Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

What is this? Kommersant and other quoted sources belong to WP:RS. If someone thinks they are not, please discuss at RS noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read what Greyhood wrote above. Nanobear (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As is shown above, the version before the revert contained hoaxes, manipulations with facts and sources, lots of yellow press stuff and POV-pushing. Which is why I have made a similar revert previously. Some of the stuff and sources from there might actually be re-added, but in more accurate and decent way.

If your concern is about Putin's dissertation (where the Kommersant source was used), it was a clear example of an undue weight (putting the fairly weak allegation into a special section and devoting so much space to it - Putin also is not a professional practicing scholar for that issue to gain so much importance). A brief mention of the existence of that controversy would be enough in the biography section. GreyHood ^Talk 04:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A German politician resigned recently for plagiarising his dissertation (I forget his name). It is an issue in normal countries if a politician gains professional qualifications through deceit. Malick78 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no deceit. The "plagiarised" work was actually referenced to. The situation is well described here: List_of_plagiarism_incidents#Vladimir_Putin. All this looks just like an attempt of some "fellows at the Brookings Institution" to gain some media attention to themselves. GreyHood ^Talk 19:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact he was let off (surprise, surprise!) doesn't mean it wasn't plagiarism: just no one dared punish him. Do you deny large amounts of text were copied, without clearly stating that they were being quoted? Sounds like plagiarism to me. Malick78 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, they couldn't have been directly copied, because the translation was used. Secondly, the authors of the allegations said that the "plagiarised" work was in the bibliography and that they do not believe plagiarism was really "intentional" (interesting, unintentional plagiarism with the "plagiarised" original work mentioned - could there be such things?). Thirdly, the dissertation committee denied the allegations and claimed all was correct and referenced. All this was integrated to the text of the article. GreyHood ^Talk 20:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaddy says: "The dissertation itself has something like 180 pages of text.…About 16 pages of text come straight out of King and Cleland, with no footnotes, no quotation marks, and never in the text are the names King and Cleland ever mentioned. Moreover, this material that comes directly from King and Cleland is from the very first sentence of chapter two, the chapter on strategic planning, taken straight from the book. So there’s no original introduction by Mr. Putin that then gets into this. So clearly the reader assumes these are the thoughts, the ideas of the author of the dissertation. Speaking as a professor, you can’t do this; this is not the way you do it. This is plagiarism. If you want to include this much of a work, which is probably too much under any circumstances, you must put quotation marks around it, you must acknowledge that these authors did all this thinking. These are elementary steps that you must take. But it wasn’t done. So I think this would classify as plagiarism at any university around the world that’s adhering to international standards, commonly accepted standards. It’s definitely plagiarism. The next question of course is: was it intentional plagiarism, or what was it all about? And that’s always the question with plagiarism. In this case, I don’t think it was really intentional in the sense that if you had wanted to hide where the text came from you wouldn’t even list this work in the bibliography. Had they not listed the book in the bibliography, I could never have checked it…I can say for sure that they’ve plagiarized from King and Cleland, but there are another 160 pages whose sources have not been checked at all, or at least I haven’t checked them. I don’t know if they’ve been plagiarized or not. I suspect they might have been, because they’ve been written in a very different style…."

Yet Greyhood wrote: "the dissertation became a target of plagiarism accusations by fellows at the Brookings Institution; however the allegedly "plagiarised" study was referenced to^[1][2] and the authors of the allegation admitted they do not believe "plagiarism" was "intentional"..." [my bolding]

Why do you always twist sources Greyhood? You added quotation marks around the word "plagiarism", which the previous editor hadn't used. You obviously hadn't read the source either, or you'd have seen that he was completely sure that plagiarism had taken place; yet your version gives entirely the opposite impression. You need blocking for a while, I think, to let you think about the ethics of editing here.Malick78 (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is you who directly twist sources, Malick78, which you have done in your recent revert to the intro, unexplained by anything better than "better before". The sources claim that Putin returned stability or is credited with that, not Putin himself "claims" that. This is obviously POVish direct manipulation, and very funny also.

I have put "plagiarism" into quotation marks because it was not a part of a quote but paraphrasing, and the plagiarism accusations were never fully confirmed, denied by the dissertation committe and containing obvious weaknesses - such as listing the "plagiarized" work in the bibliography and referencing to it in the text. Therefore to maintain neutrality we should use "plagiarism", with quotation marks. The problem is that the reference in Putin's work was just [23] instead of giving the names of authors of the work he referenced to - but this is not Putin's fault but the difference between referencing styles in Russia and the West at that time (by now, Russia has switched to the western style of referencing if I am not mistaken). As for the intentionality, your quote directly says "In this case, I don’t think it was really intentional".

The addition of a long quote to the reference is clearly inappropriate - it adds little to the understanding of the situation and is yet another attempt to put an undue weight to the whole matter. Put that quote here instead. We could not start adding such long pro- and contra- quotes for every controversy discussed in this article. GreyHood ^Talk 22:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Either way the fact that there is a dispute here means that the materials should not have been first removed without prior discussion, as there is clearly not a pre-existing consensus on the issue. Also according to MOS, if you want to imply that plagiarism is not a given, then state so in the long sentence, there is no need for quotation marks. If you do want quotation marks, quote a phrase rather than the word alone, like 'accusations of plagiarism' vs 'plagiarism'. θvξrmagξ ^spellbook 00:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The introduction contains way too much detail and is too long, making it unreadable. Listing every policy change Putin has undertaken, discussing his taxation policy in detail, his contributions to the automotive industry etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. (repeat 50 times) is unncessary. As has been pointed out numerous times before, including "A keen practitioner of martial arts and several time Champion of Leningrad in judo and sambo in his youth," in the introduction is ridiculous.

For a good example of a well written lead section, see Adolf Hitler. Imagine if that lead section listed all of Hitler's policies in taxation (with lots of numbers), the automotive industry, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. (repeat 50 times). The fact that he was a dictator who started a war would drown completely. But as we all know, this is probably also the reason the Putin lead section is so long and full of so much irrelevant and/or too detailed material. Tataral (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree one hundred percent (and with your comments in the previous section about bias). Unfortunately, there have been a couple of pro-Putin editors who've managed to put in 24/7 stints of editing to keep it the current way. With your help, and others', maybe we can force some changes through. Would you like to perhaps show us your envisaged version below or in the article straight away? Malick78 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ad Hitlerum. GreyHood ^Talk 15:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Mentioning Hitler isn't always an "ad Hitlerum" argument. I suggest you learn its true meaning. You've clearly misunderstood. Tataral is obviously saying we can learn how to write a proper intro from another, generally good, article.Malick78 (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • The choice of the article for comparison is pretty telling here. I prefer more natural comparisons with Barack Obama (FA) and other leaders of large modern countries. The Obama article intro focuses on the Obama career and things which he actually did, not on usual criticisms of his administration by the opposition which are plenty or not on the usual anti-Americanism spread in many parts of the world. GreyHood ^Talk 21:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing the current introduction is somewhat difficult as I feel it would be better to start from scratch, but if we remove the most obvious technobabble, excessive detail and hard-to-read numbers, it could look like this for example:

"Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (Russian: Влади́мир Влади́мирович Пу́тин; IPA: [vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪr vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪrəvʲɪtɕ ˈputʲɪn] ( listen); born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician who has been the President of Russia since 7 May 2012. Putin previously served as President from 2000 to 2008 and as Prime Minister of Russia from 1999 to 2000, and again from 2008 to 2012. Putin also serves as chairman of United Russia and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Union of Russia and Belarus. He became acting President on 31 December 1999, when president Boris Yeltsin resigned in a surprising move. Putin won the 2000 presidential election; in 2004 he was re-elected for a second term lasting until 7 May 2008.

Because of constitutionally mandated term limits, Putin was ineligible to run for a third consecutive presidential term. After his successor Dmitry Medvedev won the 2008 presidential election, Putin was nominated by Medvedev to be Russia's Prime Minister; Putin took office on 8 May 2008 and a period of so-called "tandemocracy"[1] followed. In September 2011, Putin and Medvedev agreed he should seek a third, non-consecutive term in the 2012 presidential election, which he won in the first round on 4 March 2012.[2][3]

Under Putin's rule, Russia has been in "a long process of regression culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime" according to the 2011 Democracy Index.[4] In the assessment of foreign observers, Russia has become "a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a "virtual mafia state.""[5][6] Putin claims to have overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia, ending the crisis of the 1990s.[7][8] He invaded Chechnya, starting the Second Chechen War. During his presidency, the Russian economy grew for nine straight years while poverty decreased significantly.

As Prime Minister, Putin oversaw large scale military reform and police reform. His energy policy has affirmed Russia's position as an energy superpower.[20][21] A significant rise in foreign investment[22] contributed to a boom in such sectors as the automotive industry. Economic megaprojects which Putin endorsed have included the construction of major export pipelines, the restoration of the global satellite navigation system GLONASS, and the building of infrastructure for international events held in Russia. Putin's leadership has mostly enjoyed considerable popularity in Russia with generally high approval ratings.[24] In the media, Putin often projects an outdoor, tough guy image."

As a general principle, lead sections should not list lots of numbers, this principle is also well established in journalism, and should avoid being too technical. If some key points should be retained, they should be reworded much more briefly, but it's best to start from scratch in that case. Tataral (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The introduction to the article on Vladimir Putin is very good. Maybe we should copy that approach in other articles?--Toddy1 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

l. o. l. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

puts his fist through his face* θvξrmagξ ^spellbook 06:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

...and Wikipedia self-destructed...Malick78 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be destructed if users continue to bring blatant yellow press stories and hoaxes into articles, or to conceal the refutations of those hoaxes and to give undue weight to them (in case those hoaxes are of some encyclopedic value). GreyHood ^Talk 02:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• In relation to the intro, I should point out to the obvious manipulation (whoever did that) with the phrase "Putin has overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia, ending the crisis of the 1990s" being turned into the phrase "Putin claims to have overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia". Of course it is not only Putin himself who claims it, but multiple reliable sources express this opinion! (or rather, this fact, since it is too obvious thing) And the two sources currently in the article support the claim as well. I have not the book at my hands to check it right now, but the source is credible and was long used in this article to support the claim. And the second source is the article about that Chinese Confucius Prize awarded to Putin, which clearly says "he was regarded to be capable of bringing safety and stability to Russia" and “He became the antiterrorist No. 1 and the national hero.” GreyHood ^Talk 02:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Further problematic claim proposed by Tataral, on Chechnya. The Second Chechen war was started when Yeltsin still was President and Command-in-Chief and was ordered by Yeltsin, it was started as response to the Invasion of Dagestan (1999), and the phrasing of "He invaded Chechnya" is rather dubious not only because Putin was only Prime-Minister then, but because Chechnya was considered Russian territory and the war was considered anti-terrorist operation. also, by now the war has long ended and Chechnya is rebuilt. Chechnya seems rellatively important, though, and we might think how to integrate it in the intro in more correct and neutral way. GreyHood ^Talk 02:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• As for the analysis of the "mafia state" POV claim, enough to say that the claim seems to be supported primarily by some exceptionally talanted journalists like Luke Harding (who managed to get himself temporarily refused re-entry into Russia), controversial Litvinenko who worked for the British intelligence, few Wikileaks cables containing gossips of American diplomats and a phrase of a Spanish persecutor who mixes the so called Russian mafia operating abroad with the Russian state. It has nothing to do neither with the actual diplomatic relations of Russia with other states, nor with the actual scholarly accounts on Russia, nor with generally more balanced reporting and careful language choices by the media like BBC. It also has nothing to do with the Russian domestic reality, where organised crime significantly decreased during Putin's era and where the trend on clanishness in the government was reversed under Putin. GreyHood ^Talk 04:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No stats in intro

Can I make a suggestion? We have little to no stats in the intro? I don't want to have to check everything that a certain editor (I presume) puts in, but I checked a few and they are not supported by the sources given (or only by some, and those sources are used in such a selective way as to be untrustworthy in the whole). The intro is too important to use untrustworthy stats; lets keep stats in the body where they are less eye-catching (sure, they still should be accurate, but they're less damaging if wrong if they're not seen so early I think). For the record, the Rus Profile article showed poverty went down almost by 50%, the Ria Novost said it was more than 50% (but then later in the article said that even that was dubious since too many are still poor, yet the stat suggests it's all rosy), yet the text said "over 50%" as if that was incontrovertible. Ria and Rus Prof also gave worse stats for the average wage increase quoted in the next section of the sentence: why were other sources used for the wages? Weren't those in Ria good enough? Someone was obviously selecting the best stats they could use: but if Ria Novost is so good, it should have been used for all the stats, not rejected when it's version of the 'truth' wasn't good enough for the editor... Whoever that editor was. Anybody want to own up? I haven't checked yet but I'll try... Malick78 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Rusprofile is dated August 2007, Ria Novosti is dated March 2008. This answers your first question about the difference of data between sources - one uses later and better figures. Then, you obviously misread the RIAN source - it lists poverty decrease among "Achievements" but voices concern about "a growing gap between rich and poor" which is a different issue, and the fact that many people were still poor in 2008 doesn't contradict the fact that there were twice as more poor people 8 years before. As for the different figure of average salary by 2007 or early 2008 there either must be a mistake (one source say $540, the other $640), or more likely the second source (also March 2008) uses more up-to-date data (the sources also use different starting figures which indicates that the copying was unlikely). The notable difference in data in the 2007-2008 period is quite understandable, since (see the RIAN source) this was a period of especially rapid wages growth of 20-25% per year.

So in general there seem to be no any serious problems with statistics - it is normal to expect that different sources at different times within the period of rapid change give different figures. Rus Profile perhaps may be dropped as more outdated source; the RIAN figures on the average wage seem to be outdated and below those in the estimate in the most recent revision of data in Rosstat. Anyway the main point is that poverty decreased twice and salaries grew many times, and I see no reason to remove it and replace with trivial statements that "poverty decrease" and "average monthly salaries increase" which was a common thing for most countries during the pre-crisis economic expansion in 2000s. It is the size of improvements which matters here, and your attempts to conceal it on pretext of non-important and natural differences in data is pretty telling, Malick. GreyHood ^Talk 21:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Below you agree it should be shorter, but I removed something and you complain. What should be removed then? Basic facts about when he became President? Or statistics? Your comment that "This answers your first question about the difference of data between sources - one uses later and better figures" is telling: you show no concern that both sources were being used to support the assertion that poverty went down by over 50%, yet only one source contained that info. How can an encyclopaedia work like that? With such inattention to detail? Stats can go in the body of the article where they can be dealt with properly and in depth, general trends in the intro.

Btw, how come we don't mention his KGB career in the intro? It's a major part of his life and background. Malick78 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The stats show the same pattern and the same basic facts, though different sources give information for different particular points of time within a close range. And please read carefully what I write: I have showed concern about the fact that Rus Rep source is more outdated compared to the others and I have expressed the view that it may be dropped as outdated.

We should remove undue POV which is given undue weight. Also we will remove some yellow press and hoaxes which you've re-added yet again despite being pointed out by multiple users to the nature of your edits, but this is a different question from the intro. GreyHood ^Talk 22:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The stats are very useful and should not be removed; most academic sources mention stats such as economic growth, reduction in poverty, repaid debts, etc. when giving an introduction to Putin's Presidency. The yellow press claims and hoaxes should be removed, however. Nanobear (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"The stats show the same pattern and the same basic facts" - "basic facts" are not phrased "over 50%". Basic facts are that something has "increased", surely.

You still do not understand, I see, that the term "yellow press" is subjective and meaningless here. We do not care about your personal opinions unless they somehow refer to WP policies. Oh, and no hoaxes are mentioned in the article. Are you sure you're thinking of this one? Malick78 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There are some nice definitions of yellow press. I especially like the "underdog against the system" part you know ;). Otherwise, the term fairly concretely describes the kind of media stories and media oulets that put undue weight to minor stories and rumours, that use unconfirmed information of unclear origin or from pseudoexperts, and pay excessive attention to scandals, rumours and hoaxes involving sexual and family life of famous people and pop culture persons. Most of this is related to such policies as WP:Due weight, WP:Reliable sources and WP:BLP. GreyHood ^Talk 00:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nanobear, use policy based arguments. You cannot revert all negative content about Putin by simply labeling it as 'yellow press'. I have not looked over in enough detail the edits to decide whether or not to revert you myself in the latest set of things, but the continued insistence of people on this page that negative content doesn't belong on this page because it is 'yellow press' is bordering on tendentious editing. Wikipedia's view of neutrality requires that we represent all major view points roughly in proportion to how they are held. Negative content about Putin is reported in literally thousands of places that we consider reliable sources (and that includes almost every source in the edit you just reverted.)You cannot exclude content from an article simply because you believe it to be 'yellow press'. In the future, please use policy-based reasoning when making reversions on this page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll make the explanation of the "yellow press" below in a special section. GreyHood ^Talk 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In the case of allegations about Putin's relationship with Kabaeva (and the following stories connected to that refuted original claim), the western sources simply repeated the claims of some Russian sources, and those Russian sources were yellow press and unreliable in the first place. If the claim, for which the journalists later apologised (and which was made in a newspaper which was later closed by the owner because of the story) was repeated in sources which are considered reliable this doesn't add substance to the original hoax. If all this scandal should be reported in this article, it should be reported with due details and with clear characterisation of the story as refuted and belonging to the yellow press. GreyHood ^Talk 01:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The stats are definitely important and should be kept in the lead. Here are the stats highlighted in an article by Yale University Professor of Economics A. Tsyvinski and Professor of Economy at New Economic School in Moscow S. Guriev (pp. 9-39. ISBN 9780881324976):

• real incomes in 1999-2008 increased by a factor of 2.5
• real wages more than tripled
• unemployment went down more by a half - from 12.9% in 1999 to 6.3% in 2008
• the poverty rate went down from 29% in 1999 to 13% in 2008
• the poverty cap (the income that would suffice to bring all the poor to the minimum living standards) decreased from 4.9% of total households' income in 1999 to 1.2% in 2008
• self-assessed life satisfaction rose significantly

I believe these at least should be present in the lead. Nanobear (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Can you point us to some other bios that cover such detailed info in the lead? And how will we choose which stats from which source to highlight? So many sources differ that it would be very difficult to choose the best for such a prominent position in the lead. Malick78 (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

