Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 7

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)

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 Wikipedia!  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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 Wikipedia 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: Consensus
 * The amount of pictures and their size are purely technical issues. The choice of pictures is connected to the text, so we return to the same point. The Arctic policy of Russia is very important and there is no reason why it shouldn't be illustrated. The same goes for popular culture, of which the "glorification" is a part of. For the rest, see below and see WP:IMGSIZE. I see your point, though, and I'll try to procure some images "mocking" Putin, not only "glorifying" him ;) as it seems that some editors here are unhappy primarily about not enough negative POV in the illustrations. Grey Hood   Talk  20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "unduly large bottle of vodka". LOL. I thought that in the article about the top politician in Russia you would expect too see vodka, especially given the fact that according to a tradition only the most famous Russian politicians have vodkas named after them (Putin, Medvedev, Zhirinovsky) ;).  Grey Hood   Talk  20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

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)
 * For balance we also would have to insert a pic of much larger crowds supporting Putin ;) I'd suggest to avoid that crowd measuring in this article, we've had enough of it in more specific articles ;). Grey Hood   Talk  20:59, 1 May 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)
 * There are many good photos and videos which could be used to illustrate the adventures section - I would like to add more of them, but we are limited in space. Currently, the Formula 1 picture combines a photo and a link to the relevant video. There is also the amphorae video, but it is much less interesting - just an interview (in Russian) on the seashore, not the best kind of stuff for en wiki. Grey Hood   Talk  20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Both Malick and myself agree that how pictures are used can cause a POV issue. Greyhood's disagreement is noted. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

"Early life and education" section
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)
 * I think the pic of him as a teenager adds nothing (and seeing him go through puberty ain't pretty (that's a joke Greyhood)). The one of him with his mum is great and enough. Malick78 (talk) 21:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't get the joke - the humor is less clear than vodka ;). On the photo with his mum Putin is barely visible, and teenage photo nicely shows him growing up (he looks very young but still recognizable). Grey Hood   Talk  20:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right now the direction of consensus (see my comment in the section above) is in removing the teenage photo and just keeping the one with him Mom (which can be enlarged by selecting it). I will remove it now. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Litvinenko Death
The article says that "no official certification had been issued as to the cause or manner of death". This is stretching the truth a little. The death certificate is classified in the UK so it hasn't been released, a death certificate was almost certainly issued. They found polonium in his body, his hair fell out and had all the signs of radiation poisoning. As people are saying above, the facts are there, it's just that they are spun beyond belief in some cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.91.242 (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The source says: "Dunkerley, however, contacted the coroner's office seeking clarification, and learned that in fact no certification had been issued as to the cause or manner of death. Officially, it has not been settled that Litvinenko's death was a homicide, or that he died from Polonium poisoning." Grey Hood   Talk  08:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion is that he was murdered. WP can take that into account. Malick78 (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * With recent revelations the Goldfarb's and British media version obviously became rather uncertain. And are there any scholarly sources? I see only media sources so far. I doubt there could be any scholarly consensus on the issue, and Russian media and apparently some British guys widely questioned the polonium version. Grey Hood   Talk  17:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Information needs to be cited on this, and needs to conform to what the sources say; (not what editors think they ought to have said. If you do not like it that the BBC used the word "traitor" to describe the man, take it up with the BBC). Sources that give minority opinions (such as claiming it was not polonium) should not be given undue weight.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Approval ratings graph
I had to reinsert the ratings graph one more time. The web archive of the source has been added to support the data. Even without the archive, deletion solely on the basis of DEADLINK is not correct (as for the fact that it shows only the presidency period, that's a reason to update and extend the graph or better to create a separate one for the premiership, but not to remove valid data - being not full does not make it outdated). WP:DEADLINK: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online." Grey Hood   Talk  10:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This needed re-adding.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Relationship with Medvedev
Shouldn't there be a dedicated section on their tandem? It's dominated the last 4 years and was more than a little unusual in world politics... and there should also be something on how the rokirovka (job swap) took place (maybe even it's own article?). And now, there's the term "tandem malaise" to express how Russians now feel about the tandem. Malick78 (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The "term" seems to be some obscure personal or journalist opinion. No established widely known equivalent in Russian. More on relationships of Putin with Medvedev - well, perhaps, though few key facts seem to be already in the article. Grey Hood   Talk  20:18, 6 May 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. Grey Hood  Talk  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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? Grey Hood   Talk  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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. Grey Hood  Talk  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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 Wikipedia 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.  Grey Hood   Talk  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. Grey Hood  Talk  22:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

On a side note: Putin hasn't visibly aged more than 5 years in 30 years. I believe he may be an immortal robotic agent sent by the illuminty (the Illuminati but with a fresh aftertaste) bent on destroying the universe. Someone check on this, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.209.197.250 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Photo in the infobox
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. Grey Hood   Talk  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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)

Buildings near the Black Sea whose purpose is unknown
Instead of edit warring on this,, , , please could we discuss it?


 * Greyhood - please provide information with citations here for your assertions that: "Putin already has some official residences for personal use -why not write about them? "alleged" connection, denied by new owner and officials"


 * Malick78 - please provide some citations to back up your claim that it is "widely reported by multiple RS".

Having read a few of the articles cited on the topic, it all seems a lot of nonsense to me. Nobody (except those on the inside) knows the future function of the building.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article (in a liberal newspaper) provides a list of Putin's and Medvedev's residences, and mentions some new residences under construction. It says that the secrecy about these residences stimulates rumours, and that some builders of rich houses in Russia are happy to pretend that their buildings are intended for the use of top politicians. It also says that Putin's press secretary denies any connection of Putin to the story. This source says the building in question was sold for 350 million, which immediately renders the 1 billion nothing but a roundish sensationalistic figure. The fact that it was, was allegedly, and was would-be residence for Putin isn't properly described in the current version and only highlights the dubious nature of the claim. The same source says "allegedly" and says that the new owner "dismissed links to Mr Putin as "rumours and journalists' fantasies". The whole story was started by another businessman who fled from Russia fearing of getting arrested and then turned into opposition to Putin - a very common story among Russian businessmen (who are often just economic criminals in fact). The first source  says that the story was mostly ignored by Russian media, and while at the point of publication Kommersant suggested there still could be some serious consequences out of the story, by now it is clear that there are no such consequences.  Grey Hood   Talk  11:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify my position, it can be OK if "Putin's palace" is mentioned in the article in a short, factually correct, non-sensationalistic and non-contradictory way, and among other residences, not like it is done now. However can't figure how to tell this complex story short so far - yet it is certainly not notable enough to take many space. But perhaps I'll try. As for the picture, Putin's known belongings should obviously be preferred over some alleged past would-be residence. Wikipedia is not about rumours and dubious claims. Grey Hood   Talk  11:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

