This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
"collective that stages illegal performances" -- what is "illegal performance", if there is elsewhere public places, and nobody charged against such performance. I remove "illegal" word. Also, it is relevant that charging 213/2 Criminal Code by officials is illegal, as there is no material damage, no vandalism, no health damage to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaris ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I would go further and say even "unauthorized" is POV. "Impromptu" is better, and is supported by at least one media source. 43hellokitty21 ( talk) 12:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there any more information about the band name? Is their actual name the Latin characters "P U S S Y R I O T", or is this a translation of their name in Russian and Cyrillic characters? If so, what is the original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.198.170 ( talk) 19:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that 92.13.49.9 had reversed my bold edit. Why? 92.13.49.9, if you are out there, care to explain? I think the structure of the article as it is now is faulty - it mixes different aspects as the trial and various reactions. I tried to separate the different aspects int o separate sections. If there were some infelicities or missing items - they could have been added later. But why dismiss the whole attempt summarily? I think some reason ought to be given. Thanks. Bazuz ( talk) 08:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
An editor inserted an unrelated citation to label a Pussy Riot critic as "pro-Kremlin", which seems to me WP:SYNTH; if our reliable source isn't casting his criticism in those terms, I think it's not for us to do so either (any more than it would be for us to research whether any of their supporters could be described as "anti-Kremlin" by unrelated sources). I was reverted on my first try to remove this so I thought I'd open the discussion here--do other editors see this as useful? If so, should we try to research whether anyone else referenced in the article has made pro- or anti-Putin statements in the past for consistency? My own preference would be to remove it, but if others feel strongly that it should remain, I can live with that. Khazar2 ( talk) 00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, putting my 2 cents in: N.M. is very well-known in Russia but Pro-Kremlin would be a less adequate description of him than something like 'arch-conservative'? Look up his record to see what I am talking about. He also (used to be, some would argue) a very famous and talented director - I think both his (to me invidious) politics and his (old) artistic reputation should be mentioned. What do you think? Bazuz ( talk) 09:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
may want to add this, madonna throws her lot in with the girls at a recent concert in moscow...I am far to lazy to add it myself
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120809/175089230.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.34.87.168 ( talk) 18:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that a number of users delete references to the participation of Tolokonnikova in a gang bang in 2008. This element is crucial as it shoes that what she did is only part of a row of performances which a far from being socially acceptable.
I also see that references to blasphemous words of the performance and offending remarks towards the Patriarch are deleted as well.
Unless you have any solid justification, Sayerslle, Fred Bauder and Khazar2, please do not delete my contributions. I also see that you are foreigners and the first two even do not speak Russian to be able to understand the full content! How can you make an unbiased article if you turn a blind eye to obivous facts?! It now takes me ages to include information which is obvious to a Russian speaker!
Well, just type "Война Pyssy Riot" into Google and you will instantlty get tons of sources, including tons of reliable ones, connecting Pussy Riot and Voina. [3] - this one is quite good for example. The connection between the two groups is typically drawn by critics/opponents of Pussy Riot and carefully omitted by their supporters. But there is no reason not to provide the readers of Wikipedia with notable background, and the sources (the same source [4]) note that the connection between Pussy Riot and Voina is an aggravating circumstance in the eyes of conservative public. I'd say that it is very important part of their public perception in Russia (of course the western media tried to downplay this unflattering connection) and this should be reflected in the article. GreyHood Talk 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I initially removed category 'Political repression in Russia' here. It was re-applied here with edit summary 'no reason provided for removal', which is not the case. Am happy for this issue to be debated, but can't see how such a category while a legal case is being prosecuted can be considered WP:NPOV in the Wikipedia sense. RashersTierney ( talk) 06:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The list of artists supporting Pussy Riot is starting to outstrip its sourcing; edits like this [5] don't appear to have sources at all. Perhaps today we could try to go through that list and add individual footnotes to sourced supporting artists, and remove unsourced claims of support? I believe I'm near three reverts on this article, so need to take a break myself. Khazar2 ( talk) 07:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There is some sort of protest being planned by artists participating at the Edinburgh International Festival. Probably involving the Russian consulate in Edinburgh. Meowy 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In what order do the supporters appear, surely not in alphabetical order - but why not? -- 194.95.117.68 ( talk) 14:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Not many Russians in there? Seems to be easier to jump on the bandwagon if you live somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.186.203 ( talk) 15:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Im from russia and not very good in english so i cant do good editing. But i need mention strong bias of this article, because widely shown support of this band in western world, while support or even opinions in russia are not mentioned. Even more, in article, in the part of russian public opinion there is a note that - "Russians get their information from television, and therefore perceive the event in accordance with the state's "official version". So not only dictators from Kremlin are villains, but simple people are dumb. But this "version" was created by exalted western mass media. So please anybody who can translate russian, please take a look at russian article http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE_Pussy_Riot it's very informative. For example there is citation for the subject from some public people: Vladimir Putin said: Тем не менее, я не думаю, что уж так нужно их строго судить за это. Но надеюсь, что они сами сделают какие-то выводы. Its can be translated that "he think that there is no need to judge them too strict" Chairman of the federation council Valentina Matviyenko: назвала панк-молебен в храме Христа Спасителя «возмутительным» и «безнравственным» поступком[227] и заявила, что их можно и отпустить, несмотря на всю безнравственность их поступка[227] She said that what they do is bad, but they may be released And many others. In ovetview i must say that most politics, artists, or any other public person in Russia make statement about subject and that they must be released. Girls get two years, its almost minimal period for article "hooliganism". They already sit in SIZO for 6 months, that count like 1 year in prison. 1 year to go. I agree that its too hard, but its not bloody KGB crimes! And almost everybody here, in Russia, state that they must be released but there is a court and a law. Why media is not exalted about Julian Assange pursiut? So i must tell you my english speaking friends that you get a lot more propaganda than you think and declare. Rusia just have worse PR. Big problem that you cant take even a chance to get full information for subject like this. Be careful and think for yourself, dont believe your "independed mass media"!! There is non. Read several non-independend and take a picture. 178.162.105.245 ( talk) 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
ref: 'Khazar2 .. (Undid revision 507745489 by Dgharmon`
That information is fully cited in two sources in The Guardian and one in the Boston Globe. See here [1], where it states that Maria Alyokhina is the unofficial spokeswoman for Pussy Riot. In her opening statement Tolokonnikova has this to say: "We [Pussy Riot] had no intentions to offend anyone" [2]. Now where in the article is it sourced that they are not 'alleged' members of same? Finally, in her own words and as reported on the Boston Globe, Tolokonnikova took part in the museum orgy because she ‘‘wanted to stimulate birth by making love.’’ [3]
Dgharmon ( talk) 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
(Restored section deleted by another editor) There's been a good deal of conflict over the last 3-4 days on this article on whether it's appropriate to include the fact that Tolokonnikova once participated in an orgy; this has been exacerbated by the insertion of this fact into its own subsection and even the lead section, and by the poor sourcing. But as an editor above points out, this has appeared in clearly reliable international media as well as background for NT, such as the Associated Press [12] and The Guardian [13]. It seems appropriate to me to include it in some form without giving it undue weight. Perhaps a one- or two-sentence mention in the "defendants" section, which already gives background info on each defendant? Khazar2 ( talk) 14:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Your efforts to keep the article fair-and-balanced are quite commendable, but I don't think someone who would video herself stuffing a frozen chicken up her vejay (ytvid==qoj4IfiaNuQ) is too concerned with her reputation. Dgharmon ( talk) 19:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The photos of the protest show four protestors but apparently only three were arrested. What is the explanation for this? Afterwriting ( talk) 15:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.156.185 ( talk) 18:14, 17 August 2012
The vandal who added that is obviously very ignorant because Stalin was a Communist and opposed religion. He never would have arrested someone who protested against a church! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WutWhaat ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The article currently says:
According to [15], Kasparov was not protesting. Toccata quarta ( talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Garry Kasparov try went to the court and was arrested. But Garry Kasparov many times expressed support for Pussy Riot. You can see it here: http://kasparov.ru/ (russian).
Is there any information out there as to the exact number of members and their full names? This strikes me as being pretty basic. Justinreview ( talk) 11:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
So to confirm then: There is absolutely no information out there as to who these people are? 77.102.245.14 ( talk) 21:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The quote by Alexei Kudrin that "Huge damage has been done to the country's image and attractiveness for investors" is shown in the Google caches for articles on several news sites. However, the quote has been removed from all of them in their current live versions. I actually can't verify this quote any more except from Google caches (and non-RS blogs). Can anyone find it in any Russian language sources? If so, please add a citation for the quote to the article. Thanks. Kaldari ( talk) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
When I write "slanted", I do not mean biased in any way, but this article is heavily slanted towards the prosecution of 3 members of Pussy Riot and then focuses on the international reaction to that prosecution.
What did they actually do? Why are the Russian people in favor of the trial and why do they feel the sentencing is fair? Hooliganism is a broad and vague criminal charge in Russia, from what I understand. I do not speak Russian so I cannot even try to help this article out, I can only read English news articles. I wish that there were more articles focusing on what exactly they did at the church. Did they barge in while a service was in session and play music? If so, that is obviously offensive even if you are not a church goer. I wonder why that aspect isn't covered too.
THE DUKE
Undid revision 507896583
I fail to see what this page has to do with stalinism. Countered ( talk) 21:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are people adding and deleting what they see fit from the see also? I see this as directly related to feminism. Countered ( talk) 21:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Russian sources seem to refer to the band as "Pussy Riot" (as does the band itself). I couldn't find any source for the recently added "Пусси Райот", but the Russian wiki article (titled "Pussy Riot") apparently mentions "Бунт киски" as their name translated into Russian. Unless there is a source showing that they use either of those Russian names, however, I don't think it's appropriate to use either in the article. Kaldari ( talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
A user has just deleted a large section of sourced information [19] with the edit summary "removed a large list that used twitter and facebook for much of its references". I would observe that 1) this user also deleted information sourced to groups like the BBC, etc., without explanation of any kind and 2) Twitter appears to me an accceptable reference to show the views of the Twitterer. (If need be, secondary sources repeating the tweets can be found in most cases). I would suggest that the deletion of this sourced information be reverted. Second opinion? Khazar2 ( talk) 01:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The text in question
The accused have received support from musicians such as Kate Nash, [4] Red Hot Chili Peppers, [5] Sting, [5] Peter Gabriel, [6] Cornershop, [4] Faith No More, [7] Alex Kapranos of Franz Ferdinand, [4] Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys, [4] Patti Smith, [8] The Beastie Boys, [9] Refused, Zola Jesus, [9] Die Antwoord, [9] Jarvis Cocker, [4] Pete Townshend, [4] The Joy Formidable, [4] Peaches, [7] Madonna, [10] Genesis, [11] Tegan and Sara, [12] Johnny Marr, [4] Courtney Love, [13] Iiro Rantala, [11] Propagandhi, [14] Anti-Flag, [15] Rise Against, [11] Corinne Bailey Rae, [4] Peter Hammill, [16] Kathleen Hanna, [17] Björk, [18] Paul McCartney, [19] Yoko Ono, [6] British comedian Stephen Fry, [20] Reykjavík Mayor, Jón Gnarr [21] and Warren Kinsella. [22] XantheTerra ( talk) 03:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Russia Today criticized what it called "double standards". I want this inserted, but I'm not sure where it would fit. Russian Today criticized the western reactions to the sentence and said it showed double standard, because Nabeel Rajab, a Bahraini activist was sentenced one day earlier in a similar case, but according to RT it "was not as publicized as the former". Oh, and I'm sure they can't say this about Wikipedia LOL. Opinions? Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
REMOVED - Wikipedia is not a Forum nor a place for personal Soapboxing - please use the Talk Pages only for the discussion of how Reliable Sources can be used to improve the article.
An editor is persistently including the Squids to the list of supporting artists without completing the template or including a secondary source. [20] A first reversion was made without discussion or reason. I don't want to revert a second time without discussion--what are other editors' takes on this? Khazar2 ( talk) 13:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
so your goal is to censor an entry regarding a band in support of a band who has been heavily penalized for censorship just because you have never heard of the band. i have never heard of most of those bands in the article "in support", but to remove their names is disrespect for "pussy riot". instead of calling for deletion of their contribution to this matter, i have chosen to salute their cause.
