Talk:Human rights in Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(comments)

Contents

[edit] Violations of Wikipedia guidelines

Although this article is named "Human rights in Russia", the author of this articles reviews constitutional regime - balance of powers, characterizes government in the opening passage. All these matters are already discussed in "Politics of Russia" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Russia, but the author of this articles Biophys tries to avoid criticism and opinion of other people on his contributions, and therefore publishes his opinions in articles which are not relevant for this. With that aim he creates pages (articles) where he publishes infromation which is not relevant or biased. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin

In this article he presents Boris Stomakhin, journalist, as a political prisoner despite the fact, that Stomakhin called to exterminate Russians as ethnic group, called to violent change of Consitutional regime of Russian Federation and openly called to commit terrorist attacks against civilians.Vlad fedorov 07:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see mention of Stomakhin in this article, however this could be mentioned, but only as one of a handful of cases, when the judiciary resisted discrimination of Russians. Discrimination of Russians is not viewed, such as genocide of Russians during the first years of Chechen Conflict [1], it's simply forgot by all so-called democratic powers. It must be mentioned in Chechnya section, coz it happened in Chechnya, a region of Russia.
I strongly oppose look on Stomakhin as on a political prisoner, and under such angle he must not appear in the article. ellol 16:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I will discuss Boris Stomakhin in his talk page. As for this article, it received recently "B" rating, and it is written in complete agreement with guidelines of Wikipedia. The previous version was not written by me, and it was ~30% smaller than it is right now. The problem was: this article had no references (just as article "Human rights in USA", for example). I asked to provide references (see this page below), but no one responded. To fix this problem, I have studied a lot of sources and cited 60 (!) of them. Most of these sources are International Human rights protection organizations, whih is the best source in an article about Human Rights. Everyone is very welcome to add more data in this article if he thinks that something is missing (supported by sources).Biophys 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not remove anything from the older version (because I respect work of other people), with only one exception. I had to do something with introduction, because that was a suject of POV dispute. The problem was: both sides tried to do original research instead of citing sources as we suppose to do. I found such source, Sergei Kovalev, and cited him. However, it is important to properly describe what Sergei Kovalev was actually saying, and not to distort the content of his interview. Threfore, an appropriate citaton (which requires several sentences) is absolutely neccessary. I do not want anyone to blame me that I distorted Kovalev's words in Wikipedia. This would be also against Wikipedia policies. Therefeore, I must reinsert these phrases. Biophys 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much Biophys for finding Kovalev, but that article is dedicated not to point of view of Kovalev on human rights in Russia. And these views should be placed at his corresponding article. Here we describe in NPOV the situation of human rights, not from point of view of Kovalev Vlad fedorov 18:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
To have a NPOV article, one should refer to several authorites in the field, especially if their opinions are different. By providing opinions of Lukin and Kovalev, we can achieve this. Biophys 04:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Economist Rating

About "The Economist" rating -- it's much arbitrary. I've counted by myself scores for "Functioning of Government", and got 6.5 instead of their 3.1. More over, we sucked a whole ball for the question "14. Is the legislature the supreme political body, with a clear supremacy over other branches of government?" But what's our thouble that we are a presidential republic, and president decides the most important questions of inner and outer policy, as stated in our Constitution? It's injustice! Moreover, two questions are related to public opinions! We sucked two more balls! Did they take into consideration, that the U.S. are all genetically patriots, and Russians genetically haters of the state?! ellol 14:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the Economist claimed, that

  • "There is no consensus on how to measure democracy, definitions of democracy are contested and there is an ongoing lively debate on the subject."
  • Moreover, considering methodology, "A dichotomous 1-0 scoring system (1 for a yes and 0 for a no answer) is not without problems."

So. The total place of Russia (102) in the rating, IS OF NO MEANING. It shoudn't be mentioned in the article. As there's no precise criteria -- the value is of no physical, scientifical meaning. ellol 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem of Economist is that the Consitution of Russian Federation clearly states that laws adopted by the Parlament have greater legal force than presidential decrees. The division of Republic into presidential or parlamentary has nothing with superiority of parlament acts over other bodies acts (President, Government, Courts). You have to score 1 on this question. See the Constitution. Vlad fedorov 14:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have any other ratings, you are very welcome to cite them. The Economist is a respectable journal; so his ratings make sense for the English-speaking public.Biophys 04:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You are a scientist yourself. Who are you making wrong -- us or yourselves? ellol 16:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC) As it's in physics -- any measured value must have an error. The "error" of this rating is "there is no consensus on how to measure democracy", and used scoring system "is not without problems". ellol 16:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course evrything is social scencies is rather subjective; this is not physics. But it is a common practice to cite such sources because there is nothing better. One can take a look at the original publication - how they did this study. If there is a notable source that criticises The Economist ratings, it might be cited. Such rating send a message. For example: "Mr. Bush, your country suppose be Number 1 in human rights, but it is only Number 30 (for example). You and US Congress must do something about it." Biophys 17:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind the "value", if there's the "error". ellol 17:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Message for Russia, too. "Hey, you are no democracy, for what the hell are you trying to have independent foreign policy?" ellol 17:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kovalev

It's just ridicilous, with all my respect to this person, to devote a whole passege to him! His article, is a general talk, an opinion, it goes without proves, just pure allegations. He sais that no one can not even dream about free and fair elections, and you simply repeat this.

My friend, a deeply respectful person, claimes that all people in power are gays. I offer to write in the opening, "according to Mikhail K., all people in power are gays". ellol 15:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sergei Kovalev is the best authority to judge about human rights in Russia, because he is a notable Internationally person, former Ombudsman and a member of Moscow Helsinki Group. But if you want to present opinions of other experts, such as Lukin, this is perfectly fine. There are differences in opinions between experts on many subjets. Biophys 03:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
1)You are mistaken. "Zastoy" is not the Soviet regime in general. So it referred to early 1980s or even may be late 1970s. Not 1990. It's a point, a bitter, but valid point. The system still worked that time, political repressions existed but weren't mass, problems with food still didn't arise. Of course, Chechnya would be impossible that time. ellol 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
2) "У нас есть Конституция. Ни одна принципиальная основополагающая норма этой Конституции не действует – это факт." == "No one of basic norms of Russia's Constitution works." If you are intended not to invent his words by yourself, you should notice, that he didn't say they are violated by the authorities. Who knows why it doesn't work? Hell knows. ellol 16:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
3) "Даже название наше не соответствует действительности, мы никакая не федерация. Не может власть субъекта федерации назначаться центральной властью – это тогда не федерация." Even our name isn't related with reality, we are no Federation. Power of the subject of Federation can't be appointed by central power -- it's not a federation. Okey, a nice point, though I would polemize with it. You know powers of subject of Federation are a) legislative b) executive. Legislative power is elected by direct vote of citizens. The head of executive is suggested by the President, then it must be approved by legislature. If this doesn't happen, President has two more attemps. If this doesn't help. President can dismiss the current legislature.
In fact, there's only one true Federation -- it is the United States. Coz it was formed as a military union of independent states.
But any way it's a problem of federalism vs. unitarism, not democracy. ellol 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
"Вот она, эта постоянная ложь. У нас нет государственного органа цензуры, но мы знаем, что цензура существует и достаточно жесткая." There it is, the constant lie. We don't have any governmental agency of censorship, but we know that censorhip exists, and harsh enough. ellol 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Biophys, try to understand this. We, the Russians, are hard people, but very sensitive in the deep. It's for you no difference -- "rampant censorship" or "harsh censorship". But for us the difference is as deep as the Grand Canyon. We don't have truly much freedom/democracy, what we have, we appreciate as gold sand. Try to understand this and don't offend us, because it's discrimination and racism. ellol 16:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your editing of Kovalev's statement. I tried to cite experts that are internationally rather than nationally recognized, that is Kovalev, Politkovskaya, Amnesty International, etc. At least in natural sciencies, such experts are usually considered greater authorities in the field, although this is often unfair. Biophys 17:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Unfortunately, it's unlike that in natural sciences, if Einstein sais a wrong silly thing, the worst student has a right to say it's wrong. ellol 17:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Violations of human rights in Russia are very common

Violations of human rights in Russia are very common As a scientist, you should understand, that there's no such thing as "much" and "little". This words make sense only when there's a comparision. Is 100 electron volts much? It's very much compared to the energy of optical processes, and very little compared to nuclear reactions.

So. The word common requires an object for comparision. Or, it could be replaced with a sort of a real number characterising frequency of violations. ellol 17:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Common" means nothing. So, I deleted "common" and all other "general" words to simplify the text. But why do you think that disappearances of civilians in Chechnya were more frequent in 2001? The sources say about 2005 and 2006. If you have any good statistical data on this subject, they could be included. Otherwise, this is OR. Biophys 19:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Source says: no decline in the number of victims in 2004 [2]. Of course all such data are unreliable. Biophys 19:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the current situation with human rights in Russia better than before?

I have put in a statement that hoever non-ideal the current situation on human rights in Russiamay be - It is a vast improvement over Stalin and Brezhnev

Are you was in Russia? No? Then stop to talk rot.

I am of Russian Parentage and Know how bad the Soviet union was. Today Russians are free to travel, there is a semi free press and Opposition parties. It is up to democrats to improve the situation - however the democratic parties - Yabloko and SPS only seem to get 10% of the vote. The great danger is someone like Rodina or the other ultra nationalists taking over. Can anyone explain why Russian Liberals are so incompetent? So Stalin is the standard as to whether things are good or not?

You're right no tragedy can really be compared to Stalin. But if you take, the fascist in communist's clothing, out of the bloody equation, then is there really that much of a difference between today's Russia and the Soviet Union?

And can you really say that the situation in Chechnya is any different than the Soviet invasion of Hungary in the 50's, and its invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's?

And what do you have to say about Anna Politkovskaya? And the 41 other journalists who have been killed in the NEW AND IMRPOVED MOTHERLAND!?

-- Many emotions, little sense. For some people it's homeland, but for you it's Russia. ellol 12:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Politkovskya is an American citizen and an American journalist who received money for many things. Correct information and truth was not such thing. Politkovskya was absolutely unknown in Russia when she was alive. She become an well-known after her death, but not because she was a good journalist. (She was an propagandist) So her owners received much more money from her death then her life. And by the way how it correlates with human rights? Criminals exist in whole world, just look US prison statistics.
Also it is very funny to read about the Soviet invasion to Afghanistan. When Soviet forces was there, there was no massive killing in Kabul, there was no drags from Afghanistan, children was going to CIVIL schools, there was hospitals and real government. After American invasion Afghanistan became the biggest drag producer in the world and Kosovo is the biggest terminal for heroin traffic to Europe (about 80% of all). So if we changed word "human" in phrase "human rights" to "criminal" I will agree with you. Because Russia violates rights of criminals, the "free" Western world defend them. (By the way on Politkovskya death day, was murdered 2 German journalist in Afghanistan. Did it shown in "free" American TV?) - Ghoort 10:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


I do not think it is true that Politkovskaya was unknown in Russia before her death. Everybody I have spoken to in Russia was aware of her and of her campaigns concerning the Chechen war. As for calling her a propagandist - this is not a very damaging charge to make when defending a government that has systematically taken over every area of the Russian television media and where there is no free press. In such a climate, merely saying anything which is in contradiction to the regime is denounced as propaganda, and puts journalists at risk of attack from the state. Regarding Afghanistan, I don't think either the Soviet invasion or the US backed resistance were particularly admirable. Nevertheless, it is strange that you choose to compare the shock at a journalist's murder in Russia with that of two German ones in Afghanistan: surely you must realise that Russia is supposed to have a higher standard of application of rule of law, and that therefore the murder of a journalist at her home is more shocking to a western audience.

Please, sign your comments. Thank you. ellol 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that siuation is better than it was during Stalin's times (except for the Chechens and those who are already dead). As about Breznev's times, there is ceratinly a great progress in the freedom to travel abroad and at least some progress in property rights. But if there is a progress in a certain area, this should be justified by some data. Biophys 01:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Only few people in fact wanted to read impolsive and opinionated Politkovskaya. Why? It's not 1991 when every fresh word received 'hurrah'. Since that time people saw such 'compromate' wars, so dirty elections when two bandits pleased each other with heaps of shit -- impossible in US or Germany. It's very hard to catch the trust of people -- and easy to lose.
Btw, Biophys, have a look at ombudsman.gov.ru, especially at 2005 annual report (in Russian), it's a good source. ellol 08:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I will take a look.Biophys 16:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
By the way, this (in Russian) about Politkovskaya may be interesting for you. ellol 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
O'K. I think we are making too general statements. Besides, it is very difficult to decide what exactly is better. It is more important what we have in Russia right now, not what we had in the past. I think there are certain problems and certain achievements. Let's tell exactly what the problems and achievements are, and support these statements by references. Then everything will be clear and NPOV. I have mentioned some of them, certainly not all. You are welcome to add some achievements or more problems, but please define them specifically and support by references. Biophys 04:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KGB/FSB power in Russia

