Talk:Dmitry Medvedev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dmitry Medvedev article.
Article policies
News This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. The citation is in:

Contents

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dmitry Medvedev.jpg

Image:Dmitry Medvedev.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of this image .. anyone else think wecould use a different image of him? I mean, he looks like a game show host in this picture! Robbiemuffin (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree. The picture is awful VZakharov (talk) 08:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

For those us without Ogg capability, is it really

myed-VYE-dyev

or

myed-VYE-dev

and if the second, why not the first?
--Jerzy•t 01:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be the first one, I believe. The Russian is Медвéдев (Myed-VYE-dyev). The "e" in Russian is pronounced as "ye", but this is not always reflected in transliteration. Otebig (talk) 05:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Not always as "ye", only in the beginning of the word or after other vowel. He is Medvedev, sounds like written.
Exactly. The kyrillic alfabet has two letters for e, one is pronounced je in initial position and following a vowel but e otherwise. The other is pronounced e in all surroundings and is used mainly when the sound e is required in initial of prevocalic position. To the russion script it is the first e that is the normal one, and the other that is a special one, for reasons of language history.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Some examples:

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garret Beaumain (talk • contribs) 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC) [2] [3]

Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Honestly, it's somewhere in between. The technically accurate transliteration is in fact myed-VYE-dyev, but the d and y aren't really distinct consonants -- the y mostly softens (palatalizes) the d. The same is true about the 'my' and 'vy' earlier in his name. Non-Russian speakers may have trouble hearing the difference, because their ears haven't been trained to distinguish between palatal and non-palatal consonants. But any Russian name ending in 'dev' in English spelling is really 'dyev'. The letter for non-palatal e is used much less frequently than 'ye'. Semisomna (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Garret, I suspect you are confusing transliteration (which tends to stick to letters of the original as far as practicable -- thus even such names as ГорбачЁв are rendered as "Gorbachev") with phonetic trancsription. It is also perfectly alright to assimilate phonetically the pronunciation of foreign names -- no Russian would pronounce "Thatcher" correctly as the first sound simply does not exist in Russian; strictly speaking there are no same (completely equivalent) sounds in any 2 languages.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I've traveled to Russia in the past, and I believe the average fluent Russian wouldn't take the time to pronounce out myed-VYE-dyev, but saying it as it's written for convenience. LikeHolyWater (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged Ethnicity

The following sourced statement was commented out by wikipedia administrator User:Alex_Bakharev for being "not notable" per WP:BLP:

The Nezavisimaya Gazeta has reported on a controversy concerning research by a political campaign worker that allegedly showed that Medvedev's mother is Jewish, making himself also Jewish by rabbinic law, but the newspaper dismissed this as laughably irrelevant to the question of his suitability to become president of Russia, even if this were to be found true.[1]

I would like to know why Medvedev's ethnicity would not be notable in a country that, unfortunately, still suffers from wide-spread racism (e.g., surveys report that upwards of 25% of Russians have a bias against Jews even though state-supported antisemitism ended almost two decades ago; see http://www.ucsj.org/stories/032305Russia.shtml). Unlike Yuri Andropov, whose Jewish ethnicity was only researched after his death (see Yuri Andropov), Dmitry Medvedev has apparently not taken any pains to hide his ethnicity. To have Russians elect him will certainly show a rather favorable maturing of the Russian electorate.

To hide this research suggests that being Jewish is "uncool", when actually the opposite is actually now becoming true in the FSU. (cf. http://www.jrtelegraph.com/2007/12/survey-of-jews.html , http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/935494.html)

If the issue is that this information has not been provided in a balanced enough way, then perhaps someone can improve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.107.18.136 (talk • contribs)

  • Wikipedia has a tradition to determine people's ethnicity not by measuring their skulls but by their self-identification. There is no sources that he ever self-identified himself as a Jew, was a member of a Jewish organization, ever been persecuted for been a Jew, etc. To see how this principle work look into the editwar over Grigory Perelman, there I guess there is no doubts about the race of the article's subject. Still the only source of Medvedev been a Jew is a reference to Nezavisimaya Gazeta that there are completely baseless rumors that Medvedev's mother os a Jew. Sorry, but it is simply not notable. Every person in Soviet Union/Russia who ever was not liked by KGB/FSB had his or her rumors of being Jewish : Borukh Eltsin (Эльцин), Andrey Zukermann, Alexander Solzhenitser, even Vladimir Putzmann. I guess the KGB bosses are simply unable to invent something knew. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • After further researching this issue on the Russian Internet, I now no longer belive Dmitry's mother is probably Jewish. I did find a first cousin, Dr. Artyom Shaposhnikov, working in Florida who I suppose could be asked about this, but that would qualify as original research which is a no-no and not publishable on wikipedia anyways. I suppose as the elections approach, more information will be published in the media that may help to settle this question. Separately from this issue, I question how evenly applied the policy of not identifying ethnicity unless the person self-identifies. Is there a wikipedia guideline I can look at which specifically addresses this issue? The notability guideline does not touch on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.107.1.137 (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Having looked at the example of Grigory Perelman and the active controversy on the discussion page, it actually seems that the weight of opinion leans towards reporting Grigory Perelman to be from a Jewish family even if he has never self-attest of this, based on a single source. There is not discussion of notability in particular, only on veracity and the whether self-attesting has significance. I note that the actual page does read that he was born to a Jewish family. So if the wikipedia administrator is using this as an example for not reporting a living person to have certain ethnic roots when he does not self-attest to this, then that point is lost in the example, since that camp seems to have lost in the Grigory Perelman-specific argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.107.18.136 (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Ghm... "KGB bosses against Medvedev" - are you serious? First, there's no KGB, second, having ex-KGB agent Putin his friend, he should be quite friendly with his ex-colleagues, and thirdly, what in the world KGB has to do with anti-semitism? Most of its founders, old bolsheviks, were of jewish ancestry, and USSR was a state of enforced ethnic correctness.--Garret Beaumain (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside very naive (in my view) comments by Garret, i should comment that most of the specualtion about his alleged Jewish extraction is due in Russia to his mum's patronymic -- "Veniaminovna", wich tends to be identified by some nationalistic vigilantes as derived from the "Jewish" name (Benjamin). This would sound fairly plausible if we talked about a generation later, but in the age of his granddad the name could well have been given to a Russian as well.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

For those so worried about Jews, I guess it's safe to say that at least his wife is Jewish, based on her family name Linnik. Netrat_msk (talk) 09:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

His wife is not Jewish. Linnik is a Ukrainian surname and Mrs. Medvedeva is a devout Orthodox Christian. 121.218.13.91 (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if it's very doubtful that Medvedev has any Jewish ancestry maybe it should be mentioned that among Russian nationalists it's believed to be more or less a fact and that it's used against him in their propaganda. For more info on his ancestry see this article in Itogi [4] Narking (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American cousin

I have removed the following text:

He has a first cousin who lives in the US.[2][3]

The reason is WP:BLP. Having an American relative is potentially damaging for Medevedev's election and the fact is referenced only to a local Voronezh newspaper (with such fact checking as saying that Leningrad Institute of Technology was named after Plekhanov, while in fact it has a monument to Plekhanov in the front but was never named after him, it was named after Lensoviet. Plekanov Institute was an absolutely different institution.). Lets wait until either Medevedev would say so himself or a major newspaper (even Russian or Western) would put the data Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not mind having the bit removed, but the rationale is laughable -- "Having an American relative is potentially damaging for Medevedev's election." If this is true it is well known to those who can damage him (putin and the KGB cabal round him); also if true, this would be not damaging but an absolute barrier for him so much as to take a most junior position in, say, RF Foreign Ministry, HAD he NOT been putin's personal protege. In fact, this may well be one of the reasons for putin to have nominated him in the first place.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And this is also true. A relative of mine graduated from the "right school" with an International Relations degree and has been told privately by persons associated with the RF Foreign Ministry that it will be quite impossible for them to get a junior position due to the "American relatives". However, I don't see what you are referring to when you say, "this may well be one of the reasons for putin to have nominated him in the first place". I can't see anyone endorsing an RF presidential candidate "because of" his American relatives.
The common logic of promoting any protege to any position whereon you seek to have control is that you need to have as much "compromat" on the person in question as possible in order to be able to blackmail him or have a valid reason to demand his sack.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Alex Bakharev, it seriously disturbs me that you could give that rationale for removing the info. It is not damaging and cannot possibly be construed as so by any normal reader. Non-notability could be a possible reason, but even that is barely valid (the about-to-be-President having a close relative in an 'enemy' country is news. If Bush had a cousin in Russia we would mention it). I think we should actually reinstate the info the more I think about it. Malick78 (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anders Åslund's opinion on the possible coming coup d'état

I have removed the following text:

In January 2008 Anders Åslund assessed the situation that had evolved in the Kremlin after Medvedev's nomination as highly fractious and fraught with a coup d'état on the part of the siloviki clan — "a classical pre-coup situation".[4][5]

This is from a newspaper opinion column. Everyone has and is entitled to an opinion, but nothing was provided by the editor to suggest that there are others sharing Anders Åslund's opinion or that it is notable in any way. Why should his particular opinion be published in this biography?

  • Muscovite99 has reinstated the statement by Åslund. Rather than get into an edit war, I'd like to discuss this statement. Why should a minority viewpoint, even one from a known analyst, be represented on this BLP? It seems to go against wikipedia guidance on carrying fringe viewpoints on their own page. Anyone claiming Åslund's viewpoint isn't alarmist/fringe should point to a source other than the OPINIONS page of a newspaper.
I agree it should be removed, as it is. While interesting, it needs more sources (and, as was mentioned, not just an opinion column) to be included in the article. 211.45.10.27 (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian support for Medvedev

"A recent poll found over 63% of Russians support Medvedev in the upcoming elections.[7] A technocrat and political appointee, Medvedev has never held elective office."

About this quote, is it reliable? It's said to be from the levada centre.

[5] Here for example a poll from the levada centre says that "Only 17% of Russians support the appointment of President Vladimir Putin as the “national leader” of Russia."

