Talk:Vladimir Putin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Vladimir Putin was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Russia / Sports & games / Politics and law (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Conservatism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Economic, industrial, and energy policies[edit]

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.


Secondary source is needed to replace the offending quote from her book. She's a woman, emigre, Jewish, lesbian and a Russophobe, and the entire book reeks of hate. It's not a neutral biography. Article must be neutral so direct quotations from biased works should be reworded as neutral. She partially lists her sources at the end of a book but many are missing full references. E.g. "Putin's biggest success" part is supposedly referenced by "Author interview with Sergei Bezrukov, Düsseldorf, August 17, 2011". No name of the publication, no indication weather it was personal communication or a published piece, weather it was her opinion or that of the interviewee, just nothing. It's such a poorly written work it shouldn't even be used a source. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It`s spelled whether..this is supposed to be in English.
You know Wikipedia, Ivan. RS's can and usually are biased. What is needed are RS's of opposing or differing points of view to maintain NPOV.
But the problem is that it's not a reliable source. It is based on seemingly anecdotal evidence with a plentiful supply of value judgements throughout. It's not a scholarly work. Secondary sources that Gessen actually uses should be used and not her work which is a derivative with an anti-Putin slant. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
The inclusion of her quotation is a blight on the entire article. Never in a million years would a quote from, for example, Bill O'Reilly be allowed such a prominent position on Barack Obama's article yet it seems perfectly fine to let a woman, who is the complete opposite of what Putin represents, thrash his entire KGB career based only on her hatred for him. It needs to be removed ASAP. Tomh903 (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Removed. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

possible WP:BLP violation[edit]

See Talk:Public image of Vladimir Putin. -M.Altenmann >t 16:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Asperger news[edit]

Medical aspect[edit]

Speculative reports based on video analysis, denied by Moscow. See centralized discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Vladimir Putin Asperger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with "centralization" of this thread on a medical page. I think this led the discussion astray. The report from the Office of Net Assessment does not purport to be a "medical diagnosis", contrary to implications on the "centralized" discussion. The report appears to be an intelligence evaluation requiring professional skills beyond those that would be applied in a medical diagnosis. Perhaps an analogy would help. An intelligence expert examining aerial photographs of a steel bridge across a river cannot perform a "structural analysis" that a "Professional Engineer" would sign as such. Nevertheless, he may be able to make a very useful estimate whether the bridge could carry a military vehicle of a certain weight. This estimate requires engineering knowledge as well as other specialized skills. The resulting report may contain engineering language, but that does not imply that it is an "engineering study". It would be an intelligence report. It would be unhelpful for a Professional Engineer lacking those additional specialized skills to dismiss it as "speculation". (A copy of the report that is more conveniently searchable is available here.) Layzeeboi (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
garbage at best (you cannot diagnose an ASD from video) and really ugly (and ironic) psychiatric propaganda at worst. We don't put complete bullshit into WP. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you forgot to sign your remark. The original report does not claim to "diagnose" anything. So this comment appears to be a straw man fallacy. How CNN or anyone else choses to sensationalize the report is irrelevant to the original post, which did not cite such "garbage". And how can the original report be "propaganda", when it was buried for 7 years, and had to be extracted via Freedom of Information (which is unavailable in regimes fond of "psychiatric propaganda")? Let's all try to calm down... Layzeeboi (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop citing the link to that unverified version of the report. I'll discuss this at Project Med to keep the discussion in one place. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
The Aspergers ref is shite, political game rot. Its not medical. SaintAviator lets talk 01:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Other considerations[edit]

IMO it is pretty safe to conclude that after the initial publication many experts agreed that this "diagnose" is a wild guesswork, i.e., the discussion of medical aspects at WP:MEDICINE may be closed (or branched out, if people want to chat). Nevertheless it remains to be decided whether the subject is noteworthy for other reasons. But this continuation belongs to where it belongs: Talk:Vladimir Putin. -M.Altenmann >t 07:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, and strongly. this is a health related matter. there is no other bucket it goes into. Jytdog (talk) 07:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope. There are plenty of buckets to go into: politics, conspiracy theories, defamation, to name a few. Any of them may develop significantly. -M.Altenmann >t 07:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
It will not go in and if it does after the usual process it will be booted. Its rubbish. SaintAviator lets talk 01:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
If the community decides it is noteworthy, it will go in. There are heaps of rubbish in wikipedia. You may start with trying to boot 'Putin khuilo' article for an exercise in booting. -M.Altenmann >t 03:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

He did not win the 2012 election[edit]

The introduction should not say Putin won the March 2012 election, because it was rigged. He only "won" by stealing more than 8 million votes from his opponents. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC))

You need mainstream reliable sources that say that. TFD (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
There are thousands of news sources saying that online. There were massive protests in Russia against the result because everybody knew the election was rigged. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC))
"thousands of news sources saying that online" is not an acceptable reference for use in a footnote. If what you say is correct, is there any reason you cannot provide at least one of them? TFD (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's one: (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC))
OMG more shite. George its rubbish. SaintAviator lets talk 01:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Return to Putin's Russia, which is a reliable source and certainly not pro-Putin, "no one questioned whether Putin actually won the election." (p. 2)[1] Your source is from election night and what some media report at the time is often inaccurate. TFD (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually everybody questioned whether Putin won, because the election was blatantly rigged just like his first election in 2000. Even the BBC said Putin did not win the 2012 election. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC))

The source I provided was in the intro to the fifth edition of a book about Putin, published by an academic publisher, Rowman & Littlefield. It meets rs, your opinion does not. If you have a secondary source that says, "everybody questioned whether Putin won", please present it. TFD (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The White House said the election was rigged and Putin stole more than 8 million votes from his opponents. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC))
You need to provide sources, otherwise your assertions are of no value to the discussion. I do not know if what you say is true or not and frankly I do not care. It only matters what sources say. TFD (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
We cannot say that "he did not win the election". The body of the article discusses "procedural irregularities" identified by international observers. I changed the sentence in the lead, from "He won the election in March 2012 and is serving a six-year term" to "In March 2012 he won the election, which was widely criticized for procedural irregularities, and is serving a six-year term" using language taken directly from the body. Hopefully that will satisfy everybody. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
The White House said, who cares. You have no RS. Your pushing the Vandalism envelope. SaintAviator lets talk 00:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Putin was never elected in the first place, because the election in 2000 was rigged. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC))

Fluff. SaintAviator lets talk 01:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
You are obviously a Putin supporter and should not be pushing POV on this site. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC))
Your remarks about somebody being a 'Putin supporter' are out of line, and irrelevant, in Wikipedia. What matters is the reliability of the source. The Moscow Times is a throw-away English flyer published by a Helsinki publisher for the expatriate consumer, hardly what anyone would class as a RS. The article even admits that none of its speculations would have affected the election result anyway, which makes your hysteria a bit over the top. Santamoly (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Strongman label[edit]

Isn't calling Putin a dictator a bit negative POV? That is apparently what a strongman is. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is. SaintAviator lets talk 01:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I removed it. TFD (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I see another editor restored it. The description is unsourced and therefore in violation of WP:BLP. TFD (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
As Putin was never voted into power in an election that wasn't rigged he is definitely a strongman dictator like Egypt's Nasser and Libya's Gaddafi. (GeorgeJefferys (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC))
OMG SaintAviator lets talk 04:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, GeorgeJefferys has been blocked for sockpuppetry. TFD (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yawn, not surprised. SaintAviator lets talk 01:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Darn - I was just getting myself all worked up about the boy Santamoly (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Economic success[edit]

This edit: [2]

User:Avaya1's edit presented economic growth during putinism as a mere coincidence. I double-checked his cited sources and see they say that while oil and commodities boom were a significant factor indeed, this was not all good luck. Therefore I edited accordingly. -M.Altenmann >t 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

At the same time IMO the lede should not go into detail why something happened; the explanation will be simplistic by necessity (it is lede; must be short). IMO the lede must say what happened and leave why to the corresponding section, with all detail. -M.Altenmann >t 18:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The why of things in lede is bad writing. So basic, so ignored in WP SaintAviator lets talk 04:15, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead...god I hate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Grow a brain, sign your shit (God I hate that) and learn to search / fact check, before you blab (God I hate that). For Wikipedia guidelines on lead paragraphs, see Wikipedia:Lead section. A lead, or lede, paragraph in literature is the opening paragraph of an article, essay, news story or book chapter. [3] SaintAviator lets talk 00:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)