Talk:Putinism/Archive 1

Cleanup

This article requires heavy cleanup. Now it is filled with crazy conspiracy theories that every Russian is working for KGB etc.DonaldDuck 09:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To tell that something is a "conspiracy theory" you must provide some relibale sources that tell: "Putinism - is conspiracy theory" per WP:NOR. So far, you provided none. As about "crazy claims" by Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy that FSB owns the entire Russia, we are not here to decide what is crazy and what is not ("verifiability, not truth"). All sourced views, especially by notable experts and authors like Preobrazhensky, can and must be represented per WP:NPOV.Biophys 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you to read the following guidelines of Wikipedia: WP:FRINGE and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

I left a message to DonaldDuck at his talk page reminding him that everyone here must follow WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies. But beyond that, I am not opposed to any improvement of this article or other constructive suggestions. For example, one could suggest to significantly expand this article, or create a slightly different and more academic article such as Chekist takeover of Russian state (a lot of excellent sources available), or that some "Putinism" aspects belong to Vladimir Putin article. Why not?Biophys 15:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have removed some quotes of ex-KGB and ex-Securitate spooks promoting conspiracy theory of "KGB rule" or "chekist takeover", which are not reliable sources, and degogatory insinuations that "all Russians are working for KGB". But the article still requires heavy cleanup.DonaldDuck 16:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you read WP:Source, please? These sources are not only reliable and scholarly per WP definition, but they represent mainstream views of people who are notable experts and authors of published books, as described in BLP articles about them. If you think the article is not balanced, you can add alternative views about Putinism supported by reliable sources. But you can not delete referenced views of others per WP:NPOV.Biophys 21:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ex-KGB and ex-Securitate spooks are not scholars. I have reorganised the article in three sections: 1 - Putin's phrases, 2- criticism of Putin, 3 - conspiracy theories of "chekist takeover" . Please follow this structure of the article.DonaldDuck 01:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Scholars or not, but the sources satisfy WP:Source. Only that really matters. You can not remove the sourced texts as you just did. Most important, you now completely changed the subject of the article. It was about a social phenomenon in Russia called "Putinism" - according to numerous reliable sources. But you made an article on a completely different subject: Criticism of Vladimir Putin. So, you effectively deleted the previously existing article because you did not like it. This is non-starter. If you want to improve something, let's discuss one small change at a time.Biophys 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your version of article was full of original research, and had heavy anti-Putin bias. First of all you try to present a perjorative term used to describe Putin's policies as "Putin's ideology". And it is full of all the others sorts of nonsense. Why the Putinism is a "unique political system"? This system it is very common througout Latin America. There is proper term for similar political system - Corporatism. And Putinism is not an "ideology". Putin did not write any political works.DonaldDuck 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If your want to write about chekists in Russian economy and politics - please do it in relevant articles about Russian companies and political institutions.DonaldDuck 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have already contributed to "Criticism of Vladimir Putin" article in Russian wikipedia.DonaldDuck 01:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not write "Putin's ideology" because this article is not about Putin. This article is about "Putinism" as defined by reliable sources.Biophys 02:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is also not about History of Soviet security services or political views of Rumanian security services personnel. As Putinism has no definite meaning and is defined differently by various authors, the article should contain definitions of Putinism, not history of Rumanian security services.DonaldDuck 02:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I can only repeat: this article is about "Putinism" as defined by 15+ cited reliable sources.Biophys 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the alternative meaning of term "Putinism" (or rather "putinisms"), which you continue inserting here, can be found only in one Russian language source, but this is English wikipedia. This word has different meanings in Russian and English. If you continue deletion of referenced materials, I will have to post RfC about this article and follow other WP:DR procedures. That will only help to advertise "Putinism" article.Biophys 04:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So, I have created a separate article Putinisms to clarify this matter. If you want to contribute something about "putinisms" as defined in a single Russian source, please do it there. If you want to add more sourced materials on "Putinism" as defined in English language sources, you can do it here. But you can not delete sourced views per WP:NPOV policy. Biophys 04:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Merged the article with Putinisms. There's no point in creating the second article about the same thing.DonaldDuck 14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

These two articles had no any content overlap.. They described two different uses of the same word. This is very common situation in WP, which is treated using disambig pages and "other uses" template. In fact, you have deleted an article, which may be qualified as vandalism.Biophys 16:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, read wikipedia guideline on Content forking.DonaldDuck 10:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Content fork is about content overlap. These articles have no content overlap. They described different meanings of the same word. If you disagree, please use AfD procedure or/and mark articles for merging and wait for opinions of other users.Biophys 15:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Putin's regime

I wonder why there's not viewed history of phrases "bloody Putin's regime" and "bloody GeBnya" (referring to KGB), which allegedly were used by pronounced Russian liberals to describe Putin's system and since that started to be widely used as pejorative description of public activity of Russian liberals. Moreover, these phrases are increasingly becoming an important social phenomena serving a base for unifying Russian nation on the grounds of patriotism/sovereign democracy:

See e.g. News of Bloody Gebnya , liberal-punk band "Bloody Gebnya" [1], and google search of these phrases([2], [3]). ellol 11:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This expression ("Bloody Gebnya") is only used in Russian language sources, but you can try to create such article if you want. I would not.Biophys 19:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See also russophone LiveJournal community "FSB Brigade for Smothering Democracy" [4]. ellol 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Vladimir Putin

• I am going thru articles relating to Vladimir Putin and am adding Category:Vladimir Putin to the end of the article to help sort these articles. Part of the reason for doing so is to try and create a clearing house of articles relating to Putin so that they can also be gone thru for POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talk • contribs) 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! NCurse _work 15:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

More references

• From Communism to Putinism, by Richard Rahn, The Brussels Journal, Fri, 2007-09-21
• Russia: Putin May Go, But Can 'Putinism' Survive?, By Brian Whitmore, RFE/RL, August 29, 2007Biophys 03:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Rferl's true. Saw this? ellol 10:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And the Brussels Journal is a blog with clear links to the Vlaams Belang. BLP says you should not use blogs. But I suppose that does not really matter because a newspaper controlled by the Moon sect also published it? Richard Rahn, by the way, already did the same job on Hugo Chavez: [5], and it is important to know this because Rahn's former visitations of Chavez explain the use of the word "Putinistas" here (in combination with the word "crude" it is rather a good joke, yes). In short, Rahn has a message, and people like that often get their facts wrong: "Recently a questionable arrest was made in the London killing of well-known journalist and Putin critic, Anna Politkovskaya." (London???) Sorry, Biophys, I am just quoting an earlier version of the article, which is preserved here: [6]. Someone must have told Richard Rahn that his use of the word "Putinistas" was making his article look silly. So there is a third version of the article now on the Washington Times website, which uses the word "Putinists" [7]. Should a text which is so unstable (apart from the fact that the original had horrible mistake and the language indicates clearly some er... POV) be used as a source?--Paul Pieniezny 12:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not use "putinistas" in the text of article (perhaps someone else did?). Of course we can remove "putinistas" and exclude all unreliable sources like blogs, although this artile is not BLP.Biophys 16:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not take everything personal. Of course, Rahn used "Putinistas" himself and changed it (or had it changed) into "Putinists" later. So there are three versions of this article: 1) with Politkovskaya being muredered in London + "Putinistas" 2) London omitted, but still Putinistas (that is the one quoted in the article, and it IS from a blog!) 3) same as 2) but Putinists instead of Putinistas. One reason why blogs are frowned upon is that they are unstable: they may juggle with the text and with the publication date. Though I must say I have once seen the date change phenomenon on the BBC website as well. It does not really matter much that there is no BLP involved if we are dealing with a dubious source. It is not the only problem with the references here. One recent link has already expired, and I see no reason to quote the Securitate guy twice with almost the same arguments. I am not really sure that BLP is no issue here, however. If changing from Kennedy to Kennedyism were the trick to circumvent BLP concerns, I wonder why Wikipedia does not have a rule to guard against the trick. Perhaps we should consult an admin.--Paul Pieniezny 12:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

Overall Biophys's version of the page seems much of OR.

I would ask Biophys to clarify some his points.

• The privatization of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends, who gradually became a leading group of Russian oligarchs

First of all, how is that supported by a quote from your sources?

Then. According to 2004 Forbes investigation of Top 100 Richest Russians, [8]

• According to a study commissioned by the World Bank, Russia's 23 largest companies (almost all of them are present in our list) account for 57% of the country's industrial production.

You can see 2004 list of Richest Russians [9], you can see appearances of Russians in 2007 global list: [10], [11], [[12]].

Biophys, ehh, learn history, you dude. Main assets of Russian economics were privatized in 1990s, when Putin wasn't even a Prime Minister. That was when the layer of oligarchs was formed. And "Putin's clique" has no relation to that. It doesn't look like many (or any of) Russian billionaires who appear in 2007 list top World list and own most of Russian economy had previously served in KGB/FSB. Biophys, I wait for the explanation. ellol 19:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for coming here, ellol. I will check this today, answer, and correct if necessary. Of course the bottom line is to follow sources. They claim that Putin, Sechin, Ivanov and others are "new oligarchs" and that Abramovich and others like him are now have close connections with FSB/SVR/GRU or worked in security services previosly. I will answer later.Biophys 19:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop. What the nonsense are you saying? Putin, Sechin, Ivanov do not appear at Forbes list. "Oligarchs" has a precise meaning. It is the layer of big businessmen which was formed in 90s and who own large portion (majority) of Russian economy. Putin, Sechin, Ivanov and others don't own Russian economy. They are not oligarchs.

Then, let's don't play conspirology theories. The word "chekist" also has precise meaning. It's a person who for a certain period had served -- served -- in Russian security services. This can be easily checked in people's biographies. And Russian oligarchs, for the greatest, all-encompassing part ARE NOT checkists.

Russian oligarchs -- people who own the majority of Russian economy -- are not checkists. And there was no much change since 1990s. Prove the opposite, or the line in above is removed.

ellol 19:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, you'd better learn some Greek and political science. An oligarch is not merely a tycoon. An oligarch is a member of the elite who possesses some political power. The claim that Putin, Sechin, Ivanov are oligarchs is supported by sources. As to the claim that chekist biographies can be easily checked -- well, good luck.Colchicum 20:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course we are speaking about specific Russian meaning of the term.

"На жаргоне российских журналистов, ОЛИГАРХИ - это крупные бизнесмены, из-за кулис диктующие свою волю министрам и президентам. Такую трактовку ОЛИГАРХИИ предложил в марте 1997 года Борис Немцов." In slang of Russian journalists, OLIGARCHS are big businessmen, who secretly impose their will on ministers and presidents. Such explanation of Olygarchy was proposed in March 1997 by Boris Nemtsov. [13]

As you see, Oligarchs are big businessmen, while Putin, Sechin, Ivanov aren't -- they don't own large assests. ellol 23:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The article claims: "Putinism is the unique political system of contemporary Russia where all political powers and most important economic assets are owned by a group of former state security officials" As we've seen, the major assets are owned by more or less the same people who owned them in 1990s -- i.e. the old oligarchy. ellol 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As to the claim that chekist biographies can be easily checked -- well, good luck. They surely can be easily checked. E.g. see Putin's, Sechin's or Ivanov's bios. If we can't find reputable sources stating a man has served in Russian security forces, we can't dub person a checkist. Moreover, it's pure McCarthysm. I hope you, Biophys, aren't going to repeat mistakes of your American fathers. ellol 23:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I know what do you mean, and you know what do I. Siloviki doesn't own Russian economy. You've messed all up. Siloviki are a large share of Russian political elite -- up to 25%, with regard to Kryshtanovskaya 2004 research.[14] Moreover, according to K. main areas where siloviki come from are FSB, military, and police. Not simply bloody KGB. One of features of Putin's regime is that he's lowered political influence of oligarchs. But they've retained their economic weight/influence, but for "poor" Khodorkovsky. In some sense, Putin has separated politics and business. Of course, for that part which we can observe publicly. ellol 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

E.g. consider the governor Boris Gromov of the Moscow district, where I live. He's a typical silovik. Military general, hero of the Soviet Union, with real fighting experience in Afghanistan. Affiliated with Putin? Little chances, given that Gromov was elected on the position of governor of MO yet in January 2000. ellol 00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, anyway, I adore you. You have a special talent of calling black white. But how did "Putin set upon harnessing a group of oligarchs who had seized control over the financial, media and administrative resources of the Russian state and sought to manipulate the political authorities" transform to "The privatization of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends [5] who gradually became a leading group of Russian oligarchs and who "seized control over the financial, media and administrative resources of the Russian state" ?!?!?! As it's said, that's beyound my ideas of good and wrong. ellol 01:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

shit! I hate this country! ellol 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Which the shit Avtorkhanov is Soviet historian? He was fierce criticist of Communists. Propagandist. ellol 02:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, could you please do not edit this article right now? You asked me some questions. Please let me time to study sources, reply and discuss.Biophys 02:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line is this: yes, this article can be improved but it will be two-three times bigger in size. That is not a problem, of course.Biophys 03:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a point one hardly can't agree with. ...I never really understood you Americans... ellol 03:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Biophys is recent immigrant to US. He was not born in America.DonaldDuck 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's examine the sources

From Communism to Putinism

"Month by month, President Putin of Russia has been erecting a new authoritarian model that owes more of its lineage to fascism than communism." That model can now be named: Putinism - a Russian nationalistic authoritarian form of government that pretends to be a free market democracy. Unlike the communists with their mass repression, killings, and gulags, the Putinistas have been accused of selective murders and have imprisoned their media, business, and political critics, both inside and, in several instances, outside Russia.

RFE/RL

Since coming to power in 2000, Putin has implemented a system known alternately as "managed democracy" or "sovereign democracy."

Its essential features are a strong and unaccountable executive, a subservient legislature and judiciary, stage-managed elections with predictable results, and a so-called "power vertical" in which regional and local elites are subordinate to the Kremlin.

In foreign affairs, Putinism favors a muscular global stance in which Russia is not afraid to use its energy wealth to get its way in the international arena -- particularly with the former Soviet republics.

The Essence of Putinism: The Strengthening of the Privatized State

"...the state budget is the ultimate source of most wealth in Russia, it was so in the era of "reforms" and it only became more conspicuously so under Putin. Likewise, gravitating in the state orbit is the surest way to acquire top positions in business, not vice versa."

"The idea of strengthening the state as a violence-producing corporation". It says that Checkist corporation was trying "to monopolize the violence market" which is "the production of violence (protection, enforcement, etc.) as a marketable commodity for sufficiently affluent consumers."

"The idea of Russia, Inc.--or better, Russia, Ltd.--derives from the Russian brand of libertarian anarchism viewing the state as just another private armed gang claiming special rights on the basis of its unusual power." "this is a state conceived as a "stationary bandit" imposing stability by eliminating the roving bandits of the previous era."

"Mr. Putin does not qualify either as a public servant in the modern Western sense, nor as "the master" of Russia in the semi-feudal sense, which was to a certain extent Yeltsin's self-image. Putin is the chief manager of the privatized state, a corporate entity with no clear sense of ownership. Indeed, he speaks and behaves as a caretaker, a hired officer with limited responsibility but potentially unlimited immunity."Biophys 02:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Piontkovsky

Russia is not corrupt, says Piontkovski. Corruption is what happens in all countries when businessmen offer officials large bribes for favours. Today’s Russia is unique. The businessmen, the politicians, and the bureaucrats are the same people. They have privatised the country’s wealth and taken control of its financial flows

The making of a neo-KGB state

From oligarchy to spookocracy. “A Chekist is a breed,” says a former FSB general. A good KGB heritage—a father or grandfather, say, who worked for the service—is highly valued by today's siloviki. Marriages between siloviki clans are also encouraged.

Viktor Cherkesov, the head of Russia's drug-control agency, who was still hunting dissidents in the late 1980s, has summed up the FSB psychology in an article that has become the manifesto of the siloviki and a call for consolidation. We [siloviki] must understand that we are one whole. History ruled that the weight of supporting the Russian state should fall on our shoulders. I believe in our ability, when we feel danger, to put aside everything petty and to remain faithful to our oath.

As well as invoking secular patriotism, Russia's security bosses can readily find allies among the priesthood. Next to the FSB building in Lubyanka Square stands the 17th-century church of the Holy Wisdom, “restored in August 2001with zealous help from the FSB,” says a plaque. Inside, freshly painted icons gleam with gold. “Thank God there is the FSB. All power is from God and so is theirs,” says Father Alexander, who leads the service. A former KGB general agrees: “They really believe that they were chosen and are guided by God and that even the high oil prices they have benefited from are God's will.”

A Rogue Intelligence State?

"Vladimir Putin's Russia is a new phenomenon in Europe: a state defined and dominated by former and active-duty security and intelligence officers. Not even fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, or the Soviet Union--all undoubtedly much worse creations than Russia--were as top-heavy with intelligence talent... Are we destined to see a post-Communist Russia that aggressively uses assassination and economic blackmail as essential tools of statecraft? " Biophys 02:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we'll have dialugue in that way. What is your point that you want to prove with all these quotes? ellol 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This is simply a study of sources to be used in this article. I said: since you and others are so interested in this subject, the article should be expanded.Biophys 03:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Chekist takeover of Russian state"

Concomitantly, the organized crime elements with whom the chekists collaborate and enjoy profitable, symbiotic relationships have expanded and solidified their reach around the globe by forging transnational links with corrupt officials, organized crime syndicates, and terrorist groups. With numerous chekists entering the business world in the wake of Communism’s collapse, many under ‘‘active reserve’’ status51 and closely collaborating with organized crime, the links between intelligence and organized crime were not only firmly cemented but became highly sophisticated. Thus, the erasing of government–business distinctions have had important implications for the espionage business. A Moscow-driven offensive in the economic–industrial and military–technological spheres directed toward the West has intensified since then. A consequence of this new (active–reserve) status was that, as former United States Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) James Woolsey53 has frequently noted since 1997, no longer is the difference among a Russian intelligence officer, organized criminal, and businessman discernable.

