Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya

BLP problems
A highly biased text that selectively cites unreliable Russian sources has been removed. A repeated BLP violation.Biophys (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Prefectly reliable sourses, exact quotes, nothing less, nothing more. I just repeat it, Biophys is a person who can't grow up. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, please cite precisely the sources. Where they tell what you claimed? Second, let's ask at WP:RS if these sources are reliable. Third, let's discuss "due weight" problems. When and if all of that is resolved, this might be reinserted. But until then, this is BLP violation.Biophys (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And NOTE Biophys' PROVOCATION with 'and the rebirth of Soviet propaganda in Russia [3] [4] [5]'. All links REFER TO HER OWN STATEMENTS (like Basaev is a democrat), no someone's propaganda. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have noted it, and have reverted Biophys' changes and redone them as part of prose. As these are statements that she herself has made, and most are sourced to her own political party website, and because they are not accusations against other people, they can not be WP:BLP concerns. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are not reliable sources; and you make citation out of context. If you want to insert this information, please ask at WP:RS. If others think the sources are good, and your interpretation of the sources was correct, this can be reinserted.Biophys (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's deal with one thing at a time. Please point out to us exactly which source is not reliable. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What Biophys wrote" per WP:BLP. Citation out of context; misinterpretations of sources; and even the sources themselves are unreliable." Now let's see: 1) Citation out of context - false In the context of her controversial (even 'humorous') speeches citations are fine; 2) misinterpretations of sources – false. Definitely exact quotes can and should be added to the text to show that there is no misinterpretation. 3) the sources themselves are unreliable - false. Komsomolskaya Pravda is unreliable source? Link to her interview to Echo Moskvy is unreliable source? After that I believe that Biophys behavior is softly speaking unproductive. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hiroshima was good for Japan
Novodvorskaya made the following statement. Так же, как меня совершенно не ужасает неприятность, приключившаяся с Хиросимой и Нагасаки. Зато смотрите, какая из Японии получилась конфетка. Просто "сникерс". Семерка в Токио заседает, парламент либеральный имеется. This is sourced to her own political party website at http://ds.ru/vnstat.htm; so it can't be claimed this is not a reliable source for a quote of hers.
 * You are wrong. http://ds.ru/ is definitly her own party's web-site, but it is not a self-published source. It cites Novodvorskaya's articles as published in "Новый Взгляд" newspapper on 28 Aug 1993. This article can be found on many others web-sites, and none of them are assotiated with Novodvorskaya's poticial party: http://www.patriotica.ru/enemy/avch_novodvorskaya.html, http://www.medialaw.ru/publications/zip/27/novodv.html to name a few. IN FACT, these 2 articles written by Novodvorskaya and 1 TV interview were subjects of court record against Novodvorskaya. As stated in http://www.medialaw.ru/publications/zip/27/novodv.html, Novodvorskaya admitted that she wrote these 2 articles published by "Новый Взгляд" newspapper. I don't even have to provide a web-link for any of these statements. It is enough to point to "Новый Взгляд" publication date to comply with Verifiability. Netrat (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, that's funny. We are saying "In her article, Novodvorskaya made the following statement" and refer o her article as published in a newspapper. You are saying this is not a reliable source? Tell me more. Netrat (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted the above. This was because Biophys above was claiming that the comments were either taken out of context, or were not sourced to WP:RS; those sources being articles printed in other outlets, but hosted on her own political party website, or links to Echo Movsky (a source which Biophys fills WP with conspiracy theory-like info from). He was attempting to WP:GAME guidelines and policies in order to keep information out of the article. In effect, what I was stating above that there is no gaming allowed on WP in order to WP:CENSOR views they don't like. But it's good that you found other sources for the info, and it is enough that you reference "Новый Взгляд" (although a link in compliance with WP:LINKVIO is also useful) --Russavia Dialogue 07:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Apartheid was normal
She made the following statement. Апартеид - нормальная вещь. ЮАР еще увидит, какой строй будет установлен коренным большинством, развлекающимся поджогами, убийствами, насилием. Мало не покажется... Again, sourced to precisely the same website as the Hiroshima statement
 * Again, you are wrong. This is sourced to Novodvorskaya's article in "Новый Взгляд" newspapper. It is enough to point to "Новый Взгляд" publication date to comply with Verifiability. Netrat (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Russia would be better off as a state of the US
She made the following statement Если бы США напали на Россию, для нас это было бы хорошо. Для России лучше быть штатом США. Но я думаю, что мы американцам не нужны. Поэтому нам надо готовиться к войне с тупостью, деградацией и реставрацией советских порядков. That is sourced to Komsomolskaya Pravda, http://www.kp.ru/daily/23852.4/63196/ which is a reliable source.

That Basayev was a democrat
She made the following states: Л. ГУЛЬКО: Шамиль Басаев, согласитесь, не ангел с крылышками, не мягкий и пушистый.

В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Шамиль Басаев кончил очень плохо, он кончил Бесланом, но он был нормальным человеком, мы его сделали террористом.

Л. ГУЛЬКО: Что же мы, мы-то здесь причем?

В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Уничтожая Чечню столько лет подряд, мы сделали демократа Шамиля Басаева…

Л. ГУЛЬКО: Демократа?

В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Да, в начале он был демократом, он, между прочим, у Белого дома стоял в 91 году, защищал российскую демократию.

Л. ГУЛЬКО: Я первый раз от вас слышу, что он стоял у Белого дома.

В. НОВОДВОРСКАЯ: Это все демократы знают, что он стоял у Белого дома, что чеченцы отказались прийти на помощь Хасбулатову в 93-м году и защищали Ельцина. Шамиль Басаев в своей президентской программе, когда он конкурировал с Масхадовым, выступал как абсолютный западник, предлагал сделать армию по американскому образцу… She made this statement on Echo Moskvy (one of Biophys' fave sources), and is sourced, again, to her own political party website at http://www.ds.ru/echo2008.htm

So the question is, did she or did she not make these statements? If these sources are unreliable, then I would expect the following statement to be removed from the article: "Novodvorskaya is openly critical of Russian government policies. [2], including Chechen Wars, domestic policies of Vladimir Putin, and the rebirth of Soviet propaganda in Russia [3][4] [5]" -- as these are sourced to exactly the same sources as her other statements. If it is out of context, then provide the context, because from where I am sitting, she made these statements of her own free will, and has put the statements on her own party website for all to see. So how can there be BLP? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with you. Provocations, false statements while editing the article... Why should normal person do this? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree that the statements, whilst she made them, need to have some context provided within the article. Her own words on Basayev are (IMO) the most worrying; his own ideology and allegiance with Islamic extremist turned him into a terrorist; not Russia. But we don't need to present that in this article, just simply what her own opinions are. If there are other sources out there which discuss these opinions of hers, then present them also, so long as they don't breach WP:BLP and are written here in neutral tone. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 17:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I told about Biophys' statements... Beatle Fab Four (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've cleaned up (not that it was that large) the "Post-Soviet Russia" section including adding appropriate context including some expansion of key events, ref'ed, directly relevant to Novodvorskaya's claims and contentions. I'm reasonably satisfied that the accounting of her interview now meets WP:BLP standards for NPOV. The prior wording indicated her claim about Russia turning Basayev into a terrorist was an unwarranted contention based on chronology, a WP:BLP violation given his personal familial losses which are reported to have engendered his later brutality. -PētersV (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP policy
It tells:

Please respect the policy. What you are doing is mockery. Also, do not use Russian tabloids. If you find a good book (a reliable secondary source), you can use it.Biophys (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All I know that all the aforementioned sourses are OK by WP standards. Your claims and orders like "mockery", "do not use Russian tabloids" just show me once again that you likely do not want a fruitful duscussion. My view is that your actions are something else... Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And again, you're wrong. There is no mockery in presenting ridiculous quotes or views of controversial politicians (some would say 'political clowns', but it is probably too harsh expression). See, e.g., Zhirinovsky or Boris_Gryzlov. VN is no exception . Beatle Fab Four (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, there is a section with 'jokes' (yes, we know Biophys calls it 'mockery') even at Berlusconi page. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the same thing with Chernomyrdin. ;-) Beatle Fab Four (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, it would be fine to describe everything in NPOV manner, as in Russin WP article. A factual information from her biography, support, criticism, and so on. One can also cite her articles like this one . If you do something like that, no one will object.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, you may add any soursed info you want. The question here is that it is you who made unproductive edits and deleted section Controversies with reliable sourses. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's pretty damn obvious what Biophys is doing here, and again Biophys, I'd appreciate it if you could keep my name off that Arbcom, you running over there with every dispute looks kinda desperate and absolutely childish. For what you won't tell them over at arbcom is that her own political party website is being used as a source already in this article, and the same pages on the website also include those quotes. Echo Moskvy is also used for a source; I remember this is one of your favourite sources for things such as proving that Putin eats babies for breakfast; every nutcase get's their airtime on Echo Moskvy. Unfortunately, this has something that you don't want to come out; in that she did made the claim that Basayev, that warm fuzzy terrorist, was a democrat. And KP.ru, the biggest selling daily in Russia today, you use sources such as newtimes.ru, grani.ru, compromat.ru, novayagazeta.ru and a heap of other wacko tin foil hat conspiracy loving hack job sources to help you do what you are to here to do, and we most certainly can use KP.ru as a source for articles. The key is that they are written in a NPOV way. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 08:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Biophys, I didn't realise this previously, but it turns out that she is the member of the editorial board of the New Times, so the use of that source in this article could be highly prejudicial. If that is to be used, it is definitely worth checking to see if such sources are permitted under WP:V and WP:RS. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuous deletion of relevant section
I have already shown that section Controversies, Famous Quotes, Jokes is fine in an article about controversial political figures (e.g., Zhirinovsky, Boris_Gryzlov, Berlusconi), who often make strange or humorous claims. You don't have to know Binomial theorem to understand that name Controversies already implies some bias in the content (criticism, yeh?). There is no need to balance quotes like "Апартеид - нормальная вещь". To make sure that such a narration is ok, see, for example, VN article in Russian, section Критика. It is pretty the same as it was in English WP. Next, everyone is welcome to improve the article or this particular section by adding relevant information, correcting grammar, etc. But this MUST NOT be done at the expense of deleting the whole valid section. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct, in that information should not be excluded, particularly when sourced. However, put it in context. For example, look at the info I have added on Basayev. If you read the source as ds.ru, she is claiming that Basayev was turned into a terrorist around the time of the Chechen wars, however, he clearly has carried out terrorist acts before this; the first one only months after he allegedly supported Yeltsin in 1991. Prose the information such as that, provide context, and you will be fine. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 18:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm always fine. Maybe I should write a short history of Apartheid in the article? Or what? Please, read carefully my statement above (where links are given) once again. If you thought that the quote about Basayev required some background, you could improve it. But for unknown reasons you deleted the whole section. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In order for information to stand in an article without chance of other's objecting to it, and removing it, it is always best to provide further information aside from simply saying "Apartheid is normal"; expand on why she thinks apartheid is normal; one could also expand that by the comments she made that she could likely think of black South Africans as murderers, etc (that's the feeling that I get from reading what her own words say). Try to expand on it as much as possible, and if needed others will tidy it up, etc. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, do you have other sources which state that her views are controversial? etc? To state in the article that her views are controversial, we really need to have a source which states this, other than ourselves labelling views as this or that, as that would be original research. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no original research. Ok, once again and last time, Zhirinovsky, Boris_Gryzlov, Berlusconi, Chernomyrdin, VN in Russian. And once again and last time, you could or could't expand normal and relevant quotes, but instead YOU deleted the section. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget about all the other articles for a moment ok. Imagine that this is the only article on WP. Any assertion which is likely to be challenged by another editor needs to be sourced. Being controversial is an assertion, so it needs a source which you can use to state it on the article, because you can be sure that another editor is likely to slap a fact tag on it, or remove it completely as being unsourced. Additionally, I removed the information from the article, as it is possible you would have reinserted it thereby breaking WP:3RR, and I removed it myself in the hope that you wouldn't break that rule and get yourself blocked. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again and last time was above... Mind your own behavior not mine, ok? I don't need "медвежьи услуги". Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Link to her blog
While the controversy around the controversy section converses, perhaps we might simply add a link to her blog. I was just going to do it, but since it's in the contested section, I thought I'd mention it here first. I also added a wee bit of text, scholarly referenced. —PētersV (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * People will find the blog, the radio interview, etc. anyway so there's no point in arguing about whether such links should appear. How we represent what's found there is something else. We can't apply Western rules of political discourse to Russian political discourse, where over the top is often just a way to make a point. We can't say that based on her statement in interview ABC Novodvorskaya "advocates" XYZ. —PētersV (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the phrase. If you advocate something in your interview then you advocate it I think it is true both in Russia and the West. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of her blog as an external link may be possible, however, it should not be used as a reference for anything except her own biographical information, as per WP:RS. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 21:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There are livejournals for Bill Clinton, Barak Obama, Vladimir Putin as well as cat Shashlyk, neither of them is actually written by the claimed author. Sttrictly speaking we need reliable sources showing that it is indeed her blog.
 * Of course I never thought about it like that. Is there a reliable source to demonstrate this is her blog? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 19:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * AFAIK it is Konstantin Borovoy's blog. Colchicum (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed the link for time being. If its found to officially be her blog, there's no reason it couldn't be added back in. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 13:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Some information removed from article
I have removed some information from the article as per this edit. It was VN who uttered the words, for she has placed a transcript of the radio program on her own political party website. It is not up to us as editors to prove her opinion right or wrong, or to justify it, by use of other sources which are not specifically related to her comments. There is no doubt that she is probably one of the most controversial liberals. For instance, the Echo Moskvy found her comments so distasteful that they pulled the recording and transcript from their website. I've left the comment in, but have also added NPOV template as I would foresee another editor doing so; it would really help readers understand that she is a controversial figure if it were also stated as such in the article with WP:RS.
 * I've now removed the NPOV tag due to extra information being included in the article on her comments. I have however replaced it with an unbalanced tag, which does not mean that this information has to be removed, but rather the section expanded. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

