This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Russia: History / Politics and law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

There are no any references about Mikhail Kasyanov to be a leader of protest. In news also no mentions. Pet92 (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why, I removed him as a "lead figure". Mellk (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There now seem to be major street protests in Russia big enough to be wikipediated every year. Is there any project of going to the next step, of developing something like horizontally organised, participatory shadow governments like the Belarusian Coordination Council (Belarus) (and National Anti-crisis Management) and the Consultative Council (Poland)? These are not quite shadow governments, they're more like groups of citizens aiming to discuss and make decisions on concrete actions while avoiding the formal constraints and personal-power-politics and secrecy of political parties.

If reliable sources exist on Coordination Council (Russia), then it would be good to start the article. Boud (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Boud: Russian Opposition Coordination Council.--Renat (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RenatUK: Thanks! So one attempt at doing that was made several years ago. It looks like, at least based on the content of the current article, that the 2012-13 version was focussed on electing politicians based on their programmes and personalities rather than on creating practical working groups, which is the BY and PL model (apart from NAM). I guess we'll know soon if a new council is created more along the working-group model, e.g. Russian Opposition Coordination Council (2021), if the group keeps the same type of name. Boud (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: Why did you undo edits? Even the fact of administrative and criminal cases indicates a third party to the protest. Gnosandes (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnosandes: There is no mention of anarchists/communists in the article itself whatsoever, I also do not see RS mentioning them, which is also probably why Russian Wiki article does not include them. These protests are effectively Navalny v. authorities. If you can provide RS (not a YouTube video) which shows there is a third side worth including, then feel free to add those RS. Mellk (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: I have not provided any videos. For transferred it to the third column. Gnosandes (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnosandes: I understand, however I am saying that the video that was added by another user is not RS in this case (and is a primary source) for this to determine a third side. If we must have a third side included, we need RS (for example reliable news articles) that show there was a third side significant enough to include here. However I have not seen this anywhere. Mellk (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: I canceled your edit and responded to you. Gnosandes (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: I think it is worth distinguishing between bourgeois showdowns from socialist, anarchist and communist ones. It's just that, unlike Navalny's bourgeois party, the socialist movements are united (they all come together) and it is impossible to define who is who. In fact, I did not see the monarchists and fascists, and there are many of them in Russia. Gnosandes (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnosandes: I removed them in the first place because of WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RS, not because I choose to make it about Navalny. Mellk (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've already advised about WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:RS. There are no RS here that show that any of these other parties played a major role in the protests, let alone mention them. Primary sources are not good enough. Unless RS can be provided that shows they were a notable force in the protests, they shouldn't be moved out of the "supported by" section. Mellk (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: Who confuses bourgeois movements with communist and anarchist movements? Only you! The communist and anarchist movements never supported Navalny. You can verify this by following the links that were indicated. That is why I introduced a differentiation according to the flag of Russian Federation and the flag of the Russian SFSR. First you need to provide the links, but you extend this to all people, even those who do not support him. Gnosandes (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You present the picture as it is presented by the bourgeois media. Take the same Putin. Where did he say that the protesters need to be dispersed? But, "you" make him the main figure. Wikipedia spreads either disinformation, referring to non-RS? Gnosandes (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnosandes: I read the links, they supported the protests and were against Navalny's arrest (against political prisoners). They are not a third side. That does not mean they are allies who support Navalny's program. Same thing with 2019 Moscow protests and 2011–2013 Russian protests for example. I don't make him the main figure, he IS the main figure based on any RS. So please, make yourself familiar with WP:RS instead. Mellk (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And are you really trying to pretend that Navalny is not the main figure here and that these other fringe groups are equally as important? It seems like you're making excuses for lack of RS with this "bourgeois media". Mellk (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: They are a third party because they had their own slogans and so on. That being said, look at boxing by the February Bourgeois Democratic Revolution. There are two driving forces liberal and socialist. Only the scale is larger. I repeat once again that you have mixed everything. All sources to which you assign RS can also be assigned to the non-RS cliché. You provide misinformation by mixing different movements. In the 2019 Moscow protests, everything is divided by movements. If you are writing an article about Navalny, rename it. Otherwise, it is sheer nonsense. Gnosandes (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: I will also note that Navalny's group is also fringe because it is not registered. Gnosandes (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnosandes: These protests are pro-Navalny protests, as widely described as in media, and were organized by Navalny's team in the first place. These are not Left Front protests or anarchist protests. Which is why I believed the way you did it looked very misleading. Separating them by ideology is not a requirement, as seen with 2011–2013 Russian protests, 2014 anti-war protests in Russia, 2018 Russian pension protests and so on. This is not comparable to February Revolution. A revolution by the way. That said, the reason these are called "Russian protests" and not something like "pro-Navalny protests" in the title is because of consistency (WP:CRITERIA) with other protest articles. Mellk (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: These protests are not pro-Navalny. The fact that the protests were organized by Navalny's fringe group does not prove that half of the people who do not support Navalny did not follow protests. Socialists and anarchists came out with demands for the release of political prisoners, democratization of the political system, investigation of political murders and corruption, and with typical Marxist demands. This means that separation by ideology is mandatory. Yes, I pointed out that this is a revolution, but the point was in the separation of movements. At the time, the Kadets (liberals) were a slightly larger force, but they were not fringe like Navalny's group. WP:CRITERIA principle is a typical misinformation and substitution of concepts. Gnosandes (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: With all this, the article contains information about protests in other countries. This is inconsistent with the title of the article. In Europe, they may have supported Navalny, but there are other movements in the Russian Federation. This is again absurd. Gnosandes (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnosandes: I am stating what RS say, you are saying the complete opposite of what they say. WP policy is not something optional for you to dismiss as "misinformation". Mellk (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples: Reuters, HRW, BBC, NYT, DW etc. Mellk (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: I do not consider paid bourgeois media to be reliable sources. The fact that they are building a picture around Navalny's fringe group is obvious. You repeat after the bourgeois media. In doing so, you have designated the bourgeois media as reliable sources. And socialist and anarchist sources are not reliable sources for you. You wrote it from above. You are preventing me from giving a third point of view about protests. This is despotic behavior. Gnosandes (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FULL STOP! Wikipedia policy says those news sources ARE considered Reliable Sources. If that is your argument, you will constantly be reverted and quite probably reported to ANI for disruption. Cut it out.50.111.25.210 (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnosandes: These are generally considered to be RS on WP. You can also check for sources on WP:RSP for widely discussed ones. If you think they shouldn't be used on WP for being "bourgeois media", then you can try discussing on WP:RSN. Mellk (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: What does this have to do with it? If you do not let other editors add new information. You are building an article only on narrowly targeted sources. At the same time, you are replacing the concept by combining the liberal opposition and the communist opposition. It is now an obvious fact that bourgeois sources keep silent about all communist and anarchist movements. You also imagine to the readers that the communist and anarchist movements supported the liberal opposition, but this is not at all the case. The picture of the protests is much complicated, but you simplify it to the point that everyone allegedly supported Navalny. This is misleading readers. But you apparently want it. Gnosandes (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnosandes: You need to use RS, that is Wikipedia policy. You can add whatever if it is supported by RS. I have nothing against you, but you need to use RS and not dismiss RS as "bourgeois media", it's not a valid reason. And as I've already explained, "supported by" does not mean they support Navalny, they support the protests, which is even what those primary sources say. Mellk (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if Meduza is a reliable source for the number of total arrests? It looks like some unofficial, blog type site, which doesn't clearly specify the source of the information it has. BeŻet (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reliable. The source is ovdinfo.org --Renat (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems kinda farfetched. The "opposition to Vladimir Putin" is in fact the current institutes of opposition that exists in Russia (such as Navalny's FBK itself). While the majority of protesters had no political agenda whatsoever, those who had one actually pressured for Putin's resignation. Maybe that should be a cause, i.e. "Vladimir Putin's refusal to succeed/resign"? But also, I think one of the key elements of the protest is the lack of response from Putin's cabinet, there is no reaction to Navalny's documentaries, which, in turn, frustrates a lot of people. Shouldn't that also be mentioned? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it can be reworded, however these were certainly anti-government demonstrations and therefore against Putin's rule, and anti-Putin slogans were commonly used. Not to mention that Navalny's investigation against Putin played a big part. Where did you get the idea that the "majority of protesters had no political agenda whatsoever"? Mellk (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing themselves to "Vladimir Putin" doesn't mean opposing themselves to "Vladimir Putin's regime", I see a difference there. Moreover, prior to Navalny having been arrested, he was poisoned and it also played a role in the protests. The release of a certain documentary on YouTube doesn't indicate political motivation relating to protests, it only instigates an "Anti-Putin sentiment" (that's how I would put it). But, then again, according to the sources provided, the majority of protesters clashed with riot police more often than making their point. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navalny was poisoned 5 months prior. There were no protests regarding this (except maybe one-man protests such as by Vitaly Mansky). These protests happened and were organized only after Navalny's arrest, where he then urged protests as well as in his "Palace for Putin" film. This is covered by RS. The poisoning is not a direct cause of the protests, so it should only be in the background section. Mellk (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do groups are clear opposition groups, which have participated in the protests, put on the Supported by list? Alfred the Lesser (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree It doesn't make much sense to have them under Supported by, given that many of the left-wing groups listed explicitly do not support Navalny in the sources provided for them, but are clear that they are protesting in opposition to Putin, and the social policies of the United Russia government:

• The Russian Socialist Movement said "Despite the fact that we are not supporters of Alexei Navalny and otherwise see "the beautiful Russia of the future", the arrest of the politician is a blow to all democratic forces and another step towards dictatorship."
• The Revolutionary Workers' Party said "Although the RWP does not support Navalny and his program, it is important to understand that people came to this protest not so much for Navalny as against the current government and its criminal social policy, against its repression and intimidation. The trigger for the protest was a film about Putin's secret dacha for 100 billion rubles."
• The Leninist Komsomol of the Russian Federation said "Despite attempts by domestic and foreign media outlets to present the events as an exclusively movement of Navalny's supporters, the reality turns out to be much more complicated. Yes, the actions of Navalny and his assistants largely became a catalyst for the protest, but its true reasons are purely social in nature."
• The Communists of Russia said "The detention of Navalny became only a pretext for citizens to speak out, and the St. Petersburg branch of the CPKR does not change its extremely cautious assessment of his activities. The scale of corruption in the state, the dominance of slightly different parliamentary parties in the media and legislative bodies, a sharp drop in living standards as a result of the pandemic and excessive bans on everything and everyone, including rallies and demonstrations, became the real reason for mass protests."
• And Russia anarchists said: "We should perhaps mention that we have no praise to give Navalny, the politician whose arrest seemingly triggered this wave of protests. Navalny is an opportunistic ultra-nationalist bigot of a politician who paints himself as a populist using a narrative of anti-corruption politics that would only prop up a different batch of oligarchs and perpetuate oppressive attitudes in more pernicious ways. He isn’t even the most popular opposition politician, nor is his party the most popular."

While I don't think that Socialist Opposition was entirely accurate either, it was certainly more accurate than alleging these groups support Navalny's program, when they have explicitly rejected him.--Grnrchst (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Supported by" does not mean they support Navalny, they supported his protests. That is clear. These groups shouldn't even be mentioned, there is no coverage of them in RS and only primary sources are being used. They should all be put under "communists" or "anarchists" for example, they are not notable whatsoever. Mellk (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk: You are now playing a substitution of concepts and a play on words. Your "RS" keep silent about the facts of the protests, and you only add fuel to the fire. Gnosandes (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how the anti-Putin and anti-Nalvany socialists could be handled:

1 - Move them to a third category called "socialist opposition", like it was before. I support this idea.
2 - Maintain the infobox as it is.
3 - Add a subcategory in the opposition section called "anti-Nalvany protesters".
4 - Remove them entirely from the infobox.

Seekallknowledge (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 1 is the best solution. Despite the fact that his arrest was the primary cause for the eruption of the protests, Navalny doesn't own the protest movement. Other protest groups that are a part of and support the movement should not be excluded simply because they don't support Navalny as a leader. I wouldn't go as far as to call them "anti-Navalny protesters", though, as while they may not support Navalny as a replacement for Putin, they are not protesting against him, merely not in support of him. Most still support his release from prison, and all want to see the resignation of Putin. The first proposal accurately depicts the reality that the current protests are united in opposing Putin, but divided on whether or not Navalny is a suitable replacement for him. The only oddball situation here are the anarchists. Given the fact that anarchism explicitly rejects authority, I don't really think that there can be a 'spokesperson' for what anarchists think or believe. Perhaps for individual movements, but we haven't seen that really cited. If included, they should probably be separate from both the pro-Navalny demonstrators and the socialist demonstrators. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These groups did not protest against Navalny though, so "anti-Navalny" protesters is misleading. They are not allies or supporters of his party and policies, but they protested against his arrest. Anyway, I'd suggest 4, to remove them entirely or to put them all under a general group like "communists" and "anarchists" in a separately subcategory of the opposition, because they are not mentioned in RS whatsoever, only primary sources are being used and they are not notable for these parties to be mentioned specifically. Mellk (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I would highly oppose having a 3rd category or for it to be maintained as it is now. These are pro-Navalny protests (as described by numerous RS), these other groups are not notable whatsoever and RS do not cover them, so it seems absurd to give them this level of attention. Mellk (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5 - Move them up from the "supported by" section and list them as part of the "opposition". I'm not sure why any of these are "supported by" and not just "opposition". Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support this proposal (proposal 5). As it was said before all these groups, while they do not support Navalny directly, they are still on the same side as Navalny as they are united in opposition to Putin, with none of the aforementioned groups directly protesting against both Navalny and Putin from what I know. As for the anarchists I agree with Goodposts that they should be shown separately from the other opposition groups if shown at all in this article. Glakes (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support proposal 1 as it displays that they are a distinct faction of the opposition that does not side with the groups listed above them. I would also tentatively support proposal 5 by Levivich as I think that would also be acceptable (because they're all opposition groups, but not necessarily in agreement with eachother). I oppose proposal 3 on the grounds that they're not protesting against Navalny, they just don't support him. I also oppose proposal 4 as I think that would be needlessly prejudicial towards the groups in question, which have all demonstrated in the sources provided that they are a part of these protests. Even one of the photographs in this very article captures one of the groups in question. Ultimately, proposal 2 should probably remain as the status quo, at least until a consensus on this issue is reached.--Grnrchst (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though proposal 5 is also acceptable and support it for this reason. The Russian 'opposition' is a catch-all term for all anti-government groups - left, right and centre. The removal of the "supported by" tag would clear up the confusion as to whether or not they support Navalny. A further distinction can be made, if this is deemed necessary, trough the use of a simple divider within the same column, as exists now. I think this is a good compromise that generally avoids misleading the readers. Goodposts (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, 5 is also a good option. I support 5 and 1. Seekallknowledge (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 5 The left wing groups are still oppositional groups though I think it can somehow be made clear that they are not directly aligned to the pro-Navalny groups (older version of the article had the title Socialist Opposition, which worked). As far as the Russian sources report, the left wing groups have also participated in the protests, so saying supported by is very inaccurate. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5 also works, but I think it just be left at "socialist opposition" without mentioning all the specific parties and groups. They all rely on primary sources and RS do not mention them (if they do, then very barely), so considering how non-notable these groups are, this should be reflected. After all, RS describe this as pro-Navalny protests, any other groups in these protests are a fringe minority in the protests and they should not be given so much detail. Mellk (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5 won most votes, the infobox was changed according to this proposal. Seekallknowledge (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a warning that en.Wikipedia makes editorial decisions by seeking consensus based on reasons and seeking better proposals, not by votes. See WP:NOTVOTE. An option with the most votes is not necessarily a consensus. I'm not saying that this discussion was wrongly closed. I'm just giving a warning that shifting from consensus decision-making to vote-counting would be a huge distraction and waste of energy. Boud (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boud is generally right here. Though, in this case, as nobody actively objected to proposal 5, and the reasoning behind it is both well fleshed out and not opposed by editors, I'd say in this specific case there appears to be a consensus (that may change, naturally) and the decision appears to have been taken in accordance with established wiki precedent. For the interest of transparency, though, I should say that I was one of the editors that backed 5. Goodposts (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I agree with this edit by Gnosandes that removes the information and sizes of the protest outside Russia. To me it was remarkable that people outside Russia joined the protests and therefore I presume others will also find the information notable enough to be in this article. Or is 3,000 people joining the protest in Israel (this seems to be the biggest protests outside Russia) not enough people to be important enough to be listed in this article? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I believe the protests outside of Russia should be put in either the International Reactions section or in a new section altogether. I do think that the protests outside of Russia are notable enough to be mentioned. Glakes (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that they should be included as part of the International Reactions sections. Other articles on protests have included international solidarity demonstrations, so I don't see why this article need be any different.--Grnrchst (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, they are relevant to the article. Seekallknowledge (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, they are relevant to the topic at hand and listing foreign demonstrations in support of a certain movement has long been established as a practice in other articles. Goodposts (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, this is a violation of the logic of the article. For readers, you are at the very beginning, that is, in the title you indicate the protests in the Russian Federation. And then you add information about protests outside the borders of the Russian Federation. Gnosandes (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The number detained is outdated, detailing only 2,600 of those detained while the current figure is now almost 3,900. Either this needs to be updated or removed. I've also noticed inconsistencies and other errors. For example it states that 30,000 attended protests in St. Petersburg, however this is not supported by the source (which only lists number detained), and the only estimates mentioned in the article are much lower than this. I also question whether this table is needed at all and whether this is the correct format to use, it seems unnecessary to list every single town and city, and a lot of spaces, particularly under venues, are missing. Mellk (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is already impossible to repeat again and again that the goals of the liberal movements were different from those of the communist and anarchist movements. Even logically communist and anarchist movements cannot support liberal ones, that is, the government of the Russian bourgeoisie is supported by their watchdogs: MVD, National Guard. In opposition are citizens of the Russian Federation who support Navalny and the liberal movement, and who support the communist and anarchist movements. Some liberal (fringe) parties also support Navalny, but not communist and anarchist movements. Despite the fact that there were a large number of people who did not support either the liberal movements, or the communist and anarchist ones, or the government. I believe that the picture of protests is much more complicated than you present it in boxing, and therefore it is better to reconsider it. I believe that the mass media are silent about both the communist and anarchist movements and those Russian citizens who came out "against everyone". These mass media want to build a picture of the protests around Navalny and shut up everything else. I believe that Wikipedia are involved in disinformation and concealment of various facts of protest, retelling these mass media. The point of liberal movements is to dislodge one group of the bourgeoisie (Putin) from its place and put another group of the bourgeoisie (Navalny) in its place and plunge the Russian people into further extinction. The article should be completely redone with the presence of adequate facts or deleted. Gnosandes (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look to the Proposals to change the Infobox section of the talk page, you will see there is already a discussion underway as to how to handle this differentiation. If you would like to help contribute to forming a consensus on the subject, then please add your thoughts there as to which proposal/s you think are the right way forward. Please bare in mind that Wikipedia is not a journalism outlet, it can only archive what has already been presented in existing sources. Rather than simply complaining about the use of "mass media" sources, it would be very helpful if you could contribute other sources to the discussion that you think will help round out the nuances of this protest movement.--Grnrchst (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just changed the infobox to differentiate socialists from liberals. Seekallknowledge (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that User:Wikisaurus has moved the article from 2021 Russian protests to Alexei Navalny protests. This seems to me like a potentially controversial move that was done without first building consensus on the subject, so I'm opening a discussion about it. Most news articles I have seen from reliable sources have used the term Russian protests or Russia protests, but there is a non-insignificant number labeling it the Navalny protests.--Grnrchst (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I moved it back. There is indeed a number of RS calling them "Alexei Navalny protests", but, maybe, "2021 Alexei Navalny protests" (to distinguish with 2017–2018 Russian protests) or something else would be better. The title "2021 Russian protests" is too ambiguous, because there are dozens of different protests in Russia or any other large country each year. It is as wrong as, for example, calling George Floyd protests "2020 American protests". Wikisaurus (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good points. But while the George Floyd protests were indeed catalyzed by the murder of George Floyd, they were a part of the broader 2020–2021 United States racial unrest, which were responding to systemic racism and police brutality that had resulted in the murders of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Rayshard Brooks, Jacob Blake, Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl, Dijon Kizzee, Daniel Prude, Alvin Cole, Marcellis Stinnette, Walter Wallace, Andre Hill and Dolal Idd. These protests were also not the only notable protests in the United States during 2020, which included the election protests and anti-lockdown protests.
