no edit war - it's stable. For most of its existence this thread has just been a WP:NOTFORUM opportunity for people to argue the toss about their personal opinions about Navalny. DeCausa (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not in there and it's been removed. And what's the excuse in not mentioning he made videos where he dressed up as a dentist and compares immigrants with cavities and rotting teeth? And if he really was sorry, he should had renounced those statements. He never did. And currently, I see zero mention that he has never apologised and instead repeatedly declined to renounce it in numerous interviews. Both content are missing. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a submission to add new content yet got closed and it seems the discussion is moved here. I ask to add just one sentence that mentions the two videos of comparing migrants with cavities and shooting Muslim migrants. And I point out those two videos are historically special. They were literally his first two videos he made to introduce his entire movement and it also was his YouTube debut. But One of you stated it's against WP:BALANCE to mention any specific details of the videos because it detracts from his other videos.
Well, I don't know what other anti migrant videos he made, but what difference does it even make? If one person makes a hundred videos and only one of them involved killing someone. You can't then say that it's no longer balanced to not talk about that single very disturbing video because 'it takes away balance from the other videos'. The video's shocking nature is already significant in itself to warrant it as noteworthy for wikipedia. Other hateful videos isn't going to cancel it.
And in regards to Navalny's fascist ultra nationalistic white supremacy video of him discriminating and dehumanisinh non-russian ethnic migrants and comparing them with rotten teeth. I argue not just the historic significance but also the sheer moral extreme depravity of that video alone is enough to make it noteworthy enough to warrant a full sentence mentioning it at the minimum.'49.180.164.128 (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this info is already included on the page, see the section on immigration, and it is included with excessive details. I would just make it a little shorter. My very best wishes (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that it minimises the significant bad by cutting it out and cherrypicks only the good appealing trivial stuff. Like saying twice that others (third party) recall him regretting that video. It doesn't mention that he has never apologized for them which to any neutral observer, can easily show to them that he doesn't regret it enough for the right reasons if he still refused to apologise for the entire 17 years after. And there should be a mention that he repeatedly declined to renounce those videos even when people bring it up on interviews. I see that info is certainly not included at the moment.[12] 49.180.164.128 (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also two of you have said it's been included. That's not so true and I don't think we would be discussing this if it was included. Navalyn's video advocated gun ownership and showed him shooting a guy stereotypically dressed in Muslim attire. That's what's controversial about it as he was showing what seems to be Islamophobic. Also his dentist video advocated for others to resort to fascism to deport all non-russian ethnic people from Russia. These details show it's clearly racist and why people have issues with it. When you don't include the word (Muslim) and also a sentence stating he advocated for all non-russian ethnic people to leave Russia as they're rotten teeth. I think that omits alot and people may see that as unnecessary censorship. Especially when it only takes a sentence to include that vital context in. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a good faith argument. He has never called for all non-Russians to be deported from Russia, neither in the infamous dentist video, nor anywhere else before or after. Alaexis¿question? 19:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Everything in our way should be carefully but decisively removed through deportation," Navalny said in the video dressed as a dentist, comparing immigrants to dental cavities.

    Source: euronews
    In the video he says at timestamp 00:24–00:29:

    Убить никого не надо. Все, что нам мешает, должно аккуратно, но твёрдо, удаляться путём депортации.

    Nakonana (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking on the meaning of his quotation in Russian, he is saying that the matter should be decided non-violently, by applying proper laws that do include deportation. This is nothing special. Deportations exist in all countries. The inappropriate was his tone, comparisons and images in the video. It matters a lot not only what to say, but how to say it. As of note, the norms of Russian and Western/USA cultures are very different. My very best wishes (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I speak Russian, I know that "Убить никого не надо" means that "there's no need to kill anyone". But in the video, he doesn't say that the matter should be resolved by applying proper law (he doesn't say anything about laws at all in that video, not even mentioning the word "law"). Deportation exists in all countries, but mention of it is usually not accompanied by footage of people doing the Hitler greeting, like you can see in Navalny's video at 00:14, nor is it accompanied by footage of dead bodies, like in Navalny's video at 00:22 accompanied by the words "I recommend complete sanitation". And people usually also don't feel the need to stress that "nobody needs to be killed" when talking about deportation, like Navalny does. The statement leaves an especially bad aftertaste when combined with his cockroaches video, where he advocates for legalizing weapons and symbolically shoots a very Muslim-looking "cockroach". So much for "no need to kill anyone". And explaining it away with differences in Russian and Western culture won't do either, because Russians also found his statements off-putting: https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2021/4/7/what-do-russians-really-think-of-putin-and-navalny It's this disturbing footage with those disturbing messages and his refusal to take those statements and footage back that make people feel like this Wikipedia article is trying to whitewash things or misrepresent Navalny as a hero by omitting these statements or by claiming that "he never said that". Nakonana (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is particularly disturbing when you have IPs and other new editors that baselessly call him a racist or falsely claim that he advocated for others to resort to fascism, without citing any reliable sources. Mellk (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop discussing your interpretations of the video. WP:PRIMARY is clear. We can (only) quote from a primary source but we must use secondary sources for its interpretation and then that interpretation has to comply with WP:DUE. So with that in mind what exactly is the amendment to the article that is proposed and why? DeCausa (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you suggest to add or change in the article? Alaexis¿question? 09:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was the outcome of this long discussion? I stumbled onto this when reading the article to see how we covered Navalny's attitude to Muslims and was surprised to see the word "Muslim" only appears once in the article ("... stoked anger among Russia's predominantly Sunni Muslim community"). According to our version of events, based on a NYT article, the cockroach video was about "militants from the Caucasus". An abundance of sources describe the targets of the video as Muslim.[13][14][15][16] Regarding suggested changes, what about changing the description of the target of the cockroach video to include the word "Muslim". A more ambitious proposal is to fill in some of the gaps in our coverage of his views on immigration (currently "he released several anti-immigration videos", "Navalny sympathised with the anti-immigration movement", "the problem of illegal immigration is not solved ...", "Since 2016, Navalny deemphasized his past statements on immigration"). Here are a few quotes from reliable sources that may be useful:

  • "Says that he stands by previous anti-immigration comments considered xenophobic, including deporting Georgians from Russia". (CNN 2021)[17]
  • "Calls for restrictions on immigration and criticism over what some viewed as his overly nationalist views prompted his expulsion from the liberal Yabloko opposition party in 2007".(Reuters 2024)[18]
  • "In subsequent years Navalny publicly softened his tone but continued promoting conservative immigration policies ..."(RFE/RL 2021)[19]
  • "He participated in the far-right Russian Marches, waged war on “illegal immigration,” and even launched campaign “Stop Feeding the Caucasus” directed against government subsidies to poor, ethnic minority-populated autonomous regions in the south of the country".(Jacobin 2021)[20]
  • "Though his 2018 presidential platform contained no mention of immigration and presented plans for friendly relations with Europe, America and Ukraine, Navalny has never explicitly renounced his earlier nationalism".(Moscow Times 2021)[21]
  • "When restoring the prisoner of conscience designation to Navalny, Amnesty International said “opinions and behaviour may evolve over time”. However, he has declined to renounce his past statements in numerous interviews".(The Guardian 2023)[22]

Burrobert (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current coverage of this topic in the article reflects the consensus of the editors. His post~2010 political activity for which he became famous had very little do do with migrants.
Also, I think that just pulling quotes is not a good way of demonstrating the weight of this aspect of his life. There are thousands of article about him. I can find 10 quotes about Navalny's campaigns against Medvedev, or 10 quotes about the conditions of imprisonment, and it doesn't mean that those sections have to be expanded. Alaexis¿question? 22:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be more succinct regarding points where our current coverage needs to be corrected:
  • Why don't we mention "Muslim" in the description of the cockroach video?
  • Why do we say "Since 2016, Navalny deemphasized his past statements on immigration. In 2021, Alexander Verkhovskiy, head of the Moscow-based SOVA hate crimes monitor described Navalny as “a different man now”, giving the impression that he is no longer anti-immigrant? The sources above say "he has declined to renounce his past statements in numerous interviews" and "has never explicitly renounced his earlier nationalism". Sources have said he is an opportunist who jumped on the anti-immigrant band-wagon when it was popular and wanted to keep his options open about using it again if it became popular again. Anyway, we should not leave readers with the impression that he has reformed his anti-immigrant views. Either remove those two selective quotes/statements above or add a qualifying sentence. Burrobert (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The video is about gun rights and not about immigrants/militants. Al-Jazeera provides a pretty good description: In a 2007 pro-gun rights video, Navalny presents himself as a “certified nationalist” who wants to exterminate “flies and cockroaches” – while bearded Muslim men appear in cutaways. He whips out a gun and shoots an actor wearing a keffiyeh who tried to “attack” him. The video also contains a photo (0:26) of a group of people that would be identified as Chechen militants by most people in 2007 Russia. This probably led to many sources calling the attacker in the video a Muslim/Caucasian militant [23]. Of course, Caucasian militants are not immigrants. I'm open to rephrasing this passage to make it more about the video itself and less about the interpretations, provided that its weight in the article stays the same. Alaexis¿question? 08:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering the first of my points. There is no need to change the weight of the cockroach video. The only required change is to add a single word that, for whatever reason, most sources use in describing the video.
Any thoughts on the second point? Burrobert (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find Verkhovskiy's opinion particularly relevant and wouldn't object to removing it. The claim that he "deemphasised his past past statements on immigration" isn't controversial and your sources say the same thing in different words, so I would leave that. Alaexis¿question? 14:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Riding to Germany and return: What did Mr. Nawalny think about? To cover / shield from this verdorbtes "grush"?
They remove each other.
You don't need a large intellectus to access.91.183.159.198 (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2024

