Talk:Human rights in Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Russia Portal
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 assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] List here Russian sources used in the article

Vladimir Lukin, Commissioner for Human rights in Russian Federation, 2006 annual report[1]:

В отчетном году в России продолжали нарастать националистические и ксенофобские настроения. Участились случаи насилия и массовых столкновений на почве расовой, национальной или религиозной нетерпимости.

In the year in question, rise of nationalistic and xenophobic moods in Russia was continued. Cases of violence and mass riots on the grounds of racial, nationalistic or religious intolerance became more often.

Огромная ответственность в деле предотвращения насилия на почве расовой, национальной или религиозной нетерпимости лежит на органах правопорядка. Порой именно их неумелые действия или, что еще хуже, зачастую преднамеренное бездействие приводит к крайне тяжелым последствиям. Примером тому сентябрьские события в г. Кондопоге (Республика Карелия).

Отдельно следует упомянуть о провокационной роли, которую сыграло в указанных событиях так называемое Движение против нелегальной иммиграции (ДПНИ). Руководители ДПНИ специально прибыли в Кондопогу и своими выступлениями подстрекали жителей города к беспорядкам и насилию.

По итогам событий в Кондопоге от занимаемых должностей были освобождены все руководители "силового блока" республики. Возбуждено несколько уголовных дел.

Great responsibility in the deal of preventing violence on grounds of racial, nationalistic of religious intolerance lays on law enforcement bodies. Sometimes it's their awkward actions, or even worse, sometimes deliberate inactivity leads to quite seruios consequences. An example of that are September events in town of Kondopoga (Republic Karelia).


Also should be noted provocative role, which was played in these events by the so-called Movement Against Illegal Immigration. Leaders of MAII had specially arrived in Kondopoga and incited people with their speeches to riots and violence.

As the results of Kondopoga events, all heads of the "enforcement bloc" of the republic were replaced from their positions. Several criminal cases are opened.

ellol 01:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[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 [2], 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 [3]. 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 [4], 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: [5] 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: [6]. 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! 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, [7]. 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] Introduction1

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).

[edit] Deletion of references

You have done some editing here. This is fine. But please take a look: references 36, 46, 48, 49, 57 in the list: they are present in the text, but they do not have title and the reader can not take a look on them. So, just made very minor changes in the initial portion of text only to restore these references. Plese do not revert these changes.Biophys 06:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chechnya, Nurdi Nukhazhiyev

I added some new info about Chechnya, based on the interview with its ombudsman. I did it some weeks ago, but the info was deleted. Biophys, you weren't enough accurate in your edit, I ask you, be more careful. Right?

The interview.

В наследство республике достались многие тяжелейшие проблемы. Самой сложной и самой болезненной является проблема установления места нахождения похищенных, без вести пропавших и насильственно удерживаемых граждан. На сегодняшний день, по нашим данным, таковыми по республике числятся более 2700 человек.

"The Republic inherited many heaviest problems. The most complex and the most painful is the problem of finding abducted, unaccounted for and forcifully held citizens. For today, according to our data, over 2700 in the Republic are recognized as such."

Тем не менее, нельзя не констатировать, что в числе проблемных вопросов сейчас все чаще выдвигаются на первый план проблемы социального характера. С возвращением к мирной жизни население сталкивается с проблемами, которые в тот тяжелый, страшный период физического выживания не имели для них такого значения. Для нас это очень важная тенденция, так как еще два года назад основной поток жалоб касался нарушения права на жизнь

"Along with that, one can't but to state, that among problematic questions problems of social character are ever more often put in the foreground. With returning to the civilian life population encounters problems which hadn't that significance for them in that heavy, frightful period of physical survival. It's a very important tendency for us, since yet two years ago the major stream of complaints dealt with violation of right life life."

How I put that: "According to ombudsman of Chechen Republic Nurdi Nukhazhiyev, the most complex and painful problem (as of March 2007) is finding over 2700 abducted, unaccounted for and forcifully held citizens; analysis of complaints of citizens of Chechnya shows that social problems ever more often come to the foreground, while yet two years ago complaints mostly concerned violation of right for life." ellol 19:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shame on this article

I completely agreee with the person using my old username, this article is trash. There are waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many personal quotes and wild acusations. Opposition members are NOT a reliable source. You know why? Because they're OPPOSITION party members, they OPPOSE the ruling party, of course they aren't going to say anything positive about the government. They will do everything they can to make the ruling party look bad. It happens in all democratic nations, especially the US, the democrats always accuse the republicans of being autocartic, and the republicans in turn accuse the democrats of having no balls. It's just politics. It's just that Russian dissidents get all the attention from the Russiophobe-run western media. I have a quite convincing arguement that Russia is NOT a dictatorship or even authoritarian. First and foremost, Russia's elections are without fraud, therefore Russians have the ability to choose who they want to lead them. Second, as for the FSB controversy, remember, the Ameriacan CIA has done some pretty dirty stuff. It has been accused of drug trafficking to obtain money and secretly detaining terrorists in secret camps, it has been known to support dictatorships (read the article for the list) and undemocratic changes in government (When they installed the Shah in Iran because the democratic government stopped selling America oil because, God in heaven forbid, they wanted to improve living conditions in their country). Also, recently Muslims in America have been complaining of harassment, including the deportation of a prominent Imam (who was an outspoken critic of the Israeli and American government) on what they view as trumped up charges of financing terrorists. The American president's Patriot Act was widely viewd as an attempt to styphle free speech. There is no shortage of books made by American "dissidents" with titles such as "the American Empire" critisizing Bush as an autocrat. Some even go so far as to say 9/11 was staged by the government to get more power for Bush (1999 Apartment bombings, anyone?), but they just don't get as much attentions as the Russian counterparts do by the shortsighted Ameriacan dominated western media. QZXA2 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QZXA2 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

First and foremost, Russia's elections are without fraud -- LOL. Russian elections have been marred with fraud since 1996, which was observed by international missions and proven by court in many cases. Read respective articles before posting this, please. Opposition sources are biased -- right, but so are pro-government ones. Colchicum 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Colhicum, I agree of course, but perhaps this article needs some work. Could you correct this and any other articles that I edited? After all, you know Russian subjects much better than me. Biophys 00:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Article Oil industry of Russia perhaps needs your attention.Biophys 00:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian elections "marred with fraud" LOL, read the OSCE report on the 2004, they say the was no faud but the elections were flawed by the use of biased media. I may also add that only the primary Russian news channels are INFLUNCED (not really owned by) the Russian government, also it should also be noted that the Russian gov. doesn't block any internet sites, so Russians can create and view opposition sites at will, and say what they please about Putin. (see Talk:politics and government of Russia, at the top.) Continuing my defence of Russia, the freedom of speech issue, I will not deny that the police have disperesd 4 protests. But 4 is not very many, and I'm sure that there have been more than 4 protests in Russia recently. As for racism, it could not be as bad as it was in America in the 1960s. blacks were murdered for reasons as rediculous as saying something to a white mans wife, a child no older than 8 years old was stabbed to death and liocal police flat out refused to even investigate, and that happened all the time! entirely peaceful protest were treated like riots where hate mongering racist pig police officers beat protesters, slamed their haeads into pavements, and in some cases SHOT them. One man was shot when he tried to stop police from berating his 80 year old mother. In a childrens protest, most participants younger than 10, police responded by blasting marchers with high powered water cannons, mauling them with attack dogs and beating them with clubs. The police even tried to prevent rallies by arrestin organizers puting up posters on charges of "defacing public property". The American government allow segregation to the most extreme (black, white water fountains?!) conditions for over 170 years. Mind you that the US was always considered a free country. As for Chechnya, the situation is probably like the Vietnam War, atrocities have also been commited in Iraq, and there has been controversy over the high civillian death toll in Afghanistan and allghations of German soldiers posing with human skulls. lastly, assasinations of dissidents, this has been going on since Borris Yeltsins presidentcy. In fact 30 out of the 45 journalists killed in Russia were killed before Putin was in office. This article tries to make it seem like the FSB is the only group that could be responsible for these murders. Far from the truth. Insulting an extremely popular president in a country such as Russia is flirting with death.QZXA2 02:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You tell that "insulting" Putin "is flirting with death". Do you mean Russian contributors of Wikipedia or just everyone?Biophys 02:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Biophys, you are like that Uncatchable Joe who nobody can catch up because nobody needs him. Want an advise? take a trip to Russia in summer, you really need it. ellol 07:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Well done, QZXA2. I don't mean there's anything good about past and present HR violations in Russia and US, but we really need more weighted sight here. There's something the article completely lacks of -- I mean info about Socially economical rights (e.g. see 2006 Ombudsman's Report). The other thing is removing POV'edness by adding different POVs if needed and removing "emotional" stuff (report about a discriminated Caucasi woman may be used only to ILLUSTRATE not to PROVE a statement). ellol 07:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
+1 QZXA2 !!!! I agree with you Undue Weight + original Research and Tendentious editing!!! I plan to rewrite completely this article. Vlad fedorov 04:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about my abrubt stop, for my reasons I had to hastily log out. What I intended to say about the murders of dissidents in Russia was that if you speak out against a leader who's support is at 81%, there's bound to be SOMEONE fanatic enough to kill for thier beliefs. It is also possible that some fanatical Russianopposition members may be killing their own leaders in an attempt to curve Putin's high popularity. One final thing, see Human Rights in Armenia, Armenia is considered "partly free" and a "representative democracy" by freedom house, now take away all of the personal quotes from this page, and the two nations have an almos exactly same human rights record. My point? Russia is also a partly free representative democracy. The west simply refuses to belive it. Sadly, Russiophobia still festers in the west and is the cause of dissapointing articles like this. I don't intend to justify human rights violations in Russia or put down western nations, I intend to make it clear that no country is perfect, that Russia's human rights record is no more seriousthan other free democratic nations such as America, and ubove all, THAT RUSSIA IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP. I too plan to revise this article but before anybody starts, if anyone here objects to revising this article, SPEAK UP we'll talk about it (thatsthe whole purpose of talk pages, damnit!), I want to make this a factual article that pleases everyone, and I don't want this to become an editing war like the Dissienters March! QZXA2 22:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is very simple. There is a text of the article supported by 74 references, and I do not think you can dispute anyone of them. Most of them came from independent international organizations, such as Amnesty International. Please read WP:SOURCE. If you are going to delete referenced text, as you just did in article Russia, this is not acceptable. It would be good if you first discuss any suggested changes here. But any your changes must be properly referenced. Biophys 03:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
QZXA2 don't listen to Biophys, be bold and add other POV's to the article freely. See Wikipedia policies. You are welcome here. Vlad fedorov 03:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Human rights groups are nothing more than front for people to voice thier political opinion!!! I'm sure there are Arab human rights groups that call America a fascist regime but they aren't mentioned on the human rights in America page. 99.9999999% of this article's "scources are biased opposition or lefty-liberal human rights websites! THEY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS ABSOLUTE FACT! OPPOSITION GROUPS ARE GOING TO DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO MAKE THE RULING PARTY LOOK BAD, AND MOST HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS HAVE AN ANTI-RUSSIAN BIAS! Like I said, look at human rigts in Armenia, if you add in pesonal ststements from the Armenian opposition, it would look excatly the same as this article, and yet HR orgs only consider Armenia a democracy. I will not deny that there are human rights violations in Russia, but they are not nearly as severe as this article attempts to make it seem like, and they certainly aren't serious enough for Russia to be "not free". Unfortionantly, human rights in Russia is not the only human rights page that has been used as an anti-government tool. By the way, Borris Yeltsin, A LIBERAL, supporterd Vladimir Putin before he died. That says something. I know it is technicly correct to add in personal quotes if you make it clear that it is someones opinion, but when you have 50 opposition statements and absolutely NO statements showing the government supporters' side, the average person is going to take the formers statements as fact. QZXA2 20:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This article has been biased since it's creation, but it has gotten systimaticly worse ever since some ass holes have gotten a hold of it. Mere rumours are being treated as fact, there are too many Goddamn quotes. Russiophobes have a tight grip on this article are seem like they are going to try to keep me from actually balancing this article, like that guy said in "article is baised mess", not even Uzbekistan's human rights page is as severe as this and if you think Russia is less free than Uzbekistan, there is something wrong with you. At least Russians are able to speak out against the government without being SHOT. I don't see other people in the human rights in the UK adding in allegations and 50 personal quotes and defending it by saying it's scourced, only Russia is being singled out like this. And judging from that last response from Biophys, it's going to be a bitch trying to stop wikipedia from being used as an aniti Kremlin shrine as it is now. QZXA2 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing, about the FSB "ruling" Russia, why is it that people in the west feel this is so alarming? back in the 1950s and 40s, alot of American politicians were exmilitary. When people saw this did they say "Hey! That's a military junta!" no, they thought "Oh isn't that sweet, our country's heros are be elected to run our country." So why can't the Russians elect thier heroes? Because it's Russia! Everyone in Russia ar5e big mean drunkards that beat their wives and rape innocent Checens who did absolutly nothing to provoke it. I reallyam getting sick of this kind of shit that is making it harder every day for me to find FACTS about Russia. QZXA2 21:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

leader who's support is at 81% Sources?

THEY CANNOT BE TAKEN AS ABSOLUTE FACT! OPPOSITION GROUPS ARE GOING TO DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO MAKE THE RULING PARTY LOOK BAD

Sure, facts don't exist, and opposition is biased, just like everyone. But pro-government groups are also going to do whatever they can to make the ruling party look good, so we have to represent different opinions in this article.

I will not deny that there are human rights violations in Russia, but they are not nearly as severe as this article attempts to make it seem like, and they certainly aren't serious enough for Russia to be "not free".

How do you know? Does it make sense at all? It is just a label. Its meaning depends on criteria used to assess the country.

Well, Andrey Ilarionov, former aide to Putin, also has called Russia non-free. Well, you certainly can dub everybody who disagrees opposition, but this would be methodologically flawed.

By the way, Borris Yeltsin, A LIBERAL, supporterd Vladimir Putin before he died.

What do you mean? He supported some of his actions and opposed others, just like everybody here and there. And he is certainly not a liberal either in American or European sense. It is somewhat hard to tell who he is, because he himself has never joined a certain political program.

Do you seriously compare WWII generals coming to power because of their merits with KGB office rednecks and their former business partners coming to power due to their personal relations? Heroes? Do you really compare Eisenhower with Putin? Don't make me laugh. The problem is not that they are from FSB. The problem is that they are good friends and business partners of each other rather than skilled guys.

Nobody claims here that all the Russians are dunk and rape Chechens and that all the Chechens are innocent. But some of them may well be. By the way, would you like to visit Russia first in order to get a more balanced point of view?

Amazingly, some people complain that Wikipedia articles about Russia are way too pro-Putin (see e.g. Talk:Vladimir Putin). You guys are very funny.

Oh, yes, as for Ellol's proposition, I must confess that social economical rights are an invention of communists. But feel free to add them if you wish. Different points of view, ok.

making it harder every day for me to find FACTS about Russia. Give it up. Facts don't exist.Colchicum 22:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

My source for the 81% is the article on Vladimir Putin, I never said pro government sources were unbiased. My statement about drunk, rapist Russians and innocent Chechens was supposed to be mocking the people who have written that alchoholism is the main reason for Russia's population decline and that the majority Russian soldiers commit atrocities in Chechnya (who try to make it seem like Chechens did nothing to provoke abuse). As for the FSB thing, I'll bet if Bush had a chance to replace his cabinet with his best friends, he would not even hesitate! All politicians are power hungry (why else would they become politicians? To help their nation? Yeah right!). As for Pro-Putin Wkipedia, those people who say that seem to think any article that doesn't make Putin look like a dictator is "pro-Putin". I have read more than one book describing Yeltsin a "liberal". QZXA2 23:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

QZXA2, I left links to Wikipedia rules at your talk page. Please read them and try to follow. All references in this article satisfy WP:SOURCE. The article simply describes what the sources tell. Biophys 23:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the FSB thing, I'll bet if Bush had a chance to replace his cabinet with his best friends, he would not even hesitate! Yes, maybe. But the American leader has no chance to do this, while the Russian leader (or maybe his allies, who knows) has already done this, and much more than this. And such an unbalanced political system obviously has an impact on human rights records. That's why your claim that Russia's human rights record is no more serious than other free democratic nations such as America looks dubious. Colchicum 23:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Certain issues

Guys, let's address certain issues, rather than discussing everything and nothing.

  • "There are also credible reports that FSB use drugs to erase memory of people who had access to secret information[8]" I don't know who had inserted this, but it's misinterpretation. What was the case? Nuclear chemicist Sergey Podoynitsyn, assistant of head of a lab at a nuclear research institute in Zheleznogorsk, had disappeared in 2003. In that day he went to the nearby Krasnoyarsk to buy a car, having 9,000$ (got them in cash in a bank in Krasnoyarsk). Soon he was going to visit a conference in Philadelphia. After 1.5 years, he appeared at his mother's home, without documents, oppressed and with troubles with memory. He remembers his relatives but can't recall what has happened with him. During those years, he worked as a building worker in some city, but can't recall how did he get there. Got it? Now, newspaper "Novaya Gazeta" invents a version that it could be done by the FSB. It puts that so: "among a bunch of versions, there is one that..." Other sources, like Gazeta.ru[9] only claim that FSB has taken charge for investigation of this case (which is of no wonder). Gazeta.Ru also sais that medics say such behaviour could be explained by: 1) micro-stroke 2) aftermath of strike at head, which could happen if there were robbery. From myself I would only add, that in such institutes practically everyone must be admitted to secret documents. I propose: to erase this sentence as an unsupported claim. User:Ellol April 27, 2007
I agree QZXA2 01:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
As always it is just guesses of "reliable" (to Biophys) journalist. Vlad fedorov 03:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It was this segment. Let's examine it more carefully:
It was reported that FSB use drugs to erase memory of people who had access to secret information[1]
  1. ^ "A nuclear chemist has been returned to a childhood state". - by Aleksei Tarasov - Novaya Gazeta (Russian)
Biophys 01:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Последний раз секретоносителя видели 17 октября 2003 года. Ядерщик доехал на такси до железногорского КПП, пересек его и пересел в попутку, следовавшую до Красноярска. В краевом центре вышел из машины возле Центрального рынка — и бесследно исчез. Прокуратура Железногорска тогда возбудила уголовное дело по ст.105, ч.1 (убийство). На ведущих из Красноярска дорогах появились военные патрули.
Масштабность поисков объяснялась тем, что исчезновение одного из главных специалистов ГХК рассматривалось не только как криминал, но и как большая политика с большими финансами. Подойницын тесно сотрудничал с американскими национальными лабораториями. Их совместные исследования были посвящены вопросам иммобилизации плутония (перевода его в стеклообразную или керамическую матрицу в смеси с высокоактивными отходами, с последующим захоронением).
Как сообщили мне на Железногорском комбинате сразу после пропажи Подойницына, в ноябре 2003-го по графику планировалась очередная его командировка в США.
В беседе со мной офицеры ФСБ заявили, что Подойницын ранее уже ездил в США и никаких претензий к нему у спецслужб не возникало.
Тем загадочнее становится эта история, особенно если не упускать из виду судьбу коллеги Подойницына. О похищении и убийстве автора более 80 научных работ по ядерной химии и физике, обладателя нескольких десятков патентов, заведующего кафедрой физической химии Красноярского госуниверситета, основателя и главы научно-исследовательского инженерного центра «Кристалл» Сергея Бахвалова пресса писала много, повторяться не буду. Лаборатория Бахвалова 12 лет занималась проблемами переработки и очистки металлов, утилизации радиоактивных веществ по заказам Минатома и Минобороны.
Спустя полтора года, когда следствие уже было приостановлено, Подойницын пришел к своей матери. 22 мая знакомые увидели физика у дома его матери в Железногорске. Он был чисто одет, документов при ним не было, и он практически ничего не помнил. Пока непонятно, как он проник в закрытый город без паспорта. Как сообщает интернет-издание Газета.Ru, по неофициальной информации, Подойницын якобы сам связался с сотрудниками ФСБ, которые в ночь на понедельник привезли его в Железногорск.
Interesting story. Is not it? Of course, there is no proof that FSB did it. I deleted this segment for now.Biophys 01:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It is noteworthy that some other Russian scientists involved in WMD research also died violently. Biophys 01:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
1) Not "It was reported that" but "There are also credible reports". В приличном обществе за такое бьют канделябрами по морде. It's not any damned good.
Ellol, this is really uncivil (канделябрами по морде). I can see that you play in Preferans.Biophys 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, it's a good Russian idiomatic expresion, but I couldn't find a proper English analogue (except It's not any good). Yes, it's uncivil. But whoever contributed the disputed passage, was also uncivil. We are not a young communists organization, I have no least intention to go investigate -- who, when, did that. As for preferans, I can play, but have almost no experience. ellol 11:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps I need to say, I didn't wanted to say that anyone should have been beaten, but used an idiomatic Russian phrase in order to express inadmissibility of such behaviour. ellol 11:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
2)"Large scale of searches was explained by that missing of one of majoy experts of Zheleznogorsk Chemical Plant was considered not purely as criminal, but also as big politics and big money. Podoynitsyn closely cooperated with American national labs. They jointly researched questions of immobilization of plutonium (its transformation in glass-like or ceramical matrice mixed with highly-radioactive wastes, for the further burial.) ... During conversation with me, officeers of FSB stated that Podoynitsyn had earlier already visited US and security services had no questions for him. ... As Gazeta.Ru reports, according to unofficial information, Podoynitsyn himself communicated with FSB staff, who in Monday night had driven him in Zheleznogorsk". And what does it prove or why did you post it???
If you have names, please post them here. The article mentiones that nuclear scientist Sergey Bakhvalov was murdered. If number of murders beats the level of statistical error, we could note it here. User:Ellol

