Talk:2018 Azerbaijani presidential election

Seven years

The article state that Ilham Aliyev has been elected for a seven years term, yet his previous ones were of five years, and I see no source indicating such a change was made. Does anyone know a source?--Aréat (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

"Since Aliyev won the last election in 2013, Azerbaijan's constitution has been amended to extend the presidential term from five to seven years. Aliyev's critics denounced the 2016 plebiscite as effectively cementing a dynastic rule." http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/polls-open-presidential-election-azerbaijan-54385011 Bangabandhu (talk) 04:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of Russian and self-published sources

The following text was recently added.

On 12 April, the Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation Yousef Al-Othaimeen made a note on transparency of the electoral process in his letter to Azerbaijani people.

Also, a group of GUAM observers said the entire electoral process was organized and conducted in accordance with international standards and democratic elections. The observers from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation stated at a press conference on April 12 that they had visited several polling stations in the capital of Azerbaijan and considered the elections as democratic and transparent.

From 5 to 12 April, a mission of observers from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization who observed both process of the preparations and the holding of the elections, positively responded about the organization of election process, noted that the work was done in order to create favorable conditions for voting of citizens living outside of Azerbaijan. According to the statement, modern information technologies (such as invisible ink for marking fingers, ultraviolet detectors, etc.) were used to ensure transparency in polling stations. The mission recognized the elections as legitimate, transparent, credible and democratic.

References

The sources in Russian look to be Belarusian and state published, they are unacceptable. If they were mentioned in an RS than it could be added, thought its unlikely that any RS would accept the word of two random observers, and instead use the official OSCE report, which is already cited and sourced to Reuters. The statement from the OIC and the SCO, which representing the organizations opinions, are primary source research and given undue weight. They should be sourced to some third party media, ideally one that is not state controlled. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

TBH, it looks like the editor who added this material is basically on Wikipedia to promote Azerbaijan. Number 57 21:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Dear, Bangabandhu,

The mentioned sources are official websites of international organizations. (Organization of Islamic Cooperation, GUAM, PABSEC and SCO) How can they be regarded as “self-published” or “state controlled”?

As regards to "Sources in Russian which look to be Belarusian", In fact, none of these 4 mentioned sources are in Russian. Three of the websites have a Russian version. However, if use of Russian language within these sources makes them less reliable, you can easily switch the websites to English versions as well. :)

The official website of The Commonwealth of Independent States is http://www.cis.minsk.by/ . (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States) and its headquarters are in Minsk, Belarus. This does not imply that it is "Belarusian"

Primary source research is irrelevant in this case. Since added information is not analysis or synthesis of published material which serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. The added information merely reflects the opinion of organizations which is directly expressed in the sources.

The edits made by me do not constitute any promotion. The only aim is to add alternative sources from other election observation missions as well, in order to maintain balance and provide complete information, instead of promoting one particular point of view. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. (see: Neutral point of view/Balance)

Nevertheless, this balancing by no means infers undue weight, since opinion of each organization is basically expressed within a sentence or two. LeilaGva (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Based on existing sources, none of these organizations have any credibility as election observers. An organization that sends a few observers, writes and self publishes a report, does not constitute a reliable source. The CIS is the largest organization that you've sought to include, here's an apt description from a peer reviewed journal " CIS, for example, have a reputation for (almost) never criticizing even highly problematic elections. Some argue that the CIS monitoring organization, for example, was created by regional governments specifically interested in counteracting the frequently critical reports by the OSCE for post-Soviet election". If there were a RS - say, one published by independent media - that sourced the report, that would give it some credibility, but the report alone can't be included. While the OSCE is generally credible, you will note that the OSCE report is sourced to Reuters, not the report itself. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not the purpose/task of this article to decide on the credibility of an organization as election observer. Any views on this, including your description from a peer reviewed journal can be added on the corresponding articles of these organizations. The only aspect which matters regarding this piece of information is whether official websites of these organizations can be accepted as RS or not.

Second, if you suggest that an international organization “writing and publishing its reports” is not a reliable source, this is immensely bold statement indeed. This means that information from international organizations will not be considered as RS if it is not published in media and any source which is not referenced by Reuters, or any other popular media outlet should be accepted unreliable. I am afraid, in that case we will have to delete a huge amount of information from Wikipedia. :) I would like to remind once again, that the sources referenced are official websites of international organizations.

You first claimed that the sources are in Russian and are Belarusian and state published. Then you turned to assertion of Primary source research. After these claims are responded, you start questioning “credibility of the organizations as election observers”, followed by assertion that the reports are self-published by organizations and therefore unreliable. These are all unconnected arguments, and it seems like the only purpose is to prevent by any means this peace of information from being added to the article.

Therefore, I am requesting a third opinion to resolve the disagreement. LeilaGva (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the concerns you've mentioned above - any mention of those reports would give it undue weight within the article. Again: none of the organizations are reputable. They would not be cited by a mainstream, credible media organization, and they cannot be included in Wikipedia, either. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Offering a third opinion, I don't think these should be added to the article. Number 57 17:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Also offering a third opinion, the addition seems wrong. I don't think they should be added to the page. Lassitergregg (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Friends, third opinions are not provided by those who already had dealings with the article (Number 57 in this case) and I would suggest to see an opinion other than the one provided by a user with a total of 40 edits in 4 years (Lassitergregg).

And, last but not least, third opinions are not just provided recklessly. This is not a voting process, there needs to be a valid reasoning behind the argument. LeilaGva (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, if a third editor is involved in the discussion (in myself), then you can't ask for a third opinion. Anyway, consensus is clearly against your additions. Number 57 11:10, 26 May 2018 (UTC)