Talk:Belarusian presidential election, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh come on, the CIS observer mission? This is a Russian led body, so basically we're talking about one dictatorship defending another one - pretty much the only friend it has left in the region. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle...eh, white? This isn't NPOV, this is just ridiculous! Eixo 17:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The CIS mission statement came from an Interfax report, but I am going to reword or remove that statement not because it is not NPOV, but because it was a cut and paste copyvio. I also believe that the OSCE will send observers to the elections. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 21:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Much better. Eixo 16:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is Pravda.ru a legit source to be using here, as it is? 68.39.174.238 00:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, I believe that Pravda is a legitimate newspaper site, since Pravda is a very old newspaper and one of the biggest in Russia. While I do know that the article in question is biased towards Lukashenko, and also states that Belarus "does not need a revolution" that took place in .ua, .ge and .kg, I think it would be good to get the Russian view in. I have not heard much from the American press at all, but the BBC did report that Kazulin was arrested and assulted by Minsk police on 03/01/2006. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 02:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Note that Pravda isn't this Pravda (2nd from the last paragraph). 68.39.174.238 19:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Should be believe to newpaper called "Truth"? :). Well actually I think it is a good source but has to be checked as it has some biases (as every newspaper). As we are able to confront their claims with other newspaper I believe that including their views can only improve the article. --Jan Smolik 11:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Colour Revolution

What would the colour be if there was to be a Ukraine-style revolution? UKWiki 15:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Denim blue. Dinsdagskind 15:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I was told Cornflower. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It is not "color". It is Jeans Revolution (джинсовая революция). In Soviet Union jeans were an item of Western culture; "pants of the most probabale military adversary", as a Russian joke say. So Jeans Revolution is supposed to mean "anti-Soviet Revoluiton", a hint to the Soviet ways of Bat'ka Luka. By the way, in Russia this definition is snickered upon, because in the most recent Russian slang "джинса" means "bullshiting". mikka (t) 05:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
And Mikka, were jeans an "American" item that was usually sold on the Soviet black market? As for my comment on the cornflower revolution, that was what I saw one time when I did some google searching, mostly promoted by the opposition parties or by bloggers. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, jeans, chewing gum, nylon stockings, and Western music albums were the primary items in the Soviet black market catering youth. mikka (t) 06:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As for opposition parties, unfortunately they are laughable so far, and not because of dictator Luka killing and arresting them. the reason is much more reasonable: no real economical interests under them. In the whole world politics is playgoround of powerful (read: rich). mikka (t) 06:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. BTW, has a quote from Lukashenko and the color revolution, where it specifically mentions cornflower. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This quote is ignorance as well. You yourself wrote an article about Belarussian emblem and in=t is flax. The term "васильковая революция" is indeed in circulation, even in Luka's texts (it will be funny if he will turn out to the creator of the word: "Запад денег на это не жалеет. Они считают, что Беларусь созрела для некой оранжевой или васильковой революции"). But at the moment it would be original research to trace the origin of the term. AFAIK "джинсовая революция" was used first. "cornflower color" is a reference to bright blue denim. mikka (t) 06:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I remember that. BelMonk corrected me and told me that it was cornflower (though, Luka's website on the emblem gave the blue flower as flax, so that is where the error came in). While I do agree it could be original research, we could use this as a starting point if something does happen in Minsk (TB is showing protests in Minsk, but only in passing; including the display of the Pahonia flag). About the Belarusian emblem article, I was wondering if there is anything else that needs to be done to that article or is it ready for FAC, again? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Election results

No official results have been issued yet. I am monitoring everything, so when I hear results, I will let you know. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What you read...

...depends on where you live. Looking at receng Google News stories, I am struck by the headings of Chinese (Lawmaker terms EU sanctions against Belarus as double standards) and Russian (Smaller Crowd Rallies on 2nd Night) stories.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Quite comprehensible, since the PRC government always declares against such "Color Revolutions" took place in those Eurasian countries. The government-hold internal Chinese media have been satirizing socalled "politic chaos" over there all the time.--Jikayo 08:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh my God!

Did Lukashenko write this article himself? The Russian reaction to the OSCE report is mentioned before the report itself! May I remind you that the internet is one of the few connections many Belarusians have with the free world, and that as one of the busiest websites in the world we have a responsibility to give a truthful representation of international events. This is where we can actually make a difference, this is where we can show that free information can actually be a force for good in the world. I suggest the "Reaction" bit be radically edited. Eixo 10:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jan Rybář

Why was the part about suspiction of Czech embassy that Rybář was beaten by secret police deleted? (>>Both journalist and Czech charge d'affaires in Belarus claim it was probably attack of Belarusian secret police. "They yelled at me 'where are your documents?' and regular gangsters are not usually interested in documents but in money," commented Jan Rybář."<<) I know it is just a suspiction that cannot be proved, but it is an oppinion of czech chargé d'affaires and thus official oppinion of the Czech republic. If this part is ommited, we can also ommit the whole part about Rybář. This way it seems totaly unrelated to the election. (I am not offended by the deletion, I just want to know reason) --Jan Smolik 10:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I decided to reintroduce it again. It was done during a big rewrite done by the same person who later introduced long sections about russian opposition to the OSCE report. Seeing this I am not 100 % certain there is a consensus about removal of this information from the article, so I introduce it once again for another evaluation. --Jan Smolik 11:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OSCE observers and western countries - Mike Almond