I find it sceptical that 63% would suddenly say "with Medvedev, this is completely different!" - PietervHuis (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • First of all, you citing a poll on an opposition website. They would certainly only publish poll results which show the current administration in a bad light. Secondly, the national leader poll concerns whether Putin should be "appointed a National Leader", an invented position not written into the Russian Constitution. Thirdly, that poll was taken in November, before Putin endorsed Medvedev. See: [6]. This article you linked to admits that there are polls showing 84% of respondents approve of Putin. With 84% approving of Putin, why should the claim that 63% approve of his choice of successor be surprising? Unless you can point to different poll results on Medvedev, the original statement with sourcing should stand. Levada Centre has polls from late December which show support as high as 79% for Medevedev [7]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.45.210 (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So how reliable are these "polls". Levada-center has had influince from the state before. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It would be hardly fair to say that Yuri Levada is a pawn of the Russian State. After all, Levada left the Vserossiiski tsentr izucheniya obshchestvennogo mneniya because he disapproved of the potential State influence on opinion polls after the Government reorganized its supervisory board. Although many things in Russia could be bought for the right price, I'd trust the polls out of Levada-Centre more than any other poll in Russia. Personally, these poll results are not inconsistent with my personal sense of Medevedev's support (from Moscow-based relatives, etc.). At the same time that people will complain about a myriad of things related to the Government, they seem to overwhelmingly support Putin and what they perceive he has done for the Russian people. His chosen successor benefits from this support for Putin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.253.137.213 (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how reliable these polls are, I'd prefer to see one from another country. I can understand that Putin has some popularity. Compared to all the past leaders of Russia he has made more progress than any other. What I'm really wondering is what the poll results would have been if the question was something like "would you like russia to be more democratic". I'm not sure if by polling the party leaders' popularity, you get a good understanding of how happy civilians are about the directions Russia is going. 17% of Russia is muslim and almost all of them are not happy with how russia is today. I find an approval rate bigger than 60% rather extreme, no prime minister in my country has ever been that popular. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Also it seems the polls ask questions in the way of "who of these politicians would you like to see as a president". They can only chose of the ones nominated by the kremlin and never contain people like Gary Kasparov. We can't really say that these polls show exactly what all the russians want for a goverment as the poll options are limited. - PietervHuis (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You couldn't be more wrong. If you take a look at the late December poll [8], several other potential candidates were named, including Kasyanov, who is definitely an opposition figure!
One more point on this note. If you will refer to the website which you referenced earlier for Kasparov's political movement, you will see that they even implicitly endorse Levada-Centre as an INDEPENDENT poll-taker [9]. ("'Leading questions in research of public opinion are absolutely unacceptable. This is either deception or political manipulation, but it has no relation to sociology,' commented Lev Gudkov, the director of Russia’s independent polling organization, the Levada Center."). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.45.210 (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Such bias has no place in an encyclopedia unless it is corroborated, supported and sourced in some way. Find corroboration for your bias against Levada-Centre and you may update the information on Levada-Centre with a reliable source. The fact is that Levada-Centre is a well-respected poll-taker. The Gallup of Russia. Furthermore, Russia is not like the rest of Europe. That no prime minister of the Netherlands has a higher approval rating than 60%, has no bearing on Russia. Spend any amount of time in Russia, and you will find that Putin CERTAINLY has more than 60% approval just now! Whether his actual approval rating is 75%, 80% or 85%, I can't say. But that is why there are opinion polls.
You're living in a dream. The only truly independent organisations in Russia today are those which don't matter. Everyone and everything else - well, there is no rule of law, it's all about money and power. So if someone isn't doing something you like, and you're rich and powerful, you can do what you damn well please and there's nothing they can do to stop you. That isn't independence. Go read some Anna Politkovskaya, and consider her murder. Toby Douglass (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Toby, I think it's pretty clear by your recent edits and uninformed opinion that you're here to push an agenda, and thus I'd strongly suggest you do not edit the article any further. Wikipedia is not a place for opinions and original research. Keep that stuff to yourself, and perhaps read something other than western media regarding the topic so you can become better informed on the true facts.Sbw01f (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that Russia is not like the US and so the while you may have sympathy for a certain western-leaning viewpoint, that viewpoint is held only in the margins in Russia. If the government of a country should reflect the will of the people, there is no question for careful observers that the Russian government reflect the will of Russians. Russians are not necessarily seeking the same things that people in the West seek. Of my own relatives, those that did not vote in this election cited as the reason that they were NOT SURE that Medvedev was really a Putin-clone. That is to say, if they were certain that Medvedev would not direct a new course after consolidating power, they would have voted for Medvedev. Without question, most Russians view the Putin era in the most positive light. Most Russians are hoping that Medvedev will stay the course mapped out by V. Putin. Questions on why Russians are so different from those in the West in their mindset are only of sociological interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.199.179 (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the poll figures and provided new sources. I've added a caveat to the footnote/reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.45.210 (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 06 min 40 sec total time :D until getting reverted ;-) --> Medvedev is still unknown

Great experience :D

[edit] Questionable sentence

"Note however that contemporary Russian elections are deeply flawed and the result represents the outcome chosen by the encumbent. Although it might be that these elections do in fact lead to a result which would also be chosen by the will of the people, it is not by that will being expressed through votes, but rather by co-incidence. [28]"

This is poorly written and very POV. I'm sure someone with the relevant expertise could rewrite it to include concerns about the electoral process without making it sound like a childish conspiracy theory. ~DrSwiftus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.69.49 (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

especially considering incumbent is spelt incorrectly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.64.145 (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What with the i?

Is there a reason why the article has his name as Dmitriy at the very beginning and in the info box? It seems odd to me as everywhere else does not have it. I'm not familiar with the Russian language so I don't know whether this is intentional or not, I'm just a little confused though. .:Alex:. 16:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an alternative spelling of the Russian name Дмитрий. For consistency sake, I changed it to "Dmitry", which is what the article's title is.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It is the normal spelling for his name. In fact his name transcribes as Dmitrij. English transliterations of russian are as defective as english spelling in general - as in i for [ai], u for [ju] etc.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fairness of elections

An anonymous user with no edit history took out the single sentence "His election was described by independent observers as being neither free nor fair.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/03/russia.eu Russian election not free or fair]The Guardian</ref>". This story was the front page headline in the Guardian and refers to official statements made by the Council of Europe's election monitoring mission. It seems pretty notable to me, so I'm putting it back in. If you disagree, please discuss here. TomSSmith (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Just a point. It may be in article, but opinion by any observer is not for intro. This is for sections on these opinions and events. Compare to "legacy" and "public reception" in Richard Nixon article. Intro is a short summary on the person.

And a second point: until he is sworn as president and until he nominated Putin as his prime mnister, we shall avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL. Putin is still president and Zubkov is still prime minister. Be patient enough. )) Garret Beaumain (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The guardian is as good as tabloid material when it comes to Russia. I hardly see why their opinion deserves mention when there are far better, more fair and credible sources to present the situation about the elections. For example, from a reuters article:

Or perhaps:

  • Medvedev's victory was predictable. Many in the Western media had portrayed Russia's presidential election as nothing but a farce.

However, that was not a view shared by most of the international observers invited to monitor the vote.

A monitor from Slovakia, Anna Belousovova said “there were some critics who didn’t even bother to get themselves familiar with the way the election system works here”.

“They started saying straightaway that the election was undemocratic. But I think that the citizens of Russia stopped the mouths of those critics with their high turnout. The main attribute of a democratic country is that all decisions are made by the people. Politicians and everybody else should respect the choice of people,” she said.

http://russiatoday.ru/election/news/21649 99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More on Fairness

User:Sbw01f removed my edit. My edit was;

"Note that Western observers were not permitted to attend, or found the conditions of attendance incompatible with effective monitoring and a wide range of electoral monitor NGOs classified the elections as neither free nor fair, with the result being chosen in advance by the incumbent [6]."

The ref for this is The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, an established international monitoring body, amongst other things.

Sbw01fs comment was "unsourced nonsense".

It seems to me the ref was not actually read.

I accordingly assert this removal is incorrect and reflects bias on the part of the editor. Barring objections, I intend to reinsert my edit, and continue to expand it with other references.

Toby Douglass (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "western observers were not permitted to attend" is not supported by the article, and indeed factually incorrect. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe attended. Further, the claim that "and a wide range of electoral monitor NGOs classified the elections as neither free nor fair" is completely made up, not supported by the article in even the vaguest sense. Please do us all a favour and keep your dishonest editing habits out of this article. Here's the supposed "source" of those bogus claims, for anyone interested [10]Sbw01f (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The edit claimed *some* observers were not permitted to attend (were not granted permission to monitor) and *some* refused to accept the conditions. You have mis-read the edit as if it stated *no* Western observers were permitted to attend. I assert from what I've read that the claim that NGOs classified the elections as neither free nor fair is valid and I will back it up with refs. The ref I provided at that point was for the point that some observers refused to accept the conditions. Toby Douglass (talk) 08:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, that's a blatant, flat out lie. We can simply go back, and look at the edit you made, and voala! Here it is, just like magic! "Note that Western observers were not permitted to attend, or found the conditions of attendance incompatable with effective monitoring and a wide range of electorial monitor NGOs classified the elections as neither free nor fair, with the result being chosen in advance by the encumbent"
Hmm, I don't see the word "some" anywhere. And once again, the latter part of that sentence is complete fiction, that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article cited.Sbw01f (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name is wrong

The name is Dmitrij Anatoljevitsj Medvedev. And thats how he would write it himself, and any other russian.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.234.188 (talk • contribs)

Romanization of Russian names is per WP:RUS, a Wikipedia guideline.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Where do those "j"'s come from? there isn't even a "j" in the Russian alphabet, and nothing close to that sound in his name spoken in Russian.99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is indeed a "j" in the russian alfabet, you kan see it as the last letter in the russian version of "dmitry".--AkselGerner (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I trust the person above refers to GOST 16876-71—a standard used in Russia to transliterate Cyrillics into the Latin alphabet. The problem with it is that it is very confusing to Anglophones, so it is not used in the English Wikipedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It is confusing only to those who don't speak other languages than english. Since english is in this day and age spoken by more people non-natively than natively the courtesy towards the "confuzability" of anglophones is misplaced. It is merely a question of native english speakers not being used to seeing the letter j used in it's proper form namely a half-vowel form of i. Instead they want to pronounce j as dj, as in "Jack". The problem is in the hopelessly outdated english standard of writing. Luckily some of this is being fixed in the USA, as per "thru". Many english speakers don't even know that their own language has a velar nasal.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It is merely a question of native english speakers not being used to seeing the letter j used in it's proper form namely a half-vowel form of i

You mean "y"? Considering "й" is the exact same thing as the English "y"...Dmitriy Anatolyevitsy would make more sense. Languages change, no one who speaks English uses "j" in the way you're describing nowadays, so why would we use that old language on wikipedia?99.240.27.210 (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's about the way it sounds, the way its pronounced. And therefor a ij instead of a y in Dmitrij (for axample) is more correct since that is how he would say his name. Like my name is Jørgen, but that doesent mean that it would be Jorgen or Jyrgen. 83.108.234.188 (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
english y is as confounding to the rest of the world (an astounding majority, even I would think among the users of this wikipedia incarnation) as near-IPA j is to the anglophones. The fact is that y in IPA is reserved for a labial narrow front vowel, while j is used for a narrow front (non-labial) half-vowel.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It might be "more technically correct", but the average Joe doesn't know that. The average Joe would end up pronouncing it with a "j" as in "jack", much how just about everyone pronounces "Иосиф Сталин" incorrectly in English. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the "average djoe" on these pages is likely to have a different view of y and j than an average natively english speaking Joe. Not necessarily better or worse, and not necessarily one that is shared by a majority, but different. The russian standard transcription method is far better than the standard english transcription because it matches phonemes one to one. Also it is closer to a raw phonetic transcription and uses letters closer to IPA in outlook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AkselGerner (talk • contribs) 20:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Aksel, the "Russian method" of transliteration had been discussed ad naseum for the past three years or so. Simply check out WT:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) for the full history and for why GOST was deemed not to be a suitable solution for the English Wikipedia. If you want to re-open this issue, by all means do so, but please take it off this page to a more appropriate location. This talk page is intended to discuss Medvedev, not the intricacies of romanization of Russian names. Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fairyland article

This article currently in no way *whatsoever* provides any information on the nature of the election that occurred. It was neither free nor fair - and blatantly so. Anyone reading this article would imagine the election was a normal Western affair. This vast omission renders the article farcical. Toby Douglass (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Blatantly so? Were you there? Read the "election fairness" section on the actual election page. Russian_presidential_election,_2008. This is not the article to go into detail about the election, and the edits you were making were clearly one sided and by and large opposing the general consensus. Sbw01f (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The most recent quote I made was deleted *by you*. As far as I can tell you didn't read the ref. IMO, *you* are biased - pro Russian - because you seem to be removing all material which refers to the questionability of the election.
Futhermore, ONE sentance is NOT "going into detail". It is a deeply pertinent note which reveals to the reader the true state of affairs. Having NO material of this kind is most certainly questionable; in the opposite direction, that of deliberately obscuring relevant material from the reader to distort his understanding.
Finally, I quote the following section from a journalist from The Economist who was indeed there;
"THREE hours before the close of the presidential election on Sunday March 2nd, in which voters massively endorsed Dmitry Medvedev as Russia’s next president, a bull-necked security guard (radio in hand, legs apart) barred the entrance to polling station number 3065. The station had been set up in a vast and heaving electronics market, apparently for the convenience of traders. But the few who turned up to vote were told that the station had closed, either because of a terrorist threat or as a result of some obscure “technical” problems. A brief look inside suggested that, although almost empty, it was in fact functioning.
Outside of the polling station stood a large group of men in black leather jackets. These were the same characters your correspondent saw casting multiple votes in the December parliamentary elections. They were soon led away and a four-wheel-drive vehicle arrived. Men emerged carrying a white plastic ballot box and were allowed into the station by a guard, who then shut the door tightly. A young policeman who came to inquire was instructed to leave by figures in plain clothes and promptly did so.
These latter men (one identified himself as a “representative of the international community”) glowered, then lunged, violently throwing your correspondent and another foreign journalist on to the nearby street, with a warning never to come back. One offered a piece of advice: “Go back to England, you can ask [the self-exiled opponent of Vladimir Putin, Boris] Berezovsky and Prince Harry your questions. We’ll manage here without you.” Your correspondent and his colleague were then forced into a taxi, and the bemused driver was ordered to drive to the British Embassy."
Toby Douglass (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
"The most recent quote I made was deleted *by you*. As far as I can tell you didn't read the ref. IMO, *you* are biased - pro Russian - because you seem to be removing all material which refers to the questionability of the election."
That quote was incorrect. It implied that no western observers had attended, which is false. Regarding my bias, I would have removed any false positive views as well, but how could I do that if it didn't exist on the page? Again, read the elections article, you'll see that there is a balanced, fair view from both sides on the issue. There is no bias in my editing at all. I present facts & opinions from both sides.
"Futhermore, ONE sentance is NOT "going into detail". "
Actually, yes it is. ONE sentence IS going into detail. The topic of "free and fair elections" has nothing to do with Medvedev himself. It's only partially related, which is why it has its own article. Regarding the Economist, they're nothing but a fear mongering propaganda machine. They have an agenda, and reading all their articles on Russia makes it quite clear what that agenda is. Why don't you read what the actual election monitors said about the election? You know, the people who's opinions and experiences actually matter.Sbw01f (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Picking up on my spelling?? and The Economist is a "fear mongering propaganda machine"? The actual election monitors were people approved of by the incumbent; no one else got to attend. You are an apologist. Toby Douglass (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one finding the "pro-russian" slip hilarious? I mean, those concerned with the freedom of elections should at least pretend to be concerned for the sake of the russians. "Pro-kremlin" I could have understood.--AkselGerner (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It is kind of funny, but not surprising at all. The general mindset here in the west is that other countries must pander to us in order to be labeled "free and democratic". Essentially, what the Russians want is of no concern. What the west wants is all that matters, hence the huge difference in western and non-western coverage of the elections, and hence the need to include both views.Sbw01f (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You're a pair of idiots. Toby Douglass (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, that´s a personal attack and a breach of protocol. Also you're objectively wrong to say that the elections were far from being free and fair. The elections were most likely fairly free, noone was forced to vote in a way they didn't wish to and probably relatively few were prevented from voting (vote prevention occurs in the USA too, as evidenced in the Gore-Bush controversy). They were probably less fair than they were free, a number of opposition leaders being barred from nomination on the grounds of technicalities wasn't so pretty, but it is difficult to know conclusively that there was deliberate swindling going on. There are worse elections, many of them and a lot worse.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • A sentence or two on the fairness (or not) of the election is entirely warranted. It was the way Medvedev was elected after all and that's the main reason (now) for his notability. Malick78 (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree, but that's not what I removed. The sentence I removed was factually incorrect, and presented only one side.Sbw01f (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The ARTICLE presents both sides, not each individual sentenace or paragraph. If you want to make it balanced, ADD the other side of the argument; do not REMOVE existing arguments. You are censoring the article so it does not contain material which points out the election was rigged. Toby Douglass (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Each individual sentence and paragraph needs to be supported by the source given. Your sentence was blatant fiction, hence why it was removed.

