This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating toelections,electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visitour project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Russia, aWikiProject dedicated to coverage ofRussia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at theproject page, or contribute to theproject discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
He still hasn't said anything about this as of June 2017 (yesterday a question was asked at his annual Direct Line). So far he has kept silent about it or said that it is too early to say. Rest assured the minute he makes an official announcement on deciding to run it will be added here.YantarCoast
Why isn't Putin in the potential candidates section for United Russia? He's been included in polls and he hasn't ruled out running as far as I know. --HighFlyingFish (talk)19:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An IP is continuously pushing unsupported information into this article. For example, adding candidates to the infobox who have not even started collecting the signatures required to run, let alone been approved and registered by the CEC. I have pointed this out several times, but the user continues to go back to his or her unsourced and incorrect versions, stating "Put things like they were". The same IP address has been involved in similar vandalism on other pages. --YantarCoast (talk)21:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He seems not to be officially registered by the CEC yet. Along with several other candidates, he was allowed to open an official bank account for his campaign.Max Shakhray (talk)19:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alexei Navalny's campaign in the Campaigning section
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.
Alexei Navalny's campaign section should be deleted his not a candidate anymore/ 2 his campaign section is to much more then other candidates.Max.Moore (talk)02:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. He isn't a candidate and won't even be registered as one. In previous Russian presidential articles we haven't included campaigns of people who were rejected by the CEC. Can't see any reason to do it now. There's a separate page for his campaign. That's enough.YantarCoast (talk)12:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Regardless of the final decision of CEC, it is notable that his campaign has gone on the longest and has caused the most publicity and scandals around the election and the government. At the very least, a section on Navalny and a brief overview of his activities should be added to the article.Romanov loyalist (talk)22:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. His candidacy was a major element in the election, notwithstanding the fact that he was excluded nor that his chances of winning were remote.Activist (talk)15:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose(Summoned by bot) As above. I don't take any particular interest in contemporary Russian politics, and even I was aware of his candidacy. That he was disqualified doesn't change the fact that hewas a candidate, and so I see no purpose served by removing him.Vanamonde (talk)04:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Summoned by bot. Navalny's candidacy was notable, per many sources; any fair recounting of the election would include telling the story of his candidacy, reception, and outcome. @YantarCoast, I understand that this will make this election page different from past pages, but that seems understandable. A brief review of the disqualified 2012 candidates doesn't seem to indicate that any were as significant. Also, in that year, none seemed to be part of the public debate after disqualification, which may not be the case here.Chris vLS (talk)08:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Shall we really pretend Putin is an independent candidate and assign him the grey color? He's the previous president of United Russia, got elected as its candidate and is leading the All Russia alliance. I don't think we're bound to assign him an independent color because of his official candidature, but rather should try to be informative of the real political forces at play here.--Aréat (talk)19:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry - everyone understands the realities - only an idiot would get his political "truth" from Wikipedia. Just follow the guidelines and don't stress. :-)50.111.3.17 (talk)01:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a forum. Please propose specific changes to the article and provide independent reliable sources that support your proposal. Thank you.Retimuko (talk)20:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. It is basic Wikiétiquette to talk about important changes into the talk page first before unilateraly implementing them. Vladimir Putin is listed as the candidate of theAll-Russia People's Front in the very own page infobox. A party of which he is listed as the leader, thus not an independent. The article shouldn't portray him by an administrative, misleading, condition. If Putin is the main figure of United Russia, of which he was the president for decades, was elected multiple time under its banner, recently made saveral speech before its members, received their open full support, and benefit from the huge assets of its campaigning powers, then he isn't an independent candidate. That's simply misleading.--Aréat (talk)03:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He should be listed as whatever party he represents on the ballot paper. If he's formally running as an independent, that's how he should be represented. However, there's nothing to stop it being noted that he is supported by whatever party.Number5717:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Golos is reporting over 2,500 reports of violations.[1] Yet, Golos is not mentioned once in this article. It needs to be added somewhere, but I'm not sure where. – Muboshgu (talk)22:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be be good to see more balance in the "reactions" section. As of right now, it's entirely criticisms. But there were actually a fair number of world leaders who congratulated Putin on his victory, including:
Also, the article states: "The opposition said the results were rigged, reporting ballot stuffing and other cases of alleged fraud..."
But who exactly is this "opposition" that this is referring to?
Is this the Communist Party of Pavel Grudinin, who came in second place with about 12% of the vote?
Is it the fascist "Liberal Democrat" party of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who came in third place with about five and a half percent of the vote?
Or is this referring specifically to thePRO-WESTERN-opposition - i.e. candidates like Ksenia Sobchak, the most successful of the pro-western candidates, who came in fourth place with 1.67% of the vote?
And, assuming it's the latter, are Sobchak and her supporters alleging that she's actually the legitimate winner of the election, but that there was fraud on such a massive scale as to make her percentage appear in the low single digits? Or are they simply saying that her actual vote percentage was really a bit higher - perhaps three or four percent?...
The opposition was banned from even running in this election, so you wont find them in the polls. But sure, feel free to add comments about supporting reactions from other non-free countries.Carewolf (talk)14:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The opposition was banned from even running in this election..." - CITATION NEEDED! Your assertion is plainly contradicted by the facts. There were opposition candidates of multiple stripes, including Communist, fascist, and pro-Western liberal. -2A02:810B:700:3F22:7DF3:DDA7:BE36:BE2B (talk)07:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Carewolf is referring to Navalny. Navalny emerged as a notable opposition candidate to Putin but he was later indicted and convicted of charges which made him ineligible to run. Additionally, when referring to how the opposition has asserted that it is rigged, this also applies to Sobchak because even during the campaign she stated that the election was rigged.BrendonTheWizard (talk)17:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a positive change, though I have some concerns about the term "Violations" here
Terms such as criticisms, electoral irregularities, allegations of electoral fraud, concerns, or suspicions would all be more fitting as they did not necessarily violate anything in particular.
"Alleged" or "Allegations" should be included; though you and I can be absolutely certain that this election was systematically rigged and handed over to Putin, we cannot yet use Wikipedia's voice to say that it is confirmed that Putin's government rigged it (even though it's obvious, it has not been concluded).
Personally, I am in favor of "Electoral Irregularities" as this is the title used in the 2012 election (which as you can see from its map was also very obviously skewed in favor of Putin). International reactions and electoral irregularities should both have their own sections, and I would also support the creation of a subsection on subsequent protests taking place in Russia.BrendonTheWizard (talk)17:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected until the 28th; if any severe edit warring or vandalism takes place, a request can be made that the article's protection level is temporarily upgraded.BrendonTheWizard (talk)17:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the large table. Is it English? I can read the words, but I do not know what the sense of them is.
Despite the fact that Communist Party leader and perennial candidate Gennady Zyuganov said his nomination was supported by all leftist forces and he would participate in the elections on behalf of the party, the Zhigulyovsk branch of the party voted to supported the candidacy of Pavel Grudinin, who also won the primaries of Left Front, a coalition of left-wing parties with no representation in the State Duma. Grudinin did not deny his nomination from the Communist Party.[36] On 21 December 2017 it was reported that Zyuganov proposed to nominate Grudinin.[37] Initially the Communist Party and the National Patriotic Forces of Russia (NPFR) planned to nominate a single candidate: Grudinin (supported by the Communists) or Yury Boldyrev (supported by the NPFR). Boldyrev also participated in the primaries of Left Front in which he lost in the second round to Grudinin.[38] According to the Deputy Alexander Yushchenko, Zyuganov was still among the candidates for the nomination. He named the other candidates as Yury Afonin, Sergey Levchenko and Leonid Kalashnikov. On 22 December Zyuganov, Levchenko and Kalashnikov withdrew their bids, and Zyuganov rejected the candidacies of Afonin and Boldyrev, leaving Grudinin as the sole candidate.[39] Grudinin was officially nominated at the party congress on 23 December.[40] Zyuganov is the head of Grudinin's presidential campaign.[41] Grudinin filed registration documents with the CEC on 28 December[42] and 9 January 2018.[43]Jd2718 (talk)04:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, that reference is being used to support the statement that the "final results of the elections were approved by the CEC on 23 March 2018". The 77.53% comes from the results table.Number5715:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The different is how the % is calculated. The CEC publishes a calculation that includes invalid votes, which isn't usually how election results are reported (and why the numbers in the CEC source do not add up to 100% – they only total 98.93%). 77.53% is the percentage of valid votes, which is how election results are commonly reported (hence the edit you refer to above).Number5715:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
