Talk:Alexei Navalny

Embezzlement charges

I wanted to bring them in, but I see that this is not that easy .. the question is, in which direction to argue. We can't look into the primary sources to get a opinion, so which sources to trust (or how to put this right) in a situation that can not be separated from politics anymore is too much for me right now. The only thing that I can say from looking around is that Yves Rocher tried to distance themselves from the investigation/prosecution and said it was all started by the Russian authorities. It is not like there isn't other stuff going on in Russia when money for big infrastructure projects goes missing etc., in this case "Друзьям можно многое, а другим нельзя." - "Friends are allowed a lot of things, but others are not." likely applies for him. -- Sunvalley (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Just write what you can source. The reader needs to make up his mind. Thinking of what direction to first write in to steer the user because we already landed on a angle is CCM thinking. See refs: and

If you don't know for sure, style guide says chose one angle you can place valid sources and refs on, others will do another angle. Just start writing. Note: This whole sentence is cut from different parts of the style guide. Please re-read it. Jun, Administrator. (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Personally. I take the Wikileaks Cables leak angle: Putin is running a mafia state he inherited that's crippled with corruption and various power cliques like it's some mafia show. So he fought evil with evil, and everyone that seemed little less corrupt but wanted to shoot for the king, he did eliminate. So Navalny = also corrupt, but perhaps a little to a-serious-tad-less-but-still-corrupt. Hence. His brother probably was corrupt, but they couldnt prove a link to Alexei in that case. I remember this: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/2qd3vm/reurope_lets_talk_about_the_navalny_case/ - the thread has sources, and the comment chains have some valid claims as well. Jun, Administrator. (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

"Thinking of what direction to first write in to steer the user because we already landed on a angle is CCM thinking." - not sure if I can agree to this (is that in the Style Guide, Editorial Policy, Policy as well ?). Joaquin Flores: "Journalism and news has always been the marriage of facts and narrative – facts do not speak for themselves, as what facts are presented always tells a different story. There are an infinite number of facts in the world we live in, the narratives we present must be narratives that are at the same time sober, truthful, and empowering." - this, in theory, can apply for the question (that part of the wiki entry) as well. In the process of editing the direction of a wiki entry can be turned around, yes .. when new facts come in for example. But here much (most?) of what is relevant and can be noted in this article is already known .. problem still: the sources .. all are tainted. These embezzlement charges were leading up to this "close-to-death-sentence" so it is somewhat relevant. After reading that Reddit article, I see that the section could be split in two: Russian prosecution view, and rest (western ccm, european court, his people, etc) - that would keep the balance "in a situation that can not be separated from politics anymore". It might be the most practical way since the discussion of what sources to trust is then on the side.

Only comment on additional remarks you made: "His brother probably was corrupt, but they couldnt prove a link to Alexei in that case." - I am not positive what was proven when, the Reddit commentator has a point on it, more likely than not that he was in on it when the parents were in on it. "Putin is running a mafia state he inherited that's crippled with corruption and various power cliques" - yes, but when this point is made, what is most often not mentioned: that he brought back some living standard and prosperity for many (not all) people, the looting would not have stopped. And it is not that corruption and Mafia dealings are not going on here, but some basics and especially the outward appearance is significantly different. -- Sunvalley (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The last paragaraph about Putin are very valid points. I've added a documentary and some quotes to the Soviet Union Page which was slightly going into the HDI-improvement of Russia by Putin. Good point about Putin, I'll add more videos in Russian with English subtitles form independent media to your article. I'll add more on that. I know some YT channel. I'll place it on a longlist for when I have time. Thx.

Only what I want to clear up is, what I meant with CCM angle = By going structurally from an angle the same people/things/objects will keep being noted as enemy images. That last thing is not allowed. Yes, every editor is slightly biased, but they still mentioned CCM. Corbett has newsletters with a lot of CCM sources sometimes, Reuters, Twitter, YT. So that what I mentioned. Robin's feedback on CCM sources will hopefully clear up by Corbett also uses them. Jun, Administrator. (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

CCM video

I will remove the video: "How Alexei Navalny became Putin's greatest threat, VOX, 2021" and replace it with something more suitable for wikispooks.com. Since this is clearly a CCM propaganda piece which is wrong already in the title (and main thesis), and since it is used on Vladimir Putin as well, I will renew my criticism to not plaster the place with this type of video, Jun, Administrator. -- Sunvalley (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

              ===Style Guide===                                      

The style guide says that every source can have valid points, even CCM. Please present viewpoints with time stamps where lies in the video are being said and please, again, do not try to dismiss any CCM outlet outright. At a certain point I'll just lock pages if we need to remind you of this every time. For now I'm placing it back with a disclaimer, as I'm open for debate on this, as the style guide also indicates should happen when deleting. Second. I'm removing the Komisar video with videocode: 23UJZdtrRww - based on the following

In an email to Newsweek, Komisar said: "It is false that the article was written "partially" or in any respect by AI."

Komisar, however, said that she used ChatSonic, a conversational AI chatbot, "as a partial source and reference because I believed it was accurate, relatively unbiased, and it was a time efficient way of linking to sources." Komisar said that five of 27 links in the article had later needed fixing, something she had done.

After the controversy over how the article had been written, The Grayzone initially amended the article and later said it had been removed at the request of Komisar, who has published a version on her own website. "The republished third party article was removed after its author, Lucy Komisar, objected to our issuing of one correction, adjusting her sourcing in a handful of places, and publishing an editor's note explaining the changes. Because the article was not originally authored for our site and was a reprint, we abided by Komisar's request," The Grayzone said in an email to Newsweek. Komisar said she had not objected to the correction, had objected to only one element of the sourcing and had asked for the editor's note to be rewritten. The Grayzone said it strove to "uphold higher editorial standards" than Bellingcat.

Explanation: As the Grayzone almost never does this, this does not strike me well. How can we guarantee which one of her claims are valid in the video? And which claims did the Grayzone wanted corrected. I want to find them, but I can't. So, this source - although it seems truthful basing from the crosschecking I did on her claims on her websitie - needs more sourcing to back her Navalny article, OR, The Grayzone or Komisar can tell us herself what she wanted altered. Until, then, I'll only would like to see the video back with a disclaimer Jun, Administrator. (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Will not comment on an article of her that I am not familiar with and that is not exactly the issue I have raised here. If I had the need to get just one more example from you, for what is wrong with your choice of CCM videos that you throw around, this might be a very good example to get the point across. It is 11 minute something and I ask other admin's (Terje, Robin) to invest the time, to give me and you feedback. Sorry Jun, I have to say, I am not trusting in your direction anymore .. and since you have not taken the project over as far as I know, you don't have the final say. The "Style Guide" also does not cut it when you subverting the core reason for what this website was set up on with your choices .. and again and again in tune with the most boring propaganda points against Russia. Your Newsweek article questions Higgins of Bellingcat to help us along with the mistakes she may have made .. hmmm.

The video is short enough and so I will just provide my notes, not re-watch for timestamps:

Introduction:

• "How Alexei Navalny became Putin's greatest threat" .. also reiterated throughout -> he was a western media figure hyped by the CCM, which also explains the choice for this title, more than he ever was an important figure in Russia. Why they moved so hard against him ..? because he was a player that did get support from the outside (there this video, have not checked it, but somebody that is said to be connected to Navalny is talking about taking money for organizing protests)
• view counts of videos can be manipulated, to give the impression of much interest when there is not that much, especially from Russians
• Novichok poisoning on the plane, could be Russian, could be something else, but Novichok itself was introduced as a very, very deadly substance developed to kill .. the Skripal case had MI6 all over it

Putins taking over control in Russia, the history:

• media consolidation, probably true, but at no point in their telling they mention what it was in the 90s (this is not any small issue), it was "The Looting of Russia" and every Russian that is old enough can tell you a story about it
• elections, one Russian commentator came down with ~10% customary fraud in main elections, still Putin holds high approval thanks to him stabilizing the economy/society with the beginning of his terms
• he organised the oligarchy, true, but Khodorkovsky and Berezovsky (booth depicted as poor victims of Putin? or am I getting it wrong?) were two of the worst offenders in the looting, neither do the VOX journalist that have made this propaganda piece know (i assume), nor do they care
• the theft of official funds for infrastructure (roads etc) is a common thing, yes, but nobody in Russia really needs Navalny to know that this is occurring, even if some of "his investigations" were unique or brought new cases to light

Navalny gaining traction in Russia since 2011:

• have already put it into the article, the racist remarks he uttered early on in his career are either downplayed, smoothed over or not mentioned. other people, if need be, can receive exact the opposite treatment than Navalny by the CCM
• in one clip he says "I am better than Putin because I want to free you and save your money" - this VOX video, as other CCM output, is a commercial aimed at western audience, like L Komisar says about the "Navalny" documentary
• second most popular politician according to some poll's .. 1-2 percent approval in others -> Lucy Komisar interview / have to follow up with that, or you have found it already?

