Talk:Eurasian Observatory for Democracy and Elections

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because EODE financed many observers of the Crimean referendum, 2014. I am going to add more information to the article. — Petr Matas 07:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it describes, albeit in little detail thus far, a controversial and recently important organization. --2601:8:AD80:506:619B:C753:B21E:B7A5 (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Whitewashing, POVing and IDONTLIKEIT

... by User:Moscow Connection:

1. [1] with edit summary Stop adding an incorrect sentence. I will report you to admins. The sentence being added (by me): "On its website the organization states that "it shares the values of "the current Russian leadership and V.V. Putin.""". The source: "The letters EODE actually stand for Eurasian Observatory for Democracy and Elections, and it declares on its website that it shares the values of “the current Russian leadership and V.V. Putin.”"". Either Moscow Connection hasn't bothered to read the source, or the edit summary is intentionally untrue. Either way, please don't remove text sourced to reliable sources.
2. [2] with edit summary non-neutral. This involves the question of whether Jean-François Thiriart can be described as a Neo-Nazi. Here you go: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. I'll be happy to add these to the article.
3. [8] with edit summary It monitors elections, not only "claims to". No, it only claims to. The only source for the claim is a primary source. The relevant secondary source, states "The EODE specializes in monitoring elections in “self-proclaimed republics” (Abkhazia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh) allied with Moscow, according to its website.". In other words, they claim to monitor elections (in self-proclaimed republics). We can't present the claims by primary sources about themselves - especially when they involve an organization with links to extremist far-right politics - at face value. Period.
4. [9]] with edit summary According to its website, it's based in Belguim, Moldavia, Russia, etc. Russian offices are just some of many and involves removal of the fact that this is a Russia-based organization. Direct quote from the source: "Their showing was organized by the Russia-based Eurasian Observatory For Democracy & Elections, a far-right NGO “opposed to Western ideology.”"
5. [10] with edit summary the exact expression used in the source. This is false. The exact expression used in the source says "according to its website". This is a straight up misrepresentation of a source.

So this is an attempt at whitewashing the nature of this extremist organization, it involves removal of reliable sources and text based on them, appears to be nothing more than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT (with a bit of misrepresentation of sources thrown in) and is a fairly transparent attempt at pushing a POV.

Restoring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Find the sentence on the EODE website. Find it. I actually looked and it doesn't say that. The part is taken out of context. Therefore, your source can't be trusted.
2. This is an attempt to denigrate an organization. So, some people in the organization are followers of Jean-François Thiriart, who has been described as a neo-nazi (but denied it, according to his Wikipedia article). How is it relevant to this article about EODE?
3. So, write "according to its website". I already tried to write that it was the aim of the organization. "Claims to" sounds like you don't think it actually monitors anything.
4. Look at the website, it's actually based in Belgium and in several other countries. The source you are using decided to make an accent on its ties with Russia. It doesn't mean that we must do the same on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, whch you source obviously is not.
5. Add "according to its website". It actually monitors elections, doesn't it? Why deny it? Use common sense. This is supposed to be a neutral-sounding encyclopedia article. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

1. We use secondary, not primary sources. And we have a reliable secondary source. Maybe *you* don't trust the source, but the magazine easily fulfills the criteria for WP:RS and Bullough is a well established and well known journalist and author. You are asking us to take your opinion - the opinion of some anonymous guy on the internets - over that of a well established and well known journalist and author. Sorry, doesn't work that way.
2. No, it is an attempt to describe the organization accurately, as it is described in reliable sources. The fact that you DONTLIKEIT is neither here nor there.
3. "According to its website" is no different than "it claims".
4. Again, a reliable source, Foreign Affairs states that is "Russia-based" although it has offices in other places. Again, reliable sources trump the opinion of a random anonymous guy on the internet. Again, the source is reliable, regardless of your opinion of it. If you want to challenge its reliability go to WP:RSN but I'll tell you right now, you'll be wasting your time.
5. No, it claims to monitor elections. All sources that state that it does either 1) are primary sources (the organization itself), 2) are secondary sources which state that it claims so not that it does or possibly 3) are unreliable. "Neutrality" most certainly does NOT mean whitewashing a nasty organization with ties to far right and neo-Nazi groups and pretending that it's some innocent social club. Gimme a break.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

1. So, you are saying you want to add untruthful information to Wikipedia. The source lies and you can actually look at the EODE website and see the sentence in question and understand that the source lies / misinterprets what the website says. So, Wikipedia must repeat lies? No, on the contrary, Wikipedia must use common sense and discard everything the source says.
   I don't have time to reply to everything else. It monitors elections. Are you suggesting they don't monitor elections if they actually monitored them?
   By the way, I'm not even sure the organization is notable enough for Wikipedia. I have found just one article in Google News: [11]. But you seem to want to attack it for some reason. (Obviously to show the elections in Crimea were illegitimate, that's the only plausible reason.) I hadn't even heard about EODE before yesterday. As I've already said elsewhere, I simply saw you made this into a non-neutral article, therefore I reverted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

1. No, it means I trust a reliable source then the opinion of some random guy on the internet (you). Maybe you didn't find it? Maybe they removed it? Wikipedia policy is pretty clear on this.
2. As to notability, feel free to nominate this article for deletion at WP:AFD.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Words "which on its website claims"

• I agree that this organization does nothing good, but the expression "which on its website claims that it monitors elections" sounds unacceptably negative to me, as it implies that the claim is not true. To keep that formulation, the article would have to state that in fact they don't monitor anything and a source for that would be needed. — Petr Matas 12:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't imply. You infer. There's a difference. To keep the formulation we just need a source which says "according to them". Also, note we lack a source which says "they do".Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No, secondary source is not needed. The primary source (their website) is better for citing their own claims. — Petr Matas 20:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, no it's not. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:SECONDARY. And we're not citing "their own claims". We're citing what they actually do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I just did. Quoting RS: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Quoting SECONDARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." — Petr Matas 23:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, now that you've read it, think about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've come to this: If I read at www.eode.org "We monitor elections" and someone tells me "It is not true, that EODE says on its website, that they monitor elections," I would think that he is insane, even though I am not very smart. — Petr Matas 00:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Except nobody says that. What are you talking about? I guess I should've asked you to actually read the discussion above as well.

Actually it's worse than that, since you participated in the discussion yourself. What you are objecting to above is the very phrasing "EODE claims on its website that they monitor elections". And now you're saying that this is what I'm objecting too? To be honest, you've lost me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

From your 20:51 UTC post I understood, that you mean, that www.eode.org is unusable for citing EODE's own claims. After that I just did what you told me. At the very beginning I skimmed the discussion above and made a short note on the first problem I percieved in the article. You oppose my viewpoint and we discuss. That's how it should be. — Petr Matas 05:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your initial objection was to my phrasing: "which on its website claims that it monitors elections". Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right. And the subsequent discussion led us here. — Petr Matas 05:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's return to our original discussion. First we have to ask, whether expressions "according to its website" and "which on its website claims" are equivalent. I say no. — Petr Matas 16:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right, they're not the same. The second phrasing is more accurate. The first phrasing would be fine if all we had was a primary source but the info was non-controversial. That's not the case here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the difference in meaning then? I say that it is the implied probability of the claim being true, which is lower in the second case. — Petr Matas 16:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

"According to its website" implies that the claim is non-controversial. Like if I said "According to its website University X has Y students", and this was a non-controversial statement. "Which on its website claims" indicates that the claim is not non-controversial. If a University on its website claimed that it had Y students, but other sources said "that's not really a University but a scam" then the appropriate way to describe the University's claim would be the second, but not the first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: A scam university would not have the appropriate legal status and therefore no student records in the governmental registries. Its claim would be not only controversial, but even easily disprovable. Concerning EODE, we know that they have been monitoring in Crimea, no matter how objectively. It is not what they do (monitoring), but how, what is controversial. Petr Matas 13:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What do governmental registries have to do with it? It could be a private university. Anyway, I think you're taking the analogy - which is valid - too literally. The point is that they claim to monitor, but what they really do is rubber stamp certain referendums, for political reasons. Which is why there is no secondary sources which supports their claim. Like some scam educational institutions claim they educate students but in fact just issue essentially worthless diplomas.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I see. I think that this has to be explained in the article – with attribution, of course. Petr Matas 04:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way: I thought that a common model is that even private universities need some accreditation and that their students are in the registries. Petr Matas 05:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but that's a potential addition, not really about the phrasing that's in the article right now.

And re universities - it depends on country, diploma mills.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

A source

http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/anton-shekhovtsov/kremlin%E2%80%99s-marriage-of-convenience-with-european-far-right Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Good source, thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eurasian Observatory for Democracy and Elections. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140324225142/http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/news/featured-news/european-right-wing-extremists-and-other-pro-russian-activists-observed-the-crimean-referendum to http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/news/featured-news/european-right-wing-extremists-and-other-pro-russian-activists-observed-the-crimean-referendum

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)