Said Eugene Poteat, ‘‘When Putin came into the presidency, Russia was under the control of totalitarian Communist KGB officials working hand-in-glove with traditional criminal elements—a very troubling alliance. Putin has now moved to expand and tighten his control by putting his old KGB cronies in charge in virtually every corner of Russia and eliminating or jailing the criminal elements and oligarchs—an even more troubling arrangement.’’

"A pattern of economic development in which chekists gain control of key industries across sectors (often through myriad machinations, intrigue, and extralegal means), is clearly evident, with the rate of such takeovers accelerating. For example, in October 2004, several Putin appointments helped secure additional FSB State control over strategic companies, including that of career chekist Viktor Ivanov and another senior FSB official who were elected to the Board of Directors of the national airline Aeroflot during an extraordinary meeting. Ivanov already runs air defense consortium Almaz Antei, while Sergei Prikhodko, deputy head of the presidential administration, was appointed chairman of TVEL, Russia’s only nuclear fuel trader, with a 17 percent share of the global nuclear fuel market and supplying fuel to 75 nuclear reactors worldwide. This firm will supply China and Iran with nuclear fuel."Biophys 03:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice Almaz-Antei is the company which developed/produces newest S-400 "Triumph" air defense complexes, which are potentially seen as the base for space defense complexes. More state control over this company won't be bad, as well as more state control over a nuclear fuel trader. Anyway that's my opinion. But what's more important, these examples are only illustrations, not a proof for the statement. ellol 15:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"no longer is the difference among a Russian intelligence officer, organized criminal, and businessman discernable." This doesn't seem to be a comment of an adult person. Surely there's difference. Surely there are lot's of honest businessmen. Otherwise Russia would be indeed a failed state which it isn't. ellol 03:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You said: "This doesn't seem to be a comment of an adult person.". No so fast. In his statement to Congress in a 21 September 1999 Hearing on the Bank of New York and Russian Money Laundering, former DCI James Woolsey noted that, "I have been particularly concerned for some years, beginning during my tenure, with the interpenetration of Russian organized crime, Russian intelligence and law enforcement, and Russian business. I have often illustrated this point with the following hypothetical: If you should chance to strike up a conversation with an articulate, English-speaking Russian in, say, the restaurant of one of the luxury hotels along Lake Geneva, and he is wearing a $3,000 suit and a pair of Gucci loafers, and he tells you that he is an executive of a Russian trading company and wants to talk to you about a joint venture, then there are four possibilities. He may be what he says he is. He may be a Russian intelligence officer working under commercial cover. He may be part of a Russian organized crime group. But the really interesting possibility is that he may be all three and that none of those three institutions have any problem with the arrangement." See ‘‘Congressional Statement of R. James Woolsey, Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, 21 September 1999, Hearing on the Bank of New York and Russian Money Laundering.Biophys 15:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Great. 1999. What the fuck bloody Putin then? Chronologically, that was prior to "Putinism". What's more important, it's only personal experience of the person, not a serious investigation. It's an opinion, therefore. ellol 15:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Secondary source that I cited (article in Intern. J. Intelligence) was dated 2006 and it said about Putin regime the following: "no longer is the difference among a Russian intelligence officer, organized criminal, and businessman discernable." While discussing this question, author of 2006 article referred, among other things to Woolsey. Thus it is appropriate citation.Biophys 01:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is discriminatory quote. It offends broad circles of Russian honest businessmen and honest security officers. ellol 08:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"eliminating or jailing the criminal elements and oligarchs" Look on the Forbes list. There was no nationalization of oligarchs' property. Other but Khodorkovsky case. But hey, man has to pay taxes. Perhaps the government could implement a harder push on oligarchs, but it didn't. And it's also clear why, it would lead to self-destruction of the country. ellol 04:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's simply follow WP:NOR and WP:NPOV

Ellol, your arguments are the following: "This doesn't seem to be a comment of an adult person", "more state control over this company won't be bad", and so on. But that is all your personal opinion (see WP:NOR). What I have cited here are reliable sources per WP:Source. Anything supported by good sources can and must go to WP articles per WP:NPOV. I do agree though that "Putinism" article is not that much important. This stuff (see above and other similar things) should probably also go to more "mainstream" articles, such as Vladimir Putin and pages about Russian government and political system. Biophys 15:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Okey, if my most recent comments embarrass you, i'm deleting them... You are citizen of America while I'm citizen of Russia => we just stand on different positions, so the discussion can't be just a spare talk, but a tough discussion of certain points.

This has nothing to do with citizenship (we are all WP citizens here). I am telling about WP policies and about a possibility to edit some "mainstream" articles, such as Vladimir Putin and Russian government and political system. So far, I was not very interested in those. Also, we should compromise here. We could probably compromise with you, but the deletions of sourced texts, deletions of entire article, and "mergings" by DolaldDuck are unacceptable.Biophys 15:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point for compromise so far. Above all, you can't even formulate your point to start the discussion. ellol 16:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

For my arguments, see comments in above. The point I tried to prove was the following -- it's absurd to claim that siloviks own the major portions of the Russian economy, because it's owned by just different people whose list we can easily access and check they are not silovicks, as a rule. Or at least, we need more strict criteria on what's exactly share of siloviks in Russian economy(like, 5%, 10%, 20% -- source needed for that)/ or their exact role in managing state property. By the way, I still don't know what exactly statement (statements) did you want to prove with those comments. That's just a mess of strong statements, exactly proving nothing. So for now I don't see your participation in the discussion. ellol 15:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I provided exact citation of sources to exclude any further questions "where it came from" after my future modifications of the article.Biophys 15:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: what's your statement? What do you prove? ellol 15:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

See next section below. Let's decide this point by point.Biophys 01:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In Russia, as in all other countries, companies don't disclose lists of shareholders. So the statements on "silovik's share of Russian economy" are incredibly difficult to prove or disprove. We really need to define who is a silovik. If we define silovik is anybody with army, police or security services background then there are millions of such people in Russia - but it is absurd to consider that they all have some connection with Putin or share some common ideology with him. DonaldDuck 06:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You said: "We really need to define who is a silovik." No, we do not need to define anything, because that would be OR. Everything is already defined in sources. If the definitions are slightly different, this should be described. See definitions of terrorism, for example. If there are completely different uses of the same word rather than different definitions of the same phenomenon (such as "terrorism"), this should be described using several different articles (without any content overlap!) and using disambig. pages. Biophys 14:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Who is silovik

We can see definition of "silovik" in e.g. Olga Kryshtanovskaya interview. She is the person who's carried out sociology investigation (2004) and determined amount of siloviks in political elite. This source is already cited in the article (25% share of siloviks in the political elite): [15]

— Давайте начнем с обобщения: кого можно считать представителями силовых структур во власти?

— Силовики сегодня — это 22 федеральных ведомства. Основные из них — ФСБ, милиция, армия. Казалось бы, это совсем разные структуры. Более того, между ними существуют конфликты. В них работают разные люди. Но в обществе неслучайно возникло это понятие: «силовики». Что-то, значит, их объединяет. Кстати, такого термина, объединяющего всех людей в погонах, нет ни в одном языке мира. На Западе сейчас стали писать без перевода, просто латиницей — «siloviki». Конечно, перед армией, службами безопасности, МВД стоят разные задачи. Но для общества эти различия непринципиальны. Важнее то, что их объединяет. А объединяет их то, что это опора государства, это та сила, которая защищает режим, которая блюдет сложившееся социальное неравенство. И сегодня именно эта сила пришла во власть. Силовики, надо сказать, всегда присутствовали во власти. Но важно, какое место они в ней занимали. Теперь они в авангарде.

Let's start from generalization: who may be considered representatives of enforcement (silovye) structures in the power?

Siloviks today are 22 federal agencies. Main of them are FSB, police (MVD), military. Seemingly, these are quite different structures. Moreover, there are conflicts among them. Various people work in them. But it was not casual that the term "siloviki" has appeared in the society. That means, something unites them. By the way, no languafe in the world has a term unifiing people with shoulder straps. Today in the West they started to write without translation, just in latinic letters -- "siloviki". Of course, Army, security forces, MVD meet different tasks. But these distinctions are not important for the society. It's more important what unifies them. What unifies them, they are props for the government, they are the force which defends the regime, which preserves the existing social inequality. And it's that force which has came into power. Siloviki, it must be said, always were presented in the power. But it's important what was their place in it. Today they are in vanguard.

ellol 15:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. That is how "siloviks" are defined in one of the sources. This is consistent with text of the article.Biophys 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not consistent. "where all political powers and most important economic assets are owned by a group of former state security officials ("siloviks")". You define siloviks as former security officers. This is OR and this is simply wrong and inconsistent with Krushtanovskaya's notes. ellol 08:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources for my contribution:

According to Kryshtanovskaya, there was no capture of power as Kremlin bureocracy has called siloviks in order to "restore order".

На вершине этой пирамиды всегда были и сейчас находятся спецслужбы. Поэтому неудивительно, что к власти пришли главным образом они. Но они не сами осуществили захват власти, их позвала кремлевская бюрократия, изнемогшая от реформ. Сам политический класс призвал на царство «рюриков», чтобы они прекратили «революцию».

The process of siloviks coming into power has allegedly started since 1996, Boris Yeltsin's second term. Not personally Yeltsin, but the whole elite wished to stop the revolutionary process and consolidate the power.

— С какого момента в постсоветской России начался массовый «призыв» чекистов во власть? — Наверное, начиная со второго срока Ельцина — с 1996 года. Но не лично Ельцин, а вся элита хотела консолидировать власть, остановить революционный процесс.

"Yes, Putin has brought siloviks with him. But that's not enough to understand the situation. Here's also an objective aspect: the whole political class wished them to come. They were called for service... There was a need of a strong arm, capable from point of view of the elite to establish order in the country."

"Да, Путин привел с собой силовиков. Но этого мало для понимания ситуации. Здесь есть и момент объективный: весь политический класс желал их прихода. Они были призваны на службу. Когда встал вопрос о преемнике Ельцина, все кандидаты, так или иначе, оказались силовиками: Бордюжа, Степашин, Примаков, потом вот Путин… Все! Это значит, что в наборе требований к наследнику требованием № 1 значилась его принадлежность к силовым ведомствам — самое востребованное качество кандидата. Нужна была сильная рука, способная, с точки зрения элиты, навести порядок в государстве."

ellol 10:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kryshtanovskaya has also noted that there were people who had worked in structures "affiliated" with KGB/FSB. Structures usually considered as such are the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Governmental Communications Commission, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Press Agency News and others. "The itself work in such agencies doesn't involve necessary contacts with special services, but makes to think about it." [6] Summing up numbers of official and "affiliated" siloviks she got an estimate of 77% of such in the power.

Как выглядит биография "доверенного лица" или "негласного кадрового сотрудника"? Да именно так, как биография Михаила Фрадкова. Никогда не работал в органах, но был где-то рядом - в структурах, которые обычно называются "аффилированными" с КГБ/ФСБ. И поскольку структуры эти сосредоточивались на международных аспектах деятельности государства, то и присутствие там спецслужб было значительно выше, чем во всех прочих организациях. К таким структурам принято относить МИД, Министерство внешней торговли, ГКЭС, АПН и проч. Сама по себе работа в этих организациях не означает непременного сотрудничества со спецслужбами, но заставляет задуматься на этот счет. [16]

«Аффилированные» структуры появились в советское время. Это были «дочки» КГБ, в основном связанные с международной деятельностью — с международной политикой, экономикой, торговлей, журналистикой и т.д. «Крышей» для таких людей служили посольства, торговые представительства, корпункты. Я пыталась делать примерные подсчеты. Так вот, если сложить число официальных силовиков и «аффилированных», то их во власти сегодня окажется примерно 77 процентов.[17]

ellol 11:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Points for discussion

Point 1.

Articles "Putinism" and "putinisms" describe two different uses of the same word. Hence they should stay as two separate articles, without any content overlap (that is without content forks). Ellol, do you agree? Yes or no, please.Biophys 01:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Putinism is quite recent term. Its usage varies, there is no unequivocal definition of "Putinism". All uses should be in one article to avoid confusion.DonaldDuck 05:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Not only there is a definition, but I provided 15+ reliable sources that describe and use such definition; and I provided exact citation of these sources which show that.Biophys 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Some of your sources contradict the other, some are absurd as "Putin-Stalin" poster, some are heavily biased, some are irrelevant to the topic of the article. You just filtered out some quotes to support your political agenda, but they are not in any way reliable. I can find 150+ "reliable" sources that describe "freemasonry takeover of US economy" similar to your original research on "chekist takeover of Russian economy", but it still will be a conspiracy theory. DonaldDuck 14:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If you find 150+ reliable sources that describe "freemasonry takeover of US economy", you can create an article about it. No problem. Perhaps such article already exists. As about "Stalinism"-"Putinism" connection - this is not my synthesis or original research. I provided a reference to reliable source that makes such connection.Biophys 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, what is your reply to point 1?Biophys 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Kryshtanovskaya and other questions

The only truthworthy source is Olga Kryshtanovskaya work. She's the only person who had carried out certain sociological investigations, and whose point is based not on pure speculation, personal political prejudices or personal impression, but on solid scientific data. That's why she should be given green light, and put to the top.

Again: give me solid data that most of Russian economics assets are captured by siloviks. I need numbers. I don't care where you get them. ellol 08:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Work by Kryshtanovskaya is only one of many, but I placed it first in the corresponding section. But it belongs to manin content. Introduction should only summarize the content. We do not need any data here; we only need to follow the sources. Such data would be needed only in original scientific work on the subject.Biophys 21:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Point 2

"The privatization of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends."

As about privatization of Russian economic assets, that's pure OR. This point isn't contained neither in "The Essence of Putinism: The Strengthening of the Privatized State", nor in What is ‘Putinism’?, by Andranik Migranyan. Provide here those exactly quotes which has lead you to such conclusion.

As about privatization of Russian state, that needs to be more deeply viewed. ellol 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Corrected. The source said "Chekist takover".Biophys 20:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are you trying to fool? I exactly request direct quotation which states that "The privatization of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends." Look[18]: the person has written a whole book on "microfinancing in modern Russia", such narrow topic! Don't hope you'll manage to prove the point "privatization of Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends" with ambigous quote in a popular article. (Btw, yet you didn't even that.) I as easily may cite equally respective sources, claiming Russia is a shining blue democracy with open markets and media without absolutely no problems. The only reason I perhaps wouldn't is that it would add nothing to my current understanding of Russia. Man, I'm an egotist: I learn as I contribute. ellol 17:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make assumptions of bad faith. I corrected this exactly as I said. This is the diff [19]. But DonaldDuck reverted it back.Biophys 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not. I disagree with "checkist takeover" as well. Well, Biophys, see: I have nothing against you. You are doing certain job in Wikipedia, and that already puts you above all those who prefer to relax in front of TV, because really contributing in Wiki is unpaid job. But you are making strong statements about the whole country, where I happened to live. And I want to know the source for that. I want to know your proof of it, based on sources. And according to Wiki rules, I have a right for such request. If you aren't going to, that's also ok, but the statement would be replaced for a more soft ones. E.g.(just e.g.), "many people with KGB past were successfully performing in business since the collapse of the Soviet Union" ellol 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't insist you answer today, but let's resolve it in several days. ellol 18:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The sources were there, but they have been deleted by DonaldDuck. These are publications in a scientific journal, if only politology/sociology can be called "science". Title of first source is "The Chekist Takeover of the Russian State". These are comprechensive reviews (reliable secondary sources) on this subject

Biophys 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately, they don't offer free internet access. Please, wait, I'll have to buy it and we'll continue the discussion. That will take me some days to make a virtual credit card (no need of the one before). ellol 21:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Both articles definitely worth reading.Biophys 21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of referenced materials

According to WP:NPOV policy, all sourced views on the subject of the article can and should be represented. Therefore, the following deletion of text are inconsistent with WP policies: According to Soviet historian Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov, the secret political police has always been an "absolute power" of the Soviet society: "It is not true that the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party is a superpower (...) An absolute power thinks, acts and dictates for all of us. The name of the power — NKVD — MVD — MGB. The Stalin regime is based not on Soviets, Party ideals, the power of the Political Bureau, Stalin’s personality, but the organization and the technique of the Soviet political police where Stalin plays the role of the first policeman.", he wrote However, all Soviet security services remained officially controlled by the Soviet Communist Party. - - In the beginning of 1990s, the situation remained very similar according to former KGB General Oleg Kalugin. He said: "The KGB is everywhere and in everything, and that itself frustrates democracy" . - A coup of 1991 was organized by the KGB chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov. In the aftermath of the coup Boris Yeltsin tried to limit the power of Russian state security services.. Soviet coup attempt of 1991 against Mikhail Gorbachev was organized by KGB chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov. However a new intelligence law was adopted in August 1992. This law provided conditions for penetration by state security servicemen of all levels of the Russian government and economy, since it stipulated that career personnel "may occupy positions in ministries, departments, establishments, enterprises and organizations in accordance with the requirements of this law" without compromising their association with intelligence agencies. . - - In the beginning of 2000s, Checkists took over the entire Russian state according to security experts and political scientists. In partular, a former Securitate general Ion Mihai Pacepa stated that "In the Soviet Union, the KGB was a state within a state. Now former KGB officers are running the state. They have custody of the country’s 6,000 nuclear weapons, entrusted to the KGB in the 1950s, and they now also manage the strategic oil industry renationalized by Putin. The KGB successor, rechristened FSB, still has the right to electronically monitor the population, control political groups, search homes and businesses, infiltrate the federal government, create its own front enterprises, investigate cases, and run its own prison system. The Soviet Union had one KGB officer for every 428 citizens. Putin’s Russia has one FSB-ist for every 297 citizens."

Some observers discuss ideology of new Russian political elite. Politologist Irina Pavlova said that chekists are not merely a corporation of people united to expropriate financial assets. They have long-standing political objectives of transforming Moscow to the Third Rome and ideology of "containing" the United States Columnist George Will emphasized the nationalistic nature of Putinism. He said that "Putinism is becoming a toxic brew of nationalism directed against neighboring nations, and populist envy, backed by assaults of state power, directed against private wealth. Putinism is a national socialism without the demonic element of its pioneer..." [20]. According to Illarionov, the ideology of chekists is Nashism (“ours-ism”), the selective application of rights".

And so on.

Please follow WP policies.Biophys 02:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about history of Soviet security services. Please place this quotes into the appropriate articles on Cheka, KGB etc.

Much more important for description of Putinism historical background are similar policies by his immediate predecessor Boris Yeltsin. And you have deleted a lot of referenced text on it.

"Putin's predecessor, president Boris Yeltsin led largely corrupt program of privatisation of state property. Juiciest state assets, including oil and metals, were sold for a song to Kremlin-connected businessmen. Having surrounded himself with corrupt cronies and financiers, Yeltsin paid only lip service to fighting crime and corruption. Yeltsin’s rule was authoritarian. In October 1993, he sent troops to shell the White House, then the seat of a rebellious Russian Supreme Soviet dominated by communists and other hard-liners.

During that time Vladimir Putin, worked in Saint-Petersburg city administration under the corrupt mayor Anatoly Sobchack and took part in privatisation of city assets. In 1997 a criminal investigation started against Sobchak. On November 7 1997 Sobchak flew to Paris on a private plane without passport control on the Russian side. The formal reason for his departue was hospital treatment in a Paris hospital for his heart condition, but Sobchak never checked in at the hospital. Flight of Sobchack from Russia, which allowed him to avoid prosecution was organised by Vladimir Putin.

Just hours before the first day of 2000, Yeltsin made a surprise announcement of his resignation, leaving the presidency in the hands of Vladimir Putin." DonaldDuck 05:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's agree that we do not delete relevant and referenced texts of each other. Then, we can move somewhere. At least, I am not going to delete your work and expect the same from you. The text about Yeltsin can be included, but it must be clear that it is relevant to Putinism.Biophys 14:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Pachepa and Avtorkhanov are not relevant here, because they are not writing about Putinism or Putin. Moreover, why you are inserting the same quotes into multiple articles? There are exactly same quotes of Pachepa and Illarionov in Chekism already and they should not be repeated here. Your edits may be described as WP:Coatrack and WP:SYN.DonaldDuck 16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, as a compromise solution, we could delete the entire "historical background" section. Would you agree?Biophys 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OKDonaldDuck 01:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn quotes

From Spiegel interview

• надо удивляться, как за короткие годы, прошедшие со времен тотальной подчинённости Церкви коммунистическому государству, ей удалось обрести достаточно независимую позицию one should be surprised on how in few years which has passed since the times when the Church was totally submitted to the Communist state it has managed to gain sufficiently indepentent position

ellol 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This particular source does not tell about Russian Orthodox Church as related to "Putinism" (it only tells the Church is not submitted to the "Communist state" any more, and contemporary Russian government is hardly "Communist"). But if there are such sources (e.g. "Putin's espionage Church" by Preobrzhensky), they can be cited here, no problem.Biophys 17:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

it has managed to gain sufficiently independent position It is relevant. Your quote sais that the Church is somehow submitted to the state. Solzhenitsyn -- answers similar question of Spigel ("Как сегодня обстоят дела с моральной компетенцией Русской православной церкви? Нам представляется, что она вновь превращается в государственную церковь, каковой она была столетия назад — институтом, фактически легитимировавшим кремлёвского властелина в качестве наместника Божия."). Solzhenitsyn answered a question, whether the Church is submitted to the current Russian state. I understand your concern, but it's not a quote driven from the context. Context is true. My quote is relevant if only your quote is relevant. ellol 18:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Путину досталась по наследству страна разграбленная и сшибленная с ног, с деморализованным и обнищавшим большинством народа. И он принялся за возможное — заметим, постепенное, медленное, — восстановление её. Эти усилия не сразу были замечены и, тем более, оценены. И можете ли Вы указать примеры в истории, когда меры по восстановлению крепости государственного управления встречались благожелательно извне? Putin has inherited plundered and downthrodden country with demoralized and grown poor majority of the population. And he took on its possible — to be noted, gradual, slow — recovering. These efforts were not right at the moment noticed, not speaking about being appreciated. And can you point on examples in history when measures for recovering strength of governmental management would be benevolently meeted from beyond the country? ellol 18:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting, but unfortunatuly little relevant:

Шпигель: При всём этом Россия нередко чувствует себя одинокой. В последнее время произошло некоторое отрезвление в отношениях России и Запада, в том числе и в отношениях между Россией и Европой. В чём причина? В чём Запад не способен понять современную Россию?

Солженицын: Причин можно назвать несколько, но мне интереснее всего психологические, а именно: расхождение иллюзорных надежд — и в России, и на Западе — с реальностью.

Когда я вернулся в Россию в 1994-м, я застал здесь почти обожествление Западного мира и государственного строя разных его стран. Надо признать, что в этом было не столько действительного знания и сознательного выбора, сколько естественного отвращения от большевицкого режима и его антизападной пропаганды. Обстановку сначала поменяли жестокие натовские бомбежки Сербии. Они провели чёрную, неизгладимую черту — и справедливо будет сказать, что во всех слоях российского общества. Затем положение усугубилось шагами НАТО по втягиванию в свою сферу частей распавшегося СССР, и особенно чувствительно — Украины, столь родственной нам через миллионы живых конкретных семейных связей. Они могут быть в одночасье разрублены новой границей военного блока.

Итак, восприятие Запада как, по преимуществу, Рыцаря Демократии — сменилось разочарованной констатацией, что в основе западной политики лежит прежде всего прагматизм, зачастую корыстный, циничный. Многими в России это переживалось тяжело, как крушение идеалов.

В то же время Запад, празднуя конец изнурительной "холодной войны" и наблюдая полтора десятка лет горбачёвско-ельцинскую анархию внутри и сдачу всех позиций вовне, очень быстро привык к облегчительной мысли, что Россия теперь — почти страна "третьего мира" и так будет всегда. Когда же Россия вновь начала укрепляться экономически и государственно, это было воспринято Западом, быть может, на подсознательном уровне ещё не изжитых страхов — панически.

ellol 19:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course if you can cite any source that tells precisely that: "Russian Orthodox Church is not controlled by FSB as some claim" - that would be fine per WP:NPOV. However, your text only tells that people at the West do not understand Russia. That would be fine in article Anti-Russian sentiment, but this is irrelevant here. Look, you perceive this article as anti-Russian propaganda, so you naturally want to include some pro-Russian propaganda to balance this. But this is not propaganda. This article is about views of different experts on a certain subject. If any referenced views on this specific subject (rather than on the East-West relations and perceptions in general) are missing, you are welcome to include them.Biophys 19:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this article is not "anti-Russian" at all. It only tells about the important role of secret services in Russia. This is all. Many people in Russia (e.g. Mr. Cherkesov) think this important role is good, but apparently you are not one of these people.Biophys 19:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I point out that Solzhenitsyn's quote about the Church speaks about its being independent. Sufficiently independent. Whoever it's being controlled by -- the State, the President, the FSB -- it's yet sufficiently independent.

I think the author of the Gulag Archipelago and "To live not on lie" has some moral authority when discussing such things.

In any way, two quotes set a sort of a facet: one opinion is that the Church is completely subservient to FSB, the other states that it's sufficiently independent. These opinions contradict each other. One can't have an independent from state position and be totally subservient to FSB. That either makes a reader to think the truth is in between, either makes him to choose the opinion he likes better. It's freedom: the possibility to make your own choice based on true knowledge of several options.

Do you think I don't understand you? I understand you. But I disagree.

P.s. I simply want to have a good time. I am neither a devil nor a god, I'm a proud citizen of the Russian Federation, burdened with personal whims and prejudices, accustomed to be free in every respect. Bear that in mind, please. ellol 08:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

p.p.s. Btw, let's agree: I don't speak for Russia and you don't speak for the West. In Russia I've heard opinions that Russia is authoriatrian and opinions that Russia is democratic. Same opinions I've heard in the West. We are just two persons who disagree on the subject, right? ellol 11:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I am talking exactly about that. I only tried to understand the logic behind your reasoning. If that is not your logic, then fine, you know this better.Biophys 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Putin-Stalin poster

What is the source of "Putin-Stalin" poster (200px-Ukraine Putin-1-.jpg), which Biophys keeps inserting into the article? Who is the author? Where it was published? What is it's copyright status?DonaldDuck —Preceding comment was added at 05:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly link the picture when you refer to it. That makes it easier for others to understand what you are talking about. -- Sander Säde 16:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant materials

So, I included ALL sourced materials here, including text about Yelsyn created by Donald Duck and edited by Alex Bakharev. Please explain how this text is relevant at all to "Putinism". Yes, it tells someting about Putin's career, but this article is not about Putin. The text is the following:

Putin's predecessor, president Boris Yeltsin led controversial program of privatization of state property. Juiciest state assets, including oil and metals, were sold well bellow their market price to Kremlin-connected businessmen.[15] Having surrounded himself with corrupt cronies and financiers, while crime and corruption flourished.[16] Yeltsin’s rule was often described as authoritarian[citation needed]. During the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, he sent troops to shell the White House, then the seat of a rebellious Russian Supreme Soviet dominated by communists and other hard-liners.

During that time Vladimir Putin, worked in Saint-Petersburg city administration under the mayor Anatoly Sobchack and was responsible for the privatisation of city assets. In 1997 a criminal investigation started against Sobchak. On November 7, 1997 Sobchak flew to Paris on a private plane without passport control on the Russian side. The formal reason for his departue was hospital treatment in a Paris hospital for his heart condition, but Sobchak never checked in at the hospital. Flight of Sobchack from Russia, which allowed him to avoid prosecution was organised by Vladimir Putin[citation needed]. Biophys 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your point is clear. You want to blame Putin's Russia the worst regime ever existed, without ever taking care of what were the preceding regimes. You judge Russia as if Putin's regime was in a moment transferred to the Washington, and you, an American citizen, compare it with the recent Bush's regime.

There's a need of a historical background section. It's absurd to think Putinism has arisen by itself, but wasn't produced by the preceding historical period, i.e. Yeltsinism. Without Yeltsin, Chechnya, privatization, oligarchs in 1990s, there would be no siloviks and FSB in 2000s. And I will prove that with sources.

All you've done you'd gathered driven from the context negative statements about Russia. But there's also a need to show strong points of Russia under Putin. ellol 10:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about Russia. It is not about Putin. It is about "Putinism" as defined in sourcesBiophys 21:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well Putinism has not grown in an empty space. It was a response (probably wrong one) on the challenges of Yeltzin times (mediabaron's blackmailing, feudalism and the threat of desintegration of the country, crime and corruption). It was became possible because of the super-presidential regime as written in Sobchak constitution, great increase of influence of siloviki's after August 1993 and the First Chechen War, because of falsified elections of 1992 and 1996, etc. Obviously it also has roots in the Soviet times. We need to describe this. The challenge is that it is supposed to be balanced and referenced.

Speaking of balance, we need to have a chapter on the results of the Putinism. Speaking of both positives (e.g. high persistent growth, increase in the average level of life, etc.) as negatives (Illarionov's presentation from the link I put, is a good source of the negatives) Alex Bakharev 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is also not about Chekism or history of soviet intelligence. So do not copy text from Chekism to this article. DonaldDuck 12:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I think you have enough experience to decide what is relevant and what is not. So, if you feel that something is missing, please go ahead and include. Thank you.Biophys 01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC) By the same token others can include relevant materials. Yes, this article is not about history of Russian secret services. It is about "Putinism", which is an alleged takover of contemporary Russian state by Russian secret services - according to sources. Hence anything sourced on this subject would be appropriate. Please do not delete sourced views on this subject.Biophys 14:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

About Putin's privatization deals under Sobchak. Perhaps that's not directly related to the topic. But there's an interesting line in the opening authored by Biophys: "The 'checkist takeover' of the Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends" and so on. Any person with even a little remnant of brains to whom I enlist myself too, would wonder how exactly did the process take place, how much was acquired by "Putin's gang" and Putin personally as the head of the gang. As for now, Biophys has failed to answer this question. Mr. Donald Duck, however, has answered half of it: before 1999 "Putin's gang"'s privatization deals were limited to some dirty things within St. Petersburg. Just I would also recall about the Cooperative "Ozero" and Putin's cottage built on these money, as that's perhaps the most prominent "compromate" stuff on Putin.

The thing is, that the body of the article should describe in full text the stuff briefly stated in the opening. In this concern, Mr. Donald Duck's contributions are relevant as they answer the natural question: how much could "Putin's gang" steal? Half-answer, in fact. But you don't have even that. ellol 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not see any publications that relate Anatoliy Sobchak or Ozero to Putinism. If there are such references, they can be cited here, no problem.Biophys 17:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of relevant materials

User DonaldDuck continues deletions of referenced and relevant texts created by user ellol and me, without any justification. Hence I have to restore referenced views of notable experts per WP:NPOV policy. The deleted texts were about secret services as ruling political force in contemporary Russia. Therefore these texts are relevant in this article, and it does not matter if some of the texts are used in other WP articles.Biophys 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: I don't object user's DonaldDuck deleting text authored by me. My text only serves to somehow balance opinion introduced by Biophys, as itself it's rather foolish, as well as Biophys's quote. From my side I back DonaldDuck's editions. As for now the article is a mess of different opinions, ones introduced by Biophys, majority of others introduced by me. It's bad that we don't have normal article but a mess of opinions instead. Unfortunately "dialogue" understood by Biophys is reinforcing his own point. Biophys is a Russian liberal and nothing can be done with that. Whatever happens he'll continue to state that FSB has blown down houses in Moscow, murdered Chechens, killed Litvinenko, and owns all Russian economic assets. It's the nature of Russian liberals, however. ellol 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not completely delete it, I moved your text to Chekism article [21] to the similar section after Ion Pachepa opinion.DonaldDuck 02:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As about the mess, I can easily clean it up, as soon as DonaldDuck and you allow me and stop deleting referenced views. Just tell me when you are done and I can bring this in order. I only have certain fields of interest, such as human rights and the role of secret services in Russia. As a scientific worker, I used to the following procedure: (a) I collect all relevant sources; and (b) I summarize their content and arrange everything in a logical order - as time allows. Of course, I do not take this too seriously in WP (this is work for fun!); so the quality could be better. That is true. But I do not have any strong ideological views. I only do not like when innocent people are killed or arrested for doing their work, like Politkovskya, Litvinenko, Arap and many others. Do you? Biophys 22:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not like either. But I don't see here the "long hand of FSB". At least, I would believe in that only after sufficient proofs, while you accuse FSB a priori. I've proposed you long ago to discuss contents. You yet hadn't provided information on how great is a share of FSB owned business in Russian GDP. You know most of Russian economic assets are owned by oligarchs. I would like to see estimations on FSB economics power you used. Is it very hard for you? ellol 12:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's don't go black-and-white. Situation is really more complex. FSB people since coming to political power really got access to economic assets either. The question is, how much did they got? Often some security people are at high position in management of some company, i.e. they don't own it but represent interests of the state. One should tell also about "governmental corporations", which often are ruled by some Kremlin official who doesn't own it. There's also e.g. RAO EES, Russian energetic company owned by the state at 52%, while headed by a known liberal Chubais: incidentally, the way he chosed for the company, i.e. being split into a number of independent private companies shows exactly different approach compared to your "FSB owns".[22] [23]

And really there's certain narrowing of the political field, but is there the "hand of Kremlin" or the lack of funding some democratic parties experience? And really, the majority of people are better concerned about incomes that about democracy, although nobody likes authoritorianism. Or likes? Yes that info you also have: 37% think of a lack of democracy, while 21% think of it's abundance.

And really the problem much more topical that influence of FSB is corruption, which in the first place targets middle class and small/middle businesses. But targeting corruption is also a vast problem because first of all change in minds of state officials must occur.

