Talk:1996 Russian presidential election

Untitled

wasn't there controversy over this? The Communist candidate claims he was cheated and the vote was "rigged."Tallicfan20 (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes elections was rigged, but this was USA job and for Wiki this is OK link1 link2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.20.238 (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It says here that ( http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2107565,00.html ) it was rigged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callumgg (talk • contribs) 11:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Expand

This was one of the most controversial elections in history. I think it deserves greater coverage. Charles Essie (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Results incorrect

The results table is clearly incorrect. It doesn't agree to the cite provided, and that cite is not presenting the usual results, from what I've seem. There's also the treatment of the invalid votes - reliable sources seem to commonly include them as a part of the total for percentage calcs; just because Essex University doesn't, doesn't mean WP should follow their lead. Bromley86 (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I will check the Nohlen source later when I get home and see what the problem with the table is.

On the issue of the invalid votes, reliable sources (at least the ones I have seen) almost always exclude them from the percentages, so that is presented correctly. Number 57 10:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi 57. Per the Essex University source, "The figures in this column differ from the vote percentages in the official results because they are calculated here on the basis of the valid vote only, whereas they are calculated in the official results on the basis of the total vote." Certainly the other WP pages that mention this result seem to be going with the official results (List of presidents of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, Gennady Zyuganov), as they go with 53.8% (i.e. including invalids in % calc). Reliable sources for 53.8%: Time, Belfer Center, Russia's 1996 Presidential Election: The End of Polarized Politics. Probably a bunch of others. Although, another academic source with the same figures as currently used here: [1] Bromley86 (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The "official" way of presenting the results is not the common way of doing so. On Wikipedia we consistently present election results in the standard format of excluding the invalid ballots from the totals used to calculate percentages, which is normal practice in the world of psephology. I'm sure you'll be able to uncover one or two exceptions where editors have not followed the normal procedure if you search hard enough, but the almost all of the several thousand articles I've seen are done in this way.

But anyway, I've checked the Nohlen book (which uses the normal format), and the results are correct according to that source, so I've removed the Essex uni one. Number 57 15:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Note though that I didn't have to try too hard to find those examples - the two pages for the two main candidates and the list of Russian presidents were the first 3 places I looked :) . Bromley86 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Russian presidential election, 1996. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2012/02/25/breaking-news-russian-electoral-fraud-existed-prior-to-putin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Anti-Yeltsin bias

It seems to me like this article is heavily biased against Yeltsin, and I suspect that the ones responsible for sentences such as "... Yeltsin resorted to some means to realize the turnaround: money, control of the mass media, use of "black arts" to disrupt the Communists' campaign and manipulation of the vote count" have strong opinions on this subject. Such opinions -- personal opinions of the writer -- should not shine through or be reflected in the actual article. If this and other instances of POV work are not removed or changed into a more neutral tone, I'll add a POV template on the top of the article. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

After the election, Lobbyists openly bragged about election interference

TIME Exclusive Yanks To The Rescue, Time Magazine. July 1996.

There was a movie made about it, Spinning Boris. Metro2fsb (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong second round Against All percentage for Penza Oblast

Please fix. 77.191.48.170 (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at changing it, and then realised the total was less than the combined Yeltsin + Zyuganov + Against all, and then that the tables didn't match the overall results, so I have hidden them for now. Thanks for pointing it out! Number 57 15:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)