Talk:Vladimir Putin

Vladimir Putin was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: April 15, 2008

Archiving Talks, both Old and Current

In the interests of getting this article back on track, I've archived the talk page into Archive 3.

Clean slate, folks. Let's try to get over the content disputes and produce a good article. Ender78 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought for the week: Michaelangelo used to say that his sculptures were already there, hidden in the marble. All he had to do is remove the extra bits of stone. Do we have a Featured Article on our hands here, that requires nothing but proper organization and editing?

Ongoing Content Issues

It is clear from the issues with this article and from the talk and controversies arising thereof that Vladimir Putin is not only a topic that is not "going away", but also one that is seen very, very differently by folks from different nationalities and backgrounds. It is equally clear that the Putin era will be regarded by future historians as a watershed moment in Russian history, likely discussing things in a context of "Before Putin" and "After Putin". This is all fine, but at the same time, our job here is to keep the matter factual, informative, and easy to read.Ender78 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the three areas I recommend we work on:

• Keeping the intro brief and informative, and without ideological bias.
• Narrowing and consolidating the lengthier sub-sections, but again, without ideological bias in any direction, Creating separate articles dealing with Putin's policies and acts as Russian President and populating those articles with the lengthier passages from this main article.
• Expanding sections in this article, and others, expanding on Putin's context, role, and interactions within the Russian government.

To this end, I've started the following sub-topics here on the talk page:

Article Introduction

Please discuss here what needs done with the introduction, bearing in mind that the entire point to an introduction is brevity and clarity in explaining the content to be covered later in the article. Ender78 (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That introduction is starting to bloat up again, guys. Do we need percentages and achievements-in-full in the intro? I've always felt that an intro should make you want to read the rest of the article, not tell you up-front what the rest of the article says. Ender78 (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I understand why a recent change has been made. It looked to me the second paragraph was a little bit more devoted to negative rather than positive. So, Cfeet77 decided to balance it, I suppose. I personally would prefer if it was not overloaded with numbers as a result. Maybe Cfeet77 would be fine if balance would be achieved in a different way? I personally would leave only most important criticism. Kulikovsky (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I just tried to keep it (the intro) from seeming like a whitewash by any given faction. :) I didn't exhaustively try to make it 100% even-handed; only to provide a quick-glance look at how the man is perceived, both good and bad. As I've been saying, we've got a good article with plenty of great facts here, we've just got to get it rearranged into a format that fits well with this venue, and informs the experienced Russo-phile or -phobe, while fully educating those who are totally unacquainted with the subject matter. (And those in between, which is to say, "People like me.") All other goals are secondary, which isn't to say we should not strive for NPOV; I wouldn't say those goals are mutually-exclusive. We just need to refine for one goal first, then refine for the secondary ones. Nor would I place myself in the position of judging the relative merit of various arguments; my sole personal goal is a fully-articulated, highly-readable article. :) Ender78 (talk) 02:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Narrowing and Consolidating, Creation of more specific articles

Please discuss here sub-topics that can be shortened, with lengthier passages incorporated into lengthier articles specific to that topic (eg. "Russian Foreign Policy under Vladimir Putin"). Essentially, when in doubt as to how to handle a particular content addition, I would counsel editors to consult biographies of modern US Presidents (with the exception of G.W. Bush, himself an ideological battleground article) for ideas, since they're generally well-written, concise, and well-organized into sections, sub-topics, and related articles.Ender78 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

New-article creations: (Please list all subsequent new articles here and sign it, and also add a section for discussion Ender78 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

• Criticism of Vladimir Putin Ender78 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Foreign Policy of Vladimir Putin Ender78 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Once these sub-articles are fully fleshed-out, it is encouraged that editors delete, consolidate, and summarize these sections within the main Vladimir Putin article. Ender78 (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in taking on the task of whittling down the content under "Public Support and Criticism" and "Foreign Policy" now that the sub-articles have been established? If not, I'll start hacking it down in the next week to ten days. Ender78 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• You are such a good writer, you'd be the best. I am sure you know, I have reservations about "Public Support and Criticism". Kulikovsky (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I'm tied up for several days yet, but if it's not been done when I can get to it, I'll do it. And, FTR, I was considering an article specifically for support, or perhaps consolidating "Criticism" and "Support" into an article "Public Perception of VP" or something along those lines. I guess I'll look at that more next week. Ender78 (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanding on Putin's context within the Russian Government

This is an aspect of the Russian government that outsiders know little about, and about which our Russian or Russian-oriented editors can enlighten us. Nobody runs a government by themselves; even Stalin had to work within his system to get his desired results. Fleshing out these fine details of how Putin conducted the duties of his office will substantially help to define the man in a biographical sense. Ender78 (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am worried that the article lacks any information on Putin's program and positions (at least in the simplest sense of left-right politics) and concentrates way too much on what happened in Russia during his tenure. I know, it is notoriously difficult to find out what his program and positions are. After all, most of Russian voters don't care much about political positions in this sense and vote for personalities rather than policies, and the Russian press follows them. I am afraid that Russian sources are not particularly helpful here exactly for this reason. But it is essential to include such information if we wish to see this article improved. Colchicum (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure there is a universally agreed conception what the Program/Results were/are. It is my understanding that Putin as deliberately vague about his "Plan"/intention. We have Putinism article to talk about his policies. Regarding Left/Right (Paleoconservator/Social Democrat/Neo-laborist, etc.) concepts I am not sure that using labels from the Western European/USA politics is productive outside this region. Was Saddam Hussein a liberal or a conservator? Pugachev? Stalin? Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Vladimir Putin article

I have supported creation of an article about Putin's foreign policy, but creation of Criticism of Vladimir Putin I do not support. The size of the section is not excessive, and the whole idea appears to be POV-forkish to me, while done with best intentions, no doubt. I know, a similar article exist on G. Bush, but I do not know the reasons. Per my quick check there is no similar article on B. Clinton, for example. So, my preference is to keep content in the main article, without fork. Thanks. Kulikovsky (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The idea is precisely to allow for further expansion of the ideas presented, without it becoming a battleground. In this manner, we can summarize the criticisms in the main article, while presenting links into the more specific article throughout. We can also have some overlapping/duplicated content. My personal primary goal is simply to get the overall length of the main article shorter and more readable, NOT to whitewash or dissemble any of Putin's alleged abuses of power. Ender78 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible synthesis

The following paragraph raises some questions, and possibly contains some synthesis.

While several Yeltsin era oligarchs such as Boris Berezovsky and Mikhail Khodorkovsky were either exiled or put in jail, the vast majority of them such as Mikhail Fridman, Viktor Vekselberg, Leonid Fedun, Vladimir Potanin, Roman Abramovich,Alexander Abramov, Mikhail Prokhorov, maximized and consolidated their control over russian natural resources and cash flows.

I do not see that sources say anything supporting "maximized and consolidated their control over russian natural resources and cash flows". Neither did I see where "the vast majority" came from. Did I miss something? Until this is cleared, I will remove the content from the article as per WP:BLP. Also, most recently this material was added to the "first term" [presidential] section. Is that section appropriate if the assertions are true? Kulikovsky (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This text was fine. All these people became much richer during Putn's rule - see Forbes lists, for example.Biophys (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The forbes link clearly shows how exponentially rich these fraudsters have become under Putin rule. The names Chemezov, Yakunin, Sechin are nowhere to be found, but Abramovich, Abramov, Fridman, etc who are looting the natural resources and buying yatches and football clubs are littered in the list right at the top.

Kulikovsky is obviously deeply biased and wants to selectively demand references. May be he is editing on behalf of these oligarchs? Is there any way he can be investigated through his ip address? How can I trace kulikovsky's ip address and request an investigation. Samstayton (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a perfect example of subtle original research, the type that this article is filled with already. The articles don't support the text at all and it should be removed promptly. The billionaires in Russia are not "oligarchs" with any political control like the oligarchs had in the 90s, and as such have nothing to do with Putin. Krawndawg (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Samstayon, I would highly advise against attempting to find out personal information about an editor. Please read WP:AGF.Krawndawg (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Krawndawg said. Also, honestly, "maximized and consolidated" sounds like plain nonsense. "The vast majority" sounds questionable and POV-like. So, I wanted to see quotes from good sources directly supporting these statements. Just to be sure this is not a wild interpretation made by a wikipedian. I am pretty sure such statements cannot be found in Forbes lists. Does it make sense? Kulikovsky (talk) 23:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is sad to see some fellow editors keep pressing (undo) link instead of showing us quotes supporting the above sentences. Should I mention that reference to Forbes lists in this context is a red flag indicating original research?

Look what Krawndawg wrote when Muscovite99 challenged his edits:

• The version you just reverted said: "the economy bounced back from crisis seeing GDP increase six-fold"

• The article says: "Average wages rose eightfold during Putin's eight years as president, from roughly $80 a month to $640, and GDP sixfold."

That I see as a very good example. All of us, Wikipedians, should be ready to defend our edits, if needed, by the same standard. Granted, this is somewhat harder then pressing (undo) link, but reverts do not make content any more verifiable. And content must be verifiable. It is not me telling that, it is the rule that was established before any of us even heard of Wikipedia. I am hoping to see the proof soon. Because if I do not... you know, there is no choice but to remove it. That is BLP. Thank you. Kulikovsky (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary result

Almost a week passed after a request to verify the contentious text above, and more than two days passed after a reminder. Yet, nobody could show how that content is verifiable. That means we have consensus here. No, I do not assume that everyone is for removal, I think it is not the case. But no one could show quotes directly supporting the content. That is where we have consensus so far.

Since no one has shown that it is verifiable, I have gained significant confidence that the text in question is an interpretation made by a wikipedian. Per WP:V it does not have place in article.

For those who would like to see the contentious text in the article, just in case, I would like to remind WP:BLP: The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. You had 6 days to demonstrate verifiability of the text. This has not been done. The text was in the article for too long. It is never too late show how a reliable source says the same, but it should be done before the material is restored in the article. Thank you. Kulikovsky (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of pedophilia

I think these accusations must be removed instantly, otherwise we seriously run the risk of WP being sued by Russian authorities. I understand there are many russophobes here, but this time it has gone too far. Thank you. Cfeet77 (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, Russian authorities suing the Internets. The Internets is not in Russia. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I hereby declare that I will be personally removing such accusations instantly whenever I see them, even if such removal of mine violates the 3RR rule. You are welcome to report such potential violation to the ANI noticeboard if you find such reporting appropriate, even without first warning me on my talk page. Cfeet77 (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a baseless accusation made by conspiracy theorist/FSB defector Alexander Litvinenko, who was known for making many other extreme allegations/attacks against Putin with no evidence to his claims (or circumstantial at best). Such personal attacks do not belong on biographies of living persons. Krawndawg (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good thing he was killed don't you think? - PietervHuis (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• What kind of good intentions am I supposed to assume reading the previous comment? Just curious. Kulikovsky (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No I really don't think it's a good thing he was killed, I find the suggestion utterly offensive. Krawndawg (talk) 20:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well sorry, after I encounter those who constantly try to discredit the mans lifework, not long after he died a horrible death, I get the feeling there's a lack of respect. But my bad, I got carried away. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it easy.Setraspdopaduegedfa (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC).

Guys, we shouldn't be trying to be the arbiter of the actual allegation. Instead, if we can find that accusation on a source other than one blatantly biased against Putin and propagandistic in intent, we should allow this section to proceed. And if not, we should not. Only the quality and relative neutrality or veracity of the source need really be considered here. Ender78 (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Krawndawg did exactly what you suggest: evaluated the source. I agree (or think) that inclusion would violate WP:NPOV. Kulikovsky (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Terms to avoid

I would suggest to remove things like "Putins regime" - sounds biased. Your opinions please. Oleg_Str--212.111.199.30 (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC).

Strongly agree. This user has a very valid point. NPOV terms such as this, which may be correct in the strictest sense of the word, nonetheless serve as a flashpoint for the ideological arguments that have been detracting from the quality of this article. The great thing about this article, from the perspective of what we're trying to do here, is that there's no shortage of facts, both good and bad, about the subject, so our research task is not difficult (there's already 150+ cited references across the V. Putin articles). Nor should the writing task be very challenging: Just a matter of organization and keeping the appropriate, neutral tone. This article should be a slam-dunk, as they say. We've just got to move some stuff around, remove the blatantly biased language, rely on the facts, and we've got ourselves a perfectly fine article, that neither propagandizes nor demonizes the subject. Ender78 (talk) 02:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Geez, people

Russian economy since fall of the Soviet Union

What you see since 2003, is the rising oil prices. The Russian economy as such did not improve much, and would plunge if there the oil prices fell (which is unlikely, but I just explain the obvious). This should be explained, instead of presenting Putin as some sort of miracle maker - actually, Bush helped the "rescuing Russian economy" (rising global oil prices) more. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• The article already explains this, except Mr. Bush help. However, raising oil prices do not automatically cause average salary rise. Kulikovsky (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

POV dispute

"the economy bounced back from crisis seeing GDP increase six-fold " is biased POV. This part of sentence uses nominal GDP figures that are not adjusted for inflation (sixfold nominal increase means that economy doubled, and prices have tripled). For NPOV presentation, the sentence should refer to real (inflation-adjusted) GDP figures. Because Krawndawg does not agree, I am adding a NPOV tag to the section to alert readers that NPOV dispute exists.--Doopdoop (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)