So on. The situation is much more complex than our "authoritarianism-democracy" "battle". Yes it's all propaganda and opinions, but to do better we need a sort of a real dialogue, which I don't see possible, until you continue to promote your "FSB-owns-Russia" agenda. I've told you: please, lay down your real information about that. If there are estimates that siloviks own any percentage of Russian economics is okey even if that's someone's opinion. If that's an opinion, well, we'll find some different opinion so to let readers access to unbiased information. All is possible unless we continue to consider each other enemies and introduce our "black and white" agenda. ellol 16:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Another opinion on Putin, now Gorbachev's... [24] ellol 18:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

But this article is not about Putin. You should cite this in Vladimir Putin article.Biophys 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

"Lenin and the Party are twin brothers. We say Lenin -- we keep in mind the Party. We say Party -- we keep in mind Lenin" Gg. By the way, now it has much better direct sense. Like, Putin and the United Russia, or Putin and Putinism. Lol. ellol 14:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, imagine Sergey Ivanov will be elected in 2008. Will you create Ivanovism? That way, isn't it worthwhile to create Ivanovism, Zubkovism and Medvedevism in advance? ellol 14:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Or in case Putin by any trickery stands at the third term, would you create Putinism: Reloaded and Putinism: The Revolution? ellol 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, if you have access to Russian television, just for your information, nearly at this time (at the moment they are near the end) there are teledebates of Russian political parties at 1st channel. Exactly this [25]. At least I've seen them this day and two days ago, they say they'll last until elections (all days but for saturday/sunday). All those f**king damned politicians. Anyway true debates, and my personal disgust of politicians doesn't affect their quality. ellol 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ion Mihai Pacepa said: "The Soviet Union had one KGB officer for every 428 citizens. Putin’s Russia has one FSB-ist for every 297 citizens." Wow. I appreciate that. You provide simply wrong data (the percentage of Security Service's staff to the whole population has increased, while true data is it has decreased). And you remove sourced text which proves with sources your data is wrong. Long applauses follow. ellol (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

These are not my data. These are published data. And you do not have any newer good published data. So, I suggest that we stop insertions of irrelevant materials here, unless we want to write a lot more about Putin, including new articles, such as Business of Valdimir Putin or Political views of Vladimir Putin.Biophys (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should also view this: [26] [27]. Your opinion? ellol (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, I appreciate your interest in modern Russian politics, but could you please contribute positively in articles, that is add more content supported by reliable sources, instead of deleting relevant and sourced text? This [28] is unacceptable and may be interpreted by WP administrators as vandalism. Please respect work of other wikipedians. ellol (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As Russia is a democracy, at least, every political party in Duma and the acting president were freely elected, i.e. other candidates were allowed, the vote was secret and the vote count was correct, effect of Putin's rule on life of an "average Russia" is of interest. Improvement of living standarts, of course, has little to do with the question of the political system -- like share of siloviks in Russian economy has little to do with the Russian political system. But the raise of Russian middle class, which comes from improvement of living standarts has direct consequences for Russian democracy and politics. ellol (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, we often did a job together, although it got through quarrels and noise, but we used to improve articles after all, although with damaging our nerves. To make it short, I rely on your constructive critique of my contributions. I think an idea of middle class as a political force is topical enough. Briefly, the idea of "Rise of middle class" is: "it must work, but whysoever it doesn't". ellol (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you simply inserted a lot of irrelevant materials (including "middle class"), which makes the article unreadable.Biophys (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okey, should I shorten that text? I'll do. In every normal country it's not the politicians who create democracy, but middle class that demands is rights and so is the most powerful source for democracy. Now there is middle class in Russia (37% of the population as estimated), but yet there is no political force which would exactly represent interests of the middle class. This takes time. Perhaps Civilian Power will manage to be such a force.

The only problem is that as long as we stay in the system of coordinates "are you pro or against Putin?" that doesn't solve problems which exist in the country, whether a man is pro or contra Putin that position doesn't help him solve HIS problems, so a different system of coordinates is needed: does THIS political force help me solve MY problems? That would be democracy.

Agree that American citizens aren't much concerned on whether George W. Bush is a democratic or authoriarian president. Their better concern is what system would they the people establish. The question "who rules America" is senseless, because it's ruled by American people.

Rise of middle class in Russia may effectively foster a transition to this American system.

ellol (talk) 08:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Another source

Said Anne Applebaum: "Just as the old dissident movement was united only by its hatred of Soviet communism, Other Russia is an umbrella organization, united only by its hatred of Putinism, an ideology that has solidified in recent months into something resembling an old-fashioned personality cult." [29].Biophys (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this an article about Other Russia? Well, this view has the right to exist. Just as well as Gleb Pavlovsky's view[30] that "Other Russia is a workshop of picking out pick-locks to the real Russia. Have a read of their texts. Only one question is solved there — how to overthrow Putin's system, i.e. to leave all without the country." ellol (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Word of advice for you, Biophys, and lots of praise for your defence of the article's verifiability and neutrality per Wikipedia policies and Western rule of law, against elLOL's meager attempts at POV-infused sabotage and distracting discussion with absurd blabber when confronted about his incursions into article space. Ignore his clearly agenda-driven and strongly ideological reasoning (or trolling) as youve put up with his offhand attitude for too long. Go on about doing all the changes you feel are necessary, and bring attention to the wider community if he tries to "wolfpack" and corner you. Youve proven your points while he has yet to prove one of his. Ulritz 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I like your expression "wolfpacked". I do not know if you are familiar with Soviet expression "Let Tambov's wolf be your comrade! You must call me "citizen superior"!" (a reply of a KGB interrogator to an enemy of the people who called him "comrade" by mistake).Biophys (talk) 05:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done. So what, Biophys, do I really "wolfpack and corner" you? Would be fun to know. ellol 11:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this videoclip: "Who are Russians?" That is who we are and that what we are doing in wikipedia.Biophys 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Btw, I need to say now I'll contribute much less to Wikipedia. First of all dear Wiki is about the West seeing the world, and that's natural and good, imho. I used to believe I had a mission here. Like, protecting Russia. But that's just laughable now. Come to every person in Russia, tell'em there's a damned totalitarian regime or anything... then all'd go and vote for the United Russia. At least 25% of people has internet; and only 3.5% (multiplied by the election turnout, 0.6 or 0.7, so only about 2% of population) voted for right-wing parties. What to speak about? the country's stable as a hippopotamus (I voted for Civilian Power, if anything). ellol 19:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw, dunno. Of course, you can just go and remove it all, but I think a brief mention about the rise of living standards wouldn't break the article. It was one of the major points of Putin's speeches (like, read his 2000 or 2001 Addresses to the Federal Assembly), and whatever positive was the economical environment, it was not broken. ellol 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me

I, Biophys, award this song of National Merit [31] to all defenders of Vladimir Putin.Biophys (talk) 03:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, when I said bout discussion i meant really to discuss. Don't ya think I'm a brainwashed idiot? We may disagree on terms, but I know you are an equal patriot of Russia like me. We just see the different ways for Russia to become the normal country. ellol (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And ah, yeah, a song for ya and all the other guys interested bout Russia [32] [33] [34]. ellol (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(Btw, compare it with "Captain Kolesnikov") ellol (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice

I highly regard user Biophys as one of the most active contributors to Wikipedia who helps to unveil large layers of truth about topical issues of Russian political and social life. Along with that, his certain actions such as deletion of large stocks of referenced and relevant stuff in the article Putinism makes an outside observer to be very suspicious about if it's the case of vandalism. I hope that of course we don't have to consider this [35] as vandalism. I really do. ellol (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

My edit is fully explained at the talk page of this article (please see above). Deleted info is WP:SYN or completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. Cited sources do not tell this information is related in any way to "Putinism".Biophys (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not explained, and I don't understand why you delete text by Kryshtanovskaya, why do you delete text by Migranyan which are respected scientists and their position is as solid as that of Yuri Felshtinsky or Andrey Illarionov.

I want all points of view to be represented adequately well. While, with all respect to you you are breaking the balance in strong favor of one POV of several present.

ellol (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... do you believe Stanislav Belkovsky?

Putin: no secret policeman

The time has come to understand the Putin regime is not a "militocracy", run by security officials, but a typical kleptocracy found in many other countries in the third world. There some things that need to be corrected: Russia isn't the Philippines or Zaire, of course. It is a very big country with great history, as well as nuclear weapons and a seat in the UN security council inherited from the USSR.

During his two terms as president, Putin has successfully defended the interests of big capital, which helped him come to power. Abramovich, Oleg Deripaska, Mikhail Friedman, Vladimir Potanin, Viktor Vekselberg, Vagit Alekperov, Alisher Usmanov - these men have become richer and more influential in Putin's time than they were in the 1990s.

And the like. Remember it's S. Belkovsky who proclaims Putin's alleged wealth.

Don't be fooled, I'm not any pleased by the article... But why do we never mention the role of Russian oligarchs in the up-to-date system of power? Do you think people who own 1/4 of Russian economy are simply doing their businesses?

Recall the famous Oleg Deripaska interview:

О. Д. - Президент России - это своего рода топ-менеджер, управляющий всей страной. Он умный, адекватный человек, никогда не превышающий пределы своих полномочий. Заметили, как заработал госаппарат в Белом Доме, как работает прокуратура, суды, спецслужбы, как работают российские телеканалы и газеты? Просто блестяще! Все помогает экономике, бизнесу, а не мешает нам, как было еще недавно. Под это можно давать деньги, что мы и делаем.

Н. А. - "Мы " - это крупный бизнес?

- "Мы " - это российская реальная власть. Крупный бизнес - это часть нашей технологии.

Н. А. - Если не секрет, кто входит в Ваш круг?

О. Д. - Какой же секрет? Все те, кто последовательно объединился вокруг первого президента России Бориса Николаевича Ельцина, кто взял на себя смелость принимать тяжелые экономические и социальные решения. Вопреки тем попыткам играть на популизме того времени, которых было огромное количество - и в политике, и в экономике России. Чаще всего были просто неграмотные и просто глупые шаги…

Н. А. - А имена Вашего круга назвать можете?

О. Д. - Губернатор Чукотки Роман Абрамович, я к Вашим услугам, тоже. Глава МДМ-банка Андрей Мельниченко. Продолжать?

[36]

One can discuss whether this interview was fake or not, but there are strange coincidences between it and Stanislav Belkovsky's revelations: Real power are people who united around Boris Yeltsin... Putin serves interests of big businesses...

ellol (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Some comments from Russian InoSmi forum...

эх стасик... почти за умного сошел...

Стасик, завидовать нехорошо. Я понимаю, что господин выбрал этого мерзкого Павловского, а не тебя, Величайшего Политтехнолога Всех Времён и Народов, придворным политтехнологом, но постоянно вываливать в СМИ свои обиды на протяжении вот уже 7 лет - это уже даже не смешно. Ты вызываешь только жалость, Стасик. Лузерок ты...

Мне лично гораздо больше по душе железный кровавый чекист (пусть даже у него будет много-много денег припрятано) прижучивший продажного Ходора во благо Отечества, чем талантливый бизнесмен, избавившийся от конкурента.

Да нет, в этой статье по крайней мере какой-то анализ присутствует... Да и откровенно пророссийскую статью гардиан не пропустила бы.

Ну, блямба, "интелектуалы" типа Белковского уже и не знают с какого бы им боку зайти, чтобы отвратить граждан России от поддержки ВВП и его команды. Прямо на какашки, бедняга, исходит, а только впечатление от его трудов непреходящее : бредятина и заказуха!

I think it's no worse than any other of the sources used in this article. ellol (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Could you please clarify what's the problem with citation. I have checked this, and the sources seem to correspond exactly to the text.Biophys (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with this one: "The "chekist takeover" of the Russian state and economic assets has been allegedly accomplished by a clique of Putin's close associates and friends [8]". On which page does the source say this? And what about a relevant quote from the source? Kulikovsky (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

O'K. I included a reference which tells precisely that.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC) The title of this article is "The Chekist Takeover of the Russian State", exactly as written. You can check the source over the internet.Biophys (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article? Kulikovsky (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course I did. That was probably most comprehensive scholarly study on the subject. Now we have a better source: "The Age of Assassins".Biophys (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that you did. The source does not even remotely support the claim you re-inserted. On a side note, it was good reading, so thank you for that. However, I noticed on this and several other occasions that you throw references that do not verify texts. Since I have seen this many times (and including this particular article), I am concerned articles you added "referenced" content are likely to have the same problem. I and other editors cannot spend hours reading all those sources just to find that your claims are not true. I request you to provide specific quotes from your sources verifying your point as courtesy to other editors. Now I will remove unverifiable/poorly sourced content and add appropriate maintenance tags. Kulikovsky (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I but I can not agree with that. Please provide and justify any specific examples of the alleged misrepresentations. Otherwise, these are groundless claims.Biophys (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

POV problem

The article pays way to much attention to the theory that Russia is governed by FSB. Kulikovsky (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is about "Putinism" as described in sources. Yes, many of them describe Putinism as the FSB rule. What exactly do you suggest? Put this theory in a separate article? Then please suggest a title for such article. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a kind of propaganda

I think that this article should not be placed in encyclopedia. We have a lot of sources of different political propaganda, but we do not have to use them to write the articles in Wikipedia. Also, I think that it is very notable, that there is no such article in Russian at all. If someone thinks that this is because of threat for Russian editors from bloody Putin's regime - I may just laugh about it.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A question

I think too much space was dedicated to opinion of a single person (Miganyan) who is not really notable (we do not even have an article about him).Biophys (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course Migranyan is notable. He is a Doctor of political sciences, a professor at MGIMO, etc, etc. Just because we don't have an article on him, does not mean that he is not notable. In fact, he is probably the only person cited in this article who has even attempted to define Putinism beyond a "catch phrase" which is envoked in order to criticise Putin by his critics, which makes the vast majority of this article WP:SYN, and a possible copy of Criticism of Vladimir Putin, in which case it should be merged into that article. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The absence of the article is not obviously suggest the absence of notability. You can write the article about this person, this is rather notable person to have the article in Wikipedia.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting observation

We do not have such article as Putinism in Russian wikipedia, however, we have the article ru:Демшиза instead of it.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's just Putinism in action: just for the sake of experiment, go and try to create ru:Путинизм -- i am pretty cetain it will be promptly deleted as was the case with ru:Критика Владимира Путина, whereas you are free to mock Russia's nascent civil society in Демшиза. As i previously noted, the Russian Wiki has been hijacked by this gang the moment they realised it could be a channel of information beyond their criminal control (criminal because it is explicitly forbidden by Article 29 of the Constitution [37]).Muscovite99 (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It is amazing! I've only just learnt myself that such page has already been deleted 7 (!) times -- go by the link.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

What link do you mean? I really do not understand you. This article indeed was deleted from Russian Wikipedia because it contained nothing but crazy conspiracy theories that each Russian is working in FSB and so on (as well as this article in English Wikipedia). I think that such articles disrupt Wikipedia, violating such guidelines as WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. However, I'm sorry to inform you that admins of English wikipedia rejected the idea of speedy deletion of this crazy article.--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So why not start from ru:Демшиза?Muscovite99 (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But there are no crazy conspiracy theories in that article!--Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The image

The picture with Medvedev illustrates the election of a Putin's confidant and friend. Hence it seems to be relevant. See this ref for example. Lev Ponomarev said: "In my opinion, Medvedev tomorrow is just Putin today,"...In part, the appeal of Putinism ... and so on. I am not sure what was the reason for including another image of Putin.Biophys (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess Miscovite99 included the image because this is obviously a propaganda photo that was design to create a personality cult. He moved older image to a different place. I think this is fine.Biophys (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Guys residing outside Russia!

Please, relax: the fishing photo is NOT a joke (or parody, or anything else of the kind). This is an OFFICIALLY distributed (by the Kremlin press-office -- [38]) pic, however bizarre it may look to somebody detached from Putin's Russia. I think it is apt for the article because the piece is not about Putin, but about the quasi-ideology he had begotten (i choose my words carefully). Hence, we need him in a certain context. The context, naturally, is not fishing per se, it is propaganda of a rather peculiar sort, sometimes almost homoerotic, reminiscent, in this aspect, of what they had in the Third Reich. Biophys, you've hit the nail on the head.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The photo has nothing to do with Putinism as it is described in the article....it's a parody of course it is....just like the rest of this article. Just because it was officially distributed by the Press Office, means nothing, it was not distributed with the byline "Putin takes off his shirt for propaganda for Putinism"....it's him on a fishing trip....also, now Putinism is a quasi-ideology? Because this article makes out it is a full-blown ideology, and anyone who seriously studies Russia, and understands Russia, knows that there is no ideology per-se. So in essence, homoeroticism of the Nazi kind, is now an official part of Putinism, is it? There is no photo which embodies Putinism, because it not being an ideology there is nothing to propagandise per-se. Also Muscovite, the first person to compare anything to Nazi Germany loses. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

If the fishing picture is related to propaganda then please point that out in the article, and please source it. You include a picture on the basis of relevance, not amateur art criticism. Using the shirtless pic. seems to insinuate that that is how Putin wants to us to view him...when there is nothing to back that up. Such intimate pictures see politicians become figures of fun: the British media had a good laugh at the Putin pics, and as a parallel example, the French media used pics of Segolene Royal in a bikini to trivialize her.

I meant joke in a disparaging manner...the picture has nothing to do with Putinism (sources would suggest not), and this is the first time I have ever seen an article of a political nature with such an informal main photo. It might be appropriate if Putin were a fisherman (the point about it being official is moot: so are many others). I had not checked the talk page beforehand: I changed the photo independent of this discussion and there was no hostility on my part. This issue could very eaily be solved by just including a normal portrait. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This article is not about Putin as a person, but about "Putinism" as a social system that has been allegedly created in Russia (some experts think this is a "Counter-intelligence state", other think this is a "Corporation-state", and so on). Hence the normal portrait of Putin is certainly irrelevant. What Muscovite inserted was a propaganda image widely circulated and debated in Russian press. If this image was relevant or not is a matter of debate.Biophys (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Just as, I suppose, the regular portraits at Stalinism and Leninism are irrelevant? How is Putin's topless pic relevant to his political ideology and social system? Or propaganda (bear in mind, we need sources, and not ones that provide the sort of conjecture designed to sell papers)? Please provide a caption detailing why the shirtless pic. is relevant to Putin...because otherwise you're just pushing forward original research, and a pic. that is, without any explanation of what it is showing, quite laughable, I assure you. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• • Guys, cannot you follow the link? The photo IS a piece of OFFICIALLY distributed Kremlin propaganda: it is posted on the RF President web site.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Who says that it's propaganda? Academics? Historians? You? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Many publications in Russian media (one can provide the refs).Biophys (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Something more definitive, and with greater consensus is needed - not just contemporary media speculation. As a compromise - I would be okay with this pic. lower down, with a caption - "some in the media have speculated that this is propaganda" - something along those lines. The first pic. should just be a standard one of Putin though, no excuses. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No way. This article is not about Putin.Biophys (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Then what's it about then? Put In Ism? --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yohan euan, the article does not state it is propaganda. No speculation either. The photo was chosen because it is both officially sourced AND the most grotesque (yes! If it were not, you would not have objected, in the first place), thus giving one an idea of what Putinism is in photo art (let's put it this way).Muscovite99 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

If this article isn't about Putin then why is it all about the Russian authorities during his time in government? Why does it provide a history of his regime? It seems off-topic if it's not about Putin. Why are all virtually the references about Putin? (I fear Putin's actions in government are being conflated with a neologism). And there are still no references...and at least one of you (Muscovite99) is clearly failing to take a neutral point of view on this matter. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Russavia, stop talking about the photo as "meant to mock or anything else" (your edit comment). The pic is sourced to the official Presidential web site. It is just your dislike.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to summarize, Yohan euan o4, Muscovite99 and Russavia believe that some personal photo of Putin is needed. Only question is which photo is more relevant. This should not be a regular photo, but something more relevant to the subject. Hence let's use his impressive "propaganda photo" rather than anything else.Biophys (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No. As per the above. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, your opinion is definitevely against the overwhelming consensus on this count. I can understand that the photo may well be not to some people's liking, because it is so utterly ridiculous for a head of state (and on his official web site, to boot). But this is exactly why it is relevant: it shows up one of the essential aspects of the regime Putin has created.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Overwhelming consensus? Or your assertion of ownership of the article? Both yourself and Biophys want a 'grotesque' image, and both myself and [[User:Yohan euan o4 have said it needs to be a neutral image. I would advise you against gaming the system here by claiming something which obviously does not exist. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I typed up a longer note which was lost when my browser crashed and I don't have the energy to duplicate it so here's a somewhat shorter version. As an outsider to this debate who happened by it, let me just say that I find it completely unacceptable to have an image lead this article simply because, as Muscovite99 says, it is "the most grotesque." That's a rather shocking statement for a Wikipedian in my view. This is an encyclopedia and that's not how we choose our images, regardless of their provenance (the Russian gov released this one themselves, yes, I get it).

Images should illustrate their subject, and unless you explain to me why a horribly ill-advised propaganda photo of a shirtless Putin best illustrates (it is the lead image) "Putinism" then I'm extremely inclined to remove it. I'm sure I could make an equally compelling argument that this picture and a caption explaining the fate of the person photographed tells us something about Putinism, but I would never argue for it as an opening to this article. In case I'm being too opaque the issues here are NPOV and also original research, though that should really go without saying.

So barring multiple secondary sources telling us why this photo is quintessentially "Putinismesque" or what have you I think it needs to be removed. Please feel free to convince me otherwise based on Wikipedia policy.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The "most grotesque" comment has not been lost on myself, and I have mentioned it at User_talk:Moreschi#Putinism; however Moreschi has taken no action, and I actually highly doubt he will. The Digwuren Arbcom has general sanctions available for editors who are treating WP at a battleground, and given this, I think it is high time that Muscovite at least receive an official warning on this, because the whole lot, as you can see above and below, is entirely unacceptable. We can't even discuss article content, because there is no point when the lead and photo are painting an absolutely negative POV. You may note the question below which Muscovite regards as "frivolous" and needs no answer, that being is this article an article on the neologism term "Putinism" or is it on what exactly? If it is on the term, then most of this article does not belong due to WP:SYN issues...if it is on an ideology, then this needs to be reflected. If it is on anything else, then this clearly needs to be spelled out, because as it is, this is merely just a WP:POVFORK of Criticism of Vladimir Putin. Thanks also for taking the time for comment here also User:Bigtimepeace, --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There's an argument expressed a couple of times above that because this article is about Putinism and not Putin the man we should not have a regular picture of Putin as the lead image. No rationale for that argument is provided and I find it completely unconvincing, but it's also worth it to note that our articles on Leninism, Stalinism, Peronism, Thatcherism, Gaullism, and Titoism (i.e. political ideologies associated closely with a particular political leader in a given country, just like Putinism) all have as their first image a photo of the founding figure of the ideology in question. Others such as Chavismo and Mobutism have no image at all. So I see no precedent whatsoever for leading these articles with a random, handpicked (and, it must be said, rather POV-laden) image that supposedly somehow embodies "_____ism." Because this seems to go against our past practices, and in the absence of a convincing counter argument, I plan to revert to a standard image of Putin in the next couple of days. Perhaps there is a place for the fishing photo later in the article, though a case needs to be made for that using secondary sources.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• So you too agree that some image of Putin is needed. The only question is which one. "I do not like it" is not an argument.. Sources please. We are going to provide images that are described in multiple sources [39], [40], [41] and relevant to the subject of this article. All these sources debate an image included by Muscovite99. If you can justify the choice of another image by sources - please do.Biophys (talk) 04:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• As an outsider to this debate, I really don't understand the objections to this image. It was released by the Kremlin and featured in several mainstream newspapers. The image perfectly illustrates one of the central elements of Putinism, as Orlando Figes states: "the flexing of Russia's oil-pumped muscles on the international scene". Martintg (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin turns the United States' plans for a unipolar world upside down.

No it doesn't, it illustrates Putin whilst fishing on a trip to Tuva with Prince Albert of Monaco. It is no more relevant than this:

Photos of Putin doing judo have also been widely publicised. So let's use that one, yes? --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this pic? Martintg (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Russavia) Martin my objections were clearly detailed above in my two previous comments - if you have a specific question about them then be specific. The fact that an image was released and has been discussed does not automatically mean we use it as a lead for the article, and the burden is on the person adding the image (it is a recent addition) to explain why it should be added, particularly when multiple people are objecting.

Biophys I'm afraid you are simply not responding to my comment in any way. My argument was not "I do not like it" (for what it's worth I don't like Putin or Putinism in any way whatsoever), my argument is that throwing this picture in at the beginning of the article is an OR and NPOV problem and also goes against established precedent for articles like this, which generally use a standard photo of the person in question. I said that quite clearly above, and basically you ignored all of my substantive points. If you comment again, please engage with what I am actually saying instead of throwing around Wikisms like WP:IDONTLIKEIT which have nothing to do with what I am arguing.

Thanks for providing links to several sources, but all three of these say nothing about this image relating to "Putinism", i.e. to the subject of this article. Only one discusses it in any detail, but all it does is make fun of Putin for not knowing how to fish (it's a jokey piece by a guy who writes a fishing column for God's sake). That has nothing to do with the subject of the article, as the subject of the article is not ways in which Putin has looked stupid. The second and third sources only briefly mention the photo, and the third is a blog post.

Again, the (still unanswered) question for those who want this photo at the top of the page is: how does this image exemplify or illustrate "Putinism?" You have not produced one source that says it does, so why do we lead the article with this image? A couple of editors here have decided it's a good illustration of Putinism, but you have not made your case and, more importantly, have cited no secondary sources that make that case (the fact that your best attempt so far is a fishing column says quite a lot). Again, the fact that the image has been discussed in the press is not grounds for inclusion - you must present secondary sources that tie it to the article's subject.

The burden is on Biophys and others to gain consensus for inclusion of the image, not on me to give you "sources" (I don't even know what you are asking me for - sources that say we should not use the image?). The image was added a couple of weeks ago, was removed and then eventually re-added. Three people here object to it as the lead image for the article. Therefore there is clearly no consensus on this issue, so the logical course is to revert to the previous version without the image.

It's obvious that there are lot of nationalist and/or political undercurrents to this debate (I don't have a dog in the fight of Russian politics FYI) so let me propose a compromise. Please consider this and ask yourself if it is really that important to you to have a shirtless Putin be the first thing a reader sees on this article (part of what made me comment here in the first place is that seeing the photo made me assume this was a ridiculous, biased article, and I think many would react that way).

As you say Biophys I agree we should have an image of Putin in the intro. I can think of two that would be fine: 1) A standard photo like this one since that is the kind of photo we have on the Stalinism, Thatcherism, et. al. articles; 2) This image of Putin and Medvedev (which I think you originally suggested Biophys) since it shows the continuation of Putinism beyond Putin's presidency and illustrates a sub topic in the article. I'm fine with either one of those.

If you want to use the fishing image, write a section on domestic PR or propaganda (whatever you want to call it) as this clearly seems to be a part of "Putinism" (i.e. manipulating media to strengthen the regime/heighten the personality cult around Putin). I would have no problem with the photo as an example of the domestic PR Putin's people do, and I don't think you lose much by having it half-way down the article.

So that's my proposed compromise which I think is quite reasonable. What is not acceptable right now is to ignore the very real objections from at least three different editors to having this photo at the top of the article. Let's try to work something else out.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also put forward this photo File:Vladimir Putin-4-crop.jpg. I'm not a big fan of photos such as this one as it is too tightly cropped, it looks like he is just a head; such photos look awkward for some reason. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days since I proposed the above compromise and I'm not hearing back from any of the defenders of the fishing photo (though conversation is continuing on other topics on this page). No one is really engaging with the points being made against having this photo as the lead image, and therefore in the absence of any further discussion in the near future I am going to be semi-bold and replace the current image with a standard photo of Putin. I'm not trying to avoid a discussion on this talk page - quite the contrary as you can see above - but since the issues with the fishing photo are being ignored I'm inclined to take action. If folks have alternative proposals please make them now.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

But you did not provide any sources that justify use of "standard" image.Biophys (talk) 05:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You've already said that, and I still don't know what you mean by that, and you still are not responding to the points I raised which is becoming rather frustrating. Image usage and placement in Wikipedia articles are not simply justified by sources as I'm sure you well know (did a "source" tell us which photo to use for the article on George W. Bush?), and it goes without saying that an image of Putin is not inappropriate for an article on Putinism—as mentioned above (and below) there are many other similar articles which use this same technique.

You have not explained why your image is the one that should lead the article which has been the issue from the moment I first commented here. This is not about a different image, it's about the one we have now. I would rather have nothing than the image that currently opens the article, and I don't need to justify some other image in order to remove the current one. You need to justify the current image in order to avoid its removal.

Your claim seems to be, "Some media reports have discussed the fishing photo in some way, therefore it should be the lead image for this article." But that is a highly illogical argument as the second statement does not remotely follow from the first. Many images of Putin have been discussed in the media, so what, exactly, justifies using this one? You still have not explained that or even tried to. Your image was added a couple of weeks ago without consensus: thus the burden is on you to explain why you think it belongs here in the article lead. The fact that it has been covered in the media is not good enough. Biophys you, or someone else, needs to make the case.

In doing so you need to explain why we are breaking with the standard set at our articles on Stalinism, Peronism, Thatcherism, Gaullism, and Titoism since that is clearly what we would be doing by including a wacky shirtless photo of the leader in question. You also need to explain how an image of Putin that has been widely maligned (you say that's why it's notable) leading our supposedly objective article on Putinism is not an NPOV problem (with a related OR problem). These are my specific objections and they have not even remotely been addressed.

Finally I've proposed the compromise of including this image later in the article in a section on propaganda, so I'm still interested in what you think about said proposal since you've said nothing about that either. My position on this whole thing is as follows: 1) The fishing photo should not be in the beginning of the article; 2) It's probably fine later in the article; 3) I'm flexible as to what the lead image should be.

This is obviously a dispute and I'm trying to work out a compromise (which I have a fair amount of experience doing here on Wiki) and would appreciate it if you would join that effort. If we can work out a situation where we have the fishing image later but something more neutral at the beginning, is that not a decent solution? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reply. First of all, this is not my image. I did not include it, and I replaced it two times by alternative images that are now included in sub-sections. Second, the meaning of "Putinism" has been defined differently by different politologists/commentators. Some of the definitions include the alleged personality cult of Putin in Russia. Three citations above claim this particular image to be designed to promote Putin's personality cult (do you need more refs? - this is not a problem). Hence it is relevant.Biophys (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Placing this image elsewhere in the article and not providing any other image in the lead would be fine if everyone else agree.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize you did not first include the image, I only call it "yours" because you support including it. As to your three sources, again: 1) The first is literally by a fishing columnist (i.e. not a reliable source for this article) and says nothing about a personality cult; 2) The second only briefly mentions the image, and does not say the image is "designed to promote Putin's personality cult"; 3) The third is a blog post, it only very, very briefly mentions the image, and does not say the image is "designed to promote Putin's personality cult". In fact the words "personality" or "cult" appear in none of these three sources, so you are very much reading that into them. More refs that actually discuss the photo substantively would be good, particularly one which relates it to "Putinism."

As you say Putinism has been defined differently by different commentators. I'm not questioning the idea that some people out there probably think this photo has something to do with Putinism (though I'll keep waiting for a source that actually says that), I'm questioning why this photo and not some other one that deals with Putinism (for example the one with Medvedev, or a simple Putin photo) would lead the article. It's a highly POV image (would you admit that?) and therefore a bad lead if you want to readers to think this article is even vaguely neutral.

I'm glad you're open to compromise on this. I'm not exactly sure why you are opposed to a different lead image (say just a picture of Putin) but if that's a big deal so be it. If the fishing photo is to be used later we probably need a section on domestic propaganda which would be useful anyway (at this point I just don't know where else to include the photo - it simply does not relate to any of the current article content which is another part of the problem). Also we don't need unanimous consent to make this change since that was never achieved to add the image to the article in the first place (furthermore consensus on Wikipedia obviously does not have to be unanimous).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Based upon this, I have removed the photo. I have not replaced it anywhere else, as there is no relevant section to place it. A "grotesque photo" of Putin is not the major issue on this article however, it is everything else that is below this section. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to do that later today so obviously I support this removal. I tried to get a substantive discussion going on this issue but it didn't really happen, and the fact that no credible (to my mind) rationale for leading with this image has been offered means we should not use it as the lead. I'm fine with some other more neutral image in the intro as I mentioned above. I also would, again, suggest a section on domestic propaganda which would very likely be an appropriate place for the fishing image (no one seems interested in this, but it seems like a crucial topic for this article). Let's not edit war over this image please. There have been strong and valid objections registered to it and it should not have been included to begin with since there was no consensus for it. If the removal sparks a continued conversation all the better.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cannot see any meaning in your argument that the image is "highly POV": the image was posted on the President's official site -- that's a major point, as this means the President's press-office itself does not deem it "POV". Also, i cannot see any point in a discussion in which one of the active participants (pushing his/her view) is an admin: i do not imply it is a violation, i am just saying such discussion becomes quite pointless.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid both of your comments suggest you don't have a great deal of understand of how Wikipedia works. I am an admin, yes, but I am commenting here in my capacity as an editor, which all admins are also. Because I am involved in this dispute, there is no way I would use any admin tools whatsoever and of course I have not threatened to do so, nor even mentioned at any point that I am an admin. This is standard operating procedure. Admins comment on articles and content all the time (surely you've seen that before?), they just don't use admin tools when they are involved in a debate, and the views of an admin about content do not carry more weight than those of other editors. I hope that clears that up a bit and makes the discussion seem less "pointless."

As to the NPOV issue you are not grasping the argument. I know this image was released by Putin's people. I've already said that I know that above and I believe asked folks to stop mentioning that (perhaps you did not read all of the discussion). That is not the issue at all. The fact that Putin released the image does not make it automatically neutral. No doubt thousands of images have been released by his government, so why did we pick this one? I'm sure images like this were released by the Bush administration in May 2003. Such images later became incredibly embarrassing for Bush, as the fishing image has become to some extent for Putin. We do not lead our Iraq War article with a "Mission Accomplished" photo (though we do use one further down in the article, which is what I have repeatedly suggested for the fishing photo) because it instantly gives an unbalanced view of the subject (ridiculing the execution of the war immediately via image). The same thing is happening here with the Putin image. It has been, folks say, widely ridiculed in Russian sources. We don't start off an article about a political ideology with a photo of the fellow behind that ideology that has been made fun of as being ridiculous. This is the NPOV problem and it would be obvious to 90% of the people who regularly edit Wikipedia.