We just stated the blog is not WP:BLP suitable
I appreciate the latest changes, so the use of the blog will need to be reworded. More to the main point, given outright criticism of the government is essential criminal, OF COURSE the radio station pulled the recording and transcript. Your characterization of her comments as "distasteful" is your editorial POV, and even if the radio station pulled them citing "distasteful", that still is not an encyclopedic judgement call. You and I are in no position to characterize the tastefulness of Novodcorksaya's pronouncements. I simply corrected the prior implication her comments as being baseless. I'll likely look through your changes and you won't mind if I delete the template at that point once I adjust wording. It's more appropriate to discuss and fix here rather than winding up with templates all over articles to make a point. -PētersV (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My comments on her comments being distasteful is of course my own opinion, but it is somewhat the opinion of the editor-in-chief of Echo Moskvy. But that isn't in the article. Just as "outright criticism of the government is essential criminal" is your editorial POV, and I would also expect it to stay out of the article. In the event Echo Moskvy said the comments were distasteful, of course it can be included in the article as it would be verified and attributed; in fact their reason for pulling it does need to be explained within the article also. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

More refs
One of her recent comments: .Biophys (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC) .Biophys (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Some useful information perhaps
Novodvorskaya considers herself to be a politician, and the article also makes her out to be a politician, but what is obviously missing is her political career. Would it not be interesting to have this type of information in the article, because if one regards themselves as a politician, then this surely means that they have run for political office. Has Novodvorskaya ever run for political office? If so, has she ever been elected? If so, to what position, when did she hold it, etc? If not, what percentage of the vote did she get? etc, etc. Anyone got sources for this info? --Russavia Dialogue 09:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * She is a leader of a small political party/organization, the Democratic Union .Biophys (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's simple, she failed to be elected to any parliamenary body. Netrat (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I knew that, I was being a little facetious with my question. Although the fact she has never been elected into any elected office does need to be mentioned in the article, but it needs a source. --Russavia Dialogue 06:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Her support of apartheid?
Well, I looked at the cited sources and did not find anywhere that "In her articles, Novodvorskaya openly supported apartheid in South Africa, as well as discrimination against Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic states". Yes, that was said in accusations by the court, but the accusations were dropped. Please cite precisely sources.Biophys (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I NPOVed this section a little. Please explain if there are any problems.Biophys (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she supports apartheid. About your reverts...
Biphys, try looking at Valeriya's articles first: http://www.ds.ru/vnstat.htm.

Here she supports apartheid: "Апартеид - нормальная вещь. ЮАР еще увидит, какой строй будет установлен коренным большинством, развлекающимся поджогами, убийствами, насилием. Мало не покажется... Гражданские права существуют для людей просвещенных, сытых, благовоспитанных и уравновешенных. В зоне все откровеннее. Там есть права для всех, кроме как для 'опущенных', 'для петухов'. И дело здесь не в физиологии, а в силе духа, в моральном уровне. Жалкие, несостоятельные в духовном плане, трусливые спят у параши и никаких прав не имеют. Если таким давать права, понизится общий уровень человечества. Так что апартеид - это правда, а какие-то всеобщие права человека - ложь." "(Валерия Новодворская: Не отдадим наше право налево! Газета 'Новый взгляд' N46 от 28 августа 1993г.)" Here she is also saying that human rights are not universal, but conditional, not for Khomeini and Kim (though apparently also not for black people): "Я всегда знала, что приличные люди должны иметь права, а неприличные (вроде Крючкова, Хомейни или Ким Ир Сена) - не должны." And here we read her opinion that the Russian minority in Estonia and Latvia does not deserve political rights: "Русские в Эстонии и Латвии доказали своим нытьем, своей лингвистической бездарностью, своей тягой назад в СССР, своим пристрастием к красным флагам, что их нельзя с правами пускать в европейскую цивилизацию. Их положили у параши и правильно сделали. А когда Нарва требует себе автономии, для меня это равносильно требованию лагерных 'петухов' дать им самоуправление. Представляете, что сказали бы воры в законе? Сейм Латвии и парламент Эстонии ответят то же самое. Только мягче, как полагается в Европе."

(You can read the interesting things she has to say about American Indians and Algerian Muslims for yourself.)