[edit] Political Positions

A link to Political_positions_of_Dmitry_Medvedev should be included somewhere in this article. Also, that article needs expanding.Jwray (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

done. Though I think that article should be merged into this one (and de-biased) VZakharov (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian media invent a non-existing EP member ?

European Parliament Member Bernard Perego say the Russian media. This has been inserted into the article.

Well did Russian Media check EP website before coming up with this information ? Because there is no Bernard Perego in European Parliament. Neither under P[11] Nor B[12] Is the European Parliament website wrong ? Or are Russian media talking about different European Parliament ? --Molobo (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding your own input on the matter straight into the article is absolutely unacceptable by wikipedia standards. Note that the article says something about a translation, so that might be the problem. One way or another, your own original research does not trump a credible news source who may or may not have made a mistake, end of story. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
End of story is this that there is no such parliament member, European Parliament is a more reliable source regarding its members then Russian newspapers.--Molobo (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Once again, your own original research does not trump a credible news source who may or may not have made a mistake. If there's a problem with the article and it needs to be removed based on factual inaccuracy, there must be a consensus. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What Original Research ? I did not invent the list European Parliament makes of its members. The fact is there is no such EP member. This is factual accuracy. Do you expect people to ignore European Parliament data regarding its members in favour of Russian media ?--Molobo (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Your input into the article was not supported by anything but your own research. That's considered original research, and it's not tolerated in any form, regardless of how "right" you think you are. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What research ? I only pointed to the factual accuracy-there is no such European Parliament member. Its not my opinion-its the fact shown by EP-are you accusing EP of original research and say Russian media know better who is a member of European Parliament then European Parliament ?--Molobo (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There are difficulties editing this article at the moment. There seem to be a couple of Kremlin apologists acting to censor critical material. In this case, where the original source has been proven to be false, it is *not fit to be included in a wiki article*. This point has been entirely missed by the guy who's arguing with you, who is trying to keep the material included while dismissing the proof of its invalidity using the OR argument. Toby Douglass (talk) 08:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no tool more useful to a tyrant than an inept critic. Your kind of steam-powered huffing and puffing doesn't do anything other than legitimize the russian media's stance of the west being arrogant knee-jerk-critics of all things russian. Don't do something that aids what you say you oppose, or if you must, don't use wiki for it. I'm sure your local newspaper will happily print your rantings, at least on a slow news day.--AkselGerner (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that's quite comedic coming from someone who blatantly lied, created completely 100% false allegations and tried to report it as fact by citing a completely unrelated article. If you don't like wikipedia rules, refrain from editing on this website. Rules are not a copout, they're the law.Sbw01f (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article bias

The article has a quote, "Prior to the election, many in the Western media had portrayed Russia's presidential election as a farce, and accused them of planning mass fraud.[28][29]However, none of the election monitors in attendance found this to be the case.[30][31]"

This is incredibly misleading. The majority of observing organisations were refused permission to attend to decided not to attend because of the restrictions placed on their activities. The sources quoted as saying those monitors in attendence (who were all those permitted by the State to attend since they would not report honestly) are Russian and are State controlled or influenced.

Sbw01f - you said earlier in this talk page you would remove false positives. I removed this quote because it is misleading and you have added it back *in*. You are biasing this article. Toby Douglass (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You have nothing to support your claims. The majority? Show me an article that says so. As far as I know, none were refused permission, and only one boycotted it at their own will. Every single one of your edits is complete fictional nonsense. Stop making things up then citing articles as if that somehow masks your obvious POV edits. You're a dishonest editor, period. You've proven this numerous times. Stop. Regarding that first sentence, it's entirely true. Show me a single monitor that found "mass fraud".Sbw01f (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is fine to have opinions. I myself believe that it's unlikely that the recent election was free of fraud. But as I can not find references of the fraud I believe occurred, I can not and will not edit this article to reflect my beliefs. Every editor must stick to the rules, or the offending editor will be forced to do so. Opinion must never be allowed to become commonplace in an encyclopedia. Opinion belongs in a blog. Substantiated opinions that reputable news sources report on are more than opinion; they then become fact. Only facts are permitted, not opinions.74.67.17.22 (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 elections

Assuming Medvedev to be president for awhile we simply cannot keep such a huge proportion of the article devoted to the 2008 presidential elections. I suggest to move the most of the info into the Russian presidential election, 2008. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC) My dear Russian Wikipedian collegue-the manipulations, unfree character of his election will dominate this article, as every article about president would be dominated by news of fraud and manipulations. The fact that he was elected in unfair way is essential for the article and thus must and will become one of the largest sections, as it would in any other presidential case where the president was elected in unfair way.--Molobo (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the election coverage should be moved, but not until Medvedev has been inaugurated. The Inauguration is in may isn't it, or is it april? Until then he has few other presidential credentials than this election, and the reliable information can be seen as highly relevant. Whether or not he was fairly elected is not relevant in the long run. The absolutely certain fact is that Medvedev would have been elected with overwhelming majority even if all opposition parties had been allowed to run. The russian people trusts Putin to provide stability, Medvedev won because he had Putin's support and because he declared Putin to be the coming Minister of State. As such the fairness question is of interest only as a curiousity: "Why did the ruling party deem it necessary to beat down an opposition that was no threat?". All in all I believe they had their reasons, one of which might ironically be to give Medvedev an easier start in his relationships to the west; the russian tone in the last year has been increasingly hawkish, combined with footage of police thrashing protesters it sets a dark background on which it is easy for a dove to shine brightly, even if it isn't all that white. The easiest way to win the trust of critics is to bring their fears to shame. The media and public opinion are *that* easy, and the kremlin knows it.--AkselGerner (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bernard Perego