End of my notes. It is a commercial and together with how you left the article, it is a very uncritical very unquestioning, almost in tune with the media view on him. The article as you left it on the 20th was not entirely your thing, but together with this video you are freaking me out. Again the video is also on Vladimir Putin and a hardcore propaganda piece, so not suitable, somebody please assist. Thanks. -- Sunvalley (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The article is the one she discussed on the video you have provided? I thought that was clear, if not my apologies. Be aware I only wrote 15% of the article. Hence the accusation is a little bit weird. As for the others, you say to refuse any viewpoint, but continue for 350 words. Little bit cotradictionary here, but fine. Anyway. The style guide made by Robin and Peter says, be aware I only wrote 15% of the article. Hence the accusation is a little bit weird.

The golden rule of writing is to keep the reader in mind. On the internet, this is easier said than done, since the reader could be anybody. As this is a wiki, feel free to experiment and try a variety of ways to get your points across, although doing so in accordance with the below guidelines should help keep your contributions focused and in alignment with the general pre-existing direction of Wikispooks. Hence yes, we do try to follow it. Let me put it more clearly. The article Komisar wrote about Navalny was written with AI, she admitted. Grayzone - an non CCM source that often publiushes supressed voices. They refused to keep the article on their site, even after multiple alterations, with Komisar refusing to change it, according to then. That indicates something. Now, we can't which sentences she lied about or wrote with AI. But the fact some of her sources - even according to grayzone didn't exist, is not enough for an inclusion on the page without any disclaimer whatsoever. If you're not familliar with the article on which that interview in the podcast was based on, why did you add it in the first place?. I can recall during Corona articles, you did and admitted to this before. Which is allowed per style guide, as long as you bring a source, but when sometimes rebukes you, you should be able to be a bit more humble and actually read the article.

So you've given 10 rebukes: 1. Navanly may be paid and is artificially hyped up (ofc) = he is not the biggest opponent per approval rating = his approval rating was 20% in 2020. And even 35% under people under 25%. He came second in the 2013 Moscow Mayor Election. If you can find other parties in parliament not working in parliament with UR with a higher one. Feel free. 2.View count manipulation = do you have proof that that happened with this video or his channel or a source to claim that? Yes? Add it. 3. Yes. Skripal case being Putin, I don't fully buy. 4-7 Is all true, but with explanations, of course and not fully explained, but then it wouldn't be an intro. But you said true in part, so.. 8. Wasn't me that did not include it. We only have 5 editors. You've added it, great work. 9. This is dismissing CCM because they're CCM. The equivalant of rejecting a CIA officer claims about suspecting the CIA not assasinating an individual just cuz he's from the CIA. That's a scientific fallacy.

Therefore, I've raised my concerns with some of the comments you've made also with leadership. They wil be in touch and possibly will give me a guideline. As Robin's previous guideline I asked for you was 'I hope we have made it clear that all sources can have valid points". I've added introduction videos to help traffic. As Robin assigned me that task to help the front page. So I keep seeing people adding podcasts with 1 hour videos. The average time on the site a mere minutes. Intro vids, with short, viewpoints, help introduce people to the ON and keep the ON short. Try that with the more in depth and deep state vids. Until then, as you've mentioned refusing to follow up with any discussion with me, in the future, I will keep the discussion going even though it may be one-sided, but upon refusal to discuss viewpoints, and violating parts of style guide mentioning above AND refusing to discuss on the talk or user pages even upon request, I will lock pages, and may warn of more dire consequences such as an user blockage if the refusal to communicate mentioned above will maintain at this future point. Cheers. Jun, Administrator. (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Have read the reply, let's just wait until both of us have heard back. -- Sunvalley (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)