And in this edit yesterday I placed the following in the comment summary: "(rvv: Novodvorskaya SUPPORTED apartheid, as in the source. And here's another source: http://www.ds.ru/vnstat.htm)." If you check it, you get some of the articles by Novodvorskaya published in '93: one, in fact, is the very same article which had been used as the reference for the original statement that "Novodvorskaya has also stated that human rights are not universal and should be reserved for 'good people', while people like Khomeini or Kim Il-sung should have no rights.[13][14][15]." which you unjustifiably transformed into your own reality – id est, "Novodvorskaya was accused in Russian media of supporting apartheid in South Africa,[13][14][15] and discrimination against Russian-speaking minorities in the Baltic states. She denies such accusations [13][14][15].""Novodvorskaya has also stated that human rights are not universal and should be reserved for 'good people', while people like Khomeini or Kim Il-sung should have no rights.[13][14][15]"

So – her own words or not? Please point to where she indeed "denies such accusations." Misrepresenting or faking references is vandalism. Really, you'd better stop. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are indeed two misrepresentations here. First, I did not do reverts here yesterday. You did. Second, she does not support discrimination. What she supports discrimination is your interpretation. It is OK to cite directly her statements, if only they are notable and not deistorted by selective citation. It is also OK to cite what other sources tell about her - as far as this is "due weight" and otherwise consistent with WP:BLP. However, making WP:OR (your own conclusions), especially of contentious nature in BLP article is unacceptable.Biophys (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the claims are directly supported by the sources, so they should not be removed. Offliner (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Biophys, I'm pretty sure that you did, in fact, make those reverts on May 12 – that's what the "history" tab is there for. It's not my interpretation. It's Novodvorskaya, writing for the Novyi Vzglyad. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note that Novodvorskaya said that she wanted to see the of seeing Russia destroyed."''Kupredu (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we get an exact translation of the "apartheid" quote? My Russian's not good enough to discriminate nuances. I see she says that "Apartheid is a normal thing" but by itself this does not mean she endorses it (It could mean she thinks that discrimination is a common phenomenon).radek (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Here it is:

Апартеид - нормальная вещь. Apartheid is a normal thing. ЮАР еще увидит, какой строй будет установлен коренным большинством, развлекающимся поджогами, убийствами, насилием. The Republic of South Africa is yet to see what kind of regime will be installed by the native majority, which entertains itself with arson, killings, rape. Мало не покажется... They won't regret it... Гражданские права существуют для людей просвещенных, сытых, благовоспитанных и уравновешенных. Civil rights exist for the enlightened, the sate, the well-educated, the well-tempered. В зоне все откровеннее. In the prison camp everything is more candid. Там есть права для всех, кроме как для "опущенных", "для петухов". There, there are rights for everybody, except the "debased," the "passive prisoner." И дело здесь не в физиологии, а в силе духа, в моральном уровне. And it's not a matter of physiology, but of the strength of one's soul, of one's moral level. Жалкие, несостоятельные в духовном плане, трусливые спят у параши и никаких прав не имеют. The pitiful, the incontinent, the cowardly, sleep at the through and have no rights. Если таким давать права, понизится общий уровень человечества. If they are given rights, the common level of humanity is lowered. Так что апартеид - это правда, а какие-то всеобщие права человека - ложь. So apartheid is the truth, and some universal human rights are lies. Русские в Эстонии и Латвии доказали своим нытьем, своей лингвистической бездарностью, своей тягой назад в СССР, своим пристрастием к красным флагам, что их нельзя с правами пускать в европейскую цивилизацию. The Russians in Estonia and Latvia have proven with their complaining, their linguistic inability, their pull back towards the USSR, their attachment to red flags, that they cannot be granted entry with rights into European civilization. Их положили у параши и правильно сделали. They were correctly laid down by the trough. А когда Нарва требует себе автономии, для меня это равносильно требованию лагерных "петухов" дать им самоуправление. And when Narva demands its autonomy, to me that would be the equivalent to the "passive prisoners" demanding self-government. Представляете, что сказали бы воры в законе? What would the principled thieves say to that? Сейм Латвии и парламент Эстонии ответят то же самое. The Saeima of Latvia and the Parliament of Estonia will answer in the same manner. Только мягче, как полагается в Европе. Although more soft-spokenly – as customary in Europe.

Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat the same. It is OK to cite directly her statements, if they are notable and not deistorted by selective citation. It is also OK to cite what other sources tell about her - as far as this is "due weight" and otherwise consistent with WP:BLP. However, making WP:OR (your own conclusions), especially of contentious nature in BLP article is unacceptable.Biophys (talk) 02:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is the WP:OR, though? Would you be more comfortable with this if we simply said that "Novodvorskaya wrote positively of apartheid in the 1990s"? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The passage stating "apartheid is a normal thing" is a statement of circumstance, it in no way a statement saying "I support apartheid". Not to mention her liberal use of sarcasm throughout the piece. Did I miss something? Unless someone has a third party scholarly source contending she supports apartheid and discrimination, any content using the article in question as a reference must be stricken as the most blatant form of WP:OR. PetersV     TALK 18:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Her "apartheid is a normal thing" is given with all the context necessary on this page. (Perhaps you aren't able to read the Russian quotes I did not translate?) The sarcasm is your interpretation – not Novodvorskaya's or the court's. (Her praise of Western-backed White South Africa is not all that surprising, given that the Soviet Union was a major proponent of the multiracial struggle there, and Novodvorskaya is a far-right loon who's gone as far as accusing Barack Obama of being a communism-sympathetic pinko whose election would portend distaster for the entire world.) She has recently made statements in her defense to the effect that S.A. practices "apartheid against whites" – so this seems like a deep-seated concern of Novodvorskaya's. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, let's have reliable secondary sources so we avoid any WP:BLP issues. And you cannot write she supports apartheid, she is commenting on the state of the world. (Especially as her use of apartheid is not white minority supremacy over blacks.) You can write about what she thinks of how deserving certain people are of rights, preferably from secondary sources, no more. PetersV     TALK 23:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They're there. There are three references in a row. I'll furnish you with more if they are not sufficient: just ask. As for apartheid meaning something else than white supremacy over blacks (does she not invoke the example of South Africa?), that must be some kind of special neologism of which the rest of us are yet to hear... Is this the Clinton defense – it really depends on what you mean by sex? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, she's writing using apartheid in the context of who based on what behavior deserves rights or is violating the rights of others. You cannot quote it out of context to conclude she "supports" apartheid. That is a WP:BLP violation as it is not based on any secondary sources. PetersV     TALK 23:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I could go on and quote Novodvorskaya's statements about the "kind of regime will be installed by the native majority, which entertains itself with arson, killings, rape" – her statements on native Americans and Muslims – and add her concern for "whites suffering from apartheid" in the 2000s – we could even say that Novodvorskaya wrote positively of African apartheid based on her ideas of, as you say, "the context of who based on what behavior deserves rights or is violating the rights of others" – but this would really be less consistent with WP:BLP, and I'm not sure that even those supportive of her statements would want to see it laid out like that – we're actually keeping it pretty concise as it is. After all, she is not primarily known for her anti-equality views, and the one-sentence mention here seems to be more balanced than a whole section on her controversial statements about foreigners in Africa or other lands. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've read the same passage, your interpretation is WP:OR yours (and of others pushing the "supports" edit). The court dismissed charges of the nature which would have arisen from the "supports" interpretation being argued for here, therefore it is inadmissible as a WP:BLP violation. Plain and simple. Please feel free to open a RFC if you wish to continue to include, otherwise statements indicating support or favorable views of apartheid will have to be deleted. PetersV     TALK 23:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:OR is not mine. There is no WP:OR in Novodvorskaya's words; compare:"'Nazi rule is a normal thing. The Germans are yet to see, what kind of government will be formed by the anti-Nazis, which entertain themselves with arson, killings, rape.'" If this were said by a writer in the 1940s, would this be support for the Nazis – or wouldn't it? The problem is the selective interpretation of those who don't speak the language and wish to advance their own view of Novodvorskaya based on her anti-communist history at the expense of her own statements. Moreover, I should say that, in the first place, the court did not "dismiss" the charges as you appear to believe – the prosecution decided not to pursue the case further in 1996. In the second place, she wasn't charged with supporting apartheid – she was charged with inciting ethnic hatred (towards Russians) as well as attacking the dignity of the Russian nation. Please acquaint yourself with the legal history of Novodvorskaya's case before insisting that we take your stance as the objective point of view. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (od) Word substitution is a classical WP:MEANS of arguing in support of WP:OR. I am reading the same translation (yours) as everyone else above, so my interpretation is no less or more valid than that of any editor here, and vice versa. Produce secondary sources indicating she supports apartheid or it's WP:BLP. Again, if you don't want it simply deleted outright, please open a RFC for outside consensus. If I don't notice of such a RFC posted here in 24 hours, then I'll minimally report as violating WP:BLP if not outright delete. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 00:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no such article as WP:MEANS. It doesn't help your position. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There were no brackets. Substituting something else in a quote is classical Wiki-arguing tactics in support of WP:OR. Hopefully that was not lost on you. Rather than continue arguing here, if you firmly believe in your position, please open a RFC and your position should stand up to scrutiny. I (and I expect others) would make the case that Novodvorskaya did not propound "support" as postulated here and that to indicate so violates WP:BLP. It's clear that to continue to argue here within the current participating community of editors won't resolve the issue, so if you wish to defend your position as not violating WP:BLP, please go to RFC. Next step is yours. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 01:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's my obligation to run around in circles for you when you clearly don't want to listen to any of my arguments, instead giving me an ultimatum. So far you have proposed nothing. Your options are: "1) Ask for a request for comment, and I'll ask visitors from RuWiki to participate; 2) Ask me to rewrite the political activity section with direct quotes of Novodvorskaya's statements on apartheid and racism, if you think the current version contravenes policy on WP:OR; 3) Propose your own version, which we'll be able to discuss constructively."


