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 |
I came to Wikipedia in order to know what the Pussy Riot did and sang in the Cathedral: I can't find anything! Where is the text of their song? -- 2.40.136.192 ( talk) 06:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
oh please! they put the video on youtube! what copyright are you talking about? -- 2.40.150.131 ( talk) 05:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
We cannot simply provide a verbatim copy of the song for copyright reason, but we can quote the most important lines and possibly offer an external to link to the full text. Whether video song they publsihed on youtube contains more text (of the song) than they actually managed to utter in the church, might be difficult to judge/research since most reporting (that I#ve seen at least) doesn't make that distinction. One could also ask anyhow whether that (potential) difference really matters for anything.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 09:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I wish my English would be good enough to make this change myself, but as it's not, I can only ask anybody to add a section to the original article with elaboration on the actual song's text. There is an important context here: the song that was posted on YouTube (and that has started the outrage) was about Putin mostly. On the other hand, during the trial the word "Putin" was implicitly banned (there is only one or two mentions of this name in the sentence and the judge was hardly avoiding mentioning it) and the whole process was heavily biased to religion questions. This alone shows that "religious" charges are only a justification. 178.178.16.217 ( talk) 20:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Dmitry
What's the best way to treat the RadFem Hub article on pussy riot? http://radicalhub.com/2012/08/20/pussy-riot-whose-freedom-whose-riot/ It's clearly a polemic piece rather than factual ("anally raped?" come on, there's no evidence they're being raped, or even that actual penetration took place).
RadFem Hub are on the radical fringe of the feminist movement, but still this is an article that stimulates debate, so maybe it's ok to link to it. However it's still a self-published source, essentially a blog. Maybe it would be better to include it in a different section, such as "opinions" or "reactions", where it can be linked to alongside uncritical cheerleading Guardian editorials, Christians who think they should have been "forgiven", Christians who think they should have got 7 years, Russian supremacists who think they should have got the death penalty etc. Thoughts on this anyone? MaxBrowne ( talk) 05:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed a completely unsubstantiated claim that a Church robbery in Russia was related/inspired by Pussy Riot. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion far too much space has been given to unimportant stuff like lists of western supporters, quotes from people with no real connection to the case and details of murders that had absolutely nothing to do with Pussy Riot.
There is very little detail on the trial. What claims did the prosecution make? How did the defence respond to them? What witnesses were called? What witnesses were disqualified? What was their testimony? What did the court base its conclusions on? Was it really a "show trial"? Were the sentences in line with international practice for similar offences? We need more of this and less of the "Grotty Hotpants from the Electric Underwear Experience said the sentences were really bad..." MaxBrowne ( talk) 14:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
In Private Eye magazine (No. 1321; 24 Aug - 6 Sept 2012), mention is made on page 5 to a member of Pussy Riot (or part of the art collective called Voina) entering a supermarket, choosing a chicken and inserting it into her private place. Does anyone have a video - we'd like to see how shocking this is, and to avoid the supermarket. 79.70.224.217 ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)PussyRotUK 79.70.224.217 ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The article adds a who? link after stating that some called the Pussy Riot trial a "Show Trial". I'd like to propose an article to cite: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/08/the-non-trial-of-the-century.html does a good job of explaining the whole farce.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.233.234 ( talk) 16:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
First of all - the original video is not http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALS92big4TY .... on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCasuaAczKY&feature=plcp Second - why people delite our link from New York Pussy Riot supporters http://PussyRiotNY.com ?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brbnews ( talk) 05:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It's frustrating that an anonymous editor keeps on insisting that the title "Punk prayer" was a "western media invention" despite all the evidence that the title was used by the band itself.
Here's the video on their youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCasuaAczKY. The title is
Панк-молебен "Богородица, Путина прогони" Pussy Riot в Храме
which translates as "Punk prayer "Mother of God, Drive Putin away" Pussy Riot in the Cathedral
Here it is again on their blog: http://pussy-riot.livejournal.com/12442.html
ПАНК-МОЛЕБЕН "БОГОРОДИЦА, ПУТИНА ПРОГОНИ" В ХРАМЕ ХРИСТА СПАСИТЕЛЯ
this time they had "Cathedral of Christ the Saviour" (presumably not enough characters for this full title on youtube).
2 sources that clearly refute this repeated assertion that "punk prayer" is a "western media invention". Can we have an end to this nonsense now please? MaxBrowne ( talk) 02:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be ok to link to opinion pieces such as that of Paul Craig Roberts under "International Reaction", as per WP:RSOPINION. It's not as if Roberts is just some random blogger. Seems strange that you can link to Kate Nash or Courtney Love's opinion but not Roberts. MaxBrowne ( talk) 17:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Just watched RT exclusive interview with Putin and Putin said that one of the members of Pussy Riot in the past has staged a protest with effigies calling for Jews, gays, and foreigners to get out of Moscow.
Putin said: "First, in case you never heard of it, a couple of years ago one of the band’s members put up three effigies in one of Moscow’s big supermarkets, with a sign saying that Jews, gays and migrant workers should be driven out of Moscow."
Is this a fact? Why haven't I heard of this anywhere else before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "Group sex is better than ordinary. Because like in any team work can take a break." These are the words of Vladimir Putin, in the first interview since his inauguration in May, the Kremlin, published the day before, and a triple Russian President was answering questions from reporters at the Museum in Moscow, where they have orgies 2008th members organized feminists punk group Pussy Riot. "Sex in public is their business, said President Putin, according to the Croatian daily 24 hours, people have a right to do what they want as long as this does not violate the law. Note: President Putin has distanced himself and said that thinking about group sex is not the personal, but from the experiences of people who participated in it. 78.2.79.68 ( talk) 15:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Granted Pussy Riot are not a "band" in the conventional sense. We don't know much about the musical side of Pussy Riot, such as when or where the tracks were recorded, who wrote them, who played on them. However Tolokonnikova does have a musical background (her mother is a music teacher and she learned piano), so it's quite possible that Tolokonnikova was involved in the recordings in some capacity. Equally, they can be described as political activists or performance artists who use punk rock music as their medium of expression. They have released an "album" of sorts called "Kill the Sexist", available for download. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0
Some have also disputed their "feminist" credentials (e.g. radfemhub). It's true that they didn't mention feminism in their defence during the trial, but that's probably because feminism is stigmatised in Russia. How about this for the description then:
"Pussy Riot is a Russian political activist collective who use punk rock music to protest against Vladimir Putin and to promote feminism and LGBT issues".