Shouldn't there be a list of members? Not just the three convicted, but the other members of the band also? -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 13:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe the information should be there.Regards, theTigerKing 16:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of this article is about the protest and trial, not about the Pussy Riot. Split need. Yug 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
A split tag was added to the article without a formal proposal here, but the proposal appears to be to split the current article into Pussy Riot (band) and Pussy Riot (trial), with a disambiguation page occupying this page. So that the discussion can move forward, I'm adding a subsection for discussion here. Khazar2 ( talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of an article shouldn't have information not in its main body. Unfortunately, a number of claims both for and against Pussy Riot are being dumped here by editors who perhaps don't have time to integrate the information properly--for example, the European Union statement. Anybody want to try reducing the lead back to a proper summary?
On a somewhat related note, why do we mention the Levada poll three times in this article? Seems like this is getting rather undue weight, unless that Levada poll is being mentioned constantly in our reliable sources. Khazar2 ( talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Still far to much in the lead. The lead should be an introduction, not 3 paragraphs of headlines and current events. 71.1.235.109 ( talk) 01:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
REMOVED. Discuss Reliable Sources to improve the article, stop using the Talk Pages as a forum!! HammerFilmFan ( talk) 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
They New York Times [23] states her age as 30 while the BBC [24] states her age as 29. XantheTerra ( talk) 19:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Since this is an article about the criminal trial of three living people, I suggest that we be strict about verifying that any info on Pussy Riot (or for that matter, the trial's judge or prosecutors) be sourced to reliable sources. This includes such things as labelling their performance as "blasphemous" independent of a reliable source (though surely this can be found) or including examples of their lyrics (part of the reason for their criminal charge) from blog sites with no obvious authority, such as freepussyriot.org. In this vein, I've removed the claim that their lyrics included "Shit, shit, the Lord's shit!" [21] until verified by an actual source. If a demonstrable number of reliable sources quote this particular lyric, though, I agree that it should be re-inserted into the article. Khazar2 ( talk) 21:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
As the article correctly states, there were 4 women that protested, but only 3 were arrested and (now) convicted. What happened to the fourth woman? This information is presently missing from the article, even though we know what occurred; she was not arrested because she was pregnant at the time. Now, I'm having a hard time finding both a link and her real name (I originally heard this information a Russian television news program), but can some other editor add it in? Thank you. ChessPlayerLev ( talk) 23:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
What is this awful variant?! Where is it from? It's just a transcription to Cyrillic script, and that's not so good.-- Distant Sun ( talk) 00:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't Pussy Riot referred to as a "band" in the lead?-- 24.90.93.13 ( talk) 01:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the section, 'Protests', please add:
In Edinburgh, Scotland, Fringe performers read trial testimony of the Pussy Riot women.
DeanFriedman ( talk) 07:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not an article about Pussy Riot. This is an article about the 2012 Pussy Riot court case. The name should be changed, as single-event celebrities should be covered under the event, not the celebrity. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus here is that the group is notable enough for their own article and should not be treated like a WP:BLP1E case. Content issues such as undue weight can be solved by normal editing. Splitting the article was proposed and gained some support, but it's outside the scope of this RM discussion. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Pussy Riot → 2012 Pussy Riot court case – This is not an article about Pussy Riot. This is an article about the 2012 Pussy Riot court case. The name should be changed, as single-event celebrities should be covered under the event, not the celebrity. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
" However, 58% of respondents expected the defendants to receive a disproportionate punishment and only 17% supported a prison term of two or more years, as was handed down [1][2]"
There is no 17% if you go to Levada Center. There are 16% who suggested this term and 33% who agreed with this term. It shows how easy Russian public opinion can be manipulated. Also the second ref goes nowhere.-- GeorgeRu ( talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
That section has been thoroughly eviscerated by an editor this morning. I tried to fix this by making the "summary" more NPOV, but it no longer represents either an adequate summary of the original article from which it is derived, or even the title of that section of the Wikipedia article. Until someone can find more sources and citations to create such a section perhaps we ought to put this on hold. Alfietucker ( talk) 09:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If we're agreed that Associated Press is a reliable source, then, it seems self-evident to me that it's useful to include a single sentence on the critical reception of the band. Pussy Riot is admittedly an odd case, as they're not really known at all for their music, but mentioning the critical reception is standard for Wikipedia articles on musicians and artists. If you discover through other reliable sources about their critical reception that the AP summary is inaccurate or disputed, we can revise accordingly; I've got no opinion on their music myself. Khazar2 ( talk) 22:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
"collective that stages illegal performances" -- what is "illegal performance", if there is elsewhere public places, and nobody charged against such performance. I remove "illegal" word. Also, it is relevant that charging 213/2 Criminal Code by officials is illegal, as there is no material damage, no vandalism, no health damage to anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanaris ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I would go further and say even "unauthorized" is POV. "Impromptu" is better, and is supported by at least one media source. 43hellokitty21 ( talk) 12:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Is there any more information about the band name? Is their actual name the Latin characters "P U S S Y R I O T", or is this a translation of their name in Russian and Cyrillic characters? If so, what is the original? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.198.170 ( talk) 19:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that 92.13.49.9 had reversed my bold edit. Why? 92.13.49.9, if you are out there, care to explain? I think the structure of the article as it is now is faulty - it mixes different aspects as the trial and various reactions. I tried to separate the different aspects int o separate sections. If there were some infelicities or missing items - they could have been added later. But why dismiss the whole attempt summarily? I think some reason ought to be given. Thanks. Bazuz ( talk) 08:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
An editor inserted an unrelated citation to label a Pussy Riot critic as "pro-Kremlin", which seems to me WP:SYNTH; if our reliable source isn't casting his criticism in those terms, I think it's not for us to do so either (any more than it would be for us to research whether any of their supporters could be described as "anti-Kremlin" by unrelated sources). I was reverted on my first try to remove this so I thought I'd open the discussion here--do other editors see this as useful? If so, should we try to research whether anyone else referenced in the article has made pro- or anti-Putin statements in the past for consistency? My own preference would be to remove it, but if others feel strongly that it should remain, I can live with that. Khazar2 ( talk) 00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
By the way, putting my 2 cents in: N.M. is very well-known in Russia but Pro-Kremlin would be a less adequate description of him than something like 'arch-conservative'? Look up his record to see what I am talking about. He also (used to be, some would argue) a very famous and talented director - I think both his (to me invidious) politics and his (old) artistic reputation should be mentioned. What do you think? Bazuz ( talk) 09:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
may want to add this, madonna throws her lot in with the girls at a recent concert in moscow...I am far to lazy to add it myself
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20120809/175089230.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.34.87.168 ( talk) 18:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that a number of users delete references to the participation of Tolokonnikova in a gang bang in 2008. This element is crucial as it shoes that what she did is only part of a row of performances which a far from being socially acceptable.
I also see that references to blasphemous words of the performance and offending remarks towards the Patriarch are deleted as well.
Unless you have any solid justification, Sayerslle, Fred Bauder and Khazar2, please do not delete my contributions. I also see that you are foreigners and the first two even do not speak Russian to be able to understand the full content! How can you make an unbiased article if you turn a blind eye to obivous facts?! It now takes me ages to include information which is obvious to a Russian speaker!
Well, just type "Война Pyssy Riot" into Google and you will instantlty get tons of sources, including tons of reliable ones, connecting Pussy Riot and Voina. [3] - this one is quite good for example. The connection between the two groups is typically drawn by critics/opponents of Pussy Riot and carefully omitted by their supporters. But there is no reason not to provide the readers of Wikipedia with notable background, and the sources (the same source [4]) note that the connection between Pussy Riot and Voina is an aggravating circumstance in the eyes of conservative public. I'd say that it is very important part of their public perception in Russia (of course the western media tried to downplay this unflattering connection) and this should be reflected in the article. GreyHood Talk 15:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I initially removed category 'Political repression in Russia' here. It was re-applied here with edit summary 'no reason provided for removal', which is not the case. Am happy for this issue to be debated, but can't see how such a category while a legal case is being prosecuted can be considered WP:NPOV in the Wikipedia sense. RashersTierney ( talk) 06:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
The list of artists supporting Pussy Riot is starting to outstrip its sourcing; edits like this [5] don't appear to have sources at all. Perhaps today we could try to go through that list and add individual footnotes to sourced supporting artists, and remove unsourced claims of support? I believe I'm near three reverts on this article, so need to take a break myself. Khazar2 ( talk) 07:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There is some sort of protest being planned by artists participating at the Edinburgh International Festival. Probably involving the Russian consulate in Edinburgh. Meowy 20:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In what order do the supporters appear, surely not in alphabetical order - but why not? -- 194.95.117.68 ( talk) 14:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Not many Russians in there? Seems to be easier to jump on the bandwagon if you live somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.186.203 ( talk) 15:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Im from russia and not very good in english so i cant do good editing. But i need mention strong bias of this article, because widely shown support of this band in western world, while support or even opinions in russia are not mentioned. Even more, in article, in the part of russian public opinion there is a note that - "Russians get their information from television, and therefore perceive the event in accordance with the state's "official version". So not only dictators from Kremlin are villains, but simple people are dumb. But this "version" was created by exalted western mass media. So please anybody who can translate russian, please take a look at russian article http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE_Pussy_Riot it's very informative. For example there is citation for the subject from some public people: Vladimir Putin said: Тем не менее, я не думаю, что уж так нужно их строго судить за это. Но надеюсь, что они сами сделают какие-то выводы. Its can be translated that "he think that there is no need to judge them too strict" Chairman of the federation council Valentina Matviyenko: назвала панк-молебен в храме Христа Спасителя «возмутительным» и «безнравственным» поступком[227] и заявила, что их можно и отпустить, несмотря на всю безнравственность их поступка[227] She said that what they do is bad, but they may be released And many others. In ovetview i must say that most politics, artists, or any other public person in Russia make statement about subject and that they must be released. Girls get two years, its almost minimal period for article "hooliganism". They already sit in SIZO for 6 months, that count like 1 year in prison. 1 year to go. I agree that its too hard, but its not bloody KGB crimes! And almost everybody here, in Russia, state that they must be released but there is a court and a law. Why media is not exalted about Julian Assange pursiut? So i must tell you my english speaking friends that you get a lot more propaganda than you think and declare. Rusia just have worse PR. Big problem that you cant take even a chance to get full information for subject like this. Be careful and think for yourself, dont believe your "independed mass media"!! There is non. Read several non-independend and take a picture. 178.162.105.245 ( talk) 23:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
ref: 'Khazar2 .. (Undid revision 507745489 by Dgharmon`
That information is fully cited in two sources in The Guardian and one in the Boston Globe. See here [1], where it states that Maria Alyokhina is the unofficial spokeswoman for Pussy Riot. In her opening statement Tolokonnikova has this to say: "We [Pussy Riot] had no intentions to offend anyone" [2]. Now where in the article is it sourced that they are not 'alleged' members of same? Finally, in her own words and as reported on the Boston Globe, Tolokonnikova took part in the museum orgy because she ‘‘wanted to stimulate birth by making love.’’ [3]
Dgharmon ( talk) 22:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
(Restored section deleted by another editor) There's been a good deal of conflict over the last 3-4 days on this article on whether it's appropriate to include the fact that Tolokonnikova once participated in an orgy; this has been exacerbated by the insertion of this fact into its own subsection and even the lead section, and by the poor sourcing. But as an editor above points out, this has appeared in clearly reliable international media as well as background for NT, such as the Associated Press [12] and The Guardian [13]. It seems appropriate to me to include it in some form without giving it undue weight. Perhaps a one- or two-sentence mention in the "defendants" section, which already gives background info on each defendant? Khazar2 ( talk) 14:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Your efforts to keep the article fair-and-balanced are quite commendable, but I don't think someone who would video herself stuffing a frozen chicken up her vejay (ytvid==qoj4IfiaNuQ) is too concerned with her reputation. Dgharmon ( talk) 19:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The photos of the protest show four protestors but apparently only three were arrested. What is the explanation for this? Afterwriting ( talk) 15:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.156.185 ( talk) 18:14, 17 August 2012
The vandal who added that is obviously very ignorant because Stalin was a Communist and opposed religion. He never would have arrested someone who protested against a church! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WutWhaat ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The article currently says:
According to [15], Kasparov was not protesting. Toccata quarta ( talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Garry Kasparov try went to the court and was arrested. But Garry Kasparov many times expressed support for Pussy Riot. You can see it here: http://kasparov.ru/ (russian).
Is there any information out there as to the exact number of members and their full names? This strikes me as being pretty basic. Justinreview ( talk) 11:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
So to confirm then: There is absolutely no information out there as to who these people are? 77.102.245.14 ( talk) 21:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The quote by Alexei Kudrin that "Huge damage has been done to the country's image and attractiveness for investors" is shown in the Google caches for articles on several news sites. However, the quote has been removed from all of them in their current live versions. I actually can't verify this quote any more except from Google caches (and non-RS blogs). Can anyone find it in any Russian language sources? If so, please add a citation for the quote to the article. Thanks. Kaldari ( talk) 19:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
When I write "slanted", I do not mean biased in any way, but this article is heavily slanted towards the prosecution of 3 members of Pussy Riot and then focuses on the international reaction to that prosecution.
