Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American interference in the 1996 Russian elections


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that while the topic may be notable, this article's content and sources are so poor that deletion is the best option. This does not prevent the creation of a more competently written article about this topic (or perhaps the more general topic of supposed US interference in Russian politics, to start with).  Sandstein  10:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

American interference in the 1996 Russian elections

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources in the article are directly about the US interfering in the election. Moreover, this inside the election is not WP:N and the article apprears to be WP:OR. Casprings (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I was also going to AfD this, but I thought I would wait a few hours to see if the author was going to flesh out the empty sections with supported information. But nothing further was forthcoming, and the article fails to provide any evidence to support its title or its thesis. There is a Background section, which is entirely about internal Russian issues, and a speculative sentence saying "Bill Clinton might have ordered to bring some American advisers to help Yeltsin", and a twice-repeated claim that American interference was confirmed by "major medias", none of which are provided. There is one relevant reference, a very POV opinion piece which links to a historic TIME article; that article says that the Yeltsin campaign secretly hired some American political advisors (i.e., private parties). Evidence that the U.S. government itself was involved? None. I don't think we can classify this as a hoax, but it is certainly an unsupported claim. --MelanieN (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete There is nothing in provided links, that supports the claim. Also, all the info is in "speculation" area. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete With some work, might be a section in Russian presidential election, 1996, but for now, yes, I agree with above and think there's way too much OR to endorse a merge or redirect. This article shouldn't exist on its own. South Nashua (talk) 23:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Removing opinion, see below. South Nashua (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete the article's claims are entirely unsourced, likely created to try to make a WP:POINT regarding Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Power~enwiki (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Dead links, several book blurbs that don't mention the US and/or interference, a Time article saying that the Yeltsin campaign hired an American firm to "teach us Western political-advertising techniques" - zero sources supporting any of the editor's claims. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * delete original research. the article creator has a track record of creating very POV articles. LibStar (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete point-y, pure original resource. Neutralitytalk 20:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it snowing yet? --MelanieN (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - A little bit of "Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to Make a Point," a little bit of shame on you Wikipedians for piling on on the wrong side of an actually encyclopedic topic. The CIA & Co. was into propping up Yeltsin up to their elbows. That much is legit. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I just don't want this to snow out. This is may be a bad, POV, POINTy title that needs to be fixed. However, American intervention in the Russian elections is a real thing that has been the subject of academic scrutiny. Whether TNT is called for is perhaps debatable, a title fix is essential, but this is an encyclopedic topic, period. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, a little effort on my part to document the fact that this is not a horseshit topic: THIS is from an entity I haven't heard of, Global Research, but claiming "In keeping with Russian laws at the time, Zyuganov spent less than three million dollars on his campaign. Estimates of Yeltsin’s spending, by contrast, range from $700 million to $2.5 billion." and citing a book for this assertion: David M. Kotz, Russia’s Path from Gorbachev to Putin, 2007. Carrite (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's one you might have heard of, the Los Angeles Times: "The U.S. also attempted to sway Russian elections. In 1996, with the presidency of Boris Yeltsin and the Russian economy flailing, President Clinton endorsed a $10.2-billion loan from the International Monetary Fund linked to privatization, trade liberalization and other measures that would move Russia toward a capitalist economy. Yeltsin used the loan to bolster his popular support, telling voters that only he had the reformist credentials to secure such loans, according to media reports at the time. He used the money, in part, for social spending before the election, including payment of back wages and pensions." LINK. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The appropriately named Dick Morris INDICATES that Bill Clinton "meddled" in the 1996 Russian elections. Carrite (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * THIS is probably a right wing source, but they're correctly dredging up Time magazine reportage of American interference in the 1996 Russian election. They cite a Time cover story: "Yanks To The Rescue — The Secret Story Of How American Advisers Helped Yeltsin Win." That Time feature would seem to count to GNG, eh? Carrite (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'm going to ping all the dogpilers and let them have a chance to contemplate things in this light.      ... Carrite (talk) 02:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I am still positive it's a conspiracy theory and links provided do not have any verified claim of such interference. It's just a personal opinion of two editors out of thousand others. For such a controversial topic, in order to establish notability, there has to be much more. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Lest you thing this is a right wing conspiracy theory (it is not), here is THE HUFFINGTON POST: "Ironically, given the outrage directed at Moscow today, in 1996 Washington did what it could to ensure the reelection of Boris Yeltsin over the communist opposition. The U.S. backed a $10.2 billion IMF loan, an ill-disguised bribe were used by the Yeltsin government for social spending before the election. Americans also went over to Russia to help. Time magazine placed Boris Yeltsin on the cover holding an American flag; the article was entitled “Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisers Helped Yeltsin Win.” Carrite (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a shit ton more, including details in a book by David Hoffman, The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia. You get the point. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved to the fence here given the work put in regarding this piece. The sources in there now seem to meet RS, so I want to give it a shot, but I still worry enough that I can't give it a Keep. South Nashua (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would like to give some input regarding some of references mentioned above:
 * The Global Research article is not remotely a reliable source. Global Research/Centre for Research on Globalization is the product of 911 truther Michel Chossudovsky. (MelanieN is much too kind in her description of the organization.) If we accept that as a source, we might as well cite Institute for Historical Review when discussing the Holocaust.
 * The Los Angeles Times, a reliable source, is discussing Don Levin's recent study. Levin has also discussed his own research in The Washington Post:.
 * The article by Jeffrey Lord in the American Spectator is quoting a Newsmax article recapping Steve Malzberg's interview of Dick Morris who claimed a number of things. The claims of Morris have not been substantiated by anyone. Also keep in mind that Newsmax is the website of Christopher Ruddy known for Vince Foster conspiracy theories.
 * Joseph Curl in The Daily Caller is citing a 2001 Time article that discusses how the Yeltsin hired some people (Dresner, Gorton, Shumate) who worked for Pete Wilson. The alleged link to the US government is through Morris, but that is denied by Dresner. An official response to the story - denying influencing the election, of course - is here.
 * The Huffington Post article is a re-posting of Doug Bandow's article in Forbes which is probably reliable. He is citing the aforementioned research by Don Levin and the aforementioned Time article.
 * Regarding David Hoffman's The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia, I'm not sure what details point in the book point to US influence in the election but I get two hits for "Clinton" and no hits for "Dick Morris" in my search of the Gbook.
 * My view is that Levin's research is valid and notable enough for mention in Wikipedia, but I don't think without mainstream acceptance of his conclusions that it is sufficient to create a stand-alone article based upon it. Levin's research and the allegations - centered around Dick Morris's ties with Clinton - might have enough coverage to mention them in Russian presidential election, 1996. -Location (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dogpiler comment: Why don't you tell me how Pres. Clinton endorsing a loan by the International Monetary Fund to Russia is interference in an election?  For another perspective, read this. Dogpile before accusing editors of dog piling! Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Another Comment, although I reject the description of "dogpiler": I already commented above about the TIME article, which says what I said it says: the Yeltsin campaign hired some American advisors. That's all. Global Research seems like a rather slanted site in an anti-American direction; see their "War Crimes" page for example, featuring titles like "Iraq Invasion – Anniversary of The Biggest Terrorist Attack in Modern History". The estimates of Yeltsin's spending - $700 million to $2.5 billion - seem absurd on their face (we conveniently can't see the source), unless they count Yeltsin's use of the IMF loan for public benefit spending (is payment of back wages and pensions a campaign expense now?). But the bottom line is: if you, Carrite, are trying to save this article, the way to do it is to improve the article. Add this information and these sources to the article. Then, maybe, you will change some minds. --MelanieN (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC) P.S. I understated the case: Global Research is a think tank with a strong anti-West, and particularly anti-U.S., slant. Just take a look at their current web page: . I don't think it can be used as a source in the article, although your other sources can. --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Still an Unsourced POV fork with serious OR and synthesis issue. Can those who want to keep it insert these new sources (some of which are just about general US interference in Russian elections so support a page move).Slatersteven (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * TO add, also the article needs to be a lot less POVy, At least one of these new sources says it was not interference by the US government they just knew about it.Slatersteven (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Most of the article was copied from another article. Two sentences from the lead as well as the entire "Background" section were copied from Boris Yeltsin, as editor Diannaa pointed out. The text that wasn't copied is unsourced and pretty much unintelligible.  Example: During 1996 Russian Presidential Election, Boris Yeltsin, the first President of modern Russia, was on its track due to the fear of revival of communism after leader of Communist Party of Russia, Gennady Zyuganov, went on track. Yeltsin was not in favor due to lack of supports from local public as his reforms were going nowhere, and the failure in Chechnya. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a great point. The article as currently constituted consists of 1) material duplicated in its entirety from another article plus 2) a few sentences of nonsense. And to this point nobody, even the people arguing to keep, seems to think the article is worth improving. MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Better documented and less controversial among serious sources than Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections; see, for example, perhaps the world's leading public intellectual, Noam Chomsky: "First of all, it is a joke; half the world is cracking up in laughter. The United States doesn't just interfere in elections, it overthrows governments it doesn't like, institutes military dictatorships; simply in the case of Russia alone — it's the least of it — the U.S. government under Clinton intervened quite blatantly and openly, then tried to conceal it, to get their man Yeltsin in, in all sorts of ways. So this, as I say, it’s turning the United States again, into a laughingstock in the world." Deleting this article will only perpetuate Wikipedia's WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. That said (as with "Russian interference"), the title should be changed to "American influence on the 1996 Russian presidential election" (considering there are no allegations of actual vote tampering, "interference" is inaccurate and misleading). Such a title can encompass the actions of both the U.S. government and at least nominally non-state American actors, all of which are highly notable.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First off, some semantic quibbling (Chomsky is a linguist by trade, after all): How does a government go about interven[ing] quite blatantly and openly, then tr[ying] to conceal it? Buy up and burn all the newspapers in 1996?  Secondly, he's welcome to his opinion, but that's all it is:  his opinion, uttered in an interview he gave to flog his new book, zero source(s) to substantiate his claims.  As for "genius" - that's Alfonso KC's opinion, and the world's leading public intellectual - that's your opinion.  Here's Paul Robinson's:  "On the one hand there is a large body of revolutionary and highly technical linguistic scholarship, much of it too difficult for anyone but the professional linguist or philosopher; on the other, an equally substantial body of political writings, accessible to any literate person but often maddeningly simple‐minded." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Pointy puffery OR. SPECIFICO  talk  01:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:POINT, WP:OR, and WP:SOAP. Borderline Russian-bot-ery. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.