Talk:Vladimir Putin

Economic, industrial, and energy policies

Under Putin, the economic environment of Russia has changed, partly due to the attempted radical market-oriented reforms characterized as "shock therapy (economics)" under Yeltsin, to a State monopoly capitalism (stamocap) economy, where the state (under Putin), controls all major industries and the overall economy.

State monopoly capitalism (stamocap) theory, also referred to as crony capitalism, refers to an environment where the state intervenes in the economy under an autocrat, or authoritarian dictator, to protect large monopolistic or oligopolistic businesses from competition by smaller firms.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enealk (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 May 2014

Economics in the opening

Russia's economic growth peaked in 2010-11, but since 2013 it's in rapid decline. As of December 2015 Russia's economy is literally in shambles, back to levels of 1999 before Putin. The opening paragraphs about Russia's economic success during Putin years (which is a propaganda element in Russia) should probably be removed entirely because it's not what defines Putin's regime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sergei-aleksashenko/ugly-state-of-russias-economy_b_8804916.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-19/russia-sees-biggest-decline-in-wages-retail-sales-since-1999 http://www.dailysabah.com/economy/2015/12/16/fragile-russian-economy-causes-flight-of-world-giants http://tass.ru/en/economy/844093 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.147.24.195 (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be hasty [1] SaintAviator lets talk 00:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Added a phrase about crisis after sanctions into the intro. - üser:Altenmann >t 20:50, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Economic crisis in Russia is not due to sanctions. The largest causes are the price of oil, various trade embargoes with European countries introduced by the government, military spending caused by waging two wars and decline of tourism industry after Egyptian and Turkish incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.146.33.107 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

How to count Putin's presidency

What is the best way to describe current Putin's presidency?

• It is the second "tenure"
• It is the third "full" presidency term
• It is the fourth presidency, if counting acting presidency.

- üser:Altenmann >t 20:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It should be 'third term'. Hollth (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

KGB rank

Was Putin a major general? According to KGB General Oleg Kalugin he was only a major, see http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-ex-kgb-kalugin-putin-only-a-major/26930384.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talk • contribs) 05:02, 12 January 2016

All earlier sources say he was a lieutenant colonel, which is what this article says. I guess in a sense we cannot really know because secret police ranks are secret. But the views of a KGB defector do not have as much credibility as realiable sources. If they take the claim seriously then and only then should we reconsider the writing. TFD (talk) 03:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cutting 'Foreign policy' down

I noticed the tag at the top of the page stating the article is too long. The prime candidate to reduce the length seems to be Foreign policy, so I will be moving sections to the main page. Hollth (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Like "pool", not "putrid"

   I'm surprised how often the consonantal (or is it a semi-vowel?) sound of English Y is inserted between the P sound and the oo sound in his name, and glad we've done a good job clarifying it for those who check the accompanying bio. Has anyone looked into verifiable info on this aberration? If it's verifiably associated with (the justifiably widespread!) contempt for him, or even a false meme, that fact might be encyclopedic.
--Jerzy•t 17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, that's generally dependent on someones accent. Similar things happen in other words with a constant followed by that sound e.g., enth(y)usiasm, Z(y)eus, us(y)ally (again, this is accent dependant) Hollth (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Best practice is to use how the person pronounces his own name rather than presenting odd pronunciations. "Montpelier" has several distinct pronunciations - but each place has "correct pronunciations" used by those in that place. IMO, of course. Collect (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Pets section

Really? Really?! I think this immensely trivial section can be substantially trimmed or deleted. Engleham (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Putin implicated in poisoning of Litvinenko

This has been published everywhere [2][3] and highly notable. Please do not remove it without discussion and consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the report stresses that its conclusions are based on many witness opinions that “would not be admissible as evidence” in court. So the report relied on undisclosed secret evidence, which may have been fabricated and which cannot be challenged publicly and that in his report Sir Robert was not bound by strict procedural rules that apply to court hearings. Lastly by classifying in 2013 several documents which could have become key evidence in the investigation, Britain effectively brought the enquiry to a halt. I dont think people appreciate these facts. SaintAviator lets talk 07:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, here is the document by the court. It includes chapter 12, Russian State responsibility – involvement of Nikolai Patrushev and President Vladimir Putin (pages 241-245). The conclusion by judge was based on the "evidence" by "a number of expert witnesses". Making a decision in courts based on testimonies by expert witnesses is a standard procedure. However, some of of the expert witnesses (Goldfarb and Yuri Shvets) were not "independent" and therefore could not be used in standard court proceedings, but others (e.g. Robert Service) were independent witnesses, according to the source. My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It wont go to trial, the evidence is too 'probably', i.e. its circumstantial. Too much secret stuff. This is a problem, for instance, there still remains the legal possibilty Litvinenko’s dad is right, when he said, ‘Berezovsky killed my son’. The so called evidence in this investigation is not even up to the standard of evidence of other cases i.e. Obamas killing of citizens as bombing collateral damage in Syria / Afghanistan or drone strikes. Thats not going to get up either, by the looks of it.

BTW I have a UK friend, he told me all the people he asks dont even care about the Litvinenko case. So its become a political thing, like so much these days.SaintAviator lets talk 04:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, according to this source, the conclusion was based on testimony from 62 witnesses. But of course, everything has been published long time ago in books. So, that is something beyond the reasonable doubt (if I were a juror), or "supermajority view" in terms of WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, and every witness swore: "by my mother's bones I am sure it was Putin, who else?". After all, what's the deal? some bandits and spies killed some other bandit and spy. Ans BTw Putin's implication was based on on 42 witnesses, but of narrow closed-door hearing involving british spies. Was their name Bond?- üser:Altenmann >t 04:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you imply that Lugovoy and Kovtun did not poison Litvinenko, that they did not act on the orders from the FSB, or that Putin does not control FSB? My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

No one knows for sure. This UK finding is like the US position when Russia accused Turkey of funding IS with evidence, mind you. USA said no. People saw US position as political. Now Israel says Russia is right. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-israel-turkey-idUSKCN0V421N. So in time Re Litvinenko again Russia may be right. We'll have to keep an eye on developments. SaintAviator lets talk 23:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I think one should read comments in RfC just below. "No one knows for sure"? No, it is exactly the opposite. Most expert witnesses in the court knew for sure (as one can read in the link/PDF above). Most sources claim this (and a lot more!) for sure. Almost anyone who really studied this subject knows for sure, etc. Your examples are false analogy. To put it simple, UK is not Russia, Turkey is not Russia, and whatever one could say on entirely unrelated matters has nothing to do with subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No. Ken Livingstone former mayor of London has doubts now after talking to Dr Julia Svetlichnaya who worked with Alexander Litvinenko in the years leading up to his death and gave evidence at the inquiry. She refutes its findings that the Russian state 'probably' ordered his killing. She alleges Litvinenko may have been in a plot to blackmail wealthy individuals or was handling Polonium for others.

Keep in mind; Since the Inquiry is not a court there is no appeal against its findings. Lugovoi and Kovtun might conceivably try to get the European Court of Human Rights to set the findings of the Inquiry aside on the grounds that the Inquiry has violated the presumption of innocence and was conducted in a way that has violated their rights to a fair trial.

Plus, Far from welcoming the Inquiry’s report the British government is deeply embarrassed by it, as the tepid tone of the statement from Home Secretary Theresa May purporting to welcome it shows. Though there has been a predictable flood of angry commentary in the British and US media, the only action the British government has taken is to protest to the Russian ambassador, and to impose asset freezes on Lugovoi’s and Kovtun’s non-existent assets in Britain.

Its a sham trial, The evidence of people like Goldfarb, Glushkov and Shvets is accepted uncritically and called reliable despite their obvious interest as opponents of the Russian government in a finding that the Russian state was responsible for Litvinenko’s death. Even Berezovsky – a person whom the Judge admits Mrs. Justice Gloster in the High Court found had no regard for truth – receives posthumous recognition as a reliable witness.

As for Litvinenko himself, he can do no wrong. His history of moonlighting for Berezovsky whilst working for the FSB, his bizarre claims that Putin is a paedophile, a heroin smuggler and a gangster, his peculiar death-bed conversion to Islam, and his repeatedly stated intentions to blackmail people (explained away as just wild talk) count for nothing. I wont even start on the judge. I could go on and on about the trials faults.

Lastly this is Litvinenkos brother from Italy. (They believe the British killed him) “My father and I are sure that the Russian authorities are not involved. It’s all a set-up to put pressure on the Russian government,”. Litvinenko told the Mirror, adding that such reasoning is the only explanation as to why the inquiry was launched 10 years after his brother’s death.. SaintAviator lets talk 02:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. Based on your response, you believe that Lugovoy and Kovtun did not poison Litvinenko despite to the existing material evidence, including the polonium trail. As a side note, all facts and statements related to Svetlichnaya are included in Litvinenko report [4] (pages 98-99). According to the judge, these facts do not contradict his conclusion, which is very much obvious anyway. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course I dont believe the findings, but whats truth got to do with Wikipedia! We all enjoy the game. Its about what can be referenced, mass opinions, which is fine. It is what it is, but its why good academic places dont allow students to reference Wikipedia. SaintAviator lets talk 10:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, this is not an opinion, but conclusions from research. Good quality criminal investigations (such as that one) or investigative journalism qualify as research. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Researched opinions, churnalism, media ownership consolidation, corruption, political motives, the flaws in Wikipedia, thats where we are going here. If you want to continue the discussion on a talk page, thats fine SaintAviator lets talk 04:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Adding Litvinenko Inquiry to Putin article

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The section on the Litvinenko Inquiry has been deleted. Reason given: "insinuations are against WP:BLP." Findings published in an official UK government inquiry report, and republished in every major western newspaper, are acceptable or not? Engleham (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Under a new heading Litvinenko Inquiry, the deleted section was as follows: In 2015-16 the British Government conducted a public inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. Its report was released in January 2016. Paragraph 10.6 of the report stated: "The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin." The report outlined a number of possible motives for the murder, including that Litvinenko's public disclosures about the FSB, including a plot to murder the dissident Boris Berezovsky were “areas of particular sensitivity to the Putin administration”, and because there was “undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko, culminating in his allegation that Putin was a paedophile. On the release of the report, British Prime Minister David Cameron condemned Putin for presiding over “state sponsored murder”. The Kremlin dismissed the Inquiry as “a joke” and "whitewash". British Labour MP Ian Austin said: “Putin is an unreconstructed KGB thug and gangster who murders his opponents in Russia and, as we know, on the streets of London - and nothing announced today is going to make the blindest bit of difference.” Also deleted, in the Personal Wealth and residences section was the following, so if you could commment on this as well please: In 2014, the first detailed study of the alleged corruption of Putin and his inner circle – Putin's Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? by Karen Dawisha, was published in the West. Engleham (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I don't see any reason to see this venomous piece in the main bio article. "Putin was a paedophile" - this demonstrates idiotism of the person who wrote this rather than says something about Putin. There is no "findings", there is political speculation of hatred, even if - üser:Altenmann >t 06:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC) It may be true, or it may be only a smear. Litvinenko who made the allegation was in a position to know. Politics and freedom is a high stakes game and people play dirty, and certainly it's probably the worst accusation you can make. Not surprisingly, some newspapers are speculating it was what tipped the bucket. e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/alexander-litvinenko-murdered-because-he-accused-putin-of-being-a-paedophile-a6824806.html Whatever the case, the inquiry Chairman, Sir Robert Owen, listed it in the report as one of what he concluded were five motivations for the murder which, as the report explicitly states "was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin." That's why it's relevant, that's why the media is republishing it, that's why it's notable, and that's why it deserves inclusion along with the other details. State sponsored murder with radioactive materials doesn't happen simply because someone called someone a bully. Engleham (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC) It is notable in the context of the corresponding article. "State-sponsored murder" is state-sponsored militant propaganda. "probably approved" no hint of proof. :It is notable in the context of the corresponding article. "State-sponsored murder" is state-sponsored militant propaganda. What you're sRumors are rumors are rumors regarless which Sir or other peer utters it, and it is not a job of wikipedia to spread it. Clean-cut WP:BLP issue. I am wondeering whether Obama's article has a section about his non-citizenship.- üser:Altenmann >t 06:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC) :It is notable in the context of the corresponding article. "State-sponsored murder" is state-sponsored militant propaganda. What you're trying to say isn't clear here. At least to me. Also, please note, the inquiry report has official UK government status, so it is the position of the government, not simply Owen. It may help if you download the report at the above link and familiarise yourself with it. Given you deleted the entire section, have you any other objections to it, apart from it detailing that the inquiry report listed the pedo accusation as one of the likely motivations for the murder? Are you also not ok with the Dawisha inclusion, and why? Engleham (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC) State sponsored murder with radioactive materials is something highly notable and therefore should be included. As about other claims, they are reliably sourced and appear in sources as the probable motif for the murder... My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Whatever. If you don't see difference between facts and insinuations from a highly POV source (political opponents) and subscribe under "guilty until proven" concept, fine with me. I don't have an axe to grind. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC) I think the official conclusion by UK court about the person (this is not just a claim by "political opponents") is sufficiently important to be quoted on this page, as described in multiple RS. Anything else depends on wording, etc. Obviously, the conclusion by UK court can not be just quoted, but should also be placed in appropriate context. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC) No I wouldn't add it is this biography, they offered no evidence at all for the claim. There should be a better place to add it, I imagine it has already been inserted into an article about the murder. We could also assume and add to the American presidents biography that he probably authorized all the torture in Guantanamo. The report is simply more of the same Russian, especially Putin in particular, bashing that Nato is propagating. As to the book, no also, not here in this biography, it is more promotional than anything useful about this person and belongs in the authors biography only.Govindaharihari (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC) No Do not include. Evidence was biased. Been shot to bits. This sort of adding of POV stuff is silly. SaintAviator lets talk 05:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Yes. This is an official conclusion by UK court, not just a claim by political opponents. That was widely covered in Western and Russian press. The state-organized poisoning using radioactive materials is not just a notable crime, but something unprecedented, something that will be a part of the History. This is something Putin will be known for in the future, among other things. There is absolutely no doubts that the murder was arranged by Russian special services controlled by the president. Speaking of political murders organized by the Soviet/Russian government, from Trotsky to Markov, this is absolutely nothing new or unusual. Only the method was extraordinary. My very best wishes (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Yes, include. I would like to remind several participants above that WP:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome are based upon Wikipedia policy, and arguments which contradict policy are discounted. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Saying sources are WP:BIASED is not a valid argument, not to mention the absurdity of accusing most of the the media on the planet of bias. We also do not debate whether Reliable Sources are publishing truth, the standard for inclusion is WP:VERIFIABILITY. Wikipedia accurately summarizes what Reliable Sources say. If Reliable Sources say the moon is made of cheese then Wikipedia will accurately summarize those sources. (And I remind Include-supporters that it is equally improper to argue here that it is true.) WP:BLP says that we must be careful of privacy concerns, and that unsourced/poorly sourced material must be removed. Neither of which remotely apply given that this has been covered by much of the major media on the planet. Most significantly BLP policy section WP:PUBLICFIGURE says: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. We accurately report that it was said. We accurately report who said it. We cite one or more top-tier Reliable Sources making our coverage iron-clad verifiable fact. This dispute is toast. Half the people on the planet already heard this. Alsee (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Yes, we accurately report what was said but unsupported accusations such as this do not belong in a wikipedia biography as per wp:blp - it is not a matter of not liking it or the subject not liking it, Putin thinks its a joke, that is not the wp:blp point - the allegations are already where they belong in the Alexander_Litvinenko#Inquest_in_London section. This article is about the life story of Putin, not all the speculated things he is claimed to have done without any presented evidence at all. not here Govindaharihari (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Yes, I would include the info. I would not go into that amount of depth for this article, however, I'd only have one or two brief lines. One saying it was probably authorised and one with the reactions would be sufficient in my opinion. The motives would be best suited to another article. As My Very Best Wishes says, it is widely reportable, notable and well sourced as it is from an official inquiry, so there should be some form of it. I would not include the book as the crux of the information (i.e., that there is corruption surrounding Putin) is already covered. Hollth (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC) OK, to move the discussion along: my interpretation of it is that a majority agree that the Inquiry should feature in the article, but a number have strong reservations about detailing the motivations. Especially due to the fact that the allegation some have speculated triggered the murder is, despite its publication in the inquiry report, wholly unsubstantiated. Suggested solution: we just provide the download link to the report at that point on the entry. "We know nuffin! It's over there. See for yerselves!" ;-) So, the suggested revision would read: (citations the same as first version at start of this discussion): In 2015-16 the British Government conducted a public inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. Its report was released in January 2016. Paragraph 10.6 of the report stated: "The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin." The report outlined a number of possible motives for the murder, that made further allegations. On the release of the report, British Prime Minister David Cameron condemned Putin for presiding over “state sponsored murder”. The Kremlin dismissed the Inquiry as “a joke” and "whitewash". British Labour MP Ian Austin said: “Putin is an unreconstructed KGB thug and gangster who murders his opponents in Russia and, as we know, on the streets of London - and nothing announced today is going to make the blindest bit of difference.” Your thoughts? Engleham (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Yes, of course we should include it -- it's an official determination that has received extremely significant press coverage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC) No We should not include that. This is Wikipedia, not a tabloid magazine. Jomlini (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC) No - we are supposed to write an encyclopedia, not a tabloid magazine.--Dorpater (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Mention in brief only Putin is considered a tad notable, and as long as we make absolutely clear that Wikipedia is in no way implying that he is a culprit, or using language which a reader might draw such an inference from, we still should mention that the government report exists. A fine line, but one we must seek. Two or three sentences is where I would consider it not UNDUE - one stating the report exists, the second with the opposition to that report. Collect (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Agree with mention of the relevant part of court report and Putin's response, but object to inclusion various venomous rants about "KGB thugs", "paedophiles", etc. as non-encyclopedic. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC) @Engleham. If you think this RfC should be closed right now (I am not sure), please post a request for closure at WP:AN. My very best wishes (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC) I'm closing the discussion as the current text of the article at the time of the closure (edited by others, and appended below as a record) appears to meet the desires of most participants. Engleham (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC) In 2015-16 the British Government conducted an inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Its report was released in January 2016. Paragraph 10.6 of the report states: "The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin." The report outlined some possible motives for the murder, including Litvinenko's public statements and books about the alleged involvement of the FSB in mass murder, and what was "undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko, led to the murder. The Kremlin dismissed the Inquiry as "a joke" and "whitewash".

Censorship?

Charges of criminality removed which had been posted by an IP. Kindly note that WP:BLP does apply to talk pages. That policy is not "censorship." Collect (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Removed two sentences

I recently removed two sentences from the lede, on the grounds that they are not lede material [5]. First, the stuff about the G8 is not that important that it should go in the lede, nor is it personally related to Putin. The G8 was just a talking forum and hardly a major blow to Russia. It may be appropriate for Foreign relations of Russia, but I really don't think it belongs in the lede of this article. Second, the stuff about Russia's economy contracting due to sanctions is also not lede-worthy and is WP:RECENTISM, especially the notoriously unreliable IMF predictions, which are also WP:CRYSTALBALL. I don't see anything similar for any other world leader article, it's as if there is an effort to cram as much negative material in the lede as possible. Athenean (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not about G8, but about disasterous consequences of politics by Putin. This is really important and should stay in intro. Please do not remove. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Im with Athenean on this one. Seriously? 'disasterous consequences of politics by Putin'. A led or lede is made up of a little bit of each major part of the body, like a good essay. Look at the body. This lede or led is too big and unbalanced. Its a Politicized Lede. Its fairly typical in Wikipedia. SaintAviator lets talk 06:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The current state of the Russian economy under Putin belongs in the lede. The G8 thing... maybe not that specifically but something related to recent foreign policy and its consequences obviously is also needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, people get excited, put stuff in, not understanding true neutrality they defend it. This Lede or led is not giving a well written snap shot of the body. Its supposed to be a nice little quick synopsis for the newcomer. Not what we have now. It needs to be rewritten to reflect the body fairly, not add new chunks, or what some editor deems 'important'. And it needs to be smaller. That can be achieved if written well. SaintAviator lets talk 06:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The current economic state of Russia has no place in the lede, as this reflects current events, and not a snapshot of the man as a whole. In Mandela's biography, we don't talk about how he led the South African economy to ruin; ditto with Lech Walesa in Poland.

Therefore, I'm strongly against the two sentences being included in the lede. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but have you edited this article before? No? Then how did you get here? Gee... it couldn't possibly be because I had just made a comment on talk about. Let's see. I make an edit to Polish Constitutional Crisis, you show up and revert it, having never edited it before. I make an edit to Spetznaz, you show up and revert it, having never edited it before. And I just realized that even on David Irving, you only showed up there to revert an old edit of mine as well [6]. And now here. That makes it four articles where you've shown up, solely to engage in revenge reverting, because of the dispute we had at RT TV article. You really really really might think seriously about cutting that out. In the meantime, these edits and your corresponding talk page comments will be considered with exactly the level of seriousness they deserve.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, make that FIVE articles you followed me to in order to act like a creepy immature stalker [7].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You sound like you need a nap and/or an extended vacation away from Wikipedia. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Look you two, that happened to me once, the following thing, it happens, we became friends. Sort it out based on the merit of the point(s). Its a good point by Solntsa90 about other Bios SaintAviator lets talk 08:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Except I'm not following anyone. There is merely an overlap between the interests of Marek's, and my own. I appreciate that you see my point of view on the matter, however. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. Five articles in one week, five articles you've never edited before, five articles where you show up only to revert me or disagree with me on talk. One is a coincidence. Two or three means you've looked at my edit history. Five means you're purposefully engaged in WP:HARASSMENT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Uhhh...okaaayyy then.

Anyway, strongly against the two sentences in the lede, which so far, seems to be consensus. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's not get sidetracked with personal accusations. The G8 stuff is hardly lede-worthy, and is also WP:UNDUE. These G-X organizations are just talking shops and are highly overrated. It's true that Russia's relations with the western countries (actually the NATO countries) are in the deep freeze now, and the G8 thing is related to that, but the world doe not revolve around the west anymore. Russia continues to have good relations with the rest of the world. So I still think removing this sentence is the best way to proceed. Regarding the shrinking of the economy in 2015, that is WP:RECENT and also WP:UNDUE. I don't see similar sentences in the lede of any biography article. Economies are notoriously fickle. Are we to include all the ups and downs of every economy in the lede of the biography article of each country's leader? Even the article on Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the perfect example of a leader whose policies have brought financial woe on his country, does not contain recent economic information in the lede. Second, and perhaps most important, the claim that the economy shrank as result of sanctions is totally unsourced and highly dubious. Unsourced material is to be aggressively removed per WP:BLP. Unless I hear rational, policy-based arguments on why this material should be kept (I doubt I will, but you never know), I will remove it. I have very little time for "this needs stay because Putin is bad" type arguments. Athenean (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• The intro should simply summarize the page. Therefore, no sourcing required directly in the introduction. But the statement was reliably sourced. Moreover, the suspension of Russia from the G8 group as a result of its annexation of Crimea is merely a relevant fact, and an extremely important one. Hence it should stay in the intro. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you please provide the source in the article that says Russia's economy shrank in 2015 as a direct result of the sanctions? I can't seem to find it. As for the G8 thing, it is indeed a fact, but that doesn't mean it goes into the lede. There's a world of facts out there. That doesn't mean they all deserve to go into the lede. That the G8 is "extremely important" is just your opinion. I don't see a lot in the media, even the western media, about the demise of the G8 these days. It seems to have been quietly forgotten. I don't think Putin or anyone else in Russia loses a lot of sleep over the G8. And yes, the intro should summarize the page, not include a cherry picked selection of one POV's favorite facts. Athenean (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's a source [8].Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not opposed to rephrasing summary of economic and political results of his rule during last 15 years if there is new consensus for doing this. In particular, what had happened during 1999–2008 seem a lot less relevant/important right now. My very best wishes (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Athenean (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

My very best wishes, mate, its not a competition. BTW the Russian economy has diversified its domestic production. Sanctions have had a positive effect on self sufficiency. Some call sanctions a blessing. That aside Athenean is being sensible. SaintAviator lets talk 06:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Sanctions have had a positive effect ... Some call sanctions a blessing." Yes, sure. War is peace. This is something we had in the Soviet past. I do not have time to answer any imaginable question. If anyone wants to propose new version of paragraphs 3-5 in intro (this is all about economic and political results of rule by Putin), please post new version here and wait for consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Not everything is a 'give it to me, give it to me now' short term Mac world view. Like cheeses or wine, the best ones mature with time. [9]. SaintAviator lets talk 00:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mvbw: Please don't change the subject. The sentence is unsupported by any sources. Russia's recent economic contraction has much more to do with the price of oil than with any western sanctions. And recent economic fluctuations have no business in the lede of this article. This is a BLP vio, unsourced, and undue. Athenean (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree Athenean @Mvbw, is it me or do I sense a desire on your part to have stuff in the lede that in your view harms Putins image? Stuff that is selective, non neutral, does not belong there. What is your agenda? Do you see you come across this way? The rest of us like neutrality, good writing and balance. Would you mind stepping back and looking at this please? SaintAviator lets talk 05:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

While the drop in oil prices is probably the biggest factor, the sanctions have contributed as well. IMF says that about half the decline is sanctions [10]. So there you go, sources. Also any talk of "sanctions helped to diversify the economy" or "sanctions are actually good" needs to be backed up with sources or it's irrelevant.

And yes, Russian economic performance is relevant to this article and its lede. Particularly since this doesn't look like "recent economic fluctuations" but something that is likely to persist for awhile. It's a structural slump, not just a mild, ordinary, recession.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, the section "Economic, industrial, and energy policies" needs updating (and made to be less PR-promo-y).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source. However, I still disagree that this material is lede-worthy. This is a biography article, not an article about Russia's economy. That it is a "structural slump" is just your opinion. However, I sense that we are not going to get anywhere just talking, so other dispute resolution mechanisms need to be employed. Athenean (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that the G8 summit bit being discussed here because I too find it quite odd to have it placed in the lead. It seems out of place to me. How is that significant to the life of Putin? It reads more like a news item than an actual significant/notable characteristic into the man's life. What's even more concerning is that we don't even have a neutral statement of fact when it comes to the annexation of the Crimea. Instead, all we have in the lead is the West's reaction to it. That raises serious undue concerns which need to addressed asap in such an important BLP article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct Étienne Dolet SaintAviator lets talk 10:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Propose the G8 sentence be moved from the lede to the article body, in the "Relations with Western states" section. 10:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Russian economic performance is relevant to this article and its lede. And it is currently included (three paragraphs). Yes, this part could be improved. However, I disagree with removing the well known and important fact about international consequences of actions by Putin (as suggested). My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I moved the G8 sentence from the lead to the body of the article since it appears to be very little support for it to be included in the lead at the TP and that the WP:BLPN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Support again SaintAviator lets talk 03:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I put a "not in citation given"-template after the claim: The IMF has estimated that about half of the decline in GDP in 2015 was due to sanctions. This tempate has now been removed by User:Volunteer Marek, the same user who introduced the source yesterday. I have no intention in getting involved in the edit war Volunteer Marek seems to be fighting on this page, but I do like to explain my rationale.

The claim is a wrong interpretation of the source, a short CNN-article published in August 2015, which stated that the IMF expected the Russian GDP to shrink by 3.4% in 2015. This mid-year prediction should not be confused with a end-of-year analysis of the economical situation in 2015.

Also, the article mentions that half of the predicted decline could be caused by a combination of western sanctions and Russia's ban on product imports. Only mentioning western sanctions as a cause of predicted events is an incomplete citation.

If this claim can not be verified, I suggest to remove it. — 37 ^(talk) 17:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The claim HAS BEEN verified. That's why there's a source there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Quote from the British NGO Democracy Index is WP:UNDUE

Why no mention of Democracy Index being a British NGO, and why would this consistently be removed? It might mislead someone into thinking this is an international body of substance, such as a UN body or something, and not merely a self-interested report from an NGO funded by a magazine (in this case, the magazine being the modern liberalist slant of The Economist magazine.

Why is this being mentioned with so much weight in the lede? I have edited it to include the tag that The Democracy Index is a British NGO, but that gets removed.

Now, I think the reference to Democracy Index should be removed all together for WP:UNDUE, merely being the perception of a British magazine's view of the world (and their editorial stance has always been consistently anti-Putin, since he never supported neo-liberal market reforms).