What did they actually do? Why are the Russian people in favor of the trial and why do they feel the sentencing is fair? Hooliganism is a broad and vague criminal charge in Russia, from what I understand. I do not speak Russian so I cannot even try to help this article out, I can only read English news articles. I wish that there were more articles focusing on what exactly they did at the church. Did they barge in while a service was in session and play music? If so, that is obviously offensive even if you are not a church goer. I wonder why that aspect isn't covered too.
THE DUKE
Undid revision 507896583
I fail to see what this page has to do with stalinism. Countered ( talk) 21:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are people adding and deleting what they see fit from the see also? I see this as directly related to feminism. Countered ( talk) 21:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Russian sources seem to refer to the band as "Pussy Riot" (as does the band itself). I couldn't find any source for the recently added "Пусси Райот", but the Russian wiki article (titled "Pussy Riot") apparently mentions "Бунт киски" as their name translated into Russian. Unless there is a source showing that they use either of those Russian names, however, I don't think it's appropriate to use either in the article. Kaldari ( talk) 22:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
A user has just deleted a large section of sourced information [19] with the edit summary "removed a large list that used twitter and facebook for much of its references". I would observe that 1) this user also deleted information sourced to groups like the BBC, etc., without explanation of any kind and 2) Twitter appears to me an accceptable reference to show the views of the Twitterer. (If need be, secondary sources repeating the tweets can be found in most cases). I would suggest that the deletion of this sourced information be reverted. Second opinion? Khazar2 ( talk) 01:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The text in question
The accused have received support from musicians such as Kate Nash, [4] Red Hot Chili Peppers, [5] Sting, [5] Peter Gabriel, [6] Cornershop, [4] Faith No More, [7] Alex Kapranos of Franz Ferdinand, [4] Neil Tennant of the Pet Shop Boys, [4] Patti Smith, [8] The Beastie Boys, [9] Refused, Zola Jesus, [9] Die Antwoord, [9] Jarvis Cocker, [4] Pete Townshend, [4] The Joy Formidable, [4] Peaches, [7] Madonna, [10] Genesis, [11] Tegan and Sara, [12] Johnny Marr, [4] Courtney Love, [13] Iiro Rantala, [11] Propagandhi, [14] Anti-Flag, [15] Rise Against, [11] Corinne Bailey Rae, [4] Peter Hammill, [16] Kathleen Hanna, [17] Björk, [18] Paul McCartney, [19] Yoko Ono, [6] British comedian Stephen Fry, [20] Reykjavík Mayor, Jón Gnarr [21] and Warren Kinsella. [22] XantheTerra ( talk) 03:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Russia Today criticized what it called "double standards". I want this inserted, but I'm not sure where it would fit. Russian Today criticized the western reactions to the sentence and said it showed double standard, because Nabeel Rajab, a Bahraini activist was sentenced one day earlier in a similar case, but according to RT it "was not as publicized as the former". Oh, and I'm sure they can't say this about Wikipedia LOL. Opinions? Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
REMOVED - Wikipedia is not a Forum nor a place for personal Soapboxing - please use the Talk Pages only for the discussion of how Reliable Sources can be used to improve the article.
An editor is persistently including the Squids to the list of supporting artists without completing the template or including a secondary source. [20] A first reversion was made without discussion or reason. I don't want to revert a second time without discussion--what are other editors' takes on this? Khazar2 ( talk) 13:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
so your goal is to censor an entry regarding a band in support of a band who has been heavily penalized for censorship just because you have never heard of the band. i have never heard of most of those bands in the article "in support", but to remove their names is disrespect for "pussy riot". instead of calling for deletion of their contribution to this matter, i have chosen to salute their cause.
Shouldn't there be a list of members? Not just the three convicted, but the other members of the band also? -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 13:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe the information should be there.Regards, theTigerKing 16:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of this article is about the protest and trial, not about the Pussy Riot. Split need. Yug 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
A split tag was added to the article without a formal proposal here, but the proposal appears to be to split the current article into Pussy Riot (band) and Pussy Riot (trial), with a disambiguation page occupying this page. So that the discussion can move forward, I'm adding a subsection for discussion here. Khazar2 ( talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, the lead section of an article shouldn't have information not in its main body. Unfortunately, a number of claims both for and against Pussy Riot are being dumped here by editors who perhaps don't have time to integrate the information properly--for example, the European Union statement. Anybody want to try reducing the lead back to a proper summary?
On a somewhat related note, why do we mention the Levada poll three times in this article? Seems like this is getting rather undue weight, unless that Levada poll is being mentioned constantly in our reliable sources. Khazar2 ( talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Still far to much in the lead. The lead should be an introduction, not 3 paragraphs of headlines and current events. 71.1.235.109 ( talk) 01:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
REMOVED. Discuss Reliable Sources to improve the article, stop using the Talk Pages as a forum!! HammerFilmFan ( talk) 15:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
They New York Times [23] states her age as 30 while the BBC [24] states her age as 29. XantheTerra ( talk) 19:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Since this is an article about the criminal trial of three living people, I suggest that we be strict about verifying that any info on Pussy Riot (or for that matter, the trial's judge or prosecutors) be sourced to reliable sources. This includes such things as labelling their performance as "blasphemous" independent of a reliable source (though surely this can be found) or including examples of their lyrics (part of the reason for their criminal charge) from blog sites with no obvious authority, such as freepussyriot.org. In this vein, I've removed the claim that their lyrics included "Shit, shit, the Lord's shit!" [21] until verified by an actual source. If a demonstrable number of reliable sources quote this particular lyric, though, I agree that it should be re-inserted into the article. Khazar2 ( talk) 21:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
As the article correctly states, there were 4 women that protested, but only 3 were arrested and (now) convicted. What happened to the fourth woman? This information is presently missing from the article, even though we know what occurred; she was not arrested because she was pregnant at the time. Now, I'm having a hard time finding both a link and her real name (I originally heard this information a Russian television news program), but can some other editor add it in? Thank you. ChessPlayerLev ( talk) 23:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
What is this awful variant?! Where is it from? It's just a transcription to Cyrillic script, and that's not so good.-- Distant Sun ( talk) 00:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't Pussy Riot referred to as a "band" in the lead?-- 24.90.93.13 ( talk) 01:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the section, 'Protests', please add:
In Edinburgh, Scotland, Fringe performers read trial testimony of the Pussy Riot women.
DeanFriedman ( talk) 07:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not an article about Pussy Riot. This is an article about the 2012 Pussy Riot court case. The name should be changed, as single-event celebrities should be covered under the event, not the celebrity. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus here is that the group is notable enough for their own article and should not be treated like a WP:BLP1E case. Content issues such as undue weight can be solved by normal editing. Splitting the article was proposed and gained some support, but it's outside the scope of this RM discussion. Jafeluv ( talk) 09:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Pussy Riot → 2012 Pussy Riot court case – This is not an article about Pussy Riot. This is an article about the 2012 Pussy Riot court case. The name should be changed, as single-event celebrities should be covered under the event, not the celebrity. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 12:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
" However, 58% of respondents expected the defendants to receive a disproportionate punishment and only 17% supported a prison term of two or more years, as was handed down [1][2]"
There is no 17% if you go to Levada Center. There are 16% who suggested this term and 33% who agreed with this term. It shows how easy Russian public opinion can be manipulated. Also the second ref goes nowhere.-- GeorgeRu ( talk) 23:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
That section has been thoroughly eviscerated by an editor this morning. I tried to fix this by making the "summary" more NPOV, but it no longer represents either an adequate summary of the original article from which it is derived, or even the title of that section of the Wikipedia article. Until someone can find more sources and citations to create such a section perhaps we ought to put this on hold. Alfietucker ( talk) 09:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If we're agreed that Associated Press is a reliable source, then, it seems self-evident to me that it's useful to include a single sentence on the critical reception of the band. Pussy Riot is admittedly an odd case, as they're not really known at all for their music, but mentioning the critical reception is standard for Wikipedia articles on musicians and artists. If you discover through other reliable sources about their critical reception that the AP summary is inaccurate or disputed, we can revise accordingly; I've got no opinion on their music myself. Khazar2 ( talk) 22:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help)