This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Valeriya Novodvorskaya article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A highly biased text that selectively cites unreliable Russian sources has been removed. A repeated BLP violation. Biophys ( talk) 03:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Novodvorskaya made the following statement.
Так же, как меня совершенно не ужасает неприятность, приключившаяся с Хиросимой и Нагасаки. Зато смотрите, какая из Японии получилась конфетка. Просто "сникерс". Семерка в Токио заседает, парламент либеральный имеется.
This is sourced to her own political party website at http://ds.ru/vnstat.htm; so it can't be claimed this is not a reliable source for a quote of hers.
She made the following statement.
Апартеид - нормальная вещь. ЮАР еще увидит, какой строй будет установлен коренным большинством, развлекающимся поджогами, убийствами, насилием. Мало не покажется...
Again, sourced to precisely the same website as the Hiroshima statement
She made the following statement
Если бы США напали на Россию, для нас это было бы хорошо. Для России лучше быть штатом США. Но я думаю, что мы американцам не нужны. Поэтому нам надо готовиться к войне с тупостью, деградацией и реставрацией советских порядков.
That is sourced to Komsomolskaya Pravda, http://www.kp.ru/daily/23852.4/63196/ which is a reliable source.
She made the following states:
Л. ГУЛЬКО: Шамиль Басаев, согласитесь, не ангел с крылышками, не мягкий и пушистый.
В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Шамиль Басаев кончил очень плохо, он кончил Бесланом, но он был нормальным человеком, мы его сделали террористом.
Л. ГУЛЬКО: Что же мы, мы-то здесь причем?
В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Уничтожая Чечню столько лет подряд, мы сделали демократа Шамиля Басаева…
Л. ГУЛЬКО: Демократа?
В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Да, в начале он был демократом, он, между прочим, у Белого дома стоял в 91 году, защищал российскую демократию.
Л. ГУЛЬКО: Я первый раз от вас слышу, что он стоял у Белого дома.
В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Это все демократы знают, что он стоял у Белого дома, что чеченцы отказались прийти на помощь Хасбулатову в 93-м году и защищали Ельцина. Шамиль Басаев в своей президентской программе, когда он конкурировал с Масхадовым, выступал как абсолютный западник, предлагал сделать армию по американскому образцу…
She made this statement on Echo Moskvy (one of Biophys' fave sources), and is sourced, again, to her own political party website at http://www.ds.ru/echo2008.htm
So the question is, did she or did she not make these statements? If these sources are unreliable, then I would expect the following statement to be removed from the article: "Novodvorskaya is openly critical of Russian government policies. [2], including Chechen Wars, domestic policies of Vladimir Putin, and the rebirth of Soviet propaganda in Russia [3][4] [5]" -- as these are sourced to exactly the same sources as her other statements. If it is out of context, then provide the context, because from where I am sitting, she made these statements of her own free will, and has put the statements on her own party website for all to see. So how can there be BLP? -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It tells:
Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects... Our articles must not serve to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.
Please respect the policy. What you are doing is mockery. Also, do not use Russian tabloids. If you find a good book (a reliable secondary source), you can use it. Biophys ( talk) 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I have already shown that section Controversies, Famous Quotes, Jokes is fine in an article about controversial political figures (e.g., Zhirinovsky, Boris_Gryzlov, Berlusconi), who often make strange or humorous claims. You don't have to know Binomial theorem to understand that name Controversies already implies some bias in the content (criticism, yeh?). There is no need to balance quotes like "Апартеид - нормальная вещь". To make sure that such a narration is ok, see, for example, VN article in Russian, section Критика. It is pretty the same as it was in English WP. Next, everyone is welcome to improve the article or this particular section by adding relevant information, correcting grammar, etc. But this MUST NOT be done at the expense of deleting the whole valid section. Beatle Fab Four ( talk) 17:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
While the controversy around the controversy section converses, perhaps we might simply add a link to her blog. I was just going to do it, but since it's in the contested section, I thought I'd mention it here first. I also added a wee bit of text, scholarly referenced. — PētersV ( talk) 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed some information from the article as per this edit. It was VN who uttered the words, for she has placed a transcript of the radio program on her own political party website. It is not up to us as editors to prove her opinion right or wrong, or to justify it, by use of other sources which are not specifically related to her comments. There is no doubt that she is probably one of the most controversial liberals. For instance, the Echo Moskvy found her comments so distasteful that they pulled the recording and transcript from their website [2]. I've left the comment in, but have also added NPOV template as I would foresee another editor doing so; it would really help readers understand that she is a controversial figure if it were also stated as such in the article with WP:RS.
I appreciate the latest changes, so the use of the blog will need to be reworded.
More to the main point, given outright criticism of the government is essential criminal, OF COURSE the radio station pulled the recording and transcript. Your characterization of her comments as "distasteful" is your editorial POV, and even if the radio station pulled them citing "distasteful", that still is not an encyclopedic judgement call. You and I are in no position to characterize the tastefulness of Novodcorksaya's pronouncements.
I simply corrected the prior implication her comments as being baseless. I'll likely look through your changes and you won't mind if I delete the template at that point once I adjust wording. It's more appropriate to discuss and fix here rather than winding up with templates all over articles to make a point. -
PētersV (
talk)
18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
One of her recent comments: [3]. Biophys ( talk) 05:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC) [4]. Biophys ( talk) 05:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Novodvorskaya considers herself to be a politician, and the article also makes her out to be a politician, but what is obviously missing is her political career. Would it not be interesting to have this type of information in the article, because if one regards themselves as a politician, then this surely means that they have run for political office. Has Novodvorskaya ever run for political office? If so, has she ever been elected? If so, to what position, when did she hold it, etc? If not, what percentage of the vote did she get? etc, etc. Anyone got sources for this info? -- Russavia Dialogue 09:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I looked at the cited sources and did not find anywhere that "In her articles, Novodvorskaya openly supported apartheid in South Africa, as well as discrimination against Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic states". Yes, that was said in accusations by the court, but the accusations were dropped. Please cite precisely sources. Biophys ( talk) 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Biphys, try looking at Valeriya's articles first: http://www.ds.ru/vnstat.htm.
Here she supports apartheid:
Апартеид - нормальная вещь. ЮАР еще увидит, какой строй будет установлен коренным большинством, развлекающимся поджогами, убийствами, насилием. Мало не покажется... Гражданские права существуют для людей просвещенных, сытых, благовоспитанных и уравновешенных. В зоне все откровеннее. Там есть права для всех, кроме как для "опущенных", "для петухов". И дело здесь не в физиологии, а в силе духа, в моральном уровне. Жалкие, несостоятельные в духовном плане, трусливые спят у параши и никаких прав не имеют. Если таким давать права, понизится общий уровень человечества. Так что апартеид - это правда, а какие-то всеобщие права человека - ложь.
(Валерия Новодворская: Не отдадим наше право налево! Газета "Новый взгляд" N46 от 28 августа 1993г.)
Here she is also saying that human rights are not universal, but conditional, not for Khomeini and Kim (though apparently also not for black people):
Я всегда знала, что приличные люди должны иметь права, а неприличные (вроде Крючкова, Хомейни или Ким Ир Сена) - не должны.
And here we read her opinion that the Russian minority in Estonia and Latvia does not deserve political rights:
Русские в Эстонии и Латвии доказали своим нытьем, своей лингвистической бездарностью, своей тягой назад в СССР, своим пристрастием к красным флагам, что их нельзя с правами пускать в европейскую цивилизацию. Их положили у параши и правильно сделали. А когда Нарва требует себе автономии, для меня это равносильно требованию лагерных "петухов" дать им самоуправление. Представляете, что сказали бы воры в законе? Сейм Латвии и парламент Эстонии ответят то же самое. Только мягче, как полагается в Европе.
(You can read the interesting things she has to say about
American Indians and
Algerian Muslims for yourself.)
And in this edit yesterday I placed the following in the comment summary:
(rvv: Novodvorskaya SUPPORTED apartheid, as in the source. And here's another source: http://www.ds.ru/vnstat.htm).
If you check it, you get some of the articles by Novodvorskaya published in '93: one, in fact, is the very same article which had been used as the reference for the original statement that
Novodvorskaya has also stated that human rights are not universal and should be reserved for "good people", while people like Khomeini or Kim Il-sung should have no rights.[13][14][15].
which you unjustifiably transformed into your own reality – id est,
Novodvorskaya was accused in Russian media of supporting apartheid in South Africa,[13][14][15] and discrimination against Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic states. She denies such accusations [13][14][15].
Novodvorskaya has also stated that human rights are not universal and should be reserved for "good people", while people like Khomeini or Kim Il-sung should have no rights.[13][14][15]
So – her own words or not? Please point to where she indeed "denies such accusations." Misrepresenting or faking references is vandalism. Really, you'd better stop. PasswordUsername ( talk) 03:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we get an exact translation of the "apartheid" quote? My Russian's not good enough to discriminate nuances. I see she says that "Apartheid is a normal thing" but by itself this does not mean she endorses it (It could mean she thinks that discrimination is a common phenomenon). radek ( talk) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Here it is:
Апартеид - нормальная вещь. Apartheid is a normal thing. ЮАР еще увидит, какой строй будет установлен коренным большинством, развлекающимся поджогами, убийствами, насилием. The Republic of South Africa is yet to see what kind of regime will be installed by the native majority, which entertains itself with arson, killings, rape. Мало не покажется... They won't regret it... Гражданские права существуют для людей просвещенных, сытых, благовоспитанных и уравновешенных. Civil rights exist for the enlightened, the sate, the well-educated, the well-tempered. В зоне все откровеннее. In the prison camp everything is more candid. Там есть права для всех, кроме как для "опущенных", "для петухов". There, there are rights for everybody, except the "debased," the "passive prisoner." И дело здесь не в физиологии, а в силе духа, в моральном уровне. And it's not a matter of physiology, but of the strength of one's soul, of one's moral level. Жалкие, несостоятельные в духовном плане, трусливые спят у параши и никаких прав не имеют. The pitiful, the incontinent, the cowardly, sleep at the through and have no rights. Если таким давать права, понизится общий уровень человечества. If they are given rights, the common level of humanity is lowered. Так что апартеид - это правда, а какие-то всеобщие права человека - ложь. So apartheid is the truth, and some universal human rights are lies. Русские в Эстонии и Латвии доказали своим нытьем, своей лингвистической бездарностью, своей тягой назад в СССР, своим пристрастием к красным флагам, что их нельзя с правами пускать в европейскую цивилизацию. The Russians in Estonia and Latvia have proven with their complaining, their linguistic inability, their pull back towards the USSR, their attachment to red flags, that they cannot be granted entry with rights into European civilization. Их положили у параши и правильно сделали. They were correctly laid down by the trough. А когда Нарва требует себе автономии, для меня это равносильно требованию лагерных "петухов" дать им самоуправление. And when Narva demands its autonomy, to me that would be the equivalent to the "passive prisoners" demanding self-government. Представляете, что сказали бы воры в законе? What would the principled thieves say to that? Сейм Латвии и парламент Эстонии ответят то же самое. The Saeima of Latvia and the Parliament of Estonia will answer in the same manner. Только мягче, как полагается в Европе. Although more soft-spokenly – as customary in Europe.
Best, PasswordUsername ( talk) 01:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The passage stating "apartheid is a normal thing" is a statement of circumstance, it in no way a statement saying "I support apartheid". Not to mention her liberal use of sarcasm throughout the piece. Did I miss something? Unless someone has a third party scholarly source contending she supports apartheid and discrimination, any content using the article in question as a reference must be stricken as the most blatant form of WP:OR. PetersV TALK 18:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If this were said by a writer in the 1940s, would this be support for the Nazis – or wouldn't it? The problem is the selective interpretation of those who don't speak the language and wish to advance their own view of Novodvorskaya based on her anti-communist history at the expense of her own statements. Moreover, I should say that, in the first place, the court did not "dismiss" the charges as you appear to believe – the prosecution decided not to pursue the case further in 1996. In the second place, she wasn't charged with supporting apartheid – she was charged with inciting ethnic hatred (towards Russians) as well as attacking the dignity of the Russian nation. Please acquaint yourself with the legal history of Novodvorskaya's case before insisting that we take your stance as the objective point of view. PasswordUsername ( talk) 00:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)"Nazi rule is a normal thing. The Germans are yet to see, what kind of government will be formed by the anti-Nazis, which entertain themselves with arson, killings, rape."
1) Ask for a request for comment, and I'll ask visitors from RuWiki to participate;
2) Ask me to rewrite the political activity section with direct quotes of Novodvorskaya's statements on apartheid and racism, if you think the current version contravenes policy on WP:OR;
3) Propose your own version, which we'll be able to discuss constructively.
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Valeriya Novodvorskaya → Valeria Novodvorskaya — Besides the fact that the current spelling "Valeriya" is unnecessarily complicated, the introduction spelled it as "Valeria" in bold letters. I found this to be very inconsistent throughout the article, and I find it necessary - for the sake of simplifying things - to change the name. Thanks— Polgraf ( talk) 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
There are more recent attempts at WP:OR: "radical liberal<ref>http://www.javno.com/pr.php?id=216399</ref>" quoting a news article that isn't even credited to an author? Come on, secondary sources, or all editorializing about her extremism goes out as WP:BLP violations. PetersV TALK 00:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
(od) There's also the support of discrimination against Russians in Estonia and Latvia, again, WP:OR. To the passage quoted:
that would be Russians who have no commitment to learn the language of their country, who yearn for the days of Russophone and Soviet supremacy (in that time frame, on Latvian radio and on the streets of Riga I heard Russians say... "I will never learn that pig language" and "Next time, we'll send them all to Siberia"). However, neither in Novodvorskaya's statement or in my characterization does that explicitly mean all Russians—moreover, in absolutely no way does Novodvorskaya's statement intend discriminating against Russians simply because they are Russian (which would be the definition of "discrimination"). Novodvorskaya's comments target those who in her opinion have not earned the privilege to claim rights. Again, secondary sources, please, else we're violating WP:BLP. PetersV TALK 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, please do not restore Novodvorskaya "supports apartheid" (i.e., discrimination based on someone being black) or that she "supports discrimination against Russians" in the Baltics (i.e., discrimination based on Russian ethnic background). Please undo your revert. I would rather settle matters here than report the article and editors for WP:BLP violations. Secondary sources, not personal interpretations of what her political rhetoric means. Your choice. PetersV TALK 23:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No violation. Just her point of view. Valeria Novodvorskaya: "Apartheid is a normal thing". Beatle Fab Four ( talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, her own words doesn't say so. "Apartheid is a normal thing" doesn't imply that she has ever supported, let alone still supports, apatheid, especially as she refuted this particular interpretation later, see above. This is your slanderous interpretation of a primary source taken out of context, a no-no in the biography of the living person. If one says WWII was a normal thing, that doesn't mean he supports WWII. Colchicum ( talk) 09:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC) So, does anybody think that Wikipedians are entitled to interpret the quote ("Apartheid is a normal thing") from a primary source in their own way as "Novodvorskaya openly supported apatheid", even though no reliable secondary source draws this interpretation and she later explicitely refuted it herself ("Я никогда не оправдывала апартеид")? In my opinion, this is a gross violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:V, bordering on fraud. Even worse, as the familiar team (Offliner, Beatle Fab Four, PasswordUsername, Russavia, socks of Jacob Peters) is edit-warring over their version, which as they know is a no-no in Wikipedia. I was trying to assume good faith, but now it is unfortunately impossible, because there is strong evidence to the contrary. Check it against the sources:
The first source is her own article which doesn't support this claim without many additional assumptions. "Apartheid is a normal thing" is not the same as "I wholeheartedly support apartheid". The second source makes no mention of apartheid. The third source makes no mention of apartheid and is merely an accusation not confirmed by any court. This is fraud and a BLP violation, plain and simple. In case of any contingency, you know where it will go. Colchicum ( talk) 10:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
(od) BeatleFabFour, I can't be any more clear: Secondary sources, not personal interpretations of what her political rhetoric means. Characterizing anything she said [which has been quoted here to date] as supporting racially based/ethnic based discrimination is a clear violation of WP:BLP guidelines. You need reputable secondary/scholarly sources for such contentions. You conflate what she said with what you say she meant. If you insist on inserting WP:BLP violating defamatory materials as article content then we can go to arbitration for enforcement of WP policy and protection of WP against litigation. Don't charge other editors with the inappropriate editorial behavior you are practicing yourself. PetersV TALK 16:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
She was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia F20.0 and hospitalised for several years. (June, 1970—February, 1972) [1]
Obviously she does. Have you read her writings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.133.190 ( talk) 09:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Valeriya Novodvorskaya. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Valeriya Novodvorskaya. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit. Just to start from something, all last four paragraphs (quotations) are based on a single source which is (a) primary, (b) self-published (ds.ru is in essence her personal website), (c) an opinion piece. And no, it would not pass even as Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves because it does involve contentious/offensive "claims about third parties" as policy tells. Not mentioning sources like Aleksandr Dugin ( Death of a woman who suffered from the last stage of Russophobia), a ridiculous opinion piece by someone who was described in multiple RS as a "fascist". My very best wishes ( talk) 11:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBGUOi0kOCc Xx236 ( talk) 06:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
She was murdered by Putin's goons. 2A02:3030:80F:D0D7:1:0:65FD:6E20 ( talk) 22:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Valeriya Novodvorskaya article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A highly biased text that selectively cites unreliable Russian sources has been removed. A repeated BLP violation. Biophys ( talk) 03:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Novodvorskaya made the following statement.
Так же, как меня совершенно не ужасает неприятность, приключившаяся с Хиросимой и Нагасаки. Зато смотрите, какая из Японии получилась конфетка. Просто "сникерс". Семерка в Токио заседает, парламент либеральный имеется.
This is sourced to her own political party website at http://ds.ru/vnstat.htm; so it can't be claimed this is not a reliable source for a quote of hers.
She made the following statement.
Апартеид - нормальная вещь. ЮАР еще увидит, какой строй будет установлен коренным большинством, развлекающимся поджогами, убийствами, насилием. Мало не покажется...
Again, sourced to precisely the same website as the Hiroshima statement
She made the following statement
Если бы США напали на Россию, для нас это было бы хорошо. Для России лучше быть штатом США. Но я думаю, что мы американцам не нужны. Поэтому нам надо готовиться к войне с тупостью, деградацией и реставрацией советских порядков.
That is sourced to Komsomolskaya Pravda, http://www.kp.ru/daily/23852.4/63196/ which is a reliable source.
She made the following states:
Л. ГУЛЬКО: Шамиль Басаев, согласитесь, не ангел с крылышками, не мягкий и пушистый.
В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Шамиль Басаев кончил очень плохо, он кончил Бесланом, но он был нормальным человеком, мы его сделали террористом.
Л. ГУЛЬКО: Что же мы, мы-то здесь причем?
В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Уничтожая Чечню столько лет подряд, мы сделали демократа Шамиля Басаева…
Л. ГУЛЬКО: Демократа?
В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Да, в начале он был демократом, он, между прочим, у Белого дома стоял в 91 году, защищал российскую демократию.
Л. ГУЛЬКО: Я первый раз от вас слышу, что он стоял у Белого дома.
В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Это все демократы знают, что он стоял у Белого дома, что чеченцы отказались прийти на помощь Хасбулатову в 93-м году и защищали Ельцина. Шамиль Басаев в своей президентской программе, когда он конкурировал с Масхадовым, выступал как абсолютный западник, предлагал сделать армию по американскому образцу…
She made this statement on Echo Moskvy (one of Biophys' fave sources), and is sourced, again, to her own political party website at http://www.ds.ru/echo2008.htm
So the question is, did she or did she not make these statements? If these sources are unreliable, then I would expect the following statement to be removed from the article: "Novodvorskaya is openly critical of Russian government policies. [2], including Chechen Wars, domestic policies of Vladimir Putin, and the rebirth of Soviet propaganda in Russia [3][4] [5]" -- as these are sourced to exactly the same sources as her other statements. If it is out of context, then provide the context, because from where I am sitting, she made these statements of her own free will, and has put the statements on her own party website for all to see. So how can there be BLP? -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It tells:
Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects... Our articles must not serve to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly.
Please respect the policy. What you are doing is mockery. Also, do not use Russian tabloids. If you find a good book (a reliable secondary source), you can use it. Biophys ( talk) 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I have already shown that section Controversies, Famous Quotes, Jokes is fine in an article about controversial political figures (e.g., Zhirinovsky, Boris_Gryzlov, Berlusconi), who often make strange or humorous claims. You don't have to know Binomial theorem to understand that name Controversies already implies some bias in the content (criticism, yeh?). There is no need to balance quotes like "Апартеид - нормальная вещь". To make sure that such a narration is ok, see, for example, VN article in Russian, section Критика. It is pretty the same as it was in English WP. Next, everyone is welcome to improve the article or this particular section by adding relevant information, correcting grammar, etc. But this MUST NOT be done at the expense of deleting the whole valid section. Beatle Fab Four ( talk) 17:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
While the controversy around the controversy section converses, perhaps we might simply add a link to her blog. I was just going to do it, but since it's in the contested section, I thought I'd mention it here first. I also added a wee bit of text, scholarly referenced. — PētersV ( talk) 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I have removed some information from the article as per this edit. It was VN who uttered the words, for she has placed a transcript of the radio program on her own political party website. It is not up to us as editors to prove her opinion right or wrong, or to justify it, by use of other sources which are not specifically related to her comments. There is no doubt that she is probably one of the most controversial liberals. For instance, the Echo Moskvy found her comments so distasteful that they pulled the recording and transcript from their website [2]. I've left the comment in, but have also added NPOV template as I would foresee another editor doing so; it would really help readers understand that she is a controversial figure if it were also stated as such in the article with WP:RS.
I appreciate the latest changes, so the use of the blog will need to be reworded.
More to the main point, given outright criticism of the government is essential criminal, OF COURSE the radio station pulled the recording and transcript. Your characterization of her comments as "distasteful" is your editorial POV, and even if the radio station pulled them citing "distasteful", that still is not an encyclopedic judgement call. You and I are in no position to characterize the tastefulness of Novodcorksaya's pronouncements.
I simply corrected the prior implication her comments as being baseless. I'll likely look through your changes and you won't mind if I delete the template at that point once I adjust wording. It's more appropriate to discuss and fix here rather than winding up with templates all over articles to make a point. -
PētersV (
talk)
18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
One of her recent comments: [3]. Biophys ( talk) 05:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC) [4]. Biophys ( talk) 05:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Novodvorskaya considers herself to be a politician, and the article also makes her out to be a politician, but what is obviously missing is her political career. Would it not be interesting to have this type of information in the article, because if one regards themselves as a politician, then this surely means that they have run for political office. Has Novodvorskaya ever run for political office? If so, has she ever been elected? If so, to what position, when did she hold it, etc? If not, what percentage of the vote did she get? etc, etc. Anyone got sources for this info? -- Russavia Dialogue 09:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I looked at the cited sources and did not find anywhere that "In her articles, Novodvorskaya openly supported apartheid in South Africa, as well as discrimination against Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic states". Yes, that was said in accusations by the court, but the accusations were dropped. Please cite precisely sources. Biophys ( talk) 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Biphys, try looking at Valeriya's articles first: http://www.ds.ru/vnstat.htm.
Here she supports apartheid:
Апартеид - нормальная вещь. ЮАР еще увидит, какой строй будет установлен коренным большинством, развлекающимся поджогами, убийствами, насилием. Мало не покажется... Гражданские права существуют для людей просвещенных, сытых, благовоспитанных и уравновешенных. В зоне все откровеннее. Там есть права для всех, кроме как для "опущенных", "для петухов". И дело здесь не в физиологии, а в силе духа, в моральном уровне. Жалкие, несостоятельные в духовном плане, трусливые спят у параши и никаких прав не имеют. Если таким давать права, понизится общий уровень человечества. Так что апартеид - это правда, а какие-то всеобщие права человека - ложь.
(Валерия Новодворская: Не отдадим наше право налево! Газета "Новый взгляд" N46 от 28 августа 1993г.)
Here she is also saying that human rights are not universal, but conditional, not for Khomeini and Kim (though apparently also not for black people):
Я всегда знала, что приличные люди должны иметь права, а неприличные (вроде Крючкова, Хомейни или Ким Ир Сена) - не должны.
And here we read her opinion that the Russian minority in Estonia and Latvia does not deserve political rights:
Русские в Эстонии и Латвии доказали своим нытьем, своей лингвистической бездарностью, своей тягой назад в СССР, своим пристрастием к красным флагам, что их нельзя с правами пускать в европейскую цивилизацию. Их положили у параши и правильно сделали. А когда Нарва требует себе автономии, для меня это равносильно требованию лагерных "петухов" дать им самоуправление. Представляете, что сказали бы воры в законе? Сейм Латвии и парламент Эстонии ответят то же самое. Только мягче, как полагается в Европе.
(You can read the interesting things she has to say about
American Indians and
Algerian Muslims for yourself.)
And in this edit yesterday I placed the following in the comment summary:
(rvv: Novodvorskaya SUPPORTED apartheid, as in the source. And here's another source: http://www.ds.ru/vnstat.htm).
If you check it, you get some of the articles by Novodvorskaya published in '93: one, in fact, is the very same article which had been used as the reference for the original statement that
Novodvorskaya has also stated that human rights are not universal and should be reserved for "good people", while people like Khomeini or Kim Il-sung should have no rights.[13][14][15].
which you unjustifiably transformed into your own reality – id est,
Novodvorskaya was accused in Russian media of supporting apartheid in South Africa,[13][14][15] and discrimination against Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic states. She denies such accusations [13][14][15].
Novodvorskaya has also stated that human rights are not universal and should be reserved for "good people", while people like Khomeini or Kim Il-sung should have no rights.[13][14][15]
So – her own words or not? Please point to where she indeed "denies such accusations." Misrepresenting or faking references is vandalism. Really, you'd better stop. PasswordUsername ( talk) 03:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Can we get an exact translation of the "apartheid" quote? My Russian's not good enough to discriminate nuances. I see she says that "Apartheid is a normal thing" but by itself this does not mean she endorses it (It could mean she thinks that discrimination is a common phenomenon). radek ( talk) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Here it is:
Апартеид - нормальная вещь. Apartheid is a normal thing. ЮАР еще увидит, какой строй будет установлен коренным большинством, развлекающимся поджогами, убийствами, насилием. The Republic of South Africa is yet to see what kind of regime will be installed by the native majority, which entertains itself with arson, killings, rape. Мало не покажется... They won't regret it... Гражданские права существуют для людей просвещенных, сытых, благовоспитанных и уравновешенных. Civil rights exist for the enlightened, the sate, the well-educated, the well-tempered. В зоне все откровеннее. In the prison camp everything is more candid. Там есть права для всех, кроме как для "опущенных", "для петухов". There, there are rights for everybody, except the "debased," the "passive prisoner." И дело здесь не в физиологии, а в силе духа, в моральном уровне. And it's not a matter of physiology, but of the strength of one's soul, of one's moral level. Жалкие, несостоятельные в духовном плане, трусливые спят у параши и никаких прав не имеют. The pitiful, the incontinent, the cowardly, sleep at the through and have no rights. Если таким давать права, понизится общий уровень человечества. If they are given rights, the common level of humanity is lowered. Так что апартеид - это правда, а какие-то всеобщие права человека - ложь. So apartheid is the truth, and some universal human rights are lies. Русские в Эстонии и Латвии доказали своим нытьем, своей лингвистической бездарностью, своей тягой назад в СССР, своим пристрастием к красным флагам, что их нельзя с правами пускать в европейскую цивилизацию. The Russians in Estonia and Latvia have proven with their complaining, their linguistic inability, their pull back towards the USSR, their attachment to red flags, that they cannot be granted entry with rights into European civilization. Их положили у параши и правильно сделали. They were correctly laid down by the trough. А когда Нарва требует себе автономии, для меня это равносильно требованию лагерных "петухов" дать им самоуправление. And when Narva demands its autonomy, to me that would be the equivalent to the "passive prisoners" demanding self-government. Представляете, что сказали бы воры в законе? What would the principled thieves say to that? Сейм Латвии и парламент Эстонии ответят то же самое. The Saeima of Latvia and the Parliament of Estonia will answer in the same manner. Только мягче, как полагается в Европе. Although more soft-spokenly – as customary in Europe.
Best, PasswordUsername ( talk) 01:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The passage stating "apartheid is a normal thing" is a statement of circumstance, it in no way a statement saying "I support apartheid". Not to mention her liberal use of sarcasm throughout the piece. Did I miss something? Unless someone has a third party scholarly source contending she supports apartheid and discrimination, any content using the article in question as a reference must be stricken as the most blatant form of WP:OR. PetersV TALK 18:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
If this were said by a writer in the 1940s, would this be support for the Nazis – or wouldn't it? The problem is the selective interpretation of those who don't speak the language and wish to advance their own view of Novodvorskaya based on her anti-communist history at the expense of her own statements. Moreover, I should say that, in the first place, the court did not "dismiss" the charges as you appear to believe – the prosecution decided not to pursue the case further in 1996. In the second place, she wasn't charged with supporting apartheid – she was charged with inciting ethnic hatred (towards Russians) as well as attacking the dignity of the Russian nation. Please acquaint yourself with the legal history of Novodvorskaya's case before insisting that we take your stance as the objective point of view. PasswordUsername ( talk) 00:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)"Nazi rule is a normal thing. The Germans are yet to see, what kind of government will be formed by the anti-Nazis, which entertain themselves with arson, killings, rape."
1) Ask for a request for comment, and I'll ask visitors from RuWiki to participate;
2) Ask me to rewrite the political activity section with direct quotes of Novodvorskaya's statements on apartheid and racism, if you think the current version contravenes policy on WP:OR;
3) Propose your own version, which we'll be able to discuss constructively.
The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Valeriya Novodvorskaya → Valeria Novodvorskaya — Besides the fact that the current spelling "Valeriya" is unnecessarily complicated, the introduction spelled it as "Valeria" in bold letters. I found this to be very inconsistent throughout the article, and I find it necessary - for the sake of simplifying things - to change the name. Thanks— Polgraf ( talk) 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
There are more recent attempts at WP:OR: "radical liberal<ref>http://www.javno.com/pr.php?id=216399</ref>" quoting a news article that isn't even credited to an author? Come on, secondary sources, or all editorializing about her extremism goes out as WP:BLP violations. PetersV TALK 00:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
(od) There's also the support of discrimination against Russians in Estonia and Latvia, again, WP:OR. To the passage quoted:
that would be Russians who have no commitment to learn the language of their country, who yearn for the days of Russophone and Soviet supremacy (in that time frame, on Latvian radio and on the streets of Riga I heard Russians say... "I will never learn that pig language" and "Next time, we'll send them all to Siberia"). However, neither in Novodvorskaya's statement or in my characterization does that explicitly mean all Russians—moreover, in absolutely no way does Novodvorskaya's statement intend discriminating against Russians simply because they are Russian (which would be the definition of "discrimination"). Novodvorskaya's comments target those who in her opinion have not earned the privilege to claim rights. Again, secondary sources, please, else we're violating WP:BLP. PetersV TALK 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, please do not restore Novodvorskaya "supports apartheid" (i.e., discrimination based on someone being black) or that she "supports discrimination against Russians" in the Baltics (i.e., discrimination based on Russian ethnic background). Please undo your revert. I would rather settle matters here than report the article and editors for WP:BLP violations. Secondary sources, not personal interpretations of what her political rhetoric means. Your choice. PetersV TALK 23:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
No violation. Just her point of view. Valeria Novodvorskaya: "Apartheid is a normal thing". Beatle Fab Four ( talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Russavia, her own words doesn't say so. "Apartheid is a normal thing" doesn't imply that she has ever supported, let alone still supports, apatheid, especially as she refuted this particular interpretation later, see above. This is your slanderous interpretation of a primary source taken out of context, a no-no in the biography of the living person. If one says WWII was a normal thing, that doesn't mean he supports WWII. Colchicum ( talk) 09:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC) So, does anybody think that Wikipedians are entitled to interpret the quote ("Apartheid is a normal thing") from a primary source in their own way as "Novodvorskaya openly supported apatheid", even though no reliable secondary source draws this interpretation and she later explicitely refuted it herself ("Я никогда не оправдывала апартеид")? In my opinion, this is a gross violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:V, bordering on fraud. Even worse, as the familiar team (Offliner, Beatle Fab Four, PasswordUsername, Russavia, socks of Jacob Peters) is edit-warring over their version, which as they know is a no-no in Wikipedia. I was trying to assume good faith, but now it is unfortunately impossible, because there is strong evidence to the contrary. Check it against the sources:
The first source is her own article which doesn't support this claim without many additional assumptions. "Apartheid is a normal thing" is not the same as "I wholeheartedly support apartheid". The second source makes no mention of apartheid. The third source makes no mention of apartheid and is merely an accusation not confirmed by any court. This is fraud and a BLP violation, plain and simple. In case of any contingency, you know where it will go. Colchicum ( talk) 10:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
(od) BeatleFabFour, I can't be any more clear: Secondary sources, not personal interpretations of what her political rhetoric means. Characterizing anything she said [which has been quoted here to date] as supporting racially based/ethnic based discrimination is a clear violation of WP:BLP guidelines. You need reputable secondary/scholarly sources for such contentions. You conflate what she said with what you say she meant. If you insist on inserting WP:BLP violating defamatory materials as article content then we can go to arbitration for enforcement of WP policy and protection of WP against litigation. Don't charge other editors with the inappropriate editorial behavior you are practicing yourself. PetersV TALK 16:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
She was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia F20.0 and hospitalised for several years. (June, 1970—February, 1972) [1]
Obviously she does. Have you read her writings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.133.190 ( talk) 09:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Valeriya Novodvorskaya. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Valeriya Novodvorskaya. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
This edit. Just to start from something, all last four paragraphs (quotations) are based on a single source which is (a) primary, (b) self-published (ds.ru is in essence her personal website), (c) an opinion piece. And no, it would not pass even as Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves because it does involve contentious/offensive "claims about third parties" as policy tells. Not mentioning sources like Aleksandr Dugin ( Death of a woman who suffered from the last stage of Russophobia), a ridiculous opinion piece by someone who was described in multiple RS as a "fascist". My very best wishes ( talk) 11:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBGUOi0kOCc Xx236 ( talk) 06:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
She was murdered by Putin's goons. 2A02:3030:80F:D0D7:1:0:65FD:6E20 ( talk) 22:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)