Talk:SOVA Center

Notability
This NGO seems to be notable enough because there are numerous publications about it (a few of them are cited in the article).Biophys 01:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does not mean it can be used as reliable source. It is not - if anything it is a racist hate website financed by radical groups in the West.--Ram2006 15:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only it is reliable source (please read WP:SOURCE), but it is notable. Our personal opinions are irrelevant.Biophys 15:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not notable. It is spreading lies and disinformation. It exists for the sole purpose of villifying Russian people, and is financed by well known Russophobes. --Ram2006 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Internet censorship"
The claim inserted by Ram2006 that SOVA Center "promotes internet censorship" is false, based on the Russian language source he provided. It is for closing web sites that advocate kiling of journalists and human rights activists.Biophys 19:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Censorship does not stop being censorship just because its victim "advocates" something unpopular. Lqp (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You cited two sources. First of them does not link to any specific publication and therefore does not support the statement. Second source describe controversy about organization called "Citizen's assistance" (“Гражданское содействие”). This is not about "SOVA" but about a different organization.Biophys (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) First link is aimed to show systematic activity of sova-center. So it leads to page on their website, which reflects this activity in whole, not only some single action. It is very natural to show regular character of activity by showing special section on website dedicated to this activity Lqp (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC).
 * 2) Second line refer to thе controversy around particular person, Gannushkina, who is core member of both (and probably many more) organisations. This link would be relevant even if journalist does not mention any organisation at all Lqp (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC).


 * The text was: "SOVA Center is often criticized in Russian Internet for the promotion of internet censorship". Link to their web cite does not tell this . You need a reliable source that claims precisely that. I modified second part to explain what it was all about.Biophys (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia rules trivial facts need not to have cited source. It is a trivial fact that any attempt to impose censorship on the Net meet a harsh criticism on the Net.
 * Well, there a lot of criticism of imposition of censorship by "правозащитники" (the very same people who regularly published on SOVA site), but i have yet to find an article which mention SOVA-Center specifically. Lqp (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You will need to do better than to say something is so obvious ("trivial fact") as to not require reputable evidence. I do sincerely doubt will find any reputable evidence stating that the (so-called per your правозащитники in quotes) "human rights activists" who regularly publish on the SOVA Center web-site promote censorship. &mdash;PētersV (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * SOVA-Center is DIRECTLY promotes internet censorship. This is simple fact, basing on their site, labeled as a candidate to a members of INACH, the organization, which promotes 'lobbying for international legislation to combat discrimination on Internet' - in fact, the 'discrimination' in not a 'killing of journalists and others'. And 'combating with discrimination' is a form of playing for censorship. - unsigned by 91.76.255.76 at 22:03, December 2, 2008 GMT


 * Oh, please! INACH (International Network Against Cyber Hate) tapped Christopher Wolf, an internationally recognized expert on the Internet who was leading the Anti-Defamation League's leader against internet bigotry, to be its head. The ADL, one of the most respected anti-bigotry organizations on the planet, is the U.S. representative to INACH, which is an organization made up of multi-national member organizations.
 * Here's a speech by Wolf on the topic of online hate.
 * As for INACH, one only has to follow links from the SOVA Center page our anon (91.76.255.76) friend in Moscow provided indicate to find:
 * INACH Annual Report;
 * INACH Press Release on Berlin Conference;
 * Conference Resolution (in English);
 * all which speak for themselves. INACH's membership is made up of respected rights organizations, including members of the International Helsinki Committee. That 91.76.255.76 takes a dim view of INACH membership is their highly biased personal and completely non-encyclopedic (and may I add totally WP:FRINGE) viewpoint.
 * There is no reputable evidence that SOVA Center "promotes censorship"—that is, the suppression of free speech. —PētersV (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not 'please'. Your big talk is only the trying to mascarade the fact, that the ONLY way to 'combat with discrimination in internet' is a censorship of internet speech. I have know nothing about 'internationaly recognised experts' at all. I see, that INACH has a request form for semiautomatisation of censorship requests on their site. And I'm not a '91.76.255.76'. I'm a complete anonym, working from hidden proxies.

Protected...
Please add to external links:


 * Working sessions facilitated by the SOVA Center for Information and Analysis at the OSCE Conference, Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, Warsaw, 29 September - 10 October 2008

I should mention the claims that SOVA is xenophobic are quite baseless and outrageous. And lobbying to shut down hate sites is not "censorship." Hate speech is not free speech. -PētersV (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Any objections? If no objections I would include the external link tomorrow Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, please let's also include, in cited by... opening sentence, before "and other..." inserting "Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, " Thanks. -PētersV (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the article for two weeks until the conflict is solved. Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think there is a serious conflict here, which would require the two week protection.Biophys (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Editprotect is requested
I do not think we have sources for the phrase The leadership of SOVA advocate restrictions on the hate speech in the Russian internet. Can I put fact there? Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not mind if you remove this phrase completely or correct whatever you think should be corrected. The protection was unwarranted. We talked and created a compromise version. But whatever... Biophys (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have unprotected the article, please try to reach the compromise without editwarring Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a topic in workshops they conduct, I'm assuming something like that would be good enough as a reference. I don't think the fact tag is really required, but if you want to put it in a plain fact tag requesting a citation, that's fine. -PētersV (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a joint paper outlining the internet problem, steps to take (including terminating hate speech sites), sealed signed and delivered. I have to agree with Biophys that protection is not required, everything about SOVA can be reputably sourced and they are not some fringe Russiphobic organization. If one editor is disrupting the article with fringe POV, protecting the article is not the solution.
 * "http://www.osce.org/documents/cio/2004/06/3115_en.pdf", titled "League together with SOVA Center for Information and Analysis, European University at St. Petersburg, and DEMOS Center on the situation in the Russian Internet and Possibilities for Remedying the Existing Problems". -PētersV (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Edit conflict, thanks for the unprotect. -PētersV (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Gannushkina and SOVA
Gannushkina is the chairperson of "Grazhdanskoye Sodeystviye" (Citizen help) committee that seems to be a different organization from SOVA. She is an author of many materials on their website but I could not google any evidence of her being an official representative of the organization. Should Gannushkina material go into her own or Grazhdanskoye Sodeystviye article? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. This information is not about "SOVA". It should go either to her own article or to "Grazhdanskoye Sodeystviye" (if this organization deserves an article).Biophys (talk)


 * My reading appears to indicate that the residential issue is in fact tied to one and the same SOVA, as they are primarily advocating for minority, "dark-skinned," and other lower income and migrant labor right&mdash;people being discriminated against. I believe the article will need two section, one on "Policy and Analysis" and another for "Advocacy". -PētersV (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * More reading returns me to my original conclusion (striken earlier), not related. The letters are issued by the Moscow-based "Civic Assistance" Committee. That is a separate and distinct NGO from SOVA. I had an edit in progress which I left, commenting out the entire section, as it may be useful elsewhere--or be applicable if we have an official link between Gannushkina and SOVA. -PētersV (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I checked their web cite. Gannushkina has nothing to do with SOVA. Agree with removing all that stuff.Biophys (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

advocates restriction - misleading formula
The current wording by biophys: "The leadership of SOVA advocate restrictions on the hate speech in the Russian internet" - is misleading. It can (and probably will) be misreaded as open and honest advocacy of particular censorsip legislation before the general public. Which is not the case here. SOVA-Center takes little if any attention to the public. Its activity primarily aimed directly to a law enforcement officials. SOVA "teaches" them how to abuse the law and "assist" them in persecuting russian nationalists by providing agressive "expert testimonies". Similarily, international activity of SOVA consist not in cooperation with worldwide human-rights community, but in attempts to influence international organisations capable to pressure Russian government. While such activity is marginally legal, it can be considered unethical by many. Later this day I plan to change current wording to something more balanced. Lqp (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've quoted SOVA materials on the issue directly, with a brief intro summary and comment on free speech per their materials. That should eliminate all issues.
 * Your description of SOVA is completely not in keeping with the description of its activities by numerous reputable international organizations. WP is not a soapbox for venting your personal displeasure over SOVA or proselytizing your personal views regarding the nature of SOVA's activities. —PētersV (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Lgp, if it is your own opinion it is not notable enough to include in the article, if you could find a reference that somebody of notability shares your opinion we would include it in the article as an opinion (see WP:ATT). I doubt that we would be able to include it as a fact (see PētersV above for the reason) Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A news story carried by Novosti, for example, would be notable as it would qualify as reaction by the Russian state press organ. Typically, this would be some "expert commentary" by an "independent analyst," as this shields Novosti/the Russian government from denouncing opposition directly. According to Lgp, one would definitely expect to find some negative reaction to SOVA.
 * That said, a quick check of the most obvious place for that official reaction (in English), the Russia Today web site, yields a dozen or so news stories, all of which represent SOVA as a respected NGO and quoting SOVA's facts and figures, for example, "According to independent monitoring group Sova...". So even a source where one could rightfully expect an official denouncement about creating anti-Russian agit-prop, the only representation of SOVA to be found is that it is a respectable organization publishing noteworthy findings and analyses.&mdash;PētersV (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Factual mistakes
As speaking on behalf of SOVA, I cannot make a censorship here or advertize SOVA, but I would like to correct some mistakes in facts:

1. Roundtable on July 2, 2007 was a very small expert discussion, which was not important enough to be mentioned here. But the paragraph looks like our roundtable made a project of amendments to Anti-Extremism Law, which were adopted soon after that. Of course, we are not so influential. So citation of this Law as we are authors is not correct. We are against this law in general. What really happened, we criticized first draft in Spring 2007, and may be that was one of the reasons, why second draft was radically changed. But we also have a lot of critics on 2007 amendments – and if needed I may give links to our texts.

2. I do not understand, why this thing is mentioned here – “Subsequent legislative attempts to address Internet-based hate speech specifically, however, have failed to pass, most recently in October, 2008.” SOVA never supported such measures and many times spoke against them.

3. Savelyev’s case was closed very soon by police, as I know, according to limitations of our Criminal Procedure Code. And it wasn’t sent to the court.

4. We are not in position to facilitate OSCE events. We just participate in them (in many of them) as many other NGOs.

Shuravi (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh now, you are very welcome to correct mistakes in wikipedia. Please do. As someone more familiar with WP policies, I would be glad to check what you doing and make further corrections if needed.Biophys (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information, we'll be glad to look at sources and adjust. Generally people or organizations writing about themselves is frowned upon as that would be a "self-published source" and not a "reputable secondary source." We'll look at what's been written based on sources and any discrepancies with what you've communicated. PētersV    TALK 13:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)