Talk:Vladimir Putin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeVladimir 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.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 15, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 16, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 24, 2004, March 3, 2008, September 24, 2008, and March 5, 2012.
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 31, 2012.
Current status: Former good article nominee


"Experts" or "Western analysts"? Attribute opinions? Mention "electoral authoritarianism"?[edit]

The lede section includes a sentence stating that Experts no longer consider Russia a democracy. A prior version said: Western analysts no longer consider Russia a democracy. There was a bit of back-and-forth between both formulations among various editors. I see them both as rather vague, although "Western analysts" is a tad more precise than the unspecified "experts". The statement is sourced to two citations, a Journal of Democracy paper from 2015[1] and a book on "hybrid regimes" from 2010.[2] Other opinions are attributed, e.g. to The Economist, but this one is not. I would suggest to name the cited authors, who happen to have articles, e.g. say: Western political scientists such as Larry Diamond and Steven Levitsky consider Russia an example of "electoral authoritarianism" rather than a real democracy. What do other editors think? — JFG talk 19:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The label "Western analysts" impugns their expertise, suggests that their views are colored by their nationality and/or upbringing, and that there are "Non-western analysts" who dispute the characterization. It's a perfect example of WP:WEASEL. Even if they were all Jews, we wouldn't say "Western Jewish analysts", even if it would be accurate and descriptive. You also omit Lucan Ahmad Way, whose background I do not know and I would bet you don't either. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Lucan Ahmad Way received his BA from Harvard College and his PhD from the University of California, Berkeley. - https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/polisci/lucan-ahmad-way --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd be fine starting the sentence with just "Political scientists" if "Western" sounds POV. The most important is to attribute the claim. Didn't mention Ahmad Way because he is apparently not notable enough to be considered a recognized expert on the issue. — JFG talk 21:26, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Here are additional sources:
  • "Digital media and political opposition in authoritarian systems: Russia’s 2011 and 2016 Duma elections" in the journal Democratization.[1]
  • Building an Authoritarian Polity: Russia in Post-Soviet Times by Graeme Gill. Cambridge University Press.[2]
  • Authoritarian Modernization in Russia: Ideas, Institutions, and Policies, edited by Vladimir Gel'man. Routledge.[3]
  • The Origins of Dominant Parties: Building Authoritarian Institutions in Post-Soviet Russia by Ora John Reuter. Cambridge University Press.[4]
  • Authoritarian Russia: Analyzing Post-Soviet Regime Changes by Vladimir Gel'man. University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Authoritarian Backlash: Russian Resistance to Democratization in the Former Soviet Union by Thomas Ambrosio. Routledge. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Such a controversial claim does not even belong in the lede. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
At any rate, it must be properly attributed, not vaguely to "experts". — JFG talk 21:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Sources

  1. ^ Diamond, Larry (7 January 2015). "Facing Up to the Democratic Recession". Journal of Democracy. 26 (1): 141–155. doi:10.1353/jod.2015.0009. ISSN 1086-3214. 
  2. ^ Levitsky, Steven; Way, Lucan A. (16 August 2010). Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781139491488. 

Not a neutral one[edit]

Is this considered to be a trustworthy article? each passage with no exeption has a negative definition, looks like a set of western propaganda mottos. z.b, there are 3 photos of anti-Putin protests, what about his supporters? Hundreds of thousands people since early 2000s, where they are? They've never existed? Are there no positive results in domestic policy, foreign affairs or economy? Please stay neutral, these ridiculous one-sided facts we can always find on the pages of the "Sun" Перцев Алексей (talk) 07:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
Well, his supporters are low IQ people, often intellectually challenged and backward.Support beating homosexuals and rapes on women. And indeed his domestic and international politics is a total disaster. Every single neighbor country of Russia hopes he will die soon. Is now the picture clear? Kisses, Kremówczak (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2018[edit]

Please change "Russian statesman" to "Russian politician". Using the term, 'statesman' as a descriptive term is a subject in debate and demonstrates personal bias in violation of article neutrality. 'Politician' as a descriptive term is neutral. Hinterhältigen (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • He is not really a politician and is rarely described as such, sorry, feel free to open up a chat here and find a consensus position, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)