Talk:Human rights in Russia/Archive 2

Political murders
I am interested, why this is placed in this section: "According to Sergey Kovalev, the government kills the citizens without any hesitation. He provided the following examples: murdering of hostages by the poison gas during Moscow theater hostage crisis; burning school children alive by spetsnaz soldiers who used RPO flamethrowers during Beslan school hostage crisis; crimes committed by death squads in Chechnya;[12] and assassination of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev" He didn't speak about political murders. I do not think that Beslan children were killed because they read prohibited literature, or Moscow hostages died because they opposed Policy of Kremlin in Chechnya and The World. The only reason why it's here -- because nothing better was found. But it's not a valid reason. So, Biophys, either try to find better fitting section for this stuff, either it will be removed. ellol 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So, I made the change to reflect your request. Honestly, I did not want to work any more with this article, but you are inviting me. This is fine, why not to improve this article? Besides, almost every chapter here can be the basis for an independent and more detailed article. I would rather start from Torture in Russia, as time allows. Of course, Alleged political murders in Russia is also good subject. Biophys 19:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Better expand your PhD dissertation. ellol 19:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't you be so corteous now to compactify a bit Sergey Kovalev's speech in the opening? You surely aren't going to turn this page into Sergey Kovalev's home page, are you? ellol 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What fight are you talking about? I have never talked about any fight. This is Vlad who just posted a Russian song at his talk page, which asks everyone "fight to death for Great Russia".  But I am a very peaceful (almost "anti-war") person. I am working to create good articles here. This is all.Biophys 19:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The war? You are far from Chechnya, but try to understand it. You mentioned that murder of Maskhadov could be treachery. I don't know. Let it even be so. But what to do with those who died in Moscow theater and Beslan? What was that? You can say, that more Chechens died in the war (although there are different opinions). It doesn't even matter. Hopefully the war is gone. Let's don't inflame national strife again. Let's talk on the language of sole numbers. People were killed in Moscow. People were killed in Chechnya. Nothing else matters. ellol 20:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * O'K, let's not fight, even in the virtual space. I also thought about translating article Criticism of Vladimir Putin from Russian Wikipedia, but that would be very inflammatory and without any benefits. So, I would rather relax and do something else.Biophys 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have much to do myself. ellol 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As about my work, I agree. Could we just relax a little and did not edit this article any more for a couple of days?Biophys 19:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Press freedom
Just some info to think about:
 * U.S. ranks Russia among seven least free countries for press
 * CIS: Behind An 'Information Curtain'
 * Freedom of the Press 2007 Survey Release

They noted: "Aggressive efforts by the Russian government to further marginalize independent media voices, punctuated by plans to regulate the internet"; “The records of Venezuela and Russia are appalling, all the more so because of those countries’ impact on their regions,” said Karin Karlekar, managing editor of the press freedom survey.

The report also warned of expanded restriction of the internet. It highlighted China, Vietnam and Iran, which continue to convict and imprison large numbers of journalists and “cyberdissidents,” and indicated that this trend has spread to other countries with restrictive media environments, including Russia, where the administration of President Vladimir Putin has announced plans to establish a mechanism to regulate internet content, as well as several countries in Africa. See Press Freedom Declines in Asia, Ex-Soviet Region and Latin America, Study Finds; Warns of Growing Internet Restriction Biophys 03:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's also interesting to note reaction of Russian media, with liberal deviations, by the way, Lenta.Ru obviously sympathized Khodorkovsky and opposed e.g. Putin's changes with Governors elections. ellol 04:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) What does it say? "Freedom house made a big work, but obvious errors(mistakes) of it a bit compromise the idea of securing freedom of press as one of the basic values in modern world" ellol 04:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC) The article is called "Lilac fraud", ugh. "Metodology of authors of Freedom House report leaves space for subjective interpretations, because it doesn't conform to scientific requirements for sociological and statistical researches." ellol 04:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction
First of all, I'm sorry if I looked too straightforward, but if you look on my actions, I only revised the used info and provided new viewpoints. Ok?

Now, about the introduction. I think we should shorten a bit Sergey Kovalev's statement. I do not want to shut mouths of dissidents or crumple the green sprouts of young democracy. But I think that we should show Kovalev's point with less bloody details. Like, "He said that government kills the citizens without any hesitation, pointing on severity of governmental actions during recent hostage crisises and Chechen War as a whole." Why I think it's needed. I don't know how it's about you, but when I'm reading about Moscow Hostage Crisis or Beslan, I immediately have before my eyes a picture of burned children and people asphyxated with their tongues in their throats. And I can't appreciate ANY further information about Human Rights. I will formulate it more concisely: this may look as psychological shock for a reader, after which he is unable to think or calmly perceive information. p.s. I do not mean that these events can't be e.g. viewed in Chechnya section. But as it is now, the introduction looks as if instead of invitation to the article we have a sign "Do not come here!" I would be interested to hear opinion of QZXA2, however. ellol 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that Beslan and Moscow Hostage Crisis episodes are critical for understanding the situation with human rights in Russia. It tells how government treats its citizens. Nothing even remotely similar to this could happen in Europe or USA. The hostages here can be killed by hostage-takers if something goes wrong (as in the case of Olympic team of Israel), but not by police officers. That was basically a mass murder. That is why Kovalev talks about these episodes as something extremely important.  That is why these episodes should stay where they are.Biophys 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, of course we could make "pro" and "contra" subsections in Introduction, but that would look really stupid. The real problem is the following: the assessment of situation with human rights in Russia by Kovalev and a vast majority of Western sources (Amnesty International, etc.) and by Lukin/De Robles are completely incompatible. The solution of this problem is very obvious: (a) stick to statistical data, facts, and very specific claims in the main body of the article, and (b) make a summary that is based on cited expert's opinion but consistent with text of the entire article (that is Kovalev). That is exactly what I did in the previous version.Biophys 19:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) They are pretty well compatible, at least for me, and I hope for everybody with a track of brains. Removing Gil-Robles's view would be a bright example of liberal censorship, I caution. 2) I spoke about a very simple thing. That you should have mercy for readers feelings. You didn't want to understand me. Ok. Btw, perhaps you don't take into consideration that if police didn't kill 100 in Moscow, terrorists would kill whole 800. There's no alternative to using gas. The other question is that if medics were enough informed about the gas, many people who died in clinics would survive. ellol 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing of this article
Ellol, you inserted a lot of texts that make almost no specific claims or arguments and include no specific information/data on the subject. This is really a kind of dilution of the content or soapboxing. See this for example: Alvaro Gil-Robles, first Commissioner for Human Rights of Council of Europe, in his 2005 report [3] was impressed on the scale of changes which the country has experienced since the end of the Soviet era. He said, "the fledgling Russian democracy is still, of course, far from perfect, but its existence and its successes cannot be denied." He noted, that since 1996 Russian legislation has been radically reformed in order to bring it in line with European standarts and most of current weaknesses lie in its implementation (as many officials and professionals have difficulties to grasp it). Another major difficulty is the death penalty, still provided by Russian law, despite 1996 moratorium. Gil-Robles also noted that some of the recent reforms have raised concerns "among the public as to whether democratic achievements will remain in place". [3]

Vladimir Lukin, current Ombudsman of Russian Federation, in the last years invariably characterized situation with human rights as unsatisfactory. However, as he said in report on the situation in 2006[4], this shouldn't discourage, because building of lawful state and civil society, especially in such complex country as Russia, is hard and long process, with recessions and rises. He said that in 2006 the major flow of complains, as usually concerned social and economical rights.[4]

But you excluded from the introduction a condensed text with numerous references about concrete human rights problems. I do not think this makes article better. Quite the opposite. Biophys 19:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Gil-Robles and Lukin make certain points, present certain views. I do not think that one may explain complex situation in Russia with words "They are all gays" or "Putin is an asshole". And, they are experts, and big people in the area of Human Rights. One is Russian Ombudsman, the other -- European Commissioner. And their statements are parts of their reports. Btw, I do not understand, why you did remove Kovalev's statement about censorship, because whether there's censorship in Russia is the central question in current political discourse. ellol 20:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC) I don't think shortening Gil-Robles's overview would be correct, because now it's a balanced view with both positive and negative sides. I hope it's close to his actual view. ellol 20:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I excluded nothing. I only moved it just a bit ahead. But if you don't feel the introduction becomes too long, feel free to put it backwards. If you want to get statistical, you should at first understand, that every year there's 28,000 murders, and so all 44 journalists murders are nothing on this background, and all thing with NGOs and opposition lawmakers is nonsense on this background. You forget that there are also social and economical rights. Do you think it's OK when teacher has to live on the wage 150$ monthly, and old man has to survive on the pension of 70$? Do you think they are concerned with anything in the country except of their own survival? ellol 21:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This article still sucks!!
Biophys, you speak of "government mass murder", thatwould "never happen in the west". Ever hear about Waco? What about Israel's barbaric invasion of Lebanon? What about America's use of agent orange in Vietnam. As for press freedom, Georgia restricts its media far more than Russia. And don't present me with mor Freedom House BS, I don't give a flying fuck what they have to say, they are a biased neocon group. They rate Ethiopia as "partly free" (5 in political freedom, 5 in personal freedom), and Russia 6-5. Ethiopians enjoy more political feedoms than Russia? That is so pathetic that it's not even funny!!! read these: Human rights in Ethiopia, Human rights in Yemen, Human rights in Nigeria, Human rights in Armenia, Human rights in Georgia, Human rights in Turkey, and Human rights in Kyrgyzstan. What do these nations have in common? They are all rated "partly free" by FH when their human rights records are the same as, or even worse than Russia's. I would not consider FH a good source. The intro of this article still treats claims by opposition members as facts, as with the section of political prosecutions! This article has a long ways to go before it can be truly called NPOV QZXA2 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Imagine the US government spraying agent orange over Oregon rather than Vietnam or Israel bombing Haifa rather than Lebanon and try to meditate. Good luck! Colchicum 10:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Biophys, you should read this: Words to Avoid QZXA2 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)



Even worse, if you look at Kovalev's interview, he didn't mention RPO flamethrowers, he didn't say "Government kills its citizens without hesitation", he said "Government is ready to kill its citizens", etc. This must be completely revised. ellol 06:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC) ("stagnation" he speaks about is in fact Zastoy i.e. years of Brezhnev's rule, "lgut" is Russian for "they lie", "naduvanie cheeks" means "boasting") ellol 06:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why this is so: "He said government is ready for murdering its citizens, referring to use of mysterious chemical agent during Moscow theater hostage crisis, and claiming that hostages' lives were disregarded for the sake of political reasons during Beslan school hostage crisis." Kovalev didn't mentioned flamethrowers and didn't say hostages were murdered by government with gas. Perhaps he had his own reasons to do that, any way we mustn't devise speech for him. ellol 11:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"Imagine the US government sraying agent orange over Oregon or Israel bombing Haifa and then try to meditate." What is that supposed to mean? if the American prvence of Oregon was rebeling during the 60's instead of Vietnam, the US government would surley have used the same tactics as they did in Vietnam. QZXA2 21:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Why does the page claim that "Human rights groups also identified Mikhail Khodorkovsky as a political prisoner."??? Article about Khodorkovsky only sais that "Therefore, Khodorkovsky's supporters claimed that the arrest was politically-motivated and would have a devastating effect on Russia's nascent financial markets." If nobody provides a sound Human rights group which claimed that, this should be removed. ellol 13:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also take note, in Politically-motivated prosecutions there's a phrase, "Many people have been also illegally detained to prevent them from demonstrations during G8 Summit in 2006." The source allows only to say that "Regional militia and FSB department of Saratov prevented some of oppositioners to get to G8 Summit in 2006, using unexplained detainings.". This either needs more extensive source search, either replacing the phrase with one better reflecting the article. ellol 08:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yuriy Ryzhov wasn't accused nor arrested. But he gave some interviews considering cases of physicists. Somebody just wasn't attentive and placed him in the list.

Cases of Anatoly Babkin and Valentin Moiseyev are yet not viewed in section "politically motivated espionage cases". ellol 08:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We are lucky -- 2005 Vladimir Lukin's report was translated into English. Yo-hoo! ellol 14:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Although this article has made significant progress to becoming NPOV, I still see many hidden biases (the sources are still all anti-Russian!). Like I said in earlier, too many allegations are treated as fact. I am glad that the wheels are in motion though. QZXA2 21:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention! Attempted balance being reverted!
I recently tried to balance this article, but Biophys seems determined to keep this an anti-Kremlin propoganda tool! Please be reasonable, you don't need asource for everthing, sand not all sources are reliable (ie. Al Qaida website should not be used for American HR page). There is no reason for there to be a sensless edit war in which bo one will win. QZXA2 00:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please follow Wikipedia rules. You can not delete relevant and well sourced information. This may be considered vandalism (now you have been warned!). If you want to improve articles, please add alternative information/POV supported by your sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE as my sources.Biophys 00:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Does EVERYTHING have to be sourced?! I understand that there are rules. See Words to Avoid, and see for yourself why this article should be balanced. QZXA2 00:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, EVERYTHING must be sourced - see WP:SOURCE. If you do not like a few words, you can try to replace these words if appropriate. But you can not simply delete sourced text.Biophys 00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine! I'll let this fucking article remain biased...for now. QZXA2 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyboody knows that Russia is sanguinary dictatorship! :lol: Carn 20:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction, everybody THINKS (quite wrongly I may add) Russia is a dictatorship. Articles like this give them more ammunition. QZXA2 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * All available sources claim about terrible human rights violations in Russia, repressions, and indeed dictatorship. QZXA2, may I ask you: why do you think otherwise? Do you live in Russia? Do you have some friends in Russia who tell that everything is fine? Do you love Putin?Biophys 20:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, why are you misleading people? If you are reading only liberal stuff, it doesn't mean there are no different sources and viewpoints! ellol 06:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Why do you think otherwise, gg, welcome to 1984. ellol 06:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked QZXA2.Biophys 13:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"All availible sources claim about terrible human rights violations in Russia, repressions, and indeed dictatorship...why do you think otherwise?..." Oh that's rich! Ok, let's see who your sources are, liberal human rights groups who sympathise with Russia's opposition, (whose members have NEVER SET FOOT IN RUSSIA), the very unpopular oppsition, a money/fame hungry journalist who provided NOT ONE SPECK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HER CLAIMS, an ex-FSB man who went berserk when the government told him to kill his criminal friend (and also provided no evidence for his claims either), and Chechen TERRORISTS. Now who supports my beliefs? 81% OF RUSSIA'S POPULATION (most of which are well aware about the government controlling the media), and The former head of the council of Europe's human rights branch, ONE OF THE MOST RESPECTABLE HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS IN THE WORLD. I may also add that Mr Alvro Gilbes (unlike your HR group friends) ACTUALLY WENT TO RUSSIA AND SAW WHAT IT IS LIKE THERE HIMSELF!!!!!! And frankly, I don't see how you can discredit 81% of an entire nation! BIOPHYS, ACCEPT THE FACT THAT YOU CANNOT FORCE YOUR POV INTO ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!! You have every right to believe what you want about the Russian government, but YOU SIMPLY CANNOT MAKE ARTICLES SO ONE SIDED AND BIASED!!! It is perfectly acceptable to make mention of the servere alleghations regarding Russia's human rights situation, but you just can't base an entire article purely on unproven accusations. Please, don't be so narrow minded. QZXA2 21:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But you did not answer my questions. I know that you have strong POV. I can see that you do not like your "opponents". But why do you think so? 81% of population believe in what? Where did you find this 81% (reference please)? Can you provide any referenced facts or data that prove your point? Then, we might include them in this article. So, I am basically trying to understand you and respond to your opinion.Biophys 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

81% of the Russian population support Putin, I will give you a source momentarily. (PS At least I try not to show my POV in my edits) QZXA2 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Ah, here it is! ref>www.russiavotes.org


 * Great! It means that Putin is much more popular in Russia than Bush in US. Does it mean that situation with human rights in Russia is better than in US? Just the opposite is true. Why does Putin is so popular? Perhaps because he controls mass media, and all his opponents are ether beaten on the streets or killed at the entryways of their houses.Biophys 03:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me guess. All opponents who are beaten on the streets is Limonov, and all killed at entryways is Politkovskaya? ellol 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You still make no difference between SU and Russia.. Why can't you realize that Putin's popularity is based on the fact that he is the only head of the state in the last 20 years who really tries to improve economical situation in the country? If you think it's not necessary, answer why do you reside in US rather than in Russia, answer, how would you continue your strife towards human rights on a diet of bread and water? Of course Putin is not ideal. One must be an idiot to think so. But he at least does something. ellol 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say, the only one who SEEMS to try to improve economical situation. The positive measures that have been taken (e.g. flat income tax and stabilization fund) weren't proposed by the president himself. If you pay attention to what he himself proposes to do and does, it is really very dangerous. Also it is not very illuminating to assess the current situation disregarding 4x difference in petroleum price between then and now. In a sense, the economical recovery has no more to do with Putin than with you, me or solar activity. Colchicum 11:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * May I also ask a question? Biophys, have you read Lukyanenko or Strugatsky? Then, which Russian books about WW2 had you read? Have you read Vasil Bykov or Konstantin Simonov? ellol 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Lukyanenko's bullshit is really not worth reading, Biophys, don't waste your time. I guess Biophys has read the others. So what? Is this relevant here? Colchicum 11:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, Colchicum, why do you HATE Russia so much? Why do you HATE people who support Putin? Most Russians are well aware about the state controll of the media. And yes, Putin DID propose MANY economic reforms that have brought Russia out of it's extreme debt of the 90's. Are you aware that under Yeltsin Russians had to wait in long lines for two hours just to get thier MONTHLY carton of milk? Or that people had to hire gaurds just so they could leave thier house whithout the mafiya looting it? And that those problems are now fading away under Putin? I know many Russians who say that this is how it was under Yeltsin, and all of them are glad to see someone like Putin reforming the economy. Oh, and NOT ONE OF THEM THINKS RUSSIA IS A DICTATORSHIP! You must think Russians are very stupid, many of them lived in the SU and would know a dictator when they see one. For now, the Russians want a strong centralised government, when they are ready to choose a liberal as thier president, they will do so. LET THE RUSSIANS DECIDE FOR RUSSIA. As long as Russia's elections are free of vote tampering, Russians will have the power to have whoever they like as thier president. QZXA2 14:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't hate Russia. If I hated Russia, I wouldn't spend a single word on it.
 * 2) Why do you HATE people who support Putin? -- I don't care whether a certain person likes Putin or not. But I am determined to fight those who support Putin in restricting my freedoms. Or should I give up without a fight?
 * 3) Putin DID propose MANY economic reforms that have brought Russia out of it's extreme debt of the 90's -- Sources, please?
 * 4) Apparently unlike you, I am Russian and I lived in Russia under Yeltsin, so don't try to sell me this nonsense. It was under Gorbachev in the Soviet Union that Russians had to wait in long lines for two hours, and I did this myself. I have seen nothing similar after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. And nobody I know personally have ever really needed a guard in Russia. Yes, some people that were 5 years old or so under Yeltsin tend to tell such stories, but one should be smart enough not to believe them.
 * 5) Putin reforming the economy How exactly does he reform the economy? What does he do, eh?
 * 6) the Russians want a strong centralised government Who the hell are these "Russians"? Sources? I am Russian and I don't want that, many friends of mine are Russians and they all don't want that. And I won't allow anybody to decide for myself. When one says that the Russians want strong power it is merely meant that Russians dislike corruption etc. Putin doesn't help here much. "Strong" centralized government just can't work in such an immense and diverse country.
 * 7) I am Russian and I am going to decide what I like to see at home. I tend to disregard this kind of advices as to what I should like. Go decide for yourself.
 * 8) Russian elections are not free of vote tampering. Colchicum 14:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OSCE begs to differ Final Report. By "Russians" I mean the 81% who support Putin, I didn't ever say that "all" Russians want anything. None of the Russians I know were "5" during Yeltsin presidency but rather in thier early 20s, and they aren't ideots as you are suggesting they are. You seem to believe this talk about the FSB "repressing" dissidents, you don't seem to have any problem saying negative things about the Russian government! Have any of your friends been kidnapped, beaten, or arrested? You say a "strong" government cant do well in a large and diverse country, are you saying a weak government would do better? LOL QZXA2 20:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (3), (5) - слив засчитан
 * None of the Russians I know were "5" during Yeltsin presidency but rather in thier early 20s, and they aren't ideots as you are suggesting they are. If they lived in Russia between 1992-1999 and tell such stories, they are (more probably) liars or (less probably) have wery narrow outlook. Milk-seeking long lines in Russia have been very uncommon, if existed at all since 1992.
 * By "Russians" I mean the 81% who support Putin -- Vast majority of Russians have no access to the Internet, many of them have access to state-owned media only, a considerable part of them has no available mass media at all. So some of the 81% supports something they have no idea of. And even if they have, what does it mean to support Putin? It is a fundamentally flawed question. To support some of his activities? Well, then I do, though to a very little extent. To believe that it could be worse? Well, I do. To like him personally? I don't. To approve whatever he does? I don't, but I guess nobody who is sane does approve whatever he has done himself, let alone Putin. Do I support Putin? A meaningful question would be whether one (dis)prefer Putin over a certain other political program. But since, thanks to Putin, there is no other widely known political program with chances to be implemented, we cannot expect an insightful answer. 81% means nothing. Let me recall a comment by our fellow Wikipedian Alex Bakharev here: Если на марши станет ходить нестрашно, а даже модно и полезно для карьеры - то завтра придет не пять тысяч а миллион - и все для власти кончится. But what is your point, eh? This article is not about Putin.
 * You seem to believe this talk about the FSB "repressing" dissidents -- No, I don't. I haven't mentioned FSB here. It is you who are discussing largely irrelevant issues.
 * you don't seem to have any problem saying negative things about the Russian government! -- Why should I have any problem here? Are they saints?
 * Have any of your friends been kidnapped, beaten, or arrested? -- This is not your business.
 * You say a "strong" government cant do well in a large and diverse country, are you saying a weak government would do better? -- Exactly. Federal government should be weak and small. Regional governments should have much more responsibilities. As to your LOL - well, if you are going to laugh at many libertarian and conservative political programs... Colchicum 11:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You ask: "Have any of your friends been kidnapped, beaten, or arrested?". Yes, my friend's relatives were killed recently in Russia, and their death was very painful (and yes, FSB was involved). But I do not hate anyone. To the contrary, I still belive this is my country, at least culturally. That is why I am interested in Russian history and politics. Biophys 23:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Colchicum, yes, 1TV, and ORT are state-owned, NTV is owned by Gazprom. But Ren-TV is private, the channel with 80 million people audience. I watched Ren-TV as recently as this week. Marianna Maksimovskaya in "Week", interviewed Geraschenko, man who would be suggested as President from United Russia, etc, etc. ellol 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Sources for 80 million? 2) How is this measured? 3) I presume that at best 80 million can watch Ren-TV, not that they actually do (although this is still highly improbable figures). 4) REN-TV is ultimately owned by Severstal and Surgutneftegaz. I'd better rely on Gazprom. 5) You seem to mix up the Other Russia with United Russia. 6) The Other Russia can disagree, but IMHO Gerashchenko is just as good as Putin. Colchicum 17:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 7) From the very article Ren-TV one might conclude that something is not ok with it. I doubt that they can afford much criticism towards Putin's line. The channels that had tried were shut down or taken over by the state much earlier. Oh, you probably believe that this is nothing personal, just a business. But in fact what Venezuela experiences now Russia underwent much earlier. Colchicum 17:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Colchicum, have a weak federal government in the country where you live. Excuse me, but strongness of Russian government is none of your business anymore. ellol 16:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care whether you consider strength of the Russian government my business or not. In fact it is. I am a citizen of Russia and live in Russia (as well as two other countries) from time to time. Sorry, I am not going to explain where I am now and my travel plans to you. I consider your statement personal offense and will act accordingly. Decide for yourself and your Dolgoprudny. Colchicum 16:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I didn't know whether you are a citizen of Russia, but presumed the opposite, without having evidence for that. I had no right to accuse you, and I realize short-mindness and incorrectness of my action. Of course, as you are a citizen of Russia, strongness and weakness of Russian government, as well as any other questions considering Russia may be your business, because as stated in constitution Russian nation realizes sovereignity of Russia, and the only measure of whether a man belongs to Russian nation is whether he is a citizen of Russia.
 * I ask to consider this my official apologies. ellol 17:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok then, excuse me for Dolgoprudny. I sort of overreacted. Colchicum 17:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. In fact, perhaps it would be better if I actively respond on processes taking place in Dolgoprudny, rather than editing Wikipedia. At least it would be direct support of Russian democracy. ellol 17:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the discussion, page Ren-TV speaks about some 112 million people of potential audience, and website speaks about 120 million; yet I don't know whether 20 million in CIS countries are included here.

In the recent year new telechannel appeared, O2TV, which orients on youth audience. It's name is from a popular short story. There is a political program, "Polit-cocktail". I watched it once or two and that was great, but overall I still don't have my own impression of this channel.

There was also created channel "Zvezda", whose official goal is upbringing youths in patriotic attitude. I can say even less about the channel. From what I saw, I can only say that when it broadcasts news it shows civilian news along with military ones. ellol 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, while Ren-TV was broadcast in St. Petersburg last time I was there, 02TV and Zvezda apparently weren't. By the way, UHF channels are not always received well within the city unless you are in a particularly favorable location or subscribed to cable TV (which has become widespread recently), and are mostly unavailable in Leningrad Oblast. Colchicum 18:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

As for Geraschenko, you will laugh, but he really was accepted as candidate for president by Other Russia. ellol 18:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as of now he is an unofficial candidate of the United Civil Front rather than the candidate of the Other Russia. Who knew Putin in May 1999 when Stepashin or Aksyonenko were considered "successors"? Colchicum 18:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

information lacking
This article lacks crucial information on property rights, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement. Please expand the article. Colchicum 11:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Could you include this please?Biophys 13:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have enough time now, but it is very simple: one should describe (1) how legislation complies with human rights principles and (2) whether the legislation is violated, with notable examples of violations, if possible. Colchicum 14:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can try later (too busy now). It seems there are also too many empty-worded statements in this article (especially in Introduction), and I think that "Chechen" part is too big (there are many other WP articles on this subject to refer).Biophys 18:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Also note Media freedom in Russia that needs a lot of work.Biophys 18:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Colhicum, you say "very easy"? Not so fast. Just for starters, I will try to create a stub of article Freedom of assembly in Russia, so you could see. I will copy a content on this subject from another site that "is in the public domain and may be copied and distributed without permission". Then one can try to edit this text.Biophys 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You improved this article a lot.Biophys 03:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

TOC for Freedom of movement in Russia

 * Russian legislation on freedom of movement (and its history)
 * Temporary registration of Russian citizens
 * Registration of foreigners in Russia
 * Border control zone
 * Exit restrictions
 * Rules of border control

Colchicum 13:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

My last edits
In last edits I simply tried to make this article readable. To be readable, it must have a very brief and concise Introduction (it is too long even now), and brief summary about each topic: "Freedom of assembly", "Chechnya", etc. If any of these topics should be discussed in more detail, this can be done in a separate article on the corresponding topic. That is what we should do (and actually doing), instead of putting all material in a single article. This is commonly accepted practice. Biophys 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * During Biophys's edits were lost the statements made by Lukin and Gil Robles. We can have them here, and it's not a waste of space, since we have here different ratings of democracy, market and etc. which also assess the situation in general. ellol 22:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Kudeshkina
We should probably write an article about Olga Kudeshkina, already linked from two articles. Colchicum 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Article must be balanced before it is expanded!
We really should balance this article before we expand it. It is still unaceptably biased. QZXA2 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

FSB?
Quote: "Over the years, FSB and affiliated state security organizations have killed all elected and appointed presidents of the unrecognized Chechen Republic of Ichkeria including Dzhokhar Dudaev, Zelimkhan Yandarbiev, Aslan Maskhadov, and Abdul-Khalim Saidullaev."

FSB or "affiliated state security organizations" didn't kill at least 3 out of 4 mentioned above guys! Dudayev was blown up by Russian aircraft, Saidullaev was shot in gunfire, Maskhadov was killed by Russian troops in a Saddam Hussein-type of encounter (in a spiderhole somewhere in rural areas). I don't know who brought this nonsense on Wikipedia, but it's completely false. If somebody is killed during a war...that doesn't mean the FSB assassinated him!Dimts 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Jacques Chirac called Russia "a model democracy"
Please pay your attention to the article of Le Monde "Le nouveau dialogue franco-russe, par Natalie Nougayrède" http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3232,36-919049,0.html. Citation:"M. Chirac a qualifié par le passé la Russie de "modèle de démocratie", et il a décoré Vladimir Poutine de la Légion d'honneur". Translation: "Chirac called Russia as "a model of democracy" and awarded to Vladimir Putin Honorary Legion Order".
 * Il serait très étrange s'il commençait à critiquer le Président Poutine en le décorant. Heureusement, les temps ont bien changé. Colchicum 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yet another Freedom House-bashing contributor. Funny. Colchicum 18:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Freedom House is based in Washington and has been headed by an ex CIA Director, James Wollsey. It's Board Members have been people such as Donald Rumsfeld. It is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, long known as a CIA front as well as the US State Department. Such people cannot possibly be relied upon to give an accurate description of Human Rights issues because of thier obvious political conflicts of interest. Freedom House is a Tainted Source.

I am personally disgusted by the lack of a balanced POV in this arcticle and it's excessive reliance upon American sources as oppossed to those of the ECHR or the UN. As far as I can tell, QZXA2 seems to be the only person on this page interested in actually making a neutral POV article. I hope to do a bit more on this article when I have the time and have dug up some less biased source material. Russia is a country that 15 years ago was in complete economic collapse. Expecting it to become a model of democracy overnight is short-sighted. The Russian Constitiution, as it is written gives far far more protections to the rights of it's peoples than those of supposedly democratic countries like Australia, for example.

Arcehedron 13:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting opinion of Andrey Illarionov on human rights in Russia
Colchicum 16:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * An article with links to Wikipedia?
 * So what? It is not a wiki-type source by itself. It is a real transcript of a real meeting of real and notable people. Even academic journals can occasionally refer to Wikipedia, which doesn't make them less academic.Colchicum 10:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very interesting indeed. He said for example:

"The year 2006 for Russia was an extraordinary one in a sense of destruction of all types and all elements of freedom. Whichever area we can look at—the political system, legal system, court system, civil society, rule of law, division of powers, freedom of expression, freedom of mass media, freedom of association—everywhere, in each area, we see tremendous backlash against the basic liberties of Russian people.

All of this allows me to talk about the appearance of a new political regime, non-free regime, with "corporatist state", monopolized economy, coercive markets, with ideology of "nashism" (from the Russian word "nash"—"our own") as its distinctive features. " and so on.

An important point here is that situation with human rights in Russia change very quickly: it is now very different than it was even a couple of years ago. So, the article must be updated, especially introductory section that cites statements from 2004.Biophys 14:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh gosh. At first these political prostitutes licked asses of Eltsin and Putin, now they are licking asses of their opponents. ellol 08:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Any proof that anybody here has ever licked asses of Yeltsin, Putin or somebody else? Now I see your level of understanding of the problem. If you don't like an opinion, it is not worthy. I see. Have you ever considered a possibility that some people emigrated or stopped cooperating with Russia because they didn't like what happened there rather than other way round? Colchicum 11:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are a bit strange. I surely didn't mean you, or anybody else at this great site! I meant Illarionov, Misha 2 percents and other heroes of opposition. Proofs? Kasyanov was a Prime minister under Putin for several years, Illarionov was adviser of Putin... If now they say that Putin's government curtails all freedoms, and they are so absolute democrats, it means that that time they licked Putin's ass. And now they lick somebody else's. ellol 10:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, if you meant me, it would be ok, but I was sure that you meant Illarionov, and this is a bit too much. So do you think that people cannot change their opinions? BTW, Illarionov has always criticized Putin. Yes, he worked with him as he thought there was a chance to change the trend. What is wrong here? Do you really think that it would be more fruitful to do nothing when there was a possibility to work? And could you please point out where Illarionov claimed that he is an absolute democrat? Putin claimed such things about himself, Illarionov didn't. Colchicum 13:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If Illarionov has always criticized Putin, then why would he say anything positive about the Russian government? That more or less proves that he is an unreliable source. QZXA2 17:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Flawed reasoning. He has always criticized some of Putin's deeds, not that he has criticized everything. Or do you think that we should use sobemody who always praise everything as a reliable source? BTW, as you guys complain that the article is so biased, find and add some reliable positive information. I am sure it is not that difficult. That would be good. But it looks like you are willing to delete negative information you don't like instead. This way you will never succeed. Colchicum 09:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"...do you think that we should use somebody who always praises everything as a reliable source?" No, not at all. In fact I would oppose this page having a pro Russian bias. I just don't really have the time to spend hours sorting through hundreds of websites (of which 98% is junk) trying to find a reliable source. And always being anti-Putin is not the only reason that Andrey Illarionov is unreliable, as I said below, he provides no evidence whatsoever to back his claims. QZXA2 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

''An important point here is that situation with human rights in Russia change very quickly: it is now very different than it was even a couple of years ago. So, the article must be updated, especially introductory section that cites statements from 2004.'' No, not much has changed since 2004 other than the dissenters march. Andrey Illarionov is yet another person who provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever for his opinion. Biophys, you are clearly trying to find an excuse to remove anything that does not fit your opinion. This cannot continue. QZXA2 14:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not much has changed since 2004 other than the dissenters march How do you know? Colchicum 14:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? QZXA2 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I lived there from time to time (about two months each year), I read Russian legislation, press and blogs and listen to Russian friends and relatives. And you? Colchicum 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The same, other than the living in Russia part. Anyways, there is no excuse to have an article as biased as this.QZXA2 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you are so quick in learning. Congratulations.
 * Please stop writing in Russian, I (and most other wikipedians) do not understand it. QZXA2 18:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Talk:Human rights in Russia
 * Colchicum 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I read English translations. QZXA2 19:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my first impulsive reaction.

Seriously, I would prefer Mr. Illarionov's claims to be erased from the article. Reasons: he is not a human rights expert, he is a relatively young politician, who from 2000 to 2005 was an economic adviser for the President Putin. Of course, all the Russian democracy hold only on this person, and the next year he resigned Russia sharply turned back to totalitarianism. Brave guy.

Ohm, what I'm about? Mr. Illarionov provides no substantinates for his claims. With the same degree of credibility he could claim that green-furred rabbits on Mars committ genocide against white-furred rabbits.

Mr. Illarionov's claims are political. This can be seen from his "Over the last several years a new international network is being developed. ... It is an International of repressive regimes and dictatorships around the world, ... where the new Russian regime plays an important role." I wonder, if this were truth, wouldn't now Cuba, Venesuela and Iran be nuclear states, with Russian rockets installed and ready to launch? It's purely political talk, like pre-election promises.

But, as user Colchicum spoke unambiguiously to keep Illarionov's message, I propose to move it in a special section, and to supply it with a message of a pro-Kremlin politician. E.g. it could be some Vladimir Putin's statement.

Now, considering the last Colchicum-QZXA2 talk. It's just another myth, that a person who doesn't know Russian language can't learn the situation with human rights in the country. Just a myth, like the existence of quizzical "Russian soul". In some concern, reading Russian press might even drive a person to misunderstanding. The reason is, that a) Russian press is politized, b) there are different "circles" of people and press, akin to specific views. And a person from a "liberal" circle would never read press from "patriotic" circle, and vice versa. Moreover, neither I, nor Colchicum, nor even Biophys would ever read nationalistic press, like sources of the Movement Against Illegal Immigration. So we really should expect here a different Russian, claiming that only his nationalistic opinion is true.

To learn about situation in Russia, you need either to travel in it, and speak with people, either read reports of people who did. Under international committments, Russia is open to European and UN experts who are welcome to travel in the country, speak with any authorities and any people or NGOs. Perhaps, reading EU or UN experts in some concern is even better, than reading Russian press.

So, I don't want to say loud words, but I would really like English-speaking users, specifically QZXA2 and others, to participate more actively in discussions and editing. Again, there are quite more than enough English sources of high quality. ellol 11:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

National minorities
Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles is a very interesting guy, I was clearly impressed on his description of situation with national minorities in Russia, as this area of life is practically ignored by federal TV, and the region where I live in isn't "national territorial entity". It's practically a shame to learn more from European guy about Russia that I could learn from Russian sources. On the other hand, what I've learned doesn't contradict my personal experience with people of different nationalities in Russia. E.g., in the Russian university where I learn, there are a lot of students, Yakuts or Buryats with asian appearance, but questions considering one's nationality had never arisen. One on my fellows there (who it seems will soon become a prominent theoretical physicist) is Tatar, he learned Tatar language in school, read Tatar classics. Basically, commonly, deeply in culture, nations inhabiting Russia are considered friendly ones. Moreover, (I'm again about personal experience) there are never any problems with students from post-USSR countries; there are still too many common culture roots.

Sometimes Gil-Robles' report reads even like traveller's notes, like:


 * ''229. I was delighted to be received by a Khanti family into their own home. We had an interesting and highly informative conversation. It was a traditional family, whose main occupation was raising reindeer. The herd of some twenty animals was kept on 30 000 hectares of family land and continually roamed this expanse in search of food. According to our hosts, the family followed the herd for nine months out of twelve, and only returned to the village for a very limited period to sell the products of from their herds, hunting and gathering, and to buy certain necessities. A girl aged no more than 22 or 23 explained that since her grandparents' and father's death life had become much more difficult and that their work brought in very little cash, which they needed to buy essentials such as corn, salt and sugar. The rest was produced by the family itself, including clothes made in the traditional fashion from reindeer leather and furs procured through hunting. Difficulties arose in respect of the children's education, because from what I understood the children of our host family only went to school for the three months they spent in the village, which is a matter of some concern.

Anyway, I'm ready to discuss the recent contributions. ellol 13:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, xenophobia becomes increasingly serious problem. Those who understand Russian may enjoy Leonid Kaganov's satirical rhymes, "What's good and what's Kondopoga":. ellol 01:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolution 1455 (year 2005) of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe:
 * In the last 15 years, the Russian Federation has undergone fundamental changes. The Assembly’s last monitoring report and Resolution 1277 (2002), adopted in April 2002, welcomed the undoubted progress made by Russia towards the rule of law and democracy, as well as the significant efforts made since accession towards honouring its obligations and commitments. 

Suggested Soloution
I belive I may have a solution to this ongoing NPOV dispute for this article. Why don't we replace all of these unproven statements and conspiracies with information from the most reliable sources such as UN, EU, and OSCE HR branches, as these are respectable international organisations that would have no apparent reason to be biased against Russia (unlike NGOs such as Freedom House and Amnesty Intl.). We could then move those unproven statements to an article titled Conspiracy Theories involving the Russian Government or something like that. I know Biophys will oppose it, but I would like to hear the opinions of everone else. QZXA2 14:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your solution would be an example of WP:OR, unless you can find an uncontested published opinion that the UN, EU and OSCE are reliable, while Freedom House and Amnesty Intl. are biased. Moreover, no source satisfying Wikipedia criteria (and Freedom House and Amnesty Intl. do satisfy them, whether you like it or not. I am not a big fan of the latter, by the way) can be eliminated per WP:NPOV. Colchicum 14:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

New cases
In December 2007 Russian academician Igor Reshetin was imprisoned for 11 years 6 months at charges of transferring dual-purpose rocket and space technologies to a Chinese company. Three his subordinates — Sergey Vizir, Aleksandr Rozhkin and Mikhail Ivanov were also imprisoned for terms ranging from 3 to 5 years.

On the other hand, statement of FSB claims transferred technologies could be used for production of carriers of WMD. I guess, ICBM's meant. (see the links in the bottom of the source article) So, perhaps a sincere dual-purpose technologies related case. Perhaps not. That's a cause for concern, but let's cite human rights organizations or let's wait until we can cite them.

Damn, ellol 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment reposted from body of article
The author puts "far exceeding number of Russians were killed by immigrants" while there is no data on it. Moreover the term 'number of illegal immigrants' is broad, for instance all citizens from former Soviet Union do not require visa (except few) to be in Russia, therefore they can not be counted as illegal.

In general article greatly underestimates levels of racism in Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.142.49 (talk • contribs) 12:18, March 27, 2008


 * I agree and can fix this and some other problems if User:ellol has no objections.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The only info relevant to the objected passage I found is the official 2007 MVD (Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs) statistics, stating in that year some 50,100 crimes were committed in Russia by foreigners or people without citizenship, while the amount of crimes against this group was 15,985. But MVD info does not go in detail on how many of these crimes are murders. The passage remains unsourced good for a year, should be removed now.

The amount of illegal migrants has reduced twofold in 2007 to some 5-7 millions due to changes in legislature. (official info)

Perhaps I did not quite understand user Biophys. But I certainly do not have apriori objections.

In fact I did not author those two little pieces, but let me fix them as I seem to have found some clues now. ellol (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I can only welcome anybody who works on this article, because it really requires yet tons of work. Good luck on you, Biophys. Btw, this info might interest you (news on Politkovskaya). ellol (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

However, I disgree with latest changes to the article. Statements issued by Alvaro Gil-Robles and Vladimir Lukin can no way be treated as mere opinions, because these are excerpts from professional reports focused on human rights in Russia, and therefore express not the arbitrary will of these single persons, but serve to summarize month- and year-span job of whole departments and their job as heads of these departments.

There's no way to treat parts of these documents as more or less reliable. Owing to the public nature of any official power, these are excerpts from reports of Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe and Ombudsman of the Russian Federation no matter what people headed these departments.

If there are concerns that Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe and Ombudsman of the Russian Federation were misinterpreted or in their professional capability to perform this type of the job, that's the matter for a separate discussion. But as it is now, both sources are very densely used in the span of the whole article, so it's logical to give general overview of situation on the same basis, in the opening of the article.

As such, I can't see latest Biophys's changes to the article other way but giving sources like Freedom House and The Economist preferences over the sources representing Human Rights bodies of European Union and the Russian Federation.

More troubling concern about the new condition of the article is that the very question of Human rights in Russia can't be answered by merely placing it onto some position on one of the ratings, what is proposed by Freedom House and The Economist. At least, such information needs to be compared to other sources on the matter.

ellol (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * According to WP:NPOV, we must separate opinions and facts and emphasize facts. That is exactly what I did. Note that all ("pro" and "contra") opinions have been moved to another section. I would be very happy to improve this article (as has been suggested), but this is not feasible, since if you have reverted even such minor and non-controversial edit.Biophys (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I would not object the moving if you moved Freedom House/ The Economist/ Heritage Foundation to the same place. Could be called e.g. "general estimations". But your proposal looks like their estimations on the situation in Russia are superior to estimations of European Union and Russia's Ombudsmans. Perhaps, but not to anybody outside the United States. ellol (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved opinion of Robles (he stated this several years ago - very outdated!) and opinion of Illarionov. There are two points here. First, none of the moved segments provides any factual information or more or less up-today (not outdated) numbers about human rights. If they did, perhaps they could stay. Second, the numbers by Freedom House/The Economist are scientific analysis, but other texts looked like private opinions.Biophys (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We have a data tag on Robles view -- 2004, and Illarionov's opinion that situation in Russia changes extraordinarilly quick. However, when I speak to my friends Americans about authoritarian turns of Bush Administration the typical reply is "Yes, it is a wrong turn. We the people have to take care of it". Nobody blames the country totalitarian for its 2 or 4-years wrong policies.


 * I wonder, who is more authoritative -- a group of "experts" (who saw them?) who filled a questionnaire and divided on that reason the countries in free and not free, or two professionals with their teams at their backs, who not simply observed human rights but were directly seeking for ways to improve the situation, year after year. For me the answer is obvious. For you, too, it seems. ellol (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, you moved Vladimir Lukin's view too. ellol (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The US article describes situation in US during hundreds years. This article describes only situation since 1991 (I think you do not suggest to include here Human rights in the Soviet Union and tsarist Russia?). Yes, it would be fair to describe situation in general in 1991-2008, but the most important thing is dynamics. Do we observe an improvement here during last 5 years, for example? Or it becomes much worse? That is very important, and that should be clearly stated per sources. I do not think this 2004 publication by Robles (cited 15 times in the article!) answer any of these questions. It does not describe 1991-2008 situation in general, and it does not describe  dynamics. This article also includes a lot of content forks (e.g. ethnic minorities) that should be removed.Biophys (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You've touched an interesting theme. My opinion is that the article should show up-to-date information about situation with human rights in Russia, i.e. possibly full and adequate info of its current condition. It's the first priority work, and as it isn't done, showing tendencies should be considered second priority. It's my opinion, though.
 * The problem is we do not always have up-to-date sources, so have to use 2004 ones and so on.
 * Ethnic minorities are also very important in an aspect e.g. like a living example for the Europe (just I can see logics in Gil Robles's selection of themes), could be e.g. shortened with moving full information to the Ethnic minorities in Russia page.
 * I also wonder, why do we have here this mutated zombie (sorry) Illarionov, kinda politician, kinda economist, but whatever gets cited on Human Rights page.
 * ellol (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Discussion March 2008
inserted a 'POV' tag at the top of the article today, but dated it December 2007. What is this about? Please state the outstanding issues in this section for a threaded discussion. Nearest I can tell, it is about 1. immigration/crime stats, and 2. where to put text from human rights orgs vs. leaders of human rights orgs.


 * I am sorry,, inserting POV tag was my mistake. ellol (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * D'oh! OK! -Colfer2 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparision with Human Rights in the Soviet Union?
I'm curious to know if any studies have been made comparing the Human Rights situation of Contemporary Russia with that of Soviet Russia. If a section on topic could be added I'd be most grateful... I'd do it myself if I had any form of qualification (I don't). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.128.73 (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The closest hit to such sort of comparison might be the 2004 Report of the Commissioner for the Human Rights of the Council of Europe (it's used in this article, unfortunately only a little bit of it). While he makes most of the points about the contemporary situation, for many issues he also draws a comparison to the situation in the Soviet Union. If you want to contribute in that direction, all that you actually need would be to read that report -- of course, that's an option. ellol (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Freedom of assembly
According to official stats, published in Feb 2010 ,

30 thousands public actions took place in Russia in 2009; political claims were sounded on 2.5 thousands of them. 5.5 million people participated in those rallies. 440 actions were not approved by the authorities, more than 20 thousands people took place in them. Road traffic was blocked 56 times.

ellol (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree official stats are reliable on a state like Russia (which has a totalitarian direction to the situation during the former Soviet Union). I also plead for the inclusion of the Jehovah's Witnesses persecution in today's Russia on the Human Rights article, as this is not just about persecuting a certain religion, but any religion not linked with the FSB (the Russian Orthodox priests link to FSB is notorious). And we're not talking about isolated cases of Russian citizens persecuted by the state - like those already included in the article - but we're talking about 300000 citizens having their rights violated - though granted by the Russian Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transilvanian Dracula (talk • contribs) 07:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe your edits would be better in the article Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia or Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses? Peltimikko (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Transilvanian Dracula, the situation with Jehovah's Witnesses is reflected in this article in the section "Religious freedom": "The different problem arises with concern of citizens' right to association (article 30 of the Constitution). As Vladimir Lukin noted, although quantity of the registered religious organizations constantly grows (22144 in 2005), an increasing number of religious organization fail to achieve legal recognition: e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, and others."
 * However, with that, consider the following point: there are multiple religious confessions such as Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Buddhists, which co-exist in peace and consent. Isn't this an indication of essential well-being in the religious life of Russia? Regards, ellol (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The general well-being in the official state recognized religious life in Russia is not the subject of the article, but the human rights violation of those citizens not joining state religion. The problem is not among people having different religious beliefs but the problem is between the totalitarian state and about 300000 citizens having religious beliefs and behavior recognized as peaceful in all free countries where human rights are not violated.

As you seem to be very eager to separate the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia from the Human Rights violation subject, do you have any particular reason for categorizing persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses as NOT a human rights violation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transilvanian Dracula (talk • contribs) 14:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess you did not read enough into my point. My point is that we already mention some of the problems that arise in regards of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. Shall we view the problem in more details? I am not sure. We have only like 7,000 words to describe the entire situation with Human Rights in Russia in this article. ellol (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why misuse?
II. General observations

1. The Russian Federation became a member of the Council of Europe on 28 February 1996. It ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter “the Convention”) on 5 May 1998 and recognised the right of individual petition before the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter “the ECHR”) from that date.

2. My trip to Russia was certainly not my first visit to this country. Since the start of my term of office, I have visited it on many occasions, but it was not until 2004 that I decided to make a visit with a view to producing a general report on the human rights situation. It is clearly no small task to draft such a report, and any attempt to do so throws up many questions. Indeed, I cannot seriously claim to have produced an exhaustive review of the human rights situation in Russia, which would have been well beyond the capacities of the institution.

3. I shall therefore confine myself here to the issues that strike me as the most significant, and which I was able to study throughout my trip, without classing them in order of priority in any way. To this end, we endeavoured to gain an understanding of the current situation in Russia by choosing regions, government departments and establishments that were among the most representative. In particular, we tried to meet people from different backgrounds and endeavoured to listen to and understand what each had to say, in all the regions and towns we visited, whether in Moscow or in the Far East, in Siberia or in the Northern Caucasus, in the Urals or in the Volga basin.

4. Over a period of four weeks we covered over 20,000 kilometres and took over fifteen flights in order to go from one region to another. Forty-eight meetings were organised with representatives of the federal or regional authorities, the judiciary and the police. We visited thirty-nine establishments, including hospitals, schools, old people’s homes and eleven places of detention. In the course of the visit we also organised two round tables - in Irkutsk and Grozny – to promote the regional Ombudsman as an institution in the constituent entities (“subjects”) of the Russian Federation.

5. During my visit I paid a great deal of attention to non-governmental organisations. The views of their representatives on the general situation in a country, the progress made and the shortcomings still to be remedied enabled me to obtain a very full picture of the situation. It is for this reason, indeed, that I begin all my official visits with meetings with representatives of NGOs in the countries concerned. The vision of civil society often differs from that of the authorities. A comparison of the two makes it easier to pinpoint weaknesses that need to be investigated in detail. The visit to the Russian Federation was no exception to this rule. Each of my visits to the regions therefore began with a meeting with representatives of the NGOs most actively involved in the defence of human rights. These meetings were open, however, and all those who so requested were able to attend. We did not keep a precise record, but must easily have met with over a hundred NGOs, who greatly advanced our understanding of the difficulties raised.

6. Russia has experienced sweeping changes since the collapse of the Soviet Union and their consequences are still difficult to measure. They need to be critcally reviewed and assessed as a whole. The fledgling Russian democracy is still, of course, far from perfect, but its existence and its successes cannot be denied. A mere fifteen years ago, the Iron Curtain divided Europe in two parts; at the time, the USSR was a state where any form of freedom of speech, private initiative or liberal thinking was prohibited and punished. Soviet citizens were deprived of the most fundamental freedoms. Freedom of movement beyond the frontiers of the Soviet Union was virtually non-existent and opportunities to travel abroad were very limited. Only a few organised groups were able to do so, and even then prospective travellers had to endure the humiliating procedures involved in obtaining authorisation.

7. Everything has changed since and the new Russian generations do not always remember their country’s history, recent though it is. Present-day Russia is a different country for all those who experienced the Soviet era, although it has kept its traditions and its rich culture, which seventy years of relentless efforts to establish communism were unable to change.

8. When Russia joined the Council of Europe, the democratisation process was still in its infancy. The Russian Government has since entered into a number of commitments in order to comply with the rules and standards set by our Organisation. The extent to which these commitments have been honoured is monitored by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and I do not want to give a detailed analysis here. It has to be said, however, that the Russian Federation has made a great step forward in radically reforming some of its legislation to bring it into line with European standards.

9. For instance, in the report on Russia’s application to join the Council of Europe, dated 2 January 1996, the rapporteurs, describing the complex situation that existed at the time in the country, emphasised the efforts that the Russian authorities needed to make in order to comply fully with Council of Europe standards. In particular, they stressed the legislative reforms to be carried out. The report expressly adverted to the need to introduce a number of laws as soon as possible. Attention should, according to the rapporteurs, focus initially on the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Civil Code, the Code of Civil Procedure and the law concerning the prison system. The rapporteurs recommended that further legislation subsequently be passed, in particular regarding the status of judges, the public prosecution department, the legal profession, national minorities, freedom of association, the Ombudsman and religious freedom.

10. Nine years have elapsed since this report was submitted and the Russian Federation joined the Council of Europe – nine years during which Russian society has undergone a series of major transformations. The legislation governing the country has been substantially reformed, and this is one of the most visible changes. Virtually all the new legislation was drafted and passed by Parliament, which in itself is a big step forward. In the space of a few years, the legislation dating from the Soviet era, which was based on the principles of a totalitarian state and which denied individual freedoms in favour of collectivism, which did not recognise the right of private ownership and prohibited any private initiative in the economic sector, has been replaced by liberal, democratic legislation.

11. Most of the current weaknesses lie in the implementation of the legislative reforms undertaken since 1996. The large majority of the people with whom I spoke talked of delays in the application of the reforms, regardless of the region in question. They pointed out that some officials had difficulty in grasping the general principles and democratic spirit of the legislation. Certain local authority representatives I met stressed the fact that too many reforms had been carried out too quickly, without being accompanied by explanations and training for those responsible for putting them into practice. It also seems that certain legal instruments evolved so quickly – being amended or replaced by others – that professionals had great difficulty in understanding them.

12. Another major weakness needs to be singled out at this point, although I shall return to the matter in greater detail in the report. It is the problem raised by the death penalty, which is still provided for in Russian law, despite the moratorium introduced in August 1996. The non-ratification of Protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights is a serious breach of the undertakings Russia gave when it joined our Organisation, and throws up a number of questions.

13. Moreover, some of the reforms recently introduced by the government and those announced lately have elicited concern among the public as to whether democratic achievements will remain in place. There are doubts as to whether this progress will be lasting. The misgivings of the representatives of civil society were very much in evidence during the visit.

14. If I might venture a metaphor, Russian society gave me the peculiar impression of a long train travelling very fast. The train has carriages in all classes – first, second and third class. All these carriages carry numerous passengers, with their problems, their worries and their hopes, but most of them are so busy trying to solve their problems that they do not realise how fast the train in which they are sitting is going and, indeed, have little interest in the engine and the route it is taking.

15. In this report, I shall confine myself to questions relating to legal reform, the situation of the prison system, national minorities, social problems and the situation of vulnerable groups, including women, children and elderly people. I shall address issues connected with xenophobia and racism, human rights protection in the armed forces and institutions defending human rights, such as the Ombudsman and the network of Regional Ombudsmen. I shall also examine freedom of the press and freedom of expression and all the issues connected with the participation of civil society in the system for monitoring respect for human rights in practice. In addition, I shall look at the complex situation in the Chechen Republic.

16. I could not conclude these general remarks without referring to a tragic event that took place in the interval between my two visits. The hostage-taking in Beslan horrified Europeans with its atrocious, inhuman violence. As I did at the time of the tragedy, I should like to stress that there can be no justification whatsoever for such actions. Being near the place of the tragedy during my second visit, I travelled to Beslan to express the sympathy and support of the Council of Europe, and Europeans generally, to the families of the victims and all Russian citizens. The horror I saw in what remained of the school building and the cemetery remains vividly imprinted in my mind, rekindling the unbearable images we all saw on television. I hope that no one will have to relive such a tragedy, for which the terrorists and those who funded them are entirely responsible.

ellol (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Six years ago...
...was a created a travel report by Gil Robles, which is nowadays misused by a pro-putin user in this article. Russia's human rights situation has changed after 2006 - to worse unfortunately. I think the article is not up-to-date anymore, and we should really consider to remove reports older than a few years. Any thoughts? Peltimikko (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unlike your allegations, I am a pro-European editor. And as a pro-European editor I believe that a fully detailed document which views the situation in all its complexity does fit to be cited in the introduction, even if as a document of historical significance. The document you cited does not view any distinct issue, only generalized wordings — it's not a report on human rights situation. Please, use actual human rights documents. ellol (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Russia is a member of the Council of Europe and as such it has obligations to improve the situation with human rights, overseen by the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe. Any sort of a delegation is irrelevant unless it was authorized by the Council of Europe.


 * Your edit makes a serious mistake of mixing up the two entirely independent entities -- European Union and the Council of Europe. To make it clear, Russia has no obligations before the European Union. Regards, ellol (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This deletion was completely justified simply by WP:MOS. Let's stop diluting articles with long non-informative quotes. That was done in many places including this article, Freedom of the press in Russia, and many other (like here). These long quotes simply duplicate content provided elsewhere in the same articles. They also make article non-readable.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, did you read it? ellol (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can agree that it was long, but can't agree it was not informative. However, it's a correct observation. Let's focus on the sense. Yet, the reports of Thomas Hammarberg (2007, 2008, 2009) are the very important source. ellol (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

On Business Related Rights Abuse
This is a timely addition, because human rights groups ate reporting hundreds of similar cases, reflecting a particular trend. However, for this very reason I suggest not to list details of every case here or else the article will quickly become unmanageably large. Instead, I would create a separate WP entry for each case -- when it could be sourced to a reliable press report or a reputable human rights NGO.--Kolokol1 (talk) 05:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Extremely biased article
i don't know whether the sources or the article's author had an anti-Russian bias, but this article sounds like an American-made Cold War era leaflet. I know the situation as well as it's possible to - I'm from Moscow and I'm now in Moscow, and what you can read in Western sources never properly describes what I see. I'm not a patriot, but I'm not blind either. From your point of view, Putin is a tyrant - but It's better thatn what we had before.--95.165.149.100 (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct in your assessment of the article as extremely anti-Russia biased. That's why a section such as "Reconstruction of Chechnya" is absolutely required.
 * Also, the delegation of European Union contribution is just another anti-Russian source. It's absolutely unrelated to this article. It was simply a visit from a union of foreign countries, that Russia does not have any obligations before under the international law. Why don't we have then a mention about the assessments made by delegations from Argentina or the Democratic Republic of the Congo or NATO? Why don't we have a mention about assessments by a delegation from Russia in the Human rights in European Union article? ellol (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * However, your comment poses a question far beyond the mere history of recent edits by Peltimikko. I propose creating a section "Social and economical rights" where the positive changes of the recent decade could be adequately reflected. What do you think about that? ellol (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Lavelle about Chechnya : I have been to Chechnya. Indeed, security is very tight. And the rule of law remains challenged.

But, for the most part, there is peace in Chechnya. There is now a focus on building civil society and the economy. This is a far cry from the cruelties of two armed conflicts and governance by Chechen nationalist and religious extremists.

ellol (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "The bigger the lie, the more they believe it." Peltimikko (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * This explains anti-Russian bias in western media. Btw, Anti-Russian_sentiment. ellol (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't quote Adolf Hitler. I'm sorry but I don't have the time or willingness to become a full-time editor. And I've seen how much you disagree.--92.36.93.108 (talk) 15:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Joseph Goebbels. Peltimikko (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Any article portraying a country in a negative light will likely fuel hatred, fear or just plain despair from a neutral reader. --58.7.174.14 (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"granted by Chapter 2 of the Constitution"
Given the controversial nature of where rights and liberties come from (government vs. nature vs. religion), shouldn't it read "are protected under Chapter 2 of the Constitution" as to come across as less biased?--24.240.187.254 (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Putin needs to look at problems in own country. Showing not sane enough to hold office. Projecting your own complaints on others which shows a paranoid, delusional man he is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cookingmachine1 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Human rights in Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080813174805/http://www.gdf.ru/digest/digest/digest363e.shtml to http://www.gdf.ru/digest/digest/digest363e.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Confirmed as correct x 1. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

"Many common people..."
Just noticed a reversion of this edit, which was an uncited, non-neutral, original research statement in unclear English: "Many common people report the missing of freedom of speech and acting and also a clear missing of democracy and safety for Russians and foreign citizens." I believe the removal of the statement should stick, unless someone can clean up the writing and provide a citation (and certainly someone could find a summary of human rights groups or government reports which verify this opinion). I also want to state clearly that I haven't edited the page, the original removal was an IP and left no discussion or edit summary, but I don't think the statement offers much value here without a citation. ---Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You failed to mention that the IP also removed content here... and, in both successive cases, failed to provide an edit summary. Grammar can easily be fixed. I would have accepted the first removal on the same grounds as you've noted, but the IP's ensuing second content removal smacked of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If I can't find a citation for the first content removal, I'm more than happy to remove it... but I certainly understand the gist of what is being conveyed, therefore should have no problems in finding WP:RS for it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)