Talk:Putin's Palace/Archive 1

Further references


I found some additional articles on the english RIA Novosti website that could be used as references. When I get around to it I will incorporate them in, but feel free to beat me to it. I am also putting here a reference that I removed when I did some editing in the lead section, that can be reintroduced in a later section. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality
I was the original author of the article, though others have made very important contributions. I believe that the article complies with neutrality guidelines, including as it does the major claims of the whistleblower, as reported by the international media, without endorsing them, as well as official denials. I believe that it should be returned to the Palaces in Russia category as, regardless of its intended use, it is clearly a palace in architectural terms. I believe that it is of mid-level importance according to the Russia project's guidelines and, without wishing to blow my own trumpet, that it is better than a start-class article, as it provides a comprehensive discussion of the issue that would meet the needs of most non-specialists.Videsutaltastet (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can kind of see why Russavia thinks that the article is not neutral. While most of the media coverage out there focuses on the accusatory claims, we can still be more objective in the language we use.  I have rewritten parts of the lead section in light of this (diff); anyone feel free to give feedback. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your work on the page Akrabbim, it looks excellent. I was perhaps somewhat too bullish in my first post above, though I stick by the substance of my arguments: I don't think your removal of references to the activists who visited the estate improves the neutrality - it really just reduces the total amount of well-sourced material.  And environmental concerns are not insignificant. Your last edit also leaves some poor sense ('another sortie').  I wonder whether the best way of resolving this neutrality issue would be to call the page 'Putin's Palace (allegations)', in recognition of the fact that Putin's role is contested. Thanks again.Videsutaltastet (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the reference to the activists for NPOV reasons, it was because I thought it was too much detail for the lead, and it just hasn't been re-added yet. And I agree about the 'another sortie' thing, that can be fixed with some further reorganization, that I'm still trying to work through in my head. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 11:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article is that it is presenting allegations as fact, and has next to no information on opposing views. Whether allegations are true or not, this is not for us to present, but we need to provide all sides of the allegations. There are also WP:BLP issues involved here, and this needs to be looked at closely to ensure that the BLP lines are not crossed. --Russavia Let's dialogue 10:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Russavia. You don't give any examples, but I would imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that your objection relates to the long narrative section detailing the allegations. It is true that I have not said 'it is alleged' after every sentence, but this is a point of prose style and should not in any way be taken as an implicit epistemic claim.  The fact that they are allegations is explicit in the introductory remarks to the sections, as well as the beginning of the article as a whole.  I shall see if this can be made clearer.  Would you support my suggestion of renaming the article, better to reflect its contents, and would this substantially meet your concerns? Thanks again.Videsutaltastet (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the big "Whistleblower claims" section can be pared down to be more consise, without getting bogged down in the details, it might communicate more accurately and neutrally that way. As for the title of the article, I think it is fine where it is right now - that is how most media refers to it.  Maybe at some point it may prove to be NPOV but it is too soon to tell I think.
 * As for the "next to no information on opposing views", at least from what I've seen, the bulk of the press out there is covering the allegations, whereas the government has only so far briefly laughed them off. So of course there will be more time spent on the allegations, but I think too we can do more to present this. (You two probably are much more familiar with the scope of the coverage out there - I have to rely on Google for my translations, and whatever English sources there are, so correct me if my view of 'the bulk of the press' is incorrect).  Is there anything perhaps out there that does some skeptical digging into Kolesnikov's claims, or on his motives behind all this? &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 11:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Akrabbim, for making the good point that when a government spokesman essentially stonewalls arithmetical equality (in terms of words, or whatever) in coverage is impossible. But arithmetical equality is not the same as neutrality; I think the article gives all points of view covered in reputable sources a fair crack of the whip. The serious Russian newspapers, chiefly Kommersant and Vedomosti, do not have much coverage, for reasons one can only speculate about...As for 'sceptical digging' a quick glance doesn't reveal much, and certainly not from reputable sources. The true sceptical digging was done by Novaya Gazeta, and this is covered.  As for reducing the claims section, I think it is quite important that it is fairly detailed, especially as the sources it draws on (especially the Snob article) are likely to be inaccessible to many readers because of the language barrier you mention.Videsutaltastet (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that's good to know. Though I think that section should be better cited, so you can tell what information comes from where, before someone who isn't as familiar with the sources can do any copyediting.  For example, the last two paragraphs have no references. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 12:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise I was unfair to those newspapers and am currently using them for more references. Unfortunately, I think most will only be in Russian.Videsutaltastet (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no violation of NPOV. The allegations are clearly presented as such. Coverage in the mainstream press, such as Washington Post and The Telegraph, which check facts, speaks for itself. Official denials are properly noted, as well as independent corroborations obtained by Russian civic groups and independent media. The issue is already a part of Putin's story and has had a widespread impact, judging by thousands of references in the Russian Internet. --Kolokol1 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ownership Now?
I have slightly rewritten the section on recent ownership to more closely bring it in line with the available sources. Since the purchase by Ponomarenko in 2011, is there any information on ownership now. Does Ponomarenko still own the property after his investment?

Given both this rewrite and the FACT that ownership by Putin was never factually substantiated, the overall title of this article should be in quotes "Putin's Palace".Moryak (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Scheme_of_interaction_between_companies_and_cash_flows_involved_in_financing_of_the_construction_of_"Putin's_Palace".svg
Given the fact that Dresdner Bank hasn't existed since May 2009, shouldn't this image be amended? Alssa1 (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is unambiguous consensus that the current title represents the WP:COMMONNAME. While there were a few editors who supported the move due to possible inaccuracy, including with what it is called in Russian (and the Russian Wikipedia), most commentators thought that this had little bearing over what the title ought to be in English. Finally, a couple of participants also contended that whatever the OP's WP:BLP concerns may consist of, these were never clearly articulated, which seems like a fair argument. El_C 17:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Putin's Palace → Residence at Cape Idokopas – It appears the nickname (Putin's Palace) is being used as the name. This is not neutral and fails WP:BLP. We can easily give due weight to the ownership controversy (Putin has denied ownership and another person has claimed it) in the lede or body. But the article name is too much. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support WP:NPV 77.191.88.140 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC) — 77.191.88.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oppose. Why is it "not neutral and fails WP:BLP"? We are not claiming that Putin de jure owns the palace. Please, remember, that WP:JUSTAPOLICY doesn't work.--Renat (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neither a neutrality or BLP issue, that does appear to be the common name of the palace complex. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this is currently in the news, I suggest we wait until reliable sources provide information about it. So far all we have is speculation. It could be that the correct name will be "Putin's palace conspiracy theory." Maybe "Trump International Hotel and Tower (Russia)." TFD (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support There is a similar discussion going on over on the Russian Wiki, I've seen no evidence to suggest that "Putin's Palace" is a common term for it over there as their wiki lists it as a tertiary name. That being said I am hesitant to name a structure based on an investigative report from an oppositional party against a ruling party. This may certainly go against some "reliable sources", but more and more often the diction of headlines are designed to gather interest in the shortest phrase possible and aren't necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedia. - 71.40.21.238 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can name many articles that are named differently in different Wikis. This comparison with RuWiki makes no sense. English reliable sources use "Putin's Palace" or "Putin Palace" for 10 years already. 2011: Telegraph 2014: Reuters 2021: BBC, Time, The New York Times, The Guardian etc. The name Putin Palace/Putin's Palace is short, natural and recognizable name. Search engine test confirms that "Putin's Palace" is more popular than Residence Idocopas whatever the other name is.--Renat (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My main issue with it isn't that it's a popular name, rather that it's a popular name and could very well be inaccurate. Hopefully more will come out in the next few days and we can put this issue to rest.  -71.40.21.238 (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - acknowledging TFD's point, at this moment we can safely say that plenty of allegations have been made, but nobody now claims or has ever claimed that Putin has ever owned this building. At best, his political opponents have stated that the building was meant for his or Medvedev's use, and was financed through corruption. All that should be detailed in this article. But for now, we shouldn't call it "Putin's palace," since we know it was never owned by him, it has been owned by others, and we only have allegations, by his opponents, that Putin planned to use it. If the whole thing turned out to be nonsense we would change the title to "conspiracy theory..." but that's not known either. -Darouet (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "acknowledging TFD point"? TFD said that the palace didn't even exist and referred to deprecated Daily Mail and now he says something about Trump hotel in Russia. It can not be serious. And please, read this - WP:CRITERIA. "since we know it was never owned by him" no. We don't know that. No RS for that. Rotenberg is not RS.--Renat (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I did not say the palace never existed but that "No reliable sources have claimed that [it] ever existed." There is a difference between those two statements. It may exist or it may not exist. No reliable sources say it exists, but tomorrow they may. Also, while the Daily Mail is deprecated on Wikipedia, it is often the first source to investigate this type of claim and frequently quoted in other mainstream media. More media have weighed in and we still don't know the extent of the construction of the building, what it's intended use is or who owns it. Per RS we cannot even say it exists, because we don't yet have RS. And yes Trump was planning a hotel on the Black Sea, so this could be it. Like everything else, it's just speculation. TFD (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if it is not formally owned by Putin but intended for his use and constructed for him and intended to be controlled by Putin, then "Putin's Palace" is correct. But what matters is that reliable sources described it this way Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "Putin's Palace" would appear to be the most commonly used name for this, but if not then then surely a better name can be found than "Residence at Cape Idokopas"??? Perhaps "Cape Idokopas Palace" or "Cape Idokopas Residence", or something less awkward and unclear. 109.180.173.207 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is no "Residence at Cape Idokopas" yet. Does not exist officially, does not exist by name. This building is not officially recognized as a private or state residence of the president and is unlikely to be. At the moment, only Putin's Palace exists as something consistently understandable and recognizable in the information space. The proposed title of the article is misleading, interfering with the search, and unjustified. No one will search for information about the Palace through the search query "Residences at Cape Idokopas". Because there is no such residence. For ten years this building has been referred to as "Putin's Palace". And only in this context is it significant. Okorok (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Current title is inline with WP:COMMONTITLE.78.45.8.129 (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is the common name given to the palace complex in reliable sources, and it has no official name, so a move is not warranted here (and in fact would explicitly contradict Wiki policy). --Drevolt (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose "fails WP:BLP" - why? "Putin has denied ownership" - why it is relevant? Should we also rename Poisoning of Alexei Navalny because "Russian prosecutors refused to open an official criminal investigation of the poisoning, claiming they found no sign that a crime had been committed". This name is a common name of this object and seems fine to use here Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - WP:COMMONNAME. Oranjelo100 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - it's the most widely used name. Alaexis¿question? 09:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I personally came to this article by searching "putin palace black sea." That's the commonly used name, even if Putin denies ownership. A248 (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Should definitely be called "Putin's Palace"!! Blockhouse321 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * are you planning to explain your BLP argument or are you just going to leave that turd on the floor for everyone to stare at? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing Muchandr
please, read WP:BRD. You made the edit - diff - it was reverted and explained why - diff - at this point you may not revert it back as you did - diff. It is just a disruptive editing. We are not using noname YouTube channels as a source. You must self revert now or find better source (reliable source) and correct your edit.--Renat (talk) 12:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I read this page only to find out that you consider any British tabloid a more reliable source than the Russian Wiki. Great. You did not bother to explain the second revert. My source is not a "no-name Youtube channel", but https://mash.ru/, a significant new media organization that simply has their full-length videos hosted on Youtube. They are not explicitly listed under unreliable sources and usually hold a position critical of the Russian government. Now, to important point. Mash video contains actual footage from the construction site, showing a significant discrepancy with Navalny's video, which is a very expensive computer animated fantasy. The way article is written now causes most readers to mistake computer animated imagery of luxury interiors for photographic stills. This is principally dishonest! The mash videos clearly shows the construction site with no interior trimmings at all. Moreover, does a large number of identical bedrooms suggest an hotel, and not a private palace. Which would suggest some kind of central bunker for the Man himself?

Evidence of outright fakery, as summarized

https://rg.ru/2021/02/01/biblioteka-v-chehii-na-foto-iz-filma-o-dvorce-v-gelendzhike-zapechatlen-ee-chitalnyj-zal.html

1. The library room is an exact knock off of a room in the Czech National Library in Prague 2. The wrought iron double eagle on the gates is the coat-of-arms of Montenegro instead of Russia (There is a lion instead of St.George slaying a dragon on the shield)

The audio track to Navalny's movie is obviously a machine translation from English. An obsolete American term "mudroom" has been translated as actual "room with mud", which makes preciously little sense in Russian. It also makes no sense if your Google Translate or whatnot defaults to British English, where the word never existed. (supposed to mean some kind of secondary or backdoor entryway in a posh house, where dirty/wet clothes were to be kept)

Muchandr (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

1. So, whoever decided to release the report, released it. Did you see it? It is documentary footage from the site, which should speak for itself. As opposed to imaginary CGI, which could draw anything. In my opinion, is the site clearly an empty concrete shell with no furnishings whatsoever yet. For the CGI, you might as well claim it being inside of the Castle Wolfenstein. 2. Yes, at a very gradual pace 3. There is absolutely no trace of the mold. Rather, it looks like the construction never progressed beyond the current state, where there is not even any electrical wiring laid. Fighting mold does not requires demolishing a complete building back to the raw shell state. 4. Wrong building, too large. Likely, the Putin's real residence nearby, at Bocharov Ruchey A president of Russia gets to use it for free while in office, but also after he retires. Why in the world would he buy a second, lesser palace and pay its massive running costs himself? Muchandr (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * On 2021-Feb-01 Sergey Titov, deputy editor-in-chief of «Mash», said that the decision to release a report on «Putin’s palace» was made by «people in suits», not Mash employees, and compared what was happening with censorship in the USSR. In this regard, he announced his retirement from the publication (source).
 * Satellite images confirm that the reconstruction of the palace began in 2018: https://i.imgur.com/brgICub.jpg
 * The builder, who visited the palace in the fall of 2018, confirmed that the redevelopment began in 2018 due to mold (source).
 * In 2011 environmentalists took a photo of the main pool (it is located near the aqua-diskotheque): photo --Anoneska (talk) 07:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)