This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) at 06:24, 10 March 2008 (Links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:24, 10 March 2008 by Hodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs) (Links)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Russia Start‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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.") 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. --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)
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 13:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 (, ) 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)
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 (UTC)
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)
International Response
Should I insert the international respomnce th the election? Richardkselby (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Implicit endorsement of faulty logic
This edit 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- Misplaced Pages 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! Misplaced Pages 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)
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
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 Nor B 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 Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages 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. 99.240.27.210 (talk) 04:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Novosibirsk Oblast
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)
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)
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 Misplaced Pages: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)
Some links
This looks like obvious election fraud , exactly like previous elections .Biophys (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Categories: