Talk:Lukashenko wins disputed Belarus elections

"disputed"
why an unqualified "disputed" in the title? from the article and the couple of sources i saw, the only people disputing it are opposition groups and rallies, there's no mention of what independent monitors, international organisations, foreign governments are saying. Doldrums 07:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's to indicate the fact that there's a hell of a lof of suspicions of them cheating. If you look at BBC, for example, they titled their articles "Belarus ballot 'severely flawed'" etc. AFP: "Belarus leader clinches new term, West and opposition cry foul". CNN: "OSCE: Belarus vote not free, fair". I thought that "disputed elections" summarises the fact that a lot of people think there was cheating involved. --HJV 14:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * i think those articles came out after we published, following the OSCE(or whatever) observers saying the polls were not free and fair. the problem is that we have not included those sources in this article. and the (english) sources we have included don't make this claim. Doldrums 06:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I do think a demand for annullation of the vote could be considered a dispute. Don't you? Also, the Reuters article mentioned as a source does talk about the protests in Minsk and of EU and USA taking a suspicious stance to the results. I thought that "Lukashenko wins Belarus elections. Opposition demands annullation." would have been too long for a title. The anullation demands and suspicions from outside Belarus are reflected in the word "disputed". If there wasn't for the "disputed", it would seem, from the title, that everyone thinks these results are OK, when in fact they don't. In turn, as I mentioned before, removing the dispute and making the title longer at the other end would simply make it too long for a news headline. What do you think would be a better headline? Also, if you find sources, please do feel free to add them. --HJV 15:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)