Talk:Russian presidential election, 2008

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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Well done! 2 Putin & Constitution 3 Kasparov 4 Ovethrow? 5 References 6 Candidates 7 Medvedev Endorsements 8 Grammatical Edit 9 Other Russia Relevance 10 Election fairness: deletions of criticism by User:Miyokan 11 References to Russia Today 12 International Response 13 Implicit endorsement of faulty logic 14 Russian media talk about non-existing European Parliament Member :) 15 Alexander Lukashenko 16 Criticism and response splits 17 98.63% 18 Novosibirsk Oblast 19 99.240.27.210 20 Pictures from Romanik 21 Some links 21.1 Split into a separate article? 22 Nice one 23 A comment and more sources 24 Repeated deletions of sourced text 25 Election campaign 26 Editorial conflict 27 Fairness of Russian presidential election, 2008 28 Extremely POV'd opening paragraph 29 "Made no official reports on fraud"

[edit] Well done!

After certain initial setbacks, this article slowly began maturing and is now one of the most unbiased articles in Western media about Russia. Remembering how this article started, (with Other Russia clowns trying to look like they have any relevance) and what it has been, I'd say it was a major improvenment. Nicely written. Maybe the writers of this article should observe the 2012 election in Russia 72.245.82.251 (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, thankyou very much - I can claim credit for starting this article - back in late 2005 I believe (Yes, as late as that) - and even then a number of people came along (were they Wikipedia editors / moderators?) and either deleted the article outright or put a request for deletion on the article. Fine I thought, if the Wikipedia policy is to never cover future events, I guess that's the way it is - but then why on Earth are there countless articles on future US Presidential Elections for instance! Countless - precisely because there is no such policy because it would be stupid and unworkable! Glad to see the article eventually grow and obviously properly record the eventual Russian Presidential Election - which was IMO a very important one, although we'll not know what impact it has until we really know what Dmitry really stands for.202.139.104.226 (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Putin & Constitution

Should there be any mention on this page of the suspicion that Putin may in fact renege on his promise not to change the Constitution and in fact run again? Or is that too much in the realm of speculation? jkm 21:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

shrugs Find a source stating it, and then feel free to add it. Shouldn't be hard to find some newspaper stating the obvious likely result. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Putin has definitely ruled that prospect out - although he still wants to exercise power behind the scenes. Could Putin create a new post for himself - perhaps General Secretary of the Russian Federation? Let's hope not.jkm 09:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There'll be no democracy in Russia within the next two decades, I'm afraid that's fairly certain. ::sighs:: We can only hope. —Nightstallion (?) 09:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I fear you may be right about that - particularly as Russia comes to rely more and more upon its oil and resource wealth. As for the new guy Putin hand-picks, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for 2 years - keep in mind he'll be coming to office in the middle of an American Presidential Campaign, so his first year in office will be with a lameduck counterpart - and as such most likely won't be all that important - or indicative. 2009 will be when we learn exactly what type of person it is that Putin has picked - and also I would guess what sort of power Putin still wields - I suspect it will be considerable throughout the remainder of 2008, but that it might start to taper off in 2009.jkm 12:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

We might get lucky -- the next president could be a modernising democrat in disguise. But I'm afraid our chances are slim... —Nightstallion (?) 18:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kasparov

I have removed the comments about Garry Kasparov which refer to the March of the Discontented as I feel they breach NPOV guidelines. They simply parrot the lazy Western media line that Kasparov is a democrat whose demonstrations are being "violently put down" by the dictator Putin. If we are gonig to mention Kasparov's dubious activities, we should also mention his alliance with hardline communists, neo-fascists and unreconstructed Stalinists, his links to neoconservative, Zionist and anti-Russian think tanks in the United States, his miniscule level of support from the Russian population, and the fact he wishes to overthrow the elected government of Vladimir Putin by unconstitutional means. If we are going to mention the March of the Discontented, we also need to mention the fact that an opposition demonstration by the Union of Right Forces on the same day passed without incident, and that the specific aim of Kasparov's marchers was to provoke violence for the purpose of the Western media.

So, I propose, either we include my comments about when talking about Kasparov, or I delete the previous, fawning comments which have been added by another user. Shotlandiya 12:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

An anon has replaced all that with a link to Other Russia, which is fine with me. And with you, I gather. DirkvdM 07:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've clarified this a little. I don't think someone who wishes to overthrow an elected government by unconstitutional means can be called a potential liberal candidate, neither can the Other Russia be called a broad opposition coalition when it has been boycotted by the main democratic opposition parties. Shotlandiya 08:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You yourself said that if one side is explained then the other should also. So why don't you play by your own rules? I'm not in the mood for a revert war, so please do the honourable thing and fix it yourself. DirkvdM 07:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My version is factual. Shotlandiya 11:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Shotlandiya. This is about Russian Election, and it's not a chance to advertise Other Russia. When you write about American Elections, you don't really write about the Ku Klux Klan candidates, do you? 68.166.129.76 (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ovethrow?

The article used to claim that Other Russia "seeks to overthrow Putin through unconstitutional means". It would appear to be a remnant of an old subtle case of WP:Vandalism. I removed the claim.

However, in Russian politics, nothing is impossible. If my removal would be incorrect, please reintroduce and explain here. Digwuren 16:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You may refer to opinion by Gleb Pavlovsky, expressed in an online interview with readers of magazine "Expert": "Other Russia is a workshop of picking out pick-locks to the real Russia. Have a read of their texts. Only one question is solved there — how to overthrow Putin's system, i.e. to leave all without the country." ("«Другая Россия» — это цех подбора отмычек к реальной России. Почитайте их тексты. Там решается только один вопрос — как опрокинуть систему Путина, то есть оставить всех без страны.") [1] ellol 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The russian version of this page says the election is to be held on 03/02/2008. So which version is right, this one or a Russian one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.243.200 (talk) 02:00, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

The elections are to be held on 03/02/2008 because the second sunday of march, on which usually the presidential elections are to be held, is the day after international women's day. You can read this on the site of the central election comission in the passage beginning with Так, Федеральным законом'. I already translated this passage from Russian to Dutch, to be seen on the discussion page on the Dutch wikipedia. [2] --LewisXIV 12:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sergei Gulyayev - was not a "Former St Petersburg Yabloko regional legislator". He ran on the the Union of the Right Forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.253.4.21 (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I just went through and titled all the web-linked references, it seems there are 3 references that no longer exist. I'm not too familiar with Russian politics so maybe someone else might like to replace them? Them can be viewed in the references section. --Borgarde^talk 13:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Candidates

As for now, article contains many speculations and names of people who were considered to become candidates. Meanwhile, the registration process is going on, many of them even didn't ask for ballot, or failed to register.

Who can read russian, according to Electoral Comission official website (there's a list of their protocols, not candidates' list, though), six following people are already registered:

• Mikhail Kasyanov (December 14)
• Andrey Bogdanov (December 18) - he wasn't even mentioned in our article
• Gennady Zuganov (December 19)
• Vladimir Zhirinovsky (December 19)
• Dmitry Medvedev (December 21)
• Boris Nemtsov (December 22)

And following bids are dismissed:

• Nikolay Kuryanovich (mistakes in documents)
• Oleg Shenin (similarly)
• Vladimir Bukovsky (he didn't live in Russia last 10 years)
• Garry Kasparov (failed to gather his congress)
• Sergey Glubokov
• Vladimir Ischenko
• Yuri Gujabidze
• Dmitri Berdnikov
• Nikolay Zubkov

(who are all these people 5-9, btw?)

I think it's time to stick to who is really running, not to speculations on Putin, Lukashenko, or Lugovoy. Garret Beaumain (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medvedev Endorsements

While the brilliant minds of the article explored the possibility of Lukashenko running, (which was against the Russian Constitution that was never violated under Putin, so no Lukashenko) and some trying to suggest that Kasparov is supported by most Russians, riiiight, his only supporters are those who get cash from him, or that Kasyanov was "unfairly banned" when most of his signatories came from famed Russian novels, like Dead Souls by Gogol or War and Peace by Tolstoy, "I, Natasha Rostova hereby endorse Kasyanov", others trying to play Washington Post lies as facts, you kinda missed out on the actual fact that four parties endorsed Medvedev, not just United Russia. This is significant because one of the four is Agrarian Party of Russia, whose presidential candidate, Nikolai Kharitonov, came in second place after Putin in 2004 election. The other party is Fair Russia, a party that holds about 10% of seats in the Duma and is very important. I have remedied this error, but if you can provide links to these parties, like you have done to United Russia, please do so. 68.166.129.76 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grammatical Edit

The article only mentions one incident. Hence it is gramatically silly to call in Incidents. I have fixed the problem. And once again, this is not a chance to advertise London's uncomfirmed views on Litvinenko, or to advertise Gasparov and Other Russia. The main reason the Liberals of Russia are weak is the horrible policy of Union of Right Forces (SPS) that turned Russia into one huge dump, something Russians will never forgive SPS for. 68.166.129.76 (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other Russia Relevance

Please prove how Other Russia is relevant to Russian elections, before posting anything about them. Initially Other Russia wanted to run, by they were denied because they failed to meet the deadline (kinda hard to be a leader of the World's largest country if you can't meet deadlines) and now they whine everywhere. This is about Russian Elections on wikipedia, it is not a SPAM forum for Other Russia to use. 68.167.1.246 (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Election fairness: deletions of criticism by User:Miyokan

User:Miyokan has twice deleted references to an article in the Guardian newspaper criticial of the election's fairness ([3], [4]) on the grounds that the article did not cite its sources. Respected newspapers do not need to cite their sources and just to check I brought the issue up at the village pump here where this was explained in greater detail. I have reinstated the Guardian's criticism and to avoid edit-warring would suggest that any plans to remove it be discussed here first. Pgr94 (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would not need to name its sources 'if it was accusing of those things itself, but it is not. It claims those accusations are "according to independent sources", which it does not name. I point out the New York Times John McCain lobbyist controversy, which was furiously criticized because of its use of annonymous sources.--Miyokan (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The opinions at the village pump do not agree with your position. Please re-instate. Pgr94 (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The comments on the village pump are not informed, firstly one user believed that Guardian itself made those accusations, which it did not, it was basing it on its "independent sources", and the others seem unsure. The accusations are not made by Guardian, it is quoting the accusations of "independent sources", which it does not name. I will comment there.--Miyokan (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References to Russia Today

Russia Today is a division of RIA Novosti, russian state news agency, and is hardly independent. I don't think it is in the position to evaluate the election fairness, and I am surprised to see at least two references to their coverage in the "Election fairness" section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.12.127 (talk • contribs) 02:00, March 5, 2008

There's this thing called neutral point of view. That means getting both sides of the story and presenting them in a fair manner. Your assumption that anything a state owned news agency says is a lie is unfounded. Personally, I would trust their words more than a tabloid such as The Guardian, who didn't even attend the election and whose outrageous claims have already been proven false (like always). 99.240.27.210 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International Response

Should I insert the international respomnce th the election? Richardkselby (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Implicit endorsement of faulty logic

This edit[5] insists that "however" is not a weasel word, but the respective style guideline suggests otherwise. See WP:Avoid weasel words#Other problems where implicit endorsement is frowned upon. ilgiz (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd first like to point out that the word "however" is not a weasel word. I did not use it in an attempt to "deceive, distract, or manipulate the audience". It was merely used as a form of continuity between sentences, and to imply contrast between the former and latter sections of the paragraph. There is nothing weasel about that, it's called proper structure. This works the same way as words like "because" and "Also", not weasel words such as "clearly", as per the example given in the article you linked.

Second, you removed the entire sentence altogether, I'm not sure why, considering it's an important one. It wasn't a direct quote from any article, but a general consensus formed by all the various articles cited throughout the section. None of the organizations reported or confirmed the allegations claimed in the western media, therefor the sentence is factually correct and supported by various sources. Sbw01f (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The allegations were laid out by various people named in The Guardian article. The allegations were not limited by the Western press only. I am confused by the answer. In the beginning, you say that the word "however" was only used to connect sentences, but in the end you reinforce my earlier suspicion of implicit endorsement.

The sentence I deleted, However, these claims were not supported by the various international election monitoring organizations in attendance looks like a summary on which all Wikipedia editors agreed. If it was a re-phrasing of a source, it sounds strong enough to require quotation marks and the name of the source.ilgiz (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The claims were only reported by the western media, hence they're "claims made in the western media" like I said.

The sentence in question is not a re-phrasing of one specific source, its claim is supported in every article regarding the election monitors, as I already explained. If you can find an international election monitor that stated they saw mass fraud going on, I'll gladly remove it. If you must be semantic, instead of removing the sentence and the NPOV that it brings to the matter, just directly quote one of the articles. One way or another, you can't just present accusations such as those, and then go on to ignore and deny the fact that they were false accusations.Sbw01f (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ilgiz, I don't understand why you removed the sentence regarding the guardian article again. It's a fact that no one reported mass fraud, as the guardian prematurely reported, therefore it's an important piece of information that must be shared with the reader. Just slapping that on with the rest of the Russia Today bit isn't sufficient, as that makes it seem like it's only their opinion rather than the fact that it is. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it is in the competency of Wikipedia editors to make statements in the main article. The WP:Words to avoid style guideline mentions that the main article's text should be as descriptive as possible, i.e. it should only knit together references to reliable sources. Besides, repeating a piece of a Russia Today's editorial literally without quotation marks and a reference is a small copyright violation.ilgiz (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If statements are clearly supported by various sources, which this one indisputably was, there's nothing wrong with it at all. The entire article isn't supposed to be direct quotes word for word, this would indeed make copyright violations a big problem.

Regarding the sentence you removed, not only was it not a direct copy from the Russia Today article, but it differed quite significantly and was more neutral in nature. Note the difference between:

• "many in the Western media portrayed Russia's presidential election as nothing but a farce"...The channel's editorial said that the claims of rigging the election were not supported by the various international election monitoring organizations in attendance. and...

• "Although claims of mass fraud were not supported by any of the monitoring groups in attendance, some cited irregularities and unfairness."

The second sentence focuses on and debunks the fraud allegations specifically, which the Russia today article does not, and it also points out that there were other problems, which the Russia today article does not. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the second item was not a re-phrasing of the Russia Today's editorial, the source of this statement should be provided. It is not sufficient to argue that a common consensus exists about the election fairness when many statements oppose that.ilgiz (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What statements oppose this? Can you please provide a statement from any official election observer that claims "mass fraud" took place? If not, please restore the sentence. I definitely don't know for sure, as I wasn't there, but I haven't heard any of them make this claim and I've looked hard. They all basically reported the same thing. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors cannot and should not engage in primary fact checking. Only the facts of publishing referred statements should be verified, according to WP:VERIFY.ilgiz (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So you acknowledge that no such reports were made and that you were being dishonest by claiming that "many statements oppose that", yet you persist with the wannabe lawyer talk, essentially altering the way the article is perceived based on your persistent need to censor the truth. Well, the rules agree with you so there's not much I can do! Wikipedia isn't perfect, that's for sure. However, I hope everyone reading this gets a good idea of the type of editor you are and the fact that you most certainly are pushing your own dishonest POV. Happy editing.99.240.27.210 (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russian media talk about non-existing European Parliament Member :)

European Parliament Member Bernard Perego say the Russian media. This has been inserted into the article[6]

Well did Russian Media check EP website before coming up with this information ? Because there is no Bernard Perego in European Parliament. Neither under P[7] Nor B[8] Is the European Parliament website wrong ? Or are Russian media talking about different European Parliament ? --Molobo (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this was cleared up in a different talk page, but nonetheless, wiki rules state "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."99.240.27.210 (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, using quote signs around the disputed position will make it clear who believed in Perego's European Parliament membership.ilgiz (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We should not repeat errors, and newspapers are not the most reliable sources (per WP:RS). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Russia Today is a reliable source. Check the discussion on Medvedevs talk page. [9] 99.240.27.210 (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Whoever added a comment that Perego is a PACE member did not cite the source. The current list of members does not show a last name Perego.[10] ilgiz (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Lukashenko

I don't believe Alexander Lukashenko is an "officially declared" candidate for President in 2008 The lukashenka2008 website is registered to and administered by Aleksei Kanurin from the right-wing DPNI (Movement Against Illegal Immigration) in Russia. To my knowledge Lukashenko himself has shown no intention of standing for President of Russia and, as he is not a Russian citizen, would obviously not be able to. I have therefore deleted his name from the list of declared candidates. If anyone disagrees please feel free to add it back, but with proper sources and references. http://bhhrg.org/mediaDetails.asp?ArticleID=1622 Shotlandiya 13:06, 5 March 2007 (U TC)

There is no chance in hell that Alexander Lukashenko will be able to run for president of Russia. Even if he did run, he would never win, Russinas are not stupid, they would not want to elect a dictator for their president. QZXA2 21:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As stated in Constitution of Russia, "A citizen of the Russian Federation not younger than 35, who has resided in the Russian Federation for not less than 10 years, may be elected President of the Russian Federation." http://www.russianembassy.org/RUSSIA/CONSTIT/chapter4.htm Lukashenko has no chance. ellol 16:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not about dictatorship. Not a single Russian politician during Putin's tenure has violated the Russian Constitution and gotten away with it. Lukashenko cannot run - he is barred from running by the Russian Constitution, UNLESS Belarus becomes a part of Russia, and Lukashenko isn't going to do that either. On top of everything Lukashenko NEVER announced his candidacy. 72.245.82.251 (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism and response splits

This edit doesn't really make sense. You've split arguments into two different sections of the page, there's no continuity and it makes the section incoherent. Two large paragraphs both pertaining to the same issue should not be split into different sections. It should go X says this - Y responds with this, not X says this, then 5 paragraphs down, Y responds with this. Also, a lot of the "criticism" isn't really criticism, but observations, like the GOLOS statements. The guardian accusations as well, which weren't criticism of the election, but premature accusations.

I'm not completely opposed to splitting the article like this, but it's gotta stay coherent and easy to read, and I think that's best done by presenting issues one at a time.99.240.27.210 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It is up to the reader to decide on the fairness of the election and accusations. Mixing opposite points makes the section difficult to understand.ilgiz (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point, splitting arguments on the same issue into two different sections makes the article incoherent. Please check your messages, I've warned you about the three revert rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.27.210 (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is using weasel words such as "but", "although" etc. that allow certain Wiki editors to make an implicit endorsement in the point-by-point section style. When arguments are separated, each of the side makes its own room without hidden editorial statements. Thanks for warning me on my reverts, I'll try to stay calm.ilgiz (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I made the split because I believe it is good to have a clear overall picture of the criticisms with supporting evidence. This should then be followed by clear responses/rebuttals. Before the split it was too jumbled up to get a clear picture. As for the incoherency that I have introduced, my apologies as it's obviously my fault. I totally agree it still needs some work. Pgr94 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the overall section is/was a little cluttered, but again, some of the stuff in criticism isn't even criticism. I'm not opposed to the idea, but what do we do about things that are neutral, or simple observations that aren't necessarily criticism or responses to accusations like the GOLOS statements?99.240.27.210 (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If the material is not disputed then it could go between "Election fairness" and "Criticisms" along with a brief summary. Pgr94 (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried my best to split everything up into the proper category. I moved all of the neutral parts and "official reports" above the criticism section, and moved the entire OSCE bit to the "incidences" section, as that seemed to be the best fitting solution to keep the entire issue intact and pertaining to the proper section. Not sure if it's perfect yet but I hope its an improvement at least99.240.27.210 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 98.63%

I understand that only valid votes on registered candidates count, so why is the total 98.63% and not 100%? --Camptown (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Novosibirsk Oblast

[11] A bit of a funny article. To paraphrase: "Novosibirsk Oblast will not be punished for Medvedev's poor showing of 61.9%" Esn (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 99.240.27.210

Hi -

You made some changes to some edits I've entered.

1. Russia Today - I added a sentence saying it's State owned. I think this is relevant, because almost no Western sources are State owned, so many readers would not necessarily think to consider that the source is State controlled. I would argue State control of a news-source inherently influences, to a lesser or to a greater extent, the content of reporting, so failing to mention this point, when it may not be obvious, acts to misinform readers. It's a small comment in the paragraph and it is absolutely factual.

2. The PACE mission. Perego, who was a member said what he said; but Gross, the head of the mission, said what he said. They're directly conflicting views from two members of the same mission! I think this is worthy of specific description.

Aside from that, I find your edits impartial and of a high quality. I feel quite passionately about Russia and tend to focus on what I see as the truth of the matter, rather than a strictly impartial encylopeadic view.

Toby Douglass (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding state owned media outlets, I don't think it's significant. The BBC is state owned and funded, as is the CBC, yet we don't say "BBC, the British state owned media outlet reports that..." etc..

Still thinking about this. Toby Douglass (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more you want regarding the PACE statements. We provide both statements simply because they exist and offer the full story. The fact that they're conflicting is irrelevant to their inclusion. It's not up to us to decipher what it means, all we do is present facts as they are and let the reader decide what it all means.

The two statements, from Perego and Gross, were in seperate paragraphs; and it wasn't clear that they were actually from the same mission. It was as if one person said the first thing, entirely seperately from the second. (For example, I had no idea Perego actually was in the mission and went to Russia until I started searching on the web for more information). The fact they're on the same mission is pertinent for the reader when he is considering what he thinks. Toby Douglass (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I understand how you feel and I feel the same way, but one of the most important aspects of editing on wikipedia is that we try our hardest to keep our point of view and personal opinions out of our editing as best possible. The problem is that your view of the truth is just that. Your view. Inevitably, it won't be a shared view by everyone, therefore every statement, quote and piece of information must be directly supported by a reliable and verifiable source. Consider practicing writing for the enemy. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures from Romanik

(from my talk page)

Hi, I noticed you trying to add some pictures to the Russian presidential election, 2008 article. Please be aware that any information from LiveJournal, or any other self-published or otherwise unreliable source is widely unacceptable for wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more info on sources. Thanks.99.240.27.210 (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, please remove those same pictures from the Medvedev article, since I cannot. Thanks. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pictures are an obvious exemptions from the WP:RS, most pictures are made by wikipedians themselves or from internet sources (like Flickr) allowing free license. In the case of Romanik we have a unique case of an election observer who made rare photos and agreed for a free license to them. I think we could use photos to illustrate the article. Obviously, lj posts are unsuitable as references for the article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the pictures are "alleged" and that they come from an unreliable source such as livejournal makes me suspicious. Why was this not reported in the normal media or in the observers official report? (assuming Romanik was an official observer to begin with, does he have a last name?). No official reports came out with fraud accusations from any of the observers, even the western ones, so I think the source of the "alleged" fraud is quite significant.

I brought the issue up over at the Reliable sources noticeboard.Sbw01f (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I see Alex's point. There is nothing in WP:RS that prevents or discourages us from uploading someone's self-published pictures. It's potentially controversial, non-self-evident captions that are problematic, IMO. To include a picture of a ballot box with a caption that says "This is a ballot box" would be uncontroversial; but to depict "A photograph of a ballot box allegedly staffed by Medvedev ballots before the elections" demands some sort of attribution for the allegation. Who is alleging the photo depicts some sort of fraud taking place? If the answer to that question is "some guy on Livejournal," I think it causes verifiability problems.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. If the pictures are being used as evidence for a claim that came from Livejournal, I don't think that can be considered legit. Otherwise, what would some random pictures of a ballot box add to the article? Sbw01f (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some links

This looks like obvious election fraud [12] [13] [14], exactly like previous elections [15].Biophys (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) I would like to provide some direct citation here (Russian) from the links above.

1. Larisa(ilgiz (talk))Yulia Latynina explained some mechanisms of this election fraud: Согласно российским законам, комиссия имеет право переписать протокол о выборах после того, как ушли наблюдатели. Вторая позиция: по закону, члены избирательной комиссии за фальсификацию выборов не несут никакой ответственности. То есть кто-то другой за фальсификацию выборов может нести ответственность, обращаю ваше внимание, но комиссия не может. Согласитесь, эти два положения создают полный иммунитет власти от того, что хочет народ.

Система ГАС "Выборы" ... представляет из себя некий маленький терминал, который стоит в закутке, на котором девочка без всякого контроля забивает некоторые цифры в систему, которые потом уходят наверх. И единственное отличие от вышеописанного банкомата системы ГАС "Выборы" заключается в том, что если эти цифры не согласуются с некими внутренними параметрами системы ГАС "Выборы", то она их отвергает. То есть если на систему приходит протокол, в котором написано, что партия "Яблоко" набрала 17% голосов, а партия СПС – 18%, а я цитирую реальный протокол, который пришел, это было в Москве, так случайно получилось, я не хочу сказать, что везде партия "Яблоко" набирала 17%, так вот, если приходит такой протокол, то он возвращается обратно как недействительный, и его тут же переписывают.

милиция подчиняется главе избирательной комиссии. Еще раз повторяю, не соблюдает закон она у нас на участке, а подчиняется главе избирательной комиссии. Помните, наблюдателя от КПРФ, по-моему, где-то в Новосибирске, выкинули из окошка, а он взял и умер. Вот надо подчеркнуть, что милиционеры действовали строго в рамках закона.

2. According to Victor Shenderovich

По данным Центризбиркома, явка во всех субъектах Федерации на Северном Кавказе составила свыше 90%, в частности, в Ингушетии – 92,3%. Между тем, по данным независимого мониторинга, проведенного местными жителями, в выборах в республике приняли участие только 3,5% от числа зарегистрированных избирателей.

Самоотверженная работа избирательных комиссий, о которой говорила член ЦИК Дубровина, шла не только на Кавказе: в ментальном смысле, Ингушетия может случиться где угодно… Стопроцентной явки добились, например, в московском районе Выхино-Жулебино, в избирательной комиссии 1257. Каким образом, неизвестно, но может быть, тем же волшебным, что и по соседству, в Печатниках, на участке 1513. Там еще до начала голосования в урнах обнаружились пачки бюллетеней за Медведева, - ну, вот как мыши заводятся от грязи… Эти грязь с галочками завелись в воскресенье в утра пораньше много где, но в Печатниках сие успел сфотографировать один юный наблюдатель. И вызвал, гад, милицию! Юношу целый день добром просили выковырять себе глазки и не мешать победе демократии, но он не соглашался, и тогда за час до закрытия участок был объявлен заминированным. Загудела воздушная тревога - и под вой сирены, при личном бесстрашном участии главы Управы «Печатники» г-на Бирюкова, милиционеры просто вынесли наблюдателей вон с участка! По закону требовалось вынести и урны, но мужественная глава УИКа, г-жа Черкалина, рискуя жизнью, осталась с ними на участке и прикрыла своим телом утренний вброс демократии.

Журналист химкинской газеты «Вперед» Антон Назаров был задержан и избит сотрудниками милиции при попытке вынести бюллетень с избирательного участка. Команду (цитирую) «ни в коем случае не выпускать» Назарова с участка с бюллетенем милиционерам отдали председатель химкинского избиркома и глава местной избирательной комиссии.

And so on, and so on. So, please stop deletions of sourced materials like the views of Gordievsky and others.Biophys (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no idea what any of that says, and it's currently impossible to know if the information you added to the page is true or not for non Russian speakers like myself. Please only restore the info with a provided English translation. Wikipedia policy states: "Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its author/publisher.Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors." 99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First, the rule you cited allows translation of foreign texts by wikipedians. Second, the literal translation is required only for direct quotes. I did not include direct quotes of Russian texts in the article, although I can do it if anyone asks. So, everything is according to WP rules.Biophys (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Suva's revert of my edit, you're wrong, it's a policy. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability, those policies must be adhered to, especially when controversial content is challenged. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, these people were not election monitors and their claims are unproven. Flooding this article with opinions, when independent election monitors have said that no fraud took place merely serves to unbalance the article. Are we going to start putting in every Western media opinion piece now? Only election monitors findings count when determining "election fairness", not these opinion pieces who provide no proof for their accusations. Your reinsertion of the Oleg Gordievsky information has been repeatedly removed because his opinion is not notable, credible, and is based on past grudges unrelated to the election, and unbalances the article. He is not an "expert" as you claim, he defected in 1985, he hasn't lived in the country in 20 years, and he provides no proof for his accusations. Besides the fact that his article is simply an opinion piece and he offers no proof for his accusations, please explain how exactly this man who hasn't been in Russia in over 20 years is an "expert" on the 2008 Russian presidential election. By saying This looks like obvious election fraud you have made clear your bias for all to see, so please stop trying to unbalance the article with opinions by non-election monitors.--Miyokan (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please follow WP:NPOV. I cite only relevant views of notable people who have WP articles about them. "Election fraud" was claimed by the sources, not by me.Biophys (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight: "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

Do you understand why it's not okay to fill the election fairness section with these unfounded, tabloidish accusations? All significant views are fairly presented in the article.

Also, Wikipedia:Verifiability does not say that you only need to provide a translation for quotes. It does however say:

"Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and BLPs. Be particularly careful when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

Now you've been given far more than enough legit reason for the deletion of the material. Please stop trying to add it to the article. Sbw01f (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you gave precisely nothing. There are no "tabloid accusations". None of the sources (e.g. Echo of Moscow) and people (e.g. Yulia Latynina, Oleg Gordievsky, and others) has anything to do with "tabloids". All of them qualify as reliable sources per WP:Source (if not, please provide some specific arguments about each source - so far you provided none). If you continue deletion of texts supported by reliable sources (which is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV core policy), I am going to work seriously with this article. For example, one should include a publication by Natalia Morari ("black money of Kremlin") here, explain what kind of "opposition parties" were represented; how all opposition candidates have been eliminated prior to this election (starting from mayor of Archangelsk), and so on. One could also provide more information about Medvedev, such as why he is so trusted by Putin.Biophys (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you miss the part about undue weight? Adding that huge chunk of "criticism" unbalances the article and puts great emphasis on a minority view that's not held by the mainstream media, and not backed by any of the official reports. Further, the fact that none of what it mentions was reported by mainstream media puts to question the validity of the sources. I didn't say they are tabloids, I said they sound tabloidish. All I do know is that the claims are extreme, and I can't even verify the content for myself. Please stop re-adding the text, it's been deleted for good reason. Also, all of that stuff you "threatened" with has already been covered in the article in a balanced nature. Please don't threaten to push an agenda, that's not what wikipedia is about. Sbw01f (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything is fine with "due weight": the criticism section is no bigger than others. It does not matter how the sources "sounds to you". It only matters if sources satisfy WP:Verifiability. What "threat" are you talking about? Contrary to your assertion, this article is incomplete and unbalanced - just as every WP article below "good article" status. There is a lot of things to do. What I mean is this. I do not have a lot of time. However if my contributions in WP are challenged, I usually work to make them better and do not give up.Biophys (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything is not fine with "due weight". Read it. Your additions make up about 1/3 of the entire "election fairness" section. These are views that, as I've already pointed out, are not supported by the mainstream media, or by any of the official reports. If you want to add 2,000 words worth of unfounded, third party criticism by people who were not involved in the election, why don't you try adding 2,000 words of unfounded, third party praise by people who were not involved in the election? Though I still don't think that would make the article any better, because unfounded claims and conspiracies, along with blind, ignorant praise, do nothing but skew the article and make it hard to differentiate between truth, fiction, legit opinions and non-legit opinions. Facts and official reports should be our priority here, and facts and official reports should make up the vast majority of the article, both as a whole and in the specific section in question. Sbw01f (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia limits reliable sources to official reports and primary sources. The mainstream media are highly critical of the recent presidential election. Most of the time, Wikipedia assumes there is not an absolute truth about a disputed subject, only opinions. ilgiz (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. The official reports (e.g. by Churov) are primary sources than should be used with care according to WP:Source. Views of independent observers, journalists and organizations (deleted by Sbw01f) are more reliable sources in this case.Biophys (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you read what Sbw01f said about undue weight? These views are not supported by mainstream media or any of the official reports. Facts and official reports do not state that fraud occurred, flooding this article with 1/3-1/2 of unproven, fringe views that are neither supported by mainstream media nor official reports by election observers serves to skew and unbalance this article. Facts and official figures should make up the vast majority of the article, and wild claims that are unsupported by mainstream media or any official reports should be relegated to a sentence or two such as "Western media often criticized the election" or "While the election received some criticism,[your references] this was unsupported by mainstream media or any official reports".--Miyokan (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split into a separate article?

I think the notion that the elections were unfair and marred with significant violations is important and deserves its place on wiki. It is more or less a near consensus opinion on the west and reasonably prominent in Russia. On the other hand, the notice about an undue weight is a valid one. It is very difficult to balance the accusations? Should we put the praise? What I have seen is pathetic at least and often even possibly intentionally sarcastic. What do you think about splitting the most of accusations into a separate article?

For the time being I have restored Biophys's referenced information so it would not lost Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Of course criticism and support can be scaled down and reworked, rather than deleted altogether. I do not see enough notable material for separate articles at the moment. But let's think about that.Biophys (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I would rather that than have an unbalanced article, as it is in its current form. Sure, the praise is laughable. I think most "praise" sections in articles are laughable. But so is most of the western doomsday criticism (which was never followed up on after the election...), and so are all these unfounded accusations of fraud which are not supported by any credible mainstream sources or official monitoring group reports (it's their job to report that sort of stuff.) So if you want to cite the "verifiable but not true" policy, then I guess you can go ahead and add all "sarcastic" praise as well, even though it's pretty dumb (in my opinion) to do so and adds nothing useful to the article.

My opinion is that we should simply trim the current criticism section down to only a couple of sentences, like Miyokan already suggested, such as "there were some third party reports of -insert accusation here-, and some radio host said that -insert accusation here-" etc.. making it a few small sentences instead of a few huge paragraphs. Sbw01f (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is unacceptable per WP:NPOV and other policies. We must properly explain what the claims are. Yulia Latynina and Natalia Morari explain some generic problems with Russian elections, which is certainly an encyclopedic content, and so on. We might only discuss how to describe the statements by the sources better; the elimination of reliable and relevant sources is against WP:NPOV. Please read it. This policy is non-negotiable.Biophys (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"We must properly explain what the claims are." - Yes, meaning - "so and so claimed fraud took place". That doesn't take a paragraph to say. Any more detail about those claims is undue weight, hence why your edits keep getting reverted. And what exactly dose it have to do with NPOV? The article is already neutral. Stating random policies that don't support your argument isn't going to get you anywhere, and refusing to compromise will only end up with the article remaining how it is right now. Sbw01f (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nice one

The criticism rambles on about inequal media coverage. This is total bullshit and everybody knows it. In comparsion, if there is a car race, there is only one racer, other are wooden dummies put into the cars. Obviously the human driver wins and others don't even take off. Wikipedia then writes critizism section: The other drivers were obviously given not as good tire selection and their seats were probably harder aswell.

There is lot to be criticized in those "elections" but media coverage is really the last one that deserves any mention to start with.

The article is written like nodbody knew half a year ago that Medvedev is going to win with 70%. Hey, I knew that. And I don't even consider myself expert on Russian politics. Suva Чего? 06:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actual scenario was following:

1) Putin and his team elected Medvedev as next president. 2) It was organized that Medvedev would win with a landslide. All possible votecollectors were eliminated leaving only Zyuganov with predicted ~20%, and two dummies with predicted 5%. 3) "Elections" took place. 4) Medvedev won with a landslide.

I have no doubt that Medvedev will serve russia well, but calling those elections fair, or even calling those "elections" elections is obviously far from being neutral. There is enough sources to back up these statements. Suva Чего? 07:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The presentation mixes the cases of Kasparov, Kasianov, and Bukovsky with eccentric candidates, giving the impression that there was no opposition. Also, the article fails to acknowledge that the OSCE refused to monitor the elections, even through it was repeatedly asked by the Russian government. Dc76\^talk 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The OSCE incident is mentioned in detail...

Suva, where is it implied that the elections were "fair" aside from a few specific official reports being mentioned? I think the situation was displayed quite clear in the election fairness section - that the media coverage and treatment of opposition was wholly unfair, but that the election reflected the will of the voters. Are you suggesting we start littering it with POV comments? Sbw01f (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sbw01f, your comment "unbalances the article" is exactly my point. You view of the balance is perhaps very near to the view of Mr. Putin. Please, no offense.

Before you get to the voters, first you have to have candidates. If you are more than 25 years old, you perhaps remeber the first Gorbachiov era election in 1989: there can be 100 candidates, but the voter will only chose between 2. So, they arranged for "pre-electoral gatherings" to select the 2 from among the 100. In many case, one of the 2 was so fake that he even withdrew before the vote, asking the "electorate" to cast all votes for the unique candidate. There is nothing new under the sun, 19 years ago - just as today. The article is unbalanced, because it does not mention this, bigger, huge problem, the absense of counter-candidates. I don't think anyone doubts that the majority of voters voted as asked by the outgoing president.

Sbw01f, Let's not pretend we do not understand the problem. You are intelligent enough to know it vey-very well. Why don't you try to copyedit the article to show us that the absense of real candidates is reflected, not mixed with some "mayor Alexander Nevski" Dc76\^talk 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First you say that in the Soviet Union they only had one candidate to choose from because the one opposition party withdrew, then go on to say that today is no different? That's a ridiculous contradiction. Anyone could have voted for any of the other three candidates, even if just to protest their dislike for Medvedev. And in this case, the only reason the "real" (as you put it) opposition wasn't allowed to enter is because they didn't have enough public support. They couldn't gather the required amount of signatures, and one of them even tried to cheat.

Also, how can you call people like Kasparov "real" candidates anyways? Kasparov is ten times more popular in America than Russia. He was reduced to marching with neo-nazis and fascists because normal people won't march with him - perhaps because he goes on American TV and badmouths his own country, essentially insulting the intelligence of every Russian who voted for Putin. When he was arrested last election, why was he speaking in English to the cameras when he was getting hauled away? You gotta wonder who he's trying to appeal to. Is it surprising that no one in Russia supports him? I suggest you watch this documentary so you can get a real grip on how much "support" this so called opposition had: [16]. Even western media can't put a spin on the fact that none of these guys had public support.

But anyways, my own opinion aside, I'm still not sure what you're suggesting should be done. You're entitled to your opinion, but all of the facts in the article seem accurate. The article does mention all of the candidates who either withdrew or were barred, citing the reasons given, so how can you say it's biased? What information does the article omit, your POV aside? Sbw01f (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The only "unfair" part of the election was the media coverage. I say "unfair" because I can't really think of a country that truly has fair media coverage. The two Republican candidates that wanted to abolish the IRS in the Republican Primary, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, got either extremely poor media coverage - "a vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain" to qoute Fox News, or virtually no media coverage, in the case of Ron Paul.

Also the United Russia, not Putin, blocked the nomination of Zubkov, citing his lack of experience as precedence. So it wasn't like Putin picked Medvedev. It was more like Medvedev winning the United Russia primaries and then using the United Russia Coalition to win the General Election. And Suva, you couldn't have predicted Medvedev winning, until AFTER he won the United Russia primaries against Zubkov and Ivanov. Note how Zubkov and Ivanov didn't bitch about Medvedev winning, because they knew that he beat them fairly and without negative advertisement. 72.245.82.251 (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Russians have still troubles understanding what the democratic elections are. In democratic presidential elections, best and most suitable candidates are offered for people to choose from. Not only one candidate and few other totally pointless ones.

I predicted Medvedev winning with a landslide when Putin declared that he will endorse him. The actual precentages of coming votes (70% medvedev, 20% for Zyuganov and 5% for others) came when the list of actual candidates was certain. Really simple: communists have this magic 20% support. Medvedev will get rest of the votes, and the two others will get their 5% as a generic "error" ratio: People who are too silly and actually think they have any chance and people who just protest the majority by voting for the least likely candidates.

I am not saying that other candidates would have had any chances to win, but they would have had dissolved the votes making Medvedev win with lesser percentages. Obviously they needed landslide as this grants much more powerful mandate to the president. More people behind you makes you stronger. Was this mandate gotten fairly. No. But russians haven't seen real democracy yet to realize it. Suva Чего? 09:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Suva, please feel free to post it on an online discussion forum of some kind, not here. I predicted Medvedev winning with a landslide when Putin declared that he will endorse him. - so did everyone, this is not controversial, Medvedev was expected to win with a landslide by virtue of Putin's immense popularity, Russians would vote for anyone that Putin endorsed. Democracy is about choice, Russians clearly chose Medvedev, or are you claiming that all the polls that give Medvedev 70-80%+ support amongst Russians are fake?--Miyokan (talk) 09:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No I don't think they are fake. But as said, if there were other real candidates the election results (probably not the outcome) would have been different. Currently these were not elections but just a public show. Suva Чего? 11:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, that's your opinion, and as such, has no place on a wikipedia article. And I think you're wrong. If the "real" candidates were allowed to run (for America, in Russia), they would likely get no more than 2-3% of the vote collectively, as many mainstream media reports have already pointed out. They'd be the equivalent of Canadas communist party. And no, we don't consider them a "real" candidate, and most wouldn't care less if they were barred from running. Sbw01f (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A comment and more sources

Most wouldn't care less if tomorrow will be no elections at all, because people in Russia never were free and they are 'sovietized'. FSB very well understand this and one day they turned off the freedom of speech in Russia - killed NTV and TV6. And what followed? Nothing. On every mainstream media man from FSB is sitting, who say what they can show and what cannot. Almost no program runs in real time. Even Echo of Moscow belongs to Gazprom and may be closed at any time. Russia is a typical authoritarian state, so what reason to argue about this election. Fairness of counting of bulletins is not a fairness of elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.209.240.30 (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That is something you know. Many others think the elections were fair. Could you please provide some sources/links to support your position? That would be more constructive.Biophys (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I can provide a few sources myself.

Andrey Illarionov called these elections an operation by Russian secret services to bring a person of their choosing to power. He also demanded from the international community to recognize these elections as a fabrication ^[1] (Russian: аннулирование результатов парламентских и президентских выборов в РФ в декабре 2007 и марте 2008 года как нелегитимных и сфальсифицированных).

An article in Guardian dubbed Medvedev as a clone of Mr. Putin and disclosed that he has been recently nicknamed a "Nano-president" by Russian bloggers (he is only 5ft 2in tall) ^[2].

European observers condemned Russia's presidential election as "not fair". "The Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly called yesterday's poll more of a plebiscite than a proper democratic election." "Gross said there had been "uneven access" to the media during the campaign, a claim already made by Russia's opposition, which has complained of overwhelming bias towards Medvedev by Kremlin-controlled state television. He also lamented the absence of independent candidates in the poll. The Kremlin deliberately excluded Mikhail Kasyanov, the only genuinely democratic challenger, from the race." "The Organisation for Security and Co-Operation (OSCE) boycotted the election after the Kremlin refused to give its observers visas."^[3]

"Medvedev's election marks the culmination of Putin's efforts to consolidate control over the government, business and the news media since taking office eight years ago." ^[4]

And so on, and so on.

Biophys (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of that info is redundant. We already mention the OSCE incident in detail, and PACE is already given their mention as well. It's interesting that you're so keen on adding more criticism to the article when you haven't even read what's currently there. Gotta wonder about that. Sbw01f (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, stop reinserting the ex-KGB guys opinion. What a traitor has to say about an election in a country that he hasn't been to in 20 years and openly hates is not important and does not deserve to be mentioned in the article. He's a wanted criminal, and knows no more about the election than you or I. Sbw01f (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please listen to yourself. You just said: "What a traitor has to say about an election in a country that he hasn't been to in 20 years and openly hates is not important and does not deserve to be mentioned in the article. He's a wanted criminal...". What a bias! Gordievsky is an author of a book about KGB tactics. He commented on a secret service operation (this election), and he knows what he is talking about as a former KGB officer. Andrey Illarionov tells exactly the same.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it biased? He's both a wanted criminal (treason is a pretty serious criminal offense), and a traitor by definition. Look up what the words mean. Those aren't biased accusations, they're facts. His knowledge on KGB tactics has nothing at all to do with the 2008 Russian presidential election, and in no way validates his opinion on the matter. The KGB no longer exists, I don't know if you got the memo. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it biased? SB01f basically tells the following: "His opinion does not belong here because I do not like him".Biophys (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe it's closer to "His opinion does not belong here because he has an unqualified, openly biased opinion." 99.240.27.210 (talk) 06:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yulia Latynina: "She claimed that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, French President Jacques Chirac, Chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schröder, and U.S. President George W. Bush have all been successfully "recruited" by Vladimir Putin to serve his political objectives. [1] She also alleged that "President Putin will secure a third term simply because this is the authorities' logic. Power in Russia is in essence authoritarian, and there are no other ways to hand over power: control must be maintained over it."

I knew something was up. It's important to keep the "polemic" statement in the article so readers know that she is a conspiracy theorist and not regarded as a widely credible source. Sbw01f (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

What a problem with Latynina? Of course all these politicians were used by Vladimir Putin and served his political and financial objectives. And V. Putin told that he will remain in power. So, she was more or less right.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Influence is not equal to "serving a third term". Putin technically does not retain any of the presedental powers, and his relationship with Medvedev is based on nothing more than trust. Medvedev doesn't even have any ties to the former KGB. And the stuff about "recruiting" other world leaders is just plain laughable. The problem with Latynina is that she's Russias version of Alex Jones, and this needs to be made clear in the article if you're going to keep her in it. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You said: "Medvedev doesn't even have any ties to the former KGB". Sorry, but as a Putin's appointee he has unbreakable connections with the former KGB, and he became Gazprom director because he worked for people from the "active reserve" of the KGB, FSB or whatever. Latynina also has connections with her FSB "sources", but no one tells that she is a Russias version of Alex Jones. Biophys (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I meant prior to Putin, obviously. Either you mistook that on purpose or somethings not clicking right in your head. And again, the FSB is not the same thing as the KGB. It's not run by the same people, therefor connections to FSB =/= connections to KGB. Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere please, we're trying to keep this article as neutral and credible as possible. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, FSB=/=KGB. It is much worse than the KGB. A top FSB manager Medvedev makes public offerings of Gazprom stocks to robe investors, and FSB is not controlled by the Communist Party. So if an FSB officer wants to kill Litvinenko or Politkovskaya, he can do it without asking permissions from the Party bosses (poor Andropov - he needed Brezhnev's permission!). With Litvineko they proved that they surpassed the KGB.Biophys (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, write your conspiracy theory ramblings on a blog or express them on an online discussion forum, those are your opinions, and as such, have no place on a wikipedia article. No matter how much you try to skew it, Yulia was proved dead wrong when Putin did not secure a third term.--Miyokan (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Biophys is the only user to actually bring sources to this discussion and to the article. Ostap 06:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong actually. Everyone involved in this discussion has contributed sources and information to the article, and have tried to balance it on top of that and worked on other sections, something Biophy has not done. All he's tried to do is fill the entire article with "criticism", much of it not even legit. He's a POV pusher, and even admitted to it. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please justify your personal accusations? Where did I admit that I am a POV-pusher? Yes, I have certain opinions just like everyone else, but I am trying to follow WP:NPOV policy here by including all sourced and relevant views, unlike some other users who delete them.Biophys (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Including all "sourced relevant news" is not how wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. The idea is to convey each point of view fairly, not to clutter the article with quote after quote after quote saying the exact same thing, especially when they're third party claims made by non-mainstream media. Additionally, you're obviously not trying to edit with NPOV in mind, taking into account the fact that your last edit removed the description of Latyna so to lead people to believe she's a credible reporter (if her own words discredit her, let people see them and let it speak for itself), and it was filled with weasel words as well (Some reported that.., Many critics said... etc.. Please specify).

Your changes are unappreciated in the manner that you're making them. Please take better care when you edit. Don't cite policies, read them! Please don't re-insert already removed content, please don't use weasel words, and please don't alter the POV in your favour. Your latest edits turned the article from pretty much neutral, to extremely biased in your POV. That's not NPOV editing, that's the complete opposite. Sbw01f (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course I will reinsert all sourced and relevant changes per WP:NPOV policy and other WP policies. I am doing this every day and will continue doing this every day, because I like wikipedia. By deleting sourced texts here you force me to focus on Mr. Medvedev, Mr. Putin and their friends, although I was going to do something different. Well, there are many interesting sources on this subject: "Comrade J", "The age of assassins", and so on. Good luck!Biophys (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, you keep ignoring WP:UNDUE, which is part of WP:NPOV, thinking that it will go away or we will forget about it. You keep citing wikipedia policies WP:NPOV but you don't actually discuss the provisions like WP:UNDUE within it. It is a fact that WP:NPOV and WP:V is not a blanket go ahead to put whatever you want into the article. You have admitted that you are here to push a POV - "This looks like obvious election fraud, exactly like previous elections". Ignoring the concensus of users who have deemed your edits unwelcome and threatening, "Of course I will reinsert [all of this information], I am doing this every day and will continue doing this every day" will only end up with the article remaining how it is right now and your block for disrupting wikipedia.--Miyokan (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated deletions of sourced text

Right now I included everything from your previous version. Nothing has been deleted. Let's discuss here what is the problem.Biophys (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This has all been discussed in topics above, you keep ignoring WP:UNDUE, which is part of WP:NPOV, thinking that it will go away or we will forget about it. You keep citing wikipedia policies WP:NPOV but you don't actually discuss the provisions like WP:UNDUE within it. It is a fact that WP:NPOV and WP:V is not a blanket go ahead to put whatever you want into the article. You have admitted that you are here to push a POV - "This looks like obvious election fraud, exactly like previous elections". Ignoring the concensus of users who have deemed your edits unwelcome and threatening "Of course I will reinsert [all of this information], I am doing this every day and will continue doing this every day" will only end up with the article remaining how it is right now and your block for disrupting wikipedia.--Miyokan (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I am editing in wikipedia and will continue doing so. That is what I admitted. So, what exactly changes do you suggest to make in current version and why? Please let me some time to think and reply.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, once again, (this must be about the fifth time you have been told by users), stop reinserting the ex-KGB agent information, we have already established that it is not viable. I am not going to once again repeat the arguments users have stated because you simply ignore it and leave the conversation then proceed to reinsert it.--Miyokan (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Biophy, I really don't know how to say it any clearer. You've been reminded about WP:UNDUE a number of times, yet seem to completely ignore its existence. We're trying to keep the article balanced. Filling up half of an entire section with nothing but third party conspiracy theories by non mainstream media sources is the epitome of unbalanced. Stop trying to unbalance the article, we have every single significant view posted fairly in the election fairness section as it is (even the conspiracy theories, which barely deserve to be there). Wikipedia isn't your personal blog where you can just go to an article and litter it with your own point of view. The fact that YOU think the election was unfair cannot and will not alter the articles content.

"Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."

"To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties."

Read that, over and over again, until you understand it completely. Fraud allegations are conspiracy theories, reported by no major media outlets. They are minority views and shall be represented as such. Sbw01f (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Election campaign

I do not know why we we want to remove the section as a whole. It seems to be fairly evenhanded and mostly relevant.

I have removed two pieces, as they are not relevant now:

Political analysts believed that Putin's choice of a successor would coast to an easy election-day victory, as pre-election opinion polls have indicated that a substantial majority of potential voters will back Putin's chosen candidate for president.^[1] An opinion poll by Russia’s independent polling organization, the Levada Center^[2], conducted over the period December 21-24, 2007 indicated that when presented a list of potential candidates, 79% of Russians were ready to vote for Medvedev if the election were immediately held.^[3][4][5]

Who cares about some opinion polls when now we know the final results? If we want to state that many people in 2006 not because of his achievements but because of Putin's endorsement we can state it shorter and clearilyier

Political analysts believed that Putin's choice of a successor would coast to an easy election-day victory, as pre-election opinion polls have indicated that a substantial majority of potential voters will back Putin's chosen candidate for president.^[6] An opinion poll by Russia’s independent polling organization, the Levada Center^[7], conducted over the period December 21-24, 2007 indicated that when presented a list of potential candidates, 79% of Russians were ready to vote for Medvedev if the election were immediately held.^[8][9][10]

IMHO not relevant now Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The opinion poll stuff could just go in its respective section, though that might seem a little redundant since it already points out how Medvedev did prior to and after he was endorsed by Putin.Sbw01f (talk) 08:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

IMHO they are redundant there as well, I would rather add some text to the Opinion polling for the Russian presidential election, 2008 that currently looks like a collection of raw data

[edit] Editorial conflict

I would try to insert NPOVing by Miyokan and Sbw01f into the correspondent parts of the article. Guys, give me half an hour, I have put {{inuse}} on purpose Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fairness of Russian presidential election, 2008

I want to put most small details into the daughter article. Lets try keep the rest balanced and short Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extremely POV'd opening paragraph

"The fairness of the election is disputed [3] [4], with the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) boycotting the election because "the Kremlin refused to give its observers visas" [5]. Some observers and experts commented that elections were fair, while others claimed them to be a "voting operation" by Russian secret services to bring their man to power [6] [7] [8] [9]"

Is that supposed to be a joke? First of all, the visas thing was a mis-report by the guardian. It was an issue last election, not this one. You can go to the OSCE's official page and see that for yourself. The OSCE issue is gone into detail in this very article, I suggest you read it. Presenting only one side of the issue in the opening paragraph is obvious bias.

Second, that second sentence is completely misleading. The views are not equally shared. The "voting operation" view is a fringe theory which is only supported by defectors and conspiracy theorists. NO observers called it a voting operation, and ALL of them said it reflected what the people want. Complete and utter violation of WP:UNDUE.

Your edits are extremely POV, and give the readers a very skewed idea of the facts. Stop reverting your POV edits, and when multiple people revert your changes multiple times, get the picture! Sbw01f (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Biophys simply left the conversation then proceeded to reinsert it again, there is nothing to do but revert him. Don't bother repeating the same arguments sbw, we have already established the invalidity of his edits, he doesn't listen.--Miyokan (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that was not a misreport. If it was, where is a retraction by a paper that published this material?Biophys (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was a misreport. If you'd actually do your research you'll find that the visas issue was from the 2007 election. No other media outlet reported it, again, for the 2008 election. Here are plenty of reports from 2007 talking about visas: Reuters [17], CBC [18], novosti [19], BBC [20] - but you will not find anyone else reporting the same thing in 2008. Read this [21] and this [22]. Not even the OSCE's own official website and letter to Russia says anything about visas. Here's the reuters report [23], and the bbc report [24] - neither of them mention visas. They boycotted it at their own will. Why do you insist on inserting factually incorrect information into the article, along with highly POV "sumups" which only serve to bring down the quality and credibility of the article? Sbw01f (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OSCE/ODIHR said they needed visas earlier in the campaign to be able to observe candidate registration and presentation in the media. They said that extra limits were imposed on its planned work in Russia.[25]

I don't understand what you mean by "POV'd". It is presentation of points of view, not Wikipedia authors' original research that were postulated in the Wikipedia principles.

Even if some source seems untrue to some Wikipedia authors, this alone does not let them delete it. The Wikipedia principles suggest to add a reference to the contradicting source instead.ilgiz (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

They didn't boycott the election because visas were denied, they boycotted it because they weren't allowed to send an advanced team into the country before the normal date - They would have gotten their visas eventually. Saying "they were denied visas" and leaving it at that is outright dishonest, as it places all blame on Russia and leads one to believe they weren't allowed by Russia to monitor the election at all, which is completely false. Also, you need to familiarize yourself with WP:UNDUE to understand why pretending that the "voting operation" point of view should not be given an equal presence on the page. Repeating myself, NO official monitors or mainstream news outlets reported fraud or anything resembling a "KGB operation". Sbw01f (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This is very simple. A reliable source tells they boycotted the election because visas were denied. Hence everything is sourced. Actually, they boycotted the elections because they did not receive visas in time although they asked for visas well in advance. I explained that reliable scholarly secondary sources are better than news reports - please see WP:Verifiability. Biophys (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Made no official reports on fraud"

This phrase seems to be original research. Dear Editor! Claiming 100% fairness this way contradicts other paragraphs on GOLOS association and the statement by a PACE mission.ilgiz (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote and link a to a PACE or GOLOS statement saying there was fraud. "Irregularities" and "absentee voting" is not the same thing as fraud.

Wikipedia says "Electoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud tend to involve affecting vote counts to bring about a desired election outcome, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both." Krawndawg (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Because both GOLOS and PACE made claims against the fairness of the election, stating otherwise in the article editorial mode is wrong.ilgiz (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't state otherwise. I specifically mentioned what you just said. "while others reported that not all candidates had equal media coverage and that Kremlin opposition was treated unfairly" - Did you miss that part or something?

I'll remove the sentence if you just quote and link a to a PACE or GOLOS statement saying there was fraud. Krawndawg (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)