Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

dictator and "American diplomatic cables"

The result of this discussion is that this should only mentioned in the body of the article, not the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2013 (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.

Should the phrase "Putin's regime has been described as a "mafia state" by western media and analysts" be removed? 83.180.212.21 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

it just about the "American diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks" again 83.180.212.21 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

should the phrase "American diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks allege that Russia has become a virtual mafia state Some critics describe him as a dictator, allegations which Putin adamantly denies" be removed? 83.180.146.250 (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes and no. Putin is not Russia, if Wikipedia is to be believed, so even if "American diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks allege that Russia has become a 'virtual mafia state'" is true, it is not relevant enough to be in an introduction about Putin. I, for one, am pretty sure all bad things that happen in Russia are not Putin's fault (but don't quote me on that). As for accusations of being a dictator, WP:WELLKNOWN controls, and should be allowed. Int21h (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose You should not set up an RfC without any prior discussion on the talk page. What some anonymous State Department official wrote is insignificant, unless it is the official position of the State Department. "Some critics" is weasel-wording. Which critics? Any time you introduce opinion, you need to explain its weight. In this case you have only provided one opinion and Putin's refutation and Putin would say that wouldn't he? TFD (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Remove What a State Department official privately wrote is insignificant, unless it is the official position of the State Department. "Some critics" is weasel-wording. Which critics? Any time opinion is introduced, its weight must be explained. In this case only one opinion and Putin's refutation have been provided. TFD (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
actually you misunderstood me completely i meant if we remove that because it is already there 83.180.145.13 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. Yes, take it out. TFD (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove There are so many subjective terms in that statement it makes my head spin. I'm no fan of Putin per se (tho I do have a considerable amount of experience in Russian relations dating back to USSR times) but there are so many terms in there that I dislike : my head spins. 'state' is a juris term.. virtual does not apply. anyone can cite anyone saying anything about anyone; doesn't make them correct - or in the bigger case - encyclopaedic. badboyjamie talk 02:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the line gives a good overview of changes in Russia during Putin's leadership and the manner of his leadership. The intro tells us many good things about Putin, so one line pointing out his downsides is hardly controversial (or shouldn't be). As for who the critics are, that's a pretty weak complaint - the reader is intelligent enough to assume that this being a leader of a large country who has ruled for a long time, the 'critics' are numerous and from various fields and walks of life. Malick78 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • it is not "one line" there is already two negative lines like this:Many of Putin's actions are regarded by the domestic opposition and foreign observers as undemocratic. and The 2011 Democracy Index stated that Russia was in a long process of regression [that] culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime in view of Putin's candidacy and flawed parliamentary elections thats more critism than in the Barack Obama article 83.180.147.182 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • and as for the so called "critics" the sources provided they are is one british politician's personal opinion David Miliband, a unknown "biographer" and the some unspecified "fears" 83.180.147.182 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • The reason why there is more criticism of Putin than of Obama is pretty simple: Obama is not seriously considered a dictator by anyone (outside of bonkers Fox News, of course); Obama has not increased term limits to allow himself to be a perpetual tsar; Obama does not stuff his administration with ex-KGB agents (or ex-FBI, etc); and no one shoots journalists as a birthday present for Obama. Therein lies the difference. When we deal with dictators we have a duty, as an encyclopaedia, to give due weight to their dictatorial features. Malick78 (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I could add that Obama doesn't have more or less unlimited power in his country either, another key difference. The power held by politicians like Obama, Merkel or Cameron within their countries is pretty weak compared to Putin's total power in Russia, ability to change the constitution at will to be an eternal dictator etc. Tataral (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • We cannot give "due weight" to personal opinions (the sources that was provided for this dictator pov)83.180.146.133 (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Russia is an authoritarian regime governed by Putin's clan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.137.72 (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Obviously there is no reason to remove the mafia state term. The term is not the invention of some state department official, but a well established term used in scholarship and beyond, as the article explains. Also, its existence is largely due to Putin himself, and among scholars it is regarded as a key feature of his regime. Tataral (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  • RFC Comment: The BBC and EUObserver sources do tie the "mafia" term together with Putin's person so the phrase seems to be sourced. However, I'm not sure whether it needs to be in the lead per WP:LEAD: it may not be the kind of "significant controversy" that policy refers to. If it does however deserve mention in the lead, we should say something like "Observers have criticised Russian government organs of colluding with criminal elements during Putin's era". This seems warranted as per the BBC "Even President Medvedev in his state of the nation address this week conceded that law enforcement agencies and organs of power were merging with the criminal world." --Dailycare (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
the bbc talks about American diplomatic cables leaked by WikiLeaks, does it really matter what american diplomatic cables say seems kinda of pov and euobserver talks british mps, they are no reliable sources 90.129.89.227 (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
also using neologisms like "mafia state" is some really dirty politics, how can can slurs like that be included in the article? 83.180.166.254 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dailycare's assessment (came here via RFC). In the simplest form: Claim is ok to be in the page, claim should probably not be in the lead, claim should be reworded more accurately. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • remove from lead, reword in another section, it already mentioned TWICE now! we dont need the claim to both in the lead and then in Vladimir_Putin#Ratings.2C_polls_and_assessments section because it is mentioned the same thing again! 77.218.235.205 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Mentioning something in the lead and again in the article is standard practice. You'd hardly mention it in the lead and then not go into detail would you? Malick78 (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Dailycare (Saw this on the RfC page and swung by...) Definitely should not be in the lead, and re-wording it is probably for the best, but it IS a well-sourced term and thus its inclusion in the article makes some sense. GRUcrule (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

    • It's one of the defining features of Putin's Russia, why not mention it in the lead? Malick78 (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • If this is included in the lead, then we ought to be careful not to imply that all western observers characterize it as a "mafia state". According to Australian journalist Paul Wallis, ""Some people call Russia a capitalist oligarchy, some call it a 'Mafia nation'". Stephen Holmes of NYU writes: "How to characterise the Putin regime, a now shaken and besieged ruling group sometimes said to be the richest in the history of the world? ‘Soft authoritarianism’, ‘hybrid regime’, ‘managed democracy’: the labels reveal less about Russia than about the inability of commentators to loosen the Cold War’s lingering hold on their thinking."[1]. According to the critics of the mafia state concept, the term "has now been so used and abused in popularized descriptions of organized criminal activity that it has lost much of its analytic value".[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • the lead: "For sixteen years Putin served as an officer in the KGB, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel before he retired to enter politics in his native Saint Petersburg in 1991. He moved to Moscow in 1996 and joined President Boris Yeltsin's administration where he rose quickly, becoming Acting President on 31 December 1999 when Yeltsin resigned unexpectedly. Putin won the subsequent 2000 presidential election and was re-elected in 2004. Because of constitutionally mandated term limits, Putin was ineligible to run for a third consecutive presidential term in 2008. Dmitry Medvedev won the 2008 presidential election and appointed Putin as Prime Minister, beginning a period of so-called "tandemocracy". In September 2011, following a change in the law extending the presidential term from four years to six, Putin announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive term as President in the 2012 presidential election, an announcement which led to large-scale protests in many Russian cities. He won the election in March 2012 and is serving a six-year term. Many of Putin's actions are regarded by the domestic opposition and foreign observers as undemocratic. The 2011 Democracy Index stated that Russia was in "a long process of regression [that] culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime" in view of Putin's candidacy and flawed parliamentary elections. Critics such as David Milliband describe him as a dictator"

why isnt that enough? 90.132.39.44 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

also why does it have to be mentioned twice in the article?, remove from lead 83.180.167.146 (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2013 (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.

Minor punctuation correction request

Under the "Economic, industrial, and energy policies" section, this extraneous end parenthesis can be found:

of the late 2000s (decade))

Fixed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

A series of the so-called color revolutions in the post-Soviet states, namely the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine! in 2004 and the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan in 2005, led to frictions in the relations of those countries with Russia. In December 2004, Putin criticised the Rose and Orange Revolution, according to him: "If you have permanent revolutions you risk plunging the post-Soviet space into endless conflict".[197] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.240.32 (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr. President V.V. Putin said bus accident in Ukraine on 7/7/2013, could a national mourning. <Wikipedia.org> In I found nothing.Blades Sinergy (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede

The current lede is at odds with last month's RFC close [3]. That particular sentence should probably be removed until (and if) consensus changes. --NeilN talk to me 01:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've locked the article for a week. As Neil states, there was a previous RfC that reached a consensus. If editors challenge the closure of that RfC (it's a bit late for that) or if they want to start another RfC to establish a different consensus, fine. Use this period to do that. But the battling in the article is not acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Shearing pigs

Surely the important part of the comment about shearing pigs is not the behavior of pigs when sheared but the fact that shearing a pig yields little fleece. In fact, pig hair is bristly, not fleecy. The Wikipedia article fails to mention this. The comment is a metaphorical cost/benefit analysis, not a metaphorical illustration of an unpleasant task. Furthermore, the cited source does not make clear the target of Putin's simile: Putin's words quoted in the Guardian could be referring to reporters' questions about Snowden, or to reporters' questions about others' statements on the matter. The Wikipedia article, on the other hand, makes it appear that Putin is referring to the comments of his critics rather than the questions of reporters. It therefore appears that the Wikipedia article may be mischaracterizing the target of his analogy. 74.73.224.244 (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Add protection padlock template

Subject line says it all. If a bot is supposed to do this, it doesn't seem to be working. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Several internal links go to Russian language articles.

Not a big deal if you read Russian, but I don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.12.61 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Glossing over the controversy

This article seems to shed little to no light on the controversies Putin has been involved in/alleged to be involved in like election rigging, his gay rights public statements, and more recently, his involvement in the Ukraine story... I'm not a Putin specialist, but it definitely seems to me like the current article is forgetting to mention the negative, maybe purposefully so... 128.79.0.176 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree. The introduction to the article is hyper-complimentary and nothing is mentioned about his opposition other than that some Western Countries think he's "undemocratic." Monochrome Monitor (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

My main role at this article has been to try to keep the size of the article within reasonable limits. However, I will quote some article content about things that have not been excluded from the article.

Gay issues:


Alleged election fraud:

Ukraine alignment:

The most recent Ukraine stuff may fall under WP:Recentism. Something about it ought to be included eventually. I don't think it warrants a tag at the top of the article, or even in the relevant section of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

About numerology of the name

I am inserting the information about his numerology not because it is known from today, its been at least a year, but because some FSB people are starting to insignate themselves esp. online with different 6-resulting combinations as to assign themselves as supporting their ruler regardless of the negative aspects of his role. I want also to deeply apologize about revealing or pointing to this as it is very disturbing together with him being a Northern ruler, opressor, abuser of human rights and religious offender though rearly in public but we shall see. --Aleksd (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires WP:Reliable sources, so we cannot connect Putin with 6-6-6 unless a reliable source does that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Please remove reduncy

"[...] is a Russian politician who has been the President of Russia since 7 May 2012."

change to

"[...] is the current President of Russia since 7 May 2012." Thank you. 78.35.209.198 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Outdoorsiness

I don't think 'Outdoorsiness' is a word! Should it maybe be changed to 'Outdoor pursuits' or something similar? Spikymoss (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a word.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Aiming for Brief Statement of Facts

If there is to be a statement of facts regarding the recent Ukrainian events under V. Putin's page, I would ask a knowledgeable editor to examine the current statement under that subsection. I would normally edit something like this myself; however, I am rather unfamiliar with the events as a more knowledgeable editor might be. Statements such as "In reality..." do not make much sense. If it occurred and the citation is good, then make a statement of fact and move on without the added chatter. I find there to be numerous examples of this issue within this particular article. Y J33Zy (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Article is wrong in saying the troops were unidentified,for the initial hour perhaps, but reporters asked who they were and all the younger soldiers said "Russian".The troops came from the Russian naval base and some vehicles still had Russian number plates.All the vehicles, all the weapons and all the uniforms and equipment are Russian. I think it is accurate to say the invading troops were Russian. Putin confirmed this when he said in an interview" I sent in Russian troops to protect the Russians in East Ukraine from"Ukranian nationalists". This is Putin speak for Ukranians who opposed the butchering of peaceful protesters by the their ex president.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Rigging of election

Shouldn't the article mention that the 2012 presidential election was rigged, as international observers agreed Putin only "won" by stealing millions of votes, as well as ensuring the opposition was divided by fielding five candidates? (92.11.198.127 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC))

Second sentence of Vladimir_Putin#Third_Presidential_term_.282012.E2.80.93present.29. Anything more and we would need rock solid sources on how Putin was involved. --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Public image section needs trimming

There is a separate page on the public image of Vladimir Putin and basically all 2200 words as well as the images and graphs in the main article's public image section are copied over there. For example the seven paragraphs on "putinisms" can be reduced to "Putin is known for his often tough and witty aphorisms, known as putinisms." Afasmit (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lieutenant Colonel?

The Russian wikipedia lists him as full colonel. 72.79.135.33 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes lieutenant colonels are referred to as colonels. I have not seen any sources that he was promoted beyond lieutenant colonel. TFD (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request in Foreign Policy section

The article states, "Washington regarded Russia as obstructionist and a spoiler regarding Syria, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. In turn, those nations look to Russia for protection against the United States." First, this should probably be edited so that the two sentences match in tense. Second, what does "a spoiler" mean here? If this is a technical term it should be wikilinked, otherwise it should probably be rephrased. I'd suggest "Washington regarded Russia as obstructing United States interests in ...". 138.16.18.24 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dissertations?

The article has him writing the same dissertation twice, in 1975 and 1997. I'm assuming due to the title ("The Strategic Planning of Regional Resources Under the Formation of Market Relations" ) that it's really the 1997 one, so can someone determine the 1975 subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.245.123 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

It is widely known that the Russian economy is largely based on oil and gas exports and that most of the growth Russia has seen under Putin is largely due to the rise of gas and oil prices (esp. between 2000 and 2008). I don't see any mention of this in the lead. Most political and economic experts (both in Russia and the West) tell the same story. Martin Walker nicely sums it up this article: "the country remains an under-performing economy, based on exporting raw materials, with a serious corruption problem and uncertain human and property rights". --Երևանցի talk 03:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that this info is definitely needed. This article suffers from a lot of systematic whitewashing and fluffing—on my way to check out the relevant section in this article I found this little gem, which honestly made me vomit in my mouth a little. Concerns have been raised numerous times in the past, but have been rebuffed by a handful of editors as "yellow journalism", etc. (look through the recent archives). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
It wouldn't be much big of a deal if Putin was not such a huge figure. I'm surprised the efforts have not been successful. But it's somewhat explainable since he is in office. For instance, Barack Obama's lead is as well a little too favorable, whereas George W. Bush's is more neutral and little more critical. --Երևանցի talk 04:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I've just noticed that the bit on the faked stunts (tiger, amphorae...) has been moved to the public image article leaving just a brief one-line mention on this page, while his painting of frost gets a whole para! Wow, our priorities are definitely right, eh? Malick78 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
This article was hugely oversize, so I did my best to farm materal out to subartcles. The bit about the amphorae merely said he pretended the discovery and his spokesman then corrected the record. It's not as though some investigation discovered his spokesman lied. The more notable thing was that there was typically fawning coverage prior to the spokesman's statement, but that was never in this Putin article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it's probably the most telling thing about his PR escapades. That they are often rigged, and this one was proved beyond doubt to have been rigged (his spokesman admitted it was; he did not willingly 'correct the record', he was forced to by so many people laughing at the stunt in the media and on the net). As it is, it is the one stunt that has to be included above all others. Malick78 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to propose something brief. But I just don't think it's a big enough deal for this article. In contrast, for example, this is in the JFK article:

During his convalescence in 1956, he published Profiles in Courage, a book about U.S. Senators who risked their careers for their personal beliefs, and which received the Pulitzer Prize for Biography in 1957.[36] Rumors that this work was co-authored by his close adviser and speechwriter, Ted Sorensen, were confirmed in Sorensen's 2008 autobiography.[37]

That was an instance where a leader got a huge prize and huge recognition based on pretending to do something, and it was covered up for 51 years. But with this amphorae thing, there was no coverup; his spokesman spoke the truth.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this article has some serious bias, it barely addresses the controversies but lauds him "strengthening Russia as a global superpower". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome Monitor (talk • contribs) 23:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

New comment under same topic...re the third paragraph: "Many of Putin's actions are regarded by the domestic opposition and foreign observers as undemocratic.[5] The 2011 Democracy Index stated that Russia was in "a long process of regression [that] culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime" in view of Putin's candidacy and flawed parliamentary elections.[6]" - Putting opposition insults so close to the start of the article immediately identifies the article as a propaganda piece. Adding citations to prejudiced opinions just means that buased " sources" are being cited. No point in reading further into an article that so grossly violates NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For "In 2014 Russia was excluded from the G8 group as a result of Putin's illegal invasion and annexation of Crimea.[7", whether the annexation of Crimea is legal remains highly controversial. Addressing the annexation as illegal without proper citations and evidences definitely violates the NPOV. A neutral word should be used to describe this controversial matter e.g. the word "controversial" itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datalocus (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2014

instead of this:

  • ===Addresses to the Federal Assembly===
    • During his terms in office Putin has made eight annual addresses to the Federal Assembly of Russia,[1] speaking on the situation in Russia and on guidelines of the internal and foreign policy of the State (as prescribed in Article 84 of the Constitution[2]). On March 18, 2014 Putin made a well- publicized speech about the situation in Crimea.[3]

add in this:

  • ===Addresses to the Federal Assembly===
    • During his terms in office Putin has made eight annual addresses to the Federal Assembly of Russia,[4] speaking on the situation in Russia and on guidelines of the internal and foreign policy of the State, as prescribed in Article 84 of the Constitution.[5] He used his December 2013 speech to describe the situation in Syria and Iran and the state of the armed forces, and to outline his difficulty with the moral equivalence of good and evil.[6] On March 18, 2014 Putin made a well- publicized speech about the situation in Crimea.[3]

69.60.247.253 (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Addresses to the Federal Assembly". Kremlin.ru. Archived from the original on 6 June 2008. Retrieved 2 March 2010.
  2. ^ "Article 84 of the Russian Constitution". Constitution.ru. Retrieved 2 March 2010.
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference speaking was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Addresses to the Federal Assembly". Kremlin.ru. Archived from the original on 6 June 2008. Retrieved 2 March 2010.
  5. ^ "Article 84 of the Russian Constitution". Constitution.ru. Retrieved 2 March 2010.
  6. ^ eng.kremlin.ru: "Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly" 12 Dec 2014

Not done: The sentence you have asked to add doesn't appear to summarize the speech, based both on the summary which is found at the beginning of the source and the translation of the speech found in the source. Syria is not mentioned until near the end of the summary and Iran is merely alluded to in the body of the speech. The "good and evil" portion of the speech was also too brief to make it into their summary, which suggests it shouldn't be in ours. Regards, Celestra (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

personal wealth and corruption

- the lead is very flattering about putin - is anything in this this article worth mentioning at all? its like the old CPSU wrote the intro imo. Sayerslle (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by flattering? Lead has a criticism ("Many of Putin's actions are regarded by the domestic opposition and foreign observers as undemocratic.[5] The 2011 Democracy Index stated that Russia was in "a long process of regression [that] culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime" in view of Putin's candidacy and flawed parliamentary elections.[6] In 2014 Russia was excluded from the G8 group as a result of international consensus on the illegality of Putin's invasion and annexation of Crimea.[7]"). If you object fourth paragraph of the lead, then what your proposals? Which points do you object? Seryo93 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
oh I agree about the undemocratic and conservative/fascistic authoritarian tendencies ,and national-chauvinist ,criticism- but the lead is silent about the corruption aspect that the article I cited above, leads on, this article "Corruption by Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration in Moscow has produced tens of billions of dollars worth of illicit funds for the Russian leader and his top aides, according to U.S. officials." "Putin is estimated to have amassed a fortune worth at least an estimated $28 billion through kickbacks " - The Putin corruption network is centered in a network of associates, many of whom are former KGB political police and intelligence officials like Putin. - (I would add it myself at once but I'm not sure the Washington free beacon is considered RS) - actually , just seen a writer called Ben Judah on channel 4 news and it seems he has written on this kind of thing [4] , so I will read his workhow Russia fell out of love with putin and then suggest an additon to the paragraph in the lead. Sayerslle (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Balancing aspects

Our section here about the "Intervention in Crimean Peninsula" is not how we should mention this in a bio - a list of what happened here is not relevant to the main subject of this page. Why are we explaining in detail here the conflict - most has nothing to do with Putin. -- Moxy (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Accordingly, I have shortened the subsection so that it focuses on Putin, removing stuff that did not mention Putin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

forbes (edit request 1)

can some one please restore "forbes" article about world most powerfull person as the list is used by other world politicians articles i mean can someone please revert "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=602573198&oldid=602520282" 115.187.78.250 (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I restored the info, but in the body of the article rather than the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS (edit request 2)

can someone please remove the following sentence from the article "In 2014 Russia was excluded from the G8 group as a result of international consensus on the illegality of Putin's invasion and annexation of Crimea." it does not belong here because of WP:NOTNEWS 115.187.78.250 (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: That's not sufficient grounds for removal. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Article in desperate need of cleanup

99% of this article still reads like a hagiography written by the Kremlin and the article is still aggressively targeted by pro-Putin POV pushers. It would be extremely unlikely if the Putin regime did not attempt to influence this article. The article is a disgrace to principles of neutrality and encyclopedic standards, and is clearly used as part of Putin's propaganda war. Tataral (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus decision here. If you would like to overturn that consensus, then you are more than welcome to do so here at the talk page, instead of edit-warring about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

unsourced text in violation with WP:RS and WP:BLP

in Vladmir Putin#Outdoorsiness.2C_singing.2C_painting.2C_songs_about_him.2C_brands.2C_sayings there is this following text:"Some of the activities have been criticised for involving deception or being completely staged.[citation needed]" can someone please remove it since it is unsourced and doubios information that spefically says in WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" 27.96.33.235 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have inserted footnotes for the statement, instead of removing the statement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
the sources mention olny one activity and they do not use the word "deception" to describe the activity Some of the activities involving deception 115.187.78.250 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope, they mention two activities: "discovering" ancient pottery underwater, and catching huge fish.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey about top pic

2006
2012

To the left is the pic currently at the top of this article. To the right is a pic that is six years more recent. Twice, the pic on the right has been removed and replaced with the one on the left, both times without explanation.[5][6] Do people think the more recent pic (on the right) would be better?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes, because more recent.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, because the picture on the right looks like he is just a floating head. The background being black and the suit being black do not mix well. 15.211.201.82 (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

In the beginning it states "...has been a real jackass and the cock-sucking President of Russia since 7 May 2012." I feel that is inappropriate for the public to see and request that be rewritten. Tcraven28650 00:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC) Tcraven28650 00:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the vandalism has been removed and the editor has been given a final warning. --NeilN talk to me 00:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2014

99.235.156.199 (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Vladimir Putin successor as Prime Minister of Russia is Dmitry Medvedev, not Viktor Zubkov. Vladimir Putin is Prime Minister of Russia from 2008 to 2012, before he was re elected to the position as President of Russia in 2012. Dmitry Medvedev become Prime Minister of Russia in 2012 after he steps down as President of Russia in 2012.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dom497 (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

fascist putin

can someone remove that nonsense about putin being a fascist in the intro 196.46.189.214 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree and that's done. It's questionable whether this belongs in a BLP at all, but it's definitely WP:UNDUE to include it in the lead. Valenciano (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Putin

Vladimir Putin is an atheist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.189.1 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Writing this in here is so bizarre that I would let this stand, maybe a new box-type design can be invented to mark things like that. Just saying this, no substantiation - and what would it matter if he was an atheist? It is a monumental task to be the President of Russia and whether or not he is an atheist does not matter to the floods in the Amur region or gas prices for the Ukraine. But maybe it was a child who wrote this in.
On other forums, however, I have seen quite a few trolling hirelings referring to Putin's personal wealth - without substantiating any of it and seemingly parrotting what they have been told to write. Putin makes it a little too easy for these trolling hirelings, acting like a brainless anti-Putin brigade, when he does not put his cards on the table. I know the West does not understand the East, 'Putin's Palace' may well be like a Camp David of Russia, but sometimes these things must be stated. And what is stated must be clear and those who question it, must not find it or parts of it untrue. The West, Americans in particular, love their grandstanding and grandiose words and one should never go that far but a little bit of solid information might reduce hostility, which should never be dismissed as completely unnecessary. 121.209.56.52 (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/putinmurders/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. APerson (talk!) 22:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with all the quotes

We need a good copy edit of the section "Intervention in Crimean Peninsula" to remove all the quotes ...so it does not look like someone grade 10 student version that is just a copy and paste of quotes over talking the time to summarized like the rest of the article. I will try over the next few days..but would love some help. -- Moxy (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Even in times of war the Russian military unwanted reconciliation with the political leader of the country. Efforts <Wikipedia User's> have rid the article of charges VV Punina in some complicity or involvement <Desaster Kursk 141>. We continue to work, wanting uluchshit article in German. And, specifically, offer to discuss the involvement of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation to the explosion on board the nuclear missile submarine Kursk 141. (Unfortunately, <edit> feature article in the German language is not available.)21052014Nr1 (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

International terrorist

Considering that his illegal terrorist forces in Ukraine shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 and killed almost 300 civilians of other nationalities, including many Dutch people, can we now add terrorist and mass murderer to the description of the Russian dictator? Like Muammar Gaddafi, he has a terrorist record, and Muammar Gaddafi's article mentions prominently that he engaged in "terrorism in many other nations". Anders Behring Breivik killer fewer people than Putin's thugs, and his article is all about his murders. Alana Caz (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

His terrorism is widely condemned:

Mostly POV propaganda. Whereas Barack Obama's page rarely talks about criticism of him, this biography is little more than a forum for everone with at least a minor quibble to provide their opinion and editorials.
Is George W. Bush a terrorist? Or Ronald Reagan? Obama?

-- Tobby72 (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The relevant comparison is Muammar Gaddafi's involvement with terrorism abroad, which is mentioned in the introduction of his article. Obama is not a dictator, unlike Putin, so the comparison is laughable, as every serious person understands. Alana Caz (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If Putin intentionally ordered a civilian plane shot down it is an act of terrorism. If you have the definitive proof please show the world. -- Tobby72 (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
WP:LABEL guidelines would prevent us from using the "terrorist" label, just as it does in the Gaddafi article. Whether or not he supports terrorism in other many other nations is something that would require reliable sources. The most likely theory, according to news media, is that Ukrainian separatists shot down the aeroplane believing it was a military transport plane. TFD (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the most reliable theory according to most mainstream sources is that the Russian dictator engaged in acts of terrorism in a foreign country (Ukraine) by arming terrorists, supplying them with the (advanced) equipment necessary to shoot down a large Boeing 777 airplane. Indeed, according to the government in the country in question, "We have compelling evidence that this terrorist act was committed with the help of the Russian Federation. We know clearly that the crew of this system were Russian citizens." This is an act of international terrorism for which Putin is responsible according to the sources, in the same way Gadaffi was held to be responsible for acts of terrorism abroad committed by or with the help and instigation of his regime. Also, it's officially labeled a terrorist act by the government in the country concerned, so we'll stick to what the sources say. Alana Caz (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

When an if they present the evidence it will become relevant. Talk is cheap.
With language such as Russian dictator and terrorist you're just discrediting yourself as an editor. Stop this partisan POV-pushing this is not CNN. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not discrediting myself by using mainstream terminology used by the sources. Do you want me to find a few hundred sources describing him as a dictator? Indeed, it's the ones claiming guys like Putin, Hitler or Stalin were not dictators but perfectly legitimate leaders who discredit themselves as editors. Alana Caz (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

But he is not de facto dictator, only figuratively, a strongman-like figure. You're consciously abusing shades of meaning in terminology. Same for "terrorist".
Downing of the plane was similarly an accident not a real act of state terrorism. It is comparable in its outcome with an act of terrorism with many civilian deaths, and one can even call it terrorism in the absence of a more fitting term, but it's really not.
BTW, many millions of people don't think of Hitler or Stalin as dictators either, or negative historical personalities for that matter. Wikipedia must remain neutral meaning that we cannot present any particular POV as "true". --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Alana Caz, you are now switching your argument to saying that the rebels are terrorists, Putin is supporting them, therefore he is supporting terrorists. But the guideline WP:LABEL says we should not do that. Partisan sources may describe one group of insurgents as "terrorists" and another as "freedom-fighters." In fact they may switch the labels when these groups shift their alliances. But we are supposed to avoid value-laden labels. TFD (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, let's have better sources for "Putin has been widely condemned internationally for terrorism" than British tabloids reporting on the views of people affected by the tragedy. If we used this standard, we could devote entire articles to names people call politicians. --NeilN talk to me 18:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a recent discussion on the reliability of the Daily Mail. --NeilN talk to me 13:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

  • While I agree that we should not describe Putin as terrorist as a fact, the allegations by notable figures, particular British PM David Cameron are notable as attributed opinions. I provided more references beside The Daily Mail Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    I like the leap from "pro-Russian" to "Russian backing" and from "contributing" to "complicity". There is no evidence that the plane was shot with Russian/Putin's complicity apart from Ukrainian govt's talk which will never materialize since that would make them liable for damages if they knew that Buk deployed in the area for several days before the accident. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Rigging the Sochi Olympics

In the sports world, the corruption at the Sochi Olympics is a big issue. Not only the fact that $50,000,000,000 was spent on the Sochi Olympics (more than all the other Winter Olympics combined, and just where did all that money go?) but that the ladies figure skating was rigged for Adelina Sotnikova to win gold over Yuna Kim, the world's champion. The judges and technical controllers were heavily Russian or Russian aligned and gave inflated scores to Sotnikova and deflated scores to Yuna. It's become as big a scandal as the Tonya Harding scandal and reflects directly on Putin. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have multiple reliable sources saying that Putin was directly involved in the so-called rigging, your suppositions don't belong here. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --NeilN talk to me 14:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The multiple sources are everywhere on the Internet, just Google "Sochi Olympics figure skating controversy". The Olympics were Putin's baby, corruption was everywhere (the road that was so expensive it could have been made out of caviar one inch thick; the ski jump to nowhere where the guy in charge had to leave the country to avoid being arrested, etc., etc.) But aside from the overall corruption I'll concentrate on the Rigged Figure Skating: the Russian judge Alla Shekhovtseva was married to the General Director of the Russian Figure Skating Federation and she could be seen hugging Adelina Sotnikova immediately after Sotnikova won gold; the Ukrainian judge Yuri Valkov had been suspended for one year for trying to fix the ice dancing at the 1998 Nagano Olympics; the Technical Controller was Alexander Lakernik, a Russian who had been vice president of the Russian Figure Skatimg Federation; the replay operator was Alexander Kuznetzov, a Russian; the Assistant Technical Specialist was Olga Baranova who was a former skating coach of Adelina Sotnikova. I realize Wikipedia likes to "cherry pick" it's so-called "reliable sources" to promote it's editors' own biased views and personal agendas but the Sochi Olympics scandal (called the "Fake Olympics") is a worldwide news event covered by numerous sources that cannot be ignored. In addition, the special Olympics Preview Edition of Sports Illustrated predicted that Russia would come in 5th overall--how did Russia jump over the four top rated countries to come in 1st overall? 50.202.81.2 (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Here's some more interesting data: Adelina Sotnikova scored 149.95 in her Freeskate at the Olympics--her previous personal best had been 131.63 just a month earlier. It takes years of training to improve by 20 points. How did Sotnikova do it in just one month? --It's impossible, and in current shows (The Ice tour, for instance) Sotnikova is falling down and can't even complete jumps--and she's supposed to be the best in the world? In addition, most of the top ladies figure skaters in the world (Yuna Kim, Mao Asada, Carolina Kostner, Alissa Czisny, Akiko Suzuki) retired from competitive figure skating after the Sochi scandal. --Why work hard to win when the results will be rigged? The Sochi scandal is very important because it marks the beginning of the end for Putin. Rigging the Sochi Olympics emboldened Putin to invade the Ukraine. The world hates Russia now and international sanctions are being levied against Russia. Putin gained a short term win but he has lost tons of prestige for Russia and has lost big time in the long term. So the Sochi Olympics Scandal is actually very important and is a major turning point in Putin's career and is, in Wiki terms, "notable" to say the least. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
1) Don't care. 2) Don't care. 3) Don't care. Unless you have multiple reliable sources saying that Putin was directly involved in the so-called rigging, your suppositions don't belong here. Further ramblings on your part will be removed per WP:NOTFORUM. --NeilN talk to me 00:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I googled "Sochi Olympics figure skating scandal" and got four hits, only one of which was an rs, or close enough, The Daily Mail. It doesn't say "scandal" in the text, only the title, and doesn't mention Putin either. It says, "Critics say the judging panel is made up mostly of Eastern Bloc states...." Didn't know there still was an "Eastern Bloc." Anyway, you need to provide sources, not ask other editors to dig for them. TFD (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2013

Add in the popular culture section info about this animation film: "Cartoon coronation", which has been sabotaged by Russian Google section, but still popular in Russia and outside.

See: http://newintelligentsia.com/cartoon-coronation-by-russian-artist-maxima-artis-kosmopolites/ and http://pn14.info/?p=111097  Not done Spam request to add fringe material and violation of BLP policy.Forbidden User (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Translation of grades

In the section "Ancestry, early life and education" there are references to "fifth grade" and "sixth grade". Apparently intended for American readers, the terms are meaningless to non-Americans. Please change the references to the actual ages of fifth and sixth grade students so we can all understand. Akld guy (talk) 22:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No response, so I've done my best to convert to an age basis. Akld guy (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

please add this to recognition section:

In July 2014, Ukrainian astronomers named a star, TYC 3541-945-1, Putin - Huilo! in recognition of the chant and as a response to the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.[49][50][51] The star is located between the constellations Cygnus and Lyra. The Irish publication TheJournal.ie reported, "On a clear night, you can see ‘Putin Is A Dickhead’."[52]

158.57.150.68 (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Per WP:UNDUE. Relevant (and already present) in Putin khuilo!. --NeilN talk to me 16:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Some lacunae

The article should highlight a bit more thoroughly that Putin's methods date back to his KGB times. There's a one-to-one correspondance. As a sidenote, I'd note that a case has been made that freemasons are actually pulling the strings, just like they were behind the 1917 'revolutions'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Stepanovich Gongadze-Kolokowsky (talk • contribs) 16:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Relations with NATO and its member nations

I think this section ought to be renamed "Relations with Europe" as all other subsections in section 5 are named for geographical areas like SE Asia and not organisations. AadaamS (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

See also and documentaries section suggested

WP has moved towawrd greater appreciation of cinematic learning resources. There are many on this topic. It might be nice to collate/curate and present them. Here is a start 

Critical Putin Doc 1

Putin Pravda documentary

The Putin System

Wikidgood (talk) 06:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Putin lost the 2012 election

Putin lost the last election and only "won" by stealing more than 8 million votes from his opponents. It is misleading for the article to suggest he won, because the election was rigged. (AlexisVlad (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC))

Wikipedia articles are supposed to report what reliable sources have written. If you can cite reliable sources that say the election was stolen, please produce them. Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There are tens of thousands of sources online. Putin was not democratically elected and this website should not pretend otherwise. (AlexisVlad (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC))
How many of those tens of thousands of websites would be considered reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
At least 90%. (AlexisVlad (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC))


Hey instead of b****chin' why don't you put up some of the better WP:RS to substantiate this and propose some edits. As it sits the articles on Dear Leader Vlad read like a fanzine. Probably not quite to the level of but close. Wikidgood (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Order of the Republic of Serbia

Can be this added in " recognition " section ? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/vladimir-putin-russia-serbia-alliance-military-parade 24.135.50.156 (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

KGB career

Is it entirely appropriate to use the quotation from Masha Gessen in regards to Putin's KGB career? I mean she is obviously a woman who holds resentment towards Putin (Probably with good reason) so she is automatically going to offer a negative view of Putin's KGB service. Tomh903 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gessen was recently exposed on Mark Adomanis' Forbes blog for fabricating Russian demography statistics. Her background and sexual orientation does not exactly instill confidence either. Secondary opinion from someone less involved is necessary. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow, I hadn't even been aware about her fabricating Russian demography statistics. Now I think it's completely unacceptable to use her information which is in all likelihood false or distorted. Surely there are many better sources that could be used to represent Putin's KGB career? Tomh903 (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Easy on the trigger there buck. Her orientation is irrelevant and her remarks on PUtin don't seem to be agenda driven or derogatory. They seem pretty logical. You need more specifics to impeach her. Wikidgood (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Judging by her writing in the Washington Post etc, she hates Putin. Obviously she has good reason to but I think her statement discredits Putin's whole KGB career unfairly. She doesn't offer any support for her theory that Putin only collected "press clippings" so to me it just seems like her opinion (which is going to hold a bad view of his KGB career regardless) is being added in for no factual gain. Tomh903 (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This article needs to be split

This article needs to split. Its currently way to large, which of course isn't very surprising for such an interesting figure as Putin, but still.. Split up somehow.. At last, this article needs to be updated; several places in this article still imply he is Prime Minister..--TIAYN (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Anathema

I think it should be added: In March 2014 by Mount Athos monks cursed Patriarch Kirill, as well as other Russian Ecclesiastic servants and Vladimir Putin. The monks called them a "bunch of criminals" and accused of of "betraying their religion" and for "making their brothers burn in the internal fire here, in this transient world". [7]--Trzecimaja (talk) 05:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Athos Mountain Monks Anathema

Mt. Athos Monks declare Anathema on Putin/Kirill labeling them a "band of criminals" who will soon reap what they sow.--188.29.164.57 (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

[WP:RS]] reference please Wikidgood (talk) 02:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There you go: http://www.georgianjournal.ge/world/26558-athos-monks-passed-putin-and-the-patriarch-kirill-on-anathema.html--Trzecimaja (talk) 05:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Econjobrumors is not a reliable source. It's an anonymous forum. Find a better citation.

Samael92 (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Putin is a homosexual?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/04/putin-gay-biography_n_4385360.html --108.45.56.173 (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC) About 13 years took GRU - denigrations against V.V. Putin submarine Kursk 141 for destruction.Now have become worse. Generals and admirals become quite crazy!13 Years none of the role FSB at 141 Kursk sinking said something. In each city Russia's FSB is a commissioner for precious metals is thief Tele. FSB is to discover and pursue precious metals is theft. Not the President. Possibly, the precious metals theft to Kursk 141 submarine deliberately covered.Antoin de Hoop Zweite (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Is that all? No. Muscovite <Institute of toxins and human infections> heard, and even FSB.Antoin de Hoop Zweite (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2014


The Editor11009 (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Readability of the section "Intervention in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea"

In the section "Intervention in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea" of this article many strange phrases like "The New York Times reported", "The New York Times added" etc. are used.... I do not see the point in this: it makes the section hard to read (not only for me I assume....) and the whole section is written in a different style then the rest of the article. I see no added value in these "strange phrases". Can I re-write the section and remove them? What was the point of them anyway? NPOV issues? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The first time such a strange phrase is used is in this passage:
On 16 March 2014, The New York Times reported the results of a Crimean referendum: "an overwhelming majority of Crimeans voted on Sunday to secede from Ukraine and join Russia…forcing the United States and its European allies to decide how swiftly and forcefully to levy threatened sanctions against Russian officials including top aides to President Vladimir V. Putin."
This is a blatant piece of propaganda, since the referendum didn't force "the United States and its European allies" to do anything. If the US and EU respected people's right to self-determination and minded their own business, there would be absolutely no need for the US and EU to be in a conflict with Russia.
Do you have a proposal for what to do with this sentence if the "the New York Times reported" bit is removed? In all other cases, I think removing the "strange phrases" is a good idea. – Herzen (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We are not interested in your personal opinions and ideas on how the US and EU should do things. Wikipedia is not a forum and it is also not a BATTLEGROUND, and personal opinions that do not contribute to better Wikipedia articles might be deleted if they are nothing more then disruptive editing. Besides if you are going to comment on events on wp:talkpages do so in a way that tells the whole story. Russia/Putin admitted that the Russian army blocked Ukrainian army bases in Crimea during the Crimean crises; blocking army bases of another country in another country (Russia at the time saw Crimea as a part of Ukraine) is the opposite of respecting people's right to self-determination and minding your own business. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done=Increased readability today (I hope...) with this edit. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2014

I don't know how to write code for Wikipedia but Putin served as Prime Minister from 2008-2012 and not as President during this time period as your first paragraph states. Please fix this.

24.140.242.164 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Done by Valenciano Cannolis (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Forking of "Public image" section

I did some minor editing of the section and today noticed that it nearly the same size as the separate article Public image of Vladimir Putin. No big deal, but the problem is that the texts start diverging, with more content addded here (I mean in "[Vladimir Putin#Public image]]) than there. I suggest to bring them into an accordance with WP:Summary style. If nobody objects, I will merge the "Public image" section into its "main" article, and then trim it severely, leaving only general summary. All detailed examples must go into the subpage. -M.Altenmann >t 02:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact wording

"In 2009 Putin called the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact immoral and in 2014 he asked if there was anything bad about that"

Think this could use some improving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.71 (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Gessen

Secondary source is needed to replace the offending quote from her book. She's a woman, emigre, Jewish, lesbian and a Russophobe, and the entire book reeks of hate. It's not a neutral biography. Article must be neutral so direct quotations from biased works should be reworded as neutral. She partially lists her sources at the end of a book but many are missing full references. E.g. "Putin's biggest success" part is supposedly referenced by "Author interview with Sergei Bezrukov, Düsseldorf, August 17, 2011". No name of the publication, no indication weather it was personal communication or a published piece, weather it was her opinion or that of the interviewee, just nothing. It's such a poorly written work it shouldn't even be used a source. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It`s spelled whether..this is supposed to be in English.
You know Wikipedia, Ivan. RS's can and usually are biased. What is needed are RS's of opposing or differing points of view to maintain NPOV.
But the problem is that it's not a reliable source. It is based on seemingly anecdotal evidence with a plentiful supply of value judgements throughout. It's not a scholarly work. Secondary sources that Gessen actually uses should be used and not her work which is a derivative with an anti-Putin slant. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion of her quotation is a blight on the entire article. Never in a million years would a quote from, for example, Bill O'Reilly be allowed such a prominent position on Barack Obama's article yet it seems perfectly fine to let a woman, who is the complete opposite of what Putin represents, thrash his entire KGB career based only on her hatred for him. It needs to be removed ASAP. Tomh903 (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Removed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

possible WP:BLP violation

See Talk:Public image of Vladimir Putin. -M.Altenmann >t 16:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Asperger news

Medical aspect

Speculative reports based on video analysis, denied by Moscow. See centralized discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Vladimir Putin Asperger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with "centralization" of this thread on a medical page. I think this led the discussion astray. The report from the Office of Net Assessment does not purport to be a "medical diagnosis", contrary to implications on the "centralized" discussion. The report appears to be an intelligence evaluation requiring professional skills beyond those that would be applied in a medical diagnosis. Perhaps an analogy would help. An intelligence expert examining aerial photographs of a steel bridge across a river cannot perform a "structural analysis" that a "Professional Engineer" would sign as such. Nevertheless, he may be able to make a very useful estimate whether the bridge could carry a military vehicle of a certain weight. This estimate requires engineering knowledge as well as other specialized skills. The resulting report may contain engineering language, but that does not imply that it is an "engineering study". It would be an intelligence report. It would be unhelpful for a Professional Engineer lacking those additional specialized skills to dismiss it as "speculation". (A copy of the report that is more conveniently searchable is available here.) Layzeeboi (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
garbage at best (you cannot diagnose an ASD from video) and really ugly (and ironic) psychiatric propaganda at worst. We don't put complete bullshit into WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you forgot to sign your remark. The original report does not claim to "diagnose" anything. So this comment appears to be a straw man fallacy. How CNN or anyone else choses to sensationalize the report is irrelevant to the original post, which did not cite such "garbage". And how can the original report be "propaganda", when it was buried for 7 years, and had to be extracted via Freedom of Information (which is unavailable in regimes fond of "psychiatric propaganda")? Let's all try to calm down... Layzeeboi (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop citing the link to that unverified version of the report. I'll discuss this at Project Med to keep the discussion in one place. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The Aspergers ref is shite, political game rot. Its not medical. SaintAviator lets talk 01:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Other considerations

IMO it is pretty safe to conclude that after the initial publication many experts agreed that this "diagnose" is a wild guesswork, i.e., the discussion of medical aspects at WP:MEDICINE may be closed (or branched out, if people want to chat). Nevertheless it remains to be decided whether the subject is noteworthy for other reasons. But this continuation belongs to where it belongs: Talk:Vladimir Putin. -M.Altenmann >t 07:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, and strongly. this is a health related matter. there is no other bucket it goes into. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope. There are plenty of buckets to go into: politics, conspiracy theories, defamation, to name a few. Any of them may develop significantly. -M.Altenmann >t 07:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It will not go in and if it does after the usual process it will be booted. Its rubbish. SaintAviator lets talk 01:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If the community decides it is noteworthy, it will go in. There are heaps of rubbish in wikipedia. You may start with trying to boot 'Putin khuilo' article for an exercise in booting. -M.Altenmann >t 03:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

He did not win the 2012 election

The introduction should not say Putin won the March 2012 election, because it was rigged. He only "won" by stealing more than 8 million votes from his opponents. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC))

You need mainstream reliable sources that say that. TFD (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
There are thousands of news sources saying that online. There were massive protests in Russia against the result because everybody knew the election was rigged. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC))
"thousands of news sources saying that online" is not an acceptable reference for use in a footnote. If what you say is correct, is there any reason you cannot provide at least one of them? TFD (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's one: http://www.salon.com/2012/03/05/was_russias_election_rigged/ (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC))
OMG more shite. George its rubbish. SaintAviator lets talk 01:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Return to Putin's Russia, which is a reliable source and certainly not pro-Putin, "no one questioned whether Putin actually won the election." (p. 2)[8] Your source is from election night and what some media report at the time is often inaccurate. TFD (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually everybody questioned whether Putin won, because the election was blatantly rigged just like his first election in 2000. Even the BBC said Putin did not win the 2012 election. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC))

The source I provided was in the intro to the fifth edition of a book about Putin, published by an academic publisher, Rowman & Littlefield. It meets rs, your opinion does not. If you have a secondary source that says, "everybody questioned whether Putin won", please present it. TFD (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The White House said the election was rigged and Putin stole more than 8 million votes from his opponents. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC))
You need to provide sources, otherwise your assertions are of no value to the discussion. I do not know if what you say is true or not and frankly I do not care. It only matters what sources say. TFD (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
We cannot say that "he did not win the election". The body of the article discusses "procedural irregularities" identified by international observers. I changed the sentence in the lead, from "He won the election in March 2012 and is serving a six-year term" to "In March 2012 he won the election, which was widely criticized for procedural irregularities, and is serving a six-year term" using language taken directly from the body. Hopefully that will satisfy everybody. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The White House said, who cares. You have no RS. Your pushing the Vandalism envelope. SaintAviator lets talk 00:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Putin was never elected in the first place, because the election in 2000 was rigged. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/919928.stm (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC))

Fluff. SaintAviator lets talk 01:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You are obviously a Putin supporter and should not be pushing POV on this site. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC))
Your remarks about somebody being a 'Putin supporter' are out of line, and irrelevant, in Wikipedia. What matters is the reliability of the source. The Moscow Times is a throw-away English flyer published by a Helsinki publisher for the expatriate consumer, hardly what anyone would class as a RS. The article even admits that none of its speculations would have affected the election result anyway, which makes your hysteria a bit over the top. Santamoly (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongman label

Isn't calling Putin a dictator a bit negative POV? That is apparently what a strongman is. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. SaintAviator lets talk 01:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed it. TFD (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I see another editor restored it. The description is unsourced and therefore in violation of WP:BLP. TFD (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
As Putin was never voted into power in an election that wasn't rigged he is definitely a strongman dictator like Egypt's Nasser and Libya's Gaddafi. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC))
OMG SaintAviator lets talk 04:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, GeorgeJefferys has been blocked for sockpuppetry. TFD (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yawn, not surprised. SaintAviator lets talk 01:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Darn - I was just getting myself all worked up about the boy Santamoly (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Economic success

This edit: [9]

User:Avaya1's edit presented economic growth during putinism as a mere coincidence. I double-checked his cited sources and see they say that while oil and commodities boom were a significant factor indeed, this was not all good luck. Therefore I edited accordingly. -M.Altenmann >t 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

At the same time IMO the lede should not go into detail why something happened; the explanation will be simplistic by necessity (it is lede; must be short). IMO the lede must say what happened and leave why to the corresponding section, with all detail. -M.Altenmann >t 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The why of things in lede is bad writing. So basic, so ignored in WP SaintAviator lets talk 04:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead...god I hate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.244.25 (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Grow a brain, sign your shit (God I hate that) and learn to search / fact check, before you blab (God I hate that). For Wikipedia guidelines on lead paragraphs, see Wikipedia:Lead section. A lead, or lede, paragraph in literature is the opening paragraph of an article, essay, news story or book chapter. [10] SaintAviator lets talk 00:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy. 66.177.244.25 (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Whats your point? That you were wrong? SaintAviator lets talk 01:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
No one in the English speaking world spells it like that..it is a fabricated word probably originating as a typo at a newspaper somewhere that eventually made it into a dictionary..not the point..you are demonstrating a history of hostility and personal attacks that seem to be politically motivated. 66.177.244.25 (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess you asked everyone 'in the English speaking world'. Impressive. Take it up with Wikipedia using this [11] SaintAviator lets talk 01:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Destruction battallion episode

re: 01:48, March 5, 2015‎ Kostja (talk | contribs)‎ . . (223,799 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (→‎Ancestry, early life and education: None of the sources claim that his father served in the behind the rear destruction battalions) (undo | thank)

The NYT writes:

" He had been assigned to a demolitions battalion of the NKVD. These battalions were engaged in sabotage behind German lines. My father took part in one such operation. "

"Demolitions battalion" is one of poor English translation of ru:Истребительный батальон. YOu may independently verify from Russian-language sources. One of jobs istrebki did was sabotage behind enemy lines. Putin's father was engaged in a single operation, unsuccessful. -M.Altenmann >t 16:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is a Russian-lang source for those who does not know how to use google. -M.Altenmann >t 03:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, I do not exclude a possibility of a Russian legend, but one needs reliable sources to dispute what Putin said himself. -M.Altenmann >t 04:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I just looked into podvignaroda.mil.ru - it is reasonably complete datbase. He is there in three records: [12], [13] and [14] . If I understand http://www.podvignaroda.mil.ru/?#id=26749652&tab=navDetailDocument correctly Putin Vladimir Spiridonovich 1911 year of birth served in acting army on Leningrad Front as a private of 330 Rifle Regiment, 86 Rifle Regiment from 20 June 1941 to 17 November 1941. He was severely wounded near Nevskaya Dubrovka on 17 November 1941, was still considered a member of the forces until April 1942 (probably was in a military hospital) and then retired as disabled veteran of 3d category (инвалид Отечественной Войны 3-ей группы). In 1985 (as all the veterans) he was awarder Order of the Great Patriotic War. No mention of any demolition battalions. Maybe his participation was so secret that the Red Army knew nothing about it, but I strongly doubt it. All the rest is written from the words of Vladimir Vladimiroich. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
NKVD is not army. I thought you know. And narod is not eager to commemorate podvig NKVD. -M.Altenmann >t 15:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is a valid point. Although if he received military decorations during WWII, he should be there, I also would not believe they would send a permanently disabled person with not-working ankle-joint behind the enemy lines. This is my personal original research of course, but I am against putting any info of Vladimir Spiridonovich adventures in 1942-1945 without attributing them to interviews with his son Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Putin Troll

Can you write something about this Putin Troll business?

Super Bowl Ring

Would it be apropriate to add a section on the super bowl ring Vladimir Putin stole from Robert Kraft? There are multiple references.

Or is this too obscure an event to mention? --Lukejodonnell (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Weight and BMI

What relevance is there to his weight and BMI ratings? I don't think this is appropiate, as I see no other Wikipedia articles of politicians where their weight and BMI is listed. --Canelo 93 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. Removed. Can't see any decent reason for having this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
With all the talk of his having had (multiple) strokes, perhaps there would be merit in having a section on his health? Eg see here. It's relevant because a) the Kremlin hides it to keep him looking strong, and b) the whole strongman image is to contrast with Yeltsin who was notoriously drunk and frail (had a heart attack before his second election win). Malick78 (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Height restored as fact of note; BMI removed as original research. -M.Altenmann >t
If that section is to be retained, it should be stated why it's significant. AFAIK, 170 cm still isn't somehow abnormal for a man. Compare Dmitry Medvedev's 163 cm, for example. Brandmeistertalk 18:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
re: why it's significant, well, for starters, it is in my driver's ID. I guess US government thinks height is important parameter. Second, it is not abnormal, but still people notice (and publish in newspapers, too). -M.Altenmann >t 19:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
That falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Check Human_height#Average_height_around_the_world. In Russia it's 176 cm for men, so Putin's difference isn't particularly noteworthy. Brandmeistertalk 20:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
How come noticeably below average is not noteworthy? Anyway, this is your personal opinion. Other people found it noteworthy and please don't pour alphabet soup here without reviewing the policy yourself first. -M.Altenmann >t 03:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
For example, Stalin was of short stature, and you will find quite a few references about efforts of photographers to conceal this fact. On the other hand, there is a widespread myth that Napoleon was a shorty, while in fact he was of average height. In other words, height of a leader is of note, discussed and inquired. And therefore this info is quite 'discriminate' and encyclopedic. -M.Altenmann >t 03:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I've read news articles mentioning Putin's attempts to hide his lack of height. I therefore concur that it's notable. I'd question though whether 170 is accurate - he was said to be the same height as Medvedev. Malick78 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Александр Чумичев, бывший личный фотограф Горбачева, Ельцина и Путина:

1) правда ли что Путина и Медведева запрещено снимать рядом с людьми выше их ростом?
1. Я уже сказал, что с Медведевым и Путиным практически не работал. Но кто же может запретить снимать, если кто-то из лидеров, с которыми они встречаются, выше ростом? Другое дело, что нужно выбрать такой ракурс, чтобы эту разницу в росте можно было нивелировать. Это очень просто делается. Предположим, они стоят рядом, если вы будете снимать со стороны более высокого, то он будет казаться еще выше, а другой - еще ниже. А если снимать с противоположной стороны и чуть-чуть снизу, то они выравниваются. Я, например, когда работал с Михаилом Сергеевичем, старался выбирать более низкую точку, чтобы быть с ним на одном уровне. С Борисом Николаевичем было проще - мы с ним одного роста. С Путиным я тоже становился пониже, потому что я выше его сантиметров на двадцать.

Рост Владимира Путина и других фигур российской политики:

Рост Владимира Путина нередко является предметом обсуждений и споров в интернете, с которыми предлагаю покончить в этой статье.
Сам Владимир Владимирович никогда не давал публичных комментариев насчет своего роста, но вездесущие журналисты выяснили все, начиная от размера одежды (52-ой) и заканчивая ростом.
Итак, самая большая цифра, которую можно встретить в интернете – 176 сантиметров. Также вы можете обнаружить данные о 175 (разница не столь существенная), 172 и 170 сантиметрах. Самая же маленькая цифра, которую я встречал – 168 сантиметров. Как вы понимаете, такое разнообразие цифр объясняется слухами и домыслами.
Очевидно, рост В.В. Путина не является высоким, что неоднократно отмечалось в СМИ, и что мы можем сами заметить на фотографиях из газет и интернета.
Тем не менее, наиболее часто упоминаемой цифрой является 170 сантиметров. Вполне возможно, что эти данные достоверны.

-And plenty of other sources; none of which claims the data are official. -M.Altenmann >t 07:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"Ещё одна причина, по которой Путин — наш президент. В его личности соединились два любимых персонажа анекдотов — Штирлиц и Вовочка." -M.Altenmann >t 05:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do you stop with physical characteristics? What about ears that are big and stick out like Obamas? There are constant immature attempts to belittle Putin. Why? SaintAviator lets talk 06:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
How Putin is being belittled? -M.Altenmann >t 06:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Do a tour of reverts in the archives. SaintAviator lets talk 09:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
None of my business of touring. This is your claim to prove. -M.Altenmann >t 15:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Demonisation of Putin by Western Press

I think its time this Elephant in the room got talked about, don't you? SaintAviator lets talk 09:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

In eyes of Russians only. Russians are not used to criticizing their political leaders other than in political jokes (kukish v karmane). By comparison, just you read what is written about Obama in American press. By Russian standards half of Americans must be in (the american equivalent of) Gulag now. Heck, there is even a political joke. "Unlike you Russians, we Americans have true freedom of the word: anybody can come out in a public square and shout "Reagan is an idiot!" and not arrested" - "What are you talking about? We Russians just the same can shout "Reagan is an idiot"! and not bothered either."-M.Altenmann >t 15:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Im not Russian and I think its true. I think it deserves mention. Your argument is lightweight that can turn into soap quickly i.e. Obama lies that's his problem. Its verifiable that the MSM has an anti Putin agenda. SaintAviator lets talk 23:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
If it's verifiable, then provide sources to verify it.siafu (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
This is what this discussion is about. Getting views. Geez touchy people. SaintAviator lets talk 00:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
No, talk pages are not here for people to trot out their pet theories. Adding content needs to be discussed based on what reliable sources have published. --NeilN talk to me 01:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion of ideas or gathering views. If you want to change the article or add content, particularly in a controversial manner, you need to provide verifiable sources to support the change. Talk pages are meant for discussing improvements and changes to the article-- I wasn't being "touchy" just credulously expecting that you were familiar with the process here. My apologies. siafu (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion leads to refs. SaintAviator lets talk 01:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, you do not seem to understand the process here. If you believe there is an important content change to be made, the burden is on you to demonstrate that through the presentation, and subsequent discussion and review, of sources. It is not the job of others to validate your suggestion. If you do not have any sources (and proposed, specific changes), there is no further discussion to be had. siafu (talk) 02:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Again you over react. I know the process. I will present when ready. This thread may attract some additional info. SaintAviator lets talk 02:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
So there's nothing to discuss, then. Please try to use the talk page to discuss actual changes to the article. siafu (talk) 08:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Clearly with you there's nothing to discuss. Please not try to shut down discussion by filling the space with fluff. SaintAviator lets talk 02:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war. [15]. SaintAviator lets talk 02:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Fresh evidence of how the West lured Ukraine into its orbit The West is demonising President Putin when what set this crisis in motion were recklessly provocative moves to absorb Ukraine into the EU. [16]. SaintAviator lets talk 02:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

These are both opinion pieces, and only useful as sources for the opinions of the authors, and not for establishing a pattern of "demonisation" of Putin in the Western press. The only sort of text that could be made based on these would be to say something like "British columnists Christopher Booker and Seumas Milne have characterized Putin's treatment in the Western press as overly negative". At this point, I believe such a statement would be rather undue, especially given that Mr. Brooke in particular is known for holding a number of extreme fringe views (e.g. climate change denial, intelligent design, arguing asbestos and secondhand smoke are harmless, etc.). siafu (talk) 06:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes the problem is a planned smear campaign in the MSM means it wont be talking about it in MSM. In time better refs will emerge. The Ukraine war will influence how he is portrayed in the West. On the back burner for now. SaintAviator lets talk 10:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Under Recognition Section

This needs to be in. Vladimir Putin named most influential figure in the world for 2015 by Time 100 readers' poll [17] SaintAviator lets talk 09:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Be careful of what you want. There are different types of influence. Hitler was Time's Man of the Year too. -M.Altenmann >t 15:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
What on Earth are you talking about? SaintAviator lets talk 23:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
And what are you? the second most influential man is a korean rapper; telling about the poll. If you want this kind of glory for putin, I don' see who stops you from editing yourself. -M.Altenmann >t 15:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion is good protocol. BTW Obama didn't make the top 10. SaintAviator lets talk 00:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
"Recognition" suggests a positive opinion, I'm not sure this poll is that. It just shows that Putin can fling more faeces than anyone else currently. Malick78 (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Recognise only means to know or acknowledge the existence of. Your interpretation is simply misapprehension. It doesn't matter what sort of 'glory' it brings to Volodya, it's a good point. Why must there be so many nut-jobs who believe anything contentious to the degree that it wasn't decreed by all and sundry ought to be shunned from Wikipaedia on this site.

The Lead is too long

I think the lead is way too long, it should be shortened. Rupert loup (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Five paras is the official limit, as far as I know, so it conforms to that. How short do you think it should be? Btw, he's been in power for 15 years, longer than normal for a "democratic" leader (he knows no term limits after all), hence his lead is longer than most leaders in the west. As an absolute monarch he can also take the credit for everything that happens in Russia as well. Malick78 (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The official limit is four paragraphs WP:LEADLENGTH, I think it can sum up a bit more. Some parts could go in the body of the article instead of the lead. His political status is irrelevant. All articles are treated in the same way regardless of the subject. Rupert loup (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
IMO its fine, SaintAviator lets talk 23:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Same here. Charles Essie (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh god… sure vlad's a 'bit' dodge, but term limits isn't democracy you nut job.

Citation

Acting Presidency (1999–2000)

On 31 December 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and, according to the Constitution of Russia, Putin became Acting President of the Russian Federation. On assuming this role, Putin went on a previously scheduled visit to Russian troops in Chechnya.[citation needed]

Here is the citation for the citation needed section above http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1093548.html As I have no intention of making an account for anyone who would like to fix this here is the citation.


The first Presidential Decree that Putin signed, on 31 December 1999, was titled "On guarantees for former president of the Russian Federation and members of his family".[64][65] This ensured that "corruption charges against the outgoing President and his relatives" would not be pursued.[66] Later, on 12 February 2001, Putin signed a similar federal law which replaced the decree of 1999. While his opponents had been preparing for an election in June 2000, Yeltsin's resignation resulted in the Presidential elections being held within three months, on 26 March 2000; Putin won in the first round with 53% of the vote.[67] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.30 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Citation inserted, thanks for your suggestion! Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Corruption

Hi, we need a full section on Putin's confirmed and alleged corruption, including murders, embezzlement, intimidation, jailing, etc. There are many books and articles noting this activity, so it should not be hard to find information and notable citations. Thanks IQ125 (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's always best to take the lead and then request help than to come begging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.223.51 (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2015

It seems really strange to me that in the 'image' section someone managed to suggest that the creation of a Christmas Fair painting that went on chrarity auction coincided with a Russian-European gas crisis in 2009; it has nothing to do with the subject or the preceding sentence and seems to suggest correlation between the painting and a bunch of people being without gas in the dead of winter. I suggest that sentence either be removed or moved to a more relevant section. Christmas Fairs and Christmas Fair paintings, whatever else they are, have nothing at all to do with politics or gas disputes, and gas disputes have nothing to do with a section about Putin's image. This would mean (please) striking the sentence preceding [260] and its cite from the following paragraph, starting with 'The creation of the painting coincided...':

"Putin's painting "Узор на заиндевевшем окне" (A Pattern on a Hoarfrost-Encrusted Window), which he had painted during the Christmas Fair on 26 December 2008, became the top lot at the charity auction in Saint Petersburg and sold for 37 million rubles.[349] The creation of the painting coincided with the 2009 Russia–Ukraine gas dispute, which left a number of European states without Russian gas amid January frosts.[260]"

... thus leaving us with the edited section reading:

"Putin's painting "Узор на заиндевевшем окне" (A Pattern on a Hoarfrost-Encrusted Window), which he had painted during the Christmas Fair on 26 December 2008, became the top lot at the charity auction in Saint Petersburg and sold for 37 million rubles.[349]" 178.148.59.81 (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Of dat waar is, dat onze mensen heeft V.V.Putin met natriumchloride en gefüttert in heerlijke lokale soep? TERWIJL bezoek in Euro Parlement. Hoe doet hij onze feuerliche humor waarderen?Rongvoux (User talk:Rongvoux talk) 11:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The situation is so, - we have the United Nations - not signed Additional Protocol on Prohibition of Torture. V.V.Putin, Obama Barack or A. Merkel we equal. The are all so or so people. Now if Mr V.V.Putin was offended or fill violated his human rights, he can file a lawsuit on is European Court Strasbourg Cedex. One disgruntled has already .Er chatted about mass poisoning with a salt of the hormone cortisol (also in delicious soup, and even free - free). Jour24 08 2015 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on Vladimir Putin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Third term

Why does it deliberately leave out the fact that the Russian constitution limits presidents to two four-year terms, yet Puttin allowed himself to run for president anyway? That seems too important to exclude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesoju (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Technically, the Constitution only prevents presidents from holding office for more than two consecutive terms ("одно и то же лицо не может занимать должность Президента Российской Федерации более двух сроков подряд", Article 81.3). If you remember, Putin has a nice arrangement with his pal Medvedev, when they switched posts in 2008, so Putin could start his second tenure in 2012. And oh, the terms are six years terms now, not four. It's all very questionable, but not technically illegal.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 23, 2015; 14:35 (UTC)

Prime minister

The information box on the right has Putin as prime minister, while I believe he became President again in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.23.66 (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Dictator?

I do not like the following fragment:

However, this media campaign has also come under attack by scholars and journalists as being a politically motivated distortion of facts. According to American scholar of Russian studies Stephen F. Cohen, "since the early 2000s, the media have followed a different leader-centric narrative, also consistent with US policy, that devalues multifaceted analysis for a relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for facts".[1] The British journalist Seumas Milne argues that "the demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war".[2]
  1. ^ "Distorting Russia". The Nation. Retrieved 27 September 2015.
  2. ^ "The demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 September 2015.

Neither of the sources says that Putin is not a dictator (as oppose to a democratically elected person that can be changed by a democratic process), they just says that we should not pay much attention to this and instead practice "multifaceted analysis" (whatever it is). I will remove the fragment as irrelevant Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

What you like or don't like is not wikipedia policy. The material is reliably sourced and on-topic, therefore it belongs in the article. That;s all that matters. Athenean (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Statements by several well known politicians/experts cited in this paragraph are not "media campaign". This insertion is POV and irrelevant - agree with Alex. My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
My very best wishes. That you agree with Alex does not come as a surprise, however you should not remove an edit before a consensus is reached. Here Alex Bakharev and you are for removal, while Athenean and I are for keeping the info. Therefore, do not delete per WP: I don't like it until consensus is reached. Againstdisinformation (talk) 04:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It's WP:POV, as well as WP:CHERRY picking sources that disagree with the majority of RS (i.e. by no means mainstream in the academic community, either) is WP:GEVAL... and Againstdisinformation, you're being extremely WP:POINTy in trying to reinsert it when it's under discussion, so stop your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I would argue that including quotes by people like Mitt Romney is what it WP:POV and WP:CHERRY. Stephen Cohen is one of the most notable scholars in Russian studies, and he certainly qualifies as a reliable source. I don't see any grounds for not including the material, it is moreover properly qualified ("According to Stephen Cohen...). Athenean (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The National Interest

When did The National Interest become a reliable source in any sense (other than WP:BIASED and, even then, only reliable for statements about itself)? If anyone actually believes this to be a reliable source, please take it to the RSN and explain what it's being used as a source for. Let's see what the community makes of it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see the problem now. The article by Stephen F. Cohen is published in The Nation, not the National Interest. Surely The Nation qualifies as a reliable source, as does Stephen F. Cohen himself, who is one of the leading scholars of Russian scholars. Athenean (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not questioning The Nation as an RS, Athenean. I opened this as a separate section due to its being used by Rajmaan regarding issues surrounding Islam in Russia. Unfortunately, I'm about to log off for the day and have a full day of IRL issues to deal with tomorrow, so I won't be able to respond here immediately. Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ok, never mind. No disagreement there. Athenean (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Stephen F. Cohen presents specific political opinions, which hardly can be proved. He obviously rejects opinions of the former Warszaw Treaty states and former Soviet republics Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia. Mr Putin is right, because he has H-missiles, not because he can prove cademically anything. Where is here a place for any scholarśhip, I don't know. BTW, even if Cohen is one of the leading scholars in the USA, there are thousands of Russia experts outside the USA. This Wikipedia doesn't present US POV only.Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm an advocate of democracy and Russia isn't democratic the way we understand the idea, there is almost no opposition there.Xx236 (talk) 09:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn's impact

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/vladimir-putin-guru-solzhenitsyn-115088 Xx236 (talk) 09:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Background

His mother's former last name is Shelamova, which is the name Shalom. Since this name is not used beyond the Jewish culture, his mother seems to have partial Jewish descent. Why not somebody investigate his ancestry and add this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.62.200.242 (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Shelomov comes probably from helmet.Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2015

Section 5.3: Relations with Middle Eastern and North African countries has mistake: On 16 October 2007 Putin visited Iran to participate in the Second Caspian Summit in Tehran,[246][247] where he met with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.[248][249] This was the first visit of a Soviet or Russian leader to Iran since Joseph Stalin's participation in the Tehran Conference in 1943

Leonid Brezhnev the Leader of the Soviet Union had a visit to Iran on November, 17, 1963 to meet Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi King of Iran and the Queen Farah Diba. The visit was very important also due to cold war time conflicts and since Iran was ally of US was in center for attentions. The did brought two countries closer and solved the border issues, despite two neighbor countries weren't politically close.

You can look it up on many resources; The Tail Wags the Dog: Google books, Efraim Karsh page 88 http://www.fouman.com/Y/Get_Iranian_History_Today.php?artid=1221 http://www.net-film.ru/en/film-5768/ FILM LEONID BREZHNEV'S VISIT TO IRAN.. (1963) IRAN Post Stamped for this visit: http://iranstamp.com/brezhnev-ussr-v7isit-1963.html MehrdadMahdavi (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

According to Agence France-Presse, Brezhnev was not actually in the top post at the time: "Leonid Brezhnev traveled to shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's Iran in 1963, but at that time he had not yet acceded to the top post in the Communist Party." (from [18]). Stickee (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It is sort of a tricky question, in 1963 was the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet, thus, according to the Soviet Constitution the head of the State (at least the nominal head). Of course the real leader of the state at that time was Nikita Khruschev, whose position even was not mentioned in the contemporary constitution. I think it is worth a note to the text. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the text should be revised, but in a way that doesn't make it long and awkward. Stickee (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Pinging involved editors @MehrdadMahdavi, Stickee, and Alex Bakharev: I have changed the answered parameter of this request to yes as it has technically been answered. Editors involved in this discussion can continue to discuss what changes (if any) should be made moving forward. If MehrdadMahdavi has further issues moving forward they can reopen this request. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have put a note about Brezhnev to the text Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on October 7 2015

Within the "Saint Petersburg administration, 1990–96"-section under the "Political career"-section, the same source (http://gazeta.lenta.ru/daynews/09-08-1999/30bio.htm) is cited twice for the same claim (The "From 1994 to 1996, Putin held several other political and governmental positions in Saint Petersburg"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 (talk) 09:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, under the "Military development"-section under the "Domestic policies"-section, the same source (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/world/europe/19arctic.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1311810481-IXSrMDBjzhfGopGmYcf6tw) is cited twice for the same claim (The "Putin has also sought to increase Russian military presence in the Arctic. In August 2007, a Russian expedition planted a flag on the seabed below the North Pole"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.115.81.90 (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed x 2. Thanks for the heads up! Both instances of duplicate references have now been removed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on October 19 2015

Within the "Religious policy"-section under the "Domestic policies"-section, the same source (No love lost, Yossi Mehlman, Haaretz, 11 December 2005) is cited twice for the same claim (The "Under Putin, the Hasidic FJCR became increasingly influential within the Jewish community, partly due to the influence of Federation-supporting businessmen mediated through their alliances with Putin, notably became increasingly influential within the Jewish community, partly due to the influence of Federation-supporting businessmen mediated through their alliances with Putin, notably Lev Leviev and Roman Abramovich"-claim). Isn't that redundant? Shouldn't one of them be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.23.43.88 (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Relations with Europe

There are two Europes:

  • old EU and NATO;
  • post-Communist states, second-class NATO.Xx236 (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Ridiculous and unhelpful. Please review Talk Page guidelines. 98.67.186.108 (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Ridiculous and unhelpful. is your comment.Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Inside the head of Vladinir Putin

Unfortunately unavailable in English, only short descriptions:

Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Putin quotes philosophers:

Ivan Ilyin
Nikolai Berdyaev
Konstantin Leontiev

and historian

Lev Gumilev.

Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Restrictions on press ....

About poisoned indigenous terrorists Him before or immediately after Inooguration a la President has (Got thank not fatal). About the publicly report are for all Russia media also forbidden? It's all right. But only as long as these "remedies" from Research Central for toxins and human infections (Moskwa) remain as home remedies. Good komuflage, as a deodorant or pencil, cigarettes or food. Mr. President looks at the picture of good and healthy! Angelina365 (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia standard propaganda

Early life & education paragraph contains following: "Putin entered the Law Department of the Leningrad State University in 1970, graduating in 1975.[36] His final thesis was titled "The Most Favored Nation Trading Principle in International Law".[37] The thesis was plagiarised.[38]" with [38] pointing some Washington Post article. But this article does not deal with Mr. Putin's thesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.54.178 (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2015

103.17.85.97 (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2015 (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. Cannolis (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Whether Putin only sang "Blueberry Hill" at charity event, or played the piano too.

Earlier, this article stated that Putin both sang "Blueberry Hill" and accomampanied himself on the piano at a charity event, and I changed it to mention that he only sang to a piano accompaniment, because the YouTube video cited clearly showed him only singing, standing in front of a microphone.

Yet I have later seen in at least one other Putin-related article further mentions that he also played the piano on this occasion, and also mentions of other music he has been known to play on the piano; and it has belatedly occurred to me that possibly he sang the song twice at the charity event, once singing only, and once also accompanying himself on the piano (only the former being shown in that YouTube video), which would mean that I changed the article incorrectly because I failed to think of this possibility.

Does anyone know definitively about this? Should I revert my own change? (I would do it manually so I don't also revert all changes made since then.)

I also see that the file-name for the picture of Putin singing was also changed to reflect the alteration I made; but I'm sure I didn't do this, because I don't know how to rename files in Wikipedia, and, even if I did, I would have had doubts about whether it was proper for me to do that anyway. (What puzzles me is that this change of file-name for the image is also shown in the same "diff" that compares the text alteration I made with what was there immediately before. Yet I am sure I wouldn't have even known how to change the file-name, and I wouldn't have done so anyway without asking someone higher up the Wikipedia hierarchy whether I should.)

So I'm just wondering what should be done about my possible error. Or should I just leave it as it is, and let someone with more definite knowledge of this situation deal with it? M.J.E. (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

What about freaking google search? - üser:Altenmann >t 04:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

my edits in "Intervention in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea"

I removed some text I think unnecessary in a broad-scope article and added a redlink to indicate that the $3bn debt is IMO a subject that deserves detail somewhere.

IMO it should be trimmed further, because IMO this section is recentism. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

How to count Putin's presidency

What is the best way to describe current Putin's presidency?

  • It is the second "tenure"
  • It is the third "full" presidency term
  • It is the fourth presidency, if counting acting presidency.

- üser:Altenmann >t 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be 'third term'. Hollth (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cutting 'Foreign policy' down

I noticed the tag at the top of the page stating the article is too long. The prime candidate to reduce the length seems to be Foreign policy, so I will be moving sections to the main page. Hollth (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

KGB rank

Was Putin a major general? According to KGB General Oleg Kalugin he was only a major, see http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-ex-kgb-kalugin-putin-only-a-major/26930384.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talk • contribs) 05:02, 12 January 2016

All earlier sources say he was a lieutenant colonel, which is what this article says. I guess in a sense we cannot really know because secret police ranks are secret. But the views of a KGB defector do not have as much credibility as realiable sources. If they take the claim seriously then and only then should we reconsider the writing. TFD (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Economics in the opening

Russia's economic growth peaked in 2010-11, but since 2013 it's in rapid decline. As of December 2015 Russia's economy is literally in shambles, back to levels of 1999 before Putin. The opening paragraphs about Russia's economic success during Putin years (which is a propaganda element in Russia) should probably be removed entirely because it's not what defines Putin's regime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sergei-aleksashenko/ugly-state-of-russias-economy_b_8804916.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-19/russia-sees-biggest-decline-in-wages-retail-sales-since-1999 http://www.dailysabah.com/economy/2015/12/16/fragile-russian-economy-causes-flight-of-world-giants http://tass.ru/en/economy/844093 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.147.24.195 (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be hasty [19] SaintAviator lets talk 00:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Added a phrase about crisis after sanctions into the intro. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Economic crisis in Russia is not due to sanctions. The largest causes are the price of oil, various trade embargoes with European countries introduced by the government, military spending caused by waging two wars and decline of tourism industry after Egyptian and Turkish incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.33.107 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_9&oldid=1137301226"