I would put this question differently: is Russia already a totalitarian country or it will be there soon? I can only copy a fragment from my previous discussion: "...No wonder that the election to the city council and the parliament was won by an army of undercover KGB agents who pretended to be very nice and liberal citizens. But after the election (not right away but when someone from the “above” made an order), all the elected to the posts KGB members simultaneously changed the behavior and started doing completely opposite things. The KGB/FSB in Russia is not a security organization. It acts and works as a political party of the kind described by Orwell. Right now, FSB actual and "former" members and "friends" represent an overwhelming majority in Russian Duma (the parliament), there is a KGB president (“there is no such thing as a former KGB man”, he said), almost all members of government, gubernators, etc. And as you probably know, KGB/FSB has formal membership, military discipline, support of Russian population, and an army of undercover agents (“stukachi”). Thus, this is a truly totalitarian organization that simply replaced the Communist Party (it actually struggled for the power with Communist Party from the moment when Stalin was poisoned by Lavrentii Beria). But unlike the Communist Party, it works in secrecy; it does not tell “I am the boss”. This secrecy helps FSB government to fool around “useful foreign idiots” (as Lenin said), from US president to foreign investors. Those foreign “idiots” invest money to the pockets of FSB elite who own almost all important assets in Russia, such as Gazprom. These are not my original ideas. Please read books about KGB by John Barron (journalist) and especially “The state within a state” by Yevgeniya Albats (she was mentioned in article about David Karr)". One could argue that an important element of totalitarism is missing: the ideology. But there significant successes at the "ideological front": many people are already very anti-semitic, anti-Ukainian, anti-Georgian, anti-Chechen, anti-American, they hate human rights defenders as spys, etc. (so the faith to the Communism is no longer required). This ideology of "patriotism" and hatred is promoted by many ideologists like Dugin. That is why I am worry very much about the future of Russia. Biophys 06:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And what do you think about the principle of presumption of innocense? Don't ya think it's undemocratic to prevent a former KGB man from holding the highest governmental position, that it's discrimination? During the latest decades, from the very moment when Archipelago Gulag was published (1990), and the KGB ceased to exist, the former KGB personnel underwent the worst sin of every democratic system, that is intolerance. People were sure that it were KGB men which caused all troubles. People living in one house with a former KGB man spitted on the sight of him and left the house as soon as possible. People threw them to the very bottom of the society, surrounding them with scorn and disdain. In Kemerovo district and Hakassya, the unprecedent acts of social intolerance grew to the genuine genocide in 1994-1996, where hundreds of former KGB men were rejected from their freshly found occupations, arsons of their wooden houses became usual feasts, their daughters and wives were afraid to return home after sunset. But the greatest resonance in the society acquired the case of colonel Poddubny. In May 15, 1996 when he returned from his work he was stopped by a group of rampant teenagers who shouted discriminating slogans. Afraid for his life he shot in the air from his illegal revolver twice. In the night that followed, his house was surrounded by hundreds of outraged youths. In few minutes they broke locks, crushed all inside the house, raped and killed his pregnant wife and two daughters. Poddubny locked the door in his study with a massive cupboard and shot himself up. This case became a shock for a part of Russian nation. But anti-KGB hysteria still was on a move, any person could be condemned of being a hidden Chekist just for having bad mood that day. It became clear for many including the acting Eltzin "family" that any further strain of anti-KGB atmosphere would lead the country to a civil war. But those who understood the total seriousness of the situation (the most influential voices of that time include 'KBG horrors return' by E. Martunyn, and 'Another day: faults of the rising democracy' by O. Akopyan and N. Grudnitsky, which are of interest even now) still were inept and not ready to get the charge of the situation; yet their works provided a good base for future improvements. The urgent acts of Eltzin's family stiffled the burning country, but all changes were purely cosmetic and a shadow of the bloody explosion hanged over the country. But nobody could expect the last move of the leaving elite, when Eltzin appointed a former KGB man Putin to the position of a prime-minister and then a temporary president in 2000. It was a pure shock for all, but the majority of people were sufficiently mature to understand it's the only way to stop the continuing bloodshed. Yet though now there were no anti-KGB massacres in over three years, still there are a plenty of fascists "sure" that KGB men captured the country to lead it to the abyss. People of Russia may only hope that time will eventually cure bleeding wounds of the past. ellol 13:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is terrible when the people are killed on the street. But KGB/FSB is much stronger than it was ever before. It has more people, more buildings and more everything. It controls media, property, government, and the Parliament in Russia, it “goes public” at stock markets, and it promotes nuclear proliferation and terror. Actually, not too many people left this organization (see the book by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick in the "Further reading" list for this article), and even if they formally left, they remain in the “active reserve” (“there is no such thing as a former KGB man”). If you have any reliable and independent sources about the number of people who actually work there (including their secret agents described by Yuri Schekochikhin just before his death in the book “Slaves of KGB”), that would be very interesting. Of course, all their own data (if any) would probably be disinformation, just as the numbers of prisoners in Gulag published by NKVD and the oficial statistical data about great successes of the Soviet Union (as recognized by many prominent Western historians). Could you read the book by Yevgenia Albats? Although published in 1994, it predicts and explains the future. Biophys 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
You also tell about “former” KGB man. Actually, they are not “former” as Putin says. Sure, the equal protection of all citizens is a corner stone of all civilized countries. However, the lustration is necessary to build a civilized society starting from a totalitarian country, such as Nazi Germany, North Korea or Soviet Union. That was done in Germany and some other European countries and Japan, although it failed in Iraq. There is no chance to break with the totalitarian past without lustration and even bringing some guilty people to the court. But the lustration was never done, and the sectret KGB archives were never opened in Russia. That is why KGB/FSB won the battle for power with all other political forces and decided finally to “make an order” in their country. All the remaining dissidents and honest journalists in Russia are obviously “sitting ducks”. They all will be fired, imprisoned, beaten, or killed at will (if other “active measures” fail). This is going on right now: Starovoitova, Yushenkov, Shekochikhin, Anna Politkovskaya, and … I do not want to continue this list of heros who died for the freedom in Russia (see also Alexander Litvinenko). Again, this is not only my personal opinion. This was recognized by Oleg Gordievsky in his recent interview to Radio Free Europe [3], and he is certainly a good expert in such questions. Yes, the street crime is a terrible thing. But is is much worse if the entire country is ruled by a criminal gang, as Aleksander Litvinenko claimed in his books. Biophys 19:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Biophys, sorry, that my comment was a pure joke. All devised in an hour from the first word to the last. Strange that you didn't recognize it as a total rubbish... Just, I wanted to show you how little mean the words... Now imagine, that I wrote a whole book... So: may be I should read a book by Zyuganov? Or by Limonov? There are people who I trust and people who I don't trust. Kalugin... a former KGB who betrayed his employee and his country... it's enough not to listen to him. Gordievsky... also all crear with him. Albatz... don't know much about her, I know she leads a programme on Ekho Moskvy, "Polnyj Albatz"; looked through one a bit, and didn't like how she behaves...
