Misplaced Pages

Talk:Vladimir Putin: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:58, 5 April 2016 editAltenmann (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers218,562 edits →Edits of SaintAviator← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:59, 6 January 2025 edit undoMoxy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors130,030 edits →Is he a dictator or isn't he?: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to bottom}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header |search=yes }} {{Talk header |search=yes }}
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=ecp|e-e}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=B}}
{{Controversial}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Not a forum}}
{{Article history
|action1=GAN |action1=GAN
|action1date=02:47, 15 April 2008 |action1date=02:47, 15 April 2008
|action1link=Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_3#Failed_.22good_article.22_nomination |action1link=Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_3#Failed_.22good_article.22_nomination
|action1result=failed |action1result=failed
|action1oldid=205589732


|action2=FAC |action2=FAC
Line 16: Line 20:
|currentstatus=FGAN |currentstatus=FGAN


|otddate=31 December 2012 |otd1date=31 December 2012|otd1oldid=530419617
|otd2date=2020-12-31|otd2oldid=997332555
|otdlink=Misplaced Pages:Selected_anniversaries/December_31?oldid=530419617


|itndate=24 February 2004 |itndate=24 February 2004
|itn2date=3 March 2008 |itn2date=3 March 2008
|itn3date=24 September 2008 |itn3date=24 September 2008
|itn4date=5 March 2012}} |itn4date=5 March 2012
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|activepol=yes|1= {{WikiProject banner shell|blp=activepol|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Putin, Vladimir|1=
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=B |listas=Putin, Vladimir |politician-priority=high |politician-work-group=yes |activepol=no}} {{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=high |politician-work-group=yes}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union |class=B}} {{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Russia |class=B |importance=Top |pol=yes |sport=yes}} {{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism |class=B |importance=high}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Politics |class=B |importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject Russia|importance=Top |pol=yes |sport=yes}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=high}}
}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{Annual report|]|25,808,228}}
{{Top 25 Report|Mar 2 2014|Mar 18 2018|Jul 15 2018|Feb 20 2022|Feb 27 2022|6 Mar 2022|Mar 13 2022|Mar 20 2022}}
{{Press
| subject = article
| author = Yelena Dzhanova
| title = Loser.com is now redirecting visitors to Vladimir Putin's Misplaced Pages page, the website's latest target in a list that includes Donald Trump and Kanye West
| org = ]
| url = https://www.businessinsider.com/losercom-website-redirecting-visitors-russian-president-vladimir-putin-wikipedia-2022-3
| date = 19 March 2022
}} }}
<!-- Metadata: see ] --> <!-- Metadata: see ] -->
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 50K
|counter = 12 |counter = 19
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(21d) |algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{All time pageviews|77}}


== Lede image ==
== Economic, industrial, and energy policies ==
Under Putin, the economic environment of Russia has changed, partly due to the attempted radical market-oriented reforms characterized as "]" under ], to a State monopoly capitalism (stamocap) economy, where the state (under Putin), controls all major industries and the overall economy.

] (]) theory, also referred to as ], refers to an environment where the state intervenes in the economy under an ], or authoritarian dictator, to protect large ] or ] businesses from competition by smaller firms.<br><small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:32, 24 May 2014</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

== Rfc regarding sentence in the lede ==


Is the sentence '''It entered a recession in mid-2014, and shrank by 3.5% in 2015.''' regarding the Russian economy appropriate for the lede, or is it ]? I would appreciate it if the regulars of this article were to let someone uninvolved comment before rushing in and turning this into the usual talkpage flamefest, for once. ] (]) 05:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

:Lol, sure ] ] 05:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

*''If'' we have a paragraph about economy, then, '''yes''', the phrase should be included per WP:NPOV. Perhaps we should not have a paragraph about economy at all (I do not have opinion about it), but this is a different question. The idea that "regulars" should not comment is wrong. What frequently happens in such cases are comments by people unfamiliar with the subject.] (]) 12:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

*''Any sentence in the lead should be a '''summary''' of material in the body of the BLP.'' represents "due weight" for what is in the body of the BLP, and the current lead is abominable in its stress of POV rather than letting readers read the more fully-formed sections in the body of the article. ] (]) 15:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::That's why such RfCs are useless. Should phrase "..." be included? Yes or no, please! '''Neither'''. It should usually be rephrased or whole paragraph rewritten (for example as in diff you provided). Saying that, I think that current version is much better and explanatory than version in your diff that tells "...only to see problems after that period due to Western sanctions...". Which problems? This is completely unclear. This is very poor summary. ] (]) 18:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

::Russia has not counted for anything since it lost the Cold War, and Putin is destroying its economy with his disastrous policies. (] (]) 17:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

:::It is really not helpful for the consensus building process when certain users the questionable material into the article, especially after the initiation of the RfC. Also, a RfC as "useless" is also concerning. ] (]) 20:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Gimme a break. The following is NOT how Misplaced Pages is suppose to work: 1) remove text per ], 2) run very quickly to the talk page and start an RfC, 3) demand that the text be not restored until the RfC concludes. That's about as blatantly bad-faithed ]ing as one can witness on Misplaced Pages. Starting an RfC is NOT suppose to be some kind of immunity from edit warring restriction or some kind of magic spell one casts to make sure one's disruptive edits don't get reverted. Try something else.] (]) 23:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
::::I commented in a number of RfC and believe that one is indeed useless (for the reason explained above), possibly even disruptive as waste of time. Many discussions on-wiki are useless even if started in a good faith. ] (]) 20:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
:::::Re Useless, can you elaborate? ] ] 23:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', this sentence is due, just as pointing out that Russia also experienced relative prosperity under Putin. ] (]) 20:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Where do the inclusions in the lede stop? Why not Syria? Hockey? Ukraine? Its a BLP not A Russia sum up. Also agree with ] ] ] 23:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' This is a biography of a politician, not an article about the Russian economy. The lead should summarize the main events of his life. ] ] 04:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
::I think this is a reasonable suggestion, but it means that the entire paragraph about economy should be removed. Leaving only successes and removing well sourced failures would go against WP:NPOV. ] (]) 14:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' its edit war detritus ] ] 06:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Include''' - sources explicitly link the performance of the Russian economy to Putin and his policies.] (]) 14:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' The inclusion of random facts to disparage subjects is undue, and context must always be included. For example we would need to explain how that compared with similar economies, how meaningful the rate is for describing the economy, the reasons for the fall and the track record in prior years. Considering the price of oil fell 75%, the economic performance may well have exceeded expectations. ] (]) 23:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
::Here is the paragraph in question: ''Putin's first presidency was marked by high economic growth: the Russian economy grew for eight straight years, seeing GDP increase by 72% in PPP. This growth was a combined result of the 2000s commodities boom, high oil prices, as well as prudent economic and fiscal policies. However, it began to experience problems subsequently due to falling oil prices and Western sanctions imposed as a result of Russian annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Eastern Ukraine. It entered a recession in mid-2014, and shrank by 3.7% in 2015.'' There is no way to consider this as something disparaging the subject. To me, that sounds laudatory: assigning economic successes to Putin, whereas they had actually happened due to high oil prices. Removing the entire paragraph might be an option, but this is not the question asked at the RfC. ] (]) 23:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Absolutely yes''' As already pointed out by others, the lead can NOT explain how Russia had a strong economic growth under the beginning of Putin's leadership, and then pretend it doesn't have massive economic problems now. That would be a big violation of NPOV. It's possible to delete the whole paragraph, but I do think the economic status of the country somebody is leading is significant and has due weight in a lead. --] (]) 11:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' per OpenFuture. The economic downturn is relevant. Just as good record in early 2000s is. I remember checking statistics about ex-USSR average wages a couple of years ago: only Estonia had it better then. By now, not only Kazakhstan but even Azerbaijan seems to have a higher average wage than Russia. How could this possibly be irrelevant? ] (]) 12:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' Noting my position that the lead should be a "bare summary", if we add ''year-to-year commentary'', we will soon end up with a very long ephemeral series of statements. ] (]) 12:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
::But that's a bit of a strawman - nobody wants to add "year by year commentary". General overview + latest year info should be sufficient.] (]) 14:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
::Also, this is essentially your second !vote in this RfC, and then you vote for a '''third time''' below.] (]) 20:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Do not include sentence''' The lead should focus on the person, not the Russian economy. ] (]) 07:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' The lead needs to follow the Misplaced Pages Policies put in place. Thanks, RFC Volunteer ] (]) 17:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' The significant economic success in 2000-2008 is the key to Putin's popularity in Russia and so it is rightfully in the lede. We cannot mention the success and not mention economic losses in 2014..2016. I t will be dishonest ] (]) 11:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Summoned by bot. Relevant to the subject of the article and not given undue weight. ] (]) 00:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Summoned by bot. It's debatable (but probably not undue) whether the economic ups and downs are of the Russian Federation are essential to the lead, but to the extent this information is deemed to be necessary enough to explaining Putin's success and notability, clearly we need to present a complete picture of those economic fortunes. One (incredibly short) statement to bring that story up to date is not much of a feature. Even considering that there is a preceding statement about recession, I don't view it as excessive to bring the content a little bit more up to date. This seems like information readers might reasonably want to know, if being presented with the economic influences on the man's domestic popularity in the lead at all. ] ] 12:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
* '''No'''. Please remove the ''entire paragraph'' about Russian economy from the lede, per ]. This is just one aspect of Putin's life while there are so many more aspects to cover and it's really arbitrary to put so much emphasis on that one aspect. 12:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' As is made clear by some interesting comments above, this "inclusion" is not from a desire to follow policy, but a desire to make a point. As such, the inclusion would require an actual ''positive consensus'' which it is quite clear is lacking. Lacking a clear consensus for inclusion, the default is exclusion from the BLP. ] (]) 15:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
::Ummmm... you do realize that this is like your '''THIRD VOTE''' in this RfC? You might want to strike one or two of them. One !vote one editor.] (]) 20:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Yes'''. Given that his notability is contingent on his being a high-profile political figure, as already noted by other editors, a brief statement is DUE for the lead for the sake of context (the emphasis, however, being on ''brief''). --] (]) 00:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' <small>summoned by bot</small> This is not a well-framed discussion. As the lede is currently written, yes, this sentence is quite necessary because we need a holistic picture of the economy is we present it at all. That's the real question, though; why is so much of the lede devoted to Russia's economy under Putin? The paragraph could be pared down to one sentence, methinks, and the lede given over to, you know, biographical material. ] (]) 06:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
::{{re|Vanamonde93}} Bios are contingent on the person's ]. Putin is notable as being a high-powered world leader, therefore the bio is not going to focus on trivia about his favourite hobbies, or whether he has pets. (Incidentally, you forgot to sign your comment). Cheers! --] (]) 06:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
:::], yes, he is notable as the president of Russia, and therefore a subtantial part of the lede should be about his presidency. Nonetheless, when the accepted norm for a good lead (see GAN or FAC) is still four paragraphs, an entire paragraph about the Russian economy (not even about his policy, which would be better) is entirely undue. <small>I didn't forget; I typed an extra tilde, which meant that it was rendered as a timestamp, rather than a signature. I have fixed it; thanks for pointing it out.</small> Regards, ] (]) 06:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

::::I stongly agree with Vanamonde. In fact I couldn't agree more. It's about time someone pointed out the obvious. This is a bio article, not ]. ] (]) 05:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Whether something is UNDUE or not depends on how much it is covered in sources. If one of the main things that sources talk about when discussing Putin is the economy, then it is appropriate for us to do likewise - it is not undue. If you think the info should be shortened (while maintaining NPOV) that's fine. But obviously economic outcomes are important in regard to Putin and his government.] (]) 05:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''No to any discussion of the economy''' in the introduction, but if there must be, then '''yes''' to this sentence. Summoned by bot. I don't really think information on the economy during part of his presidency is necessary for the introduction, as just looking at the sections throughout the article demonstrate that the Russian economy is only a relatively small part of the article, and therefore does not need to be reflected in the introduction. This seems like some editors really wanted to portray Putin in a positive light by including GDP growth figures. I'd leave the whole paragraph out, but would definitely include if we're listing info on GDP growth during previous years. ] (]) 14:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

::'''Strongly agree'''. You make a valid point that the Russian economy is a small part of the particle. Furthermore, a quick survey of other longstanding world leader articles, from ], ], ], ], and ], shows that in none of these articles is the country's economic performance mentioned in the lede. I was also ok with just reducing the coverage of the economy to one sentence, however considering the stances of some of the users involved in this discussion, I think that may not be possible. ] (]) 17:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
:::This is ]. For Rousseff and Jinping, economic issues SHOULD be in those articles and they SHOULD be summarized in the ledes. The fact that those articles don't do that means there is a problem with OTHER articles, not with this one. For Obama, Merkel and Cameron the situation is different because it's covered differently in sources.] (]) 20:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''No''' economic performance is bases on many factors inside and outside the country.....base more on international influences over one leaders actions in his term. -- 17:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

== it fell into recession subsequently due to falling oil prices and Western sanctions ==

It's a selection of two reasons of many. The system is stiff, no reforms are possible. Low oil prices could have been expected. ] (]) 10:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
:Are you referring to that sentence?--] (]) 20:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Vladimir Putin|answered=y}}
<!-- Be sure to state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes; editors who can edit the protected page need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests WILL be declined. -->
<!-- Begin request -->
Putin married Alina Kabayeva, Olympic gymnast, 2014. - Putinism: Russia and It's Future with the West by Walter Laqueur 2015<ref>Putinism: Russia and It's Future with the West by Walter Laqueur 2015</ref>
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 22:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

:BLP, rumours are not allowed. ] ] 03:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}

== difficulty with editing this article ==

Anyone know - or can just confirm a similar experience - why when you try to edit this article it takes a long time to load and there appears to be some kind of lag/freeze? As in you type in a letter then have to wait three seconds for it to show, you type another, three more seconds, etc. I thought it was because the article was so long but this does not happen with even longer articles. It also happens regardless of computer, OS or browser. Weirdly enough, a similar thing happens on the Russian intervention in Syria article.] (]) 06:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

:Mines very fast. Its your PC or connection. Or maybe? No surely not.......... ] ] 23:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

== "large scale protests" ==


Removed from the lede, as it is subjective and POV. A few thousand protesting liberals is not "large scale protests", not in a country of over 100 million. The rest of Haberstr's edits are an improvement as well, so I restored them. ] (]) 07:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

:What do the sources say? That's what matters, not your personal opinion. And no, Haberstr's edits were pretty much POV pushing and weaseling. Like adding the word "alleged" where it's not supported by sources (or even Putin) or removing links to articles he doesn't like. Might as well noted that Haberstr has been warned several times by admins about his editing on Russia related topics for this very reason.] (]) 15:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

::What do they say? They say that the demonstrations were typically of the order of a few thousand people, i.e. not "large-scale" for a country of over 100 million. I don't see anything about "large scale" in the sources. They also say there were large counter-demonstrations, which is conveniently ignored. ] (]) 16:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

::Volunteer Marek: Once again, for perhaps the 1000th time, please stop disparaging my character and good faith by calling my edits '''POV pushing and weaseling''' (and stop lying about what admins have said to me). If you disagree with the content of an edit just explain why and don't groundlessly attack others' good faith. As you know, several disparaged editors have repeatedly attempted in a civil manner to discuss this violation of WP policy (]) with you at the Admin Noticeboard . You don't seem to 'get it' there, but I hope our persuasive efforts will help you eventually figure out what we're asking from you.] (]) 02:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

:::In a nation of 145 million large scale would be 1 Million plus, minimum, in several locations. ] ] 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

::::There were large protests before and after the election because many people believed Putin had stolen millions of votes from his opponent. (] (]) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

== please explain ==

what exactly is POV or "weaseling" in this per the edit summary. Additionally, it's pretty obvious Athenean that you are purposefully "mimic-ing" my edit summaries which is obnoxious. Please stop.

Haberstr's edits were pretty clearly POV. Like adding in the word "alleged" for no reason. Or removing the link to the ] from the article. The fact that he's trying to sneak in POV changes under the guise of grammar fixes doesn't exactly help to inspire good faith.

Nznk's edit was also a clear cut case of ] where they changed "reported" to "claimed".

*My* edits on the other hand did nothing of the sort.] (]) 15:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

:Your edit was a blanket revert of all my changes, which is highly disruptive and obnoxious. I have changed the "reported" and "alleged", but the rest of those edits stand. The claims by Zuyganov are not lede material, and the whole "electoral fraud" thing for the 2012 elections is more factually reported in Haberstr's version, not yours. And since when is the SOHR considered a reliable source? Last time I checked it failed the "reputation for fact checking" part of ]. ] (]) 16:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

:Anyway I re-instated the link to the ], and removed the "alleged". Anything else? ] (]) 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
::Thanks for reinstating that link and removing the "alleged". However, SOHR is a reliable source - why wouldn't it be? If you got a problem with it I suggest taking it up at WP:RSN.] (]) 19:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
:::The ] is a marginal partisan group, essentially a one-man-enterprize run by a certain ]. ] (]) 19:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
:::: SOHR, this “group” is nothing more than a one-man blogger operating out of one of the bedrooms in his two bedroom home in Coventry, England, reading and repackaging other peoples’ blogs and tweets. It gets better – “He also runs a clothes shop” ] ] 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Marginal? Must be why they're quoted so often by so many sources. New York Times calls them . NPR says they . Yahoo News . Reuters says that they've . Also that they have . We can keep going: . . . . . Etc. etc. etc.
:::::Marginal my butt.
:::::] (]) 00:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::So while ya'll's opinions are appreciated they aren't really relevant since they contradict a wide array of sources and boil down to nothing more than a ]. You always can, if you want to, bring it up at WP:RSN.] (]) 00:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::Lets get a consensus going (counting) 3 : 1 against the bedsit blogger. But bigger than that you are starting edit warring behaviour again (will we soon see MVBW?) by adding POV minor stuff not suited to a BLP. I suggest you go edit the linked article to vent your enthusiasms on minor points on the Syrian War topic (shakes head mutters 'I knew he'd try again') ] ] 01:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::No. That's not "consensus". That's vote stacking and tag teaming. Consensus is build on reliable sources. Local "consensus" does not trump general consensus on reliable sources. And this is a reliable source as shown by my links above. Again, please feel free to bring this up at WP:RSN.] (]) 15:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::(ec) Per ] "'''Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.'''" A self-published blog by an clothes-seller with no journalistic credentials (or even a secondary education) fails this criterion . ] (]) 02:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Nonsense. They DO have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" which is EXACTLY why they're used as by NY Times, BBC, The Guardian, Reuters, etc. etc. etc. I've provided links above. All you've done here is let us know what your personal feelings about the matter are. That's not how this works.] (]) 15:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Here's another vote against the one-man PR operative in the used clothing shop. No way his "SOHR" can be seen as a ] ] (]) 18:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Again. Reliable sources disagree with your particular opinion. Your characterization of the organization does not inspire confidence either.] (]) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::And you guys really should drop the false "it's a blog by a cloths maker" narrative. Here is an extensive profile of the organization from a reliable source . Let's see what THEY (as opposed to some Misplaced Pages accounts with battleground attitudes) have to say about them:
:::::::::::''"The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has emerged as a '''prominent''' campaign group amid the country's revolt against President Bashar al-Assad, releasing daily casualty figures for the international media"'' (oh, but supposedly they're "marginal" (sic))
:::::::::::''"The group of '''mainly professionals''', many of them '''lawyers''', monitored changes to the law and the judicial system, and worked to highlight cases of human rights abuses"'' (a clothes-maker running a blog? Riiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhhtttttttt....)
:::::::::::''"It now has more than 200 members and affiliates, covering every province in Syria, with some volunteers aggregating and publicising information from the UK"'' (a single guy running a blog? Who are you trying to kid? Please stop)
:::::::::::''"The group says it is '''impartial''' in its reporting, recording the deaths of soldiers as well as civilians and protesters. The names of all those killed are '''carefully documented''', along with the circumstances surrounding their death, including videos if they are available."'' (calling this source "partisan" makes sense only if you're hell bent on pushing a FRINGE POV to begin with)
:::::::::::Seriously, how are we supposed to have a serious good faithed argument when the claims being made on this talk are so flagrantly false and against reliable sources? ] (]) 15:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
*There is so much y'all can do to help yourselves here. I've looked at the edits, and the biggest difference that I see is the "an announcement which led to ]..." thing. If that's verified in the source, well, it probably should be in. The rest is mostly phrasing and not worth fighting over. The other thing, that y'all are discussing to death here, is about a report/claim by a blogger/press organization--''a thing that has no place in this article, which is a biography''. I'm almost tempted to really put my admin hat on and cut the whole "President Putin authorized Russian military intervention..." section as UNDUE and a BLP violation; the sources all go "Russia launches airstrikes..." or some variety thereof, not "Putin launches airstrikes...". This kind of metonymy is, in my opinion, not acceptable in BLPs. University administrators shouldn't get the credit for every graduate or every building, presidents shouldn't get all the credit for every job gained, and in this biography Russian politics shouldn't be completely subsumed. You already have 75k in ] and 147k in ]--it should seem obvious that a ''link'' will do. ] (]) 02:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

::@Drmies: Please do. Such action is long overdue. It's perhaps the only way to deal with the incredibly tenacious POV-pushers that plague this article. ] (]) 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::That's the other guys, of course, right? :) ] (]) 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::Not to mention that the same applies to all that economic mumbo-jumbo in the lede. ] (]) 02:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Maybe so. But I said "almost tempted". I still hope that common sense will prevail and that the POV pushers on both sides will push toward the middle--like, the possibly GA-type article middle, in which case the White Whale and the Amur Tiger might also disappear from the article. And the "Under Putin, the Hasidic FJCR became increasingly influential" section. And any number of other sections. But this has to start with a serious discussion on what is relevant in a BLP and what is not--a discussion which here seems necessary, not so much in other articles. Look at, for instance, a similar very controversial issue: the Falklands War in ], a GA. ] (]) 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::I dont know, look here below. Thatcher thrived in this war, and is even criticized for not doing enough. Its almost all about Thatcher, because it was (and theres more in the article).

::::''On 2 April 1982 the ruling military junta in Argentina ordered the invasion of the British-controlled Falkland Islands and South Georgia, triggering the Falklands War. The subsequent crisis was "a defining moment of her premiership". At the suggestion of Harold Macmillan and Robert Armstrong, she set up and chaired a small War Cabinet (formally called ODSA, Overseas and Defence committee, South Atlantic) to take charge of the conduct of the war, which by 5–6 April had authorised and dispatched a naval task force to retake the islands. Argentina surrendered on 14 June and the operation was hailed a success, notwithstanding the deaths of 255 British servicemen and 3 Falkland Islanders. Argentinian deaths totalled 649, half of them after the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror torpedoed and sank the cruiser ARA General Belgrano on 2 May. Thatcher was criticised for the neglect of the Falklands' defence that led to the war, and especially by Tam Dalyell in parliament for the decision to sink the General Belgrano, but overall she was considered a highly capable and committed war leader. The "Falklands factor", an economic recovery beginning early in 1982, and a bitterly divided opposition all contributed to Thatcher's second election victory in 1983. Thatcher often referred after the war to the "Falklands Spirit"; Hastings and Jenkins (1983) suggested that this reflected her preference for the streamlined decision-making of her War Cabinet over the painstaking deal-making of peace-time cabinet government.'' ] ] 04:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::Notice the focus on ''Thatcher'', as opposed to focusing on alleged misdeeds by the British forces, and other off-topic stuff. ] (]) 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::Except for the sentence ''"Argentinian deaths totalled 649, half of them after the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror torpedoed and sank the cruiser ARA General Belgrano on 2 May."'' which adds context. Likewise here, it'd be enough to have just one sentence in the article on the number of casualties.] (]) 05:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Nope. In fact it should be the sentence about the casualties that should be removed from the Thatcher article, rather than adding more irrelevant crap here. ] (]) 06:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::My take also is that the casualties belong in the linked article. ] ] 09:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

== Proposing removal of economy information from the lede ==

The main (and obvious) argument is that this material is not directly related to Putin, in fact it is only very tangentially related to him. To devote an entire paragraph of the lede to this sort of stuff is ]. There is not a ''single'' country leader article that contains this kind of detailed info on the ups and downs of a country economy in the lede. This article suffers from far too much material not directly related to Putin in it, it is time to clean up, starting with the lede. '''Proposed'''. ] (]) 06:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

:Agree, remove all ] ] 08:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::Given that it can fairly be said that his popularity rests in part on Russia's rebound from the economic chaos of the Yeltsin years, something should probably be said about this in the lead (see , for example, which cannot be said to be "pro-Putin" particularly). However, it does not need a blow-by-blow account of the ups and downs of the Russian economy during his leadership (much of the other lead content is also too detailed, including the ins and outs of individual elections and the stuff about "tandemocracy" – and is that phrase even widely acknowledged or used? Equally, it needs more summary information about what he has actually done as president, eg in foreign policy, economic policy, dealing with post-Soviet issues etc) <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 10:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

'''Oppose''' - material related to economics is covered by any serious source which discusses Putin. For a good reason, both Putin's domestic popularity and Putin's foreign policy are closely related to Russia's economic outcomes. This proposal is a straight up ] and it contradicts Misplaced Pages policy. And just to be clear - BOTH the positive and the not-so-positive need to be mentioned. In other words, this part of the current lede is fine (other parts have problems).] (]) 15:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:Does it ever occur to you that how to concisely summarise germane content, especially in a lead, is a matter of judgment, and that people who happen to disagree with yours are not necessarily "POV pushing", "contradict policy" or trying to censor material they "don't like" but are just taking a different view about how best to select and present relevant information? The lead currently, in paras 3 and 4, goes into exorbitant detail about individual election results and economic statistics/trends respectively. By contrast, it tells us virtually nothing about Putin's actual policies or actions, including on the economy. I would argue that including the latter, in summary, in the lead is more important and more informative to a reader looking for information about Putin himself. Now, that's just my opinion of course, but – just like you – I would argue that my opinion is correct. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 17:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::Yes, it does. Sometimes people I disagree with are acting in good faith and the difference is simply a matter of opinion. But other times - and very frequently on articles such as this - nah, it really is just dedicated POV warriors editing against policy. The fact that all the arguments boil down to ] and ] rather than being policy-backed is sort of indicative of that. Believe it or not, I'd put you in the first group.
::So, in regard to the length of the lede. First note how several editors involved here were perfectly fine with a long lede that had information on economics <u>as long as it was all positive info</u>. Same thing with Syria, <u>as long as it was pro-Putin puffery</u> not a single one of them had an objection to it. It was only when the info was balanced and made neutral did these accounts suddenly discover the virtues of "shorter lede!" "too long!" "off topic!" etc. See what I mean?
::As to the substance, note how long this article is. A four paragraph lede for an article this size is perfectly appropriate. Yes, there probably is too much detail about individual elections - that part I agree with, but that's not the issue being discussed here. However, the info on the economy is pretty sparse. It's basically two sentences. There's nothing UNDUE about it. And it's supported by sources.] (]) 17:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::I would remove from the lead the economic information as ] and out of ] with a biographical article. It's hard to attribute the booms and busts of the Russian economy to Putin himself. We've had similar problems elsewhere in this article and it has been resolved simply by its removal. I'd much rather see content in the lead that can be directly attributed to him, rather than indirectly influenced by him, or some other ambiguous premise. It's not as if the booms and busts of the Russian economy is authorized or set in stone by Putin. With that said, I agree with N-HH and think policy should be the main focus. ] (]) 17:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I removed it. There's very little support for its inclusion. ] (]) 17:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::There's an ongoing RfC right above and tag-teaming is not consensus. I do think it ... funny, how all of sudden you've discovered the virtues of a shorter lede once it was made neutral. You were fine with the economic info being in there as long as it was all glowing and slanted pro-Putin. Whether or not the info should be in there depends on whether major sources which discuss Putin talk about the economy. And they do.] (]) 17:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::Again, we should focus on policy, rather than the booms and busts of the economy in Russia, which are almost like bad weather, and may have nothing to do with Putin. Just because sources say so, doesn't mean it should be inserted there either, especially in the lead. ] (]) 20:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::We should focus on what sources focus on, period. And if we don't base our articles on sources, what exactly are we suppose to base them on? Your own personal feelings and whims? ] (]) 20:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::No, we shouldn't. That's not how Misplaced Pages works. With that logic, we'd have to add information on his dog Buffy in the lead just because it's reliably and extensively sourced. In fact, I could safely argue that Buffy has more of a personal connection to Putin than a boom and bust economic cycle which has little to do with him personally. ] (]) 20:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Uh... so you ARE in fact saying that we shouldn't base the reliable sources??? Holy crap, that was a rhetorical question, I didn't think you actually believe that. So let's ask it again - if not reliable sources, then what? Whatever EtienneDolet says? Is that "how Misplaced Pages works"?
:::::::::Look. It's not that hard. If most serious sources on Putin talk about the economy so do we. Most serious sources do not discuss Buffy at length. Neither do we. There. Done.
:::::::::And just to state the obvious one more time, whether or not "Buffy has more of a personal connection to Putin than a boom and bust economic cycle which has little to do with him personally" is NOT up to you to decide (honestly, I doubt whether you're qualified to answer that question). It's up to the sources. All these problems on the talk page and 90% of the problems with the article stem from the fact that you and a few others refuse to actually follow policy/sources but insist instead on offering your own personal opinions and using those as a basis for this article. Which is why this article is still crap.] (]) 20:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, that's not what I said. Do not use straw man arguments here, and stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said that just because something is reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in the article, and especially in the lead. Might as well add stuff about Buffy, Koni, and his favorite food in the lead too right? Aren't those things reliably sourced too? What I'm trying to say here is that it's effectively up to us, as Misplaced Pages editors, to decide that. This article has actually improved over this last couple of months. The Forbes information has been added. But besides that, without my guidance and opinions, we'd have analogies of warlord Charles Taylor in this article. And the civilian killings you have now backed off from is also a major improvement, which I had opposed as well. But that's besides the point. And please, don't personally attack me (i.e. "honestly, I doubt whether you're qualified to answer that question"). I am qualified to make observations and raise concerns just like any other editor here. ] (]) 20:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::No, not right. Buffy and pals might be *mentioned* in sources about Putin but the economy under Putin is *discussed* in depth in sources about Putin. Are you seriously saying that how an economy does under its leader is as trivial as the leader's pets? Who's the one setting up strawmen? "''You don't think useless trivia should be in the article therefore you also have to agree that very important stuff shouldn't be in there either''" Huh? No, no, no. And no, it's not really "up to us" - it's up to editors who are actually following Misplaced Pages policy. An encyclopedia article is not a hodge podge of the editors' feelings and whims as you want to have it (as long as they are your feelings and whims of course).] (]) 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Well, there you go. This now goes back to what you have said yourself. We, as Misplaced Pages editors, are to decide what is meant by in depth coverage or relevancy. We are to decide what is more significant, and what is even less so. We decide, for example, whether articles should be deleted or created, whether material should be added or removed, whether it's due or not, and etc. etc. And once we have that established, we have another hurdle to jump, and that is if it's personally relevant to Putin's life. In that regard, Buffy is more personally relevant to Putin's life than a boom and bust cycle of a capitalist economy. So at this point, I have not seen any semblance of an argument from you that assesses either of these points. Therefore, I am sticking with my original opinion. ] (]) 21:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
* Against my better judgment I'm going to step in here occasionally as an outside observer. Closing out a proposal ''less than 12 hours after it was made'' is overly hasty. The world won't end if you wait a few days for people to respond. I also suggest that this be formally structured as a ] so as to include views from a wider range of editors. ] (]) 17:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
*'''Oppose (keep this info in introduction)'''. Economic successes and the current crisis of Russian economy are attributed by multiple RS ''personally'' to Putin. This is because the ungoing economic sanctions by Western countries against Russia resulted from the disasterous political decisions (annexation of Crimea, the military intervention in Donbass, etc.) taken personally by Putin. In addition, the so called economic "counter-sanctions" which harm the economy of Russia were also decided by Putin. This is not a democratic country. Therefore, the "leader" is a lot more responsible. That all was described in numerous recent sources, as well as in older sources, such as "Putin. Itogi", ] and ] by ] who was recently killed ... ] (]) 18:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:Please, no looney fringe type arguments based on looney-fringe sources. ] (]) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::This is my judgement based on my knowledge of the subject. No one usually provides long list of refs in RfC voting. I only noted a couple of most notable books (ones that we have WP pages about). ] (]) 16:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::The fact that you're calling Boris Nemtsov "looney-fringe" pretty much illustrates that your views are themselves WP:FRINGE and that you're purpose here is just to push a POV.] (]) 22:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Given your ideological predilections and propensity to personal attacks, your comment comes as no surprise. However, you can seek an opinion on WP:RSN, but somehow I doubt you will like the result. ] (]) 23:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry but you have no idea what my "ideological predilections" are. All you know is that I disagree with your propensity to reflexively push pro-Putin POV by trying include only positive info and removing anything even mildly critical. And if you really think that one of the most prominent Russian journalists is "looney fringe" - which isn't surprising seeing as how you claimed earlier that BBC was not a reliable source - then you got no business editing a mainstream encyclopedia. I suggest other outlets which might be more conducive to your POV and will undoubtedly let you "publish" your original research all day, like Metapedia or Conservatopedia.] (]) 23:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Oh no, your contribs and long and troubled history give me a ''very'' good idea of your predilections (West=good, Russia=bad). With which "Conservatopedia" (sic) is closely aligned. ] (]) 23:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::My contribs are just fine, you might want to think about yours instead. And if you honestly think that you have described... "my predilection" with any degree of accuracy you need to rethink that. But hey, I understand where you're coming from. If you're a dedicated POV pusher then anything that doesn't agree with your point of view is "POV" or "looney fringe", even if it comes from the most respectable sources. If your intent on Misplaced Pages is to "win" battles and treat it like a ] then you quickly fall into the mindset that everyone else must be the same.] (]) 03:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Accusing others of what you are yourself guilty of, as usual. Nothing new or original here. You block log and checquered history shows who is the one treating the encyclopedia as a battleground. Nothing you can do will change that. But we digress. Not that it was me who first personalized the discussion, but hey, if you want to go down that route...] (])
*'''Keep this information'''. As already said, I don't see any reason to remove this all from the lead. One of the reasons Putin enjoyed great popularity is simply the fact that his coming to power coincided with the recovery of the Russian economy (which actually already began when Primakov was the PM).] (]) 18:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

::An entire paragraph on Russia's economic performance is way too much, and the current version as it is phrased has nothing to do with Putin. For example, the article on ], a GA, devotes only one sentence to Britain's economic performance under Thatcher, and three sentences on Thatcher's economic policies. This is what we should be aiming for here: Putin's policies, not Russia's economic performance, which is affected by a large number of things, not just Putin. ] (]) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Two sentences is all we need. And again, what matters is sources not other Misplaced Pages articles, or personal opinions (we're getting way too much of that here).] (]) 22:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

::::Well right now we have more than two sentences on Russia's economic performance, and practically nothing on Putin's policies. Not sure about which sources you keep talking about, but pretty much none of the sources currently used to source that paragraph in the lede have anything to do with Putin. In fact, some don't even mention him at all. Which is the best proof that it needs to go. ] (]) 23:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::We have more than two sentences - four to be exact - in one short paragraph because this is actually the "compromise version". Which you guys are now trying to remove completely. Which is why these discussions are so frustrating - we work on trying to compromise and then one of you (EtienneDolet, Athenean or SaintAviator) comes in and say "we're gonna do whatever we want to anyway, thank you for letting us waste your time".] (]) 23:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::And now it's <s>two</s> three sentences. Satisfied? ] (]) 23:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::(ec) I don't recall any such compromise. The current version was imposed by brute-force edit-warring by you and your tag-team friends. That's not compromise. And copy-editing gimmicks are not a solution. ] (]) 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Maybe you don't, now that you've changed your mind. Sort of convenient. And this wasn't a "gimmick". Your objection was that supposedly the info shouldn't be in here because it was too long. So I shortened it. Now even that is not enough for you. So who's being unreasonable? Who's unwilling to compromise? ] (]) 03:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::::Read my original post again. I never said that it was "too long". This is why it's impossible to have any kind of productive discussion with you: You always twist and misconstrue others' positions. ] (]) 04:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::*'''User Dorpater is not my "tag-team friend"''' just because we happened to agree with him about this. ] (]) 01:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Oh no, obviously I didn't mean Dorpater. But you already knew that, didn't you? ] (]) 01:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::For the same reason I am not a "tag-team friend" of anyone else just because I happened to agree with someone else on a number of occasions and disagree on a few others. My point is very simple: you should really stop making such accusations. Well, I do not really mind if you make them on my talk page, but I strongly object when you make them on arbitration or article talk pages. ] (]) 03:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::I actually never mentioned you. But it's interesting you are reacting so defensively.] (]) 04:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, sure, I can see that you target another contributor. ] (]) 12:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
'''Agree''' - Putin and his policies should be the focus of the lead section, not the ups and downs of the Russian economy. Follow the guidance of the other GA articles on well-known national leaders.] (]) 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:*I think you mean "support"? The proposal is for ''removal'' of the economic material. ] (]) 02:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::You're right, I've changed the first word from 'oppose' to 'agree'.] (]) 13:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

==Wholesale deletions==

Recent large number of deletions by VM are undiscussed. The sheer scope of deleting all this thought over hard work is IMHO a vandalism / edit warfare / revenge cocktail. Admin please. ] ] 01:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:You are not seriously asking for admin help are you? If it concerns VM, steer well clear of all of them. ] (]) 03:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::See, VM suggests you get a block, and an admin jumps in to boldly threaten you with one without any intervening giving of advice. Have you really learned nothing from the recent cases related to VM? Given the impossibility of improving things and the inevitability of being blocked if you continue to try, I suggest leaving the article alone. Let it turn into even more of a joke article than it already is. It is not a serious article that anyone would use for research, and I doubt if Putin is loosing any sleep over it! ] (]) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
SaintAviator I'd appreciate it if you didn't describe my edits as "vandalism". That will quickly get you blocked. They were good faithed and constructive edits which removed a whole bunch of stupid junk from the article. This whole article is pretty much shit. Part of the reason it's shit is because there's so much trivial, inane, irrelevant promo puffery in it (while certain editors choose to try and remove info which is actually important, relevant and of interest to the reader under the pretense that this article is "too long", while leaving all the crap that must've been added by a some junior high kids) I'm not the only one who has noticed this, just the latest one whom you guys haven't managed to drive off with your tag team edit warring and constant drama board attacks.

Removing junk from an article is not "vandalism". Putting it back in... well, that's not vandalism either, but it is pretty disruptive. And in this particular case it appears that the only reason you put it back in was... because it was myself in particular who removed it. That's even worse, as it's classic ].] (]) 03:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

:Please explain (without ad hominems, ''if'' you can), how this material you removed is "shit". This wouldn't be the first time you removed material on bogus pretenses would it ? And of course, this doesn't apply to anti-Putin material, does it. Oh no, not at all. ] (]) 03:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::Your accusation that I've EVER "removed material on bogus pretenses" is totally false. And you're trying to pretend that *I* am the one making "ad hominens"? Seriously?
::And why is it shit? Because it's inane trivia and puffery. Funny that in one discussion, on one issue, you're going on about how this article is too long so we should remove some text (the kind of text that doesn't agree with your POV). And on the very same talk page, in a different discussion, on another issue, you appear to think that ridiculous promo stuff that would look embarrassing on a high school graduate's resume is just fine and should be kept. Double standard much? Make-up-any-reason-no-matter-how-contradictory-to-get-your-way much? (and of course turn around and demand that others "assume good faith" even as you blatantly try to ]'em).] (]) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Evasion, straw men, and ad hominems. Par for the course, in other words. Evasion: You were asked to justify this edit , you didn't (because you can't?). Straw men: I never said that the economics paragraph from the lede should be removed because the article is too long, but rather on the grounds of irrelevance to the topic of the article. Here again is my proposal for your convenience . Can you point to where I said it should be removed because it makes the article too long? That's right, didn't think so. And yes, you ''did'' remove relevant info on bogus grounds (although I'm sure it was justified ''in your head'') here . You ''could'' have easily found a source for this, but no, it doesn't fit your POV, so out it goes. What else is new? ] (]) 08:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

VM I know your modus op now. Its not time yet for your IDONTLIKEIT carpet bombing, that comes when people revert. But I see the ] is here. Ironic. No this is your 'Mass Deletion cycle'. Soon you will do the 'mass additions cycle'. Hoping to keep causing enough chaos to wear people down to get the article POV anti Putin. I dont believe anymore you are a team player. I gave you that faith early on. So did others. You destroyed it. Im not interested why. After all these dramas it always comes back to you. This article would settle down if you were topic banned, probably for your own good. Its not personal BTW. ] ] 04:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


:I have no idea what the frog you're talking about and all you're doing is putting your own ] mentality on display. I don't know if this article would settle down or not, but I am pretty sure that it would stay in its current sorry state or get even worse. And don't try to threaten me with some spurious topic bans which no one has even considered.
:Like I said - DON'T refer to my edits as "vandalism".] (]) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

::You know exactly what I'm talking about. You often do mass deletes / additions. What would you call it if someone came and deleted 9000 bytes in 7 sections in a short time? ] ] 05:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::An editor. You do realize that that is what actual editors do in real life, right? Remove crap from author manuscripts. The only difference is that the problems are even worse on Misplaced Pages, and they are even worse than Misplaced Pages-average on this article.
:::Read ] and then cut it out.] (]) 05:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Do you think all the fuss / boards / time wasted over the last month with you at the centre has not damaged Misplaced Pages? Do you think you are disruptive? The key thing is Good Faith. Do you have it or are you gaming the system? These are the questions that can cross over into vandalism. A good faith editor after all thats gone on would have discussed. You need to self revert and discuss ] ] 05:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Do you think that you're neither a police interrogator nor a qualified psychologists? Do you think that asking bad faithed question of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety is not actually dishonest? Do you think I went and filed those drama board discussions myself or something or are you just being daft? Do you realize that in none of these discussion was I actually sanctioned in any way and instead most of them ]ed on the person filing them? Don't you think it wise to draw a lesson from that? Do you have something better to do than waste people's time with silly questions?
:::::Since you already reverted me and then your tag team friend jumped in and reverted some more just for the thrill of it, there's nothing I could "self-revert" is there? Stop. Calling. Other. People's. Edits. Vandalism.] (]) 06:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::So No then on the remaining reverts? BTW I'm having trouble with your grammar ] ] 06:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::''Apropos'' nothing, there's little wrong with his grammar. And short of an issue of competence existing- and I do not think that is the case- statements such as "''I'm having trouble with your grammar''" constitute criticism of the editor, not content. '''However''' that's not the real problem here is it. ] <sup>''''']'''''</sup> 15:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
] (])]]
*I was asked to throw random blocks around. Who wants one? OK--{{U|SaintAviator}} for false accusations of vandalism (the header here--now tweaked by administrative fiat), {{U|Athenean}} for failure to AGF such as in "Putin's reaction is relevant, and was removed on bogus grounds". {{U|Volunteer Marek}}, I'm having a harder time finding ''his'' violations than y'all's, perhaps surprisingly: Marek seems to be doing a better job than you all playing the ball, and not the man. However, there's "you're purpose here is just to push a POV", which is a lack of AGF and thus violates NPA, and "funny, how all of sudden you've discovered the virtues of a shorter lede once it was made neutral": no sarcasm on Russian topics, please. Plus, as understandable as it is, and is edit warring, whether broadly or narrowly defined and governed under two sets of discretionary sanctions. Finally, there's {{U|EtienneDolet}}, during an ongoing RfC is disruptive.<p>So, I have enough here to block four people, and if I look harder I can probably find more; I could finger {{U|Haberstr}} for . I think the edit itself is fine, but the edit summary and the POV accusation is not. And {{U|Tiptoethrutheminefield}}, I removed that tasteless remark of yours. Now, against my better judgment and against the advice of such worthies as {{U|Shock Brigade Harvester Boris}}, I do not wish to hand out blocks like Easter candy, but this is to say that anyone can hand out those blocks with good reason. On the bright side, the article has been trimmed some, though VM has been doing much of the heavy lifting and, I have to say, from 220k to 213k, that's minor, though it's a good sign.<p>Cut down the snark, follow the accepted guidelines for RfCs. Y'all do NOT want to start reverting each other since just about every revert here is disruptive one way or another. But most of all, cut down the snark. Boris, I'm sorry. Thank you. ] (]) 15:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::Who asked you to hand out "random blocks"? ] (]) 02:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::Also, ], my edit summary was a description of how something seemed to me, and not an assumption of bad faith. There are obviously different understandings of POV/NPOV here, and edits clash for that reason. No reason to deny that, in fact it the foundation of good faith but different points of view editing. I assume, for example, that Volunteer Marek and I have differing points of view on what NPOV/POV is. ... But it is a violation of AGF to accuse others of "POV pushing," which is an assumption of bad faith.] (]) 16:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::], here are other examples, from March 26 & 27 on this talk page, of assumption of bad faith: ''you're purpose here is just to push a POV.'' (March 26) … ''your propensity to reflexively push pro-Putin POV'' (March 26) … ''then one of you (EtienneDolet, Athenean or SaintAviator) comes in and say "we're gonna do whatever we want to anyway, thank you for letting us waste your time"'' (March 26) … ''it appears that the only reason you put it back in was... because it was myself in particular who removed it. That's even worse, as it's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND.'' (March 27) … ''Double standard much? Make-up-any-reason-no-matter-how-contradictory-to-get-your-way much?'' (March 27) … ''your tag team friend jumped in and reverted some more just for the thrill of it'' (March 27) … ''But hey, I understand where you're coming from. If you're a dedicated POV pusher...'' (March 27).
::Heck - I do not like articles over 120K and would likely trim this one that much. <g> ] (]) 15:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Just as you were writing this I jotted down the same number elsewhere as a target. ] (]) 15:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
::::LOL - GMTA - see ] for my scissors. 140K down to 34K ] (]) 16:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::How about this: leave the lede alone for now, since that really should be determined by what's in the article itself, so it makes sense to tackle it at the end. But focus on the text body and start cutting. I tried to get that going but I do have a feeling - whether this is assuming bad faith or not - that if I do it, it will be reverted simply because I'm the one making the changes, but if someone else does it, it might stick.] (]) 17:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Drmies}} Hi Drmies, I did not think this was a RfC at that time. It really wasn't obvious upon first glance without the RfC template. I thought it was a simple proposal followed by discussion. At that moment, my understanding was that there were 4 users, as opposed to 1 user, that demanded its removal. But your point is well-taken and perhaps I removed it too early. I'll have it better-timed in the future whenever it's deemed necessary. ] (]) 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::::I'm happy to disengage for a while and let less-involved editors do their thing. The article definitely needs to be cut back. ] (]) 20:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::::Thats the first target range in bytes thats been put up. Good. Its what we need. Discussion makes things go better. Lol. Considering the turbulent history here it honestly seemed to me like something else was going on. More of the same. A simple discuss on a target range by VM, being the reason for wholesale deletions, would have got me talking. There was also a period when people here, including VM, were adding a lot of stuff, bloating it out. {{ping|Drmies}} BTW I never supported the TipToe aspersion, I disagree, I think you handled this well. I appreciate you seeing the Good Faith. This thread will be the catalyst that took the worst heat out of the editing. Seriously theres not been enough honest discussion, as it then morphs into snark. This is a good start. ] ] 23:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
*I am happy to see these comments; good faith is like ... oh, come up with your own damn metaphor. If you have it, you'll get more of it from others. VM's suggestion about leaving the lead alone sounds like a good plan, and then you can fight over that lead later. (BTW, I saw some back-and-forths about this economic stuff, but there's a paragraph on that in the lead of the Thatcher article, so it shouldn't be entirely left out, I suppose--remember, Thatcher is a GA.) I seriously think that the more you all manage to cut that's not essential, the less opportunity there will be to fight over particulars. Only a few days ago there was a discussion about the reliability of a Syrian blogger or something like that; that shouldn't have to happen in an article on a Russian politician. Thank you all, ] (]) 23:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

*Good Faith 'is' catchy. I now have a large store of Good Faith in you. Yes lets leave the lead till later. All the heavy fighting 'was' over these details, so your advice on reduction neatly solves it. I think that blogger too was a ref for just more non essentials. These points are wise points people ] ] 00:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

So. Can I remove the stuff I tried removing? It really was non-essential fluff.] (]) 01:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

:Not the stuff I re-added yesterday. I don't agree with the characterization of it as "non-essential fluff". ] (]) 01:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

*Talk detail guys. Best to be like Étienne & Collect below, takes a minute to outline the removal in a thread to keep it all clear. ] ] 01:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

::And this is how ideas that sound good in theory, end up dying in practice. Just not enough good faith to fuel that engine.
::Anyway - this is restoring material that's obviously written in POV way. Gazprom was created "in national interest"? Really? Care to show me where it says that in the source? I'm pretty sure that's just a straight up POV misrepresentation of the source.
:: is also unnecessary and is an instance of special pleading. The source is not reliable either.
::And with regard to I thought it was agreed to remove superfluous information about the election outcomes from the lede? Oh, wait, that's right, we can only remove anything that can potentially make Putin look bad (like the fact that there was voter fraud) from the lede, but not anything that makes him look good.
::Athenean, you said you were going to step back. So step back for a few days, then come back and evaluate the effort once it's had a chance, rather than just trying to short circuit it even before it can get started.] (]) 02:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I am willing to disengage, but I was hoping you would do the same or at least focus on something else instead of trying to remove my edits the minute I said I was willing to disengage. I certainly don't agree with your "special pleading" characterization. If we're going to imply that Putin is involved in Politkovskaya's murder, then we should at ''least'' include his reaction. If you feel that source is not reliable, it's not hard to find another one. Regarding this , I really don't see why we should remove the 64% of the vote (I assume that's what you mean and not the other part of my edit which is just a copyedit). That's just a neutral fact, and we mention the margin of victory for the other two elections, so I really don't see the case for removing the 64%. I'm ok with the removal of the OSCE sentence (see below), but not this. ] (]) 02:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Guys Im not feeling the love! From Drmies above 'VM's suggestion about leaving the lead alone sounds like a good plan'. Lets do that. It is a good suggestion. BTW for non minor edits a new discussion thread like below, would be best. ] ] 02:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

== Proposal to remove OSCE opinions from the lead ==

I propose removing the excessive amount of information (don't know how it got there) regarding voting irregularities from the lead:
{{quote|Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers evaluated election day voting positively overall but assessed the vote count negatively in almost one-third of polling stations because of procedural irregularities.}}

Reason being is that there's already criticisms mentioned in the previous sentence. Also, the lead can be shorter this way. Indeed, the OSCE is a notable organization, and its opinion counts. But such lengthy, and rather complicated, criticisms should not be in the lead. Instead, it should be elaborated somewhere in the body at best. ] (]) 18:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

:I think it's fine to remove this from the lede.] (]) 18:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

::Agree. ] (]) 20:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Yes of course ] ] 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

== typical possible editing style ==

] shows a rough edit showing that there is no reason I can see why we should not quickly shrink this BLP by at least 25% without cutting any actual substance. ] (]) 19:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

:Good work. ] ] 23:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

::{{ping|Collect}} I think that'll be great. By the way, aren't there any FAs that are 200,000+ bytes? ] (]) 19:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

:::No comprehensive list by size so I looked at all of the last 6 month's FAs - 3% were under 18K, 94% were 18K to 70K, 3% 70K to 130K, 0% over 130K in size. I can safely say the chances of a 200K article ever reaching that status is minuscule or less. ] (]) 22:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Collect}} Okay, well your work on the KGB section is good. Do you have that ready to go? It will be helpful since we can reduce quite a few bytes from there. Once that's done, we can look into other sections and reduce them as well. ] (]) 05:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Collect}} Sorry, keep pinging you here. How do you feel about the "Speeches abroad" section? It's one of the largest sections, and I doubt that the topic (Speeches abroad) is notable enough to merit its own section, especially one of that size. ] (]) 07:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::It is a tad like "reactions of foreign leaders"- type sections about notable deaths ... a very large amount of it is not of use to the reader much at all. Perhaps an RfC on its utter removal - allowing "really important stuff" too be moved into relevant sections, would be best. ] (]) 07:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Those sections are either not required or in need of heavy trim ] ] 22:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

== Putin as fascist ==
An excellent RS to consult http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X16000039 .--] (]) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

:Soooooooooo how is that you wanted to improve this article again? ] (]) 01:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::It's a reliable source from an academic expert. So what is the problem? ] (]) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::: RS is RS...--] (]) 01:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::Might I suggest that consideration of this source be deferred until after the reorganization and trimming currently in progress is complete? ] (]) 01:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Sure we can wait, though we'll see how quickly this reorganization and trimming proceeds; I can see it getting bogged down in more petty reverts and sniping.] (]) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

:::Sure we can wait, though we'll see how quickly this reorganization and trimming proceeds; I can see it getting bogged down in more petty reverts and sniping.] (]) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:::: No problem.--] (]) 01:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::This is just one of many publications, and it is about country, not that much about Putin. One point many analysts agree about: ''Putin is unimportant''. Almost nothing will change in the country if he disappears one day. The "ruling elite" are ]. According to Putin, the decision to take Crimea was made by "five men", and this is probably true. ] (]) 08:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::It's a reliable source from an academic expert. So what is the problem? ] (]) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:::It's a speculative OPINION PIECE by an anti-Putin and Ukrainian nationalist ideologue. See ]. From ]: "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..." I hope the preceding guides your and our thinking when we consider using a biased source.] (]) 13:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::::It's not a "speculative OPINION PIECE" but rather a scholarly article on the nature of Putin's government. Published in a peer reviewed well respected journal. By one of the top experts on the subject matter. From Rutgers University and Harvard. "Bias" is in the eye of the beholder.] (]) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::Your "top expert" has openly wrote about supporting Ukrainian nationalism, you can find this in both his publications and scholarly works on the subject.
:::: Motyl is a AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL and an ACADEMIC. You would need a major proof that he is a "nationalistic ideologue" of any sort.--14:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::John A. Armstrong’s myth-symbol paradigm of ethnicity by Anna Siewierska-Chmaj in SPRAWY NARODOWOŚCIOWE Seria nowa / NATION ALITIE S AFF AIR S New series, 46/2015: 64–71 DOI: 10.11649/sn.2015.034 writes about Motyl's open support for Ukrainian nationalism.--] (]) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::That source most certainly DOES NOT say that Motyl is a "nationalistic ideologue" or that there is "Motyl's open support for Ukrainian nationalism". In fact, Motyl is barely mentioned in that source. This is a reminder that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles.] (]) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::: His ideology is obvious on his World Affairs page, but what matters is that this new contribution is just another speculative opinion piece. There is a wide array of opinion on Mr. Putin, much of it by professors and intellectuals with various ideologies. Why not start a new subsection called "Putin as Russia's Savior" too? Because, like a "Putin as Fascist," it would be ].] (]) 01:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::: I don't know what his "ideology" is and as far as the reliability of the source that's sort of irrelevant.] (]) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Here is what Per Anders Rudling writes about Motyl "The perhaps most intelligent denial of the OUN’s fascism and collaborationism is made by a political scientist, Alexander Motyl. Motyl’s argument differs from the crude denial of the OUN-affi liated historians. It is instead based upon the OUN’s failure to establish a state. While Motyl admits the OUN’s enthusiasm for a fascist Europe, its fascist intentions, he presents fascism is a model of organizing an existent state. This interpretation shifts the focus away from ideology to measurable achivement. Fascism, according to Motyl’s interpretation, becomes primarily an issue of whether a movement is successful in achieving its goal of controlling a state"(...)While Motyl’s stringent criteria for fascism disqualifi es the OUN, he defi nes contemporary Russia as an “unconsolidated fascist state." He presents himself as “a long-time critic of the Bandera movement,” yet his denial of
the OUN’s fascism and collaboration has become an important component of the narrative of diaspora nationalists and pro-OUN intellectuals. It is diffi cult to escape the notion that a definition of fascism which includes Medvedev’s Russia, but not Bandera and Stets’ko, is
tailored to fi t the self-image and ideological needs of a community which to various degrees identifies with the pro-OUN tradition".--] (]) 20:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The salient part appears to be:
:''Fascism may be defined as a popular fully authoritarian political system with a personalistic dictator and a cult of the leader''
Which appears to include the USSR for most of its existence in the first place, Castro's Cuba, Mao's China, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Maduro's Venezuela and a host of other countries and eras. Are you sure you think this is a prudent course to follow? Especially since it offers a view:
: "'' Not being a type of group, disposition, politics, or ideology, ''
Which does not appear exactly congruent with the usual usage of the now-dysphemistic term. ] (]) 13:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Well, first that's original research. A reliable source gets to define "fascism" however it wants. Second, that's only the abstract. By virtue of it being an abstract, I'm sure it doesn't present the full definition and view of the subject.] (]) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::] doesn't simply say "use any marginal piece of subjective opinion, commentary or speculation that happens to appear in a newspaper or even an academic publication", nor does it operate in a vacuum or as a trump card, however useful it might be for people trying to score points while suggesting they are simply following WP rules to pretend that it does. Just because a publication or author may be said to be "reliable" in a WP or even general sense, it doesn't mean everything recorded in it or by them becomes an encyclopedic fact or even particularly significant. Opinions, assessments and judgments, however reputable or otherwise the publisher and however eminent or otherwise the holder of them, remain opinions, assessments and judgments – and often heavily biased, minority or even fringe ones (yes, even among academics). Putin's Russia is not normally described as "fascist" as the term is formally understood. And as it happens, even the piece being cited, in its abstract, talks about a "reconstruction" of the concept of fascism, which in turn "may plausibly" allow the label to applied to Putin – which is all a bit flimsy. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 14:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
::::It's not "opinion", it's scholarly work. It's not "marginal", it's a publication in a well respected, peer reviewed, journal, by one of the top experts in the literature. Who's a professor at Rutgers University. It's only "opinion, assessments and judgment" in the sense that ALL scholarly work is "opinion, assessments and judgment". As to how Putin's government is described in the literature - actually there's a good bit of the debate in the literature as to whether it's "fascist" or something else, like "neo-imperialist". So the term does actually appear fairly frequently as a description. This particular article represents one particular side in that debate ("Putin is not just another authoritarian neo-imperialist but actually fascist" vs. "it's crypto-fascism or quasi-fascism, but not quite there... yet") but that means that that view should be represented along with others (and of course attributed).] (]) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Motyl openly wrote about his support for Ukrainian nationalism as construction myth of Ukrainian state. He is not a neutral author.--] (]) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::This is not true. Please remember that BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles.] (]) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Before trying to insert this variant definition of "fascism" here as a valid claim of fact, I suggest you see how far you get inserting this source into the ] article as a redefinition of the term found there, as a claim of fact. Cheers. ] (]) 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::That's ]. Anyway, for the moment I haven't inserted anything in the article. Mostly because on its own, with just this source, that would indeed create a POV problem. This is because this is part of a larger academic debate and to balance it we would need to have the publications from the other scholars who are working in this literature. I do strongly object however to trying to dismiss this source out of hand.] (]) 14:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::What you said is all true and should be applied to attempts to introduce the figures and claims of the "]" as well.] (]) 16:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, that article is from a special issue of a journal which is dedicated to scholarly assessment of Putin's government ''"Special Issue: Between Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and Fascism in Russia: Exploring Vladimir Putin’s Regime"'' . I think that using scholarly works in this Misplaced Pages article would be a huge improvement upon its current state and sources.] (]) 14:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::Yes, I think this is valid source by a highly qualified historian, ]. However, some other historians are talking not about fascism, but about ]. That's why ] and ] called their book (which describes the history of Putin coming to power) "The Corporation" . Something about Corporatism in Russia, where Putin is allegedly the head of the "Corporation" should be included I think. ] (]) 17:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Motyl is a supporter of Ukrainian nationalism so he is hardly a neutral author here(John A. Armstrong’s myth-symbol paradigm of ethnicity
by Anna Siewierska-Chmaj in SPRAWY NARODOWOŚCIOWE Seria nowa / NATION ALITIE S AFF AIR S New series, 46/2015: 64–71
DOI: 10.11649/sn.2015.034)--] (]) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::That source most certainly DOES NOT say that Motyl is a "nationalistic ideologue" or that there is "Motyl's open support for Ukrainian nationalism". In fact, Motyl is barely mentioned in that source. This is a reminder that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. This is in fact your THIRD reminder.
::::Also, can you please format your comments correctly as they're pretty hard to read. Additionally I don't see the need to make the same comment three different times.] (]) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:As for the comment above – "It's not 'opinion', it's scholarly work. It's not 'marginal', it's a publication in a well respected, peer reviewed, journal, by one of the top experts in the literature" – academics like everyone else have and express opinions in their work, and sometimes those opinions are indeed marginal in terms of the mainstream consensus. This is a rather uncontroversial point, one would have thought. The wider point was simply that there is a difference between verifiable "facts", which expertise and research can help to establish, and broader assessments or opinions about more subjective issues. There is. I'm glad you also accept that the Motyl piece should not be used on its own, for NPOV reasons if nothing else – but there was none of that nuance when the link was initially posted here by someone else. Obviously academic works as a general rule are indeed preferred as sources, but the other risk with some of the cited material is that it is probably a little too esoteric for a generalist encyclopedia page. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 15:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:*Oh, no. published by ], including the publication by Motyl must be used on this page. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss mainstream academic research. ] (]) 17:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::It's not being "dismissed", people are just querying – with good reason – whether it is an "excellent", "mainstream" or definitive source that simply "must" be used on this page. Even if it is used, the question is how exactly, especially in terms of placing what Motyl and others might believe and say in a broader context and with any countervailing opinions. Nor, as it happens, is it "published by" the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It appears to be a volume of ''Communist and Post-Communist Studies'', which happens to be available via a database called "ScienceDirect". <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 18:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::In addition, you only have to read the introduction to the volume to see where it is coming from, when it talks of a "misplaced hope" that Russia was "in transition to a system that would come to eventually resemble Western democratic market economies"; and for an acknowledgement that the "Putin as fascist" theory specifically is not only very much not "mainstream" but not even being explicitly argued: "Putin's political system could evolve into what, still only a minority of scholars such as Motyl, 2007, Motyl, 2010 and Motyl , 2016 argue increasingly resembles a fascist system". <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 18:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Yes, this is , well known for publishing main stream academic research. Yes, these sources can and possibly should be used. Yes, a lot of info from the publications (there are several of them) is relevant to this page. This is all. No judgement what exactly should be included at the moment. BTW, are abundant in publications. This is not just a slur, as might be with respect to some other politicians. Such comparisons are based on historical analogies with Germany before WWII and made by respected historians (as in this issue). This is actually a common place. Nothing special. ] (]) 18:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::].] (]) 21:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

===Criticism of Motyl===
I have found several scholarly sources that led me to cast doubt on assertion that Motyl is a reliable author in this regard. I quoted some above, but I think it is best to list them.

*], Universität Hamburg; Per Anders Rudling, Universität Greifswald.
Review of Krytyka. Hefte 3-4; 7-8; 9-10
"For his “correction” of Snyder Rusnachenko relies on Alexander Motyl, who since the 1980s has been an active denier of the fascist nature of the OUN (no. 9-10, p. 7)"

*The Carl Beck Papers in Russian & East European Studies Number 2107, ] The OUN, the UPA and the Holocaust:
A Study in the Manufacturing of Historical Myths
"Andreas Umland has taken Motyl to task over his use of this terminology. “If we would apply Motyl’s
loose conceptualization of fascism to contemporary world history, we might fi nd so many ‘fascisms’
that the term would lose much of its heuristic and communicative value. . . . Motyl’s comment is in
so far unconstructive as he deprives researchers of Russian nationalism of an important analytic tool.”

"Motyl elegantly, and implicitly, divorces the OUN from its ideological kin—the Ustaše, the Hlinka Guard, Mussolini’s
Fascists, and Hitler’s National Socialists. Referring to Ukrainian Nazi collaborators would be impossible twice over, according to this line of reasoning"
"While Motyl’s stringent criteria for fascism disqualifi es the OUN, he defines contemporary Russia as an “unconsolidated fascist state.”243
He presents himself as “a long-time critic of the Bandera movement,”244 yet his denial of
the OUN’s fascism and collaboration has become an important component of the narrative of diaspora nationalists and pro-OUN intellectuals"

*Marco Carynnyk
"By arguing that the involvement of the OUN in the Holocaust was minimal Dr. Motyl is absolving it of its participation in the killing of Jews."


"Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist: Fascism, Genocide, and Cult"
by Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe page 522
""In his evaluation of Bandera and the Ukrainian nationalism, Motyl did not discuss such aspects as fascism in the OUN or the pogroms in 1941. He called the ethnic cleansing in 1943-1944 the "Ukrainian-Polish violence in Volhynia", which, in his view had nothing in common with the ethnic violence conducted by the Ustasa and should be compared instead to the violence of the "Irish nationalists against the British". In addition to romanticizing the OUN-UPA's violence...""

The above leads me to conclude that he definitely is not a reliable author on this topic.--] (]) 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with inserts like Fascism and this guy Motyl is its like the SOHR or Autism argument. It should not be happening on a bio page. Its Tabloid crap. With denials and such its also a hell of a lot of 'bytes' not needed. 'Less and succinct' not 'what if and maybes' is whats required. ] ] 22:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:A peer reviewed academic journal is not a tabloid, and a paper in said journal by an academic from Rutgers and Harvard is not "crap". It's a reliable source. Likewise, an organization that is extensively cited as reliable by numerous prestigious media outlets isn't "tabloid" or "blog" or "marginal". It's a reliable source. You can, if you wish to, always bring up this issue at WP:RSN.] (]) 22:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:Motyl is a respected academic published in a high profile, mainstream academic source. Stop pushing the Motyl ] envelope here, {{u|MyMoloboaccount}}. And, {{u|SaintAviator}}, this is by no means 'tabloid' in any shape or form: it is undoubtedly an RS. The only question is whether it is considered to be DUE or UNDUE for Putin's bio. --] (]) 23:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

::HI ] I always like what you bring. You said with style what I tried to say. I'll try again. One can ref loads of stuff, but should we? My current focus is trimming as talked about. So IMO, No. Even though Motyl be a Saint. ] ] 23:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Motyl's not a saint, a motyl is a butterfly. Which I guess, if you want to get poetic about it, is like a flying saint. A... saint aviator.] (]) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
*It has been suggested this be bracketed until the biography has been dealt with to some extent; that's probably prudent. However, I'm a bit concerned to see a few misunderstandings here and a few hasty judgments. "Tabloid crap" is nonsense, and not just demeaning but also showing a lack of ''something'': this article is by an academic, in a peer-reviewed publication. It cannot be dismissed as an "opinion piece" or whatever. That doesn't mean it should be included, but criticism of the publication, or criticism of the author as ''supposably'' a nationalist or ideologue of this or that kind, that's really neither here nor there. This publication is an RS, and there's little that can be done about that. It cannot be wished away, even if the author is a nationalist--the fact remains that the publication was peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.<p>As for "this is not what fascism means"--if the author was far off the mark it wouldn't have been published; again, that's really sort of all there is to it. If y'all want to leave this for later that's fine, but don't pretend this can be wished/whisked away as partisan or unreliable or fringe. And yes, please don't go around accusing Motyl of things that the BLP won't allow. ] (]) 03:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::There's also the broader misunderstanding about "reliable sources", which crops up all the time on contentious pages. Motyl's published works, like those of most other academics, are "reliable" in the WP sense. That doesn't mean he is "right" in everything he says or that he is even discussing things where anyone could be proved "right" anyway. All the above shows is that – shock – academics disagree about a lot of things, especially when it comes to interpretation, and can also be as partisan as you like, just like WP editors (albeit usually from a more well-informed perspective). Citing such disagreement to say he is "unreliable" or wrong and hence cannot be used on the page is as misguided as saying that any argument he makes simply "must" be used as if it were unimpeachable. And no it's not tabloid crap or a newspaper opinion piece, but the stuff about fascism in particular ''is'' opinion about a fairly arcane aspect of this for a generalist encyclopedia and, as noted even in the introduction to the volume in question, not mainstream opinion at that. The fact that someone might hold marginal opinions on subjective topics is no bar to being published. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 08:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Tabloid Crap was my bad. My post after that was better. I just think yes its Rs, he may even be genius, but should we go there? Its still a big article ] ] 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Sure thing, ]. ], I don't want to drag this out--I think it should be left for later--but the very fact that something is published in an academic journal typically ''means'' it's not a "marginal opinion". The word "opinion" already is a misnomer: "theory" is a better term. (I live in a state where evolution is taught with a disclaimer; I know a little bit about this stuff.) Again, that doesn't mean it should be included, but it's not fringe, nor is fascism/the accusation thereof "arcane". Much will depend on whether this is the only scholar saying something like this. But again, it's probably best left until later, and then this discussion can be rebooted, groundwork for a positive conversation having been laid here, and misunderstandings gotten out of the way. Thanks, ] (]) 15:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::Agreed, in that this meta-debate is all getting a little theoretical and abstract until someone suggests in more detail what they actually want to use this piece for on the page (although the header and OP in this sub-section might give a clue, perhaps). The problem for me – to continue it briefly – is that this is a pattern I see in how people try to use source material across WP pages. They cherry-pick something that buttresses their particular agenda and then try to claim "RS" as a trump card, when things are of course more complicated than that.<br/> Again, as a general point, I'd repeat that academics can and often do hold views that are at the margins of mainstream consensus and get them published (I'm not sure I ever applied the term "fringe" specifically to this). Publishers don't vet or assess views in quite that way, and sometimes it's in their interest of course to print the controversial (in this case even the introduction to the journal, which I quoted above, acknowledges that Motyl is in a "minority", possibly of one, with his fascism theory). Indeed, it is when such ideas go mainstream that science, in particular, advances of course.<br/> And talking of science, the comparison with evolution doesn't quite work: evolution is about verifiable facts and is not described as a "theory" in the sense that it is speculative; this is about subjective classification and the use of terminology, which ultimately is opinion or, as I also said, interpretation. Evolution is either correct or not; by contrast there is no objective "truth" as to whether Putin is objectively a fascist or not. Further to that, my point about arcane is that some of the scholarly debate about the "nature of Putinism", whether it is fascism or anything else, is a bit too high-level for an encyclopedia biography, especially one that most people seem to agree is too long. Again, I don't think that's that controversial an observation. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 16:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

== Way too many pictures in this article.... ==

According to the Misplaced Pages guideline ] ''Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative.'' Currently this article has too many pictures that have no relevance to Putin. What is the relevance of having a picture of one of his friends? So we can recognise his friends if we happen to be in the same street? Also to many pictures of Putin meeting foreign politicians. He is the president of Russia; the president of Russia meeting foreign politicians is not significant. I rather have somebody with more insight then me which pictures are significant to delete these unnecessary pictures. — ''']'''&nbsp;•&nbsp;] 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

:I agree about the picture of his best friend. So I removed it. There was three photographs of anti-Putin protestors up until recently (I removed one of them). That's ], especially considering how popular he is (80%+ approval rating). ] (]) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
:*His very high ranking are probably fake. This has been explained in a ] by a Russian politician that you just removed from the page . Did you actually read the publication you removed? ] (]) 04:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::That's not my underlining point, and I don't think that was ever relevant to the topic of discussion here. ] (]) 04:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::RFE/RL is considered a reliable source? ] (]) 04:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Did ''you'' read this publication? ] (]) 04:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::By the way, I the ratings image through commons. It was outdated. ] (]) 04:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
, but indeed there is no need for a lot of anti-Putin pictures in this Misplaced Pages article. — ''']'''&nbsp;•&nbsp;] 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

:Well, I was actually referring to his approval ratings at the time of the protests. Yes, too many photographs of anti-Putin marches. It needs to be sorted out. ] (]) 21:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

::What are these "anti-Putin photographs"? Can you please enumerate them? I'm not seeing any. Is the lighting bad in some of the portraits or something? Even before your recent extensive, and un-discussed changes (say, ) all I can find is a SINGLE - as in one, the integer less than two and more than zero - photo of some anti-Putin demonstrators. Is that what you mean by "too many". Or do you just mean "even one is too many"? Not clear on this. If not... can you enumerate all these "too many anti-Putin photographs"? ] (]) 23:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::Hmm, yes, I'm also trying to figure out what "anti-Putin photographs" are. The picture with Medvedev, who still has his full head of hair, maybe that one. Please, let's not get silly. ] (]) 03:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Drmies}} by anti-Putin photographs I meant the photographs of anti-Putin marches. But I could see why it can be interpreted as such, so I updated my comment to clarify that. ] (]) 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Gotcha. For better or worse my immediate comparison is the GA ] which--again, for better or worse--has 17 photos, none of them "anti-Thatcher". One could expect an image or two of the massive protests, but they're not there. Perhaps that article needs one. Ours has 33, none of them negative, unless I missed something. Is the photo that Marek signaled gone? I can't open that version right now or my browser will crash, haha. I mean, wouldn't someone expect a Pussy Riot photo in here, maybe? But I'm sure you all can agree on that one way or another. Thanks, ] (]) 05:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::::EtienneDolet, if you're going to change your comments, please use strike through like this: ''"<s>too many anti-Putin photographs</s> too many photographs of anti-Putin marches (corrected after VM pointed out my error)"'' rather than changing your comment outright. Otherwise the comment of the person replying to you might no longer make sense.
::::I'm still wondering where the plural "photograph'''s'''" came from, as there was only one (out of something like 40) photo of anti-Putin march. And yes, it got removed.] (]) 05:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::It wasn't really an "error", it just needed further clarification. At any rate, at the time I removed the photograph, there were three photographs of anti-Putin/opposition marches; two of which were from the same rally (February 2012). I one of two February 2012 rally photographs. ] (]) 07:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::Whether it was an "error" or not is not the issue. The issue is that you shouldn't alter comments you made previously after they've been replied to. That confuses the conversation and it makes it seem like someone was responding to something you didn't actually say.] (]) 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Well, you should take up your own advice and strike the "corrected after VM pointed out my error" accusation if you indeed feel that it being an error never even mattered in the first place. ] (]) 17:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::You made a comment. I replied to that comment. You went back and changed your original comment so that it *looked like* my reply didn't make sense. You shouldn't do that.] (]) 19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::I already that I updated my comment below Drmies' and your comment. So I don't think that's an issue. ] (]) 19:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::But you didn't strike through your original comment. I don't like it that you're making it look like I'm replying to something which you didn't actually say. Whatever. Just don't do it in the future.] (]) 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::There have also been pro-Putin marches over the years. We could include one of each. Or none. ] (]) 07:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) If we're going to have only one pic per section (presumably), I think it's POV to have as the only pic in the "Third term" section a protest. Even more so considering Putin's high approval ratings. ] (]) 19:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:Well, if we're going to have only one pic per section how exactly would you balance out a singlepic? Or if we put in the 13th, or whatever, pic of Putin taking oath of office - but only once per section! - how would you balance that? We can't exactly include one half of a protest pic and one half a "Putin taking the oath" pic can we? And of course what matters for POV is not "pic per section" but rather the overall distribution of photos. I don't think a single - one! - photo of anti-Putin demonstrators is so nefarious that its very presence will skew the article, pollute its purity, and turn it into an iniquitous decretum.] (]) 20:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::Having one pic per section is not a rule set in stone. I think we can make an exception to that rule so as to resolve this issue once and for all. As of now, I too think that a picture of a couple thousand protestors is undue for that section. What we have now is just one picture of him taking the presidential oath with Yeltsin in 2000. Thereafter, we see a picture of protests. That just doesn't properly signify the recurring election victories and high approval ratings he has garnered over the coming years. ] (]) 20:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::So the idea is that if he were elected president 100 times in a row, we'd do well to just ignore the MOS guidelines against having 100 pictures of the same subject, and include all 100 oath, one per section describing his term of presidency, just to ensure that readers can correctly gauge the height of the accomplishment? ] (]) 20:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

:::(ec) @ VM: It would be best if you toned down the sarcasm. Anyway, we don't have to have only one pic per section. I don't think that's going to work, and it's going to cause a lot of problems. We can easily achieve balance by adding a pic of a pro-Putin demonstration. ] (]) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry Athenean but I did not say anything sarcastically. Everything I said, I meant literally. Including one picture of an anti-Putin demonstration is not going to ruin this article. So, please either a) point out which part of my comment is actually sarcastic or b) strike your comment, as unfounded accusations can be regarded as ]. You are choosing to discuss editors rather than contents, which is explicitly something Drmies warned everyone about. Although, I guess, at the end of the day, it's really up to you if you want to heed that advice.] (]) 04:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the great advice, but I wasn't being sarcastic. A single pic of anti-Putin demonstrators in a section that actually discusses these demonstrations, is not UNDUE. And it doesn't need to be "balanced" by anything, seeing as how many other pictures there already are in the article.] (]) 02:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:Further, ''not'' having any such picture would strike me very much as POV, as surely, Putin can't be the only world leader ever not to have been protested... or one of the very few Misplaced Pages can't afford to showcase pictures of protests against. ] (]) 20:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

::The issue here is whether it is due or not. For example, ] has had one of the lowest approval ratings in the history of America. Yet, he doesn't have one anti-Bush protest picture in his article (there's an anti-war one but I don't think that counts). On the other hand, we got Putin here who has a 90% approval rating, who until recently, had 3 protest pictures in his article. Something about that is just not right. This is not to say I am against placing any anti-Putin protest picture, as long as it is balanced out of course. ] (]) 20:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Does it have 3 protest pictures in the article *now*? No? Is anyone here saying that there should be 3 protest pictures in the article? No? So ... I'm unclear on the relevance of that observation. And I'm guessing the reason why it had 3 protest pictures before is because it had 457 pictures in total, or something like that, so 3 as a proportion of the overall number wasn't actually that many.
:::And please please please go and put some anti-Bush protest pictures in that article. I'll click that <thank> button and even revert anyone who tries to revert you (but only once because edit warring is bad you know!).] (]) 20:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I'd certainly expect the Bush article to have a protest against him depicted... hell, that was one contested president. Though mostly (at least internationally) because of the war, so it sort of makes sense for the protest pic to be one concerning the war. (What is Putin ''most'' contested/protested about?) ] (]) 20:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::There's no doubt that an anti-Putin picture needs to be in the article as well. Let us decide on which one to use. ] (]) 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::My point about the 3 anti-Putin protest photographs was that there was a ] when it concerned the article as a whole. That false balance is still reflected with just one photograph of anti-Putin protests, as opposed to the even larger pro-Putin marches that accompanied them (i.e. the "Anti-Orange" people). It was hardly a lopsided anti-Putin rally as the article now deceivingly makes up believe. Even the ] has that balanced out. Hence, we should be doing that here as well. ] (]) 21:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::It was hardly "false balance". And it hardly is "false balance". A single picture (or even three out of oodles) and a few lines about the protests is hardly unbalanced, at least for a neutral kind of a scale, given the size of this article (even after the deletions). "non-false balance" does not mean "absence of anything which is critical of Putin".] (]) 02:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Again, we can't ignore the fact that counter-demonstrations took place. Will add that to the article shortly. ] (]) 02:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::We are not ignoring it, are we? It's in the article.] (]) 04:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Okay, great! Much more balanced now. ] (]) 04:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::But I do retain my initial concerns regarding the photographs. There's still a ] when it comes to just one photograph of protestors. ] (]) 07:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

==Ratings, polls, and assessments==
A very bulky and fractured, oddly obscure at times section was adding considerable bytes so it was trimmed down. ] ] 07:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've divided this disjointed section into two sensible sections: "Polls and Rankings" and "Assessments." ''Polls and Rankings'' is fine and has been made chronological, but perhaps it is too large. ''Assessments'' needs to be balanced and dominated by RS-centered mainstream consensus. That he's a dictator is not the mainstream consensus point of view. As I've said before, most Western publications rate Putin's government as 'authoritarian' and/or 'authoritarian democratic'. Inside Russia, the consensus may be similar on 'style of governance', but with the VERY important caveat that many if not most think that he saved Russia from disintegration. ] (]) 16:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

==Family==

Wordy trivial trimmed ] ] 07:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

== Autism ==
{{hat|Not a forum.}}
Is it true that Putin was diagnosed with a high-functioning form of autism? See here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11392680/Vladimir-Putin-suffers-from-Aspergers-syndrome-Pentagon-report-claims.html (] (]) 13:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

:See ]: article talk pages are for discussions about the article, not about the subject. - ] (]) 13:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

::Since this US study says he has actually been diagnosed with the condition it should be mentioned in the article. (] (]) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

:::I suggest you check with your local shrink as to how valid a "diagnosis by looking at videos" is. ] (]) 14:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::::''The study from 2008, '''which was based only on videos of Putin''', claimed that the Russian president’s mother had a stroke whilst pregnant with him that left lasting damage. '' ] (]) 14:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Did his mother suffer a stroke? (] (]) 14:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC))
::::::No RS source for that claim either AFAICT - but would any reputable shrink perform medical diagnoses based on seeing videos of people? ] (]) 22:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::::Autism round three, Roflmao ] ] 22:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Economy ==

The lede understates the severity of Russia's long-term economic problems. The country is actually now being surpassed by Spain. (] (]) 14:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC))
:Alas - we are bound by Misplaced Pages policy to follow ], ] and ] which leave no room at all for editors to insert what they "know" is "truth." ] (]) 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
::Spain's GDP is now larger than Russia's. (] (]) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

Need reliable sources here.] (]) 14:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

:This report from 2014 says Russia's economy was almost as small as Spain's: http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-economy-gdp-v-spain-2014-12 (] (]) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

*Removed lead bloat / distraction re this. Leads very important, as suggested we fix it later, but not with stuff that does not belong there. At this trimming rate, we take on lead in a few days ] ] 22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

== Suggestions ==

Under 200k--that's progress. Well done. I don't know about balance and that's not for me to judge; I hope everyone is equally happy or unhappy, and at any rate there's a ways to go. Let me ask you all, for example, why this article needs 11 paragraphs of "Economic, industrial, and energy policies". The first two paragraphs are quite general and strike me as appropriate, but the moment we hear "Putin obtained approval for a flat tax rate" it seems to me we're into head-of-state-gets-all-credit territory again, and I do not see how the cited sources support that he personally gets to take credit for it. And may I add that the Heritage Foundation is clearly a partisan source, that it's not peer-reviewed neutral academic etc., that its publications are meant to influence policy, and that the article cited doesn't focus on Putin or Russia at all? All these things should be pretty obvious.<p>Now, that National champions program, that seems Putin-appropriate. Y'all should cut the rest--all the great economy! stuff of that section, and the three terrible economy! paragraphs of the next section, "2014 downturn". BTW, that "greatest improvement in corruption" award, I suppose that's notable, but it is really thrown in there completely at random. I also think the "public image" sections should be shortened to just a few paragraphs, since there is a main article. Just a few pros and cons or whatever will do. And why so much detail on so many things, but not a nice, juicy putinism in a little quotebox? Happy editing, ] (]) 04:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
:Not to brag or anything, but I once got this sucker from down to . Once is enough, though. What this article needs is a hard limit, like the limit on the length of edit summaries. (Or maybe a siren that goes off at 180k!)] (]) 04:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

::Agree Drmies. ] ] 10:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

== economy edit ==

edit is mostly fine - just nit picking a few things:
* The accession of Russia to WTO was indeed a big deal and should be retained, although the editorializing about the benefits or lack of them should be avoided.
* In the control over the economy paragraph, the fact that Putin's political opponents were forced into bankruptcy should be retained as should the citation itself (not sure why that was removed)

Otherwise these are good improvements.] (]) 02:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

*WTO was still there, just way smaller. Some dude, above, got this sucker (his words) down to 175k by trimming. Now we are 181k. Good start, but if we list all lifes victims, like these bankrupts, its just gunna bloat. ] ] 03:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:We don't have to list'em, just have a short phrase describing the general situation.] (]) 03:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::Did you notice that edit by SA above also removes the following phrase: ''In 2014, the ] named Putin their Person of the Year Award for furthering corruption and organized crime.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://occrp.org/person-of-the-year/2014/ |title= OCCRP 2014 Person of the Year |accessdate= 31 December 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/vladimir-putin-named-person-year-innovation-organised-crime-1481739 |title=Vladimir Putin named Person of the Year for 'innovation' in 'organised crime' |work=International Business Times |date=3 January 2015}}</ref>'' Do you agree with this removal? I would consider this important. ] (]) 03:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::I'd suggest adding it to the "Recognitions" section, since apparently that section is being expanded even as rest of the article is being reduced in size, but then I might be accused of "using sarcasm" (even though I'd be dead serious).] (]) 05:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::Hey Im following Drmies suggestions, which seem spot on ] ] 06:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::I don't have much of an opinion on whether it's worthwhile keeping or not, but I thought it lacked context--it seemed sort of haphazardly thrown in, that's all. ] (]) 19:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::Like I said, it could be in the "recognition" section. Anyway, the info itself is important, so wherever it goes, it does belong in there.
::::::Also, I changed back that the economic crisis started when the ruble "depreciated" back to where it said that it "collapsed". Currencies "depreciate" all the time and it's no big deal (indeed, under some circumstances it can be a good thing). This wasn't just a depreciation, this was a collapse (the usual threshold employed in the literature as to what constitutes an "exchange rate crisis" is a depreciation or devaluation of more than 15%, here's we're talking about the currency loosing half its value).] (]) 02:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

::::::::VM, with respect its not collapse. Control F here. Collapse = Wiemar Republic kinda chaos. Have a read and here too . Best phrase is recession. ] ] 06:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

{{ref talk}}

== undue additions which re-bloat the article ==

While it makes sense to include a (short) list of important recognitions, are a bit trivial. In particular, honorary degrees for famous people are handed out like phone numbers at a singles bar which means that most of them are not really notable.

As far as this "Angel of Peace" medal goes, the listing fails to mention that 1) this was part of a traditional, diplomatic, exchange of gifts, not an actual recognition of anything, 2) the fact that it is supposed to represent "solidarity between populations" can actually be taken as a subtle - and diplomatic - criticism of Putin, not an honor. Also, if this medal is really that big of a deal, why can't I find it mentioned in the biography of any other person on Misplaced Pages?

In other words, this text is WP:UNDUE and since we're trying to cut down the article to manageable size, it doesn't belong there.] (]) 05:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

:I disagree that the "Angel of Peace" medal is undue. It's a medal that is widely sourced and bestowed by perhaps the most notable person in the world. But yeah, these honorary doctorate stuff I find in BLPs everywhere. That includes not just politicians, but academics, writers, and journalists as well. But I guess the argument can be that it's more relevant for academics than politicians? However, I don't know if that is the case at heart. ] (]) 05:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::No one's questioning the fact that the medal was given or that the pope was the one that gave it. What's at issue is that it's not important enough to include, as it's pretty much given to every head of state that visits the Vatican more or less as a formality.] (]) 05:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::Apparently, not everyone receives that medal. If that's the case, then the President of Portugal, who recently visited, should have received one. ] (]) 05:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::It depends on the importance of the visit. But if this medal was significantly notable, it would be , no? ] (]) 06:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::Well, we shouldn't measure notability based off of Misplaced Pages categories and such. I ran into that issue just recently actually. Serbia's highest distinction didn't even have a category, so I went along and made one. I think I'll do the same for the Angel of Peace. But I'd rather start with making an article first, then moving on with the category. ] (]) 06:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::::: and give some context on the issue. Apparently the Angel of Peace is not a medal in the sense of an award but a medallion, something like a ]. So it was a nice gesture of goodwill and hopes for peace; as the second story tells it, "one of his customary gifts to visiting presidents." ] (]) 04:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

== The absence of the word dictator / autocrat ==

The article should state that Putin has been labeled a dictator and/or an autocrat. No, it should not say in the lead "he is a dictator of Russia", but just like with articles on many other figures, this should be there along the lines of "Some have described him as a ] and an ]". There's plenty of non-fringe, reliable references for this: , , , , , , , , , , , . Those are mainstream sources, and opinions of major political figures (Dalai Lama for example). Again, I am not saying we should say Putin is a dictator / autocrat, but the very spirit of NPOV demands we note some major and reliable outlets describe him as such. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 07:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:The only way to make it happen & get it to stick is via an RfC. ] (]) 07:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::Putin has never won an election so the article should describe him as a dictator. (] (]) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC))
:I agree and I don't think an RfC is necessary since this can be very very very very well sourced.] (]) 19:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:* what I think about this page. The issue is not the wording ("dictator" or not), but providing an adequate description of everything he was able to accomplish as a head of the state. More precisely, a brief description/summary of everything important what ''sources'' describe as his ''personal'' accomplishments. What I mean? For example, (a) suppression of political freedoms in the country (that should be described on this page instead of calling him a "dictator" or referring to another "human rights" page), wide-spread corruption (see refs in my previous comment), wars in Georgia and Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, economic and political isolation of Russia, etc. ] (]) 20:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::*Call me biased, but I think that My very best wishes's (yeah, suck on that group genitive!) note on ''books'' should be very well taken. Books, academic articles, newspaper/magazine articles--in that order. But I think that goes for every topic. ] (]) 20:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
:::As a widely held view (the authoritarian character of Putin's regime) it should be noted in the article per WP:NPOV. ] (]) 20:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
::::It is what it is. Personally I like a strong dictator. Im in the West and our democracy is a sham. So, yeah bring it. ] ] 00:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::There are book sources too, ex. {{cite book|author=Aaron Rosenberg|title=Vladimir Putin: President of Russia|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=mp9CzlQ1NEMC&pg=PA83|date=1 September 2007|publisher=The Rosen Publishing Group|isbn=978-1-4042-1903-8|pages=83–}}, {{cite book|author=Tatyana Tolstaya|title=Pushkin's Children: Writing on Russia and Russians|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=sXhYiluh5tEC&pg=PT148|date=18 July 2012|publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt|isbn=0-544-08003-3|pages=148–}}, {{cite book|author1=Stephen K. Wegren|author2=Dale R. Herspring|title=After Putin's Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=thc3oh1it60C&pg=PA10|date=16 August 2009|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield Publishers|isbn=978-0-7425-5786-4|pages=10–}}, {{cite book|author=Steven Rosefielde|title=Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=eC6HdSYZhRgC&pg=PA68|year=2005|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-83678-4|pages=68–}} - and there are others. Mainstream newspapers cited above should suffice. It is clear that labeling Putin as an autocrat and dictator is not a fringe, niche view but a relatively common description. Not-neutral, of course, and we should be careful with the wording - as I noted above, only ''some'' use those terms, and they are clearly controversial. Those views, however, should be present here. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]&#124;]</sub> 06:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

*It should be in but briefly. The reality is that while Russia has elections and Put's is very popular the ruling powers in Russia wont risk Western style democracy for the singular reason its easily bought i.e US congress. The West has tried to muscle into Russia via NGO's, now tightly controlled by Russia. There is no doubt a small group in Russia make the decisions and this is found in RS by guys like Motyl etc, who identify it as dictatorship, autocracy etc. The main reason for this tight control is Russia's elites see Russia as a nation / culture being threatened by NATO / Western interests and they can achieve a lot to resist this via a largely benevolent (Unless your against them) autocratic state i.e rapid large scale military modernization, S400, S500, Su35, Pak50 etc. ] ] 08:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

::I don't know if anyone noticed, but ''it was added yesterday'' by VM. ] (]) 08:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

:::Yeah I did see it, I'm saying its reasonable and why i.e no reverts from me. ] ] 08:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::::It's hard to argue against the fact that Putin has been described as an autocrat or a dictator, and the page should acknowledge that, as it now does, but it's also hard to see the latter in particular as anything other than an exaggeration, and one often set out hyperbolically by political opponents. The term has a specific meaning after all, which for all his faults, Putin surely falls short of. Also it's hard to escape the observation that rather than people asking "what does the overall record say about this person?", we instead get a succession of talk page sections which assert a negative characteristic and then say "here's a couple of sources which say as much". From autism to fascism to dictatorship, we seem to be starting from an assumption and then citing evidence that appears to back it up. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 21:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

:::::Salient point N-HH. This dynamic is the core driver in our recent edit wars. Let me explain. Hes not a Dictator per se, or as you put it, its an exaggeration. He has done tremendous good for Russia, rebuilding Russia from the dark post Soviet era, recently pounding Daesh etc. Hes smart, decisive and on and on. Editors can find loads of RS showing this, and do, and put it in. But theres the tight Govt control, the Crimea issue, Ukraine etc, and the other editors put in this stuff. Both sides of editors feel they are right. Hes bad vs hes Good. So it has to be about balance. The key is Russia is at war, Putins group knows it. Its a new type of war, like but different to the Cold War. Arms build ups, proxies, power plays, economic warfare, alliances, nuclear potential etc. Its real and dangerous. Putin and his group are doing what they know they have to do. If we have this wider view, both sides can be right. ] ] 23:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

== Another misrepresentation of the source ==

About this ] business.

Here's what the article said before I toned it down a bit:

''"Putin's administration has often been described by various academics as a "sovereign democracy"."''

Hmmm. Various academics. Here is what the source given as citation actually says:

''"Vladimir Putin’s conceptual statements and his annual state of the nation addresses to parliament, as well as statements and deliberations by government officials, '''pro-Kremlin ideologists and members of the presidential team''', who expound on the topic of what the government wants, are significant in analyzing the current political process and simulating the future. They come up with phrases like ’sovereign democracy,’ ’managed democracy,’ ’a doubling of GDP,’ ’construction of an efficient state’ and ’national projects.’ In spite of their '''bombastic nature''', they are not all signs of an over-exuberant existence of Putin or his associates but, rather, a “binder solution” essential for the structure of the state."''

So it's not "academics" which describe Russia's system as "sovereign democracy" but rather "pro-Kremlin ideologists and members of the presidential team", who are making "bombastic" pronouncements.

And this is putting aside the question of the reliability or notability of this source.] (]) 02:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
:Oh yes, "sovereign democracy" is nonsense invented by ]. It does not belong to the page. P.S. I am sorry for not editing this page. Among other reasons, I usually edit only BLP pages of people who are interesting to me, and this is not one of them. ] (]) 19:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::Actually, there are three cited sources for the content, including a book by the academic and writer on eastern European affairs ]. That said, while the one – relatively obscure – source misleadingly singled out as if it were the only one cited and as if, in fact, we should instead follow its polemical tone is particularly hostile to the term, even Sakwa puts the term in quotes and credits it to Surkov. Hence, while a rephrase is clearly justified, the page should in fact probably describe this as a self-description or directly credit Surkov rather than talk vaguely about "some commentators". <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 21:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Yes, I agree. Or just omit it.] (]) 05:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

== WP:SYNTH ==

Re . Putting these two paras together and connecting them by a "however" or by a "on the other hand" is WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless the sources explicitly connect Putin being a dictator to Gorbachev's opinions this is WP:OR then.

Also, it's stylistically and ungrammatically incorrect. The "on the other hand" and/or the "however" suggests that these are opposite opinions, which isn't true (one can be a dictator AND pull a country out of chaos).] (]) 07:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:In addition, the original text was telling : ''Former Soviet leader ] credited Putin with having "pulled Russia out of chaos", but has also criticized Putin for restricting ] and for seeking the third term in the presidential elections.'' Strangely, the end of the phrase ("but has also criticized Putin...") has disappeared after the edit. POV-pushing 101. ] (]) 16:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:I said more needed to be done in my edit summary, but instead you revert. Gorbachev has said that Putin 'saved' Russia, as I'm sure you know. In any case, the NPOV way to begin that paragraph is something like, "Opinions vary on Putin ... Some believe ... Others believe ...." The emphasis should be on the dominant opinion, which can in this case be found in the middle -- at 'authoritarian' and 'authoritarian democracy' -- not the extreme minority 'dictator' position. If you don't understand that, then we disagree on NPOV. Also and by the way, that section is an incoherent mess and poorly titled right now.] (]) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:I've fixed things. My joking Misplaced Pages motto: Gotta do it yourself if you want it done right!] (]) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::Sorry to disagree, but is also highly problematic: it removes mentioning of the famous ] and improperly labels ] (about whom we have a separate page) as an "opposition politician". ] (]) 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::I don't mind if you reinsert 'Ozero' even though it is not 'famous' and it bloats up the article. As a compromise, how about just inserting the name of his housing cooperative without going into the entire story? The beginning of ]'s Misplaced Pages entry states, "Boris Yefimovich Nemtsov was a Russian physicist, statesman and liberal politician," while our ] entry begins, "The assassination of Boris Nemtsov, a Russian statesman and politician opposed to the government of Vladimir Putin ..." Your statement and apparent belief that Nemtsov was not an "opposition politician" is false. The reason he must be described as such in the entry is that such a description indicates possible bias on his part. When making accusations against living persons, we must indicate such things to readers.] (]) 00:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::*"Ozero" is not just a housing cooperative. Yes, one could say that Nemtsov was a physicist, a liberal politician, an author of books on Russian politics, and a lot of other things. Therefore describing him as an "opposition politician" in this context is POV directed to "poison the well." Here is the problem (see my response ). You and some others are making massive removals of well-sourced information on this page without WP:Consensus. Do not do this again. Please get consensus prior to making any changes. ] (]) 01:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

== comment is free ==

Re - that's not an author writing in the Guardian except in a very loose sense. Comment is free are basically self-published, but editor approved extended comments. It's essentially a group blog hosted by the Guardian.] (]) 21:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

:Your opinion is interesting, but it's just your opinion. If Seumas Milne's view is good enough to be published in The Guardian, it's good enough for WP. And Seumas Milne isn't just some blogger, he's a journalist who works for the Guardian. ] (]) 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
::I'm sorry but I don't understand what exactly you're referring to as "my opinion". It's a blog. What exactly is "opinion" here? ] (]) 01:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::It's your opinion that it's a blog. The Guardian is RS. If it's good enough for the editors of the Guardian it's good enough for us. Everything else is just opinion. ] (]) 03:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::No, it is not "my opinion" that it's a blog. It *is* a blog. Yes, The Guardian is RS. But this isn't the Guardian - it's a collaborative blog HOSTED by the Guardian. Yes, there is a difference, whether you like it or not.] (]) 04:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::I'm sorry, I don't see the word "blog" anywhere. RS is RS, end of story. ] (]) 04:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
*One needs a cutoff for "opinions" sections. While views by well known politicians and historians who wrote books on Russian politics and history arguably can be used, the opinions by journalists, even famous, probably should be undue on this page. Otherwise, we would need . BTW, I would suggest to recreate the deleted "Criticism" page in a user space and use it for for improving this article. ] (]) 23:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:Yes, it's undue.] (]) 01:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

::Undue? Why, because it's not critical of Putin? If anything, what's undue is the opinion of marginal and partisan figures like Kasparov. ] (]) 03:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Comment is Free is not a hosted blog, it is the comment and op-ed section of the online, and in some cases printed, Guardian newspaper. Seumas Milne is not a random poster but a noted journalist and columnist, and a former comment editor of the Guardian. Whether his opinion is worth including is another matter, but let's not invent reasons for excluding it. Again, on the point of consistency and bias, I've seen editors decrying its inclusion nonetheless insisting on including far more marginal and unilluminating online comment from far more marginal figures here and on other pages. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 11:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::It's pretty much a blog hosted by the Guardian. Regardless this is a cherry picked opinion. Speaking of blogs hosted by reputable newspapers, here is one . Quote: ''"He was always overly sympathetic to authoritarian regimes and under sympathetic to countries that enjoyed democracy and the rule of law"''. Or we can go farther left than the Guardian: . Plenty other sources like that can be found on Milne. He's ] when it comes to Putin (or a whole bunch of other stuff) and there's no reason why his opinion should be given such disproportionate weight in the article.] (]) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::I'd also like to point out that in the discussion above we had editors arguing that a academic, scholarly, journal article should not be included. This Milne piece not even close to that level of reliability.] (]) 15:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Well we can go back and forth on this, but it's not a blog as that term is commonly understood. It's a repository of columns and op-eds by journalists and third-party contributors, many of which (if not all) will also appear in the printed paper. Pieces will be commissioned and edited by the Guardian. As for whether Milne's comments need to be included, as I said I'm agnostic. But neither the fact that some people are critical of him or his views nor your unilaterally declaring him "fringe" makes his opinion worthless per se. As noted in the discussion about academic sources, when it comes to opinions and assessments, people disagree with each other. That's the nature of opinions. The problem here comes when some WP editors declare one opinion "right" or "better" or "more reliable" than another, simply based on which one they happen to agree with. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 16:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::That's sort of the thing though - if we include Milne's opinion, which says that "Putin has been demonized in the West" then it becomes appropriate to actually include *some* of this demonization, because that is what Milne is commenting about. It doesn't make sense to have "all these bad people are wrong" in the article but not what the bad people actually are wrong about. So the way I see it, either we have both Milne and Motyl and all the other people who are critical of Putin, or we go sparingly and have neither. Which is I think the preferred approach. Of course this does not mean that we shouldn't have *any* assessment in there - we still need that but it should be at a sufficient level of generality.] (]) 17:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::I think the removal of most opinions is fine, but let's keep factual information on the page. For example, last paragraph removed is merely a description of some his residencies. That should be restored I think. ] (]) 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

:::::::::We ''already'' have many opinions of people that are critical of him, such as Kasparov, Nemtsov, and even the Dalai Lama. I don't see why we shouldn't have the opinions of people like ], a notable Russia scholar, and Seumas Milne, a notable journalist, for balance. ] (]) 18:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::I'd actually be fine with excluding the MENTIOn of Kasparov or Dalai Lama by name as long as the fact of criticism is retained. The problems with Milne and Cohen are that 1) they're not exactly praise of Putin, rather these are criticisms of people who are critics of Putin, 2) both, while I guess notable, represent pretty WP:FRINGE views. So the short answer is WP:DUEWEIGHT.] (]) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::Obama gets a lot of "dictator" criticism from his political opponents as well, but is it really detrimental to his article? Doubt it. But if we are to place Dalai Lama's and Kasparov's criticism, we must also be able to balance it out by including contextual stuff like the 'demonization' that Putin suffers, per Milne of course. ] (]) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::] doesn't appear to be some random blogger to me. I think his opinion counts. It's always better to place criticism of Putin under a certain context. ] (]) 19:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::::He's not a random blogger, but he is WP:FRINGE. And there's a lot of journalists out there, why single him out? And everyone's opinion counts in some way, but we can't include "everyone" can we? I also don't think this constitutes "placing criticism of Putin in context", whatever that actually means.] (]) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::Context as in how and why and to what extent the west views him the way that they do. I think Milne and Cohen give a good insight into that. So it should be added. ] (]) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

==Should this be included?==
I just saw . This is something big, important and reliable. ] (]) 23:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
:If and only if Putin is implicated in improper acts. If he is, then it is important. If it simply impacts people who ''know'' Putin, then the difficulty of using guilt-by-association inferences is evident. ] (]) 00:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::Obviously, it does. But of course everyone familiar with Russian politics knows about numerous older publications about people who keep his money (] - the infamous ], ], etc.). That was never a secret. But unfortunately, I am kind of busy and hesitant to contribute here and will let others decide. ] (]) 02:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::How about if we defer adding controversial stuff while the article is being trimmed down to something within sight of a reasonable length? Or has the trimmification process stalled? ] (]) 03:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Well, this does suggest that a good chunk of the ] section is bullshit. So in the spirit of trimming we could go ahead and cut some of that out.] (]) 03:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, I'd say about 80% of that section could be torched. Seriously, "260 shares of Bank Saint Petersburg (with a December 2007 market price $5.36 per share"? The contrasting views about his personal wealth should be summarized far more concisely. ] (]) 03:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::I suspect you do not understand how important his dacha ] was. That is where Yury Kovalchuk and some others came from. And remember that in addition to ], he has several other fantastic palaces. This part is ''really'' important as something he really cares about.] (]) 04:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::Even the Guardian's coverage admits Putin is not mentioned in the documents: "the president’s name ''does not appear'' in any of the records ... his friends have earned millions from deals that ''seemingly'' could not have been secured without his patronage ... The documents ''suggest''" etc. Yes, the paper has made the link itself based on what they have seen and extrapolated, but even the website has now switched to highlight the PM of Iceland. The Guardian's angle on this doesn't suddenly invalidate and supersede every other piece of evidence re Putin and his wealth. Interestingly, showing how the same basic story can mean different things to different people, the has done much the same guilt-by-association thing, but instead with David Cameron (whose late father is mentioned although he is not himself). No one seems to be rushing in quite the same way to dump that coverage into his page. Looking at the previous section, we seem to have yet another example of people arguing that newspaper comment and inference is OK if it suits their take on a subject, but unconscionable if it tends to go the other way. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 12:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::While I can see that someone might latch onto a connection with David Cameron, it is quite different. My take is that David Cameron's father may have evaded tax using bearer shares, an instrument which David Cameron himself has made illegal. There was no attempt to make a case about wrong doing by David (as opposed to Ian) Cameron. By contrast, it is very much a strong working hypothesis that Putin's cellist friend was acting on his behalf in order to hide his wealth, this being an explanation which fits multiple facts. ] (]) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::::::Well, this is classic "false analogy" argument. To put it simple, Putin and David Cameron are very different people, just like Russia and UK are very different countries, humans and monkeys are different animals, etc. Most important, no one judges anything based on a single publication: there is already a significant literature about personal wealth of various politicians, and people who know that literature are making their qualified judgement. As a policy note, it does not really matter if something appears in "records" (a primary source), it only matters if something appears in multiple secondary RS. ] (]) 16:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::Actually it's rather an apposite analogy (which merely implies elements of similarity in principle, not direct equivalence) for the reasons stated, which was made simply by way of observation. Anyway, someone has already , albeit under the current presidency section rather than in the wealth bit. <small>''']''' ''']/]'''</small> 16:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::I don't feel that naming and listing every house Putin owns is useful, especially considering that we have to trim up this article. ] (]) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
::::::::::::* edit in question. These are not his houses. These are ''factual materials'' as described in multiple RS that are highly relevant to the accusations of corruption. ] (]) 02:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

*Putin is not named in the Panama leaks, (bangs head on keyboard). This is worse than autism. Seriously MVBW's. C'mon. BTW its bloating like this we need to stop ] ] 00:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:As I already said, it does not matter if someone was named in these papers. The papers are a primary source. It only matters what reliable secondary sources tell about someone. ] (]) 01:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*One word, Bloat. ] ] 02:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that it should be added unless it receives significant on-going coverage, otherwise this we could rename this article, "All the horrible things about Putin you probably never heard and may even be true." And no I am not familiar with Russian politics, it is a riddle wrapped in an enigma, and leave interpretations to reliable sources. Incidentally, there are legitimate reasons to hold overseas accounts, particularly for people and governments involved in international trade. It is a lot easier for example to wire money from the Caymans to NYC than it is from a local branch in Omsk. ] (]) 02:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

:Agree, its just so obvious. But this sort of addition thread plagues this article and caused the situation we had, a huge article full of trivia, bloat, conjecture and rumours. Drmies helped this by Ok'ing heavy trimming, ongoing. ] ] 03:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::There's also ] to consider. ] (]) 03:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::Excellent. All this shock jock anti Putin demonization stuff like panama leaks / Autism / rigged elections / phantom wealth belongs here ] not here, already. ] ] 04:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::::Surely it does not belong to Wikinews. It belongs to ]. Seriously, where have you seen top politicians not making fortunes for/with their buddies? - üser:Altenmann ] 04:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:::::Maybe, but not here. ] ] 04:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

== Private border crossings in Russia? ==


@] -- thoughts on what the portrait of him should be? I feel the version you reverted to has slightly unnatural coloration. Cheers! <span style="color: #1a237e; background-color: #fff176; font-weight: bold;">]</span> <span style="color: #fff176; background-color: #1a237e; font-weight: bold;">]</span> 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Quote: Владимир Путин (2006): "Раньше мы в анекдотах только слышали о приватизации метра государственной границы. Но мы рождены, чтобы сказку сделать былью, и из 400 с лишним пунктов пропуска 300 с лишним государству сегодня не принадлежат."
:{{replyto|JayCubby}} Hi! IMHO the other version was not centered. In my view we could crop "your" version and use that, if it's true that it has a higher resolution. -- ] (]) 16:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:What is Putin talking about? Is it worth mentioning in "]"? - üser:Altenmann ] 04:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::Alright, I'll upload a recropped version in a few. Cheers! <span style="color: #1a237e; background-color: #fff176; font-weight: bold;">]</span><span style="color: #fff176; background-color: #1a237e; font-weight: bold;">]</span> 16:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)


== "Dictator" ==
==Removal of well sourced information without consensus==
* mass-removal of well sourced content was not agreed about. Some of that was not even discussed. Some of that was discussed a little and objections to removal were stated (see above). Please self-revert if you respect WP:Consensus. Thanks, ] (]) 04:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*Its bloat, trivia. 0.00009790209 % of the population protested. Thats trivial. Its just more trivial material. Syria Crimea under same heading is not. We have been asked to trim, Not add or keep all this periphery bloat. Panama leaks is more of the same, it belongs in ] not here ] ] 04:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
**How did you count this 0.00.. ? - üser:Altenmann ] 04:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
This was done in several edits.
*(cur | prev) 20:21, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (170,471 bytes) (+82)‎ . . (→‎Annexation of Crimea) (undo | thank)
*(cur | prev) 20:17, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (170,389 bytes) (-1,159)‎ . . (/* Intervention in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea * stated elsewhere / rumour / clarified title /) (undo | thank)
**Revert. What rumour? What "stated elsewhere"? - üser:Altenmann ] 04:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*(cur | prev) 20:10, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (171,548 bytes) (-3,870)‎ . . (→‎Third presidential term (2012–present): Minor stuff removed / seriously bloat / does not rate like ukraine syria) (undo | thank)
**Revert. "] propaganda law" is far from trivia. - üser:Altenmann ] 04:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*(cur | prev) 20:04, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (175,418 bytes) (-3,475)‎ . . (→‎Third presidential term (2012–present): Bloat / lots of stuff happened in 3rd term / Trivia) (undo | thank)
**Revert. Or please prove that protest were trivial. - üser:Altenmann ] 04:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*(cur | prev) 20:03, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (178,893 bytes) (-1,670)‎ . . (→‎Third presidential term (2012–present): Bloat / Hes not in leaked docs / strong 'so what' / trivia) (undo | thank)
**Support. Panama is all insinuations. - üser:Altenmann ] 04:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*(cur | prev) 20:00, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (180,563 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Personal wealth) (undo | thank)
*(cur | prev) 19:59, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (180,562 bytes) (-4,095)‎ . . (→‎Personal wealth and residences: Wealth + residencies a bad mix / trivia / bloat / conjecture) (undo | thank)
**Tentatively agree with trimming, but the stuff about residences must be not simply deleted, but moved elsewhere, because it is a notable, discussed topic. - üser:Altenmann ] 04:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
*(cur | prev) 19:54, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (184,657 bytes) (-877)‎ . . (→‎Personal wealth and residences: bloat / However there is no evidence Putin actually does own a stake in the companies) (undo | thank)
**I second this edit per ]. "According to Russian opposition politicians and journalists, Putin secretly possesses" - WTF is this if not rumor? - üser:Altenmann ] 04:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


Not neutral, doesn't follow manual of style.
*This article has a 'Too Long' Tag. An Admin asked us to trim. Its gotta come from places like above. Description space is limited. ] ] 04:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


Also, associated account is likely a troll account, see https://en.wikipedia.org/User:GreatLeader1945/ ] (]) 15:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
**@Altenmann. As anyone can see, by SaintAviator was not about any rumors. That was removal of well-sourced and important information about
#Anti-Putin protests in Russia,
#legislation against the ] community,
#a televised rally by Putin,
#Panama Papers
#The economic development of Russia
#Official residencies of Putin
#His personal wealth


:Taken care of. ] (]) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Maybe some of that should indeed be removed, but one needs WP:Consensus for doing this. In fact, the discussion about Panama papers is currently ungoing, and I do not see any definite conclusion. Make an RfC if you want to remove a lot of relevant and sourced stuff. ] (]) 04:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:I commented my opinions itemwise. As for Panama, since it is contestable, it is definitely out now, per ]. - üser:Altenmann ] 04:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:I suggest you make a Panama Rfc as its your idea to include it. Back yourself ] ] 04:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:*Oh, no. It was not me, but another uninvolved user , and it was not me who included all other important and sourced information that you just deleted. ] (]) 05:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
===Edits of SaintAviator===
Please do not create confusion: all your individual edits, with edit summaries are already listed above, and commented. No need to repeat. '''Please answer there'''.- üser:Altenmann ] 05:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse-top|title=Collapsed to remove duplication of discussion threads}}
====Second presidential term (2004–2008)====


== Is he a dictator or isn't he? ==
Trimming article for length: A lot of No Ref lines. Trimmed for length. Too wordy. Some trivia and bloat. ] ] 05:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


First line of Bashar Al Assad's article: "Bashar al-Assad (born 11 September 1965) is a Syrian politician and dictator who has been the 19th and current president of Syria since 2000."
====Third presidential term (2012–present====


First line of Putin's article: "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician and former intelligence officer who has served as President of Russia since 2012, having previously served from 2000 to 2008."
Trimming article for length: Very similar to above plus weighted towards trivia i.e. tiny % protested ] ] 05:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


Later on: "Under Putin's rule, the Russian political system has been transformed into an authoritarian dictatorship with a personality cult."
====Personal wealth and residences====


How can one rule a dictatorship without being a dictator? And if he is one, then why is it acceptable to list that in Assad's article but not here, or vice versa? Which is correct? ] (]) 16:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Trimming article for length: Conjecture, trivia, rumours of wealth, bloat. 168000 bytes ] ] 05:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
{{collapse-bottom}}


:To name Putin as a dictator you would need to show that the preponderance of independent ] refer to him as a dictator. I believe that is the case with Assad. ] (]) 16:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
*I think that SaintAviator needs to do the following. (a) Self-revert. (b) Explain each of their edits (simply telling: "let's trim" or "the article is too big" is not going to work). (c) Wait for a few days to let other contributors to comment. (d) If others agree, make the changes. If others disagree, drop the issue or make an RfC. That is how WP:Consensus works, especially on contentious subjects, such as that one. Agree? ] (]) 05:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:I'm not sure that most sources call him that, because.....reasons. Probably because Russia is a world power and Syria is not. Trump's opponents say he will be a dictator but we don't name him one because most sources don't. ] (]) 16:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
**I have already reverted 3/4 of his removals, fo the ones I see direct multiple opposition in the talk. Fortunately, they were consequential edits. I preserved of his removal, because they violate ], and their ''restoration'' require RFC, not vice versa. - üser:Altenmann ] 05:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
::How many exactly do we need for it to be considered a "preponderance"? Is there an exact number? How many reliable sources which do versus reliable sources that don't are required, or what is the ratio? ] (]) 12:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I can't give you a specific number. Obviously you can't survey every possible source on this planet, but you should at least be able to show that a wide variety of news outlets and perhaps scholarly sources like academic journals refer to Putin as a "dictator". I think most sources refer to him as "President" because he is "elected"(yes, in rigged elections with token and approved opposition). Most dictators, if they have elections at all, do it as a yes/no question with supervision of the voters(i.e. North Korea, Iraq under Saddam). ] (]) 12:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
@] you are advised not to add anything controversial in the article. You have been reverted more than once. Please discuss, cite reliable sources and gain consensus before adding anything. Thank you. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)


:Easily sourced......and is so on every related pages that have gone through many talks. If editors are not familiar with the topic they should at least do some minimal research before posting.
==Content forking==
:*{{findsource|Vladimir Putin dictator}}
Being a "drive-by" editor in this page, it just now came to my attention that the political part is forked across three pages: this one, as well as ] and ]. In this light, edits of red">Aviator make some sense: this is the main article about Putin and it should not be overburdened by detail, which must go elsewhere. Therefore I would like to suggest y'all to reorganize the three pages per ''']''' . In particular, IMO ] may well be a separate page, since there are many of them and lots was written about them. - üser:Altenmann ] 05:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
:Should add to the body {{quotation |Under the ], Russia has experienced ],<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UhwiAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT48 |title=Russia and Europe: Building Bridges, Digging Trenches |year=2014 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-99200-1 |editor1=Kjell Engelbrekt |pages= |editor2=Bertil Nygren |access-date=24 July 2023 |archive-date=13 August 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230813133217/https://books.google.com/books?id=UhwiAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT48 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Kiyan|first=Olga|title=Russia & Democratic Backsliding: The Future of Putinism|date=9 April 2020|journal=]|publisher=]|url=https://hir.harvard.edu/russia-democratic-backsliding-the-future-of-putinism/|access-date=8 July 2022|archive-date=24 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220224213448/https://hir.harvard.edu/russia-democratic-backsliding-the-future-of-putinism/|url-status=live}}</ref> and has been described as an ].<ref name="Kuzio-2016">{{cite journal|last=Kuzio|first=Taras|title=Nationalism and authoritarianism in Russia|journal=Communist and Post-Communist Studies|year=2016|volume=49|number=1|pages=1–11|publisher=]|doi=10.1016/j.postcomstud.2015.12.002|jstor=48610429}}</ref><ref>{{Cite report |last=Fischer |first=Sabine |date=2022 |title=Russia on the road to dictatorship: Internal political repercussions of the attack on Ukraine |journal=SWP Comment |doi=10.18449/2022C30 |url=https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256753 |hdl=10419/256753 |access-date=11 September 2022 |archive-date=11 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220911191555/https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/256753 |url-status=live }}</ref> Putin's policies are generally referred to as ].<ref>{{cite book | author = Brian D. Taylor | date = 2018 | title = The Code of Putinism | publisher = Oxford University Press | pages = 2–7 | isbn = 978-0-19-086731-7 | oclc = 1022076734}}</ref>}}
: what is being talked about in this case - is has Russia, that has a "dictator" moved from authoritarianism to totalitarianism?<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/04/19/putin-s-war-has-moved-russia-from-authoritarianism-to-hybrid-totalitarianism-pub-86921|title=Putin’s War Has Moved Russia From Authoritarianism to Hybrid Totalitarianism|first1=Andrei|last1=Kolesnikov|first2=Andrei|last2=Kolesnikov|website=Carnegie Endowment for International Peace}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2017/11/02/masha-gessen-is-wrong-to-call-russia-a-totalitarian-state|title=Masha Gessen is wrong to call Russia a totalitarian state|via=The Economist}}</ref><ref name="Spanel2022">{{cite book | author = Niclas Spanel | date = 14 September 2022 | title = How authoritarian is Russia? Analysis of the form of rule from Lenin until Putin | publisher = GRIN Verlag | page =1 | isbn = 978-3-346-72357-4 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=9keJEAAAQBAJ&pg=PP1}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://globalvoices.org/2022/05/23/google-bucha-ways-of-protesting-the-war-in-ukraine-from-a-totalitarian-state/|title=How Russians are protesting the war in Ukraine from a totalitarian state|date=May 23, 2022}}</ref>
:*{{cite book | last=Greene | first=Samuel A. | last2=Robertson | first2=Graeme B. | title=Putin v. the People: The Perilous Politics of a Divided Russia | publisher=Yale University Press | year=2019 | isbn=978-0-300-23839-6 | jstor=j.ctvfc5417 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvfc5417}}
:*{{cite book | first = Martin |last=Krzywdzinski |year= 2020 | title = Consent and Control in the Authoritarian Workplace: Russia and China Compared | publisher = ] | page = 252 | isbn = 978-0-19-252902-2 | url = {{GBurl|id=gz5MDwAAQBAJ|p=252}}|quote=''officially a democratic state with the rule of law, in practice an authoritarian dictatorship''}}
:*{{cite journal | last=Fischer | first=Sabine | title=Russia on the road to dictatorship | journal=SWP Comment | year=2022 | publisher=Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP), German Institute for International and Security Affairs | doi=10.18449/2022C30 | url=https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2022C30/ | access-date=24 July 2024 | page=}}
:{{Reflist-talk|closed}} <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 16:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
*Putin is undeniably a dictator, though his regime masks its authoritarian nature through the guise of democratic elections. These "choiceless elections" create a facade of choice where none truly exist. They adopt a similar approach with control of the media, threatening journalists instead of telling them what to write; and social media, throttling YouTube and Facebook instead of blocking them. This approach is more subtle than Lenin and Stalin, and allows Putin to manipulate and control the population without the overt use of force common with the more blatant dictatorships. While historians will likely label him a dictator in retrospect, most current independent media still buy into this pretense and may still refer to him by his official title as president. But he is a dictator in every sense of the word and it belongs in the lead. ] (]) 14:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:As I said above, it needs to be shown that the preponderance of English language reliable sources use the term "dictator" to refer to Putin. You seem to be admitting this isn't the case. It may be a pretense, and in casual conversation I would agree with you, but here we need sources. ] (]) 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I am admitting that the news media are too careful about it. But I don't think we need a preponderance of such sources to call a spade a spade. If there is a compromise that is needed here, I can agree to put it somewhere else in the lead paragraph, couching it in some language like 'his rule has been characterised as a dictatorship". ] (]) 15:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::Then offer sources that say that. Yes, we need sources, because that's what we do here- summarize sources. Based on your criteria, Donald Trump could be termed a "dictator" as many feel he was/will be. ] (]) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::There are lots of sources , including many in Russian also . As much as I don't like Trump, if you are going to call him or the US system as rigged as Putin's Russia, then I give up on any compromise with you. ] (]) 16:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::It's not a comment on the system, it's simply what some out there say about him. Time will tell. ] (]) 16:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::It is a fallacious argument and not appropriate for this talk page. ] (]) 16:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::You're not the arbiter of what is appropriate for this page. In any event, it's not just up to me or you. Good day. ] (]) 17:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::It is fallacious and inappropriate because literally no reliable sources call Trump a dictator. There may very well have been something fishy about the elections, and Musk's bank account, but a dictator he is not. The institutions of the US are too strong to be manipulated or coopted in the way Putin captured the state in Russia. ] (]) 17:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::You said "I don't think we need a preponderance of such sources to call a spade a spade". My only point was that there are people who would want us to call Trump a dictator, so yes, we do need sources. I don't agree he is one, but Google "trump dictator" and see what comes up. There are plenty of people who think he is. I'm not comparing political systems. ] (]) 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::I hear you but I provided sources and I still think you was being a bit facetious in comparing Putin to Trump and pontificating about the latter's future. In my opinion, we should include dictator along with his "president" title, even if he is not referred to as that in the preponderance of everyday news sources. I'm not sure if you've been following events over the last few years, but he is literally on the level of Kim Jong Un, who we call a "dictator", even though most news sources call him "leader". ] (]) 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::I am afraid to add the "dictator" to the lede or infobox you would need to demonstrate that a vast majority of sources call him a dictator (rather than just a president). Tbh I do not think this is the case. ] (]) 15:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Many living dictators, past and present, like Assad or Kim Jong Un, often referred to as "president" or "leader" in many news sources. I don't think we need vast majority of news sources explicitly calling Putin a "dictator" in their every day reporting. I think we only need only few reliable sources relevant to the topic. ] (]) 18:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::Very concerned here that people are not doing basic research about the past decade or so. The fourth wave of democratization uses Russia as the main example. sourced to
*::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Levitsky | first=S. | last2=Way | first2=L.A. | title=Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War | publisher=Cambridge University Press | series=Problems of International Politics | year=2010 | isbn=978-1-139-49148-8 | url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=NZDI05p1PDgC }}
*::::::::::::*{{cite journal | last=Fish | first=M. Steven | title=What Has Russia Become? | journal=Comparative Politics | publisher=Comparative Politics, Ph.D. Programs in Political Science, City University of New York | volume=50 | issue=3 | year=2018 | issn=00104159 | jstor=26532689 | pages=327–346 | url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26532689 }}
*::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Greene | first=Samuel A. | last2=Robertson | first2=Graeme B. | title=Putin v. the People: The Perilous Politics of a Divided Russia | publisher=Yale University Press | year=2019 | isbn=978-0-300-23839-6 | jstor=j.ctvfc5417 | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvfc5417}}
*::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Zygar | first=M. | title=All the Kremlin's Men: Inside the Court of Vladimir Putin | publisher=PublicAffairs | year=2016 | isbn=978-1-61039-740-7 | url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=ETrXCwAAQBAJ }}
*::::::::::::*{{cite web | title=Validate User | website=Validate User | url=https://academic.oup.com/crawlprevention/governor?content=%2fbook%2f4650%2fchapter-abstract%2f146813715%3fredirectedFrom%3dfulltext}}
*::::::::::::*{{cite book | last=Taylor | first=B.D. | title=The Code of Putinism | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=2018 | isbn=978-0-19-086734-8 | url=https://books.google.ca/books?id=DftdDwAAQBAJ}}
*::::::::::::<span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::Some of us are doing basic research. Some of us can also read Russian and have access to a bigger pool of sources. I do not think anyone argues that Putin should not be called a dictator in the body of the article. We are now discussing the lede, where the definition of Putin as a dictator has again been added by an editor who does not participate at the talk page but has warnings about disruptive editing in contentious topics. ] (]) 22:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::@] I have reverted the addition of the term "dictator". Have served them with Contentious topic notice at their TP. They already had Balkans & Eastern Europe notice served once, so BLP this time. This isn't the first time this addition by the user has been reverted. They were even pinged here to come and discuss but they are just refusing to engage. ] & ]. ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 03:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::Thanks. I would have just blocked them but I am obviously involved. ] (]) 08:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::Ohhhh I though you were arguing to remove the term from the lead. Was not aware it was a second addition of the term. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::I am indeed arguing that whereas the presented argumentation is sufficient to keep the term in the article (and even to write a paragraph about it), it is possibly not sufficient to use it in the lede. ] (]) 15:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}Not sure what your saying - is your suggestion we remove the term entirely from the article? ....its been in the lead and article for many years. Do we have any sources that indicate there is any debate on its usage? <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 15:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:No, I object to the definition of putin in the first paragraph of the article as a Russian politician (president) and dictator. This definition has not been there for years. It was repeatedly added by GreatLeader1945, who is a disruptive editor on their way to topic ban, and every time quickly reverted. ] (]) 17:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:@] noone is advocating to remove it from the body of the article. The purpose of this thread is about the repeated addition of the word "dictator" by an editor, who even after so many reverts and warning continues to add it. And it is not related to any other part of the article but only from the lede (i.e. the very first line, the introductory line of the article). ''']<sup>]</sup>''' 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
::That makes much more sense. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">''']'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">]</span> 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:59, 6 January 2025

    Skip to table of contents
    This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vladimir Putin article.
    This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
    Article policies
    Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
    Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
    Warning: active arbitration remedies

    The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

    • You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)

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

    The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
    This page is not a forum for general discussion about Vladimir Putin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Vladimir Putin at the Reference desk.
    Former good article nomineeVladimir 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.
    In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    April 15, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
    August 16, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
    In the news News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 24, 2004, March 3, 2008, September 24, 2008, and March 5, 2012.
    On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2020.
    Current status: Former good article nominee
    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 sourced must 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.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
    This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
    It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
    WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
    WikiProject iconThis 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
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance).
    WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
    MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconConservatism High‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis 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
    HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis 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
    HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject iconRussia: Sports & games / Politics and law Top‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis 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
    TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force.
    Taskforce icon
    		This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
    WikiProject iconSoviet Union Top‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
    TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
    WikiProject icon2010s High‑importance
    WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s 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.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
    HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
    Section sizes
    Section size for Vladimir Putin (68 sections)
    Section name Byte
    count    		 Section
    total
    (Top) 21,233 21,233
    Early life 4,928 12,162
    Education 7,234 7,234
    Intelligence career 13,135 13,135
    Political career 190 197,783
    1990–1996: Saint Petersburg administration 5,252 5,252
    1996–1998: Early Moscow career 5,425 5,425
    1998-1999: Director of FSB 1,734 1,734
    1999: First premiership 3,356 3,356
    1999–2000: Acting presidency 6,198 6,198
    2000–2004: First presidential term 5,020 5,020
    2004–2008: Second presidential term 20,749 20,749
    2008–2012: Second premiership 4,594 4,594
    2012–2018: Third presidential term 17,930 47,427
    Annexation of Crimea 14,292 14,292
    Intervention in Syria 4,155 4,155
    Russia's interference in the 2016 US election 11,050 11,050
    2018–2024: Fourth presidential term 11,984 85,610
    COVID-19 pandemic 12,566 12,566
    Constitutional referendum and amendments 4,380 4,380
    Iran trade deal 934 934
    2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis 7,958 7,958
    Full-scale invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) 34,652 34,652
    ICC arrest warrant 4,755 4,755
    2023 Wagner rebellion 8,381 8,381
    2024–present: Fifth presidential term 12,228 12,228
    Domestic policies 9,049 51,653
    Economic, industrial, and energy policies 9,878 9,878
    Environmental policy 3,913 3,913
    Religious policy 4,360 4,360
    Military development 6,988 6,988
    Human rights policy 5,233 5,233
    The media 3,963 3,963
    Promoting conservatism 6,900 6,900
    International sporting events 1,369 1,369
    Foreign policy 3,126 81,552
    Asia 9,706 9,706
    Post-Soviet states 20,094 20,094
    United States, Western Europe, and NATO 21,345 21,345
    United Kingdom 1,252 6,195
    Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko 2,666 2,666
    Poisoning of Sergei Skripal 2,277 2,277
    Latin America 2,579 2,579
    Australia and the South Pacific 3,739 3,739
    Middle East and Africa 14,768 14,768
    Public image 226 35,573
    Polls and rankings 24,662 24,662
    Cult of personality 5,833 5,833
    Public recognition in the West 3,510 3,510
    Putinisms 1,342 1,342
    Assessments 16,380 21,734
    After the 2022 invasion of Ukraine 5,354 5,354
    Electoral history 2,395 2,395
    Personal life 20 45,122
    Family 14,147 14,147
    Wealth 10,831 10,831
    Residences 19 7,611
    Official government residences 1,538 1,538
    Personal residences 6,054 6,054
    Pets 1,011 1,011
    Religion 2,873 2,873
    Sports 4,536 4,536
    Health 4,093 4,093
    Awards and honours 605 605
    Explanatory notes 43 43
    References 44 530
    Sources 486 486
    External links 6,466 6,466
    Total 489,986 489,986
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2022, when it received 25,808,228 views.
    This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 8 times. The weeks in which this happened:
    Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

    This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 77 million views since December 2007.

    Lede image

    @Nick.mon -- thoughts on what the portrait of him should be? I feel the version you reverted to has slightly unnatural coloration. Cheers! JayCubby Talk 16:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    @JayCubby: Hi! IMHO the other version was not centered. In my view we could crop "your" version and use that, if it's true that it has a higher resolution. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
    Alright, I'll upload a recropped version in a few. Cheers! JayCubby 16:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

    "Dictator"

    Not neutral, doesn't follow manual of style.

    Also, associated account is likely a troll account, see https://en.wikipedia.org/User:GreatLeader1945/ 195.224.87.165 (talk) 15:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

    Taken care of. 331dot (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

    Is he a dictator or isn't he?

    First line of Bashar Al Assad's article: "Bashar al-Assad (born 11 September 1965) is a Syrian politician and dictator who has been the 19th and current president of Syria since 2000."

    First line of Putin's article: "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician and former intelligence officer who has served as President of Russia since 2012, having previously served from 2000 to 2008."

    Later on: "Under Putin's rule, the Russian political system has been transformed into an authoritarian dictatorship with a personality cult."

    How can one rule a dictatorship without being a dictator? And if he is one, then why is it acceptable to list that in Assad's article but not here, or vice versa? Which is correct? Adonnus (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

    To name Putin as a dictator you would need to show that the preponderance of independent reliable sources refer to him as a dictator. I believe that is the case with Assad. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that most sources call him that, because.....reasons. Probably because Russia is a world power and Syria is not. Trump's opponents say he will be a dictator but we don't name him one because most sources don't. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
    How many exactly do we need for it to be considered a "preponderance"? Is there an exact number? How many reliable sources which do versus reliable sources that don't are required, or what is the ratio? Adonnus (talk) 12:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
    I can't give you a specific number. Obviously you can't survey every possible source on this planet, but you should at least be able to show that a wide variety of news outlets and perhaps scholarly sources like academic journals refer to Putin as a "dictator". I think most sources refer to him as "President" because he is "elected"(yes, in rigged elections with token and approved opposition). Most dictators, if they have elections at all, do it as a yes/no question with supervision of the voters(i.e. North Korea, Iraq under Saddam). 331dot (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

    @GreatLeader1945 you are advised not to add anything controversial in the article. You have been reverted more than once. Please discuss, cite reliable sources and gain consensus before adding anything. Thank you. ShaanSengupta 15:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Easily sourced......and is so on every related pages that have gone through many talks. If editors are not familiar with the topic they should at least do some minimal research before posting.
    Should add to the body

    Under the administrations of Vladimir Putin, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding, and has been described as an authoritarian dictatorship. Putin's policies are generally referred to as Putinism.

    what is being talked about in this case - is has Russia, that has a "dictator" moved from authoritarianism to totalitarianism?

    References

    1. Kjell Engelbrekt; Bertil Nygren, eds. (2014). Russia and Europe: Building Bridges, Digging Trenches. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-136-99200-1. Archived from the original on 13 August 2023. Retrieved 24 July 2023.
    2. Kiyan, Olga (9 April 2020). "Russia & Democratic Backsliding: The Future of Putinism". Harvard International Review. Harvard International Relations Council. Archived from the original on 24 February 2022. Retrieved 8 July 2022.
    3. Kuzio, Taras (2016). "Nationalism and authoritarianism in Russia". Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 49 (1). University of California Press: 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.postcomstud.2015.12.002. JSTOR 48610429.
    4. Fischer, Sabine (2022). Russia on the road to dictatorship: Internal political repercussions of the attack on Ukraine. SWP Comment (Report). doi:10.18449/2022C30. hdl:10419/256753. Archived from the original on 11 September 2022. Retrieved 11 September 2022.
    5. Brian D. Taylor (2018). The Code of Putinism. Oxford University Press. pp. 2–7. ISBN 978-0-19-086731-7. OCLC 1022076734.
    6. Kolesnikov, Andrei; Kolesnikov, Andrei. "Putin's War Has Moved Russia From Authoritarianism to Hybrid Totalitarianism". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
    7. "Masha Gessen is wrong to call Russia a totalitarian state" – via The Economist.
    8. Niclas Spanel (14 September 2022). How authoritarian is Russia? Analysis of the form of rule from Lenin until Putin. GRIN Verlag. p. 1. ISBN 978-3-346-72357-4.
    9. "How Russians are protesting the war in Ukraine from a totalitarian state". May 23, 2022.

    Moxy🍁 16:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

    Not sure what your saying - is your suggestion we remove the term entirely from the article? ....its been in the lead and article for many years. Do we have any sources that indicate there is any debate on its usage? Moxy🍁 15:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

    No, I object to the definition of putin in the first paragraph of the article as a Russian politician (president) and dictator. This definition has not been there for years. It was repeatedly added by GreatLeader1945, who is a disruptive editor on their way to topic ban, and every time quickly reverted. Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Moxy noone is advocating to remove it from the body of the article. The purpose of this thread is about the repeated addition of the word "dictator" by an editor, who even after so many reverts and warning continues to add it. And it is not related to any other part of the article but only from the lede (i.e. the very first line, the introductory line of the article). Shaan Sengupta 03:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    That makes much more sense. Moxy🍁 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
    Categories: