Talk:Vladimir Putin

"Emperor"

The article states that "Putin describes Donald trump as his "pawn", "a puppet", "my little marionette,", and ""a very liyal soldier for Russia", depending on Emperor Putin's mood.". If the quotes are correct there should be references. In any case, Putin is not an "Emperor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:700:300:420C:3486:B8D4:B802:8C68 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 00:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Critics.

No critics section? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 00:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki censorship. There's plenty of criticism and controversy surrounding Putin. Also note the article is protected now. 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Opinions of senators in article

I really don't see why we should add opinions of senators from the US Congress onto this article. If that were the case, we'd have to add every senators' assessments regarding Vladimir Putin. Why just McCain's? Why not add Barbara Boxer's? Jeff Flake's? Dick Durbin's? There are 99 Senators to choose from. And why stop at the United States? There's many French, Italian, Swedish, and etc. legislative politicians that said similar statements. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

US policy is set by Congress and the key Congressional leader on Russian affairs is Senator McCain. He is NOT "every senator" --the Senate is hierarchical and he is at the top as chief GOP spokesman on the issue in Congress & he chairs the critical military affairs committee --and he was GOP presidential candidate. Why not Sweden too???--because McCain sets policy for about 40% of world's military strength. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The United States has many committees with many different senators heading them. What makes McCain special? Why not quote the head of the Foreign Relations committee? Governmental Affairs? Homeland Security? What you're doing is nitpicking at this point. Remember, this is a WP:BLP and before adding contentious material that calls Putin "Vladimir Putin is a thug and a murderer and a killer and a KGB agent", you're going to need pretty strong consensus for it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

the military affairs committee for 70 years has focused on Russia, and the media and RS have focused on it and its chairman. The agriculture committee is less relevent for Putin. The contentious statement is fully sourced and attributed not to Wikipedia but to Senator McCain. We can indeed add the Senate Foreign Relations chairman Bob Corker: he's made these recent headline on Putin: 1) "Sen. Bob Corker denounces Donald Trump on Putin" - CNNPolitics.com Sep 8, 2016. 2) "Key GOP senators join call for bipartisan Russia election probe" led by Corker [today]; 3) "Corker thinks Russia tried to meddle in election" - [Nov 15] etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hence, there's no end in sight for the amount of quotations by senators. That's why such a lengthy quote from McCain is undue. You can try to summarize them all though. For example, "Corker, Senate Foreign Relations chairman, has denounced Putin. As has McCain, leader of Senate Arms Committee, and etc. etc." And why should it end with senators? We can add the opinions of Ashton Carter, Joseph Dunford, Eric Fanning, and so forth. So it still begs the question, where does it end? That's why I believe these opinions shouldn't even be included in the article. Heads of state and politicians on a federal level have more sway in decision making when it comes to bi-lateral relations with Russia. That should be the main focus. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with EtienneDolet. We can't possibly include every colorful accusation by every Putin-basher. McCain's allegations are moreoever quite extreme, and I remind everyone that this is a BLP article. Furthermore, the "Assessment" section is currently extremely unbalanced. All the assessments are in fact insults, ranging from the extreme ("dictator") to the bizarre ("self-centered"), with the sole exception that of Gorbachev and Kadyrov (!). The individuals quoted are also a motley collection of marginal figures, such as failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to the Dalai Lama and Garry Kasparov. Completely unbalanced and needs a re-write. Athenean (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is a part of section "Public image", and the opinions by highly notable politicians represent his public image. Actually, this particular opinion expresses views by a very large part of political establishment in US in many other countries, and it does not matter if certain WP contributors agree with such views. Therefore, I think this opinion must remain on the page simply per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

McCain is one of the most well known senators and is also the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as a former presidential candidate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

A failed presidential candidate. Who is pushing WP:FRINGE views and conspiracy theories on top of that. Sorry, no way. Athenean (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Also chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and one of the most well known senators. And CBS news is not fringe. You know what is a BLP violation? Referring to living persons such as McCain, a respected politician - as "fringe" based on nothing but your own personal opinion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"He is is a thug and a murderer and a killer..." is WP:FRINGE, I don't care how many committees McCain is sitting on. As are allegations by unnamed sources (i.e. nothing more than rumors). This is well into BLP territory. And don't lecture others about edit-warring while you are yourself guilty of it. Athenean (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That's why it's properly attributed. If a US Senator makes these kinds of statements, it's notable. We are not saying it's true. We are only saying McCain said it. You know how this works.

As to the "allegations", that's your own personal opinion, unsupported by sources.

One more time. CBS news is not "fringe". Stop making stuff up.

And of course I see that the ol' tag team is hard at work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The McCain stuff is borderline conspiracy talk with no factual basis to what he's saying. I think he's losing it. I could tell he's getting a bit too old already. Maybe it's time he retires or something. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The "factual basis" of what he's saying is irrelevant. We are not saying it in Wikipedia voice. We're attributing it to McCain.

And you have some freakin' nerve invoking BLP and then violating it right in the same breath right here with your comments about "he's losing it", and "he's getting a bit too old". Please strike your BLP violations or ... well, you know how this works too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of Senators. I don't see why we HAVE to include McCain, whose hostility to Putin is well-known. The assessment section is almost entirely negative anyway. The hacking allegations are also WP:RECENT and premature, since the investigations are just starting. We should at least wait until they conclude. Not to mention that in your edit-warring, you clumsily added it out of chronological order, in between things that happened in 2007. Athenean (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And you of all people, have some "freakin' nerve" to talk about tag teams. Just like you did when you accused others of edit-warring while you were yourself chest-deep in it. Athenean (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we need an RfC on this. My opinion is as well that if McCain says anything which only demonstrates that he is an idiot, it should be in article about him and not anywhere else.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you think of his statements is irrelevant. The important part is that he is a very well known Senator, and his statements about Putin have been widely reported on in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you would oppose adding opinions of Russian politicians, who praise Putin and say Obama is an idiot. What about adding them about the article about Obama? Well, we need to stick to WP:WEIGHT, and not add all junk to articles only because a 100th idiot said Putin is evil.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It depends which ones and what the coverage was like in reliable sources. I wouldn't oppose it on principle or anything. It depends. Just like it does here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I open an RFC then.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Citations about Putin

In the above section, some users support and some oppose inclusion of an opinion of John McCain about Putin (the opinion has been published in a reliable source).

1. Do you support inclusion of this opinion in the article?
2. Opinion of which (other) persons, provided they are published in reliable sources, should/could be added to the article?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Include -- covered in entirely mainstream sources, not fringe at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Would you please also address the second question. Could we include every opinion if it has been published in a reliable source? Where do we draw the line?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The second question is pretty silly -- surely it's simply a WP:POINT? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not. But I see that you are not really interested in discussing it. Fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I made the contribution I saw fit to make. Not engaging with your further question doesn't invalidate the view I offered. I suspect others as well will decline to answer that second question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure you have a mandate to talk for the others, but we will see.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude - We can't possibly add every opinion from every notable person. As to what we should include in the article, well...that should be decided through consensus. So I welcome the RfC in that regard. The McCain quote is a perfect example of a notable person saying something non-notable, as in inconsequential. And in my opinion, it was nothing short of a rant. This was just a flashy news item the day it happened and hasn't been reported on since then (see WP:NOTNEWS). Adding strong claims to a BLP article that labels him a "thug", "murderer", and "killer" would need strong consensus. And I'd much rather include statements that have consequences or were widely reported upon (i.e. Bush's "I looked into his eyes saw his soul"). But again, there should be consensus as to which ones those are. The more we talk, the better. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"We can't possibly add every opinion from every notable person." - the proposal is NOT to "add every opinion from every notable person", just this one. So you need to address this particular person.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's a senator. Lots of senators out there. Just because you head this or that committee shouldn't give you a free pass. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not "this or that committee", it's the Senate Armed Services Committee.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Still doesn't give you a free pass though. If you're so confident it does, why don't you restore it once more? But see, I know you wouldn't do that because we all agree that we need consensus for such inclusions. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, it's pretty obvious that you're engaging in bad faithed taunting and are trying to provoke me. That's a violation of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. (You're basically bragging that you managed to edit-war successfully). Also, you are completely ignoring the substance of the argument. Because you got nothing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude - There simply isn't enough space to include every politician's *opinion*, and it is an opinion, about every other politician. It is a waste of usable space and not very encyclopedic. Lipsquid (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nobody's proposing including "every politician's opinion", just this one's. Because he's very notable when it comes to the subject matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

He is not notable at all really. In the scheme of history, McCain will be a nobody and Putin will be notable for many, many decades, possibly centuries. Not a note on any opinion or the worthiness of either guy, but saying McCain is noteworthy in this context is silly. This is an encyclopedia. Lipsquid (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that John McCain is a not notable person? Seriously? Well, that just highlights the quality and absurdity of "exclude" arguments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No I am seriously arguing that he is only one of many, many, many notable people that have an opinion on Putin and in that group of individuals, he is not very notable. Heads of state have notable opinions about other heads of state, otherwise it should be an academic. It is easy to exclude his opinion, his credibility has been thoroughly challenged in the last decade. Lipsquid (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Funny, cuz I thought you just said, quote, "He is not notable at all really. " Oh and then after saying "I am not arguing he is not notable" you go ahead and say "he is not very notable"? You're not only contradicting your previous statement, you manage to contradict yourself again within the same comment. Again, the question is straight forward - is McCain not notable or not? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say he lost credibility awhile ago. Especially after this blunder. The Cold War rhetoric against Putin aren't getting politicians anywhere these days, and repetitive attacks against him are becoming more and more futile and hence, more and more desperate. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude, per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE. More content, less gossip. Athenean (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include. First, whether one agrees or disagrees with McCain's assessment is completely beside the point and irrelevant, so objections like "NPOV" are just plain misguided. Second, McCain's opinion is quite notable because 1) it received widespread coverage in reliable sources and 2) McCain is one of the most prominent US Senators and certainly the most prominent Senator who is critical of Putin, he is also the head of the Armed Services Committee which makes crucial decision on US foreign policy, in particular with respect to Russia. So yeah, it's important. Again, whether you agree with his views or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I'd like to point out that EtienneDolet&Athenean's first argument against inclusion was "BLP! BLP!". That didn't hold water as was pointed out to them. So they switched it to "FRINGE! FRINGE!". Well, since neither McCain nor CBS news are "fringe" they had to drop that one too. Then it became "NOTNEWS!". Not really applicable either. Then "NPOV!" even though the quote is appropriately attributed. So really, this is just pulling out every Wikipedia acronym to obfuscate the fact that the desire to exclude is a simple good ol' fashioned WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

"One of the most notable US Senators" - subjective. A failed presidential candidate who got trounced by Obama in one of the biggest landslides in history - objective. Athenean (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, because using words like "trounced" and bolding it makes your personal opinion "objective". He's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee - objective. Unlike other senators he actually IS a past presidential candidate - objective. He gets more press than most other Senators, save perhaps one or two - objective. Seriously, if you were to ask a random person in US to name three US senators, McCain would be in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

(In fact, this whole song and dance of trying to pretend that McCain is not notable is so blatantly ridiculous, it's almost as bad as you two trying to throw out every Wikipedia acronym you can think of in hope that one of them will stick).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not my "opinion" he got trounced, it's a cold hard fact. 365-173. Look it up. If you don't like "trounced", there are lots of other verbs we can use. Lots of Senators, lots of committees. So then should we include the opinion of every Senator who is in some committee? Now, I can understand why he's be one of your favorite senators, but that doesn't really mean anything as far as wikipedia is concerned.Athenean (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry but this argument of "we can't include everything in the article, therefore we cannot include this one particular thing that IJUSTDONTLIKE" is... well, it's just as ridiculous as trying to argue that McCain is a non-notable senator, and it's just as ridiculous as your strategy of throwing out Wikipedia policies willy-nilly without rhyme or reason as a means of obstruction.

I would also appreciate it if you refrained from telling me what my "favorite" is or is not. Please strike that comment as it personalizes the discussion and attributes to me opinions which I have not expressed and may or may not hold. It's a personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

And I would appreciate it if you refrained from telling me my motivations are just IJUSTDONTLIKE, which is also a personal attack. Athenean (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

No, it's actually not. It's a criticism of your editing behavior. There's a difference. Now, ascribing political opinions to others just so that you can ridicule them, yeah, that's a personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Was this [1] also a legitimate criticism of my editing behavior? Athenean (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for striking your comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Since you started this RfC I'm gonna ask that you step in this and intervene before this goes any further. I take offense at User:Athenean saying things like "I can understand why he's be one of your favorite senators" when I have said nothing to indicate that. The statement is obviously meant as an insult.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: I hope you understand that I can not act at this point in my capacity as administrator in relation to this article. Especially since I myself was insulted by the very first commentator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Include John McCain is a person widely known and any argument to the contrary is bound to end in embarrassment for those who dare make it. McCain is a notable, senior Senator, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a committee directly relevant to US-Russian relations. The opinions McCain happens to hold on Vladimir Putin the person and the leader of Russia is evidently important and worthy of inclusion here, just as are opinions of leading figures in the U.S. executive branch or congressmen in the Committee on Foreign Relations. For example, the statements (e.g. here) on Putin made by that committee's chairman, Bob Corker, would be similarly worthy of inclusion. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Include. This is a part of section "Public image", and the opinions by highly notable politicians represent his public image. Actually, this particular opinion expresses views by a very large part of political establishment in US in many other countries, and it does not matter if certain WP contributors agree with such views. Therefore, I think this opinion must remain on the page simply per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude. Vicious personal attacks should not be allowed to masquerade as opinions based on facts. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that makes no sense. Nothing is being presented as a fact. A person's statement is being quoted. This person is notable. That's it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

There are hundreds of thousands of notable persons in the world, and thousands published opinions on Putin in reliable sources. We just can not add everything to this article and need to draw a line somewhere. In my view, McCain is way below the line.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

But again, this is just the "we cannot include EVERYTHING therefore we cannot include THIS ONE THING" argument which is a total logical fallacy. Nobody's proposing that "thousands published opinions on Putin" are to be included. Just this one, because this one was made by a very notable person, who happens to be one of the most well known US politicians, a top US senator, chairman of a committee that oversees US policy on Russia and who's generally known as outspoken on the subject of Putin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

We had three US presidents who had to deal with Putin, and in a month going to have the fourth one. We have several vice-presidents and several secretaries of state. We have countless heads of other states. We have countless Russian politicians of all ranks such as governors. IMO opinions of all these people are more important than that of McCain, and including all of them to the article is not really possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm, actually those are already included (except Bill Clinton because the overlap was too brief). Bush is in there. Obama's in there. ... Vice-presidents are mostly window dressing so no reason for them to be included. I guess we're missing Kerry as far as SoS goes, which we could add. But again, what matters is to what extent a given politicians statements about Putin have been covered in reliable sources. And for McCain it's a lot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude per my own opinion in the line above.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)