Have you heard the song by Nautilus, 'Skovannye', about Soviet Union? Listen to it once more: [4] Do you remember -- "There are no bad guys in offices trimmed with skin. Here the first are similar to the last, and perhaps are no less tired to be chained with one chain, binded with one goal." Totalitarian states are not stable. The more horrific is the rule, the worse it treats the elite itself. And elite itself starts to dream how to get free of it. Gorbachev couldn't not to come. Don't worry about North Korea -- sooner or later it will cease to be totalitarian.
There was a cool story -- 'Ne uspet' by Rybakov: [5]. Perestroika. The KGB man who interrogated the guy, now comes to him and discusses 'Archipelago Gulag'... This sole feauture speaks so much. We refused of that old system by ourselves. Both KGB and not KGB.
Biophys, we have already tried to disrupt the old world up to its basement and then to build a new. Both in 1917 and in 1991. And we found a curious thing -- it's so easy to disrupt, and so hard to build. But nowadays we are really building. Perhaps, slowly, perhaps, yes, kinda based on personality of one man. But the thing is, now there are politicians sure the most important thing is building. And after all, what's bad if a president is a former KGB man? Why former -- because KGB was shut down in 1991. FSB doesn't practice things like KGB in Soviet union.
Five journalists in 15 years! And nothing is proved! Yes, it's awful, but there are tens if not hundreds of fair journalists, murdered by local bandits, by local authorities, by local busynessmen, in Chechnya... Have you ever remembered them? By the way, do you know that a quarter of businessmen started in early 1990s was murdered then? What do you know about post-USSR epoch? By the way, this thing about bandits going to power and business, is surely worth of notice in the article.
Biophys, you want to live good that's why you live not in Russia. We also want to live good. But we want to do so in our own country. You think, we wouldn't need all your voices -- of good honest Russians, ready to defend their rights, you think we wouldn't need you here? It's paradoxial, among my fellows those who are always eager to defend their rights, only they strive to emigrate! Okey, no problems. But why to complaint then that the remaining Russians aren't always eager to defend their rights?! ellol 06:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for discussion. It would take too much time to reply to all your points. The point about gangsters coming to power and people murdered by bandits is certainly valid and worth mentioning, but I mostly disagree with other things. For example, what exactly are you building? Also, if someone wants to study history, he should read Zuganov, Limonov, Kalugin, Albats and others and think about everything himself (of course you should not blindly trust anyone). Honestly, I also do not like Kalugin, but I read his book that provides a lot of interesting details (although he is telling only 1% of things he knows). Main problem is that some people reject reading certain books on the purely political or moral grounds (he is a "traitor" or "paid by Berezovski"). I have absolutely no problems with reading books of mass murderes, such as Lenin or Hitler. This is like in natural sciences. Let's assume that you have a certain scientific hypothesis, and there are different opinions on the subject. What would happen if you only listen to the people who agree with you and did not try to understand the arguments of others? That would be a disaster. Biophys 08:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, totalitarian states can be very stable, unlike dictatorships, because the totalitarian states are supported by a majority of population (unlike dictatorships). Totalitarian states can exist even with open borders (as was proven by Saddam Hussein) or without vast natural resources (as was proven by North Korea). However, all mass media must be under a total control. That is why such people as Politkovskaya can not be tolerated by the system. Biophys 08:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, what do you mean, man? Totalitarian countries are based on harsh control of the life of each citizen including perhaps even private and intimate sides. Totalitarian countries were Hitler's Germany and Soviet Union, perhaps from 1920s to something about 1950-70s. What was then I would characterise as a "mild totalitarianism", the totalitarianism so old that it forgets of its evil nature. I.e., there were political prisoners and many books were forbidden. But prisoners were thousands not millions. The vast majority of people do not say that they suffered that time, woke up at night in horror of KGB, etc. Indeed life was easier in some sense: you know it, all received a pay of 100 roubles, and stayed in long queues for milk and sausages. .............. I understand you. For you the modern Russia is something abstract. You can build theories. I feel pain every time I read another article at inosmi.ru about Russian democracy. For some hell I still read it, to get sure once more that author knows nothing about Russia. Shit. What is the question? Yes, national TV channels never criticize Putin. But nobody limits newspapers. I build nothing. I feel proudness for the country every time I read that another Russian company created a hi-tech product popular in the US. I feel pain for the country every time I read about poverty, crimes in the armed forces, 'problems' of democracy, and damned damned more things. The only question I have about the political system of Russia is who I will vote for in 2008 -- Medvedev or Ivanov.
Instead of reading Albats or Kalugin, I would prefer to read Landau and Lishits'es course of theoretical physics.
By the way, a point to be added into the article is about Andrey Sychev -- it was a resonant case; just as example of dedovschina; not long after this case it was decided that obligatory term of service be reduced to a year instead of two, since 2008. ellol 21:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Most people who lived in totalitarian countries did not think that they live in totalitarian countries. To the contrary, they though and still think (in North Korea) that they live in the greatest country in the World, and they were very proud of their countries. Biophys 21:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree about dedovschina. This is a seriuos human rights issue, unfortunately not only in Russia.Biophys 16:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh! What a pity! People can't understand how they live, and only when a wise guy from abroad will tell them, they would say: Ah! We live in totalitarianism! Oh gosh! Or, Ah! During the last year the democracy rating worsened on 3%! Blame them! You want so? By the way, Biophys, are you sure you don't live in a totalitarian state? Of course, if you say you do not, I will reply that it's only your brain-washed consciousness speaks! A man from a totalitarian country can't say whether it's totalitarian, yeah? ellol 22:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't be mistaken. I realise there are a plenty of problems in Russia today: in human rights, in strenghtening of democratic institutes, of improvement of social/economical situation, etc. When I sharply reply, it goes not from my any proud of Russia or so. It goes from pain when people with no idea about life in Russia start to promote their insane ideas. No offense involved. ellol 23:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I also care about people in Russia, no matter that I live in US at the moment. Let's facts speak for themselves. If you can provide any reliable data on the human rights subjects in Russia, please do. Biophys 05:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