I am a neutral party here. I have no love whatsoever for Putin and in fact have an extremely, extremely critical view of him that for all I know matches up pretty well with yours. I do have to question your neutrality here Muscovite. You said above, "the photo was chosen because it is both officially sourced AND the most grotesque." The goal of this article is not to make Mr. Putin look grotesque, it is to write a balanced article about Putinism. You seem more committed to the former than the latter, which is perhaps why you are having difficulty understanding why this image is so problematic in the article's first paragraph.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate image suggestion

Good grief! It's quite simple. Book covers have been used (at low res, for fair use, relevant to a particular theme) to illustrate articles. That works well here, as that is where the neologism originates. Pick a book that deals with "Putinism" (the word, inside the book) and use the cover. Done. PetersV       TALK 07:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A good suggestion, however the book would have to deal directly with Putinism (probably in the title I would say) and even then the fair use argument would be more than a bit sketchy given the way Wikipedia deals with copyright.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I like these two:

• protest poster in Georgia and
• Putin as judo icon

PetersV       TALK 06:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

POV

Apart from being a whole lot of WP:SYN, the article does not tell us exactly what Putinism is. As it stands now, this is just another "criticism" article. I find it absolutely incredulous that for a supposed encyclopaedic entry on this alleged -ism, the words sovereign democracy are not mentioned at all. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, it provides several partly different definitions of the term. If you find any refs that connect "Putinism" with "sovereign democracy", you are welcome to include them.Biophys (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If not to play words, "sovereign democracy" of course relates to "the political system of a Russia". ellol (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• As some one residing in the RF, i can tell you guys, the term had almost been forgotten. It was merely one of the propaganda cliches churned out by Surkov. The essence of Putinism is, above all, the institutionalised corruption and lack of transparency. I would partly agree with Russavia on this count; but the article ought to be excused as it highlights the phenomenon still in progress and of which we know very little -- we shall learn much more after its collapse, which may be nigh.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  Russavia, you haven't put forth a single valid reason why this article does not comply with WP:NPOV (the principal requirement thereof being attribution of opinions, which is strictly observed here). If you believe that something essential is missing from it, just go and complement it. The name of the article is a term which in itself is not entirely neutral (as is the case with many -isms such as Stalinism), which is dealt with in the lead as it should be.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro POV tag

On Russavia's tag of the intro as POV because it's "100% negative" (per edit summary) the article is already tagged, the intro clearly states the term is primarily used as a pejorative, ergo the intro is accurate and shouldn't have been tagged in the first place. Tags don't exist to express personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'll wait for a few more comments before deleting the tag. PetersV       TALK 18:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with you absolutely (Also see my postings above).Muscovite99 (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The tag was removed but I've added it back. Stating in the intro that the term is usually used in a pejorative fashion does not function as a free pass for writing a POV article. The second paragraph begins "Thus, the system is primarily characterized by lack of transparency in governance, cronyism and pervasive corruption" which is written as a statement of fact rather than an opinion (I happen to agree with that assessment, but that's irrelevant). I don't see any sources which question the whole notion of "Putinism" in any way (there must be some), and the view of Putin and his supporters is not really dealt with. Part of the problem here is that the article topic is ill-defined. If it is only about "Putinism" as some critics have defined it then much of the content (which does not directly discuss the concept of "Putinism") would have to be removed. If it is about the Russian political system under Putin (a broader topic) then the scope would need to be expanded to avoid POV problems.

It's a problem that in reading through most of the content I can't tell what this article is even supposed to be about. Quite frankly right now it's a bit of a train wreck, and NPOV is a significant issue. The tag is wholly appropriate.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I requested comments at "Back to the topic at hand" (q.v.) where Putinism is discussed in three aspects by a recognized and respected analyst--which from my reading pretty much matches Putinism in its various current aspects--and all I've gotten is that it's all anti-Putin dreck. I myself have found sources which, at the onset of Putin's first term, describe "Putinism" anticipatorially as a hope for democracy and elimination of corruption but the nay-sayers can't be bothered contributing anything other than quotes from Putin and other off-topic content as some sort of proof that Putinism is baseless slander. Until we see some commitment to create objective content that is something other than the contention that "NPOV" means "you say one thing bad (that's specifically mentioned in the context of Putinism by name), I say one thing good (that doesn't actually mention the term Putinism)" it will remain a mess. Unfortunately, those who vociferously object the most would rather engage in WP:IDONTLIKE IT than contribute encyclopedic content that is directly applicable. PetersV       TALK 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't have a constructive conversation on content with people who change the topic to baby-eating. PetersV       TALK 21:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly folks are having trouble working together on this page as you suggest, and tongue-in-cheek comments about baby-eating don't help matters (but of course I had nothing to do with that comment or discussion). Nationalist political disputes are among the most fraught on Wikipedia, obviously, and it can be difficult to move forward. It might be useful to suggest working together to add new content that most all editors can agree on. For example, another editor in the section you link to above suggested bringing in the "Putin view" so to speak and I think that would be useful and add some balance (it's also hard to argue with adding something about Putin's view of Putinism, though we still have the issue of whether or not this article is only about things that have been said about "Putinism" (using that term) or rather about Putin's political system/Putin's Russia - I'm still unclear). Maybe that work could be linked to work on a new section about domestic propaganda efforts, which could be illustrated by the "fishing photo" currently in dispute. It seems "both sides" would have new content they are interested in (and, most importantly, which would improve the article) if something like that was attempted.

Regardless of who is to blame for the difficulties here (and personally I'm not going to get much more involved than I currently am), there is currently a problem with NPOV in this article - that's just a fact. Until the article reads less like a hit piece on Putin a POV tag is warranted.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Whitewashing Soviet Past

There's simply not enough evidence to justify the claim. Besides, this position is merely Russophobic: according to that position absolutely normal worldview "My country, right or wrong" is treated like "whitewashing Soviet past", reassuring the totalitarian rule, etc, etc. Not fair at all, and American readers must know it's not fair. ellol (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That is why I put the Original Research template on this section, but Biophys removed it. It is pure synthesis to link this with Putinism. But this isn't supposed to be a NPOV article anyway, so what the hell. Let's include a section on Putin eating babies for breakfast, after all, some nutcase somewhere will have said it and some nutcase will eventually include it here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As to what Putin said, he stated:

Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine drama. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and compatriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.

There is has been no attempt to even allude to NPOV by editors in presenting this synthesis into the article, and certainly there is no such thing as objectivity. It is no different to taking that speech and cherry picking parts of it to come up with, Putin said:

I...consider...Russia...is...a...terrorist...state. It is my...belief.

He did speak those exact words, after all. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, you know, there are multiple sources about Putin eating babies: [42] [43]. Moreover, there is a single source claiming that Putin does not actually eat babies: ("разве что младенцев русский царь — он же президент Путин — не ест") [44]. What makes quite enough stuff to write a NPOV section about Putin actually eating babies. ellol (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

p.s. that way of quoting authors was referred to in Soviet literature as "quotations torn out with blood". ellol (talk) 08:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the first two sources are not reliable sources, the archipelag.ru source is a reliable source, so it is more than valid for inclusion into this article, but I think it's best to wait until we obtain reliable sources for the opposing POV, in order to keep WP:NPOV. Perhaps a thorough search of the ramblings of Litvinenko, Latynina or Novodvorskaya will reveal some baby-eating accusations? Perhaps there will be enough to spin it off into Vladimir Putin eats babies for breakfast, and in that we can include many of the same quotes from this and the other attack articles, and we can possibly make readers believe that he doesn't kill the babies before he eats them; he, of course, eats them alive...and whole. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) I am sorry, but what history books sponsored under Putin's administration say about the Soviet legacy tramples on the graves and memories of the dead. Serious whitewashing which can all be more than reputably referenced. "We all suffered, we've moved on" (paraphrasing) is not a sufficiently moral response indicating any commitment to insuring that past does not happen again. PetersV       TALK 19:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And I am sorry, but what has it got to do with Putinism?!? Absolutely nothing. Zilch. You are all just proving that this is just another POVFORK, which if isn't cleaned up quick smart, will be taken to AfD, because it is 95% WP:SYN. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no any notable and reliable claims about eating babies. If it were, one could create something like Blood libel. No problem.Biophys (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Put a more neutral term instead of "Whitewashing", added "patriotism" as Ellol obviously expanded the topic. There ARE claims about the Putin regime seeking to "whitewash" (the word is a quote from the IHT quote, in fact) the Soviet-era crimes; and this represents an important integral part of the subject matter here.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

See my comment below on Putinism versus criticism of Putin. There is a clear and unambiguous difference, not a fork, not a synthesis, not a POV fork. It's more like 95% WP:IDONTLIKEIT I rather suspect. PetersV       TALK 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And the question still remains, how is any of that section related to the term Putinism? This is an article based on a neologism after all isn't it? Or is it an article on an ideology? Perhaps someone can explain to me exactly what this article is exactly, because as far as I can ascertain, it is just another mish mash of Criticism of Vladimir Putin. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This question is still unanswered. Until such time as it is answered and until such time as the problems are rectified, the OR and POV templates are not to be removed, or I will be asking for arbitration enforcement under the Digwuren case. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Russavia, no one here is under any obligation to answer your frivolous (in this case) "questions". The section pertains as it describes what has been happening under the Putin regime, which is what is designated by the term Putinism. If you do not like it, it is just your problem.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I am convinced, for example, that "Criticism of Stalin" and "Stalinism" are obviously separate. No direct comparison made, but it's quite clear that "Putinism" is, in fact, a framework for dealing with the history of Russia, the society of Russia, the governing of Russia--both domestic and foreign policy. PetersV       TALK 00:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Putin' it another way... there is an article about Putin (Vladimir Putin), there is an article criticizing Putin's conduct in office, i.e., leadership and tone set (Criticism of Putin), and there is an article, mainly critical, about a way of dealing with Russia and the world which has spread beyond Putin, the person but which all goes back to Putin, the person, and the tone set (Putinism). PetersV       TALK 00:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that still does not answer the question. What exactly is this article supposed to be about? I will WP:AGF, however, the way that I read what you wrote, leads me to believe that you think it is entirely ok to have a blatantly POV article such this, without even setting out what on earth the article is supposed to be about. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Short of outlining the contents, I answered your question quite clearly. "Uncritical" (appears to me to be a goal of yours) does not equal un-"POV," neither does "critical" equal "POV":

1. Article about Putin is bio about life and career (mention of criticism, et al.).
2. Article about criticism of Putin is about his personal conduct of his career and actions in office and the significant downside of the results thereof, no different than "criticism of Bush" article, which wound up a keep
3. Article about Putinism is about the cadre--public or private sector--built around him as the the result of his actions in office and the manifestations in and impact of economic, domestic policy, and foreign policy. A neologism meaning "Putin's legacy in action", but it's too early to have a "legacy" article, so "Putinism" does the job. PetersV       TALK 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I should mention that from my perspective, for an editor who bandies about AGF and threats of invoking the Digwuren arbitration against editors, your insistence that any tarnish on Putin's name is a POV (and therefore baseless) attack on Putin is a perfect example of not assuming good faith on the part of other participants here. I can separate out my personal feelings about Putin versus writing objective encyclopedia articles regarding himself personally and his impact on Russia and abroad and perceptions thereof. And so I find it difficult to view as constructive, or moving the dialog forward in any fashion, your repetitious charges of POV+POV fork. PetersV       TALK 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic at hand

I find this analysis quite germane and to the point. Specifically, Putinism consists of three primary elements (the last also including rehabilitation of Stalin). I've quoted sections below to facilitate discussion of improvement of the article which I believe focuses too much on what here is considered the second element of Putinism (particularly reading the introduction, which IMHO does not capture Putinism in all its dimensions).

What is Putinism? First, it is a reassertion of the state, a counter-revolution against democracy, which in the eyes of the president's supporters brought Russia to the verge of ruin during the 1990s.

...

The second element of Putinism is the intimate connection between politics and business. Senior state officials control and own the public media, sit on the boards of state-owned corporations and enrich themselves from it, have lucrative connections with the oligarchs, and own large shares of the country's banks as well as its oil, gas and mining companies.

...

Nationalism is the third main element of Putinism, and perhaps the key to its success. Putin's nationalism is more complex than the reassertion of Russia's influence in the "near abroad" of former Soviet satellites (notably against the pro-western governments of Georgia and Ukraine, see Thomas de Waal, page 38) or the flexing of Russia's oil-pumped muscles on the international scene. At its heart is a long historical tradition of imperial rule and resentment of the west that has shaped the national consciousness.

...

From the start, Putin understood the importance of historical rhetoric for his nationalist politics, particularly if it played to popular nostalgia for the Soviet Union. Polls in the year he came to power showed that three-quarters of the Russian population regretted the break-up of the USSR and wanted Russia to expand in size, incorporating "Russian" territories such as the Crimea and the Don Basin, which had been lost to Ukraine. Putin quickly built up his own historical mythology, combining Soviet myths (stripped of their Communist phraseology) with statist elements from the Russian empire before 1917. In this way his regime was connected to and sanctioned by a long historical continuum, a Russian tradition of strong state power, going back to the founder of the empire, Peter the Great, and Putin's native city, St Petersburg.

...

The rehabilitation of Stalin is the most disturbing element of Putin's historical rhetoric - and the most powerful, for it taps into a deep Russian yearning for a "strong leader".

...

Perhaps we can now have a more constructive and focused dialog going forward. PetersV       TALK 18:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The analysys is not worse and not better than any different one, usual blah-blah. By the way, what if to include some United Russia or Putin's statements? Let the regime speak for itself, for there's a great possibility its ideologists have caught the core question better. After all it's Putin who's supported by 80+ percent of the population, rather than all these blah-blah journalists. ellol (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That is the opinion of but one commentator. I would honestly suggest reading the book by Richard Sakwa entitled "Putin: Russia's Choice". Sakwa is a Professor at the University of Kent with a specialty in Russian politics, and is one of the most objective books I have read. In the book he doesn't glorify Putin, nor does he criticise Putin for the sake of criticising. Another great source is http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/russian/ - as I have said elsewhere, it is quite refreshing that an establishment linked to a foreign government (in this case the UK government) has objective analysis of issues relating to Russia. Many of these articles are sourced to people with an axe to grind, and it shows in the overall look of the article. But first things first, what direction is this article supposed to take? As Putinism is mainly used in a pejorative sense, might I recommend a change in the name of the article to something neutral? But to do that, clear direction as to the scope of the article has to be defined. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And why not to quote the United Russia? "We are the party which was never afraid to take the responsibility" [45] and the like, easy understandable by either Russian or international reader. Otherwise, how can an average reader understand what did 100 million Russia's people vote for? ellol (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) Well, the very first article on your "another great link" states:

One of the most significant developments in current Russian historiography is the treatment of the Putin era in the 2007 textbook Noveyshaya Istoriya Rossii 1945-2006 [The Most Recent History of Russia...], by Aleksandr Filippov.11 This book is intended as a guide for teachers of history in Russian schools. The book minimises the repression of the Stalinist period. It praises Stalin’s success in establishing the USSR as a major power whilst failing to acknowledge in any significant way the human costs this achievement entailed. By contrast Mikhail Gorbachev is described as having a limitless love of power.12

Stalin is supported (viewed nostalgically, even positively) by many Russians too. Mussolini, Hitler, Tito were supported in their time. "Support" is not evidence of anything other than support. I take it then that you concur the above passage is totally objective.
   Your response of "but one commentator" is dismissive instead of addressing a potential categorization of Putinism according to three themes. I'm disappointed.
   "Putinism" is what it is. The above passage, for example, while critical of Putin, does not do so in the specific context of "Putinism" so it is appropriate for "Criticism of Putin". The analysis/commentary I quoted originally, on the other hand, does apply to "Putinism."
   As I've described in my own editorial assessment of the materials and themes, there is a clear differentiation between:

• a biographic article on Putin,
• criticism of Putin, and
• the neologism "Putinism": etymology and what it encompasses.

So, let's try this again without the blah blah. (P.S. restored some which appeared lost during edit conflict) PetersV       TALK 20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good source by PetersV. This is written by Orlando Figes, a quite notable historian, an author of several excellent books about Russia. He is actually very moderate and "pro-Russian" (unlike Pipes) if anyone is familiar with his books.Biophys (talk) 04:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What especially amuses me is strong unwillingness of new era "democrats" to read the original documents. Did you ever attempt to find out what a hell of a lot of history textbooks is recommended and admitted by the Russian Ministry of Education before proclaiming the start of a neo-Stalinism era? Look. These textbooks (all featuring History of Russia for two last grades of Russia's schools: 10th and 11th) are recommended for use in 2008/2009 year of study:

• Андреев И.Л., Данилевский И.Н., Кириллов В.В. под ред. Данилевского И.Н., Волобуева О.В. История России (базовый уровень)
• Волобуев О.В., Кулешов С.В. под ред. Данилевского И.Н. История России (базовый уровень)
• Борисов Н.С. История России (базовый уровень)
• Левандовский А.А. История России (базовый уровень)
• Левандовский А.А., Щетинов Ю.А., Мироненко С.В. История России (базовый уровень)
• Журавлева О.Н., Пашкова Т.И., Кузин Д.В. под ред. Ганелина Р.Ш. История России (базовый уровень)
• Измозик В.С., Рудник С.Н. под ред. Ганелина Р.Ш. История. История России (базовый уровень)
• Павленко Н.И., Андреев И.Л., Ляшенко Л.М. под ред. Киселева А.Ф. История России (базовый уровень)
• Киселев А.Ф., Попов В.П. История России (базовый уровень)
• Сахаров А.Н., Боханов А.Н. История России (базовый и профильный уровни)
• Загладин Н.В., Козленко С.И., Минаков С.Т. и др. История России (базовый и профильный уровни)
• Сахаров А.Н., Буганов В.И.; Буганов В.И., Зырянов П.Н. под ред. Сахарова А.Н. История России (профильный уровень)
• Шестаков В.А. под ред. Сахарова А.Н. История России (профильный уровень) [46]

And these textbooks (for same period, and among which is A. Filippov's work) are merely admitted for use in Russia's schools:

• Уткин А.И., Филиппов А.В., Алексеев С.В. и др. под ред. Данилова А.А., Уткина А.И., Филиппова А.В. История России (базовый уровень)
• Чубарьян О.А., Данилов А.А., Пивовар Е.И. и др. под ред. Чубарьяна А.О. История России (профильный уровень) [47]

The "root" document: [48]

And this list makes the claims about Putin's attempts to rewrite Russian history essentially meaningless. As you can see, the criticized textbook is only included in the secondary list of admitted books while the main list of recommended books features whole 13 different textbooks in Russia's history for X/XI grades. ellol (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, guys, I point out that the majority of English-language sources are written by Russophobes, Russophobia becoming a common place in the modern English-world discourse. ellol (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the Russian, independent and democratic news sources, you see the controvercy adequately reported (e.g. lenta.ru/2007/12/26). But when the reporting crosses the border, Russophobia takes place. ellol (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

AGF, please. All the objections here so far amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and if those don't work, charges of Russophobia. All Russia has to do is denounce the Soviet past for what it is and the entire planet can move on. As long as folks like Felix Dzerzhinsky have their statues quietly restored to their places of honor, Russia's moral core will continue to fester.

   On a more constructive note, to Ellol, do you have the years of publication? That is critical to the discssion of texts used in schools and how/when old texts are replaced with new. PetersV       TALK 16:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You may agree or disagree with me on my assessment of facts, you can't disagree on facts.

Stalinist past was denounced at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956. Please, make yourself familiar with decisions of the Congress, not cancelled until now. In particular, read Khrushchev's report at the Congress, believe me, it's worth reading even after 50 years: (Russian) (English).

Please, provide a prooflink for info on Felix Dzerzhinsky's statues.

Years of publications.

Let me check a few:

«История России. XX - начало XXI века», 11 класс, Волобуев О.В., Кулешов С.В, 2004 [49]

Мироненко С.В. Щетинов Ю.А. Левандовский А.А. "История России. XX - начало XXI века. 11 класс: Базовый уровень", 2009 [50]

Измозик В.С., Рудник С.Н. под ред. Ганелина Р.Ш. История. История России (базовый уровень) 2004 [51]

Киселев А. Ф., Попов В. П. История России. XX - начало XXI века. 11 класс. Базовый уровень 2007 [52]

etc.

They are all modern textbooks, if you mean that. About a half of listed above textbooks must be featuring XIX century, the others are about XX/XXI, that's the usual way a history course is split in higher grades.

ellol (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Please, note Putin's actions to commemorate victims of Soviet repression, and how was it played down in press: [53] [54]. Ask yourself, why. ellol (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll cite you Putin saying that even as a drunk student he knew the Baltics weren't occupied together with "historical analysis" that the deported were all Nazis, criminals and whores. Your example (Putin's commemoration) is part of the "But the Russians suffered too/the most!" logic which makes it OK that the Soviet Union exported that same suffering upon others and we shouldn't bother talking about it anymore, the Russians have suffered enough. I am sorry, but no matter how heinously the Russians suffered, it is not an excuse to move on without accounting for the suffering visited particularly upon the Baltics and Eastern Europe.

   Dzerzhisnky's bust was lovingly restored to its place of honor in the courtyard of the Moscow police in 2005, being rescued from the trash heap of despotic history. I'm surprised you don't know your own current affairs.

P.P.S. BTW, you should lead off with someone other than quoting Mark Almond on your user page, his outfit believes that any opponent of the despotic Western powers is their friend, even genocidal maniacs.

Thanks for the information on the books, we'd have to see what they say about Soviet actions in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, the topic I just alluded to.

Lastly, current events indicate that the denunciation of Stalin didn't stick. PetersV       TALK 02:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you can buy all these books from e.g. internet book shops.

Whatever important may the issue of Soviet occupation of Baltic states seem for you, it has no relevance to Putinism but to Soviet occupation of Baltic states.

If you are unable to see an absolutely adequate Putin's action to commemorate victims of Stalin's repression other than in relation to the situation in Baltic states, perhaps you shouldn't write about Russia. We do care about victims of Stalin's repressions, try to understand it. ellol (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, rehabilitation of Stalin, identified with Putin, is rehabilitiation of what Stalin did. Since Putin insists the Baltics were not invaded et al., Putin is preserving Stalinist propaganda. Putin's actions to "commemorate" victims is inadequate when Novosti continues to print articles that the Baltics are "confused" about history and how long they have existed. "Caring about victims" is lip service unless you fess up about the history that led to the people in question being victims, try to understand it. Germany fessed up and moved on long ago and Hitler's memory is universally denounced. In Russia, imperialism is on the rise (and it's been stated, "as it should be") and Stalin is #3 on the greatest Russians ever list.

   BTW, I only use the Baltics as the simplest litmus test. There are examples of the same for every country in Eastern Europe. In the context of this article, obviously the Baltics would appear only apply if a reputable source in the discussion of Putinism uses them as an example. PetersV       TALK 21:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Rehabilitation of the Soviet past and patriotism section

Just to note that this section doesn't discuss at all the topic and is just a bucket of quotes of Putin saying forget the past and move on. Needs a complete rewrite especially after Russavia's latest Putin expansion. PetersV       TALK 16:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There's actually no whitewashing, Putin's quotes prove that. And yes, we will have that much amount of information as needed, to provide adequately position of each side. ellol (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that this article is simply a WP:SOAPBOX article, and that section proves it. Why does it need rewriting? All I did was added context by expanding on Putin's own words. An editor has tried using Putin's words in such a way to soapbox, and provided no context, in an attempt to prove Putin's guilt with his own words. All I have done is provided full quotes, which negates their own soapboxing point. But again, what exactly does that section have to do with Putinism anyway? That question is going to be asked everytime, as is whether this article is on the term or the system under Putin (Two different concepts)? Richard Sakwa for one, Dale Herspring for another, and amongst others have stated their belief that there is no grand plan of whitewashing of the Soviet past, but it is simply putting the past behind, and concentrating on the future, first and foremost; the same thing happens around the world; Australia has not reconciled itself with its history of treatment of Aboriginals; the United States has not reconciled itself with its history of native Americans and slavery; etc, etc, etc. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"That question is going to be asked everytime, as is whether this article is on the term or the system under Putin (Two different concepts)?" Your question is syllogistic. The term can't exist without whatever conduct it is that is so associated with Putin that it is considered a manifestation of "Putinism." It's not (only) about the "system under Putin", as Putinism can exist in the absence of Putin manifested in the conduct of individuals other than Putin. PetersV       TALK 06:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless sources can be provided to link this to so-called Putinism, I am proposing that this entire section of supposed Soviet whitewashing be removed as pure synthesis. If sources aren't provided in the coming days, I'll go ahead and remove it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Я восхищен вашей настойчивости. PetersV       TALK 02:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Insertion of irrelevant materials

I suggest to include only sources that at least once mention word "Putinism".Biophys (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good discussion of Putinism: A Geneology of “Putinism”, Putinism as new religion (Russian).Biophys (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Completely support that books, analyses, etc. must specifically refer to "Putinism". Peters V TALK 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course you do, then that means that we can exclude anything that will debunk the negative attacks article that this is. This is a classic example of WP:GAME. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Your response is the ultimate nadir of not assuming good faith. I'm tired of people using WP:ACRONYMS to conduct personal attacks on editors. I'm not "WP:GAME"ing anything. You wish a counter-point to the Western concept of Putinism? Please feel free to find articles by reputable commentators or books by reputable historians who debunk Putinism by name. PetersV       TALK 06:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) By the way, here's a Russian source (commentary at lenta.ru) discussing Putinism (путинизма, putinizma). People were already worried in 2004 about the 2008 elections. Let's include it, no? PetersV       TALK 07:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Got to agree, sources should mention "Putinism", otherwise it is WP:OR. Martintg (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

THe term is not popular in Russia, and appears mostly in sources of negative nature.

If it refers to merely critique of the modern political system, it should be renamed to anything like "Criticism of Russia's political system", so it would be clear that it's a depiction of only negative traits of the system.

While the term 'Putinism' pretends to be an adequate description of political system in Russia, thus it must include not only criticism, but positive views as well, to form neutral POV.

So I definitely disagree with the proposal.

ellol (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Putin is not Russia so Putinism is not "Russia's political system" but "Putin's political system". This is English Wikipedia so WP:COMMONNAME applies, it is irrelevant if the term "Putinism" is not popular in Russia. But I agree with you that this article must also have a section on the positive aspects (if any) of Putinism to form a neutral POV. Martintg (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

We have already articles about Russian political system; all appropriate materials can be included there. This article is about specific term/expression.Biophys (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is the "Putin's political system"? ellol (talk) 12:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(od) re: political system: When Putin arrived, the expectation was that he would bring with him a no-nonsense clean-up of corruption. Instead, per my excerpt above, what has developed and been nurtured is that "element of Putinism [which] is the intimate connection between politics and business. Senior state officials control and own the public media, sit on the boards of state-owned corporations and enrich themselves from it, have lucrative connections with the oligarchs, and own large shares of the country's banks as well as its oil, gas and mining companies." Not to mention, picks his successor to babysit his job (my prediction, one term, BTW, now terms have been extended to 6 years, can't blame Putin he's not President, but then he can come back for another 12 years at the helm), remains in power as prime minister. PetersV       TALK 23:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Byophys, in an article about a special term one should use sources that actually use this term, not the ones he feels correspond to his understanding of this term. Here are just some examples of sources used in the article that do not use "Putinism": [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. What they actually talk about is the influence of Putin on Russian political system and/ or Russian political system in 2000-2008. "Putinism" is only used in 3-4 US right-wing newspapers (of those sources one may call reliable). FeelSunny (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New image added by Biophys

I don't have a major problem with the new image of matryoshka dolls of Russian pols added by Biophys, though it does seem rather non-applicable to this article since Putin is not even included in the image (at least that one can tell). I'm not sure what the thinking beyond adding it is but I certainly won't make a big deal of it either way. I still think it makes the most sense to lead with a standard image of Putin as we do for other "ism" articles based around a political leader. One way to think about this is in the long term - say, 25 years from now - when Putin will likely be off the political scene and possibly even dead, and younger people reading this article will first want to know what the guy looked like when he was in power. But I won't press for that either. So long as the fishing image or other images along those lines are kept out of the introduction I'm not that worried about the lead image.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a major problem as matryoshka dolls have nothing to do with Putinism. In fact, having those dolls in the lead show exactly how shite this article really is. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR

Much of this article seems to be a WP:OR. Actually, all but a first part. The reason is the article speaks about putinism while majority of sources does not even contain this word. So using these sources information to describe the concept "putinism", used by 3-4 sources from the list is just a WP:OR, as you make an assumption that journalists from these sources speak about the same thing. This is very common to use a term "Saakashvili's dictatorship" used by many [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] sources over the world, and then put in the article some other sources that speak of Saakashvili as a "president", not "dictator" to describe the alleged "dictatorship". FeelSunny (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an overwhelming use of Putinism in the press. And if you felt like contributing instead of continuing the WP:ACRONYM denunciation attack, you could find positive definitions and expectations of "Putinism" at Putin's arrival in office, expectations being, for example, stamping out Yeltsin-era corruption. It's out there. There's nothing WP:OR. Please feel free to comment on the respected commentator's three aspects of Putinism (above) as a guideline for better organizing the article. PetersV       TALK 06:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Peters, you did not answer to the main question: how can the article include multiple sources that do not use the word "putinism" to describe "putinism"? Examples of this misleading use of sources are: [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74]. These five sources go right one after another, and none of them uses "Putinism". As well as absolute majority of sources here does not. FeelSunny (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is without a doubt the central problem of this article, and until it is dealt with the article will never be a good one in my view (that's not to disparage the work people have put into it, because the flaw is in the overall conception).

From what I can tell it is not widely accepted that "Putinism" is the go-to word to describe Putin's government and/or political philosophy. It's a bit of a neologism, largely (as the article admits) used by Putin's opponents. If this is the case as it appears to be, then this article cannot simply describe aspects of Russian government and society over the last nine years (which it does do) and call that "Putinism." Instead, and this is I think what FeelSunny is saying, the sources for the article should be limited to those that actually use the word "Putinism" and then describe what that means. Clearly we have a number of sources which discuss Putin's regime without talking about "Putinism," and I have seen no convincing argument as to why those should remain in the article.

A counter example for the situation we have here is our article on Thatcherism. As the lead there points out, the Oxford English Dictionary has defined Thatcherism as (this is an exact quote as I looked it up) "the political and economic policies advocated by Mrs. Thatcher, esp. as contrasted with those of earlier Conservative leaders." Given the linguistic importance of the OED, we can take that to mean that there is relative agreement that "Thatcherism" is very much a valid catchall for Mrs. Thatcher's policies and politics. Unsurprisingly, the OED does not contain an entry for "Putinism," which I take as a sign that there is not wide agreement that this is the word to be used to describe Mr. Putin's policies and politics (it would be interesting to consult the Russian equivalent of the OED and see if there is an entry there).

If it has not been proven that "Putinism" equals/is the same as "Putin's policies and politics" then a significant portion of the article content is simply not valid. If folks think they are the same thing they need to make a better case. As it stands I would argue that every source (be they positive or negative in their view of Putin) has to invoke "Putinism" directly rather than simply talking about him and his government. The latter type of content belongs in articles like Criticism of Vladimir Putin, Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin, and Vladimir Putin legislation and program.

So, yes, there is a real "original research" problem with this article in that a bunch of the content does not say anything about "Putinism." I'm not interested in doing anything about that because, to be frank, I think this article is too conceptually flawed to get anywhere in the immediate future. I must say I'm rather shocked that we have the above spin-off articles yet there exists no article called Presidency of Vladimir Putin, which is really the topic for much of the material here. Interested editors might be better served by creating that than trying to discuss "Putinism" when that term is, as of now at least, so ill-defined.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you do not find "Putinism in any one of the dictionaries issued in Russia over the last 10 years. That is what several major Russian linguistic sites I consulted say. "Putinism" sounds rather strange to me (I'm Russian), this is not quite the way words describing politics (not political parties) are made in Russia. in russia when you call something an "ism" you would most likely talk about a party or some philosophical movement. And definitely not the way Putin is called in most (opposition or supporting) medias in Russia. Surely this is a Western neologism. However, it has no real use even in English-language medias: compared to 447.000 uses of Thatcherism [75] Google finds Putinism is used [76] 16,5 times less frequent in the web, though there are much more (62.400.000 [77] for Putin, 10.400.000 [78] for Thatcher) materials. Quite obvious "Putinism" is used approximately 100 times less frequent than "Thatcherism" in the sources about corresponding politicians. I would also propose all interested users compare elementary statistics of the use "Putinism" to "Maoism", "Gaulleism/ Gaulleisme". FeelSunny (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly anything I have referenced, and as at least some here have agreed (who I may add some here perceive as anti-Putin) , sources cited for "Putinism" should have the word Putinism used somewhere--that said, a book or article title or chapter/section title is sufficient. That said, what is specifically cited does not have to be a quote of the form "Putinism is xxxxx...."

   I really don't honestly see how the concept of the article is "flawed." I've provided a lengthy extract from a respected analyst as a basis for organizing the article and all I get back is why the article sucks, is original research, et al. As long as one camp seeks to be constructive and the other camps seeks to whack the article, there will be none of Bigtimepeace's desired dialog here.

   That the term "Putinism" has arisen and is seen as indicative of specific behaviors means the term merits its own article and separate discussion. I'm sorry, but most of the objections I see are "stop beating up on Putin." I'm not responsible for his behavior or the perception of his behavior. I'm sorry that "Putinism" can't refer to being the positive factor anticipated at his initial taking of office (to which I've also seen Putinism used). But Putinism has evolved to be and is what it is.

   As for "proof" of what Putinism is about, again, it at least seems to me that none of the objectors here have deigned to provide much feedback to my solicitation of discussion other than expound along a continuation of what they think needs to be deleted. As for what an "ism" is, it's what it evolves to be. Saying "ism"s are a party or movement is the WP:OR conjecture here. Bushism, for example, is neither of those. PetersV       TALK 15:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, how about Путинизм как лошадь Мюнхгаузена ("Putinism is a horse of... ") authored by Dmitry Oreshkin, a highly regarded political analyst? About how Putinism has manifested itself as schizophrenia in Russia's energy policy? Or Putinism's difficulty in resisting "совковыми"? (That would be harking back to the Soviet Way.) PetersV       TALK 16:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Peters, frankly, I would not cite "ej.ru" as a reliable source. It's not a magazine actually, just another site about politics. You can not see the owner of the media, even in Alexa.com info. Though Alexa gives some very interesting statistics on the site - and it does not look as that about a reliable source, as it's just does not have any substantial share of readers, much less than a small town's newspaper. Here is a ej.ru info [79] I also checked for the "highly regarded political analyst," and found that he has a degree in geography [80]. he has about 3-4 publications on politics/ political process in non-online medias, which I think is not quite enough for being "highly regarded". I'm just explaining this all as being from abroad, you may actually perceive this author and source as reliable. However I would not argue against using this source in the article. The question is what about other sources that do not use "putinism" neither in the text, nor in the reference list? Huge portion of the article is based on them.
2. Two last questions from your post do not seem adequate to discussion - former b/c it's your own POV i'm not going to discuss, 2nd - b/c I can not understand the phrase, it's beyond rules of grammar of both English and Russian. I can not understand what do you mean by "Putinism difficulty in resisting by soviet-style ones" (as that may be one of the possible ways of translating the phrase).
3. Again, let's get back to the question: why most sources in the article do not use "Putinism"? Do we consider any source on modern Russian politics to be a source on "Putinism"? FeelSunny (talk) 08:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with any sources that speak of "Putinism" in some fashion and give a sense of what that refers to as I clearly said above, so I'm guessing the source you mention would be fine though I cannot read it. Peters you seem to agree that sources in this article should refer to Putinism directly, and my whole point was that there seem to be a number of sources in the article which do not. Would you agree that those sources (be they positive or negative) should be removed?

While I can't speak for other editors, none of things I've said on this page remotely amount to "stop beating up on Putin." As I've said, while I have no connection to Russia, I'm quite opposed to Putin and his regime and cannot really think of anything good to say about him. A lot of the debate here (from "both sides") clearly has a strong ideological tinge, however my complaints about this article have nothing to do with protecting and attacking Putin but rather with Wikipedia standards. I'm not simply trying to "whack" the article, and criticism of content can indeed be very constructive for an article and for the encyclopedia as a whole (you seem to be suggesting that criticizing is not helpful, but if an article has problems as I think this one does than being critical is actually quite necessary). I'm happy to engage with you on previous points you have brought up, but I'm not sure what "lengthy extract" you are referring to or what your exact plan for organizing the article is. So long as it involves using sources that discuss Putinism I'm probably relatively okay with it, so maybe you can lay out specifically what your thoughts are or point me to your previous comment on the issue.

The point is we need to get a handle on what, exactly, the topic of this article is, and simply saying "Putinism has evolved to be and is what it is" does not get us very far. Just to be clear, I'm not proposing that this article be deleted, rather I think it likely that the scope needs to be narrowed considerably.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If you could take a look at the extended quote @ Talk:Putinism#Back_to_the_topic_at_hand, I thought that laid out Putinism cogently according to three primary aspects. That's not to say there aren't different means of categorization, but the full article (link provided) is a thorough and lengthy piece by a respected analyst that is worth consideration as a basis for reorganizing the content of the article.

   I'm not going to invest time in editing the article proper (beyond minor issues such as editors insisting "Putinism" is only used by American right-wing polemicists) until we can form a consensus that is based on sources referencing Putinism (per Biophys, a week and a half ago now) and move beyond the various charges and counter-charges. I'm willing to move forward with a consensus of those editors who believe the need for the article stands on its own merits. PetersV       TALK 21:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent source, very much on topic and by an expert in the field. The general aspects of Putinism he lays out are obviously: 1) Reassertion of the state at the expense of democracy; 2) Overlap between politics and business, and the corrupt nature of those connections; 3) Russian nationalism (of a rather traditional variety).

Our article currently talks about all of these to greater or lesser extents but this article is probably better than many of the other sources, and we should certainly include it in some fashion.

I googled around a bit and I find plenty of English-language sources talking about Putinism. Often it's only in passing, but will be a news story like this one which quotes or cites some reliable source in Russia about the nature of Putinism. It would be easy to find a bunch of these and thus bring in more brief views on the topic which actually use the term, as opposed to some of the sources now which do not.

I guess what I would propose, probably starting in a new section of the talk page, is an outline of all the aspects of Putinism which we think should be discussed in this article, and with a couple of links to sources for each topic so we know we have a basis for discussing said topic. I imagine we could use a fair amount of what is currently in the article but that a lot of other stuff would have to be dropped and that some significant re-organization/combination would be needed as well.

I would also propose a section immediately after the intro where we discuss the history of usage of the term and who exactly has used it over the years, to the extent that this is possible. Clearly it has been used by Americans on the political right and its worth saying that, but that certainly is not the only group who has used the term as you point out. A couple of paragraphs along those lines would probably be good before going into specifics as to how the term has been defined.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

May I propose to get back to the original question: what about sources that do not speak about "putinism"? Do we regard every source describing Russian politics as a source of information on "putinism"? FeelSunny (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the answer to that is categorically "no" as I've said, and I get a sense that PetersV might agree with that at least somewhat as well.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll will wait for "yes" or "no" from Peters. If both you and Peters would think the answer to the question "Do we regard every source describing Russian politics as a source of information on "putinism"?" is no, then we'll have to answer another question: what to do with sources and parts of the article that speak about "Russian politics", and not about "Putinism". However, if Peters "yes" to the first question, that may change the matter. P.S. I informed Byophys about this discussion on his TP, still no reaction yet. FeelSunny (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My vision for this article is that it would only include sources that discuss Putinism in some direct sense, so those that do not should be removed. I would propose a mini-project whereby editors cull through the sources and develop a list here on the talk page of what warrants removal since it does not deal with Putinism as a concept. This may require whole sections to be taken out or it may not. From what I can tell there are plenty of sources out there that talk about Putinism directly, so I while we might lose some material I think there is almost certainly more that can be added.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. FeelSunny (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• How about this article?Biophys (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting source on the history of the "Putinism" word

A wonderful essay on the sources using this word - and the sources of the use of this word. [81] —Preceding unsigned comment added by FeelSunny (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Biophys mentioned this source a week-and-a-half ago. I apologize, but I can't tell from some of your recent edits whether you're agreeing with some points and continuing the discussion or bringing something up not realizing it's already been mentioned. PetersV       TALK 21:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not used anywhere in the article, though it's one of the most relevant sources on the matter. That is the only reason I provided the link. When I react to a proposal I write agree or oppose. Other cases are solely up to your ability to understand. I can consult you on any cases that puzzle you. FeelSunny (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, while apparently well informed, it's still a blog. There's no reason not to have it as an external link or to use for ideas on article organization. We still haven't had that discussion yet despite the appearance of several sources which can offer guidance should we choose to accept them. PetersV       TALK 01:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing

Frankly, all this fuss is an overreaction. A while ago I wrote the article Clintonism with tongue in cheek, I admit, and I was immensely surprized that not a single American, neither Clintonist, nor anti-Clintonist, cared.

My suggestion is to move the article under a neutral title, Politics of Putin, since it will match the content. If someone still itchy, they may write a short lingusitical article about the term "Putinism" and its usage. But it is no way appropriate to have the article with the current title with secitons "Real or notional transfer of presidential power (2008)" or "Prognosis and aftermath".

Oh, btw, let's start betting when (1) the first article Obamism will be written (24, 000 google hits) and (2) how soon it will be nominated for deletion.

• Beat y'all! :-) - 7-bubёn >t 01:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

- 7-bubёn >t 01:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There's no scholarly definition yet, what Putinism might be (compare: Stalinism), and let's note that such -isms have occasionally been 'established' by authors who want to ridicule some powers-that-be. E.g. “Gorbachevism″/“Gorbachovism″ (a title of a book by Alexander Zinovyev), or ’Brezhnevism′ mentioned by the same satirist. I think we should still have an encyclopedia here, and encyclopedia is by its nature a bit conservative, in that it won't immediately grasp all neologisms used in media. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a scholarly definition, see this paper. Martintg (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, at first glance I could see that Putinism = Putin's views and policies. In my opinion, Putin's policies are mixture of Russian nationalism, moderate economic nationalism, authoritarian conservatism/statism. Putinism is not a new political ideology. If there is a new ideology, that's 'Sovereign democracy' rather. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 09:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The American Enterprise Institute? A right-wing neocon think tank? Well there you go, it seems the qualifier in the lead before wasn't off the mark after all. :) And Miacek, you will notice that sovereign democracy is not mention in this article at all, apart from a "see also". Also, can someone please tell Muscovite to stop removing the POV and OR templates at the top of this page, so long as there are issues which are unresolved. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What current version of article lacks

• Wording "Putinism (The Putin regime) is the ideology, priorities, and policies" creates strong impression that this word is officially used, just like Marxism, Leninism or Stalinism. I propose to clearly describe status of this word. Official wording is "Sovereign democracy" and Putinism is used by Putin's opponents.
• Wording like "Sociologists, economists and politologists emphasize " and then referring to Ion Mihai Pacepa and Former KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy is ridiculuous. The article becomes less credible as a result.
• Obviously insulting and senseless quotation: "Whole country. FSB owns everything, including Russian Army". Do they own opposition, too?
• "Some economists consider" is a weasel word, Wiki decided to avoid this.

Also I'd like to point dear User:Biophys to some considerations. First, he is quite right that some clique of power exists. It exists in every state and called "establishment". In Putin's Russia it consists not only from siloviki, but also from nomenklatura and komsomol. Why is this concealed in article?

Second, bird-view satanizing wording is not enough to persuade the reader. To persuade reader, it would be much more useful to mention names of establishment and their relatuions to KGB/FSB. Propaganda without support goves opposite effect -- this method widely used by contemporary pro-Soviet propaganda (reductio ab absurdum). I don't know why User:Biophys is so insistent doing that, his intentions claimed to be opposite.

Let me help you by providing names:

• Deripaska
• Potanin
• Polyansky
• Khodorkovsky
• Zhirinovsky
• Surkov
• Kudrin
• S.Ivanov
• Fradkov
• Nurghaliev

OK, show me siloviki here please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volodymir k (talk • contribs) 16:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary tagging

Russavia has NOt yet presented any valid reasons for his tags -- merely lots of dis[leasure about do not know what. All the statements in the article are referenced and presented fairly as opinions as per WP:NPOV. If he THINKs something important is missing, he is welcome to add hereto.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are reasons above, and it will be reinstated. The fact that there are NOT fairly presented neutral statements is reason enough for it. And I fail to see still how your POV of Soviet rehabilitation is part of Putinism. In fact, there is still no definition of what Putinism is. This should be split into a policies article, and then 1st and 2nd presidency articles. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Read the lead for the definitions.Muscovite99 (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And the reasons are absolutely POV. There isn't even an attempt to provide opposing views in the lead, nor in the article itself, and the article is full of original research, such as the BBC 'allegedly' referring to Putin as President in a recent article, being used as "evidence" that Putin is really in power. It is laughable and non-sensical to claim such a thing, and it most certainly isn't covered in any reliable source as such. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

reference no. 80

even if the statement is sourced, should wikipedia put a NPOV statement in an article? Mallerd (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No such an NPOV statement should not be in the photo, particularly as there are 100 million people out there who would disagree with the statement, after all they voted for him. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the double negative on purpose or...I mean I do believe that reference no.80 in that photo is POV and should be removed. Mallerd (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed it and Muscovite has re-inserted it. Feel free to remove it and provide an NPOV descriptor for the image. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

An overly critical article

Why does this article concentrate only on negative things? Why doesn't it even mention Putin's achievements? If it's only about criticism, shouldn't it be called "Criticism of Vladimir Putin" or something like that. Offliner (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Having read this article a couple of days ago, I still remember a graph showing the economy during Yeltsin and during Putin. I believe that implied at least one of his achievements. Mallerd (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Woops, a quick check showed me that the graph was indeed not in this article but in the Putin article. My apologies Mallerd (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead

I think the lead should definitely have a mention of his economic reforms. Offliner (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This article should only have quotes from Albats, Valeriya, and a host of other anti-Putin critics, because that's all that is allowed in this WP:COATRACK/WP:SOAPBOX article. Honestly, don't waste your time too much Offliner, Muscovite will soon enough know that it is not ok to WP:OWN articles and to be a POV-pusher in search of the "most grotesque" article possible. Just look at the rubbish about the BBC writing Putin is President, even though this is not on the website, and it has nothing to do with the section it is in. It is original research, pure and simple, and it's about f'ing time that an admin does something about this crap. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Offliner, I was being facetious with that. I say include it in the lead, if the opinions of yellow journalists are in the lead, there is no reason that analysis from the World Bank can't. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Between 1999 and autumn 2008 Russia's economy grew at a sready pace,[24] which most experts[who?] attributed to the sharp rouble devaluation of 1998, Yeltsin-era structural reforms, rising oil price and cheap credit from western banks.[25][26][27] In Michael McFaul's opinion (June 2004), Russia's "impressive" short-term economic growth "came simultaneously with the destruction of free media, threats to civil society and an unmitigated corruption of justice."[28]

Which "most experts"? Many experts also think Putin's reforms were a factor. And why must the economic growth immediately be followed by that blasting comment from McFaul? Aren't those criticisms described in this lead already? Why the repetition? Also, why not mention the fiscal prudence by Putin's goverment, which probably saved Russia from an economical catastrophe in 2008 & 2009. Instead of spending the oil tax money recklessly, they accumulated it in reserves, and this has now proven to be a hugely valuable thing. Offliner (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

And why did User:Muscovite99 move Smith's comments away from the lead? Why are they less important than everything else there? Or are only clearly negative comments allowed to be in the lead? Offliner (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC report

I have yet again removed the sentence regarding the BBC. Firstly, the link provided does not mention Putin as being President. Secondly, even if it did, it was likely an error on the part of the BBC, which isn't all that hard to do seeing as the guy was president for 8 years, and people are used to that (hell, I have also had to make such corrections on here). Thirdly, the existence of the BBC writing this, is not evidence that Putin is still in control. Fourthly, the entire sentence is synthesis (original research) on the part of the person who inserted this into the article. I have also had to remove weasel words, such as "most", and have also mark others such as "some" accordingly, as these opinions in this absolutely non-neutral article need attribution. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Using a typo by the BBC to illustrate a point is nothing but pure nonsense. Anyone who reinserts that piece of text should be declared a vandal. Offliner (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What belongs to this article?

From the lead: "Putinism (The Putin regime) is the ideology, priorities, and policies of the Putin system of government."

Muscovite99, please explain this deletion of material: [82]

Offliner (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Putinism

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

Reference named "russiaprofile":

• From Vladimir Putin: Putin’s Economy – Eight Years On Russia Profile, Retrieved on 23 April 2008
• From Anti-Russian sentiment: Peter Lavelle goes back as far as the Csarist era to illustrate Western distrust and disdain for Russia. Peter Lavelle; et al. (2005-07-08). "RP's Weekly Experts' Panel: Deconstructing "Russophobia" and "Russocentric"". Retrieved 2007-07-30. {{cite web}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |pub= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

---

There's of course not only Mikheyev to express the view that both Putin and Medvedev have power. His view may be shortened -- he's not actually an important commenter. But further sources search is to be done. ellol (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I do not see your point.

СЛУШАТЕЛЬ: Подмосковье, Николай. Коротко – Путин привел страну к сталинизму.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Давайте без эпитетов. Задайте вопрос.

СЛУШАТЕЛЬ: Каким образом народ может поддерживать Путина, если он привел страну к концлагерям.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Да нет никакого концлагеря, что вы за глупости говорите – где эти концлагери? Вы посмотрите на карту ГУЛАГа и посмотрите на страну.

СЛУШАТЕЛЬ: Сажают всех предпринимателей.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Ой, ладно. Жалко мне, что мне приходится заканчивать передачу на этом. Это, конечно, неправда, никакого сталинизма нет, никаких концлагерей нет - слава богу, что их нет. Однако я думаю, что если мы с вами, граждане страны, не будем критически относиться к тому, что вокруг нас происходит, то вот такие митинги, инспирированные или реальные, с просьбой «царь, останься», могут действительно проложить дорогу очень неприятным вещам в нашей стране, и весьма жесткому режиму. На этом все, спасибо всем, кто принимал участие в передаче, услышимся через неделю.

ellol (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Putin's platform

I believe there's a need to give some space to Putin's views expressed by himself, because otherwise it's 100% impossible to claim about adhering to the NPOV in this article. ellol (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the most notable of Putin's speeches/articles is the "Russia at the turn of the millennium", published in December 29, 1999. Something is needed to say about the importance of this article, not merely about the ideas of the article.

Like, Lenin's April Thesises are tremendously important not only by the ideas expressed in them, but by the exact historic context of the event, of the role they played in rise of bolsheviks. ellol (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What this article is about

No one answered my question when I asked this a while ago, so now I'm asking again. My suggestion is simply "policies of Vladimir Putin." We could even rename the article to use that name. If we only include statements which specifically use the term "putinism", then we are not going to have a balanced article, since most of that kind of material is negative. The main question here seems to be: which is more important, balance or focus? Offliner (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To answer that question, we need to ask ourselves are we here to help build an encyclopaedia, or are we here to advocate. If we are here to build an encyclopaedia, then the most important thing is balanced focus. At the moment, this is not a focussed article, it is just another copy of Criticism of Vladimir Putin. I agree it should be moved to something like Policies of Vladimir Putin, and have the guts ripped out of it, rewritten in NPOV language and keep to the focus. I have seen plenty of suggestions that because sources don't use Putinism they are being excluded; that is advocacy, and we aren't here to do that, and those who continue to do so probably won't be around for too long. As we are also supposed to be "academic", I still have trouble understanding why this article even exists in its current form; unfortunately due to advocating editors it is not something that AfD would sort out. If we look at it, Putinism has 89 scholar hits, Stalinism 36,000, Thatcherism 32,000. To look at something more contemporary, Clintonism, had 355 scholar hits, indicating that too is at the wrong namespace. Political positions of George W. Bush, although in bad shape, is more what this article should be like, except totally NPOV. So hence, my support is there to move it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Offliner's suggestion is a sneaky attempt to differentiate what Putin says from what Putin does, and base the article on former. But this is not how -ism:s work in politology. (Bushism is an obvious exception: this is an -ism that is all about what Bush says -- but even then, saying silly things was what Bush did.)

In any realist treatment, this article would be about these political choices of Russia that have been specific to Putin and his underlings, and their consequences. Not what Putin says, nor what Putin does that is not specific to Putin. This is how politologists treat political -ism:s. Of course, this isn't how propagandists treat political -ism:s, a difference which will lead into some conflict. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The "policies" article would contain both what he said and what he did, and third-party assesments of his achievements. But if you don't like the "policies" name, maybe we should split this article to Putin's first term and Putin's second term? Offliner (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Putinomics

A related concept is Putinomics [83] [84], sadly currently without an article. See also more than 7700 Google results.

Andrei Hvostov has compared Putinomics with Reaganomics in [85]. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have to create all these isms and neologisms? Why not just have a subchapter "economics" in Putin's policies or Putin's first term/Putin's second term? Offliner (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a former KGB man/agent

This quote was attributed to Newsweek, and it was claimed he said this during a speech. Having gone back thru Kremlin archive I can see no indication of these words actually being uttered, nor even alluded to. The transcript of his speech to SVR agents is here in English and in Russian. His speech to security service agents is here in English and in Russian. Having tried to find other sources for this statement, there are none. There are no scholarly sources which indicate he said this, and there are no other news sources which given indication of him saying this. Based on that, I have removed this 'urban legend' from the article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes you wonder at the motives of the person who added that fictitious quote then, doesn't it? Alt-o (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Crap, could anybody tell me what's this article is about.

Thre are more then 30 screen of text and statements like "Transfer-of-power operation". Like there was such operation and author saw it's blueprints. There are alot of other examples. What's the point of this article, please explain me.--Oleg Str (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

What a mess.

This article is in an appalling state. Not only does it not provide an adequate explanation of the title, it looks very much like the selective use of sources to support an authors prejudice. It is a shame to see articles like this appear on Wikipedia. Alt-o (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)