,. This edit doesn't contain sensationalism, Im not sure if NPOV even applies here, because there was a primary source reporting these things. The reliability of the source might be worth mentioning to provide context- but I dont see how we can logically omit many of these related sourced statements and maintain a good article on Vladmir Putin. Im not sure if these recent edits are constructive.Wrathofjames (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that when first they claim the mansion cost is a round figure of $1 billion but then becomes known it is sold for more reasonable $350 mln, the initial claim is sensationalism. And when we have one source and $1 billion figure in the article and then another source with $350 mln, it is a bit of contradiction. And I do not think that a good article on Vladmir Putin should contain detailed descriptions of dubious claims. A brief mention is enough. The rest may be read at the linked article. Grey Hood   Talk  18:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when do things in Russia sell for their real value? (Did I really need to point that out???? :-o ) State assets are frequently sold at knock-down prices. The fact that the place was sold between (presumably friends) for a third of it's real price is nothing unusual in Russia. There is no "contradiction" at all. The price, furthermore, didn't include the building of the infrastructure around it. Either way, I think this deserves more space, Greyhood, than his rubbish painting that you're so attached to. Isn't that a reasonable wish? Malick78 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The underlying problem is that there are just rumours and dubious claims by dubious people, which do not provide a clear connection to Putin (unlike the painting which is surely Putin's). This all is as good as the rumours of his affair with Kabaeva. I hope your intention is not about spreading yellow press style stories here while removing things which you personally don't like ("rubbish painting"). State assets were sold at knock-down prices in 1990s, in 2000s the practice has gone down, I hope you would know that. And it is not clear why a sale of house between too businessmen should be mentioned in Putin's article. Putin is a friend of dozens, perhaps hundreds of businessmen in Russia, and not only. Also, the involvement of the participants of this sale means that mentioning them and the "palace" in such a context might be smearing those businessmen and a violation of BLP. Grey Hood   Talk  21:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * NO BLP problems - stop fishing. It's been reported in multiple RS:
 * BBC
 * Telegraph
 * Financial Times
 * Huffington
 * It's clearly been well covered. BLP says rumours regarding well-known people are fair game if notable. The painting, is, was and never will be, notable.Malick78 (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

20:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reported by multiple sources doesn't stop it being "alleged". There is absolutely no reason why we should devote so much space for a dubious story. We may discuss how much (or how little space) to devote to it. But replacing the image of Putin's known belongings with an image of alleged, never proved, promoted by dubious political opponents would-be belongings, now sold to different owner denying connection, is absolutely inappropriate. Grey Hood   Talk  14:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As usual, you're going with what you like and don't like. Allegations can be notable. BLP says: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." This applies both to the marriage (below), and Putin's Palace: both are alleged, sure, based on rumour, perhaps, but they are notable, relevant, and well-documented. None of your objections applies Greyhood. Please refer to WP policy, not your imagined version of it. Malick78 (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree to the brief mention of the allegation. I could not agree to devoting much place to dubious stuff, and I absolutely can't agree with preferring allegations over hard facts, like you do with the image. Please stop it. This is beyond logic and beyond being encyclopedic. Grey Hood   Talk  21:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong, encyclopaedic means covering all notable info. BLP is quite clear that allegations can be covered. Potentially syphoning off hundreds of millions of dollars for his own private purposes deserves mentioning. Please refer to policy rather than just whinging that you dislike it. Thx Malick78 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, that per WP:WEIGHT allegations deserve mentioning in the general article on the subject only inasmuch as these allegations are sound and important, and by logic they should necessarily be mentioned only in case they altered the fate of the subject (like was with Strauss-Kahn, for example). With Putin, this is not the case. No kind of criminal persecution, no focus on the topic even among the protesters, not even discussed with Putin himself, unlike some other allegations. The allegations are highly dubious and unsound, and have had absolutely no political or personal effect on Putin. So please stop POV-pushing and overwheighting of dubious info. We retain a link to the "palace" article, the readers could go there and read everything in due detail - anyway we have not enough place in the general overview article for the appropriate explanation of the story. Grey Hood   Talk  21:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, where is the policy on "only in case they altered the fate of the subject"? I don't think it exists. As it is, this is an internationally reported issue. It's notable. Stop deleting it just cos you don't like it.Malick78 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By your logic, any allegations against someone who controls the legal system (Putin - check!) will never be mentioned because the person will never allow themselves to be prosecuted! An absolutely idiotic point to make. Malick78 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per logic those allegations are unimportant since no effect. Per policy, unimportant things should have little weight. And judiciary in Russia is independent. And anyway, suppose Putin controls judiciary, but why there are no attempts to start criminal cases? Why nobody tries to go in court and accuse Putin over the issue? There are people in Russia who try to sue Gorbachev over the alleged state treason which had resulted in the USSR collapse - these attempts are declined by courts - why no similar things about Putin? Grey Hood   Talk  21:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now your arguing is absurd. "allegations are unimportant since no effect" - no, worldwide press coverage = notable. End of. "judiciary in Russia is independent" - no, you're just being a nashi propagandist now. It's not even close to being independent. That's why Russians sue each other in London. Btw, Gorbachev isn't in power - hence he can be sued. Putin is untouchable. We all know that. Malick78 (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Inauguration
Putin's 2012 inauguration happened midst massive protests, riots, fighting with police. The whole Moscow historical center has been wiped out of any automobiles and people by SWAT and police. Police attacks unarmed people who wear white lines (symbol of protest). http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JxTBF57cYw4 http://drugoi.livejournal.com/3726914.html#cutid1

At this time people are still getting hurt, all TV stations are ordered not to show anything. And.. wikipedia keeps cleaning Putin's article of any dirt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.112.34 (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean the so called "March of Millions" to which an estimated 8,000 people came in Moscow according to the police (more according to the organizers, but still at least 20 times less than a million)? While there was a large pro-Putin demonstration at the same time? Grey Hood   Talk  11:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There was around 30000-50000 people there. Can you see them on those photos? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.112.34 (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I write, anyways it is 20 times less than a million which they hoped for when planning those protests. While many millions supported Putin on the elections. Grey Hood   Talk  12:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your English suddenly turned to worse. I wonder how many people write under your name. You nashist scum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.112.34 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA. And no, I have no any relation to Nashi and I am very skeptical about that movement to say the least. Your comment is very illustrative and vindicates your position. We do not need political activism and radicalism here. It is encyclopedia, not a blog or political forum. Grey Hood   Talk  18:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't feed the trolls. And don't waste our space, both of you.Malick78 (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you guys prevent Greyhood from deleting "neutrality disputed" sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.112.34 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love to... would help if other editors backed me up, since there's clearly support for such a tag.Malick78 (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is? Who from?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

According to this newspaper there were only a few hundred demonstrators. Of course I am not sure that this newspaper is a reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Few hundred detained was on May 7 at the moment of inauguration. Mass protests took place on May 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.217.82 (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there were less arrested on May 7, but then almost the whole Moscow was closed and guarded by previously unseen masses of militia. It's also obvious that Putin will hit hard on any sign of opposition now. Just wearing a white ribbon was enough to be arrested and beaten. Närking (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are multiple videos showing clear provocations and starting of violence from the opposition. They managed to avoid it for most of the last few months, but the nature of their recent actions is too obvious. Grey Hood   Talk  14:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we all know that wearing a white ribbon is a provocation and is enough to be arrested, but wearing a kalashnikov is of course ok . Närking (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A clear example of a provocation. As for the ribbons, why at all they allowed those multiple white ribbon filled protests then? Grey Hood   Talk  16:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a forum
Wikipedia claims that talk pages are not a forum to discuss the subject of the article but a page to discuss the article itself. How this talk page is full of anti-Putin shit. I wonder why? Wikipedia = The voice of the crazy USA--86.158.101.11 (talk), 16:11, 11 May 2012‎


 * Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Time for protection/a block?
It's getting a bit silly now. I say let's block the idiot deleting various bits on this page.Malick78 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=491805003 Wrathofjames (talk) 06:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet another attempt to whitewash, a few days ago.


 * Wrathofjames, we aren't talking about Greyhood.


