Talk:Shalva Natelashvili

Neutrality
I'm a bit concerned about the adherence of this article to WP:NPOV, especially in § Elections and § Controversies: "As a result of violence and vote rigging in the presidential elections of 5 January 2008, the Central Election Commission of Georgia declared that Natelashvili only gathered 6.5 per cent of the votes. The Georgian Labour Party cleared the election threshold in the parliamentary elections of 2008 and won the mandates in the parliament, despite the large-scale election fraud."

Emphasis mine. In this paragraph, there are no citations, and some may object to the characterization of the 2008 elections as violent (I couldn't find any good sources saying this, although the procedures were criticized), especially with no citations backing it up. In particular, the statement that Natelashvili only gathered 6.5% as a result of vote rigging seems like it certainly needs a citation for backup -- Levan Gachechiladze would probably be most targeted by any vote rigging or violence, not Natelashvili, who didn't have a chance of winning the election. Even then, the language may need to be revised so as not to be POV-pushing.

In § Controversies, we have "On 1 October 2012, Russian Oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili seized power in Tbilisi and the attacks and pressure on the Georgian Labour Party mounted. The political repercussions are steered by Bidzina Ivanishvili, the de facto ruler of the country, who accused Natelashvili of having a clandestine alliance with former president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili."

Whether Ivanishvili is a Russian oligarch is debatable, and it would probably be less contentious to just state "Russian-Georgian billionaire" or something else that objectively summarizes him. "Seized power" implies a coup or revolution, not being simply elected like Ivanishvili's party was. Also, calling Ivanishvili the de facto ruler of the country at that time may be inaccurate. He was the prime minister and the founder of Georgian Dream, so he certainly had a lot of political sway, but it could probably be worded better.

I'll be cleaning up some of these issues, but I'm not completely sure about some and I don't want to accidentally delete something that should remain, so I would appreciate further discussion on this article's neutrality. Snorepion (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)