Talk:Pussy Riot/Archive 2

biased article
I came to Wikipedia in order to know what the Pussy Riot did and sang in the Cathedral: I can't find anything! Where is the text of their song? --2.40.136.192 (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Except, as noted above, they didn't sing the song in the cathedral. Formerip (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they tried to sing, but they were prevented by security guards. They performed one couplet, and no more.--Distant Sun (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We cannot display the text of the song for legal reasons. That would most likely be a violation of copyright. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous.--Distant Sun (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

oh please! they put the video on youtube! what copyright are you talking about? --2.40.150.131 (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Text is here. It's not that. Nobody confuses, that the song hasn't (an) author(s) in fact? They never revealed the name of the person who wrote the text. Moreover, I couldn't find it in Internet, and I actually wrote it here by ear.--Distant Sun (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * See here for English translation(s). And BTW, just because something is on YouTube doesn't mean it is not copyrighted. benzband  ( talk ) 09:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We cannot simply provide a verbatim copy of the song for copyright reason, but we can quote the most important lines and possibly offer an external to link to the full text. Whether video song they publsihed on youtube contains more text (of the song) than they actually managed to utter in the church, might be difficult to judge/research since most reporting (that I#ve seen at least) doesn't make that distinction. One could also ask anyhow whether that (potential) difference really matters for anything.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The importance of partial song inclusion
I wish my English would be good enough to make this change myself, but as it's not, I can only ask anybody to add a section to the original article with elaboration on the actual song's text. There is an important context here: the song that was posted on YouTube (and that has started the outrage) was about Putin mostly. On the other hand, during the trial the word "Putin" was implicitly banned (there is only one or two mentions of this name in the sentence and the judge was hardly avoiding mentioning it) and the whole process was heavily biased to religion questions. This alone shows that "religious" charges are only a justification. 178.178.16.217 (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Dmitry

The RadFem Hub article
What's the best way to treat the RadFem Hub article on pussy riot? http://radicalhub.com/2012/08/20/pussy-riot-whose-freedom-whose-riot/ It's clearly a polemic piece rather than factual ("anally raped?" come on, there's no evidence they're being raped, or even that actual penetration took place).

RadFem Hub are on the radical fringe of the feminist movement, but still this is an article that stimulates debate, so maybe it's ok to link to it. However it's still a self-published source, essentially a blog. Maybe it would be better to include it in a different section, such as "opinions" or "reactions", where it can be linked to alongside uncritical cheerleading Guardian editorials, Christians who think they should have been "forgiven", Christians who think they should have got 7 years, Russian supremacists who think they should have got the death penalty etc. Thoughts on this anyone? MaxBrowne (talk) 05:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be removed altogether. We have clear policy WP:BLPSPS on self-published sources on living persons and the blog post in question is not only anonymous and self-published, but clearly is smearing, including false attribution of Voina's chicken snatching act to Pussy Riot members and other false claims. --M5 (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, but they have some valid points (imo) regarding the male-dominated and arguably pornographic nature of Voina's activities, which are in contrast to the feminist image Pussy Riot project. Maybe if we can find a better source this point of view could be represented in the article. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated
I removed a completely unsubstantiated claim that a Church robbery in Russia was related/inspired by Pussy Riot. My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Trial
In my opinion far too much space has been given to unimportant stuff like lists of western supporters, quotes from people with no real connection to the case and details of murders that had absolutely nothing to do with Pussy Riot.

There is very little detail on the trial. What claims did the prosecution make? How did the defence respond to them? What witnesses were called? What witnesses were disqualified? What was their testimony? What did the court base its conclusions on? Was it really a "show trial"? Were the sentences in line with international practice for similar offences? We need more of this and less of the "Grotty Hotpants from the Electric Underwear Experience said the sentences were really bad..." MaxBrowne (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree. There is a separate article "Case of Pussy riot" on ruwiki (Дело_Pussy_Riot) about this. It should also be created here. From what I read on Russian news sites, the court was real circus, with judge not allowing testimonies by witnesses of defense and ordering them to leave the court room, with service dogs barking in the court room, and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Chicken Incident?
In Private Eye magazine (No. 1321; 24 Aug - 6 Sept 2012), mention is made on page 5 to a member of Pussy Riot (or part of the art collective called Voina) entering a supermarket, choosing a chicken and inserting it into her private place. Does anyone have a video - we'd like to see how shocking this is, and to avoid the supermarket.79.70.224.217 (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)PussyRotUK79.70.224.217 (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's covered in the Voina article, it doesn't belong in the Pussy Riot article.MaxBrowne (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, unfortunately there's quite some sloppy reporting that pays little attention to the difference between voina and pussy riot, just because one pussy riot members was active in voina too.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the "sloppy" reporting on RT in particular was in fact deliberate slander.MaxBrowne (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The skum
First of all - the original video is not http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALS92big4TY .... on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCasuaAczKY&feature=plcp Second - why people delite our link from New York Pussy Riot supporters http://PussyRiotNY.com ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brbnews (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2012‎ (UTC)

"Punk prayer" title - NOT a "western media invention"
It's frustrating that an anonymous editor keeps on insisting that the title "Punk prayer" was a "western media invention" despite all the evidence that the title was used by the band itself.

Here's the video on their youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCasuaAczKY. The title is

Панк-молебен "Богородица, Путина прогони" Pussy Riot в Храме

which translates as "Punk prayer "Mother of God, Drive Putin away" Pussy Riot in the Cathedral

Here it is again on their blog: http://pussy-riot.livejournal.com/12442.html

ПАНК-МОЛЕБЕН "БОГОРОДИЦА, ПУТИНА ПРОГОНИ" В ХРАМЕ ХРИСТА СПАСИТЕЛЯ

this time they had "Cathedral of Christ the Saviour" (presumably not enough characters for this full title on youtube).

2 sources that clearly refute this repeated assertion that "punk prayer" is a "western media invention". Can we have an end to this nonsense now please? MaxBrowne (talk) 02:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Opinion pieces/commentaries
I think it should be ok to link to opinion pieces such as that of Paul Craig Roberts under "International Reaction", as per WP:RSOPINION. It's not as if Roberts is just some random blogger. Seems strange that you can link to Kate Nash or Courtney Love's opinion but not Roberts. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's about WP:SPS, rather than who the author is. We never use selfpublished sources for material about living third parties. Formerip (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Pussy Riot members: antisemitic, homophobic, xenophobic
Just watched RT exclusive interview with Putin and Putin said that one of the members of Pussy Riot in the past has staged a protest with effigies calling for Jews, gays, and foreigners to get out of Moscow.

Putin said: "First, in case you never heard of it, a couple of years ago one of the band’s members put up three effigies in one of Moscow’s big supermarkets, with a sign saying that Jews, gays and migrant workers should be driven out of Moscow."

Is this a fact? Why haven't I heard of this anywhere else before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, it is. http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/features/the-new-realism/2/Finalyzer (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell if it's a fact, because the Pravda Today interviewer predictably did not challenge Putin on any of his answers. But I'm happy to call bullshit all the same. Formerip (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Like all of Voina's stunts the intention of "In Memory of the Decembrists—A Present to Yuri Luzhkov" was satirical. Putin knows this, he's just being dishonest. MaxBrowne (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Convenient thing, irony...

Group sex better than ordinary
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "Group sex is better than ordinary. Because like in any team work can take a break." These are the words of Vladimir Putin, in the first interview since his inauguration in May, the Kremlin, published the day before, and a triple Russian President was answering questions from reporters at the Museum in Moscow, where they have orgies 2008th members organized feminists punk group Pussy Riot. "Sex in public is their business, said President Putin, according to the Croatian daily 24 hours, people have a right to do what they want as long as this does not violate the law. Note: President Putin has distanced himself and said that thinking about group sex is not the personal, but from the experiences of people who participated in it. 78.2.79.68 (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As it has been pointed out several times already, the "group sex" event was staged by Voina not Pussy Riot.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Defining what Pussy Riot is (or is not) for the lead
Granted Pussy Riot are not a "band" in the conventional sense. We don't know much about the musical side of Pussy Riot, such as when or where the tracks were recorded, who wrote them, who played on them. However Tolokonnikova does have a musical background (her mother is a music teacher and she learned piano), so it's quite possible that Tolokonnikova was involved in the recordings in some capacity. Equally, they can be described as political activists or performance artists who use punk rock music as their medium of expression. They have released an "album" of sorts called "Kill the Sexist", available for download. http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0

Some have also disputed their "feminist" credentials (e.g. radfemhub). It's true that they didn't mention feminism in their defence during the trial, but that's probably because feminism is stigmatised in Russia. How about this for the description then:

"Pussy Riot is a Russian political activist collective who use punk rock music to protest against Vladimir Putin and to promote feminism and LGBT issues".

Feel free to improve on this description.... I want something that all points of view can agree on. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Category?
What's for special category for this band? "Category:Pussy Riot" contains in Russian, Macedonian and Veps Wikipedies... maybe it's good to create this one in English Wikipedia too?--Distant Sun (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Accidental rollback
My rollback of Finalizer was done accidentally while trying to check my watchlist on my phone, and should not imply this his/her edit was in anyway counterproductive. If you have no clue what I'm talking about please ignore this. a13ean (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Clutter
Several sections in this article are too long and don't form a coherent whole. This is not helped by edits such as this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&diff=514408617&oldid=514401294

