Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russian constitutional crisis of 1993

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Russian constitutional crisis of 1993

(Contested -- July 6)

Self-nomination. Wikipeida's articles on post-Soviet Russia are dreadfully underdeveloped. Perhaps this is the one article in this area that's complete enough to go through the featuring process. I hope that a feature will act as an impetus encouraging some much-needed substantial work on recent Russian history and politics. 172 09:22, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Images need source information at the very least. Morwen - Talk 09:40, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. NPOV. Please be careful with using phrases such as "this brutal episode" over and over again. Let the readers form their own impression. While I do not necessarily disagree with any of the views expressed, I believe that the text as it stands is far too tendentious to be featured. Please put in greater analysis of Yeltsin's motivation, instead of setting him up as the straw man for your own theses. It is not for Wikipedia to state that Russia is or is not a democracy, whatever that overflogged word may mean. The trick of hiding potentially difficult points in the footnotes is old and, excuse me, cheap. WITHDRAWN -- see below. 68.148.211.161 17:25, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC), i.e. A. Shetsen 17:38, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So the references and notations make the article less credible? Come on. There are no "difficult points" hidden in the footnote that belong in the main body of the text. Yes, it's called a brutal episode in a passing remark, but the sparing use of emotive references in this article is evident when compared to, say, the article on the Tiananmen Square crisis. 172 16:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, the existence of the footnotes is not the problem. The problem is the basic assumption in the article that the (brutal) episode "proves" anything. Since I've begun to review, it would be entirely inappropriate for me to make changes -- but I would suggest the following points be considered:

The basic fight was over whether Russia was to be a presidential system or a parliamentary system. It was not proven, but rather made the outcome, that Russia is to be a presidential system.

Yes, while tremendous power was effectively concentrated in the hands of the president, in theory Russia is not a presidential system but rather a dual executive system along the lines of the French Fifth Republic. The constitution calls the president head of state but not head of government. Although the president's nominee for prime minister (the head of government) must be confirmed by parliament, the president can appoint and remove deputy prime ministers and other ministers without needing parliamentary consent. These decisions are, nonetheless, to be made upon the proposal of the prime minister. On this point the president's power is the same as that of the French president, and the language of the relevant provisions of the two constitutions the same. As in France, therefore, the Russian constitution seems to allow a good deal of room for variation in the possible relationship between a president and a prime minister. The key difference is that the power-sharing arrangement does not really work in Russia, with its weak party system. Although the sentences that you're calling into question can e clarified, they are statements of the discrepancies in real and nominal presidential powers. 172 00:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Consequences of the crisis included the present constitution, the present system of economy, and -- quite important -- the contiued weakness of political parties in Russia.

The first of the three can be addressed in detail in this article, and it is toward the end of the entry. The second and third points are better addressed in history of post-Soviet Russia and politics of Russia, as they are.

Prvatization was allowed to come in the fashion then favoured by the USA (which strongly supported Yeltsin's actions at the time). 172 00:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Again, this is addressed in history of post-Soviet Russia, and politics of Russia. 172 00:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The other comment I have is about the general style of the article. It reads like telejournalism, with Yeltsin being the villain of the hour. Not for something ten years old, surely. No generalizations of it can yet be proven, but may I suggest restructuring the article on the following top-level sections:

background (political, economic, external pressures)

events (internal: event/reaction, external reaction)

consequences (political, economic, external relations)

And please, please, don't make villains of anyone.

The content on the background and consequences is there; you seem to be ignoring everything but the middle part of the article on the shelling of the White House. The first section clearly establishes this as a two-way power struggle, so you can't say that someone is being picked out to be "made a villain" in the article. 172 00:41, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I should say that the text is quite as exciting as not-bad telejournalism -- that's a plus -- but I still have doubts on its impartiality. A. Shetsen 16:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Telejournalism" is now a term of derision? I usually get attacked for not following "news style" (by User:Maveric149, a strong advocate of news style, in particular). But now I'm getting attacked for following news style? At any rate, go look through the other English-language overviews of the crisis online, and you won't find anything better: you'll only find worse examples of "telejournalism." Just about everything else online is going to be a hell of a lot more slanted than this article-- the only difference is that it's slanted against the parliament, painting it as a another hardline communist coup attempt (like 8/91), not the mutual power struggle that it really was. I make no apologies for not bothering to spew the Yeltsin propaganda line as matter-of-fact. 172 00:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Now I'm attacked" - this is about the article, not about you personally. That's an important distinction to keep in mind, particularly on FAC - David Gerard 09:19, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, you make it sound worse by cherry-picking this line out of the context of the more complicated point that I'm trying to make. I'm not taking the criticism personally, as you strike me as suggesting. But I was suggesting that critiques of the styles of articles might be based on personal stylistic preferences.

Fair enough. Sorry.

For example, one user criticized Origins of the American Civil War for not following news style. But on this article the text is being criticized for following news style. Some users simply prefer news style; others do not. When it comes to articles like these, there is probably no way to please everyone. 172 10:18, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to FAC, here's your accordion ;-) - David Gerard 11:49, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Support - Great lead section and summary of events! There are some NPOV issues but I don't think they are bad enough to block featured status. Oh and 172 - I support summary style, not news style and I've never attacked you. Summary style, BTW, allows the reader to have a choice between different sized summaries; short vs long. People who want the short summary will read the survey article whose sections ideally all contain a short summary and a 'Main article' link. People who want a complete article on the topic that the survey section covers can go directly to the article on that topic. And so on and so on until a topic is very thoroughly covered without overwhelming users with too much detail up front. That way both user types are served. --mav 08:59, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's great that the article's getting support from the user who taught me news sytle summary style, which is definitely the best way to approach recent history on WP, I'm finding. BTW, I meant that you criticized the article because of stylistic concerns, but I might not have been clear. 172 12:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Until (1) all mentions of "illegality" are put into neutral language (not "something is illegal", but "something contravened article xxx of yyy", (CHECK!) (2) all mentions of "brutality", etc are eliminated (and replaced with figures, presented in neutral language, "XXX wre killed"), (CHECK!) (3) the legal aspects of both the parliament's position as well as the presidents's are dealt with in the same way ("supported by xxx, opposed by yyy", where xxx and yyy are (a) laws, (b) internal entities, (c) external entities, (CHECK!) (4) longer-term consequences are analysed, as close as possible to the present day (or, if not analysed, fully linked to), my objection remains. WITHDRAWN - see below. A. Shetsen 19:54, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see where the article makes emotive references to the street fighting (BTW, the word "brutal" no longer appears in the article). Once again, the article's prose is quite plain spoken in this regard next to that of Tiananmen Square crisis of 1989. And it already explicitly states a couple of times that 187 had died in the conflict and 437 had been wounded, according to Russian police figures released on 10/8/93. Longer-term consequences are also already analyzed. There is an overview of how the government is structured under the constitution passed in 1993 and the strong presidential system toward the end. The crisis certainly laid the groundwork for Yeltsin's privatization scheme in the mid-1990s and the further weakening of parties, but this broader view is more appropriate for the articles on post-Soviet Russian history and politics, to which this article is linked. 172 04:38, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To achieve NPOV, you must not say that "A proves B" or "A serves to prove B": political history is not mathematics. Everywhere you are tempted to say it, QUOTE somebody saying it. Not that it will necessary make the article balanced (I note others have chimed in), but it would be enough. Since history did not end in 1993, Fukuyama notwithstanding, you'd better put in a little about what the longer term effects were. If you think well, two sentences should suffice. Too bad such conclusions can't be written news-style. Do that and I'll swallow the objection if not all of my reservations.A. Shetsen 04:58, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more. (As a historian, BTW, I have tried to argue countless times myself that 'A does not prove B' in history to often deaf on Wikipedia-- and I'm sure that Mav, among others can attest to this. And no one has ever insinuated that I buy into Fukuyama's thesis.) Moving on from this digression, there were indeed a couple of sentences suggesting that the crisis was emblematic of executive-legislative balance in what observers like Guillermo O'Donnell call "delegative democracies." They were indeed hastily and poorly worded and misleading (keep in mind that I was trying to make this understandable and accessible to the broadest audience possible), but they were already revised/removed thanks to your observations. I also agree that two sentences written in news style do not suffice when it comes to analysis of the longer term effects. That's why the article goes into the longer term consequences in far greater detail than you suggest and links to several articles that can offer this broader view (economy, history, politics of post-Soviet Russia). 172 05:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK. Fair enough. OBJECTION WITHDRAWN. A. Shetsen 05:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Object. Some nitpicks: 1) The "Yeltsin's suspension of parliament" and "Origins of the crisis" section need one or two more subsections to break up the lengthy text. 2) "After ten days, Yeltsin fell back on his support in the army seized the White House by force." — currently doesn't quite make sense; not sure what the intended meaning is otherwise I'd correct it myself. 3) There are a batch of one or two-sentence paragraphs in "The shelling of the Russian White House"; could these be merged into larger paragraphs? Comment: After a naive reading of this article, I get the impression there's an anti-Yeltsin POV, but since I know nothing about Russian history or politics I won't sustain an objection over it. — Matt 01:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the observations. I took a look and was able to make some changes. 172 04:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks — the subsections make it quite a bit more accessible. — Matt 02:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• Oppose. 1. There is no "References section." I noticed at least one external link in the middl of the article; this, in my opinion, should not appear in the middle, but rarther at the end. 2. Sections should not have just a single subsection. The subsection "December 12, 1993 Duma elections" should be merged with "Yeltsin's consolidation of power." Perhaps all sub-subsections of "The intensifying executive-legislative power struggle" can be merged as well, but this is not required. -- Emsworth 15:27, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

  Good observations. [1] The notes (renamed notes and references), though, is a references section. IMHO, this is better than just listing the references, as it allows a reader to look up the sources point by point, making it much easier to verify. The external link in the middle of the article was integrated into the notes. 172 17:42, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)