This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Snooganssnoogans: The recent edit[1] by @Mozad655: introduces a number of changes which are factually incorrect:
"in reports by Western organizations" - incorrect, Transparency International is merely compiling data provided by Center for Anti-Corruption Research and Initiative Transparency International Russia, a Russian NGO[2];
"Western human rights organizations" - incorrect, the accusations of "persecuting political critics and activists as well as ordering them tortured or assassinated" are originating primarily Russian media and NGOs (see below);
"perceived curtailing of press freedom" - incorrect, both forced centralization of Russian media after 2000, censorship and self-censorship are well-established facts documented primarily by Russian media themselves, with numerous protests of Russian journalists;
"citing alleged purges and jailing of political opponents" - contradictory, you cannot "jail" someone "allegedly"; either you jail someone, or you don't - if the very fact of jailing is "alleged" then it's already indicator of something being wrong with the law enforcement transparency;
All of these are documented to great detail in Media freedom in Russia, Human rights in Russia, Internet censorship in Russia, List of journalists killed in Russia - again, using primarily Russian sources. The whole edit is worded in such a way to give an impression that any complaints about abuse of power and censorship in Russia are originating from "Western media" rather than from within Russia, while the reality is completely opposite. This edit is highly manipulative and biased. Cloud200 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
For the record, none of the above claims or information by @Cloud200: dispute that the organizations are indeed western organizations. It is important for transparency to include these descriptors and avoid generalizations, in order to cover potential biases (including source selection bias). This may not be relevant to anti-Putin hawks but it certainly can be to others.
Further, the cited "transparency.org" is itself a western organization founded and operated first and foremost out of Berlin, Germany, not a "Rusian NGO".
Quoting[3]: Center for Anti-Corruption Research and Initiative Transparency International Russia, Rozhdestvenskiy Bulvar, 10/7, Building 1, Room I, Moscow, Russia 107031. As far as I'm aware, Moscow is located in Russia, not in Germany. Cloud200 (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Second, some Russian media, journalists and supposedly "NGOs" may claim curtailing of press freedom and human rights, just as many others deny curtailing, and they may be entitled to those stances, but we as objective observers are not entitled to make final verdicts based on either. Our job is merely to report who says what. For example, a political opponent may be imprisoned, and while his supporters will claim this is politically motivated, the opposing side will claim criminal wrong-doing and that the law applies to everyone. It is not our job to take side.
This is precisely what we are doing in the above linked articles documenting in great detail cases of abuse which you were attempting to obscure using WP:WEASEL and doubtful adjectives. Cloud200 (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
More generally, it does not matter whether the criticism originates from Western sources or selected Russian sources and Putin-critics, what matters is that this is mentioned and information is not taken at face value. Mozad655 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure, and this applies to even more extent to the state media. Cloud200 (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
His Excellency
I notice that this style, like the style honorable, is normally omitted from the info-box unless it is a formal title recognized by law, such as in the case of the Governor General of Canada. So I will remove it unless someone can find a source that it is an official title. TFD (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
"After the resignation of Yeltsin, Putin was elected in 2000 to succeed him.". Should this instead read something like, "After the resignation of Yeltsin, Putin immediately became acting president, and less than four months later was elected outright to his first term as president."? SecretName101 (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to make this edit. If anyone objects I'll allow them to revert that change, and discuss it here. SecretName101 (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Error in photo caption
The caption under the first photo in the "2004–2008: Second presidential term" section says: "Vladimir Putin with Junichiro Koizumi, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schröder, Silvio Berlusconi, George W. Bush and other state leaders in Moscow, 9 May 2005". However, Silvio Berlusconi does not appear in the photo or in the photo's own description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.63.161 (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Please drop the "His Excellency" honorific from the infobox called him His Excellency Vladimir Putin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexiscid (talk • contribs) 04:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Already done — Tartan357(Talk) 07:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Edits to Putin's page
Some editor says, don't write 'as acting president'. I ask why.
If you write 'acting ' only, it doesn't convey full import. It may mean acting as if in theatre. Shyamcalm (talk) 06:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Not in English - not in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.2 (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Probably, there is a mistake about the number of deaths during the Beslan school hostage crisis in the article about Putin:
The article about Putin tells that "The Beslan school hostage crisis took place in September 2004, in which hundreds died. Many in the Russian press and in the international media warned that the death of 130 hostages in the special forces' rescue operation during the 2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis would severely damage President Putin's popularity..."
The article about the Beslan school siege "also referred to as the Beslan school hostage crisis or Beslan massacre)[3][4][5] started on 1 September 2004, lasted three days, involved the illegal imprisonment of over 1,100 people as hostages (including 777 children),[6] and ended with the deaths of at least 334 people".
ONLY THE SECOND is sourced:
BBC, 22 December 2006[1]:"The Beslan school siege in September 2004 killed at least 331 people, many of them children. "
The Washington Post, September 7, 2004[2]: "Russian officials revised the death toll Monday down to 334, including 156 children. But close to 200 people remained missing, out of the total number of hostages that officials now say was 1,180."
The Boston Globe. 8 December 2006[3]: "[...]bringing the total death toll to 334, a Beslan activist said.[...]Two other former hostages died of their wounds last year and another died last August, which had brought the overall death toll to 333 -- a figure that does not include the hostage-takers." ".
There are reports in UK papers he's quitting.--JimWae (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I only see reports in sources that we've listed as unreliable on WP:RSP. Or some reports mentioning there are reports in those unreliable sources. Is there a reliable source? Nfitz (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
:The story was reported by The Sun and was picked up media deemed reliable in Wikipedia. The Kremlin has denied the reports. I don't think it matters where it was originally reported, we shouldn't add it unless it is confirmed or becomes an ongoing media story. TFD (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Which reliable media, User:The Four Deuces has picked up the story, other than reporting that unreliable media have reported this? I suppose one could note (not in the lead, where it was first added!) that there have been unsubstantiated rumours from unreliable about his health, that have been denied. Some of this is getting into BLP territory with unproven accusations about an particular illness. Was The Sun one of the papers that was recently reporting that President of North Korea was on his deathbed? Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
We need to establish a consensus on the main image of the article, because I see some minor disagreement on this. Should we choose First or Second? Or something different?--Renat (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Of the two, I prefer the first one. I think the second one is oversaturated and the shininess is a bit glare-ish. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree, and what's more, I would crop the bottom of photo #1 as there is too much clothing. Decrease the clothing area by half, so image is slightly wider than it is high, to focus on Putin's head.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm having the graphics people crop the image as I type this. The one in the article is really low quality, though you can tell it's Putin, it doesn't really scream "Putin" like #1 does.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
ThirdFourth And what do you think of these photos? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Number3 is interesting, in that Putin looks like he is thinking, rather than #1, in which he looks stubborn and somewhat ("Putinesquely") inscrutable. Quality not obviously different between these two photos. I would say that #1 is more "iconic", and am trying to get the crop of it into the article.--Quisqualis (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
And what about fourth image? I like it. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I think his eyes appear somewhat shadowed in the fourth image and thus one of the others is preferable. The first and third images seem equally appropriate (since the first has been cropped), and because of that I don't see the point in changing it. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Fifth
I believe the fifth image would be the best for usage in the lead. It fits very well, and is from 2018, not old at all. And is very high quality.
I agree with the 5th one. Danloud (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the dark lighting of the fifth image makes it of lesser quality. Danloud you're wrong that the fifth image is the most agreed upon (it has two people agreeing to it, whereas the first image has three). @RenatUK, Quisqualis, and Roman Kubanskiy: could we get your thoughts to prevent edit warring? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Fifth. Noelcubit (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Noelcubit: I believed it was 3-3, but it's possible I misinterpreted Renat's "Done" comment; if so, it would be 2-3. But either way, per WP:CON, consensus is not the result of a vote. I have been reverting because consensus is supposed to be reached before it is changed, instead of everyone just repeatedly changing the picture. I will start an RfC to bring in other users so it can be settled. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so this is the newest image of Putin (19 January 2021). I like that more. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
RfC
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Overall, the bulk of users favor the fifth image to be used in the infobox of this article (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 07:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Which picture should be used in the lead? (Numerous images proposed above in prior discussion.) Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Lean fifth I like the lighting and composition, but I'm not a fan of the angle. Is there not one of him looking to the left? ~ HAL333 21:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Would also be fine with 6. ~ HAL333 17:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I've added another image. @HAL333, @Danloud, what do you think about that? (Ping me, as I rarely come here) Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Lean first. I think the first, third and sixth images are equally appropriate, so I lean towards the one it's currently set as, but would be fine with either. I think the second and fifth are of poorer quality – the former due to oversaturation and shine, and the latter due to the darker lighting. I'd pass on the fourth one because it's darker around his eyes – that's only a minor quibble, but there are better options proposed. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Can people please provide reasons for why they prefer one over the others? You shouldn't really just vote or just say you like it (WP:AADP). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Fifth: Better image. Looks much more like Putin; because of the slight smirk. Noelcubit (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Fifth: simply like it best.--Moxy🍁 16:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Fifth: It is the best image. Clipasie (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Against first - shows mostly tie. Against second - low photo quality, overly lit. I like Fourth as background is not busy, unlike remaining candidates Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Fifth: I do agree with the users who have chosen "number-five", and the mentioned photo shows a better face of Vladimir-Putin. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 14:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Comment: @Noelcubit:Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RfC is resolved. (WP:RFC). Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Fifth: It is the most appropriate image. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Second - More direct angle appropriate for identification. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Second Agree with Morbidthoughts. Readers can see his full face in the second image. Some1 (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Second, and fifth as a next-best option. Also, our photos for Xi Jinping, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Emmanuel Macron, etc., show all these world leaders smiling. Our current article [5] shows Putin deadpan, and some of the RfC options here [6] appear to show him practically frowning. Does that reflect something about how Russian people or Putin himself smile less, or that smiling is not expected for Russian politicians? Or does that reflect the way that we at en wiki view Putin? -Darouet (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Awards
The "Ig Nobel" prize should be removed from the list. In not other leadership biographical article does Wikipedia sanction the listing of fictitious or satirical awards. This satirical award should be removed from this section.Moryak (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"Palace"
Nawalny's story about "Putin's Palace" has turned out to be fake news. Does anyone want to correct it? --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.184.121 (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
"... turned out to be fake news" - says who?--Renat (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
BBC is reporting that Russian billionaire Arkady Rotenberg has claimed ownership and that the "palace" is a luxury "apartment" (more likely a condo) complex.
Not an "apartment" but "quarters". The devil of understanding is in inaccurate word usage followed by inaccurate translations.Moryak (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The "palace" very clearly exists and is easily seen by going to Google Earth.Moryak (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
So what? Arkady Rotenberg, a close friend of Putin, can say whatever he wants. No one has ever claimed that Putin de jure owns this palace, so I don't see any contradictions.--Renat (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
No reliable sources have claimed that Putin's Palace ever existed. The media provided claims that it was sold in 2011, and now the Daily Mail has an article saying that the building was levelled six years ago. So I think we should cut it down to one line unless there is any corroboration that it actually ever existed. TFD (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Darouet: as far as I understand, TFD just joking (and confuses inexperienced editors). There are many reliable sources confirming the existence of the palace and Daily Mail was deprecated long time ago.--Renat (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@RenatUK: I see. My assumption was that TFD meant that no reliable sources have claimed they knew the palace belonged to Putin (presumably the building itself exists, whomever it was originally intended for). Looking at your comments above, you're saying that the palace is or was intended for Putin's personal use, even if legally owned by some other wealthy Russian person? -Darouet (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
No rs have ever said the building existed. They have merely reported what people said about it and video and still pictures. Apparently you can't go there and take pictures and it's pretty blurry on Google maps. TFD (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Darouet: Yes. You don't need to own the palace to use it. Arkady Rotenberg said: "... I am the beneficiary". "He gave no further financial details of the purchase or how it had been funded."--Renat (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I thought he was a billionaire. You're saying he needs help to buy it, or what? -Darouet (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
@Darouet: As far as I know he is a billionaire. I am just giving you the quote. Rotenberg said that he is "the beneficiary".--Renat (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Commercial properties usually have mortgages, which allows landlords to earn higher rates of return. Also, many developers use long-term leases up to 1,000 years rather than outright ownership. TFD (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The military service section should be corrected. He was not a colonel in the military during the conflicts listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.30.51.233 (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
..Star Putin.. 79.65.73.77 (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
... semi-protection in the context of protecting the political image. e.g. Some of the former heads of state of the European Union. Has generally forbidden! Wikipedia.org article about himself. But.
It is necessary to clarify and improve. Vladimir Vladimirovich
should be unique. He has to reject semi-protection articles. In particular . Through the efforts and methods of the GRU / GU. Why? 13 attacks on President Putin. Car accident for President Yeltsin. ... Via the efforts of the GRU / GU P. And now! Some of them . Want it again. To win the presidential trust. Via a special "half protection" from Wikipedia articles. Terror and pressure. To authors and participants, users, users of Wikipedia. They write about Vladimir Vladimirovich. GU want to buy the President of the Russian Federation at a cheaper price. Half protection as the price for trust. For example . Colonel GU Gorshkov. "You remember to september"? Separate obscene sentences.
Yes, that's right . Throw in regularly. References to the moral and ethical level of their authors. Much more. GU has to work against newspapers, magazines, media corporations, etc. Bullying and insults. In a million tirag. To suppress . This will be the job! Yes and . The "half protection" of Mr. Oberste is needed there. "G arsch ..."WikiUser7865432345678765432 (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
President of Russia title change?
Should we change "President of Russia" to "President of the Russian Federation"? Though Russia obviously means Russia, it is also used to refer to the Soviet Union, where Putin was born and served as a KGB officer. Plus "President of the Russian Federation" is Putin's official title, and I don't see a need to dumb it down when it says those words when you click the link to the President of Russia page. If this change is made to Putin's page, I also propose the change to be made to Boris Yeltsin's page and Dmitry Medvedev's page.
Hayden64 (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Being typically considered a "foreign name", shouldn't there be something as a guide for the pronunciation of Putin's name? From a cursory search, in IPA, I think it should be something like (\vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪr vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪrəvʲɪtɕ ˈputʲɪn) in Russian and (\vlædɪmɪər vlædɪmɪəroʊvɪtʃ puːtɪn) in English, though I do not speak Russian and really have no idea if this is accurate.Ffc1 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Religious policy: confusion in the description given in this article
The first line of the section on Religious policy (which in any case should read Policy towards Religion), the following ambigious sentence appears:
Buddhism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Judaism enjoyed limited state support in the Putin era ... Enjoyed, does this mean they are no longer enjoying limited state support? Should not the sentence read: Buddhism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Judaism have enjoyed limited state support in the Putin era (i.e. meaning it is ongoing). The section continues in the same ambiguous vein and should be amended.
American writers need to learn how to use the perfect tense in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.40.43.135 (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
no mention of martial arts claims probably being fraudulent
A certain relativization. In martial arts mastery. Against SHWGK / GU / GRU.
After 13. More or less successful assassination attempts. On the life of President Putin. Vladimir Vladimirovich continues. Engage killers - losers. From the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. To "deify" / curb / punish. Boys and girls. Users Wikipedia.org Having touched this dirty topic.
In Russia they say "13 times - not ...". The President is politically flexible and resourceful. Looks for a common denominator. For about "uniting efforts. Military and civilian power in the country. Klzhicheva figure. A certain" Tiger in a goat's skin "becomes. Gial mon Ideal (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2021
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Correct a typo by adding a space after the period of a sentence under the “1996–1999: Early Moscow career” heading of the “Political career” section.
“He occupied this position until March 1997.He was responsible for the foreign property of the state and organized the transfer of the former assets of the Soviet Union and Communist Party to the Russian Federation.”
to
“He occupied this position until March 1997. He was responsible for the foreign property of the state and organized the transfer of the former assets of the Soviet Union and Communist Party to the Russian Federation.” Edited by james (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Professor and journalist Yevgenia Albats gave a Stanford talk today from Moscow, reporting that multiple sources have confirmed to her that Putin is gravely ill and his treatment causes him to lose control of his temper. There are many other sources stating the same, e.g. [7] and [8]. Thus far, such reports have been met with official denials from the Kremlin. The Albats talk recording isn't on YouTube yet and might not be for up to a week, but I urge experienced editors to look at the news articles I linked and the many more like them out there, and please consider including what the reliable sources say about cancer and Parkinson's, not in Wikipedia's voice, but in the context of the repeated denials. Throwaway3635 (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done. Wait for more info; preliminary sources may not be accurate. We'd rather be slow than wrong. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Military Service
In the "military service" category within the infobox, it is stated that Putin's military service lasted from 1975-1991, which is a fact. However, the post 1991 Second Chechen War, Russo-Georgian War, Russo-Ukrainian War, and Syrian Civil War are included within his military service, presumably because he's the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces. However, it's still confusing that the infobox lists 1975-1991 as his service and all the conflicts listed happened after 1991. For instance, George W. Bush's page includes his military service but not the fact that he was Commander-in-Chief during the War on Terror. Is there a way that Putin's military service could be made more clear/understandable in this article? Theodore Christopher (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
There's a labored spiel about all the statistics that increased his first eight years, with no balancing summary of the statistics of following years. Yes, GDP increased 18% a year for 8 years to a local peak in 2008. Is it not equally of interest that real GDP hasn't again been at the level of 2008 since 2015? I suggest that in an intro we don't need this detailed litany of increasing economic indicators that after all tell you the story not of Putin, but of oil prices. However if we do leave this in the intro, a summary of similar size about the ensuing period would be fair. Swiss Frank (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Russia is a Respectable country but when together work with China all world country do not faith in Russia because cause in China always claver country
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog9002(talk) 03:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
the title doesn't make sense Savitarp45 (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
It reads as if it has been clumsily translated from some other language. Perhaps it could be posted again by the anonymous contributor in his/her own language, then someone might be able to understand it. NRPanikker (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
i am russian and i want to say some real thins of vlad Shrekdaddy6969420420 (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Infobox Image
Alternative proposal
I couldn't help but notice that the present infobox image is three years out of date. Below I have provided a more up-to-date photo of Putin for consideration. Any thoughts? Emiya1980 (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
No need to immediately open an RfC. Here is a recent discussion. I feel like this should not be revisited this soon. intforce (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
That discussion is closed. Hence the reason for discussing an alternative option in a new section.Emiya1980 (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Note Speaking of that discussion: four of the participants who voted for the present image were indefinitely blocked. Three of them were sockpuppets of a single master and the fourth one was adding hoaxes to articles with faked citations. Renat 02:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
That's still not a good reason to jump straight to RfC. Discuss by all means, but try to make sure that the suggestions of WP:RFCBEFORE are exhausted before reaching for RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Kremlin routinely dismisses everything, including MH17, Russian–Syrian hospital bombing campaign or anti-satellite weapons testing (the latter was first dismissed by Lavrov only to be confirmed by MoD), regardless of quality of evidence. What is mentioned in Pandora Papers is a luxury property owned by Svetlana Krivonogikh who is another (after Kabaeva and Putina) woman with whom Putin allegedly has children[9]. What the above Al Jazeera article says is not that he does not have but that his press secretary denies it: "Well he would, wouldn't he?"Cloud200 (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Vladimir Putin is a former Communist Soviet Intelligence Spy. that needs to be put in his bio. 69.65.247.228 (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
His activities in the KGB are covered in the article already.50.111.19.34 (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Since 2014, the nickname - Huylo has become truly associated with Vladimir Putin.
Since 2014, the nickname - Huylo (ru. Хуйло) has become truly associated with Vladimir Putin. This is a normal practice among living famous people. For example, the actor Schwarzenegger is called the Terminator all over the world. Nowadays, the word Huylo has long meant Putin, so I propose to emphasize in the article about Putin that this figure is also known in the world as Huylo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.61.199 (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no indication of the term's wide usage and certainly it's not similar to the Terminator since it is an obscene term. According to the Wikipedia article, Putin khuylo! is a chant used by some Ukrainian nationalists, particularly football fans. TFD (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
You can think as you please, because no one is forcing to call Putin - Хуйло. But the fact that any search service, when typing the word "Huylo" or "Хуйло", immediately gives out tons of information about Putin, and there they are not only discussing a song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.117.48.67 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Please provide a source that that Putin is known in the world by this term. The only reliable English news source I could find that mentioned this termwas two articles in the Washington Post from 2014. TFD (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
In the Russian Federation, it is generally forbidden to refer to him as Хуйло, for example, when he goes to a single picket. These people are handled by the FSB and the police. It looks like Putin is deeply afraid to go down in history as Хуйло. There is really no information about this in the media - for the same reason. But Putin is unable to control the media around the world. For example, in Prague, near the Russian embassy, a naked shitty Putin (mannequin) with a golden brush was installed, and people all over the world supported this action. To assess the fact that the world's population really keeps Putin for Khuilo, it's enough to read the comments in the video with a large number of views. From this video, it becomes clear that people from all over the world come to support Ukraine and call Putin - Хуйло. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAufypxrFUo31.23.63.253 (talk) 04:32, December 22, 2021 (UTC)
Russian courts, among other things, recognize that Хуйло is Putin. The Anadyr City Court of Chukotka fined Dmitry Aritkulov 100 thousand rubles for a message in the WhatsApp messenger with the word "Хуйло". It wasn't mentioned anywhere that we were talking about the current president of the Russian Federation, but the man was accused of disrespect for Putin. 5.139.70.163 (talk) 17:15, December 26, 2021 (UTC)
We already have an article about this. See Putin khuylo!. Based on that fact, mention might be justified here. -- Valjean (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The fact that a term may be notable, i.e., justifies its own article, doesn't mean it has weight for inclusion here. If we included every story that linked to this article, it would be unreadable. TFD (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Matheus123455.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Category:Russian nationalists should be removed, as mentioned in the article, Putin is not a Russian nationalist, plus Putin also cracked down on Russian nationalists when he came to power, and he condemned the Maidan protesters as "nationalists" (also mentioned in the article). 2804:248:f68f:d800:dd30:368d:866d:a3d (talk) 21:40, January 25, 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ––FormalDudetalk 16:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I think it's the other way around. The article does not claim Putin is a Russian nationalist and therefore a source would be required. In fact it quotes the Bloomberg columnist Leonid Bershidsky, "Putin is an imperialist of the old Soviet school, rather than a nationalist or a racist." Nationalism would be self-defeating for Russia. TFD (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
You are hilarious. Alexei Navalny does not have Category:Russian nationalists but Putin does? I guess every source that describes how Navalny organized white supremacist marches in Moscow do not count as "trusted sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.153.70 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
When did Yeltsin resign ?
Time goes by, but I've got a strong recollection of Boris Yeltsin to have "stolen" the New Years Evening of 1999 by resigning. Didn't Putin succeed Yeltsin at once and had his first term as President 2000-2008 ? 83.250.73.248 (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2022
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Proposal to edit English Wikepdia entry to match Polish Wikepedia entry.
Current text: Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin[c] (born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician and former intelligence officer who is the current president of Russia.
Proposed text: Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin[c] (born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician, former intelligence officer and war criminal who is the current president of Russia. Alfie S 88 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Renat 16:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I share the OP's frustration but I think he would need to be formally charged with war crimes by a recognised international legal body before we could even say "charged as a war criminal". --DanielRigal (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I wonder who removed a statement that by not declaring war with Ukraine, yet [1] is happening now... I disagree that he would need to be formally charged with war crimes by a recognised international legal body before we could even say "charged as a war criminal". He is a war criminal. Same as thief is thief when he steals, not when judge says he stole something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.161.220 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clearly, waging war, whether legal or not, is not a war crime. A number of U.S. presidents have been accused by various groups of war crimes, but we don't add it to their leads.
Also, it is against policy to accuse living persons of criminal offenses on talk pages.
How about changing it to something like "Accused war criminal", "Possible war criminal" or "Alleged war criminal". the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson just used this term. Barack Obama just accused him of breaking international law. Amnesty International has accused him of this, as does the wikipedia page for Second Chechen War crimes and terrorism. There are plenty of reliable authoritative sources that have accused him of at least being complicit.
It's very nearly an international consensus right now. It's not some fabricated stretch, it's in the works, and if there is any justice he will at the very least be summoned to the Hague. If any one action Putin took in his lifetime should be remembered surely it's the war crimes above all other things and omitting even the allegation of these from the introduction does not do any justice to the truth of the matter.Nutme Nayme (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
When multiple reliable sources describe Putin as a war criminal, that will be reflected in the article. That is not the state of things right now. Even your "source" does not call him a war criminal; Johnson talks about the potential of prosecution for war crimes in general, and that is standard political posturing during conflicts. Schazjmd(talk) 22:32, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Who cares what Boris Johnson calls anyone? He calls black people piccannies![10] And Obama is himself an "accused war criminal."[11] Anyway, you are still confusing war crimes with illegal wars. Illegal wars are not war crimes. TFD (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Putin worked as a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years, rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel, before resigning in 1991 to begin a political career in Saint Petersburg
Why doesn't the say Putin worked a cushy desk job in for 16 years and during that time he got promoted once. 16 years of his life, one promotion? Is that normal in Russia?
That makes it sound like it took him 16 years to finally realize that he wanted to be useful. And then, to this day, the 600-something sources and the achievements page just looks like he joined all the clubs in high school.
I came here to read if Putin was competent, I read nothing interesting about him. 16 years this guy does nothing. Then President of Russia? Nothing before that? 16 years? Name one thing anyone has ever done that took them 16 years and resulted in 1 promotion.
What is the point of this sentence? Highlighting put in was inept for 16 yrs, finally got his stuff together, decided to run for president, won on the first try, and now we're in a frat boy biggest balls show-off?
Can we have relevant information on this page? Like final war relevant info. Nobody cares about anything on this page except Putin.
Please give us actual information about the person running the largest country in the world.
Cause this doesn't explain much more than Trumps wiki page.
Guessing Putin is Russias Trump?
Otherwise, why wouldn't there be any relevant information here? 2003:C7:8731:DA3:A1AF:258C:424:E1D5 (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
External links
Think external links need some improvements.
Maybe delete these ones and replace them by something else?:
Vladimir Putin at Curlie; Appearances on C-SPAN
Karlaz1 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2022
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Grammatical typo
Second last paragraph of the introduction, this line starting with:
"Other developments under Putin /has/ included the construction of pipelines,.."
Should read:
"Other developments under Putin have included the construction of pipelines,.." Moocow191 (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Or does it have to sound like Alexa is making it up on the spot? I I have never read an article with 600 sources that explains absolutely nothing about a person.
Can someone please translate this to American English native tongue? I mean look up any other person on Wikipedia and then read this.
Yes, this BLP could use some help with flow and grammar. If you feel comfortable editing yourself, jump in. I started with the lede today.Writethisway (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Briefly add his views on abortion which help explains his reasoning on why he hasn’t banned abortion
I see that in recent protests, some critics refer to Mr. Putin by the nickname Putler. For example, see this article. Please consider mentioning this in the article. --LifeDancePro (talk) 04:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this clearly needs to be mentioned in the article. The topic is already considered notable to the extent that it has its own article, so a mention is clearly WP:DUE in this article, since it refers to him. --Tataral (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
You need to familiarize yourself with WP:WEIGHT. It doesn't matter what we find important but the degree of coverage in reliable sources on Putin. Out of curiosity, what does the Azov Battalion call him? TFD (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
TDF. I don't think the Azov Battalion are a beacon of virtue either . HuttonIT (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
1) The topic is already considered notable, i.e. it has its own article. 2) It is self-evident that as long as that is the case, the topic is important enough to be mentioned somewhere in the article on the subject that the term refers to, i.e. Vladimir Putin. This is how Wikipedia normally works as well: Directly related articles are supposed to link to each other. It may not be significant enough to be mentioned in the lead, but it belongs somewhere in the article – no serious editor familiar with Wikipedia policy would dispute that. --Tataral (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Putin is not Russia
At a number of places in the article, various cited claims are made, of the form "<someone> said <something bad> about Russia", like they said Russia was authoritarian, or whatever.
Well, those claims belong in an article about Russia. This article is about Putin. I haven't checked the citations, because I think the claims don't belong in the article, even if the citation supports the claims.
It may be that the citations support some claims about Putin, specifically; but then we need new claims, and I'm not going to do that research. I just want to go through the article deleting material that conflates Putin with Russia.
Please sign your posts on talk pages, using four tildes (~~~~), or clicking the signature icon on the edit toolbar. And yes, if something is not about Putin - it can be removed. --Renat 18:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Most news sources are calling Putin Russia, as in "Russia said Ukraine was an invention of Lenin", and indeed calling him "the Kremlin" as in "The Kremlin stated NATO's expansion was unacceptable". Since all other voices in Russia have been silenced, Putin is indeed Russia. 2.31.162.90 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
In a dictatorship the "state" and the "head of state" nearly merge. Admittedly this is never completely the case.
I think it would be better to place the "Citation needed" wiki-notation next to unreferenced material-- than to proceed with wholesale deletions as you are suggesting.
I am not talking about anyone in particular here, but I would like to point out that the article subject is a powerful dictator-- now in a war with widely recognized international ramifications. Therefore I urge all Wikipedia editors to be extra-vigilant about protecting the neutrality of this article.
On March 1, 2022, Request was made to refer Putin's regime to the International Court of Justice for Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) [1]dmode (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
There are countless sources describing Putin as a dictator, and noting how Russia is not a democracy, in fact how he is responsible for dismantling whatever democracy Russia had in the 1990s. The description "president of Russia" just doesn't do it. Putin is very fond of making comparisons to WWII-era figures, so it is only natural to look at the structure of the article on the other dictator invading his neighbours and turning his country into a dictatorship, Adolf Hitler. While he held different formal offices, he is described succinctly in the first sentence as the dictator of Germany. Putin has also held different offices, such as president and prime minister, at different times, but is commonly described as the effective autocratic ruler or dictator of Russia since he first became president. We should model the first lead paragraph after the Hitler article, and succinctly describe him as the dictator of Russia and then mention his different formal offices at different times. --Tataral (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Hitler comparisons are not helpful. He is already described as an authoritarian ruler. Mellk (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
No he's not, not in paragraph we are discussing here, and as the sources explained, that is not a sufficient description either. Some history here: In the past this article has been aggressively guarded and turned into a hagiography that went into extraordinary detail in its praise of every aspect of Putin, by now long-retired accounts that were widely believed by many editors to be associated with the Kremlin. This is still a problematic article. It is perfectly normal to look at the structure of other articles here on Wikipedia. The comparison is also common and helpful, and was used e.g. by Nancy Pelosi and many others today, and we will probably have to include something about such comparisons eventually in the body of the article (but we will have a separate discussion about that, I'm sure) [12]. --Tataral (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Hitler was a totalitarian leader, so no. Also please don't edit your comments once someone has replied to them per WP:REDACT. Mellk (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed we will clearly include something about that eventually, especially considering how both Putin and the Ukraninian government, and many commentators abroad, have made such comparisons. But that is not the focus of this discussion right here, so I'm not going to continue that debate now. My minor copy edits of my own comments is no concern of yours. --Tataral (talk) 13:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Hitler was a dictator in a classic sense. He declared an emergency, suspended the constitution and ruled by decree. And invading other countries is not what made him a dictator. The UK, U.S. and France also routinely invade foreign countries and use similar justifications as Hitler and Putin. TFD (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I've not seen any credible sources point out such purported similarities between Hitler's Germany and the U.K. or those other countries. That's the difference here: We have numerous high-quality sources describing how Putin turned Russia into an autocratic state, and eventually an outright dictatorship. There are no such credible sources describing those western countries as dictatorships; this is just classic whataboutism anyway, even if some uncredible Russian sources claimed such a thing. --Tataral (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Your conclusion that Putin is a dictator appears to be based on the fact that he invaded another country. But as you know, so have other countries. Whether or not that is whataboutism, you're the one who brought up the comparison in the first place. And when you refer to "numerous high-quality sources," it is ironic that you chose one that failed reliable sources criteria: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: wasn't Tatatara citing the Economist? SN54129 16:07, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Indeed they were. But as policy says, ""Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." TFD (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not going to respond to the ridiculous strawman that alleges, preposterously, that the description of Russia as a dictatorship is based just on him invading a country.
On the other hand, there is a very serious discussion among experts on the similarities between Putin and Hitler now.
