This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
There have been anti-government and pro-Euromaidan protests in Russia for a while now, let's have some context here. Charles Essie (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're have been new protests today! Are we going to expand or what. Charles Essie (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free, but you've got to do it yourself. It's not my area of interest. RGloucester — ☎ 01:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article's title should be updated, seeing as these protests are taking place across other countries and not just Russia. Something like Protests against the Iraq War. Wolcott (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is only about the Russian protests, as they are the most notable given the circumstances. RGloucester — ☎ 12:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox says that protests took place on 2 March and 15 March (i.e. only on two days), but they still claimed as ongoing in the lead. What reason? Seryo93 (talk) 12:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to say the same thing. Also since this article is so small I would like to propose a deletion, also 2 alleged protests dont give enough reason for a plural in the name.--AzraeL9128 (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, this article should be expanded, not deleted, as I said above, there have been many pro-Euromaidan protests in Russia, we should expand this page into an article about all these protests, we could start by merging Protests of Russian intelligentsia against the annexation of Crimea into this page. Charles Essie (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, anyone with any deep understanding of world events are likely to understand that this so-called "anti-war" movement - far from being grass roots driven - is a Western-backed anti-Russian protest. So, what about the title: "2014 Color Revolt in Russia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.48.114 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, this was not a revolution, it was a series of protests that didn't result in any political changes at all. Second of all, describing this as a color revolt is original research that is not substantiated by any major sources. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a conspiracy theory website. Charles Essie (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose these were not the only protests in Russia in 2014; AFAIR there were several anti-Ukraine demonstrations as well, and some Anti-Putin protests not related to the war, and some anti-Olympics protests, etc. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, this article does not cover all the protests in Russia at all. That is not the scope of this article. So the proposed title does not match the scope of the article. -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case the article should be expanded to include broader coverage of the protests which were much more than just anti-war protests. Charles Essie (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Re[1]. Ok, look, there's no requirement on English Wikipedia that the sources have to be in English. Yes, if possible, English sources are preferred, but that doesn't exclude non-English sources, any more than an academic publishing in an English journal is required to have a bibliography of English only references.
And the source in question is in fact reliable. If you think otherwise, take it up at WP:RSN. This here looks just like the standard POV WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.User:Volunteer Marek 18:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but you need to prove that it is a reliable source: if it were in English, I could tell in a minute, but I have no idea what this site is. Aside from the fact that the statement was very vague "Some observers...", couldn't you please find something (reliable, of course) in English, or prove with translations, or whatever, that it is indeed reliable? I have no reason to doubt your word, by the way, but Wikipedia needs more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.154.197.99 (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Russian language Ukrainian newspaper. It's a regular newspaper and it's reliable like any other serious newspaper.User:Volunteer Marek 19:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@IP. You tell "I have no idea what this site is". This is not a valid reason for removal of sourced content. My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
VM and MVBW: Maybe you Russians see things differently than us Westerners, but how can you expect the average Wikipedia reader to be able to read Russian/Ukrainian? A savvy reader will want to check the sources and, in this case, it will not be very easy to do, in fact it will be impossible for most of us. Can you lot not find reliable sources in English that state the same? It should not be hard if it is a known fact, now, should it? To find articles about the attacks in Paris I don't need to find some "Russian newspaper in Ukraine"... It is *everywhere*. No POV pushing, please. Cheers, and good luck with your search, --62.154.197.99 (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are in doubt, please use Google translator. There are lots of non-English references in in English WP. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, My very best wishes!!! We all know that google translator is number one when it comes to translating stuff correctly!!! :-D Seriously??? hahhaaha You know very well what I mean and you know I am right. Just find a reliable, English speaking source that states the same and we are done. Come on, you can do it! Wikipedia can be better if we all try! Cheers, --Sixtytwoonefiftyfouroneninesevenninenine (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that particular number looks questionable after checking several sources. Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a lot better now, My Very Best Wishes, good work. As a rule of thumb I would say we shpuld try and use only mainstream Western Media, when dealing with this kind of stuff, in other words: no RT and no Ukrainian outlets. Cheers, --Sixtytwoonefiftyfouroneninesevenninenine (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be wrong. One can use RT for sourcing official claims by the Russian government and for sourcing "nonpolitical" claims, and one can use Ukrainian news outlets. I made the change only because this particular number did not seem to be supported by multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk)
