Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 4

Accusations of pedophilia

I think these accusations must be removed instantly, otherwise we seriously run the risk of WP being sued by Russian authorities. I understand there are many russophobes here, but this time it has gone too far. Thank you. Cfeet77 (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, Russian authorities suing the Internets. The Internets is not in Russia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I hereby declare that I will be personally removing such accusations instantly whenever I see them, even if such removal of mine violates the 3RR rule. You are welcome to report such potential violation to the ANI noticeboard if you find such reporting appropriate, even without first warning me on my talk page. Cfeet77 (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a baseless accusation made by conspiracy theorist/FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko, who was known for making many other extreme allegations/attacks against Putin with no evidence to his claims (or circumstantial at best). Such personal attacks do not belong on biographies of living persons. Krawndawg (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good thing he was killed don't you think? - PietervHuis (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• What kind of good intentions am I supposed to assume reading the previous comment? Just curious. Kulikovsky (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No I really don't think it's a good thing he was killed, I find the suggestion utterly offensive. Krawndawg (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well sorry, after I encounter those who constantly try to discredit the mans lifework, not long after he died a horrible death, I get the feeling there's a lack of respect. But my bad, I got carried away. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy.Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC).

Guys, we shouldn't be trying to be the arbiter of the actual allegation. Instead, if we can find that accusation on a source other than one blatantly biased against Putin and propagandistic in intent, we should allow this section to proceed. And if not, we should not. Only the quality and relative neutrality or veracity of the source need really be considered here. Ender78 (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Krawndawg did exactly what you suggest: evaluated the source. I agree (or think) that inclusion would violate WP:NPOV. Kulikovsky (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Terms to avoid

I would suggest to remove things like "Putins regime" - sounds biased. Your opinions please. Oleg_Str--212.111.199.30 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC).

Strongly agree. This user has a very valid point. NPOV terms such as this, which may be correct in the strictest sense of the word, nonetheless serve as a flashpoint for the ideological arguments that have been detracting from the quality of this article. The great thing about this article, from the perspective of what we're trying to do here, is that there's no shortage of facts, both good and bad, about the subject, so our research task is not difficult (there's already 150+ cited references across the V. Putin articles). Nor should the writing task be very challenging: Just a matter of organization and keeping the appropriate, neutral tone. This article should be a slam-dunk, as they say. We've just got to move some stuff around, remove the blatantly biased language, rely on the facts, and we've got ourselves a perfectly fine article, that neither propagandizes nor demonizes the subject. Ender78 (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Geez, people

Russian economy since fall of the Soviet Union

What you see since 2003, is the rising oil prices. The Russian economy as such did not improve much, and would plunge if there the oil prices fell (which is unlikely, but I just explain the obvious). This should be explained, instead of presenting Putin as some sort of miracle maker - actually, Bush helped the "rescuing Russian economy" (rising global oil prices) more. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article already explains this, except Mr. Bush help. However, raising oil prices do not automatically cause average salary rise. Kulikovsky (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

POV dispute

"the economy bounced back from crisis seeing GDP increase six-fold " is biased POV. This part of sentence uses nominal GDP figures that are not adjusted for inflation (sixfold nominal increase means that economy doubled, and prices have tripled). For NPOV presentation, the sentence should refer to real (inflation-adjusted) GDP figures. Because Krawndawg does not agree, I am adding a NPOV tag to the section to alert readers that NPOV dispute exists.--Doopdoop (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The figure doesn't make sense here. Colchicum (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The article should mention both figures because both figures are important. NPOV requires all viewpoints to be presented. Removing one figure because you have an opinion about it is the exact opposite of NPOV. Krawndawg (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making assumptions about my opinion. NPOV requires all notable and reliably sourced viewpoints to be represented, not some fringe theories. Could you provide a single source which cites nominal GDP growth as a fact of Putin's biography? So far editors as diverse as Doopdoop, PietervHuis, Biophys, Berkunt/Miyokan, Alex Bakharev etc. have all opposed this, so at best your explanation is not convincing enough for this information to be included in the article. Casual readers won't understand this either. This figure is NOT important, because it is effectively a function of two variables, real GDP growth multiplied by inflation factor. It doesn't indicate anything. Let's cite inflation rate instead. You may disagree, but you should have convincingly explained this first with sources. You haven't. Colchicum (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC reported that number exactly: "Average wages rose eightfold during Putin's eight years as president, from roughly $80 a month to $640, and GDP sixfold. A new middle class is buying foreign cars and taking exotic vacations on the Red Sea."[1] If MSNBC (who are not overly sympathetic to Putin) presents those numbers, why WP should not? Kulikovsky (talk)

Is that Putin's biography??? You could well have found some information about the Caspian Sea level change "during Putin's eight years as president", so what? Colchicum (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Robert Mugabe is looking forward somebody adding information on nominal GDP growth during his period of office to his article. Colchicum (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And I am going to find it and put it there. Have fun. Colchicum (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's right. I agree with Colchicum. But we had this conversation already. This is second or third circle. It seems that Krawndawg and User:Sbw01f are promoting some questionable statistical data and tendentious representation of the data. For example Russia has 12 time less rapes than Canada - see Crime in Russia. The cutoffs at GDP maps were chosen to show that Russia and Canada fell into the same category. See maps in List of countries by GDP (nominal) and other similar articles.Biophys (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What's with the off topic ranting? Are you trolling again? I just checked, and Russia and canada don't fall into the same category in any of the GDP maps on Sbwo1fs userpage...might want to get your eyes checked out. Krawndawg (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

1. What "representation" are you talking about?
2. There are enough reliable sources that mention Putin and Russia's economy growth in the same breath. I may not like it and you may not like it. Regardless of Wikipedians preference on the matter, the data can be legitimately added to the article. Kulikovsky (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Putin himself does not use such tendentious way of measuring GDP. For example, in 2004 he pledged to double Russian GDP until 2010, of course he meant inflation-adjusted GDP. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Putin is a politician, not an economist. Krawndawg (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Vladimir Putin article

PUTIN'S REAL FAMILY BACKGROUND: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSBENOquJEM

I have supported creation of an article about Putin's foreign policy, but creation of Criticism of Vladimir Putin I do not support. The size of the section is not excessive, and the whole idea appears to be POV-forkish to me, while done with best intentions, no doubt. I know, a similar article exist on G. Bush, but I do not know the reasons. Per my quick check there is no similar article on B. Clinton, for example. So, my preference is to keep content in the main article, without fork. Thanks. Kulikovsky (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea is precisely to allow for further expansion of the ideas presented, without it becoming a battleground. In this manner, we can summarize the criticisms in the main article, while presenting links into the more specific article throughout. We can also have some overlapping/duplicated content. My personal primary goal is simply to get the overall length of the main article shorter and more readable, NOT to whitewash or dissemble any of Putin's alleged abuses of power. Ender78 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed this article lacks a controversy or criticism section, which seem to be neatly tucked away in the public opinion section while Anecdotes or "Putinisms" are clearly labeled. Every biographical article of a notable figure usually has a controversy section, from Rush Limbaugh to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and anyone that doesn't, especially of a political figure, should be suspect of whitewashing. Any complaint of POV is a red herring in regards to these matters. As a side complaint, I think the Second term and Foreign policy sections need to be cut down or split up better, especially if there is already a separate article dedicated to Putin's foreign policy.--Waxsin (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Foreign policy article

The article Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin should be replaced. Vladimir Putin should have an article that focuses on all his political positions, just like any other candidate. You can look at Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton to get an idea of how this article should look (or for another candidate such as Barack Obama or John McCain. And also check out her profile to see how this article is included in a general article about her. Hope this helps. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin's Regime

The article contains repeated mention of "Putin's" or "Russian regime". This wording is inherently pejorative and should be avoided in the interests of NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.15.114 (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The article only uses it five times. One time it does not even refer to Putin at all. Three times it is used as a direct or paraphrased quote from someone. I can only see one instance where it's used 'in the voice of wikipedia'. 24.32.204.89 (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

His autobiography, Ot Pervovo Litsa, (English: First Person)

His autobiography, Ot Pervovo Litsa

Ot Pervovo Litsa

Pervovo

Facepalm.jpg >>"Ot Pervogo Litsa"<< please fix it, or I will cry. 68.151.34.161 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo of Rumsfeld and Putin

President Putin receives Donald Rumsfeld at the Kremlin in November 2001.

I don't believe that the picture of Rumsfeld is relevant to the biography of the Russian President. Rumsfeld has never played any major role in Putin's life and has been for a long time out of the global political scene. --Supernova (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

War with Georgia

It is rather strange that the article says nothing about the ongoing war with Georgia in which Putin continues to play a major role and indeed is frequently described as Putin's war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.147.27 (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning the South Ossetia war would be logical only in connection with Putin's involvement as PM. But the term "Putin's war" which was coined by the western media would be a biased step. --Supernova (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not insisting on the inclusion of the term "Putin's war" although I don't consider it to be biased at all. However, the first bellicose rhetoric against Georgia came from Putin rather than from Medvedev. His fairy speech in Vladikavkaz, which preceded Medvedev's comments, proved that it was Putin who orchestrated the punitive expedition against Georgia. No need to downplay his role in the war.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are partly right. However, I doubt that what happened in South Ossetia is something inextricably related to Putin's personality. A dozen of Russian peacekeepers were shot dead in the first hours of the Georgian attack on Tskhinvalli. Putin and Medvedev as figures who are constitutionally entrusted with protecting their people had no other choice than just strike back and neutralize the Georgian army. I think anybody on their place would do that. If Putin and Medvedev were Bush and Cheney, Georgia would have been devastated by scores of cruise missiles. --Supernova (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin sought to punish Georgia for a couple of well-known reasons. He just wanted a pretext. Regarding the state's rights to defend its citizens in another state, please see http://www.rferl.org/content/Does_A_State_Have_The_Right_To_Protect_Its_Citizens_Abroad/1193050.html. As for the military you refer to as "peacekeepers", they are widely known in Georgia as "piecekeepers" or "mirotWARtsy". As you can see not everything is that simple as presented by the Russian media. Back to the subject, however, all we need to do is say that Putin was first to respond to the crisis in Georgia and describe the (Western?) media allegations regarding his role in the conflict. It would be both neutral and fair, methinks.--93.177.151.101 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Piecekeepers", "mirotWARtsi", "punitive expedition" - are just words which testifie that the one who articulated them has no fair argumentation to reinforce his cause. The right to protect one's citizens is only one justification for the fact that Russian troops were transferred to South Ossetia. The other reason is that Russian peacekeepers (I underline: "peacekeepers", they had no multiple rocket launchers, tanks and they were not doing any aggressive actions) who were there under the agreement of July 22, 1992, who were young guys whose sole objective was to protect Ossetian civilians from being annihilated by Georgians for the second time since the fall of the USSR (I hope you have already got acquainted with the war 1991-1992) were fired and some shot dead and then their bodies brutally disfigured. Then the Georgians started using rocket launchers in Tskhinvalli: an offensive which again claimed many civilian lives. Yes, I agree with you that Putin was likely the first to respond. However, the argumentation that "he was looking forward to punish Saakashvili" is mean. The Russian leadership was aware that Georgians were planning to launch an offensive and it was warning about it in the UN. The job of the military was therefore to be ready to face up such scenario. I am confident that Russians planned to start the invasion. Howerver, the fact that it actually happended is considered by all Russian-speaking people as a tragedy and a reason for deepest sorrow. That doesn't apply to western countries, and for American politicians in particular, who view all that as "great chess game" and are going out of their way to castigate Russia to win over the votes of their citizens. As for the Rusian media. Life in Russia gives you a unique opportunity to see different views on the situation. You can see Russian government being critisized. You can hear what western newspapers write. However, that is not the case with Georgia. Its population found itself in a information blockade built up by the American-supported government. The Russian internet and radio were blocked. Actually, if I were a Georgian, I would have also taken the side of Saakashvili and Americans. And, by the way, Radio Liberty is not a best source for argumentation. Serious people do not resort to it as a source of reliable information.

Back to the subject: I don't think that the fact that Putin was the first to respond is a great event in his biography to deserve to be reflected in the article "Vladimir Putin". You have 2008 South Ossetia war for that. --Supernova (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin's wealth

There are two sections on Putin's wealth - shortly before and after the section on his 2008 prime ministership - that should probably be merged, the text is substantially similar in the two sections. --128.255.137.24 (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Grandfather named Spiridon

This is an extremely unusual name outside Greece. Would I be right in assuming he was named after Spiridon Louis, the winner of the marathon at the 1896 Athens Olympics? That would have been around the time he was born. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, Spiridon is a reasonably common Russian name, somehow more widespread among peasants than city folks. It most probably came from Saint Spyridon. Russia took Greek branch of Christianity and a lot of Byzantine culture (including first names). Putin's father was almost certainly not named after the Greek athlete. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex. I of course bow to your native knowledge of such matters. But I must express my surprise, all the same. In 45 years of Russophilia, including tertiary Russian studies, I've never come across this name, or seen the patronymics Spiridonovich or Spiridonovna. Are there any well-known or notable Spiridons? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually surprised how few a notable Spiridons are in Russia. There is a Spiridon day in Russian lithurgy and traditionally all (or most of) the boys baptised at that day should get the name. Thus, 0.3% should have that name but Wikipedia wide I am finding only Spiridon Zhevakhov, Spiridon Mikhailov (mentioned in Mikhailov), Spiridonovna a hero of The Power of the Fiend or State of Revolution, Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin (Duh!), Viktor Gozhy, Vladimir Gigauri, Dmitry Spiridonovich Gladky ( a President of Moldova). I guess I could add Maria Spiridonova and Aleksey Spiridonov. Among them I knew only about Maria Spiridonova before doing the search Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. It seems the only person in that list whose first name is Spiridon, and for whom we have an article, is Zhevakhov. And he was a Georgian, so that brings it down to zero Russians. I imagine Russian WP would have a few more. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Categories

{{editprotected}} I think that this page should be added to the category "Russian Orthodox Christians" agomulka (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is not fully-protected from editing. Please do not use {{editprotected}}. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It was fully-protected at the time that the request was made. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 06:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be removed.

To me this quote needs to be removed. "His background in the KGB has nonetheless led Americans to believe he is fluent in English. During an interview with Dan Rather, Putin was pressured to end the interview with a few words in English. After some pestering by Rather, Putin ended by saying "good night" almost perfectly." There is no source for this and I haven't really heard anyone say that. Dunkergilligan (talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I have removed it. It's unsourced, and it is absolutely irrelevant. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 08:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Putin as Gay Icon

This was reported by a News Corporation news portal, but User:Setraspdopaduegedfa keeps removing this [2],[3] claiming that it is "not a reliable source". Is this a joke? Since when are News Corporation news outlets considered "unreliable". Martintg (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

He is won-der-ful! :) --Dilaudid (talk) 10:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that he has become a gay icon with any bit of emphasis. It mentions there has been some excited chatter in Russian gay chatrooms online and presents an unattributed comparison between the movie Brokeback Mountain and a trip with Prince Albert of Monaco in the Siberian mountains. The source is reliable, but it only presents speculations that do not seem to have been confirmed since. I don't think this is worth mentioning in the article unless more sources that aren't based on this story from News Corporation can be cited. __meco (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

KGB Directorates

According to his opponents' claims, Putin worked in Fifth Directorate (counter-dissident) in Leningrad in late 1970s before being assigned to Foreign Intelligence. However, The Washington Post (harly sympathetic source) claims that he spent this time "spying on foreigners in Leningrad". According to Oleg Gordievsky, "spying on foreigners" (a.k.a. counterintelligence) was under of either Second (internal security and counterintelligence) or Sixth (economic counterintelligence and industrial security) Directorate (see Structure of the USSR KGB). Editor who claims that Felshtinsky's and Post's versions are identical does it on base of unverified claim that Second and Fifth directorates were one and the same. However, he fails to provide reliable source confirming his claim. Until he does so, separate entries for incompatible claims should be in article (Hint: "everybody knows it" rarely considered reliable source). Asks questions (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please cite any source that tells: "Putin worked in the Second directorate" (and when exactly?). Washington Post does not tell that. Then, there is something to talk about. I provided a reliable source that tells: "Putin worked in Fifth directorate". More sources to clarify this matter: (1) an article by Konstantin Preobrazhensky tells he worked in 5th; [4]; (2) a book by Andrew Jack, ""Inside Putin's Russia..." that tells the same at page 58. Moreover, Yuri Shvets, who studied together with Putin in the Academy of Foreign Intelligence, said: "...Vova was a leader - a snitch. Everybody hated the leader" (page 58).Biophys (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oleg Kalugin, who was the first deputy chief of management of the KGB over Leningrad and Leningrad region (5th department), said that Putin was his subordinate [5].Biophys (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for your information, Fifth Chief Directorate also responsible for internal security; originally combated political dissent; later assumed tasks of the Second Chief Directorate, such as controlling religious dissent, monitoring artists, and the censorship of media; it was renamed Directorate Z (to Protect the Constitutional Order) in 1989. They indeed spied on foreigners visiting relatives in the Soviet Union [6].Biophys (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Inside Putin's Russia (p 60) said that was Directorate 1. Which is it now? The first, the second, the fifth, the sixth? By the way, Konstantin Preobrazhensky also wrote this. Basically the guy is a nutter and prepared to write everything if it is against Putin. Yes, Putin supports the Chechens (oh, that is how he is able to support Al Qaeda), yes Russia has a policy of always favouring the Muslims over authentic Russians, the KGB was, sorry is dominated by quasi-Muslims. Nice one, but I have heard that sort of talk before. On Stormfront forums and blogs.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Who?

Is he (Putin) still in control of Russia or does Dmitry Medvedev make the decisions?--Kingforaday1620 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

this is not the place to ask questions like that. this is a discussion page used to improve the article and should be treated as such. Dunkergilligan (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Putin is fully in control, and Medvedev is only a puppet according to the press [7] [8].Biophys (talk) 02:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The primeminster has true power, except in the US.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.15.3 (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC) 

Dunkergilligan, it was a perfectly okay question - it's incredibly relevant. Please be a little more respectful of others, please. Malick78 (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Straight talk

Should this be included somewhere? He also said something like that about another standing president. Biophys (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Putin is one of those people who shoots from the cuff; and he isn't afraid to admit it; as that Israeli president remarks demonstrate - it was confirmed by the Kremlin press service. However, in this 'war', we had the Daily Telegraph printing a story about Lavrov using the f' word repeatedly to Milliband in a phone call, and in particular Lavrov was reported to have said to him, "Who the fuck are you to lecture me". The MID denied this outright, but did confirm that Lavrov did say that Saakashvili is 'a fucking lunatic'. Milliband also denied any such tirade. In regards to Putin allegedly saying to Sarkozy that he wants to hang Saakashvili by the balls, Putin's office has denied he said any such thing, but did add that he did use tough rhetoric when talking of Saakashvili. I don't believe it belongs in the article, as it doesn't really bring anything to it except speculation; if the article is going to discuss the "war", it is better to state that "tough rhetoric" was used, for that's the one thing that is verifiable, but then again, it's more of a Wikiquotes thing.

By the way Biophys, have you seen the new Prime Ministers website at http://www.premier.gov.ru? I do believe that Putin's is one of the few websites of world leading government leaders who actually prints articles on their own website which are critical of them, i.e. articles from Russian media and articles from international media. To myself, this shows an incredible degree of openness, and it would be interesting to know exactly why they have done this. Aeroflot used to do to the same thing on their website, but am not sure if they still do, haven't checked it for a while. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 06:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Russavia, think you have missed the point of posting those "critical" articles, it being the fact that those show him up as somebody who is solely in charge of Russia; and this is something his PR team has recently been at pains to convey to the outside world.Muscovite99 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is an article specifically about Putin's vulgar language which, according to the article, is beyond the norm among world leaders and is part of his "mystique".[9] I suspect it should be added if there is a section on his public persona, perception, etc. I'm not familiar enough with the article and its history to be so bold but it might be useful to the reader, help paint a more complete picture of the man and his place in Russian politics - in other words, it might be encyclopedic.

Photo

The infobox photo is well in the tradition of some Republican Americans wishing to show the "evil" Putin to the public. These kinds of pictures that portray someone in an exceedingly positive or negative way, as it is being done in the other two alternatives presented here, are not in line with WP:NPOV. Moreover they are eight years old and therefore simply out-of-date. The picture should be up-to-date and have neither too negative nor too positive attitude to it. Merry Christmas to everyone. --Axt (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: I can't see why "the picture is not vertical" could be used as an excuse to revert the other image of Putin and Medvedev. --Axt (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"evil" is a product of your fantasy. There is nothing evil about his portrait. He is not even making any weird expressions. It's just his face. And "the picture is not vertical" refers to removing upright which is used for vertical images. I added the Featured Photo instead of a 500px crappy snapshot.--Avala (talk) 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Putin paramount leader of Russia?

I think there is little doubt the leader of Russia right now is Vlademir Putin. Maybe it would make it easier for people not familiar with Russian history to inclued in this article the term of "paramount leader" to design Putin as the real power behind the goverment, albeit not the head of state who is Dimitry Medvedev. The critiria for this would be similar to the one used in China, see who gets more coverage in Russian media. Someone agrees?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgecalle (talk • contribs) 20:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone here must disagree because we have a policy of no original research.--Avala (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• In fact, autumn last year (i talk 2007) the term "national leader" was actively bandied about by some of the most active Kremlin propagandists ([10]) -- that was in the run-up to the presidential election in spring this year. But the usage thereof has definitely faded away. Then again, do not forget he is now a formal leader of the party that has parliament majority -- not only in Moscow but virtually in all regional parliaments as well, which has been most instrumental in the quick rushing through those of the constitutional amendments. Many things he had been doing long before and that puzzled observers are now falling into place and the emerging picture is beginning to make his "project" visible, albeit very far yet from being clear.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Parentage

Russavia today removed my edit which was sourced to this article in the Telegraph, a respected newspaper. It describes a woman who claims to be Putin's mother. Now, whether or not it is true, the source is good and so it should not be removed as Russavia did, calling her a 'nutter'. Furthermore, part of my edit said that 'little is known about Putin's childhood compared to other world leaders'. This is actually pretty obvious, and was sourced to the same Telegraph article. It was the article's opinion, not that of the 'nutter' as Russavia calls her, and so it really shouldn't have been removed. An explanation would be appreciated Russavia. Malick78 (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed said information due to WP:BLP (WP:WELLKNOWN) and WP:UNDUE. Just because it is sourced to the Telegraph, this "story" is some years old, the Chechen terrorist website Kavkaz Center ran this story on 1 March 2000 (8 days before Borovik died, which kinda brings into question why one would kill Borovik to stop a story which has already been printed from being printed) and it has been printed elsewhere on and off over the past 8 or so years. An interview with one person who has offered no evidence as to her maternal relationship to Vova does not warrant introducing such speculation into the article. If we do this, we then need to change his birthdate, because according to Vera Putina 7 October 1952 is not his birthdate, nor is Leningrad his birthplace. We can also then add Georgian-Russians to the categories. And then we can add paedophile claims, vampire claims, eating babies for breakfast claims, and a whole host of other unsubstantiated speculation into the article which is right in WP:BLP territory. And what none of these sources have touched on is what is the relationship of Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin to Vera Putina; it's somewhat unusual for these two people to have the same surname. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I added two points and you have answered only one. What about the fact that generally little is known about his childhood, compared to other world leaders. That is a fair point to make and the Telegraph ref is perfectly acceptable for that. All the info that is currently in the public domain about his life prior to the age of ten is from his own biography. Not the best source.

Secondly, while [WP:WELLKNOWN]] is a good rule, it really applies to open media in the west since only an open media can cover things in depth. Russia is a second world country with a leader, Putin, who dictates what the media can report on. Hence, if something is true, it may not be covered extensively at all. Few observers of Russia and Putin would argue with that.

Thirdly, the inclusion of this woman's claim is fair under NPOV, but it doesn't mean we have to change all the categories. That was a rather facetious comment of yours and you know it. We can mention her claims, but include them as a secondary version of events, not generally agreed upon. That, indeed, is what I did. Malick78 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Malick78. This story was also described in other sources like a book by Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky.Biophys (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Malick78, let's say, for discussion purposes, of course, we all agreed with you and discounted all Russian sources. Would you give us a guesstimate how many (or a precious few?) open media outlets exist in the West? I am afraid your second point takes you nowhere. Also, WP:UNDUE applies: "Articles... will generally not include tiny-minority views at all." Finally, I did not see where the article compared how much is known about Putin's childhood vs other world leaders. Anyway, I do not think this is something worth adding to the article. Better leave it for the readers to decide. I am sure, if it is little, they can make their judgement. I personally think there is enough or nearly enough. I am guessing it is not that you really feel there is little, but maybe you rather feel you do not trust the information... that would be an entirely different issue. In any case Wikipedians should not fill void percieved or real with unreliabile theories, especially ones that gained as little acceptance as this one. Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

At no point did I say discount all Russian sources, I just said that they are not the be all and end all. The Russian media is in a hopeless state (and don't they have the second highest number of murders of journalists in the world, after Zimbabwe or something??) - no one can say anything against Putin without having they're offices raided or their tv station taken over by Gazprom (NTV). SO, while we can currently use the official info on his childhood as our main source, the Vera Putina story has been mentioned in a variety of places (and two journalists following it have been killed according to the reliable Telegraph!!) and can be included as an alternative but lesser version (until it is confirmed and roundly debunked (and by the way, how can the Kremlin have so much trouble debunking it if it's just a 'nutter'??)). In comparison, the western media is incredibly free. No British journalists have been shot in recent times by elements connected with the government. Or can you think of any?

FYI, the Telegraph article DOES mention the lack of info on his childhood. Please read it again. Pay specific attention to the SECOND LINE of the article (try to read past the headline this time!) In case you get lost, I'll include it here;) "Little is known about the childhood of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, despite his position as one of the world's most powerful men." This line (rephrased) is then repeated THREE TIMES. "But Mrs Putina's claim to the maternity of the Russian leader highlights how little is known about the childhood of one of the world's most powerful men. The published details of his upbringing are strikingly scant." Then, "But at the very least Mrs Putina's story identifies the holes in the known story of Mr Putin's past." and "Details of the first ten years of Mr Putin's life are scarce in his autobiography, especially when compared with other world leaders." How exactly did you miss that? ;) It's not a passing remark. It's said FOUR TIMES! A clear statement from the Telegraph. Malick78 (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So you are trying to tell us that all 1,100 TV channels, 670 radio stations and 50,000 newspapers in Russia are under the rule of Putin? If so, I must be sure to send Putin my congratulations, because that makes him a bigger media magnate than Rupert Murdoch. If you want to get caught up in nuttery, then go ahead, but it will be removed as it has no place in an encyclopaedic article. The problem with nutters is that they know that they can continue to make all types of wild claims and they will never be disproved; for the simple fact that if Putin was to spend time debunking each and every claim that has been made about him, he would never have had time to devote time to the job that he was elected by the people of Russia to do. And on that job, there is media in Russia who refuse to comment on a single positive achievement of Putin in 8 years as President; they run only negative stories on Putin and they are allowed to do so; for an extensive list of such publications ask Biophys, he has them all ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As to his early life, is his early life important as to the notability of Putin, or any person for that matter. Do we need to know at what age he learnt to sit on the toilet, do we need to know how long it took him to learn to tie his shoes, do we need to know at what age he stopped wetting his bed? If anyone thinks such details are important then they need to think if they should really be on this project (or in the case of Kate Weinberg, why they are a journalist). We have a photo of Putin with his mother on the article, which was taken in 1958, when he was six years of age. We then have the photo from Vera Putina, [11], to which Weinberg states that experts are not convinced it is Vladimir Vladimirovich. It is a fringe conspiracy theory, and read WP:UNDUE again. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Extensive coverage in the Telegraph is rarely given to fringe theories. It's usually considered a respectable source. You know that. As for the Russian media, I can think of a handful of independent newspapers (mostly in English), one radio station (Ekho Moskwy) and no TV stations. There is little free speech in Russia today. No one can cover this type of story without having the police knock on their door (see what happened to Memorial last week for showing a film about Litvinenko).

No free speech in Russia today? Oh, cmon, surely people can sing a new tune instead of the tired old rubbish that has been propagated over the last 8 years or so. And look what happened to Karinna Moskalenko; so I guess Putin is to blame for her being stupid enough not to clean her new car? Well, he was guilty in the minds of the ever-so reliable western press. And look how CNN reported it a month after the revelation in her case. Look at this report from Moscow News, and what they have to say about the Western press. Again, Vera Putina's claims are fringe claims, and WP:UNDUE is valid for their exclusion from the article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

• Here is a list of the worst countries for press freedom in 2007. Russia - number 3. It's an awful place where the truth is hidden at all costs. I know, I've lived there. You'd be better off in the Congo (number 4)! Let's drop this argument now and listen to some other editors' opinions on the article, shall we? Malick78 (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course almost all significant news outlets in Russia are tightly controlled by Putin's government. Among internet news outlets (the least controlled area), a couple of free places ("svobodanews.ru" and "grani.ru") are not genuinely "Russian", since they are funded from abroad. Among relatively independent places I know only Echo of Moscow, Novaya Gazeta, newtimes.ru and ej.ru. However, they became less and less free as their journalist are killed and intimidated one by one. Putin had a "serious talk" with Venediktov recently, Politkovskaya was killed, and Latynina is currently followed and receives threats.Biophys (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Funded from abroad is a bit of an understatement there Biophys. Svobodanews is funded by the US government and operated by the CIA - there is a reason it is unable to broadcast to US citizens - it is propaganda. In regards to journalists, Politkovskaya's own son has gone on the record and stated that he does not believe she was killed by the State, nor on the orders of Putin, but this information is not widely publicised, as it doesn't fit into what certain press outlets want to portray. What about Valeriya Novodvorskaya, the editor of newtimes.ru, who was banned from Echo Moskvy because of her outrageous comments of Basayev, the terrorist, being a democrat? Perhaps they will realise that with free speech also comes responsibility, something that is lost on many. But regardless, it still does nothing to address such issues in this article. Additionally, about the Telegraph, and the ever so reliable and factual western press (perhaps Russian press should take lessons from these "snotty nosed" bastions of such great journalistic standards........yeah right), explain this rubbish?!?!

• Vladimir Putin 'to wed Olympic gymnast half his age
• Vladimir Putin denies 'erotic fantasy' reports of marriage to Alina Kabaeva - I hope this snotty nosed newspaper has some evidence to back up this statement: "Rumours of a romance have been sweeping Russia for months but Mr Putin, 56, has not officially announced that his marriage to his 50-year-old wife Lyudmila is over."

So please, don't tell me the English press, nor the western press as a whole, is any better than the Russian press, and dictate how they are the be all and end all of truth and all that is good in this world, because if I hear it again, it will only want to make me want to throw up. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please stick to the point Russavia. Those two articles have nothing to do with this, and any way, they show the Telegraph reporting on how rumours are spreading in Russia. That's factually correct. Rumours did spread there. The Telegraph doesn't back the rumours and it even mentions the Kremlin's denials. So, it acted perfectly fairly and accurately. If you're trying to convince us that the Telegraph is unreliable, then no paper is reliable and the whole of WP will collapse. Good luck (but please don't waste our time with non-issues). Malick78 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:WELLKNOWN apply, the discussed material should not be included at this point. Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The motherhood is something that is usually quite well established by nature. The hypothesis that a woman by surname Putin has given her child for adoption to an unrelated family name Putin is just not feasible. There is a mentally unstable woman with some mania and there are politicians who choose to use that crap. Sorry the history is not notable. There are thousands of people claiming to be Napoleon or Napoleon relative, it does not qualify them for the inclusion into Napoleon Bonaparte article Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

[12] - Ineke Smits' "Putin's Mama" (NL 2003) shown on ARTE in 2004 / 2007. It is not very probable that a mentally unstable woman with some mania will be supported by own family members and older inhabitants of Metekhi for minimum 8 years regarding this question. Obviously a Vladimir Putin grew up and went to school in Metekhi according eye witnesses, official documents etc.. And old photos point to one V.P. Elysander (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Elysander, what is your point? -- Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Elysander's point is that it is a widely covered angle, so she's unlikely to be 'mental', and being widely covered - it can be mentioned. (Btw, if it was as simple to debunk as "the family Putin grew up in was called Putin so he couldn't have been born to a different Putin(a)" then it would not be talked about any more because it would have been rejected so easily. For some reason, many media outlets give it credence - so we should too.)
• However, no one has yet mentioned why we can't say that "little is known about his childhood compared to other world leaders". It is a fair and perceptive comment from a reliable source - the Telegraph. Why not mention it? Malick78 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• I cannot see why we could not say: "little is credibly known about his childhood compared to other world leaders" -- the added word would definitely warrant little.Muscovite99 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Because this may not be following WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:WELLKNOWN. Rather seems to be OR. -- Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Malick78 post dated 22:02, 9 December 2008

1. I have to disagree. The coverage is not wide.
2. More importantly, there is no prominent supporter of the claim; the Telegraph does not seem to believe, they rather merely describe it. WP:UNDUE, end of story.
3. "Little is known about his childhood" claim
   1. is little substantiated
   2. I do not think it improves the article
   3. may be plain mistaken, see First Person book, where his childhood is covered in gory details.

-- Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Well, 1) The fact that something is discussed by people means it can be reported by WP in the style of: "some people have questioned this..." - this is perfectly fine and subordinates the added material to the majority's view of events, which the article covers in more depth. And while we shouldn't give undue attention to it, we should also cover significant minority views. 2)Mentioning that 'little is known about his childhood..." improves the article because it highlights Putin's secretive nature, adding to our feel for the guy. If it wasn't important and worthwhile - the Telegraph wouldn't have said it 5 times. 3)Putin's ghostwritten autobiography is a primary source and should be taken with an equally large pinch of salt as the words of this woman. A KGB agent = a professional liar. Malick78 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I agree and this is a good way out.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Malick78, the alternative mothership is a view of tiny minority and therefore is not to be included to this article per WP:UNDUE. Is this something you argue? Thoughts like "little is known about his childhood..." are not facts, but POV, very arguable one. You better have multitude of really good sources in order to include this to the article. I'd rather avoid bringing this controversial statement to the article. Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's the view of a single author, a newspaper hack even. And it most definitely does not belong in the very first sentence of the article. If we have to write a separate article on his childhood, then we can do that. Because there is plenty out there on his childhood and early life, and it will only make such statements look utterly ridiculous. Info such as this, this, hell, we even have children's books which cover his childhood. And that's without even delving into Russian language sources. He may not have been a coke fiend in his early days, but this does not mean that little is known about his early life. There are details out there for anyone who cares to look. Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy says, I quote:

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's not the view of a hack, but that of one of Britain's most respected papers, and was expressed many times in the article. Furthermore, the statement is common sense - "little is known about his childhood compared to other world leaders" - just look at others and you'll see how much more is known. Furthermore, most of what we know about Putin is from his own bio. And then, the proposed statement is incredibly mild and unlikely to cause offence, so your above quote is irrelevant entirely. How could it possibly "affect the subject's life"? Not even voters affect him!
• As for your links, the first is irrelevant since it's about him at the age of 11. Putina says he left her at 10. The second is better, but I can't check the references - so if it's culled from Putin's biography, it's useless. The third reads exactly as if it's culled from the bio - unsurprising if it's for kids. Hence useless.
• But, either way, you seem to have missed the point: I don't want Putina's version to be our version. I want it as a lesser, alternative version which has garnered a certain amount of press coverage. All true, all accurate. And it won't affect the great vozhd' detrimentally. Malick78 (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oh, and this Polish article, for instance, says "Trudno znaleźć jakiekolwiek informacje o jego dzieciństwie, o tym, gdzie skończył szkołę i gdzie mieszkał" = "It's difficult to find any information about his childhood, where he went to school and where he lived". So, it's not just the Telegraph (FYI: onet.pl is one of the biggest internet portals in Poland. Also, the reporter is Polish and travelled to Georgia - so it's not a rehash of the Telegraph article). Hence - others agree. How many sources should I find to show widespread coverage of this point, Russavia? Malick78 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone who writes that information about Putin's childhood is difficult to find, immediately loses credibility because either does not know where to find the information, or, worse yet, lies. Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please watch your language Dpk; that comes close to a personal attack. As for the issue at hand though, here's an interia.pl article that says "Regarding the childhood of Putin, little is known except for what the official version states" ("O dzieciństwie Putina wiadomo w sumie niezbyt wiele, tyle, ile przekazuje oficjalna wersja.") Just thought Russavia would like to know. Malick78 (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with the approach is that more complete official version means less knoweledge outside the official version, so it is like criticizing official version for its completeness. Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alex. Until recently, the story, which is not new at all (so what the Telegraph claims: "Now in an extraordinary development, a Georgian woman has come forward to say she is his mother" is blatantly untrue) was in a note. I put it there. It should always have been there, as bordering on WP:FRINGE. I saw the ARTE broadcast by the way, I know Dutch and Russian (no Georgian) and I have to say that the lady's story did not ring true at all. Perhaps she had a son, Vladimir, whom she "gave away" to a relative of the father, because her new husband did not like him. But then the story went bananas with that Vladimir apparently disappearing without a trace into a Russian orphanage. At the age of 9-10, good grief - of course the state would have checked whether there were relatives left, because at that age the boy was unadoptable and would be a burden on the taxpayer. She also claimed that after she had seen Vladimir Putin on TV and started to claim it was her son (by that time her Vladimir must have been fifty at least and she had not seen him for more than forty years) the Georgian secret police came around and took along all the evidence she had of him. So what, they are blackmailing Putin with it now? Did not notice anything in August. And now there's supposedly evidence not taken by the secret police? The problem with the Georgian story is not only that surprise, surprise he landed in another Putin family, they allowed him to keep the name Vladimir (while his new father was already called Vladimir - guess how confusing that must have been), but there is also the little matter of the primary school records. So, small wonder Vladimir Putin was so good at school (he was not actually, he was a bit of a hooligan at first, but later became a hard-working but not so intelligent student) - he was 3-4 years older than the others. They claimed on the programme that "they" made him younger because there was an age-limit at which Soviet women were no longer to conceive and routinely aborted - but if you think about it carefully, you will notice that the math is in the wrong direction. By the way, Polish sites claiming that little is known about Putin's youth are as credible as right-wing Republican sites claiming that little is known about Obama's youth. This is the Russian version of Obama was born in Indonesia, I beg your pardon, in Kenya. And it is given too much space here. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with Bakherev and Pieniezny! And I don't especially understand the "arguments" of Bakherev who is speculating about solipsistic machinations of a mentally unstable person who is suffering from Napoleon syndrom. Are there sources for these subjective speculations beyond the usual Russian state media? I don't like to add another unnecessary subjective review of the Dutch documentary ( that's not our duty) but checking several reviews ( 1 - 4 years old) I didn't discover pointers to mental illness of the portrayed person. The 5-years-old (!)documentary seems not interested to check/decide truth or untruth but at a life portrait of an old aged Russian woman brought to Georgia. It is significant that all contributions of one certain side are carefully avoiding to mention the fact that Putina's "fantasy story" is supported/confirmed by village's older inhabitants ( espec. a school teacher)and documents about a "Vladimir Putin". We all know only a DNA analysis would clear this dispute but it will never take place. The story itself is a long runner for years ... in several media, in media of different countries (Poland, Germany, UK etc.) and shouldn't be excluded if reliable sources make this story a subject of discussion. Elysander (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue

The view that Vera Putina is Putin's mother is a tiny-minority view and therefore is not to be included to this article per WP:UNDUE. Anybody disagrees? Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• A footnote or a short sentence would be OK with me but more is indeed undue Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for expressing your opinion Alex. WP:UNDUE "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia". This case looks to be a clear cut. No need to include it at all per WP:UNDUE. IMHO, there is already plenty of junk in the article to make it much harder read than it has to be. Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have put such a note in the Anekdotes section (could not find a more suitable place) Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A clear misunderstanding of our duties! The Daily Telegraph is a reliable source and should be respected too if it is incurring somebody's displeasure or not at different times ;). Topic is not a by whom supported view that Vera Putina is Putin's mother but the story about this view/claim or anything else - reported and described by several media. Elysander (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reliability of sources reporting about a viewpoint is one thing. The number of supporters of a viewpoint is another thing. Vera Putina's viewpoint seems to be an extreme example. For a viewpoint to be included an article not only has it be verifiable per WP:V, but also it has to be prevalent or held by significant minority per WP:DUE. If it is only held by a tiny minority, then oops, it does not satisfy WP:DUE and should not to be included no matter how well it fits WP:V. Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Tiny minority of what? There are very few sources discussing the prick's childhood at all, and those discussing this particular view are more than just a tiny minority of them. The Wikipedia policies are all about views of the published sources rather than views of the general population. The number of supporters is totally irrelevant here. A footnote about Vera Putina is certainly warranted (and it was here about two years ago). Colchicum (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• You made a good point. I will try to answer your question. WP:DUE: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;". I hope the sources describing her view will not be confused as supporting it (unless, of course, when source does say it support her viewpoint). Hopefully, this addressed your question, to some extnent at least. -- Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Artyom Borovik, Yury Felshtinsky, Vladimir Pribylovsky etc. And who does explicitely support the view that Putin was born in Leningrad? His press secretary Peskov? I.e. Putin himself. Who else? Colchicum (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am feeling this way we can get somwhere. You brought up some interesting points. I would like to think about this. A couple notes right now:

1. There are speculations what Borovik was going to say, but are there his own words about it, reliably sourced?
2. For instance, Britannica says Putin was born in Leningrad.

-- Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

2. I hope the sources describing her view will not be confused as supporting it -- Are you sure that the Britannica supports rather than merely describes something? Colchicum (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am definitely seeing difference there, it is not the same. Dpktnyfzgjkjcf (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dpk, you seem to have missed sth - if a viewpoint is not widely held, but many media outlets describe it as being held by some, then that is good enough for a brief mention of it's existence. This minority opinion has after all been widely covered. Malick78 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well The Telegraph reported that there exist a woman that claim to be Putin's mother, Telegraph is a reliable source and there is no question that such a woman and her claim exists. The source said nothing about any supporting evidence or a number of supporters for the extravagant view. I could find sources on living people claiming to be Napoleon, Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, etc. The problem is how notable it is. The publication in DT makes the story notable enough to be included in a trivia section, not as an equal alternative theory over VP's childhood Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

OK ... that sounds more reliable than your own speculations above. But you cannot say The source said nothing about any supporting evidence or a number of supporters for the extravagant view. TDG explicitly reports about claim's supporters and contemporary witnesses of the 1950's events. It's very simple to demand evidence knowing that only a DNA analysis would sourt out this matter. The story is still going around because the existence of a "Vladimir Putin" (ca. the same age) is obviously traceable in Metekhi. The well known Dutch documentary and additional reliable sources should be mentioned too. Apropos: Is it so difficult to follow the steps and clear the later fate of a "Vladimir Putin", born in 1950 and grown up in Georgia? Elysander (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's widely covered so it should be readded. It will not be given the same weight (no one has suggested it should be), but it can be presented as a secondary take on the situation. That would seem fair to me. Malick78 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article

I found the article [13] in the Russian Newsweek on the tandemocracy to be quite informative as well as unusually critical to Putin (at least for a major Russian newspaper). Ca n we include some material from there Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well it's unencyclopedic insinuations of who is the real power in Russia and what will happen if Medvedev says no to Putin etc. The one who wants to read such speculation will look in Newsweek not Wikipedia.--Avala (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Alex, most of the stuff in the article is essentially hearsay. Русский Newsweek in Russia is in effect a rather marginal publication (like nearly any other Russian press not in the tabloid category) and is notorious for being arguably THE most critical of Putin. Also, there's nothing new about this discussion on "Who's in charge" -- i elucidated the topic briefly in Putinism#Prognosis and aftermath.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

  I am actually more interested in the information about Putin semi-retiring from the job: being only a few hours a day in the office, missing important meetings, being unavailable when there is a need for urgent decisions, etc. It seems to confirm my contact's information that Putin's cartage seems to go on Rublevskaya Highway to White House at 1..2 p.m. and back at 3..4 p.m. effectively blocking the highway for the most of the day time then it used to be free flowing (obviously, Putin could work in his residence as effectively as in the White House). There is also a reference for the obvious fact that every single element of rumoured Medvedev's liberalisation and anti-corruption program has failed. Also do we have enough sources that despite changing of his official position Putin is still the number one in the country? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  One ought to keep in mind that the publication in question is not without a certain bias; and they (along with the ilk of them) have long been suggesting that VVP has semi-retired and should go. Such talk should be taken with a pinch of salt.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there are enough sources to state that there is somewhat a perception that VVP is still #1, but not enough sources to state that he is without a doubt, because things such as constitution and interviews with DAM, etc could be used. Also, one thing that I haven't forgotten to notice is that in relation to DAM's constitutional changes, and the speech he gave at the time of announcing it, the western media automatically made it out that this will see Putin return. What they didn't report on was the broadside he fired at the government, in effect saying that no-one is immune from being on the chopping block if their performance warranted it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation it's a broadside. My interpretation is it's empty words (where he himself is concerned) for public consumption (whereas he has had no problem transferring blame and sacking others). Interpretations should be left to fairly representing reputable interpretations of Putin's statement, not mine, not yours. PetersV       TALK 22:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent deletions critical of Putin

Several editors for the past few years have criticized this article as being too pro-Putin. Recently, there have been numerous deletions of well sourced information on this page of criticisms of Putin.