Please stop writing in Russian, I (and most other wikipedians) do not understand it. QZXA2 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Then study Russian, if you gonna work at Russian articles. Vlad fedorov 03:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is, that for Russia-related articles many best sources are in Russian. On the other hand, it would be a pity to forbid all non Russian speaking people to take part in editing and discussing. It means, that what we (Russian speaking) want to do, that we will do. But it's limitation of all others rights, and it's absense of accountability for our actions. I think we need a sort of a code. Like, if you are contributing a Russian text at the talk page, you put nearby English translation. Lets think how can we do it, without overburdening ourselves with translating job. How would look a human-corrected computer translation? E.g., for Biophys's text, 16:06,
Last time secret-bearer was seen on October, 17th, 2003. Nuclear physicist has reached by a taxi up to a check point Zheleznogorsk, has crossed it and found and sat in a by-passing car, followed up to Krasnoyarsk. In the regional center has left the car near the Central market — and has completely disappeared. The Office of Public Prosecutor of Zheleznogorsk has then started a criminal case on article 105, part 1 (murder). On roads leading from Krasnoyarsk there were military patrols.
Scale of searches was explained by that disappearance of one of main experts of Mountain-Chemical Plant was considered not only as kriminal but also as the great politics with the big finance. Podojnitsyn closely cooperated with the American national laboratories. Their joint researches have been devoted to questions of immobilization of plutonium (its transfer in glass-like or a ceramic matrix in a mix with highly active waste, with the subsequent burial).
As I was informed on Zheleznogorsk Plant right after missing of Podojnitsyn, in November of 2003, under the schedule, his next trip in the USA was planned.
In conversation with me officers of FSB declared, that Podojnitsyn already went in the USA earlier and at special services no question arose to him.
With that this history becomes more mysterious, especially if to overlook destiny of colleague Podojnitsyna. The press wrote much, so I shall not repeat, about abduction and murder of the author of more than 80 scientific works in nuclear chemistry, the physicist, the owner of several tens patents, head of faculty of physical chemistry of the Krasnoyarsk State University, the founder and the head of the research engineering center "Crystal", Sergey Bakhvalov. Laboratory of Bakhvalov for 12 years dealt with problems of processing and clearing of metals, recyclings of radioactive substances under orders of Ministry of Atomic Energy and Ministry of Defence.
After one and a half year when investigation has been already suspended, Podojnitsyn has come to mother. On May, 22nd friends have seen the physicist at the house of his mother in Zheleznogorsk. He has clean dressing, no documents, and he remembered practically nothing. As for now it is not clear, how has he got into the closed city without the passport. As informs the Internet-newspaper Gazeta.Ru, under the informal information, Podojnitsyn has ostensibly contacted staff of FSB, who on the night of Monday have brought him to Zheleznogorsk.
16:24
Yes, it took me 18 minutes. But I'm sure that with some practice this time could be reduced twice or thrice. I used [10] (online-translator.com; I used option "translate a web-page"). Now, QZXA2, is it understandable text? People, how does the idea look? ellol 12:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] These mortality data are not relevant to human rights

Someone inserted the following text:

From 2005 to 2006 rate of death for external reasons had lowered for 13.6%, involving in 2006 42,5 thousand suicides, 37,9 thousands deaths because of traffic traumas, 28,5 thousands murders and 28,4 thousands casual poisonings by alcohol. In the overall balance, deaths for external reasons in 2006 were the third widespread (12,5%), while at the first place were deathes caused by deseases of blood Circulatory System (56,5%) and neoplasms (13,1%). [1]

This is not related to human rights. This is only related to helth, living conditions in Russia, alcoholism, etc.Biophys 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It was me. Sorry, I had troubles with logging in, now fixed. Well, it doesn't relate to human rights, although it's very interesting data. I think it is important to understand the role of murders in the overall picture. However we need the following passage: "According to data by Demoscope Weekly, Russian homicide rate showd rise from the level of 15 murders per 100,000 people in 1991 to 32.5 in 1994, then it falled to 22.5 in 1998, that was succeeded by rise with maximum of 30.5 in 2002, and a fall to 20 murders per 100,000 people in 2006." Because murder is the heaviest crime, violation of the basic right, right to live. ellol 16:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ellol, except for murder, death rates belong on the demographics page. QZXA2 21:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New intro

How is this for a new intro: "Although Russia's human rights record has improved significantly since the Soviet era, and is better than most post-Soviet states, there still remains problems regarding corruption, government control of main TV news channels, freedom to demonstrate, and extensive use of force by police. Overall, Russia's human rights record is similar to those of Georgia and Armenia. The Russian government has been somewhat sluggish in addresing these problems (partly due to corruption and financiual reasons, among others)." or something like that. it does not really show my POV that Russia is a free democracy, and it doesn't show the current POV that Russia is a dictatorship. QZXA2 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Intro. NPOV unlike that of Biophys.Vlad fedorov 05:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
That is completely unacceptable. What you write in Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources, as in the current version. "Russia's human rights record is similar to those of Georgia and Armenia". Who said that? What kind of data this conclusion is based on? And so on. Biophys 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Biophys mind WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Vlad fedorov 05:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you say it is unacceptable because it does not say enough negative about Russia. Also if you listened to what I said earlier, read the human rights in Armenia and Georgia pages, and you'll see for yourself, Russia is about the same (human rights wise) as them. And I don't understand why everyone here is so hostile towards me when all I wanted to do was balance this laughably biased article. QZXA2 01:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not anarchy. There are certain rules. Please see WP:SOURCE and other rules (links I left on your talk page). Biophys 02:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Biophys mind WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Go on QZXA2, don't pay attention to Biophys. Vlad fedorov 05:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

QZXA2, it's just great that you are interested in situation about human rights in Russia! 1) You know some immigrants need to prove for themselves, that they were right when they had left Russia. This may cause some BS. On the other hand, there may be some bias from inhabitants of Russia who may be do not want to bother much about HR troubles. 2) Yes, the basis of Wikipedia is that all introduced material must be sourced. It's called "No original research". 3) Hopefully, there's a great deal of info on Human rights. 4) I'm sorry I can't devote much time to this article now, but if you need any assistance with e.g. work with Russian sources, I would be always happy to help (as many other Wikipedians, I hope). 3) You could try to use an extensive report of Summer 2004 by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner For Human Rights of Council of Europe. Some extracts from it:

6. Russia has experienced sweeping changes since the collapse of the Soviet Union and their consequences are still difficult to measure. They need to be critcally reviewed and assessed as a whole. The fledgling Russian democracy is still, of course, far from perfect, but its existence and its successes cannot be denied. A mere fifteen years ago, the Iron Curtain divided Europe in two parts; at the time, the USSR was a state where any form of freedom of speech, private initiative or liberal thinking was prohibited and punished. Soviet citizens were deprived of the most fundamental freedoms. Freedom of movement beyond the frontiers of the Soviet Union was virtually non-existent and opportunities to travel abroad were very limited. Only a few organised groups were able to do so, and even then prospective travellers had to endure the humiliating procedures involved in obtaining authorisation.
7. Everything has changed since and the new Russian generations do not always remember their country's history, recent though it is. Present-day Russia is a different country for all those who experienced the Soviet era, although it has kept its traditions and its rich culture, which seventy years of relentless efforts to establish communism were unable to change.

ellol 11:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the proposed intro, Imho, it's not a bad one. But I think that comparisons to the other CIS countries would be something hard to prove. I think, for the intro we may simply use: "According to Commissioner For Human Rights of Council of Europe mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Russia has experienced sweeping changes since the collapse of the Soviet Union and their consequences are still difficult to measure. They need to be critcally reviewed and assessed as a whole. The fledgling Russian democracy is still, of course, far from perfect, but its existence and its successes cannot be denied. [11] " I think it's hard to say better. ellol 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE. Hey, there's sincerelly tons of stuff! ellol 19:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, one can find here a lot of opposite opinions, and one of those is opinion of Sergei Kovalev. Therefore, I would try to avoid opinions and use statistical data as much as possible. For example, how this country performs compare to other countries.Biophys 21:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Biophys, it's not an opinion. It's an expert assessmen. Gil-Robles was Commissar of Council of Europe that time. It was his job to evaluate the situation, mark the drawbacks and give recommendations to improve them. The man, who has already visited a bunch of countries. And I point out, that while he spent only 2-3 days in some countries, in 2004 he spent a whole month in Russia. He spoke with authorities, ombudsmen, people and NGOs. Moreover, he isn't interested in gaining political benefits from his speech. Ok? And I'm sorry, despite all my respect towards Sergey Kovalev, his level of argumentation is like that of my friend when I talk with him about politics. He just sais: "They all are gays." And try to refute this! Sergey Kovalev's argumentation is on nearly the same level. ellol 04:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting... I'm glad I could get a reliable source I can use when I revise this article, thank you ellol 71.244.157.67 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Oops! QZXA2 00:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I think that present version of this article is O'K. We should not try to improve it too much. In principle, I had to create a number of articles on human rights subjects: Torture in Russia, Prosecution of scientists in Russia, Political murders in Russia, History of poisoning in Russia, etc. I do not have such plans at the moment. Please do not force me.Biophys 04:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Should we consider this an attempt of blackmail? By the way, the article Anti-russian bias in western media still isn't created. ellol 04:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
It's just delicious! We should not try to improve it too much! Perhaps you wanted to say "I" instead of "We"? ellol 05:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
And I'm sorry. You violate the basic principle of Wikipedia. All contributors of Wikipedia are equal. Wikipedia is not a club, all are welcome. All should be bold. You shouldn't prevent people from working picking on some minor mistakes. All you could do is to gently note how that could be improved. Shame on you. ellol 04:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I only said this article is O'K in my opinion, and that I currently do not have plans to work a lot with this subject. Of course all contributors are equal. If you want me to be bold, I will be bold. Certainly everyone is very welcome to correct minor mistakes. I like very much your idea to create article Anti-Russian bias in western media. This could be a part of Anti-Russian sentiment Biophys 05:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Please, calm down. It's still a talk page, we aren't at kitchen sitting. ellol 05:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Whooaaaa... Biophys at americano kitchen? Let him create all those articles - we would add all this information to them. He won't succeed anyway, because you have another source the UN Human Rights Council - http://www.ohchr.org/english/countries/ru/index.htm. There are a lot of reports on Russian and evaluations of human rights in Russia. The rewriting of that article was on my todo list. But now I am very busy with occupation of Western Belarus. Please forgive me, anyway you may contact me at any time. You could also search OSCE website cause Russia is also its memeber. I am pretty much sure that such strong POV as of Lukin and the US Freedom House or British Amnesty International would be deleted. Vlad fedorov 06:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps. Lukin's reports are working documents. I mean, he reports about people's complaints, his own actions and tries to push gov. structures. (So, he meets with the President once or twice a year.) Let's retain only that core. ellol 09:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please everone, let's be civil. I only intend to balance this article (eg remove quotes, add different views ect), I didn't mean to start a whole controversy. Let's just discuss this issue calmly. I feel we should delete the personal quotes, or add 1 counter statement by a pro-Kremlin for every anti-Kremlin statement. QZXA2 20:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please provide alternative opinions or data if appropriate. This article begins from two pro-Kremlin statements. Three statements would be too much and unfair (2:1). So, I will leave only one pro-Kremlin statement and include one alternative opinion to keep the balance 1:1. Biophys 23:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand this. There's not only pro-Kremlin or anti-Kremlin POV. Is Vladimir Lukin's POV pro- or anti- Kremlin? I think, neither this, neither that. More anti-Kremlin, because his position makes him to oppose the regime and note all citizen's difficulties. ellol 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a football match. We need not to count goals in Kremlin's gateway, but to present diversity of views. From this point, we absolutely need Gil-Robles's view. ellol 07:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to distinguish general assessment from overview of certain people's problems. Because this starts to be too big. ellol 07:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Also it's very interesting how mr. Gil-Robles's view may be pro-Kremlin? May be Kremlin had paid him? May be Putin offered him a villa in France to present a positive view? Do you feel it's kinda nonsense? ellol 08:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyoung Gil-Robles stands Council of Europe. And before Biophys's allegations that he's pro-Kremlin, stays only Biophys himself. ellol 08:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that our task is not to blindly criticize or praise, but to allow the reader diversity of views. We must not zombify the reader, but to present him the ground for further thinking. ellol 08:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to translate a bit of 2006 Ombudsman's report. Just a bit now, but you at least can see the first claim used in the article here. Of course, you are free to use or continue this. ellol 09:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I will say you even more. It would be VERY hard for you to find real singers of the regime and absolute Kremlin followers. Of course, if you mean significant people, not some abstract Uncle Vasya. On the opposite, it's absolutely no problem to find people who would say how they hate the regime and how much their rights are violated. It's even fun when a person speaks that he is deprived the right for free speech -- speaks that from the first page of an influential Russian newspaper. ellol 13:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political murders

I am interested, why this is placed in this section: "According to Sergey Kovalev, the government kills the citizens without any hesitation. He provided the following examples: murdering of hostages by the poison gas during Moscow theater hostage crisis; burning school children alive by spetsnaz soldiers who used RPO flamethrowers during Beslan school hostage crisis; crimes committed by death squads in Chechnya;[12] and assassination of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev" He didn't speak about political murders. I do not think that Beslan children were killed because they read prohibited literature, or Moscow hostages died because they opposed Policy of Kremlin in Chechnya and The World. The only reason why it's here -- because nothing better was found. But it's not a valid reason. So, Biophys, either try to find better fitting section for this stuff, either it will be removed. ellol 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So, I made the change to reflect your request. Honestly, I did not want to work any more with this article, but you are inviting me. This is fine, why not to improve this article? Besides, almost every chapter here can be the basis for an independent and more detailed article. I would rather start from Torture in Russia, as time allows. Of course, Alleged political murders in Russia is also good subject. Biophys 19:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Better expand your PhD dissertation. ellol 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't you be so corteous now to compactify a bit Sergey Kovalev's speech in the opening? You surely aren't going to turn this page into Sergey Kovalev's home page, are you? ellol 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What fight are you talking about? I have never talked about any fight. This is Vlad who just posted a Russian song at his talk page, which asks everyone "fight to death for Great Russia". But I am a very peaceful (almost "anti-war") person. I am working to create good articles here. This is all.Biophys 19:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The war? You are far from Chechnya, but try to understand it. You mentioned that murder of Maskhadov could be treachery. I don't know. Let it even be so. But what to do with those who died in Moscow theater and Beslan? What was that? You can say, that more Chechens died in the war (although there are different opinions). It doesn't even matter. Hopefully the war is gone. Let's don't inflame national strife again. Let's talk on the language of sole numbers. People were killed in Moscow. People were killed in Chechnya. Nothing else matters. ellol 20:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
O'K, let's not fight, even in the virtual space. I also thought about translating article Criticism of Vladimir Putin from Russian Wikipedia, but that would be very inflammatory and without any benefits. So, I would rather relax and do something else.Biophys 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I have much to do myself. ellol 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
As about my work, I agree. Could we just relax a little and did not edit this article any more for a couple of days?Biophys 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Press freedom

Just some info to think about:

They noted: "Aggressive efforts by the Russian government to further marginalize independent media voices, punctuated by plans to regulate the internet"; “The records of Venezuela and Russia are appalling, all the more so because of those countries’ impact on their regions,” said Karin Karlekar, managing editor of the press freedom survey.

The report also warned of expanded restriction of the internet. It highlighted China, Vietnam and Iran, which continue to convict and imprison large numbers of journalists and “cyberdissidents,” and indicated that this trend has spread to other countries with restrictive media environments, including Russia, where the administration of President Vladimir Putin has announced plans to establish a mechanism to regulate internet content, as well as several countries in Africa. See Press Freedom Declines in Asia, Ex-Soviet Region and Latin America, Study Finds; Warns of Growing Internet Restriction Biophys 03:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note reaction of Russian media, with liberal deviations, by the way, Lenta.Ru obviously sympathized Khodorkovsky and opposed e.g. Putin's changes with Governors elections. ellol 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) What does it say? "Freedom house made a big work, but obvious errors(mistakes) of it a bit compromise the idea of securing freedom of press as one of the basic values in modern world" ellol 04:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC) The article is called "Lilac fraud", ugh. "Metodology of authors of Freedom House report leaves space for subjective interpretations, because it doesn't conform to scientific requirements for sociological and statistical researches." ellol 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

First of all, I'm sorry if I looked too straightforward, but if you look on my actions, I only revised the used info and provided new viewpoints. Ok?

Now, about the introduction. I think we should shorten a bit Sergey Kovalev's statement. I do not want to shut mouths of dissidents or crumple the green sprouts of young democracy. But I think that we should show Kovalev's point with less bloody details. Like, "He said that government kills the citizens without any hesitation, pointing on severity of governmental actions during recent hostage crisises and Chechen War as a whole." Why I think it's needed. I don't know how it's about you, but when I'm reading about Moscow Hostage Crisis or Beslan, I immediately have before my eyes a picture of burned children and people asphyxated with their tongues in their throats. And I can't appreciate ANY further information about Human Rights. I will formulate it more concisely: this may look as psychological shock for a reader, after which he is unable to think or calmly perceive information. p.s. I do not mean that these events can't be e.g. viewed in Chechnya section. But as it is now, the introduction looks as if instead of invitation to the article we have a sign "Do not come here!" I would be interested to hear opinion of QZXA2, however. ellol 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Beslan and Moscow Hostage Crisis episodes are critical for understanding the situation with human rights in Russia. It tells how government treats its citizens. Nothing even remotely similar to this could happen in Europe or USA. The hostages here can be killed by hostage-takers if something goes wrong (as in the case of Olympic team of Israel), but not by police officers. That was basically a mass murder. That is why Kovalev talks about these episodes as something extremely important. That is why these episodes should stay where they are.Biophys 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course we could make "pro" and "contra" subsections in Introduction, but that would look really stupid. The real problem is the following: the assessment of situation with human rights in Russia by Kovalev and a vast majority of Western sources (Amnesty International, etc.) and by Lukin/De Robles are completely incompatible. The solution of this problem is very obvious: (a) stick to statistical data, facts, and very specific claims in the main body of the article, and (b) make a summary that is based on cited expert's opinion but consistent with text of the entire article (that is Kovalev). That is exactly what I did in the previous version.Biophys 19:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1) They are pretty well compatible, at least for me, and I hope for everybody with a track of brains. Removing Gil-Robles's view would be a bright example of liberal censorship, I caution. 2) I spoke about a very simple thing. That you should have mercy for readers feelings. You didn't want to understand me. Ok. Btw, perhaps you don't take into consideration that if police didn't kill 100 in Moscow, terrorists would kill whole 800. There's no alternative to using gas. The other question is that if medics were enough informed about the gas, many people who died in clinics would survive. ellol 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Soapboxing of this article

Ellol, you inserted a lot of texts that make almost no specific claims or arguments and include no specific information/data on the subject. This is really a kind of dilution of the content or soapboxing. See this for example:

Alvaro Gil-Robles, first Commissioner for Human Rights of Council of Europe, in his 2005 report [3] was impressed on the scale of changes which the country has experienced since the end of the Soviet era. He said, "the fledgling Russian democracy is still, of course, far from perfect, but its existence and its successes cannot be denied." He noted, that since 1996 Russian legislation has been radically reformed in order to bring it in line with European standarts and most of current weaknesses lie in its implementation (as many officials and professionals have difficulties to grasp it). Another major difficulty is the death penalty, still provided by Russian law, despite 1996 moratorium. Gil-Robles also noted that some of the recent reforms have raised concerns "among the public as to whether democratic achievements will remain in place". [3]

Vladimir Lukin, current Ombudsman of Russian Federation, in the last years invariably characterized situation with human rights as unsatisfactory. However, as he said in report on the situation in 2006[4], this shouldn't discourage, because building of lawful state and civil society, especially in such complex country as Russia, is hard and long process, with recessions and rises. He said that in 2006 the major flow of complains, as usually concerned social and economical rights.[4]

But you excluded from the introduction a condensed text with numerous references about concrete human rights problems. I do not think this makes article better. Quite the opposite. Biophys 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gil-Robles and Lukin make certain points, present certain views. I do not think that one may explain complex situation in Russia with words "They are all gays" or "Putin is an asshole". And, they are experts, and big people in the area of Human Rights. One is Russian Ombudsman, the other -- European Commissioner. And their statements are parts of their reports. Btw, I do not understand, why you did remove Kovalev's statement about censorship, because whether there's censorship in Russia is the central question in current political discourse. ellol 20:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC) I don't think shortening Gil-Robles's overview would be correct, because now it's a balanced view with both positive and negative sides. I hope it's close to his actual view. ellol 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I excluded nothing. I only moved it just a bit ahead. But if you don't feel the introduction becomes too long, feel free to put it backwards. If you want to get statistical, you should at first understand, that every year there's 28,000 murders, and so all 44 journalists murders are nothing on this background, and all thing with NGOs and opposition lawmakers is nonsense on this background. You forget that there are also social and economical rights. Do you think it's OK when teacher has to live on the wage 150$ monthly, and old man has to survive on the pension of 70$? Do you think they are concerned with anything in the country except of their own survival? ellol 21:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article still sucks!!

Biophys, you speak of "government mass murder", thatwould "never happen in the west". Ever hear about Waco? What about Israel's barbaric invasion of Lebanon? What about America's use of agent orange in Vietnam. As for press freedom, Georgia restricts its media far more than Russia. And don't present me with mor Freedom House BS, I don't give a flying fuck what they have to say, they are a biased neocon group. They rate Ethiopia as "partly free" (5 in political freedom, 5 in personal freedom), and Russia 6-5. Ethiopians enjoy more political feedoms than Russia? That is so pathetic that it's not even funny!!! read these: Human rights in Ethiopia, Human rights in Yemen, Human rights in Nigeria, Human rights in Armenia, Human rights in Georgia, Human rights in Turkey, and Human rights in Kyrgyzstan. What do these nations have in common? They are all rated "partly free" by FH when their human rights records are the same as, or even worse than Russia's. I would not consider FH a good source. The intro of this article still treats claims by opposition members as facts, as with the section of political prosecutions! This article has a long ways to go before it can be truly called NPOV QZXA2 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Imagine the US government spraying agent orange over Oregon rather than Vietnam or Israel bombing Haifa rather than Lebanon and try to meditate. Good luck! Colchicum 10:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Biophys, you should read this: Words to Avoid QZXA2 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Even worse, if you look at Kovalev's interview, he didn't mention RPO flamethrowers, he didn't say "Government kills its citizens without hesitation", he said "Government is ready to kill its citizens", etc. This must be completely revised. ellol 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC) ("stagnation" he speaks about is in fact Zastoy i.e. years of Brezhnev's rule, "lgut" is Russian for "they lie", "naduvanie cheeks" means "boasting") ellol 06:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why this is so: "He said government is ready for murdering its citizens, referring to use of mysterious chemical agent during Moscow theater hostage crisis, and claiming that hostages' lives were disregarded for the sake of political reasons during Beslan school hostage crisis." Kovalev didn't mentioned flamethrowers and didn't say hostages were murdered by government with gas. Perhaps he had his own reasons to do that, any way we mustn't devise speech for him. ellol 11:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Imagine the US government sraying agent orange over Oregon or Israel bombing Haifa and then try to meditate." What is that supposed to mean? if the American prvence of Oregon was rebeling during the 60's instead of Vietnam, the US government would surley have used the same tactics as they did in Vietnam. QZXA2 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does the page claim that "Human rights groups also identified Mikhail Khodorkovsky as a political prisoner."??? Article about Khodorkovsky only sais that "Therefore, Khodorkovsky's supporters claimed that the arrest was politically-motivated and would have a devastating effect on Russia's nascent financial markets." If nobody provides a sound Human rights group which claimed that, this should be removed. ellol 13:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also take note, in Politically-motivated prosecutions there's a phrase, "Many people have been also illegally detained to prevent them from demonstrations during G8 Summit in 2006." The source allows only to say that "Regional militia and FSB department of Saratov prevented some of oppositioners to get to G8 Summit in 2006, using unexplained detainings.". This either needs more extensive source search, either replacing the phrase with one better reflecting the article. ellol 08:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yuriy Ryzhov wasn't accused nor arrested. But he gave some interviews considering cases of physicists. Somebody just wasn't attentive and placed him in the list.

Cases of Anatoly Babkin and Valentin Moiseyev are yet not viewed in section "politically motivated espionage cases". ellol 08:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We are lucky -- 2005 Vladimir Lukin's report was translated into English. Yo-hoo! ellol 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Although this article has made significant progress to becoming NPOV, I still see many hidden biases (the sources are still all anti-Russian!). Like I said in earlier, too many allegations are treated as fact. I am glad that the wheels are in motion though. QZXA2 21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attention! Attempted balance being reverted!

I recently tried to balance this article, but Biophys seems determined to keep this an anti-Kremlin propoganda tool! Please be reasonable, you don't need asource for everthing, sand not all sources are reliable (ie. Al Qaida website should not be used for American HR page). There is no reason for there to be a sensless edit war in which bo one will win. QZXA2 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia rules. You can not delete relevant and well sourced information. This may be considered vandalism (now you have been warned!). If you want to improve articles, please add alternative information/POV supported by your sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE as my sources.Biophys 00:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Does EVERYTHING have to be sourced?! I understand that there are rules. See Words to Avoid, and see for yourself why this article should be balanced. QZXA2 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, EVERYTHING must be sourced - see WP:SOURCE. If you do not like a few words, you can try to replace these words if appropriate. But you can not simply delete sourced text.Biophys 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine! I'll let this fucking article remain biased...for now. QZXA2 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyboody knows that Russia is sanguinary dictatorship! :lol: Carn 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction, everybody THINKS (quite wrongly I may add) Russia is a dictatorship. Articles like this give them more ammunition. QZXA2 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

All available sources claim about terrible human rights violations in Russia, repressions, and indeed dictatorship. QZXA2, may I ask you: why do you think otherwise? Do you live in Russia? Do you have some friends in Russia who tell that everything is fine? Do you love Putin?Biophys 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, why are you misleading people? If you are reading only liberal stuff, it doesn't mean there are no different sources and viewpoints! ellol 06:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Why do you think otherwise, gg, welcome to 1984. ellol 06:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked QZXA2.Biophys 13:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"All availible sources claim about terrible human rights violations in Russia, repressions, and indeed dictatorship...why do you think otherwise?..." Oh that's rich! Ok, let's see who your sources are, liberal human rights groups who sympathise with Russia's opposition, (whose members have NEVER SET FOOT IN RUSSIA), the very unpopular oppsition, a money/fame hungry journalist who provided NOT ONE SPECK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HER CLAIMS, an ex-FSB man who went berserk when the government told him to kill his criminal friend (and also provided no evidence for his claims either), and Chechen TERRORISTS. Now who supports my beliefs? 81% OF RUSSIA'S POPULATION (most of which are well aware about the government controlling the media), and The former head of the council of Europe's human rights branch, ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTABLE HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS IN THE WORLD. I may also add that Mr Alvro Gilbes (unlike your HR group friends) ACTUALLY WENT TO RUSSIA AND SAW WHAT IT IS LIKE THERE HIMSELF!!!!!! And frankly, I don't see how you can discredit 81% of an entire nation! BIOPHYS, ACCEPT THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT FORCE YOUR POV INTO ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!! You have every right to believe what you want about the Russian government, but YOU SIMPLY CANNOT MAKE ARTICLES SO ONE SIDED AND BIASED!!! It is perfectly acceptable to make mention of the servere alleghations regarding Russia's human rights situation, but you just can't base an entire article purely on unproven accusations. Please, don't be so narrow minded. QZXA2 21:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

But you did not answer my questions. I know that you have strong POV. I can see that you do not like your "opponents". But why do you think so? 81% of population believe in what? Where did you find this 81% (reference please)? Can you provide any referenced facts or data that prove your point? Then, we might include them in this article. So, I am basically trying to understand you and respond to your opinion.Biophys 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

81% of the Russian population support Putin, I will give you a source momentarily. (PS At least I try not to show my POV in my edits) QZXA2 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Ah, here it is! ref>www.russiavotes.org</ref>

Great! It means that Putin is much more popular in Russia than Bush in US. Does it mean that situation with human rights in Russia is better than in US? Just the opposite is true. Why does Putin is so popular? Perhaps because he controls mass media, and all his opponents are ether beaten on the streets or killed at the entryways of their houses.Biophys 03:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me guess. All opponents who are beaten on the streets is Limonov, and all killed at entryways is Politkovskaya? ellol 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You still make no difference between SU and Russia.. Why can't you realize that Putin's popularity is based on the fact that he is the only head of the state in the last 20 years who really tries to improve economical situation in the country? If you think it's not necessary, answer why do you reside in US rather than in Russia, answer, how would you continue your strife towards human rights on a diet of bread and water? Of course Putin is not ideal. One must be an idiot to think so. But he at least does something. ellol 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I would say, the only one who SEEMS to try to improve economical situation. The positive measures that have been taken (e.g. flat income tax and stabilization fund) weren't proposed by the president himself. If you pay attention to what he himself proposes to do and does, it is really very dangerous. Also it is not very illuminating to assess the current situation disregarding 4x difference in petroleum price between then and now. In a sense, the economical recovery has no more to do with Putin than with you, me or solar activity. Colchicum 11:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
May I also ask a question? Biophys, have you read Lukyanenko or Strugatsky? Then, which Russian books about WW2 had you read? Have you read Vasil Bykov or Konstantin Simonov? ellol 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, Lukyanenko's bullshit is really not worth reading, Biophys, don't waste your time. I guess Biophys has read the others. So what? Is this relevant here? Colchicum 11:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, Colchicum, why do you HATE Russia so much? Why do you HATE people who support Putin? Most Russians are well aware about the state controll of the media. And yes, Putin DID propose MANY economic reforms that have brought Russia out of it's extreme debt of the 90's. Are you aware that under Yeltsin Russians had to wait in long lines for two hours just to get thier MONTHLY carton of milk? Or that people had to hire gaurds just so they could leave thier house whithout the mafiya looting it? And that those problems are now fading away under Putin? I know many Russians who say that this is how it was under Yeltsin, and all of them are glad to see someone like Putin reforming the economy. Oh, and NOT ONE OF THEM THINKS RUSSIA IS A DICTATORSHIP! You must think Russians are very stupid, many of them lived in the SU and would know a dictator when they see one. For now, the Russians want a strong centralised government, when they are ready to choose a liberal as thier president, they will do so. LET THE RUSSIANS DECIDE FOR RUSSIA. As long as Russia's elections are free of vote tampering, Russians will have the power to have whoever they like as thier president. QZXA2 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

1) I don't hate Russia. If I hated Russia, I wouldn't spend a single word on it.
2) Why do you HATE people who support Putin? -- I don't care whether a certain person likes Putin or not. But I am determined to fight those who support Putin in restricting my freedoms. Or should I give up without a fight?
3) Putin DID propose MANY economic reforms that have brought Russia out of it's extreme debt of the 90's -- Sources, please?
4) Apparently unlike you, I am Russian and I lived in Russia under Yeltsin, so don't try to sell me this nonsense. It was under Gorbachev in the Soviet Union that Russians had to wait in long lines for two hours, and I did this myself. I have seen nothing similar after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And nobody I know personally have ever really needed a guard in Russia. Yes, some people that were 5 years old or so under Yeltsin tend to tell such stories, but one should be smart enough not to believe them.
5) Putin reforming the economy How exactly does he reform the economy? What does he do, eh?
6) the Russians want a strong centralised government Who the hell are these "Russians"? Sources? I am Russian and I don't want that, many friends of mine are Russians and they all don't want that. And I won't allow anybody to decide for myself. When one says that the Russians want strong power it is merely meant that Russians dislike corruption etc. Putin doesn't help here much. "Strong" centralized government just can't work in such an immense and diverse country.
7) I am Russian and I am going to decide what I like to see at home. I tend to disregard this kind of advices as to what I should like. Go decide for yourself.
8) Russian elections are not free of vote tampering. Colchicum 14:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OSCE begs to differ Final Report. By "Russians" I mean the 81% who support Putin, I didn't ever say that "all" Russians want anything. None of the Russians I know were "5" during Yeltsin presidency but rather in thier early 20s, and they aren't ideots as you are suggesting they are. You seem to believe this talk about the FSB "repressing" dissidents, you don't seem to have any problem saying negative things about the Russian government! Have any of your friends been kidnapped, beaten, or arrested? You say a "strong" government cant do well in a large and diverse country, are you saying a weak government would do better? LOL QZXA2 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(3), (5) - слив засчитан
None of the Russians I know were "5" during Yeltsin presidency but rather in thier early 20s, and they aren't ideots as you are suggesting they are. If they lived in Russia between 1992-1999 and tell such stories, they are (more probably) liars or (less probably) have wery narrow outlook. Milk-seeking long lines in Russia have been very uncommon, if existed at all since 1992.
By "Russians" I mean the 81% who support Putin -- Vast majority of Russians have no access to the Internet, many of them have access to state-owned media only, a considerable part of them has no available mass media at all. So some of the 81% supports something they have no idea of. And even if they have, what does it mean to support Putin? It is a fundamentally flawed question. To support some of his activities? Well, then I do, though to a very little extent. To believe that it could be worse? Well, I do. To like him personally? I don't. To approve whatever he does? I don't, but I guess nobody who is sane does approve whatever he has done himself, let alone Putin. Do I support Putin? A meaningful question would be whether one (dis)prefer Putin over a certain other political program. But since, thanks to Putin, there is no other widely known political program with chances to be implemented, we cannot expect an insightful answer. 81% means nothing. Let me recall a comment by our fellow Wikipedian Alex Bakharev here: Если на марши станет ходить нестрашно, а даже модно и полезно для карьеры - то завтра придет не пять тысяч а миллион - и все для власти кончится. But what is your point, eh? This article is not about Putin.
You seem to believe this talk about the FSB "repressing" dissidents -- No, I don't. I haven't mentioned FSB here. It is you who are discussing largely irrelevant issues.
you don't seem to have any problem saying negative things about the Russian government! -- Why should I have any problem here? Are they saints?
Have any of your friends been kidnapped, beaten, or arrested? -- This is not your business.
You say a "strong" government cant do well in a large and diverse country, are you saying a weak government would do better? -- Exactly. Federal government should be weak and small. Regional governments should have much more responsibilities. As to your LOL - well, if you are going to laugh at many libertarian and conservative political programs... Colchicum 11:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
You ask: "Have any of your friends been kidnapped, beaten, or arrested?". Yes, my friend's relatives were killed recently in Russia, and their death was very painful (and yes, FSB was involved). But I do not hate anyone. To the contrary, I still belive this is my country, at least culturally. That is why I am interested in Russian history and politics. Biophys 23:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Colchicum, yes, 1TV, and ORT are state-owned, NTV is owned by Gazprom. But Ren-TV is private, the channel with 80 million people audience. I watched Ren-TV as recently as this week. Marianna Maksimovskaya in "Week", interviewed Geraschenko, man who would be suggested as President from United Russia, etc, etc. ellol 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Sources for 80 million? 2) How is this measured? 3) I presume that at best 80 million can watch Ren-TV, not that they actually do (although this is still highly improbable figures). 4) REN-TV is ultimately owned by Severstal and Surgutneftegaz. I'd better rely on Gazprom. 5) You seem to mix up the Other Russia with United Russia. 6) The Other Russia can disagree, but IMHO Gerashchenko is just as good as Putin. Colchicum 17:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 7) From the very article Ren-TV one might conclude that something is not ok with it. I doubt that they can afford much criticism towards Putin's line. The channels that had tried were shut down or taken over by the state much earlier. Oh, you probably believe that this is nothing personal, just a business. But in fact what Venezuela experiences now Russia underwent much earlier. Colchicum 17:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Colchicum, have a weak federal government in the country where you live. Excuse me, but strongness of Russian government is none of your business anymore. ellol 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether you consider strength of the Russian government my business or not. In fact it is. I am a citizen of Russia and live in Russia (as well as two other countries) from time to time. Sorry, I am not going to explain where I am now and my travel plans to you. I consider your statement personal offense and will act accordingly. Decide for yourself and your Dolgoprudny. Colchicum 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry. I didn't know whether you are a citizen of Russia, but presumed the opposite, without having evidence for that. I had no right to accuse you, and I realize short-mindness and incorrectness of my action. Of course, as you are a citizen of Russia, strongness and weakness of Russian government, as well as any other questions considering Russia may be your business, because as stated in constitution Russian nation realizes sovereignity of Russia, and the only measure of whether a man belongs to Russian nation is whether he is a citizen of Russia.
I ask to consider this my official apologies. ellol 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, excuse me for Dolgoprudny. I sort of overreacted. Colchicum 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. In fact, perhaps it would be better if I actively respond on processes taking place in Dolgoprudny, rather than editing Wikipedia. At least it would be direct support of Russian democracy. ellol 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the discussion, page Ren-TV speaks about some 112 million people of potential audience, and website speaks about 120 million; yet I don't know whether 20 million in CIS countries are included here.

In the recent year new telechannel appeared, O2TV, which orients on youth audience. It's name is from a popular short story. There is a political program, "Polit-cocktail". I watched it once or two and that was great, but overall I still don't have my own impression of this channel.

There was also created channel "Zvezda", whose official goal is upbringing youths in patriotic attitude. I can say even less about the channel. From what I saw, I can only say that when it broadcasts news it shows civilian news along with military ones. ellol 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, while Ren-TV was broadcast in St. Petersburg last time I was there, 02TV and Zvezda apparently weren't. By the way, UHF channels are not always received well within the city unless you are in a particularly favorable location or subscribed to cable TV (which has become widespread recently), and are mostly unavailable in Leningrad Oblast. Colchicum 18:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As for Geraschenko, you will laugh, but he really was accepted as candidate for president by Other Russia. [12] ellol 18:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as of now he is an unofficial candidate of the United Civil Front rather than the candidate of the Other Russia. Who knew Putin in May 1999 when Stepashin or Aksyonenko were considered "successors"? Colchicum 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] information lacking

This article lacks crucial information on property rights, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement. Please expand the article. Colchicum 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Could you include this please?Biophys 13:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have enough time now, but it is very simple: one should describe (1) how legislation complies with human rights principles and (2) whether the legislation is violated, with notable examples of violations, if possible. Colchicum 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I can try later (too busy now). It seems there are also too many empty-worded statements in this article (especially in Introduction), and I think that "Chechen" part is too big (there are many other WP articles on this subject to refer).Biophys 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Also note Media freedom in Russia that needs a lot of work.Biophys 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Colhicum, you say "very easy"? Not so fast. Just for starters, I will try to create a stub of article Freedom of assembly in Russia, so you could see. I will copy a content on this subject from another site that "is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission". Then one can try to edit this text.Biophys 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! You improved this article a lot.Biophys 03:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I think we should concentrate on balancing this article before we expand it, but if you do expand it right now, please, keep it NPOV. PS About my earlier statement, you misunderstood me, you have every right to oppose or approve a politician, what I meant was that if the Russian government was as repressive as this article makes it seem, you probably would not be able to criticize Putin here so easily. And about the tales of lines and that, you said that they are most likely liars, perhaps the Russians I spoke to lived in a poorer area than the rest of Russia, I doubt that they would lie about that kind of matter. I also strongly doubt the credibility of Biophys' claim of the "painful death" of his realitive's friend at the hands of the FSB. QZXA2 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

if the Russian government was as repressive as this article makes it seem, you probably would not be able to criticize Putin here so easily -- Why? This is not Russian TV. I don't think that as of now they care much about those few Russians who read the English Wikipedia. And this server seems to be American, so they would have hard time trying to control it.
perhaps the Russians I spoke to lived in a poorer area than the rest of Russia -- No, look, even in Africa market economy doesn't work this way. If customers demand more than supplier offers and the supplier is not an idiot and is allowed to set prices, as it has been the case since 1992, prices raise and customers demand less. It may not be very pleasant to many, but there would be no long lines for sure. Still, this (except for price control, which has not existed for fifteen years) has nothing to do with human rights.
I also strongly doubt the credibility of Biophys' claim of the "painful death" of his realitive's friend at the hands of the FSB. -- I don't. Well, I personally know people that has been illegally detained, searched, beaten, framed up, suffered extortion etc. by officials. Colchicum 13:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, look, even in Africa market economy doesn't work this way... How would you know? Have you been in Africa? I happen to see long lines (and quite often too)! Look, I was kinda exagurating when I said that stuff about 2 hour lines and guards, the Russians I spoke to really just said that there was alot of economical and crime related problems during the Yeltsin presidency, and that they are seeing much improvement done by Putin. I personally know people that has been illegally detained, searched, beaten, framed up, suffered extortion etc. by officials. Now your just making stuff up to try and stump me! Heres how I know: 1)You made no mention of this in your response to my origional statement 2) The other Russian users here (Vlad and Ellol) don't seem complain about these kind of problems 3) Even the biased western media doesn't report this kind of abuse QZXA2 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have been there. Not in Liberia, though, but in the equatorial part. But market economy doesn't work this way anywhere, even on Mars, let alone Africa. I have explained why. BTW, Vlad lives in Belarus, not in Russia. Ellol lives in Moscow or nearby, which is sort of different thing compared to the other parts of Russia. Western media do report on such things from time to time, really, but I don't expect them to report on every incident. Contrary to what some Russians seem to believe, Western media don't care much of Russia. Such things often happen in Russia, and even state-controlled media report on them occasionally. But they certainly won't link this to Putin. Colchicum 10:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Vlad is born in Belarus, and I hope, we surely aren't going to ask him where he lives now. Same as it is absolutely irrelevant where I live. If you believe I never left the space of the Third Ring, it's your ever greatest mistake. ellol 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Vlad edited from an IP as an anonymous several times and is active elsewhere, so I am perfectly aware of where he lives now. Colchicum 13:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TOC for Freedom of movement in Russia

Russian legislation on freedom of movement (and its history)
Temporary registration of Russian citizens
Registration of foreigners in Russia
Border control zone
Exit restrictions
Rules of border control

Colchicum 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My last edits

In last edits I simply tried to make this article readable. To be readable, it must have a very brief and concise Introduction (it is too long even now), and brief summary about each topic: "Freedom of assembly", "Chechnya", etc. If any of these topics should be discussed in more detail, this can be done in a separate article on the corresponding topic. That is what we should do (and actually doing), instead of putting all material in a single article. This is commonly accepted practice. Biophys 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

During Biophys's edits were lost the statements made by Lukin and Gil Robles. We can have them here, and it's not a waste of space, since we have here different ratings of democracy, market and etc. which also assess the situation in general. ellol 22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudeshkina

We should probably write an article about Olga Kudeshkina, already linked from two articles. Colchicum 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article must be balanced before it is expanded!

We really should balance this article before we expand it. It is still unaceptably biased. QZXA2 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FSB?

Quote:

"Over the years, FSB and affiliated state security organizations have killed all elected and appointed presidents of the unrecognized Chechen Republic of Ichkeria including Dzhokhar Dudaev, Zelimkhan Yandarbiev, Aslan Maskhadov, and Abdul-Khalim Saidullaev."

FSB or "affiliated state security organizations" didn't kill at least 3 out of 4 mentioned above guys! Dudayev was blown up by Russian aircraft, Saidullaev was shot in gunfire, Maskhadov was killed by Russian troops in a Saddam Hussein-type of encounter (in a spiderhole somewhere in rural areas). I don't know who brought this nonsense on Wikipedia, but it's completely false. If somebody is killed during a war...that doesn't mean the FSB assassinated him!Dimts 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jacques Chirac called Russia "a model democracy"

Please pay your attention to the article of Le Monde "Le nouveau dialogue franco-russe, par Natalie Nougayrède" http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3232,36-919049,0.html. Citation:"M. Chirac a qualifié par le passé la Russie de "modèle de démocratie", et il a décoré Vladimir Poutine de la Légion d'honneur". Translation: "Chirac called Russia as "a model of democracy" and awarded to Vladimir Putin Honorary Legion Order".

Il serait très étrange s'il commençait à critiquer le Président Poutine en le décorant. Heureusement, les temps ont bien changé. Colchicum 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yet another Freedom House-bashing contributor. Funny. Colchicum 18:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Freedom House is based in Washington and has been headed by an ex CIA Director, James Wollsey. It's Board Members have been people such as Donald Rumsfeld. It is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, long known as a CIA front as well as the US State Department. Such people cannot possibly be relied upon to give an accurate description of Human Rights issues because of thier obvious political conflicts of interest. Freedom House is a Tainted Source.

I am personally disgusted by the lack of a balanced POV in this arcticle and it's excessive reliance upon American sources as oppossed to those of the ECHR or the UN. As far as I can tell, QZXA2 seems to be the only person on this page interested in actually making a neutral POV article. I hope to do a bit more on this article when I have the time and have dug up some less biased source material. Russia is a country that 15 years ago was in complete economic collapse. Expecting it to become a model of democracy overnight is short-sighted. The Russian Constitiution, as it is written gives far far more protections to the rights of it's peoples than those of supposedly democratic countries like Australia, for example.

Arcehedron 13:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting opinion of Andrey Illarionov on human rights in Russia

[13]Colchicum 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

An article with links to Wikipedia?
So what? It is not a wiki-type source by itself. It is a real transcript of a real meeting of real and notable people. Even academic journals can occasionally refer to Wikipedia, which doesn't make them less academic.Colchicum 10:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Very interesting indeed. He said for example:

"The year 2006 for Russia was an extraordinary one in a sense of destruction of all types and all elements of freedom. Whichever area we can look at—the political system, legal system, court system, civil society, rule of law, division of powers, freedom of expression, freedom of mass media, freedom of association—everywhere, in each area, we see tremendous backlash against the basic liberties of Russian people.

All of this allows me to talk about the appearance of a new political regime, non-free regime, with "corporatist state", monopolized economy, coercive markets, with ideology of "nashism" (from the Russian word "nash"—"our own") as its distinctive features. " and so on.

An important point here is that situation with human rights in Russia change very quickly: it is now very different than it was even a couple of years ago. So, the article must be updated, especially introductory section that cites statements from 2004.Biophys 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh. At first these political prostitutes licked asses of Eltsin and Putin, now they are licking asses of their opponents. ellol 08:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Any proof that anybody here has ever licked asses of Yeltsin, Putin or somebody else? Now I see your level of understanding of the problem. If you don't like an opinion, it is not worthy. I see. Have you ever considered a possibility that some people emigrated or stopped cooperating with Russia because they didn't like what happened there rather than other way round? Colchicum 11:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
You are a bit strange. I surely didn't mean you, or anybody else at this great site! I meant Illarionov, Misha 2 percents and other heroes of opposition. Proofs? Kasyanov was a Prime minister under Putin for several years, Illarionov was adviser of Putin... If now they say that Putin's government curtails all freedoms, and they are so absolute democrats, it means that that time they licked Putin's ass. And now they lick somebody else's. ellol 10:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
No, if you meant me, it would be ok, but I was sure that you meant Illarionov, and this is a bit too much. So do you think that people cannot change their opinions? BTW, Illarionov has always criticized Putin. Yes, he worked with him as he thought there was a chance to change the trend. What is wrong here? Do you really think that it would be more fruitful to do nothing when there was a possibility to work? And could you please point out where Illarionov claimed that he is an absolute democrat? Putin claimed such things about himself, Illarionov didn't. Colchicum 13:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If Illarionov has always criticized Putin, then why would he say anything positive about the Russian government? That more or less proves that he is an unreliable source. QZXA2 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Flawed reasoning. He has always criticized some of Putin's deeds, not that he has criticized everything. Or do you think that we should use sobemody who always praise everything as a reliable source? BTW, as you guys complain that the article is so biased, find and add some reliable positive information. I am sure it is not that difficult. That would be good. But it looks like you are willing to delete negative information you don't like instead. This way you will never succeed. Colchicum 09:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"...do you think that we should use somebody who always praises everything as a reliable source?" No, not at all. In fact I would oppose this page having a pro Russian bias. I just don't really have the time to spend hours sorting through hundreds of websites (of which 98% is junk) trying to find a reliable source. And always being anti-Putin is not the only reason that Andrey Illarionov is unreliable, as I said below, he provides no evidence whatsoever to back his claims. QZXA2 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

An important point here is that situation with human rights in Russia change very quickly: it is now very different than it was even a couple of years ago. So, the article must be updated, especially introductory section that cites statements from 2004. No, not much has changed since 2004 other than the dissenters march. Andrey Illarionov is yet another person who provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever for his opinion. Biophys, you are clearly trying to find an excuse to remove anything that does not fit your opinion. This cannot continue. QZXA2 14:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not much has changed since 2004 other than the dissenters march How do you know? Colchicum 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? QZXA2 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I lived there from time to time (about two months each year), I read Russian legislation, press and blogs and listen to Russian friends and relatives. And you? Colchicum 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The same, other than the living in Russia part. Anyways, there is no excuse to have an article as biased as this.QZXA2 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you are so quick in learning. Congratulations.
Please stop writing in Russian, I (and most other wikipedians) do not understand it. QZXA2 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Talk:Human rights in Russia#Certain issues
Colchicum 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I read English translations. QZXA2 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my first impulsive reaction.

Seriously, I would prefer Mr. Illarionov's claims to be erased from the article. Reasons: he is not a human rights expert, he is a relatively young politician, who from 2000 to 2005 was an economic adviser for the President Putin. Of course, all the Russian democracy hold only on this person, and the next year he resigned Russia sharply turned back to totalitarianism. Brave guy.

Ohm, what I'm about? Mr. Illarionov provides no substantinates for his claims. With the same degree of credibility he could claim that green-furred rabbits on Mars committ genocide against white-furred rabbits.

Mr. Illarionov's claims are political. This can be seen from his "Over the last several years a new international network is being developed. ... It is an International of repressive regimes and dictatorships around the world, ... where the new Russian regime plays an important role." I wonder, if this were truth, wouldn't now Cuba, Venesuela and Iran be nuclear states, with Russian rockets installed and ready to launch? It's purely political talk, like pre-election promises.

But, as user Colchicum spoke unambiguiously to keep Illarionov's message, I propose to move it in a special section, and to supply it with a message of a pro-Kremlin politician. E.g. it could be some Vladimir Putin's statement.

Now, considering the last Colchicum-QZXA2 talk. It's just another myth, that a person who doesn't know Russian language can't learn the situation with human rights in the country. Just a myth, like the existence of quizzical "Russian soul". In some concern, reading Russian press might even drive a person to misunderstanding. The reason is, that a) Russian press is politized, b) there are different "circles" of people and press, akin to specific views. And a person from a "liberal" circle would never read press from "patriotic" circle, and vice versa. Moreover, neither I, nor Colchicum, nor even Biophys would ever read nationalistic press, like sources of the Movement Against Illegal Immigration. So we really should expect here a different Russian, claiming that only his nationalistic opinion is true.

To learn about situation in Russia, you need either to travel in it, and speak with people, either read reports of people who did. Under international committments, Russia is open to European and UN experts who are welcome to travel in the country, speak with any authorities and any people or NGOs. Perhaps, reading EU or UN experts in some concern is even better, than reading Russian press.

So, I don't want to say loud words, but I would really like English-speaking users, specifically QZXA2 and others, to participate more actively in discussions and editing. Again, there are quite more than enough English sources of high quality. ellol 11:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National minorities

Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles is a very interesting guy, I was clearly impressed on his description of situation with national minorities in Russia, as this area of life is practically ignored by federal TV, and the region where I live in isn't "national territorial entity". It's practically a shame to learn more from European guy about Russia that I could learn from Russian sources. On the other hand, what I've learned doesn't contradict my personal experience with people of different nationalities in Russia. E.g., in the Russian university where I learn, there are a lot of students, Yakuts or Buryats with asian appearance, but questions considering one's nationality had never arisen. One on my fellows there (who it seems will soon become a prominent theoretical physicist) is Tatar, he learned Tatar language in school, read Tatar classics. Basically, commonly, deeply in culture, nations inhabiting Russia are considered friendly ones. Moreover, (I'm again about personal experience) there are never any problems with students from post-USSR countries; there are still too many common culture roots.

Sometimes Gil-Robles' report reads even like traveller's notes, like:

229. I was delighted to be received by a Khanti family into their own home. We had an interesting and highly informative conversation. It was a traditional family, whose main occupation was raising reindeer. The herd of some twenty animals was kept on 30 000 hectares of family land and continually roamed this expanse in search of food. According to our hosts, the family followed the herd for nine months out of twelve, and only returned to the village for a very limited period to sell the products of from their herds, hunting and gathering, and to buy certain necessities. A girl aged no more than 22 or 23 explained that since her grandparents' and father's death life had become much more difficult and that their work brought in very little cash, which they needed to buy essentials such as corn, salt and sugar. The rest was produced by the family itself, including clothes made in the traditional fashion from reindeer leather and furs procured through hunting. Difficulties arose in respect of the children's education, because from what I understood the children of our host family only went to school for the three months they spent in the village, which is a matter of some concern.

Anyway, I'm ready to discuss the recent contributions. ellol 13:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, xenophobia becomes increasingly serious problem. Those who understand Russian may enjoy Leonid Kaganov's satirical rhymes, "What's good and what's Kondopoga": [14]. ellol 01:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolution 1455 (year 2005) of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:

In the last 15 years, the Russian Federation has undergone fundamental changes. The Assembly’s last monitoring report and Resolution 1277 (2002), adopted in April 2002, welcomed the undoubted progress made by Russia towards the rule of law and democracy, as well as the significant efforts made since accession towards honouring its obligations and commitments. [15]

[edit] Suggested Soloution

I belive I may have a solution to this ongoing NPOV dispute for this article. Why don't we replace all of these unproven statements and conspiracies with information from the most reliable sources such as UN, EU, and OSCE HR branches, as these are respectable international organisations that would have no apparent reason to be biased against Russia (unlike NGOs such as Freedom House and Amnesty Intl.). We could then move those unproven statements to an article titled Conspiracy Theories involving the Russian Government or something like that. I know Biophys will oppose it, but I would like to hear the opinions of everone else. QZXA2 14:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your solution would be an example of WP:OR, unless you can find an uncontested published opinion that the UN, EU and OSCE are reliable, while Freedom House and Amnesty Intl. are biased. Moreover, no source satisfying Wikipedia criteria (and Freedom House and Amnesty Intl. do satisfy them, whether you like it or not. I am not a big fan of the latter, by the way) can be eliminated per WP:NPOV. Colchicum 14:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New cases

In December 2007 Russian academician Igor Reshetin was imprisoned for 11 years 6 months at charges of transferring dual-purpose rocket and space technologies to a Chinese company. Three his subordinates — Sergey Vizir, Aleksandr Rozhkin and Mikhail Ivanov were also imprisoned for terms ranging from 3 to 5 years. [2]

On the other hand, statement of FSB claims transferred technologies could be used for production of carriers of WMD. I guess, ICBM's meant. (see the links in the bottom of the source article) So, perhaps a sincere dual-purpose technologies related case. Perhaps not. That's a cause for concern, but let's cite human rights organizations or let's wait until we can cite them.

Damn, ellol 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment reposted from body of article

The author puts "far exceeding number of Russians were killed by immigrants" while there is no data on it. Moreover the term 'number of illegal immigrants' is broad, for instance all citizens from former Soviet Union do not require visa (except few) to be in Russia, therefore they can not be counted as illegal.

In general article greatly underestimates levels of racism in Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.142.49 (talk • contribs) 12:18, March 27, 2008 [16]

I agree and can fix this and some other problems if User:ellol has no objections.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The only info relevant to the objected passage I found is the official 2007 MVD (Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs) statistics, stating in that year some 50,100 crimes were committed in Russia by foreigners or people without citizenship, while the amount of crimes against this group was 15,985. [17] But MVD info does not go in detail on how many of these crimes are murders. The passage remains unsourced good for a year, should be removed now.

The amount of illegal migrants has reduced twofold in 2007 to some 5-7 millions due to changes in legislature. (official info)[18]

Perhaps I did not quite understand user Biophys. But I certainly do not have apriori objections.

In fact I did not author those two little pieces, but let me fix them as I seem to have found some clues now. ellol (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I can only welcome anybody who works on this article, because it really requires yet tons of work. Good luck on you, Biophys. Btw, this info might interest you (news on Politkovskaya). ellol (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


However, I disgree with latest changes to the article. Statements issued by Alvaro Gil-Robles and Vladimir Lukin can no way be treated as mere opinions, because these are excerpts from professional reports focused on human rights in Russia, and therefore express not the arbitrary will of these single persons, but serve to summarize month- and year-span job of whole departments and their job as heads of these departments.

There's no way to treat parts of these documents as more or less reliable. Owing to the public nature of any official power, these are excerpts from reports of Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe and Ombudsman of the Russian Federation no matter what people headed these departments.

If there are concerns that Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe and Ombudsman of the Russian Federation were misinterpreted or in their professional capability to perform this type of the job, that's the matter for a separate discussion. But as it is now, both sources are very densely used in the span of the whole article, so it's logical to give general overview of situation on the same basis, in the opening of the article.

As such, I can't see latest Biophys's changes to the article other way but giving sources like Freedom House and The Economist preferences over the sources representing Human Rights bodies of European Union and the Russian Federation.

More troubling concern about the new condition of the article is that the very question of Human rights in Russia can't be answered by merely placing it onto some position on one of the ratings, what is proposed by Freedom House and The Economist. At least, such information needs to be compared to other sources on the matter.

ellol (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV, we must separate opinions and facts and emphasize facts. That is exactly what I did. Note that all ("pro" and "contra") opinions have been moved to another section. I would be very happy to improve this article (as has been suggested), but this is not feasible, since if you have reverted even such minor and non-controversial edit.Biophys (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I would not object the moving if you moved Freedom House/ The Economist/ Heritage Foundation to the same place. Could be called e.g. "general estimations". But your proposal looks like their estimations on the situation in Russia are superior to estimations of European Union and Russia's Ombudsmans. Perhaps, but not to anybody outside the United States. ellol (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I moved opinion of Robles (he stated this several years ago - very outdated!) and opinion of Illarionov. There are two points here. First, none of the moved segments provides any factual information or more or less up-today (not outdated) numbers about human rights. If they did, perhaps they could stay. Second, the numbers by Freedom House/The Economist are scientific analysis, but other texts looked like private opinions.Biophys (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
We have a data tag on Robles view -- 2004, and Illarionov's opinion that situation in Russia changes extraordinarilly quick. However, when I speak to my friends Americans about authoritarian turns of Bush Administration the typical reply is "Yes, it is a wrong turn. We the people have to take care of it". Nobody blames the country totalitarian for its 2 or 4-years wrong policies.
I wonder, who is more authoritative -- a group of "experts" (who saw them?) who filled a questionnaire and divided on that reason the countries in free and not free, or two professionals with their teams at their backs, who not simply observed human rights but were directly seeking for ways to improve the situation, year after year. For me the answer is obvious. For you, too, it seems. ellol (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, you moved Vladimir Lukin's view too. ellol (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The US article describes situation in US during hundreds years. This article describes only situation since 1991 (I think you do not suggest to include here Human rights in the Soviet Union and tsarist Russia?). Yes, it would be fair to describe situation in general in 1991-2008, but the most important thing is dynamics. Do we observe an improvement here during last 5 years, for example? Or it becomes much worse? That is very important, and that should be clearly stated per sources. I do not think this 2004 publication by Robles (cited 15 times in the article!) answer any of these questions. It does not describe 1991-2008 situation in general, and it does not describe dynamics. This article also includes a lot of content forks (e.g. ethnic minorities) that should be removed.Biophys (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
You've touched an interesting theme. My opinion is that the article should show up-to-date information about situation with human rights in Russia, i.e. possibly full and adequate info of its current condition. It's the first priority work, and as it isn't done, showing tendencies should be considered second priority. It's my opinion, though.
The problem is we do not always have up-to-date sources, so have to use 2004 ones and so on.
Ethnic minorities are also very important in an aspect e.g. like a living example for the Europe (just I can see logics in Gil Robles's selection of themes), could be e.g. shortened with moving full information to the Ethnic minorities in Russia page.
I also wonder, why do we have here this mutated zombie (sorry) Illarionov, kinda politician, kinda economist, but whatever gets cited on Human Rights page.
ellol (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV Discussion March 2008

Ellol (talk · contribs) inserted a 'POV' tag at the top of the article today, but dated it December 2007. What is this about? Please state the outstanding issues in this section for a threaded discussion. Nearest I can tell, it is about 1. immigration/crime stats, and 2. where to put text from human rights orgs vs. leaders of human rights orgs.

I am sorry, Colfer2 (talk · contribs), inserting POV tag was my mistake. ellol (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
D'oh! OK! -Colfer2 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)