Talk:Maxim Martsinkevich

Neo-Nazi?

Can we really call Maksim a new-Nazi activist? It appears to me that everything he's been doing since he left prison is purely commercial. Also, it seems to me that the recent additions slightly misrepresent his activities. And don't get me wrong, I'm myself highly against any sort of xenophobia, including that against gay people. 86.29.5.3 (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

How does it misrepresent anything? I have only added information that is verifiable with multiple sources. And yes, he is a neo-nazi activist, there are numerous sources to back that up. Also, he was the leader of an organisation which was neo-Nazi. --MsJazz55 (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

"Religion = None" vs. "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in infoboxes.

Per WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, This comment concerns this edit and this revert.

(Please note that nobody has a problem with the use of "Atheist" in the article text. This only concerns infoboxes.)

"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby." --Penn Jillette

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." --Bill Maher

There are many reasons for not saying "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (atheist)" in Wikipedia infoboxes. They include:

It implies something that is not true

Saying "Religion = Atheist" in Wikipedia infoboxes implies that atheism is a religion. It is like saying "Hair color = Bald", "TV Channel = Off" or "Type of shoe = Barefoot". "Religion = None (atheist)" is better -- it can be read two different ways, only one of which implies that atheism is a religion -- but "Religion = None" is unambiguous.

In his edit summary, Harizotoh9 says "Semantics. Still a religious viewpoint", but the infobox entry says "religion = " not "religious viewpoint = ", and atheism is mot a religion.

It is highly objectionable to many atheists.

Many atheists strongly object to calling atheism a religion,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and arguments such as "atheism is just another religion: it takes faith to not believe in God" are a standard argument used by religious apologists.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]

It may go against consensus

This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 142#Changing "Religion = none" to "Religion = Atheist" on BLP infoboxes. Opinions were mixed, but the two positions with the most support were "Religion = None" or removing the Religion entry entirely.

More recently, it is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox person#Religion means what?. That discussion is ongoing.

On article talk pages and counting the multiple "thank you" notifications I have recieved, there are roughly ten editors favoring "Religion = None" for every editor who opposes it. Of course anyone is free to post an WP:RFC on the subject (I suggest posting it at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion) to get an official count.

It is unsourced

If anyone insists on keeping "Religion = Atheist" or "Religion = None (Atheist)" in any Wikipedia infobox, they must first provide a citation to a reliable source that established that the individual is [A] An atheist, and [B] considers atheism to be a religion.

It attempts to shoehorn too much information into a one-word infobox entry

In the article, there is room for nuance and explanation, but in the infobox, we are limited to concise summaries of non-disputed material. Terms such as "atheist", "agnostic", "humanist", "areligious", and "anti-religion" mean different things to different people, but "Religion = None" is perfectly clear to all readers, and they can and should go to the article text to find out which of the subtly different variations of not belonging to a religion applies.

It violates the principle of least astonishment.

Consider what would happen if Lady Gaga decided to list "Banana" as her birth date. We would document that fact in the main article with a citation to a reliable source (along with other sources that disagree and say she was born on March 28, 1986). We would not put "Birth date = Banana" in the infobox, because that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Banana is not a birth date...". Likewise we should not put anything in an infobox that would cause some readers to stop and say "wait...what? Atheism is not a religion..."

In many cases, it technically correct, but incomplete to the point of being misleading.

When this came up on Teller (magician), who strongly self-identifies as an atheist, nobody had the slightest problem with saying that Teller is an atheist. It was the claim that atheism is a religion that multiple editors objected to. Penn Jillette wrote "Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby", so we know that Penn objects to having atheism identified as a religion.

In the case of Penn, Teller and many others, they are atheists who reject all theistic religions, but they also reject all non-theistic religions, and a large number of non-religious beliefs. See List of Penn & Teller: Bullshit! episodes for an incomplete list. Atheism just skims the surface of Penn & Teller's unbelief.

In my opinion, "Religion = None" is the best choice for representing the data accurately and without bias. I also have no objection to removing the religion entry entirely. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll respond to this and the reversion of your edit. In the cited video Tesak doesn't really say that atheism is his religion. He simply says "I'm an atheist" in the context of naming a difference between him and the christian activist. The infobox for Tesak in the Russian Wikipedia literally says something like "Faith: lacking (atheist)". On the other hand, sites like Facebook have been making atheists express their view on religion through the Religious Views (or, in other cases, Religion) box. Personally, I don't mind it saying either "none", "none (atheist)" or simply "atheist"/"atheism". I will not revert or argue for reversion of the last edit or your edit on this matter, but I think the Religion entry must be kept, as Tesak has discussed it publicly and constantly asked alleged pedophiles about their religious beliefs. --Bloody Rose (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 (who reverted me) and I have one edit each, and I prefer to defer to the judgement of the editors who have already been working on the page. I gave my reasons for preferring "Religion = None" above, and will now leave it up to you. If nobody cares one way or the other, I sort of dislike the idea of whoever edited last getting his way -- even in cases where I am that last person. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Are there any good or featured articles that have atheism in the religion section? Also, can we go with «Religion: none (atheist)»? To put this into context, in the Russian video used as a reference, the host says "[Tesak] simply doesn't believe in religion per se, no matter which one it is" and Tesak responds with "absolutely [not]". The christian activist then asks whether Martsinkevich is "an atheist denying the existence of god or agnostic meaning [he doesn't] care" to which Tesak responds with "I deny [god]". --Bloody Rose (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked at some of the points made within the ongoing discussions you brought up. They sort of convinced me that simply stating "Religion: Atheist" may lead to some misinterpretations, although when I was adding this information I saw that as describing Tesak's religious views, not trying to present atheism as a religion. Now onto the next point. The translated quotes above also indicate the subject of this article pretty much says he doesn't have a religion and calls himself an atheist. Both of these statements matter. I think "Religion: none (atheist)" would be the best option in this particular case. Why not just "none", as something you seem to advocate for? I believe it's not enough, as it would be like saying "I'm not religious", while saying "I'm an atheist" and rejecting religion sends a stronger message which should be conveyed.--Rose (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by Tom Morris

If you're asking for references, why aren't you pointing out which parts of the article need to be backed up?
I also don't see how your edits improve the article. In the intro, all you did was essentially repeating the existing information from the same sentence, only adding grammatical mistakes and a questionable claim.
Your additions "which claims gay men are" and "and then attacks then physically" are redundant next to "Tesak's violent approach and targeting of gay males have been criticized".
I understand that you may have good reasons to dislike this person, but we're not here to express our hatred towards or disagreement with someone by repetitively stating how "bad" they are. Rose (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

@BloodyRose:

The subject has in his info-box criminal charges and imprisonment details. However, these are only temporary, as he will be released in November 2016. The info-box is supposed to highlight permanent facts about a person like their birth date, birth place, nationality, name, education etc. The current additions place too much of an emphasis on his criminal history which isn't extensive enough that they should be mentioned in his info-box. In other words, he isn't known solely for his criminal charges. He is known both inside and outside of Russia as something else other than a criminal. For example, the lead paragraph in the article begins with him being a neo-Nazi activist, media personality, vlogger, the leader and one of the founders of the "Restruct" movement. His image in the info-box shows him on Russian tv, and he is characterized as something of an 'online personality'. The current use of the criminal additions does not provide WP:DUE weight, and would be better suited to being included in the subjects article, under a suitable heading which it is, rather than the info-box. Certainly if users are opposed to removing it now, it must be removed after November 2016 or sooner, should he appeal again. I will not be able to comment further on this, becuase I have opted to leave Wikipedia. So I will not be able to respond to inquires of some users. --Ritsaiph (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• How can you say that his criminal history is not extensive enough? How do we establish that? His prison term being temporary is not a reason to remove the information. Once he is released, the status can be updated to "released" but he will have done years in prison regardless. Speaking of due weight, there are three sections in the article dealing with his prison sentences, so I don't see why these details can't be included in the infobox. --Rose (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

november 2016 release

Are there any articles or sources saying he was going to be released in november 2016? 2606:F180:0:6F:6F:2CE2:D966:C78F (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I did a google search for articles and looked at the source cited in the Russian Wikipedia that's meant to back up that part. The date matches the time he got to serve, although it doesn't seem to be explicitly mentioned anywhere. It appears that he will be incarcerated until at least April 2017 because of another case against him, so I will update the article. See the Russian report here with a bit of information on it from the same source in English here. --Rose (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maxim Martsinkevich. 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/20131104005843/http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=780107 to http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=780107

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Suicide

I bet my ass off, that there are the usual conspiracy rumors, but i cannot read russian, so maybe some "people with interests" may dig out that bs, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovemankind83 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)