Listed here are the deletions for wider discussion, the banner of each is the sources which were deleted:

Firstly, let it be known, that I have raised this issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=260823856#Biophys, because there has been no WP:AGF on the part of either User:Inclusionist or User:Martintg, when they both wholesale reverted my extensive edits which along with removing some sourced info, also included a hell of a lot of improvements to the article, and they have been asked to explain this at the ANI thread. As to the edits in question, as my integrity as an editor has been called into question, I will address every single one of the above edits and the reasons behind them..... --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Council on Foreign Relations, Saint Petersburg Times and the official Kremlin website, president.kremlin.ru

Council on Foreign Relations, Saint Petersburg Times and the official Kremlin website, president.kremlin.ru

In a December 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton said that "Putin has also suppressed many of the freedoms won after the fall of communism, created a new class of oligarchs, and interfered deeply in the internal affairs of former Soviet republics." On another occasion, Clinton also made her other famous remarks about Putin by saying the following: "He was a KGB agent. By definition he doesn’t have a soul". When asked at a press conference on 14 February 2008 about Clinton's remarks regarding his soul, Putin was quoted as saying the following in response: "I think that a head of state must have a head as a minimum. And in order to build interstate relationships, one must be governed by the fundamental interest of one's own country rather than by emotions." [14]

Removed as they were the words of a US Presidential candidate, and sourced or not, it has nothing to do with Foreign policy, because this is where it was placed. It should be placed in Criticism of Vladimir Putin (along with 95% of the rest of the article), which will go along nicely with the article's 2 criticism POVFORKS Criticism of Vladimir Putin and Putinism. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Asia Times, Radio Free Europe, inosmi.ru, International Herald Tribune

Asia Times, Radio Free Europe, inosmi.ru, International Herald Tribune

However, critics of Putin are seldom seen on major national TV channels like Channel One and RTR. Channel One (at that time ORT) used to belong to Boris Berezovsky, one of Putin's main political opponents, and was considered independent from Kremlin, but in 2001 Berezovsky was forced to sell his shares of ORT to another oligarch, Roman Abramovich. Since then, Channel One has been considered to be controlled by the Kremlin. The same occurred with NTV in June 2000: the owner of NTV, Vladimir Gusinsky, was forced to give up his shares in exchange for his freedom and the ability to leave the country. NTV was then captured by Gazprom on 14 April 2001. The NTV channel's news team immediately defected to TV6 and the channel was sued after that by LUKoil. On 21 January 2002, the channel was taken off the air due to a liquidation process ordered by 14 judges of the supreme arbitration court. Four months later the TV6 channel team appeared again on the news television channel TVS, which was launched instead of TV6. After a year and 22 days of broadcasting, TVS was shut down due to bankruptcy. Now there is only one national independent channel, Ren-TV. There are also radio stations such as Echo of Moscow and a large selection of independent newspapers such as Novaya Gazeta, Moscow Times and Nezavisimaya Gazeta. InoSMI project delivers selected Russian translations of articles dedicated to Russia from foreign and Western media online on a daily basis and has a daily audience of 70,000–90,000 visitors, most of them Russians.[15]

95% of it is unsourced information. It is the WP:BURDEN of editors adding information to provide references, or it may be removed. (Mind you, as Inclusionist and Martintg have re-added this information by wholesale revert, the WP:BURDEN is now on them to source it; that's if their wholesale revert was in good faith. The rest of the information which was sourced is more appropriate for Media in Russia. I also clearly stated to Inclusionist that I am re-writing a lot of this article, and the information would be re-included, except it would be referenced and NPOV. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated Press

Associated Press
In November 2008, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev called for extension of presidential term from four to six years. Opposition criticized the move, stating that it would serve as "perpetuation of Putinism". [16]

Again, included in Criticism of Vladimir Putin. It is not criticism of Putin, but rather of Medvedev, it's inclusion in this article is entirely misplaced. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

UK Times Online, the San Diego Union Tribune, Radio Free Europe, The Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, the New Statesman, RIA Novosti

UK Times Online, the San Diego Union Tribune, Radio Free Europe, The Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, the New Statesman, RIA Novosti

Nashi has been referred to as "Putin Youth", the "loyal youth brigade" and "Putinjugend" in the Western media. The Boston Globe said that "movement's brownshirt tactics certain evoke shades of Hitler Youth, as does the emphasis on physical fitness, clean living, and procreation for the Motherland". Some British and American journalists view the emergence of this and, more recently, other similar organisations, such as Young Guard and Locals, as one of the signs of Russia under Putin "sliding into fascism, with state control of the economy, media, politics and society becoming increasingly heavy-handed". In early 2008 it was reported that Nashi and other similar youth movements would be "radically reorganized" and would no longer function as a centralized federal project. The youth movements say they no longer need to organize street protests now that there is no longer a threat of an orange revolution in Russia. Political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky explained: "Putin was dissatisfied with how Nashi was faring, they were causing tensions with the West. Medvedev positions himself as a friend of the West, and aggressive national patriotic support does not fit in with that image". [17]

This is an article called Vladimir Putin in a section called Criticism of Vladimir Putin. The above is not a criticism of Vladimir Putin, but rather criticism of Nashi. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(Since they have all been hidden, I rather picked this one at random.) I'm sorry, I fail to see how this passage is not critical of Putin:

• Russia under Putin sliding into fascism with state control of the economy, media, politics and society becoming increasingly heavy-handed = critical of Russia's path under Putin = critical of Putin
• "Nashi ... would be "radically reorganized" and would no longer function as a centralized federal project. .... Political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky explained: "Putin was dissatisfied with how Nashi was faring, they were causing tensions with the West." = Putin not satisfied with the results obtained by a youth group funded by the state and employing "brownshirt tactics"' per earlier in section = critical of Putin

Criticism of Putin does not have to be stated in the form of "ABC said Putin is/does XYZ" to be criticism. Let's not engage in specious contentions that criticism is not criticism. PetersV       TALK 05:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with PetersV: this is obviously relevant to Putin. You're coming close to being disruptive yourself now, Russavia, by complaining about things as small as this. Malick78 (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, the book First Person, the book Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and the End of Revolution

UK Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, the book First Person, the book Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and the End of Revolution

There is a view that little is credibly known about Putin's childhood compared to other world leaders. According to Putin's authorized biographies, his mother, Maria Ivanovna Shelomova(1911-1998), was a factory worker and his father, Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin(1911-1999), was conscripted into the Soviet Navy, where he served in the submarine fleet in the early 1930s. His father subsequently served with the NKVD in a sabotage group during World War II. Two elder brothers were born in the mid-1930s; one died within a few months of birth; the second succumbed to diphtheria during the siege of Leningrad. His paternal grandfather, Spiridon Putin(1879-1965), had been Vladimir Lenin's and Joseph Stalin's personal cook. [18]

If Inclusionist would care to look, there is some solid consensus amongst editors (myself included) based upon policy that this edit was being used to introduce the article a WP:FRINGE view that some old chook in Georgia is Putin's mother. I would remind Inclusionist to read discussions before calling into question my integrity on this issue. And it is the inclusion of this, that there is no WP:AGF and he has acted in a WP:TENDENTIOUS way. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Moscow Times, LA Times, BBC News

Moscow Times, LA Times, BBC News

<ref name="LA Times">{{cite news |url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4815010.html |date=17 May 2007 |title=Russian Orthodox Church ends 80-year split |author=David Holley |publisher=Los Angeles Times}}{{Dead link|date=December 2007}}</ref> Putin accused the US of provoking the 2008 South Ossetia war, arguing that US citizens where present in the area of the conflict following their leaders' orders to the benefit of one of the two presidential candidates. . [19]

travb (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As one can see from the diff that Inclusionist has provided, there is a heap of general fixes, grammar and re-referencing of dead link sources. But to the actual information removed, this information was included in the Foreign policy section, which is a subsection of Putin's terms as President. This diff will show the actual edit removing the information. As Putin was Prime Minister at the outset of the 2008 South Ossetia War, I have removed this with the edit summary foreign policy is the domain of the President of Russia, not of the Prime Minister. No-one challenged this removal, I believe, based upon the edit summary. It's a valid reason for removal.

And we have an editor going on about it being too pro-Putin? One need only look at this article, Criticism of Vladimir Putin and Putinism to see that we basically have THREE articles which are totally POV, and he is calling me into question for trying to provide just a little balance? --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If the man states, for example, that even as a lousy student who drank too much he could still comprehend in his history studies the simple fact that the Baltics were not occupied, then (IMHO) he deserves what he gets. It's your "balance" that is, in fact, the POV culprit here. English WP does not exist to paint kinder gentler pictures, it exists to paint reputably sourced facts in an objective narrative. If what is included in the article meets the requirements for biographies of living persons (i.e., no libel or slander), then there's no reason to delete material merely to achieve an artificial "balance" you have personally defined and personally seek. "Objective" does not mean, one nice for you, one nasty for me, one nice for you, one nasty for me..., that is "50:50" positive and negative. Objective means factual. PetersV       TALK 14:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, "balance" does not mean deleting well referenced contributions of other editors. "Balance" means finding sources which counter the POV I don't support, and allowing all verifiable views to be in an article.

It is incredibly easy to delete large sections of editors contributions, it is much more difficult, but yet more beneficial to the article and wikipedia as a whole, to find sources which supports your POV. Indeed, this inclusionist, consensus approach is much more beneficial and productive in ensuring that your view point remains in an article.

Every delete editor fervently zealously argues that they only want balance, they only want a NPOV, WP:NOR article, and are proudly upholding the values and policies of wikipedia. travb (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Putin and his interpretation of the Soviet legacy, it is important to note facts, views, and versions: there can be conflicting views on a common set of facts (true POV disagreement) and then conflicting versions (masquerading as "views") which are based on conflicting "facts" (that is, ones which can be reputably verified versus ones which cannot). Presenting all "views" is necessary but is not necessarily sufficient.

   Where Putin's pronouncements are concerned, all three: fact, view, version, play a role and must be suitably identified (and, indeed, separated from each other for clarity) in article narrative. PetersV       TALK 22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Having read all this Russavia, I think that the revert could have been more carefully done, keeping some of your good and uncontroversial improvements. Overall though, your edits weren't however very constructive - you removed things which generally were pertinent to the article - you just didn't like them. Malick78 (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Anne Applebaum

Why do we care who journalist Anne Applebaum is married to? Are we attempting to WP:SYN anti-Putin POV by nationalist association? That her marriage calls her integrity as a journalist into question? PetersV       TALK 04:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I spotted that too and had the same thought. Martintg (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The part of her being married to a "Polish politician" was already present in the article, I have merely removed Polish politician and replaced it with who she is married to. I haven't stated that she is anti-Russian or a Russophobe, merely the fact that she is married to the current Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs instead of "a Polish politician". --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed that part about who she is married too, it is totally irrelevant. Martintg (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And you have added in "author". Why not also add in that she is a adjunct fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute think tank? --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

She is more widely known as an author. I'm sure we could add all sorts of info, but she has her own article so people can find out anyway. But mentioning who she is married to is irrelevant. We don't attribute Rupert Murdoch's strong anti-Soviet and anti-communist viewpoint to the fact that he had an Estonian wife, do we? Martintg (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest simply stating "Anne Applebaum" and let her own article do the talking. The very fact that she is married to the Polish MFA and is also associated with a neocon think tank is being left out, and this could very well skew her views. Yet we leave in "journalist and author", is this to negate the fact that she may have anti-Russian/Russophobic views (plenty of sources for that). In the interests of WP:NPOV, if editors do actually care about trying to reach NPOV, it should simply state "Anne Applebaum", and nothing else. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

How can you be sure that Applebaum's views are skewed by her Polish MFA husband or by a neocon think tank? It could be the other way around, perhaps she is skewing the views of her Polish MFA husband and neocon think tank. I thought the view that women were incapable of independent thought was thrown out with the emancipation of women. Martintg (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And how can you be sure that she has those views because of her being a "journalist and author"? It goes both ways you see. As you can see from the reference used, it is in the "opinion" section of the paper, so is it the opinion of Anne Applebaum "journalist and author"? Anne Applebaume "wife of Polish MFA and member of neocon think thank"? Anne Applebaum "Russophobe"? (I've got sources which present her as such) Or is simply the opinion of "Anne Applebaum"? Because if one wants to portray her simply as an "author and journalist", this is in itself POV, because the portrayal of her as "wife of Polish MFA and neocon think tank fellow" is being left out, and to think I am the one being accused of POV editing. Think about it Martin, for the same thing has happened on anti-Ukrainian sentiment, except on there you are painting Zhirinovsky as speaking on behalf of the Duma, when you have no evidence of that. Remember, we present all POV and let readers decide, not by presenting text in one way in order to make up readers minds instead. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Because being a "journalist and author" is her primary profession, this is a verifiable fact. Trying to attribute where she may have gotten her views is just speculation. Zhirinovsky is both deputy speaker of the Duma and leader of his party, we cannot determine which he is speaking on behalf of, therefore all we can do is to include both. Martintg (talk) 10:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And she also has a long history of anti-Russian/Russophobic writings, that too is a verifiable fact. Worst yet, as a journalist her job is to write copy to make money; she is not a historian. So, so long as it is insisted that "journalist and author" are used as qualifier for her, in the interests of NPOV, there is no reason why we can not, and should not, also include that she is the wife of the Polish MFA and is a fellow of a neocon think tank. As I said, it is best to leave all qualifiers out of it and simply state "Anne Applebaum", but that is obviously not in people's thinking. As to Zhirinovsky, you have no evidence that he is talking as the Deputy Speaker of the State Duma. Is he talking as the Deputy Speaker? As leader of the LDPR? Or is he speaking simply as an ultra-nationalist? You have no evidence of that either, and that is why I have removed all qualifiers from that article, and it is the same reasons that it should be done in this article. Of course, that is, if you one is interested in truly NPOV articles? --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

"she also has a long history of Russophobic writings", "she is not a historian". Says who? Sources please. Did you ever read her famous book "Gulag"? It is written with the greatest respect and compassion to Russians and all other peoples.Biophys (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark Ames for one.......

Anne Applebaum, one of the Post's resident neocons, went the extra sleazy mile when she got ahold of Politkovskaya's corpse. In her October 9th column, "A Moscow Murder Story," Applebaum simply lied about the circumstances of her murder, and quite consciously so, when she essentially blamed Klebnikov's inconvenient death, as well as other provincial journalists killed for investigating local corruption, on Putin. Interestingly, in her article she openly narrows her focus on "journalists killed after 2000" -- gee, how convenient. Because that means she wouldn't have to mention all the journalists killed during Yeltsin's term, since that would muddy up the good/evil picture that her entire thesis rests on........Applebaum is a special case, one of those moral crusaders, the American Anna Politkovskaya, who has made a living courageously exposing state crimes committed by...get this...not her own country, oh heck no! Because her own country only does good! Nope, Anne Applebaum makes her living by sitting in the safety of Washington DC, and exposing crimes committed by a country on the other side of the globe! That country being Russia of course. Hey, give that woman a Pulitzer, will ya?! Hence her book Gulag, packed with all the affected moral outrage that you'd expect. Indeed, one thing that has always filled Applebaum with rage is wondering why Russians don't take her seriously (a question she poses as more abstract -- ie, why don't Russians care about the Gulags as much as Anne does?). Here's why: Can you imagine how much moral authority a right-wing Russian journalist's book about the American genocide of Indians would have in America? Answer: about as much as Anne's book has in Russia. None.....Yes, it's dangerous work to dedicate your life to exposing the horrors committed by a country that your husband hates. Applebaum's husband is Poland's right-wing Defense Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, who also serves in the neocon American Enterprise Institute, the same institute that essentially invented the current Iraq war. The current government that Sikorski serves in, by the way, includes the extreme right-wing party The League of Polish Families, leading to protests from Israel because of the party's open anti-Semitism and xenophobia, and its notorious skinhead youth group. But that's okay by Anne, because Poland likes America and is a member of the Coalition of the Willing. Meaning no hissy articles from Anne Applebaum about her husband's pals or Poland's repulsive history of Jewish slaughter. Nor will you read too many articles by Applebaum about her own country's atrocious crimes committed in Iraq, and the hundreds of thousands her government has killed.......No person could be as far from Politkovskaya as Anne Applebaum. Given all of Applebaum's influence and access, she only uses that power to demonize Russia and whitewash America's fascism. Politkovskaya, on the other hand, speaking from extreme weakness and danger, used what little influence she had to risk all for the victims of her own goverment's cruelty, fighting from within................

No, only a Russian company like Gazprom would be so vile. Or worse yet, a Russian-German partnership like Nord Stream, the German-Russian project that will deliver gas directly to Germany via a Baltic Seabed pipeline. The project bothers Lucas so much that he reaches back into his costume box: He approvingly quotes his friend Radek Sikorski (whose wife is the notorious neocon propagandist Anne Applebaum) who compares Nord Stream to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact...Ah, dear old Sikorski, that champion of freedom! Lucas assumes none of his readers will know that when he was Poland's deputy foreign minister in the late 90s, Sikorski set up a scheme to trap visiting expat Poles into staying in Poland via the "passport trap," one of the creepiest neo-Soviet programs ever devised in post-Communist Eastern Europe.

Sidney Blumenthal, describes Applebaum as an neoconservative editorial writer of the Washington Post.

National Interest, itself a conservative journal, on Applebaum; Anne Applebaum, recently named one of "the world's most sophisticated thinkers" by Foreign Policy, raised an important point in her Washington Post column on Tuesday—and an important concern. Applebaum, who is also an adjunct fellow at the neoconservative think-tank the American Enterprise Institute, is right on target in her argument that the oft-forgotten de-facto- independent republic of Abkhazia could trigger war between Russia and Georgia. There is a very real possibility that tension over Abkhazia will escalate, so understanding the nature of the conflict is key. Unfortunately, Applebaum’s analysis sheds no light on the situation, but rather points to a disturbing trend in American mainstream media: presenting simplistic and therefore misleading analysis of foreign-policy issues.

I can provide more, if one would like, but there is a small selection from different ends of the spectrum.

(od) I'm sorry, Russavia, but not including why we care what a particular person has said (that is, their credentials and/or official position) is bad writing at best. Your characterization of Applebaum can be taken as slander. Her marital status is immaterial to her credentials; she is a respected journalist and author. If you wish to include a <ref> that she is currently an adjunct felllow at AEI, that's appropriate. Labeling AEI in the article with a POV tag is not.
   The same for Zhirinovsky. We don't know who he is speaking for, but we do know his positions. Including those again, is not only appropriate but necessary. Deleting such information renders the article useless for the average reader. Please desist from such deletions in the future. PetersV       TALK 15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Some slanderous techniques remind me more at a mid level kind of Sippenhaft used systematically not only by yellow press today - true to the motto: Who is married or related to a child molester is anyway molester too. Elysander (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, as Applebaums chum would say "A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument."; and even moreso, when the above shows that it isn't slander, it's what reliable sources state. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Only Nazi? One of the still most popular "Russian" in history was using similar practices to punish the innocent relatives of political enemies as other totalitarian states resp. their "leaders" did or doing. The mid or low level Sippenhaft( correctly : Sippenhaftung if based on "law") means today knowingly and systematically undermining individual's professional and/or personal reputation by using allusions, denunciations etc. only based on the fact of a marriage, kinship etc. The product of such strategy of defamation: A female US-journalist married to a Polish politician must be Pro-Polish, Anti-Russian etc. . Very encyclopedic. ;) - Elysander (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've found that here on WP, accusation of bad-faith ethnocentric nationalistic anti-Soviet therefore pro-Nazi fascism is usually a preemptive strike intended to win arguments, quite the opposite. PetersV       TALK 22:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We can write "the American neoconservative Russophobic journalist and author Anne Applebaum" (because this is all verifiable as per WP:RS), or as I suggested in the interests of NPOV, we simply write "Anne Applebaum". Furthermore, this also goes to show why an overdependence on "quotes" in articles is a bad thing; in the article we have 3 lines devoted to Applebaum's quote. Then we also have Moscow's policies under Putin towards these states are viewed by politicians in the West[who?] as "efforts to bully democratic neighbors". in the article - I have added the "who", because do all politicians in the west think this? Of course they don't, this is the view of John McCain. And there was also the view of Hillary Clinton which I removed. In essence all 3 quotes say exactly the same thing, but we had 3 quotes (now two) scattered throughout the article. And when I mentioned that I will in near future gut this article and rewrite, it is exactly this type of thing that I was talking of gutting and rewriting. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Writing "the American neoconservative Russophobic journalist and author Anne Applebaum" is POV because not everyone agrees she is either a neoconservative nor Russophobic, whereas writing "the American journalist and author Anne Applebaum" is NPOV because nobody disputes she is an American, or that she is a journalist and author. Putin is a public political figure, not the messiah, it is entirely permissible to add information about published criticisms of his political agenda. Martintg (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please!!! This is why we indicate credentials or position/post only. Mark Ames???? A more slavish Russophile (with his own travel spot on the Russia state TV "Russia Today" English "news" channel) cannot be found. Well, actually, Ames' travel spots are not bad, and as for avatars of slavish Russophilia, there's always Peter Lavelle. And Applebaum a WP:RS Russophobe???? Perhaps according to "reliable" sources like Novosti. No one is "gutting" anything here. On a controversial topic it's include more, not less, and attribute without additional POV editorializing over the source. It's not rocket science. PetersV       TALK 19:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dear Russavia, your above comments must be some of the most pointless arguing I have seen on WP for the past few weeks. She is an author, it's her primary job. Thus, we can mention it. Let's not waste everyone's time arguing her occupation. Mentioning 'author' gives the average reader some quick, basic and downright fundamental information about her. Your alternative suggestions are hopelessly POV and not generally agreed upon, or at best are cherry-picked to discredit her. Fact is, she's notable. For writing. Malick78 (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A comment on The Exile: the paper was a muck-raking tabloid a few rungs below Moskovsky Komsomolets, shut for slander and exciting hatred.Muscovite99 (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New disputedv point

>widely credited for reduced corruption and lawlessness of post ussr russia Actualy, more than false statement- http://www.indem.ru/en/Publicat/2005diag_engV.htm http://www.google.com.tr/search?q=corruption%20increase%2011%20times%20russia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Still there are no mentioned allegations agains him about 1999 living appartment bombings in Moscow which are well known on the west.

>1) the apartment bombings werent blamed on chechens, and its not proven it was done by militants

See Boris Beresovsky allegations, now killed and dead Alexander Litvienenko allegations, CIA allegations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.105.251.14 (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Photos - gathering consensus

There have been changes to several photos in the articles, and it really doesn't bother me what ones we use, but instead of reverting and calling such revisions vandalism, let's simply gather concensus which photos to use. There is no need to get into an edit war over a trivial matter.

In the infobox, there have been changes from:

(option #1)

to

(option #2)

to

(option #3)

Previous to gaining Kremlin permission to use photos, this poor quality photo was used in the infobox.

Please indicate which photo editors would prefer, or make another suggestion, but let's not change anything until we can all decide.

OPTION #1

• I prefer this photo, as it is a tighter crop of the person, it is an official photo (including Russian flag in background), and most importantly is good quality and high resolution. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• I dislike this photo - Putin looks like cut from a sheet of cardboard: the picture looks absolutely flat without any signs of the third dimension. His face also have an expression like he is completely preoccupied by some health problem Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• My second preference. Pros: official, high resolution Cons: washed colours and pink tint, odd facial expression.--Avala (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• It makes me vomit for some reason. Colchicum (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• This photo should be the last alternative, firstly it is out-of-date, secondly it is utterly ugly, and third it conveys the image of the evil, cold-blooded KGB agent and is not in line with WP:NPOV --Axt (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • "cold-blooded KGB agent"? Leave silly populist McCain quotes out of here please.--Avala (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • well, apart from the fact that he really was a KGB agent, it is exactly these kinds of photo that helps the Russiophobes like McCain, and that's why I want a better picture that is more "real" and up-to-date. --Axt (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Putin stands still, looking into camera, behind him is a neutral background - Russian flag. Only imagination can make you see anything like KGB in it.--Avala (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support this one.Garret Beaumain (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• This is a good picture. Offliner (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

One support. Three oppose. One as second option.--Avala (talk) 16

46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OPTION #2

• This photo in my opinion makes Putin look more like an office manager than a president. Whilst also a high resolution photo, the crop isn't as good as #1 --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• I actually dislike the picture the less out of three. (Thus, preferring this one) Indeed Putin looks here like a frightened office manager but at least he looks like a live and sentient being not like a piece of a cardboard or a zombie Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• I highly dislike it. Pros: high resolution Cons: candid snapshot, bad crop with wood plunk in front, yellow tint.--Avala (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Second choice. Colchicum (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• This photo also includes the Russian flag, it shows Putin in the most neutral way compared to the other two, it seems more recent than the other two, is "warmer" in terms of colours and it would even be easy to create a cropped version from it. This is my first and only choice among the first three. --Axt (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • How is it more recent? It's from the same batch as the first one and they are those official portraits published as the beginning of the term so it is probably from 2000.--Avala (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, it looks more like the present-time Putin than the other options to be honest. Why don't you get a recent picture and we'll use that instead of these three alternatives out of which Option 2 is still be best alternative? --Axt (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • There is nothing to be honest about it looking more recent if it's not. I can say that Putin's photo from 1970's looks the most recent but that's the equal rubbish as calling one of the two images made in the 2000 more recent.--Avala (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Personally, I like this one best. Offliner (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Three support. One oppose. One as second option. One neutral.--Avala (talk) 16

46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OPTION #3

• Tight crop yes, but lower quality, low resolution. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• I do not like the picture, it makes me shiver. Putin here looks like a zombie or a wax figure or Michael Jackson after nth plastic surgery.
• My favourite. Pros: show his face not his outfit, sharp (unlike the other two you can see his eyes very clearly here), true colours Cons: lower resolution (though it's big enough for infobox).--Avala (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• The only acceptable of the offered here -- the others are horrendously out of date.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It is from 2000, which is why I have reverted your unilateral re-insertion into the article, whilst it is under discussion. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• First choice. Colchicum (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support this version.Biophys (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• low quality, "evil eye Putin", this photo is outright ugly, it is too old and does not convey the image of a President and Prime Minister of a Country, but looks like some sort of psycho mass murderer. It is not in line with WP:NPOV. --Axt (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not an argument but your imagination. There is nothing evil in this photo let alone "psycho mass murderer". If you can give a normal argument do it, otherwise don't post these childish remarks.--Avala (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Sorry, but that's not my imagination. Please check the infoboxes of other heads of state across Europe and you won't find such a bad, scary picture anywhere else. To me it seems like you WANT to show Putin in a light as bad as possible. That's not the task of an encyclopedia, however. (neither is portraying him as a saint). --Axt (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
      • You are exactly proving my point when you call this image scary because that is your POV. To me it is not scary and is depicting Putin quite well. He is not Dick Cheney to have a photo where is winking as his official portrait.--Avala (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• I don't like this, looks strange. Offliner (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Four support. Three oppose.--Avala (talk) 16

46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a look at those supports shall we? First we have Muscovite who is yet again blocked from ruwiki for aggressive POV-pushing, and blames his block as being ordered from above by Putin himself and claims that ruwiki is run by the KGB, and only appears on enwiki when he has been blocked and he engages in the same behaviour here (not that admins here give a damn about it though) and has professed his desire to paint the "most grotesque" articles possible. He is hardly neutral. Then we have Biophys, who would clearly also choose such a horrendous photo, after all he has expressed his opinion that Putin is a paedophile and posts all types of BLP information around WP on the subject of this article. He is hardly neutral. These two editors don't care about neutrality, they are here to push their POV and to advocate and disparage as much as possible. Are you supporting this type of b/s Avala? Show us a single article where just a head is shown in the infobox when there are many photos to choose from, and we'll leave it. George W. Bush, Barack Obama, etc? Nope, they all use official portraits. This is not an official portrait. People have raised quite valid objections to the use of this photo, and we work on consensus, not voting, and desires from editors to paint a "grotesque" article shows that they couldn't give a damn about neutrality or the like, and I will fight crap like that to the very end. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand what is the problem here. I am not Russian but I do have a very positive opinion on Vladimir Putin. I think that this clear photo is the best, the only problem is resolution but since it is used in the infobox it's not a big deal. The first one is fine but his eyes are not shown in a clear manner like in this one and his facial expression is like some people already pointed quite odd, the second one is bad for reasons already explained. Not seeing his tie on this photo is not a problem in my opinion. You should seek a permission from http://premier.gov.ru/ like you got from the kremlin.ru so we could use some more recent photos.--Avala (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OPTION #4

• • • I agree with ya Axt, however, I thinks its a combination of it being such a tight crop photo (basically just a head), and also because it was captured during an interview; when one is talking they are prone to unusual facial expressions, and should probably be avoided. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
• With so many photos now available from Kremlin.ru thanks to Russavia work can we select the one that Russian bureaucrats puts on the walls in their cabinets or similar to it. It would be the image the powers want to project on the poulation that is probably good for the lead Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• I would support a totally new, neutral, good, and up-to-date photo if it suits all participants as well. I don't think the current options are ideal, even though option 2 is the "so far" best solution in my point of view. --Axt (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The other photo which is changed is the one of Putin with Medvedev. Originally, it was Putin and Medvedev together at the Victory Day parade. Let's get rid of it, sure.

The photos which are being changed to/from are:

File:Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin edit.jpg (Option #1)

or

(Option #2)

Please indicate which photo editors would prefer, or make another suggestion, but again let's not change anything until we can all decide.

OPTION #1

• This photo is high quality, high resolution photo of the two together, and most importantly, is a featured photo; given FP status, it is silly not to use this photo on articles of the subjects of the photo. It could also be mentioned in the caption that this is indeed a campaign photo for Medvedev's presidential bid. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Agree with Russavia. It will be a waste not to use a featured image Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• There is no question here - FP should always be used instead of the regular shots if they show the same subject.--Avala (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• This looks great. Offliner (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OPTION #2

• Low resolution of the two who for all we know are sitting around having a casual chit-chat. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 12:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Also a good image but the first one seems to be better Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
• Out of question (unless we are showcasing their shoes).--Avala (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

--- Actuallly, I changed it to Option 2 from this Victory day image when I changed it the first time. Even though I do have a preference for the August 2008 image because it has more style, I would support the other image as well. --Axt (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Another interesting option will be the recent Christmas image: I believe it correctly show the tandemocracy. Neither of the two men occupies the chairman armchair (I believe it is Medvedev's cabinet, so it is actually Medvedev's armchair), both men seat on guest chairs to show that they are equal. On the other hand the body language and seating arrangements is quite clear who is the boss there Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody cares what you intend to show with an image. One of the other two images should be used. --Axt (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

New suggestion

Why don't we use a cropped version of this image in the infobox:

File:Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin edit.jpg

This picture seems fine to me and is up-to-date (2007), whereas all the others are from 2000 and not exactly pretty (it has even won some awards). --Axt (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The photo is good as one which is of both of them, but Putin in this photo is slightly out of focus--as I said elsewhere, DAM is in the foreground, whilst Putin is in the background, which is perhaps the image they wanted to portray ;) But I have tried cropping it, and on my monitor it is somewhat out of focus; perhaps others can check it on theirs? If a current photo is absolutely necessary, I've found this one which is from 2008. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Seems OK with me. Though I don't impressed with his cheeks and the mouth on the bottom picture, he looks like he is about to vomit. Still, IMHO better than the other pictures. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• This photo is about as bad than all other alternatives. Are you even interested in finding a GOOD picture or are you just suggesting one bad one after another? I don't think you get the point of my complaint that the pictures are not neutral in any way. If you like to show Putin in a bad light, you can do that in your personal life, but please do not carry a political opinion into an article. I am slowly but steadily getting the impression that none of you three are remotely interested in a good picture. --Axt (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Axt, can you look through the commons:Category:Vladimir Putin and suggest a good photo according to your taste Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Axt how can a photo where Putin is standing still be in anyway a POV image? It's just a strictly neutral portrait. What is in your opinion going to show Putin in good light? Image where he is bursting into laughter like here or here or with Medvedev like here? Well we don't have a free image of him laughing (and I am sure that even if we had you have complained how it looks like an evil laughter) so we have to choose from the existing photos. And why in the world do you think that Kremlin and Putin would choose to put a portrait of him looking like a murderer (according to you) as his official portrait?! You will have to agree that it's your imagination because if official Moscow is using those photos to portray him then there is nothing wrong with them in that regard. Anyway I will try to fix the current one so that bland and rose colours would be no more, so that Putin would be distinguishable from the flag behind.--Avala (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't care if he's standing or sitting. It's a headshot, so that really doesn't matter. Also, there is no connection between POV and standing/sitting in my point of view. --Axt (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • That's the whole point: I do not want to portray Putin as either bad OR good. Neither the smiling-like-a-dork type of picture nor the evil-eye-KGB-agent type of picture is appropriate for a leading politician. You don't have to go from one extreme to another, Avala, just go the centre. All I am suggesting is the use of a normal, decent picture that is up to date, just like with any other politician. I created a cropped version of Putin from the award-winning picture above and uploaded it. To me it is the best alternative, because it is nice and appropriate. It is perhaps slightly out-of-focus but it seems very good to me still. File:Putin 2008.jpg--Axt (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't you see how blurry that image is?--Avala (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Don't you see how crappy your images are compared to this one even though it's slightly out of focus? --Axt (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
          • "My crappy images" are official portraits used by Kremlin to depict Vladimir Putin. They must be insane to use crappy images for that. (or it's just you fooling us around)--Avala (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  I think the full photo is very good because it is current Kremlin propaganda par excellence: you, folks, have nominally 2 leaders, but, heck, you can't fail to see that the guy on the right is SO-o much more manly, steely and far-sighted (he looks really Führer-esque in it). But being cropped, it loses its meaning, I fear.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Have some comic relief with that one. Putin discusses fasion with Father Christmas! Garret Beaumain (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dude, this is not some kind of forum. If you want to joke around, please find some other place. Discussion pages are for the discussion of improvements of the article only. --Axt (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely Axt's, the cropped version of the portrait with Medvedev. It's appropriately distinguished, is not taken in the context of any event, is current enough--nor so I see any "focus" problem--it's far more than adequate. I wouldn't crop quite as closely to his head, though, leave it a bit more of a head and shoulders formal portrait shot. The second picture/choice directly above looks like he has his jaws clenched. I don't care for the man's politics, but that doesn't extend to picking a picture where he looks like he's having a painful gas attack. PetersV       TALK 17:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Putinofficial.png My suggestion, recropped and shadows lightened just a bit to not look quite as severe. Saturation bumped down a bit as well so he doesn't look like he's developing rosacea on his right cheek. PetersV       TALK 17:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

umm, sorry, I don't know how to use this, but the article (to me) does seem like it's written by the Kremlin- or has Putin's leadership really been that positive?Christinaross (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That's because some editors see Putin as this. Martintg (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not like Putin's course wasn't already apparent at 100 days of his tenure. His choice. PetersV       TALK 23:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

One of the consequences of crowd-sourcing instead of using specialists to write the article content is that fanatics of all stripes will do their darnedest to dominate the crowd. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's that fanatics mistake their enthusiasm for expertise and their blind allegiance for objective perspective. PetersV       TALK 03:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, this is a fair description of Putin's legacy, and this is a satire (Russian).Biophys (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Infact author of those articles is just going mad and critics Russia or Putin on every aspect. He fights separatists - thats bad, send some oligarchs away/to prison - bad again. There is no analitics here. Just emotion emotion emotion emotion. So... Using that kind of press as motivation is a good sighn of that "fanatics enthusiasm" mentioned above.--Oleg Str (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead?

Yesterday Mr. Putin said "Ukraine is run by criminals who can't solve economic problems" [20]. I placed it in the foreign affairs section but I'm not sure it shouldn't be in the lead. I mean if the Prime Minister of the UK would say: "Ireland is run by criminals who can't solve economic problems" it would be in the lead of the Gordon Brown wiki article. I don't see why Mr. Putin should be treated differently..., but I'm bias, since I rather like 1 of those "criminals".... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Dunno as for the "lead". But can you provide direct quote in Russian please? Actualy Putin is damn right ;-).--Oleg Str (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC) I mean maybe he sad smth like "жулики" /cheaters/, which is quite diff then "criminals", "Кримiнальна влада", you know ;-). Then it not that bad, keepin in mind that half of Ukraine think so.--Oleg Str (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

criticism

I am surprised to see there is a criticism section on Putin, actually, a link to a whole article. There is no criticism section on Bush. Why is this? Is it because wikipedia writers are pro-american and anti-russian? Either there should be criticism of everybody, or criticism of nobody, there should be no double standard. I am calling on this section and article to be deleted, unitl a section criticising Bush, yuschenko and others is in place on there respective articles. It's ridiculous: it quotes an american journalist saying "Russia is bad, Putin is Bad". If I was to write a section on the Bush article, criticising him, and I cited a russian media journalist who said "bush is bad, guantanamo violates human rights", it would be promptly deleted and I would be told that "this is an opinion, not fact". there is the double standard, so why isn't something being done? It shows clear blatant bias in the article and wikipedia.Guitar3000 (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

While criticism is healthy in articles, I tend to agree about removing the Criticism section. The criticisms must be integrated within the article and this goes along with the section of Support. Maybe a common neutral-sounding "Popularity" or "Public perception" section title is a solution. An outright heading about Criticism is an ugly smear on anybody's biography, regardless of background.--Paffka (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree as for removing "Criticism". When it is in one section it's more clear what is it that somebody was criticised for. I mean that articles about ppls are tend to be more positive in tone. And Criticism alows to put some balance to this as even good ppls have something to be criticised for. However I think some changes are needed. 1. "Gorbachev in his interview" - it's saying smth like "sharply criticized". But there is no his quotes. 2. "Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal wrote: "Russia has become, in the precise sense of the word, a fascist state" - blah blah blah. Yes, it is criticism of a kind "Putin is bad, Russia is bad". If it's releavant to the article, then we should add all, what Osama Bin Laden or Sadam sad about US and it's presidents /after friendship between them was stopped/ ;-). So if nobody minds I will make changes when I will have time. --Oleg Str (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Sun is there!

Is this relevant to Putin? Or is it just baseless accusation? (edit: and crappy journalism?) Rebelyell2006 (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sun? Doesn't that answer your question before having to ask it? ;) --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But don't forget about how The National Enquirer discovered John Edwards's love child. There might be a grain of truth to this, so we should see if any other news outlets say anything about it. If so, then it might be worth mentioning. Rebelyell2006 (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be a likely WP:BLP violation. Putin is one of those individuals who a lot of crackpots make a lot of crackpot claims against. I could rattle off at least a dozen individuals who have articles on right here on WP, and whose claims do not belong on this article, but they do belong on their own articles, in order to show how much of a crackpot they really are. The relevant section is Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy. Unless it's something that Putin himself confirms, WP is not a vehicle to engage in gossip which is only the speculation of some two-bit Murdoch journo writing for some two-bit newspaper, using a WP:NOT#NEWS article to engage in a poor attempt at humour. A newspapers job is to report the news, not to be the news. Find a scholarly source from a reputable scholar which states what this article does, and I'll argue for inclusion. In the meantime, the Kremlin has denied that GBP20,000 was paid for the performance, and it is only speculation that he is even a fan of ABBA; unlike Dmitry_Medvedev#Personal_life who states that he is a fan of Zeppelin, Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc. It's WP:TRIVIAISH anyway, and doesn't really belong. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is pretty Onionesque. Is the article any proof that he likes ABBA? I don't think anything will come from this. (edit: I wasn't saying it should be included, but just saying that we should think about it in case this pops up again in the future.) Rebelyell2006 (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

His spokesman denied these ABBA claims.--Avala (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Kremlin article

As the lead suggests "bringing political stability and re-establishing the rule of law" must be much more important than restoring Russia's 19th century-like imperialistic foreign policy goals within what they still see as their "Satellite states". Behind "his record on internal human rights and freedoms" one should probably see the continuous establishing of dictatorship through disallowing democratic opposition and free journalists by any means possible.

Something is apparently wrong here. Russia is not a normal trading partner of the west but rather an arrogant world power that is dangerous not only militarily but more importantly in that sense that it tries to intoxicate its neighbors by anti-democratic behavior as well as controlling strategic industry enterprises in other countries as a political means only. That all developed under de-facto leadership of Putin which continues still today. Omichalek (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Change to picture caption?

the picture captioned "President Bush and Putin at the 33rd G8 summit, June 2007." should probably be changed to something showing that George W. Bush is no longer President, such as "Former President Bush" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Be.perlmutter (talk • contribs) 04:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Americans continue to prefix the names of their former leaders with the word President even after they left the office. It makes our job a little bit easier Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed photo of "Putin" with Reagan

I have removed from the article the photo of "Putin" with Reagan and Gorbachev in Red Square, and have done so for the following reason: pure and simple it is tabloid rubbish (nee gossip). It is not confirmed that it is Putin, and considering the western press' knack for egregious nuttery, such as the infamous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad photo, and WP isn't a vehicle to promote the opinion of some journalistic hacks who don't know the meaning of the word "research". If the reporter did their job they would notice:

1. It looks nothing like Putin
2. Putin was stationed in the GDR during this period.
3. Putin didn't speak English at the time, so what good would he have been for asking questions of an American?
4. The hair, if Putin, is a wig. Compare to the photo now in the article, one can see the difference in the hair
5. The nose on the "Reagan Putin" looks nothing like "our Putin".
6. Gorbachev has a height of 5'9" and is taller than Putin who is around 5'7". The guy in the photo looks somewhat taller than Gorby.

Just who are the people who confirmed to Souza that this is Putin? Prob the same people who confirmed Iraq had WMD. I wait with bated breathe the next revelation from the US government "intelligence" that the kid in the photo is none other than Putin's unknown, long-lost son. Why doesn't Souza release the photo in extra high res, so that everyone can see for themselves, rather than relying on "experts". Sure, the photo is getting a little media attention, we could have all sorts of fun with it, such as [21] (the contact sheet comment is especially funny), but is it encyclopaedic? Not at all.

If it's actually confirmed that it is Putin, I'll be the first to reinsert it into the article; it is more interesting than a simple photo of Putin in uniform, but we are first and foremost an encyclopaedia, not a gossip outlet. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The source said it was him. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources say a lot of things. Andrey Piontkovsky, one of Putin's biggest detractor's said it is nonsense. To have someone like Piontkovsky say such a thing is nonsense, that says more than anything from a US government staffer...really. It is opinion of one government employee, and has already been called into question by a well-known Putin-detractor...therefore, it's contentious and hardly encyclopaedic - more encyclopaedic is an actual photo of him in uniform. Remember, we also have had such things confirmed in the past -- such as this being Lee Harvey Oswald at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. Question: As this is a work of a government employee on official duties, is it possible to get a higher res photo from the original negative under FOI? --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism in BLP's of major public figures

Why is there a criticism section for Vladimir Putin, but not one for Bush? Bush is far more criticized around the world than Putin ... having this section for him but not for Bush isn't a neutral position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.250.226 (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess this question may find answers at the respective talk page. The biography page on George W. Bush has only a link to the Criticism of George W. Bush page. --ilgiz (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe you can start by writing a criticism section/article for Bush? One of the reason we have of such an article that the role of Putin is probably much more controvercial than Bush's. Some people see Putin as an evil incarnated while others see him as a savior of economy and unity of the country. Almost everybody (conservatives and liberals alike) agree that Bush was a weak president (although conservatives thinks that he was too socialist and pro-regulation and liberals thinks he was too capitalist and anti-regulation) Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Tell me please what is a difference between two situations. One is when criticism is part of the article and another when there is only a link to a separate article. Does it mean something?--Oleg Str (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• The difference is not that important, actually. Many people would not click on the criticism link, thus the criticism article is less visible than the main article. On the other hand, we have much more space in a separate criticism article for all the arguments and contra-arguments, thus, we can present the arguments fully and without some arbitrary narration. In the ideal world we would probably put a brief description of the criticism in the main article and have a daughter criticism article Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. I thought I'm the only lazy, who isn't clicking on separate article :-). And the rest /part of crit is here, part is there/ is right what I've thought about it.--Oleg Str (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)