Talk:Yelena Mizulina

Untitled

This is a practically verbatim translation of the Russian page on Yelena Mizulina.

Yes, and this is terrible. "По сообщениям прессы, фонд принадлежит Елене Мизулиной". This is English wikipedia. Fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I did a thorough reading of this article and checked some of the sources and general accuracy, which seems suitable. I cut some remarks that sound pointless. I reverted BLP: more than enough references are provided including numerous ones to Russian newspaper and official websites (political parties, etc). An effort has been made by some contributors following previous remarks to include some sources in english language. I reverted cleanup: proofreading now seems ok and most links have been fixed. I also reverted the undue weight as the neutrality concern seems sufficient and most of the text appears to deal with actual sourced facts, irrespective of the tone used. Zatelmae (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Watch with an eye to protection

The POV-pushing and editing is coming close to a war. Can people please watch this closely? Is this nonsense continues, we may have to take this case to WP:RFPP for semi- or full protection. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It has been in my watchlist for some time already.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Bearian (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Homosexual agenda - Propaganda of homosexuality

Please explain the reasons for these reverts: [1][2]. If the issue is the link, then I don't think it's correct - the so-called 'homosexual agenda' is a term for an American concept, and the link is an "Easter egg link". If the issue is whether "propaganda of homosexuality" makes sense in plain English, I proposed "promotion of homosexuality", which I think captures the essence nicely. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

To me, propaganda of homosexuality does not make sense, since one only make propaganda of smth that could be changed/amended/adopted. However, Russian lawmakers think differently. In their view, one person can "convince" another person to become homosexual, and there is propaganda of homosexuality which is aimed at more people "adopting" homosexuality. This is why they passed a law criminalizing such "propaganda". This is to a some extent explained in the article LGBT rights in Russia. Therefore just saying "propaganda of homosexuality" without a link or with a link to homosexuality does not really capture the concept. This is a loaded language which only make sense in the context of the recent Russian law. I am open to how it could be worded, but I think the current version is way better that what you propose.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want to say, by using a link, that "propaganda of homosexuality" and "homosexual agenda" agenda are the same thing, then you, or someone, needs to edit the homosexual agenda article to indicate that it's also a Russian concept. (See here for my complete remark, which I was disallowed from saving on this page. [3] 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No, they are not the same, but at least "homosexual agenda" is smth close to the Russian law, whereas the "propaganda of homosexuality" without a proper link is not.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Then go over and say so on the "agenda" article. Have you read it? It says repeatedly that it's an American term. Another option would be to add some text here explaining "propaganda of homosexuality" instead of the easter egg link. Is there any source connecting them? If not then we shouldn't be doing so either. How about linking to Russian LGBT propaganda law, if a link is needed? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be ok with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure which you're referring to, but go ahead. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I did it slightly differently, pls have a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

That's perfect. I wish I'd done that in the first pace. Thanks. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)