Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
In the section "]" 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? ] issues? — ''']''' • ] 20:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
In the section "]" 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? ] issues? — ''']''' • ] 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. – ] (]) 23:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Vladimir Putin was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Under Putin, the economic environment of Russia has changed, partly due to the attempted radical market-oriented reforms characterized as "shock therapy (economics)" under Yeltsin, to a State monopoly capitalism (stamocap) economy, where the state (under Putin), controls all major industries and the overall economy.
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". --Trzecimaja (talk) 05:43, 7 November 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)