[edit]

Navalny has been stripped of the "prisoner of conscience" status. If this the case, then why hasn't there been a change in the article, vis-a-vis the above mentioned issue. 103.115.206.182 (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Regrettably, Amnesty folded to political pressure and reinstated his prisoner of conscience status. I believe the article used to say as much, but it looks like it has since been edited to remove any mention of the revocation/reinstatement. Need to look into this, but that's where things are right now. Brusquedandelion (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM, next offence and you get back to ANI. You are repeating the same behavior you have already been blocked once, and this behavior is not acceptable. Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there's some confusion here- I was replying to someone not aware of Amnesty's reinstatement, to indicate the fact of reinstatement. I'm not soapboxing about an irrelevant subject; perhaps you didn't see the comment I was replying to. Hope this clears up any confusion. (Also, the one time you took me to ANI had nothing to do with WP:NOTAFORUM, so I'm not sure what the common denominator is other than me, you, and Navalny, but perhaps you got me mixed up with someone else? No worries if so.) Brusquedandelion (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, Amnesty folded to political pressure is pretty clear soapboxing. No, I am not mixing you up with anybody else. Ymblanter (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly not WP:NOTAFORUM. Soapboxing might be arguable here, as you addmited in a later reply. But this is well within customary limits, people express their opinions about matters shortly and don't discuss them here so it doesn't fall within WP:NOTAFORUM. If you were to tell them about WP:SOAPBOX every time they do this "WP:SOAPBOX" would be all over every talk page. Arguably, it's not even possible to have any meaninful discussion on any talk page if you can't fall a little within soapboxing. 177.57.147.69 (talk) 09:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2024

[edit]

Add more awards information: 

   Thulani Maseko Justice Prize by the Human Rights Foundation https://hrf.org/announcing-the-2024-thulani-maseko-justice-prize-recipient/
   Dresden International Peace Prize https://www.staatsschauspiel-dresden.de/spielplan/a-z/friedenspreis-dresden-2024/
   Bambi Award for Courage https://www.burda.com/en/news/glittering-anniversary-many-surprises/
   Freedom of Speech Award by DW https://www.dw.com/en/dw-freedom-of-speech-award/t-68954695
   Free Expression Award by the Freedom Forum https://www.freedomforum.org/freeexpressionawards/past-free-expression-awards-honorees/
   Media Freedom Prize https://ludwig-erhard-gipfel.de/freiheitspreis/
   The Courage & Leadership Award by the McCain Institute https://www.mccaininstitute.org/about/courage-awards/
   Magnitsky Human Rights Award https://www.magnitskyawards.com/magnitsky-awards-2018/ Invite (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable awards. Charliehdb (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2024

[edit]

Under Alexei Navalny's "Political positions" under "Ukraine", the statement about his view on the East Slavic States should be re-added either directly or rephrased to convey the same message that he may sometimes support Ukraine and sometimes show extreme nationalist sentiments:

"In early 2012, Navalny stated on Ukrainian TV, "Russian foreign policy should be maximally directed at integration with Ukraine and Belarus… In fact, we are one nation. We should enhance integration". During the same broadcast Navalny said "No one wants to make an attempt to limit Ukraine's sovereignty"

Here are the sources that were listed previously: 

Krzysztof Nieczypor (25 February 2012). "Ukraine in "Big-Time Politics" of Alexey Navalny". Eastbook.eu. Archived from the original on 15 March 2014.
"Navalny: Integration with Belarus – Main Task for Russia". Telegraf.by. 13 February 2012. Archived from the original on 28 September 2013.

For the links, just go to the previous versions from this winter or maybe even spring. Overall, it seems quite dishonest to omit these previously stated quotes from Wikipedia to paint Navalny as anything other than quite ultranationalistic. MaximillionMax (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexei_Navalny&oldid=1245039010"