You definitely do not care about people in Russia since you are falsifying facts, like with Boris Stomakhin who was involved into extremist activities, and who was pleaded guilty to this accroding to the official court sentence. You present biased point of views on human rights issues in Russia. No one has ever established in fair trials that Russian government or FSB is responsible for killing of Anna Politkovskaya or Alexander Litvinenko. You just cite hearsays and false accusations of some journalists without presenting the opposite opinion. You prevent other people from presenting the opposite opinion. You have intentionally and maliciously identified here journalist Boris Stomakhin as Political Prisoner and you have tried to disrupt publishing real Stomakhin's citations in his article. Vlad fedorov 07:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links and further reading

This is a big topic. This article can be significantly improved. As a first step, I provided some relevant links and book references. They were selected based on the following criteria: interesting for readers of Wikipedia (not too boring), reliable sources of information, notable, and recently published. Please tell me here if you think that some of these sources are not good, or suggest what else could be included. Biophys 05:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many unsupported statements

I may need some help here. Whoever worked with this article before, could you add some references to support the claims made in the article? Although the text in general may be O'K, it is important to justify it better.Biophys 06:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC) O'K, I found some good Russian sources:

Biophys 02:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] References and user Vlad fedorov

When I stared working here, this article had no references at all. If you want to contribute positively, you are very welcome. Then, please add more staff and bring more references. Whatever you do, please do not remove my references. If you think this article is biased, please provide some alternative data with references. If you think this article is POV, please explain why you think it is POV. As for Stomakhin, I will try to explan this in his article. Biophys 22:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention! Case of Stomakhin

Please know that Stomakhin wasn't procesuted by FSB or government, but he was prosecuted on the basis of applications of private persons, see the article on Boris Stomakhin. The statement of Union of Councils of fSU Jews is containing false statements and facts which contradict to Mass Media reports. Stomakhin is a leader of extremist organization Revolutionary Contact Association. He was sentenced by court for the extremist activities, inciting religious and ethnic hatred, promoting violent change of constitutional regime, calls for violation of terriorial integrity of Russian Federation, defamatory statements(articles 280 and 282 of the Russian Criminal Code). He is not a dissident. Consider the following his statements:

Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown. Russians should be killed, and only killed, for there is no one among them who is normal, intelligent, or who can be talked with and for understanding of whom we could rely. Harsh collective responsibility of all Russians should be introduced, of all loyal Russian citizens for the actions of the government elected by them -- for the genocide, executions, ordeals, trade with corpses... From that moment there should be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced. http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm

The article 'Death to Russia' by Boris Stomkahin in Google cacheVlad fedorov 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not doing an original research here. I only cited a notable source on the appropriate subject. This Jewish representative said "FSB". Biophys 18:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
You actually copied your above argument from the article dedicated to FSB, which is irrelevant here. At this article your statement by Union of Councils for fSU Jews may not be cited because it is unreliable source. This particular statement contains false allegations which contradict to numerous press articles and non-governmental organizations reports and contradicts to the facts revealed at Stomakhin's trial(see talk page for article 'Boris Stomakhin'. Stomakhin was prosecuted for the extremist activities, inciting religious and ethnic hatred, promoting violent change of constitutional regime, calls for violation of terriorial integrity of Russian Federation, defamatory statements(articles 280 and 282 of the Russian Criminal Code). It is not just hate speech. It is calls for making terrorist atacks on civilians. Vlad fedorov 18:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Attention! False facts are contained in the article

The statement of Union of Councils of fSU Jews citations, which are published by Biophys, contain false statements and facts which contradict to official state documents and Mass Media reports. Please know that Stomakhin was procesuted for the extremist activities, inciting religious and ethnic hatred, promoting violent change of constitutional regime, calls for violation of terriorial integrity of Russian Federation, defamatory statements(articles 280 and 282 of the Russian Criminal Code) and not for hate speech contrary to what is stated.

Please note that Stomakhin's views are fascist. And his case couldn't be cited in Human Rights articles, because it will discredit your whole article. You couldn't defend the humen rights of terrorists, fascists, peolple calling to exterminate specific nation.Vlad fedorov 07:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this "hate speech" law? May be it's talk about nothing?
Well, I don't have a complex of guilt. It's wrong if cases of violence and hatred against Jews are not always investigated. But it doesn't justify Stomakhin. Not from human point, not from the point of the law. ellol 21:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Mr. ellol who edits the article 'Human rights in Russia' asks me what are hate speech laws? If you don't know what are they, then how could you write article on human rights? May I ask you then: what are human rights? may be it's talk about nothing?Vlad fedorov 07:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I asked what was the law Naftalin referred to. He referred to some recently adopted law. ellol 23:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by an unregistered user

Someone removed text supported by references and inserted POV text not supported by any sources. Please do not do it. Biophys 19:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just noted this talk. I think, unless the author shows himself up and clarifies his points in talk, we should preserve the inserted text for further consideration:

Ethnic Minorities -- "Immigration laws of Russian Federation are very liberal. They allow former Soviet Union citizens to receive citizenship in speedy simplified process. The result is overcrowding of Russia with ethnic minorities coming from former Soviet Union republics in pursuit of better life. Simplified adoption process allowed ethnic criminal groups to penetrate Russia. The whole fruits and vegetables markets of Russia are controlled by few ethnic criminal groups coming from Azerbaijan, Georgia, Uzbekistan and there are some other markets dominated by ethnic immigrant minorities. An disproportionate large number of crimes are committed by immigrants coming from Asian republics of the former Soviet Union which gives impetus for growing anger of native population in Russian Federation.
In the Karelian city of Kondopoga, few representatives of ethnic minority have mutilated and murdered without any specific purpose few natives. Abstinence of corrupted police enraged the whole population of the city leading to mass protests.
Some ethnic groups demand to recognize a special status for them, like few Muslims who sued Russian Federation for they right to make photographies for the passport in hidjab, e.g. with completely covered face."
Chechnya -- "but Chechen rebels have also committed abuses such as mass murders, tortures, slavery, hostage taking, terrorist acts, human trafficking, narcotics trade"
ellol 22:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It is me who inserted this text. An could support it with many Russian sources from newspapers and mass media, there are also some of these articles on English.Vlad fedorov 07:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
What's the prob? If it's supported with references, there would be no reasons for deletion. E.g., about cases of hatred of immigrants toward native population, [6]. ellol 01:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This seems to be a newspaper of Russian Communist Party. It says that ethnic non-Russians are committing hate crimes against ethnic "Russians". It says nothing about "liberal laws" and provides no statistical data. So, what exactly are you trying to prove? Do you think that everything is perfect with human rights in Russia? Or do you think that everything is bad because of the ethnic minorities who attack Russians, so it is justified to attack those minorities back? Biophys 02:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC) I saw some commentators on US TV (FOX channel) talking about illegal immigrants from Mexico to US who committed a lot of crimes. There is an opinion that such commentators are racists. But these commentators at least provided a lot of statistical data about crime rate committed by different groups of people including the illegal immigrants. If you find such data for Russia, they could be mentioned. Biophys 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
1) I believe I'm of those 44% who consider Russia "the common house of nations". 2) If I ever write anything it will be well supported. 3) KPRF is a minor opposition party. An opposition party always criticizes the existing regime. ellol 15:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Btw, are there any terms in English like Russkiy/Rossiyanin in Russian? "Russian" refers to both, and it's very bad. Anything better than "Ethnically Russian" and "Citizen of Russia"? ellol 15:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
O'K, that seems to be reasonable. If we are talking about any "ethnic tensions", they are usually two-sided. There is no questions that many Chechens (for example) do not like Russians as ethnic group. But we must only provide some specific and reliable (as much as possible) information on the subject, supported by sources. Besides, everything should be written in neutral terms. But I would insist that we must be on the side of victim in the article about Human Rights, whoever this victim is, young soldier suffering from dedovshina or beaten journalist, young or old, ethnic Russian or Kazakh.Biophys 16:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
With regard to your second question, the difference between "Russians" and "non-Russians" is indeed very difficult to understand. This is not clear for public in the West; this is not clear for people in Russia. A very common situation is the following. A person speaks Russian, thinks Russian, and believes he is not different from the others. Then, he is suddenly attacked on the street just because of his different appearance. Biophys 16:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
To me this seems to be very much POV. At least one should support such views by some statistical data. So far, I can see only a "speedy simplified process" of evicting ethnic Georgians and others from Russia. This is not "very liberal". Biophys 23:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I must add 'evicting ethnic Georgian and other' illegal immigrants. Or you could post texts of court sentences on evictions from which the opposite is clear?Vlad fedorov 07:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

No one accuses Vladimir Putin personally for human right violations (at least in the present version of this article). May be we should exclude last paragraph in Introduction:

"While the continued prevasiveness of crime in post-Soviet Russia does not appear to diminish Putin's domestic popularity, violence in Russia has taken a toll on Putin's reputation in the West. For example, some notable Russian homicide or attempted homicide victims in the former Soviet Union have been Putin critics such as Viktor Yushchenko (September 2004), Anna Politkovskaya (October 2006), and Alexander Litvinenko (November 2006). Some Western Russian experts have cautioned against making any assumption of involvement of Putin associates in the deaths of Kremlin critics. "There is no direct evidence linking this to Mr Putin," said Alex Pravda of Chatham House and St Antony's College, Oxford. Pravda added, "You have to remember that an important aspect of Russian life at the moment is a lack of co-ordination between government, corporate and other organisations." "You should not assume, therefore, that an order, if there was one, came from the top. In Russia, a lot of things are done independently. But there is an obsession with security in Russia these days, and that permeates political life and could have influenced people."

This looks like an unnecessary speculation. The "Putin's reputation" is irrelevant to human rights. Only his position with regard to human rights is relevant. This is only a suggestion, of course.Biophys 23:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Moved the first part of the passage to "Torture and abuse". ellol 03:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further talks

1)I point out that references to summary executions and "disappearance" of civilians in Chechnya refer only to 2000, while the claim is about current time.

2)I reworked a bit the opening, dividing violations which may affect many citizens of Russia from those which affected individuals. ellol 04:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political murders

I removed references to Galina Starovoitova, Paul Klebnikov, Nadezhda Chaikova, Nina Yefimova, Anna Politkovskaya. Provide references that they were killed for writing about FSB. Victims of the Chechen War must be placed in Chechnya section. ellol 12:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No proof that they were killed "for FSB" or "by FSB". But there is no doubt that murders of Galina Starovoitova, Anna Politkovskaya, Paul Klebnikov and others were due to "political" motifs. These people were killed for their journalist or political activities, no matter if this was ordered "from the very top" or not. Could you please include them back? Biophys 23:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Of course. ellol 02:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is not the way...

