Talk:2020 Russian constitutional referendum

Quorum
Sorry for the simple question, but it really isn't clear to me reading the article, with all these details about several different names to which laws and constitutional requirements apparently apply differently : so, is the 50 % turnout quorum applying to this vote?--Aréat (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is not a referendum or "nationwide voting" with legal definition. Head of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation said, It will be extralegal procedure, It will not comply with ordinary electoral law. 50%+ turnout is not required. Campaigning against amendments is not allowed. Political parties are not allowed to participate. Observation of voting is not allowed, except for representatives of mostly pro-government "public chambers". Possibility to challenge the results of voting in court is not allowed. Voting will take place during 7 days. Early voting, voting at home, as well as early voting at home are allowed without restrictions. De jure all of these things are impossible and criminal under ordinary  electoral law. TarzanASG (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clear up. --Aréat (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Clarity
I've read this about a dozen times along with plenty of the source material, but I'm still confused about a few things. So, if I understand this correctly, amendments to the constitution do not have to go through a referendum or constitutional convention if what's being amended are chapters 3-8. However, changes to chapters 1, 2 & 9 require a referendum or constitutional convention. So, is it the view of the government and the ruling by the Constitutional Court that changes are only being made to chapters 3-8? In that same vein, are critics saying that the amendments touch more than just chapters 3-8 and in fact make changes to chapters 1, 2 & 9? Do or doesn't the current changes make changes to Chapter 9, specifically? It's really not clearly described what the opposition to these changes are accusing the government of having done that would be illegal/unconstitutional. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, after reading this article, I think maybe I understand the critique. It appears that the central critique is not that the process by which the Federal Assembly approves constitutional amendments is illegal (i.e. that these amendments step into Chapters 1, 2 or 9), rather that they are legally questionable/illegal by tying the legally dubious "All-Russia vote" to their enactment.  So had the Federal Assembly simply approved the amendments without tying them to the "All-Russia vote," the critiques would be much less and milder.  Another critique seems to be that the current government putting this to a national vote, at all, kind of concedes that this does in some way effect Chaptesr 1, 2 or 9, and that if that is the case, that the procedures for a legal nationwide or legal referendum must be followed, that an "All-Russia vote" could not be used as an instructment to approve the amendments and would thus make the whole process legally void.


 * I guess what I'd suggest to clarify this in the article is to revise and fit the "Proposed consultative All-Russia voting" section into another section and de-clutter it. I'd really just have a "Support" section and an "Oppose" section and outline the legal arguments for both sides.  The government's position - that a legal/constitutional referendum is not required for these amendments, and that the amendments have for all intents-and-purposes already been legally enacted - is pretty clearly stated.  The opposition's position is made much less clear in this article. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The main criticism is based on the fact that there is no reason to resetting Putin's presidential terms. They justify this because of the very fact of making corrections, which honestly have a cosmetic character (faith in God, marriage is an alliance between a man and a woman, indexation of pensions, protection of history and the Russian language). All this is unnecessary garbage that does not need to be introduced into the constitution, and some issues are decided by federal laws (for example, indexation of pensions). The question then remains: why should we allow Putin to run for another two presidential terms? -- Пэйнчик (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for taking your time to help to polish things up and let me clarify a few things here.
 * [...] I'd really just have a "Support" section and an "Oppose" section and outline the legal arguments for both sides. [...] This is good suggestion.
 * [...] are critics saying that the amendments touch more than just chapters 3-8 [...] The said amendments do not interfere with 1, 2 & 9 chapters: the list of changed articles ranges from Article 67 to 129 (Статья 67, Статья 129 accordingly); in contrast to Chapter 2 which ends at the Article 64, and Chapter 9 which begins at Article 134.
 * [...] It's really not clearly described what the opposition to these changes are accusing the government of having done [...] I'm not primary contributor to the article but I would summarize the opposition as follows (as it was also pointed out by my fellow Russian above) : 1. Illegal rule of Putin: his presedential terms ended in 2008 and formally he wasn't eligible for the Presidential office and race in 2012 and later; 2. Amendments primary purpose are to nullify/reset all terms previously counted for the President and to secure his freedom from any legal punishment, and everything of this via sham voting and amendments; 3. Lack of any law stipulating amendment process to the chapters 3-8 and lack of regulation of "all-russian vote" favoring (clearing up a way to) all forms of voting frauds like intentional miscounting or falsified turnout which pretty much took place during the last week.  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 19:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * On that last point, the article clearly states that there is a law (enacted in 1995), which stipulates the amendment process to chapters 3-8, the whole law concerning referendum. The whole point seems to be that these changes didn't require a referendum at all. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * [...] these changes didn't require a referendum at all [...] The point is that under that law, there is no right for president to initiate referendum process. It's only citizen's privilige. That explains why Putin resorted to sham vote. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 08:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but it seems to me it's a moot point. The amendments had already been legally enacted after the Federal Assembly, federal subjects, and Constitutional Court approved the process and amendments in March.  The referendum was a non-binding farce, obviously; one might even argue that it was illegal/unconstitutional/extra-constitutional. But the outcome was legally irrelevant, as the amendments to Chapter 3-8 had already went through the proper legal process in the Federal Assembly.  The amendments legally couldn't (and wouldn't) be undone even if the vote had failed. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I wanted to clarify a little on these positions:
 * 1. Unfortunately, after 2008, there was a loophole for Putin to return to the presidency (Article 81, paragraph 3: One and the same person cannot hold the office of President of the Russian Federation for more than two terms in a row). By the way, after the vote, the word "in a row" was removed from this paragraph. Now nobody can do like Putin anymore.


 * 2. That's right. There was no need to amend the Constitution. This is done only for nullify/reset.


 * 3. The procedure for amending chapters 3-8 exists, it was described by comrade Criticalthinker. To regulate the All-Russian voting, the Federal Constitutional Law No. 1 of 03/14/2020 was adopted. However, the methods of conducting it (the absence of independent, including international observers; holding a vote for a week; ban on campaigning YES / NO, although the central election commission itself was only engaged in campaigning for amendments) open up wide scope for mass fraud. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 08:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * [...] 3. The procedure for amending chapters 3-8 exists [...] The law which you are talking about exists but the Provisions regulating the Vote process were left up to Central Election Commision (CEC) to decide. The latter were clearly arbitrary clearing a way to mass fraud therefore leaving no reason to think that it was law that regulated process. In my opinion I wasn't a law at all and may not be counted as such as it violates separation of powers given that the Right to Make a law was obscenely transfered to the unrelated body. And on the other side, there is still no law existing that have a provisions regulating adoption of Chapters 3-8 amendmnets procedure. Currently it may be done by simple Approval by 2/3 of Russian Federal Subject Legislatures.

What about „electoral fraud“?
It has been claimed by same various sources which came from Intl' media outlets that the Russian constitutional referendum was an electoral fraud. But government authority or Central Electoral Commission did not officially confirm the evidence it was frauded there. 2A02:2F01:620A:E400:AD0F:EF58:E8C9:D3C1 (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I would hardly expect the Russian government to claim the election was fraudulent, I would put much more stock into independent or foreign reports. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. Wait until the Intl community – United Nations reacts in order to sanction and condemn the constitutional referendum as 'much worse', fraudulent or 'flagrant abuse' that occured in Russia. There is some evidence of accusations regarding the electoral fraud. 2A02:2F01:620A:E400:AD0F:EF58:E8C9:D3C1 (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But CEC don't provide the evidence there was an electoral fraud. As such, no confirmation of voter fraud has been found in this country named Russia. I did say again, it is the reasonable decision of the international community to intervene, so need to wait until authorities do so instead. 2A02:2F01:620A:E400:AD0F:EF58:E8C9:D3C1 (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is almost incomprehensible, I do not understand what you're saying. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

"The abnormally high amount of votes favoring the referendum's approval"
This statement isn't written in a neutral manner - what makes the result "abnormally high"? The same line talks about "widespread claims of voter fraud", however no source or explanation is given. For this to be present in the lead, I would expect a paragraph talking about the widespread claims somewhere in the article. BeŻet (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree as I said above: about electoral fraud. There are no such clarification or is insufficient evidence of voter fraud. 2A02:2F01:620A:E400:AD0F:EF58:E8C9:D3C1 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have now removed that fragment and moved those allegations to a separate section where more information can be included. BeŻet (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction
I'm not sure I'm understanding this: The draft amendments to the Constitution were submitted to a referendum in accordance with article 2 of the Law on Amendments to the Constitution. The referendum is legally referred to as an "All-Russian vote" (Russian: общероссийское голосование, romanized: obshcherossiyskoye golosovaniye), as it is not held in accordance with the Federal Constitutional Law on the Referendum. I currently have it tagged as contradictory, as how could it both be in accordance, and not in accordance?? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's simple. The Law on Amendments to the Constitution and the Federal Constitutional Law on the Referendum are two different laws. --Aréat (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In short: in Russia the everything is possible. As my fellow pointed out the two laws are different. The second law is Constitutional One and wasn't applicable in this case. Hopefully none will oppose closing this discussion.

False balance
The lead currently states that Golos, a Russian election watchdog, claimed that the electoral process was "rigged from the start" and "unfairly skewed by a noisy one-sided propaganda campaign". This makes it seem as if that claim is just made by Golos, which obviously isn't true. The correct way to phrase this would be The electoral process was rigged from the start and unfairly skewed by a one-sided propaganda campaign. That is a factual claim that we can easily find numerous good sources for. Trying to present it as just a claim, not to mention a claim by just one organisation, violates WP:NPOV by creating a false balance.Jeppiz (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Again, there is no pure argument to justify the fraud: Althrough, various sources from media outlets claimed that there was either “alleged that 22 million votes could be fraudulent” or is illegally claimed, while BBC described the referendum as "controversial" and quoted Alexei Navalny saying that the result was a "big lie" that did not reflect real public opinion, is uncertain how Russian government is claiming the election was fraudulent. That makes it a hot topic. 2A02:2F01:6203:1600:B1CC:8E15:73A1:D5D3 (talk) 15:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Moot argument. We most certainly do not need authoritarian regimes to admit abuses in order to mention them on WP, but thanks for confirming what I wrote about false balance. Jeppiz (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure if you understand how WP:NPOV works if you are presenting accusations as undeniable facts. To make an unconditional claim that the electoral process "was rigged" you would need a mountain of evidence and some significant body, organization or institution capable of making a legally binding judgement on the matter that then, in turn, could be presented as a "fact". Without that, you need to WP:ATTRIBUTE such claims. BeŻet (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Terminology section
The section titled Terminology is essentially unreadable; Template:Coquote is misused here and the template is a candidate for deletion. It should be replaced with Template:Quote. Anaglyphic (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I changed the template from Template:Coquote to Template:Verse translation, to maintain the original Russian translation. But honestly, this section should probably just be removed, the meaning is not especially clear and it is entirely unsourced. Anaglyphic (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Gay marriage in the lead
An IP (79.98.112.--) has now removed the mention of gay marriage out of the lead a few times, saying it is "not relevant". I think it is quite relevant, as one of the major outcomes of the amendments is enshrining a ban on gay marriage in the constitution, see. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it feels like this is relevant to include in the lead. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's an example of the content of the changes being conservative. --Aréat (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is very relevant.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree but just to be devil's advocate here, the change does not explicitly ban gay marriage as it was never legal in Russia, but prevents it from ever being possible to be legal by enshrining a heterosexual-only interpretation of marriage in law. BeŻet (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree it should be included. As per BeŻet, the wording should be something along the lines of "the changes also enshrined in the constitution the existing ban on same-sex marriage". Number   5  7  21:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The constitution does not actually prohibit gay marriage now, it just says that traditional man and woman marriage should be protected at all cost. Also there were some gay marriage in Russia as soon as previous year https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8 . It is just a database, anything can be in it, you can even change your sex. I will also point out that as part of United Nations Russia cannot prohibit same sex marriedge per se. Europinian court HODOC says yes to same sex marriage in Russia (after second or third repetition). 2A00:1FA0:68F:D1B2:8542:46B1:99C8:DF19 (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources say that the referendum defined marriage as "between a man and a woman", which seems like a constitutional ban on gay marriage to me. Also, the referendum said that Russian law is above international law, so I don't think they'll much care what the UN says about gay marriage anyway. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Same-sex marriage is not legal in Russia. Therefore calling it a 'ban' is misleading. Like I said above, it's enshrining the existing prohibition in the consitution, meaning that same-sex marriage won't be able to become legal until the constitutional change is reverted. BeŻet (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree as per opinion. The claim that amendments ban same-sex-marriages is basically WP:ORIGINAL research here as virtually no source to back up it: the  (non-lead section) in the article are New York Times and Guardian whose articles are basically opinions expressed by Andrew E. Kramer and Andrew Roth respectively.  . The other sources almost do not mention it at all.  In the mean time the concerned amendment provision (Article 72.1) only says that it defends marriage between man and woman (quoted on the right in Russian, nowhehere close to the ban (even though I agree generally that this would create additional impediments for those seeking same-sex marriages registration service by the govt). I propose to move the disputed claim to the Reaction section where it would be more appropriate. —  AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 16:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * according to the State Duma vice-speaker quoted in the article by The Guardian, the amendments "fix the status of marriage as a union between a man and a woman," which, by transitive property is a constitutional ban against gay marriage. This is not original research; the two articles mentioned (which are not opinion pieces simply because they have authors listed) make this jump themselves. There are several other sources not used in the article which also affirm this.
 * Also, I removed one of the sections in your reflist and replaced it with a link—for readability, as per WP:TPO. Hope that's alright. Anaglyphic (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * See also this MSNBC headline: [nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/russian-voters-back-referendum-banning-same-sex-marriage-n1232802 "Russian voters back referendum banning same-sex marriage"]. Sources are calling it a ban, I see no reason why we can't. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Journalists are not legal experts, and will often opt for catchy headlines. We have plenty of sources at hand so we can decide what works best after analysing them all. As explained in the sources, the amendments fix/enshrine the status of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Once again, banning implies something was legal before, while it wasn't. BeŻet (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I support #57's text: enshrined in the constitution the existing ban on same-sex marriage, which notes that the ban already existed, but was now formalized in the constitution. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I also support this phrasing. Anaglyphic (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this phrasing. It clearly makes it harder for SSM to become a reality in Russia, by making the existing ban part of the constitution.  Omitting the SSM issue is inappropriate, but we should be precise about what exactly it does.  It might also be relevant from the perspective that by including this ban with the other reforms (a populist move), it was more likely that the other reforms would pass, though I haven't seen strong WP:RS on that point, and of course we would need them before suggesting that angle.  Worth noting though that our article says the last time Russians were polled on the issue they were 85% opposed to SSM (only 7% supporting it).  It is of course common for authoritarian leaders to use attacks on "others" to bolster their leadership.  It also tends to play well into the Russian allegation that "the West" is interfering in their internal politics. Russian resistance to LGBTQ issues, has become more and more tied to nationalism and opposition to "western" values.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As being Russian personally I can assure you that everything surrounding the presedential terms provisions are pure populist bullshit. But here for the sake of accuracy we have to do the best. Let's make consensus. -- AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 20:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course, isn't that what we are doing by agreeing to the wording enshrined in the constitution the existing ban on same-sex marriage? The text you include below indicating that a rough translation says the constitution includes "protection of marriage institution as union of man and woman".  Seems pretty clear that is banning SSM.  Of course, that is also what other WP:RS are saying.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