Solntsa90 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You have a point Solntsa90. It's looking non neutral, unbalanced. SaintAviator lets talk 23:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree as well. It's just another western neoliberal think tank/propaganda outlet (same thing, really). Athenean (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree. There is a link to the Index so readers can check it themselves. And this is an index which is widely used. So what if it's "British"? And last I checked The Economist was a perfectly reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Economist is actually one of the most shrilly Russophobic publications out there. Athenean (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You may think that. But the only question is whether or not it satisfies the criteria for WP:RS. And it does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, because western propaganda outlets (Economist, IMF, BBC...) are considered RS by the wikipedia community due to systemic bias. However, the question of whether such material is lede-worthy is another matter. Athenean (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You know, when you refer to the Economist or the BBC as "western propaganda outlets" you sort of dispense with your own credibility. "Systemic bias" is not an excuse for POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No need to get personal. Propaganda outlets is exactly what they are, no less than RT. Russophobes exploit the systemic bias in wikipedia that considers these sources reliable to push their POV. Athenean (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing I said above was "personal". What I said is that your view of these sources is ... a bit strange to say the least. If you think the BBC and the Economist are "propaganda outlets" on par with RT you're sort of in the wrong place. Again - this isn't anything personal, it's just pointing out that your POV is pretty WP:FRINGE. Criticism is not necessarily personal. But now that you've put "personal" on the table... who exactly are these "Russophobes" you're referring to? THAT sounds like a personal attack. A cowardly and weaselly one at that since you're resorting to weak-ass insinuation rather than making the accusation outright.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Media control is an issue regarding neutrality because the stakes are very high. But things are changing. I saw awhile back CNN lost half its viewers in 2013. MSNBC lost 50% in 2 years. In 2013 RT becomes first TV news brand to hit 1 billion views on YouTube. Talking to people I find people dont trust MSM as much as before. Its due to the lies like WMD and the Exposes like Snowden. So yeah Athenean what you say can be sourced. In the USA 60% dont trust MSM. Here [11] and here [12]. SaintAviator lets talk 10:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Who cares. You seem to have a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of what "reliable" in the "reliable sources" means. We don't judge "reliability" by the number of "hits" that some website gets, or the number of viewers or the number readers. There are probably very few people out there who read academic scholarly sources. There is probably a ton of people who read trashy celebrity tabloids. Yet scholarly sources are hella more reliable than "random junk found on the internet". And honestly, when someone starts throwing out the phrase "MSM" that sets off a lot of WP:NOTHERE flags.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Was my point too subtle? Again what I provided is background. Over time reliability changes. We are in such a change. It takes time. One thing you learn having to churn out 4 x 5000 word essays per term at higher education is this. You can always find RS to support what you say. On WP in this environment thats being abused. That impacts WPs credibility. The result is this lower standard than it should be article. SaintAviator lets talk 00:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it was just weird and incorrect. You seemed to be saying that "reliability" should be judged by the number of hits a website gets or something. That's not how it works. And actually no, it's NOT always possible to "find RS to support what you say". Some things it's easy to find RS for. Some things it's hard. Some things it's impossible. Which is why some editors bring up this supposed "systematic bias" as a lame excuse for "I can't find reliable sources and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT so I'll do it anyway". It's basically an attempt to circumvent the encyclopedia's rules on reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hits dont equal RS, thats obvious. As an example. Unis RS excludes WP. WP excludes many publications as RS itself. Thus of course some things cant be RS about Putin, because they are not printed in the West. Systemic bias creeps in, from pro and anti Putin editors. I dislike that type of editing. SaintAviator lets talk 03:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, in your statement above you seemed to be making that argument. In fact it's pretty explicit. Good to see you've changed your mind. I don't know what you're talking about in those last three sentences. Whether something is or is not printed in the West has no bearing on reliability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand. I didnt change my mind SaintAviator lets talk 23:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the democracy index is obviously important. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also consider the fact that an index from 2011 is pretty old? We're talking about a five year old assessment here. But more importantly, I am also concerned with the index itself. The 2015 index listed Cuba, Vietnam, and Myanmar as more democratic countries than Russia. That sounds a bit fishy to me. Despite my personal observations, any such index can be comparatively analyzed by other similar assessments. So other indexes may rank Russia lower or higher on their own scales. It's pretty useless to just leave one stat in the lead and leave all others behind. That's the definition of undue weight. So it's best to move such indexes or studies from the lead to the body where each study can be outlined in a more detailed fashion and left to the reader to judge. Or else, I do agree that there's too much weight given to just this one assessment. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes thats old. And undue. Needs to go as Étienne Dolet says. SaintAviator lets talk 03:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it needs to be updated. No it does not go. What exactly is UNDUE about it? It's relevant, it's on topic, it's of interest, it's a reliable source, it's notable. I'm sorry but this sounds like plain ol' WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. If you got other indices you'd like to discuss please bring them up here first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

One-party Communist dictatorship Cuba as freer than Russia (do you ever read Russian media or websites? There's lots and lots of pluralism despite Putin's grip of power), the monarchist theocracy Saudi Arabia were stoning people to death is a normal practise freer than Syria where there has been at least some political pluralism - come on, this list is complete crackpottery. 77.93.29.14 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see. On one hand we have a reliable source. On the other hand we have the opinion of an anonymous IP editor on Wikipedia. Hmmm, which one should we go with? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

VM cant see that yet it appears. Outside help? SaintAviator lets talk 23:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't understand what you're saying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Syria

Its been a great success for Putin but is not talked about in the article much. Its this terms (Presidential) defining foreign policy. Bigger than Ukraine by far.

Heres some background only, not refs, of why the next couple of weeks are notable, and why Putins Syria Gambit belongs here in his Bio.

And so, as we said earlier this week, it's do or die time for Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha. Either this proxy war morphs into a real world war in the next two weeks, or Aleppo "falls" to Assad marking a truly humiliating defeat for US foreign policy and, more importantly, for the Saudis' goal of establishing Sunni hegemony in the Arabian Peninsula.

There are loads of RS showing the Russian military successes and the Wests surprise. There are also loads of RS showing concerns over WW3 starting over the ME situation. My point? This is far more notable than the G8 mention. Im very surprised whoever has been editing here for the last few months has not thought this thru.

[13] SaintAviator lets talk 07:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed Putin's Syria policy is not mentioned in the article, a quite glaring omission. I agree that an addition is in order. Athenean (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it should be in here (see? that's called being "consistent". The part I don't get is how you think one set of recent events (economy, crimea) does not belong in here, but another set (Syria) does. I think that's the opposite of "consistent".)Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

But please, let's do it in a neutral way. This mean that wacky conspiracy nutzoid sources like zerohedge aren't used.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding consistency, I didn't mean that it should be added to the lede. In fact, it shouldn't be added to the lede, rather to the body of the article. I don't suffer from lede fixation unlike some people here. Athenean (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree, in the body. New section. Volunteer Marek no one suggested Zero Hedge as a RS. I went out of my way to phrase that clearly. To little avail. Moving on, I would recommend Athenean write something in the article. This editor has good writing skills and knows how to avoid the right wing hate opinion pieces that characterize non neutral writing. There is a knack to neutral writing, lets all try to use it to fix the significant deficiencies and unwanted additions in this article. SaintAviator lets talk 10:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

? You put the zerohedge source at the end of your comment above which I took to mean you were suggesting it as a reliable source. If you explicitly said somewhere that it isn't a reliable source (then why did you put it there?) and I missed it, my apologies. I also find that middle sentence in the above comment strange - "right wing hate opinion pieces"? What are you talking about? This just reads like general inflammatory POV rhetoric. Can you be specific about these supposed "right wing hate opinion pieces"? Where are they? What are they doing? What should we do about them?... Well, at least, be specific.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

(and isn't zerohedge itself sort of a "right wing hate opinion piece" kind of website? Maybe it just happens to be a "right wing hate opinion piece website" that at the same time loves Putin?) 22:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I accept your apology VM (If I may call you that). I guess we each bring different backgrounds to WP. At my non USA English speaking Universities block italics = quoted material, refs went at the end. Re right wing etc, it balanced your 'wacky conspiracy nutzoid' nicely. Balance and neutrality makes WP work. SaintAviator lets talk 00:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

So.... where exactly did you "went out of your way" to make clear that you weren't suggesting zerohedge as a reliable source? Still not seeing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This 'Heres some background only, not refs,'.Then I used a block of italic which = a quote. Thus the quote was the background, which you would have read in the link I left. Which you didnt read right? A quick Control F would have found the quote in that links body. Meaning you would have understood the link was where the quote was from and thus the link was NOT a suggested RS. Savy? When I do suggest an RS it will be obvious, OK? SaintAviator lets talk 03:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I guess you can call that "going out of your way" of indicating that zerohedge is in fact not a reliable source. Despite the fact that you bring it up here for some reason. Oh, just for "background", right. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Athenean must be busy so I added the new section as discussed. Under Presidential third term after Ukraine fitted well. Will add a few RS re those cities over next day. Lots around SaintAviator lets talk 05:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Multiple issues

First, and fairly obviously, the article is outdated. This isn't helped by the fact that some editors are trying to remove any info on the economic situation past 2008 from the lede. You know, some stuff has happened in the last... eight years? It needs to be included. Along the same lines pretty much every sub-section in the "Domestic policies" section is outdated. The first part of that only goes up to Medved's presidency. Putin's been the president since 2012. That's just one example, the rest of it is hopelessly outdated too. Hence the outdated tag.

Second, the whole article reads like a promo piece written by the Human Resources department. Almost like a resume. And the level of praise and gushing gets obnoxious at times. Putin succeeds at this, Putin successfully does this. "Strong management of this". Putin created that. It's almost impossible to click anywhere in this article without getting some of this shlock. Hence the promo tag.

Third, some sections of the article are hopelessly POV. The stuff on Ukraine appears to have been constructed as a WP:POVFORK of every other article on Wikipedia about the Ukrainian crisis. It's like stuff that didn't make it into those other articles for POV or non-RS reasons wound up here to tell "Putin's side of the story". There's excessive quotations and use of Wikipedia as a platform for Kremlin's views. I've tried to clean up the worst of it, but there's plenty of left. Hence the POV tag.

The "too long" tag was already there and yeah, it looks appropriate too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree with the tags. The article is too long and outdated, and also very POV (though not for the reasons you have identified, but more because of stuff like this [14]). What I really don't agree with is stuff like this [15]. Three uninvolve editors at BLPN concurred it was not appropriate for the lede, and re-adding in the lede after User:EtienneDolet moved it to the body of the article is sloppy and POV, as now we would have the same sentence twice in the article. Athenean (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

BLP is not the appropriate venue for discussing this as this is not a BLP issue by any stretch (also that discussion ain't over). And just going by common sense - as well as Wikipedia policy - you CANNOT put only the positive aspects of Putin's Russia's economic performance in the lede and then contrive to exclude the more recent negative aspects. Either we have a complete description of how the Russian economy did under Putin, beginning to end, which means both the good early years and the bad recent years, or we don't have anything in there about economics. You can't cherry pick like that - it's textbook POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't wikilawyer. Nothing you will say will invalidate the opinion of the users who commented at the BLPN. There is a clear consensus (6 users vs. 1) to remove it. Whereas the stuff you removed refers to his presidency over a long period of time, and is warranted in the lede. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the lede. Athenean (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No, again, this is a POV issue. You can't cherry pick only the positives (from long time ago) and remove the negatives (which are the most relevant today). You've got it topsy-turvy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

What need's to be done, if we really want to improve this article, is highlight specific sections of the article you find problematic, and we can work together to resolve them. But placing tags, commenting on the talk page only because you have to, then saying vague riddles about the problem itself will not help get us anywhere. So for starts: what particular sentence or paragraph did you find problematic in terms of it being a promo piece? If you cannot justify the details beyond just saying "It reads like a resume" then I cannot take your word for it and have that specific tag removed.

As for your revert, I find that information quite important and much less recent than that of which pertains to current oil prices and sanctions. I don't suggest the lead be looking like a BBC newspiece that might as well have been published a couple of days ago. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I *did* highlight some sections. And I *did* give some examples of promo-language (just ... use Ctrl-F as SaintAviator suggests). But frankly the whole article is written in a promotional tone from top to bottom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And WP:RECENTISM is an essay not a policy, and one which you're misusing (see WP:GAME) at that. It's not that hard. You are stopping the description of what happened to Russia's economy... in 2008. Eight freakin' years ago. And I'm sorry but, Russia's economic troubles didn't start "a couple of days ago" and are a very significant and notable part of Putin's presidency.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Great, that whole management bit can be resolved. Anything else? Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, the whole thing needs to be combed through from top to bottom. I'll try to do some more clean up on it tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Why not hold off on that 'clean up' VM. List the issues here. We need consensus. Im with Étienne Dolet about 'we can work together to resolve them'. I'm against you going rogue and cleaning things up. Uh uh. Its disturbing to read this above 'There is a clear consensus (6 users vs. 1) to remove it.' Yet you put it back? Is that correct? If so thats way out of line. If so please self revert. Theres no need to edit war. BTW Athenean points about BLNP are sound ones IMHO. SaintAviator lets talk 08:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I wrote earlier, Athenean wrote that as soon as he got a couple "sort of support" comments at BLPN. But the discussion has changed. Now there's support for including the info in the lede - as it should be, otherwise the article is clearly POV (because, as explained repeatedly you guys are trying to put in only positive economic news but are trying your damned hardest to keep any negative economic news out).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

One could just as easily argue that you "are trying your damned hardest to keep any negative economic news in". Athenean (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No, actually one couldn't. Here's the difference: I'm saying BOTH good and bad need to go in because that's in the sources. You are saying "only the good stuff because WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT the bad stuff". Or another way. The negative economic news is part of the story. So is the good news. We need to tell the whole story, otherwise it's POV. You want to cherry pick sources and facts to include only the good news, because you *want* POV. See the difference? Not that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

An example of some of the extreme POV in this article

It's literally too easy to scroll down in the article and encounter POV that is poorly sourced, or based on falsification of sources. Examples:

• Putin has said that "[Orthodox Christianity] is much closer to Islam than Catholicism is". sourced to a Ukrainian nationalist website, The Economist [16], a book by Nikolas Gvosdev [17] (who got the quote from somewhere else but I am unable to find where), and this youtube video [18]. Yet even the Putin-bashing Economist admits that ""Some analysts of Christianity say Orthodoxy is in many respects closer to Islam than to the Catholics," he once declared, while stressing that he couldn't judge the matter himself. ". My Russian isn't that great, but this seems to be corroborated by the youtube video. A classic example of source manipulation to push the "Putin is bad" POV.

• Putin has sought to harness and direct Muslim anger over the Charlie Hebdo cartoons against the West. Sourced to this Bloomberg article [19]. Except that it doesn't back the claim. As much as the article tries to lay "blame" on Putin, there is simply nothing here to back the claim in the source. The demonstration was organized by Kadyrov, not Putin. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Putin was behind the demonstration.

There are countless examples of this. I will try to list them here to the extent possibleAthenean (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

These examples show appallingly low levels of academia. They have to go. SaintAviator lets talk 08:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Uh and what exactly makes it a "Ukrainian nationalist website"? Because... it is Ukrainian? You really should go around complaining about BLP when you're so keen on potentially violating it yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Violating BLP? How exactly? By removing poorly sourced and falsified material? If you think that website is a reliable source, why don't ask about it at RSN? Athenean (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You called it a "Ukrainian nationalist website". What did you base that description on? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The "Support Ukrainian Troops!" banner at the top, for one, references to "occupied Donetsk", etc...But like I said, if you think it's RS, go ahead, post at RSN. Don't let me stop you. Athenean (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Because a Ukrainian website has a banner that says "Support our troops" that makes it "nationalist"???? And what is this "etc." you speak off? You're trying to make it seem like there's more to it than that but somehow can't say what it actually is. Are you sure you just didn't jump the gun there and pretty much let it slip that you consider any Ukrainian website to be "nationalist"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am pretty sure I didn't. Don't try to put words in my mouth. And the red herrings are not going to work. Don't try to distract from the main issue: The material is poorly sourced and based on unreliable or falsified sources. If you feel this source is reliable, why don't you add the material back? I wouldn't recommend it though. Athenean (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, no, you called "Religious Information Service of Ukraine", which is affiliated with the Ukrainian Catholic University - an academic source, a "Ukrainian Nationalist website"... basically for no reason what so ever. Except that it happened to be a Ukrainian website. You also claimed The Economist wasn't a reliable source. And now you are calling them "falsified" sources. And don't worry, if I think this needs to go back in, I'll add it back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well Im for removing or at least a consensus rewrite if its notable enough. SaintAviator lets talk 08:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

What's with the bravado? Btw, since you don't know what "falsified" means, let me explain. It means that the claim that Putin said Orthodoxy was closer to Islam than to Catholicism, instead of being backed by the economist, was in fact explicitly refuted by it. Anyway, this is getting boring. Athenean (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And what's the the taunting? But no, the claim was not "refuted" by the Economist (which you called "unreliable"). How do you get that? Because of the "while at the same time" part? That's called "qualified".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Charlie Hebdo thing, how in the world are you going to claim that the source doesn't support the statement when the title of the source is "Putin Points Muslim Rage at Cold War Foes"? Oh wait I see - the source disagrees with your own personal original research. Please read WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The title is nice and catchy, and pleasing to some, however, it is not backed by anything in the article. There is simply nothing in the article that backs the claim that "Putin points muslim rage" or anything similar. It's just a demonstration in Checnya that Kadyrov called, and with which Putin had nothing to do with, and Bloomberg somehow spun that as the bogeyman Putin channeling Muslim rage bla bla bla. Utter nonsense. That you are even willing to argue this point is ridiculous. Athenean (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is backed by stuff in the article. There's like two paragraphs about it. Your original research and misrepresentation of the source is irrelevant. "Bloomberg somehow spun..." pretty much shows that you concede as much, you just don't like what the source says. *You* may feel it's nonsense, but reliable sources trump individual Wikipedia's editors personal opinion, no matter how deeply held.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Two whole paragraphs? Can you provide a quote from the body of the article (and not just the title) that backs the claim? That's right, didn't think so. Athenean (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm... how about you actually wait for me to respond before you start in with the "That's right, didn't think so". Because you're just making yourself look foolish. So here it is:

"Fifteen years on, Putin is now seeking to turn Muslim anger to his advantage by pushing for a united front against what he sees as a U.S.-led conspiracy to dominate the world. Putin is also trying to neutralize the threat posed by the return of Russian jihadis currently fighting for the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, a task complicated by his growing isolation over the war in Ukraine, officials and analysts in Moscow say."

That's what the title of the article describes. And then:

"“The protest was an attempt to meld Muslim opinions with Russian-wide views about the Western world, a lever to unite the population around Putin,” said Alexei Malashenko, a Middle East analyst at the Moscow Carnegie Center."

So there you go Mr.That'sright,didn'tthinkso. Care to apologize for how you're acting and admit that you might have been wrong? Didn't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Nice try. Except there's nothing in there about what Putin has done, only some demonstration called by Kadyrov, which is somehow "blamed" on Putin. But anyway, since you are so certain, why don't you add the content back? That's right, didn't think so. Athenean (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Jeez christ. Here it is again: "Putin is now seeking to turn Muslim anger to his advantage " - so yeah, it's about what Putin has done, your original research aside. Look, yes, we know, you don't like what the source says. Tough noogies. On Wikipedia we follow what reliable sources say, not what some editor imagines.

At this point it's hard to conclude otherwise, than that you are being obstinate on purpose and are playing tiresome WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, and it appears your purpose is to actually stall the discussion rather than resolve the issue. The continued taunting reinforces that conclusion.

And why am I not adding it back in? Uh... because I prefer to discuss it first? And you're trying to do what? Taunt me into reverting you? Please stop playing these silly games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, right because you like to discuss first. Too bad you didn't follow that here [20], here [21], here [22], here [23], and here [24]. Or is it maybe because you know this is bunk but can't admit it? Athenean (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

POV pushing in the lede

Re [25]. Look, it's POV to artificially "stop" the description of Russia's economy in .... freakin' 2008 - eight years ago - simply because you guys are hell bent on only including positive information about Putin. Either we put in a full description of how the economy did, or we put nothing in it. You cannot pick and choose like that.

And if you're going to push POV can you at least try and be a little less blatant with the WP:ADVOCACY? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to talk POV, "the economic development of Russia experienced a significant setback" verbiage is POV. A GDP contraction in one year is not a "significant setback". Better to just say "Russia's GDP shrank in 2015". Athenean (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

How do sources describe it? (and it matters by how much).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes Athenean, "Russia's GDP shrank in 2015". Sounds neutral, Correct. BTW who is this guy doing these big undiscussed deletions? Name of Nomoskedasticity. VM hes saying exactly what you are saying. This is him 'NPOV -- can't do one without the other.'. Know anything about this? Its funny how he turned up and zoomed in on that discussed Lede issue. Anyway the articles shut down for awhile, but I reverted him first.

The solution is a discussed neutral language rewrite. Smaller, balanced, better, agreed upon. SaintAviator lets talk 09:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomoscedasticity is active on WP:BLPN. Athenean asked for an opinion there (somewhat inappropriately) and so he got one. And let me repeat my question - how do sources describe it? Russia's economic troubles didn't start yesterday and they involve more than GDP; oil, tax revenues, etc. I mean, we have a whole article on Russian financial crisis (2014–present) so claiming that mentioning this is "recentism" or "undue" is disingenuous to put it nicely.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Russian financial crisis (2014–present). That proves my point. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Proves what point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Even Putin himself admits there is a serious crisis, and not only the financial one [26]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Look guys, a lot of work has been done already on WP we can use. It saves time, its already been fought over, so we dont have to. Im talking about using snippets and links from and to pages like Russian financial crisis (2014–present). I did this pattern with the new Syrian intervention thing. Sure its basic, but its a solid way to start to resolve this. And we agree on how the stuff we insert is phrased. That way we dont have to rant on about how bad or good the economy is. Readers can link to a dedicated article on it. This also lessens bloat. SaintAviator lets talk 23:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The dispute is about the lede (though dog knows the article text could improvement as well). And I'm saying something really simple - you can't cut off the description of the economy under Putin at a year that suits your POV just because it makes Putin looks good. Either we have a description of the economy under Putin from beginning to end (that's "present") or we omit it whole sale (which would be lame but at least consistent).

One thing that you just CANNOT DO is to only present the cherry picked years/times when the economy was doing well and suppress any mention of the years/times when the economy was not doing well. That's not just POV pushing but it's actually very very very obvious, blatant, obnoxious POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

See heres how smooth discussion works VM. You made a suggestion above about the Russian financial crisis (2014–present). I think 'good point' and follow it up with an idea. You're then supposed to kind of smoothly build on it, suggest something or disagree. Things flow. Its not that hard. Then we all respect each other.

I do get your point you made about the years, of course. But your tone ensures further conflict. Revert wars are about unresolved conflict, right. Why not dial it down a few notches. I propose all years are in, (up to present), linked, neutrally written with no insinuations (that was the issue). Its not hard to do. SaintAviator lets talk 23:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but then how do we write it in the lede? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Id suggest you and Étienne Dolet Athenean and I and work together, on the economy in the Lede. The best win win would be this, based on the conflict to date. Re economy. VM writes the positive Putin $ in Lede, those boom years, Athenean writes the negative Putin $ in lede. The contraction period.

Yes I meant that, you write for the opposing side. We get balance. EtienneDolet and I and others watch. You both are the main protagonists, you both get to work on neutrality. You talk to each other. If it works, its over. Rules> NPOV Short, punchy, fair, linked?. Feel free to suggest rules SaintAviator lets talk 04:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea on principle. I'm willing to do that. Athenean (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. Halfway there. BTW admins are watching for progress SaintAviator lets talk 06:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, let's see how that works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. SaintAviator lets talk 07:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on discussion on BLPN [27], I removed it for now, but a shorter and more neutral version might be fine. Things that actually should be noted are the Annexation of Crimea, starting War in Donbass, military action in Syria on the side of Assad (i.e. against the international coalition) and war in Georgia a few years ago. My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

So, User:Athenean, instead of trying to remove the stuff you "DON'T LIKE" and restoring only the stuff that you "LIKE", as you tried again to do here [28] (that edit summary should've said "wording"), how about you make a proposal for how the performance of the Russian economy in the last two years should be described? And then I'll make a proposal for how the early years should be described.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, how about Russia's economy shrank in 2015 due to the combined effect of a fall in the price of oil and the Ukraine crisis. So now how about you stop edit-warring and do what you said you were going to do. Athenean (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, how about During the early years of Putin's tenure, rising oil prices buoyed the Russian economy. And I'd change yours "and the economic sanctions related to the crisis in Ukraine".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

So much for good faith. This is a waste of time. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who cannot or will not do so in good faith. Athenean (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You made a proposal, I made a proposal. I commented on your proposal, you can comment on mine. What did I do that's not in good faith? Back that up or remove what is an explicit personal attack. Your accusation of bad faith is... in bad faith and just further evidence that you appear not to be interested in the least in compromise (maybe you - wrongly - think you can just get your way by edit warring, so hey, why compromise? You might find out why).

So let me stretch my patience a bit further. What is the problem with the suggested wording? What makes it "not in good faith"? Are you actually interested in working this out via discussion, yes or no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of pedophilia?

Why is there no mention of the allegations that Putin sexually abused children? (79.67.113.41 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

Please offer reliable sources that support what you are claiming, but the Biography of Living Persons policy means that "allegations" must be posted with care. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It was reported in all the newspapers: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555739/Litvinenko-accused-Putin-of-being-a-paedophile (79.67.113.41 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

One newspaper is not "all the newspapers"; in that article, his wife says she doesn't know if it is true or not, hardly a strong accusation, leaving aside the fact that it was made by someone seemingly killed on Putin's orders. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Didn't he once behave inappropriately with a child in public as well? (79.67.113.41 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

I don't care to debate whether this is true or not; the point is that because this is a BLP we can't just post every allegation someone makes; it must be done with care in keeping with the BLP policy. If you haven't already, please review that policy. I'm not saying it doesn't belong, just that it must be done with care. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say don't do it, but I wouldn't get surprised if you can. Considering that there's just so much POV throughout this article, this might be the one article where you can get by placing such nonsense. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not nonsense - whether true or not, serious allegations have been made publicly, and newspapers around the world have reported these allegations. (79.67.113.41 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

I say no its silly and Im wondering if theres any liability for WP if this is done. SaintAviator lets talk 23:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wring with wikipedia mentioning allegations that have already been reported everywhere. (92.15.200.197 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC))

BTW 79.67.113.41 are you a single purpose attack account? Whats your story? You have just been made. I'm suspicious because of the timing and the distraction you are causing. SaintAviator lets talk 23:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeltsin's resignation was not unexpected

The lede says Yeltsin resigned unexpectedly. However by late 1999 his resignation was expected at any time due to his multiple health problems, as well as internal pressure. (79.67.113.41 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have requested admin advice on investigating this users account. SaintAviator lets talk 23:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Not elected

Shouldn't the introduction mention that Putin has never won an election? The elections were all demonstrably rigged in 2000, 2004 and 2012. (92.15.200.197 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC))

He still won the election, even if it was 'rigged'. Wikipedia does not judge the validity of elections; any controversies or alleged 'rigging' could still be discussed on the pages for those elections(there might also be ways to do so here) assuming there are reliable sources to indicate it. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

spurious tagging, false edit summaries

Re [29] and [30].

These reverts involve adding a "dubious" tag to a claim about the effect of Western sanctions. The text in brackets claims this is not based on the source. Here is the source. Here is what the source says (as I included in my edit summary):

"The IMF expects Russian GDP to shrink by 3.4% this year, as falling real wages, the higher cost of borrowing and shattered confidence hit domestic demand. And western sanctions, and Russia's retaliatory ban on imports of food and agricultural products, could be responsible for nearly half that decline."

The real problem though is the user's edit summaries. The first one tags it and says "see talk". There ain't NOTHING on talk by this user. This suggests this is just edit warring for sake of edit warring and the "dubious" claim is nonsense.

The second revert again repeats these demands for "talk" - even though the quote was provided - and also marks the edit as "minor". It is not minor.

Please stop using false edit summaries. And if you're going to demand others "discuss on talk" then don't make false claims that you're already discussing it on talk when you're not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Clicking on 'discuss' after the claim in the article (between brackets) will lead you to the section on this talk page where I posted my comment. It's the last comment under 'Removed two sentences', the same section where the dubious claim was discussed some days ago. Please do not remove the template so that other users can discuss. Thanks. — 37 ^(talk) 16:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really help if you put your comments in the wrong section. You also say " I have no intention in getting involved in the edit war" then proceed to tip-toe right to the 3RR line by reverting three times.

Your reasoning also is sketchy. The IMF predicted the Russian economy was going to shrink by 3.6%. It shrunk by 3.7%. Likewise the sentence explicitly says it's because of sanction. If you want to add "and Russian response to sanctions" that's fine.

Now please stop edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I posted my comment in the wrong section as it is the same section in which another user asked for this claim to be sourced, and the discussion in this section is still ongoing. I see you disagree with me when I say the claim misinterprets the source. Thats's fine, but please allow other users to discuss this as well. It's inappropriate to repeatedly remove a 'dubious'-template just because you think it shouldn't be there. Also, you might want to follow the advice you have on your userpage: The person who is most insistent on specific sources is least likely to have found the best sources. — 37 ^(talk) 17:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not "insisting" on that source - I'm just saying your claim that it is being "misrepresented" is absurd. Here's another source which says more or less the same thing [31] [32].

You asked for a source you got it. You claimed the source was being misrepresented, well it was shown not to be true (so you resorted to this "discuss first" strategy). Now you're claiming that I'm "insisting" on this one particular source. I'm not. Looks like you're just trying to move the goal posts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The two new texts you bring up also do not support the claim that about half of the decline in GDP in 2015 was due to sanctions. I'm not trying to move any goal posts. I'll even repeat my original suggestion: If this claim can not be verified, I suggest to remove it. — 37 ^(talk) 18:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The original source DOES say that half the impact is due to sanctions and Russia's response to them. Will you please stop denying something that's clear as day in the source? It's frustrating to try and discuss something with someone who pretends that they can't see what's in front of them. Please take WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to heart. Now, the other two sources do not say "half" explicitly but both of them say that the sanctions have had an impact. So they support the initial source. So the claim HAS been verified, you just are claiming - for whatever reason - that it hasn't. But you can make up whatever you want, the source is still there and it still says that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)