Talk:2021 Russian legislative election

Observers

@Neils51: Hi. You want to help me to proofread my recent contribution on [13:45, September 17, 2021]? I would appreciate much. Best.

Forecast section

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)

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.

yeah i think they planning to cheating Pokok134 (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

also davided king is cometing fraud, and is violating his neutrality of not cheating. I see all the last update. Pokok134 (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Observers - criticism

• 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.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

More than a criticism, it is a mere observation of the facts, which Wikipedia can afford to do. Lone Internaut (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Reported by Regime

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!

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 21:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• 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. Neutrality^talk 21:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  @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)

• 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. Neutrality^talk 22:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  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)

• There's no reason to think we "need a list of countries" who took part in some nominal observation process. That's not encyclopedic. Neutrality^talk 22:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  This is subject to consensus and isn't governed by any known rule to me. Make an effort to refer me to a specific provision of the WP:DUE. I'm going to open and WP:RFC later. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• We are not an indiscriminate list of information. Neutrality^talk 22:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

  I've requested WP:3O AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  @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)

• 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)

  @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)

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)

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)

There is one (mostly credible) source from European Parliamentary Research Service that confirms that many Russia-friendly CIS countries would send delegations. That's what basically just have happened and been reported by Russian CEC.[1] AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

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.

---

12:59, September 21, 2021 - «Undid revision 1045510751 by Alexander Davronov talk) The exit polls conducted are shown on the source for the parties.»
22:45, September 20, 2021 - «‎Exit polls: Please, don't remove this tag. See WP:DETAG.»
15:23, September 20, 2021 - «‎Exit polls»

@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.

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: Ok, then if, you don't trust it, find a different source. FellowMellow (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I propose to state explicitly that the company who has conducted the poll is taking money from Moscow Govt. Agree or disagree. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I support AXONOV's proposal. "Kremlin-funded" could work, or something like that. Lone Internaut (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It would be safe to go with "Moscow govt-funded" IMO. They take moneys from different sources but I bet they have little freedom. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I think "Moscow govt-funded" can work. Lone Internaut (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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). Neutrality^talk 22:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  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)

• 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. Neutrality^talk 22:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  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)

"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. Neutrality^talk 22:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Now it's much better. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 22:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Parties grouping

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)

• 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. Neutrality^talk 22:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  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)

• The lead no longer says "grouping." Neutrality^talk 23:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 00:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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.

Restoring version before October 22, 2021

@Mellk: Hi. Even though bold, I inform you that I restore [12:03, October 22, 2021] version of this article so we can safely return to the status-quo and discuss future contributions here. Current state of the article doesn't reflect on the consensus established before October 22, 2021. I'm going to amend some of your inappropriate or simply wrong contributions and will describe them under this section by a separate heading. CC Neutrality. Please, joing discussion before introducing any changes disputed by you. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Candidate duplicates

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)

Controversy vs Conduct

07:47, October 24, 2021 - «this should be under a "conduct" section, consistent with other articles»

@Mellk: Reveted in [15:31, November 3, 2021]. I strongly disagree with "Conduct" naming. The section is mostly describing controversial events and criticism of the election. The article is dedicated to the conduct as a whole.AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Intro

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»

@Mellk: Reverted in [16:54] and [16:52, November 3, 2021] I also strongly disagree with moving text that belongs to a specific election to more general articles (i.e. Elections in Russia or Politics of Russia); I stand against any kinds of casuistry; if practice is repeated every election - I propose to mention it in every election article, that's simple; unless WP:RS is provided the generalization of certain events is a pure WP:OR.AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)