Talk:The Putin Interviews

The summary & NPOV
It's good that we help each other, especially in cases as the summary of this long interview series. I feel NPOV here means balance, and when Putin for instance avoid a logical question, should this be mentioned. I also wonder if it's wrong to say that Stone kind of makes explanations, apologies even, before some of the qustions ? Such as "People back home expects me to ask this..." and "I just must ask this question..." etc. And is it POV to say that Stone's tone generally is polite, or at least sometimes is ? All inputs welcome. Boeing720 (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course it is your unsourced opinion that Putin is avoiding a question. I don't understand how there can be any mistake that this is an interpretation not a fact that can be observed. This is again typical of the problems. You willfully change the correct grammar "Putin replies" to the backward "does Putin avoid" - does is how you phrase a question in English but you do this constantly. It's not "does Putin avoid" or even "Putin does avoid" (more correct) but "Putin avoids". For the love of Wikipedia at least learn this much. —DIYeditor (talk) 05:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an NPOV observation, no opinion what so ever! Stone's question was in this case not answered directly. Putin changed subject, which is a way to avoid a question. Obvious for all who watched. And there is no cut done by Stone or his team there. As a summary is the same as a plot, is the source primary, the filmed interviews themselves. This is not a guideline I have invented. And you really shouldn't preach too much English grammar, by the way. (Have a look at my talk-page, the pronoun "it" is third person singular) Boeing720 (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)