Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Somedifferentstuff (talk | contribs) at 08:31, 30 April 2012 (→Picture POV problem). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: Sports & games / Politics and law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Vladimir Putin was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 15, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed August 16, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former good article nominee

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 30 days

A news item involving Vladimir Putin was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 March 2008.

A news item involving Vladimir Putin was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 September 2011.

A news item involving Vladimir Putin was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 March 2012.

Oil&gas

This is a stub section to make sure Greyhood starts arguing about my recent edits in an orderly fashion, in the right place. Welcome, Greyhood! Yes, Greyhood, Russian economy heavily depends on oil exports, you cannot conceal this fact. But please plase write your ridiculous arguments right here. I'll read them all. Maybe. Gritzko (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Erm, ok. For what it's worth... the edits seemed fine with me.Malick78 (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• No point in concealing the fact that oil and gas exports and petroleum price play important role in the Russian economy. However there is no point in highlighting this fact too much since it borders with spreading the myth that Russian economy is only oil and gas and nothing or almost nothing else.

Few facts:

• • Significant growth of oil prices started only in 2004-2005, but the Russian economy started growth (and rather large growth) well in 1999-2000.
  • Russian economy is not only export. The recovery of oil and gas and other minerals was only 9% of GDP in 2011 and only 6.8% was oil and gas (with figures not much larger in the previous years). The share of oil and gas in GDP gradually falls.
  • Unprocessed oil and gas takes only 45% of Russian exports. More of the rest are oil-based products and fuels, but this is considered manufacturing . So the phrase in one of the last edits about the "oil and gas, which is the majority of Russian exports" is oversimplified, and certainly not correct if we speak about raw materials vs manufacturing.
  • Federal budget grew much faster in the last decade than oil prices . And it is not clear whether "a five-fold increase in price of oil and gas" is correct description - it was four-fold increase in 2000-2011, but seven times increase in 1999-2011.
  • In 2008 only 23% of federal budget revenues came from exports oil and gas (customs tariffs), and 18% from taxes on petroleum and mining companies . However, when we speak about the consolidated budget (federal budget + regional budgets) the similar figures for oil and gas would be just 14% and 10% .
• All this means the following:
  • The economic growth in the early 2000s was not very much dependent on oil and gas prices. So it is incorrect to ascribe early economic growth under Putin to petroleum prices.
  • Overall, the dependence (whatever its scale) of the Russian economy on oil and gas is not Putin's invention, and the share of this sector in the Russian GDP actually is falling.
  • However, oil and gas money constituted a very large share of the federal (but not so consolidated) budget in the Putin era. This means that it is more correct to speak that it is not the Russian economy on the whole, but the federal budget which is dependent on oil and gas.
• And a qualitative addition to the figures: Russia is a northern cold country and Russia is industrial country, which means that it needs lots of fuel for itself, but it is also a (very) resource-rich country, so no wonder that it produces much energy, have lots of facilities for that, and takes the opportunity to export abroad a lot (every country in similar conditions does that: the U.S. , Canada, Norway). This is not good or bad feature of the economy, just the fact. GreyHood 20:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• We need to revert your additions on oil and gas simply because they are not entirely correct factually, and because all the key information in more generalized and accurate form is already in the lead. But if you have proposals to make some important additions in accurate wording, let's discuss them. GreyHood 20:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You're clownish. Gritzko (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be doing your own research Greyhood. That is a waste of time. If you have a source saying that early growth was not because of oil, that's relevant. To synthesise facts (the oil price went up in 2004, growth started in 1999) is pointless - you may miss something. Specifically, in this case, after a crash (in 1998), growth is easier (or, rather, can look more impressive). This growth in a depression can be achieved through modest oil sales. And while this may not be why the growth happened, you have to find a ref to prove that your hypothesis is true. Not rely on your own stats. WP isn't based on OR. Malick78 (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW regarding the prices, there was a recovery in 2000-2001, compared to the dip of 1997-1999 (caused by the Asian crisis AFAIR), and then it went crazy in 2005-2008. Gritzko (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

All what I say is that growth was not because of oil only. An excerpt from Putin's biography by Richard Sakwa: Although energy exports played a critical role in Putin’s mini ‘economic miracle’, this should not be exaggerated. As one commentator put it, ‘It would be wrong . . . to state that the growth in the Russian economy in the last seven years reflects nothing else than the boom in oil prices’. (Sakwa 2008, p. 243) Then Sakwa writes about "prudent fiscal policies", "macroeconomic stabilisation" etc. And by the way you just have named one additional reason for major growth in the first few years - recovery from a low base. But even such a recovery wouldn't become possible without a stabilized situation and a competent management. GreyHood 22:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Unless the recovery was driven by prior recoveries in surrounding/closely-connected economies, for example. Either way, your source doesn't pin down the cause: "prudent fiscal policies", "macroeconomic stabilisation"... are very nebulous. Malick78 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sakwa writes on all this in detail, and his biography of Putin is considered the best. "Prudent fiscal policies" means that more taxes became collected, which means that more money became pumped into federal budget rather than to oligarch pockets. A large part of the money was not spent immediately, but sterilized in reserves and funds, which gave instruments to macroeconomic stabilisation, most importantly currency stabilization. Inflation was curbed, budgets were taken in time and with surpluses, investments grew. The economy became more predictable and started to work properly. GreyHood 22:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the new fiscal policies were credited much more to the now sacked Alexei Kudrin than to Putin. Närking (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever, Putin was the head of state then, and he made Kudrin Minister of Finance and Vice Premier. And of course all the technical work was made by the Ministry of Finance and related government agencies, the President just needed to choose the strategy, to approve and promote their actions. GreyHood 23:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood - please could you add to the article the relevant arguments from Sakwa's biography with citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, later when I have time I've add more stuff from Sakwa. Basically there is already some relevant stuff on these points in the lead, but Sakwa as a scholarly source clearly would be better. GreyHood 01:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

outregous propoganda article

we donate to Misplaced Pages to keep it free - and yet what we see is a major article like this - almost a flat out celebration of other ways one of the most undemocratic, and criticized leaders of the world - even if they (who criticize) all are wrong – why is there so little of it it in the article and so much of highly doubtful praise??

we have system here to block average users from editing, but what about system to curb obviously biased/corrupt people from keeping away any light from such propaganda articles? Isn't there a system for a popular vote on ban for a user from editing article or something?

there are millions of leads out in the web that prove what I said about Putin (just do some google search if you just fell from moon) - I tried to edit "Russian presidential elections 2012" by trying to add some independent, non potentially Russian government controlled sources and each time they all were removed - without giving adequate reason or even doing their edits correctly - by some people who appear almost like they are paid for it - I post this as yet another futile attempt at a start of discussion or something - if someone believes something can be done to improve this article, to be less laudatory and fight those that make it like this ("greyhood" is one outrageous example - just read some of his countless obviously one-sided comments here) - but I simply resign myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.105.8 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there any specific instances, where you think that the article is biased?