The only sources quoting him are, as far as I can see, Russian, and are State controlled or State influenced. The whole problem here is the unfreeness of the Russian State. Quoting sources controlled by the Russian State which say that State is behaving normally is NOT useful. Proceeding then to *remove* Western sources which criticise the election on the basis that they're biased is utterly unacceptable. Toby Douglass (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I agree, a quote by authoritarian regime on itself to make an article about it, is bizarre to say the least.--Molobo (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Agree. We use reliable sources and Russian sources are by their very nature less reliable due to state interference. Western sources are inherently superior. Malick78 (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You've gotta be kidding me, wow. Do you understand what a NPOV is? Western sources are filled with propaganda, false claims and hysteria, but I don't object to including them because it's important to give both sides of the story.99.240.27.210 (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • First of all, no one of us has a right to label a country "authoritarian regime". And, of course, we have no reason to blame russian web media, which is so often sympathetic to opposition, in being controlled by state. Oh, let's remove anything from BBC since it's a state company own by United Kigdom!

Secondly, western sources cite Perego as well (samples [14][15]). The main source, of course, is agency that interviewed him: RIA Novosti. What's wrong with it? Why don't just get used there was a french guy that has said this words? Garret Beaumain (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of material

I added this; Sbw01f, you removed it. I assert every single statement in this is backed up by the references. You need to justify the removeal.

"A wide range of independent sources cited the election as neither free nor fair. Many election observeration bodies were either consistently refused VISAs and so could not attend, or decided not to attend because of the restrictions placed upon their actitivies. The one Western election monitoring body which did attend described the election as unfree; "we think there is not freedom in this election" [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]."

Wide range of independent sources -> The BBC, the Independent, The Times, The Washington Post.

Many election observeration bodies were either consistently refused VISAs and so could not attend, or decided not to attend because of the restrictions placed upon their actitivies. -> the Times article for VISA refusal, the OSCE article for refusal to attend due to restrictions.

The one Western election monitoring body which did attend described the election as unfree; "we think there is not freedom in this election" -> the Washington Post article.

Toby Douglass (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that inclusion of data is what needs to be backed up. May I suggest the temporary replacement of the disbuted text with something akin to "The neutrality and/or freedom of the election is highly disbuted". You can than use multiple citations to show both sides of the argument without making extraneous edits to the article itself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
"Both sides" amounts to everyone except the Russians saying the election was rigged, and the Russians saying it was fair. All the references added in by Sbw01f are Russian sources. I would say he is doing an excellent job of presenting the Russian POV. I have yet to see him provide a single Western source in a NPOV manner; the one edit he added with Western sources was this;
"Prior to the election, many in the Western media had portrayed Russia's presidential election as a farce, and accused them of planning mass fraud.[28][29]However, none of the election monitors in attendance found this to be the case.[30][31]"
This is obviously biased and misleads deliberarely by saying "election monitors in attendance", which ignores the State manipulation and control of those who were permitted to attend. Toby Douglass (talk) 11:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that you were quoting articles from last year regarding the November election, right? None of your additions are directly backed up by the articles you cite, I checked them all. No article written after the election made the claim that "A wide range of monitors found the elections to be neither free nor fair". That sentence is not supported by any article cited, nor is it true.

One of the four of five refs was about November. The others were all about March. That sentance is my summary of the situation, not a direct quote; it does not need to be direct quote. OSCE said the elections couldn't be monitored, PACE said not free, GOLOS said totally rigged; CIS (Russian dominated and primarily dictatorships) said "fine". Toby Douglass (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You consistently add false information to the article, then cite articles that only vaguely support the addition, if at all. You've already been caught flat out lying and inserting fictional material into the article via this edit [16], so why don't you stop pretending that you're not trying to push your POV, and leave this article alone. You've already breached rules about civility by calling two users "idiots", so consider this a warning.

No shit. Toby Douglass (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And lastly, you're only proving how extremely ignorant you are with this sentence "This is obviously biased and misleads deliberarely by saying "election monitors in attendance", which ignores the State manipulation and control of those who were permitted to attend."

