Talk:Vladimir Putin

TO ALL EDITORS OF THIS WIKI PAGE, I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THIS FIGHTING

It's a sorry site to see Wikipedia to be a battleground of ideologies and bias. Every one of you is acting like an angry 12 year old playing Call of Duty. Wikipedia is a neutral website, and frankly it's sad that some people do not recognize their own bias. And yelling at each other over the internet (i.e. calling each other brainwashed dogs) is not what Wikipedia editors do. If you believe that is the proper code of conduct, you have no right to edit wikipedia in the first place.

GreyHood has a point. NPOV should always be a priority, and while Western and local news sources cover an event, it never means that coverage is full. For instance, BBC covered the Russian opposition highly, but did not mention those who support Putin, which the majority of the population still does. Similarly, Russian TV covered the opposition very minimally.So both sides should stop condemning one source, while defending the other.

Furthermore, conspiracy theories have no place in the biographical page. Wikipedia is no place to spread rumors that have no basis on reality.

Weasel words or words with significant bias (aka "Mafia State") should NEVER appear on Wikipedia. Spreading propaganda is not the way to run a page. As for allegations of a mafia state, considering the definition given by so-called analysts, it certainly did not begin with Putin, but with his predecessor Yeltsin, who had led to the growth of Russian Oligarchs, who although might be represented as politically repressed by the west, are seen as robbers by many Russians. One must take in mind the culture clash between the West and the East: Americans and Russians have different views of an ideal nation.

One source that I have found relatively non-biased and informative is RIA Novosti. Now before people start to yell how it's Russian and therefore biased, I recommend you all to read the articles on the English version; the articles cover the Opposition and their views along with the mainstream views, and even interviews opposition members. I would say that RIA covers all aspects of Russian culture and views. On Putin's inauguration, they set up a live feed for the ceremony, but also reported on the protest, on how it got out of hand, and on allegations of police brutality.

You people are editors to a highly popular source of information. It saddens me to see how wikipedia sometimes turns into Conservapedia in terms of bias. So stop the name-calling, stop the ignorance, and conduct this task proffessionally.--96.250.107.241 (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, you should login. Since you didn't found any russian media covering the truth I'm going to help you. http://www.gazeta.ru/ http://www.kommersant.ru/ http://www.novayagazeta.ru/ http://www.ng.ru/ http://tvrain.ru/ http://www.echo.msk.ru/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.18.74 (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you must be joking. RIAN (Ria Novosti) is a state controlled news organisation. They are 100% pro Kremlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.18.74 (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read RIA articles? You would be able to see that both sides are covered: the official position of the government, as well as the views of protestors.--96.250.107.241 (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow I have missed some interesting conversations due to my long absense. The IP above has made a good point. Politically motivated language that can be found in some media is not necessarily appropriate for encyclopedia (especially for the lead sections of important articles), unless this language and opinions which are expressed with it clearly represent majority point of view or a large minority point of view. Criticism of democracy in Russia clearly passes these criteria, the "mafia state" claim most certainly not. GreyHood ^Talk 20:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way the geolocation of the two IPs above seem to be somewhat surprising given their point of views ;) GreyHood ^Talk 20:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The introduction is too long and detailed

The introduction contains way too much detail and is too long, making it unreadable. Listing every policy change Putin has undertaken, discussing his taxation policy in detail, his contributions to the automotive industry etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. (repeat 50 times) is unncessary. As has been pointed out numerous times before, including "A keen practitioner of martial arts and several time Champion of Leningrad in judo and sambo in his youth," in the introduction is ridiculous.

For a good example of a well written lead section, see Adolf Hitler. Imagine if that lead section listed all of Hitler's policies in taxation (with lots of numbers), the automotive industry, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. (repeat 50 times). The fact that he was a dictator who started a war would drown completely. But as we all know, this is probably also the reason the Putin lead section is so long and full of so much irrelevant and/or too detailed material. Tataral (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree one hundred percent (and with your comments in the previous section about bias). Unfortunately, there have been a couple of pro-Putin editors who've managed to put in 24/7 stints of editing to keep it the current way. With your help, and others', maybe we can force some changes through. Would you like to perhaps show us your envisaged version below or in the article straight away? Malick78 (talk) 12:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Ad Hitlerum. GreyHood ^Talk 15:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• Mentioning Hitler isn't always an "ad Hitlerum" argument. I suggest you learn its true meaning. You've clearly misunderstood. Tataral is obviously saying we can learn how to write a proper intro from another, generally good, article.Malick78 (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• • • The choice of the article for comparison is pretty telling here. I prefer more natural comparisons with Barack Obama (FA) and other leaders of large modern countries. The Obama article intro focuses on the Obama career and things which he actually did, not on usual criticisms of his administration by the opposition which are plenty or not on the usual anti-Americanism spread in many parts of the world. GreyHood ^Talk 21:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing the current introduction is somewhat difficult as I feel it would be better to start from scratch, but if we remove the most obvious technobabble, excessive detail and hard-to-read numbers, it could look like this for example:

"Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin (Russian: Влади́мир Влади́мирович Пу́тин; IPA: [vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪr vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪrəvʲɪtɕ ˈputʲɪn] ( listen); born 7 October 1952) is a Russian politician who has been the President of Russia since 7 May 2012. Putin previously served as President from 2000 to 2008 and as Prime Minister of Russia from 1999 to 2000, and again from 2008 to 2012. Putin also serves as chairman of United Russia and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Union of Russia and Belarus. He became acting President on 31 December 1999, when president Boris Yeltsin resigned in a surprising move. Putin won the 2000 presidential election; in 2004 he was re-elected for a second term lasting until 7 May 2008.

Because of constitutionally mandated term limits, Putin was ineligible to run for a third consecutive presidential term. After his successor Dmitry Medvedev won the 2008 presidential election, Putin was nominated by Medvedev to be Russia's Prime Minister; Putin took office on 8 May 2008 and a period of so-called "tandemocracy"[1] followed. In September 2011, Putin and Medvedev agreed he should seek a third, non-consecutive term in the 2012 presidential election, which he won in the first round on 4 March 2012.[2][3]

Under Putin's rule, Russia has been in "a long process of regression culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime" according to the 2011 Democracy Index.[4] In the assessment of foreign observers, Russia has become "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.""[5][6] Putin claims to have overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia, ending the crisis of the 1990s.[7][8] He invaded Chechnya, starting the Second Chechen War. During his presidency, the Russian economy grew for nine straight years while poverty decreased significantly.

As Prime Minister, Putin oversaw large scale military reform and police reform. His energy policy has affirmed Russia's position as an energy superpower.[20][21] A significant rise in foreign investment[22] contributed to a boom in such sectors as the automotive industry. Economic megaprojects which Putin endorsed have included the construction of major export pipelines, the restoration of the global satellite navigation system GLONASS, and the building of infrastructure for international events held in Russia. Putin's leadership has mostly enjoyed considerable popularity in Russia with generally high approval ratings.[24] In the media, Putin often projects an outdoor, tough guy image."

As a general principle, lead sections should not list lots of numbers, this principle is also well established in journalism, and should avoid being too technical. If some key points should be retained, they should be reworded much more briefly, but it's best to start from scratch in that case. Tataral (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The introduction to the article on Vladimir Putin is very good. Maybe we should copy that approach in other articles?--Toddy1 (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

l. o. l. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

puts his fist through his face* θvξrmagξ ^spellbook 06:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

...and Wikipedia self-destructed...Malick78 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be destructed if users continue to bring blatant yellow press stories and hoaxes into articles, or to conceal the refutations of those hoaxes and to give undue weight to them (in case those hoaxes are of some encyclopedic value). GreyHood ^Talk 02:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• In relation to the intro, I should point out to the obvious manipulation (whoever did that) with the phrase "Putin has overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia, ending the crisis of the 1990s" being turned into the phrase "Putin claims to have overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia". Of course it is not only Putin himself who claims it, but multiple reliable sources express this opinion! (or rather, this fact, since it is too obvious thing) And the two sources currently in the article support the claim as well. I have not the book at my hands to check it right now, but the source is credible and was long used in this article to support the claim. And the second source is the article about that Chinese Confucius Prize awarded to Putin, which clearly says "he was regarded to be capable of bringing safety and stability to Russia" and “He became the antiterrorist No. 1 and the national hero.” GreyHood ^Talk 02:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• Further problematic claim proposed by Tataral, on Chechnya. The Second Chechen war was started when Yeltsin still was President and Command-in-Chief and was ordered by Yeltsin, it was started as response to the Invasion of Dagestan (1999), and the phrasing of "He invaded Chechnya" is rather dubious not only because Putin was only Prime-Minister then, but because Chechnya was considered Russian territory and the war was considered anti-terrorist operation. also, by now the war has long ended and Chechnya is rebuilt. Chechnya seems rellatively important, though, and we might think how to integrate it in the intro in more correct and neutral way. GreyHood ^Talk 02:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• As for the analysis of the "mafia state" POV claim, enough to say that the claim seems to be supported primarily by some exceptionally talanted journalists like Luke Harding (who managed to get himself temporarily refused re-entry into Russia), controversial Litvinenko who worked for the British intelligence, few Wikileaks cables containing gossips of American diplomats and a phrase of a Spanish persecutor who mixes the so called Russian mafia operating abroad with the Russian state. It has nothing to do neither with the actual diplomatic relations of Russia with other states, nor with the actual scholarly accounts on Russia, nor with generally more balanced reporting and careful language choices by the media like BBC. It also has nothing to do with the Russian domestic reality, where organised crime significantly decreased during Putin's era and where the trend on clanishness in the government was reversed under Putin. GreyHood ^Talk 04:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No stats in intro

Can I make a suggestion? We have little to no stats in the intro? I don't want to have to check everything that a certain editor (I presume) puts in, but I checked a few and they are not supported by the sources given (or only by some, and those sources are used in such a selective way as to be untrustworthy in the whole). The intro is too important to use untrustworthy stats; lets keep stats in the body where they are less eye-catching (sure, they still should be accurate, but they're less damaging if wrong if they're not seen so early I think). For the record, the Rus Profile article showed poverty went down almost by 50%, the Ria Novost said it was more than 50% (but then later in the article said that even that was dubious since too many are still poor, yet the stat suggests it's all rosy), yet the text said "over 50%" as if that was incontrovertible. Ria and Rus Prof also gave worse stats for the average wage increase quoted in the next section of the sentence: why were other sources used for the wages? Weren't those in Ria good enough? Someone was obviously selecting the best stats they could use: but if Ria Novost is so good, it should have been used for all the stats, not rejected when it's version of the 'truth' wasn't good enough for the editor... Whoever that editor was. Anybody want to own up? I haven't checked yet but I'll try... Malick78 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Rusprofile is dated August 2007, Ria Novosti is dated March 2008. This answers your first question about the difference of data between sources - one uses later and better figures. Then, you obviously misread the RIAN source - it lists poverty decrease among "Achievements" but voices concern about "a growing gap between rich and poor" which is a different issue, and the fact that many people were still poor in 2008 doesn't contradict the fact that there were twice as more poor people 8 years before. As for the different figure of average salary by 2007 or early 2008 there either must be a mistake (one source say $540, the other $640), or more likely the second source (also March 2008) uses more up-to-date data (the sources also use different starting figures which indicates that the copying was unlikely). The notable difference in data in the 2007-2008 period is quite understandable, since (see the RIAN source) this was a period of especially rapid wages growth of 20-25% per year.

So in general there seem to be no any serious problems with statistics - it is normal to expect that different sources at different times within the period of rapid change give different figures. Rus Profile perhaps may be dropped as more outdated source; the RIAN figures on the average wage seem to be outdated and below those in the estimate in the most recent revision of data in Rosstat. Anyway the main point is that poverty decreased twice and salaries grew many times, and I see no reason to remove it and replace with trivial statements that "poverty decrease" and "average monthly salaries increase" which was a common thing for most countries during the pre-crisis economic expansion in 2000s. It is the size of improvements which matters here, and your attempts to conceal it on pretext of non-important and natural differences in data is pretty telling, Malick. GreyHood ^Talk 21:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Below you agree it should be shorter, but I removed something and you complain. What should be removed then? Basic facts about when he became President? Or statistics? Your comment that "This answers your first question about the difference of data between sources - one uses later and better figures" is telling: you show no concern that both sources were being used to support the assertion that poverty went down by over 50%, yet only one source contained that info. How can an encyclopaedia work like that? With such inattention to detail? Stats can go in the body of the article where they can be dealt with properly and in depth, general trends in the intro.

Btw, how come we don't mention his KGB career in the intro? It's a major part of his life and background. Malick78 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The stats show the same pattern and the same basic facts, though different sources give information for different particular points of time within a close range. And please read carefully what I write: I have showed concern about the fact that Rus Rep source is more outdated compared to the others and I have expressed the view that it may be dropped as outdated.

