| Revision as of 19:25, 26 December 2016 editGovindaharihari (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers10,872 edits →Citations about Putin← 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 editors130,022 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 }} |
|
{{ds/talk notice|e-e|style=long}} |
|
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=ecp|e-e}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=People|class=B}} |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{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 17: |
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 = 14 |
|
|counter = 19 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
| Line 41: |
Line 58: |
|
|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}} |
|
{{copied|from=Vladimir Putin|to=Panama Papers}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Critics. == |
|
|
|
|
|
No critics section? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 00:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:Wiki censorship. There's plenty of criticism and controversy surrounding Putin. Also note the article is protected now. ] (]) 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Opinions of senators in article == |
|
|
|
|
|
I really don't see why we should add opinions of senators from the US Congress onto this article. If that were the case, we'd have to add every senators' assessments regarding Vladimir Putin. Why just McCain's? Why not add Barbara Boxer's? Jeff Flake's? Dick Durbin's? There are 99 Senators to choose from. And why stop at the United States? There's many French, Italian, Swedish, and etc. legislative politicians that said similar statements. ] (]) 23:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::US policy is set by Congress and the key Congressional leader on Russian affairs is Senator McCain. He is NOT "every senator" --the Senate is hierarchical and he is at the top as chief GOP spokesman on the issue in Congress & he chairs the critical military affairs committee --and he was GOP presidential candidate. Why not Sweden too???--because McCain sets policy for about 40% of world's military strength. ] (]) 23:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The United States has many committees with many different senators heading them. What makes McCain special? Why not quote the head of the Foreign Relations committee? Governmental Affairs? Homeland Security? What you're doing is nitpicking at this point. Remember, this is a ] and before adding contentious material that calls Putin "Vladimir Putin is a thug and a murderer and a killer and a KGB agent", you're going to need pretty strong consensus for it. ] (]) 23:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::the military affairs committee for 70 years has focused on Russia, and the media and RS have focused on it and its chairman. The agriculture committee is less relevent for Putin. The contentious statement is fully sourced and attributed not to Misplaced Pages but to Senator McCain. We can indeed add the Senate Foreign Relations chairman Bob Corker: he's made these recent headline on Putin: 1) "Sen. Bob Corker denounces Donald Trump on Putin" - CNNPolitics.com Sep 8, 2016. 2) "Key GOP senators join call for bipartisan Russia election probe" led by Corker ; 3) "Corker thinks Russia tried to meddle in election" - etc etc. ] (]) 23:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Hence, there's no end in sight for the amount of quotations by senators. That's why such a lengthy quote from McCain is undue. You can try to summarize them all though. For example, "Corker, Senate Foreign Relations chairman, has denounced Putin. As has McCain, leader of Senate Arms Committee, and etc. etc." And why should it end with senators? We can add the opinions of Ashton Carter, Joseph Dunford, Eric Fanning, and so forth. So it still begs the question, where does it end? That's why I believe these opinions shouldn't even be included in the article. Heads of state and politicians on a federal level have more sway in decision making when it comes to bi-lateral relations with Russia. That should be the main focus. ] (]) 23:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Agree with EtienneDolet. We can't possibly include every colorful accusation by every Putin-basher. McCain's allegations are moreoever quite extreme, and I remind everyone that this is a BLP article. Furthermore, the "Assessment" section is currently extremely unbalanced. All the assessments are in fact insults, ranging from the extreme ("dictator") to the bizarre ("self-centered"), with the sole exception that of Gorbachev and Kadyrov (!). The individuals quoted are also a motley collection of marginal figures, such as failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to the Dalai Lama and Garry Kasparov. Completely unbalanced and needs a re-write. ] (]) 04:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::*This is a part of section "Public image", and the opinions by highly notable politicians represent his public image. Actually, this particular opinion expresses views by a very large part of political establishment in US in many other countries, and it does not matter if certain WP contributors agree with such views. Therefore, I think this opinion must remain on the page simply per ]. ] (]) 16:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
McCain is one of the most well known senators and is also the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as a former presidential candidate.] (]) 05:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:A '''failed''' presidential candidate. Who is pushing ] views and conspiracy theories on top of that. Sorry, no way. ] (]) 06:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Also chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and one of the most well known senators. And CBS news is not fringe. You know what is a BLP violation? Referring to living persons such as McCain, a respected politician - as "fringe" based on nothing but your own personal opinion.] (]) 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::"He is is a thug and a murderer and a killer..." is ], I don't care how many committees McCain is sitting on. As are allegations by unnamed sources (i.e. nothing more than rumors). This is well into BLP territory. And don't lecture others about edit-warring while you are yourself guilty of it. ] (]) 06:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Lede image == |
|
::::That's why it's properly attributed. If a US Senator makes these kinds of statements, it's notable. We are not saying it's true. We are only saying McCain said it. You know how this works. |
|
|
::::As to the "allegations", that's your own personal opinion, unsupported by sources. |
|
|
::::One more time. CBS news is not "fringe". Stop making stuff up. |
|
|
::::And of course I see that the ol' tag team .] (]) 06:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@] -- 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) |
|
::::The McCain stuff is borderline conspiracy talk with no factual basis to what he's saying. <s>I think he's losing it. I could tell he's getting a bit too old already. Maybe it's time he retires or something.</s> ] (]) 06:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:{{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) |
|
:::::The "factual basis" of what he's saying is irrelevant. We are not saying it in Misplaced Pages voice. We're attributing it to McCain. |
|
|
|
::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) |
|
:::::And you have some freakin' nerve invoking BLP and then violating it right in the same breath right here with your comments about "he's losing it", and "he's getting a bit too old". Please strike your BLP violations or ... well, you know how this works too.] (]) 06:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Dictator" == |
|
:::::::There are lots of Senators. I don't see why we HAVE to include McCain, whose hostility to Putin is well-known. The assessment section is almost entirely negative anyway. The hacking allegations are also ] and premature, since the investigations are just starting. We should at least wait until they conclude. Not to mention that in your edit-warring, you clumsily added it out of chronological order, in between things that happened in 2007. ] (]) 06:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::And you of all people, have some "freakin' nerve" to talk about tag teams. Just like you did when you accused others of edit-warring while you were yourself chest-deep in it. ] (]) 06:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: I think we need an RfC on this. My opinion is as well that if McCain says anything which only demonstrates that he is an idiot, it should be in article about him and not anywhere else.--] (]) 07:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: Whatever you think of his statements is irrelevant. The important part is that he is a very well known Senator, and his statements about Putin have been widely reported on in reliable sources.] (]) 14:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: I am sure you would oppose adding opinions of Russian politicians, who praise Putin and say Obama is an idiot. What about adding them about the article about Obama? Well, we need to stick to ], and not add all junk to articles only because a 100th idiot said Putin is evil.--] (]) 15:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: It depends which ones and what the coverage was like in reliable sources. I wouldn't oppose it on principle or anything. It depends. Just like it does here.] (]) 15:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::: Ok, I open an RFC then.--] (]) 15:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not neutral, doesn't follow manual of style. |
|
== Citations about Putin == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, associated account is likely a troll account, see https://en.wikipedia.org/User:GreatLeader1945/ ] (]) 15:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{rfc|bio|pol|rfcid=4DEED28}} |
|
|
In the above section, some users support and some oppose inclusion of an opinion of John McCain about Putin (the opinion has been published in a reliable source). |
|
|
# Do you support inclusion of this opinion in the article? |
|
|
# Opinion of which (other) persons, provided they are published in reliable sources, should/could be added to the article?--] (]) 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Include''' -- covered in entirely mainstream sources, not fringe at all. ] (]) 16:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Would you please also address the second question. Could we include every opinion if it has been published in a reliable source? Where do we draw the line?--] (]) 17:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The second question is pretty silly -- surely it's simply a ]? ] (]) 18:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: No, it is not. But I see that you are not really interested in discussing it. Fine with me.--] (]) 18:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I made the contribution I saw fit to make. Not engaging with your further question doesn't invalidate the view I offered. I suspect others as well will decline to answer that second question. ] (]) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: I am not sure you have a mandate to talk for the others, but we will see.--] (]) 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Exclude''' - We can't possibly add every opinion from every notable person. As to what we should include in the article, well...that should be decided through consensus. So I welcome the RfC in that regard. The McCain quote is a perfect example of a notable person saying something non-notable, as in inconsequential. And in my opinion, it was nothing short of a rant. This was just a flashy news item the day it happened and hasn't been reported on since then (see ]). Adding strong claims to a BLP article that labels him a "thug", "murderer", and "killer" would need strong consensus. And I'd much rather include statements that have consequences or were widely reported upon (i.e. Bush's "I looked into his eyes saw his soul"). But again, there should be consensus as to which ones those are. The more we talk, the better. ] (]) 18:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::''"We can't possibly add every opinion from every notable person."'' - the proposal is NOT to "add every opinion from every notable person", just this one. So you need to address this particular person.] (]) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yeah, but he's a senator. Lots of senators out there. Just because you head this or that committee shouldn't give you a free pass. ] (]) 05:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It's not "this or that committee", it's the ].] (]) 05:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yeah, I know. Still doesn't give you a free pass though. If you're so confident it does, why don't you restore it once more? But see, I know you wouldn't do that because we all agree that we need consensus for such inclusions. ] (]) 05:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::EtienneDolet, it's pretty obvious that you're engaging in bad faithed taunting and are trying to provoke me. That's a violation of ] and ]. (You're basically bragging that you managed to edit-war successfully). Also, you are completely ignoring the substance of the argument. Because you got nothing.] (]) 05:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Taken care of. ] (]) 15:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Exclude''' - There simply isn't enough space to include every politician's *opinion*, and it is an opinion, about every other politician. It is a waste of usable space and not very encyclopedic. ] (]) 21:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::Nobody's proposing including "every politician's opinion", just this one's. Because he's very notable when it comes to the subject matter.] (]) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::He is not notable at all really. In the scheme of history, McCain will be a nobody and Putin will be notable for many, many decades, possibly centuries. Not a note on any opinion or the worthiness of either guy, but saying McCain is noteworthy in this context is silly. This is an encyclopedia. ] (]) 04:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Are you '''seriously''' arguing that John McCain is a not notable person? Seriously? Well, that just highlights the quality and absurdity of "exclude" arguments.] (]) 18:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::No I am seriously arguing that he is only one of many, many, many notable people that have an opinion on Putin and in that group of individuals, he is not very notable. Heads of state have notable opinions about other heads of state, otherwise it should be an academic. It is easy to exclude his opinion, his credibility has been thoroughly challenged in the last decade. ] (]) 19:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Funny, cuz I thought you just said, quote, ''"He is not notable at all really. "'' Oh and then after saying "I am not arguing he is not notable" you go ahead and say "he is not very notable"? You're not only contradicting your previous statement, you manage to contradict yourself again within the same comment. Again, the question is straight forward - is McCain not notable or not? ] (]) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Yeah, I'd say he lost credibility awhile ago. Especially after this . The Cold War rhetoric against Putin aren't getting politicians anywhere these days, and repetitive attacks against him are becoming more and more futile and hence, more and more desperate. Therefore, such inconsequential rhetoric, as the one he did last week, should be excluded from the article. ] (]) 20:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::lol, that was funny. He's so notable because he is a Senator who thinks Putin leads Germany! ] (]) 20:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Exclude''', per ], ], ]. More content, less gossip. ] (]) 03:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Include'''. First, whether one agrees or disagrees with McCain's assessment is completely beside the point and irrelevant, so objections like "NPOV" are just plain misguided. Second, McCain's opinion is quite notable because 1) it received widespread coverage in reliable sources and 2) McCain is one of the most prominent US Senators and certainly the most prominent Senator who is critical of Putin, he is also the head of the Armed Services Committee which makes crucial decision on US foreign policy, in particular with respect to Russia. So yeah, it's important. Again, whether you agree with his views or not.] (]) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' - I'd like to point out that EtienneDolet&Athenean's first argument against inclusion was "BLP! BLP!". That didn't hold water as was pointed out to them. So they switched it to "FRINGE! FRINGE!". Well, since neither McCain nor CBS news are "fringe" they had to drop that one too. Then it became "NOTNEWS!". Not really applicable either. Then "NPOV!" even though the quote is appropriately attributed. So really, this is just pulling out every Misplaced Pages acronym to obfuscate the fact that the desire to exclude is a simple good ol' fashioned ].] (]) 04:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::"One of the most notable US Senators" - subjective. A failed presidential candidate who got '''trounced''' by Obama in one of the biggest landslides in history - objective. ] (]) 05:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Right, because using words like "trounced" and bolding it makes your personal opinion "objective". He's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee - objective. Unlike other senators he actually IS a past presidential candidate - objective. He gets more press than most other Senators, save perhaps one or two - objective. Seriously, if you were to ask a random person in US to name three US senators, McCain would be in there.] (]) 05:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::(In fact, this whole song and dance of trying to pretend that McCain is not notable is so blatantly ridiculous, it's almost as bad as you two trying to throw out every Misplaced Pages acronym you can think of in hope that one of them will stick).] (]) 05:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It's not my "opinion" he got trounced, it's a cold hard fact. 365-173. Look it up. If you don't like "trounced", there are lots of other verbs we can use. Lots of Senators, lots of committees. So then should we include the opinion of every Senator who is in some committee? <s>Now, I can understand why he's be one of ''your'' favorite senators, but that doesn't really mean anything as far as wikipedia is concerned.</s>] (]) 05:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Is he a dictator or isn't he? == |
|
:::::(ec) I'm sorry but this argument of "we can't include everything in the article, therefore we cannot include this one particular thing that ]" is... well, it's just as ridiculous as trying to argue that McCain is a non-notable senator, and it's just as ridiculous as your strategy of throwing out Misplaced Pages policies willy-nilly without rhyme or reason as a means of obstruction. |
|
|
:::::I would also appreciate it if you refrained from telling me what my "favorite" is or is not. Please strike that comment as it personalizes the discussion and attributes to me opinions which I have not expressed and may or may not hold. It's a personal attack.] (]) 05:49, 17 December 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." |
|
::::::And I would appreciate it if you refrained from telling me my motivations are just ], which is also a personal attack. ] (]) 05:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::No, it's actually not. It's a criticism of your editing behavior. There's a difference. Now, ascribing political opinions to others just so that you can ridicule them, yeah, that's a personal attack.] (]) 05:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Was ''this'' also a legitimate criticism of my editing behavior? ] (]) 06:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Thank you for striking your comment.] (]) 06:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{ping|Ymblanter}} Since you started this RfC I'm gonna ask that you step in this and intervene before this goes any further. I take offense at ] saying things like "I can understand why he's be one of ''your'' favorite senators" when I have said nothing to indicate that. The statement is obviously meant as an insult.] (]) 05:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::: {{ping|Volunteer Marek}} I hope you understand that I can not act at this point in my capacity as administrator in relation to this article. Especially since I myself was insulted by the very first commentator.--] (]) 08:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Include''' ] is a person widely known and any argument to the contrary is bound to end in embarrassment for those who dare make it. McCain is a notable, ], and the chairman of the ], a committee directly relevant to US-Russian relations. The opinions McCain happens to hold on Vladimir Putin the person and the leader of Russia is evidently important and worthy of inclusion here, just as are opinions of leading figures in the U.S. executive branch or congressmen in the ]. For example, the statements (e.g. ) on Putin made by that committee's chairman, ], would be similarly worthy of inclusion. -] (]) 09:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Include'''. This is a part of section "Public image", and the opinions by highly notable politicians represent his public image. Actually, this particular opinion expresses views by a very large part of political establishment in US in many other countries, and it does not matter if certain WP contributors agree with such views. Therefore, I think this opinion must remain on the page simply per WP:NPOV. ] (]) 23:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Exclude'''. Vicious personal attacks should not be allowed to masquerade as opinions based on facts. --]<sup>]</sup> 17:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm sorry, that makes no sense. Nothing is being presented as a fact. A person's statement is being quoted. This person is notable. That's it.] (]) 18:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::: There are hundreds of thousands of notable persons in the world, and thousands published opinions on Putin in reliable sources. We just cannot add everything to this article and need to draw a line somewhere. In my view, McCain is way below the line.--] (]) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::But again, this is just the "we cannot include EVERYTHING therefore we cannot include THIS ONE THING" argument which is a total logical fallacy. Nobody's proposing that "thousands published opinions on Putin" are to be included. Just this one, because this one was made by a very notable person, who happens to be one of the most well known US politicians, a top US senator, chairman of a committee that oversees US policy on Russia and who's generally known as outspoken on the subject of Putin.] (]) 19:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::We had three US presidents who had to deal with Putin, and in a month going to have the fourth one. We have several vice-presidents and several secretaries of state. We have countless heads of other states. We have countless Russian politicians of all ranks such as governors. IMO opinions of all these people are more important than that of McCain, and including all of them to the article is not really possible.--] (]) 19:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Umm, actually those are already included (except Bill Clinton because the overlap was too brief). Bush is in there. Obama's in there. ... Vice-presidents are mostly window dressing so no reason for them to be included. I guess we're missing Kerry as far as SoS goes, which we could add. But again, what matters is to what extent a given politicians statements about Putin have been covered in reliable sources. And for McCain it's a lot.] (]) 19:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::This opinion ''is'' actually based on undeniable facts. If it does not passes as an outright "include", I would suggest a compromise version: shortening the quotation by McCain to limit it to facts: "He had Boris Nemtsov murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin. He has dismembered the Ukraine. He has now precision strikes by Russian aircraft on hospitals in Aleppo." ] (]) 22:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Exclude''' per my own opinion in the line above.--] (]) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Exclude''' as arguments have been listed above. ] (]) 22:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Include'''. I do not myself share McCain’s views on Putin but the arguments for exclusion are, in my opinion, inadmissible. Ghirla’s characterization of McCain’s comments as “Vicious personal attacks” or Ymblanter calling him twice an “idiot” (a serious violation of WP BLP Policy) are irrelevant personal opinions. The only considerations that we should take into account are notability and verifiability. In the same section one can read that “Putin has been described as a "dictator" by political opponent Garry Kasparov” Is Garry Kasparov more notable than McCain? Are his comments more grounded? --] (]) 23:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::As a very notable Russian politician who ran against Putin in a presidential election, Kasparov is certainly more noteworthy for this article. He also adds credibility to the encyclopedia by our inclusion of many voices from many points of view instead of yet another American politician. ] (]) 05:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Exclude''' I agree with some of the the exclude comments here. I would agree that this quote should stay if it were notable and influential in some way, but it's not. There's nothing really important about it, and hasn't received extensive and continuous coverage ever since. ] (]) 06:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Exclude''' per what 92slim says right above me. Mine is a mostly subjective opinion as I really see no policy-based cause for exclusion if the quote is reliably sourced, it's just ]. It's a quote from a foreign government's failed candidate for head of state. On a hypothetical list of priority for inclusion of actors in foreign governments' opinions on Putin, McCain is far, far down the list. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 11:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Include''' as McCain's statement represents a common opinion in the United States. ] (]) 13:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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." |
|
*'''Exclude''' - this is supposed to be the WP:BLP for Putin, so outsider reflections seem ]. If it's just not biographical info about Putin nor a significant event in his life it does not belong -- and I did not see it being put forward of a BLP nature. Does not matter how important McCain is or isn't in the world as the question is only how relevant it is to this topic and whether it is significant '''to Putin'''. I could perhaps see a general view mentioned -- but something coming from a specific person seems questionable for ] reasons of being too open to wrong tone or a coatrack or attack blurb. ] (]) 02:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Later on: "Under Putin's rule, the Russian political system has been transformed into an authoritarian dictatorship with a personality cult." |
|
*'''Exclude''' John McCain has talked about lots of things, he's not a latter day oracle whose words are so important that everything he says must be added to some Misplaced Pages article. His current remarks may have attracted some attention because of the recent allegations about Putin rigging the U.S. election. But otherwise it has little long term relevance. ] (]) 02:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. Frankly, I do not understand how people can argue that the opinion by most prominent US supporters (i.e. by Donald Trump) should be included, but opinion by most prominent US critics (i.e. McCain) should not. ''Both'' should be included per WP:NPOV. And whatever will be outcome here, it must be consistent with WP:NPOV. Otherwise, it is not valid and not binding. ] (]) 14:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
*'''Exclude''' (Sighs) Anti Putin Guys, dont you tire of the same old game of trying to make the article as anti Putin as possible? Bloat. Is the issue. Its lame. Its the same old team with the same tired replies trying to put in irrelevant spam. Notable, not notable, fringe or not, BLP or not, irrelevant or not. Blah blah. Misplaced Pages has come down to a numbers game. Now the Forbes most powerful man award is notable. Thats good content. M'Cains a has been. Like Hillary. They lost. Who cares. Putins winning. Some of you hate that. Take it to a blog. ] ] 21:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
**SaintAviator, you've been warned about making non-constructive talk page comments and personal attacks before.] (]) 05:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
***Now the old threat tactic. (yawns) Like you never got warned. It IS a constructive comment. You know it. WP should be about content NOT anti Putin agendas. Thats the issue. I like Trump and Putin but I dont try to put in bloat like this on Hillary's page. ] ] 06:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
****But, wait. Unless {{u|SaintAviator}} meant loser as in she lost the election, then it's not such a BLP violation after all. It just might need clarification. Do you mind clearing things up {{u|SaintAviator}}? ] (]) 17:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*****Loser as in lost, for sure. Thats obvious. Marek, about your warnings which you use to try to stop opposition to your anti Putin POV edits: One thing I would never do was set up a back channel email cabal to influence WP editing. Thats yours and on the record. Think about that before you take the high moral ground. ] ] 21:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. I could not agree more with MVBW's comment. Kasparov's comments are very similar to those of McCain and he is way less notable. All the proponents of exclusion should by the same logic ask for their deletion, but they do not. Some have expressed their dislike for McCain (a war hero) in the above comments. Could this be the reason? Obviously, everyone should set aside their personal feelings when editing BLPs. --] (]) 23:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::You mean personal feelings like "war hero". 00:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Woops! ] (]) 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"Woops" what? ] (]) 05:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Actually, the RfC is not just about McCain. Removing Kasparov's opinion could also be a valid outcome of this RfC.--] (]) 07:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think political opposition is important to quote, but deleting all the politicians from the article would not hurt my feelings. This is all very unencyclopedic and Putin has been around long enough to have academics give opinions on his governing and we can drop the political nonsense and posturing. ] (]) 18:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Kasparov is a different case since he actually ran against Putin and paid a price for it. His opinions are more critical than that of McCain's. But in regards to political posturing, I can't say I disagree. The discussion should not be whether politicians are notable enough to have their quotes in the assessment section, it should be about the quotes themselves and whether those are notable enough. I've said McCain's quote wasn't, but was Kasparov's? Hard to tell. ] (]) 18:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: Re 'it should be about the quotes themselves and whether those are notable enough.'. Correct. ] ] 21:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Include''' per Volunteer Marek and others. This is a pretty notable incident judging by coverage in reliable sources, and a comment from one of the most prominent politicians in the US (particularly in foreign affairs). --] (]) 06:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Include''' – I have not even looked to see what comments are in question, but there's no doubt that McCain has the stature to have an important and relevant opinion; if his opinion is published in reliable news sources, it should be good enough for us. As for whether we publish every opinion about Putin, probably not; if there are others from reliable sources that are being considered, let's consider them explicitly. ] (]) 05:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Exclude''' and to quote above - "(Sighs) Anti Putin Guys, dont you tire of the same old game of trying to make the article as anti Putin as possible?" I also agree with the comments above that historically Mcain's opinions about Putin will have no historic value in his life story at all, his biography, which this page is. ] (]) 17:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*Look at it and consider ] In late 2016 Mcain states that "Vladimir Putin is a thug and a murderer and a killer and a KGB agent. He had Boris Nemtsov murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin. He has dismembered the Ukraine. He has now precision strikes by Russian aircraft on hospitals in Aleppo. Mcain has no evidence at all for his personal attacks - a thug and a murderer and a killer. - I would ban any user from editing this subject that supports the inclusion of this trash to a ] - Mcains quote is presented as if fact, Putin is a killer and a murderer - this desired addition here in a ] is disgusting to any ] EDITOR] (]) 17:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No, McCain's quote is presented as just that - a quote, and an *opinion* of a particular, notable person. Perhaps "ban any user" would better apply to those who can't tell the difference between presenting an individual's opinion and stating something as fact? ] and all that. ] (]) 19:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You are so boring in your policy quackery to support you bias. I would ban you immediately from any Russia articles, you have been previously restricted have you not? Mcains opinion which is so strongly attacking, a murderer??? and without any evidence is a clear ] and ] violation - ] (]) 19:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Include''' per Volunteer Marek and The Gnome. McCain is a leading Senator and his opinion is obviously worthy of inclusion. --] (]) 18:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
**Admin - please show weight to this comment - four edits all today ] (]) 18:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
== Dictator? == |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
::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. |
|
As Putin has never won a free election, should he be described as a dictator in the article? And should the allegations that he has a form of autism be mentioned? (] (]) 16:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
:*{{findsource|Vladimir Putin dictator}} |
|
:Omg, no, not at all. what is this, why should editors have to waste there time with throwaway sock accounts. ] (]) 17:01, 26 December 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>}} |
|
::It was widely reported in 2015 that Putin had been formally diagnosed as having a form of autism. (] (]) 18:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
: 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> |
|
:::read ] - no you won't will you ] or ] - ] (]) 18:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:*{{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}} |
|
::::What? What are you talking about? What about the reports that Putin has autism? (] (]) 18:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
:*{{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''}} |
|
:::::Lol - stop wasting editors time, go away. ] (]) 18:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:*{{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=}} |
|
::::::Putin has been diagnosed with autism. This needs to be mentioned in the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11392680/Vladimir-Putin-suffers-from-Aspergers-syndrome-Pentagon-report-claims.html (] (]) 19:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)) |
|
|
:::::::Lala la la lol ] (]) 19:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
:{{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) |
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)
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)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