Actually, who is Mike Almond? Is his oppinion representative for some social group? Is there a prove to his claim that Belarusian economy is doing well on post-soviet scale? I'm biased as I think that Lukasenko is a dictator so I do not want to remove this part, but I feel it was selected from western media as unrepresantive comment of one person and not of an important group of people. --Jan Smolik 23:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Mark Almond is a fellow at Oxford who doesn't even hold a doctorate, has written little of interest, but presents himself as an expert on modern-day Eastern Europe. Writing for The Guardian - a far-left British newspaper - he presents Lukashenko as a hero, protecting his people from "the ravages of free-market fundamentalists". His opinions are not representative of anything, and should be removed.
By the way, don't put too much stock in the page on Mark Almond; it's written by an anonymous editor who's every edit seems to be about...you guessed it: Mark Almond! Eixo 12:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Mike Almond is an expert, experts are not supposed to reperesent any social groups. NPOV suggests presenting of all relevant POVs! Occuserpens 16:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'm just saying his is too much of a fringe view to be worthy of mention. Eixo 17:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian - a far-left British newspaper - this is a joke, right? GU is far-left from National Review, that's for sure. Occuserpens 00:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the quote from the Guardian and put the link in External Links, on the grounds that it contained mainly interpretation. Cshirky 17:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleted section

I deleted this: "EU countries were hesitating over whether to include Mr Lukashenko, giving him the same pariah status as Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe. Those doubts were swept aside after a crackdown on protesters in Minsk."

since imho it doesn't add any new content to the page and seems to refer to something that was edited out before.

Belarus is already out of the Council of Europe since 1997, so Belarus has more to lose than Mugabe (who cannot join the Council anyways). So, Belarus, IMHO, has nothing to lose at all (and, if these sanctions have been in play for over 10 years and things have not changed, then I guess no amount of sanctions will take Batka down). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this piece was interesting to show the dynamics of the conflict. But whatever. Occuserpens 03:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Arnold info restored

This assessment comes from the mainstream media - GU. IMO, political bias is the only reason to remove it since opposite views are already perfectly represented. Also, special section "discussion" can be introduced to take care of different POVs on this issue. Occuserpens 00:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, would be nice IMO, if it's possible to come up with a good name for such section. Also there's another interesing article in Guardian, where the author, Jonathan Steele, accuses Europe and US of choosing the winner before the vote. I think it could be merged with Mike Almond info. --Poison sf 03:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On links removal

Please, do not remove the links! For example, now it is not clear where this info comes from: Belarusian human rights center, Vesna (Spring), said that 178 protesters... Thanks, Occuserpens 00:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filippov info restored

Clear formulation of different POVs from MSM sources is consistent with NPOV Occuserpens 23:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

About this Filippov passage - to me it's doesn't look really interesting or informative enough to include, especially as a quote. Basically it's just few general sentences. --Poison sf 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I shortened it to "Patriotic press and organizations lauded the outcome as a defeat of "orange" political technologies" with a link to this Filippov article as a footnote.--Poison sf 02:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Generic "patriotic" is non-neutral, non-informative and ideologized. But source and author are important! Occuserpens 03:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What's so bad about "patriotic"? I guess we can agree that "liberal opposition" is a good, neutral term precisely describing a sector of society. "Patriotic" there was supposed to mean basically the sector of society which is not liberal opposition, and furthermore leans to supporting the state and opposing US/EU interference (in Russia and in its neighbours). Why it's not informative? It surely is more informative than just writing that the author said so and so. Otherwise the reader will wonder "So what? Why is this author from Rian.ru important?". This version explains that it's not just about one author, but this author exemplifies reaction from the patriotic sector of society in Russia.--Poison sf 12:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patriotic/state-controlled/pro-government media in Russia

It seems that there has been some disagreement over what to call media in Russia that supports the position of Putin on the Belarusian election. In my opinion, "patriotic" is, if not POV, at least emotionally biased (patriotism being positive to most people, unlike nationalism). "State-controlled" would often be factually inadequate and also poses the question of what "controlled" means. Is the BBC state-controlled? I think "pro-government" is a good NPOV term, just like "opposition" and should be used for refering to such media. Tamino 14:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If "pro-government" is more acceptable than "patriotic" then fine. To be fully precise, there're some people who are ambivalent about or even highly critical of Russian government and view Lukashenko positively / dislike West-sponsored "orange revolutions", that's why I've used "patriotic" first. But, if we consider the mainstream, "pro-government" is probably a reasonably precise term to use.--Poison sf 15:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funny piece of trivia

Łukašenka has recently publicly announced that he has ordered the number of votes he received to be reduced from the actual 93.5% to 86%, which seemed to him like a more "European figure". [1] and in English [2]

Of course this begs the question how could the CIS "election observers" overlook such a significant inaccuracy? --193.219.28.146 23:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/e/l/Talk%7EBelarusian_presidential_election%2C_2006_43be.html"