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: [1] and [2]
If you don't for sure, style guide, 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. 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.
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.[3]
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)