Others compared him to Hitler. “There are many parallels between Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939 and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022,” Michael McFaul, the former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, who is now at Stanford University, tweeted on Thursday. Putin no longer appears to be a rational actor on the international stage, experts say. “I hate comparing people to Hitler, but Putin’s crazy talk is making it hard to avoid,” Stephen Sestanovich, a Russia expert at Columbia University, told me.[13]
Of course that is not the reason for the description of Russia as a dictatorship in itself–the years of democratic backsliding and increasingly authoritarian government in Russia under Putin that a vast number of experts have commented on is. --Tataral (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
And how many times has Trump been compared to Hitler? Mellk (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
And you are really asking me, who spent four–five years being blisteringly critical of Trump and who argued repeatedly for inclusion of perspectives that compared Trump's policies and fascism? --Tataral (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Right, and why was this not included then in that article? Mellk (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Solely due to the Trump lobby here on Wikipedia. Just as this article has had a Putin lobby for years, as is evident if one looks at the hagiography it used to be. --Tataral (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I am not talking about anyone in particular here, but I would like to point out that the article subject is a powerful dictator-- now in a war with widely recognized international ramifications. Therefore I urge all Wikipedia editors to be extra-vigilant about protecting the neutrality of this article.
For the first time, Putin was compared with Hitler by opposition political analyst Andrey Piontkovsky on 11 January 2000. In his prophetic article, Piontkovsky defined putinism as "the highest and final stage of bandit capitalism in Russia, the stage where, as one half-forgotten classic said, the bourgeoisie throws the flag of the democratic freedoms and the human rights overboard; and also as a war, "consolidation" of the nation on the ground of hatred against some ethnic group, attack on freedom of speech and information brainwashing, isolation from the outside world and further economic degradation", stated that the putinism is the terminal shot to the head of Russia, and also compared Yeltsin who gave Putin the power with Hindenburg who gave Hitler the power.[3][4]
^Piontkovsky, Andrey (11 January 2000). "Путинизм как высшая и заключительная стадия бандитского капитализма в России" [Putinism as highest and final stage of bandit capitalism in Russia]. Советская Россия [Sovetskaya Rossiya] (in Russian). No. 3. Moscow.
Overwhelming support for New image (2) Geanard (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I changed the image to something less chummy and only then noticed the "don't change" note. I hope editors agree the new image is more suitable for the times [14]. CutePeach (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Current image
New image
Support, it's better. Geanard (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Support, it has better lighting and is more detailed. Someone Not Awful (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I support the use of a new image and I like the one CutePeach suggested. Anyway, I'd like to propose you these ones too:
New image (2)
New image (3)
New image (4)
My personal preference would go to "New image (4)" or "New image (2)". -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Noting that MOS:PORTRAIT suggests that portraits look into the article rather than out of it; also noting that, per policy, The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, rather than to "reflect the times" (whatever that means; has he suddenly become a hard bastard?!). Therefore, only 2 or 3 are options. SN54129 19:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
New image (2) better quality and more professional Shadow4dark (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
New image (2) is more neutral pose and good quality Lee∴V 14:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Current image, New image (2), or New Image (4) all three are good quality photographs, I don't think much effort should be put into making sure it's a "neutral pose", because neutral poses make people look exceedingly unemotional. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep current or new image 4. Backgrounds of the others are too bright and he's hunched over. —WildComettalk 01:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
New image (2), its definitely better and appropriate!! Billjones94 (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Support New image over New image (2) - it has a much better crop, is a more recent picture, and the background clearly separates itself from the subject by not being bland. – Handoto (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
New image (2) due to its neutral expression and neutral pose over New image and New image 3 636Buster (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
New image (2) due to my personal preference and image quality. elijahpepe@wikipedia 01:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
New image (2) meets the standards set by MOS:PORTRAIT, and is, in addition to that, a very good portrait. --SgtShyGuy (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Current image is far better. The cold smirk on his face represents the former KGB agent more accurately. Chesapeake77 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
New image (2) seems to have better image quality, and as 636Buster notes, seems to be a more neutral pose/expression. SPF121188(talk this way)(contribs) 16:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not a democracy/not a liberal democracy
14Jenna7Caesura adjusted the wording of this sentence in the this diff. I think the status-quo wording was better and the distinction being made between a non-democracy and illiberal democracy is unnecessarily technical for the lead (and possibly contentious – Orbán's Hungary is the usually described as the archetypal "illiberal democracy", and his regime is not as authoritarian as Putin's). I've reverted the change for now per WP:BRD, and welcome others' thoughts. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 12:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Russia is an illiberal democracy. Nothing has changed in the past 20 years. Putin's government of Russia is still what is was before the invasion of Ukraine. You remove my C-SPAN source. You don't care about references. You want to insert your opinion. Even Syria is a "democracy".
Orwell used to say the term "democracy" is similar to other words like "freedom" and "justice". These words lack any solid definition.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
"Democracy", "freedom" and "justice" only seem like vague concepts to those who have never had them taken away.
I don't see that the description has changed. And the terms democracy, freedom and justice means different things to different people. "Democracy" was for example a slur used by U.S. Federalists, Whigs and Republicans to refer to their opponents until WWI. Southern states justified slavery and segregation using liberal concepts of freedom and equality. Libertarians say that welfare is against freedom, while social liberals say it is a prerequisite. Per no original research, editors should not evaluate these claims, merely report what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
"In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way." https://orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit
Although not proven, the speculation about his mental health receives an increasing coverage. [1][2][3][4] I encourage the editors to consider mentioning this specualtion in the article. (Similarly, speculation about his funds and his relationship is covered in the article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LifeDancePro (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not confident enough to add the content into the article in an encyclopedic fashion, but I agree with LifeDancePro in that it could be mentioned in the article. SPF121188(talk this way)(contribs) 20:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Here's what I've found in the article "Putinism": K8M8S8 (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Oleksii Danilov said during the Russian invasion of Ukraine that Putin's entourage said that the president's mental state was not normal — that he had a "leaky roof." Earlier, US intelligence said that their main task — to find out the truth about the mental state of the Russian leader.[5]
According to experts, Putin's behavior is becoming more volatile and irrational. They made an assumption, that protracted isolation during the Covid-19 pandemic could influence Putin's mental health. And CNN, citing two unnamed senior officials in the US administration, said that for the past few days, Russian President Putin has been in an extremely angry state over the West's harsh sanctions on the Russian economy.[6]
Putin's mental health had been questioned long before the Covid-19 pandemic. For example, in April 2014, in an interview with journalists Boris Nemtsov called Putin a mental patient. This statement was used as the basis for initiation of criminal proceeding against Nemtsov but, eventually, the case was requalified to administrative offence.[7] In 2016, there was the request to initiate a procedure, provided by the article 92 of the Constitution of Russia, aimed at the termination Putin's presidential authority on his mental illness ground. The negative response to this request was appealed to the court but the administrative claim was dismissed in 2017.[8]
What do you think to create new subsection about mental health of Vladimir Putin? K8M8S8 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Non-starter. We don't do that kind of thing. Concentrate on well-sourced descriptive content. SPECIFICOtalk 15:13, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
It depends on the weight of coverage. The most recent coverage is part of war propaganda. If you can make your adversaries look mentally, morally or psychologically flawed, then you have won the argument against them. So I would exclude it for now per WP:RECENT. Nazis are special case, because social scientists beginning with Adorno began to study the "authoritarian personality," developing an F-scale (personality test). (F stands for fascist.) Fascism and by extension conservatism and libertarianism were seen as mental disorders.
Incidentally, we have had similar discussions about Donald Trump and to a lesser extent Joe Biden. TFD (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I've found some additional sources:
The first one is the news about Putin's visit to school in 2013 during which he drew cat's backside.[9] The following is the comment given by psychologist Boris Suvorov (in Russian).[10] And this is informative interview with psychiatristJames H. Fallon where he spoke about Putin (in Russian).[11]
And this is the text from the article "Alexander Litvinenko": "In an article written by Litvinenko in July 2006, and published online on Zakayev's Chechenpress website, he claimed that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile and KGB possessed the video footage which allegedly documented the unlawful carnal knowledge of Putin, Red Banner Institute's graduate, and minor boys and which subsequently was destroyed when Putin was the FSB director.[12] Litvinenko also claimed that Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik knew of the alleged paedophilia.[13] Litvinenko made the allegation after Putin kissed a boy on his stomach while stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds on 28 June 2006. The incident was recalled in a webcast organised by the BBC and Yandex, in which over 11,000 people asked Putin to explain the act, to which he responded, "He seemed very independent and serious... I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. He seemed so nice. ... There is nothing behind it."[14]"
This can be useful. K8M8S8 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I have a background in the mental health field. Just to say, one does not have to be a sociopath or a psychopath (a person with no feelings for others) in order to become a mass-murderer. Ideology, (especially extreme ideology / acquiring extreme beliefs), can turn someone into a mass-murderer too. In Putins case this would be extreme allegiance to / belief in the old Soviet Union and his desire to reestablish it.
As for the sentence about Putin's belief in Soviet Union, I disagree with you. Soviet Union was a left-wing totalitarian state but Putin's Russia is a right-wing populist autocratic dictatorship. Putin uses Soviet methods of persecusion of the opposition and repressions against civil society that he's learned in KGB but conceptually his regime is a successor of bandit capitalism of the 1990s. Putin is not true communist or socialist and never was, and he worked in KGB just because it was prestige and cushy desk job. So it's not about Soviet ideology, it's about traditional Russian imperialism characterized by scorn for human rights and freedoms, in domestic policy aspect, and great-power chauvinism, in foreign policy aspect. That is why Putin adores Stalin, Alexander III, Nicholas I, Ivan the Terrible and other reactionaries but hates Lenin who brought down Russian Empire and Alexander II who abolished serfdom and established independant court system. Thus, Putin's desire to reestablish Soviet Union is just classical colonialism without any socialist or communist ideology. Just new territories and new slaves. It's irrational because in today's world such model doesn't generate revenue but only yields losses. However, he wants to build his own obscurantist empire. Evil just for evil. So, it's fair question about his psyche. K8M8S8 (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
That's not an entirely dissimilar argument. You said Putin is motivated by an ideology of Russian imperialism. We see that as aberrational but when Western leaders act in similar ways, we see it as normal. Also, the sources that Chesapeake77 provided btw do not appear to meet weight. TFD (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
As for Western leaders, the topic of neocolonialism is worth discussing. But classic colonialism ended up in the second half of the 20th century. The reason is simple - expenditures had exceeded income, the model no longer works. The Dissolution of the Soviet Union was boon to Russia because Russia got rid of loss-making assets. What's the point of control the territory not generated income and populated by hostile people? Putin doesn't understand it. In the world of violet mushrooms where he's living, the physical control over as much territory and population as possible is his idée fixe, and he wants to achieve this goal at any cost using military power and political police. He doesn't care about the fact that this model doesn't work and his actions don't make Russia stronger but steal its future. It's irrational actions based on imperialist ressentiment. Hatred for Western countries, former colonies (post-Soviet states), Russian opposition is a consequence of this ressentiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K8M8S8 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Education is usually an encyclopedic topic for a biographical article. Where is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danshawen (talk • contribs) 14:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Putin went to law school straight out of high school. It's in the article.--14Jenna7Caesura (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
While putting the how-to-pronounce of Putin's name on the note list, can we might as well put it in the introduction as a normal text for the uniformity of other articles? Thanks! Khamer Jun Manalo (chat) 01:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Typographical error
Transnitria
Should be Transnistria
FlynnAW (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Another one—'Putin driving an Formula One car' should be 'Putin driving a Formula One car'.
Whistler441 (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Foreign policy deserves to include his war.
Let's take a look at George W. Bush. Now check out his Foreign Policy section. Why does he have every war listed but Putin has none? It is time to get this straight. I propose that the section can give brief statements, but it can link to a longer narrative on Putin's War, which would detail the facts. In fact, I didn't see any mention of his suppression of rights to his people, by closing down free speech and media. There is clear evidence EVERYWHERE that proves this. This needs to be on this page. We don't have to editorialize but state the facts. He has invaded Ukraine, he is killing civilians, he has suppressed free speech and media, he is arresting protestors and charging some with treason, his own people are fleeing by the thousands and many are afraid they'll be arrested for disagreeing with Putin. Again, these are facts and to disregard this is editorializing that it's okay for him to do so. I do not write well enough, but I know that many of you are excellent writers. I'll be happy to provide sources from the NYT (since it's a subscription), if you require it. Just let me know on my talk page. MagnoliaSouth(talk) 16:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Would fix it myself but don't have the perms. It's in the Foreign Policy section, specifically Latin America. HeptatonicScale (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Judo honorary titles and taekwondo black belt withdrawn
This section is poorly written, with only partial comprehensibility in English. I was going to copyedit the subsection, but aside from correcting nongrammatical sentences like: Russian President is obsessed from "masculinity, size, strength and power"[sic], the entire section is also badly structured, to the point that's it's essentially unencyclopedic. A simple copyedit won't do it. I figured I'd make editors aware that this needs some substantial reworking. If no one wants to take a stab at it, I suppose I can do so later. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
There's indeed a lot wrong with that section. It's in almost unintelligible English, and, far from being about speculations, the sole source is one author speculating in one book. Moreover, the traits this book ascribes to Putin — narcissism, ruthlessness, calculating nature, and overcompensating for insecurities — aren't forms of mental illness; they're personality traits (indeed, most people may well do the "overcompensating" thing). I have concealed the section with the <!-- --> code, in order to leave the book available in the edit window, in case somebody wants to use it in a more reasonable way. Bishonen | tålk 20:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC).
Datasets used at the end of the first secrion
I question the accuracy of the Freedom House index that indicates that North Korea is more free than South Sudan.
Another point: on the democracy index it had Norway above Switzerland because of Switzerland's low voter turnout, despite it having direct democracy in law. I could put semi-direct here, but give one reliable source of a more direct democracy than Switzerland.
There are multiple references from reliable sources that North Korea's people have less freedom and rights than other countries, with an absolute dictator, media tightly controlled, high levels of poverty, limited freedom of movement and large concentration camps. TheeFactChecker (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
South Sudan gets special minus 3 points for killing a lot more people last year than North Korea. Otherwise North Korea would be lower in its scale. Rjensen (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Image alignment in 'Early life'
While editing the article, the image of Putin with his mother in the 'Early life' section is placed directly under the heading, but it shows up placed halfway through the first paragraph. Does anyone know how to fix that so it appears to the left of the whole paragraph as meant to? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
restoring federal control of Chechnya?
This phrase seems Russocentric. Chechnya was invaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvitray (talk • contribs) 15:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was an unrecognized state, therefore it was de jure part of Russia, and this wording is supported by RS. Mellk (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
I leave an source
I wanted to bring this source into the article, but that is protected.
"Statement by Boris Yeltsin". 31 de diciembre de 1999. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help) Here is the file, although, me it does open the original for me. Best regards. Mavigogun --Berposen (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Why do we need this source? Renat 17:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it can be expanded slightly on the reasons why Yeltsin resigned, as it simply just says that "Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned" without context on this. But some secondary sources are needed. Mellk (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Fact in wrong section - 'Cult of Personality'
In the section 'Cult of Personality', there is a sentence about Putin's advisor, Mikhail Lesin, being killed. While the citation is apt for this sentence, the sentence itself doesn't pertain to this section of the article and I believe it needs to be moved to another section. Fones4jenke (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Vladimir Putin's alleged paedophilia
By the way, the paragraph devoted to Putin's peadophilia (I got it out of the article Alexander Litvinenko) should be restored too. K8M8S8 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
@Aman.kumar.goel: as per WP:CCC, the 2016 discussion isn't the final word, and IMO the IP there was correct in saying the allegations have been covered by enough newspapers to make them WP:DUE[15][16][17][18][19].
WP:BLP requires compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, but it does not serve as a good reason to WP:CENSOR allegations some may find objectionable or offensive. Similarly, WP:EXCEPTIONAL only requires that exceptional claims be found in multiple high-quality sources, which is clearly the case here, and the BBC report proves the WP:PERSISTENCE of these allegations.
I saw K8M8S8's edit yesterday and I was intending to copyedit it for style and proper attribution, especially since the Guardian reported that Litvinenko had a long standing feud with Putin [20], and the New York Times said his allegations were made without evidence and provides a quote from Vladimir Bukovsky we can use for WP:BALANCE[21]. It is known that Putin and the Kremlin have made paedophelia charges against their opponents [22], starting with the case of Yury Skuratov, so we can probably fill an entire article on the subject. CutePeach (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:CCC can only apply if circumstances have changed and in this case they haven't changed at all.
Just because they provided the coverage to a rumor, it doesn't mean it becomes credible enough for inclusion, because it is typical every MSM outlet likes to provide coverage to statements of made by a notable or non-notable rival against against another notable person but here we have to comply with WP:BLP. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 13:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there was a consensus in that 2016 discussion about the sources, and if there was, it can change. The IP was ill informed about policy and didn't provide the sources as I have now done, and there are still more. WP:BLP in the general and WP:BLPCRIME in specific does not apply to public figures. I think the Bukovsky quote is enough for WP:BALANCE. CutePeach (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Only 2 IP editors agreed with inclusion against several editors, so no, consensus was against inclusion. Mention of "BLPCRIME" fials to create any difference. An allegation made by a rival more than 17 years ago is not noteworthy. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 02:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
"...because it is typical every MSM outlet..." I suggest avoiding airing of political prejudice in this space. While we all have a perspective, including demonstration of prejudice in arguments for content here undermines the contributor's credible neutrality. It seems to me incumbent on we editors to forsake rhetoric creating the appearance of partisan advocacy, especially when a pattern of editing might lend credence to observations of partisanship. Mavigogun (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
CutePeach, I am an administrator so please consider this a formal policy warning. You wrote WP:BLP in the general . . . does not apply to public figures. This is completely false. Please sit down and read WP:BLP from beginning to end. That policy applies to every living person without exception, even Vladimir Putin. As for WP:BLPCRIME, that applies to public figures formally accused of a crime but not yet convicted. In this case, there are no formal accusations, only rumors. BLP policy definitely applies, so be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: thanks for clarifying the WP:BLP policy. I read WP:BLPCRIME as saying that it doesn't apply to public figures missing the part where it said unless a conviction has been secured. I think we need clarify WP:BLP policy as to how it applies to autocratic leaders like Putin who accuse political opponents of crimes that they themselves were have been accused of. It is known that Putin has complete control over the Russian government, including the judicial system, so he isn't going to be "formally" accused of anything while he is still alive. We cannot allow WP:BLP to hinder WP:PURPOSE, and if this allegation is not covered in a WP:DUE fashion, we will either need to amend our policy, or the project's purpose.
@Aman.kumar.goel: regarding the 2016 discussion, consensus should be based on sources and policies, and not just by WP:POLL. I think the characterization of Litvinenko as Putin's rival is WP:OR, as sources mostly describe him as a critic or dissident. Since he was a former FSB officer alleging that Putin destroyed kompromat held by the FSB Internal Security directorate, he would appear to be a good source for the allegation - though Bukovsky said his FSB background made him unable to understand the difference between truth and operational information, which we can use for WP:BALANCE. Instead of adding K8M8S8's contribution back to the Personal life section, I suggest we summarize the text from Alexander Litvinenko to the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko section, as it has been given as one of the main reasons for the assassination. My apologies for my mistaken interpretation of WP:BLP above. CutePeach (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
CutePeach, Wikipedia editors do not repeat unsubstantiated rumors about living people. Period. End of story. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
@Cullen328: I added the Litvinenko accusation to the relevant section, since it is reportedly what Putin may have killed him for, according to that British government report. I will start a discussion on WP:BLP/N to clarify how the policy should apply here. CutePeach (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I reverted it because it seemed just another attempt of you to get around the BLP violation.
Forum shopping won't help since you haven't refuted any arguments provided here. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 12:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad we're talking about refuting arguments, instead of relying on a 2016 discussion that didn't even make any arguments, so I would be glad if you could actually address my argument as to why this WP:DUE, regardless of whether it is true or not. Posting on a noticeboard isn't forum shopping when there are multiple editors who disagree, and that's exactly what noticeboards are for. CutePeach (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@Aman.kumar.goel:, please WP:AGF and WP:FOC. Please explain what about my edit violated WP:BLP. I can't know what you're thinking if you don't say it. CutePeach (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
It is forum shopping when you are seeking resolution in favor of your BLP violation. Mentioning 2016 discussion shows that nothing has changed in these 6 years with regards to the one-off rumor, that's why you need to move on.
You are edit warring now[23][24] but note that per WP:NOT3RR, people are exempted from reverting BLP violation. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 14:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:Public figure applies, and if several RS (I use three or more as my rule-of-thumb) mention an accusation, regardless of its truth or falsity, we should cover it.
This is especially true for debunked false accusations as we set the record straight, a clear benefit to the slandered party, IOW very much in line with the spirit of BLP. Failure to cover the matter is whitewashing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Aman.kumar.goel: it takes two to edit war and you haven't explained how this violates BLP, or participated in the BLPN discussion. Diff 11 and 12 show two incrementally improved versions of the allegations with newer sources and a move to the section where they are WP:DUE. The discussion has moved on from including the allegations in the Personal life section, where I agree they are WP:UNDUE. CutePeach (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
My general apprehension is that Aman.kumar.goel has demonstrated less collaborative compromise than ridged argument for the position they originally brought to the table. Anything can be rationalized. Judgement and discretion and true collaboration require a good faith effort. I'd like to hear your, Aman, best drafting for including the references in question. This back and forth accusation of edit warring is useless- other than a participant's hope for a page lock with the state they prefer.Mavigogun (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Instead of asking me to compromise me with your BLP violation, you need to better comply with WP:BLP and look at the WP:BLPN thread started by CutePeach where there is consensus against inclusion of this BLP violation.[25] And Valjean there is enough coverage of unconfirmed rumors against Chinese and American officials spread by defectors like Miles Guo, John Bolton, and others but we don't provide coverage to their unconfirmed rumors either. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 16:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I was writing a new section below while you were writing this, so respond below. Your edit warring is not good. Follow BRD. You have also received DS notifications about this, so you know you shouldn't ignore them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I am free to revert the BLP violation per WP:NOT3RR and BRD would apply only when I am reverting a stable edit or the edit had consensus. Read the policies carefully before you cite them. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 16:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Respond below. Properly-sourced negative content is not a BLP violation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I would avoid adding this for now. Unconfirmed claims by The Sun and anonymous Telegram channel, with mainly tabloids writing about it. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
This is based on NY Post article where it says "the paper is basing its scoop on a video off the mysterious Telegram channel 'General SVR'". In short, the claim about an operation very soon and temporary transfer of channel is from this Telegram channel. And publicised by this article by The Sun. Also a Russian-language article on this claim. Mellk (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I reckon it is premature, too- best to either have concrete sourcing, or to include the rumor at a later date when current interests are not served one way or the other by inclusion.Mavigogun (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I also wonder how such a move could play out since prime minister would become acting president (Chernomyrdin was briefly acting president during Yeltsin's surgery). Mellk (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS strongly suggests we should not base Wikipedia articles on unconfirmed rumours and reports like what is provided here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause: In your edit you wrote that this was confirmed but it is in fact unconfirmed and entirely based off a claim from an anonymous Telegram channel, as those sources state. Mellk (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause: What I requested was for you to please gain consensus per WP:ONUS before including disputed material, particularly when it involves "reports" from anonymous sources and is about a high-profile BLP. Your edits do not address this concern and are still based on the same kind of news reporting, which, per NOTNEWS, should be avoided... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You appear to be reverting editors both on this page and on the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine page. Your edit comment here indicated that you do not like the NY Post. I then added the Boston Herald as a second source. Multiple cites are picking up this material because of the details being provided in the report which include the type of cancer, the name of his surgeon, and the name of Putin's temporary stand-in when he is in surgery. That type of information is being covered by multiple sources as relevant. You are reverting multiple sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You appear to be confused, since I haven't edited the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine page in a while; and you still haven't addressed the key concern (which is that all of these are based, apparently, on some anonymous report - that should light up a bright red flag that that is information which might be appropriate for sensational "breaking news" style reports; but also that such speculation is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia [which is what Wikipedia is, like it or not]). News report filling up their pages with more details from those unconfirmed rumours does not change the fact those are still unconfirmed reports and shouldn't be included per WP:NOTNEWS. Sidenote, as for the NY Post, it's not that I personally like (or do not) like it; it is a fact that it is considered generally unreliable by the wider community (see WP:NYPOST). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
No confusion here, and this is your revert on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article here: [26]. You had reverted Mzajac at that time. Putin appears to be due for oncological surgery with 2-3 days recovery time in hospital according to multiple sources with his security council advisor Patrushev to temporarily take office during the recovery time. When you said you did not like the NY Post, I then added the second cite for the Boston Herald. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Sky News Australia is still repeating the same report as the others (A video from the Telegram channel “General SVR” published on Saturday alleged Putin’s top spy chief Nikolai Patrushev will gain control of the Russian Government while the 69-year-old is recovering from surgery.). So still "an anonymous person on a Telegram channel said this". Still about as non-encyclopedic as any other rumour or gossip could be. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
And Sky News Australia does not seem to be a good source. Mellk (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Edit request
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Writers have grappled with Vladimir Putin for two decades: Greyness, greed and grievance have been the dominant themes. The link after that sentence should have its ugly tracker tags removed.
Please remove: ?utm_content=article-link-3&etear=nl_today_3&utm_campaign=r.the-economist-today&utm_medium=email.internal-newsletter.np&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=3/22/2022&utm_id=1097236 0xDEADBEEF(TC) 12:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I REVERTED[27][28] two BOLD deletions[29][30] by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Instead of following BRD and DISCUSSING, the disputed deletions were restored. That's classic edit warring. Properly-sourced documentation is not POV pushing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Valjean: You had to see this edit which was POV pushing, and I reverted for being unexplained. It also remains undiscussed. There is no need to mention "genocide" claims when no one is even talking about it on the rest of the lead and dragging a disputed claim to lead just to determine Putin to be making "false" statements is POV pushing.
Another edit is already well discussed and does not deserve inclusion for being outright BLP violation. See the consensus at BLPN.
If an edit is reverted then get consensus on talk page instead of edit warring to restore the problem edit. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 16:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
No, BRD applies, so you need to get consensus for your deletions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
BRD = 1 edit made, another editor reverts, now it needs to be discussed before restoration. I am following BRD. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You are deleting "falsely" and that's really bad. Putin falsely accused the Ukrainian government of committing "genocide" against its Russian-speaking minority. The "falsely" content is not a BLP violation because it is properly-sourced. Putin's claims of genocide are false and must not be allowed to stand alone, as RS have clarified the issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent me. I never called it a BLP violation but POV pushing, because the current wording that "accused the Ukrainian government of committing atrocities" is good enough. No one is legitimizing the "genocide" claim anyway.
BLP violation is the 2nd edit/revert you made which has been already discussed, even on BLPN. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 16:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
P.S. I am in favor of completely removing the sentence "Putin accused the Ukrainian government of committing atrocities against its Russian-speaking minority", because Russian motives to attack Ukraine were not limited to this single issue. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Removing that false claim is certainly an option, but it is a major excuse for attacking Ukraine, so I think we should keep it, but with the added "falsely". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I did not intend to misrepresent you. There are two different issues here, so it's good to keep them separate. I have stricken a sentence above to prevent confusion. I split them up below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
1. The "falsely" deletion is not good. That should be restored. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, why we should even preserve that sentence? It is widely accepted that Russia attacked on February 2022 because of Ukraine's efforts to join NATO.
On 13 February, 9 days before the war, Russian ambassador said that Ukraine could drop NATO bid to avoid war.[31] And also see this US News article that say "Putin has a history of invading and occupying countries that approach NATO membership."
None of those sources mention the alleged atrocities. Now given these reports, I find it better to get rid of the sentence because it cannot be treated as major aim to attack Ukraine. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The false genocide accusation is a widely covered excuse given to attack Ukraine, even if the NATO issue might be the real reason. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Not really. That claim is very old and didn't emerged as a reason to attack Ukraine in February 2022. See this Wapo article that say "Millions of Russians and Russian-speaking people live in Ukraine and will continue to do so. Russia will always defend their interests using political, diplomatic and legal means.", and it is from 2014. That's why the US News article, which includes collaboration of a security expert does not even mention it. The no.1 reason behind February 2022 war has been mentioned as Ukraine's bid to join NATO. That's why I think we are better off getting rid of that sentence. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 17:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
In Putin's address right before the invasion began, he claimed its purpose was the "demilitarisation and denazification" of Ukraine, and this has been consistently repeated by officials since the invasion began, so I would imagine that could be mentioned, but of course RS widely describe his narrative of nazification of Ukraine as baseless or false. Mellk (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mellk: But that will omit Ukraine's bid to join NATO as the factor which experts say was the main reason to attack Ukraine. Putin on 24 February address also mentioned NATO about 9 times.[32] This is why I proposed that we should remove the existing sentence from the lead. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 18:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but those guys have given a lot of different excuses. NATO expansion, Ukraine led by neo-Nazis, "genocide" against Russian-speakers, Ukraine not being a real state etc. I think the actual reason is attempting to keep Ukraine under the sphere of influence (and therefore out of NATO, as you said) and probably there are RS which agree with that. Removing the sentence is one option, though I think just a little bit of context would be helpful if it is possible. Mellk (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Also they were pushing the nazification narrative hard (and still do, and now there is a diplomatic incident with Israel) as a main reason, though it seems now there is a shift more towards NATO threat narrative. Mellk (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
They have said it since 2014.[33] But yes, Ukraine's bid to join NATO led them to begin the war by 24 February.
This has been a focus of coverage by various sources,[34][35] and Russia warning Finland, Sweden against NATO membership also confirms this is the most serious concern for Putin.[36]Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 18:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Aman, you are clearly arguing for a perspective- regardless of how you feel you can justify it. Mellk's synopsis above is apt- there has been a wide number of justifications provided by Putin and his cadre, and outcomes from those justifications, and broadly reported consensus of manifestations- amongst those are characterizations of genocide. It is not our mandate to arbitrate political or practical truth. It seems to me you cite Wikipedia guidelines as a cudgel; those guidelines are only useful when applied with discretion, and a good faith effort at neutrality and collaboration.~~~~ Mavigogun (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
But no way we are going to cover all three reasons on lead. The lead would be better off without covering any of the reason. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 20:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Whatever the decision, the "falsely" should not be deleted. That is my main concern, as it violates policy to allow a false claim to just stand there when RS have debunked it. Maybe covering all three is too much for the lead. In that case, cover the various explanations in the body and include the "falsely" with the RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Aman Kumar Goel, the article is now completely locked. An edit request can only be made for a content change that enjoys a consensus, so what about this:
We remove the sentence from the lead.
We do this with the existing sentence (bold part added as it's in the source): "...according to Putin, "for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime", a claim that is considered baseless.[1]
Would that be a satisfactory solution? If so, we can make an edit request. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 4 May 2022
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change this sentence from the lead: "Putin accused the Ukrainian government of committing atrocities against its Russian-speaking minority,[17] and in February 2022," to:- "In February 2022,"
Change this sentence on Vladimir Putin#2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and invasion: according to Putin, "for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime". to:- according to Putin, "for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime", a claim that is considered baseless.[2]
...and thank you, Aidan9382, for implementing the request. Thus resolved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment deletions on this talk page
I was having a polite discussion with another user here on this talk page and I received a notification, that he replied. When I got here it told me that our messages were removed. I am unsure who deleted them, but if a disruptive editor was making changes on this talk page, how can we recover past discussions without disturbing current discussions? If anyone can fix this, can you please do so? I don't know how to merge multi-pages. Many thanks! MagnoliaSouth(talk) 07:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
_03_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
Sixth
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
done, and thank you very much, good catch! P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 04:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Not done. Wait for more info; preliminary sources may not be accurate. We'd rather be slow than wrong. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
_(cropped)(b).jpg)
Note Speaking of that discussion: four of the participants who voted for the present image were indefinitely blocked. Three of them were sockpuppets of a single master and the fourth one was 
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Matheus123455.
on the edit toolbar. And yes, if something is not about Putin - it can be removed. --Renat 18:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Current image
New image_03_(cropped)(a).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
New image (2)
New image (3)
New image (4).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Vlad Puttin and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Vlad Puttin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thus resolved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)