Talk:Nochnoy Dozor (group)

Categories
the group might very well claim itself antineonazi but categorizing it as such is a violation of NPOV. It's a well known practice of the soviets to claim that everybody who opposes communism is a fascist.

Cites
Should get cites on claims of neo-Stalinism (that said, I'm unfamiliar with this term. Stalinism continues and is not "neo"). --Daniel C. Boyer 18:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it's 'neo' in the sense that it's a new wave after the original one got suppressed in the Khrushchev's anti-Stalinisation campaign. Digwuren 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Name
I would suggest renaming this as an "advocacy group" since "pressure group" carries negative connotations. Any objections? JoshuaZ 18:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * None from me; this would be more NPOV. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Changed it back to "pressure group" due to the extremist nature of the organization. Sorry, but advocacy group does not use vandalism, while this group has. Calling them terrorists would be biased, but a pressure group is just neutral enough.

Superjuhan 1:13 30 April 2007


 * If you can find a reliable source that calls it a pressure group then we can put it that way. However, it isn't neutral by itself, and simply using vandalism(which incidentally is a claim that would also need a source) is not sufficient. JoshuaZ 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2115.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.28.103 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be of interest that in European politics, pressure group is the standard characterisation of any single-issue political group. For example, the Estonian Green Party, the forced renters, and even university professors taken as a whole, are commonly referred to as pressure groups in Estonian political discourse. Estonian lecture notes of the topic declare 'pressure group' a special form of interest group; specifically, an interest group that has not yet managed to become a regular part of the common political process. Digwuren 13:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling the group terrorists is inappropriate, as they have not made any threats of terror. Rather, their modus operandi is generating spin for tabloids to take up. Digwuren 13:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Early history - source

 * Notšnoi Dozor by Viktoria Ladõnskaja from May 2006.DLX 18:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

POV
artificial contoversy, disinformation. wtf? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.18.97 (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please consider taking an account. Now all we know about you is you do not live in Russia (actually, you may not even have wanted us to know where you live...). Of course you have a valid point: this article is not encyclopaedic. The worst POV thing you missed however: "Interestingly, these statements are often rapidly taken up by ..." At Rein Lang they were actually told by an administrator that this use of "Interestingly" is POV. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clean up this article

 * ...starting, preferably, with the broken English and tortured syntax in which it was written?

Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

POV name
It's hopelessly POV to title this article "Nochnoy Dozor (pressure group)" – labeling these people a "pressure group" since they are described as a "group of activists." Redirect to Nochnoy Dozor (activist group) as the reasonable title – unless there is an official designation which they employ. At any rate, we should reflect common English. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Pressure group: "An interest group (also advocacy group, lobby group, pressure group or special interest group) is an organization that seeks to influence political decisions. It is a private organization that tries to persuade public officials to act or vote according to group members’ interests." -- Sander Säde  07:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That one is a redirect to Interest group, which is OK, but not ideal as something to reflect common language entirely accurately, since "interest group" has strong establishment connotations in the United States – ie, a group that primarily raises money for politicians. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree or alternatively Nochnoy Dozor (interest group). Peltimikko (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I oppose the "interest group" classification. It is impossible to properly define the group's interest without dwelving into some deep conspiracy theories, particularly because the group is not a singular entity, considers every member a spokesperson, and different spokespersons have promoted conflicting ideas of their interests. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely familiar with the group's actions, so I'll have to look that one over. Meanwhile, if what they concentrate on is political protest, they should probably be called a "protest group" or something similar. PasswordUsername (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Pressure group is indeed not a neutral name and it should be changed. Note that Israel lobby in the United States is not called Israel pressure group in the United States either. Offliner (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Interest group is a synonym of pressure group. Also, Activist group is a redirect to Activism. I must say their activities justify the name Pressure group or alternatively Interest group. The CIA World Factbook lists them under pressure groups, though, and great many sites tend to use that, so I think the current name is the best -- Sander Säde  08:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Nochnoy Dozor (organization)" – neutral? I still have to read up on them quite a bit more closely. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Pressure group is a neutral term, see List of pressure groups in the United Kingdom for example. I do not understand what is the issue, it is a common term describing a non-governmental groups which seek to influence politics. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason. -- Sander Säde  08:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a List of pressure groups in the United Kingdom, but note that the articles included in that list are not called "X (pressure group)." It is not a neutral article title and there is no problem at all using Nochnoy Dozor (organization) or Nochnoy Dozor (interest group) or simply Nochnoy Dozor (group). Offliner (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason why there isn't Greenpeace (pressure group) is that there is no well-known movie called Greenpeace. Also, you should have paid just a little bit more attention to the UK list, as there is Liberty (pressure group). Naming conventions (common names) and Disambiguation both tell us to use most common term; so far the only solid reference is to pressure group.
 * And please, again, would you explain what is the issue with the current name? It is not like the article is called Nochnoy Dozor (terrorist group) (which they aren't), it uses common neutral English term. -- Sander Säde  08:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue with "pressure group" is that it's not neutral, as stated already by 3 editors on this talk page. Would you please explain what is the issue with a neutral name such as Nochnoy Dozor (interest group) that would be acceptable to other editors? Offliner (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pressure group" might be a Britishism – I have never in all my life as an American seen it used to refer to any group at all, and it sounds just downright horrible to the American ear. If they're mostly oriented around activities such as protesting the removal of the Bronze Soldier statue, they should probably be referred to as "Nochnoy Dozor (protest group)." Otherwise we should go with "activist group" or "organization" – in the U.S. "interest group" has the connotation of a lobbyist organization that sponsors politicians and their campaigns as its first order of business, so we ought to go with a term that has neutral connotations internationally, such as the three possibilities just mentioned. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose reclassifying as "protest group", because most of the group's activities are not concerned with any sort of protest. It's more of a club that exerts political pressure as its main output. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What are most of its activities concerned with – anything specific besides further anti-NPOV generalities? PasswordUsername (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reminiscing about the lost glory of an Empire most members are too young to remember, reinforcing ethnic identity and playing fun(ny) games, usually on web forums. A small fraction made a point of attending to the Bronze Soldier nightly. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nochnoy Dozor (organization) seems to be the best solution, since the only purpose of the suffix is to disambiguate. Offliner (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This begs the question, though, is this a formal organization (as in, registered, etc.) or simply a group? Nochnoy Dozor (influence group) might be more descriptive and still neutral. PetersV     TALK 17:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Group" is also OK. Note that the purpose of the suffix is NOT to be descriptive (the name Nochnoy Dozor is enough) but simply to disambiguate. Offliner (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to sources, the pressure group has not incorporated in any way. It's too small to be a viable party, so under Estonian law, it would be expected that it might want to incorporate as an MTÜ -- a non-profit corporation --, but it seems to prefer to stay unorganised. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do realize it's only to disambiguate, but as long as we do, we should strive to be accurate. Organization definitely appears to be too formal. Would we all be OK to disambiguate to "influence group"? It's not quite "pressure" per the British sense as it's been used, but I'm OK with it. PetersV     TALK 01:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted Offliner's attempted a move to "Nochnoy Dozor (organisation)", it seems a bit premature since the discussion is ongoing. I don't think "pressure group" is a Britishism that "sounds just downright horrible" to the PasswordUsername's allegedly American ear, here are some definitions from US based encyclopedia's here. It is fairly common usage in Australia too. --Martintg (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Political Dictionary: pressure group
 * Top Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > Political Dictionary
 * " An alternative term for interest group, often used to indicate disapproval of the group concerned or its methods. Many analysts, however, use it interchangeably with interest group." Source: Martintg's link. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice cherry pick, out of the four definitions supplied, only this one implies some kind of negative connotation, the other three don't. --Martintg (talk) 11:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Trivial objection, trivial objections, anybody? PasswordUsername (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently "pressure group" and "interest group" are common and comparable enough that an English speaker can mix them up. Do we finally have some solid sources that describe it as anything but pressure group? So far one of the most respected sources in the world categorizes them under Pressure groups, why should we start to re-invent the wheel? -- Sander Säde  12:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I mixed them up as these largely share the same negative connotations in American political English. "Organization" and "protest group" are neutral. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are bird watching and train spotting interest groups, so "interest group" has a broader meaning compared to "pressure group", which is really confined to political interest. --Martintg (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would note in all of this that "pressure group" has no negative connotation. Many animal rights activist groups, for example, would be described as pressure groups as well. "Organization" implies a level of, well, organization which is not appropriate, even if this is all just for disambiguation. PetersV     TALK 13:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So go with "protest group"/"activist group". PasswordUsername (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it must be some sort of political correctness game. Pick a random term, claim it offends you, suggest replacements.  Fun, fun, fun. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to go by NPOV, personally. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (od) Well, I don't really see that "pressure group" is hopelessly POV, as this conversation started out, One editor's "POV" is another editor's "hopelessly NPOV" (and the other way around). There are bigger fish to fry than page disambiguation. So, of the two words, pressure and protest, my order of preference is:
 * pressure, protest
 * Perhaps others can simply list their order of preference (less any long and torturous conversation threads) and we can wrap this up. PetersV     TALK 19:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nochnoy Dozor (Estonian politics) as a suggestion, below, supersedes this thread. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 16:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Why "pressure group" is POV and any other discussion related to the directly above
If anyone objects to "pressure group" please discuss why that's POV more than just simply stating it's POV and that's it. Or anything else relative to the two choices. I think those two are choices are enough. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 19:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't personally perceive 'pressure group' as POV - but if it comes across as such to non-brits then fine. In any event, the purpose here is disambiguation only!  Nochnoy Dozor (Estonia) should be uniformly acceptable. Then you can all debate what text goes on the disambiguation page - which allows for a little more leeway, perhaps "political activist group" as per the article itself of something?
 * Y'all need to read Disambiguation - adjectives (like 'pressure' or 'activist') are not preferred. --Jaymax (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, "(Estonia)" rather implies the group is Estonian. Taking your lead, "(political group)" might do. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 03:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (Estonian politics)? Point is, the disambiguation should refer to the 'general class' or the 'subject or context' - the context and class of this article is not so much that it is of interest to -belongs to- the set of 'political groups' or 'pressure groups' or 'activist groups'; but that it's relevant to Estonia and Estonian politics. (IMHO)--Jaymax (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not my personal optimal solution, but I would be fine with Nochnoy Dozor (Estonian politics) as the disambiguated title. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (Estonian politics) is good. Offliner (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. If no one has serious objections, let's wait another 24 hours to check, and then rename. This may not be anyone's first choice but it solves the issue in keeping with general practice. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 21:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with it, as Nochnoy Dozor's main public output is on Russian TV. But I'll need to think if this is sufficient to oppose such a rename. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Estonia is the target of discussion and activity, regardless if Nochnoy Dozor ran a 24 hour disinformation channel dedicated to Estonia on Moscow TV. At least that's how I looked at it. Take another day to think about it, there's no rush. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How about "movement"? It has an euphemistic ring to it, but it is not like we don't have a precedent. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 23:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"group" or maybe "organization". Not "pressure group" or "Estonian politics". Peltimikko (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Peltimikko is correct. "Nochnoy Dozor (group)" would be fine. And as neutral as can be, imho. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do have to agree (after some more thought) with Jaymax's suggestion, "group" indicates nothing about the topic. It could be a group of anything (and when I just see "group" I think musical group). This note to yourself and Peltimikko. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 20:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Names don't have to indicate anything – if therere were no movie called Nochnoy Dozor we'd simply have the article titled as that with no differentiating parentheses. "Group" is specific enough to perform this function without being misleading. "Protest group" is also acceptable and NPOV. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "Pressure group" is the most succinct. As Jaymax stated, the term has no real POV connotations to his British ears, nor to Australian ears. Perhaps we should request a third opinion of some uninvolved Americans. Martintg (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A ridiculous way of stalling the discussion –
 * "'Pressure group': An alternative term for interest group, often used to indicate disapproval of the group concerned or its methods. Many analysts, however, use it interchangeably with interest group." Source: Martintg's link. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What is so ridiculous about asking for a third opinion? This is English wikipedia, so it is only natural to ask an uninvolved American. --Martintg (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find an uninvolved party who can specify whether this is a POV name or not (given the activities that Nochnoy Dozor actually does), go ahead. And I myself filed for help at the WP:NPOV noticeboard days ago. What is so ridiculous about having a neutral name? In which non-Wiki sources, by the way, is Nochnoy Dozor described as an "interest group" or a "pressure group"? This really smacks of WP:OR. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've listed it at Third_opinion. --Martintg (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed this request from the Request for third opinions, as this dispute appears to be between more than two editors. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. meamemg (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a counterproductive interpretation of "third opinion". Дигвурен ДигвуровичАллё? 11:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting quote by Putin in. So that is why Linter and Klenski always made their press statements in Russian! ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just been through about 15 definitions of "pressure group" via a google search for 'glossary "pressure group"' - not one has negative connotations. And I am now fairly convinced the allegation that the term is not NPOV is baseless.  Although, if the ask.com definition, supposedly from Oxford dictionaries (according to the hovertext) can be verified that might carry some weight.
 * Secondly PasswordUsername, I do not see how WP:DRNC can be invoked here - my reading of that clearly gives me the impression it applies to times when discussion is not already ongoing. Please do not rename until consensus is reached - including consensus as to whether (pressure group) is in fact POV loaded anyhow.  (edit: it especially can't be invoked, because it's not policy, merely guidance according to one or more editors)
 * Finally, (group) or (organization) is clearly sufficient to disambiguate at this time, and I would support either over (interest group), (pressure group) etc. --Jaymax (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think simply naming it Nochnoy Dozor (group) is best. The only purpose of the parenthetical part is to disambiguate it from the other pages listed on Nochnoy Dozor; it does not have to convey any additional information, and should have as few connotations as possible.  Since there are no other groups with this name on Wikipedia, there is no need to be more specific than 'group'.  I don't know whether 'pressure group' is POV or not, but I cannot see any fathomable reason not to er on the side of caution. --Aquillion (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree – so, if no objections...? PasswordUsername (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nochnoy Pozor
The semi-humorously reference to Nochnoy Pozor is notable, given that the media has reported on this. --Martintg (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)