This is not up to you to decide, it's up to the monitors and what they themselves report. What they reported has been clearly expressed in the 2008 elections article.99.240.27.210 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This is indeed so. But other monitoring bodies were refused VISAs and others refused to attend because of the conditions. This information is being *consistently removed*, while the information that "those which attended" is retained. This is *deliberately decieving readers*. Toby Douglass (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually no, those were issues at the election last November. You were posting articles written last year.Sbw01f (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, so what? most election monitoring bodies didn't even *try* to attend because they knew it was pointless, from the blocking that occurred in previous elections, like last Novembers. Those that did were people from CIS - entirely Russian dominated - and people like Anna Belousovova, a Slovakian neo-fascist MP. Toby Douglass (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No one cares about your (skewed and biased) opinion on the matter.99.240.27.210 (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Swb

I'm not arguing this issue with you any more, because it isn't *possible* to argue with you. You're an out-and-out apologist and are simply removing all the material you can possibly get away with which discusses the unfairness and lack of freedom in the election. If you had your way, this article would portray the election as perfect - which is an appalling travesty of what has happened. Toby Douglass (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat myself again. You are consistently adding unsourced information to the article, and that's not acceptable. You can't just write your own little "view" of what happened then cite some random article that vaguely covers the topic.
wikipedia:verifiability "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question."
That means if I can't find something in the articles you cite that directly supports the comments, I'm going to remove it. Your edits do not adhere to these basic guidelines. Period. My stance is neutral, I've added reliable information from both sides (including the guardian article, and much in the presidential election article itself). Your stance is to only cast a negative light on the election, I mean you've basically admitted to this. That's not how we do things, and if you have a problem with adding positive light to an article and keeping unsupported POV bits out, then I suggest you go write about the issue in your blog instead.
Also, I'd like to point out how hypocritical you are. Look at this edit: [17]. Removing sourced information saying that the election wasn't nearly as bad as the last (taking away positive light), then using the same source to include the negative aspects (adding negative light). Hmmmmm.Sbw01f (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Toby, but the section about election in this article is probably too big. Maybe it would be better to remove a few paragraphs from here provided that they are mentioned in article Russian presidential election, 2008 ?Biophys (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Just curious, but how can you be agreeing with a dishonest editor and at the same time be concerned about the relevance of the contents? If Toby had his way the article would read "Toby says Medvedev is stupid, and he smells too". As I wrote above, the election is right now the whole of Medvedev's presidency. When he steps into office in may there will be reason to start toning down the election material, not before.--AkselGerner (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine, let's keep and perhaps improve this material.Biophys (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political positions of Dmitry Medvedev

Is the separate article necessary? Garret Beaumain (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I do not think the article needed yet, IMHO no reliable information on his personal political position whatsoever exists, only speculations Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not merge, for the sake of following the same format that is followed for every US presidential candidate on Wikipedia. There is a main article for a biography, with a link to a sub-article that focuses on their political positions and ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwray (talk • contribs) 06:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Considering that the President of Russia is the third or fourth most powerful person in the world, and we know less about his political positions than we know about Mike Gravel, more research needs to be done to expand the political positions article.

[edit] yezyk VS yazyk (attention: 123fakestreet)

Normally, Russian "я" is rendered as "ya". So why did you change "yazyk" to "yezyk"? Netrat_msk (talk) 05:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think, it is because Padonki slang is errative. It should be "wrong".Garret Beaumain (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

In standard Russian, язык is pronounced identically with the hypothetical word езык. This does not mean that we romanize it differently. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] learning "Olbansky" in schools is FAKE

"and even suggested it should be studied in schools to promote greater literacy in the Internet and modern culture in Russia.[51][52][53][54]"

The source of information (lenta.ru) doesn`t say, that Medvedev wants to introduce new subject at Russian schools. Lenta.ru just said, that Medvedev knows about such phenomena in russian internet slang and have nothing against it.

This information is incorrect, it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.35.38 (talk) 21:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Fixed. In fact, he was asked (jokingly), does he want padonki slang to be studied in schools. But, of course, he didn't reply "yes, I propose it" - he just said that meme "has right to exist". Garret Beaumain (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computer analysis of voting

This is a good Times article on suspicious voting trends. Malick78 (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected?

should this article be semi-protected?

[edit] Question and Comment

My question is--It's certainly an ironic thing that Pres. Medvedev shares his last name with the dissident brothers Roy and Zhores. Are they related in any way??

And my comment, re. the "spelling" of the name Dmitri is: Here's another instance of transliteration "purists" doing their best to muddy the waters. Facing the task of conveying the sounds of various foreign languages in English, it seems that "experts" inevitably divide into armed camps, one of which goes for the letter and one of which goes for the sound. To my mind, the "sound" people are on the right track. I've taught enough college freshmen to know that no matter how often you say "ver-SIGH," students will still tend to look at the word as it is written and pronounce it "vehr-SALES." We remember more of what we see than what we hear, and that interferes with our ability to readily mimic foreign words. It does not help to create monstrosities such as "Dmitrij" if the sound is Dmeetree. In that regard, Pin-yuen is a load of water buffalo dung foisted off on American readers. Educators ought to meet people "where they're at" instead of inventing insider conventions that only create another totally unnecessary, artificial thing that has to be learned before the student can get to the heart of the matter.

Anybody who says there is a J in Russian doesn't know Jack. [Which in this case is a riddle, not an inflamatory statement, so think about it, please, before taking it as a "flamerj."

!!!!Terry J. Carter (talk) 03:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The sound in fact Dmitriy in Russian. The last letter is not only spelled, but it is also spoken. I have no idea why those purists transliterate it as Dmitri, not Dmitriy. They justify it with "tradition" or saying that English speakers would have troubles speaking the last "y".--79.111.73.71 (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please add one IW link

[[wuu:Dmitry Medvedev]]

 
written in Wu-ngu (Asian language).
 
Thanks !!                          

[edit] Military Service

Did anyone mentioned Medvedev ever served in the military? Most Russian males are supposed to join the army due to laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.87.94 (talk) 11:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • He has not served in the military. Most of the time in the Soviet history University students were exempted from the military service. They would attend 8 hours a week for 5 years military training at Uni and after a month or two of camps they would receive a lieutenant of reserve range. Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)