Jump to content

Talk:Vladimir Putin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.79.135.33 (talk) at 00:39, 22 March 2014 (→‎Lieutenant Colonel?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former good article nomineeVladimir Putin was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 15, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 16, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former good article nominee

Edit request on 24 September 2013

Add in the popular culture section info about this animation film: "Cartoon coronation", which has been sabotaged by Russian Google section, but still popular in Russia and outside.

See: http://newintelligentsia.com/cartoon-coronation-by-russian-artist-maxima-artis-kosmopolites/ and http://pn14.info/?p=111097

Neutrality

It is widely known that the Russian economy is largely based on oil and gas exports and that most of the growth Russia has seen under Putin is largely due to the rise of gas and oil prices (esp. between 2000 and 2008). I don't see any mention of this in the lead. Most political and economic experts (both in Russia and the West) tell the same story. Martin Walker nicely sums it up this article: "the country remains an under-performing economy, based on exporting raw materials, with a serious corruption problem and uncertain human and property rights". --Երևանցի talk 03:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that this info is definitely needed. This article suffers from a lot of systematic whitewashing and fluffing—on my way to check out the relevant section in this article I found this little gem, which honestly made me vomit in my mouth a little. Concerns have been raised numerous times in the past, but have been rebuffed by a handful of editors as "yellow journalism", etc. (look through the recent archives). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be much big of a deal if Putin was not such a huge figure. I'm surprised the efforts have not been successful. But it's somewhat explainable since he is in office. For instance, Barack Obama's lead is as well a little too favorable, whereas George W. Bush's is more neutral and little more critical. --Երևանցի talk 04:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that the bit on the faked stunts (tiger, amphorae...) has been moved to the public image article leaving just a brief one-line mention on this page, while his painting of frost gets a whole para! Wow, our priorities are definitely right, eh? Malick78 (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article was hugely oversize, so I did my best to farm materal out to subartcles. The bit about the amphorae merely said he pretended the discovery and his spokesman then corrected the record. It's not as though some investigation discovered his spokesman lied. The more notable thing was that there was typically fawning coverage prior to the spokesman's statement, but that was never in this Putin article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's probably the most telling thing about his PR escapades. That they are often rigged, and this one was proved beyond doubt to have been rigged (his spokesman admitted it was; he did not willingly 'correct the record', he was forced to by so many people laughing at the stunt in the media and on the net). As it is, it is the one stunt that has to be included above all others. Malick78 (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to propose something brief. But I just don't think it's a big enough deal for this article. In contrast, for example, this is in the JFK article:

During his convalescence in 1956, he published Profiles in Courage, a book about U.S. Senators who risked their careers for their personal beliefs, and which received the Pulitzer Prize for Biography in 1957.[36] Rumors that this work was co-authored by his close adviser and speechwriter, Ted Sorensen, were confirmed in Sorensen's 2008 autobiography.[37]

That was an instance where a leader got a huge prize and huge recognition based on pretending to do something, and it was covered up for 51 years. But with this amphorae thing, there was no coverup; his spokesman spoke the truth.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article has some serious bias, it barely addresses the controversies but lauds him "strengthening Russia as a global superpower". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monochrome Monitor (talkcontribs) 23:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New comment under same topic...re the third paragraph: "Many of Putin's actions are regarded by the domestic opposition and foreign observers as undemocratic.[5] The 2011 Democracy Index stated that Russia was in "a long process of regression [that] culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime" in view of Putin's candidacy and flawed parliamentary elections.[6]" - Putting opposition insults so close to the start of the article immediately identifies the article as a propaganda piece. Adding citations to prejudiced opinions just means that buased " sources" are being cited. No point in reading further into an article that so grossly violates NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glossing over the controversy

This article seems to shed little to no light on the controversies Putin has been involved in/alleged to be involved in like election rigging, his gay rights public statements, and more recently, his involvement in the Ukraine story... I'm not a Putin specialist, but it definitely seems to me like the current article is forgetting to mention the negative, maybe purposefully so... 128.79.0.176 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The introduction to the article is hyper-complimentary and nothing is mentioned about his opposition other than that some Western Countries think he's "undemocratic." Monochrome Monitor (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My main role at this article has been to try to keep the size of the article within reasonable limits. However, I will quote some article content about things that have not been excluded from the article.

Gay issues:


Alleged election fraud:

Ukraine alignment:

The most recent Ukraine stuff may fall under WP:Recentism. Something about it ought to be included eventually. I don't think it warrants a tag at the top of the article, or even in the relevant section of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About numerology of the name

I am inserting the information about his numerology not because it is known from today, its been at least a year, but because some FSB people are starting to insignate themselves esp. online with different 6-resulting combinations as to assign themselves as supporting their ruler regardless of the negative aspects of his role. I want also to deeply apologize about revealing or pointing to this as it is very disturbing together with him being a Northern ruler, opressor, abuser of human rights and religious offender though rearly in public but we shall see. --Aleksd (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia requires WP:Reliable sources, so we cannot connect Putin with 6-6-6 unless a reliable source does that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove reduncy

"[...] is a Russian politician who has been the President of Russia since 7 May 2012."

change to

"[...] is the current President of Russia since 7 May 2012." Thank you. 78.35.209.198 (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outdoorsiness

I don't think 'Outdoorsiness' is a word! Should it maybe be changed to 'Outdoor pursuits' or something similar? Spikymoss (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a word.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aiming for Brief Statement of Facts

If there is to be a statement of facts regarding the recent Ukrainian events under V. Putin's page, I would ask a knowledgeable editor to examine the current statement under that subsection. I would normally edit something like this myself; however, I am rather unfamiliar with the events as a more knowledgeable editor might be. Statements such as "In reality..." do not make much sense. If it occurred and the citation is good, then make a statement of fact and move on without the added chatter. I find there to be numerous examples of this issue within this particular article. Y J33Zy (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article is wrong in saying the troops were unidentified,for the initial hour perhaps, but reporters asked who they were and all the younger soldiers said "Russian".The troops came from the Russian naval base and some vehicles still had Russian number plates.All the vehicles, all the weapons and all the uniforms and equipment are Russian. I think it is accurate to say the invading troops were Russian. Putin confirmed this when he said in an interview" I sent in Russian troops to protect the Russians in East Ukraine from"Ukranian nationalists". This is Putin speak for Ukranians who opposed the butchering of peaceful protesters by the their ex president.Claudia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dissertations?

The article has him writing the same dissertation twice, in 1975 and 1997. I'm assuming due to the title ("The Strategic Planning of Regional Resources Under the Formation of Market Relations" ) that it's really the 1997 one, so can someone determine the 1975 subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.245.123 (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rigging of election

Shouldn't the article mention that the 2012 presidential election was rigged, as international observers agreed Putin only "won" by stealing millions of votes, as well as ensuring the opposition was divided by fielding five candidates? (92.11.198.127 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Second sentence of Vladimir_Putin#Third_Presidential_term_.282012.E2.80.93present.29. Anything more and we would need rock solid sources on how Putin was involved. --NeilN talk to me 19:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public image section needs trimming

There is a separate page on the public image of Vladimir Putin and basically all 2200 words as well as the images and graphs in the main article's public image section are copied over there. For example the seven paragraphs on "putinisms" can be reduced to "Putin is known for his often tough and witty aphorisms, known as putinisms." Afasmit (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request in Foreign Policy section

The article states, "Washington regarded Russia as obstructionist and a spoiler regarding Syria, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela. In turn, those nations look to Russia for protection against the United States." First, this should probably be edited so that the two sentences match in tense. Second, what does "a spoiler" mean here? If this is a technical term it should be wikilinked, otherwise it should probably be rephrased. I'd suggest "Washington regarded Russia as obstructing United States interests in ...". 138.16.18.24 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Colonel?

The Russian wikipedia lists him as full colonel. 72.79.135.33 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]