Feel free to improve on this description.... I want something that all points of view can agree on. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What's for special category for this band? " Category:Pussy Riot" contains in Russian, Macedonian and Veps Wikipedies... maybe it's good to create this one in English Wikipedia too?-- Distant Sun ( talk) 18:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
My rollback of Finalizer was done accidentally while trying to check my watchlist on my phone, and should not imply this his/her edit was in anyway counterproductive. If you have no clue what I'm talking about please ignore this. a13ean ( talk) 00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Several sections in this article are too long and don't form a coherent whole. This is not helped by edits such as this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pussy_Riot&diff=514408617&oldid=514401294
which really don't add any new or useful information but just clutter up the article. See WP:Article_Creep. ( talk) 01:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The article is not presented neutral. It sides with the part of the population who is against their condemnation but does not present the opposite view. If their protest had taken place in a public place, then it would have been a simple problem of freedom of speech. However, regardless of the links between the government and the Russian church, organizing this protest in a church was definitely not a political act but an antireligious act. This raises difficult questions besides the legal sentencing. Would the exterior world have reacted in the same way, if this had taken place in a mosque or a sinagogue? Look at the reaction of the muslim world for an insignificant trailer on the internet. The action has also had unwanted influence on the public opinion in Russia. If an act which is offensive to the Russian Orthodox Church is justified by high profile people like Garry Kasparov, does that not raise an antisemitic sentiment in Russia. People should be free to have any religious beliefs and to have their places of worship, where they are not disturbed by people with different views. The article does not show that by demonstrating for their freedom Pussy Riot has also trampled on the freedom of other people. The article shows the outrage of numerous people against the harsh sentence. It does not show the outrage of the 42% of the Russians (which means about 60 million people) against the form of protest. And it also does not show why all the people who have protested against their sentencing, have not also expressed support for the freedom of religion. Unless these views are presented, the article is not neutral. Afil ( talk) 22:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to start a second thread here, but in working through the article's references today I've been noticing several phrases, sentences, and even paragraphs that have been cut-and-pasted from their sources, such as [1], [2], [3] and [4]. If anybody else checking over this article notices any more sections like this, please remove them per WP:COPYVIO and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Cheers! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
A large amount of this section appears to be primarily sourced to Pussy Riot's YouTube videos and some LiveJournal entries. I've attempted to trim it down to only what can be sourced to reliable sources, per WP:RS. Beyond accuracy concerns, I just think it's better that we focus on the performances and songs that reliable sources judged worth discussing, rather than the band's promotional channels. If anyone objects, though, you're welcome to revert me and we can discuss it; the edit can be found here. [6] -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! Since this is a controversial and highly trafficked article, removing unsourced info and leaving a note here that I had done so seemed like a reasonable step. But since you've requested it, I'm fine with tagging for now and giving you and the IP another few days to find sources for this info.
You may be right about the louderthanwar website, as I'm not familiar with it myself. The three red flags for me were that it 1) was an online publication, 2) lacked a Wikipedia article, 3) had an author whose previous publication credits were primarily "various fanzines and websites". Based on what you say, it's probably a strong enough source for the sampling claim itself, but I still think using it as a source for "raises copyright concerns" as you did requires a more clearly reliable source. It's also giving the copyright issue
undue weight if out of the tens of thousands of sources on Pussy Riot, this author is the only one we know of to even mention this issue. When raising legal issues for BLPs, I think it's better to err on the side of caution. Are there other sources that have raised the copyright issue?
As for the rest of the sourcing in this section, as I said above, the problem is two-fold. First, it's not just PussyRiot's self-published material we're relying on here. It's also sources like random bloggers:
[8]. Does Zyalt have a reputation as a reliable source I'm unaware of? And again, some of the information in here doesn't appear to be sourced at all.
Second, if Pussy Riot themselves are the only source that's written about these performances, why include them in our article at all? Right now the "Songs and Videos" section appears roughly equal in length to the section on "Arrest and Prosecution", and is longer than the sections "Action in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour" or "International Support". Hundreds upon hundreds of reliable sources have been written on different acts of support for Pussy Riot--Madonna's statements, RHCP's statements, etc., etc. Why are we giving so much more article weight to an event like the "luxury store district" protest, which appears to have zero reliable sources? My own view is that we should follow the reliable sources in deciding how much article space each topic gets, and I believe this is backed up by Wikipedia policy. I'm up for hearing counterarguments, though--let me know what you think. --
Khazar2 (
talk)
15:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Talk page guidelines suggest archiving a page when it exceeds ten main topics; we're in the mid-fifties. Would anyone object to my setting up an autoarchiver for this page? Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I cut the following two sentences from the article for now, since they don't appear to have a source and are rather trivial:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)) declined to comment, saying he wanted to find out what happened first. Samutsevich also expressed surprise at the letter, which was also signed, in prison, by Alyokhina.
citation neededThe last two sentences appear to be an attempt to make Tolokonnikova's statement seem false. (The non-neutral phrasing "icily disowned her own husband" didn't help either). I'm all for putting in a sentence about Verzilov's response if we can find a source, though. I've got Little Miss Khazar calling me just now but I'll look for this in a minute. =) -- Khazar2 ( talk) 16:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Simon Jenkins' op-ed piece for The Guardian is a lame Tu Quoque piece. In my opinion it is devoid of intellectual merit and doesn't deserve a mention in wiki. MaxBrowne ( talk) 04:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
She's wearing the same white, red and blue tunic as Samutsevich was wearing when she got dragged away. Maybe Samutsevich? http://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/Pussy-Riot-er-blitt-storre-enn-oss-Det-er-blitt-en-bevegelse-7029905.html http://eng-pussy-riot.livejournal.com/26309.html MaxBrowne ( talk) 06:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"The new approach chosen by Khrunova closed the way to release that the group tried to follow before by ignoring the court’s proceedings and questioning its legitimacy."
I don't understand this statement. Since when has refusing to recognise a court's legitimacy been an effective defence tactic in any court anywhere in the world? MaxBrowne ( talk) 04:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed the attempted insertion of a new section at the article here [12] for a few reasons. First, it's a pretty obvious attempt to insert the editor's own opinion in a prominent way; this accusation gets a full new subsection (misleadingly titled "interesting facts") instead of being integrated with other material. Second, the sourcing appears to me very weak. I could be wrong, but Prawda.org.ua appears to be an imitation site of Ukrainian Pravda, not the real Pravda (note the spelling), and the second source [13] doesn't appear to support the editor's claims at all. Third, even if we did find a single column or two putting forward this conspiracy theory (that the many organizations, artists, and organizations supporting the group are all plotting together to harm Russia), I'm still skeptical that it's worth including at such length. I suppose we can see what the source turns out to be.
I've removed this material for now but as always would welcome more eyes. Cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 14:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
No citations. Lede claims " Pussy Riot..Founded in August 2011, it consists of approximately 12 members..." suggesting a fixed roster with no reference to the open roster policy. Devilishlyhandsome ( talk) 22:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Information that I consider relevant was removed from the article. Suka does mean "bitch" in the literal sense of a female dog, but as in insult it's not used the same way as in English. The Bitch Wars article explains its usage quite well. In the context "Patriarch Gundayev believes in Putin, better in God, suka, to believe", this implies that by openly supporting Putin, Gundayev has become a suka, betraying God. I have restored the information. MaxBrowne ( talk) 01:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Reading through the "Criticism" section of this article, it appears to me a bit redundant with the "Reactions" section, and I'd like to propose integrating the two.
First of all, it's well-established by this point in the article that Pussy Riot has been criticized by some religious believers both in Russia and abroad. (The Voina stuff is more helpful, but could also be integrated into the "Public Opinion in Russia section".)
Second, the selection of critics in the section seems rather indiscriminate. I don't see a good reason to give an entire paragraph to a commentator on "Ancient Faith Radio Podcast" when we give only one word in this article to people like Sting, whose support for Pussy Riot was widely covered in reliable secondary sources, a half-sentence to the case's prosecutors, and only one sentence to Putin himself. I would suggest simply deleting this and the op-ed column from American Thinker as rather trivial compared to views from much more notable publications and figures whose views we don't have space to detail here. (One possible alternative: Creating a
spin-off article dedicated only to
Reception of Pussy Riot, along the lines of
Reception of WikiLeaks. This would allow us to have much more detailed reactions from people involved, though a minor podcast still might not make the cut.)
WP:CRITICISM offers some good suggestions on this, I think: "The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopedic."
Would this re-arrangement/deletion be acceptable to others? --
Khazar2 (
talk)
14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Putin, the prosecutors, the judge, the Russian church, the Russian public, an MP from United Russia, and the three Western commentators cited at the end of the sentence "Some press raised concerns that a place of worship is not an appropriate venue for any form of protest, and that their cause could not morally justify such an action". But in any case, you've got this a bit backwards. You don't decide what information you want in the article and then go looking for one individual talking on a tiny, unknown broadcast in the Western US that happens to agree with you. You look at the major commentators, see what they're saying, and proportionately summarize it in the article. If you think some major commentators are making this point, can you give some examples? Then we can just include a quotation from one of them, and cut the podcast and small online magazine column. I'm fine with including significant criticism, but these are much less significant commentators than some of the information we're already leaving out. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 20:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Translate of "Путин зассал" (Putin Zassal) as "Putin Pissed Himself" is incorrect. "Зассал" is slang word which means afraid smth. 95.105.44.196 ( talk) 16:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. The request made in regard to this discussion at the Third Opinion project has been removed for having more than two editors involved and for the lack of any recent discussion on the matter. If you still wish dispute resolution on this matter I would suggest going to either Dispute Resolution noticeboard or a request for comments, but the lack of recent discussion might interfere with such a request. An alternative might be to pick one of the Russian to English volunteer translators to offer up an third opinion, but before doing so I'd suggest that you work out an agreement about how that is going to work here first. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
In the "Connection with Voina" section I see this:
"...the Timiriazev State Biology Museum in Moscow..."
But Russian State Agricultural University, Kliment Timiryazev, Timiryazev and -- most importantly -- http://www.timacad.ru/en/ all spell it "Timiryazev". -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the machine translation "How to become your own Pussy Riot in the world of show business" is incorrect.
как = "How";
стали = 3rd person plural past tense, perfective aspect of стать, "to become" (with instrumental case);
своими plural, instrumental case of свой, a possessive pronoun meaning "one's" or "one's own", referring to the subjective of the sentence;
в = "in" (with prepositional case);
мировом prepositional case of the adjective мировой, "worldwide", "global"
шоу-бизнесе = "show business", English loan word (prepositional case).
The tricky part is translating стать своим, literally "to become one's own". I found this link for
стать своим человеком, literally "to become one's own person", which it translates as "get on the inside". свой in some contexts can mean one's family, kin, circle of friends or peer group, so I think "стать своим" means to "get in with" a group. So I'm going to go for "How Pussy Riot became insiders in world show business". Russian speakers are welcome to improve on this translation.
MaxBrowne (
talk)
06:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Some recent developments to be aware of: Samutsevich has asked to testify in a court case which could see the punk prayer video declared "extremist" and banned in Russia. Meanwhile Pussy Riot's lawyers Feygin, Polozov and Volkova have severed all ties; seems they agree that their continued involvement with Pussy Riot is doing more harm than good. According to this article Tolokonnikova has hired Irina Khrunova, the lawyer who got Samutsevich off on a suspended sentence. I haven't written any of this up in the article yet, might wait till more details emerge. RAPSI is an excellent source of Pussy Riot information. MaxBrowne ( talk) 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Why there is no mention that Pussy Riot members have Jewish ancestry and that their actions rise antisemitism?
If they have some Russian ancestry does their trial constitute a case of Russophobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.13.107.35 ( talk) 10:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) 16:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll review this soon.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't use scare quotes in describing the extremism trial, because it is arguably not NPOV, but I was sorely tempted. Western media generally do use scare quotes when referring to Russian anti-extremism laws, since by western standards the Russian courts have some strange ideas about what qualifies as "extremist". On the other hand not using scare quotes could be seen as accepting the Russian definition of "extremism", and therefore not NPOV. Maybe more detail on Russian anti-extremism law is needed. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to be edited by members of the band or their friends and not by people interested in reflecting facts of reality in an encyclopaedia. The extension is exaggeratedly large compared to the impact of the "performance" of the band in today's world. Many other more important events are described in smaller volumes of text. The whole article requires a neutral edition and reduction. GabEuro ( talk) 01:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Pussy Riot receive considerable funding and support by the National Endowment For Democracy, why isn't this mentioned? Puffster ( talk) 09:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Or Christabel or Adela for that matter? Not really clear which one is being referred to in the Vice interview, but my preference is for Emmeline (the mother). MaxBrowne ( talk) 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Where is the discussion about the pseudo-psychological analysis read by the judge at trial? Along with the fact that it took three tries to get a psychologist who would say what the government wanted? Along with the fact that psychologists inside and outside Russia protested? 71.163.114.49 ( talk) 12:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
What's the point anyway? Frankly I wouldn't mind if the laundry list of pop stars who once signed some petition or said something vaguely supporting Pussy Riot disappeared from the article. It really isn't that important if One Direction support Pussy Riot. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
If you want to know about Voina's actions go to the Voina article. Tolokonnikova and Samutsevich had some involvement in Voina but were not the primary organizers, nor is this assertion supported by any of the sources. Detailed descriptions of Voina stunts in which they had a peripheral role are relevant to the Voina article but not to the Pussy Riot article. MaxBrowne ( talk) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Which is it? "Founded in August 2011, it has a variable membership of approximately 11 women ranging in age from about 20 to 33" OR "It comprises around 12 performers and about 15 people who handle the technical work of shooting and editing their videos, which are posted on the Internet." Does anybody know, or can this article be edited to merge these two sets of figures? Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 08:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Can we actually use the word members for this group? Would not participants be more accurate? GeorgeLouis ( talk) 02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
These kinds of edits are unacceptable. Stop. Enigma msg 22:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina are now listed as "Former Members" of the group in the Background Information sidebar. I assume this change was made in light of the anonymous letter from Pussy Riot sent to the press, disavowing their membership. I think this edit was made too hastily; the membership disavowal has been publicly refuted by Tolokonnikova, and the source of the letter has not been verified. According to Tolokonnikova, one of the aliases used to sign the letter was her former alias, which indicates the letter was not produced internally, but by uninformed observers of the group. (see this link in the new york times: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/two-founding-members-of-pussy-riot-respond-to-criticism) Discussion of this edit doesn't appear in the Talk page. Is there any reason why this edit shouldn't be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmbe ( talk • contribs)
Please don't remove material as "unsourced" just because no number appears at the end of a sentence. Sourcing in this article is generally very good, and if the source isn't given in the lead it can usually be found in the body. Even in the case of unsourced material, a citation needed tag is preferable to deleting, unless the material is contentious or potentially in violation of WP:BLP. MaxBrowne ( talk) 03:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that User:MaxBrowne reverted my carefully wrought changes, all of which I made after carefully perusing the sources cited. I deliberately was quite careful to indicate the reason for each change in the Edit summaries. User:MaxBrowne did a blanket reversion, which effectively destroyed several hours' of intense work; I put it all back and would ask any interested editor, including the aforementioned, to kindly provide any individual objections on the talk page before doing any further reverts or, at least, to provide individual Edit summaries when making changes. As for the question posed — "How is a government website not a RS?" — well, I cite here:
Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.
Nevertheless, I really don't care that much, so if any editor wants to reinsert that particular passage, he or she can certainly do that, and I would not object. As for the other changes, each one should be examined carefully to see if it improves or harms the article. It is my opinion that each of my changes was a good one, but of course WP:consensus rules. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I prefer this to tagging the article. Most likely the claim in the blog post linked to by Gui le Roi originated from wikipedia. The Reuters article by Thomas Peter is interesting and is cited elsewhere in the article; removing the link broke that citation. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This category doesn't belongs to this article.-- Dizang Changjie ( talk) 19:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm a bit confused as to why this section exists when their feminist ideology are already covered under the 'Ideology' section. There are also parts of the section which seem out of place given the tone of the rest of the article or which are clearly an opinion, e.g. "Pussy Riot are important to the feminist movement and showcase that post-feminism has not been achieved.", "The media tends to overlook the meaning behind Pussy Riot's feminism; the cultural context of it is vastly different to that of Western feminism.","This appeal from popular culture has been mostly due to the group's feminist notions.". I think this section either needs to merged with the 'Ideology' section or removed.
I don't really have an issue with the section existing in and of itself, but yes, there is a pretty blatant neutral point of view problem and a clear case of editorializing. The section needs to be rewritten in a neutral manner with citations to back up the assertions. Aoa8212 ( talk) 17:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pussy Riot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Pussy Riot Editors,
May I have permission to add a new section about Pussy Riot's new album and music videos in English? They made quite a splash with songs and videos about Donald Trump, the policing of womens' bodies, etc. It is significant because this is their first work in English, aimed toward the American audience.
Let me know if I can add this...thanks.
RachelWex RachelWex 22:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
Requesting the addition of Nadya's new website for Pussy Riot's musical endeavors.
www.wearepussyriot.com
Yes, Nadia confirmed on the broadcast that this is her site. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.56.36.90 (
talk)
20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
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 |
I came to Wikipedia in order to know what the Pussy Riot did and sang in the Cathedral: I can't find anything! Where is the text of their song? -- 2.40.136.192 ( talk) 06:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
oh please! they put the video on youtube! what copyright are you talking about? -- 2.40.150.131 ( talk) 05:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
We cannot simply provide a verbatim copy of the song for copyright reason, but we can quote the most important lines and possibly offer an external to link to the full text. Whether video song they publsihed on youtube contains more text (of the song) than they actually managed to utter in the church, might be difficult to judge/research since most reporting (that I#ve seen at least) doesn't make that distinction. One could also ask anyhow whether that (potential) difference really matters for anything.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 09:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I wish my English would be good enough to make this change myself, but as it's not, I can only ask anybody to add a section to the original article with elaboration on the actual song's text. There is an important context here: the song that was posted on YouTube (and that has started the outrage) was about Putin mostly. On the other hand, during the trial the word "Putin" was implicitly banned (there is only one or two mentions of this name in the sentence and the judge was hardly avoiding mentioning it) and the whole process was heavily biased to religion questions. This alone shows that "religious" charges are only a justification. 178.178.16.217 ( talk) 20:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Dmitry
What's the best way to treat the RadFem Hub article on pussy riot? http://radicalhub.com/2012/08/20/pussy-riot-whose-freedom-whose-riot/ It's clearly a polemic piece rather than factual ("anally raped?" come on, there's no evidence they're being raped, or even that actual penetration took place).
RadFem Hub are on the radical fringe of the feminist movement, but still this is an article that stimulates debate, so maybe it's ok to link to it. However it's still a self-published source, essentially a blog. Maybe it would be better to include it in a different section, such as "opinions" or "reactions", where it can be linked to alongside uncritical cheerleading Guardian editorials, Christians who think they should have been "forgiven", Christians who think they should have got 7 years, Russian supremacists who think they should have got the death penalty etc. Thoughts on this anyone? MaxBrowne ( talk) 05:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I removed a completely unsubstantiated claim that a Church robbery in Russia was related/inspired by Pussy Riot. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion far too much space has been given to unimportant stuff like lists of western supporters, quotes from people with no real connection to the case and details of murders that had absolutely nothing to do with Pussy Riot.
There is very little detail on the trial. What claims did the prosecution make? How did the defence respond to them? What witnesses were called? What witnesses were disqualified? What was their testimony? What did the court base its conclusions on? Was it really a "show trial"? Were the sentences in line with international practice for similar offences? We need more of this and less of the "Grotty Hotpants from the Electric Underwear Experience said the sentences were really bad..." MaxBrowne ( talk) 14:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
In Private Eye magazine (No. 1321; 24 Aug - 6 Sept 2012), mention is made on page 5 to a member of Pussy Riot (or part of the art collective called Voina) entering a supermarket, choosing a chicken and inserting it into her private place. Does anyone have a video - we'd like to see how shocking this is, and to avoid the supermarket. 79.70.224.217 ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)PussyRotUK 79.70.224.217 ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The article adds a who? link after stating that some called the Pussy Riot trial a "Show Trial". I'd like to propose an article to cite: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2012/08/the-non-trial-of-the-century.html does a good job of explaining the whole farce.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.233.234 ( talk) 16:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
First of all - the original video is not http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALS92big4TY .... on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCasuaAczKY&feature=plcp Second - why people delite our link from New York Pussy Riot supporters http://PussyRiotNY.com ?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brbnews ( talk) 05:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
It's frustrating that an anonymous editor keeps on insisting that the title "Punk prayer" was a "western media invention" despite all the evidence that the title was used by the band itself.
Here's the video on their youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCasuaAczKY. The title is
Панк-молебен "Богородица, Путина прогони" Pussy Riot в Храме
which translates as "Punk prayer "Mother of God, Drive Putin away" Pussy Riot in the Cathedral
Here it is again on their blog: http://pussy-riot.livejournal.com/12442.html
ПАНК-МОЛЕБЕН "БОГОРОДИЦА, ПУТИНА ПРОГОНИ" В ХРАМЕ ХРИСТА СПАСИТЕЛЯ
this time they had "Cathedral of Christ the Saviour" (presumably not enough characters for this full title on youtube).
2 sources that clearly refute this repeated assertion that "punk prayer" is a "western media invention". Can we have an end to this nonsense now please? MaxBrowne ( talk) 02:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be ok to link to opinion pieces such as that of Paul Craig Roberts under "International Reaction", as per WP:RSOPINION. It's not as if Roberts is just some random blogger. Seems strange that you can link to Kate Nash or Courtney Love's opinion but not Roberts. MaxBrowne ( talk) 17:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Just watched RT exclusive interview with Putin and Putin said that one of the members of Pussy Riot in the past has staged a protest with effigies calling for Jews, gays, and foreigners to get out of Moscow.
Putin said: "First, in case you never heard of it, a couple of years ago one of the band’s members put up three effigies in one of Moscow’s big supermarkets, with a sign saying that Jews, gays and migrant workers should be driven out of Moscow."
Is this a fact? Why haven't I heard of this anywhere else before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "Group sex is better than ordinary. Because like in any team work can take a break." These are the words of Vladimir Putin, in the first interview since his inauguration in May, the Kremlin, published the day before, and a triple Russian President was answering questions from reporters at the Museum in Moscow, where they have orgies 2008th members organized feminists punk group Pussy Riot. "Sex in public is their business, said President Putin, according to the Croatian daily 24 hours, people have a right to do what they want as long as this does not violate the law. Note: President Putin has distanced himself and said that thinking about group sex is not the personal, but from the experiences of people who participated in it. 78.2.79.68 ( talk) 15:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Granted Pussy Riot are not a "band" in the conventional sense. We don't know much about the musical side of Pussy Riot, such as when or where the tracks were recorded, who wrote them, who played on them. However Tolokonnikova does have a musical background (her mother is a music teacher and she learned piano), so it's quite possible that Tolokonnikova was involved in the recordings in some capacity. Equally, they can be described as political activists or performance artists who use punk rock music as their medium of expression. They have released an "album" of sorts called "Kill the Sexist", available for download. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0
Some have also disputed their "feminist" credentials (e.g. radfemhub). It's true that they didn't mention feminism in their defence during the trial, but that's probably because feminism is stigmatised in Russia. How about this for the description then:
"Pussy Riot is a Russian political activist collective who use punk rock music to protest against Vladimir Putin and to promote feminism and LGBT issues".
