Talk:Putinversteher

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Putinversteher article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 September 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

Russia Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

German sources?[edit]

Why are there no German-language sources for this article about a German-language neologism? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:01, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are no german-language editors, I guess:-( By the way, please explain your tag. The topic is inherently non-neutral. What do you want me to write? Lembit Staan (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no German-language article on this. My concern is that the term may not be a German neologism, but an English one. The wording generally feels biased, i.e., who say "yes, but you have to understand Putin's position" is specifically problematic in using quotes for a quote attributed to nobody. Perhaps the article title should be Public image of Vladimir Putin in Germany. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I swear that when I was writing this article 3 years I had very hard time to find English sources among German ones. Now I can barely find ones It must be a by-product of online media moguls censuring tghe word "putin" to combat russian propaganda. Anyway, I added a major article from Die Welt.
This article is not about "public image of Putin", it is about a category of German politicians.
We don't write articles kind of Public image of George Bush in Iraq, unless there are scholarly sources which specifically discuss the subject in depth. Lembit Staan (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans who use that buzz word are all Atlanticist Politicians and Journalists but not normal Citizens and it is used as a nick name for Policitians, Scientists, Enterpreneurs and Intellectuals who critize the Russia policy of the German government. This buzz word is mainly used by americanized respectively anglo-saxonized Germans and by Representatives of the Establishment.--88.66.132.56 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable references that say so? Lembit Staan (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not but I can promise you that the normal Citizens doesnt use that buzz word. I personally met only one Turkish Immigrant who used it but that was during a Dialog in the Internet.--92.74.230.42 (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary citizens rather call those people "pro-russische Arschkriecher". You may translate this for yourself. 92.78.249.113 (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

deprecated =[edit]

The term "Putin Versteher" has become somewhat deprecated nowadays. It was popular in the 2010 but has been mostly replaced by the even more derogative terms "Putin Verteidiger"="Putin Defender" and "Putin Lover", I guess the later is self explanatory because it is a denglish term. Also other wording has become stronger over the last years. When Trump started his fake news campaign the term "Verschwörungstheoretiker"="conspiracy theorist" has fallen out of use and was replaced by "Verschwörungsparanoiker"="Conspiracy Paranoiac" because this condition is mostly a state of a mental illness. As a side note, the pacifist green party was always extremely anti-putism and anti-trumpism and has been very vocal about countering putin even by increasing army spendings, following the logic of "to preserve peace one has to prepare for war". I remember an essay of a green party military expert 10-15 years ago where he exactly predicted current developments. He was laughed at. Interesting times, indeed. Crass Spektakel (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can't label people with an epithet in Wikivoice[edit]

The article cannot label various people or groups as "Putinversteher" in Wikivoice. The term is a derogatory epithet, not a neutral description. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to disagree with your judgment. Important info restored. It was deleted with summary " We can't label living people with a derogatory political term in Wikivoice. I'm removing this for now. If it's re-added, it must be in a neutral tone, and not label people "Putinvwrsteher" in Wikivoice."

These are not in "Wikipedia voice": the text is cited to reliable sources. If you have problems, you could have added attribution, readily available from the sources cited. Please notice that these sources are not merely slapping "derogatory labels" on people: they are discussing the term and giving examples of the usage, and provide other encyclopedic info. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This "derogatory term" is not the only one applied to living people in Wikipedia. The first thing that came to my mind is the article "Useful idiot". I am pretty sure there are plenty of the kind in Wikipedia. Loew Galitz (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loew Galitz: The text that you've restored plainly labels multiple people and parties as "Putinversteher", which is a derogatory epithet. It's not even a factual label, because whether someone is a "Putinversteher" or not is purely a matter of opinion. Calling people "Putinversteher" in Wikivoice is absolutely unacceptable, even if you think it's "important info".

Having extensively edited Useful idiot, I can tell you that we do not label anyone a "useful idiot" on that page. In fact, we often have to deal with disruptive editors who try to use the "useful idiot" page as a platform to label whichever politician they don't like by the term. You can't label people "Putinversteher" in Wikivoice. Please self-revert. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've seen an edit war to insert the description of Donald Trump as a "useful idiot", that's why I remembered it. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the article right now, to remove traces of "Wikivoice" and original reasearh. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I removed several names whose footnotes did not discuss in detail the term "Putinversteher" or its application to a particular person. I.e its inclusion is either name-throwing, or wikipedian's original research. In ather places I added attribution. If you have issues with the remaining names, I am open to further discussion. Loew Galitz (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for additional input at WP:NPOVN and WP:BLPN.

I don't think merely inserting a phrase like "Some people say" in front of an accusation resolves the problem. The article should not be a laundry list of every prominent politician who has ever been accused of being a "Putinversteher". It only needs to give enough usage to illustrate what the term means, and it should be absolutely clear that Wikipedia is not in any way endorsing the usage. It's essentially an insult, not a factual description. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the phrase "some people say" is inadmissible if it is a Wikipediuans' editorializing, i.e., "original research". But it is perfectly OK if this statement is coming from an analytical article. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot say Person X is described as [derogatory epithet], cited to an article where someone uses the term to describe that person. On Wikipedia this is called using Weasel words; it needs to be attributed to the person/people using the label. This is particularly problematic for BLPs: for example, I hope you can understand the problem with writing the statement Barack Obama is described as "the worst president ever" cited to this episode of Hannity: [1]. It is even worse, of course, to directly say that so-and-so is "the worst president ever" or is [insert derogatory epithet here]. Value-laden labels should be attributed. Endwise (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. I believe thatthat in the current state of the article the disputed statemntes are cited to analytical articles, not to name-calling" articles. If you find refs to articles which use the term only for labeling, you are free to remove them. As you see from the article history, I removed several of them already. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing I do agree with many things said there, and I even significantly edited the article to address them. If you have any specific objections about pieces of article, please state them here. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The circle of people that may be described as Putinversteher is politically heterogeneous " -- "may be described" was tagged "by whom" -- I don't know by whom, this general statement is based on the sources cited. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The concern of 15 April 2022 appears to have been dealt with through thoughtful editing and ensuring proper voice and sources by 26 April. I cannot see anything now, in July 2022, in the article prose currently that is clearly not-neutral. So I will remove the article-level neutrality tag. If something requires further attention, tag the instance and bring it to the Talk page for discussion. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]