Talk:Vladimir Bukovsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Biography     (Rated B-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] WikiProject Russian history Russia Portal Vladimir Bukovsky is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Russia (Rated B-Class) 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale. WikiProject Soviet Union (Rated Start-Class) Vladimir Bukovsky is part of WikiProject Soviet Union, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Soviet Union. 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/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the class scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

I noticed that there is some discrepancy in the dates (esp. around 1965) between En & Ru editions. Some of this could stem from diff dates of arrest v. official incarceration. In any case, any help reconciling is appreciated. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bukovsky's passport

There are was a lot of misinformation around Bukovsly. Even among supporters there was some miscoordination. Perhaps, now they are coordinated better: in the movie, one shows the Bukovsky's passport. He is cityzen of Russia. I go to cite it correctly. Then, let us discuss it here. The movie is in Russian. If you have any English references, please, give them.dima 09:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Sorry, I did not see the refs were moved. While many references, each of them should support some statement(s) of the article. Terefore, they should be included as ref ... /ref.

I saw the Russian wiki Буковский copied and cited, but the links were not reproduced. I would prefer the peiple citing Wiki, to do contrary: take only small part of Wiki-text they need, and reproduce the links; the published and posted papers are not supposed to change while Wikipedia does; and there is no reason to reproduce a fixed version of wikiopedia. The peоple can easy copy and past the links if they are seen; owervice, one has to picк then one by one (or enter the edition mode). Let us make all the links visible.

The links to ISBN numbers still do not work well. If anybody has time to improve this, would be good.

dima 12:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

POV? I'm not well versed in what constitutes NPOV but the use of phrases such as 'journalists, academics and intellecttuals' seems to be some weasel words for 'eletist'. Also, no refs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.181.145 (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 2008 presidential campaign section

I have some questions about this change [1]. I believe some of these questions also apply to other editors who favor giving reviews of "discussions in blogs and political websites". It appears that Wikipedia policies give little weight (authority) to such sources, so I'd rather remove speculations and leave only references to statements by government bodies, media, as well as by Bukovsky's initiative group.

1. The new version no longer mentions the refutation of pro-government media's claims of Bukovsky's falling out of the presidential race. The refutation was issued by the initiative group and therefore I consider it important for the article.

2. The argument stating that Lebed did not violate the government's interpretation of Constitution does not cite its source.

3. The word "registered" in the sentence on the number of participants in the Bukovsky's support group was replaced with "required". Was that an intentional change?

4. The reasons of refusing Bukovsky's application for the 2008 presidential race by the Central Election Committee do not cite their source. The reasons are given without quotation marks that serve as a boundary between an authoritative source and its interpretation by Wikipedia editors. The only reference to a pro-government news agency provides a mix-up and distortion of different events: (a) application to the Russian Constitutional Court by Kara-Murza Jr. about the consistency of the ban on being elected into representative bodies when having an extra citizenship and/or permanent residence; (b) the decision of the Central Election Committee on Bukovsky's application. It is worth noting that the Election Committee's decision came 3 days after the publication in RIA Novosti. (See Bukovsky's lawyer's statement [2] and its computer translation [3]).

5. The word "eligible" was probaby misspelled in the new version.

6. The new argument attributed to anonymous "some" says that Russian Consitution forbids dual-citizenship holders from being elected. This is not true. There are only 2 categories of citizens who lose the right of being elected, according to Constitution: imprisoned and incapacitated. The author of this anonymous statement could mix up the 2006 federal law amendment preventing holders of extra citizenship from being elected as a president.

7. The previous versions' attribution of the requirement of residing _preceding_ 10 years to Constitution is also invalid. The Constitution does not specify the time frame for the 10 year residence requirement.

I don't mean to wipe out arguments such as (6) and (7) from the article. I'd like to see them attributed to persons issuing such statements. Without authoritative sources, these statements look like original research.

ilgiz (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the judicial arguments altogether as I think they are of little weight. If someone wants to re-add them, I'd suggest to link CEC's, Supreme Court's decisions and Initiative group's statements rather than blogs.ilgiz (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)