Feel free to improve on this description.... I want something that all points of view can agree on. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
What's for special category for this band? " Category:Pussy Riot" contains in Russian, Macedonian and Veps Wikipedies... maybe it's good to create this one in English Wikipedia too?-- Distant Sun ( talk) 18:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
My rollback of Finalizer was done accidentally while trying to check my watchlist on my phone, and should not imply this his/her edit was in anyway counterproductive. If you have no clue what I'm talking about please ignore this. a13ean ( talk) 00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Several sections in this article are too long and don't form a coherent whole. This is not helped by edits such as this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pussy_Riot&diff=514408617&oldid=514401294
which really don't add any new or useful information but just clutter up the article. See WP:Article_Creep. ( talk) 01:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The article is not presented neutral. It sides with the part of the population who is against their condemnation but does not present the opposite view. If their protest had taken place in a public place, then it would have been a simple problem of freedom of speech. However, regardless of the links between the government and the Russian church, organizing this protest in a church was definitely not a political act but an antireligious act. This raises difficult questions besides the legal sentencing. Would the exterior world have reacted in the same way, if this had taken place in a mosque or a sinagogue? Look at the reaction of the muslim world for an insignificant trailer on the internet. The action has also had unwanted influence on the public opinion in Russia. If an act which is offensive to the Russian Orthodox Church is justified by high profile people like Garry Kasparov, does that not raise an antisemitic sentiment in Russia. People should be free to have any religious beliefs and to have their places of worship, where they are not disturbed by people with different views. The article does not show that by demonstrating for their freedom Pussy Riot has also trampled on the freedom of other people. The article shows the outrage of numerous people against the harsh sentence. It does not show the outrage of the 42% of the Russians (which means about 60 million people) against the form of protest. And it also does not show why all the people who have protested against their sentencing, have not also expressed support for the freedom of religion. Unless these views are presented, the article is not neutral. Afil ( talk) 22:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to start a second thread here, but in working through the article's references today I've been noticing several phrases, sentences, and even paragraphs that have been cut-and-pasted from their sources, such as [1], [2], [3] and [4]. If anybody else checking over this article notices any more sections like this, please remove them per WP:COPYVIO and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Cheers! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
A large amount of this section appears to be primarily sourced to Pussy Riot's YouTube videos and some LiveJournal entries. I've attempted to trim it down to only what can be sourced to reliable sources, per WP:RS. Beyond accuracy concerns, I just think it's better that we focus on the performances and songs that reliable sources judged worth discussing, rather than the band's promotional channels. If anyone objects, though, you're welcome to revert me and we can discuss it; the edit can be found here. [6] -- Khazar2 ( talk) 11:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! Since this is a controversial and highly trafficked article, removing unsourced info and leaving a note here that I had done so seemed like a reasonable step. But since you've requested it, I'm fine with tagging for now and giving you and the IP another few days to find sources for this info.
You may be right about the louderthanwar website, as I'm not familiar with it myself. The three red flags for me were that it 1) was an online publication, 2) lacked a Wikipedia article, 3) had an author whose previous publication credits were primarily "various fanzines and websites". Based on what you say, it's probably a strong enough source for the sampling claim itself, but I still think using it as a source for "raises copyright concerns" as you did requires a more clearly reliable source. It's also giving the copyright issue
undue weight if out of the tens of thousands of sources on Pussy Riot, this author is the only one we know of to even mention this issue. When raising legal issues for BLPs, I think it's better to err on the side of caution. Are there other sources that have raised the copyright issue?
As for the rest of the sourcing in this section, as I said above, the problem is two-fold. First, it's not just PussyRiot's self-published material we're relying on here. It's also sources like random bloggers:
[8]. Does Zyalt have a reputation as a reliable source I'm unaware of? And again, some of the information in here doesn't appear to be sourced at all.
Second, if Pussy Riot themselves are the only source that's written about these performances, why include them in our article at all? Right now the "Songs and Videos" section appears roughly equal in length to the section on "Arrest and Prosecution", and is longer than the sections "Action in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour" or "International Support". Hundreds upon hundreds of reliable sources have been written on different acts of support for Pussy Riot--Madonna's statements, RHCP's statements, etc., etc. Why are we giving so much more article weight to an event like the "luxury store district" protest, which appears to have zero reliable sources? My own view is that we should follow the reliable sources in deciding how much article space each topic gets, and I believe this is backed up by Wikipedia policy. I'm up for hearing counterarguments, though--let me know what you think. --
Khazar2 (
talk)
15:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Talk page guidelines suggest archiving a page when it exceeds ten main topics; we're in the mid-fifties. Would anyone object to my setting up an autoarchiver for this page? Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I cut the following two sentences from the article for now, since they don't appear to have a source and are rather trivial:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)) declined to comment, saying he wanted to find out what happened first. Samutsevich also expressed surprise at the letter, which was also signed, in prison, by Alyokhina.
citation neededThe last two sentences appear to be an attempt to make Tolokonnikova's statement seem false. (The non-neutral phrasing "icily disowned her own husband" didn't help either). I'm all for putting in a sentence about Verzilov's response if we can find a source, though. I've got Little Miss Khazar calling me just now but I'll look for this in a minute. =) -- Khazar2 ( talk) 16:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Simon Jenkins' op-ed piece for The Guardian is a lame Tu Quoque piece. In my opinion it is devoid of intellectual merit and doesn't deserve a mention in wiki. MaxBrowne ( talk) 04:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
She's wearing the same white, red and blue tunic as Samutsevich was wearing when she got dragged away. Maybe Samutsevich? http://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/Pussy-Riot-er-blitt-storre-enn-oss-Det-er-blitt-en-bevegelse-7029905.html http://eng-pussy-riot.livejournal.com/26309.html MaxBrowne ( talk) 06:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
"The new approach chosen by Khrunova closed the way to release that the group tried to follow before by ignoring the court’s proceedings and questioning its legitimacy."
I don't understand this statement. Since when has refusing to recognise a court's legitimacy been an effective defence tactic in any court anywhere in the world? MaxBrowne ( talk) 04:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed the attempted insertion of a new section at the article here [12] for a few reasons. First, it's a pretty obvious attempt to insert the editor's own opinion in a prominent way; this accusation gets a full new subsection (misleadingly titled "interesting facts") instead of being integrated with other material. Second, the sourcing appears to me very weak. I could be wrong, but Prawda.org.ua appears to be an imitation site of Ukrainian Pravda, not the real Pravda (note the spelling), and the second source [13] doesn't appear to support the editor's claims at all. Third, even if we did find a single column or two putting forward this conspiracy theory (that the many organizations, artists, and organizations supporting the group are all plotting together to harm Russia), I'm still skeptical that it's worth including at such length. I suppose we can see what the source turns out to be.
I've removed this material for now but as always would welcome more eyes. Cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 14:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
No citations. Lede claims " Pussy Riot..Founded in August 2011, it consists of approximately 12 members..." suggesting a fixed roster with no reference to the open roster policy. Devilishlyhandsome ( talk) 22:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Information that I consider relevant was removed from the article. Suka does mean "bitch" in the literal sense of a female dog, but as in insult it's not used the same way as in English. The Bitch Wars article explains its usage quite well. In the context "Patriarch Gundayev believes in Putin, better in God, suka, to believe", this implies that by openly supporting Putin, Gundayev has become a suka, betraying God. I have restored the information. MaxBrowne ( talk) 01:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Reading through the "Criticism" section of this article, it appears to me a bit redundant with the "Reactions" section, and I'd like to propose integrating the two.
First of all, it's well-established by this point in the article that Pussy Riot has been criticized by some religious believers both in Russia and abroad. (The Voina stuff is more helpful, but could also be integrated into the "Public Opinion in Russia section".)
Second, the selection of critics in the section seems rather indiscriminate. I don't see a good reason to give an entire paragraph to a commentator on "Ancient Faith Radio Podcast" when we give only one word in this article to people like Sting, whose support for Pussy Riot was widely covered in reliable secondary sources, a half-sentence to the case's prosecutors, and only one sentence to Putin himself. I would suggest simply deleting this and the op-ed column from American Thinker as rather trivial compared to views from much more notable publications and figures whose views we don't have space to detail here. (One possible alternative: Creating a
spin-off article dedicated only to
Reception of Pussy Riot, along the lines of
Reception of WikiLeaks. This would allow us to have much more detailed reactions from people involved, though a minor podcast still might not make the cut.)
WP:CRITICISM offers some good suggestions on this, I think: "The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopedic."
Would this re-arrangement/deletion be acceptable to others? --
Khazar2 (
talk)
14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Putin, the prosecutors, the judge, the Russian church, the Russian public, an MP from United Russia, and the three Western commentators cited at the end of the sentence "Some press raised concerns that a place of worship is not an appropriate venue for any form of protest, and that their cause could not morally justify such an action". But in any case, you've got this a bit backwards. You don't decide what information you want in the article and then go looking for one individual talking on a tiny, unknown broadcast in the Western US that happens to agree with you. You look at the major commentators, see what they're saying, and proportionately summarize it in the article. If you think some major commentators are making this point, can you give some examples? Then we can just include a quotation from one of them, and cut the podcast and small online magazine column. I'm fine with including significant criticism, but these are much less significant commentators than some of the information we're already leaving out. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 20:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Translate of "Путин зассал" (Putin Zassal) as "Putin Pissed Himself" is incorrect. "Зассал" is slang word which means afraid smth. 95.105.44.196 ( talk) 16:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. The request made in regard to this discussion at the Third Opinion project has been removed for having more than two editors involved and for the lack of any recent discussion on the matter. If you still wish dispute resolution on this matter I would suggest going to either Dispute Resolution noticeboard or a request for comments, but the lack of recent discussion might interfere with such a request. An alternative might be to pick one of the Russian to English volunteer translators to offer up an third opinion, but before doing so I'd suggest that you work out an agreement about how that is going to work here first. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
In the "Connection with Voina" section I see this:
"...the Timiriazev State Biology Museum in Moscow..."
But Russian State Agricultural University, Kliment Timiryazev, Timiryazev and -- most importantly -- http://www.timacad.ru/en/ all spell it "Timiryazev". -- Guy Macon ( talk) 01:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the machine translation "How to become your own Pussy Riot in the world of show business" is incorrect.
как = "How";
стали = 3rd person plural past tense, perfective aspect of стать, "to become" (with instrumental case);
своими plural, instrumental case of свой, a possessive pronoun meaning "one's" or "one's own", referring to the subjective of the sentence;
в = "in" (with prepositional case);
мировом prepositional case of the adjective мировой, "worldwide", "global"
шоу-бизнесе = "show business", English loan word (prepositional case).
The tricky part is translating стать своим, literally "to become one's own". I found this link for
стать своим человеком, literally "to become one's own person", which it translates as "get on the inside". свой in some contexts can mean one's family, kin, circle of friends or peer group, so I think "стать своим" means to "get in with" a group. So I'm going to go for "How Pussy Riot became insiders in world show business". Russian speakers are welcome to improve on this translation.
MaxBrowne (
talk)
06:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Some recent developments to be aware of: Samutsevich has asked to testify in a court case which could see the punk prayer video declared "extremist" and banned in Russia. Meanwhile Pussy Riot's lawyers Feygin, Polozov and Volkova have severed all ties; seems they agree that their continued involvement with Pussy Riot is doing more harm than good. According to this article Tolokonnikova has hired Irina Khrunova, the lawyer who got Samutsevich off on a suspended sentence. I haven't written any of this up in the article yet, might wait till more details emerge. RAPSI is an excellent source of Pussy Riot information. MaxBrowne ( talk) 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Why there is no mention that Pussy Riot members have Jewish ancestry and that their actions rise antisemitism?
If they have some Russian ancestry does their trial constitute a case of Russophobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.13.107.35 ( talk) 10:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) 16:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll review this soon.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't use scare quotes in describing the extremism trial, because it is arguably not NPOV, but I was sorely tempted. Western media generally do use scare quotes when referring to Russian anti-extremism laws, since by western standards the Russian courts have some strange ideas about what qualifies as "extremist". On the other hand not using scare quotes could be seen as accepting the Russian definition of "extremism", and therefore not NPOV. Maybe more detail on Russian anti-extremism law is needed. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
This article seems to be edited by members of the band or their friends and not by people interested in reflecting facts of reality in an encyclopaedia. The extension is exaggeratedly large compared to the impact of the "performance" of the band in today's world. Many other more important events are described in smaller volumes of text. The whole article requires a neutral edition and reduction. GabEuro ( talk) 01:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Pussy Riot receive considerable funding and support by the National Endowment For Democracy, why isn't this mentioned? Puffster ( talk) 09:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Or Christabel or Adela for that matter? Not really clear which one is being referred to in the Vice interview, but my preference is for Emmeline (the mother). MaxBrowne ( talk) 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Where is the discussion about the pseudo-psychological analysis read by the judge at trial? Along with the fact that it took three tries to get a psychologist who would say what the government wanted? Along with the fact that psychologists inside and outside Russia protested? 71.163.114.49 ( talk) 12:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
What's the point anyway? Frankly I wouldn't mind if the laundry list of pop stars who once signed some petition or said something vaguely supporting Pussy Riot disappeared from the article. It really isn't that important if One Direction support Pussy Riot. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
If you want to know about Voina's actions go to the Voina article. Tolokonnikova and Samutsevich had some involvement in Voina but were not the primary organizers, nor is this assertion supported by any of the sources. Detailed descriptions of Voina stunts in which they had a peripheral role are relevant to the Voina article but not to the Pussy Riot article. MaxBrowne ( talk) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Which is it? "Founded in August 2011, it has a variable membership of approximately 11 women ranging in age from about 20 to 33" OR "It comprises around 12 performers and about 15 people who handle the technical work of shooting and editing their videos, which are posted on the Internet." Does anybody know, or can this article be edited to merge these two sets of figures? Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 08:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Can we actually use the word members for this group? Would not participants be more accurate? GeorgeLouis ( talk) 02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
These kinds of edits are unacceptable. Stop. Enigma msg 22:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina are now listed as "Former Members" of the group in the Background Information sidebar. I assume this change was made in light of the anonymous letter from Pussy Riot sent to the press, disavowing their membership. I think this edit was made too hastily; the membership disavowal has been publicly refuted by Tolokonnikova, and the source of the letter has not been verified. According to Tolokonnikova, one of the aliases used to sign the letter was her former alias, which indicates the letter was not produced internally, but by uninformed observers of the group. (see this link in the new york times: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/two-founding-members-of-pussy-riot-respond-to-criticism) Discussion of this edit doesn't appear in the Talk page. Is there any reason why this edit shouldn't be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmbe ( talk • contribs)
Please don't remove material as "unsourced" just because no number appears at the end of a sentence. Sourcing in this article is generally very good, and if the source isn't given in the lead it can usually be found in the body. Even in the case of unsourced material, a citation needed tag is preferable to deleting, unless the material is contentious or potentially in violation of WP:BLP. MaxBrowne ( talk) 03:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I am sorry that User:MaxBrowne reverted my carefully wrought changes, all of which I made after carefully perusing the sources cited. I deliberately was quite careful to indicate the reason for each change in the Edit summaries. User:MaxBrowne did a blanket reversion, which effectively destroyed several hours' of intense work; I put it all back and would ask any interested editor, including the aforementioned, to kindly provide any individual objections on the talk page before doing any further reverts or, at least, to provide individual Edit summaries when making changes. As for the question posed — "How is a government website not a RS?" — well, I cite here:
Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.
Nevertheless, I really don't care that much, so if any editor wants to reinsert that particular passage, he or she can certainly do that, and I would not object. As for the other changes, each one should be examined carefully to see if it improves or harms the article. It is my opinion that each of my changes was a good one, but of course WP:consensus rules. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I think I prefer this to tagging the article. Most likely the claim in the blog post linked to by Gui le Roi originated from wikipedia. The Reuters article by Thomas Peter is interesting and is cited elsewhere in the article; removing the link broke that citation. MaxBrowne ( talk) 11:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This category doesn't belongs to this article.-- Dizang Changjie ( talk) 19:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm a bit confused as to why this section exists when their feminist ideology are already covered under the 'Ideology' section. There are also parts of the section which seem out of place given the tone of the rest of the article or which are clearly an opinion, e.g. "Pussy Riot are important to the feminist movement and showcase that post-feminism has not been achieved.", "The media tends to overlook the meaning behind Pussy Riot's feminism; the cultural context of it is vastly different to that of Western feminism.","This appeal from popular culture has been mostly due to the group's feminist notions.". I think this section either needs to merged with the 'Ideology' section or removed.
I don't really have an issue with the section existing in and of itself, but yes, there is a pretty blatant neutral point of view problem and a clear case of editorializing. The section needs to be rewritten in a neutral manner with citations to back up the assertions. Aoa8212 ( talk) 17:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pussy Riot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 20:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Pussy Riot Editors,
May I have permission to add a new section about Pussy Riot's new album and music videos in English? They made quite a splash with songs and videos about Donald Trump, the policing of womens' bodies, etc. It is significant because this is their first work in English, aimed toward the American audience.
Let me know if I can add this...thanks.
RachelWex RachelWex 22:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
Requesting the addition of Nadya's new website for Pussy Riot's musical endeavors.
www.wearepussyriot.com
Yes, Nadia confirmed on the broadcast that this is her site. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
93.56.36.90 (
talk)
20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)