The artickle is written completely wrong.It's completely POV.Here are some examples. Quote:"The judiciary is a subject to manipulation by political authorities".It should be like this:"Some human rights organizations claim that the judiciary in Russia is a subject to manipulation by political authorities".Example N2.Quote:"Serbsky Institute also made an expertise of mass poisoning of hundreds of Chechen school children by an unknown chemical substance of strong and prolonged action, which made them completely incapabale for many months".Is this information officially proven?There are a lot of other POV statements.In other words,the name of this artickle can easily be changed from Human rights in Russia to Anti-Kremlin leathlet.Dimts 13:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. You may wish to thank Biophys, who has written all this bullshit. By the way he is US resident with russian ancestry. I guess Amnesty International has recorded far more violations this year in the US, but american trolls keep deleting every source from the article on Human Rights in the US. They hint that Guantanamo is not US territory, for example.Vlad fedorov 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. In your first example, I included this as a statement by Amnesty International. In your second example, it is supported by a valid reference. If you want, I can provide a couple more references. Remember, we are not "proving" anything here, but the content must be "verifiable" as it is right now. You are welcome to make any further comments with regard to statements you think are poorly supported. Biophys 15:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Dimts. Indeed, it's first of all the claim by Amnesty International: I reworded it "Amnesty International claims that ..." As for the second thing, official commission found it was a mass psychos. ellol 10:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to note, that Wiki is not a literature source, but an encyclopedia. Alas, Dimts is absolutely right that anti-Kremlin POV prevails now. ellol 10:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"He previously revealed that Patriarch Alexius II and other Church leaders were former KGB agents [53] [54]" I want to know, if it's truth, how does this violate freedom of religion? ellol 11:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys,I also think mentioning that Politkovskaya was killed on Putin's birthday is a bad idea.It should be deleted.That statement contains a hidden message:"Her death was a birthday present for Putin".Dimts 14:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

O'K, I deleted this. Biophys 21:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I will also check and possibly correct some other things to make sure that article is not POV. Biophys 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of Politkovskaya as an ultimate reliable source

I wonder why Politkovskaya unconfirmed allegations without any specific details and whereabouts are posted in this article as an ultimate and reliable source. Say, if we learn from some webpage such as 'infoleak' that US committed Sept. 11th attacks in order to wage war in the Middle East, should we provide this specific allegation in the article 'Human Rights in the US' as crimes against humanity committed by the US? Should we also write on that respective page that US waged a war without any reliable data on weapons of mass destruction whatsoever? It is also an obvious crime against humanity. Why unconfirmed and unverified allegations of Politkovskaya are cited here? If Politkovskaya stands in place of courts, police, prosecution? Then how Politkovskaya combines the status of Judge and Prosecution in her only person? If this really valid to be the Judge, the Prosecutor and the Executioner in one person? These citations of Politkovskaya are only POV, and nothing esle.Vlad fedorov 06:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya from Novaya Gazeta is a perfectly reliable source. Biophys
Since you have claimed that the articles from Izvestia are not reliable in case of Boris Stomakhin, so the articles of Anna Politkovskaya do not contain any evidence and specifics about cases descripted. You should live by your own standart, pal.Vlad fedorov 07:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Stomakhin is irrelevant. I am using a reliable source. Biophys 18:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't got your answer Biophys, which means you ackonwledge the lack of sound arguments in defend of your position. Anna Politkovskaya articles according to the Guardian article contained unconfirmed and unverified data which Politkovskaya had written just because that information was supporting her personal belief. Which means that it might be untrue, libelous, defamatory, contradictory information. Therefore such information violates Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources. It is the same logic you have applied to Izvestia article by Maksim Sokolov in Boris Stomakhin article. I still haven't got any intelligible comment on that from you.Vlad fedorov 19:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not BLP article. So, the BLP rules (libelous statements, etc.) are irrelevant here. Moreover, her statements here are not libelous with respect to any particular person. Anna Politkovskaya and Putin's Russia are not only reliable person and source, they are notable person and source, as one can see from the Wikipedia articles. It is not enough that Anna was killed. Some people want to silence her even after her death. Biophys 20:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article is biased mess

this is the most biased article i have seen in wikipedia yet! it tries to portray russia as chaotic authouritarin regime run by a tyranical dictator, with fsb death squads slaughtering all who speak out against the government, soldiers being tourtured by ther comrades, unfair trials, and innocent chechnyans being plucked off the streets to be tortured. it also tries to portray russian society as racist. even the human rights page for turkmentstan is less harsh and slanted as this! the fact is, NONE of these accusations by liberal human rights groups or oppositian parties have been proven and that should be made clear. the other side of this article are not shown either, was that poll about fascism from the cencus? or was it taken by prisoners? or online? in ghettos? same with the racism poll. those "assasinations of dissidents" could have been by organised crimals, pro kremlin extremeists, or opposition groups trieng to stir up trouble for moscow. maybe the atrocities by the russian army in chechnya were commited without government approval. yet this article makes it seem like there is only one possible group responsible: the russian government. if every last humans rights abuse allegetion was posted for any other country, they would look just as bad. the united states for example, reports of torture (abu gharab and guantaniomo), racism (arrests of muslims under terrorism charges) electon tampering (2004 presidential elections), and crackdown on opposition (the patriot act) would be all over it's human rights page. i also ask any russian residents who may be here, have you seen any of this happen? this mess needs to be completely revised QZX —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.234.24 (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/u/m/Talk%7EHuman_rights_in_Russia_4776.html"