If there are, perhaps you could list them here, with an explanation why you think they are biased.

But please do not make personal attacks on editors who have to the best of their ability tried to make a strictly factual article.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

This is the problem: many of us do not consider him to be aiming at the 'facts', just his version of them. Yet another passing editor has spotted this it seems.Malick78 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said - I resign, because I consider it futile, given the large interest for some persons (driven either by monetary gains or some other more obscure motives) to make this article into glorifying propaganda, and the relatively small interest for some people for others to read and acknowledge the truth

But just to back up my opinion with some facts, although there are way too many points to list - here are few:

• already in the heading we read «Putin has overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia ...»

If fraudulent elections, tens of thousands of protesters against Putin's regime, and almost no free press is seen as stability, then it's alright by me, but does it? The reference goes to some NYtimes article about some Chinese award to Putin (China has an even worse regime and is a partner of Russia) that attributes stability to to Chechen war - a nice way to reach stability - occupy a neighboring state?! As to the economical progress - here are few to counter that:

funnily that some of the economical growth references (nr.12) points to this page:

where you can read amongst all: «The list of Putin's attacks on democracy is striking in both its range and depth. He has conducted an inhumane war in Chechnya, seized control of all national television networks, emasculated the power of the Federation Council, tamed regional barons who once served as a powerful balance to Yeltsin's presidential rule, arbitrarily used the law to jail or chase away political foes, removed candidates from electoral ballots, harassed and arrested NGO leaders and weakened Russia's independent political parties. International election observers concluded that the parliamentary vote in December 2003 and the presidential vote in 2004 were the least fair in Russia's post-Soviet history.»

• In heading: «As Russian Prime Minister, Putin's approval rating was 52 percent in January 2012, according to the state-run pollster VTsIOM.»

Even in English Misplaced Pages article you can read, that VTsIOM is a state funded/managed pollster, even this particular quote itself notions to that. State run pollster in a presidential state, with high autocratic tendencies, and amongst the lowest press freedom indexes in the world (142 out of 179), as can be seen in this Misplaced Pages article: Additionally there are sources which contest the 52%: (gives 26% to Putin) And others which I don’t have time to search now, which give more realistic figures like ~50% in the 4 March elections. Even later in the Putin article itself you can read this: «One analysis attributed Putin's popularity, in part, to state-owned or state-controlled television.» Nothing of this in the heading. I can confirm myself, from real experience in watching Russian TV - Putin propaganda in almost every news release Additionally having 52% in January according to official pollster, which usually gave precise election prediction - he won with 63.64% just a few month later - a remarkable progress with so many people protesting against you. So why this doubtful information has to be in the heading? (since many or most people probably read only that)

• There is no criticism section or page as such (the closest we come to that is the "Assessments" sections, which does not give much of useful information).

It can be found somewhere long into history, but there is no sign of it now. Putin has been criticized for Chechnya war, 2008 Georgia war, impending on press freedom, lowering democracy, vote rigging, iron fist type rule etc. etc. Again you might say that they all are wrong, but such criticism is widespread and worldwide, and still very little reported here. Here is one criticism article:

• there were massive reports of vote rigging both for the Duma legislation, and the 2012 presidential elections (where Putin won), with tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of russians going into streets protesting, with massive arrests, and horrible scorn by the Putin himself

can't find a word about it here

Few sources:

212.93.105.8 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that your objections to VTsIOM are mistaken.

• I know that the communists are very much against VTsIOM. But as communists are against freedom and democracy, that is not surprising.
• I also know that people planted anti-VTsIOM propaganda in an American newspaper, and this propaganda proved to be lies.

As for VTsIOM being state owned; well the BBC is state owned, state run, and state funded, and this is not seen by Misplaced Pages as a valid objection to regarding the BBC as a reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Britain has a Press Freedom Index ranking of 28. Russia is 142. Zimbabwe, for comparison, is 117. You can bemoan all you want how everyone has it out for Russia, but maybe the simpler answer is that there are very real problems that you just choose to ignore. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some problems in Russia, of course, as in most other countries. But seems that the Press Freedom Index is fairly subjective, to say the least. As the article says, it is "based on a questionnaire sent to partner organizations of Reporters Without Borders (14 freedom of expression groups in five continents) and its 130 correspondents around the world, as well as to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists... Due to the nature of the survey's methodology based on individual perceptions, there are often wide contrasts in a country's ranking from year to year." So that's pretty much dependent on which particular journalists and organisations they question, and is strongly influenced by the past reputation over the current situation. GreyHood 20:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Independent pollster Levada Center, with a liberal reputation by the way, gives results of polls similar to VTSIOM when it comes to Putin's ratings of approval and trust from the population. The figure of only 26% support comes from the site SupeJob.ru, which is much less established as a polling service and is originally and primarily a webservice where people search jobs online. They write that their poll was conducted only among the "economically active population". This means that older people, pensioners, disabled persons etc. were not included. This already invalidates the claim that this result might represent the view of all Russian voters. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear - they do not explain methodology - but looks like they conducted poll online among the people registered on their site - which means that 26% is the support of Putin among economically active persons with Internet access who often change and seek jobs. Naturally, this excludes 40% Russians who still are not Internet users, non-working people (due to age or disability) and people with well-established jobs who never change them. It is widely percepted that Putin has more support among the older people, blue collars, military, police, officials than among easily job-changing managers, IT specialists etc. GreyHood 20:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Photo in the infobox

Current picture	Alternative picture	Actualia's proposed picture
Sematz's proposed picture	Sematz's proposed picture2

Why are some people trying to change the photo in the infobox? Please could be have a discussion about it, rather than unilateral changes from the current picture.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The second photo is newer, but it looks downright ridiculous—more like a model than a world leader. I have no idea who the hell thought that would be a good "official" picture. The whole eyebrow thing going on there is really too much. If we can find a newer picture that does not look like a fashion photo-shoot, then that would be fine. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention it is low-resolution and poor-quality. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I change the photo today because the photo was old. I think the new one (that I posted) is more comfortable. Actualia (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I like Actualia's. The former one was too old and, frankly, looked like it was posed by the same folk that take portraits of young women seeking husbands over the Internet. The latest one is a suitable and current photo showing Putin seriously engaged in the business of government. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 12:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a low resolution random picture. All major politician articles tend to use large official portraits. There is no point not to do it here. In the George W. Bush article there is still a 2003 portrait (that is older than current Putin's official portrait), and in Barack Obama article there is 2009 portrait, despite more up-to-date images are available. I restore the old photo per Toddy, Lothar, per quality of the image and per the existing tradition. GreyHood 19:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The portrait should reflect the heyday of a politician's activity and political importance. In case of Putin it is his presidency. If they make a new official portrait when Putin is inaugurated in May, than we should use it. But so far the available portrait should stay. GreyHood 19:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, we should use the official portrait. If a new one is made after his inauguration, we should switch to that. Nanobear (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Any reason we can't have both? The Bush analogy does not work, he's no longer in office, so his presidential picture is a time capsule. The Obama analogy doesn't work because much less time has passed. Putin looks almost girlish in his prior presidential portrait, the article needs a decent picture which is more recent. If editors are fixated on keeping his official portrait (at least date it, then), we need to have a more representative picture somewhere in the article as well. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There are lots of more recent pictures of Putin in the article. Besides, the pictures proposed so far as alternative portraits are obviously of poor quality. And as I said, the subject should be illustrated at it's heyday. GreyHood 22:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted)

Note that a sockpuppet investigation has confirmed that Ocnerosti is a Confirmed match to User:Amphelice.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

...and that Amphelice is, in turn, a sock of the banned User:Chaosname. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to side with Greyhood on this one, surprisingly enough. I am of the mind that whatever portrait is be used should be an official portrait—it simply looks more encyclopaedic (at least to me). This discounts the last two, as they are both candids. The "alternative" picture—though it is "official"—is complete shit, to be blunt. Thus, we use the better of the two. And really, there isn't any reason not to. Sure, his hair is a bit thicker and his face a bit more youthful, but he is still easily identified as our dear Volodya. I see little reason to change to any other. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, Sematz needs to cut it out with the image replacement. He's been reverted numerous times now, and continues to change the image in spite of the hidden warning I placed by it. He does not respond to any invitations to discussion. There is a point where even good-faith editing becomes disruptive, and he is nearing it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Small edits please, everyone

Could people restrict themselves to making edits to single sections at a time, please? This one today contained a copyvio (about the environmental activities of Putin) but also some other unhelpful edits, and could not be reverted because subsequent edits meant it couldn't be undone. If we edit small portions at a time, it would help other editors react to our edits. Continuing editing like this would be, IMHO, not constructive and against the spirit of collaboration. Persistently doing so would even be disruptive. Malick78 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Malick, why you constantly point out smallish things which you could easily fix instead of reverting and removing? There is just one sentence which has significant differences from the original - you could have added more differences if that was not enough for you - that would be more constructive and friendly. Thanks, I'll fix the wording myself, but it would be more constructive if you just do it instead of plain deletion. GreyHood 21:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyvios are serious business around here. Make too many of them and you could find yourself banished for good; we recently lost a bureaucrat/ArbCom member in such a scandal.

And Greyhood, if your intention is to make this into a GA-, A-, or FA-class article, you should be aware that having significant conflict between editors and edit wars can cause the article to fail a review. It is in your best interests to keep the environment as collaborative as possible—and if that means taking it one section at a time, I suggest you do so. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I am always ready to discuss and resolve conflicts. I just hope that everyone would be constructive, would avoid unilateral removals of factual content justifying that by little easily fixable flaws, and would concentrate on discussing content rather than criticising other users on every possible occasion. GreyHood 22:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It couldn't be undone because subsequently Greyhood edited parts of it, stopping a revert. I'm sure he knew that would happen. Just so others know, the copyvio was this: "Putin brought together 13 countries at a November 2011 conference endorsed by World Wide Fund for Nature, and raised over $330 million in funds to preserve the the endangered species." which, I'm everyone would agree, is almost the same as the original news article: "Not only did he bring together 13 countries at a November conference endorsed by WWF last year, but he also raised over $330 million in funds to preserve the soon to be extinct species." It's not for us to clean up your mess, Greyhood. You were lazy, and it's not good enough. Malick78 (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, 1) The sentence starts differently 2) the tense of the verb was changed 3) the date was inserted amid the first bolded bit 4) full names of the organisations were used instead of the abbreviations 5) two parts of the sentence were connected differently. Not enough? Well, please, fix it yourself - that would be easier for you as a native speaker. That would be constructive and friendly. Could you do that? GreyHood 22:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you think what you changed was enough - please go back and read up on what is expected of WP editors. You clearly do not know.Malick78 (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is constructiveness and friendliness expected from WP editors? GreyHood 15:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"was better worded before"

In Malick's version the key part of the explanation of the amphorae incident, that the amphorae were placed by archaeologists for Putin "to experience what it was like to be on an expedition" is omitted. Obviously, such a serious factual omission hardly could be explained by the edit summary "was better worded before". The same goes for the lead - I've provided more detailed, descriptive and accurate account of Putin's public image - another "was better worded before" is a non-descriptive summary and does not explain the factual content removal - if the wording is flawed grammatically than fix it, but do not delete stuff on smallish pretexts. GreyHood 21:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the replacing of the key part of the explanation of the amphorae story with an extensive quotes which do not fit into the summary style of the article (and the section in particular) and which are clearly excessive in the context of the section which specifically and in detail illustrates "a long line of remarkable feats by Mr Putin" (what is the point of repeating that or writing about that at all when it is obvious from the context?) - well, that's really strange editorial choice, hardly justified by the "was better worded before" summary. GreyHood 21:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph newspaper, a respected paper may I add, analysed Putin's media portrayal in depth and it was worth quoting. I can see you don't like it (you must have removed that info about 6 or 7 times so far) but, sorry, it's some of the little real analysis of his image that we have in the article and is worth keeping. If you don't like my edit summaries, btw, just look at your vague ones and try to imagine how much others can infer from them. Very little. Malick78 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, Telegraph is respected and made a valid point, I agree. But what is the point adding that point in one particular part of the list, in a non-summary style, in a clearly excessive manner - the point is too self-obvious when we look at the context where it is placed? What is the point of doing that and removing factual stuff (the explanation why amphorae were placed there at all) given by the same respectable source? GreyHood 22:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

In a "clearly excessive manner" - no, that's merely your opinion. In my opinion it's entirely relevant what is said. As for your suggestion of adding the explanation (that the amphorae were left to give him the experience of discovering something), my bullshit detector goes off the scale at that point, hence I didn't include it. If you need it spelling out, it's obvious that the amphorae were left for him to find to make him look good on TV, not to give him the "experience" of finding them. I think other editors also possess a bullshit detector and would dislike including that bit.Malick78 (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

When top politicians visit different places, such as industries, research teams etc, they are often offered to engage in activities such as "test a car produced at our plant", "drive our combine harvester" etc etc. It is normal internationally, and in Russia it is a typical practice performed by governors, ministers, presidents - though it very much depends on particular qualities and abilities of the top person. It is not "bullshit" at all but a usual reality - a VIP visitor promotes the place (s)he visits, and of course does self-promotion too. As for the "clearly excessive manner" - open your eyes finally and look at the entire section. The Telegraph summary may go to the top of the section but even there it would be a bit excessive. GreyHood 15:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Malick continues edit summaries in the style "I liked the previous wording and it was stable". WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT are arguments to avoid in contested situations. And the whole of the edit summary does not take into account the previously explained fact that "extreme sports" is a wrong generalisation, while simultaneously another wrong generalisation is pushed forward. Putin also tagged wild whales and a wild polar bear, and the single case with tiger is not clear enough. Naming all these situations "carefully staged" violates NPOV language. Of course all these were specially arranged to accommodate press and security, but mentioning this is pointless and non-neutral - we do not mention the necessary presence of bodygaurds and journalists when describing public actions by politicians. GreyHood 15:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph analysis is probably the best bit of the whole section: the rest is just a list of amazing things Putin has done. As for it being routine to test cars... etc., well, yes it is. To pretend to make archaeological discoveries is not. It was blatant lying on the part of Putin's PR machine and is highly notable. Finally, "carefully staged" is a perfect description (by somebody else, not me) - Putin's PR machine is working on another level to any other politician's. It is NPOV to mention it; claiming it's not just shows an inability to understand NPOV. Malick78 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Telegraph analysis adds nothing new to what is already named at the start of the section and to what is obvious from the context. Then, does Putin and his PR machine actually pretend they made an archaeological discovery? As for the fact that "Putin's PR machine is working on another level" - well, the very fact that we have too make a specific mention of Putin's public image in the intro illustrates that it is "another level to any other politician's'. "Carefully staged" is not a perfect description and is non-neutral, because on one hand all PR and all public actions of any major politician are "carefully staged", and on the other hand - if this refers to some specific controversial PR actions - it is inappropriate generalisation because there are few such controversial actions, which constitutes no more than few percents or less than a percent of all Putin public appearances. GreyHood 17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell only you are against the phrase "carefully staged". Everyone else has left it, seeing it as pretty fair. Me thinks your view is not representative.Malick78 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"Carefully staged" has been discussed only between you and me so far. But even if some people consider it to be a fair description for certain episodes, it is pointless, inappropriate and a logical fallacy to present it is as a generalisation. GreyHood 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's merely your humble view. Consensus can decide. Malick78 (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You know that it was not uncontested and not stable addition in the first place. The current version also contains other factual inaccuracies, which you so inaccurately restored in an overt revert. Per WP:BLP we should act "with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research". If we can choose more factually accurate and neutral wording, there is no reason why we should not do it, especially in BLP case.

Consensus should be based on argumentation, you know. There are quite logical and factual argumentation presented by me - if you can present viable factual counterarguments rather than WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT, than we could reach reasonable consensus solutions. GreyHood 21:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I side with Malick. NPOV does not mean that all material critical of a subject is to be removed, as Greyhood seems to view it. In fact, omitting such material would be a violation of NPOV by giving undue WP:WEIGHT to non-critical positions. And in the case of our dear Volodya, criticism is a very significant part of his reputation. Please keep in mind that we are compiling a biography, not a hagiography. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Straw man, Lothar. We are not talking about removing criticism - there are many points of criticism in the article and I do not propose to remove them, and the suggestion that in my view "all material critical of a subject is to be removed" is plainly offensive to me. I have some editing experience and know the policies, Lothar. Some of the criticism in the article was actually added by me, so please do not misrepresent my position, do not put words in my mouth, and try to make more relevant and concrete arguments pertaining to the concrete points of the discussion.

So, you should specify on which issue concretely you side with Malick and discuss concrete things. Because we are talking about multiple issues. The issues discussed here are 1) correct and factual summary representation of information on Putin's PR actions in the lead (two controversial actions doesn't make the proposed generalisation correct - it would be like mentioning the shoe-throwing incident in the lead of George W. Bush article or making generalisations on the base of this single incident or few other funny stories with Bush) 2) excessiveness of description of one particular point in the list of adventures alongside the removal of the important part of the explanation of that story - I hope you agree that alongside a criticism the official answer to that criticism should be presented, and there is no point in repeating general background information already in the section. GreyHood 21:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Straw man, Greyhood. No one said all your edits are pro-Putin. But the majority certainly are :) Malick78 (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Straw man and self-contradiction on your part, Malick ;). I've cited concrete part of what Lothar wrote above, and I found that concrete wording irrelevant, misrepresenting my position, and offensive to me as an experienced editor. And Lothar clearly wrote all. Speaking of Cherry picking, you should not make false generalisations based on cherry picking of isolated facts yourself. Neither you should cherry pick a small point and make overt reverts based on that. Nor you should cherry pick other editor's actions and make false generalisations. GreyHood 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my hyperbole; I had not expected that you would be so sensitive to it. As to what I was agreeing with: the inclusion of "carefully staged" I do not find objectionable in the least, if we are to bring up VVP's animal adventures. You make the point that all PR is staged (on one hand all PR and all public actions of any major politician are "carefully staged"), then you turn around and say that we should not generalise about the staged-ness of VVP's PR actions (it is inappropriate generalisation because there are few such controversial actions). Which one is it? You seem to base the former point on the obviousness of PR being staged. It may be obvious to you, but what about to the general public? Let's say we have 13-year-old Timmy, who has to do a project on Putin for class. Timmy, being a typically lazy 13-year-old boy, goes to Misplaced Pages even though his teacher said not to. He reads the lead section, uses material from it, and goes to make his project believing that Putin really is some macho man who wrestles tigers or whatever. His teacher knows better, and slaps him with a grade penalty for presenting incorrectly generalised information from here. Is that a catastrophic thing? No, not really. Is it factually correct? Not "concretely". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, your Dubya example is little more than a red herring. The shoe-throwing incident is nowhere near as relevant to Bush's image as Putin's manly man stunts are to his image. This image has been called into contention, but the wording of the lead doesn't make that clear; readers have to "read between the lines" or scroll down to that (eyesore of a) list to find that out. Even there, the wording is still rather evasive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I might have sound sensitive because your hyperbole was so obviously incorrect.

I think that the shoe-throwing incident was relevant to Bush's image in the sense that it reflected how low his popularity fell towards the end of his presidency. Of course the incident was not a game changer - the game was already lost. Just a cherry on the top of the cake. And, notably, that was not even restricted to Iraq - that was international. I remember that show-throwing flash games were popular at that time in many languages and it was widely discussed for quite a period of time, with additional incidents of the kind..

But my point was that it would be incorrect to make generalisations from few episodes. Bush'es ratings were low because of multiple serious reasons, and as well supposedly because of too many other funny incidents (the article Bushisms is really too short). But if there was just one or two or three or several incidents of the kind (compared to hundreds of public actions by a politician in total count) making generalisations based on few episodes would be wrong.

I explained why I think the wording "carefully staged" was incorrect, in two understandings of "staged". In the sense where "staged" means "pre-arranged and prepared" for the convenience of journalists and security, everything or almost everything in public life of every major politician is "carefully staged". In the sense where "staged" could mean "stunted in fraudulent way" - we really need more evidence to make such generalisations.

Your schoolboy story is adorable, but note that the current wording does not say that "Putin really is some macho". It says that "In the media, Putin often projects an outdoor, sporting, tough guy image" which means that Putin projects certain image in the media - it is a fact. How this image corresponds to reality is a different question. At the very least, the obvious consensus both in Russia and elsewhere is that Putin is 1) a sporting guy 2) political hard-man 3) loves making PR with his sporting and other adventures. I do not think that the wording "this popular image, however, has occasionally been criticised as being "staged" is accurate. Too much of that image is obviously not staged, and it was not Putin's projected image on the whole which was criticized, but rather some specific episodes, and the main point of criticism of those episodes was that Putin does too much PR and does it in a stupid way. I've tried to change the wording to reflect this. GreyHood 22:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We should not argue whether we should have precisely wording A or wording B, especially when factual accuracy is in question. If possible, we should find wording C which would be both factually accurate and "better" for all. Currently I've applied my wording, because it is factually accurate (does not use the term "extreme sports") and descriptive (accurately summarizes most aspects of Putin's projected public image). If someone could propose a better wording, OK, lets discuss it, but do not revert to the obviously factually incorrect and non-descriptive version. Such reverting is non-constructive. GreyHood 22:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Tagging in the article

I suggest everyone to familiarize themselves with Misplaced Pages:Template_messages/Disputes. The point of tagging an article is enhancing constructive work and discussion, not expressing personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

• Dispute templates are used to alert other editors that work is needed on a certain article, and auto-categorize pages so that patrolling editors can aid their talent to the problem. No patrolling editors came here thanks to the NPOV tag which was in the article for about a month, and only one Latvian IP came here without any concrete proposals, without actual intent to engage and with a very poor argumentation. That is quite telling.

• They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form on the article's talk page, in a section which includes the name of the template that was applied. I request such rationales and lists of issues for any tag added to the article or one of the sections, otherwise having tags without clear constructive purpose is not helpful.

• As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates. Without concrete proposals to amend the perceived faults tagging lacks a constructive point.

• It is preferable that in-line templates be applied to content that is being objected to on bias or fact grounds. Inline templates are preferred because they can be attached directly to disputed sentences. Section templates follow next in preference to tagging a whole article. Tagging for the whole article without identifying concrete places and issues is not helpful. If few minor points are contested, this does not justify tagging the whole article.

• Many editors consider use of any banner template in an article a serious measure of last resort, and would prefer other measures be exhausted before such detractions from the project be used. If one must be used, please make a thorough note listing deficiencies or items being disputed in bulleted or numbered paragraph format under a clear notice section heading on the article's talk page. The initial placement of the NPOV tag resulted in some discussion concerning images - and since then 1) some of the images were removed 2) no further concrete proposals were made or concrete major issues identified. As apparently the most productive and therefore constructive editor here, I am interested in further constructive work on the article. Name the concrete issues on talk, make concrete proposals, and we'll try to work on them and discuss them. This is called constructive work.

On this basis, I remove the NPOV tag. Do not reinstate it without following the clear recommendations of WP:TM/DISP and my requests above - we need constructive work, not disruption and making points. Name concrete issues and identify concrete places in the article, start discussing them on talk, and even without tagging (which has obviously been unhelpful in drawing more editors here) we could improve the article. GreyHood 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Incoherent comment partially in German left by an IP

V. Putin take the example of European Königi. In Western press as in the Internet, beginning in 2012, cutting communications pulsated on "Putin's death squadron". Hr. Putin is just an apprentice, just take example from experienced. For Polonais, Czech, Slovakian, Slovenes and Roma nest of other so-called New Europeanere roiale Arab Eskadrone death is beckant since long. Arab exestieren d'artanian 's atose, partose, aramise, 900 - 1200 € pro month"pro Musketer". (Vladimir Putin will also notice the Vladimirovitsh). Plus Christian Euro - Help and forgiveness. Well, eaten bread. Please write something current, about relationships, "Putin's Death Squadron's" with Russian police. Tines that even Al Qaeda? (here all talk so Sun I'm with Mr. Putin Presedent Hope is always in itself, this "Dzi Bao Dad" will never read times, and if they do, perhaps, he is in better frame of mind than I am.)194.78.58.10 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The IP user above added this into a unrelated section; to avoid confusion (well, more confusion) I have relocated it here. a13ean (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no CRITISISMS at all?

This is a laughable article. Putin is currently hated in Russia by every thinking person. Numerous anti Putin protests were held during 2011-2012 winter. Putin is jokingly called "Tsar", system he build is based on corruption, often called "feodal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.147.51.162 (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The article sticks to the facts. It does not seem favourable to Putin. It is a neutral POV article.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It clearly does "seem" so to this guy. The IP geolocates to Russia as well, so you'll have a more difficult time chalking this one up to Western agitators or whomever.

To the IP: could you provide some examples of parts of the article that are too favourable to Putin, or some criticisms (with sources) that you think should be included? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please do this.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• How about an "Allegations of authoritarianism" section, or something similarly worded? We have a "Recognition" section... would only be fair to have the opposite. Malick78 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is Vladimir_Putin#Assessments section for both positive and negative general assessments. Specific criticisms about specific policies should go to specific sections. "Allegations of authoritarianism" section is a dubious idea at the time when Russia goes through liberal electoral reforms, when today the new law on governors' elections was adopted by State Duma, and when the country has greatly improved it's E-Government#UN_e-Government_Readiness_Index position in the last few years, with citizens already allowed to directly take part in new legislation development and new legislation control online; currently, the government develops infrastructure and legislation which would allow citizens to initiate new laws proposals online, with the proposals which collect over 100,000 signatures to be reviewed and possibly implemented by the government. All this should go to the Domestic policies section, I think. GreyHood 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Note to admin: the one who suggested anti-Putinism here has posted this link on several sites, http://2ch.so/po/res/822480.html as an example, and appealed to those who share the same oppositional views to add anti-Putin, propagandistic material into article. Just be aware that this doesn't come out of pure desire of "democracy". Pessimist2006 (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Admin? What admin? This is a standard talkpage discussion, not a noticeboard or mediation. Get over yourself. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tone down your rude tone, mister, admins read talkpages too., and one can address them as objective contributors. Pessimist2006 (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they sometimes read them, but there's no need to address this as some sort of appeal to them as if it was a requested move or AfD, where an admin would actually intervene. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexei Navalny: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2111975_2111976_2112167,00.html His whole career is based on exposing Putin's schemes and corruption in Russia.

1999 bombings connection: http://en.wikipedia.org/Blowing_Up_Russia:_Terror_from_Within

Mass protests against vote manipulations at 2011-2012 elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/2011%E2%80%932012_Russian_protests

There are numerous sources about Putin's connection to Saint-Petersburg's organized mafia and "cooperativ Ozero" - Putin's friends who all became billionaires after he came to power. You can find all information in Navalny's livejournal. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/9100388/Vladimir-Putin-the-godfather-of-a-mafia-clan.html

Magnitsky's death http://en.wikipedia.org/Sergei_Magnitsky http://russian-untouchables.com/eng/

Honestly there are so many things that should be said, there should be the whole article about Putin's criticisms. This video sums it up. It's in Russian. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYLJeG-YmXw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.6.238 (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please could you register as an editor, and then make the edits yourself. If you need help with something, you can ask on this talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

But are we agreed on a dedicated section? Called "Criticism" or something more inspired? Malick78 (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think so. Some material from the Putinism article can I think be pulled in here as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

That article mostly consists of outdated forecasts and ever more outdating criticisms, speculations, opposition rants etc, with some unsuccessful attempts to explain what is "Putinism" factually. GreyHood 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very good at writing in English, as you already figured out I'm from Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.6.238 (talk) 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the editors working on this article are Russian as well. You don't need to be fluent in English to contribute here; many respected contributors and even administrators speak English as a second or even third language. You sound like you have some reasonable points to bring to the table. You should consider making an account. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not in-Russia-now Russian, but certainly with very strong connections there. Beside the point, really. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Putin, not about Navalny or Magnitsky or conspiracy theories. Protests are mentioned and have the weight they deserve, just an episode in the long story. Navalny, a controversial blogger and advocate who apparently never won a single case of note and who acquired his advocate license in a dubious way, "exposing Putin's schemes and corruption in Russia" is a joke. His most publicized anti-corruption project, Rospil, has been able to exist only thanks to Putin's legislation which required to publish the information on all state purchases online, and which was intended specifically to allow and facilitate the public control of state expenditures. And Navalny was not able to "expose" anything significant and actionable. There is enough stuff to write a long article on Navalny's own "schemes and corruption". GreyHood 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• Greyhood, we know your view before you even publish it. Just so you know and can save yourself the RSI ;) Unfortunately for you, however, Navalny is notable - the figurehead of the opposition and its most widely-known face in the West. He's therefore worth mentioning. Putin, btw, is the most authoritarian leader in the 1st/2nd world (I'm leaving Belarus in the 3rd world...), so it's natural for his article to mention his authoritarian tendencies. Malick78 (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Whether Navalny is notable or not, it is article about Putin. Such opposition figures as Zyuganov, Mironov and Zhirinovsky are much more notable, by the way. GreyHood 04:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • As for the "most authoritarian leader in the 1st/2nd world" and "leaving Belarus in the 3rd world", such radical and confused personal opinions are hardly relevant here. By all means, Three Worlds Theory is heavily outdated, while by the old classification Belarus would most certainly belong to the 2nd world.
  • Also, technically, Russian presidential power is not very different in scope comparing to French one. Then, just make few comparisons: 1) such persons as Jacques Chirac (recently sentenced for corruption) were in top-level politics for a time comparable to Putin's (and in fact much much longer if we include Chirac's premierships); 2) in Russia people typically are not get arrested just for insulting Putin like people are arrested (sometimes in a violent way) for insulting Sarkozy , 3) Russian electoral system is much more open than the French one, as shown by the recent elections (where apparently some pro-Sarkozy people were bussed into Paris btw ;) ) 4) in Russia there is "tandemocracy" while in France and many other "first world" states there is just one top-level all-dominating politician. By any meaningful, technical, factual comparison Russia offers much more choice, pluralism, freedom and collegiality in some respects when compared with other democratic countries in the same respects. The problem is mostly in the Western media coverage of Russia, which plays this "authoritarian" card over and over again ignoring the standing facts and obvious changes made since Soviet era. Notably, western scholars and serious experts typically express much more balanced and accurate views on Putin and Russian politics. GreyHood 06:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the question in the beginning of the section, the answer is that there are criticisms in this article. But per the supremacy of facts over opinions and per WP:Due weight the criticisms should not take more place and prominence than they deserve. Consider that this is an overview article about Putin's biography, policies and personality, and that it should present a wide, globalized, accurate and balanced coverage, and that by virtually all factual indicators in such areas as economy, ecology, technology, infrastructure development, military, social sphere, Putin has been an extremely active and successful manager so far, while the main point of politics (sphere where he was mostly criticized) is to manage and improve life of the citizens, economy and other named spheres. Most certainly it is not Western media which report on Russia very selectively, and of course not radical opposition groups in Russia (such as Navalnyites) that should serve to us as examples of decent coverage of the subject. Misplaced Pages is not news or journalism or political arena. I suspect that when we write about Putin's life story, economic and domestic policies, the best examples would be scholarly biographies and books about Putin by such acclaimed authors as Richard Sakwa and Alexander Rahr. GreyHood 06:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood is obviously a Putin supporter, his views on this subject are not neutral, therefore he can't oppose the creation of criticisms section, this article already has it's share of how good Mr. Putin is. Russian electoral system is not the same as French. The only proper comparison would be electoral system of Belarus'. Russian Central Election Commission does not register any real opposition parties or candidates for presidency. Zyuganov, Mironov and Zhirinovsky are rigged opposition, not real. They are there to provide a legitimacy to Putin's regime. Real opposition are Navalny, Udaltsov, Yashin, Gudkovs, Ponomarev, some other Just Russia members, Nemcov, Kasparov, Rijkov, Limonov and others. Putin would not allow them to elect. Basically Putin chooses his own opponents at elections and is planning to rule forever. Navalny is notable because he is extremely popular, banned from Russian TV and very successful at giving the people real view of Kremlin's corruption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.22.152 (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with that. Grayhood is not a netural person on this topic. I persanally think that he even may be working with "ministry of Putin's propaganda" which is trying to maintain the good look of minister Putin on the net. I can't think anything beside that when i hear words like "extremely active and successful manager so far" from anyone.

But ok, i'll leave the Grayhood alone and return to the discussion about Putin.

Everyone in russia knows that television is under control of Putin's clan. TV most likely will not show you anything that can leave bad impression of Putin, Medvedev or their party "United Russia". Most magazines or newspapers are also under the strict censorship. That's why Navalny was banned from russian TV, he has proof of many corruption affairs which leads to Putin's party, and Navalny was trying to sue them for stealing billions of dollars, but court refuses to see evidence, and the Police didn't take any actions to investigate any of that cases. The TV in Russia now is main tool for manipulating public opinion, the internet is widely used only in big cities, it's audience is mostly young people and you need search for the information yourself, so it cannot compete with TV. But Putin's associates tried to take control of the internet as well. Several months ago Anonymous group steal correspondence of the leaders of the "Kremlin's youth movements" which showed that millions of dollars was spent on bribes for russian top bloggers, for creationg their own top political blogs, for paying hundreds comentators which must attack opposition blogs and derail unwanted political topics and discussions, for DDoS attacks and many many more things. And don't listen if anyone starts yelling that's not about Putin, it's his regime doing this.

