This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
The table provided shows Yabloko getting between 20% and 30% of the votes, yet the sources that it refers to only put Yabloko at maximum 4% of the votes. Am I not seeing this right or is the table wrong? --
82.169.68.56 (
talk)
18:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I noticed the same thing with regards to Yabloko. I think someone shifted the columns right one or something because where CPRF is should be the LDPR.
12:43, September 20, 2021 - «This information was removed by an anonymous who claimed "it is only one source", which is pretty irrelevant. Others can be eventually added.»
18:09, September 19, 2021 - «Observers: removed a way too strong opinion at the top of the chapter that was backed by a single source only»
@
Lone Internaut: Thanks for making the revert. Even though it's critical remark the removal isn't justified as reliable, secondary source is provided. There are many first-hand reports that say that Russian elections aren't completely fair and transparent. Counting can easily be rigged to benefit ruling party with no responsibility for falsifications. I'm personally Russian btw.
21:41, September 23, 2021 - «this does not need in-text attribution because this is not unique to AJ» 21:40, September 23, 2021 - «International: unclear significance/noteworthiness of this material that is primary-sourced to the regime itself; rely on independent sourcing»
@
Neutrality: I propose to revert these back because we specifically talk about single media in one case in the other I specifically talk about
CEC announcement. Take
WP:RSCONTEXT into account. See also:
Keep it, don't remove!
I'm not clear what you are arguing. These are primary-sourced statements of the Russian agency. I find them to be not noteworthy and
not due weight. Does any independent sourcing discuss this content in detail.
Neutralitytalk21:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Neutrality: I propose to keep the notion on delegations arrival because this information would be beneficial in further expansion of the section. I'm going for
WP:RFC if you keep ignoring
WP:RSCONTEXT or
WP:FIXFIRST. Removing large sections of texts most of the time is a light-minded step. The only problem with these is that they are in Russian (would certainly be fixable in the coming weeks). Best wishes. AXONOV(talk)⚑21:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Why do you think it's "beneficial"? This does not seem significant at all. The OSCE's election monitoring is viewed as authoritative, and so its presence or absence is important. Some random delegation from a Russian ally, reported on only by the Russian election commission and not by other sources, is not.
Neutralitytalk22:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't think that Hungry is really an ally. It just became corrupted and somehow ended up sending delegates. The Belarus is another example. It's hardly a reliable ally here. We need a list of countries that took part in an "observation" process at least. Currently there is little English sources on that. AXONOV(talk)⚑22:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Neutrality: Yeah, I agree, but this policy is completely irrelevant to this case as this information is directly related to the current article and you cannot use it arbitrarily to justify the disputed revert. As the time flows the given information on delegations will eventually meet
WP:GNG. No good reason to remove so I propose to bring it back. AXONOV(talk)⚑21:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment. I think I've looked over all the edits and discussion. If the source for that information is coming from the Russian government only, it should not be included, in my opinion. If it's covered by secondary sources that consider that information newsworthy and worth mentioning, then maybe.
Pyrrho the Skeptic (
talk)
16:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Pyrrho the Skeptic: The Russian government is perfectly reliable for the information it says about itself. I don't see any reason to not to cite this in this case. Primaries are perfectly fine unless highly contestable. You are advised to use tags in this case. Unless you name any of course. AXONOV(talk)⚑21:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Is it saying something only about itself, though? Something like "our building has 20 rooms"? It's stating the presence of other countries as observers. I can't state as fact that John Lennon came to my house and played piano with me, just because it's my house, right?
Pyrrho the Skeptic (
talk)
23:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
They claim what they claim and we have source for that. I don't mind if you request more RSs, but oppose simply removing it. I don't insist on adding the material right away though. Let's see if we get more sources as time goes. I'm sure there are in native languages of delegations that aren't readily accessible. AXONOV(talk)⚑21:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Russia has made a deal with Hungary for the next 15 years to supply gas and cut off Ukraine.
[2]; and I can assure this isn't coincidental. "Delivery" of Hungarian delegation was obviously made in exchange for recognition of election. That's why it's important to track meetings. AXONOV(talk)⚑18:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Exit polls
Sources
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
FellowMellow: Hi. I think I've wrongly requested a better source for an information that may be unreliable in the first place. The
source currently linked in the «Exit polls» section is referring to a company (
Russian: ИНСОМАР,
romanized: INSOMAR) which is a direct contractor to the Moscow Government
according to their own portfolio. I propose to explicitly state this. I don't trust the way the company works as their contracts aren't transparent and they don't publish them. In Russia they can easily be influenced by the government officials.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lead
"Weaseling"
20:38, September 28, 2021 - «this is not what the cited source says; we state what the sources say without weaseling or using qualifications that the sources don't use; add»
@
Neutrality:MOS:WEASEL clearly defines what weaseling means. In this particular case the phrase you have rewritten is particularly opposite of what you are trying to present. I insist on reverting the following far-stretching, baseless statement primarily expressed by a minority of NYT jornos and which isn't proven by any reliable
WP:SECONDARY-source (unless produced) so far back:
[...] Like prior elections in Russia, the 2021 legislative elections were not free and fair.[...] to
[...] various media argued that these legislative election in Russia were not free and fair [..]
because the latest is the most accurate relative to sources given. It's second time that I see this non-neutral statement in the lead. This starts to seem to be some kind of
WP:POVPUSHing and
WP:OR errand that should be stopped. AXONOV(talk)⚑21:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The sources expressly state that elections in Russia are not free and fair.
Cite 1: "Russian elections are not free and fair, and the country’s best-known opposition figures were barred from the ballot, jailed or exiled in the months before a three-day vote that ended on Sunday."
Cite 2: "Russian elections are not free and fair, and Parliament’s role in recent years has mainly been to rubber-stamp the Kremlin’s initiatives while providing a veneer of democratic legitimacy." None of this is not seriously contested among credible journalistic outlets (or, indeed, scholarly sources).
Neutralitytalk22:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Firstly, it's still a single, primary report from a biased (and paywalled) media. Secondly, generalization to all election doesn't belong here, it belongs elsewhere. Checkout
WP:REL. I'm going to oppose all of this leap logic, even though there is little doubt that the election in question is not free and fair. AXONOV(talk)⚑22:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The New York Times is a very high-quality source. I don't accept your view that it is "biased" as to this. The fact that a source is paywalled is totally irrelevant (
WP:PAYWALL). As for the essay that you linked: it's an essay, not policy, and it's not relevant here. We routinely give historical context when the sources do. That's what being an encyclopedia means.
Neutralitytalk22:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
It's biased and single report cannot be used to back up a general statement in an unrelated article. This probably belongs to
Elections in Russia, but not here. And even if it does, I would insist on secondary research that would span multiple elections. Both here and there. AXONOV(talk)⚑22:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
"24 districts"
@
Neutrality: I propose to take down (remove) completely the following statement from the lead introduced by you:
[...] registering multiple candidates with names identicial to or similar to an opposition candidate (a tactic used in 24 districts in the election); [...][20:38, September 28, 2021]
because it's utterly inaccurate. In fact, there were no duplicates in 24 districts just because there were much less actual opposition present in there. Secondly, the original
Kommersant source only talks about "24 duplicates" but not districts (in fact, there were up to 2 similarly-named candidates in some places):
[3] And I propose to keep word on duplicates short. I'm going to elaborate on it a bit later in the body.
The text that I added was in keeping with the New York Times cite (which says: "Candidates with identical or similar names are registered in 24 of the 225 single-district races in this week’s election — about 10 percent of all races, the newspaper Kommersant reported."). But since this level of detail isn't necessary in the lead, I've simplified and taken out this part.
Neutralitytalk22:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I also propose either to shorten or remove the following:
[...] and using a grouping of parties that are nominally in the opposition but that are pro-government (the "systemic opposition")[...][20:38, September 28, 2021]
This is too vague to be present in the lead and backed up poorly by source (NYT), which in fact has little credibility here. I would keep this for the criticism section with more
WP:RS provided. AXONOV(talk)⚑21:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't know what you mean by "has little credibility here." The use of the
systemic opposition parties is a well-known and significant phenomenon (we have an entire article on it, although not a great one), and it's clearly of importance to a reader understanding the election.
Neutralitytalk22:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I mean, the term "grouping" should be clarified. I would like to diversify sources. There are some European ones that convey the same thing in simpler terms I'm sure. The "systemic" parties are accused in all sorts of trickery. No way this can be rammed into a single lead. AXONOV(talk)⚑22:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
12:11, October 22, 2021 - «Candidate duplicates: Apologies, but entire section is about Boris Vishnevsky - candidate for St. Petersburg legislative assembly, NOT State Duma, so he is irrelevant in this article»
@
Mellk: Even though this edit was legitimate relative to B. Vishnevsky, the rest wasn't. There were many cases of doppelgangers reported specifically for Duma elections. Checkout sources. Reverted partially. See also
WP:BABY.AXONOV(talk)⚑15:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Controversy vs Conduct
07:47, October 24, 2021 - «this should be under a "conduct" section, consistent with other articles»
10:42, October 24, 2021 - «this belongs in the general articles, elections in Russia and politics of Russia»
@
Mellk: Partially reverted in
[16:25] and
[16:05, November 3, 2021]. Claiming that Alexey Navalny is an opposition leader is an exaggeration;I think we don't want to mention "decreasing ratings" of the ruling party as they make little sense in the political context of Russia (no way to legally replace officials even at 0% approvals);
Belongs to general ...
10:42, October 24, 2021 - «this belongs in the general articles, elections in Russia and politics of Russia» 10:05, October 24, 2021 - «Conduct: this is already detailed in the appropriate articles, we don't need this for every election article»