Talk:Fairness of Russian presidential election, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wouldn't this be considered content forking? I don't really see any need for an entire new article.. any additional criticism added to this article that hasn't been added to the election article would need to be balanced with equally positive views.

"POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus."

Sbw01f (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind I didn't realize you were going to trim the other section down so much. Sbw01f (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Part removed

I do not know what to do with the following:

Several political and intelligence experts stated that elections were a "voting operation" by Russian secret services to bring their man to power [1] [2] [3]. Historian Yuri Felshtinsky and political scientist Vladimir Pribylovsky described in their book that Medvedev was selected by Putin as someone who has no obvious KGB connections and therefore is an appropriate candidate to misled the West [3]. They described Medvedev as the "brain" of the "KGB corporation" that rules Russia. Former Putin's adviser Andrey Illarionov demanded to recognize these elections as a special operation and a fabrication [2].
Some news reports described Medvedev's election as "the culmination of Putin's efforts to consolidate control over the government, business and the news media since taking office eight years ago." [4]. They painted Medvedev as a clone of Mr. Putin [5].


It is not exactly an assesment of the fairness of the elections but rather POVed statements about Medvedev and Putin themselves. Removed by now Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a conspiracy theory. They take "unfair media coverage and difficulties for opposition" and turn it into "fixed elections that the state controlled completely". We've already included one conspiracy theory, does another one deserve mention? Sbw01f (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Points of view is what constitutes Wikipedia. There is not an absolute truth.ilgiz (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE -
  • "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all."
  • "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbw01f (talk • contribs) 03:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I just discovered that my comment was misdirected. I meant to disagree with the statement opening this talk section. ilgiz (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sb, you claim this to be a small minority view. Please provide some arguments/proofs why this is a minority view. I think this is a majority view. Most important, this is view by historians and political analysts - the experts.Biophys (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


I believe one should understand the difference between the following:

  • referring to points of views described in reliable sources
  • expressing a point of view directly as if it is a matter on which most people agree.

I think the former kind of view point sources is allowed and desirable, while the latter should be avoided. ilgiz (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Biophys - If this was a majority view, then it would be reported in the mainstream media. The majority of Russians wouldn't have shown up to the polls and voted for Medvedev either. Or is that all just part of the conspiracy?
Ilgiz - I agree, but I think it's also important not to over-represent those sort of opinions when they're clearly motivated by other factors, and which hold no credibility. I mean, how does some ex-KGB guy who's lived in Britain for the past 20 years know more about the election than me? He doesn't. He's never even lived in the "Russian Federation" so chances are he knows less than the average Russian citizen about how things work now. But of course he's going to say bad things about a country that wants him dead..is that surprising? You don't think that might be politically motivated? Including his opinion would be like including Bobby Fischers opinion on the American elections. ie. ridiculous. Sbw01f (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This view was reported by mainstream media.Biophys (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Then link me the BBC report. No BBC? How about reuters? No? Then too bad. If fraud existed, and it was a " KGB operation", those two sites would definitely report it. Sbw01f (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:Verifiability. News reports (such as BBC or Reuters) are considered good but not so reliable sources. They are primary sources. I cite political scientists, a book by historians, and an intelligence expert and a book author. Those are scholarly reliable secondary sources. They are most reliable sources.Biophys (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You just said that mainstream media did report it, then I asked you to provide some reports, and you switch to saying that mainstream media isn't a good source? Okay then. I'm just going to stop arguing with you and continue reverting your highly POV, low quality edits that do nothing but spread bias and false information. Sbw01f (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's simply follow WP:Verifiability instead of making personal accusations of bad faith.Biophys (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Haha, Biophys, as sbw said, first you claimed that this view was reported by mainstream media, then you backtrack when you can't back it up.
You are just repeating the same tired argument that has already been diffused. This is a classical example of Ad nauseam.--Miyokan (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

I am not going to talk about content forking here as i am not really aware of what's going on at the main article. However, 'Fairness' is a title that a neutral encyclopaedia would avoid. It could be 'unfairness' as well since the fairness of the 2008 Russian presidential election is disputed.

I suggest replacing it with something like 'monitoring', 'observation', etc... I mean neutral, descriptive and factual terms. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The opinions presented in the article do touch upon the election fraud. I understand that the term "fairness" itself is too vague because public opinion can be manipulated in totalitarian countries or because not every voter is equally informed. By "informing" I mean not only the electoral debates, but also registering opposition candidates, giving them access to the main media channels. In the big picture, "informing" may also mean providing the public with controversial details and investigation on recent and remote historical events.
So far, opposing candidates in Russia are muted, jailed, killed.ilgiz (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"because public opinion can be manipulated in totalitarian countries" - You don't think public opinion is manipulated in western countries? And you think they're the brainwashed ones? Krawndawg (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
FayssalF, could you please clarify your suggestion? Do you suggest this article to be simply about "Russian presidential election, 2008", not about "Fairness of Russian presidential election, 2008"? Then, two articles should be merged back. Is that your suggestion?Biophys (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Let me change my mind. Originally, I suspected that the term "fairness" may be misinterpreted, just like "truth". For some, 70% of public support is sufficient to discard allegations of improper campaign funding, such as the one by Natalia Morar, and allegation of unequal candidate registration and media access, such as the one by PACE. Now I tend to believe that it was allegations of election fraud and improper, old age, ways to organize the elections that became an issue.ilgiz (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

General comment - Article titles have to be related to information and not opinions. Call it [Manipulations of the RE 2008] if you have reliable sources stating so (i haven't checked them because that has not been my point). Call it [Controversies over the RE 2008]. NPOV is primordial and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. In short, 'fairness and unfairness' relate to an 'opinion' while 'observation', 'manipulation', 'controversy', etc relate to a 'fact'. And Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

I am talking here about WP:NPOV#a simple formulation and WP:NPOV#Article naming.

reply to Biophys - My suggestion has been very explicit (i.e. observation, monitoring, etc). What about the term 'reactions' or 'International opinion'? It has nothing to do with content which explains that i haven't checked sources because it has not been my point.

P.S. Please note that this discussion has nothing to do with 'totalitarian Vs. free'. The point is about Wikipedia article naming and NPOV. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for good advice and pointing out to WP:NPOV#a simple formulation. I strongly agree that we must maximize factual information and remove all empty-worded opinions like "the elections were fair", or "the elections were unfair". Instead, we should cite more facts and comments that interpret facts. The title of the article should also be focused on something.Biophys (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, AFAIK the title of the article should be focused on 'what observers say and believe' - both the media and politicians. This is what is encyclopaedic. In order to achive that the title should concentrate on 'what they are doing' and not on 'what they have concluded'. That would be kind of journalistic - something we are not here for. As an example, we don't use 'Fairness/unfairness of the Iraq War' as a title of an article - we may use Criticism of the Iraq War and Rationale for the Iraq War, etc instead. Again, 'Fairness' is an opinion but 'Criticism' and 'Rationale' are facts, they exist. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link??

The link [1] seems to work fine for me, anybody else have problems with the link? Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It's still not loading for me, but if it works for everyone else I guess that's my problem. Must be a location/ISP thing. Sbw01f (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Their authoritative name servers, ns[348].nic.ru, point to an IP address that does not have a PTR (numeric to symbolic resolution) record. It appears some of ISP DNS servers that attempt to resolve host names on behalf of their customers would not trust PTR-less host names. I found a similar problem with ogoniok.com.ilgiz (talk) 03:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Council of Europe is not EU

It is a pan-European organisation seperate from European Union, it includes Russia.--Molobo (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fraud

There was a large detailed report how fraud was made during those "elections" in the main Polish media newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza. I think it would usefull to note methods they pointed out.--Molobo (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Please add the information, we are somehow low on the factual data at the moment Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The usual methods-changing of urn cards, votes by dead people, one person reported that his family voted already when he arrived from home to vote(his family didn't go out that yet that day), 127 % turnout in one election district, "amusing" story how in one district half of the population signed declaration it will not go to election, and the turnout was according to officials 92 %(in the last elections 99% that way the action by people happened), according to observers actualy 3,5 % voted.--Molobo (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting different versions.

Andreas Gross from PACE quoted in completely different way in non-Russian newspaper.--Molobo (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Please provide references, or just put the quote in the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Computer analysis of voting

This is a good Times article on suspicious voting trends. Malick78 (talk) 10:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

Wow, that is actually a pretty good article, especially for such a dicey subject. Whomever worked on this, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)