 * Hence, feel free to choose; Wikipedia is a collaborative project that respects consensus, so make sure that your criticisms are constructive rather than negative. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for your Wiki-lawyering (and here are my perceptions why):
 * I suggest a RFC of uninvolved EN WP editors and you propose to (my perception) retaliate by WP:CANVASSING RU WP
 * Request you rewrite with direct quotes? That only allows for more quoting out of context; without secondary sources agreeing that Novodvorskaya advocates apartheid, your proposed rewrite does not address the deficiencies noted
 * Propose my own version—I've already indicated that it's to delete the material I consider in violation of WP:BLP, so little more than an invitation to edit war, which I have not intentions to do. I'd rather see you propose the RFC to resolve the conflict here as you are the supporter of potentially libelous text. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 02:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Incorrect: asking people for comment on RuWiki (in other words, that cross-section of Wikipedia who would be most familiar with Novodvorskaya's views and biographical information) wouldn't be canvassing. Canvassing is recruiting those who hold your views. If what you propose is deleting the material, then you're proposing deleting whatever you don't like, which is very different from rewriting per WP:BLP. (You need to explain here – because, with all due respect, I don't see why you are so keen to participate in this discussion if you are unable to furnish your own quotes – we could discuss those, or the ones I've translated for you. And what – specifically – is there about the context that you would like to see addressed? You can always bring it up.)PasswordUsername (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (od) Of course it would be canvassing, there are large blocks of Russian opinion which run counter to Western opinion, so you do not have to pick individuals to come participate, you just have to advertise, effectively canvassing. I don't need to provide my own quotes, the issue is that what you quote does not editorially support your WP:BLP violating text. For simplicity, allow me to reproduce your own translation without the Russian interspersed:
 * Apartheid is a normal thing. The Republic of South Africa is yet to see what kind of regime will be installed by the native majority, which entertains itself with arson, killings, rape. They won't regret it... Civil rights exist for the enlightened, the sate, the well-educated, the well-tempered. In the prison camp everything is more candid. There, there are rights for everybody, except the "debased," the "passive prisoner." And it's not a matter of physiology, but of the strength of one's soul, of one's moral level. The pitiful, the incontinent, the cowardly, sleep at the through and have no rights. If they are given rights, the common level of humanity is lowered. So apartheid is the truth, and some universal human rights are lies. The Russians in Estonia and Latvia have proven with their complaining, their linguistic inability, their pull back towards the USSR, their attachment to red flags, that they cannot be granted entry with rights into European civilization. They were correctly laid down by the trough. And when Narva demands its autonomy, to me that would be the equivalent to the "passive prisoners" demanding self-government. What would the principled thieves say to that? The Saeima of Latvia and the Parliament of Estonia will answer in the same manner. Although more soft-spokenly – as customary in Europe.
 * So, in summary: the pitiful, incontinent, cowardly, those who have no strength of soul and no morality have no rights.
 * That is not "I support (South African type) apartheid." Apartheid is used to describe a separation, but it is not being used to say one group should actively take away rights which others equally deserve. It is being used to describe a separation of rights on the basis that individuals, through their (untoward) behavior, may abrogate their claims to rights. Your contention that Novodvorskaya "supports" apartheid is therefore a misrepresentation of her position and therefore unacceptable from a WP:BLP standpoint.
 * At best you can indicate that: Novodvorskaya, in her political polemics, advocates that individuals must be moral to be deserving of rights—that individuals abrogate their claims to rights through behavior contrary to the welfare of society.
 * That's my suggestion. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are intentionally ommitting the first three sentences – all of which are in reference to South Africa. (And take care to see WP:OR for what Wikipedia has to say about making up summaries such as yours on the basis of the translated paragraph I provided.)PasswordUsername (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not omitting. Novodvorskaya is clearly using apartheid and in reference to South Africa to provoke—not to support white minority supremacy over blacks. Reading the entire text makes clear her intention regarding rights and that one's actions directly impact one's claims to "universal" rights. My summary is no more WP:OR than yours, except that mine doesn't libel Novodvorskaya based on her low expectations of human conduct. You wanted my suggestion, you have it. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 04:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Novodvorskaya is clearly using apartheid and in reference to South Africa to provoke" – of course – and in the same way that one "provokes" when one says "blacks shouldn't have rights – the pitiful, the incontinent, the cowardly, sleep at the through and have no rights. If they are given rights, the common level of humanity is lowered. So racism is the truth, and some universal human rights are lies." PasswordUsername (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (od) "Novodvorskaya is clearly using apartheid and in reference to South Africa to provoke" – of course – and in the same way that one "provokes" when one says "blacks shouldn't have rights – the pitiful, the incontinent, the cowardly, sleep at the through and have no rights. If they are given rights, the common level of humanity is lowered. So racism is the truth, and some universal human rights are lies."
 * "blacks shouldn't have rights", which you quote as appearing in the text, appears exactly where? It's not before the sentence which starts with "The pitiful, the incontinent...".
 * Feel free to file an RFC, as yours is a potentially libelous representation, the burden is on you to show it is not libelous. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * P.S. Also the article was written in 1993... and what events did we have in South Africa in 1993, oh, let's look at 1993 in South Africa... We have the military wing of the Pan Africanist Congress opening fire on a congregation in a church, killing eleven and injuring fifty; we have the African National Congress being found guilty of abuse in some camps; we have the military wing of the Pan Africanist Congress killing more people, patrons at a tavern.... Blacks were not universally acquitting themselves well. By Novodvorskaya's thesis, those individuals would be ones abrogating claims to universal rights. Not all blacks. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 04:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. I was in my late 30's in 1993, I recall the violence well as the eyes of the world were focused on the upheaval in South Africa. How old and where were you in 1993, 16 years ago? Just curious, you don't have to answer. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 04:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Take it easy, old guy PetersV! They also had multiracial elections in 1993 – you kind of overlooked that one, but that's pretty much what 1993 as South Africa is known to world history and politics is kind of known for. I've really – really been earnestly looking for sources to justify your WP:OR, but I don't see any that you would like. Here she describes Africa as lawless "except for ancient Egypt and South Africa before Nelson Mandela." Again, we can rewrite without substituting your interpretations of Ms. Novodvorskaya's philosophical leanings; we could go with "apartheid is a normal thing" and add the Mandela reference – perhaps even the "apartheid against whites" – from there. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, it's rather telling who here is looking to pillory Novodvorskaya based on taking her polemics as absolutely factual and literal statements. Taken in the context of the time that there was no light in Africa until Mandela is classic rhetoric. You should read some Cicero and other classics. This is why you need secondary sources if you're going to accuse her of supporting apartheid. Period. And offering to just quote "Apartheid—a normal thing" is just quoting out of context. Secondary sources! PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 00:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please stop accusing me of bad faith. I'm not sure what your point about there being no light in Africa until Mandela is. Try being a bit more clear. We can rewrite the article, but your assertions of her being taken out of context are belied by her other articles and statements – such as the Mandela one. We can include her "apartheid was a normal thing" statement and provide material on her other views of South Africa alongside it – not synthesized into the same statement, but occuring in one section as a representative sample of her views (and you are welcome to provide supplemental ones). We can add statements from the same "apartheid was a normal thing" article without inserting our own WP:OR (ie, interpreting what Novodvorskaya's political philosophy would be on the basis of selected sentences from that one article in an exculpatory fashion) as you would like. That's not taking her statements literally or whatever – that's called quoting them, and I don't understand why one would belabor such an argument. Bragging on the internet is also very unbecoming. Impress your real-life friends with your credentials. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My point of no light before Mandela was regarding the quote regarding lawless "except for ancient Egypt and South Africa before Nelson Mandela". That is rhetoric, something, BTW, not practiced in American politics, so applying American sensibilities to the political statements of someone from another culture is WP:OR unless you can provide secondary sources. I'm not attempting to impress anyone, I'm simply attempting to impress upon you and others that the contention that Novodvorskaya "supports apartheid" is the conclusion of individual editors here, not backed up by secondary sources, and therefore a violation of WP:BLP.
 * That you appear to find my suggestion in line with treating Novodvorskaya in an "exculpatory fashion" rather suggests you're looking to convict her. I'm neither a fan nor detractor of Novodvorskaya. And I'm totally perplexed by your statement about bragging on the Internet. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Valeriya Novodvorskaya → Valeria Novodvorskaya — Besides the fact that the current spelling "Valeriya" is unnecessarily complicated, the introduction spelled it as "Valeria" in bold letters. I found this to be very inconsistent throughout the article, and I find it necessary - for the sake of simplifying things - to change the name. Thanks—Polgraf (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

And more about what's "not WP:OR"
There are more recent attempts at WP:OR: "radical liberal " quoting a news article that isn't even credited to an author? Come on, secondary sources, or all editorializing about her extremism goes out as WP:BLP violations. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 00:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just added the same reference from Oxford University Press. PasswordUsername (talk) 00:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all I've been asking for, I hope this indicates progress. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 01:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(od) There's also the support of discrimination against Russians in Estonia and Latvia, again, WP:OR. To the passage quoted: that would be Russians who have no commitment to learn the language of their country, who yearn for the days of Russophone and Soviet supremacy (in that time frame, on Latvian radio and on the streets of Riga I heard Russians say... "I will never learn that pig language" and "Next time, we'll send them all to Siberia"). However, neither in Novodvorskaya's statement or in my characterization does that explicitly mean all Russians—moreover, in absolutely no way does Novodvorskaya's statement intend discriminating against Russians simply because they are Russian (which would be the definition of "discrimination"). Novodvorskaya's comments target those who in her opinion have not earned the privilege to claim rights. Again, secondary sources, please, else we're violating WP:BLP. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * complaining, their linguistic inability, their pull back towards the USSR, their attachment to red flags

Insistence on WP:BLP violations
Again, please do not restore Novodvorskaya "supports apartheid" (i.e., discrimination based on someone being black) or that she "supports discrimination against Russians" in the Baltics (i.e., discrimination based on Russian ethnic background). Please undo your revert. I would rather settle matters here than report the article and editors for WP:BLP violations. Secondary sources, not personal interpretations of what her political rhetoric means. Your choice. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 23:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to NVO, we now have another source: Я не оправдывала никогда апартеид. Я просто говорила, что, к сожалению, для Африки следом за преодолением апартеида, что плюс, помните, в каком-то мультфильме, Вы так устали, это минус, но я люблю Вас, это плюс. Там наступила довольно странная реакция. В Зимбабве стали отбирать земли у белых фермеров. Апартеид наоборот. Сами обрушили свою экономику. В Южной Африке стали нападать на иностранцев, которые приехали совсем не для того, чтобы угнетать африканцев, а вовсе с другими целями. Там одну девушку студентку из Австралии убили на улице только за то, что она белая. Т.е. наступила странная реакция… Colchicum (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No violation. Just her point of view. Valeria Novodvorskaya: "Apartheid is a normal thing". Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Shit happens. We are not interested in your interpretations of what her point of view is, Battle Fab Four. Colchicum (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is interested in you bad language. Leave it for yourself and be polite. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself, please, or prepare for disappointment. To consider something a normal thing certainly doesn't mean to "openly support" it. Colchicum (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Colchicum, I will just ignore your chatter not related to the article's content.
 * Similar spurious BLP violations are here and there in, e.g., Berlusconi, Zhirinovsky, Boris_Gryzlov, Chernomyrdin. Citation "she openly supported apartheid" may be too strong, but the apartheid story definitely deserves to be mentioned. Yes, category "apartheid" is not for this article. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, her own words doesn't say so. "Apartheid is a normal thing" doesn't imply that she has ever supported, let alone still supports, apatheid, especially as she refuted this particular interpretation later, see above. This is your slanderous interpretation of a primary source taken out of context, a no-no in the biography of the living person. If one says WWII was a normal thing, that doesn't mean he supports WWII. Colchicum (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC) So, does anybody think that Wikipedians are entitled to interpret the quote ("Apartheid is a normal thing") from a primary source in their own way as "Novodvorskaya openly supported apatheid", even though no reliable secondary source draws this interpretation and she later explicitely refuted it herself ("Я никогда не оправдывала апартеид")? In my opinion, this is a gross violation of WP:BLP, WP:NOR, WP:V, bordering on fraud. Even worse, as the familiar team (Offliner, Beatle Fab Four, PasswordUsername, Russavia, socks of Jacob Peters) is edit-warring over their version, which as they know is a no-no in Wikipedia. I was trying to assume good faith, but now it is unfortunately impossible, because there is strong evidence to the contrary. Check it against the sources:
 *  In her articles, Novodvorskaya openly supported apartheid in South Africa,  

The first source is her own article which doesn't support this claim without many additional assumptions. "Apartheid is a normal thing" is not the same as "I wholeheartedly support apartheid". The second source makes no mention of apartheid. The third source makes no mention of apartheid and is merely an accusation not confirmed by any court. This is fraud and a BLP violation, plain and simple. In case of any contingency, you know where it will go. Colchicum (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What you presented now is your OR using primary sources. Taking into account the number of users, who disagree with you, it clearly looks like that this is not the BLP case, but the case of WP: OWNERSHIP, edit-warring and threatening other people. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is my OR that you have edit-warred to insert defamatory material not supported by any sources and is still reluctant to desist. OR is forbidden only in the mainspace. Colchicum (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cycle. See Beatle Fab Four (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an excuse for gross policy violations. Well, apparently there is no point in continuing this "discussion" with you. Sure as hell you won't step back voluntarily. So be it. Colchicum (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(od) BeatleFabFour, I can't be any more clear: Secondary sources, not personal interpretations of what her political rhetoric means. Characterizing anything she said [which has been quoted here to date] as supporting racially based/ethnic based discrimination is a clear violation of WP:BLP guidelines. You need reputable secondary/scholarly sources for such contentions. You conflate what she said with what you say she meant. If you insist on inserting WP:BLP violating defamatory materials as article content then we can go to arbitration for enforcement of WP policy and protection of WP against litigation. Don't charge other editors with the inappropriate editorial behavior you are practicing yourself. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 16:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I do not know why do we need a set of cherry picked quotes like this: . This looks like POV-pushing and BLP violation to me.Biophys (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Paranoid schizophrenia
She was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and hospitalised for several years. (June, 1970—February, 1972)
 * According to the mainstream views it was a form of Punitive psychiatry in the Soviet Union. Obviously she does not have major psychiatric problems Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously she does. Have you read her writings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.133.190 (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Novodvorskaya about Wikipedia

 * Video (Russian). My very best wishes (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Valeriya Novodvorskaya. 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:
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5cNL2aI7A?url=http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/09/01/novodvorskaya/ with https://www.webcitation.org/5cNL2aI7A?url=http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/09/01/novodvorskaya/ on http://www.lenta.ru/news/2008/09/01/novodvorskaya/
 * Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5cNLFqVqM?url=http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/67/05.html with https://www.webcitation.org/5cNLFqVqM?url=http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/67/05.html on http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/67/05.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Valeriya Novodvorskaya. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090519235750/http://lib.aldebaran.ru/author/novodvorskaya_valeriya/novodvorskaya_valeriya_nad_propastyu_vo_lzhi/novodvorskaya_valeriya_nad_propastyu_vo_lzhi__0.html to http://lib.aldebaran.ru/author/novodvorskaya_valeriya/novodvorskaya_valeriya_nad_propastyu_vo_lzhi/novodvorskaya_valeriya_nad_propastyu_vo_lzhi__0.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5cNLFqVqM?url=http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/67/05.html to http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/67/05.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714231654/http://www.sem40.ru/ourpeople/famous/11509/ to http://www.sem40.ru/ourpeople/famous/11509/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714135141/http://www.rusperson.com/html/11/RU01005230.htm to http://www.rusperson.com/html/11/RU01005230.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Poor sourcing and selective citation
This edit. Just to start from something, all last four paragraphs (quotations) are based on a single source which is (a) primary, (b) self-published (ds.ru is in essence her personal website), (c) an opinion piece. And no, it would not pass even as Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves because it does involve contentious/offensive "claims about third parties" as policy tells. Not mentioning sources like Aleksandr Dugin (Death of a woman who suffered from the last stage of Russophobia), a ridiculous opinion piece by someone who was described in multiple RS as a "fascist". My very best wishes (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They are not poor sources, although you probably ignored 90% of my links anyway, just like you did multiple times before when removing information that didn't suit you from various articles. One can describe Dugin whatever he wants, this is not related to the topic. He is a well-known public figure and political commentator just like Kara-Murza and Dodolev, all of whom described her views as Russophobic. Not to mention the criminal case against her. AveTory (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy we agreed (I hope) that this source is primary, self-published, an opinion piece and does not qualify even as questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I provided you with sources, not to mention a whole book by Dodolev dedicated to Novodvorskaya. As for "propaganda", you might want to count how many articles mention "Accusations of Antisemitism", "Islamophobia" or any other xenophobia. Novodvorskaya was no better, although her quotes are rarely translated into English. AveTory (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, as anyone can see (diff), you included text linked to ds.ru like, and all of that are primary and essentially self-published opinion pieces. All other text remains. In addition, this is a selective citation of highly polemic essays. To understand what she is actually saying, one must read whole essay, but a reader of English WP can not do it because this is Russian.  My very best wishes (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "I cannot imagine how can anyone love a Jew for his laziness, for his lying, for his poverty, for his spinelessness, for his slavery. But maybe that's not all his characteristics" - does THIS sound like a "selective citation of highly polemic essays" to you? I doubt, you would be the first to write about her antisemtisim in that case. And you are actually the one who adds "fascist views" to the Dugin's page based on his selective citations? Lol. You rarely meet someone with such double standards. Still this doesn't matter since my statements and quotes are verified by WP:RS. I'll even add an already existing link to the book by Dodolev to the heap which describes the whole story with Novodvorskaya along with quotes and comments. AveTory (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are trying to say, but here is your edit on the page. You are trying to use the infamous antisemitic book "Russophobia" by Igor Shafarevich. He (and Dugin), not her, are famous xenophobes as as has been claimed in multiple secondary RS. One does not need to cite these guys directly. See lots of secondary RS, for example here. Such antisemitic books like the one by S. can be used, but only on pages about the subject himself, i.e. Shafarevich or the book. You are trying to make your case by selectively citing primary self-published sources. Yes, it is true that she was accused of all imaginable things, like even insanity. That can be noted in proper context if reliably sourced to secondary RS which are better than just opinion pieces. My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not even double standards, that's insane propaganda. Thanks for self-exposure. AveTory (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that you forged citation  ("I can not imagine...a Jew..."). Nowhere it was about Jews. Her alleged words were about "a Russian" and it was: "Я абсолютно не могу себе представить, как можно любить русского за его леность, за его ложь, за его бедность, за его бесхребетность, за его рабство...". Right? Well, this is nothing extraordinary. There were a lot of people who were saying or implying something similar about Russians, one of them famous Ivan Bunin in his Village. But again, the problem is the sourcing and the context. Q#1. Did she actually say it? Any link or reference to the publication signed by her? Q#2. How that has been interpreted in scholarly secondary RS written by authors other than Russian nationalists or self-defined fascists? If there are such RS, let's include what they say, no problem. My very best wishes (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, "The Village" is a great example. One should NOT cite Bunin directly, but cite something written by literary critcs (not by members of Black Hundreds!), i.e. "Each and every page of it cries out something about how vile and ugly the Russian muzhik is...", exactly as our page about the novel by Bunin does. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And seriously, Aleksandr Dugin and Igor Shafarevich accusing others of xenophobia is ridiculous ("Что можно с Маркова взыскать? Он скорбен головой. Смешно и дико разбирать Его "научный" вой..."). But I left it because you ask. My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "It appears that you forged citation" Are you trolling? I changed ONE word in Novodvorskaya's quote which you had previously deleted multiple times, just to demonstrate how "selective citation of highly polemic essays" may look from a different angle. But it seems like you haven't even read the quotes which you've been deleting and commenting. Simply brilliant. The rest about Shafarevich and Bunin is offtopic and WP:OR. AveTory (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Bunin is simply an example on the policy. One can cite Bunin (even when he tells, in real life rather than in his books, "I will gnaw his throat with my own teeth"), but only if this is relevant to the subject and done by a scholarly secondary RS "known for fact checking and accuracy". It is equally important to place the citation in proper context provided by the good secondary RS. Most sources you cite, like the opinions by Dugin, Shafarevich and even Dodolev do not qualify for fact-checking, accuracy or whatever. They belong to character assassinations. My very best wishes (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Now, speaking about correct quotations... Where this citation (Vladimir Maksimov compared her call for foreign occupation of Russia to "Hitler's methods of solving problems") came from? I checked one ref (Sarnov). This is an RS, but the quotation is not there. He tells something different, in passing, and Sarnov tells he does not remember what exactly Maksimov said during a heated discussion. Another ref - is it that one? This is hardly an RS, and it cites something like "— А каких, извините, слов заслуживает публицист, который пропагандирует “опыт” решения хлебного вопроса в России гитлеровскими оккупационными войсками?". What exactly this refer to? To her? To which writings by her? This is not at all clear. If you "translated" this as "Hitler's methods of solving problems", this is definitely a misquote. If Masksimov, a well known writer, would have written and published anything about her, that could be cited. But like that - no. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

About the 2014 war in Donbas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBGUOi0kOCc Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

She was murdered
She was murdered by Putin's goons. 2A02:3030:80F:D0D7:1:0:65FD:6E20 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)