.. by transitive property is a constitutional ban .. Disagree. I've made a rough translation (to the right) of the said provision. There is nothing related to the prohbition/banning. .. State Duma vice-speaker quoted .. He said this back in March 2020. This is only remotely related to what happened recently. .. There are several other sources .. Three of them are misrepresenting the facts, the ABC even didn't care to go down to the body to explain anything (see below). I have to agree that they are still reporting (contrasted with "making opinons") but it's specious to state that they are WP:RS in this case. .. article which also affirm this. .. The ABC source says nothing related to the ban in the body. Only headline mentions ban. .. as per WP:TPO. Hope that's alright. .. Doesn't fall under Links exceptions, but it's fine. I've merged both references. .. That's why I support #57's text .. What about making it more neutral like enshrined in the constitution controversial marriage clause, which according to blu bluh bans same-sex etc. Any objections? AXO NOV (talk) ⚑ 20:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with attributing the view that this is a same-sex marriage ban to prominent reporting or a prominent individual who has said that. I think we need to use the word "ban" because that is what it looks like and sources are saying that, but I am fine avoiding putting it in our voice.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * your translation indeed defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman; by excluding marriages between two men or two women from this definition, this is in effect constitutionally outlawing same-sex marriage. This is not a great leap in logic to make; news organizations are absolutely reliable in this situation.
 * Please indent responses using a colon. Anaglyphic (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What our translations show is of little value, what reliable sources have to say is. Reliable sources call it a ban, thus we do the same. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree; I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. Anaglyphic (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Oops, sorry, that was directed at Alexander Davronov, the threading just got a bit wonky. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They're not reliable to make such claims as "ban". Go checkout WP:RSBREAKING. I've showed that they're spreading false information. Virtually all of them are WP:PRIMARY sources who make interpretation of the provision whose meaning is rather ambiguous. It's not the best to use primary source to back up this statement in the lead and down the body. .. our translations show is of little value .. The direct source for amendments (even though translated) which was formally signed into law is the most valuable and most reliable source you could ever find to attribute it to the statement claiming that it does not mention any bans, prohibitions or restrictions. Overall, what I'm currently proposing is to neutralize it until more reliable review/source emerges. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Are you suggesting that the NYTimes, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and others aren't reliable sources?? This has been very widely reported, I don't think RSBREAKING applies here. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, if they aren't reliable to declare its a "ban", then who is?? CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not really sure what the disagreement is about. Is there anyone in any WP:RS besides WP:OR translations saying this is not a constitutional ban on SSM?  Constitutions regularly use language like "reaffirm the traditional family" or the importance of "motherhood and fatherhood" or "marriage is between a man and a woman" to 'ban same sex marriage.  Even if it does not literally say "SSM is banned", everyone knows these provisions serve to ban SSM, and that seems to be what the WP:RS say.  Are there actually other sources saying this is not a ban?  If not, what are we disagreeing about?  Of course, we all understand that SSM was already illegal under Russian law (just not in the constitution) before the referendum.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What we all understand and what can be proven is different, let alone to know actual degree of application of the constitutional provisions. WP:Secondary Sources are more reliable than Primary but there is none I'm sure. I propose to use the most neutral formula. Both WP:RSBREAKING WP:RECENTISM are clearly applicable. Just make statement on SSM as neutral as possible and be done with it, I'll get on train but otherwise it's disservice to the readers. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 22:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