We should remove undue POV which is given undue weight. Also we will remove some yellow press and hoaxes which you've re-added yet again despite being pointed out by multiple users to the nature of your edits, but this is a different question from the intro. GreyHood ^Talk 22:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The stats are very useful and should not be removed; most academic sources mention stats such as economic growth, reduction in poverty, repaid debts, etc. when giving an introduction to Putin's Presidency. The yellow press claims and hoaxes should be removed, however. Nanobear (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"The stats show the same pattern and the same basic facts" - "basic facts" are not phrased "over 50%". Basic facts are that something has "increased", surely.

You still do not understand, I see, that the term "yellow press" is subjective and meaningless here. We do not care about your personal opinions unless they somehow refer to WP policies. Oh, and no hoaxes are mentioned in the article. Are you sure you're thinking of this one? Malick78 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There are some nice definitions of yellow press. I especially like the "underdog against the system" part you know ;). Otherwise, the term fairly concretely describes the kind of media stories and media oulets that put undue weight to minor stories and rumours, that use unconfirmed information of unclear origin or from pseudoexperts, and pay excessive attention to scandals, rumours and hoaxes involving sexual and family life of famous people and pop culture persons. Most of this is related to such policies as WP:Due weight, WP:Reliable sources and WP:BLP. GreyHood ^Talk 00:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nanobear, use policy based arguments. You cannot revert all negative content about Putin by simply labeling it as 'yellow press'. I have not looked over in enough detail the edits to decide whether or not to revert you myself in the latest set of things, but the continued insistence of people on this page that negative content doesn't belong on this page because it is 'yellow press' is bordering on tendentious editing. Wikipedia's view of neutrality requires that we represent all major view points roughly in proportion to how they are held. Negative content about Putin is reported in literally thousands of places that we consider reliable sources (and that includes almost every source in the edit you just reverted.)You cannot exclude content from an article simply because you believe it to be 'yellow press'. In the future, please use policy-based reasoning when making reversions on this page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll make the explanation of the "yellow press" below in a special section. GreyHood ^Talk 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

In the case of allegations about Putin's relationship with Kabaeva (and the following stories connected to that refuted original claim), the western sources simply repeated the claims of some Russian sources, and those Russian sources were yellow press and unreliable in the first place. If the claim, for which the journalists later apologised (and which was made in a newspaper which was later closed by the owner because of the story) was repeated in sources which are considered reliable this doesn't add substance to the original hoax. If all this scandal should be reported in this article, it should be reported with due details and with clear characterisation of the story as refuted and belonging to the yellow press. GreyHood ^Talk 01:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The stats are definitely important and should be kept in the lead. Here are the stats highlighted in an article by Yale University Professor of Economics A. Tsyvinski and Professor of Economy at New Economic School in Moscow S. Guriev (pp. 9-39. ISBN 9780881324976):

• real incomes in 1999-2008 increased by a factor of 2.5
• real wages more than tripled
• unemployment went down more by a half - from 12.9% in 1999 to 6.3% in 2008
• the poverty rate went down from 29% in 1999 to 13% in 2008
• the poverty cap (the income that would suffice to bring all the poor to the minimum living standards) decreased from 4.9% of total households' income in 1999 to 1.2% in 2008
• self-assessed life satisfaction rose significantly

I believe these at least should be present in the lead. Nanobear (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Can you point us to some other bios that cover such detailed info in the lead? And how will we choose which stats from which source to highlight? So many sources differ that it would be very difficult to choose the best for such a prominent position in the lead. Malick78 (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

On yellow press and misrepresented facts

• In the discussion above Toddy1 has shown that the relationship of Putin with Kabaeva was a hoax for which the authors of the hoax apologised since they were unable to present evidence. Multiple Russian sources directly call the media which originated or republished that false story "yellow press" or express concern that even some more respectable western media repeated the claim. American yellow press, Israeli media believed the yellow press reports etc. This fact has been pointed out to user Malick78 several times, yet he did nothing to remove the hoax or at least to explain that it was a claim for which the authors apologised and were unable to present evidence. Malick reverted to the version containing the non-refuted claim about Kabaeva several times. GreyHood ^Talk 23:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, according to the former worker of the newspaper which first published the hoax, they invented it simply because they were in a hurry to fill the empty space left in the issue which was otherwise almost ready for publication ;) GreyHood ^Talk 01:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• The claim of Putin's relationship with Anna Chapman is even more ridiculous than the claim of relationship with Kabaeva and, in fact, I am not sure whether such claim was made at all and in what manner it was made. As far as I know, nobody even bothered to refute this claim if it was really made in some distinctive form. In the Kabaeva case the yellow press claimed that they would marry and that they had a child (the first of course never happened, the second made Kabaeva to comment that she is not going to pay attention to the yellow press and what they write about her child). In the case of Chapman, whom multiple sources describe as an object of the yellow press attention, there were even some attempts to connect her to then President Medvedev (oh what a macho he is ;) ), not only to Putin: Whose favourite is Anna Chapman? Putin's or Medvedev's? (the first link I got from google for the search "Путин Чапман" ;)) Here the word "favourite" is notoriously ambiguous. And overall the claim is totally ridiculous and typical of yellow press: they pick up a handsome woman famous for her naked photosets (both Kabaeva and Chapman did that) and for making political career at the young age (after making career in gymnastics/espionage), than they connect these women to Putin who met with them few times over political business. And this way the love story is born! But, of course, no one is able to present any real evidence for their "closer" relationship. GreyHood ^Talk 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• The media story on problems in Putin's family was a direct continuation of the Kabaeva hoax and as such holds no water. There are sources which directly call the so called "disappearance of Lyudmila Putina" an invented scandal.
• In the discussion above it has been shown that photos of Putin's family exist and were published in the Russia media. The photos since 2000 had no daughters' faces shown for security reasons, nevertheless some specific family photos exist. User Malick78 was pointed out to the existence of such photos, but, despite concern from several users, he did nothing either to remove the incorrect claim (that there are no photos of Putin's family) or to specify that there are no recent photos with daughters fully shown. And instead of explaining that it is for security reasons, he simply integrated the incorrect overgeneralized claim into the text alongside the claims of family problems.
  • I would really like to hear from Malick78 an explanation of his actions: adding the yellow press claims to the article in non-critical way and continuing to misrepresent the facts even after being pointed out to the obvious refutations of those claims is unacceptable. GreyHood ^Talk 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This is pretty much what I was going to say as well. Nanobear (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, there is no concept of "yellow press" in WP policies. Refer to RS if you want to be taken seriously. As for the "hoax", one newspaper went further than the rest and claimed that Putin had divorced his wife and was about to remarry. It couldn't back that up and was cowardly closed by an owner who was shitting himself (and later had his bank raided). He didn't close it for carrying the story of the affair, but for reporting a marriage that was never going to happen. Therefore the "hoax" is the remarriage, not the affair. I'm not surprised that such real-life subtleties evade you two though. Either way though, numerous RS have reported the marriage problems and alleged affairs, so we can report on WP: "numerous sources have reported problems in the marriage and affairs, but these have been denied". It's that the very definition of NPOV?
• As for the photos of the family: you have shown no photos with his family taken recently or published by the media. Photos with no caption and not showing faces cannot be claimed by us to show a particular person - that would be OR. So, I'm still waiting for you to show photos of the family (especially a recent official one).
• Oh, and Nanobear, is mention of his KGB past in the intro yellow press too? How are you going to explain that away? Malick78 (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have provided the link which says that one of the journalists in that closed newspaper directly said that the story was invented just to fill the empty space. So they didn't just apologized for it and were unable to present evidence. It was a hoax, period. No point in arguing about that. The newspaper was soon reopened by the way, but after short time it was closed again because of "problems with finance and creativity" - which means that the edition acquired bad reputation and became commercially unsuccessful.
• So, the relationship with Kabaeva, the "marriage", the subsequent birth of an "illegitimate child", "disappearance" of Lyudmila Putina are all hoaxes and yellow press, "an invented scandal". Why you continue pushing it? Why you refused to mention that this was an invented story, not just "denied"?
• As, for the family, the photos on the presidential sites bear captions that they show Putin with his family. Yes, there are no recent photos with faces shown for security reasons. Why you refused to specify these important details? Because "no family photos" so nicely fits into the narrative of family problems? GreyHood ^Talk 19:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• The presidential site says "Приморский край. Морская прогулка"; it does not identify the people in the photo. Why did you just make that up?
• How do you know the daughters' faces aren't shown "for security reasons"? Why couldn't it be for "privacy reasons" (my interpretation, in fact)? Again, you're making things up.
• We mentioned that he was alleged by multiple sources to have had an affair: nothing is said of the "hoax" in the paper you keep going on about. The paper didn't start the rumours of affairs, so it has little bearing on the whole matter in fact. You still can't avoid the fact that the existence of rumours of an affair were carried by multiple RS and are therefore notable. So, it stays in the article. Malick78 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The photo album on the presidential site is called "In the family circle". It speaks for itself. The caption of the photo reflects this accordingly. You have also been provided with links to the child photos of daughters if I am not mistaken, so why you continue pushing the incorrect overgeneralized claim? "For privacy" or "for security" is almost the same in my view. the key problem is that in your version of the text it all looked like an additional testimony to the "family problems" rumours. GreyHood ^Talk 20:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have provided the source which lists the marriage hoax as the original point of the "invented scandal". You have been provided with links which show that the journalists aplogized, were unable to present evidence and and openly admitted they invented the whole story. I have provided the links which state that the story (marriage+illigitimate child) is belonging to the yellow press. Republishment of hoaxes by reliable sources does not make them true (or possibly true) as you have tried to present it. GreyHood ^Talk 20:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• [1] More hoax pushing? Malick, are your intentions here to utterly destroy good faith in relation to your edits? You directly violate WP:HOAX. "A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real." - you present the confirmed hoax as something that might have been real. You simply restore the obvious misinformation without even viewing the alternative to describe the confirmed hoax as hoax if it seems of so much importance to you. And you restored the incorrect description of the daughters' photographs situation. And you did it for the third time at least. GreyHood ^Talk 20:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• • What are you talking about? The text is: "Putina is now rarely seen with Putin and there have been rumours, according to the Daily Mail and other newspapers, that the couple have separated. Putin has been linked by newspapers with other women, including gymnast Alina Kabayeva and ex-spy Anna Chapman. These rumours have been denied."
  • We don't mention that they have divorced. Or that he was going to remarry. That was the "hoax", according to you. Other rumours of affairs and separation didn't come from the paper that got closed down. So, they're not part of the hoax. Simples. Malick78 (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The "marriage" claim was the most renown incident of reporting of the relationship rumours, and it was found to be a hoax. Without that incident those rumours never would receive any kind of prominence - there are tons of rumours about politicians circulating in the yellow press. This source directly calls the story about the "disappearance of Lyudmila Putina" an invented scandal, and traces its' beginnings to the false publications about Kabaeva. This kind of rumours and stories is clearly characterised in the Russian media as yellow press not worth of believing. Presenting this as something that still might have been true, without mentioning the yellow press kind of this rumour-reporting and the fact that the most prominent part of the story was refuted and how such stories are made-up is unacceptable. And you push on with that. in my view this should not be mentioned at all or should be mentioned in a short form but with due balance and details about hoaxes and yellow press. The rumours about Putin hold no water or prominence (as compared to the usual level of gossip about famous public people) but for those incidents with yellow newspapers, and the incidents belong to the articles about those newspapers rather than here. GreyHood ^Talk 21:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The marriage problems were being reported in the West before the remarrying "hoax", so, you're wrong there. One article that calls the disappearance an invention, does not prove it is, nor negate multiple RS which reported it as the rumour the article says it was. Regarding "the usual level of gossip about famous public people", Putin has more rumours than most leaders, in fact. There were no rumours of affairs by Blair, Bush, Obama... just Putin and Berlusconi. And guess what the truth turned out to be with the last guy... (Putin's best buddy and Pussy Posse pal ;) ).Malick78 (talk) 08:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

At the very least

The lead needs to be reduced to four paragraphs. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should almost never be longer than four paragraphs. And it is currently six. This is an issue. Silverseren^C 19:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed the issue, in the last versions the intro has become too long and was a bit too long even before. GreyHood ^Talk 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Massive removal of sourced materials

What is this? Kommersant and other quoted sources belong to WP:RS. If someone thinks they are not, please discuss at RS noticeboard. My very best wishes (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read what Greyhood wrote above. Nanobear (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As is shown above, the version before the revert contained hoaxes, manipulations with facts and sources, lots of yellow press stuff and POV-pushing. Which is why I have made a similar revert previously. Some of the stuff and sources from there might actually be re-added, but in more accurate and decent way.

If your concern is about Putin's dissertation (where the Kommersant source was used), it was a clear example of an undue weight (putting the fairly weak allegation into a special section and devoting so much space to it - Putin also is not a professional practicing scholar for that issue to gain so much importance). A brief mention of the existence of that controversy would be enough in the biography section. GreyHood ^Talk 04:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A German politician resigned recently for plagiarising his dissertation (I forget his name). It is an issue in normal countries if a politician gains professional qualifications through deceit. Malick78 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There was no deceit. The "plagiarised" work was actually referenced to. The situation is well described here: List_of_plagiarism_incidents#Vladimir_Putin. All this looks just like an attempt of some "fellows at the Brookings Institution" to gain some media attention to themselves. GreyHood ^Talk 19:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact he was let off (surprise, surprise!) doesn't mean it wasn't plagiarism: just no one dared punish him. Do you deny large amounts of text were copied, without clearly stating that they were being quoted? Sounds like plagiarism to me. Malick78 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, they couldn't have been directly copied, because the translation was used. Secondly, the authors of the allegations said that the "plagiarised" work was in the bibliography and that they do not believe plagiarism was really "intentional" (interesting, unintentional plagiarism with the "plagiarised" original work mentioned - could there be such things?). Thirdly, the dissertation committee denied the allegations and claimed all was correct and referenced. All this was integrated to the text of the article. GreyHood ^Talk 20:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaddy says: "The dissertation itself has something like 180 pages of text.…About 16 pages of text come straight out of King and Cleland, with no footnotes, no quotation marks, and never in the text are the names King and Cleland ever mentioned. Moreover, this material that comes directly from King and Cleland is from the very first sentence of chapter two, the chapter on strategic planning, taken straight from the book. So there’s no original introduction by Mr. Putin that then gets into this. So clearly the reader assumes these are the thoughts, the ideas of the author of the dissertation. Speaking as a professor, you can’t do this; this is not the way you do it. This is plagiarism. If you want to include this much of a work, which is probably too much under any circumstances, you must put quotation marks around it, you must acknowledge that these authors did all this thinking. These are elementary steps that you must take. But it wasn’t done. So I think this would classify as plagiarism at any university around the world that’s adhering to international standards, commonly accepted standards. It’s definitely plagiarism. The next question of course is: was it intentional plagiarism, or what was it all about? And that’s always the question with plagiarism. In this case, I don’t think it was really intentional in the sense that if you had wanted to hide where the text came from you wouldn’t even list this work in the bibliography. Had they not listed the book in the bibliography, I could never have checked it…I can say for sure that they’ve plagiarized from King and Cleland, but there are another 160 pages whose sources have not been checked at all, or at least I haven’t checked them. I don’t know if they’ve been plagiarized or not. I suspect they might have been, because they’ve been written in a very different style…."

Yet Greyhood wrote: "the dissertation became a target of plagiarism accusations by fellows at the Brookings Institution; however the allegedly "plagiarised" study was referenced to and the authors of the allegation admitted they do not believe "plagiarism" was "intentional"..." [my bolding]

Why do you always twist sources Greyhood? You added quotation marks around the word "plagiarism", which the previous editor hadn't used. You obviously hadn't read the source either, or you'd have seen that he was completely sure that plagiarism had taken place; yet your version gives entirely the opposite impression. You need blocking for a while, I think, to let you think about the ethics of editing here.Malick78 (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It is you who directly twist sources, Malick78, which you have done in your recent revert to the intro, unexplained by anything better than "better before". The sources claim that Putin returned stability or is credited with that, not Putin himself "claims" that. This is obviously POVish direct manipulation, and very funny also.

I have put "plagiarism" into quotation marks because it was not a part of a quote but paraphrasing, and the plagiarism accusations were never fully confirmed, denied by the dissertation committe and containing obvious weaknesses - such as listing the "plagiarized" work in the bibliography and referencing to it in the text. Therefore to maintain neutrality we should use "plagiarism", with quotation marks. The problem is that the reference in Putin's work was just [23] instead of giving the names of authors of the work he referenced to - but this is not Putin's fault but the difference between referencing styles in Russia and the West at that time (by now, Russia has switched to the western style of referencing if I am not mistaken). As for the intentionality, your quote directly says "In this case, I don’t think it was really intentional".

The addition of a long quote to the reference is clearly inappropriate - it adds little to the understanding of the situation and is yet another attempt to put an undue weight to the whole matter. Put that quote here instead. We could not start adding such long pro- and contra- quotes for every controversy discussed in this article. GreyHood ^Talk 22:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Either way the fact that there is a dispute here means that the materials should not have been first removed without prior discussion, as there is clearly not a pre-existing consensus on the issue. Also according to MOS, if you want to imply that plagiarism is not a given, then state so in the long sentence, there is no need for quotation marks. If you do want quotation marks, quote a phrase rather than the word alone, like 'accusations of plagiarism' vs 'plagiarism'. θvξrmagξ ^spellbook 00:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Putin claims"

I have corrected a problem in the lead: The sentence "Putin claims to have overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia". This is not what the used source says. The book states the return of stability and economic progress as a fact, not as Putin's claim. Previously, I tried to add an even better source, but I was immediately reverted. I have now re-added this source. It an article by Michael McFaul et al. in the book Developments in Russian Politics 7. The direct quote is:

Beginning in the 1999-2000 electoral cycle, Putin offered a different reason to support for his party - stability. After a decade of chaotic revolutionary change, Russian citizens yearned for it. With the exception of the ongoing war in Chechnya, Putin delivered it. The Russian economy grew more in each year of Putin's first term in office than in all of the previous decade. Voters did not care whether this growth was due to Putin's economic reforms, which were substantial, or the combination of high oil prices and low international interest rates. Putin got the credit regardless.

The are many other academic sources which state the same facts, but, being an article written top researchers of Russian politics, I think this should more than enough. Nanobear (talk) 01:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying he has returned "political stability" is a very sweeping statement, that it's best to soften it with a word such as "claimed". Others, for example, would say he has destroyed all democracy in Russia (he swaps jobs at will, election results are falsified, the opposition can't get TV air-time), so to say Russia is "politically stable" is the height of disingenuity. Can you see the problem? It must be qualified with a few more words - perhaps, "some claim that..."? Malick78 (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The solution is in the direct quote. McFaul is stating that the perception of the Russian public was

• improved stability, Chechnya aside, and
• improved financial circumstances;

regardless of Putin's role or non-role he simply benefited from getting credit for that.

1. McFaul does not state that Putin claimed anything. The so-called "offer" is McFaul's characterization of the aforementioned public perception, any inference of an action on the part of Putin is purely inferred.
2. McFaul does not credit Putin for stability or financial improvement.

It's much easier to read what's there and not read into it anything more than is there. I support McFaul as a source for this article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the reservations McFaul makes (note that he is highly controversial figure in Russia - being the U.S. ambassador, he recognizes that the previous U.S. administration actually attempted to prepare a color revolution in Russia), he recognises the basic point. The current wording correctly describes the situation that Putin was and is credited by multiple people and sources for the return of stability etc. Turning that into ridiculous statement like "Putin claims" was absolutely inappropriate step and I'd still like to hear some explanation why it was made. GreyHood ^Talk 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

From my memory, I thought "Putin has overseen a return of political stability..." was too strong - as if it was incontrovertible. The text did not say "is credited by multiple people and sources for the return of stability", just that he had restored it. Hence I added 'claims', to soften the statement. I see what you mean - that it perhaps wasn't phrased like that in the source, but I think even you'll agree that the essence (that, for example, in running for reelection, Putin and his minions have claimed that he's restored stability) is entirely true. Putin has, in general, claimed this acheivement. End of drama? :) Malick78 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Putin's reaction to Tymoshenko's imprisonment

In the article it just mentions that Tymoshenko was "found guilty" of abuse of office, which is rather misleading, since it implies due process. That aside, I just want to add that Putin found the charges against Tymoshenko to be anti-Russian in essence, since it implied that Russia also, knowingly, broke Ukranian law, which Putin alleges that Russia would not sign a treaty that was against the co-signer's laws, and that Russian lawyers analyzed it before the treaty was signed, etc. I have a source here. I'd add it myself, but my account has yet to be auto-confirmed and the page is semi-protected.--Lord Sephiran, Duke of Persis (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this should be made clearer as reliable sources warrant. __meco (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Syrian uprising?

The news has frequently noted the significance of the Syrian government's support from the Russian leadership, so why isn't there any mentioning on Wikipedia? 173.180.202.22 (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)