which really don't add any new or useful information but just clutter up the article. See WP:Article_Creep. (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, nothing tells better about the group than their own words. And frankly, "Origins, musical style, and ideology" isn't the worst section, and can be easily split. I think the article doesn't provide enough info about the group, but cluttered by opinions about it. BTW, that's one of the reasons why its neutrality has been questioned. May be we should move all opinions to separate section(s)?Finalyzer (talk) 13:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
The article is not presented neutral. It sides with the part of the population who is against their condemnation but does not present the opposite view. If their protest had taken place in a public place, then it would have been a simple problem of freedom of speech. However, regardless of the links between the government and the Russian church, organizing this protest in a church was definitely not a political act but an antireligious act. This raises difficult questions besides the legal sentencing. Would the exterior world have reacted in the same way, if this had taken place in a mosque or a sinagogue? Look at the reaction of the muslim world for an insignificant trailer on the internet. The action has also had unwanted influence on the public opinion in Russia. If an act which is offensive to the Russian Orthodox Church is justified by high profile people like Garry Kasparov, does that not raise an antisemitic sentiment in Russia. People should be free to have any religious beliefs and to have their places of worship, where they are not disturbed by people with different views. The article does not show that by demonstrating for their freedom Pussy Riot has also trampled on the freedom of other people. The article shows the outrage of numerous people against the harsh sentence. It does not show the outrage of the 42% of the Russians (which means about 60 million people) against the form of protest. And it also does not show why all the people who have protested against their sentencing, have not also expressed support for the freedom of religion. Unless these views are presented, the article is not neutral. Afil (talk) 22:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly the pieces currently being offered in the interests of "NPOV" are quite weak, and are mostly lame op-ed pieces along the lines of "imagine if they'd done that in a mosque". MaxBrowne (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done with my piece toward NPOV. I will let someone else to take over, if it's not enough. :-) Finalyzer (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that Afil's complaint about the lack of NPOV was based more on the fact that the article doesn't reflect his own biases than any bias in the article itself. There is already a section for criticism so it's not necessary to pepper the article with links to op-ed pieces just to present minority opinions. Also, some of the sources being offered such as self-published blog entries have never been acceptable on wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RE: WP:UNDUE edit, please, discuss next time before removing other people's work. Finalyzer (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Majority of criticism is obviously in Russian. Personally, I don't like to reference none-English source in English wiki. BTW, I've replaced links for Abbot Tryphon statements with links to Ancient Faith Radio podcasts. Should be OK now. Finalyzer (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Max Browne that criticisms like "And it also does not show why all the people who have protested against their sentencing, have not also expressed support for the freedom of religion" and "Would the exterior world have reacted in the same way, if this had taken place in a mosque or a sinagogue?" are clearly more a single editor's own opinion than an attempt to summarize international coverage of Pussy Riot; the fact that Afil doesn't provide a single source in arguing for changes to the article speaks for itself. Right now the article seems to me a fair summary of the coverage of major international news agencies, and contains several explicit statements about domestic Russian opinion on the band. I suggest the tag be removed. Khazar2 (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I vote for the tag removal. Finalyzer (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved editor here. I have reviewed the evidence supporting the tag and I do no find it to be compelling, so I am WP:BOLDly removing it. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issues
Sorry to start a second thread here, but in working through the article's references today I've been noticing several phrases, sentences, and even paragraphs that have been cut-and-pasted from their sources, such as, , and. If anybody else checking over this article notices any more sections like this, please remove them per WP:COPYVIO and Plagiarism. Cheers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * User:MaxBrowne attempted to restore part of the plagiarized content with no discussion here and the edit summary "Has been reproduced in several other sources so can't be a copyvio." I could be wrong (it wouldn't be my first bone-headed mistake this week), but these two sentences appear to be cut-and-pasted from the source with about three words changed, and the punctuation wrongly taken out of the quotation. Even it does appear in multiple sources word-for-word this way, my understanding is that that wouldn't mean the CBC has abandoned its copyright on the material.
 * Compare:
 * CBC: Defence lawyers said they would appeal the verdict, although they had little hope that it would be overturned. "Under no circumstances will the girls ask for a pardon [from Putin]," said Mark Feygin. "They will not beg and humiliate themselves before such a bastard."
 * Ours: Defense lawyers said they would appeal the verdict, although they did not expect it to be overturned. "Under no circumstances will the girls ask for a pardon from Putin," said Mark Feygin. "They will not beg and humiliate themselves before such a bastard."
 * At a minimum, this appears to me to be close paraphrasing. There's no reason to so closely copy the phrasing and structure of another writer's work here, and I'm unclear why it was restored. With apologies for the revert, I've again removed the offending material. As a compromise, I've attempted to put in a more extensively reworked version of these sentences. Let me know if the current version is acceptable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I pulled another para which appeared to me to be almost word-for-word from its original source. Since this is appeared to me a fairly trivial note (praise for the legal strategy by another lawyer), I haven't rewritten it for inclusion. If this strikes anyone else as important, though, feel free to restore a modified form:
 * Pavel Chikov, Chairman of the Agora Human Rights Association, said that defense lawyers coped very well with the tasks they were set. "You could have bet either on minimizing the potential liability of the girls or on maximizing the publicity surrounding the case. The lawyers for Pussy Riot, in consultation with their clients, chose the second option." But this tactic did not ensure a lighter sentence.Russian Press - Behind the Headlines, October 11 RIA Novosti, October 11, 2012.
 * Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing in "songs and videos" section
A large amount of this section appears to be primarily sourced to Pussy Riot's YouTube videos and some LiveJournal entries. I've attempted to trim it down to only what can be sourced to reliable sources, per WP:RS. Beyond accuracy concerns, I just think it's better that we focus on the performances and songs that reliable sources judged worth discussing, rather than the band's promotional channels. If anyone objects, though, you're welcome to revert me and we can discuss it; the edit can be found here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, I removed a wholly unsourced "Discography" section. Again, glad to discuss if anyone would like to, but let's find a source if this is going to stay. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * An IP has reverted me without discussion here on the grounds that removal of unsourced information is "arbitrary" and "unconstructive". I have to say I disagree. Would anyone care to offer a third opinion? I'll wait a bit in the meantime before reverting, in case she/he returns to discuss. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Though increasingly suspecting that I'm talking to myself on this page, I wanted to note that I removed this due to WP:BLP. I could be undervaluing this source, but a blog review by a non-notable writer hosted on a non-notable music website doesn't seem like a strong enough source to me to accuse the band of possible copyright infringement. (As editors here may know, the band has a few legal problems already. =)) Perhaps more clearly reliable source for this can be found if it's an important detail?
 * More broadly, I'll leave a note in the morning at WP:RS/N and get a quick opinion about whether PussyRiot's LiveJournal, YouTube, "zyalt", and other bloggers should be considered reliable sources for this article, and how much weight they should be given. I'm still a bit skeptical about these as reliable sources, but willing to seek an outside opinion; it's possible I'm trying to be too strict here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP, rather than gutting a whole section, couldn't you just add a citation needed note? Nobody seriously questions the details given just because they're sourced to Pussy Riot's livejournal or youtube accounts. This should be ok as per WP:SELFSOURCE.
 * Also I dispute the "non-notable" description for the louderthanwar.com website. It's more of an online magazine than a blog, and is actually very popular with British punk and indy types (more than 10,000 likes on facebook). There are a number of writers there, most of them established music journalists. It even picked up an award, see John Robb (musician). The claim that the song "Ubey Sexista" was sampled from the Cockney Rejects song is readily verifiable, but has not been widely reported in media (including music press). The Angelic Upstarts sampling is also readily verifiable, but I had to resort to a German article to source that one. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! Since this is a controversial and highly trafficked article, removing unsourced info and leaving a note here that I had done so seemed like a reasonable step. But since you've requested it, I'm fine with tagging for now and giving you and the IP another few days to find sources for this info. You may be right about the louderthanwar website, as I'm not familiar with it myself. The three red flags for me were that it 1) was an online publication, 2) lacked a Wikipedia article, 3) had an author whose previous publication credits were primarily "various fanzines and websites". Based on what you say, it's probably a strong enough source for the sampling claim itself, but I still think using it as a source for "raises copyright concerns" as you did requires a more clearly reliable source. It's also giving the copyright issue undue weight if out of the tens of thousands of sources on Pussy Riot, this author is the only one we know of to even mention this issue. When raising legal issues for BLPs, I think it's better to err on the side of caution. Are there other sources that have raised the copyright issue? As for the rest of the sourcing in this section, as I said above, the problem is two-fold. First, it's not just PussyRiot's self-published material we're relying on here. It's also sources like random bloggers:. Does Zyalt have a reputation as a reliable source I'm unaware of? And again, some of the information in here doesn't appear to be sourced at all. Second, if Pussy Riot themselves are the only source that's written about these performances, why include them in our article at all? Right now the "Songs and Videos" section appears roughly equal in length to the section on "Arrest and Prosecution", and is longer than the sections "Action in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour" or "International Support". Hundreds upon hundreds of reliable sources have been written on different acts of support for Pussy Riot--Madonna's statements, RHCP's statements, etc., etc. Why are we giving so much more article weight to an event like the "luxury store district" protest, which appears to have zero reliable sources? My own view is that we should follow the reliable sources in deciding how much article space each topic gets, and I believe this is backed up by Wikipedia policy. I'm up for hearing counterarguments, though--let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One of my tags has again been removed by the IP editor, so I'll elaborate here, and hopefully we can discuss. I flagged the sentence "The lyrics also have a sado-masochistic theme" because it seems to me original research to choose what themes of a song are important, instead of relying on reliable sources to do so. And again, as above, if no reliable source can be found that discusses this subject, why are we choosing to emphasize it?
 * Per WP:OR: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem here is that their early performances were not considered particularly notable and were not widely reported 'at the time'. They became more notable in retrospect when the group received wide publicity and people wanted to know more about their background. So long as the material is non-controversial (i.e. there is no serious dispute as to the facts), I think Pussy Riot's own blog (and associated blogs such as Verzilov's wisegizmo.livejournal.com) should be accepted as sources per WP:SELFSOURCE.MaxBrowne (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not so much that I'm not willing to accept them as sources for some claims, but I simply don't see the importance of information that few or no reliable sources have found important enough to publish. (Even if the performances are only "notable in retrospect", that shouldn't stop someone from writing about them now.) To put this another way, I could go to Weezer's article and add text that they performed in Boston on such-and-such a day, using a tour website as a source. But why? It dilutes the focus of the article to not focus on the things a group is really known for.
 * In the "Release the Cobblestones" section, though, there is at least one helpful source about some of the other performances in question: . Perhaps we can use this to reduce our reliance on YouTube videos here. In any case, thanks for being willing to talk it over! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've used that AP source to try to provide information on each song. I shortened descriptions of the performances to more closely parallel sources, and in one or two cases where they seemed to be both unsourced and inaccurate. (For example, are there really multiple women simulating masturbation in the window? It looks to me like one is, for one second, and the other two are playing guitars.) I also tweaked translations of song titles so that they match the source where no other translation/source is provided.
 * Lastly, I removed a few sentences that still appear to me to be in the neighborhood of original research. I noted the problem with this paragraph three days ago, and it still hasn't been cited:
 * "Lyrics to most Pussy Riot songs are simultaneously anti-government and pro-feminist. All Pussy Riot songs to date are less than two minutes in duration, with the exception of Putin zazhigaet kostry, which clocks in at two-and-a-half minutes. This underground, studio-only, recording featured brief guitar solos, which increase its length. While consistent with punk-rock style, the short durations of songs performed live are also a pragmatic decision, because of the likelihood that their live performances will soon be halted by authorities."
 * I also removed two sentences that emphasized particular lyrics or themes in songs without providing a secondary source. Again, if the tens of thousands of sources on Pussy Riot haven't been interested in these lyrics (or translated them for us), no reason for us to emphasize them either. If we can find more criticism of Pussy Riot's music, though, we can expand these sections a bit more (or replace what's there). I have to agree with the New York Times critic quoted at the top of this section, though--to get overly focused on Pussy Riot's music is to miss the point. (Certainly it's not what most reliable sources consider important about them.) Anyway, glad to discuss any/all of this if others disagree. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ... and again reverted without discussion here. To be more clear in case I wasn't above, I used the same AP source for song title translations as for the other sourcing: . It gave slightly different translations in a few cases than the user-generated translations here. (If these are being drawn on other reliable sources though, and I just misunderstood, I'll gladly retract the edits.) Following Wikipedia policies on preferring reliable secondary sources, I think we should use the AP's translations rather than those of our users, but I'm game for hearing any counterarguments. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Archives for this page?
Talk page guidelines suggest archiving a page when it exceeds ten main topics; we're in the mid-fifties. Would anyone object to my setting up an autoarchiver for this page? Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I set up Miszabot. Anything commented on in the last 90 days stays on the page, anything older gets archived (with a min. of 6 threads always left on the page.) If there are any objections, feel free to revert me and we can talk it over. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Spat with husband
I cut the following two sentences from the article for now, since they don't appear to have a source and are rather trivial:


 * Verzilov, who had previously stated himself that he was not an official representative of Pussy Riot, declined to comment, saying he wanted to find out what happened first. Samutsevich also expressed surprise at the letter, which was also signed, in prison, by Alyokhina.

The last two sentences appear to be an attempt to make Tolokonnikova's statement seem false. (The non-neutral phrasing "icily disowned her own husband" didn't help either). I'm all for putting in a sentence about Verzilov's response if we can find a source, though. I've got Little Miss Khazar calling me just now but I'll look for this in a minute. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem with the statement from Echo of Moscow. I actually remember taking note of the statement at the time (it was also on the Pussy Riot blog), before Tolokonnikova wrote the letter. Most likely she was unaware of the statement and there was a bit of a communication breakdown (they don't get to surf the net in jail), but people can draw their own conclusions. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I like the way you have it phrased now better than the original, which seemed more to draw its own conclusion between the two. (Maybe it's just putting a little more space between the two statements that helps.) Thanks for the improvement. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Simon Jenkins' "Tu Quoque"
Simon Jenkins' op-ed piece for The Guardian is a lame Tu Quoque piece. In my opinion it is devoid of intellectual merit and doesn't deserve a mention in wiki. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I agree that out of the hundreds of op-eds on Pussy Riot, there's no special need to emphasize this one. I wouldn't object if you wanted to remove it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Finalyzer (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ok I'll let it go since he's notable enough to have his own wiki page (and a knighthood). I still think his argument is weak. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

One of them turned up in Oslo
She's wearing the same white, red and blue tunic as Samutsevich was wearing when she got dragged away. Maybe Samutsevich? http://www.aftenposten.no/kultur/Pussy-Riot-er-blitt-storre-enn-oss-Det-er-blitt-en-bevegelse-7029905.html http://eng-pussy-riot.livejournal.com/26309.html MaxBrowne (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ok I guess it's not Samutsevich... she spoke to the conference from Moscow. http://www.osloworld.no/en/artists/seminar/ MaxBrowne (talk) 06:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Appeal
"The new approach chosen by Khrunova closed the way to release that the group tried to follow before by ignoring the court’s proceedings and questioning its legitimacy."

I don't understand this statement. Since when has refusing to recognise a court's legitimacy been an effective defence tactic in any court anywhere in the world? MaxBrowne (talk) 04:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reworded this a bit to try to make it clearer:
 * "By arguing that Samutsevich was innocent because she had not participated, Khrunova's defense implied that Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina had in fact committed a crime, and was described by one commentator as cutting off "the one path to redemption that the group actually had: ignoring the court’s proceedings and denying its legitimacy""
 * Essentially, I think the argument here is that Pussy Riot was never going to win their trial, but can only win by some sort of public pressure route: a pardon, international intervention, etc. By having one of its members take a defense that implies wrongdoing, they present a less unified front. Not saying I necessarily agree, but that's Ioffe's point as I understand it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

removal of new section
I removed the attempted insertion of a new section at the article here for a few reasons. First, it's a pretty obvious attempt to insert the editor's own opinion in a prominent way; this accusation gets a full new subsection (misleadingly titled "interesting facts") instead of being integrated with other material. Second, the sourcing appears to me very weak. I could be wrong, but Prawda.org.ua appears to be an imitation site of Ukrainian Pravda, not the real Pravda (note the spelling), and the second source doesn't appear to support the editor's claims at all. Third, even if we did find a single column or two putting forward this conspiracy theory (that the many organizations, artists, and organizations supporting the group are all plotting together to harm Russia), I'm still skeptical that it's worth including at such length. I suppose we can see what the source turns out to be.

I've removed this material for now but as always would welcome more eyes. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Lede needs work
No citations. Lede claims " Pussy Riot..Founded in August 2011, it consists of approximately 12 members..." suggesting a fixed roster with no reference to the open roster policy. Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Suka
Information that I consider relevant was removed from the article. Suka does mean "bitch" in the literal sense of a female dog, but as in insult it's not used the same way as in English. The Bitch Wars article explains its usage quite well. In the context "Patriarch Gundayev believes in Putin, better in God, suka, to believe", this implies that by openly supporting Putin, Gundayev has become a suka, betraying God. I have restored the information. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you a native speaker of Russian? "Suka" simply means "bitch." An example is zayebis, suka: "fuck off, bitch." The fact that prisoners in the Gulag called each other "bitch" back in the 1940s during the Suka Wars has no relevance for this article unless a reliable sources makes the connection. You own interpretation of the word "suka" is original research without such a source, especially as you should "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" and "Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided" per WP:OR Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that reliable sources should be found if this claim is included. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section
Reading through the "Criticism" section of this article, it appears to me a bit redundant with the "Reactions" section, and I'd like to propose integrating the two. First of all, it's well-established by this point in the article that Pussy Riot has been criticized by some religious believers both in Russia and abroad. (The Voina stuff is more helpful, but could also be integrated into the "Public Opinion in Russia section".) Second, the selection of critics in the section seems rather indiscriminate. I don't see a good reason to give an entire paragraph to a commentator on "Ancient Faith Radio Podcast" when we give only one word in this article to people like Sting, whose support for Pussy Riot was widely covered in reliable secondary sources, a half-sentence to the case's prosecutors, and only one sentence to Putin himself. I would suggest simply deleting this and the op-ed column from American Thinker as rather trivial compared to views from much more notable publications and figures whose views we don't have space to detail here. (One possible alternative: Creating a spin-off article dedicated only to Reception of Pussy Riot, along the lines of Reception of WikiLeaks. This would allow us to have much more detailed reactions from people involved, though a minor podcast still might not make the cut.) WP:CRITICISM offers some good suggestions on this, I think: "The best approach to incorporating negative criticism into the encyclopedia is to integrate it into the article, in a way that does not disrupt the article's flow. The article should be divided into sections based on topics, timeline, or theme – not viewpoint. Negative criticism should be interwoven throughout the topical or thematic sections. Creating a "Criticism" section exacerbates point-of-view problems, and is not encyclopedic." Would this re-arrangement/deletion be acceptable to others? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that the American Thinker article and and Ancient Faith podcast are rather obscure and not really worthy of mention. I think they were introduced into the article in response to the NPOV concerns expressed by Afil, which I didn't think were warranted in the first place. Not really in favour of splitting the article up unless it becomes very unwieldy. I'm fine with incorporating material from the "criticsm" section into the "reactions". MaxBrowne (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the POVs should be at least mentioned somewhere. Finalyzer (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are already around dozen people in the article quoted as not liking the church protest, so I think that POV is definitely covered. Or do you mean that you think the POV of "Ancient Faith Radio Podcast" specifically needs to be mentioned somewhere? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The only similar POV would be from ROC (i.e. subject/aim of the protest), which cannot be counted as neutral by any means. Finalyzer (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, none of these are neutral--they're opinion pieces. If you're looking for non-Russian figures, though, we do have Lech Walesa saying that the protest was distasteful, and several Western media supporting the arrest, as in the three sources that follow the sentence: "Some press raised concerns that a place of worship is not an appropriate venue for any form of protest, and that their cause could not morally justify such an action". Which strikes me as plenty of article space, since this is very much the minority view in Western sources. We don't have many long quotations from newspaper opinion columns in their support, either, though there have been many more of these. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If will start to remove criticism, we will end up with NPOV banner. Finalyzer (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd actually say if we give critics undue weight, we'll end up with an NPOV banner. There's no reason to pretend that "Ancient Faith Radio Podcast" from Oregon in the US is a more important source than the Washington Post, Yoko Ono, Madonna, The New York Times, or any other supportive source that we don't give a paragraph. Why give "Ancient Faith Radio Podcast" the special treatment? -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Even within the small Russian Orthodox community in the US, Abbot Tryphon is not particularly prominent. The podcast fails the undue weight test IMO. List_of_Eastern_Orthodox_monasteries_in_the_United_States MaxBrowne (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, representing POV from the podcast would be enough. Finalyzer (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. We already have several other commentators who criticize Pussy Riot for attacking Christianity, so we should be set. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please list "several other commentators who criticize Pussy Riot for attacking Christianity"? Or who else stated that PR looks for publicity by making scandals? Finalyzer (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Putin, the prosecutors, the judge, the Russian church, the Russian public, an MP from United Russia, and the three Western commentators cited at the end of the sentence "Some press raised concerns that a place of worship is not an appropriate venue for any form of protest, and that their cause could not morally justify such an action". But in any case, you've got this a bit backwards. You don't decide what information you want in the article and then go looking for one individual talking on a tiny, unknown broadcast in the Western US that happens to agree with you. You look at the major commentators, see what they're saying, and proportionately summarize it in the article. If you think some major commentators are making this point, can you give some examples? Then we can just include a quotation from one of them, and cut the podcast and small online magazine column. I'm fine with including significant criticism, but these are much less significant commentators than some of the information we're already leaving out. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Who cares what said biased people like Putin, etc.? You said "this is very much the minority view in Western sources". Why do we consider western sources only? And why do you think I agree with podcast? I just wanted to present different views, and to make sure NPOV banner can be justifiably removed. Without criticism the article will be biased toward mainstream Western POV. That's my point. Finalyzer (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we both agree that the article needs criticism. Luckily, it has plenty. You and I disagree that the article needs the criticism from a tiny podcast.
 * As for the "minority view" thing I said above, that was just referring to the sentence summing up some Western dissenting views. Criticism from other sources is obviously welcome. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * These quotes from WP:UNDUE clearly point to removal: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."  So I'm just going to go right ahead with the Abbot Tryphon one. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've integrated the "criticism" material into the reactions section. I also took the liberty of bumping "Reactions and aftermath" up one header level, since it's as large as any other section in the article. Take a look and let me know if the new format works okay, and please feel free to change. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I also integrated the "homicides" text into the more general aftermath section (without changing it). It seemed to me to give this slightly undue emphasis to give these two sentences their own subsection, especially since the incident turned out to be essentially unrelated to the band. There's plenty of general aftermath and incidents in that section, so the homicide red herring won't be out of place there. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see the homicides have been edited out altogether. I actually agree with that edit in principle, but I'm wondering if it deserves a passing mention since it was used by some of the more extreme elements in Russia to attack Pussy Riot and their supporters? MaxBrowne (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have mixed feelings. The murders got a lot of press coverage, both within Russia and internationally. On the other hand, they did turn out to be unrelated. So I think I'm okay with either solution here (inclusion or deletion). -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Invalid translation
Translate of "Путин зассал" (Putin Zassal) as "Putin Pissed Himself" is incorrect. "Зассал" is slang word which means afraid smth. 95.105.44.196 (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Both the English and Russian wiktionary pages appear to support the "pissed himself" translation. It is sometimes translated as "Putin got scared", but given that "ссать" and its derivatives are considered vulgar, the more vulgar translation seems appropriate. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "wet himself" looks more appropriate, i.e. http://www.russki-mat.net/page.php?l=RuEn&a=%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C Finalyzer (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * "wet oneself" and "piss oneself" are synonyms: "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/piss_oneself. "wet himself" can be heard on BBC video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17187572 Finalyzer (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * They're not exact synonyms. "Pissed himself" is both more precise ("wet himself" could mean he spilled a drink on himself), and more in the spirit of the not-very-polite Russian word. Newspapers and broadcasters may be reluctant to use the word "piss" but wikipedia in general is not censored. Also it's clumsy and unnecessary to include explanatory clauses like "(i.e. out of fear)". The same analogy (pissing oneself out of fear) is used in both Russian and English. So I vote we put it back how it was, i.e. "Putin pissed himself", no other explanation needed. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Explanation needed, since it's unclear which English definition to use, literal or figurative. Plus, "pissed oneself" could also mean "to laugh uncontrollably". Russian 'зассал' have quite straight definition on other hand, i.e. "to chicken out", rather than " to be very scared". So, actually "to chicken out" could be the best one: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chicken_out, http://www.russki-mat.net/page.php?l=RuEn&a=%D0%B7%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8C . "Pissed oneself" as "to be very scared" would be the best fit for 'обоссаться'. Finalyzer (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the Associated Press also gives "chickened out" for the translation. . I haven't done a review of other sources though. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this is getting reverted back forth a few times, I thought I'd do a better Google check. "Putin Pissed Himself" gets 52,000 hits; "Putin Chickened Out" gets 9,000. Both appear to be used in reliable sources, but the first is clearly the more common translation. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Piss oneself" isn't correct translation for "зассать". "зассать" doesn't mean neither "be very scared" nor "piss oneself". "piss oneself" " translates to "обоссаться". Finalyzer (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've noted that "Pissed Himself" is the most common translation in English language media and is therefore used as the title for the section, and given the alternative translations. Fair enough? Let's move on. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. The request made in regard to this discussion at the Third Opinion project has been removed for having more than two editors involved and for the lack of any recent discussion on the matter. If you still wish dispute resolution on this matter I would suggest going to either Dispute Resolution noticeboard or a request for comments, but the lack of recent discussion might interfere with such a request. An alternative might be to pick one of the Russian to English volunteer translators to offer up an third opinion, but before doing so I'd suggest that you work out an agreement about how that is going to work here first. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have opened a Dispute Resolution process here: Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Timiriazev or Timiryazev?
In the "Connection with Voina" section I see this:

"...the Timiriazev State Biology Museum in Moscow..."

But Russian State Agricultural University, Kliment Timiryazev, Timiryazev and -- most importantly -- http://www.timacad.ru/en/ all spell it "Timiryazev". --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no objection your changing it if the "y" seems more common. Go for it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Timiryazev is correct, in Russian it's Тимирязев, and the я letter transliterates to "ya" as per WP:RUS. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct translation of "Как Pussy Riot стали своими в мировом шоу-бизнесе"?
I'm pretty sure the machine translation "How to become your own Pussy Riot in the world of show business" is incorrect. как = "How"; стали = 3rd person plural past tense, perfective aspect of стать, "to become" (with instrumental case); своими plural, instrumental case of свой, a possessive pronoun meaning "one's" or "one's own", referring to the subjective of the sentence; в = "in" (with prepositional case); мировом prepositional case of the adjective мировой, "worldwide", "global" шоу-бизнесе = "show business", English loan word (prepositional case). The tricky part is translating стать своим, literally "to become one's own". I found this link for стать своим человеком, literally "to become one's own person", which it translates as "get on the inside". свой in some contexts can mean one's family, kin, circle of friends or peer group, so I think "стать своим" means to "get in with" a group. So I'm going to go for "How Pussy Riot became insiders in world show business". Russian speakers are welcome to improve on this translation. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing developments
Some recent developments to be aware of: Samutsevich has asked to testify in a court case which could see the punk prayer video declared "extremist" and banned in Russia. Meanwhile Pussy Riot's lawyers Feygin, Polozov and Volkova have severed all ties; seems they agree that their continued involvement with Pussy Riot is doing more harm than good. According to this article Tolokonnikova has hired Irina Khrunova, the lawyer who got Samutsevich off on a suspended sentence. I haven't written any of this up in the article yet, might wait till more details emerge. RAPSI is an excellent source of Pussy Riot information. MaxBrowne (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll add a note to the Feygin article about that, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was kind of hoping someone else would write these up. I'm aware that I've made a lot of edits to this article and I don't want to give the impression that I think I own the article. But it seems no-one else wants to keep it updated at the moment. I guess Pussy Riot have slipped out of the collective consciousness. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'd say you're fine to update as often as you like. Personally I didn't because the above info seems borderline for inclusion in what's already a long article, though I've no objection to your including it. (I did update the Feygin article based on your sources, though, so thanks for that.) Given that Pussy Riot seems likely to get much more coverage in the future, too, I suspect this article's eventual fate will be to have a WP:SPINOFF sub-article on "Pussy Riot hooliganism trial" or some such title. Anyway, thanks for your continued work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I've written up and referenced the anti-extremism case. Other recent developments that should be included in the article are the split with the lawyers (messy one, this) and Alyokhina's self-requested solitary confinement after conflict with other inmates. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. I don't think we should get overly bogged down in the he-said/she-said with the lawyers, but the split seems worth a mention. I'll try to add that and the solitary request later today. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just when we thought it couldn't get any messier, Volkova, Feygin and Polozov are suing Kommersant newspaper and Irina Khrunova for defamation. http://lenta.ru/news/2013/01/21/isk/ MaxBrowne (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oy. I'll add an update to Feygin's article and this one later today unless you beat me to it. Thanks for posting this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Antisemitism?
Why there is no mention that Pussy Riot members have Jewish ancestry and that their actions rise antisemitism?
 * Perhaps because there is no credible source for the claim that they have Jewish ancestry? MaxBrowne (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If they have some Russian ancestry does their trial constitute a case of Russophobia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.13.107.35 (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Extremism
I didn't use scare quotes in describing the extremism trial, because it is arguably not NPOV, but I was sorely tempted. Western media generally do use scare quotes when referring to Russian anti-extremism laws, since by western standards the Russian courts have some strange ideas about what qualifies as "extremist". On the other hand not using scare quotes could be seen as accepting the Russian definition of "extremism", and therefore not NPOV. Maybe more detail on Russian anti-extremism law is needed. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Partiality and anti-encyclopedism
This article seems to be edited by members of the band or their friends and not by people interested in reflecting facts of reality in an encyclopaedia. The extension is exaggeratedly large compared to the impact of the "performance" of the band in today's world. Many other more important events are described in smaller volumes of text. The whole article requires a neutral edition and reduction. GabEuro (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's more than enough reliable sources to support an article of this length on Pussy Riot, as you can see. If you feel other topics that you're more interested in should be as long, the best solution is to expand those topics! Thanks for your editing. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Update

 * http://www.cbc.ca/news/arts/story/2013/01/30/eu-russia-pussy-riot.html?cmp=rss The video seems to be banned. I will let the regulars on this page add material from the RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

National Endowment For Democracy FINANCING
Pussy Riot receive considerable funding and support by the National Endowment For Democracy, why isn't this mentioned? Puffster (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Allegedly. From what I can see this is just speculation in the blogosphere and on conspiracy-oriented sites, but maybe you have something that meets wiki's reliable source standards? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Emmeline or Sylvia Pankhurst?
Or Christabel or Adela for that matter? Not really clear which one is being referred to in the Vice interview, but my preference is for Emmeline (the mother). MaxBrowne (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the absence of further discussion I'll revert it to Emmeline. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be extremely surprised if she wasn't referring to Emmeline Pankhurst. Kaldari (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

incomplete and POV issues
Where is the discussion about the pseudo-psychological analysis read by the judge at trial? Along with the fact that it took three tries to get a psychologist who would say what the government wanted? Along with the fact that psychologists inside and outside Russia protested? 71.163.114.49 (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contribute. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't know about that analysis and haven't followed the whole thing too closely. In former decades, people would have called their appearances 'happenings', not concerts, performances or whatever. POV: Why people call that art (and I have read about fun with chickens in a supermarket, although I do not know how reliable that source is) is a little beyond me. Regardless, their sole raison d'etre seems to be anti-Putin which I find a little silly, even childish. Individuals like Putin (or Gorbachov, Obama, George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden) come and go. It never fails to fascinate me how some people believe in pushing off one person and think the system that they disagree with is going to change or improve automatically. Pussy Riot is probably 'luny fringe' and maybe they shouldn't be taken as seriously as they are. 144.136.192.4 (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As it says at the top of this page, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pussy Riot article, not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.


 * However, let's get that chicken/supermarket thing out of the way since it comes up so often in Pussy Riot discussions. Anyone with functioning eyes can confirm that the "star" of that video is not one the three jailed Pussy Riot members, nor do they appear anywhere in the video. This is because they had split from Voina by this stage. The lie doesn't become any truer from being repeated 50000 times, and any attempts to introduce it into the article will be quickly reverted. (Can't really use the word "lie" in the article but I have no such qualms on the talk page.) MaxBrowne (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

International support
What's the point anyway? Frankly I wouldn't mind if the laundry list of pop stars who once signed some petition or said something vaguely supporting Pussy Riot disappeared from the article. It really isn't that important if One Direction support Pussy Riot. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree and am deleting it. Anyone who wants to put it back should discuss it here. Thank you. Although the section appears to be fully sourced, it is really one-sided and totally unnecessary, since it involves the actions of people other than those directly involved in the case. It also resembles a "Laundry List"; see Avoid data-hoarding. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Voina stuff
If you want to know about Voina's actions go to the Voina article. Tolokonnikova and Samutsevich had some involvement in Voina but were not the primary organizers, nor is this assertion supported by any of the sources. Detailed descriptions of Voina stunts in which they had a peripheral role are relevant to the Voina article but not to the Pussy Riot article. MaxBrowne (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

How many members?
Which is it? "Founded in August 2011, it has a variable membership of approximately 11 women ranging in age from about 20 to 33" OR "It comprises around 12 performers and about 15 people who handle the technical work of shooting and editing their videos, which are posted on the Internet." Does anybody know, or can this article be edited to merge these two sets of figures? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No comment about the above but I am wondering if the phrase "ranging in age from about 20 to 33" may no longer be true. It could be revised to say "As of [year] ... ranging in age from about 20 to 33".--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not even clear that we should still be talking about Pussy Riot in the present tense. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Need to include the following

 * 1) We are all-female separatist collective--no man can represent us either on a poster or in reality.
 * 2) We belong to leftist anti-capitalist ideology--we charge no fees for viewing our art-work, all our videos are distributed freely on the web, the spectators to our performances are always spontaneous passers by, and we never sell tickets to our 'shows'.
 * 3) Our performances are always 'illegal', staged only in unpredictable locations and public places not designed for traditional entertainment. The distribution of our clips is always through free and unrestricted media channels.
 * 4) We are anonymous, because we act against any personality cult, against hierarchies implied by appearance, age and other visible social attributes.
 * 5) We cover our heads, because we oppose the very idea of using female face as a trademark for promoting any sort of goods or services.
 * 6) The mixing of the rebel feminist punk image with the image of institutionalised defenders of prisoners' rights, is harmful for us as collective, as well as it is harmful for the new role that Nadya and Masha have taken on. (Quotation form a letter written by the members) 117.195.69.44 (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We need a better source than occupywallstreet.net or a livejournal blog Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually if the livejournal blog is indeed an authentic primary source (that is "the official pussy riot webseite") then it very well might be sufficient as a source.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Having said that, reports on the open letter can be found at the time magazin or the bbc as well (see for instance )--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I put some citations in the article. I used as a source for the English translation the cite that was pointed out in the group's LJ blog. Lets consider Time citing this letter and Alyokhina-Tolokonnikova response legaleses the letter. IMHO, there were no meaningful Pussy Riot's actions after imprisonment of A&T, while at least some of PR members actively cooperated with the authorities helping them to imprison A&T with lesser embarrassment. Thus, A&T paid to be considered the only members of the group (maybe together with Samutsevich) by the years of torture in their prisons while the other participants of those Plutser-Sarno directed events have only earned the shame and the name of Putin's trolls. This is of course my own opinion. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

'Members' or 'participants'
Can we actually use the word members for this group? Would not participants be more accurate? GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just about every source uses "members," so . . . never mind! GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * And who is or isn't a "member" and who declares it to be so and who gives a damn? I'm fine with substituting the word "participant" for "member", don't really care much either way. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Those who work on this article and those who read it give a "damn." Thanks for your input here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Those who work on this article? MaxBrowne (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
These kinds of edits are unacceptable. Stop.  Enigma msg  22:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this edit. It is unreferenced and factually inaccurate. E.g. Pussy Riot performances have included heterosexual copulation in public as well as copulation with dead chickens in grocery stores. It is very difficult for a "female separatist" group to perform heterosexual copulation. The group Voina once did similar things but they have no direct relation to Pussy Riot. There was no service at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior at the time of the performance so they hardly disturbed anything. The Cathedral was not deemed desecrated (there was no need to re-sanctify the Cathedral, etc.). The Cathedral was built less than 20 years ago on a place there had stayed an older cathedral destroyed by Soviets. The cathedral complex is owned by Moscow City (not the Church), included large underground garages, car washing, a concert hall, a banquet hall, etc. In short it is big city complex but hardly the most holy place, etc. Some of the proposed changes might be included to make the article less one-sided, but let's discuss it first. I want to remind that the members of the group are alive and the group exists so the article should conform to WP:BLP policy Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Voina connection is mainly Tolokonnikova and Verzilov, and includes the infamous museum incident. Tolokonnikova and Samutsevich particpated in some Voina actions but not the one with the chicken or the giant penis on the bridge, and usually in a minor role. I don't think Alyokhina took part in any Voina actions unless that's her holding the camera at 0:42 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUaJLNonytg Oleg Vorotnikov is the main person behind Voina and he comes across as something of a bully. The other major player in Voina is Alexei Plutser-Sarno, who blogs about their actions and may have some involvement in organising them (though he doesn't usually participate directly). MaxBrowne (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The description seems to be fair. The bottom line is that we cannot refer to Voina actions as Pussy Riot's actions. For some controversial actions (as the chicken in vagina) it borders with libel. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Membership dispute
Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina are now listed as "Former Members" of the group in the Background Information sidebar. I assume this change was made in light of the anonymous letter from Pussy Riot sent to the press, disavowing their membership. I think this edit was made too hastily; the membership disavowal has been publicly refuted by Tolokonnikova, and the source of the letter has not been verified. According to Tolokonnikova, one of the aliases used to sign the letter was her former alias, which indicates the letter was not produced internally, but by uninformed observers of the group. (see this link in the new york times: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/10/two-founding-members-of-pussy-riot-respond-to-criticism) Discussion of this edit doesn't appear in the Talk page. Is there any reason why this edit shouldn't be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmbe (talk • contribs) One other thing, maybe the "Like a Red Prison" performance should have a section too, even though Samutsevich denounced them as impostors. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the edit, there is no reliable sources that T&A are not the current members of the group. An anonymous letter is not a reliable source by any means Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The post appears in the same blog which has been considered the official Pussy Riot blog in the past . The earliest entries are from November 2011 and document all their actions, starting with the Metro performance. So it does seem that the post comes from someone who is involved in or has been involved in Pussy Riot - likely Samutsevich. Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina have not met with her since their release, indicating that they are no longer friends. The question to ask now is does Pussy Riot still exist, and should the article be written in the past tense? MaxBrowne (talk) 10:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The blog was not active in the past two years, at that time they blogged only changing of the email (a red flag by itself), complained about somebody imitating PR and posted the letter in question. Anybody could get a password to an inactive lj account. IMHO no reliable source confirmed this live journal as the official Pussy Riot blog. Anyway PR are notable not as a group of bloggers but as a group of performance artists. Alyokhina and Tolokonnikova performed after they got their freedom (e.g. in Sochi), the anonymous blogger did not (despite not being in prison those two years). Thus, if there was a split withing the group and both claim the Pussy Riot name, my guess the name should go to Tolokonnikova, Alyokhina and their anonymous friends rather than to the blogger. All the available sources refer to the particiapants of Sochi actions as Pussy Riot not "former members of PR" Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds a bit far fetched to suggest that someone stole the password to their livejournal. Most likely Samutsevich (aka "Garadzha") controls that account, she also owns their youtube account. Could probably find sources saying that pussy-riot.livejournal.com is their official blog if we really wanted to. Anyway for the purposes of the article (which is what we really should be discussing on this page) we can't take sides with one faction or the other as to who is or isn't a member of Pussy Riot. That would violate WP:NPOV.
 * There is a dispute over the "membership" of Pussy Riot and there is no WP:consensus over who is "in" and who is "out"; therefore, I am simply removing the item from the WP:Infobox. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Pussy Riot has more in common with groups like the Yippies than a traditional band. In other words, whoever performs the performances is "Pussy Riot". I could even imagine separate Pussy Riot groups existing in different places. Kaldari (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Deletionism
Please don't remove material as "unsourced" just because no number appears at the end of a sentence. Sourcing in this article is generally very good, and if the source isn't given in the lead it can usually be found in the body. Even in the case of unsourced material, a tag is preferable to deleting, unless the material is contentious or potentially in violation of WP:BLP. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Every sentence should be sourced, and if it is not, then it can be challenged and removed. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First you remove sourced material, then you remove material because it's "unsourced" when you're the one who deleted the sources in the first place! MaxBrowne (talk) 07:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind that such edits can be easily misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular POV, as that may result in accusations that you are in violation of WP:NPOV. Also check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all of these reasons, it is advisable to communicate clearly that you have a considered reason to believe that the material in question cannot be verified."


 * The statement that Pussy Riot attracted support among prominent entertainers is of course easily verifiable; it's one of the reasons they're so well known in the west. Deleting statements such as this just because they don't have a number on the end of them without even bothering to use a tag is just nuisance editing. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I am sorry if you consider my editing a "nuisance." That is not a very nice way to write to a fellow editor. Anyway, the phrase is redundant and unnecessary, and if you feel like it should be there, then it should be sourced. I am sure you or somebody else can find an article that states something to back up this assertion; I will look for something myself. I might also ask what "a number of" means? To me, it is really vague. What does it mean? Also, I don't remember removing sourced material, so maybe you can refresh my memory, which I admit is sometimes faulty. Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There's the Amnesty press release which you deleted as non-neutral for starters; I've cited that. The "laundry list" was supported by citations as well. Deleting the statement as "unsourced" after deleting all that supporting material came across as something of a taunt.


 * "A number of" - if you can improve upon the wording please do so.


 * The whole "citing reliable sources" thing is getting a bit circular by now. It's obvious that the Daily Mail used wikipedia as a source for this article. I've seen stuff about Pussy Riot in The Guardian which probably came from wikipedia too. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to help improve the article per WP practice, as we all are. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again with this series of edits we see that annoying deletionist tendency to destroy other people's work instead of contributing material of one's own, calling things "original research" when they are not, deleting relevant and verifiable material just because that exact wording is not in the actual source cited etc. It's really quite exasperating. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that User:MaxBrowne reverted my carefully wrought changes, all of which I made after carefully perusing the sources cited. I deliberately was quite careful to indicate the reason for each change in the Edit summaries. User:MaxBrowne did a blanket reversion, which effectively destroyed several hours' of intense work; I put it all back and would ask any interested editor, including the aforementioned, to kindly provide any individual objections on the talk page before doing any further reverts or, at least, to provide individual Edit summaries when making changes. As for the question posed — "How is a government website not a RS?" — well, I cite here:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. Nevertheless, I really don't care that much, so if any editor wants to reinsert that particular passage, he or she can certainly do that, and I would not object. As for the other changes, each one should be examined carefully to see if it improves or harms the article. It is my opinion that each of my changes was a good one, but of course WP:consensus rules. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, that was a bit hasty but I'm an inclusionist. In general I don't like to see good information removed from wikipedia. I don't like to see information removed just because someone deems it unimportant or uninteresting, or just because it doesn't have a number at the end of the sentence, or just because the source being cited doesn't feature the exact same wording (even if other sources do). I also think it's fine to cite opinions published in sources, so long as they are identified as opinions. Anyway, if the subject is material that is included on the Russian "extremist" list, surely the best source for this is the list itself? MaxBrowne (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "usually considered an offshoot of the moscow branch of voina"
I think I prefer this to tagging the article. Most likely the claim in the blog post linked to by originated from wikipedia. The Reuters article by Thomas Peter is interesting and is cited elsewhere in the article; removing the link broke that citation. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a real problem that the article NOWHERE claims: "offshoot of the moscow branch of voina". This statement is thus unsourced. Gui le Roi (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Violence against women in Russia?
This category doesn't belongs to this article.--Dizang Changjie (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree, looks a bit POV. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Feminism section?
Hi all, I'm a bit confused as to why this section exists when their feminist ideology are already covered under the 'Ideology' section. There are also parts of the section which seem out of place given the tone of the rest of the article or which are clearly an opinion, e.g. "Pussy Riot are important to the feminist movement and showcase that post-feminism has not been achieved.", "The media tends to overlook the meaning behind Pussy Riot's feminism; the cultural context of it is vastly different to that of Western feminism.","This appeal from popular culture has been mostly due to the group's feminist notions.". I think this section either needs to merged with the 'Ideology' section or removed.


 * I made the feminism section a subsection of the ideology section. Some of those statements that you highlighted do look like editorialising, contrary to the WP:NPOV policy. Feel free to rephrase these more neutrally. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I've given some more thought over the past week to the 'Feminism' section, and I think I understand what happened now. What I think happened is that someone read the American Reader article and has basically tried to incorporate it in to the article in the style of a persuasive essay along with a few unconnected sentences, e.g. the sentence about feminism killing Russia and the influences sentence, which was already covered in one of the preceding sections. I'm not a regular editor by any means so I'm afraid I'm not familiar as to Wiki's policy as to what to do in this case, but I think the section should be removed, as its contents have almost all been covered in prior sections and seem to be intending to persuade the reader rather than inform.


 * Please feel free to edit the article. Neutral point of view is a core policy. The absolute impossible to achieve ideal is that you shouldn't even be able to tell the writer's personal opinion from the content of the article. Don't worry about making mistakes, these can be fixed. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have an issue with the section existing in and of itself, but yes, there is a pretty blatant neutral point of view problem and a clear case of editorializing. The section needs to be rewritten in a neutral manner with citations to back up the assertions. Aoa8212 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

in the news/most recent video
--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * http://time.com/4205782/pussy-riots-new-video-targets-corruption-in-putins-russia/

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Pussy Riot. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/pussy-riot-pair-separated-and-sent-to-gulags-8222575.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

latest video/US election
--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-bKFo30o2o
 * http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pussy-riot-alyokhina-america-trump-fight-1.3848530
 * http://time.com/4547274/pussy-riot-donald-trump-make-america-great-again/
 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/pussy-riot-donald-trump-straight-outta-vagina
 * http://www.npr.org/2016/10/28/499498761/pussy-riots-nadya-tolokonnikova-on-her-new-anti-trump-song
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/opinion/pussy-riots-nadya-trump-should-be-disqualified.html?_r=0
 * http://www.n-tv.de/mediathek/sendungen/auslandsreport/Was-wir-in-Russland-haben-kann-ueberall-passieren-article19059211.html
 * https://kurier.at/kultur/kritik-an-trump-pussy-riot-feiert-die-vagina/227.484.028

Pussy Riot's New Album in English
Hi Pussy Riot Editors,

May I have permission to add a new section about Pussy Riot's new album and music videos in English? They made quite a splash with songs and videos about Donald Trump, the policing of womens' bodies, etc. It is significant because this is their first work in English, aimed toward the American audience.

Let me know if I can add this...thanks.

RachelWex RachelWex 22:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody WP:OWNs this article and you don't need anyone's permission to edit. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Website Change // Addition
Hello!

Requesting the addition of Nadya's new website for Pussy Riot's musical endeavors.

www.wearepussyriot.com


 * The site has three embedded videos from YouTube and an online tshirt store (a strange thing on a site of an anti-market group) and that's all. Can somebody prove that this a genuine official site not yet another commercial outlet exploiting popularity of the group? Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Nadia confirmed on the broadcast that this is her site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.56.36.90 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)