Talk:Vladimir Putin

Personal wealth UPDATE (Al Jazeera)

• Is Vladimir Putin Richer Than Carlos Slim? (Video 25 min.). Nemissimo (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This article mentions a new report into Putin's wealth and the things he has at his disposal as President - it's entitled Life of a Galley Slave :) We should definitely have a section on his salary and official residences... etc, since they are so controversial (=notable, Greyhood). Malick78 (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

On fanciful opinions and labels

Re: this. As I said, this stuff does not belong to the intro, especially the "mafia state" part, as it is too obviously a marginal opinion (as compared to mainstream) and a propaganda label. Even the mainstream Western press, which is generally and hypocritically anti-Russian and anti-Putin, reports typically in more neutral way without usage of too obviously biased and non-professional terminology, and tends to be very accurate even with such terms as "authoritarianism" in regard to Russia. Only some editions, such as leftist liberal The Guardian, are more hardline in this relation. There is no reason why we should supplant the global perspective and balanced point of view with the views of the western MSM, and absolutely no reason why we should take the most radical and marginal western opinions.

To create a counterbalance to such extreme POV we would actually need to take and to add to the lead some labels from the "other side", involving the description of Putin as a "strongman", "savior of Russia", "saint man" in the view of his most radical supporters, Russian imperialists and hardline conservatives. Or we would have to report on the perception of Putin as some kind of a hero and a primary opponent of the western U.S. and NATO imperialism - such an opinion is widespread in Russia, Serbia, in some parts of the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. Using such extreme opinions would look ridiculous in the lead, and it is a bad solution in any top level politician article. GreyHood ^Talk 17:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been following Western media coverage of Russia for many years, and I've never seen the "mafia state" -label being widely used. It's pretty much a fringe label. I don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia article. Nanobear (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Al-jazeera video in the section above mentions "mafia state" - it's a well-known concept in my view and legitimate. The above video (and other sources) mentions that Putin and his associates are worth $180 billion - so yes, Russia is currently a mafia state. As for Greyhood - you can't have it both ways - saying it's non-notable and then saying it'd have to be counterbalanced with more, opposite fringe views. As it is, the intro promotes Vladimir enough already. The mafia state comment was put in in order to counterbalance the flattery already present.Malick78 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That "flattery" is facts, and facts put in rather balanced way. Balancing facts with most marginal critical opinions is a bad idea, especially when the mainstream western criticism is already mentioned there. We are supposed to make a summary of criticism, not to take the most radical opinions as representation of the criticism on the whole. GreyHood ^Talk 20:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The perception of Russia as a mafia state, a well established term, is the mainstream opinion outside Russia (and has been for years), the perception of the US government, and belongs here. The whole article is full of ridiculous amounts of pro-Putin flattery, that's the real problem. Mafia state=the mainstream opinion. Pro Putin flattery: The fringe opinion. Putin is not a normal politician like a democratically elected politician of a democratic country, but more comparable to Alexander Lukashenko or Robert Mugabe. Tataral (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mafia-style corruption is still a big problem in most Central and Eastern European countries, even after they joined the EU:

– Europe hosts mafia-states

– BIS reports mafia has fingers in Czech judicial system

– WikiLeaks: US embassy’s take on Czech corruption

The Guardian, March 2012: "Tales of criminality, thuggery, and vast amounts of cash flowing to politicians from companies, lobbyists, and middlemen are dominating the newspapers and blogosphere across central Europe. In contrast, successful prosecutions are extremely rare for a political class that often seems to operate with impunity. Austria, Slovakia, Croatia, and the Czech Republic are in the throes of major sleaze allegations involving senior politicians and governing parties said to be funded by dirty money."[1] Tobby72 (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow. What a blatant bias and misinformation. The "perception of Russia as a "mafia state" is a perception of some U.S. diplomats, which even didn't tell that publicly - it was rather made public via Wikileaks, and also was spread by The Guardian's journalist Luke Harding - the only case of some notice (according to my knowledge) when a western journalist was denied a visa to Russia at some point. This is most certainly not "mainstream", and most certainly not a source of good analysis and unbiased opinions. GreyHood ^Talk 18:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

To make my point clear: to write about Putin's Russia as a "mafia state" is at the same level of bias and unprofessionalism as to write about the Obama's U.S. as about the country run by banksters with a puppet president (quite widespread opinion by the way). It is absolutely inappropriate to to put such marginal stuff into lead sections of encyclopedic articles.

Another pair of comparisons: Vladimir Zhirinovsky, one of to politicians in Russia, called Condoleeza Rice a "bitch" (and said many other interesting things about her) and Vice Premier Dmitry Rogozin basically described Madonna as a "whore". Should we include these characteristics to the leads of the corresponding articles? The authors of those opinions are more important than some little-known diplomats and journalists, what would you say about that?

Finally, I stress, that a radical opinion spread primarily by relatively marginal western journalists should not be presented as some sort of mainstream opinion in the West, and of course could not ever be presented as a global opinion. Official position of the U.S. government is pretty well known, it involves continuing dialogue, limited economic and military cooperation with Russia, and "reload" of relationships. This is official, not the "mafia state".

GreyHood ^Talk 18:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The views of Zhirinovsky and Rogozin are hardly notable (or even shared by others) regarding the two women in question. However, as I and others say, the view that Russia lacks democracy and has been taken over by a few criminal men and women seems widespread. That makes it notable. (As for your contention that Obama is a "puppet president", that's laughable and not even close to being a widely held view by respectable sources).Malick78 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

These views, especially the Rogozin's comment, have been republished by many reliable sources and are apparently shared by many people in Russia and elsewhere. This doesn't make those characteristics important enough to include them to the lead sections. GreyHood ^Talk 19:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion of non-pro-Putin info by... well, you know who

I've just seen what Greyhood did yesterday - removing all the stable content that has lasted the summer, but which he didn't like before it. If it was stable, that suggests the rest of our editors were happy with it, Greyhood. I'll restore it and I think you should discuss each bit here before you remove it (at least the bits you know are controversial). It was, I repeat, stable before you hacked away at it.Malick78 (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is no reason to remove this material that has been stable for a long time. If Greyhood wants to change any of it, he should bring it up here first. Tataral (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This material included blatant misinformation, untended tags, unduly long quotes (for this already too long article), stuff opposed by many editors other than me, and obvious breaches of POV. This was a result of edit war and my long absence, rather than a result of consensus. I'm reverting back to the neutral version without those obvious faults. If you guys remain discontent and intend to push on with propaganda language and political labeling, I suggest to pre-discuss it and present a thorough justification and a good neutral wording before inserting controversial opinion stuff to the article and to the lead in particular. GreyHood ^Talk 18:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think that consensus disappeared because you, 1 humble editor, disappeared, then once again it shows you surely don't understand the concept of consensus (it's formed by many people, FYI). That the info remained while you were away shows many editors and readers found it fair and neutral. That was the consensus. Malick78 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I do actually care to make this article better. We could not speak of a good consensus when we have the version of the article containing misinformation (added and re-added by you, despite it was disproved at talk) and bearing a hatnote. It is obviously not a good version and should be changed. GreyHood ^Talk 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Your phrase "good consensus" shows your intentions - a version you are happy with, irrespective of others' views. That's not going to happen - our information is your 'misinformation', and vice-versa. Let's just go for consensus. Currently the stable summer version is that.Malick78 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with including your "information", but accurately worded and given due weight. The way you put the information about family photos is misinformation - the existing family photos were presented on this talk page. Continuing to pushing on with that misinformation up to this point "shows your intentions", in your own words. GreyHood ^Talk 22:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Except you don't even know what a portrait is! As I said below, here, you blatantly tell a falsehood. You removed "According to the Daily Mail, their photographs have never been published by the Russian media, and no family portrait has ever been issued." - yet I showed you that the pictures you found released to the press of his "family" with the children's backs to camera a) weren't titled "Putin's family" (so it was OR to claim so), and b) were not portraits (portraits show faces, not the backs of heads). How are the backs of children's heads "a portrait"? Please explain to us all. You do not read things, Greyhood, you ignore details to keep pushing your POV. Even today, for God's sake, the Guardian has printed "Putin has attempted to maintain strict secrecy over his private life, with reports on his little seen wife and two daughters considered all but taboo." - can't you see that this is reliable info? Malick78 (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on that point. There are photos of Putin with his family in the media, including photos with his daughters faces shown, including photos which pretty much look like good family portraits. Therefore the wording pushed by you is misinformation and needs to be removed or carefully modified (explaining what photos exists, whether faces are shown, at what age). The fact that he conceals his family in recent years is a different issue. GreyHood ^Talk 23:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

[2] this one is called foul tactics, Malick. First you remove the material about all biking events involving Putin but one, then you write "biking section removed - seems to be a one-off event and of no lasting notability". I also should point out that the way you have named this talk section is inappropriate, and you know it - you should not refer to other users in talk titles. GreyHood ^Talk 18:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean "but one"? I don't follow.

As for the title, title's are (apparently) hard to change in page histories, hence the ban on using users' names there. Hence I didn't. Yet the topic involves you directly, since you deleted huge chunks of text that had been stable after an edit war, so you naturally are the subject. I found a middle way of dealing with that issue. But still, the issue is this: don't edit war please :) Malick78 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm making reasonable, well-explained changes to the article. My recent changes included new wording, new attempts at compromise (I've left most of the points of content, just has given them appropriate place and size), and edits of the parts previously non-disputed by anyone. In that changes I was supported by other users in the past and now. And you are making mass-reverts, apparently trying to preclude me from making any change to this article at all. GreyHood ^Talk 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the point, your changes weren't reasonable or well-explained. They were far too big and controversial for this delicate topic - and included stuff you'd tried to force in previously which was rejected. It might be fun to pretend your edits are "reasonable", but we can see through it.Malick78 (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Address my changes point by point, do not do mass reverts. GreyHood ^Talk 22:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Heh, looks like I wasn't the only one who noticed that, Malick... Seems like United Russia decided to provide additional finances to our favorite "agents", Greyhood and Nanobear who both "decided" to become more "active" again on around August 26th ;-) I mean, what else can you expect from Greyhood, who created a personal Putin-related userpage template here: [3] which doesn't have a single properly-formed critique of Putin, especially in "Assessments" section, or a Mr. Nanobear who desperately searches for facts of "evil American influence" while keeping this userpage template "alive": [4]. And these people still have courage to mention words/terms like "neutral" or "POV"... ;-)98.116.120.85 (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Putin viewed as a dictator

There is a growing tendency in the rest of the world to view Putin as a dictator and to compare him to Alexander Lukashenko.

As it should, the common perception of Alexander Lukashenko's regime is mentioned in his biography. The now increasingly common perception of Putin as a dictator also needs to be mentioned somewhere in this article, including a brief mention in the lead section. Overall, the article still looks like it was largely authored by the communications department of the Kremlin, and critical or nuanced information and perspectives are still drowned in Putinese mumbo jumbo about his outdoor activities, Sambo, Judo, Taekwondo, Mumbo, Jumbo, fishing, experiences with animals and so on (even his "singing and painting" is dealt with more prominently than him turning Russia into a dictatorship as largely the rest of the world sees it). Tataral (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Agree totally. Also, the 2008 Republican candidate for US President, John McCain, has openly goaded Putin on his human rights record. Nothing like that has happened with 'normal' leaders: Putin stands apart as being almost, if not already, a dictator in a country which no longer has democracy.Malick78 (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Putin in turn has openly goaded John McCain, implying that McCain is a bit mad. Is McCain a normal leader after that? ;) GreyHood ^Talk 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please bring me scholarly works (and not journalistic opinion pieces and propaganda) which would clearly identify Putin as dictator, according to the definition of the word. Also, please try to bring Chinese, Brazilian, Indian and other international sources which would describe Putin as dictator, prove that those sources are mainstream and thus prove that the opinion you propagate is global. Also, please explain why lots of world leaders, including those of democratic states of Germany, France, Finland (and to certain extent, even the U.S. and U.K.) and dozens of others are on good terms with Putin (at least personally) and eagerly and friendly conduct talks with him (which I must admit is not the case with Lukashenko and Mugabe).

So far all your evidence only shows the bias and enmity of the mainstream Anglo-Saxon media towards a strong geopolitical rival who wields independent politics. Good sources to reflect the opinion of some mainstream media of the corresponding western countries, but not good enough to describe official diplomatic position of those countries, and not a balanced reflection of global view, and very far from a fair academic style analysis, for sure. This POV could be added to the assessments section, as it is a notable POV, but hardly warrants more attention than that. The present lead wording using the word "undemocratic" as description of the Western opinion on Putin is far more accurate, neutral and balanced. GreyHood ^Talk 19:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Greyhood, I'm not required to bring you Chinese sources. In case you didn't notice, this is the English Wikipedia. I'm also not required to bring you "scholarly" sources, journalistic sources are perfectly valid reliable sources here at the English Wikipedia (see WP:RS). If you think The Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, The Australian and other high quality reliable sources are "propaganda", there is no need to continue a discussion with you. Tataral (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In order to prove that the opinion you propagate is mainstream and global, and does not present only a marginal or regional or otherwise not universal and not overwhelming opinion, you should bring the sources asked. It is not enough to have reliable sources - multiple reliable sources with other points of view exist in Russia and globally. You should remember about WP:WEIGHT and WP:NEUTRALITY. GreyHood ^Talk 20:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, you forget that consensus is what counts. If the consensus here is that the current sources are enough, then your demands for "Chinese sources" are going to be ignored. Just so you know. (And btw, China is not a place where one gets independent political analysis, so English WP will always rate Chinese sources on current politics as being less valuable. Just so you know). I for one am satisfied with Tataral's assertions that it's a general notable opinion that Russia under Putin is undemocratic. I think you'll find many others here agree with that. Malick78 (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus could be challenged, and there was no mutually agreed consensus in regard to some of the contested parts, at least from my side. GreyHood ^Talk 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, you should be the very last one to talk about WP:WEIGHT. The article (including the lead section) only includes brief mentions of criticism and ten or twenty times more flattery. I don't have to prove that the view of Putin as a dictator is shared by everyone in order to mention that "some critics" consider him to be a dictator. It is not claimed anywhere that this perception is shared by everyone, although it a very common, probably the most common, perception in the western world. Tataral (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally you almost worded it yourself: "a very common, probably the most common, perception in the western world." It is only a western world perception, and it is pretty much arguable how common it is on the whole. Most certainly it is not a common perception in the western academy, in the daily diplomatic relations of western states with Russia and in a formal narrative of most respectable western media, such as BBC and CNN (at least when it comes to terminology they typically use to describe Putin). GreyHood ^Talk 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And you know what they say in "daily diplomatic relations"? Don't make me laugh. As it is, the Western View is generally very notable, and yes the BBC and CNN frequently report on corruption in Russia and Putin's authoritarianism.Malick78 (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Public diplomacy is pretty public thing, and the public diplomacy between the West and Russia is usually pretty polite, and there is lots of economic and political cooperation beetween Russia and the Western countries (unlike, say, between the West and Belarus). BBC and CNN report on corruption, rarely they use the term "authoritarianism". But the term "mafia state" is too obviously not a usual daily mainstream narrative - so, given that this is just a marginal opinion term, it should not be in the lead. GreyHood ^Talk 23:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The "dictator" claim is simply too ridiculous, sensationalistic and marginal to be included in the article, and definitely not in the lead. None of the academic sources I've seen describe him in this way - why should Wikipedia attempt to be more sensationalistic than serious academic research? Remember, Wikipedia not yellow press. Nanobear (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit makes a huge number of unsupported changes that go beyond the edit summary, and removes several other referenced sections without any rationale given. Please address them individually if you want to make all these changes. a13ean (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss concerns point-by-point

Malick78 and Tataral: instead of making mass reverts, please discuss your concerns here point-by-point. Nanobear (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Instead of making false allegations, how about sticking to the facts? The only one making mass reverts is Greyhood. I have not made any mass reverts that I'm aware of. If you want to change the long stable version, please discuss your concerns here point-by-point. Tataral (talk) 21:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it was stable before Greyhood deleted huge amounts. Check the history Nanobear.Malick78 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Tataral and Malick78 reverted all my recent edits (each one was explained in the summary), which involved edits of previously indisputed stuff. You haven't produced any other explanation then "consensus" and "stability" of the last version. The "consensus" argument is false, since consensus requires agreement in the first place - and there were no working agreement. "Stability" doesn't mean that the article at present is good and that it should not be changed. GreyHood ^Talk 21:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The article isn't good because one editor confused the American Wikimedia Foundation's encyclopedia Wikipedia's article about Putin with Putin's own website kremlin.ru (which also includes large amounts of pictures of Putin taking part in dangerous or unusual activities, Putin meeting democratic politicians to make him appear legitimate, Putin in fresh air (he could need that), Putin painting, Putin singing, Putin walking the moon, etc. etc., all the familiar stuff we know from other countries led by glorious leaders). Tataral (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

These pictures are free, quality and are clearly related to Putin, an indisputable part of his life. It's quite naturally to illustrate the article about Putin with these pictures. In turn I could say that some editors here confused the encyclopedia with yellow press paper, and some other grossly ignored WP:NOTOPINION. GreyHood ^Talk 22:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

33,000 visitors] over summer thought the article was not biased against Putin - hence our claim of consensus and stability. Secondly, most of your edits went back to old controversial sections, so to say they were "edits of previously indisputed stuff" is false.

And here, you blatantly tell a falsehood. You removed "According to the Daily Mail, their photographs have never been published by the Russian media, and no family portrait has ever been issued." - yet I showed you that the pictures you found released to the press of his "family" with the children's backs to camera a) weren't titled "Putin's family" (so it was OR to claim so), and b) were not portraits (portraits show faces, not the backs of heads). If I explain things in detail on this talk page (as I did regarding this issue) and you ignore it then I shall only have one option - to report you for disruption. Malick78 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Consensus involves a compromise. There was no compromise, though I continuously offered one and still do offer - by including all points of content into the article (except obvious misinformation) but giving them due weight and appropriate place (which are kind of obvious concerns for a big article).

One photo presented was in the album called "В домашнем кругу" ("In the home circle") [5] and there could be no double understanding of what it means. Unfortunately in 2008 they put this album into archive. Media clearly refer to the photographs as photographs of Putin's daughters [6] (this image we discussed too) Multiple images of his family exist in the Russian media, including Runet. The photos and family portraits with daughters exist, including some with faces shown, though at a relatively young age.[7] [8] Stop ignoring this, it is ridiculous. GreyHood ^Talk 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, indeed, Wikipedia is not a means of promotion of Putin. Our article on an authoritarian politician will have to be a fairly critical article, discussing his many human rights abuses, erosion/suppression of democracy and so on, the murders of Anna Politkovskaya, Alexander Litvinenko and others, his possible involvement/ordering of the Russian apartment bombings, his wars of aggression against other countries, his involvement with the mafia, his persecution of political opponents, etc. etc. Whether he likes it or not. Tataral (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is also not a means of depromotion of of Putin. A view on him as an authoritarian politician is not universal - I thought it is obvious and you regognise that it primarily a western view, not universal even in the west?

Most of the human rights abuses etc. things you have mentioned are already in the article, and mostly given due place and weight, if not too many.

Finally, we should write primarily about facts, not about opinions. We must tell about the actual actions Putin did took and what results those actions had. We must tell about Putin's known biography, about his personal life and interests - since it is a biographical article. Unfounded allegations, political propaganda, loose connections made by the media should have little place in an encyclopedic article. GreyHood ^Talk 23:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you once delete the fact that he was in the KGB from the intro, Greyhood? Your claim to want to present facts is, again, disingenuous. You claim it, then when you don't like a fact you make a new claim that it's "undue", and if that doesn't work you try something else. We all know it. You even claimed that for 9 years the economy grew in his first two terms of 8.5 years and repeatedly tried to force that in! You have shown complete disregard for the ideals behind WP and hence, I for one, am fed up with your editing. Are you surprised? Or do you think we're complete fools who don't notice these things?

Basically Greyhood, you'll only win this if there is consensus. That seems unlikely if you persist in whitewashing Putin. Furthermore, you will be wasting your own time (hours of it) if your edits are not accurate. So therefore, I suggest you tone down your changes. And whatever you say, the two months over summer made that version the stable one. Malick78 (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever view is the mainstream view in the western world, where free debate is possible, is the mainstream view as far as the English Wikipedia, which is written for an English language audience, is concerned. If the governments of totalitarian or authoritarian states, such as North Korea, PRC, Belarus have a different opinion, we can mention their opinion, but not treat it as a mainstream view or equal to the mainstream western view. Also, as Russia is an authoritarian country, recently downgraded to an authoritarian country in the Democracy Index, with rigged elections and Putin as its authoritarian leader, we will treat the official Russian position in the same way as we treat the official positions of Belarus and other comparable countries. "Chinese [I take it you mean PRC] sources" are of limited relevance to the English Wikipedia, except to demonstrate the position of the PRC regime. Tataral (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Democracy Index is not an authoritative source. TFD (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, Greyhood's argument that "33,000 visitors] over summer thought the article was not biased against Putin" is even less authoritative. It could be all those visitors concluded the article was total crap and not even worth an attempt to fix. As for your complaint, TFD, plenty of books cite the Democracy Index, it is authoritative enough to include in the article. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not twist my words. TFD (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

compromise

what is wrong with my compromise i have read and studied the dispute for quiet a while so i know what it is about. i noticed earlier in this talkpage that one user said "the mafia state comment was put in in order to counterbalance the flattery already present" the part about medvedev is nessesary because putin is not the sole dictator of the country, my compromise is good why is it wrong instead of just reverting for no reason let us discuss it here. Peterzor (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

the whole mafia thing is just a Non-WP:NPOV neologism and the olny argument is "to counterbalance" the article! you cannnot accomplish that that by inserting some new short phrase or word (which is enought to be mentioned once later in the article)! just change what you see is "flattery" and the problem is solved. Peterzor (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be surprised if you have followed the debate for "a long-time" - that's often a feature of SPAs. It does amaze me that having edited just one other article you are bold enough to weigh in in a debate like this so confidently (especially when much of your time here has been devoted to surrealism) - I wouldn't have stepped in after just two weeks of being an editor.
• Either way, describing Medvedev as a "dictator" based on the view of the mayor of Moscow that he sacked is absurd, so I will once again remove it. We appreciate your presence here, you're welcome to edit, but please read some more about how WP works. Still, after 2 weeks and knowing the difference between SPAs, policy and essays... etc, you are learning with remarkable speed.Malick78 (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The edits of Peterzor were not helpful. This isn't the article about Medvedev, so it's irrelevant to the introduction of the Putin article whether he is considered a dictator (which, in any event, appears to be a far less common position). Tataral (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

there is already "unhelpful" behavior here, we are supposed to discuss the suject not users action, actually you havent discussed the subject all all but attacking me instead both here and at my talkpage, youre actions are against WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV, so let us follow the rules and discuss the subject as said. why do we need have to have such an controversial WP:POV/WP:SYNTH neologism written in the intro? why is not mentioning in the later part of the article were it should be enought and should belong there! Peterzor (talk) 11:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you're an SPA who may be tag-teaming with another/other editors. For someone who has made so few edits you know an unusually large amount about WP policies. Did you used to edit under another name? And were you asked to contribute here by another user? The timing of your appearance seems very suspicious.

As for content issues, your addition of info on Medvedev was done to make a WP:POINT, and it was not helpful. As for synthesis... I see no issue of it here.Malick78 (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Putin as Russia`s main crane

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: After being hunted bears, rode horses in Siberia and emerged amphorae, Russian President Vladimir Putin is now played aslo as the "mother of the crane." According to the Croatian daily Vecernji list, motor glider flew to Siberia to make the first flight took and a bevy of young cranes, birds are an endangered species in Russia.78.2.81.99 (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's only notability is his absurd eagerness to do yet another stunt. We have enough already in the article about that. But thanks all the same.Malick78 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and three birds died in the process... Of course if anyone wanted to really improve this page, that would be an interesting source. Or maybe it belongs to Vladimir Putin's Third Cabinet (compare to Vladimir Putin's Second Cabinet)? But this subject is too difficult for me. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

@ Malick78 re 'absurd eagerness' I dont like your tone at all. Be respectful --Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism at the very beginning of the article

"General Secretary of the United Russia", "Central Committee of the United Russia" and other. Did you notice this changes in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.222.215.21 (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Visual information overload!

Does this article really NEED so many images in it? For example, the advertisements of third-party products such as vodka or a comic books. Many companies around the world (has nothing to do with "Russian traditions" or nonsense like this) tend to "abuse" the popularity of current political leaders and other famous persons, for example Obama also has a lot of products related to (but not necessarily approved by) him: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/4357596/Barack-Obama-marketing-executives-jump-on-the-Barack-Obama-brand-wagon.html?image=5 Does that mean that an article about Obama also has to be overloaded with 3rd-party product placement images? Do such products really have any historical significance??? Also, the other images: does this article really NEED 2 different images that include the president's dog? Or that ungodly large, dedicated infobox related to Putin's achievements/ranks in "Martial Arts" - why not simply leave the image itself and integrate the text information from that space-inefficient "eyesore" into the "Martial Arts" section itself? Seriously, all that visual "clutter" does nothing except slowing down the page loading for mobile devices (when using non-mobile view).98.113.47.15 (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I like the images, which are worth 1000 words as they say Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow

I come back here in less than a year to try to get NPOV up on this article, and I come back to the talk page for more rumors and inaccuracy. What's wrong with you people?108.29.81.219 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)