On yellow press and misrepresented facts

• In the discussion above Toddy1 has shown that the relationship of Putin with Kabaeva was a hoax for which the authors of the hoax apologised since they were unable to present evidence. Multiple Russian sources directly call the media which originated or republished that false story "yellow press" or express concern that even some more respectable western media repeated the claim. American yellow press, Israeli media believed the yellow press reports etc. This fact has been pointed out to user Malick78 several times, yet he did nothing to remove the hoax or at least to explain that it was a claim for which the authors apologised and were unable to present evidence. Malick reverted to the version containing the non-refuted claim about Kabaeva several times. GreyHood ^Talk 23:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, according to the former worker of the newspaper which first published the hoax, they invented it simply because they were in a hurry to fill the empty space left in the issue which was otherwise almost ready for publication ;) GreyHood ^Talk 01:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• The claim of Putin's relationship with Anna Chapman is even more ridiculous than the claim of relationship with Kabaeva and, in fact, I am not sure whether such claim was made at all and in what manner it was made. As far as I know, nobody even bothered to refute this claim if it was really made in some distinctive form. In the Kabaeva case the yellow press claimed that they would marry and that they had a child (the first of course never happened, the second made Kabaeva to comment that she is not going to pay attention to the yellow press and what they write about her child). In the case of Chapman, whom multiple sources describe as an object of the yellow press attention, there were even some attempts to connect her to then President Medvedev (oh what a macho he is ;) ), not only to Putin: Whose favourite is Anna Chapman? Putin's or Medvedev's? (the first link I got from google for the search "Путин Чапман" ;)) Here the word "favourite" is notoriously ambiguous. And overall the claim is totally ridiculous and typical of yellow press: they pick up a handsome woman famous for her naked photosets (both Kabaeva and Chapman did that) and for making political career at the young age (after making career in gymnastics/espionage), than they connect these women to Putin who met with them few times over political business. And this way the love story is born! But, of course, no one is able to present any real evidence for their "closer" relationship. GreyHood ^Talk 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• The media story on problems in Putin's family was a direct continuation of the Kabaeva hoax and as such holds no water. There are sources which directly call the so called "disappearance of Lyudmila Putina" an invented scandal.
• In the discussion above it has been shown that photos of Putin's family exist and were published in the Russia media. The photos since 2000 had no daughters' faces shown for security reasons, nevertheless some specific family photos exist. User Malick78 was pointed out to the existence of such photos, but, despite concern from several users, he did nothing either to remove the incorrect claim (that there are no photos of Putin's family) or to specify that there are no recent photos with daughters fully shown. And instead of explaining that it is for security reasons, he simply integrated the incorrect overgeneralized claim into the text alongside the claims of family problems.
  • I would really like to hear from Malick78 an explanation of his actions: adding the yellow press claims to the article in non-critical way and continuing to misrepresent the facts even after being pointed out to the obvious refutations of those claims is unacceptable. GreyHood ^Talk 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This is pretty much what I was going to say as well. Nanobear (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, there is no concept of "yellow press" in WP policies. Refer to RS if you want to be taken seriously. As for the "hoax", one newspaper went further than the rest and claimed that Putin had divorced his wife and was about to remarry. It couldn't back that up and was cowardly closed by an owner who was shitting himself (and later had his bank raided). He didn't close it for carrying the story of the affair, but for reporting a marriage that was never going to happen. Therefore the "hoax" is the remarriage, not the affair. I'm not surprised that such real-life subtleties evade you two though. Either way though, numerous RS have reported the marriage problems and alleged affairs, so we can report on WP: "numerous sources have reported problems in the marriage and affairs, but these have been denied". It's that the very definition of NPOV?
• As for the photos of the family: you have shown no photos with his family taken recently or published by the media. Photos with no caption and not showing faces cannot be claimed by us to show a particular person - that would be OR. So, I'm still waiting for you to show photos of the family (especially a recent official one).
• Oh, and Nanobear, is mention of his KGB past in the intro yellow press too? How are you going to explain that away? Malick78 (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have provided the link which says that one of the journalists in that closed newspaper directly said that the story was invented just to fill the empty space. So they didn't just apologized for it and were unable to present evidence. It was a hoax, period. No point in arguing about that. The newspaper was soon reopened by the way, but after short time it was closed again because of "problems with finance and creativity" - which means that the edition acquired bad reputation and became commercially unsuccessful.
• So, the relationship with Kabaeva, the "marriage", the subsequent birth of an "illegitimate child", "disappearance" of Lyudmila Putina are all hoaxes and yellow press, "an invented scandal". Why you continue pushing it? Why you refused to mention that this was an invented story, not just "denied"?
• As, for the family, the photos on the presidential sites bear captions that they show Putin with his family. Yes, there are no recent photos with faces shown for security reasons. Why you refused to specify these important details? Because "no family photos" so nicely fits into the narrative of family problems? GreyHood ^Talk 19:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• The presidential site says "Приморский край. Морская прогулка"; it does not identify the people in the photo. Why did you just make that up?
• How do you know the daughters' faces aren't shown "for security reasons"? Why couldn't it be for "privacy reasons" (my interpretation, in fact)? Again, you're making things up.
• We mentioned that he was alleged by multiple sources to have had an affair: nothing is said of the "hoax" in the paper you keep going on about. The paper didn't start the rumours of affairs, so it has little bearing on the whole matter in fact. You still can't avoid the fact that the existence of rumours of an affair were carried by multiple RS and are therefore notable. So, it stays in the article. Malick78 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The photo album on the presidential site is called "In the family circle". It speaks for itself. The caption of the photo reflects this accordingly. You have also been provided with links to the child photos of daughters if I am not mistaken, so why you continue pushing the incorrect overgeneralized claim? "For privacy" or "for security" is almost the same in my view. the key problem is that in your version of the text it all looked like an additional testimony to the "family problems" rumours. GreyHood ^Talk 20:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have provided the source which lists the marriage hoax as the original point of the "invented scandal". You have been provided with links which show that the journalists aplogized, were unable to present evidence and and openly admitted they invented the whole story. I have provided the links which state that the story (marriage+illigitimate child) is belonging to the yellow press. Republishment of hoaxes by reliable sources does not make them true (or possibly true) as you have tried to present it. GreyHood ^Talk 20:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• [1] More hoax pushing? Malick, are your intentions here to utterly destroy good faith in relation to your edits? You directly violate WP:HOAX. "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real." - you present the confirmed hoax as something that might have been real. You simply restore the obvious misinformation without even viewing the alternative to describe the confirmed hoax as hoax if it seems of so much importance to you. And you restored the incorrect description of the daughters' photographs situation. And you did it for the third time at least. GreyHood ^Talk 20:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• • What are you talking about? The text is: "Putina is now rarely seen with Putin^[3][4] and there have been rumours, according to the Daily Mail and other newspapers, that the couple have separated.^[3][4][5] Putin has been linked by newspapers with other women, including gymnast Alina Kabayeva^[4][3] and ex-spy Anna Chapman.^[6][5] These rumours have been denied.^[7][8]"
  • We don't mention that they have divorced. Or that he was going to remarry. That was the "hoax", according to you. Other rumours of affairs and separation didn't come from the paper that got closed down. So, they're not part of the hoax. Simples. Malick78 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The "marriage" claim was the most renown incident of reporting of the relationship rumours, and it was found to be a hoax. Without that incident those rumours never would receive any kind of prominence - there are tons of rumours about politicians circulating in the yellow press. This source directly calls the story about the "disappearance of Lyudmila Putina" an invented scandal, and traces its' beginnings to the false publications about Kabaeva. This kind of rumours and stories is clearly characterised in the Russian media as yellow press not worth of believing. Presenting this as something that still might have been true, without mentioning the yellow press kind of this rumour-reporting and the fact that the most prominent part of the story was refuted and how such stories are made-up is unacceptable. And you push on with that. in my view this should not be mentioned at all or should be mentioned in a short form but with due balance and details about hoaxes and yellow press. The rumours about Putin hold no water or prominence (as compared to the usual level of gossip about famous public people) but for those incidents with yellow newspapers, and the incidents belong to the articles about those newspapers rather than here. GreyHood ^Talk 21:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The marriage problems were being reported in the West before the remarrying "hoax", so, you're wrong there. One article that calls the disappearance an invention, does not prove it is, nor negate multiple RS which reported it as the rumour the article says it was. Regarding "the usual level of gossip about famous public people", Putin has more rumours than most leaders, in fact. There were no rumours of affairs by Blair, Bush, Obama... just Putin and Berlusconi. And guess what the truth turned out to be with the last guy... (Putin's best buddy and Pussy Posse pal ;) ).Malick78 (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

At the very least

The lead needs to be reduced to four paragraphs. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should almost never be longer than four paragraphs. And it is currently six. This is an issue. Silverseren^C 19:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed the issue, in the last versions the intro has become too long and was a bit too long even before. GreyHood ^Talk 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a sorry site to see Wikipedia to be a battleground of ideologies and bias. Every one of you is acting like an angry 12 year old playing Call of Duty. Wikipedia is a neutral website, and frankly it's sad that some people do not recognize their own bias. And yelling at each other over the internet (i.e. calling each other brainwashed dogs) is not what Wikipedia editors do. If you believe that is the proper code of conduct, you have no right to edit wikipedia in the first place.

GreyHood has a point. NPOV should always be a priority, and while Western and local news sources cover an event, it never means that coverage is full. For instance, BBC covered the Russian opposition highly, but did not mention those who support Putin, which the majority of the population still does. Similarly, Russian TV covered the opposition very minimally.So both sides should stop condemning one source, while defending the other.

Furthermore, conspiracy theories have no place in the biographical page. Wikipedia is no place to spread rumors that have no basis on reality.

Weasel words or words with significant bias (aka "Mafia State") should NEVER appear on Wikipedia. Spreading propaganda is not the way to run a page. As for allegations of a mafia state, considering the definition given by so-called analysts, it certainly did not begin with Putin, but with his predecessor Yeltsin, who had led to the growth of Russian Oligarchs, who although might be represented as politically repressed by the west, are seen as robbers by many Russians. One must take in mind the culture clash between the West and the East: Americans and Russians have different views of an ideal nation.

One source that I have found relatively non-biased and informative is RIA Novosti. Now before people start to yell how it's Russian and therefore biased, I recommend you all to read the articles on the English version; the articles cover the Opposition and their views along with the mainstream views, and even interviews opposition members. I would say that RIA covers all aspects of Russian culture and views. On Putin's inauguration, they set up a live feed for the ceremony, but also reported on the protest, on how it got out of hand, and on allegations of police brutality.

You people are editors to a highly popular source of information. It saddens me to see how wikipedia sometimes turns into Conservapedia in terms of bias. So stop the name-calling, stop the ignorance, and conduct this task proffessionally.--96.250.107.241 (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, you should login. Since you didn't found any russian media covering the truth I'm going to help you. http://www.gazeta.ru/ http://www.kommersant.ru/ http://www.novayagazeta.ru/ http://www.ng.ru/ http://tvrain.ru/ http://www.echo.msk.ru/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.18.74 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you must be joking. RIAN (Ria Novosti) is a state controlled news organisation. They are 100% pro Kremlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.18.74 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read RIA articles? You would be able to see that both sides are covered: the official position of the government, as well as the views of protestors.--96.250.107.241 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow I have missed some interesting conversations due to my long absense. The IP above has made a good point. Politically motivated language that can be found in some media is not necessarily appropriate for encyclopedia (especially for the lead sections of important articles), unless this language and opinions which are expressed with it clearly represent majority point of view or a large minority point of view. Criticism of democracy in Russia clearly passes these criteria, the "mafia state" claim most certainly not. GreyHood ^Talk 20:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way the geolocation of the two IPs above seem to be somewhat surprising given their point of views ;) GreyHood ^Talk 20:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have corrected a problem in the lead: The sentence "Putin claims to have overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia". This is not what the used source says. The book states the return of stability and economic progress as a fact, not as Putin's claim. Previously, I tried to add an even better source, but I was immediately reverted. I have now re-added this source. It an article by Michael McFaul et al. in the book Developments in Russian Politics 7. The direct quote is:

Beginning in the 1999-2000 electoral cycle, Putin offered a different reason to support for his party - stability. After a decade of chaotic revolutionary change, Russian citizens yearned for it. With the exception of the ongoing war in Chechnya, Putin delivered it. The Russian economy grew more in each year of Putin's first term in office than in all of the previous decade. Voters did not care whether this growth was due to Putin's economic reforms, which were substantial, or the combination of high oil prices and low international interest rates. Putin got the credit regardless.

