Talk:Marina Ovsyannikova/Archive 1

Archive 1

March 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi, HansClumsy. I am confused why you deleted my request for this page to be deleted without discussing it. Please explain - Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 20:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging user Ymblanter here as well. There wasn't an explanation to the removal of the deletion, so I'm confused why I shouldn't be able to re-add here - Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 20:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We are not required to provide an explanation. Please read WP:PROD. Ymblanter (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I see, my apologies. Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 20:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Special times require special actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C8:9743:E100:B4DB:6AE1:814B:ECE4 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Please don't delete this page. At the very least, don't delete it NOW. If it truly turns out to be worthy of deleting, we will soon know. Evangeline (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any reason to delete such a well referenced article.

Agreed, the article is well-referenced and is relevant to current events. As such, I also agree that it should not be deleted. Avereo (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I also think that it should not be deleted.

This article is relevant to current events and assisted me in learning more and confirming information posted elsewhere was correct. 74.137.224.73 (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The main argument against it is it's "speedy" creation, but that is invalid when it's so well referenced with historical information Kennedy ^(talk) 03:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I think another main point against the page's deletion was that she hadn't had a wikipage about her before her noble event, meaning that she wouldn't have fit the Wiki standards under WP:BIO1E - Réunion (stylised) - (talk to me) 04:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

As of today, this woman is an important historical figure. Why delete the page? Evan R. Murphy (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. This is a well referenced page and the woman will be in history books for standing up against the propaganda machine from Moscow. This will be an important moment in history, and by deleting pages like this, by deleting moments like this from written history, you help Putin erase his resistance. Like there never was any resistance. So I strongly resist the deletion of this page. Deleting this page is denying the truth. Seishonagon3 (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I vote to keep this well-sourced article. Per WP:1E, she is notable because she is the primary actor in a notable event. Channel 1 is a tightly controlled propaganda machine for the Kremlin, and the newscaster is one that Putin likes to watch. These make the event notable because the protest happened live on one of the Kremlin-controlled TV stations. Websurfer2 (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete discussion is over here folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marina_Ovsyannikova

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sleeper account (?) - user:Pahanda - removing information and reference

User:Pahanda has just made his/her second edit in two and a half years. The edit removed sourced information. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Peace-necklace (with the colors of Ukraine and Russia)

Photograph from court appearance on March 15, show her wearing her "peace necklace". Has media spelled that out yet? 89.8.146.21 (talk) 15:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. And it's covered in the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have not found a source that talks about her wearing that necklace to court. Neither have I seen sources say that she has been nominated for Nobel Peace Prize. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well here is the photo of her in court clearly showing the necklace. I doubt she has been nominated for the NPP. Where has that come from? Lard Almighty (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Timing

I'm sure this will come out in reporting, but in terms of what time this event happened, oldest clip I see on twitter right now is from 9:45pm Moscow time (14 March 2022).[1] (Translation: "Live, Channel One. An unknown girl ran out with a poster "No war" and stood behind Ekaterina Andreeva")--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Just adding to my note, what I can glean from the Russian version of the Vremya article (the show on which this happened) is that the show normally airs at 21:00 (9pm) Moscow time. Tweets from yesterday also note that start time[2][3]). At least two tweets within 30 minutes of the event say it happened at 21:35. This tweet from 21:50 on 14 March "This one was on the Time program at 21-35?!" (Google translate).[4] This tweet from 22:00 also says it happened at 21:35.[5]

I see some people on twitter claiming this Wikipedia page was created BEFORE the broadcast.[6]. This is incorrect, Ymblanter created this page at 19:35 UTC, which is 22:35 Moscow time, or one hour after the event happened. This may seem lightning fast, but it is not uncommon for Wikipedia editors to respond that fast to major current events.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have seen it retwitted in this feed about 10 times, searched for reliable sources and created a stub. Given my credentials - I am among 200 most active English Wikipedia editors and I have been elected administrator almost 10 years ago - it is ridiculous to state that I am a Kremlin agent. Moreover, if I were a Kremlin agent, it would have been very stupid for me to get caught by creating an article about a future event. Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing those facts. Of course those theories are absurd. There's another spurious claim that Russian TV is on a "10 minute delay" to avoid something like this being broadcast so the whole event had to be planned.[7] Needless to say, there's no reliable sources that say Channel One Russia operates on a delay, its just made up on the fly, and there's at least one twitter response claiming to debunk it.[8]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I have seen some statements, but they are based on the premise that all Russians are evil, and therefore this could not have happened by definition. They are unsurprisingly being spread by Ukrainians and by US right wing idiots. I suggest we ignore them. We do have reliable sources saying the broadcast was live.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Is this the same Marina Ovsyannikova as is on IMDB?

I want to make sure that this is not a conflation. There is this record on IMDB:

• https://www.imdb.com/name/nm5683172/

I cannot tell if this is the same person. It may even be that more than one person is identified here. At bottom is a listing for Self - Russian television employee (2022). I am thinking that the actress first active in 1999 may be different from the 2020 & 2022 listings. Is there someone familiar with Russian TV who can comment? I have hesitated adding this to Wikidata until confirmed. Peaceray (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It was in the article and was later removed. Given she is 44 now, it is very likely that all records are hers, but I do not see any reliable sources to report them at the moment. Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Veracity

Conspiracy theories flying around on social media that this is an info-op. Some verification that it was broadcast live in Russia would be useful. Christiaan (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Not an info-op, but thanks to broadcast delay most Russians haven't seen it anyway. Sure, a great passing lane from ages of working in the heard of Russian government propaganda machine to a political asylum somewhere Europe (probably France). Birdofpreyru (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This woman deserves a nobel peace price, but still, it is notable due to one event and probably should be deleted.

What an inspiration Marina Ovsyannikova is! Amazing woman! But she is notable for one event and article should be deleted. See WP:EVENT. Cinadon36 07:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. For now it's an overwhelming keep. That may change in the future of course, but for now there is no point in raising this over and over again. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

So...I now noticed deleting the article has been discussed. Sorry for bringing this up again. I was using my phone and discussions were collapsed. Cinadon36 07:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Notability

So, this removes any final doubts about Wikipedia being used as a political tool: pages with much bigger interest have been removed, on the basis of being not notable. But as it can be seen here, the choice is made on a political basis. So be it. --Oakwood (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There is room for debate about notability going forward, with the possibility of renominating this for deletion, but this meta discussion about the political biases of Wikipedia does no good. Not everything is a conspiracy. Best wishes, Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Who talks about conspiracy? I am talking about political bias. Oakwood (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that WP:RECENTISM may well apply here. I think that for now this current event needs to be addressed. Whether or not this will continue to be notable or not depends on future events. Today will not be the time to determine this, but when enough time has passed. Put it on your calendar for a future discussion. Peaceray (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Amen --2003:C8:9743:E100:B0C7:2747:5C77:FE1A (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I see it this way. Strictly speaking the article was created a bit too early partially on problematic sources. However by now there has been quite significant coverage in "reliable media" and it seems highly likely to become (and remain) an iconic moment of Russian antiwar protest, so it makes sense to keep it for now (despite its problematic start) and revisit the issue months or years down the line (with further coverage available) to decide whether it is appropriate to keep a standalone article or whether the content should be merged into other larger overview articles around the Ukrainian war. As I said before, I feel strongly reminded of the tank man article, the notability and appropriateness of which was never questioned and seems largely accepted.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I object this interpretation. The first source I added to the article is a WP:RS by Wikipedia standards. It is not in English, because Russian opposition media for obvious reasons took the first step at reporting, but it is no no way a problematic source. I can not really agree with the notion that I created an article based on problematic sources. Ymblanter (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I was referring to social media sources that had been used and which were disputed by some (in the discussion). But I didn't do a full analysis of all early myself, hence mea cupla if I misrepresented the first verson of the article due to that. However for the early sources there is not only the reliability question but also the notability one, meaning if only an oppositional news outlet reports on some incident, then this usually does not not pass the notability threshold yet. Anyhow my main point was that by now notability is arguable and imho is likely to remain so and in that sense I don't agree with Oakwood's assessment the keep decision being political at all.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

British English?

I have changed the spelling of program to programme. Typically these types of articles are written in British English because Britain has proximity to Ukraine and the conflict. See 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Solipsism 101 (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I can not see why the rest of the article should be in British English. Wikipedia is not purely a British-English project. 89.8.146.21 (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I am well aware that this is not a British Wikipedia. Solipsism 101 (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

unusual

I know so much crap that is filled in my homewiki DEwiki constantly. Now i'm a bit surprised such blunder can stay in ENwiki with much broader audience. I'm unable to explain more than i did. --Itu (talk) 06:53, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Patronymic name

I don't see a source mentioning the patronymic name (neither in WP.ru or in WD). That's why I removed it. Please add back this name only if you can provide a source. --Rießler (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)