Now, the laws and police. You know that in russia you can go to jail for the ten words you post in your blog or social network? It's real. For example one of the russian Natsionalist movement Leaders is now being sued for the words "It's time to end with this strange economic policy", i'm not joking! Another blogger was sentenced to a 180 hours of social work for a picture of a nazi leaders with comment "russian police", the blogger didn't even made it, he just found it on the net and posted in his facebook page. That's what police in russia do! But ok, i'll tell you more! In Cazan four policemen RAPED with a bottle of champagne a man while making him confess a small theft he even didn't do! The man after rape DIED! The case caused a mass of social commotion. And only after that four policemen was just fired and sentenced to a two months of house imprisonment, BRAVO!! It's not just a single case, belive me.

The police and the peaceful demonstration. My favorite topic. You know, that in russia we have a contitution, right? Ok! the is a 31th article of the constitution, which states that the people of russia can gather peacfully without weapons, anytime anywhere in public places, because the people of russia is the root of the democracy. If you want to demonstrate you need just to go to a city hall and notify the mayor that you want, for exampe, to gather 5000 people on red square on sunday. They can't refuse you, its your right, they must assist you, and guard you from anything. But they don't. They never give you the place you want, they think of 100 reasons to send you and you demonstration away from the center of the city, the main squares on the day of your demonstrarions will be repaired, used by other parties or just in cleaning. If you dare come to that square with your comrades you see nothing of that, no repairs, no cleaning, no demontstations, only hundreds of policemen who waining for you. They'll shout about 15 mins that your demonstration is unauthorized and you should go home immidietly, that you're breaking the law. Trying to talk to them and explain that they're wrong is useless. The have the order, and they don't care. After 15 mins they usually starts to arrest(sometimes brutally using force and batons) those who is trying to convince them, after that- leaders of the demonstration and the most active people, after that everyone who is cathes their eye, even people who is just passing by. In the police station they write in reports whatever whey want, because they can't charge you with anything. Usually they use the article 1.9.3 "didn't obey the legitimate demand of the police", the court either doesn't listen anything, you can't win even with video which shows that you obey and didn't do anything wrong, if admit your guilt you'll get money penalty if you'll insist that you're innocent whey can even sent you to jail for 15 days or less.

Any leader who oppose Putin's course is constantly being held under a heavy pressure. "Center E" the brach of police department responsible for combating extremism is monitoring every their move, interrogate their relatives, coworkers, friends, trying to sue them for every possible or impossible reason. They taping the phone conversations, monitoring bank accounts, chasing after their movements trying to get any compromising data they can get. Television spreads lies about them. There are always numerous provocations from the "Kremlin's youth movements", some of the leaders was even assaulted by them, but police didn't arrest anyone.

And that's not all. There are "fair" elections and laughable trials about the falsifications, there are dead industry, crippling army, numerous social problems and disasterous corruprion. Because of the growing oil prices russia have money, but because of Putin that money is not working for the sake of russia, they're workong for Putin and his clan only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.214.5 (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I, too, am an IP, and I disagree. Putin makes life better for the majority of Russians. Yes, corruption is bad, but like Boris Gryzlov said, Russians like being corrupt. Also, no one is going to read your walls of text. You don't like clericalisation? Tuff. Putin is saving you from godless communism. 24.146.230.25 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's just your opinion. Want to share it with someone? Go to the "united russia" homepage they'll be very happy that you join them! This topic about CRITISISMS of Vladimir Putin which should be in this article. Also, about "better life". Of course it's getting better, the oil prices in the early 00s were 15 bucks per barrel and now 110 bucks, 65% of russia's budget is consists of trading our gas and oil, like in Nigeria or other african counties, Every economist in russia says that russia economy just falls apart if oil prices go below 60$ per barrel! We don't produce anything, even the factory which produced AK-74 go bankrupt, russian spacecrafts crashes every year, satellites doesn't work because they were delivered to the wrong orbits, the salary of the young space engineer IS LOWER THAN A SALARY OF A WORKER IN McDONALDS!! Godless Communism you say? Putin's rule is worse case of the communism political system! It's the same ruling party which controlls everything, you want to go to the top? You need to be friends with it. But when russia have communism we were strong nation who was proud of itself, and used it's resources to improve, we had strong army, thousands factories, great scientists, good medicine and nice free education. And now it's all gone, and all russian internet uses term "RUSHKA" and often adding "going to a pile of sh*t" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.141.182.254 (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the more you write, folks, the less we actually take in. Try to be succinct (short). As for Greyhood, WP:Due weight would suggest we should add some section on criticism: his rokirovka (swapping with Medvedev without the public having any say), authoritarianism, bullying of surrounding countries, probable backing of assassinations, sexist remarks, etc, etc. Many above seemed to agree on a section, and you're the only one against it seems.Malick78 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture POV problem

The number of pictures used in this article has created a neutrality issue. There is some amount of "glorification" taking place which has created a POV issue that needs to be remedied. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that on the article on George W. Bush the size of the pictures of him were set to "thumb" such that user's preferences controlled the size. Please can we have this feature on the article on Putin too. It seems a good feature.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, it's almost like a cult page.Malick78 (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. it is shocking. The article on two-term president, and one term prime minister Putin has 32 photos showing him, whereas the article on two-term president of the USA George W. Bush has only 29. Those extra three photos are completely unacceptable! And poor Bill Clinton, who also served two terms as US president only has 23 photos showing him - clear evidence of a pro-Republican bias on Misplaced Pages! This is shocking!--Toddy1 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

SDS and Malick: Could you provide some specific examples and explanations? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the style of them and their fawning undercurrent: do we need a shitty painting of his? Him in an F1 car? Why is there no picture of him exclaiming "Treasure!" with the fake amphorae? That is more instructive than the F1 one. I presume it's not here because it would be negative. And we can't have that. Do we need two photos of him as a child? Probably not. And why one of him in a fighter plane? It's repeating the F1 one surely? Showing him as a 'daredevil'. Oh, and it's even repeating a later photo of him in the cockpit of a Tupolev. And then there is a photo of him doing martial arts, skiing, on a motorbike. These are repeating the same theme. Meanwhile, the better Bush article has photos of him at important moments - signing things, etc. Our photos of Putin and Medvedev, for example, are at less significant times (one doesn't even mention the occasion). Oh, and then we have Putin in a yellow car promoting a Russian brand... but we can't even see it's Putin! He's too small!

Basically: too many show Putin being a hard man. It's his image, true, but can't we show more substance? And less insignificant stuff? Really, a junk Confucius Peace Prize? It's a joke award from a totalitarian state. Yet we dutifully include it as if it were something big... Malick78 (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Malick, I removed one of the pics from "Early life and education". I also removed other pics and did some downsizing. It's looking better. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the images in this article illustrate the text. As such, pictures per se can't be a POV issue. The images illustrate Putin, and Putin is exactly a person as illustrated, as shown by the text. Call it "strong man" or "PR loving politician" - doesn't matter, and both points of view are reflected in the text. Therefore, removing images just on this basis has no point and reduces the encyclopedic quality of the article, which should illustrate the subject and show how it is different from other similar subjects. We have already removed a number of images, and the sections in the article should be illustrated. That's why I restore some of the deleted images. Specifically, I can't see how could there be a "POV problem" with a teenage image of Putin, and why we should leave the 1st Premiership section totally unillustrated, especially when his first flight on a military plane was his first and very notable and perhaps the most memorable "strong man" action.

Secondly, per WP:IMGSIZE we should make as much images as possible without pre-determined image size. I agree, though, that some excessively large images would benifit from lower and fixed size. I de-fix size where it looks OK. GreyHood 04:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This whole back-and-forth mutual stonewalling is really getting tedious now. I think we need to find a third party to mediate here; these disputes never go anywhere. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Mediating in such technical issues as pictures and their size and numbers would be a joke (also, just remember what happened with the Holodomor mediation and discussing one single picture, which was eventually deleted simply because of no convincing sourcing - hopefully, we have no such historical relevance and copyright issues with the pictures here). We may start discussing text backing up the pictures, but I hope that as a reasonable person with a reasonable approach to the lead image here, you agree that the subject should be illustrated showing the most peculiar and characteristic traits, as well as the most important moments in the life and activity of the subject. GreyHood 05:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, you are quite far from the truth. The way pictures are used (the amount, the ones chosen, and their size) can absolutely cause a POV issue. Also, see Malick's comment above. Let's start with the "Early life and education" section. There is some amount of glorification taking place which I fixed and Greyhood reverted. He also re-added the unduly large bottle of vodka, which I had downsized, even though the "Brands" section only has 2 sentences?? He also re-added the motorbike picture, the comic book picture, and increased the size of the picture of Putin fishing with his shirt off, as well as re-added the picture of Putin on a ship in the Arctic policy section, a photo that isn't necessary and cheapens the article by glorifying Putin. The way to move forward is through consensus. Regarding the early life section, the norm on Misplaced Pages is to have one or less pictures. See Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Gordon Brown. What Greyhood is attempting to do goes against this norm. Let's see what the consensus here is. My view is to only have the photo with his mom. Greyhood thinks both photos should be included. Let's wait to hear from some other editors and then we can move on to other photos. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC) -- See: Misplaced Pages:Consensus

• Greyhood, obviously the use of pictures can be POV: to claim otherwise is absurd. The vodka isn't necessary, let's cut it. His craply daubed painting - let's cut it. A barely visible Putin on a bike - does little. Putin's silhouette at sunset - rubbish. Needs cutting. Oh, and let's have the fake amphorae discovery! And a pic of the crowds protesting against him! That would be balance. Malick78 (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • How about this picture? No copyright issues as far as I can tell... Would give some balance - showing one of his less reputable photo ops.Malick78 (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Malick, will you give your thoughts on the "Early life and education" section. I'm trying to see what the consensus is and then plan to move on to other photos. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring unstable situaltion with Mr.Putin can cost friendly countries losing their revenue in Russia

All of us are cloaking own problems to face opponents with a face full of courage and strenght - this is "Politics", but here and there we assure others with overcoming passion, that makes us "Liars and Hypocrats". The situation the Mr.Putin is quite the same. Constant love of electorat was rapidly changed to hatred and dispise. The situation in a real economy sector became too straightforward. Everything depends on oil price, with the obvious fact is that economy of Russian Federation has linear dependancy of growth and fall to oil stock exchange prices. With this sideffect, the only way to hold situation under control is to use the oil price growth for calming down the electorat, with quite amount of propaganda and promises. This way never ending well as we can observe situation in Belarus, but with good money income you can settle any conflict within borders of Russia and even other neighbour countries,as we'd seen in South Ossetia.

Huge amount of propaganda was targeted to the opposiyion leaders convincing citizens in "connection with USA and UK", but the rumors were pushed away by the majority of people. Therefore strong actions of opposition were stopped by special division of Dzerjinsky(Presidential regiment also called "Red berrets"). The European leaders didn't comment the situation, trying not to erase good relationships with Kremlin, which are too important just as the supply of natural gas for the european countries. As we've seen so far everything ended for Mr.Putin well so far, unless you' ll see the situation from the different angle.

The "Higherup consensus", which Putin created made the state burocrat 100 % briber, who should pass the percentage of his revenue proceeding up stairs. Who should win about this economy climate?Only those, who invest more and more creating good climate for their business in Russia. As we know, agriculture was never the best side of Russian Federation, with extreme climate condition and burocratic barriers - the majority of product seen on the shelfs of supermarkets are imported. This state of ecomomy will bring chaos if oil prices fall down. Nevertheless, we must understand the strong lobby of european putinists, which rely on stability of invest climate in RF for those, who have strong connections with political circles.

Unnamed politician with good connections with UK foreign affair ministry once told me, that Putin will "sit on the throne till his last breath", because he is the only person "we can rely on". The whole situation setts this statement as true, because there are no points, where interests of USA UK or even Germany, will lie across the Putin's politics. He is the only person, that can guarantees all engagements between officials and foreign bussiness. This point of view makes him a brilliant politician with a strong will. Unfortunately his talants works for the sake of citizens of countries importers, not the national interests of RF.

But imagine the time, when he will have to go, just as the current situation with Lukashenko. What may happen, when the higherups consensus will be broken? The whole mess of political parties will draw the situation to their instantaneous benefits, the guarantees will be broken and the multiglobal corporations will suffer loses inside RF? Not exactly!

Priviliges for the "close friends importers" will be destroyed, the goverment official will be tighed by the hands and totaly controled by the citizen community, so he or she won't be able to carry foul means higher,as this transaction won't bring cover from above. The internal market will be open for those , who would like to develop business using "fairplay".Concurency will rise and the customer will be involved in creating a better product.Domestik market will breathe freely, bringing the new players and developers from outside and inside. Those, who tolerated the inequality for bussinesmen will now step aside, leaving path to those, who 's ready to provide better products with estimated revenue in all sectors of the economy.

Will yo believe it's true? Sure someone won't, but one point must be clarified: the majority of corporations dividing RF inner market will loose their lobby, so they won't be able to confront better suppliers and soon be vanished. That perspective doesn't suit the present importers, so they are pressuring home politicians to stay calm , when meetings with demands of justice and equality are suppressed. But how long acting against consience in order to recieve better year fiscal will last? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.140.152.32 (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

We can do without the numbering, until the Russians decide if Putin's returning as the 2nd Prez or is becomeing the 4th Prez. More importantly, if we're gonna keep his 2 tenures under President of Russia (between election & inauguration), then leave out the "Elect" part. Putin wasn't President Elect from 2000 to 2008. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games in Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
• Politics and law of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• C-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles