Talk:2024 Russian presidential election

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Mikhail Mishustin (2018).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Platoshkin.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr Savva

@Mr Savva: It's not appropriate to whitewash any mention of a politician from an article, just because you do not agree with their political opinions. The mention of Alexei Navalny being barred from standing in 2024 is entirely relevant, as he is the most prominent opposition figure in the country, and has been stopped from standing in presidential elections by what is widely considered to be a politically motivated sentence. How is that not relevant? The mention of this is to illustrate that many people, including Russians, believe that the 2024 election will not be free or fair. For you to disallow any mention of this on the article confirms you yourself do not want editing on the article itself to be free or fair. What I find most bizarre of all is that you say "what has he got to do with it", and yet you yourself have added opinion polls to the article which explicitly mention, and record statistics for, the support for Navalny, which shows he has and is being discussed in reference to the election. Furthermore, I would make the following point: you cannot say he is "irrelevant" simply because he has been barred from the election due to a criminal conviction, as that is notable in itself with him being the main opposition leader. The very fact that he has been widely discussed as being a political prisoner and been barred from elections for political motivations is of note in itself in relation to this election, and so his "criminal" conviction actually makes him of more relevance to this article, rather than of less significance as you claim. LauraWilliamson (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Laura, you are incorrect. In open-question polls, without candidates given, Navalny places second after Putin, with only other figure coming close being deceased Zhirinovsky.

In Russian perspective, nobody views parliament parties as opposition.

You are wrong, please stop. 93.175.28.10 (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@LauraWilliamson: Perhaps in your country, he is the most famous opposition candidate, but in Russia he is no more known than the leaders of some opposition parties (Zyuganov, Zhirinovsky, Sobchak, Yavlinsky, Kasyanov, etc.). His electoral rating is 1-2%, and in the best case, he ranks 3rd (You can check the polls). This does not make him such a significant possible candidate to write about him in the article header. I added it to the "Disqualified candidates" section. In this section are mentioned persons who declared their intention to run, but lost this right. Mr Savva (talk) 07:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Savva: This has got nothing to do with my opinion on his prominence, nor yours for that matter. We follow reliable sources, and reliable sources state that he is the most prominent opposition figure in Russia. Have a look at Navalny’s article, for a start. Zhirinovsky is not part of the Russian opposition, because his party is pro-Putin. Yes obviously he’s not going to poll high numbers... for two reasons: 1) he is not allowed to run, he’s been banned for political reasons, so the very fact he’s still getting declarations of support and on the polls at all when he can’t run is of note in itself; and 2) most observers state that Russian polls are widely inaccurate, as are the electoral results in presidential elections. Furthermore, and most importantly of all, as you are a Russian then you should not be on the English Wikipedia, you should be editing on the version in your own language, especially if you want to remove anyone’s opinions other than those of Russians. LauraWilliamson (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@LauraWilliamson: Would you care to link to a WP policy that states that non-natives of the English language are not allowed on English Wikipedia? Mellk (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me be clear, I do not mean to say that non-natives of the English language shouldn't be allowed on English Wikipedia, but that the English Wikipedia should not merely be reduced to only using Russian-only sources. English Wikipedia should use sources which are confirmed to be reliable, no matter where they come from. The language I used above was flawed, I appreciate that, I meant to say that you should not be on the English Wikipedia if you do not want to allow sources from countries outside of Russia. Apologies for my misleading and incorrect comments above. LauraWilliamson (talk) 13:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mr Savva: You clearly have a lack of understanding as to what a lead entails. A lead should summarise the article, and that includes important points - including the fact that Navalny has been disqualified. The fact that Navalny's disqualification is already mentioned in the "Disqualified candidates" section means that a summary of this information is eligible for inclusion in the lead. Information that is already in the body of the article should be summarised in the lead.

You yourself said that Navalny ranks about third in the polls at the moment. With second-placed Zhirinovsky not being part of the opposition to Vladimir Putin, that makes Navalny the most prominent anti-Putin opposition figure in the lead up to the election (which is somewhat impressive considering he's not even allowed to run!) Furthermore, and more importantly, Navalny remains a notable figure because he famously tried to run in the 2018 Russian presidential election (the last presidential election) but was barred from doing so due to a conviction widely seen as invented and politically motivated. The fact that he is also barred from this election for the same reasons is just as notable. You wouldn't say he had nothing to with the 2018 election simply because he was barred from running, as his disqualification was major news internationally. Therefore, how can you say "what does he have to do with it" for the 2024 election, when it is the same case this time?

Its irrelevant as to whether you think he is spoken about more in the media outside of Russia or not, that does not affect the reliability of the sources (in fact, some would argue that the state-controlled Russian media is much less reliable than the media in the rest of Europe). If he is, by consensus, spoken about in my country and others as being the most prominent opposition leader in Russia then that cannot be whitewashed - this is the English Wikipedia, it is not the Russian-only Wikipedia (as much as you'd like it to be). If you have a problem with that I suggest you focus on the Russian Wikipedia, rather than trying to Russify the English one. Reliable, verified, sources from my country that have been approved by Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) are perfectly adequate for use in this article. After all Navalny is, according to the Wall Street Journal, the "man that Vladimir Putin fears most".

References

With Navalny being the most prominent opposition leader in Russia, both according to the polls which you yourself have provided and according to reliable sources, then the fact that he has been disqualified from running due to apparently politically motivated reasons make him a significant enough figure to be written about in the article header, just as it was/is for the 2018 election article. Furthermore, the information that is ALREADY IN the body of the text about him being barred for what are considered to be political reasons can be summarised in the lead of the article. LauraWilliamson (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

In Danger of Edit Warring

@LauraWilliamson: I'm warning you before you get to the edit war stage- I've given you suggestions of where to go to get advise. Continually trying to force a change over and over again is not one of those options. Multiple people have been reverting you- I've checked the history. So, either ask for a WP:3O or open a WP:RFC but do not keep trying to force information in. If those reverting you won't respond on the talk page- get more eyes on the project- don't wage a war on your own on the article. I've now got this page on my watch list- if the edits and reversions continue, I'll report it myself. Please solve the problem, not engage in endless back and forth. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Well yes okay obviously I don't want to edit war, but my reinstatements of the content have almost always only occurred because one of the two users who attempted to revert it did not reply to the talk page for a few days. I've requested for a third opinion now. LauraWilliamson (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough back-and-forth talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Nalvany

@LauraWilliamson: I just want to clarify my edit. Calling Nalvany " Russia’s most prominent opposition leader" is dubious. This can only be true from a Western point of view due to the coverage he received in the western media following his hospitalisation. From a Russian point of view, he is not very popular. The statement that his conviction is "widely seen as politically motivated" is also Western POV and this statement needs an attribution. Mottezen (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Its not a western or a eastern point of view, it is a reliable source point of view. And no, because Navalny has been recognised as Russia's most prominent opposition leader for years now, well before the recent media coverage, such as in the build-up to the 2018 Russian presidential election. The article for that years election mentioned Navalny and his prominence in the lead, and how he had been banned from running. On Alexei Navalny's article, it is made clear that his convictions are widely seen as politically motivated from the start. :LauraWilliamson (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mottezen: current polling for the 2024 election has him in third place, with the second-placed individual being Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who is not part of the Russian opposition because he is pro-Putin. That makes Navalny the most popular and prominent opposition leader according to polls within your own country, which discredits your claim that "his can only be true from a Western point of view" and that "from a Russian point of view, he is not very popular". LauraWilliamson (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

A quick overview of reliable sources from before and after his poisoning and hospitalization which state he is Russia's most prominent opposition leader:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ_5p7lzNyQ - BBC Interview, 18 January 2017, in which he is described as "Russia's main opposition leader"
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16057045 - BBC article, 4 February 2021: "Anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny has long been the most prominent face of Russian opposition to President Vladimir Putin"
• https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323309404578614210222799482 - Wall Street Journal article from as far back as 2012, describes him as "the man Vladimir Putin fears most".
• https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/world/europe/russia-aleksei-navalny-putin.html - New York Times article, 8 February 2017, described during the 2018 election campaign as "the only opposition candidate with a broad, enthusiastic popular following" and the "only viable rival" to Putin
• https://www.france24.com/en/20171017-kremlin-foe-navalny-can-run-president-after-2028 - France 24 article from the time of the 2018 election - "Vladimir Putin's top critic Alexei Navalny"

More coming. LauraWilliamson (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we're talking about a poll where he got 2% of voting intentions. Bruh. Even the Nalvany article attributed him being "Russia’s most prominent opposition leader" to the WSJ.

Honestly, the western media is not a great source for Russian politics. This is because praise for a Russian politician in the west invites them widespread scorn at home. This is what happened to Nalvany. Second, Putin is an authoritarian leader with an overwhelming real popularity among the Russian people. Party leaders of all stripes show their support to him to remain politically relevant, even though they don't agree with his policies and oppose him from time to time. However, steadfast and uncompromising opponents of Putin like Nalvany are not the most relevant characters in a Russian presidential election. user:Mr Savva has a point when he says this stuff should not be in the lead. Mottezen (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Incendiary comments like "the recent conviction was politically motivated" always needs an attribution. The Guardian source linked in the article attributes it the European Union.Mottezen (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/world/europe/russia-navalny-putin.html - New York Times, 4 February 2021, describes him as "Russia's most prominent opposition leader".
• https://www.ft.com/content/5fa73708-b1f4-11e9-8cb2-799a3a8cf37b - Financial Times, 19 July 2019, described as "Russia's most prominent opposition leader".

Also examples of sources from outside of "Western" countries:

• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/7/30/why-does-alexei-navalny-rattle-the-kremlin, aljazeera, 30 July 2019, described as "Russia‘s most prominent opposition leader".
• https://apnews.com/article/5fafe4cfd90126c249b786ab9354f967, Moscow Associated Press, 26 December 2019, described as "the most prominent foe of President Vladimir Putin and the governing United Russia party"
• https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/08/27/what-appeared-to-be-a-united-opposition-during-moscows-vote-protests-is-fraying-again-a67028, Moscow Times (an example of a Russian source), 27 August 2019, "Russia's most prominent opposition leader, Alexei Navalny"
• https://carnegie.ru/commentary/72913, Carnegie Moscow Centre (Russian Source), 28 August 2017, describes him as "the uncontested leader of Russia’s opposition movement"

LauraWilliamson (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mottezen: what are you even talking about? Incendiary comment? You say that as if it is my opinion to state he is Russia's most prominent opposition leader, despite all this evidence to the contrary - he's referred to as the most prominent opposition leader all the time. Its not an incendiary comment, its just something that clearly makes you feel uncomfortable as you don't agree with his politics. Russian media is almost always more unreliable than media from other parts of Europe because it is owned by the government like Russia Today and so is not only pro-Putin but is recognised as an unreliable source by Wikipedias own guidelines, see here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. We can't rely on just Russian sources alone. LauraWilliamson (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Russian media is not entirely government-owned, as you seem to be claiming. Mellk (talk) 12:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well yes I know not all of it is, but the main media organisation Russia Today is wholly or in part owned by the Russian government. LauraWilliamson (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean RT is the "main media organisation" – it's nowhere near the main source of news in Russia and its primary purpose is propaganda abroad. Mellk (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mottezen: also, so what is inly getting 2% in the polls? We're debating whether he is Russia's most prominent opposition leader. According to the polls he ranks in third place behind Putin and Zhirinovsky, so yes, even with 2% in the polls, he is still the most prominent and popular opposition leader according to the polls. Its not my fault that Russia doesn't have a working democracy. LauraWilliamson (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Moscow Times (an example of a Russian source)... owned by a dutch billionaire. All the other sources you mentioned have a western connection.

Journalists read and repeat each other ad infinitum. Others disagree. We need to properly attribute subjective statements.

Its not an incendiary comment, its just something that clearly makes you feel uncomfortable as you don't agree with his politics No actually I agree with opponents of Putin and what I heard of Nalvany's Smart Voting tactic. But that's not why I'm WP:HERE.

I am aware RT was depreciated last year. I would still encourage you to read the article I linked. One of them only reports statements made by Zhirinovsky opposing Putin. The other is written by Glenn Diesen, and adds the caveat "The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT."

so what is only getting 2% in the polls? It's, like, really low. Mottezen (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, lets now look at sources or "attributions" as you say for the statement that his convictions are widely seen as politically motivated:

• "Russia". Freedom House. 29 January 2019. Archived from the original on 16 November 2019. Retrieved 16 November 2019. His most potent rival, Aleksey Navalny, had been disqualified before the campaign began because of his prior criminal conviction, seen as politically motivated. The presidential election was described by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has having "a lack of genuine competition". - Freddom House's designation of his conviction as politically motivated
• https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/alexei-navalny-uk-appalled-russia-b901378.html, Evening Standard, 27 January 2021, "The UK is “appalled” by the “politically motivated” detention of Alexei Navalny, a UK foreign office minister said today in a strongly worded statement to the Commons."
• https://memohrc.org/ru/news_old/zaderzhanie-navalnogo-politicheski-motivirovannyy-proizvol-i-rasprava
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/russian-opposition-leader-alexei-navalny-jailed - 2 February 2021, The Guardian, "The court’s decision makes Navalny the most prominent political prisoner in Russia"

LauraWilliamson (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This is honestly one of the stupidest debates I've been involved in on Wikipedia. Do you mean to say that we can use some Russia Today sources, which have been DEPRECATED by Wikipedia as "There is consensus that RT is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation."??????? Just because they say at the start of an article that "The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT", doesn't make the source at all useful or reliable. Come on, man. LauraWilliamson (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, you realise Aljezzera and the Carnigie Moscow Centre are not "Western" sources, right? LauraWilliamson (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mottezen: this is the English Wikipedia, if you want to see a Wikipedia article with only Russian sources, I suggest you should probably stick to the Russian Wikipedia. No English Wikipedia article can only be referenced to Russian-only sources. Stop being nationalist and exclusionist. Lets stick to reliable sources. Pretty much asll the sources I have provided are reliable sources, listed on the official Wikipedia list of reliable sources here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, please take some time to read it. The sources are fine to use and will be used. LauraWilliamson (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I’m not even arguing for the inclusion of RT sources in the article, I am just showing you a text from a scholar explaining why Nalvany is not very relevant in Russia, and quotes of Zhirinovsky opposing Putin to enhance the discussion. The Russian Communist party and the LDRP are opposition parties who like Putin more than they like the EU/USA, and support Putin’s foreign policy agenda most of the time. This makes western media outlets call them “pro-Putin” although the reality is more nuanced. Why would pro-Putin politicians repeatedly run against him in presidential election?

All I’m asking is for the removal or proper attribution of subjective statements, that is all. Mottezen (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, I don't have to take this. @LauraWilliamson:, can you please strike through your comments calling my objections "stupid" and calling me "nationalist", "exclusionist", and to "stick to the Russian Wikipedia". This is really offensive. Mottezen (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think that the use of the term "Western" is appropriate here. We have generally reliable sources and generally unreliable sources. If we want to discuss the question of whether certain generally reliable sources are not reliable for this article, then I think we need to create a separate thread and discuss each source separately. Now the situation looks in a such way that the position "calling Nalvany " Russia’s most prominent opposition leader" is dubious" is justified only by the fact that some undefined "Russian point of view" is equal to some undefined "Western point of view". And it is always a bad idea to compare something undefined with something undefined. Such a comparison can easily lead to a false balance.--Renat (talk) 06:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• The Russian Communist party and the LDRP are opposition parties - For Putin, of course, it is very convenient to choose his own "opposition" and not allow real opposition parties to participate in the elections, as well as to kill and imprison real opposition figures, such as Navalny. But here no one is obliged to participate in this boring circus.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think that including Navalny on the page would be appropriate if there are RS which directly connect him to this election in any way. "most prominent"? Yes, maybe. He is certainly "most famous" right now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Navalny has long been astroturfed by the West and within Russia he has (at least up until his poisoning) been a fringe figure.PailSimon (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Individuals who have publicly expressed interest

I think the whole section is pure WP:Original research as it's simple speculations that lack credible sources. The WP:NOTOR isn't relevant here either. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Prigozhin FBI (cropped).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Prigozhin FBI (cropped).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ustin Chashchikhin

Ustin Chashchikhin (Устин Чащихин) announced that he is going to participate in election, but he's not a politician (he's a writer) so I don't know if he should be mentioned in this article 2A00:1FA0:44AD:C7EF:B02A:AA0:D171:DE15 (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

https://vk.com/wall-221253418_1 AlexanderNikitin5 (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Candidates in the 2024 Russian presidential election into 2024 Russian presidential election. I think the content in the former is mostly already contained in the latter already, and a merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge, i dont understand why there are two articles to begin with, everything in that article could be explained here. Kingllama100 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Merge. But also provide a short description/section of candidates who filed papers and got disqualified, especially since a significant number of them happened to be anti-war and Putin critics. Borgenland (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mr Savva, Mr Savva, and Onel5969:

• Merge as proposer. Came across this page while doing New Page Review. While I understand that the practice in previous elections may have been to have separate articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), there is nothing in the source article of lasting import that is not already covered in the destination article. Disqualified candidates, those who failed to be nominated, those who did not act on declarations to run, etc., either will not pass WP:10YEARTEST or will be significant enough to be covered anyway in the destination article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This article is created by analogy with the articles created for all previous elections. As in the articles about the previous elections, only the candidates included in the ballot will remain in the main article after the registration period ends (it is not a fact that all current candidates will be able to collect the necessary number of signatures to be included in the ballot). Lists of candidates were created for all elections, regardless of the number of candidates. For example, Candidates in the 1991 Russian presidential election, Candidates in the 2000 Russian presidential election, Candidates in the 2012 Russian presidential election also contain almost no important information that is not reflected in the main articles. Mr Savva (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So... WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? And unreferenced WP:CRYSTAL, at least regarding the "candidates somebody speculated might run, but didn't." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Those could also stand to be merged, I think. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Merge The candidates article is basically a list that could be safely merged. Also, as in some other countries, Russian elections have been sham and non-competitive for years, with a predictable winner, so the candidates article wouldn't make much sense. Brandmeister^talk 20:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Merge. Election pages routinely contain candidate sections that include info on party primaries or a list of candidates who received speculation but did not run. A dedicated page for the candidates is only needed if there's tons of information and coverage, but that's not at all the case here — most of the content is duplicated between the two pages. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Just Leave as it is. TheDohnJoe (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have an actual policy-based reason you'd care to share with us, or are you just !voting? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Contains any other no important information that isn't included in the main article. (like "Rejected Candidates" or "Pontential Candidates who withdrew"). Regarding the "Possible candidates who did not run" part, its also in other (Candidates in [year] Russian presidential election) articles before 2024 one. (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Joe Biden (talk) (parody) 18:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why we'd want to include WP:UNDUE material, but ok... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:43, 4 February 2024 (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

@Mellk: you do not have a consensus to remove such large amounts of content. Some of that content has been there for weeks, it is incorrect to claim that your version that is only days old is the stable version. you should self revert. ObserverSpider (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This text was added by User:Skin from lip on 9 March and 11 March. As I already mentioned, we do not need excessive details about the 2020 referendum or conduct of the 2018 election in the lead which is not mentioned in the body or comments made by people like Peskov. It is sufficient to say that the election is not considered free or fair and Putin has launched a new wave of repression prior to the election, with further details in the body. Also see WP:RUSUKR, editors who are not extended confirmed cannot make edits about Russia–Ukraine war, which includes the edit you made just now. Mellk (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This does not mean you can continually revert multiple other editors. Your edit removes phrases such as Navalny being the "most prominent" leader and "most" observers believing the election will not be unfair, despite a wide range of sources, including the ones cited, using these exact terms. Removing them is therefore a verifiability and neutral point of view issue, as you are ignoring the consensus phrasing used by reliable sources. ObserverSpider (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Navalny being described as the "most prominent" has been there since last year, five months ago [1]. Therefore this was a stable addition which you have removed. ObserverSpider (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I changed it to "opposition leader" because this is what the source cited says. This is a small change. Do you disagree with this change? Mellk (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No, the four sources provided all used the exact phrase 'most prominent', including the Reuters report which explicitly used the phrase "most prominent opposition leader":

• BBC article: "the most prominent face of Russian opposition to President Vladimir Putin" - [2]
• AP article: "the most prominent foe of President Vladimir Putin" -[3]
• Reuters article: "most prominent opposition leader" - [4]
• AlJazeera article: "Vladimir Putin’s most prominent critic" - [5]

These were the sources cited for "most prominent" in both the version I restored earlier today [6] AND the version added by Skin Lip on 9 March: [7].

Even before Skin Lip's additions on 9 March, five sources were also cited in the same sentence [8], two of which already used the phrase "most prominent", including this article which explicitly used "Russia’s most prominent opposition leader": [9].

So obviously I disagree with your deletion, since it deletes the phrase used by the sources provided and which have been here for months. You should self revert. ObserverSpider (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Before I changed it the text was "most prominent member of the Russian opposition".[10] It did not say he was a leader. See also WP:CITEOVERKILL. Mellk (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Polls

March 8, 2024 by Russian Field: Vladimir Putin - 81.8%, Vladislav Davankov - 7.4%, Nikolai Kharitonov - 6.5%, Leonid Slutsky - 3.9%. Would someone please be so kind as to add this to the table. I can't do it. Source: https://t.me/rusbrief/207450 Sneuper (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

We need better sources than WP:SOCIALMEDIA, furthermore I have doubts that these are official sources. Borgenland (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

{[|parameter 1 should be a party name.]]

How did this thing show up? Number 69420 18:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Putin won the election

Apparently he won the election with around 80 percent of the vote but there is no mention of him winning the election Csmith309 (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No official sources have called the election yet. Borgenland (talk) 02:26, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Spoiled ballots

What to do with the tweets about spoiled ballots? https://twitter.com/khodorkovsky_en/status/1768940164447948983 https://twitter.com/ovdinfo_en/status/1769366629383643433

• Writing Alexey Navalny’s name on them.
• Some also cast a vote for someone beside Putin – here, a vote for Vladislav Davankov, whose New People party was the only one in the Duma that didn’t vote to recognize the ‘separatist states’ in east Ukraine.
• Others checked all the boxes except for Putin’s, making sure the ballot was unusable.
• All boxes are filled with letters spelling out ‘Lesha’, a familiar form of Alexey.
• This one voted for Davankov, labeling him the ‘lesser evil’. Putin is labeled ‘thief and murderer’, followed by ‘In memory of Alexey’, ‘Forgive us, Ukraine’, and ‘Russia will be free!’. The other candidates are labeled ‘clowns’.
• This voter has written “HAGUE” across the entire ballot paper, to tell Putin where he truly belongs.

Sneuper (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Need a secondary source for this, not WP:TWITTER. Borgenland (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

five possible tactics Russians opposed to Putin can use in this weekend’s election

https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/03/16/lesser-of-all-evils-en Sneuper (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Election observers

I read an online article about (international + national) election observers during the elections, but I can not find that article again. Normally, election observers are present at polling stations, among others, and report their findings from all stages of the election procedures. Sneuper (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Ahead of the presidential 'election' in Russia scheduled for 15-17 March 2024, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) wishes to underscore the importance of upholding the defining principles of independent international election observation. Unfortunately, Russia has once again decided not to invite long-established, impartial and professional international election observer organizations such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) to observe the upcoming 'election'. Instead, Russian authorities misleadingly claim to have invited '500 to 1,000 international observers from more than 100 countries,' who in fact do not represent observer missions but a visitors programme. https://www.idea.int/news/call-representatives-democratic-nations-abstain-russias-election-visitors-programme https://tass.com/politics/1759269

Golos is not allowed to send observers. It was first labelled a "foreign agent" in 2013, having angered the authorities by publishing evidence of fraud in a 2011 parliamentary vote and a 2012 presidential election won by Putin. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/independent-vote-monitor-says-russian-elections-are-most-secret-ever-2024-03-15/ Golos denounces that the electronic voting system is an opaque system because only the final figures are visible on a screen, but access to the code is restricted to the Kremlin’s computer scientists. Moreover, via this method, it is easier to check whether a citizen has voted as the authorities wish. https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-03-15/russia-goes-to-the-polls-in-elections-tailored-to-guarantee-putin-power-until-2030.html

Russian Federation flouts international commitments once again with decision not to invite OSCE observers to presidential election On January 29, a representative from the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) announced that the organisation would not participate in international monitoring of the presidential election in Russia on March 15-17 citing the lack of an invitation from the Russian side. https://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/russia/562065 https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/international_safety/1928501/

Independent observers also say the authorities have means at their disposal to manage the results, including vote-rigging, ballot-stuffing and using millions of state employees to back the status quo. https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240311-five-things-russia-presidential-election-vladimir-putin-ukraine-protest-navalny-economy

Coloring in opinion polls subsection

Why are two parties colored in each of the rows? We only would do that if no party had more than 50%, meaning that two parties would advance to a runoff. However, none of the polls had Putin at or under 50%, indicating a first-round victory, in which case we would not color-in the second-place party. SecretName101 (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

5% rule

To include the person who won the 3rd place in the presidential election, they must have at least 5% of the vote to be included in the table. อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, particularly here. Once the full election is called, we should remove other opposition candidates from the wikibox - it lends air to Putin's claim of an actual opposition existing, and it does not. River10000 (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Support per River10000. Super Ψ Dro 13:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I would probably support removing all candidates except Putin - I think other wikiboxes in similar states and situations where no other candidates get above 5% follow that rule. River10000 (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The rule is that in elections where only one candidate gets over 5%, the second-placed candidate is still included – see for example 1999 Tajik presidential election, 2000 Uzbek presidential election, 2007 Turkmenistan presidential election, 2007 Uzbek presidential election, 2012 Turkmenistan presidential election, 2015 Uzbek presidential election, 2016 Uzbek presidential election, 2017 Turkmenistan presidential election, 2020 Tajik presidential election, 2023 Uzbek presidential election etc. Cheers, Number 57 17:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:IAR. If consensus for that is found. Super Ψ Dro 18:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Removing all candidates except Putin from the infobox will only mislead Wikipedia readers. I support leaving Putin in the infobox (as the winner of these elections, even though these elections are sham) and Kharitonov as the second-place finisher. This infobox formula was used in ALL elections before this one, and I consider the attempt to remove all candidates except Putin as 1) an attempt to politicize and deneutralize Wikipedia 2) an attempt to mislead Wikipedia readers.

But we can alternatively follow the path of escalating deneutralization and politicization of Wikipedia, completely removing both the infobox and the table with the results of these elections, following the example of 2022 referendums in occupied parts of Ukraine. But this will be a black day for Wikipedia, in my opinion. PLATEL (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with either. I don't know if removing everything is good, but there should be some middle ground, emphasizing just how fake these elections were. River10000 (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a single infobox was created with the purpose of showing the falsity of any elections. Infoboxes are used to display election results, without reservations about their democratic/undemocratic nature. I think that the rest of the article already conveys to the reader the falsity of these elections (with a huge number of sources). PLATEL (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the numbers speak for themselves in terms of how much fraud there was. But we will soon see more analysis of the results and the extent of this fraud. Sergey Shpilkin has been a leader of this with previous elections. Mellk (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Actual opposition does exist, as shown by the very information you are trying to WP:CENSOR. I'm amazed such a circular argument is being given the time of day here ("we will delete the opposition from the Wikipedia page because there is no real opposition, which we know because it isn't listed on the Wikipedia page"). Brusquedandelion (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

What? River10000 (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What was unclear? Brusquedandelion (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What legitimate, out-of-the-system opposition exists, and is on the ballot? None. Boris Nadezhdin was disqualified. There was no out-of-the-system, legitimate opposition running. That's why this answer is being given the time of day. Nor are we trying to censor. It's not like we're ripping them off the official results. River10000 (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No idea what "out-of-the-system" means here since being in an election necessarily implies working within the system, but the Russian Communist Party, whose candidate placed second in the election, is an example. Ditto the LDPR, whose candidate placed third, and New People, whose candidate placed fourth. Regrettably the last two have been removed from the infobox. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Both the RCP and LDPR are puppets of the kremlin. The only one you could argue is not is New People, who were the only ones to somewhat (not fully) disavow the war in Ukraine. None of these people provide actual opposition to Putin. They all serve as nothing more than rubber stamps. Again, actual opponents to Putin, such as Nadezhdin, have been pushed out of politics and threatened. River10000 (talk) 04:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The RCP holds the largest anti-Putin demonstrations in Russia (example: Communist Party members carry a sign calling for an "order of dismissal" for Vladimir Putin for "betrayal of the national interests"), it is absurd to call them "puppets of the Kremlin". It is very telling that your litmus test for this appears to be "do they agree with the Ukraine War?"— by this metric, both US parties must have been puppets of George W. Bush in rubber stamping the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars—curious how no one seems to make this particular argument here though. The reality is that there is a far greater diversity in political views amongst the candidates who receive at least, say, 2% of the popular vote in the Russian presidential elections than there are in the American presidential election, yet somehow I suspect you do not apply this reductive lens to the USA. Somehow this kind of analysis only gets applied to the mystical Orient, where if anyone happens to agree with the Oriental despot that the grass is green (even if they disagree on 10,000 other things and actively express their dissent in the street) it's because they are a puppet of the despot, incapable of independent thought. If people whose actual political platforms are exceedingly different from Putin's (even if there are a couple points of overlap) are "puppets", how does that term even have any meaning? And of course none of this sort of analysis is ever backed up with cold, hard facts as to how this puppetry actually happens. Puppetry in the real world leaves a trail of evidence; here, none is ever offered, we are just suppose to assume puppetry is happening because Putin is a despot, don't you know?

It's also strange and entirely unexplained by you why, even though New People passed your litmus test, they are somehow still not "real" opposition. Is it the unsavoriness of their political platform? You don't have to agree with someone for them to be opposition to Putin; I find New People unsavory too, but that's besides the point. Or is it an a priori belief that Putin does not permit opposition (and has the power and will to enforce such a desire), and thus the only legitimate parties/individuals are those that have managed to get themselves disqualified, one way or another?

We are also getting away from the initial point here; to bring things back, I don't expect we will resolve this particular disagreement here, but your or my personal views on whether a party is "legitimate opposition" should not be the basis for excluding candidates from the infobox. That is the WP:CENSORSHIP I was referring to. The better solution is to just present the candidates, as they are, with the actually percentages they got. It's not like there's so many of them we can't fit them in the infobox; the page looked fine before the other candidates were removed. Brusquedandelion (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• I support including all “rival” candidates or none. The idea that the cipher who got 4.37% should be featured, but not the cipher who got 3.9%, doesn’t hold water. — Biruitorul ^Talk 12:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

TBH, the 5% rule is perfect for countries with ironclad two-party systems in an FPTP election like the United States, just big enough to exclude minor third party candidates, but small enough to let major third party candidates sneak through. For other systems in the infobox where it is a single-winner election, I personally do a 95% rule: include all of the candidates had the total of 95% of the vote. For example, in the 2022 Philippine presidential election, User:อย่ามาตบะ removed the fourth-placed candidates, Isko Moreno on the infobox, as he had won 3.59% of the vote, short of the "required" 5%. Just the top three candidates will give you 93.52%. On that article, Moreno's name appeared 73 times; third placed candidate Manny Pacquiao appeared 65 times, runner-up Leni Robredo appeared 147 times, and winner Bongbong Marcos appeared 260 times; Fifth-placed candidate Panfilo Lacson appeared 90 times, more than the 3rd and 4th placed candidate, but he had the benefit of being the earliest to announce his candidacy. If we're going with WP:INFOBOX that "summarizes key facts about the page's subject", User:อย่ามาตบะ removal of Moreno on that infobox essentially destroyed what infoboxes were meant to do. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Reactions

China, Iran, Belarus, Serbia, North Korea and Venezuela have so far congratulated Putin on his victory. This should be included in the reactions section of the article as currently it’s extremely one sided to negative reactions from western countries. This is the only way to be impartial and informative to the reader. 78.87.12.241 (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Then give a source. Borgenland (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Here you are:

China: https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202403/18/WS65f8023ba31082fc043bd3f3.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/17/asia/russian-election-putin-china-north-korea-intl-hnk/index.html

Iran: https://www.zawya.com/en/world/middle-east/iran-congratulates-putin-on-decisive-election-win-uohced07

North Korea: https://tass.com/world/1761057

Cuba: https://tass.com/world/1761027

https://twitter.com/DiazCanelB/status/1769506082102063375

Belarus:https://www.sb.by/en/lukashenko-congratulated-putin-on-convincing-victory-in-elections.html#:~:text=Lukashenko%20congratulated%20Putin%20on%20convincing%20victory%20in%20elections,-The%20presidents%20of&text=On%20behalf%20of%20the%20Belarusian,victory%20in%20the%20presidential%20elections.

Honduras: https://twitter.com/XiomaraCastroZ/status/1769577357914800572

venezuela: https://twitter.com/NicolasMaduro/status/1769507694619103400

Tajikistan: https://tass.com/world/1761031

Will update when more are posted Freethinker1234 (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a summary added already, but per WP:TWITTER conventions it would be better to use a proper news website. Borgenland (talk) 09:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2024

Add other foreing reactions: China, Iran ETC Freethinker1234 (talk) 09:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Czello ^(music) 09:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"regions"

Wouldn't it actually be federal subject? Region sounds overly broad to me. 115.188.117.112 (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Opinion polling for the 2024 Russian presidential election"

Should we create an article about Opinion polls for the 2024 Russian presidential election like the 2018 one and before, named "Opinion polling for the 2024 Russian presidential election"? ＲＡＮＤＯＭ ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ 13:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, is there any point? I mean, in all honesty, the outcome was never in doubt, so opinion polls were completely irrelevant. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. ＲＡＮＤＯＭ ａｃｃｏｕｎｔ 15:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

redundant "that"

In the fifth paragraph of the International section under Reactions ("adding that that the vote was...") there's an extra that. It's been bugging me all day, somebody please fix it. 207.236.12.74 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2024 (2)

Paragraph 4, Sentence 6, Clause 2 should be “An independent newspaper”, not “And independent newspaper” 97.127.27.92 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done PianoDan (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2024 (3)

In the fourth paragraph, correct this sentence

Opposition leader Alexei Navalny, viewed as the most viable Putin rival, was imprisoned on politically motivated charges in 2021, was imprisoned at a remote Arctic penal colony in 2021; his prison term was repeatedly extended, and he was deemed ineligible for the ballot.

to

Opposition leader Alexei Navalny, viewed as the most viable Putin rival, was imprisoned at a remote Arctic penal colony in 2021 on politically motivated charges; the prison term was repeatedly extended, and he was deemed ineligible for the ballot.

recently materialized (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Already done This sentence has been completely rewritten since the request was opened. Jamedeus (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

Please fix the Wikitext here:

−

In November 2023, former member of the [[State Duma]], [[Boris Nadezhdin|Boris Nadezhdin]], became the first person backed by a registered political party to announce his candidacy, running on an [[Anti-war protests in Russia (2022–present)|anti-war]] platform.

+

In November 2023, former member of the [[State Duma]], [[Boris Nadezhdin]], became the first person backed by a registered political party to announce his candidacy, running on an [[Anti-war protests in Russia (2022–present)|anti-war]] platform.

Writehydra - talk page 02:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 03:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

International Reactions need to be added.

The section listing over a dozen countries sending congratulations to Putin does not conform to other election pages. Where typically many of the countries are listed separately with a brief statement and from which head of state or ambassador gave it. I would expect that to be added for China, India, Iran, etc. Look at the international reactions section on any other Wikipedia page and make this conform to those. Thank you. 108.39.196.77 (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

In section Results, first table "by candidates" the turnout should be inserted.

In section Results, second table "by regions" it would be better to add 'amount of voters' and 'turnout' per region in added columns Sneuper (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding a map as well as other changes

I've made a subject-by-subject map of the election, so I think it would be nice to add it to the article. It's definitely one of the most depressing maps I've ever drawn, but here we are. Also, I would like to request some additions:

• The results by subject article missed Khakassia, which stands at about 85.28%. Source: [11]https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6579312
• Putin supposedly got 97% in Russian-occupied South Ossetia, so that would be nice to add, too. Source: [12]https://www.ekhokavkaza.com/a/32866053.html
• Putin also got 86% in Baikonur, which Russia leases from Kazakhstan to host its primary spaceport. Source: [13]https://sng.today/astana/35284-v-gorode-bajkonur-na-vyborah-prezidenta-rossii-za-putina-progolosovali-8631-procenta-rossijan.html

GlebRyabov (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Exit Poll by Extreme Scan

According to its own poll by Extreme Scan (an international network of sociologists who focus on Russia, Ukraine and Belarus), Putin would have been elected in one voting round without fraud. The Amsterdam-based opposition video channel Dozhd presented the results of 'independent exit polls' on election night in which Putin was supported by at least 55 percent of voters and 37 percent had voted against all candidates by invalidating the ballot paper. Extreme Scan's survey also illustrated how effective the policy is in forcing Russians to vote for their jobs. On Friday, Putin is said to have received 60% of the votes, on Sunday 44%, barely more than the number of invalidated ballots. The reliability of this poll is difficult to assess. No fewer than 37% of voters refused to speak to the volunteers of this exit poll.

• https://www.extremescan.eu/post/6-the-ultimate-week-of-the-electoral-campaign-for-russia-s-15-17-march-presidential-election-noon
• https://t.me/tvrain/76231

Sneuper (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request (21 March): Abnormally high levels of electoral fraud recorded in 46 Russian regions

Section Allegations of irregularities:

The initial estimate put the number of fake votes at 31.6 million, but Moscow was later excluded from the analysis due to widespread online voting in the capital, a form of voting that makes it difficult to track turnout. Only the number 31,6 has to change in 22. https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/03/19/at-least-22-million-fake-votes-cast-for-putin-in-presidential-election-en-news Sneuper (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Boud (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Sneuper (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Abnormally high levels of electoral fraud recorded in 46 Russian regions. https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/03/21/abnormally-high-levels-of-electoral-fraud-recorded-in-46-russian-regions-en-news

Congratulated Putin

Eritrea [14]

Morocco [15]

Yemen (Supreme Political Council)[16]

Central African Republic, Zimbabwe [17]

Libya [18]

Laos [19]

Pakistan [20]

Cambodia [21]

Hamas [22]

— 184.187.43.222 (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Consequences of the result

After the outcome, the Kremlin can claim that nine out of ten Russians are also responsible for the war with the 'collective West'. Anyone who dares to make a comment is a priori a traitor to the will of the people. Every path to a peaceful political power formation can be closed by the election results. The administrative and economic elite can be purged. The culturicide in Ukraine has become a war of extermination of the entire nation, not only Putin's war. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2024/03/20/poetins-verkiezingszege-geeft-het-startschot-voor-zijn-nietsontziende-staatsterreur-a4193685 Sneuper (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

On March 22, massive attack on Ukrainian energy infrastructure. Putin waited for the elections with the vote count rigged in his favor. That outcome made the entire Russian population complicit in his war of extermination. Sneuper (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

On March 22, the Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov referred to Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine as a “war” in an interview with state-owned daily newspaper Argumenty i Fakty. https://aif.ru/politics/peskov-prokommentiroval-pravovoy-status-specoperacii Sneuper (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

On March 22, reported the independent Russian outlet Verstka that Russia’s Defense Ministry intended to send another 300,000 troops to the war in Ukraine amid plans to launch a siege on Kharkiv. This by mobilizing reservists and conscripts whose military service is ending into signing contracts. Also in Moscow, defense companies and state-funded organizations started issuing mobilization exemption certificates to employees, and military enlistment offices called back lawyers and psychologists who were involved in the fall 2022 mobilization as preparation “mobilization 2.0.” https://verstka.media/kak-vlasti-budut-prizyvat-rossiyan-v-voyska-dlia-nastupleniya-na-harkov Sneuper (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Brusquedandelion (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Update map

The voter map abroad is incorrect. So should be updated or removed. For example, Putin in Norway took 58.14% of the vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4645:B0B3:0:C5BA:FC22:9BDA:FB98 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

To my, the map has no added value. All figures are in the text. And the offical figures are most likely not correct (read: false). So, the map can be removed. Sneuper (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging GlebRyabov for this matter. Number 57 18:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This is not a map of the official results: rather, it is a map of compilation of *un*official results collected by anti-war activists. For example, the Vote Abroad project gives 2% to Putin in Nicosia-1 (there were two polling points), but the official results show him at 86%, which is virtually impossible. Also, the text doesn't include full results for countries where the voting was held in multiple cities. I would either propose keeping the map, or removing it and adding a sortable table instead.

(Also, I cannot take the map down myself, I don't have the full rights, so I gotta ask someone)

GlebRyabov (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect percentages for candidtes

In Russia percentages of votes for candidates are counted from all recieved ballots, including spoiled ballots. Here, on the other hand, percentages are given out of valid ballots. This is not only a practice that is different from official one given by Russian Central Electoral Comission, but also omits an important movement of intentionally spoiling ballots. 93.175.28.10 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Including invalid/blank votes is how the election commission determine the threshold for a second round, which is not necessarily the same thing as the formal result (for example, in Bulgarian elections the election commission ignores votes cast for independents or NOTA when giving percentages, as that is how they calculate the electoral threshold). However, on the spoilt ballots I have added that detail to the introduction, noting that the proportion of valid ballots was up by around 45%. Number 57 18:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Russian disinformation campaign promoting Putin’s legitimacy reported on X

On 22 March, Russian independent news outlet Agentstvo reported that Kremlin-linked accounts launched a disinformation campaign on X aimed at convincing foreign audiences that the recent Russian presidential election was legitimate. Messages with similar content were posted on X between 18 March and 19 March in English, French, German, and Ukrainian. According to Agentstvo, the messages compared Russia’s “competitive and fair” elections to Ukraine’s decision to cancel the presidential election this year. Other accounts posited that Ukraine should not “cancel” everything to do with Russia. https://novayagazeta.eu/articles/2024/03/22/russian-disinformation-campaign-promoting-putins-legitimacy-reported-on-x-en-news Sneuper (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: use of more neutral word for activists

In the text are terms i.e. 'Anti-Putin activists' or 'exiled activists'. I prefer a more neutral description. These people are concerned with a just and fair election process with the best possible approximation of the correct numbers of voters per candidate. Sneuper (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2024

Change from 133x133px to just 100px

−

[[File:Даванков (cropped).jpg|133x133px]]

+

[[File:Даванков (cropped).jpg|100px]]

I love wikipebia OwO (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: list of international election observers by European Platform for Democratic Elections

European Platform for Democratic Elections listed the international election observers partly. EPDE was able so far to identify approx. 150 of the observers and “experts”. In the table EPDE presents selected names of citizens of European countries that appeared in Russian mass media. The full report will be published in the upcoming weeks.

According to the official data, 706 of the “observers” were officially accredited. The 224 participants of the World Youth Forum, held in Sochi from March 1-7,2024, were also invited to observe the elections as "experts." At least 34 of the “observers” illegally visited the occupied territories of Ukraine, presumably without official permit of the Ukrainian authorities.

https://www.epde.org/en/news/details/press-statement-russia-s-fraudulent-march-15-17-2024-presidential-election-validated-by-fake-observers-from-129-countries.html Sneuper (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Moldova allowed only one polling station for Russian presidential election, but 8 polling stations opened

Moldova allowed only one polling station for Russian presidential election at the Russian Embassy to Moldova in Chisinau.

Initially, the Russian Embassy to Moldova said it would open 6 polling stations in Transnistria, bypassing Chisinau, for the Russian presidential election. In the end, 8 polling stations opened - two more for Russian soldiers. said so-called Transnistrian Foreign Minister Vitaly Ignatiev.

https://twitter.com/iamdenya_de/status/1772901183956434969 Sneuper (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Idea: number of votes from occupied territories

I wish to put forward an idea where we tally the number of votes for each candidate that came from the disputed and occupied territories, and perhaps emphasise that deducting the votes would have no impact on the outcome, due to the fact that the election was not free and fair anyway. I post this message due to the article being a contentious topic, hence second opinions are invited to prevent editor misunderstandings. If the idea is accepted, what sources should I use? --Minoa (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by your idea. I'd approach it in the opposite order, though. If you were to post some potential sources here on the talk page, I and other editors could evaluate them, and then we could discuss what information from those sources can be used in the article.

My one hesitation with your idea: most people here on Wikipedia are very nervous about introducing "original research" into the article. They much prefer to pull opinions and analysis from published secondary sources, rather than introducing their own analysis. It would be great to include more information about votes from the occupied territories, but emphasizing certain interpretations of the numbers, like the fact that they would have no impact on the outcome of the election, might drift into "original research", unless some secondary source has already made the same observation. Philomathes2357 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Should the other candidates be included in the infobox?

Originally Davankov and Slutsky were in the infobox, and they have since been removed. Typically candidates need >5% to be included, but the one candidate besides Putin included (Kharitontov), did not achieve that threshold. Specifically, I think because Davankov represents a lot of the Russian liberalist ideology (given how many votes he got abroad and in the north), his performance merits inclusion in the infobox. Or maybe not? I just curious about the logic behind including Kharitonov but Davankov or Slutsky. RickStrate2029 (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In the infoboxes of those elections in which all losing candidates failed to get 5% of the votes, it is customary to indicate only the losing candidate who received the most votes. PLATEL (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Turnout in an electoral dictatorship

In an electoral dictatorship, those who are dependent on the government voted and those who have retained some independence stayed away. https://platformraam.nl/dossiers/rechtsstaat-en-civil-society/2576-wij-zijn-bondgenoten-van-oekraine-maar-we-hebben-onze-eigen-belangen Sneuper (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Putin's speech

There is a whole video with Putin's speech on voting days. I added English subtitles. Please consider to add to the article as an official document.

Vladimir Putin's speech on the eve of the 2024 presidential election.

Pacha Tchernof (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? It's an election speech by a politician and not notable. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: The European Parliament has refused to recognize the results of the Russian presidential election

The European Parliament has refused to recognize the results of the Russian presidential election and called on EU member states to limit relations with Putin - resolution. European Parliament adopted a resolution that calls the Russian presidential elections "farcical", refers to them as "so-called" and urges not to recognize Putin as president, ceasing all contact with him except for humanitarian purposes. The resolution also "deplores the fact that the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orbán, chose to break ranks with the EU and congratulate Vladimir Putin on his sham re-election."

"During these so-called elections there were no alternative candidates, no free media, no independent observers and no political freedoms. Accordingly, the so-called elections are illegitimate and undemocratic," the resolution reads.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-9-2024-0253_EN.html Sneuper (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)