Talk:Putin's Palace

Ownership Now?

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

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

Neutrality

I was the original author of the article, though others have made very important contributions. I believe that the article complies with neutrality guidelines, including as it does the major claims of the whistleblower, as reported by the international media, without endorsing them, as well as official denials. I believe that it should be returned to the Palaces in Russia category as, regardless of its intended use, it is clearly a palace in architectural terms. I believe that it is of mid-level importance according to the Russia project's guidelines and, without wishing to blow my own trumpet, that it is better than a start-class article, as it provides a comprehensive discussion of the issue that would meet the needs of most non-specialists.Videsutaltastet (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I can kind of see why Russavia thinks that the article is not neutral. While most of the media coverage out there focuses on the accusatory claims, we can still be more objective in the language we use. I have rewritten parts of the lead section in light of this (diff); anyone feel free to give feedback. —Akrabbim^talk 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your work on the page Akrabbim, it looks excellent. I was perhaps somewhat too bullish in my first post above, though I stick by the substance of my arguments: I don't think your removal of references to the activists who visited the estate improves the neutrality - it really just reduces the total amount of well-sourced material. And environmental concerns are not insignificant. Your last edit also leaves some poor sense ('another sortie'). I wonder whether the best way of resolving this neutrality issue would be to call the page 'Putin's Palace (allegations)', in recognition of the fact that Putin's role is contested. Thanks again.Videsutaltastet (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't remove the reference to the activists for NPOV reasons, it was because I thought it was too much detail for the lead, and it just hasn't been re-added yet. And I agree about the 'another sortie' thing, that can be fixed with some further reorganization, that I'm still trying to work through in my head. —Akrabbim^talk 11:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it is presenting allegations as fact, and has next to no information on opposing views. Whether allegations are true or not, this is not for us to present, but we need to provide all sides of the allegations. There are also WP:BLP issues involved here, and this needs to be looked at closely to ensure that the BLP lines are not crossed. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 10:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Russavia. You don't give any examples, but I would imagine (correct me if I'm wrong) that your objection relates to the long narrative section detailing the allegations. It is true that I have not said 'it is alleged' after every sentence, but this is a point of prose style and should not in any way be taken as an implicit epistemic claim. The fact that they are allegations is explicit in the introductory remarks to the sections, as well as the beginning of the article as a whole. I shall see if this can be made clearer. Would you support my suggestion of renaming the article, better to reflect its contents, and would this substantially meet your concerns? Thanks again.Videsutaltastet (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the big "Whistleblower claims" section can be pared down to be more consise, without getting bogged down in the details, it might communicate more accurately and neutrally that way. As for the title of the article, I think it is fine where it is right now - that is how most media refers to it. Maybe at some point it may prove to be NPOV but it is too soon to tell I think.

As for the "next to no information on opposing views", at least from what I've seen, the bulk of the press out there is covering the allegations, whereas the government has only so far briefly laughed them off. So of course there will be more time spent on the allegations, but I think too we can do more to present this. (You two probably are much more familiar with the scope of the coverage out there - I have to rely on Google for my translations, and whatever English sources there are, so correct me if my view of 'the bulk of the press' is incorrect). Is there anything perhaps out there that does some skeptical digging into Kolesnikov's claims, or on his motives behind all this? —Akrabbim^talk 11:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Akrabbim, for making the good point that when a government spokesman essentially stonewalls arithmetical equality (in terms of words, or whatever) in coverage is impossible. But arithmetical equality is not the same as neutrality; I think the article gives all points of view covered in reputable sources a fair crack of the whip. The serious Russian newspapers, chiefly Kommersant and Vedomosti, do not have much coverage, for reasons one can only speculate about...As for 'sceptical digging' a quick glance doesn't reveal much, and certainly not from reputable sources. The true sceptical digging was done by Novaya Gazeta, and this is covered. As for reducing the claims section, I think it is quite important that it is fairly detailed, especially as the sources it draws on (especially the Snob article) are likely to be inaccessible to many readers because of the language barrier you mention.Videsutaltastet (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, that's good to know. Though I think that section should be better cited, so you can tell what information comes from where, before someone who isn't as familiar with the sources can do any copyediting. For example, the last two paragraphs have no references. —Akrabbim^talk 12:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I realise I was unfair to those newspapers and am currently using them for more references. Unfortunately, I think most will only be in Russian.Videsutaltastet (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Further references

Possible references

"Активисты ЭкоВахты посетили дворец Путина на мысе Идокопас". Environmental Watch on North Caucasus (in Russian). 11 Feb 2011. Retrieved 22 July 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) "Russian tycoon buys 'Putin's palace' near Black Sea". RIA Novosti. 3 Mar 2011. Retrieved 28 July 2011. "WikiLeaks Russia website blocked over Putin palace pix". RIA Novosti. 19 Jan 2011. Retrieved 28 July 2011.

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

File:Putin's Palace.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Putin's Palace.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

additional files in the same batch
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
File:Putin palace courtyard.jpg Nominated for Deletion An image used in this article, File:Putin palace courtyard.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do? A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC) File:Putin palace exterior1.jpg Nominated for Deletion An image used in this article, File:Putin palace exterior1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do? A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC) File:Putin palace exterior2.jpg Nominated for Deletion An image used in this article, File:Putin palace exterior2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do? A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Scheme_of_interaction_between_companies_and_cash_flows_involved_in_financing_of_the_construction_of_"Putin's_Palace".svg

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

Requested move 30 January 2021

Putin's Palace → Residence at Cape Idokopas – It appears the nickname (Putin's Palace) is being used as the name. This is not neutral and fails WP:BLP. We can easily give due weight to the ownership controversy (Putin has denied ownership and another person has claimed it) in the lede or body. But the article name is too much. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support WP:NPV 77.191.88.140 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)— 77.191.88.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose. Why is it "not neutral and fails WP:BLP"? We are not claiming that Putin de jure owns the palace. Please, remember, that WP:JUSTAPOLICY doesn't work.--Renat (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Neither a neutrality or BLP issue, that does appear to be the common name of the palace complex. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Since this is currently in the news, I suggest we wait until reliable sources provide information about it. So far all we have is speculation. It could be that the correct name will be "Putin's palace conspiracy theory." Maybe "Trump International Hotel and Tower (Russia)." TFD (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support There is a similar discussion going on over on the Russian Wiki, I've seen no evidence to suggest that "Putin's Palace" is a common term for it over there as their wiki lists it as a tertiary name. That being said I am hesitant to name a structure based on an investigative report from an oppositional party against a ruling party. This may certainly go against some "reliable sources", but more and more often the diction of headlines are designed to gather interest in the shortest phrase possible and aren't necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.21.238 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2021