 * Malick, while I would like to see the IP get out of here, there are a few issues. Basically it boils down to this: WP:RBI. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin liberated of Original Sin
Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: The mother of Vladimir Putin immediately after birth secretly baptized him in the Orthodox church. Putin, who in the meantime and for the third time became President of the Russian Federation, as a Christian - liberated of Original Sin.93.137.33.90 (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, some biographies mention the secret baptism. As a side note, some authors say Putin's "original sin" in the view of Western press was that he made a career in the KGB - that automatically makes him "evil". I'm working on a rewrite of the personal biography part of this article, if only I could find some time... Nanobear (talk) 00:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in any account where the KGB predates the proverbial apple of Original Sin. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image
Here is the new official portrait. Óðinn (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

He looks a bit dickish, but seems perfect :) Malick78 (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would like it even more if we used a different photo from the same set ;) Grey Hood   Talk  14:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there one where he's trying out a smaller buttplug? If there is, I'd go with it.Malick78 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On one hand you propose this, showing your assessment of the subject so nicely, on the other hand you support the addition of yellow press style stories to the article, and even prefer them over hard facts. Hmm. I have to remind you that this is encyclopedia. Grey Hood   Talk  20:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

He looks like a Bond villain. But it suits him fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.152.16 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One important point: this is not an official portrait, or at least this is not the only official portrait. According to kremlin.ru, this is just a high resolution photo which could be used by the media without accreditation . There are more quality photos in the same series, so there is no reason why we can't use one of them too if we find this series to be the primary source of portraits. And an official portrait would either be designated as official portrait, or would include Russian flag as an attribute. Grey Hood   Talk  14:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerned about objectivity of Russian news sources, vis-à-vis state ownership.
Just a heads-up, after reviewing this article I've become increasingly concerned about the uncritical usage of Russian press organizations, especially ones like Izvestia and RIANOVOSTI, etc. Given the large stake of state-ownership in these organizations—not to mention that they are cited for what could be interpreted as pro-Putin segments of the article—I feel that sources not connected to the Russian government should be found, or at the very least a possible conflict-of-interest citation should be made for these sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbleArcher (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree - many of the Russian news organisations are clearly pandering to their dear leader - even the non-state-owned ones. Malick78 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * and then to follow up with the claim that foreign press is "yellow press"... ;) &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 00:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Foreign press = Western press? Reliable sources = NATO members sources? Any e.g. Chinese or Arabian media? Maybe nobody knows these languages? Ah, yes, Chinese are commies (except those who manufactures almost everything for western economy), Arabs are terrorists (except Saudi oil suppliers), well, but there are also countries like Brazil and India. Still nothing but BBC and some U.S. "free" media. This doesn't mean Putin is Russian elessar (though he is, ha-ha)), neither West is drowned in hypocricy, the bias is that western people believe in hysterias of anti-putin idiots more than in fairy tales of pro-putin idiots ignoring they are both unreliable. Another problem is 60% of Russians frankly vote for Putin and (sic!) feel quite free, so using these groundless anti-Putin (anti-Kremlin) axioms is an outrage against Russian elderly people born in the USSR, survived in 1990s disaster and just gained some modest consolation in strong confidence towards Putin. Thus anti-Putin sentiment easily turns into simple Russophobia.--213.208.170.194 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

60% of Russians didn't vote for Putin. Roughly 50% of people even go to vote. About 10-20% were falsified. Thus 15-25% of population voted for Putin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.209.223 (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It may shock 213.208.170.194, but "anti-Putin sentiment" rarely "turns into simple Russophobia": many of us dislike Putin precisely because we like Russia. Either way, press is basically free in the West, and not so in Russia. Russian sources are therefore much more likely to be prone to political influence/journalists' fear for the jobs.Malick78 (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's clear from these comments that the article has been written by people who hate Vladimir Putin. Wikipedia's claim to be objective is a joke.86.158.101.93 (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And it's clear from the talk-page comments that there are pro-Putin supporters with their own agenda of bias as well. &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 01:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In light of the expressed concerns, I am officially requesting that a registered user (I'm too new to edit a semi-protected article) tag this article for potential non-neutral viewpoint and source conflict of interest.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbleArcher (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done for the first one. I don't know of a source conflict of interest tag. Could you link me to it? Silver  seren C 19:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The neutrality tag should be supplied with a clear identification of the problem, the reliable sources which and concrete proposals to amend it. I see no constructive proposals in this section, but there are some sources below, though with little proposals. Grey Hood   Talk  17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The template description says absolutely nothing about "concrete proposals". All that is needed is an active discussion regarding the POV issues in the article, as below. You're just backpedalling in the face of a heretofore uninvolved editor agreeing that there is a POV problem with the article. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:NEWSORG says: "News reporting" from well established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." Russian press organizations such as Izvestia and RIANOVOSTI are well established news outlets, and hence are considered reliable sources. A strength of this article is that it uses a variety of sources.  I do not agree with some sources - but Neutral point of view would seem to defend using obviously biased sources such as foreign [i.e. non-Russian] government broadcasting organisations as sources. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources".  I think the article is remarkably good at doing this.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Neutral point of view would seem to defend using obviously biased sources" - if they're "obviously biased", they don't belong here. The fact that many "well established news outlets" often ignore the very existence of protests shows they can't be relied upon for statements of fact: I guess that's covered by WP:COMMONSENSE, wouldn't you say? Malick78 (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_6 and Template_messages/Disputes. Grey Hood   Talk  00:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You overlook one key word there: "preferably". While it is certainly nice if things are presented in a tidy list, such "concrete proposals" are not requisite for the tag to remain. All that is requisite is a discussion outlining some problems, as below. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussions should lead to something, and they only can do so if they are constructive. Anyone can come and say there is a problem at any article page and put a bunch of tags on it. But having irrelevant tags on articles is not helpful. Grey Hood   Talk  00:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your attitude is the least helpful thing of all: please listen to other people and back down if consensus is against you. You can't win them all. I'm sure the paymasters at Nashi will understand ;) The tag is fine. Malick78 (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are overdoing with personal attacks, Malick. Grey Hood   Talk  13:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Human rights violations?
I'm concerned about this article and how it seems to go out of its way to not discuss negative opinion of Putin, just putting a bare mention here and there. At the very least, we need to have a section discussions these negative things, including human rights violations, which I will include sources for here.


 * Russian rights advisers balk at serving under Putin - Reuters
 * Russian Human Rights Activists Want G7 to Condemn Putin - Kommersant
 * Civil rights shrinking under Putin: Amnesty - ABC News
 * Putin's Choice - The Moscow Times (I like this one, it combines criticism of Putin, but with frank discussion of how he can change to improve Russia and how his current style of government will not work unless he changes)

I think that's enough to start with. Silver seren C 18:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Go ahead! :) Malick78 (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was thinking we would discuss how such a section should be organized first. Silver  seren C 20:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Two of the sources  are pretty outdated and too abstract. "Freedom limited" and similar claims are pointless: it is a job of human rights activists,certain part of journalists and sometimes diplomats to make such claims against anyone but those who sponsor their job. Recently, the Russian foreign ministry and some Russian political activists started to make similar claims about limiting of human rights in Europe and the U.S as well. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the foreign politics section.
 * - this source too clearly is a very opinionated piece. For some reason it talks about some supposed future instability, which looks like an attempt to put a brave face on a sorry business: the reality is that Putin won the elections by a wide margin and is supported by the majority of the population; the protests have gone down, and when recently the first violent attempt to re-install them was suppressed, this led mostly to indifference or approval from the majority. Similar opinion pieces have been constantly published throughout many years, predicting some bad developments or dangers for Russia or its leaders. Yet most of the real world developments turned out to be rather positive. So what we need here are facts, not predictions or opinions, or, at the very least, opinions from some notable people, not random columnists. As for the human rights, the source mentions only two concrete cases - Khodorkovsky and Magnitsky (how the second case is at all related to Putin is not clear), which are pretty controversial cases and are not representative on what happens in the country at large. Actually, the number of prisoners currently is falling in Russia and the criminal law is softened. Grey Hood   Talk  18:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * this source tells about the fact that elderly human rights defenders and related people are leaving the presidential council on human rights. Well, firstly it is pretty telling that such council exist at all in Russia and nobody disbands it or forces people to leave it. Secondly, in the last years the council was headed by Medvedev and many of the people there were people associated with Medvedev, not Putin's people - now they leave the council, just as Putin's ministers are currently leaving the government and are replaced with Medvedev's ministers - this is a normal process. Thirdly, many of those "human rights advisers" actually have a very poor reputation among Russians, and typically they do not represent a majority. Grey Hood   Talk  18:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Two of the sources  are pretty outdated" - really? Why outdate? If the document events in the past, they are fine. If they attempt to define the situation now, they are not. It depends on the purpose. Your comments are meaningless when they are tainted by so much bias that you immediately reject all sources that oppose your own personal views. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that you are the single most biased editor I've met on WP in the five years I've been here.
 * In my view, all the above are RS in general, so, can be used for certain purposes that are in accord with general policy. Blanketly rejecting them is absurd.Malick78 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For certain purposes in certain articles maybe. But for this article we need sources which describe facts, not random opinion pieces with little factual base, pretty stale and of little WP:WEIGHT. Grey Hood   Talk  00:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On these grounds I have ripped out the sections dealing with public opinion and official assessments. Indeed, why the hell should we care what either peasants or academic snobs think of the man? Those are just opinions, not facts! NPOV is about ignoring opinions, not presenting them! Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read carefully what I write and do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT). Public opinion is collected using scientific statistical methods, this is obviously not the case of "random opinion pieces". Grey Hood   Talk  13:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been following this page for some time without commenting here, but I agree with Silver that it is concerning that this article appears to go to great lengths to avoid any negative information about Putin. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not that much negative factual information about Putin in the first place. At least the "information" which causes most recent disputes is mostly about non-proved dubious allegations and rumors. By any logic this kind of things should be given little or no space here. Grey Hood   Talk  00:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't WP:OWN this page Greyhood. Stop acting like you do. If we find 'factual info', we'll include it, since consensus seems to be for it. Significant opinions are also valid. I suggest you learn to compromise.
 * As for Kevin, welcome! Stick around, have some fun ;) Malick78 (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't think it's at all fair to dismiss all criticism as 'dubious allegations and rumors,' as far as I'm aware, even if all of the negative material that existed about Putin were in fact 'dubious allegations and rumors,' if they are reported with great frequency in reliable sources (and they are,) there's no BLP policy or other policy that says we don't include them in an article. There are hundreds of reliable sources that have negative things to say about Putin, yet this article hardly has a single bit of negative material, despite having 150 words about his pets, 220 words about how he likes judo, and a whopping 700 words about his miscellaneous stunts. This reads like an official biography, not an encyclopedia article. Our policies regarding due weight require the inclusion of criticism and negative material if it's widely reported, even if you believe the material to be unfounded. Kevin Gorman (talk) 09:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It also included a girlie calendar published in his honor—surely not something "official" biographers would include. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The main point is about preferring facts over opinions and allegations. This means that notable opinions should be included, but if they have the nature of highly dubious allegations, they should never be given more WP:Weight than facts. Putin's stunts, pets etc are facts. Allegations and rumors are allegations and rumors. Grey Hood   Talk  13:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's prefer facts. But that doesn't mean no allegations can be mentioned - that seems to be your tack at the moment. And just cos something is a fact doesn't mean it has to be included - WP:EVERYTHING. Malick78 (talk) 20:21, 24 May 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 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 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. Grey Hood   Talk  01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Ambox content.png|30px]] 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/wiki/Blowing_Up_Russia:_Terror_from_Within

Mass protests against vote manipulations at 2011-2012 elections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/wiki/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. Grey Hood   Talk  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". Grey Hood  Talk  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. Grey Hood   Talk  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.  Grey Hood   Talk  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. Wikipedia 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. Grey Hood   Talk  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)
 * Re: "swapping with Medvedev without the public having any say" - lol, you missed the presidential elections - public voted there ;)
 * Re: "authoritarianism". Addressed above in detail. Grey Hood   Talk  21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "probable backing of assassinations". Yeah, "probable". Currently, the murderers of Politkovskaya point out to Berezovsky and Zakayev as possible clients, and Litvinenko's father denies the British-media-pushed version of his son's murder and claims that Alexander Goldfarb (an author of the theory of Putin's involvement) is something like a CIA agent. Part of these things are already in the article. Grey Hood   Talk  21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: "sexist". Dunno what part of Putin's sayings you consider "sexist", but 1) sexism is widespread in Russia (which is a relatively conservative country) 2) under Putin, the number of women in Russia who made top level political careers probably set a historical record. Valentina Matviyenko has achieved a highest political position for a woman in Russia since Catherine the Great, plus there is a number of very prominent Ministress. Grey Hood   Talk  21:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As a member of Ministry of Putin's propaganda I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.9.64 (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * He is stealing money from the country for himself, he rigged the election, he allowed Georgia to be invaded, he arrested protesters and arrested citizens who were not involved in protesting but were suspected to do so. So the criticism needs to be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.54.110 (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He is stealing money from the country - he is a politician. What else do you expect?  Anyway you need reliable sources for this claim.  It is very hard to prove, so no reliable sources have published anything definite.
 * he rigged the election - yes, that was both bad and stupid - stupid because he would have won without rigging elections. Surely the present coverage in the article is sufficient?
 * he allowed Georgia to be invaded - you need to get your facts right. It was Georgia that invaded South Ossetia.
 * he arrested protesters and arrested citizens who were not involved in protesting but were suspected to do so - this happens in public protests.
 * --Toddy1 (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we conclude that he is a mobster for turning the country's welfare into his own bank account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.54.110 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what there is to argue about. The article lacks virtually any criticisms of Putin, despite the fact he and his party has been criticized quite frequently, for issues ranging from human rights violations to political corruption. The article also seems to be wholeheartedly endorsing his attempts to glorify himself in the face of the media. Although I can understand reflecting his media portrayal as something of a "badass", the article is filled with unnecessary images that aren't really relevant to him as a public figure. Wikipedia is not a gossip website, articles should focus on the topics that make a famous person relevant, not every single hobby and personal activities that person participates in. Notice how articles for other famous people focus on things relevant to their fame, like David Bowie's article, which mostly contains pictures of him singing (not him walking along a beach, or driving a sports car), or Albert Einstein's article, which nearly always depicts him at an educational establishment or gathered with other scientists, or Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's article, which shows him signing political documents, or meeting other politicians. In contrast, this article is filled with images of Putin doing every activity imaginable, photos of objects (vodka bottle, car, etc) that don't even have Putin in the picture, etc, etc. Most of the article's existing text is neutral, however, there is a conspicuous lack of any criticism of him or his policies, and a ridiculous amount of unneeded (and POV) images. LiamSP (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Marriage
"Most surprising for many was the appearance of Putin's rarely seen wife, Lyudmila. Wearing a white skirt-suit, she grimaced throughout the ceremony, swaying back and forth." How come we've so little on their separation? Malick78 (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Putin is not as obvious as his colleague Lukashenka who always travels with his illegitimate son. In Putin's case it's more hidden, although it's a known fact among people within the administration . Närking (talk) 10:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Guys, are you sure where are you? This is encyclopedia, not yellow press. Grey Hood   Talk  14:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that Huffington Post was considered to be yellow press. But unfortunately there are few that dares to tell anything that could be traced back to them. Personally I have very close sources on this but it's OR, so we will have to wait for a printed source. Sooner or later it will appear. But the fact that Putin's wife has been away from the public surely has been discussed in the media. Närking (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * His entire family is mostly off-public. As for his wife, it is quite natural that when she was not First Lady in 2008-2012, she became less prominent. For wives of Prime Ministers there is no official status or political role in Russia, while for the President's wife there are. Kind of obvious. I've seen the video of the ceremony and I don't find that Lyudmila Putina looked unusual there. At the end of the inauguration there was quite cordial gesture between Putin and his wife; she indeed looked slightly nervous (like Putin himself) and "swaying back and forth" on the church ceremony following the inauguration, but otherwise looked ok.  Grey Hood   Talk  16:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Yellow press" is not a phrase WP policy uses, ever, as far as I know. BLP does, say, however: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." This applies both to the marriage, and Putin's Palace, btw: both are alleged, sure, based on rumour, perhaps, but they are notable, relevant, and well-documented. None of your objections applies Greyhood.Malick78 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW:
 * She doesn't wear a ring
 * Is said to be hidden away
 * A newspaper that reported an alleged affair of his was closed down
 * Been seen publically together just twice in last two years (prior to inauguration)
 * Rumoured to live in St Petersburg


 * Whether these are true or not (WP isn't "truth", btw), is neither here nor there. It's mentioned in reliable, multiple sources. Hence, should be included.Malick78 (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comrade Malick, actually "Yellow Press" is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more. WP:SOURCES says that "questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts... Such sources include... which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."


 * So if something can legitimately be described as "Yellow Press", it is not a very reliable source. It is nearly as bad as a think piece.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood something quite fundamental: there are facts regarding events, and claims that rumours exist. The sources aren't saying that Putin actually had affairs/his marriage is on the rocks. They are mainly saying that these things have been reported widely. Which is true. The are reporting the fact that there are rumours. Whether the rumours are true is not the issue. The existence of the rumours is the issue. Are they RS for the existence of rumours? I think yes.
 * That said, there are some "facts" regarding events, i.e. that the couple are rarely seen together, and that Putina didn't wear her ring for the TV interview. These do need RS. Again, I think we can trust these sources for those real "facts". Do you disagree? Malick78 (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If Putin were president of England, it would be notable that English newspapers published such stupid rumours. But he is president of Russia, so it is not notable.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I presume you mean Britain (please learn some geography): that's a fatuous comment. The sites above are mentioning gossip/rumours/facts covered originally in the Russian media. It's notable. Feel free to ask for comment from the RS notice board. They disagreed with you last time. Wonder why? Malick78 (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the Putin's are sufficiently well off to have more than one home. Considering their background, it would be a bit surprising if Mrs Putin did not live in St P some of the time.  She does have a life of her own (as incidentally do a lot of European middle-aged women). As for not wearing a wedding ring 24 hours a day - this is common too - especially in your own home.  The Putin's are also quite powerful so an annoying newspaper that prints rubbish might just happen to close down - in England a newspaper called The News of the World closed down too I hear - was this also evidence of the Putins splitting up?--Toddy1 (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Erm, the source says she is said to live in St P most of the time, not some of the time. We go with the source, not your spin of it. As for the wedding ring - that she doesn't wear it in her most significant TV appearance for years with her husband (they were interviewed about the census) - is highly telling. Again, the sources say it's significant and we go with that not your opinion. The NOTW and British (not English) media is in no way comparable to Russia's abominable press situation. You know that.Malick78 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Putin's daughters were studying in SPb Uni, which they entered about 5-6 years ago as far as I know. I suppose a mother would like to live close to her children. A ring is a very minor detail. Sorry, but all this is a typical yellow press kind of stories - take a small detail or rumor about a VIP person, blow it out of proportion and print with a sensationalized headline, that's how it is made. Grey Hood   Talk  20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw., point 5 of the yellow press definition: dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system. Pretty funny, because this is how the British media report on Russian non-systemic opposition figures. Grey Hood   Talk  20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your personal knowledge about their kids and Putina's reasons for moving are worth nothing. Many parents live in separate cities from the university-age children. The sources say her living arrangements are notable - hence they are notable. Flinging the phrase "yellow press" around doesn't stop it from being notable and widely reported by multiple sources - as WP requires. I'm getting bored of repeating this... Malick78 (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm getting bored to remind that the encyclopedia should be primarily about hard facts. Not about allegations or rumours which are in abundance about any famous person - sadly, even in the so called "reliable sources". Unless these allegations are proved or at least have some hard-factual and obvious effect on the life of the subject (who is living person by the way), per WP:WEIGHT they have little to zero importance. We could tolerate them in specific articles or subarticles, but not in a general overview article where we have many more important and more certain things to tell. Also there is BLP. Grey Hood   Talk  21:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'm bored with your pontificating based on opinion rather than policy. I've shown you BLP says allegations are fine, so don't mention it vaguely in passing without giving quotes to support your claims. Allegations regarding syphoning off millions of dollars are fair game for an encyclopaedia. Your comment - "primarily about hard facts" - leaves open the possibility of devoting a few bytes (of this huge article!) to allegations. That's called NPOV. As usual, you have no interest in being neutral as many commenters have said on this page. Malick78 (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I've never stated my personal estimate of the subject openly. I have no interest in being non-neutral. And your personal estimate is far from being neutral. If you hate the subject, better leave editing this article to people with more neutral attitudes. The information which you add is allegations, undue weight, sometimes factually incorrect, weasel-worded, with no any known effect on the subject's life, but potentially harmful to other people, such as his daughters, buyer of the residence etc. Grey Hood   Talk  21:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As for the photos of daughters and family portraits - there are plenty of those, though in a young age of daughters or without faces shown., , Do not add incorrect and ill-worded information, Malick, like you did here  She is rarely seen with Putin - how rare? at what period? why at all they should be seen together if it is well-known that Putin works a lot and is very secretive about his family, and they have less official occassions to be seen together while Putin was PM? Putin has been linked with other women - what does it mean? Do you realise that this is an obvious candidate of BLP violation with several living persons involved? Their photographs have never been published by the Russian media, and no family portrait has ever been issued. Incorrect, at best requires extensive specification.  Grey Hood   Talk  21:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Try reading the sources and the text in the WP article. I said the "Russian media" doesn't publish their photos - you linked to a foreign webpage, and Russian blogs. That's hardly mainstream Russian media, is it? This link of yours even says: "Дочери Путина. Почему их не показывают?" - "Daughters of Putin. Why aren't they shown?" Doh! It supports my edit which you're complaining about!
 * Your other complaints about the vague wording - suggest you want me to be more detailed. But you say we shouldn't give too much info on this! Which is it? As usual... vague complaints not backed up by anything substantial. Malick78 (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Putin's daughters could be seen on his official election sight. And there are or were more of his family photos on official or semi-official sites and in the Russian media - that's where bloggers take it from. Why the daughters are not shown is very well known - Putin keeps them in secret since he became President, and that started long before any conspiracy theories about relationships with his wife.
 * You should understand what I mean pretty well - better not have any info, than have incorrect, unclear worded, dubious info placed in support of unsound allegations and conspiracy theories. Grey Hood   Talk  22:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A) one photo of his 25/26 year old daughters taken 20 years ago shows that photos of them aren't welcome in the media. Hence, you've again proven my point. B) There is no official family picture of them. Again proving my point.
 * C) I don't know if you mean well, and don't care: all I see is you deleting negative info about Putin. That's against WP's spirit and I dislike it.Malick78 (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are more photos than one and there seem to be newer photos too, though without faces shown. The old family photos are well available in books and on the web. The reason why the photos are not seen in the media is obvious and explained many times. There is no official portrait of his wife as far as i know - there is simply no such tradition in Russia, and the daughters are purposefully concealed - that's why there could be no official family portrait. Grey Hood   Talk  22:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not against addition of factual hard fact criticism. I'm against addition of rumors and unsound allegations, and I'm most certainly against giving them too much space if they are added, and  I'm absolutely against replacing hard facts with allegations.  Grey Hood   Talk  22:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, let's not insert yellow press rumours into this article. The official residences are notable, and should be covered. Unproven rumours about another residence should not. About family pictures: it's simply not true that there a no images of his daughters. For example, there's a family portrait in the book "First Person". Nanobear (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, please refer to policy - not vague assertions regarding a nebulous and subjective concept such as 'yellow press'. Worldwide press coverage = notable. As for "a family portrait [is] in the book "First Person"." - well, could you provide proof? I haven't got the book and believe the other articles more than you. A scan to put on this page would do it (we can delete it after if necessary). Btw, family portrait means all of them together. Are we thinking of the same concept (you and Grey seem to have misunderstood the other parts of the sources - such as "Russian media" not meaning blogs, and photos of the daughters referring to recent stuff, not when they were toddlers)? Malick78 (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To cite the book "First Person" all that is necessary is to cite it in the normal way. If there is a picture in it, the citation should include the page numbers.  Whether our comrade has a copy is not relevant.  Our comrade can always buy a copy on Amazon.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no wish to provide funds to a dictator for his 2018 reelection campaign... Can anyone else confirm that the photo is a real, recent official family portrait, preferably by describing it in detail? Malick78 (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Press you don't like isn't yellow press. If it's an international, well-known newspaper of established pedigree, it's not yellow press just because it reports on something you disagree with. Wikipedia policy says you need to actually establish that it's yellow press, since the fact that these papers are not yellow press is already well established. It's not too hard to bring an admin in to verify this. Also, don't commit the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. If you provide the claim then you cannot reasonably ask others to purchase the book that proves your claims; you should do so yourself. &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 16:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even international and established press often posts total rubbish. We should discriminate between claims which are facts and those which are allegations and rumors. Unless the allegations and rumors lead to some important effect, they obviously have too low WP:WEIGHT. Grey Hood   Talk  17:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your individual view, with no proof and not backed by policy, deserves no weight. Where is it said that "important effects" must be seen? Face it, you made that up.Malick78 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've not made up WP:WEIGHT or WP:FRINGE or the basic logic which tells us that facts are more reliable and more important than allegations. Meanwhile, here are the family photos:


 * Thank you for finally providing photos. With their backs turned! Did you notice that? That their faces are hidden? Furthermore, they are ten years old photos, from 2002. Finally, the captions in the original (not Russavia's OR captions (isn't he still banned?)) say: Приморский край. Морская прогулка. - Primorskie region. Sea trip''. No mention of daughters there.
 * So, basically you've proved: that the girls' faces can't be shown. Well done. Moreover, the sources in the article say that the Russian media isn't allowed to print photos of the daughters currently. I.e., they'd get the shit kicked out of them if paparazzi photographed the girls out shopping. These carefully arranged ten year old photos on the President's site (not in the media, as such) don't disprove the source. Want another try? Or do you accept that the sources are basically right? Malick78 (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What I proved is that there are their photos in the media (of course they are found all over the internet, not only on the presidential website). The caption at the source page of one photo says "In the family circle", which has obvious meaning. There is one recent photo with a face shown, but it was a casual photo and it was never completely proved that that was a Putin's daughter. Anyways, the main point is that your addition "their photographs have never been published by the Russian media, and no family portrait has ever been issued" is factually incorrect - there are daughters photos at the young age, there are family photos at young age or without faces shown. So stop adding misinformation please. Grey Hood   Talk  14:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What we should do is "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun." Coatrackish textual additions by Malick78 that are being reverted by several other editors, which he based on the tabloid's claims, especially the one about the Putins' separation should be removed, also due to the lack of consensus. In discussions of textual additions or editorial alterations, a lack of consensus results in no change in the article. --Garik 11 (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If some editors are conspicuously ignoring policy and just saying that something is "tabloid" (=they dislike it), then their views have less weight (and count less in consensus building - this is not a WP:VOTE). I'm still waiting for someone to show me where there's mention of "yellow press" in WP policy, for example... Malick78 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But the editor who is ignoring the policies and guidance is not Garik.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean me. Again you're wrong. Garik cites an essay above, not policy, so it's of little relevance and my point stands. The supposedly "tabloid" issues in the marriage section are covered in multiple sources (as policy requires), so complaining on the basis that it's the Daily Mail is a little futile. Malick78 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you prefer something more "respectable", the Telegraph has a wholesome article on whether Putin beat his wife and sired a love child in Germany.... Better? Malick78 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course an non-tabloid newspaper is a better source than a tabloid one. I do not know whether you have ever been to England, but the Daily Mail really is a tabloid.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One request - please could you put some of this into chronological order in which events are meant to have happened if the sources are correct.
 * Some things happened in the 80s in the DDR.
 * Some things happened when he was prime minister or president.
 * Currently it is a muddle.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

If we take the claim about Putin and the former gymnast, User:Malik78 pointed out in his exit summary:
 * Daily Mail mentions it. sorry, it's clear that Russian papers have mentioned this too... Moskovsky Korrespondent was even closed down for it! see Toddy's Independent article link for that info

In 2008 Moskovsky Korrespondent published a story claiming that Putin was going to divorce his wife and marry Alina Kabayeva. Both Putin and Kabayeva denied the report, which was followed up by European newspapers but ignored by Russia’s media, which do not delve into the private lives of politicians.(Source: Fox News) Moskovsky Korrespondent's owner was Alexander Lebedev. Lebedev ordered his employees to either back up the story with facts or to apologise; they did the latter.(Source: Fox News) Putin is still married to his wife.

I can see that this story might be worth putting in an article about rubbish newspapers (such as The Daily Mail) as an example of how they publish false stories with little fact-checking. But it hardly seems worth mentioning as a notable event in an article on Putin.

As for the fact that in Russia the human right to privacy is respected - that is good isn't it?--Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Putin's privacy is respected. Everyone else is fair game. We all know that. Malick78 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a clear case of media hoax, for which the authors apologized. Such stuff does not belong here, and without telling the details about apologizing and other related context, this is nothing but an obvious POV-pushing and deliberate misinformation from Malick. Please, Malick, stop this immediately. Your additions are yellow press stuff, whose authors admit hoaxes when they are cornered and asked to present evidence. Grey Hood   Talk  13:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yawn. Greyhood, your arguments hold no water. Everything is notable and referenced to multiple sources showing its notability. If you're complaining about the paper that was closed, we don't actually quote it in the article, but either way - the fact that it was closed is in itself notable. Shows Putin's power and the fear that a newspaper owner feels. What's the problem? And as for the photo you restored today of the family: who says it's the family? The photo's source doesn't identify the people at all - making it OR to say it's "the family". And what's the point of a photo of the back of the girls' heads any way? Malick78 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Greyhood - unfortunately there is not a consensus at this time to remove the rubbish about the hoax. However there are reliable sources making it clear that the story about him and the ex-gymnast was rubbish.  I suggest that you use the talk page to develop an appropriate wording about the way gullible Western newspapers printed this story.  As for Malick's claim for why Moskovsky Korrespondent was closed down; reliable sources tell an entirely different story.  You might just as well put the true story in the article as well.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Your additions are yellow press stuff, whose authors admit hoaxes when they are cornered and asked to present evidence." Unless you provide sourced references for these claims you might as well be singing to a lamppost.  &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 03:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This link (already in this discussion) is a reliable source for the story about the ex-gymnast not being backed by facts - which led to the owner of the Russian newspaper closing the newspaper down.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it only says that the allegations that Putin had divorced his wife and was planning to marry the gymnast were not true. It doesn't say there was no relationship. There is one great quote there though, "“It just goes to show what a terrible state the Russian media is in after eight years of Putin’s regime,” said Oleg Panfilov, an analyst. “It is so cowed that one just needs to bark at it to see it hide under a table.”" That'd be good to use... Malick78 (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Malik your comment is irrelevant and misleading. It says: "Lebedev, who had ordered his editors to stand up the story with some facts or apologize – they apologized".--Toddy1 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "The story" is quite clearly about the wedding preparations (everyone in the media had heard gossip of the affair, the only new thing in this scoop was the alleged coming marriage!) - hence that is the bit which they couldn't substantiate. The rest of the Fox article happily leaves reports the affair as possibly having taken place, it seems to me.Malick78 (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Putin's "mafia state"; Russia now considered authoritarian
As noted before, Russia is now considered a dictatorship (an authoritarian state) by reputable sources such as the Democracy Index.

Moreover, Russia under Putin's rule is considered a "mafia state", a well established term that entered the expert discussion years ago and that has come to prominence especially since last year. See for example
 * Review in the London Review of Books of Mafia State by former Guardian correspondent in Russia, Luke Harding
 * Review of Mafia State in the New Statesman
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17200833
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy
 * http://www.euronews.com/2010/12/02/putin-russia-s-mafia-state-image-no-disaster/
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11893886
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1334865/WikiLeaks-Putin-probably-knew-Alexander-Litvinenko-poisoning.html


 * "Russia is a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a "virtual mafia state""

The perception among virtually everyone outside the Putin regime appears to be that the Putin regime is an authoritarian regime that has created a "mafia state". This is hence the consensus/accepted position. It therefore needs to be addressed in the introduction of this article.

The current state of the article is a parody of an encyclopedia article, full of propaganda and irrelevant trivia ("A keen practitioner of martial arts and several time Champion of Leningrad in judo and sambo in his youth", from the introduction), while the key issue, the political direction of the Putin regime and the fact that Russia has become an authoritarian "mafia state" in the assessment of everyone except Putin, is ignored. I would not be surprised if this article is heavily manipulated and guarded by paid employees of the Kremlin, in fact, looking at the contents of the article and how attempts to make it balanced and encyclopedic have failed until now, I would be very surprised if some or more persons in the Kremlin did not have manipulation of this article as their full time job. Something needs to be done to make sure this article becomes a neutral encyclopedia article adhering to the various policies of the English language Wikipedia, instead of the current pro-Kremlin propaganda piece. Tataral (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As we all know, the Putin regime actively seeks to portray Putin as a "tough guy". Hence all the judo and sambo blah blah blah in the introduction, and the article is also full of non-neutral propaganda pictures of how Putin wants to be seen. The difference is, Wikipedia's Putin article is not the official website of the Kremlin. It's supposed to be a balanced account from a global (not Russian) point of view of the Russian president. If he is considered authoritarian by most neutral sources (sources not controlled by the subject), this perception needs to be addressed prominently in the article, while also noting how the Putin regime views itself. The problem with the article is that it looks/looked like it was written by the Kremlin, not by western balanced writers. Tataral (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no time to answer this right now in detail (sorry, too busy in real life and have no time nor energy to "guard" the "manipulation of this article" as my "full time job" ;)), but here are few points.
 * The Democracy Index is a western POV not representing any kind of global view.
 * Mafia state is a western media cliché which has nothing to do with reality: it contradicts the nature of diplomatic relations between Russia and the rest of the world, it is not seriously considered in the political science or scholarly works, it contradicts the statistics on declined organised crime and even (according to western sources) mildly declining corruption and hugely improved E-Government in Russia.
 * "western balanced writers" why necessarily western writers are balanced? are they angels of honesty and truth who came from heavens with no any mundane political agenda?
 * Overall, I suggest to avoid all this POV-laden language like "mafia state", "regime" here on talk and leave it for propaganda articles. We should stick to facts and neutrality. And in reality, all this POV-language, anti-Russian and anti-Putin hate speech has little factual base, and reflects nothing but a political agenda of certain journalists, editions, or countries which are at political odds with Russia. We should avoid political propaganda and opinion pieces here - re-read WP:PROPAGANDA please. Grey Hood   Talk  14:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what the fuck, Greyhood? Do you listen to yourself? How does ignoring the west present any sort of global worldview? It fucking doesn't! That isn't how NPOV works. If it is a significant viewpoint (the West being a significant global entity), then it must be represented. You can't just brush aside sources en masse because "bawww every1 h8 poor russia". That isn't a valid reason, that's just your own personal POV. On one hand, you reject newer criticism on grounds of "recentism", then reject older ones because they are "outdated". You piss and moan about how the POV tag wasn't bringing in uninvolved editors, but when they show up with concerns about neutrality, you off-handedly dismiss their concerns. Which face is it, Janus? Can't have it both ways. We're not here to judge the "factual base" of sources—that's WP:OR. One thing I can say for sure is that it'll be a cold day in Hell before this ever gets to even GA status given the conflicts here. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, Greyhood - you're in a clear minority, get used to it. I suggest you watch us edit according to the consensus that is forming and make helpful comments from the side ;) At least for the next twelve months while Russavia (talk) is away... (oops, sides just split!) Malick78 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not alone nor am I a minority here. Grey Hood   Talk  22:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You better return to more reasonable and calm mode of editing and commenting, Lothar. The tone of your last comment makes it look like a personal attack, which looks especially disappointing following your unreasonable WP:POINTy edits. I know that you could act in constructive mode and this is what I continue to hopefully expect from you.
 * As for the strong anti-Russia lobby in the western media, this is fact and not my personal POV. We may start discussing sources on this, but that would be more appropriate and productive on a talk page of an article like Russophobia. The western point of view should be represented, but with due weight and without usage of the marginal views and marginal lexicon (we also should remember that the balance of point of views in fact differs between various western countries). If "uninvolved editors" come and push the views of notoriously radical western journalists as views of "western balanced writers" and immediately resort to ad Hitlerum arguments - well, I react accordingly to this kind of POV-pushing.
 * As for the recentism, I was rather correct in estimation of late 2011 downward trends in Putin's rating as recentism. It was a normal thing which had happened before the previous elections as well. By May 2012 the ratings returned to the level of 2010, though since the May peak they are getting down again probably because of the recent 10% devaluation of rouble. I do not think that it is reasonable to discuss in the intro the trends of so often changing indicators in the case when both lower and upper figures show the same fact, that support for Putin remains high in Russia. In case however, when figures show a clear change of the situation and the trend appears to be long-term and without precedent and with good correlation to other processes, I would not judge such new data as recentism. Grey Hood   Talk  22:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, "bawww every1 h8 poor russia" isn't a valid reason to omit or downplay a significant viewpoint. To do so turns the article into a sheer mockery of NPOV. I could likewise accuse Russian media of "Russophilia" and it would be just as valid-yet-worthless a judgement as your "Russophobia" one. I apologise for my tone, but talking to you here is feeling more and more like talking to a brick wall. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Greyhood is not alone. I watch one of the refs above (the first BBC one) and I don't see the connection to Putin. There is crime and corruption in Russia. So what? There is crime and corruption in the USA, that doesn't mean Obama is involved in it. Franklin D. Roosevelt was president during the heyday of the "Mob" and none of it is on his bio. You can mention there is still corruption in Russia, but that doesn't make it a "Mafia State". Greyhood is correct to stick with scholarly sources and statistics. You try to bias this article with this kind of stuff and Greyhood just needs to put a note on the BLP noticeboard and you will be in the minority. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * He should go ahead and do that because while the mafia state charge may well be withdrawn, along with that will come a note that the entire damn article has virtually no criticisms whatsoever and a ton of non-NPOV trivia.  &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   spellbook 07:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the current crop of oligarchs (in favor as opposed to in jail for being on the wrong side) are documented to be Putin cronies, so one cannot divorce Putin from endemic corruption. I suspect any such content will be portrayed as allegations violating WP:BLP. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 00:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The charge of the mafia state (what a nice example of a POVish article btw) represents a marginal and radical point of view. We hardly can consider people like Luke Harding, the primary proponent of application of the "mafia state" term to Russia, the person who was "the first foreign journalist to be expelled from Russia since the end of the Cold War", to be among "western balanced writers". I may be mistaken, but he is not only the first, but the only western journalist who was refused re-entry to Russia in such way. Hundreds and thousands western expatriates, including many journalists, live and work in Russia and do not experience such problems, and are more balanced and less radical in their writings, even if they are critical to Russia. Furthermore, Mr. Harding seems to be pretty little known for anything other than his claims about Russia.
 * The Wikileaks cables leak express the personal views or words of some U.S. diplomats and I see no reason why we should give so much weight to this, normally concealed, undiplomatic point of view expressed by representatives of a state where so many people, including one of the current presidential candidates, see Russia as enemy. Grey Hood   Talk  21:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) My dear Greyhood:
 * The [Economist] Democracy Index is a western POV not representing any kind of global view.
 * Attribute, not censor. It is cited in scholarship including independent scholarship which has constructed its own democracy index and validated that of Freedom House. (We should be discussing their index, not the Economist's—having checked the Wikilink.) You cannot censor content based on your personal contentions. Based on additional research I've done, the Economist's index is
 * widely cited in the international press (ergo you cannot label it western POV) and
 * cited in peer reviewed publications; Freedom House's index is equally valid if you prefer that, but you cannot eliminate all mention of indeces of democracy with regard to Putin's Russia
 * Mafia state is a western media cliché which has nothing to do with reality: it contradicts the nature of diplomatic relations between Russia and the rest of the world, it is not seriously considered in the political science or scholarly works, it contradicts the statistics on declined organised crime and even (according to western sources) mildly declining corruption and hugely improved E-Government in Russia.
 * A domestic "mafia state" has nothing to do with diplomatic relations between Russia and the rest of the world. Another construct of purely your personal contention. What do independent "watchdogs" say?
 * "The elite group that rose to ascendancy together with Putin in 2000 is largely made up of the people who back in the 1990s filled insignificant positions in secret services, and had no access to massive privatization of government property," Yevgeny Volk, head of the representative office of The Heritage Foundation, an independent watchdog, told IPS. "On rising to power they hastened to make up for what they had missed."
 * Many officials with high posts in the Putin administration are also chairmen of boards of giant energy, transport and arms trade monopolies.
 * "Excessive government regulation is a nutrient that feeds widespread corruption," Volk said. "Under Putin this system has significantly solidified and hence corruption has grown even further."

I do regret that I can't take your protestations as serious scholarly objection. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "western balanced writers" why necessarily western writers are balanced? are they angels of honesty and truth who came from heavens with no any mundane political agenda?
 * Since this is pure rhetoric on your part, I'll respond that, for one, they don't have to worry about being arrested in a country which banned the Kukly Putin puppet: safe in February 2000, banned in May 2000, gone before Putin had even been in office 100 days (June 3, 2000).


 * And speaking of Freedom House, latest news (not searching for Russia specifically), my emphasis (May 23rd):
 * Russian Parliament Threatens Demonstrators With Massive Fines
 * In the latest assault on the freedoms of expression and assembly in Russia, lawmakers loyal to President Putin gave preliminary approval on May 22 to a bill that would threaten demonstration organizers with massive fines of up to 1.5 million rubles, or $48,000. Freedom House strongly condemns this draft legislation, which, while thinly veiled behind claims of protecting public safety, is clearly intended to intimidate demonstrators and severely punish public dissent.
 * This certainly appears to fit any objective criteria for inclusion in the article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work with the research. Greyhood's objections have always been more bluster than substance. I'd say that the mafia quotes, democracy probs, and the kukly ban all belong in the article. The kukly thing allowed him to show the media who'd be in control right from the very start. The bill on fining protests should go in if it passes. (Did I need to write "if"????) Malick78 (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll start to answer your points from the end, Vecrumba. When you write that the Russian Parliament Threatens Demonstrators With Massive Fines you somehow forget to mention that similar or tougher rules, fines and restrictions on protests are used in the United States and many EU countries. Putin backs 'European' rules for political protests. By implementing this legislation Russia actually becomes closer to those "more democratic" countries in laws. One would expect that they would applaud to such movement towards the western norms, but after reading the western media and comments like yours it seems that Russia somehow is expected to be more liberal and loose in the relation of protests than the western democracies. Why really? Trying being holier than a Roman Pope? ;) Why not appreciate that Russia was so loose in the relation of protests so far? Why not appreciate that the tougher legislation was taken only after the protesters resorted to violence, not earlier? Why not recognize the fact that multiple protests held over the recent months and recent years actually show that Russia has lots of freedom of expression? What might be a lame answer to this question proposed by BBC is as follows: Mr Putin did not explain how such a move would address the concerns of human rights activists and many Western politicians, who accuse him of curbing democracy. So what, Putin should have sticked to looser rules than in Europe just to appease "human rights activists and many Western politicians"?
 * OK, you may not have known or noticed the fact that Russia does nothing exceptional by implementing this legislation. But why U.S.-financed organisations, including Freedom House always do not notice such things and continue with their hypocrisy? Grey Hood   Talk  23:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but (it could be only myself) I couldn't help noticing the quintessentially Lavrovesque charge of the hypocritical West holding Russia to a higher standard than itself.
 * Your news story is nothing more than the reporting of a Putin-contention, no supporting facts appear in the article. (And, indeed, the fines appear to be grossly under-reported.) Your charge of hypocrisy does not address the wider picture in any manner. We surely read accounts of the same demonstrations yet come away with different scenarios as to the perpetrators of violence. I regret that your assertion that Putin is "tightening" an overly free Russia to be more in line with Western democracies is, well, only a position that official Russia and its minions could endorse.
 * Oh, there are the demonstrations of Putin supporters which have turned shall we say unruly because the "supporters" bused in for the demonstration weren't paid as promised—aside from being told they would lose their factory jobs if they didn't cooperate and get on the bus in the first place. Surely a litmus test for the absence of oversight or regulation, ergo, freedom. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a RIAN collection of some protest fines and other penalty measures in other countries. New Russian figures are much lower than those reported on Germany or Switzerland.
 * There is excessive video evidence showing who initiated violence during the May protests. For example, this girl is currently under arrest - there is no apparent reason why she suddenly started throwing stuff into police, and two other guys fully or partially recognised their guilt.
 * "official Russia and its minions" - WP:PA. You better be more tolerant to other points of view, Vecrumba.
 * As for the paid Putin demonstrators who were not paid, I suppose we discussed this here before. The most famous video which is presented as evidence for this was made by the same guy, Igor Drandin (one of the heads of the oppositional "Democratic choice" opposition party), who uploaded another famous video with Kenian students ridiculously supporting Putin during a demonstration, which was a clear provocation. And there are many other questions as to the credibility of those videos.
 * Overall, I suggest you stop being in denial to reality when it comes to Russia - millions of people there quite sincerely support Putin whether you like it or not. Remember, he received ovations on the demonstrations consisting of the same people who were claimed to be bused there against their will. Grey Hood   Talk  03:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)