I think my big issue is with notability. My question would be whether or not there have been any other notable protests in Russia during 2021, because if not, then I lean towards retaining the "2021 Russian protests" title in the manner of the 2020–2021 Belarusian protests, the 2019–2020 Iranian protests, the 2020 Kyrgyzstani protests, etc. At least until other notable protests happen in Russia, in which case I would definitely support changing the title.--Grnrchst (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason protests in Russia never seem to get "named" by their organizers. I suspect this is so because of a successful demonetisation by the Putin government of the so-called "Colour revolutions." I think protests organizers think naming their protest will make them more vulnerable to government criticism. So I don't expect that the protest will get a name. Although that would be good for getting a more recognizable name of this Wikipedia article. All the reliable sources I have seen used the term Russian protests. So I agree there are no good grounds to rename the article for now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay as "2021 Russian protests" and should only be changed if and when there are other nationwide and unrelated protests this year (very unlikely). This is for consistency with other Russian protest articles (for example 2011–2013 Russian protests and 2017–2018 Russian protests), and this is often the same format with protest articles in other countries. Since these protests are nationwide (not localized such as with 2019 Moscow protests and 2020–2021 Khabarovsk Krai protests), the current name is suitable. Mellk (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that "2021 Russian protests" should stay. The Navalny protest name is disputed and besides, we have already established that there are significant protest factions that don't support Navalny per se. There is unlikely to be a simple name for the protests, as such names in Russia are often associated with the 'colour revolutions', which have a very, very negative connotation attached to them in Russian society. Most protesters would reject such labels, and protest organizers wouldn't want their movements associated with such revolutions deemed 'anti-Russian'. Goodposts (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Логотип "Революционной рабочей партии".jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since he has been imprisoned now, but I don't think it is really a cause. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Infobox says "arrest".--Renat (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently somebody changed it to "conviction". I reverted back to "arrest", as the protests were triggered by his arrest, not subsequent conviction. Goodposts (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Demonstration in Nizhny Novgorod in support of Alexei Navalny 31.01.2021 03.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Demonstration in Nizhny Novgorod in support of Alexei Navalny 31.01.2021 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Glakes: Hi. This your edit: Moved away ... to the introduction as the ...; now violates the WP:LEAD MOS:INTRO-provision. I suggest to revert it back.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello, I will remove the text as you originally added the text in a section dedicated towards protests exclusively outside of Russia. Feel free to move your text to a more suitable section. Thanks for letting me know. Glakes (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Glakes: I think we should shorten 21 April section.--AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We could do that. I do not think it should be shortened towards the text you contributed however we will shorten it. Glakes (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it would be useful to know exactly whats being said, i know that you can use google translate and stuff, but it doesnt show a accurate translation of whats actually there, so i ask for someone with some knowledge on russian to translate these sources (it will be very useful in determining what someone or a party said in relation to the protests), thanks in advance. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify which text specifically? Of course it would take someone an enormous amount of time to translate every single source, in which probably no one would want to do that. Mellk (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i dont mean translate the ENTIRE source, i mean just the name of the source, just to get some insight, and, i meant translate especially the ones in the infobox, so we can more accurately review the information. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]