Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya

message: 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)
replies: text: Prefectly reliable sourses, exact quotes, nothing less, nothing more. I just repeat it, Biophys is a person who can't grow up. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, please cite precisely the sources. Where they tell what you claimed? Second, let's ask at WP:RS if these sources are reliable. Third, let's discuss "due weight" problems. When and if all of that is resolved, this might be reinserted. But until then, this is BLP violation.Biophys (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And NOTE Biophys' PROVOCATION with 'and the rebirth of Soviet propaganda in Russia [3] [4] [5]'. All links REFER TO HER OWN STATEMENTS (like Basaev is a democrat), no someone's propaganda. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noted it, and have reverted Biophys' changes and redone them as part of prose. As these are statements that she herself has made, and most are sourced to her own political party website, and because they are not accusations against other people, they can not be WP:BLP concerns. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not reliable sources; and you make citation out of context. If you want to insert this information, please ask at WP:RS. If others think the sources are good, and your interpretation of the sources was correct, this can be reinserted.Biophys (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's deal with one thing at a time. Please point out to us exactly which source is not reliable. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Biophys wrote" per WP:BLP. Citation out of context; misinterpretations of sources; and even the sources themselves are unreliable." Now let's see: 1) Citation out of context - false In the context of her controversial (even 'humorous') speeches citations are fine; 2) misinterpretations of sources – false. Definitely exact quotes can and should be added to the text to show that there is no misinterpretation. 3) the sources themselves are unreliable - false. Komsomolskaya Pravda is unreliable source? Link to her interview to Echo Moskvy is unreliable source? After that I believe that Biophys behavior is softly speaking unproductive. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

text: You are wrong. http://ds.ru/ is definitly her own party's web-site, but it is not a self-published source. It cites Novodvorskaya's articles as published in "Новый Взгляд" newspapper on 28 Aug 1993. This article can be found on many others web-sites, and none of them are assotiated with Novodvorskaya's poticial party: http://www.patriotica.ru/enemy/avch_novodvorskaya.html, http://www.medialaw.ru/publications/zip/27/novodv.html to name a few. IN FACT, these 2 articles written by Novodvorskaya and 1 TV interview were subjects of court record against Novodvorskaya. As stated in http://www.medialaw.ru/publications/zip/27/novodv.html, Novodvorskaya admitted that she wrote these 2 articles published by "Новый Взгляд" newspapper. I don't even have to provide a web-link for any of these statements. It is enough to point to "Новый Взгляд" publication date to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Netrat (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, that's funny. We are saying "In her article, Novodvorskaya made the following statement" and refer o her article as published in a newspapper. You are saying this is not a reliable source? Tell me more. Netrat (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the above. This was because Biophys above was claiming that the comments were either taken out of context, or were not sourced to WP:RS; those sources being articles printed in other outlets, but hosted on her own political party website, or links to Echo Movsky (a source which Biophys fills WP with conspiracy theory-like info from). He was attempting to WP:GAME guidelines and policies in order to keep information out of the article. In effect, what I was stating above that there is no gaming allowed on WP in order to WP:CENSOR views they don't like. But it's good that you found other sources for the info, and it is enough that you reference "Новый Взгляд" (although a link in compliance with WP:LINKVIO is also useful) --Russavia Dialogue 07:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Again, you are wrong. This is sourced to Novodvorskaya's article in "Новый Взгляд" newspapper. It is enough to point to "Новый Взгляд" publication date to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Netrat (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I absolutely agree with you. Provocations, false statements while editing the article... Why should normal person do this? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do agree that the statements, whilst she made them, need to have some context provided within the article. Her own words on Basayev are (IMO) the most worrying; his own ideology and allegiance with Islamic extremist turned him into a terrorist; not Russia. But we don't need to present that in this article, just simply what her own opinions are. If there are other sources out there which discuss these opinions of hers, then present them also, so long as they don't breach WP:BLP and are written here in neutral tone. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I told about Biophys' statements... Beatle Fab Four (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've cleaned up (not that it was that large) the "Post-Soviet Russia" section including adding appropriate context including some expansion of key events, ref'ed, directly relevant to Novodvorskaya's claims and contentions. I'm reasonably satisfied that the accounting of her interview now meets WP:BLP standards for NPOV. The prior wording indicated her claim about Russia turning Basayev into a terrorist was an unwarranted contention based on chronology, a WP:BLP violation given his personal familial losses which are reported to have engendered his later brutality. -PētersV (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP problems

message: 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.
:You are wrong. http://ds.ru/ is definitly her own party's web-site, but it is not a self-published source. It cites Novodvorskaya's articles as published in "Новый Взгляд" newspapper on 28 Aug 1993. This article can be found on many others web-sites, and none of them are assotiated with Novodvorskaya's poticial party: http://www.patriotica.ru/enemy/avch_novodvorskaya.html, http://www.medialaw.ru/publications/zip/27/novodv.html to name a few. IN FACT, these 2 articles written by Novodvorskaya and 1 TV interview were subjects of court record against Novodvorskaya. As stated in http://www.medialaw.ru/publications/zip/27/novodv.html, Novodvorskaya admitted that she wrote these 2 articles published by "Новый Взгляд" newspapper. I don't even have to provide a web-link for any of these statements. It is enough to point to "Новый Взгляд" publication date to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Netrat (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, that's funny. We are saying "In her article, Novodvorskaya made the following statement" and refer o her article as published in a newspapper. You are saying this is not a reliable source? Tell me more. Netrat (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the above. This was because Biophys above was claiming that the comments were either taken out of context, or were not sourced to WP:RS; those sources being articles printed in other outlets, but hosted on her own political party website, or links to Echo Movsky (a source which Biophys fills WP with conspiracy theory-like info from). He was attempting to WP:GAME guidelines and policies in order to keep information out of the article. In effect, what I was stating above that there is no gaming allowed on WP in order to WP:CENSOR views they don't like. But it's good that you found other sources for the info, and it is enough that you reference "Новый Взгляд" (although a link in compliance with WP:LINKVIO is also useful) --Russavia Dialogue 07:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiroshima was good for Japan

message: 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
:Again, you are wrong. This is sourced to Novodvorskaya's article in "Новый Взгляд" newspapper. It is enough to point to "Новый Взгляд" publication date to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Netrat (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Apartheid was normal

message: 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)
replies: text: I absolutely agree with you. Provocations, false statements while editing the article... Why should normal person do this? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do agree that the statements, whilst she made them, need to have some context provided within the article. Her own words on Basayev are (IMO) the most worrying; his own ideology and allegiance with Islamic extremist turned him into a terrorist; not Russia. But we don't need to present that in this article, just simply what her own opinions are. If there are other sources out there which discuss these opinions of hers, then present them also, so long as they don't breach WP:BLP and are written here in neutral tone. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I told about Biophys' statements... Beatle Fab Four (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've cleaned up (not that it was that large) the "Post-Soviet Russia" section including adding appropriate context including some expansion of key events, ref'ed, directly relevant to Novodvorskaya's claims and contentions. I'm reasonably satisfied that the accounting of her interview now meets WP:BLP standards for NPOV. The prior wording indicated her claim about Russia turning Basayev into a terrorist was an unwarranted contention based on chronology, a WP:BLP violation given his personal familial losses which are reported to have engendered his later brutality. -PētersV (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: That Basayev was a democrat

message: It tells:
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)
replies: text:  All I know that all the aforementioned sourses are OK by WP standards. Your claims and orders like "mockery", "do not use Russian tabloids" just show me once again that you likely do not want a fruitful duscussion. My view is that your actions are something else... Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  And again, you're wrong. There is no mockery in presenting ridiculous quotes or views of controversial politicians (some would say 'political clowns', but it is probably too harsh expression). See, e.g., Zhirinovsky or Boris_Gryzlov. VN is no exception . Beatle Fab Four (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, there is a section with 'jokes' (yes, we know Biophys calls it 'mockery') even at Berlusconi page. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text:  Yes, the same thing with Chernomyrdin. ;-) Beatle Fab Four (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, it would be fine to describe everything in NPOV manner, as in Russin WP article. A factual information from her biography, support, criticism, and so on. One can also cite her articles like this one . If you do something like that, no one will object.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey, you may add any soursed info you want. The question here is that it is you who made unproductive edits and deleted section Controversies with reliable sourses. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty damn obvious what Biophys is doing here, and again Biophys, I'd appreciate it if you could keep my name off that Arbcom, you running over there with every dispute looks kinda desperate and absolutely childish. For what you won't tell them over at arbcom is that her own political party website is being used as a source already in this article, and the same pages on the website also include those quotes. Echo Moskvy is also used for a source; I remember this is one of your favourite sources for things such as proving that Putin eats babies for breakfast; every nutcase get's their airtime on Echo Moskvy. Unfortunately, this has something that you don't want to come out; in that she did made the claim that Basayev, that warm fuzzy terrorist, was a democrat. And KP.ru, the biggest selling daily in Russia today, you use sources such as newtimes.ru, grani.ru, compromat.ru, novayagazeta.ru and a heap of other wacko tin foil hat conspiracy loving hack job sources to help you do what you are to here to do, and we most certainly can use KP.ru as a source for articles. The key is that they are written in a NPOV way. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 08:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Biophys, I didn't realise this previously, but it turns out that she is the member of the editorial board of the New Times, so the use of that source in this article could be highly prejudicial. If that is to be used, it is definitely worth checking to see if such sources are permitted under WP:V and WP:RS. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP policy

message: 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)
replies: text: You are correct, in that information should not be excluded, particularly when sourced. However, put it in context. For example, look at the info I have added on Basayev. If you read the source as ds.ru, she is claiming that Basayev was turned into a terrorist around the time of the Chechen wars, however, he clearly has carried out terrorist acts before this; the first one only months after he allegedly supported Yeltsin in 1991. Prose the information such as that, provide context, and you will be fine. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I'm always fine. Maybe I should write a short history of Apartheid in the article? Or what? Please, read carefully my statement above (where links are given) once again. If you thought that the quote about Basayev required some background, you could improve it. But for unknown reasons you deleted the whole section. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In order for information to stand in an article without chance of other's objecting to it, and removing it, it is always best to provide further information aside from simply saying "Apartheid is normal"; expand on why she thinks apartheid is normal; one could also expand that by the comments she made that she could likely think of black South Africans as murderers, etc (that's the feeling that I get from reading what her own words say). Try to expand on it as much as possible, and if needed others will tidy it up, etc. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Additionally, do you have other sources which state that her views are controversial? etc? To state in the article that her views are controversial, we really need to have a source which states this, other than ourselves labelling views as this or that, as that would be original research. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no original research. Ok, once again and last time, Zhirinovsky, Boris_Gryzlov, Berlusconi, Chernomyrdin, VN in Russian. And once again and last time, you could or could't expand normal and relevant quotes, but instead YOU deleted the section. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget about all the other articles for a moment ok. Imagine that this is the only article on WP. Any assertion which is likely to be challenged by another editor needs to be sourced. Being controversial is an assertion, so it needs a source which you can use to state it on the article, because you can be sure that another editor is likely to slap a fact tag on it, or remove it completely as being unsourced. Additionally, I removed the information from the article, as it is possible you would have reinserted it thereby breaking WP:3RR, and I removed it myself in the hope that you wouldn't break that rule and get yourself blocked. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again and last time was above... Mind your own behavior not mine, ok? I don't need "медвежьи услуги". Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuous deletion of relevant section

message: 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 . 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've now removed the NPOV tag due to extra information being included in the article on her comments. I have however replaced it with an unbalanced tag, which does not mean that this information has to be removed, but rather the section expanded. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some information removed from article

message: 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)
replies: text: My comments on her comments being distasteful is of course my own opinion, but it is somewhat the opinion of the editor-in-chief of Echo Moskvy. But that isn't in the article. Just as "outright criticism of the government is essential criminal" is your editorial POV, and I would also expect it to stay out of the article. In the event Echo Moskvy said the comments were distasteful, of course it can be included in the article as it would be verified and attributed; in fact their reason for pulling it does need to be explained within the article also. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: We just stated the blog is not WP:BLP suitable

message: One of her recent comments: .Biophys (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: More refs

message: 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)
replies: text: She is a leader of a small political party/organization, the Democratic Union .Biophys (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: That's simple, she failed to be elected to any parliamenary body. Netrat (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I knew that, I was being a little facetious with my question. Although the fact she has never been elected into any elected office does need to be mentioned in the article, but it needs a source. --Russavia Dialogue 06:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Some useful information perhaps

message: 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)
replies: text: I NPOVed this section a little. Please explain if there are any problems.Biophys (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Her support of apartheid?

message: There are more recent attempts at WP:OR: "radical liberalhttp://www.javno.com/pr.php?id=216399" 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 <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 00:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added the same reference from Oxford University Press. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's all I've been asking for, I hope this indicates progress. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>     </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 01:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: And more about what's "not WP:OR"

message: She was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia  and hospitalised for several years. (June, 1970—February, 1972)Valeriya Ilyinichna Novodvorskaya — viperson.ru
*According to the mainstream views it was a form of Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Obviously she does not have major psychiatric problems  Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Paranoid schizophrenia

message: *Video (Russian). My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Novodvorskaya about Wikipedia

message: 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:
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5cNL2aI7A?url=http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/09/01/novodvorskaya/ with https://www.webcitation.org/5cNL2aI7A?url=http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/09/01/novodvorskaya/ on http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/09/01/novodvorskaya/
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5cNLFqVqM?url=http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/67/05.html with https://www.webcitation.org/5cNLFqVqM?url=http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/67/05.html on http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/67/05.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090519235750/http://lib.aldebaran.ru/author/novodvorskaya_valeriya/novodvorskaya_valeriya_nad_propastyu_vo_lzhi/novodvorskaya_valeriya_nad_propastyu_vo_lzhi__0.html to http://lib.aldebaran.ru/author/novodvorskaya_valeriya/novodvorskaya_valeriya_nad_propastyu_vo_lzhi/novodvorskaya_valeriya_nad_propastyu_vo_lzhi__0.html
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5cNLFqVqM?url=http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/67/05.html to http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/67/05.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714231654/http://www.sem40.ru/ourpeople/famous/11509/ to http://www.sem40.ru/ourpeople/famous/11509/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714135141/http://www.rusperson.com/html/11/RU01005230.htm to http://www.rusperson.com/html/11/RU01005230.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I am happy we agreed (I hope) that this source is primary, self-published, an opinion piece and does not qualify even as questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided you with sources, not to mention a whole book by Dodolev dedicated to Novodvorskaya. As for "propaganda", you might want to count how many articles mention "Accusations of Antisemitism", "Islamophobia" or any other xenophobia. Novodvorskaya was no better, although her quotes are rarely translated into English. AveTory (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as anyone can see (diff), you included text linked to ds.ru like  , and all of that are primary and essentially self-published opinion pieces. All other text remains. In addition, this is a selective citation of highly polemic essays. To understand what she is actually saying, one must read whole essay, but a reader of English WP can not do it because this is Russian.  My very best wishes (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "I cannot imagine how can anyone love a Jew for his laziness, for his lying, for his poverty, for his spinelessness, for his slavery. But maybe that's not all his characteristics" - does THIS sound like a "selective citation of highly polemic essays" to you? I doubt, you would be the first to write about her antisemtisim in that case. And you are actually the one who adds "fascist views" to the Dugin's page based on his selective citations? Lol. You rarely meet someone with such double standards. Still this doesn't matter since my statements and quotes are verified by WP:RS. I'll even add an already existing link to the book by Dodolev to the heap which describes the whole story with Novodvorskaya along with quotes and comments. AveTory (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you are trying to say, but here is your edit on the page. You are trying to use the infamous antisemitic book "Russophobia" by Igor Shafarevich. He (and Dugin), not her, are famous xenophobes as as has been claimed in multiple secondary RS. One does not need to cite these guys directly. See lots of secondary RS, for example here. Such antisemitic books like the one by S. can be used, but only on pages about the subject himself, i.e. Shafarevich or the book. You are trying to make your case by selectively citing primary self-published sources. Yes, it is true that she was accused of all imaginable things, like even insanity. That can be noted in proper context if reliably sourced to secondary RS which are better than just opinion pieces. My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not even double standards, that's insane propaganda. Thanks for self-exposure.  AveTory (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that you forged citation   ("I can not imagine...a Jew..."). Nowhere it was about Jews. Her alleged words were about "a Russian" and it was: "Я абсолютно не могу себе представить, как можно любить русского за его леность, за его ложь, за его бедность, за его бесхребетность, за его рабство...". Right? Well, this is nothing extraordinary. There were a lot of people who were saying or implying something similar about Russians, one of them famous Ivan Bunin in his Village. But again, the problem is the sourcing and the context. Q#1. Did she actually say it? Any link or reference to the publication signed by her? Q#2. How that has been interpreted in scholarly secondary RS written by authors other than Russian nationalists or self-defined fascists? If there are such RS, let's include what they say, no problem. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, "The Village" is a great example. One should NOT cite Bunin directly, but cite something written by literary critcs (not by members of Black Hundreds!), i.e. "Each and every page of it cries out something about how vile and ugly the Russian muzhik is...", exactly as our page about the novel by Bunin does. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

text: And seriously, Aleksandr Dugin and Igor Shafarevich accusing others of xenophobia is ridiculous ("Что можно с Маркова взыскать? Он скорбен головой. Смешно и дико разбирать Его "научный" вой..."). But I left it because you ask. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "It appears that you forged citation" Are you trolling? I changed ONE word in Novodvorskaya's quote which you had previously deleted multiple times, just to demonstrate how "selective citation of highly polemic essays" may look from a different angle. But it seems like you haven't even read the quotes which you've been deleting and commenting. Simply brilliant. The rest about Shafarevich and Bunin is offtopic and WP:OR. AveTory (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Bunin is simply an example on the policy. One can cite Bunin (even when he tells, in real life rather than in his books, "I will gnaw his throat with my own teeth"), but only if this is relevant to the subject and done by a scholarly secondary RS "known for fact checking and accuracy". It is equally important to place the citation in proper context provided by the good secondary RS. Most sources you cite, like the opinions by Dugin, Shafarevich and even Dodolev do not qualify for fact-checking, accuracy or whatever. They belong to character assassinations. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Now, speaking about correct quotations... Where this citation (Vladimir Maksimov compared her call for foreign occupation of Russia to "Hitler's methods of solving problems") came from? I checked one ref (Sarnov). This is an RS, but the quotation is not there. He tells something different, in passing, and Sarnov tells he does not remember what exactly Maksimov said during a heated discussion. Another ref - is it that one? This is hardly an RS, and it cites something like "— А каких, извините, слов заслуживает публицист, который пропагандирует “опыт” решения хлебного вопроса в России гитлеровскими оккупационными войсками?". What exactly this refer to? To her? To which writings by her? This is not at all clear. If you "translated" this as "Hitler's methods of solving problems", this is definitely a misquote. If Masksimov, a well known writer, would have written and published anything about her, that could be cited. But like that - no. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Poor sourcing and selective citation

message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBGUOi0kOCc Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the 2014 war in Donbas 

message: She was murdered by Putin's goons. 2A02:3030:80F:D0D7:1:0:65FD:6E20 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  She was murdered