The are many other academic sources which state the same facts, but, being an article written top researchers of Russian politics, I think this should more than enough. Nanobear (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying he has returned "political stability" is a very sweeping statement, that it's best to soften it with a word such as "claimed". Others, for example, would say he has destroyed all democracy in Russia (he swaps jobs at will, election results are falsified, the opposition can't get TV air-time), so to say Russia is "politically stable" is the height of disingenuity. Can you see the problem? It must be qualified with a few more words - perhaps, "some claim that..."? Malick78 (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The solution is in the direct quote. McFaul is stating that the perception of the Russian public was

• improved stability, Chechnya aside, and
• improved financial circumstances;

regardless of Putin's role or non-role he simply benefited from getting credit for that.

1. McFaul does not state that Putin claimed anything. The so-called "offer" is McFaul's characterization of the aforementioned public perception, any inference of an action on the part of Putin is purely inferred.
2. McFaul does not credit Putin for stability or financial improvement.

It's much easier to read what's there and not read into it anything more than is there. I support McFaul as a source for this article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the reservations McFaul makes (note that he is highly controversial figure in Russia - being the U.S. ambassador, he recognizes that the previous U.S. administration actually attempted to prepare a color revolution in Russia), he recognises the basic point. The current wording correctly describes the situation that Putin was and is credited by multiple people and sources for the return of stability etc. Turning that into ridiculous statement like "Putin claims" was absolutely inappropriate step and I'd still like to hear some explanation why it was made. GreyHood ^Talk 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

From my memory, I thought "Putin has overseen a return of political stability..." was too strong - as if it was incontrovertible. The text did not say "is credited by multiple people and sources for the return of stability", just that he had restored it. Hence I added 'claims', to soften the statement. I see what you mean - that it perhaps wasn't phrased like that in the source, but I think even you'll agree that the essence (that, for example, in running for reelection, Putin and his minions have claimed that he's restored stability) is entirely true. Putin has, in general, claimed this acheivement. End of drama? :) Malick78 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

In the article it just mentions that Tymoshenko was "found guilty" of abuse of office, which is rather misleading, since it implies due process. That aside, I just want to add that Putin found the charges against Tymoshenko to be anti-Russian in essence, since it implied that Russia also, knowingly, broke Ukranian law, which Putin alleges that Russia would not sign a treaty that was against the co-signer's laws, and that Russian lawyers analyzed it before the treaty was signed, etc. I have a source here. I'd add it myself, but my account has yet to be auto-confirmed and the page is semi-protected.--Lord Sephiran, Duke of Persis (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should be made clearer as reliable sources warrant. __meco (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The news has frequently noted the significance of the Syrian government's support from the Russian leadership, so why isn't there any mentioning on Wikipedia? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• True, it should be covered. And in general there should be a general paragraph in the foreign policy section about how Putin has consistently avoided taking sides during such conflicts. It's a strange tactic only really followed by China, and usually driven by hopes of trade.
• Would you like to suggest some wording for the Syria issue? Malick78 (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But then again, I only heard of it from the news, and I know very very little about Syria and other middle eastern countries (I literally wouldn't notice it if a map of the Middle East omitted it), which is really why I'm searching this on Wikipedia. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Done now you can read. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Putin's mother's Maria Ivanovna Putina maiden name is Maria Ivanovna Scholomowa. Please, add it to the main article part. (the page is protected) --Михеев Денис (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I will soon do some research in this regard, if you can provide some source as well, it will be helpful. Clarificationgiven (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You should. Some say his mother's surname was actually Bergerstein. 24.146.222.215 (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I tried finding, but never found for "Maria Ivanovna Scholomowa", nor found for "Bergerstein", but found something here can't be trusted so easily. Clarificationgiven (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• She's Shelomova, not "Sha" or "Sho" [2]. Shelom stands for helmet iin Old Russian.--Garret Beaumain (talk) 15:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources confirming that Putin's mother's maiden name was "Sholomova", "Bergerstein", or any similar variation - most of the Russian-speaking sources which mention such imaginary Putin's mother's maiden names do it solely for provoking the hatred towards Putin based on antisemitism, which is (unfortunately) still widely present in Russia. No need to continue this pointless topic. Rndomuser (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Once again, she was Shelomova, as say Putin's autobiography. And it's a purely Russian family name, meaning "...of the helmet".--Garret Beaumain (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like I have the ability to edit this page, but I would propose changing the external link of http://www.putin2012.ru to http://putin2012.ru with the www the page times out and never loads. http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://www.putin2012.ru vs. http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/http://putin2012.ru

Can someone make this adjustment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjorgensen (talk • contribs) 00:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

In the section "Adventures and image", "In late August 2010 Putin shoot darts from a crossbow at a gray whale off Kamchatka Peninsula coast as part of an eco-tracking effort, while balancing on a rubber boat in the sea" should read "In late August 2010 Putin shot darts from a crossbow at a gray whale off Kamchatka Peninsula coast as part of an eco-tracking effort, while balancing on a rubber boat in the sea" 74.207.139.170 (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• AFAIK, crossbow arrows are called bolts, not darts. I suppose it should also say that the bolt contained radio beacon.Garret Beaumain (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Is Vladimir Putin Richer Than Carlos Slim? (Video 25 min.). Nemissimo (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This article mentions a new report into Putin's wealth and the things he has at his disposal as President - it's entitled Life of a Galley Slave :) We should definitely have a section on his salary and official residences... etc, since they are so controversial (=notable, Greyhood). Malick78 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've just seen what Greyhood did yesterday - removing all the stable content that has lasted the summer, but which he didn't like before it. If it was stable, that suggests the rest of our editors were happy with it, Greyhood. I'll restore it and I think you should discuss each bit here before you remove it (at least the bits you know are controversial). It was, I repeat, stable before you hacked away at it.Malick78 (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason to remove this material that has been stable for a long time. If Greyhood wants to change any of it, he should bring it up here first. Tataral (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This material included blatant misinformation, untended tags, unduly long quotes (for this already too long article), stuff opposed by many editors other than me, and obvious breaches of POV. This was a result of edit war and my long absence, rather than a result of consensus. I'm reverting back to the neutral version without those obvious faults. If you guys remain discontent and intend to push on with propaganda language and political labeling, I suggest to pre-discuss it and present a thorough justification and a good neutral wording before inserting controversial opinion stuff to the article and to the lead in particular. GreyHood ^Talk 18:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think that consensus disappeared because you, 1 humble editor, disappeared, then once again it shows you surely don't understand the concept of consensus (it's formed by many people, FYI). That the info remained while you were away shows many editors and readers found it fair and neutral. That was the consensus. Malick78 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I do actually care to make this article better. We could not speak of a good consensus when we have the version of the article containing misinformation (added and re-added by you, despite it was disproved at talk) and bearing a hatnote. It is obviously not a good version and should be changed. GreyHood ^Talk 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your phrase "good consensus" shows your intentions - a version you are happy with, irrespective of others' views. That's not going to happen - our information is your 'misinformation', and vice-versa. Let's just go for consensus. Currently the stable summer version is that.Malick78 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with including your "information", but accurately worded and given due weight. The way you put the information about family photos is misinformation - the existing family photos were presented on this talk page. Continuing to pushing on with that misinformation up to this point "shows your intentions", in your own words. GreyHood ^Talk 22:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Except you don't even know what a portrait is! As I said below, here, you blatantly tell a falsehood. You removed "According to the Daily Mail, their photographs have never been published by the Russian media, and no family portrait has ever been issued." - yet I showed you that the pictures you found released to the press of his "family" with the children's backs to camera a) weren't titled "Putin's family" (so it was OR to claim so), and b) were not portraits (portraits show faces, not the backs of heads). How are the backs of children's heads "a portrait"? Please explain to us all. You do not read things, Greyhood, you ignore details to keep pushing your POV. Even today, for God's sake, the Guardian has printed "Putin has attempted to maintain strict secrecy over his private life, with reports on his little seen wife and two daughters considered all but taboo." - can't you see that this is reliable info? Malick78 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on that point. There are photos of Putin with his family in the media, including photos with his daughters faces shown, including photos which pretty much look like good family portraits. Therefore the wording pushed by you is misinformation and needs to be removed or carefully modified (explaining what photos exists, whether faces are shown, at what age). The fact that he conceals his family in recent years is a different issue. GreyHood ^Talk 23:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

[3] this one is called foul tactics, Malick. First you remove the material about all biking events involving Putin but one, then you write "biking section removed - seems to be a one-off event and of no lasting notability". I also should point out that the way you have named this talk section is inappropriate, and you know it - you should not refer to other users in talk titles. GreyHood ^Talk 18:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean "but one"? I don't follow.

As for the title, title's are (apparently) hard to change in page histories, hence the ban on using users' names there. Hence I didn't. Yet the topic involves you directly, since you deleted huge chunks of text that had been stable after an edit war, so you naturally are the subject. I found a middle way of dealing with that issue. But still, the issue is this: don't edit war please :) Malick78 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm making reasonable, well-explained changes to the article. My recent changes included new wording, new attempts at compromise (I've left most of the points of content, just has given them appropriate place and size), and edits of the parts previously non-disputed by anyone. In that changes I was supported by other users in the past and now. And you are making mass-reverts, apparently trying to preclude me from making any change to this article at all. GreyHood ^Talk 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the point, your changes weren't reasonable or well-explained. They were far too big and controversial for this delicate topic - and included stuff you'd tried to force in previously which was rejected. It might be fun to pretend your edits are "reasonable", but we can see through it.Malick78 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Address my changes point by point, do not do mass reverts. GreyHood ^Talk 22:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, looks like I wasn't the only one who noticed that, Malick... Seems like United Russia decided to provide additional finances to our favorite "agents", Greyhood and Nanobear who both "decided" to become more "active" again on around August 26th ;-) I mean, what else can you expect from Greyhood, who created a personal Putin-related userpage template here: [4] which doesn't have a single properly-formed critique of Putin, especially in "Assessments" section, or a Mr. Nanobear who desperately searches for facts of "evil American influence" while keeping this userpage template "alive": [5]. And these people still have courage to mention words/terms like "neutral" or "POV"... ;-)98.116.120.85 (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a growing tendency in the rest of the world to view Putin as a dictator and to compare him to Alexander Lukashenko.^{[d 1][d 2][d 3][d 4][d 5]}

As it should, the common perception of Alexander Lukashenko's regime is mentioned in his biography. The now increasingly common perception of Putin as a dictator also needs to be mentioned somewhere in this article, including a brief mention in the lead section. Overall, the article still looks like it was largely authored by the communications department of the Kremlin, and critical or nuanced information and perspectives are still drowned in Putinese mumbo jumbo about his outdoor activities, Sambo, Judo, Taekwondo, Mumbo, Jumbo, fishing, experiences with animals and so on (even his "singing and painting" is dealt with more prominently than him turning Russia into a dictatorship as largely the rest of the world sees it). Tataral (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree totally. Also, the 2008 Republican candidate for US President, John McCain, has openly goaded Putin on his human rights record. Nothing like that has happened with 'normal' leaders: Putin stands apart as being almost, if not already, a dictator in a country which no longer has democracy.Malick78 (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Putin in turn has openly goaded John McCain, implying that McCain is a bit mad. Is McCain a normal leader after that? ;) GreyHood ^Talk 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please bring me scholarly works (and not journalistic opinion pieces and propaganda) which would clearly identify Putin as dictator, according to the definition of the word. Also, please try to bring Chinese, Brazilian, Indian and other international sources which would describe Putin as dictator, prove that those sources are mainstream and thus prove that the opinion you propagate is global. Also, please explain why lots of world leaders, including those of democratic states of Germany, France, Finland (and to certain extent, even the U.S. and U.K.) and dozens of others are on good terms with Putin (at least personally) and eagerly and friendly conduct talks with him (which I must admit is not the case with Lukashenko and Mugabe).

So far all your evidence only shows the bias and enmity of the mainstream Anglo-Saxon media towards a strong geopolitical rival who wields independent politics. Good sources to reflect the opinion of some mainstream media of the corresponding western countries, but not good enough to describe official diplomatic position of those countries, and not a balanced reflection of global view, and very far from a fair academic style analysis, for sure. This POV could be added to the assessments section, as it is a notable POV, but hardly warrants more attention than that. The present lead wording using the word "undemocratic" as description of the Western opinion on Putin is far more accurate, neutral and balanced. GreyHood ^Talk 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Greyhood, I'm not required to bring you Chinese sources. In case you didn't notice, this is the English Wikipedia. I'm also not required to bring you "scholarly" sources, journalistic sources are perfectly valid reliable sources here at the English Wikipedia (see WP:RS). If you think The Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, The Australian and other high quality reliable sources are "propaganda", there is no need to continue a discussion with you. Tataral (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In order to prove that the opinion you propagate is mainstream and global, and does not present only a marginal or regional or otherwise not universal and not overwhelming opinion, you should bring the sources asked. It is not enough to have reliable sources - multiple reliable sources with other points of view exist in Russia and globally. You should remember about WP:WEIGHT and WP:NEUTRALITY. GreyHood ^Talk 20:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, you forget that consensus is what counts. If the consensus here is that the current sources are enough, then your demands for "Chinese sources" are going to be ignored. Just so you know. (And btw, China is not a place where one gets independent political analysis, so English WP will always rate Chinese sources on current politics as being less valuable. Just so you know). I for one am satisfied with Tataral's assertions that it's a general notable opinion that Russia under Putin is undemocratic. I think you'll find many others here agree with that. Malick78 (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus could be challenged, and there was no mutually agreed consensus in regard to some of the contested parts, at least from my side. GreyHood ^Talk 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, you should be the very last one to talk about WP:WEIGHT. The article (including the lead section) only includes brief mentions of criticism and ten or twenty times more flattery. I don't have to prove that the view of Putin as a dictator is shared by everyone in order to mention that "some critics" consider him to be a dictator. It is not claimed anywhere that this perception is shared by everyone, although it a very common, probably the most common, perception in the western world. Tataral (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally you almost worded it yourself: "a very common, probably the most common, perception in the western world." It is only a western world perception, and it is pretty much arguable how common it is on the whole. Most certainly it is not a common perception in the western academy, in the daily diplomatic relations of western states with Russia and in a formal narrative of most respectable western media, such as BBC and CNN (at least when it comes to terminology they typically use to describe Putin). GreyHood ^Talk 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And you know what they say in "daily diplomatic relations"? Don't make me laugh. As it is, the Western View is generally very notable, and yes the BBC and CNN frequently report on corruption in Russia and Putin's authoritarianism.Malick78 (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Public diplomacy is pretty public thing, and the public diplomacy between the West and Russia is usually pretty polite, and there is lots of economic and political cooperation beetween Russia and the Western countries (unlike, say, between the West and Belarus). BBC and CNN report on corruption, rarely they use the term "authoritarianism". But the term "mafia state" is too obviously not a usual daily mainstream narrative - so, given that this is just a marginal opinion term, it should not be in the lead. GreyHood ^Talk 23:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The "dictator" claim is simply too ridiculous, sensationalistic and marginal to be included in the article, and definitely not in the lead. None of the academic sources I've seen describe him in this way - why should Wikipedia attempt to be more sensationalistic than serious academic research? Remember, Wikipedia not yellow press. Nanobear (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit makes a huge number of unsupported changes that go beyond the edit summary, and removes several other referenced sections without any rationale given. Please address them individually if you want to make all these changes. a13ean (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

what is wrong with my compromise i have read and studied the dispute for quiet a while so i know what it is about. i noticed earlier in this talkpage that one user said "the mafia state comment was put in in order to counterbalance the flattery already present" the part about medvedev is nessesary because putin is not the sole dictator of the country, my compromise is good why is it wrong instead of just reverting for no reason let us discuss it here. Peterzor (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

the whole mafia thing is just a Non-WP:NPOV neologism and the olny argument is "to counterbalance" the article! you cannnot accomplish that that by inserting some new short phrase or word (which is enought to be mentioned once later in the article)! just change what you see is "flattery" and the problem is solved. Peterzor (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be surprised if you have followed the debate for "a long-time" - that's often a feature of SPAs. It does amaze me that having edited just one other article you are bold enough to weigh in in a debate like this so confidently (especially when much of your time here has been devoted to surrealism) - I wouldn't have stepped in after just two weeks of being an editor.
• Either way, describing Medvedev as a "dictator" based on the view of the mayor of Moscow that he sacked is absurd, so I will once again remove it. We appreciate your presence here, you're welcome to edit, but please read some more about how WP works. Still, after 2 weeks and knowing the difference between SPAs, policy and essays... etc, you are learning with remarkable speed.Malick78 (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The edits of Peterzor were not helpful. This isn't the article about Medvedev, so it's irrelevant to the introduction of the Putin article whether he is considered a dictator (which, in any event, appears to be a far less common position). Tataral (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

there is already "unhelpful" behavior here, we are supposed to discuss the suject not users action, actually you havent discussed the subject all all but attacking me instead both here and at my talkpage, youre actions are against WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV, so let us follow the rules and discuss the subject as said. why do we need have to have such an controversial WP:POV/WP:SYNTH neologism written in the intro? why is not mentioning in the later part of the article were it should be enought and should belong there! Peterzor (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you're an SPA who may be tag-teaming with another/other editors. For someone who has made so few edits you know an unusually large amount about WP policies. Did you used to edit under another name? And were you asked to contribute here by another user? The timing of your appearance seems very suspicious.

As for content issues, your addition of info on Medvedev was done to make a WP:POINT, and it was not helpful. As for synthesis... I see no issue of it here.Malick78 (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: this. As I said, this stuff does not belong to the intro, especially the "mafia state" part, as it is too obviously a marginal opinion (as compared to mainstream) and a propaganda label. Even the mainstream Western press, which is generally and hypocritically anti-Russian and anti-Putin, reports typically in more neutral way without usage of too obviously biased and non-professional terminology, and tends to be very accurate even with such terms as "authoritarianism" in regard to Russia. Only some editions, such as leftist liberal The Guardian, are more hardline in this relation. There is no reason why we should supplant the global perspective and balanced point of view with the views of the western MSM, and absolutely no reason why we should take the most radical and marginal western opinions.

To create a counterbalance to such extreme POV we would actually need to take and to add to the lead some labels from the "other side", involving the description of Putin as a "strongman", "savior of Russia", "saint man" in the view of his most radical supporters, Russian imperialists and hardline conservatives. Or we would have to report on the perception of Putin as some kind of a hero and a primary opponent of the western U.S. and NATO imperialism - such an opinion is widespread in Russia, Serbia, in some parts of the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. Using such extreme opinions would look ridiculous in the lead, and it is a bad solution in any top level politician article. GreyHood ^Talk 17:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been following Western media coverage of Russia for many years, and I've never seen the "mafia state" -label being widely used. It's pretty much a fringe label. I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Nanobear (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Al-jazeera video in the section above mentions "mafia state" - it's a well-known concept in my view and legitimate. The above video (and other sources) mentions that Putin and his associates are worth $180 billion - so yes, Russia is currently a mafia state. As for Greyhood - you can't have it both ways - saying it's non-notable and then saying it'd have to be counterbalanced with more, opposite fringe views. As it is, the intro promotes Vladimir enough already. The mafia state comment was put in in order to counterbalance the flattery already present.Malick78 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That "flattery" is facts, and facts put in rather balanced way. Balancing facts with most marginal critical opinions is a bad idea, especially when the mainstream western criticism is already mentioned there. We are supposed to make a summary of criticism, not to take the most radical opinions as representation of the criticism on the whole. GreyHood ^Talk 20:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The perception of Russia as a mafia state, a well established term, is the mainstream opinion outside Russia (and has been for years), the perception of the US government, and belongs here. The whole article is full of ridiculous amounts of pro-Putin flattery, that's the real problem. Mafia state=the mainstream opinion. Pro Putin flattery: The fringe opinion. Putin is not a normal politician like a democratically elected politician of a democratic country, but more comparable to Alexander Lukashenko or Robert Mugabe. Tataral (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mafia-style corruption is still a big problem in most Central and Eastern European countries, even after they joined the EU:

– Europe hosts mafia-states

– BIS reports mafia has fingers in Czech judicial system

– WikiLeaks: US embassy’s take on Czech corruption

The Guardian, March 2012: "Tales of criminality, thuggery, and vast amounts of cash flowing to politicians from companies, lobbyists, and middlemen are dominating the newspapers and blogosphere across central Europe. In contrast, successful prosecutions are extremely rare for a political class that often seems to operate with impunity. Austria, Slovakia, Croatia, and the Czech Republic are in the throes of major sleaze allegations involving senior politicians and governing parties said to be funded by dirty money."[6] Tobby72 (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. What a blatant bias and misinformation. The "perception of Russia as a "mafia state" is a perception of some U.S. diplomats, which even didn't tell that publicly - it was rather made public via Wikileaks, and also was spread by The Guardian's journalist Luke Harding - the only case of some notice (according to my knowledge) when a western journalist was denied a visa to Russia at some point. This is most certainly not "mainstream", and most certainly not a source of good analysis and unbiased opinions. GreyHood ^Talk 18:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To make my point clear: to write about Putin's Russia as a "mafia state" is at the same level of bias and unprofessionalism as to write about the Obama's U.S. as about the country run by banksters with a puppet president (quite widespread opinion by the way). It is absolutely inappropriate to to put such marginal stuff into lead sections of encyclopedic articles.

Another pair of comparisons: Vladimir Zhirinovsky, one of to politicians in Russia, called Condoleeza Rice a "bitch" (and said many other interesting things about her) and Vice Premier Dmitry Rogozin basically described Madonna as a "whore". Should we include these characteristics to the leads of the corresponding articles? The authors of those opinions are more important than some little-known diplomats and journalists, what would you say about that?

Finally, I stress, that a radical opinion spread primarily by relatively marginal western journalists should not be presented as some sort of mainstream opinion in the West, and of course could not ever be presented as a global opinion. Official position of the U.S. government is pretty well known, it involves continuing dialogue, limited economic and military cooperation with Russia, and "reload" of relationships. This is official, not the "mafia state".

GreyHood ^Talk 18:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The views of Zhirinovsky and Rogozin are hardly notable (or even shared by others) regarding the two women in question. However, as I and others say, the view that Russia lacks democracy and has been taken over by a few criminal men and women seems widespread. That makes it notable. (As for your contention that Obama is a "puppet president", that's laughable and not even close to being a widely held view by respectable sources).Malick78 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

These views, especially the Rogozin's comment, have been republished by many reliable sources and are apparently shared by many people in Russia and elsewhere. This doesn't make those characteristics important enough to include them to the lead sections. GreyHood ^Talk 19:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Malick78 and Tataral: instead of making mass reverts, please discuss your concerns here point-by-point. Nanobear (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of making false allegations, how about sticking to the facts? The only one making mass reverts is Greyhood. I have not made any mass reverts that I'm aware of. If you want to change the long stable version, please discuss your concerns here point-by-point. Tataral (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it was stable before Greyhood deleted huge amounts. Check the history Nanobear.Malick78 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tataral and Malick78 reverted all my recent edits (each one was explained in the summary), which involved edits of previously indisputed stuff. You haven't produced any other explanation then "consensus" and "stability" of the last version. The "consensus" argument is false, since consensus requires agreement in the first place - and there were no working agreement. "Stability" doesn't mean that the article at present is good and that it should not be changed. GreyHood ^Talk 21:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't good because one editor confused the American Wikimedia Foundation's encyclopedia Wikipedia's article about Putin with Putin's own website kremlin.ru (which also includes large amounts of pictures of Putin taking part in dangerous or unusual activities, Putin meeting democratic politicians to make him appear legitimate, Putin in fresh air (he could need that), Putin painting, Putin singing, Putin walking the moon, etc. etc., all the familiar stuff we know from other countries led by glorious leaders). Tataral (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

These pictures are free, quality and are clearly related to Putin, an indisputable part of his life. It's quite naturally to illustrate the article about Putin with these pictures. In turn I could say that some editors here confused the encyclopedia with yellow press paper, and some other grossly ignored WP:NOTOPINION. GreyHood ^Talk 22:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

33,000 visitors] over summer thought the article was not biased against Putin - hence our claim of consensus and stability. Secondly, most of your edits went back to old controversial sections, so to say they were "edits of previously indisputed stuff" is false.

And here, you blatantly tell a falsehood. You removed "According to the Daily Mail, their photographs have never been published by the Russian media, and no family portrait has ever been issued." - yet I showed you that the pictures you found released to the press of his "family" with the children's backs to camera a) weren't titled "Putin's family" (so it was OR to claim so), and b) were not portraits (portraits show faces, not the backs of heads). If I explain things in detail on this talk page (as I did regarding this issue) and you ignore it then I shall only have one option - to report you for disruption. Malick78 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus involves a compromise. There was no compromise, though I continuously offered one and still do offer - by including all points of content into the article (except obvious misinformation) but giving them due weight and appropriate place (which are kind of obvious concerns for a big article).

One photo presented was in the album called "В домашнем кругу" ("In the home circle") [7] and there could be no double understanding of what it means. Unfortunately in 2008 they put this album into archive. Media clearly refer to the photographs as photographs of Putin's daughters [8] (this image we discussed too) Multiple images of his family exist in the Russian media, including Runet. The photos and family portraits with daughters exist, including some with faces shown, though at a relatively young age.[9] [10] Stop ignoring this, it is ridiculous. GreyHood ^Talk 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, indeed, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion of Putin. Our article on an authoritarian politician will have to be a fairly critical article, discussing his many human rights abuses, erosion/suppression of democracy and so on, the murders of Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko and others, his possible involvement/ordering of the Russian apartment bombings, his wars of aggression against other countries, his involvement with the mafia, his persecution of political opponents, etc. etc. Whether he likes it or not. Tataral (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a means of depromotion of of Putin. A view on him as an authoritarian politician is not universal - I thought it is obvious and you regognise that it primarily a western view, not universal even in the west?

Most of the human rights abuses etc. things you have mentioned are already in the article, and mostly given due place and weight, if not too many.

Finally, we should write primarily about facts, not about opinions. We must tell about the actual actions Putin did took and what results those actions had. We must tell about Putin's known biography, about his personal life and interests - since it is a biographical article. Unfounded allegations, political propaganda, loose connections made by the media should have little place in an encyclopedic article. GreyHood ^Talk 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you once delete the fact that he was in the KGB from the intro, Greyhood? Your claim to want to present facts is, again, disingenuous. You claim it, then when you don't like a fact you make a new claim that it's "undue", and if that doesn't work you try something else. We all know it. You even claimed that for 9 years the economy grew in his first two terms of 8.5 years and repeatedly tried to force that in! You have shown complete disregard for the ideals behind WP and hence, I for one, am fed up with your editing. Are you surprised? Or do you think we're complete fools who don't notice these things?

Basically Greyhood, you'll only win this if there is consensus. That seems unlikely if you persist in whitewashing Putin. Furthermore, you will be wasting your own time (hours of it) if your edits are not accurate. So therefore, I suggest you tone down your changes. And whatever you say, the two months over summer made that version the stable one. Malick78 (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever view is the mainstream view in the western world, where free debate is possible, is the mainstream view as far as the English Wikipedia, which is written for an English language audience, is concerned. If the governments of totalitarian or authoritarian states, such as North Korea, PRC, Belarus have a different opinion, we can mention their opinion, but not treat it as a mainstream view or equal to the mainstream western view. Also, as Russia is an authoritarian country, recently downgraded to an authoritarian country in the Democracy Index, with rigged elections and Putin as its authoritarian leader, we will treat the official Russian position in the same way as we treat the official positions of Belarus and other comparable countries. "Chinese [I take it you mean PRC] sources" are of limited relevance to the English Wikipedia, except to demonstrate the position of the PRC regime. Tataral (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Democracy Index is not an authoritative source. TFD (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Greyhood's argument that "33,000 visitors] over summer thought the article was not biased against Putin" is even less authoritative. It could be all those visitors concluded the article was total crap and not even worth an attempt to fix. As for your complaint, TFD, plenty of books cite the Democracy Index, it is authoritative enough to include in the article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not twist my words. TFD (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I come back here in less than a year to try to get NPOV up on this article, and I come back to the talk page for more rumors and inaccuracy. What's wrong with you people?108.29.81.219 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC) And what the hell does compromise mean? Wikipedia shouldn't be a democracy, it is a place to gather FACTS, not conspiracies, not the opinions of pundits, reporters, or diplomats. Because frankly, all three groups make mistakes, A LOT OF MISTAKES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.81.219 (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: After being hunted bears, rode horses in Siberia and emerged amphorae, Russian President Vladimir Putin is now played aslo as the "mother of the crane." According to the Croatian daily Vecernji list, motor glider flew to Siberia to make the first flight took and a bevy of young cranes, birds are an endangered species in Russia.78.2.81.99 (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's only notability is his absurd eagerness to do yet another stunt. We have enough already in the article about that. But thanks all the same.Malick78 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and three birds died in the process... Of course if anyone wanted to really improve this page, that would be an interesting source. Or maybe it belongs to Vladimir Putin's Third Cabinet (compare to Vladimir Putin's Second Cabinet)? But this subject is too difficult for me. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Malick78 re 'absurd eagerness' I dont like your tone at all. Be respectful --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

"General Secretary of the United Russia", "Central Committee of the United Russia" and other. Did you notice this changes in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.222.215.21 (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Does this article really NEED so many images in it? For example, the advertisements of third-party products such as vodka or a comic books. Many companies around the world (has nothing to do with "Russian traditions" or nonsense like this) tend to "abuse" the popularity of current political leaders and other famous persons, for example Obama also has a lot of products related to (but not necessarily approved by) him: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/4357596/Barack-Obama-marketing-executives-jump-on-the-Barack-Obama-brand-wagon.html?image=5 Does that mean that an article about Obama also has to be overloaded with 3rd-party product placement images? Do such products really have any historical significance??? Also, the other images: does this article really NEED 2 different images that include the president's dog? Or that ungodly large, dedicated infobox related to Putin's achievements/ranks in "Martial Arts" - why not simply leave the image itself and integrate the text information from that space-inefficient "eyesore" into the "Martial Arts" section itself? Seriously, all that visual "clutter" does nothing except slowing down the page loading for mobile devices (when using non-mobile view).98.113.47.15 (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the images, which are worth 1000 words as they say Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Putin numbered ast the 2nd President or the 2nd & 4th President? GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice the title under Putin's Picture it says President, But as i am seeing it in the fact world he was... thats past tence now, according to Popular opinion of news, people, and facts, I think it should be changed to dictator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.233.50 (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by all democratic standards, Putin has set himself up almost as a mirror-image of Stalin, power-wise. But Wiki has to use his (cited) official title(s). The body of the article can then detail his many, many, many problems, if they are Reliably Sourced. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"Putin's "cooler" and "more business-like" relationship with Germany's new Chancellor, Angela Merkel is often attributed to Merkel's upbringing in the former DDR, where Putin was stationed when he was a KGB agent.[190]" - well, this is spinning the news story in an imprecise way. The article simply states she'll look at Putin in a more "sober" manner - it's clear from the story that it is the Putin regime's policies that are at the heart of the issue. Merkel is of a very different nature than her predecessor, who generally wasn't much liked except in France. Needs to be reworded/clarified.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is little better than propaganda. Sad to see that the english-language Wikipedia isn't more robust. 5.56.201.184 (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have read the archives and I believe it is futile. A small number of editors consistently removing critical material - in some cases in large blocks, even when well-sourced. That doesn't go unnoticed, of course, but on the talk page they turn criticism into protracted debates - accuse others of "POV pushing", question the validity of the western press, etc and ultimately win by endurance.

Wikipedia copes with idiots who just jump in and change whatever they want and ignore feedback. But if you take the trouble to wrap yourself in the clothes of a genuine contributor (write about other topics, respond in a superficially reasonable way to feedback, etc) and your edits are much more resilient.

If I were - hypothetically - organising propaganda for somebody and had a lot of resources, I'd have guys doing exactly this (multiple, so as to make the edits less obvious and the POV seem more reasonable).

The pro-Putin editors clearly have ample time and motivation. And they all seem to be native Russian speakers (according to their pages). Coincidence! 5.56.201.184 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I, too, have noticed the bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.159.251 (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have never read a Wikipedia so blatantly biased. It is obviously the product of a well financed and staffed professional organization. The problem with their tactic is that it's very clear to anyone who is used to Wikipedia's impartial format. By reading some of the introduction and then simply scanning the rest of the entry, it is plain that this can't be used as a source of factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.151.153 (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the article needs a major revision to get rid of all the pro-Putin stuff that is very obviously added by paid Kremlin staff, and portray him more in line with most reliable sources in the English language. He is overwhelmingly viewed as an autocratic leader, and a borderline if not outright dictator, except by himself and some other authoritarian countries. Tataral (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Sections like "Painting and Singing" are inconsequential and clearly only useful for Pro-Putin PR purposes. The topic warrants MAYBE a passing sentence, not a section. We might as well write "Paid for by the Committee of Vladimir Putin" at the bottom of the page.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the "Speeches Abroad" section, it says:

"Putin also called to stop the militarization of space and questioned the plans to deploy American missile defense in Europe as threatening strategic nuclear balance and spurring new arms race (that's when the countries dubbed as rogue states by the West are in fact lacking any rocket weapons capable to threaten Europe or the U.S. and being unable to develop such weapons any time soon)."

This neither seems well written, or objective in tone. It should be revised or omitted.

140.190.67.177 (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Putin's health has been discussed by the media a lot and somebody should add that. He got problems with his spine and might die soon (I hope). Power play is already started, with Putin's inner circle fighting for top spot after his passing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.61.190 (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Got some Reliable Sources to that effect? Wiki is not about Original Research, nor is it a blog or forum for idle speculation.HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Choose whatever you like. https://www.google.ru/search?q=putin's+health&oq=putin's+health&aqs=chrome.0.57j62l2.3506&sugexp=chrome,mod=7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.189.203 (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The article repeats On 4 July 2007 Putin made a full fluent English speech while addressing delegates at the 119th International Olympic Committee Session in Guatemala City on behalf of the successful bid of Sochi for the 2014 Winter Olympics, the first Winter Olympic Games in Russia three times. While it probably deserves one mention, I don't think it needs three and that two should be deleted, although I am unsure which ones. It makes me wonder whether there are more examples of identical sentences across the article... Also, the page needs consolidation. There are too many sections, and they should either be merged or spun off into new articles. Neither Barack Obama nor Elizabeth II have as many sections. Finally, the introduction is very long. Normally I'd place maintenance tags on the page, but I thought that going to the Talk Page first would be more prudent. It's an important page, and it needs clean up. Paris1127 (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input. We need new viewpoints here. Where is the info repeated, btw? Malick78 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • One is under the sports promotion section, one is under his language skills, and I forget where the third one is. Just CTRL-F for "fluent English" and you'll find it. This article does need some new viewpoints, parts of it appear to have been written by fans of Mr. Putin. The page needs some serious clean up... Paris1127 (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Fully agree with Paris1127. Putin's personality is certainly rather unique, but currently the article is overloaded with detail. A joint effort would be nice, ideally with the grace of the owners. Inwind (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Any particular reason why we should not include cliams by Vera Putina's claims about his parentage ? Kanatonian (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace "propagandizing" with "promoting" in the sports section. It's normal, not nefarious, for political figures to associate themselves with and encourage healthy actions (cf. Michelle Obama and her vegetables). Thank you. 91.142.106.73 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed and Done. Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The use of the word "ruled" in the final sentence of the opening paragraph seems inappropriate. While many historians/analysts may believe that Putin's policies are undemocratic, he is not a king or dictator in any official way. The word "ruled" is too laden with connotation to be used when Putin is officially the leader of a democracy, especially in the first paragraph, which should only consist of straight biography. Criticism of him is sufficiently discussed in the fourth paragraph. Thoughts on removing or replacing this? BeatlesJPGR1964 (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting point. What word would suggest to take its place? To be fair though, he has been...governing(?) virtually unopposed for quite some time now. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think that's addressed pretty well below. I'm not sure how I'd deal with it...the succession is a little complicated because Putin first became Acting President when Yeltsin resigned, and it might be redundant to start talking about how he was first Acting, then was elected, etc. Could just throw something about Yeltsin into an earlier sentence and remove that last one entirely. BeatlesJPGR1964 (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How about "He has been in power since Boris Yeltsin resigned his post in late 1999"? Or the sentence could just be deleted entirely, since Yeltsin is mentioned in the next paragraph. --Albany NY (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Removed the sentence. BeatlesJPGR1964 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

In the lead it claims: Putin was ineligible to run for a third consecutive presidential term in 2008. Dmitry Medvedev won the 2008 presidential election and appointed Putin as Prime Minister, beginning a period of so-called "tandemocracy". In September 2011, following a change in the law, Putin announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive term as President in the 2012 presidential election. What is this law? Putin was eligible without any need for a change in the law. If this refers to the 2008 ammendment to the constitution which increased the presidential term, then it should be reworded or removed to make this clear.--212.183.128.142 (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering you have an entire section catch phrases, the section regarding Chechnya needs to be much expanded. For example the number of casualties etc. You have one line yet it is one the most important thing that happened during his presidency. Stumink (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add [[File:Putin and Reagan in Moscow.jpg|thumb|left|Putin (far left) watches as U.S. president [[Ronald Reagan]] reaches to shake the hand of a boy standing in front of Putin. Soviet president [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] can be seen behind Reagan's left shoulder. ([[Red Square|Red Square]], May 1988)]] between the first and second paragraphs in the Vladimir Putin#KGB career section. Thanks 72.244.204.251 (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The result should look something like this:

KGB career

Putin joined the KGB in 1975 upon graduation, and underwent a year's training at the 401st KGB school in Okhta, Leningrad. He then went on to work briefly in the Second Chief Directorate (counter-intelligence) before he was transferred to the First Chief Directorate, where among his duties was the monitoring of foreigners and consular officials in Leningrad.

From 1985 to 1990, the KGB stationed Putin in Dresden, East Germany. Following the collapse of the East German government, Putin was recalled to the Soviet Union and returned to Leningrad, where in June 1991 he assumed a position with the International Affairs section of Leningrad State University, reporting to Vice-Rector Yuriy Molchanov. In his new position, Putin maintained surveillance on the student body and kept an eye out for recruits. It was during his stint at the university that Putin grew reacquainted with his former professor Anatoly Sobchak, then mayor of Leningrad.

Putin finally resigned from the active state security services with the rank of Lieutenant colonel on 20 August 1991 (with some attempts to resign made earlier), on the second day of the KGB-supported abortive putsch against Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.^[9] Putin later explained his decision: "As soon as the coup began, I immediately decided which side I was on", though he also noted that the choice was hard because he had spent the best part of his life with "the organs".

• • • Hm, it's an interesting photo but a) it doesn't look like Putin, b) the Kremlin has denied it's Putin (http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/when-putin-met-reagan/ as it says here), and c) if it's to be included the caption should say that he's undercover posing as a tourist in order to asking Reagan awkward questions about human rights in the US (as the source above says). Did Putin speak good enough English to ask questions? I doubt it. Malick78 (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: The above comment indicates there is no consensus for this request. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to remove the ancestry paragraph, which is nothing but a wild speculation with only one "source" - an article in Pravda, which only speculates with no proofs whatsoever. Any objections? --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change: Vladimir Putin is featured being played as nicepeter in Epic Rap Battles of History's Rasputin vs. Stalin

to something more readable like: Vladimir Putin was portrayed by nicepeter in Epic Rap Battles of History's Season 2 Finale, "Rasputin vs. Stalin".

^[10] Orangebeard (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please state which section the text falls under? Thanks. Arctic Kangaroo 01:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

V. Putin -- The end of the second paragraph should contain this sentence:

It was widely reported that the Russian presidential election was clearly skewed in Vladimir Putin’s favour.

Source, one of many: http://metro.co.uk/2012/03/04/russian-presidential-election-clearly-skewed-in-vladimir-putins-favour-339230/

Thank you.

128.164.150.153 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:WEASEL. Also, criticism of the election is already mentioned in Russian presidential election, 2012 and this article. BryanG (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

stop the POV politically motivated badly sourced edit requests please Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

this article already goes far in criticising putin and also includes a describtion of him of being a dictator! why is so important to include this neologism see Wikipedia:Neologism#Neologisms mafia state is a neologism and the article is really allowed to exist per wikipedia policies and is non notable so per wp:weight this should not be included in the article lede Peterzor (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

a) It was stable text - most people seemed to have nothing against it. Don't assume it is so unfair / unbalanced.

b) "Mafie state" is hardly a neologism. Have you a ref that says it is? If not, I'm not inclined to agree with you on this either.

c) Why do you keep using the term 'anachronism'? You don't explain and it's not obvious.

d) You bold edited and I reverted. Please leave it like that till consensus develops. Malick78 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

If mafia state is anachronism, that's only because it's already mutated into a fully functional dictatorship with all ensuing consequences like constant human rights violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.170.30 (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

yes putin is obviously an authoritarian leader and i have nothing against desribing him as a dictator etc but to call his system "mafia state" is just too much, the term is not often mentioned in the news so it is not notable Peterzor (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The "mafia state" quotation is clearly sourced to American diplomats. I don't think Wikipedia policies on neologisms require us to change their words for them. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

To clarify per Peterzor's request: The context of the quotation is "American diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks allege that Russia has become a "virtual mafia state" due to systematic corruption in Putin's governance." Whether the cables were using a neologism doesn't seem relevant to me here. I'm not sure if I have an opinion on whether or not it should be included in the lede, but I definitely don't think it should be cut from the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Truth is not a criteria in wikipedia. Strange but true. References rule. But if you are going to think about such things as putting in 'Mafia State' and 'Dictator', first look at the definitions. Properly. America is no shinning light either, its democracy is subverted. Crime in the USA is run by the Mafia. Will you mention that here as a comparison? What about he increasing dictatorial powers of Obama? The patriot act, troops now on US streets? The article must be neutral point of view.

You have to think of Russia historically at times and you also need to consider the increasing global tensions conflicts. Putin rules hard because he has to. A soft ruler would see the USA encroach relentlessly as the USA's massive debt mountain forces them to use their force to stay solvent. Russia knows this. Dont be petty and shallow concerning Putin thank you. Im against the use of Mafia in this article, and dictator. Its politically motivated. Just because a reference exists does not mean it should be included. Almost anything can be referenced, I learnt that at University. Lol. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

On June 6, 2013 it was announced that the couple (Putin and his wife) would divorce by mutual consent. There is nothing in article about it yet. Why? 217.76.1.22 (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been recommended that that article be split into several pieces to make it more readable and manageable. Maybe moving the industrial/economic sections to a separate article with only a single section here with highlights would help. Speeches and catch phrases could be moved to another article about his effect on Russian culture or something. The way another world leader's article was split could serve as a guide. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 11:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Vladimir Putin's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "en.rian.ru":

• From India–Russia relations: Russia backs India as possible UN Security Council permanent member, though privately it joins efforts to block any forward movement on reform. Ria Novosti
• From South Ossetia: "Russia to provide $200 mln in urgent aid for S. Ossetia | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire". En.rian.ru. Retrieved 2010-06-22.
• From Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov: "Moscow set to upgrade Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier". RIA Novosti. 6 April 2010. Retrieved 7 April 2010. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• From Union State: Belarus could recognize Abkhazia, S. Ossetia next year
• From Gazprom: "Gazprom 2011 Net Profit Up 35% to $44.6 Bln | Business | RIA Novosti". En.rian.ru. 27 April 2012. Retrieved 2013-01-21.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Would you kindly stop adding in extra, redundant images to this article, at least before it is split up or "cleaned up" in some way? It already is loading somewhat slowly on some mobile devices... Not to mention the latest image added on 25th looks like a potential copyvio. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

281][dead link]

Why put a dead link tag on a footnote that has a date? Eventually all the fotnotes will become dead; does the article have to be rewritten then? 84.23.155.84 (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic is relevant to the article (but not for wide public). Only facts, as here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_copyright_relations_of_Russia (shame on this page gave good results to achive implementation of the TRIPS). Law against piracy - on the agenda as never earlier in Russia. Now the same aim: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/День_работника_органов_безопасности_Российской_Федерации (Russian article). Translation (EN).

Humanity must be free of the bloody crimes from The Black Book of Communism.

President Vladimir Putin has the possibility to change this terrible date for 10 minutes (via decree). But he does not wish do it, because he from the: Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. The FSB is the direct heir of: the Cheka and the NKVD. Some researchers are sure, that people from the Cheka were worse than people from the SS !

Cheka means: Red Terror.

NKVD means: Great Purge

Terrible illustration of the Red Terror: http://images.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=Red%20Terror%20Russia (Red Terror Russia).

President Putin congratulates: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://www.fsb.ru/fsb/comment/remark/single.htm!_print%3Dtrue%26id%3D10437306%40fsbComment.html (promotion of terrible crimes against millions of people).

Original of the promotion: http://www.fsb.ru/fsb/comment/remark/single.htm!_print=true&[email protected]

World War II and the NKVD: Katyn massacre (double standarts and nothing more). Putin must change this terrible date: December 20 (in 1917). Was the creation of very cruel machine for mass murders. If Putin respects light memory of killed people. I ask do not delete this useful topic - to achieve the public resonance (for the good of mental health of Humanity). The topic can be shorter via collapse (when will be need). Thank you for attention ! - 176.15.206.159 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC).

Very important criticisms information in the lead has been deleted by Putin's lackeys. Please bring it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolshto (talk • contribs) 09:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing this out. There was a clear consensus to include this stable paragraph. It seems quite clear that the Kremlin are constantly trying to manipulate the article, so it needs being watched continously. Tataral (talk) 14:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

In the second paragraph it reads: "However, Russian specialists completed the construction of Iran and the Middle East's first civilian nuclear power facility, the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant," etc.

That is a clumsy and wrong construction. It should be:

"However, Russian specialists completed the construction of the first civilian nuclear power facility in Iran and the Middle East, the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant," etc.

Please correct whoever has time to improve this article. J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.117.205 (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add in the personal section that Vladimir Putin and Lyudmila Putina have confirmed a "civilized divorce".

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/putin-divorce-russian-president-wife-lyudmila-marriage-over_n_3397746.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130606/eu-russia-putin-divorce/ 138.87.138.207 (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Mdann52 (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Where does the name Putina come from? Is it custom in Russia when 2 people get married they add an "a" to the husband's last name? I see the children have this name too.Robinrobin (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC) It's the female form of Putin. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_and_maiden_names Robinrobin (talk) 04:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This source is cited in the lead, but it was tagged as potentially unreliable. It's titled "BRIC Spotlight Oil & Natural Gas Sector in Russia: Fueling Growth" dated January 2011. It's authored by Thomas White International, which is a money management and research firm based in Chicago. I can't see that the Russian government is involved with that firm. What I've done is to provide explicit attribution in the lead to this firm, so readers will be aware where the info comes from, and so I removed the tag. If someone would like to remove this source, that would be fine, as long as all of the corresponding stuff in the lead is supported by reliable sources in the footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The mention of the latest NYT article by Putin in the intro section makes it sound exceptional. However, it's not the only time he's done so. One other time I know of: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/14/opinion/why-we-must-act.html?smid=tw-share 85.250.93.191 (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - seems the September 2013 NYT Opinion was not the first time for Putin after all (since a NYT Opinion was published in 1999) - nonetheless, very, very unusual (and in a sense exceptional?) I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

President Putin has another dog not mentioned under the Pets Section.

His 3rd dog is an Akita-Inu breed dog named "Yume" which is Japanese for "Dream." She was a gift from the People of Japan as Thanks for help during the Earthquake/Tsunami in March, 2011 and was given to the President July, 2011.

Source: http://rt.com/news/putin-plays-dogs-russia-640/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.54.105 (talk) 22:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be enough material for a separate article about the Domestic policies of Vladimir Putin. We could move that whole section there, except for the intro which could be in both this old article and that new one. I'm not suggesting that we do this with the foreign policies, since they are generally of more interest to a worldwide Wikipedia audience. The section titled "Programmes" seems to be more about domestic policies, so that could be moved to the new article too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Instead of starting a new article, we alternatively could update and expand Vladimir Putin legislation and program.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the Domestic policies should have their own page, and the foreign policies can be condensed since they have their own page too. ARCitect (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I have begun with the foreign policy section, by merging subsections into regional subheadings. So, there are fewer subheadings, and it will be easier to shorten each of the new subsections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I've now revised the article Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin so that it has the same structure as the foreign policy section of the present article, and everything in that section of this article is now in that article (though not vice versa). So, when I get a chance, I'm going to drastically reduce the length of the foreign policy section of this article, while maintaning the structure.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've shortened it today from 223 kilobytes to 204 kilobytes. There's still a long way to go. John McCain's article is about as huge as a Wikipedia article shoud be, at 172 kb. Will continue in the near future to trim.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, while your work is good, bear in mind also that comparing Putin to McCain is a little misleading: McCain has never been a President and has not defined his country for the last 12 years. He's, to put it unkindly, an historical footnote. Keep up the good work, though. Malick78 (talk) 12:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll see how it goes, but I don't expect any problem getting it shorter than McCain's which is extraordinarily long (especially for a footnote in history if that's what he is). Check out WP:TOOLONG if you haven 't yet. Cheers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The article Domestic policies of Vladimir Putin is now created, so I'll shorten the corresponding section of the present article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is now under 196 kb, so I've cut about 27 kb altogether. The next step will be to create a new sub-article titled Political career of Vladimir Putin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The new article has been created, which allowed some trimming in the present article, so we're now down to 189 kb, from 223 kb. The next step will be to create a new sub-article titled Public image of Vladimir Putin. That will be the last sub-article that I create for Vladimir Putin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your (necessary) hard work has an unpleasant side effect, btw: now I have to patrol even more pages to counteract the dark forces at work here on WP. Putins minions are many... ;) Malick78 (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I suspect the sub-articles probably won't be edited much compared to this one (although perhaps they should be according to Wikipedia guidelines). I'll be creating the last sub-article later today, barring unforeseen circumstances. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, all done. It's at 180kb, down from 223kb. Cheers, and cheerio.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it some more, it seems apt to move the "Putinisms" subsection into the "Public image" subarticle with a summary here in this article ("examples of most popular putinisms include...."). If no objections I will do so.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Scholars such as Michael McFaul (currently the U.S. ambassador to Russia) give Putin at least partial credit for Russia's recovery from the economic crisis of the 1990s" this was here for some time, there is no need to remove it. Leiroi22 (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)