But the NYTimes and related sources are secondary sources, which is what we trust. It's the constitution itself that's the primary source. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC) I understand where is coming from, and that the "enshrining of the ban" is an interpretation of the consitutional change, or rather the only possible conclusion, but nonetheless a extrapolation of what is written there. We could attribute the interpretation to "many journalists and experts", saying something along the lines the consitutional change emphesised the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, which many journalists and experts see as making it impossible for same-sec marriage to become legal in the country, or something like that. BeŻet (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You are still arguing? They only modification that is mentioning women is "ст. 72 «В совместном ведении Российской Федерации и субъектов Российской Федерации находятся: …защита семьи, материнства, отцовства и детства; защита института брака как союза мужчины и женщины; создание условий для достойного воспитания детей в семье, а также для существления совершеннолетними детьми обязанности заботиться о родителях…»." Nowhere it prohibits same sex marriage, there are some people in Russia who managed to fuck the system and made their same sex marriage. Use google translate Chrome extension, dunno but it is translated as "protecting "merriage institute" as union of woman and man", nothing is banned or whatever, people who are from other countries and that are same sex married are same sex merried in Russia as well, for example. Also FAKE NEWS MSDNC AND OTHERS cannot be used when you are describing anything Russia but not Trump related. You can see my examples in page history. 2A00:1FA0:82D:4FF7:C170:C2F4:AC44:5D1D (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * NBC News, a subsidiary of NBCUniversal who also owns MSNBC, is described as a reliable source on the Wikipedia list of reliable and perennial sources—news from Russia is no exception. Anaglyphic (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Russia, but not Trump related. Everything considering Russia is Trump related for these liberals. All that fake collusion that turned out to be Clinton's. And I know what PS are. 2A00:1FA0:4699:CC56:B5C1:B8A6:6EE2:BEBB (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no exception for content relating to Donald Trump sourced from NBC News. Not really sure what collusion you're suggesting Clinton perpetrated, but this talk page is not the place to discuss that kind of thing. If you want to question the reliability of NBC News on this particular topic, start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Anaglyphic (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Voting question
Maybe I missed seeing it, so sorry about that, but there were multiple changes proposed to the constitution. Were people given the ability to vote yes/no for each of the 14 proposed changes, or were they only given the ability to vote yes/no on the entire set of changes as a whole? I think this needs some clarification. Coinmanj (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , It was yes/no on the whole set. Either all got approved or none got approved. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Results
According to CEC official figures, 77.92% voted for the amendments, and 21.27% against. The article contains incorrect percentages. In addition, due to the automatic filling of percent in the template, there is no way to change the data. The discrepancy between the results in the template and the official results is due to the fact that the percentage of "YES" and "NO" in Russia is calculated from the number of ballots contained in the voting boxes (74,114,217), and not from the number of valid votes (73,509,266). Thus, in the table with the results by federal subjects, it is important to add a column with invalid votes to take into account all 100% of the ballots cast. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is there any particular reason the CEC presented the percentages this way?--Aréat (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , in Russia invalid votes are counted. This can be seen, for example, by the results of the presidential election in 2018, where the number of invalid votes is 1.08% and only with their account 100% is obtained.
 * {| class=wikitable style=text-align:right

!colspan=2|Candidate !Party !Votes !% And one backing that the referendum wouldn't have been valid without 50 %+1 of total votes ?--Aréat (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * style="background:;" | || align="left" |Vladimir Putin|| align="left" |Independent||56,430,712||76.69
 * style="background:;" | ||align=left|Pavel Grudinin||align=left|Communist Party|| 8,659,206 ||11.77
 * style="background:;" | ||align=left|Vladimir Zhirinovsky||align=left|Liberal Democratic Party|| 4,154,985 ||5.65
 * style="background:;" | || align="left" |Ksenia Sobchak|| align="left" |Civic Initiative|| 1,238,031 ||1.68
 * style="background:;" | || align="left" |Grigory Yavlinsky|| align="left" |Yabloko|| 769,644 ||1.05
 * style="background:;" | || align="left" |Boris Titov|| align="left" |Party of Growth|| 556,801 ||0.76
 * style="background:;" | || align="left" |Maxim Suraykin|| align="left" |Communists of Russia|| 499,342 ||0.68
 * style="background:;" | || align="left" |Sergey Baburin|| align="left" |Russian All-People's Union|| 479,013 ||0.65
 * align=left colspan=3|Invalid/blank votes||791,258||1.08
 * align=left colspan=3|Total||73,578,992||100.00
 * } -- Пэйнчик (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't consistent with psephological norms, which omit invalid votes. As a result, reliable third-party sources tend to redo the calculations with valid votes only, hence older articles (which use secondary rather than primary sources) do not include the invalid votes in the total – see the 1991, 1996, 2000 and 2008 articles and sources like the University of Essex, which specifically notes this recalculation to standardise the percentages. I think it's important that Wikipedia is internally consistent on how results are calculated – all the other articles on Russian referendums are also based on valid vote-only calculations. Number   5  7  16:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Simply because Russia's CEC reports votes with invalid votes included does not mean Wikipedia should. However, a note in the table specifying the discrepancy would likely be useful to readers. Anaglyphic (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But is there a real reason behind it? Is the russian president elected in the first round if he achieve 50%+1 of the valid votes, or of the total votes? If it's of total votes, I'm not against showing it in the table, but if it's of the valid votes, then those percentages are just some oddities of the primary source, and we should fall back to usual psephological norms as Number54 pointed out. Same with the referendum : would it have been deemed rejected if the Yes had gathered 50% of the valid votes but less than 50% of the total votes? If so, showing the results in percentages of the total make sense, but if not, we should keep with the normal portraying of referendum results. --Aréat (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , : If the number of invalid votes is 50%, the president will not be elected. In addition, we are not talking about some articles and sources, but about the official data of the civil service. Therefore, the numbers given in the English article are erroneous and not true. The president certainly must get 50% + 1 vote of all votes, including invalid, to win in the first round, and not only among valid votes. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And that should be noted in the text, but it doesn't mean we have to use those percentages in the results table. The percentages are not "erroneous" or "not true". They are calculated correctly according to normal psephology – the fact that the CEC does not do the calculation the same way does not make them wrong. We do not have to reproduce "official" results like-for-like (in fact, we regularly have to correct them because they are presented wrongly, such as not rounding correctly). Also, you don't need to ping me. I have this page on my watchlist. Number   5  7  17:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, in the articles on the presidential elections of 1991, 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008, all percentages were calculated incorrectly. I did not even realize the extent of the problem. Do not be offended, but the impression is made that the EnWiki live by their own rules and do not correspond to the real state of affairs. But if we on the Russian Wikipedia will recount the English elections in our own way? Is it normal? There is Russian law, according to which the percentage is calculated. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, it's not incorrect, the percentages are as reported by reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not beholden to Russian law. Number   5  7  18:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not obliged to follow Russian laws, but 77.9% voted for the amendments, but not 78.6%. This is an indisputable fact. 78.6% of voters did not vote for the amendments. It just contradicts common sense and reality. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Russia is not a free democracy, but a quasi-Stalinist state more or less controlled by Putin and his cronies - the press certainly is not a free press, and official Russian election results are propagandized to a great extent - I have no doubt the majority of Russians support him and his policies, as he is popular with the people - but much of that is based on what they are told, rather than what they can evaluate based on a free press - and Wiki goes by reliable secondary sources, even in English or American election results.50.111.61.212 (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not an 'indisputable fact', as referendum results are typically interpreted through the yes/no votes only. By your logic, the reported figures for hundreds of other referendums 'contradict common sense and reality' because they exclude the invalid votes. Number   5  7  21:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this is a fact and I can’t speak for hundreds of other referenda, but the results of Russian election campaigns are incorrectly reflected. In this case, I officially warn all readers of this article and other articles about voting in Russia that the English Wikipedia, where false data is presented, is misleading. I request authoritative sources that mention the support for amendments of 78.56% of voters. In turn, I quote sources confirming my position: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and many others. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why use secondary sources when there are authoritative foreign sources that are not subject to propaganda. And in all of these sources of support for amendments, 77.9%, and not 78.6%. This figure 78.6% came from nowhere. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not typically preferred on Wikipedia, as they are often not independent from the subject. Independence from the subject is valued because it prevents conflict of interest. Anaglyphic (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when did the New York Times and the BBC depend on the Russian authorities. You utter general phrases, and I have long cited both authoritative and independent sources. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you asked, Why use secondary sources ... and I explained why. I "utter general phrases" because I do not especially care what the result of this argument is. You are right that, if there is not a secondary, independent source reflecting the number 78.6%, it should not be included. Anaglyphic (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not right to say that. Routine/basic calculations are allowed (and regularly made by editors on election/referendum articles when the election commissions fail to produce comprehensive results) and not deemed WP:OR. Number   5  7  16:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * However, in this case, the election commissions give comprehensive results, and the figure of 78.6% is simply invented. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not seem the two of you will come to a satisfactory conclusion soon. I suggest you use the dispute resolution noticeboard, as I do not think I am suitable to settle this. Anaglyphic (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just don’t understand what the argument is about. There are official figures, supported by authoritative independent Russian and foreign sources, and there is a figure that is used only(!) in the English Wikipedia, from where it incidentally migrated, at least to the Spanish and French Wikipedia. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source backing this ? "If the number of invalid votes is 50%, the president will not be elected. The president certainly must get 50% + 1 vote of all votes, including invalid, to win in the first round, and not only among valid votes."
 * No, this is a fact and I can’t speak for hundreds of other referenda, but the results of Russian election campaigns are incorrectly reflected. In this case, I officially warn all readers of this article and other articles about voting in Russia that the English Wikipedia, where false data is presented, is misleading. I request authoritative sources that mention the support for amendments of 78.56% of voters. In turn, I quote sources confirming my position: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and many others. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Why use secondary sources when there are authoritative foreign sources that are not subject to propaganda. And in all of these sources of support for amendments, 77.9%, and not 78.6%. This figure 78.6% came from nowhere. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are not typically preferred on Wikipedia, as they are often not independent from the subject. Independence from the subject is valued because it prevents conflict of interest. Anaglyphic (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since when did the New York Times and the BBC depend on the Russian authorities. You utter general phrases, and I have long cited both authoritative and independent sources. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you asked, Why use secondary sources ... and I explained why. I "utter general phrases" because I do not especially care what the result of this argument is. You are right that, if there is not a secondary, independent source reflecting the number 78.6%, it should not be included. Anaglyphic (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not right to say that. Routine/basic calculations are allowed (and regularly made by editors on election/referendum articles when the election commissions fail to produce comprehensive results) and not deemed WP:OR. Number   5  7  16:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * However, in this case, the election commissions give comprehensive results, and the figure of 78.6% is simply invented. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not seem the two of you will come to a satisfactory conclusion soon. I suggest you use the dispute resolution noticeboard, as I do not think I am suitable to settle this. Anaglyphic (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just don’t understand what the argument is about. There are official figures, supported by authoritative independent Russian and foreign sources, and there is a figure that is used only(!) in the English Wikipedia, from where it incidentally migrated, at least to the Spanish and French Wikipedia. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 05:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source backing this ? "If the number of invalid votes is 50%, the president will not be elected. The president certainly must get 50% + 1 vote of all votes, including invalid, to win in the first round, and not only among valid votes."
 * Yes, and this source is the Federal Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation on amending the Constitution of the Russian Federation of March 14, 2020 N 1-FCL "On improving the regulation of certain issues of the organization and functioning of public authority." To be precise, article 3, paragraph 5. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the Federal Law of June 12, 2002 N 67-FL “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in the Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation”, article 68, paragraph 17, the number of invalid ballots is entered in the tenth line of the protocol of the election commission and is taken into account. That is, an invalid vote works like a vote against all candidates, reducing the percentage of each of them. And to win the election, a simple majority is not enough. It is necessary that the candidate receives more than 50% of the vote of all voters who participated in the vote. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Do you happen to have a link to these documents, even in russian?--Aréat (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately, only in Russian is: Federal Constitutional Law No. 1 Article 3, Federal Law No. 67 Article 68. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I found an english translation . The source doesn't apply to votes before 2002, though.--Aréat (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * and, I do not necessarily have a decisive preference for following traditional psephological norms (reporting the results calculated only using affirmative or appositive votes; not including invalid votes in the total) as opposed to reporting the results as Russia's CEC does. However, under either solution a note should be added to explain the discrepancy. Can we, at the very least, mutually agree on this? Anaglyphic (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You can add the result of 78.6% to the note, because I have not seen confirmation of these figures for several days, and the real data (77.9%), supported by sources, should be placed in the table and in the template as the main ones. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As stated, I do not particularly care which data is included (they are both "real," they are simply analyzed differently), I only care that the reader understands how the result is calculated the way it is as displayed in the table and why this differs from either the result provided by the CEC or traditional psephological norms. Anaglyphic (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Elections alone - results alone. There can be no other interpretations, because if the region had voted: YES - 49%; NO - 47%; Invalid votes - 4%, then amendments would not be accepted. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be off topic again, but what about the second round of the presidential election, then? If two candidates get 49 and 48 %, and there's 3 % of blank/invalid votes, is the 49% one getting elected even though he didn't have 50%+1, because it's just the candidate in first position who win, like in Abkhazia, or is it that the election has to be redone because no one got 50%+1, like in Mongolia?--Aréat (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All is well, do not apologize. According to Article 77, paragraph 4 of Federal Law of January 10, 2003 N 19-FL "On the Election of the President of the Russian Federation", the registered candidate, who received more votes cast by voters who took part in the voting than the other registered candidate, shall be deemed elected for the office of President of the Russian Federation. Thus, in the second round, the victory is with the candidate, who has 49%. However, if no candidate can get 50% + 1 vote in the first round because of the invalid votes that are counted in Russia (and I focus on this), then the second round will be appointed. That is, we cannot just ignore invalid votes. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks you for your answer. On the french wiki, we have the habit of modifying the tables to include the blank and invalid votes when they have these sorts of consequences on the election process, so I will look into changing it whenever I have the time. It isn't the habit on the english wiki here, however, so it would be better to enlarge the discussion to more of its users.--Aréat (talk) 12:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, we also have a special “procent” parameter for the Infobox referendum in Russian Wikipedia, which allows us to choose from what value to calculate the percentage of votes. However, this is not provided in the English Wikipedia, which leads to unreliable election results. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed adoption without a referendum and Proposed consultative All-Russia voting
These sections should be combined, perhaps as a section titled "Legal status." The subsection Terminology should be entirely eliminated, as it constitutes original research and lacks independent sources. The content of both sections could likely be significantly condensed. Anaglyphic (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Presidential appointment of Prime minister and other ministers
On both this article and the article for the 2020 amendments to the Constitution of Russia, it explicitly mentions one of the amendments to the Constitution being that the State Duma will have the right to approve the prime minister's candidacy, which seems to imply that the President would still appoint the prime minister. And in fact reading the Law on the amendment to Russian Federation Constitution in the English version it reads:


 * Pursuant to the Law, the President of the Russian Federation shall appoint Deputy Prime Ministers of the Russian Federation and federal ministers, whose candidacies shall be subject to approval by the State Duma, except for ministers in charge of national security, defence and law enforcement, whose candidacies shall be subject to approval by the Federation Council.

It doesn't even mention the prime minister directly. But my question is how this is different than how the prime minister is currently approve/consented to? Is it a poor English translation of the amendment? Or was the amendment written purposefully to leave out the prime minister to imply that the Duma will get to pick him or her? As I read the law before this amendment was enacted, the President nominated/appointed the prime minister and the Duma could consent/approve or reject the nominee. How will this change? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, I knew I wasn't the only one confused by this or skeptical about what the amendments actually say and what they do and do not actually change as it relates to choosing the head of government. From an article last month:


 * The proposed amendments to the Constitution will only change the wording of the procedure for appointing the prime minister. “The Prime Minister of the Russian Federation is appointed by the President of the Russian Federation after the approval of his candidacy by the State Duma,” the first paragraph of the new version of Article 111 says. However, the “approval” procedure itself doesn’t differ from the current process of “giving consent” — in fact, it’s exactly the same: the State Duma is to consider the candidate or candidates for prime minister at the suggestion of the president. However, the president is no longer bound by the obligation to dissolve the State Duma if it rejects his proposed candidate(s) all three times. In the event that this takes place, the president can simply appoint a prime minister — whether or not he dissolves the lower house is left to his own discretion. 


 * That said, the parliament does take on a somewhat increased role in the appointment of the remaining government ministers, since the prime minister will now make candidate suggestions to the State Duma, rather than the president. But if the deputies reject the prime minister’s candidates for ministerial and deputy prime minister positions all three times, then the president has the right to appoint them himself (as outlined in Article 112, paragraph four of the new version of the Constitution).


 * What do others think of this analysis? Did this amendment really change who appoints the prime minister or not? I'm failing to see what's changed beyond the fact that the president seems to have actually been given MORE power to make this appointment(s).  If this in fact increases the president's powers, we need to be very clear of this in the "List" subsection in this article, and the "Proposed amendments" section of the 2020 amendments to the Constitution of Russia article instead of how this particular amendment was sold in the wider media.  If this amendment, in fact, does the exact opposite of what it was said to do, we need to be clear about this. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Turnout
The turnout in the "referendum" was 74,215,555 people (67.97%). Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. 74,114,217 is the number of ballots contained in ballot boxes, and 74,215,555 is the number of ballots issued to voters (that is, how many people physically came to the polling station, which is turnout). -- Пэйнчик (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Turnout is valid votes and invalid votes. People who turned up but did not vote are not counted – they are abstentions in the same way that people who did not turn up at all. Number   5  7  18:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The word turnout itself is cognate with the word to appear (at least in Russian), that is, even those who have come to the polling station, but took their ballot paper from the polling station, should be taken into account. After all, these people came to the polling station, received their ballot, but left with it, and did not throw it into the ballot box. Otherwise, in this article, from the results to the turnout, everything is presented incorrectly and this is no longer funny, it seems that we live in parallel universes. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. If they really were to count for the turnout, it meant they would be part of the total of registered voters having participated in the vote, and the percentages of yes/no would have been tweaked accordingly. Yet they weren't. You can't have voters simultaneously having participated and not having participated.--Aréat (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We will never really understand each other. This is the same as I say that Macron won the 2017 elections with 76% on a turnout of 146%. That's how I see it. There are generally accepted figures that are both official (recognized by the CEC) and recognized by authoritative media. But the English Wikipedia has once again decided to stand out with percentages taken from heaven. And NOBODY, except me, even sees it. It is amazing. I have to admit this article is fake, not reflecting the actual situation. -- Пэйнчик (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered my point. You can't simultaneously say the result were 60 yes votes out of 100 total voters, and that the turnout was 110 total voters out of 200 registered voters. It's either 100 or 110, but can't be both.--Aréat (talk) 07:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I tell you that both the outcome and the turnout are presented incorrectly in the article. I do not understand your question. Those people who took the ballot paper with them from the polling station are also voting participants. They put their signature in the magazine that they participated, that is, they are included in the voter turnout. This is how the results should look like:


 * {| class="wikitable"

!Place !Choice !Votes !%
 * colspan="4" | Distribution of votes
 * 1.
 * ✅ «Yes»
 * bgcolor=#CEF6D8|57,747,288
 * bgcolor=#CEF6D8|77.92
 * 2.
 * «No»
 * 15,761,978
 * 21.27
 * colspan="2" |Invalid votes
 * 604 951
 * 0,81
 * colspan="4" | Bulletins
 * colspan="2" |Number of ballots in ballot boxes
 * 74,114,217
 * 99.86
 * colspan="2" |Number of ballots carried off from polling stations
 * 101,338
 * 0.14
 * colspan="2" |Turnout
 * 74,215,555
 * 67.97
 * colspan="2" |Total
 * 109,190,337
 * 100
 * colspan=4 align=left |Source: ЦИК
 * } -- Пэйнчик (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The turnout is presented correctly. People who do not cast a ballot are not counted in the turnout. Number   5  7  11:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 74,215,555
 * 67.97
 * colspan="2" |Total
 * 109,190,337
 * 100
 * colspan=4 align=left |Source: ЦИК
 * } -- Пэйнчик (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The turnout is presented correctly. People who do not cast a ballot are not counted in the turnout. Number   5  7  11:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * } -- Пэйнчик (talk) 09:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The turnout is presented correctly. People who do not cast a ballot are not counted in the turnout. Number   5  7  11:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Putin remarks on presidential terms
Would be nice to add his remarks concerning terms of his reelection: "work, don't look for a new successor"; AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 09:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)