Talk:Ribbon of Saint George

Interwiki
Someone is deleting the link to translated footage of the Victory Day parade in Winnipeg, MB. Somebody is also deleting the references to Stepan Bandera being a Nazi collaborator - a fact that is backed up here on Wikipedia and other references as well. Somebody is also deleting links to the memorial wreath that was set ablaze by unknown vandals. These are sourced instances and should not be ignored. 24.78.245.217 (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Red poppies are not a symbol of veterans in Western Europe. It is a strictly a Commonwealth / British thing. I guess the American and Canadian handlers of the Kiev junta told it to adopt the symbol and claim it is European although its symbolism is unknown anywhere outside Britain / France battlefields of WWI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.100.13.148 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The article in citation 8 is very provocative and does not reflect what was going on at the Victory Day parade in Winnipeg. The event was absolutely unpolitical from the side of organizers and participants. The quotes from the interviews are taken out of context. The more truthful information that was provided by Global News Winnipeg should be used for citation 8: http://globalnews.ca/video/1323590/tensions-rise-at-pro-russian-parade. --Motiryan (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Interwiki connection is wrong. Someone from your wiki should repair this.--Тежава (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Opinions without references
The article makes several politically charged statements without references or clarification. For example in the section about use by anti-LGBT protesters the ribbon is stated to be a "sign of Russian manhood and a remembrance what Soviet WWII soldiers stood and fought for". Similarly in the Ukrainian revolution section the ribbon is stated to be "a symbol of Anti-Fascism and Pro-Russian sentiment". Neither claim is supported by reference and both seem to reflect the opinion of the writer.

It is a fact that the ribbon is a common feature of Russian speaking anti-LGBT activists as well as among proponents of the Russian state and its policies in Russia and elsewhere, including Ukraine. It is not at all clear what specifically the ribbon symbolizes and why it is worn. No doubt any statement of the meaning of the symbol by its users is a restatement of the political message of the same users. Such statements would be of interest, but have value only if it is known from whom the statements originate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.50.6.138 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-maidan activists adopted specifically the Victory Day St.George Ribbon, used in remembrance of the Soviet Union soldiers who defeated Nazi Germany on the Eastern Front(Ukraine)during World War II. With far-right parties like Svoboda reaching power through the "euromaidan revolution" and anti-russian sentiment rising in Ukraine(especially in the Western regions), anti-maidan activists feel the St.George Ribbon symbolizes their stance of being "Pro-Russian and Anti-Fascist". They see Svoboda & Right Sector as neo-nazi organizations & the new government in Kiev as a result of a fascist coup. one of the anti-maidan organization networks is even called Eastern Front(specific reference to the Eastern Front which during the war fought off the Nazis). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequencer11 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement
"Anti-Russian activists sometimes refer to the Ribbon of Saint George as the "Colorado Ribbon", since the colors of the ribbon coincide with the colors of a Colorado potato beetle." I have a problem with this statement because the topic is about a ribbon which was used during the WW2, for sure it was also used during the Ukrainian crisis and it should be also mentioned. But I don't see how this information has any value for this article. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and this statement doesn't contribute any notable information about the Ribbon itself. --Wrant (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As soon as the section about in Ukraine is there I do not see why the sourced statement should be deleted. This is actually a pretty hot issue. If you want to create the article about the WWII ribbon and move it there, I would have no problem with this.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed it's a hot issue and that's the problem Wikipedia is not a daily journal but an encyclopedia and such information is pretty useless at all.--Wrant (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As soon as we have RS it is irrelevant. You are just trying to remove sourced info.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please bring an argument for your position I've stated my. If we can't reach an agreement we need a mediator. --Wrant (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought I already did. Indeed, St George ribbon which was used before 1917 is not the same as the ribbon of the Order of Glory (usually known as the Guard Ribbon) used since 1943. However, these two have been mixed by now, and people who write about the St George Ribbon actually mean the Guard ribbon. If you need sources to confirm this I can find them. We do not have a separate article on the guard ribbon. If such an article has been created, the whole section on the Ukraine can be moved there as far as I am concerned. Note that I did not start this section, somebody else did. However, as soon as the section stays in the article the notion of the Colorado ribbon belongs there since it has been reflected in multiple reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The article in current structure seems to address both of your concerns: it has a very strong historic section, and a current "controversial" use in the Ukrainian events. So, if that's what they call it in Ukraine, we should cover it. It sure is controversial and we probably could do a better job flagging it as such, but it does belong here. --Truther2012 (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Clashes in Canada
Clashes in Canada during victory parades have nothing to do with this article. I removed the material. If you find it necessary to include elsewhere, I preserved the narrative:
 * During the parade clashes occurred when some members of the Ukrainian community came to counter-protest with Ukrainian Insurgent Army flags and t-shirts featuring Stepan Bandera.

--Truther2012 (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016
the closing parenthesis needs to be moved to the end unless someone really wants to suggest that Boris Eltsin was the one who established it in 1769. right now the source reads:

History
The Georgian ribbon emerged as part of the Order of Saint George, established in 1769 as the highest military decoration of Imperial Russia (and re-established in 1998 by Presidential decree) signed by then President of Russia Boris Yeltsin.

but needs to be:

History
The Georgian ribbon emerged as part of the Order of Saint George, established in 1769 as the highest military decoration of Imperial Russia (and re-established in 1998 by Presidential decree signed by then President of Russia Boris Yeltsin).

Jakopriit (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ thanks for the suggestions

People are beaten on streets in Kiev for carrying it as a symbol of victory
The argumentation goes as "were you on Maidan?..You are "colorad"...Beat him/Kill him". Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B3rhvU_oOQ 87.78.236.178 (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We can not use youtube as a source, but if you find a reliable (preferably not Ukrainian and not Russian) source the material could be included in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is official confirmed channel of Anatoly Shariy 87.78.236.178 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anatoly Shariy is a freak. If he is the only one reporting than the material probably should not be included to the article. However, I believe I have seen it reported elsewhere, just have no time to search right now.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Anatoly Shariy is a freak." Source please. Quote from WP:EN: "Anatoly Shariy ... is a Ukrainian investigative journalist". This is a video from officially acknowledged journalist. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine. Well, we return to the fact that Youtube is not a reliable source.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, in this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_IRC.2C_Myspace.2C_Facebook.2C_and_YouTube_reliable_sources.3F "However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed", this is official verified channel from officially acknowledged journalist. Thus in this case its a reliable source. The youtube is only used for content hosting purposes. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. I would be ok as a primary source in the article about Shariy. But we do not need primary sources here.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose this claim. This would mean that all articles from BBC, CNBC, FOX etc should be removed from all articles and instead put into articles about FOX, CNBC, BBC. The linked video is a reliable source and I ask to create an entry in the article, that "people are beaten in Ukraine for wearing Saint Georgian Cross as symbol of victory in Great Patriotic War". The evidence is provided. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is not an evidence. It is unsourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "No, this is not an evidence." This is a video from verified channel, by a acknowledged journalist. I have provided exact paragraph when Youtube(Facebook, IRC) is considered reliable and it finds application here. Your actions are not constructive and violate Wikipedia policy: Gaming_the_system. Also, please post a reliable source why "Anatoly Shariy is a freak"? 87.78.236.178 (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC), (Edit: Changed to more correct guideline).87.78.236.178 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For the third time: this is a PRIMARY source. It should not be added to the article. Please find a reliable SECONDARY source, and then it can be discussed. You know, I am a reliable source myself. I have a blog which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article about me. I can write right now in a blog that I have seen that Martians arrived yesterday to the Earth, had some negociacions with Barack Obama and left. Should we then add this to the article about Barack Obama?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to confuse what primary and secondary source is with what is reliable. Primary source is filming of Martians by acknowledged journalist, regardless of video hosting if(and only if) that is official verified account. Secondary source is relinking of the primary source by another credible entity (any credited news agency). Shariy youtube channel is a reliable source to very same degree as CNN youtube channel is. In your example, you are not a reliable source, unless you adhere to WP:SOURCE. If you fail to comply with said criteria, then your content would be against WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTBLOG. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 16:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * : No, I am sorry, you seem to misunderstand our policies. Please look for the third opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Third opinion WP:THIRD is to "request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors". How does this relate to "this is a PRIMARY source. It should not be added to the article."? An event was filmed and broadcasted by reliable source. Why should this not added to the article? Barack Hussein Obama, who is President of United States of America, has an official Facebook page and any content posted there is a reliable source. It is used for example for His Wikipedia entry. My or yours Facebook page would not be a reliable source, because I would fail the WP:SOURCE criteria, I am not a credited journalist or notable organisation. Shariy is. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My claim is that you have no clue about our souurce policy and just make random claim to push your POV to the article which is currently semi-protected. You wasted today enough of my time. All explanations have been given at least three times. Please find someone else and waste their time.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My discussion has been civil and all claims were backed up and linked to corresponding sources and articles and done in good faith. You have, however provided numerous not backed up claims and now you imply my actions have wasted your time. This is a disrespecful and unconstructive behavior, which breaches []. In particular: 1. "Bad-faith wikilawyering – arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy." You have used interpretation of various policies to attack WP:SOURCE 2. "Playing policies against each other." Same as 1. 3. "Spuriously and knowingly claiming protection, justification or support under the words of a policy, for a viewpoint or stance which actually contradicts policy. " You said explicitly that "this article is semiprotected" 4. "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community." You use WP:THIRD as an excuse to your lack of policy knowledge, preventing WP:BOLD.   5. "stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the consensus of the community clearly does not agree, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution. "  As 4, you claim content is "unsourced", but fail to provide exact evidence as to why.   Finally, the last claim breaches about everything in WP:BITE. I suggest you read it. I also suggest you read WP:EQ. If you consider wasting your time on wikipedia, you way want to rethink if this is exactly so or stop "wasting" your time on wikipedia. Either way, I do not disagree with WP:THIRD, even though I see no breach of policies from my side. People are beaten and bullied in Ukraine, because they wear Saint George Ribbon as a symbol of 9th Mai/Victory in Great Patriotic War. This is relevant to the article and very important in regard to Freedom of Speech in the country. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Russian nationalist symbol:Green dye on Memorial society
I strongly believe this is not connected. If someone calls Holocaust to never happened, there is some chance this comes flying from outraged individuals. But that does not mean those individuals are "nationalists". Are all the Jews nationalist because they don't question Holocaust? Also, modern Ukrainian "press" calls people "pouring of green dye" - as "activists", instead of what sane people would call hooligans. (source: http://112.ua/avarii-chp/v-slavyanske-zaderzhali-aktivistov-oblivshih-zelenkoy-korolevskuyu-310221.html, http://www.segodnya.ua/regions/donetsk/v-slavyanske-zaderzhali-aktivista-s-zelenkoy-714190.html)... Also "Memorial" society is trying to essentially rewrite the history and manipulate youth, all the details are contained in the Memorial society article, including legal status. This is not just another historical research society, its highly biased and externally funded. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well this is not just opinion. This event is used as an argument that the ribbon is nationalist symbol. This is incorrect. It were not nationalists who poured green dye, but hooligans ("activists" according to Ukrainian "media") from the society group which opposes rewriting of history by said organization. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, in the articles you brought here above, St. George's ribbon is mentioned exactly zero times. If you want to start a rant against the Memorial, Ukrainian government, Ukrainian media and so on, the whole internet is at your service. However, we call this soapboxing, and users who are consistently soapboxing get blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If St. George's ribbon is mentioned zero times, then I ask to remove the event around Memorial from this article. Regarding Memorial - its mentioned in the event used to attribute Georgian Ribbon to nationalist groups. I have used official definition at WP:EN, thus this is not rant, but fact. I have given reliable source that people throwing green dye in the face are acknowledged as "activists". If you would like proof that Ukrainian press is extremely subjective and manipulative, I can provide evidence to that too. Also, WP:SOAP defines exactly what soapboxing is, would you please specify exactly which paragraph I am violating? 87.78.236.178 (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not exactly sure what you want. The two links you brought above in this very thread do not mention the ribbon. The two sources in the article which I found in the only paragraph where the Memorial is mentioned do. Concerning your political preferences, I suggest you take them elsewhere.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Your political preferences" - sorry? The event around Memorial is not connected to use of Georgian Ribbon by russian nationalist groups. The claims must be backed up by reliable and relevant sources. Initially, I wanted to move it into different paragraph, if this is still worth mentioning. However, you stated that even around Memorial has no references to Saint George ribbon, thus it should logically be removed from the article and perhaps put into Memorial WP entry.87.78.236.178 (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I still do not get your point. Do you mean that since you believe Memorial are evil they should not be mentioned in the article?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please specify where did you get this: "since you believe Memorial are evil". Let me repeat my point: 1. The claims must be backed up by reliable and relevant sources. 2. The event around Memorial is not connected to use of Georgian Ribbon by russian nationalist groups. 3. Thus it should be removed from the article or optionally transfered into Memorial WP entry. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I fail to understand you. The material is reliably sourced and relevant for the article. May be you need to look for the third opinion (of an established user familiar with our policies).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "The material is reliably sourced" - yes. "and relevant for the article." - point of disagreement. The article does not attribute carrying of Ribbon of Saint George to russian nationalist groups, thus it can't be used as source to prove the point. Consider the example: 1. "Some green apples are sour." (Some nationalists may use SGRibbon as symbol) 2. "A boy has green apple." (Some "activists" had SGR patches) 3. Claim: "thus he likes sour food" ("Activists" must be nationalists) is logically incorrect. What polices are conflicting here? If you are not sure, I suggest the use of WP:BOLD policy.87.78.236.178 (talk) 15:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, I added a source which is reliable and says very clearly it was a nationalist group.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but the linked article reads: "Coordinator of youth policies NOD, Maria Katasonova, claimed in interview to the Radio "Moscow Speaking", that this the activists do not related to this incident with Ulitskoy"(google translate)"Координатор молодежной политики НОД Мария Катасонова заявила в эфире радиостанции «Говорит Москва», что активисты движения не имеют никакого отношения к этому инциденту с Улицкой." This should also be noted in the article, otherwise it would be biased. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, I added that she was present there and she claimed the movement was not involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The source tells very clearly that it were in fact members of the pro-government "NOD". According to all sources, police was doing nothing, which indicates that the attack was coordinated with police in advance. I fixed this a little. My very best wishes (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, you vandalized the article silently by removing the claim from Maria Katasonova, that (NOD) memobers did not throw the green dye. Why? 87.78.236.178 (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Because they did, or at least that is what sources tell. If they were not NOD members, who were they? Perhaps I do not know. Please explain with refs, and let's fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about you re-read the linked article, where its clearly stated they deny that. If your translation skills are inadequate just search this page for "Maria Katasonova". This is exact thing you removed with your edit, effectively making the claim biased. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my question: to which organization you think these attackers belonged, and, most important, who paid them for the attack according to the sources? My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have honestly no opinion nor interest to research these claims. Your question is like building theories on 9/11 tragedy, instead of providing quality material on Wikipedia. This is not the place for research (original research and opinions contradict with neutrality) and I honestly have no idea. Additionally, if this is correct then claims should be sufficiently sourced in article about this organization and then optionally referenced here. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the attackers hinted that they were paid for conducting this "action", and of course everyone familiar with Russian politics knows that they indeed were paid. My very best wishes (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think this can be backed up, then please add this to the paragraph as well, when you restore Katasonova quote.87.78.236.178 (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "pro-government "NOD"" Source please. "police was doing nothing, which indicates that the attack was coordinated with police in advance." Does this mean, this is also coordinated? http://sharij.net/46806 https://youtube.com/FinDI9FKSDM?t=2m 87.78.236.178 (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Stones thrown over police, who stands there and does nothing. Thats assault on private property and hindering of company operations. Someone throws green dye into person face. That's private property damages and assault on person. Both cases, police stands still. How is this irrelevant? Your assumption that this was coordinated with police is a wild claim. Also, how "NOD" is pro-government? Memorial is definitely pro-government, pro-US government, Memorial attorney, Cyril Koroteev (Кирилл Коротеев) has publicly confirmed this. Please provide source that NOD is financed or protected by Russian government. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My very best wishes, on which ground have you called "green dye" to be a "toxic solution"? Its still used in medicine and is a disinfectant. It was "thrown" many times inside Ukraine as well. By the way, police did not react in all cases - the hooligans doing that were not prosecuted, afaik. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The compound is highly toxic because it can servery damage eyes. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this your original research? Brilliant Green (dye):"The main advantage of Brilliant Green over the more common antiseptics such as iodine is that it does not irritate mucous membranes as harshly on accidental contact." Tincture of iodine:"As both USP solutions contain elemental iodine, which is moderately toxic when ingested in amounts larger than those required to disinfect water, tincture of iodine is sold labelled "for external use only," and used primarily as a disinfectant.". Brilliant green is much less toxic than iodine tincture, specifically much less eye damaging. Iodine tincture is moderately toxic - only if digested, and clearly labeled "For external use only", exactly as Brilliant Green is. I strongly suggest that you refrain from posting original research or biased opinion, remove it immediately and instead rely on sourced material.87.78.236.178 (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1391517/pdf/annsurg00645-0048.pdf, "BRILLIANT GREEN A CLINICAL STUDY OF ITS VALUE AS A LOCAL ANTISEPTIC BY JOSEPH K. NARAT, M.D. OF CHICAGO, ILL."): "it has an excellent power of penetration; it is non-irritant and non-toxic; ; it stimulates' the formation of healthy granulation tissues". sic. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They did not administer this dye into someone's eyes. As about "pro-government" NOD, the name of Putin appears on the banners of this organization, and according to experts , Fedorov (leader of this organization) is a confidant of Putin, and he expresses the point of view by Putin ("Фёдоров ... является доверенным лицом Путина и озвучивает точку зрения Путина"). They do not hide that they support Putin's administration. My very best wishes (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "They did not administer this dye into someone's eyes." And did they administered the Brilliant Green in eyes of the victim? Given the fact of random possibility, this does not seem to happen in the event, as I don't see this on the photo at all, I don't see any claimed toxic effects. If you want to outline that Brilliant Green is toxic when administered into the eyes, please find the research paper, link it into the Brilliant Green article and link it here. Additionally, it must be phrased in a correct way, like: "Brilliant Green may/is/can be harmful/toxic on eye contact (research paper)", not just "pouring toxic solution of Brilliant Green to writer Ludmila Ulitskaya". Its not toxic, when poured - see linked research (taken straight from Brilliant Green article).       "As about "pro-government" NOD", again, please create an article about them and there source their activity, including criticism. Specifically, the banner you linked has "Putin" written in political slogan, and just above it there is another picture of their propaganda with what it looks like vandalizing Russian Constitution, which highly unlikely makes them pro-government. I can only see that they are trying to build a cult around strong leadership/dictatorship, as there are various Tzar pictures - Putin just happens to be current President. That's again just my opinion and worthless without dedicated article and/or thorough research. Also, a pro-government party should have some sort of back link from the government, like its the state with "United Russia".  "Фёдоров ... является доверенным лицом Путина и озвучивает точку зрения Путина" My google translate says that Фахрутдинов, Ирек Хайруллович is building a theory linking Fedorov to Putin, "because the later (Putin) would otherwise protest against the use of his name".  The article begins with "Сразу прошу .. извинить .. не смог представить .. весь объём анализа “аргументов” депутата-единоросса и советника .. Е.А.Фёдорова," where he excuses himself for inability to perform full analysis of arguments from Fedorov. This looks like a good reference for criticism or analysis section, but its not an official authority publication and thus may constitute de facto, but is not de jure. 87.78.236.178 (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @IP. Actually, they admitted it. For example, according to this publication, Roman Zykov, a spokesman for the National Liberation Movement, a pro-Kremlin group, told AFP its activists had picketed the event and held placards against foreigners financing education in Russia. Please note, "a pro-Kremlin group" - this is something they proudly tell themselves. This latest version of Nashi stole its "brand new name" from the Russian Liberation Movement, an actual opposition organization. And these guys are supported by police and security forces . Apparently, this is just another fake organization created by the security forces, just like Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and a lot of others. I am not even sure what's your point. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal
That the ribbons of the Tsarist and modern Russian Cross of Saint George and the Soviet Order of Glory are somehow distinct, or that the latter is called the "Guards ribbon", is a baseless claim made by those opposed to the modern day usage of the ribbon. While I agree that the ribbon today has become somewhat overused, the Order of Glory was in fact called an heir to the Cross of Saint George back in 1943, when it was first issued - in an official Red Army newspaper, no less. Even on the "Guards Tape" page it is stated that the black-orange striped pattern was borrowed from the Order of Saint George. Its ribbon was later called Georgian in official historical magazines.

Furthermore, there are no other pages for awareness ribbons in Wikipedia where different pages are created for different meanings of the visually identical symbol. For example, this page includes both the red ribbon used to represent AIDS and the red ribbon used to represent alcoholism. Meanwhile, the line between the "Georgian" and "Guards" ribbon is almost impossible to make, especially when it comes to modern-day emblems like the seal of the Luhansk People's Republic, as they are often meant to symbolise both Soviet and Tsarist military history. Clearly, there is even less reasons for there to be several pages for them than there is for different red ribbons.

Finally, the Guards Tape page itself is incredibly poorly made, from the improper use capitalisation, to its lack of sources, and down to its very name. The word tape, I presume, was used to translate the Russian лента as opposed to ленточка, but ribbon should be used to translate both, inasfar as we are not talking about tapeworms and magnetic tapes. TheImperios (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Stripes
The English version says 3 black and 2 orange stripes, in the Spanish version 3 orange and 2 black... which one is correct? 2A05:F6C4:6305:0:502:89C0:4807:E8AA (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Yellow vs Orange
Orange as a separate color distinct from red was introduced into W. Europe in the 16th century, this may be the reason the orange stripes were originally classified as yellow. Znok (talk) 11:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC)