Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

Citations about Putin

‹See TfM›

Simple headcount is 11 to include vs 15 to exclude, therefore inconclusive on its own. Participants loudly criticizing each other is also unhelpful in reaching clarity. Looking at the substantive arguments:
  • The Include camp considers that John McCain's notability combined with good RS coverage of his comment are enough to give DUE weight to placing his words on Putin's page, attributed.
  • The Exclude camp argues that McCain's remarks are being amplified out of proportion due to the current political climate or that McCain is not credible. Some say that including McCain's opinion would open the floodgates of other opinions about Putin, which would quickly clog the biography. Finally, BLP restraint is cited about calling someone a murderer.

My analysis of editor contributions in light of WP policies is as follows:

  • BLPVIO concerns are properly addressed by attributing the defamatory statements to McCain, it doesn't matter whether editors agree or whether those accusations are true (see VNT).
  • Concerns about NPOV and BALASP could be addressed by including positive statements about Putin among people with similar status and notability as McCain, however such an approach runs a considerable risk of escalating the tensions into a war of quotes and a pissing contest about whose quote is more notable. The current assortment of opinions by heads of state, scholars and political opponents of Putin are diverse enough that there should be no pressing need to add one more.
  • With a few weeks hindsight, it appears that coverage has died down, giving some momentum to the NOTNEWS argument.
In general, quotes of a person about another, especially when controversial, are best included in the speaker's article rather than in the target's. I would therefore advise including this statement in John McCain's article, and I am closing this RfC as "No consensus", which implies excluding the quote. — JFG talk 18:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In the above section, some users support and some oppose inclusion of an opinion of John McCain about Putin (the opinion has been published in a reliable source).

  1. Do you support inclusion of this opinion in the article?
  2. Opinion of which (other) persons, provided they are published in reliable sources, should/could be added to the article?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include -- covered in entirely mainstream sources, not fringe at all. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Would you please also address the second question. Could we include every opinion if it has been published in a reliable source? Where do we draw the line?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The second question is pretty silly -- surely it's simply a WP:POINT? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it is not. But I see that you are not really interested in discussing it. Fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I made the contribution I saw fit to make. Not engaging with your further question doesn't invalidate the view I offered. I suspect others as well will decline to answer that second question. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure you have a mandate to talk for the others, but we will see.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - We can't possibly add every opinion from every notable person. As to what we should include in the article, well...that should be decided through consensus. So I welcome the RfC in that regard. The McCain quote is a perfect example of a notable person saying something non-notable, as in inconsequential. And in my opinion, it was nothing short of a rant. This was just a flashy news item the day it happened and hasn't been reported on since then (see WP:NOTNEWS). Adding strong claims to a BLP article that labels him a "thug", "murderer", and "killer" would need strong consensus. And I'd much rather include statements that have consequences or were widely reported upon (i.e. Bush's "I looked into his eyes saw his soul"). But again, there should be consensus as to which ones those are. The more we talk, the better. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
"We can't possibly add every opinion from every notable person." - the proposal is NOT to "add every opinion from every notable person", just this one. So you need to address this particular person.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but he's a senator. Lots of senators out there. Just because you head this or that committee shouldn't give you a free pass. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not "this or that committee", it's the Senate Armed Services Committee.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Still doesn't give you a free pass though. If you're so confident it does, why don't you restore it once more? But see, I know you wouldn't do that because we all agree that we need consensus for such inclusions. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
EtienneDolet, it's pretty obvious that you're engaging in bad faithed taunting and are trying to provoke me. That's a violation of WP:POINT and WP:CIVIL. (You're basically bragging that you managed to edit-war successfully). Also, you are completely ignoring the substance of the argument. Because you got nothing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - There simply isn't enough space to include every politician's *opinion*, and it is an opinion, about every other politician. It is a waste of usable space and not very encyclopedic. Lipsquid (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Nobody's proposing including "every politician's opinion", just this one's. Because he's very notable when it comes to the subject matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
He is not notable at all really. In the scheme of history, McCain will be a nobody and Putin will be notable for many, many decades, possibly centuries. Not a note on any opinion or the worthiness of either guy, but saying McCain is noteworthy in this context is silly. This is an encyclopedia. Lipsquid (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Are you seriously arguing that John McCain is a not notable person? Seriously? Well, that just highlights the quality and absurdity of "exclude" arguments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
No I am seriously arguing that he is only one of many, many, many notable people that have an opinion on Putin and in that group of individuals, he is not very notable. Heads of state have notable opinions about other heads of state, otherwise it should be an academic. It is easy to exclude his opinion, his credibility has been thoroughly challenged in the last decade. Lipsquid (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Funny, cuz I thought you just said, quote, "He is not notable at all really. " Oh and then after saying "I am not arguing he is not notable" you go ahead and say "he is not very notable"? You're not only contradicting your previous statement, you manage to contradict yourself again within the same comment. Again, the question is straight forward - is McCain not notable or not? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say he lost credibility awhile ago. Especially after this blunder. The Cold War rhetoric against Putin aren't getting politicians anywhere these days, and repetitive attacks against him are becoming more and more futile and hence, more and more desperate. Therefore, such inconsequential rhetoric, as the one he did last week, should be excluded from the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
lol, that was funny. He's so notable because he is a Senator who thinks Putin leads Germany! Lipsquid (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude, per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:FRINGE. More content, less gossip. Athenean (talk) 03:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. First, whether one agrees or disagrees with McCain's assessment is completely beside the point and irrelevant, so objections like "NPOV" are just plain misguided. Second, McCain's opinion is quite notable because 1) it received widespread coverage in reliable sources and 2) McCain is one of the most prominent US Senators and certainly the most prominent Senator who is critical of Putin, he is also the head of the Armed Services Committee which makes crucial decision on US foreign policy, in particular with respect to Russia. So yeah, it's important. Again, whether you agree with his views or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd like to point out that EtienneDolet&Athenean's first argument against inclusion was "BLP! BLP!". That didn't hold water as was pointed out to them. So they switched it to "FRINGE! FRINGE!". Well, since neither McCain nor CBS news are "fringe" they had to drop that one too. Then it became "NOTNEWS!". Not really applicable either. Then "NPOV!" even though the quote is appropriately attributed. So really, this is just pulling out every Wikipedia acronym to obfuscate the fact that the desire to exclude is a simple good ol' fashioned WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
"One of the most notable US Senators" - subjective. A failed presidential candidate who got trounced by Obama in one of the biggest landslides in history - objective. Athenean (talk) 05:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Right, because using words like "trounced" and bolding it makes your personal opinion "objective". He's a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee - objective. Unlike other senators he actually IS a past presidential candidate - objective. He gets more press than most other Senators, save perhaps one or two - objective. Seriously, if you were to ask a random person in US to name three US senators, McCain would be in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
(In fact, this whole song and dance of trying to pretend that McCain is not notable is so blatantly ridiculous, it's almost as bad as you two trying to throw out every Wikipedia acronym you can think of in hope that one of them will stick).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not my "opinion" he got trounced, it's a cold hard fact. 365-173. Look it up. If you don't like "trounced", there are lots of other verbs we can use. Lots of Senators, lots of committees. So then should we include the opinion of every Senator who is in some committee? Now, I can understand why he's be one of your favorite senators, but that doesn't really mean anything as far as wikipedia is concerned.Athenean (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I'm sorry but this argument of "we can't include everything in the article, therefore we cannot include this one particular thing that IJUSTDONTLIKE" is... well, it's just as ridiculous as trying to argue that McCain is a non-notable senator, and it's just as ridiculous as your strategy of throwing out Wikipedia policies willy-nilly without rhyme or reason as a means of obstruction.
I would also appreciate it if you refrained from telling me what my "favorite" is or is not. Please strike that comment as it personalizes the discussion and attributes to me opinions which I have not expressed and may or may not hold. It's a personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
And I would appreciate it if you refrained from telling me my motivations are just IJUSTDONTLIKE, which is also a personal attack. Athenean (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it's actually not. It's a criticism of your editing behavior. There's a difference. Now, ascribing political opinions to others just so that you can ridicule them, yeah, that's a personal attack.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Was this [1] also a legitimate criticism of my editing behavior? Athenean (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for striking your comment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Since you started this RfC I'm gonna ask that you step in this and intervene before this goes any further. I take offense at User:Athenean saying things like "I can understand why he's be one of your favorite senators" when I have said nothing to indicate that. The statement is obviously meant as an insult.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: I hope you understand that I can not act at this point in my capacity as administrator in relation to this article. Especially since I myself was insulted by the very first commentator.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include John McCain is a person widely known and any argument to the contrary is bound to end in embarrassment for those who dare make it. McCain is a notable, senior Senator, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a committee directly relevant to US-Russian relations. The opinions McCain happens to hold on Vladimir Putin the person and the leader of Russia is evidently important and worthy of inclusion here, just as are opinions of leading figures in the U.S. executive branch or congressmen in the Committee on Foreign Relations. For example, the statements (e.g. here) on Putin made by that committee's chairman, Bob Corker, would be similarly worthy of inclusion. -The Gnome (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. This is a part of section "Public image", and the opinions by highly notable politicians represent his public image. Actually, this particular opinion expresses views by a very large part of political establishment in US in many other countries, and it does not matter if certain WP contributors agree with such views. Therefore, I think this opinion must remain on the page simply per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude. Vicious personal attacks should not be allowed to masquerade as opinions based on facts. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that makes no sense. Nothing is being presented as a fact. A person's statement is being quoted. This person is notable. That's it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
There are hundreds of thousands of notable persons in the world, and thousands published opinions on Putin in reliable sources. We just cannot add everything to this article and need to draw a line somewhere. In my view, McCain is way below the line.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
But again, this is just the "we cannot include EVERYTHING therefore we cannot include THIS ONE THING" argument which is a total logical fallacy. Nobody's proposing that "thousands published opinions on Putin" are to be included. Just this one, because this one was made by a very notable person, who happens to be one of the most well known US politicians, a top US senator, chairman of a committee that oversees US policy on Russia and who's generally known as outspoken on the subject of Putin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
We had three US presidents who had to deal with Putin, and in a month going to have the fourth one. We have several vice-presidents and several secretaries of state. We have countless heads of other states. We have countless Russian politicians of all ranks such as governors. IMO opinions of all these people are more important than that of McCain, and including all of them to the article is not really possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Umm, actually those are already included (except Bill Clinton because the overlap was too brief). Bush is in there. Obama's in there. ... Vice-presidents are mostly window dressing so no reason for them to be included. I guess we're missing Kerry as far as SoS goes, which we could add. But again, what matters is to what extent a given politicians statements about Putin have been covered in reliable sources. And for McCain it's a lot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
This opinion is actually based on undeniable facts. If it does not passes as an outright "include", I would suggest a compromise version: shortening the quotation by McCain to limit it to facts: "He had Boris Nemtsov murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin. He has dismembered the Ukraine. He has now precision strikes by Russian aircraft on hospitals in Aleppo." My very best wishes (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude per my own opinion in the line above.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude as arguments have been listed above. KMilos (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include. I do not myself share McCain’s views on Putin but the arguments for exclusion are, in my opinion, inadmissible. Ghirla’s characterization of McCain’s comments as “Vicious personal attacks” or Ymblanter calling him twice an “idiot” (a serious violation of WP BLP Policy) are irrelevant personal opinions. The only considerations that we should take into account are notability and verifiability. In the same section one can read that “Putin has been described as a "dictator" by political opponent Garry Kasparov” Is Garry Kasparov more notable than McCain? Are his comments more grounded? --Thomas de Mowbray (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
As a very notable Russian politician who ran against Putin in a presidential election, Kasparov is certainly more noteworthy for this article. He also adds credibility to the encyclopedia by our inclusion of many voices from many points of view instead of yet another American politician. Lipsquid (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude I agree with some of the the exclude comments here. I would agree that this quote should stay if it were notable and influential in some way, but it's not. There's nothing really important about it, and hasn't received extensive and continuous coverage ever since. 92slim (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude per what 92slim says right above me. Mine is a mostly subjective opinion as I really see no policy-based cause for exclusion if the quote is reliably sourced, it's just trivial. It's a quote from a foreign government's failed candidate for head of state. On a hypothetical list of priority for inclusion of actors in foreign governments' opinions on Putin, McCain is far, far down the list. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include as McCain's statement represents a common opinion in the United States. Earthscent (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude - this is supposed to be the WP:BLP for Putin, so outsider reflections seem WP:OFFTOPIC. If it's just not biographical info about Putin nor a significant event in his life it does not belong -- and I did not see it being put forward of a BLP nature. Does not matter how important McCain is or isn't in the world as the question is only how relevant it is to this topic and whether it is significant to Putin. I could perhaps see a general view mentioned -- but something coming from a specific person seems questionable for WP:BLPSTYLE reasons of being too open to wrong tone or a coatrack or attack blurb. Markbassett (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude John McCain has talked about lots of things, he's not a latter day oracle whose words are so important that everything he says must be added to some Wikipedia article. His current remarks may have attracted some attention because of the recent allegations about Putin rigging the U.S. election. But otherwise it has little long term relevance. TFD (talk) 02:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. Frankly, I do not understand how people can argue that the opinion by most prominent US supporters (i.e. by Donald Trump) should be included, but opinion by most prominent US critics (i.e. McCain) should not. Both should be included per WP:NPOV. And whatever will be outcome here, it must be consistent with WP:NPOV. Otherwise, it is not valid and not binding. My very best wishes (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude (Sighs) Anti Putin Guys, dont you tire of the same old game of trying to make the article as anti Putin as possible? Bloat. Is the issue. Its lame. Its the same old team with the same tired replies trying to put in irrelevant spam. Notable, not notable, fringe or not, BLP or not, irrelevant or not. Blah blah. Wikipedia has come down to a numbers game. Now the Forbes most powerful man award is notable. Thats good content. M'Cains a has been. Like Hillary. They lost. Who cares. Putins winning. Some of you hate that. Take it to a blog. SaintAviator lets talk 21:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
    • SaintAviator, you've been warned about making non-constructive talk page comments and personal attacks before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Now the old threat tactic. (yawns) Like you never got warned. It IS a constructive comment. You know it. WP should be about content NOT anti Putin agendas. Thats the issue. I like Trump and Putin but I dont try to put in bloat like this on Hillary's page. SaintAviator lets talk 06:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
        • But, wait. Unless SaintAviator meant loser as in she lost the election, then it's not such a BLP violation after all. It just might need clarification. Do you mind clearing things up SaintAviator? Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Loser as in lost, for sure. Thats obvious. Marek, about your warnings which you use to try to stop opposition to your anti Putin POV edits: One thing I would never do was set up a back channel email cabal to influence WP editing. Thats yours and on the record. Think about that before you take the high moral ground. SaintAviator lets talk 21:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I could not agree more with MVBW's comment. Kasparov's comments are very similar to those of McCain and he is way less notable. All the proponents of exclusion should by the same logic ask for their deletion, but they do not. Some have expressed their dislike for McCain (a war hero) in the above comments. Could this be the reason? Obviously, everyone should set aside their personal feelings when editing BLPs. --Thomas de Mowbray (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
You mean personal feelings like "war hero". 00:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Woops! Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
"Woops" what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the RfC is not just about McCain. Removing Kasparov's opinion could also be a valid outcome of this RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I think political opposition is important to quote, but deleting all the politicians from the article would not hurt my feelings. This is all very unencyclopedic and Putin has been around long enough to have academics give opinions on his governing and we can drop the political nonsense and posturing. Lipsquid (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Kasparov is a different case since he actually ran against Putin and paid a price for it. His opinions are more critical than that of McCain's. But in regards to political posturing, I can't say I disagree. The discussion should not be whether politicians are notable enough to have their quotes in the assessment section, it should be about the quotes themselves and whether those are notable enough. I've said McCain's quote wasn't, but was Kasparov's? Hard to tell. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Re 'it should be about the quotes themselves and whether those are notable enough.'. Correct. SaintAviator lets talk 21:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include per Volunteer Marek and others. This is a pretty notable incident judging by coverage in reliable sources, and a comment from one of the most prominent politicians in the US (particularly in foreign affairs). --Tataral (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include – I have not even looked to see what comments are in question, but there's no doubt that McCain has the stature to have an important and relevant opinion; if his opinion is published in reliable news sources, it should be good enough for us. As for whether we publish every opinion about Putin, probably not; if there are others from reliable sources that are being considered, let's consider them explicitly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude and to quote above - "(Sighs) Anti Putin Guys, dont you tire of the same old game of trying to make the article as anti Putin as possible?" I also agree with the comments above that historically Mcain's opinions about Putin will have no historic value in his life story at all, his biography, which this page is. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Look at it and consider WP:BLP In late 2016 Mcain states that "Vladimir Putin is a thug and a murderer and a killer and a KGB agent. He had Boris Nemtsov murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin. He has dismembered the Ukraine. He has now precision strikes by Russian aircraft on hospitals in Aleppo. Mcain has no evidence at all for his personal attacks - a thug and a murderer and a killer. - I would ban any user from editing this subject that supports the inclusion of this trash to a WP:BLP - Mcains quote is presented as if fact, Putin is a killer and a murderer - this desired addition here in a WP:BLP is disgusting to any WP:NPOV EDITORGovindaharihari (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
No, McCain's quote is presented as just that - a quote, and an *opinion* of a particular, notable person. Perhaps "ban any user" would better apply to those who can't tell the difference between presenting an individual's opinion and stating something as fact? WP:COMPETENCE and all that. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
You are so boring in your policy quackery to support your bias. I would ban you immediately from any Russia articles, you have been previously restricted have you not? Mcains opinion which is so strongly attacking, a murderer, a killer??? and without any evidence is a clear WP:NPOV and WP:BPL violation - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC) struck, in the spirt of encouraging goodwill. Govindaharihari (talk)
Oh my god, what is it with editors going off with the personal attacks and insults lately? And these specific ones too. Please strike that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Include per Volunteer Marek and The Gnome. McCain is a leading Senator and his opinion is obviously worthy of inclusion. --Vemeth (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Admin - please show weight to this comment - four edits all today Govindaharihari (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The section includes a positive opinion by Trump (which is fine), but does not include a highly cited negative opinion by McCain who is as notable as Trump from WP perspective. This is an outright WP:NPOV violation. This must be fixed. The only question is how. I suggest to include both opinions because they were both highly cited. My very best wishes (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I am going to watchlist this article as apparent there are POV issues here. Thank you, Mr. RfC Bot! Coretheapple (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude, obviously. Stating someone is a killer, even attributing that to the opinion of a specific person, is a WP:BLP violation without very solid evidence. See WP:BLPCRIME. ~ Rob13Talk 00:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course "Include". Summoned by bot. McCain is a former presidential candidate and leading U.S. critic of Putin. His opinions are notable and relevant to the article. This is a no-brainer and I'm surprised there is a need for an RfC on this. Coretheapple (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Exclude although I have heard of Putin I had to look up McCain to see who he was, appears to be an American politician. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@MilborneOne: As an admin, you should be aware that your rationale is a 'never heard of him' !vote. You may be from the UK, and I'm from Australia... but I certainly know who McCain is without having to look him up. I haven't cast a !vote here either way but, if I did, I'd certainly be sure to make it policy/guideline based. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Exclude. Gross BLP violation, as it's completely non-neutral and describes Putin as a criminal. McCain's labeling of Putin as a thug, murderer, and killer in no way represents the broad array of notable viewpoints about Putin, some of which are completely inconsistent with McCain's view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. This RfC was opened almost a month ago and I think it's high time we had closure now. I am not convinced by the arguments for exclusion formulated so far. Whether we agree or not with Senator McCain is irrelevant. He is a foremost politician and his views on Putin are shared by many congressmen. For example, he enjoys the support of Senator Lindsey Graham and of Senator Marco Rubio, who even called Putin a war criminal. Neither is this opinion confined to the GOP, Hillary Clinton famously called Putin a dictator and said he had no soul. Excluding McCain's comments would amount to censoring an opinion which is widely held in the free world. To those who might argue that we should cite a favorable opinion for balance, I would like to point out that finding a western leader who praises Putin is mission impossible. Therefore, if inclusion of a good opinion is deemed necessary, I would suggest citing Gorbachev, who said once that "Putin saved Russia". Unless there is strong opposition, I will include back McCain's comments shortly. --Thomas de Mowbray (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    I am not sure about strong opposition, but I do not see how this discussion can be closed differently from no consensus, which means, well, that McCain's quote is not included.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Very good Rfc. Why? In large part because of this part which drew out some good debate: 'Would you please also address the second question. Could we include every opinion if it has been published in a reliable source? Where do we draw the line?'. The exclude result is a good precedent for some common sense editing to avoid premeditated bias by certain editors. SaintAviator lets talk 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
No one is talking about including every opinion, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED - the equivalent of what you're proposing. 'Good precedent'? For what? Had this been an RfC to exclude something that suits your bias, you would not have applauded it, but still would have pointed to 'premeditated bias by certain editors'. Enough, please. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Every opinion! Who said that? Enough yourself. SaintAviator lets talk 20:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Include Came across this looking at old unclosed RfCs. There are fair questions about "whose opinions matter?" in cases like this, and I would like to suggest that, much as we do when assessing article notability, we look to the number, breadth, and quality of sources which discuss it. In this case, McCain's comments generated a number of news articles whose topic was McCain's comments. That coverage appears to extend across the political spectrum and is not limited to the United States. Arguments that this would be a BLP violation are simply mistaken, apparently conflating statements made in McCain's voice with those made in Wikipedia's voice. --joe deckertalk 19:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yeah reasonable comment, makes me think the President of the USAs comments on Putin need to be in the article, like this one. I mean the POTUS outranks McCain right. 'Trump praises Putin’s response to sanctions, calls Russian leader ‘very smart!’ [2]. Heres a list [3]. SaintAviator lets talk 20:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

Please change "Saint Petersburg" to "Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg)" where it is mentioned in several places in the article as Putin's birthplace as "Leningrad" was the name of the city at the time of Putin's birth as per Rosenberg, Matt (12 August 2016). "When Was St. Petersburg Known as Petrograd and Leningrad?". Retrieved 16 September 2016. and "Prime Minister of the Russian Federation – Biography". 14 May 2010. Archived from the original on 14 May 2010. Retrieved 31 July 2015. Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help).

 Done, thanks! — JFG talk 18:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2017

Да, я хотел бы изменить эту статью, я думаю, что знаю кое-что о Владимире, что некоторые люди не учитывая, что я был его другом детства. - FixerUpper FixerUpper (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@FixerUpper: This is the English Wikipedia, please provide a translation of your request so patrolling editors can act on your request. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
(via Google Translate) "Yes, I would like to change this article, I think I know something about Vladimir that some people are not considering that I was his childhood friend." JTP (talkcontribs) 16:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Thank you NotTheFakeJTP for your help. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Justification of my edit

@Ymblanter: He did not win the election if the extent of the fraud changed the outcome. --Mathmensch (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

First, this is your personal opinion, which should not be in the article unless you bring in reliable sources. "Allegedly won election" is not appropriate wording and is a clear WP:BLP violation. Second, nobody ever contested the 2000 election results.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it is not my personal opinion. Do you have a dictionary at hand? Perhaps you wish to look it up. Please check the sources I provided. In the meantime, I have removed the passage you claim to be inaccurate. --Mathmensch (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Aside from the use of WP:ALLEGED in an inappropriate context, it is clearly WP:OFFTOPIC as this is not the article on the 2000 presidential elections... and, yes, WP:BLPVIO most certainly applies. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Excuse my french, but this is bullshit. Are you telling me that whether or not a president of a country is elected in a fair way is off-topic??? You can't be serious. --Mathmensch (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes we are serious. SaintAviator lets talk 19:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2017

Please delete the following line:

During his first term in office, Putin opposed some of the Yeltsin-era oligarchs, as well as his political opponents, resulting in the exile or imprisonment of such people as Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky; other oligarchs such as Roman Abramovich and Arkady Rotenberg[174]

Because the source provided is no longer there and the fact doesn't check out with the profiles of the mentioned/linked people - the three profiles I've checked HAVE NOT been exiled or imprisoned. Nesimuistyk (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

All this info about different names of Saint Petersburg are a joke, just stick to the man. (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Reverted.JFG talk 01:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

World Bank 2016 Report

Regarding my edit: the World Bank came out with its 2016 economic report. Looks like GDP growth is now -0.6%. The earlier version of the lead had the stats at -3.7% for 2015. That's now outdated and doesn't accurately reflect the Russian economy today. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

First, please look at the section above where other users note the overtly skewed and glowing tone of this article already. Your attempts to remove any negative info only serves to skew the POV even further. Second, the issue of the stats was discussed extensively already in February and March of last year, spurious AE reports and protection of the page and all. As you are aware, since you participated in these discussions, spurious AE reports and the edit warring that led to the protection, the consensus was that the info should remain, as long as we keep the other economic info in the lede. You just waited till people stopped paying attention and came back to this article and removed the text against consensus.
Third, the same argument as last year applies, only with more force since now you're arguing this data is "outdated". If this info is outdated then so is the "During Putin's first presidency, the Russian economy grew for eight straight years, and GDP measured in purchasing power increased by 72%." part since ... "we have new data out".
Fourth, the year 2015 is particularly relevant since that was the year of the economic sanctions and the conflict in Ukraine. That was also the year the Russian economy went into a recession, even if that recession was a bit milder in 2016. And these developments were a consequence of Putin's policies. So yeah, we should *still* mention it even if data for 2016 is available simply because it was the *start* of a recession.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, can you link to the report itself? The -.6% was actually the projection made in November of last year. Maybe they got it right, but I'd like to see the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't get what AE reports you're referring to but that really has nothing to do with this. Again, my argument is to remove all GDP statistics from the lead, but as I have explained on my talk page, I'm always willing to budge to reach a consensus. Perhaps having something in the lead like: "In 2015, Russia's economy was affected negatively during sanctions and falling oil prices, but it rebounded in 2016." And I apologize, I thought I already linked the report. It is here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that says "estimates" and it's the same number as last year. This isn't "new data". They're just still using the same estimate they came up with in 2016. Usually it takes at least a quarter, maybe two, for them to get the good data out so I'm afraid you might have to wait a bit longer. Soon though.
Regardless, the info is relevant for reasons I've outlined above.
And do I understand you correctly that you'd also be fine with removing the "During Putin's first presidency, the Russian economy grew for eight straight years, and GDP measured in purchasing power increased by 72%." part too? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, then since these are estimates, I'm fine to keep things as is for now and wait till the quarterly statistics are out. It should be some time this month, if I'm not mistaken. When those are released, we can come back here and modify the lead accordingly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
When those are released, we can come back here and discuss the issue again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The larger neutrality problems with this article

I will also briefly note that this article still looks like it was written by the Kremlin and that it has major neutrality problems. The lead heaps praise on him and portrays him as a hugely successful leader and, of course, a normal politician as we know them from democratic countries. This is in stark contrast to how Putin is perceived by most of the world.

Putin is mainly known for being an authoritarian leader who took his country in an increasingly authoritarian direction, who has close ties to organised crime (as well documented and extensively covered by reputable reliable sources), who invaded several countries, who has links to terrorism, who destroyed his country's economy and whose actions led to Russia being ostracized from the international community. The article needs to tell and highlight this story, because that is the dominating narrative in reliable sources. The "Putin, the great, enormously successful, hugely respected statesman + equestrian genius & great hunter/fisher & Undefeated Martial Arts Legend & Healthy Role Model™ & loving dog-owner" narrative is a fringe narrative only promoted by Putin's own propagandists. --Tataral (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
There's really nothing we can do about it until a greater number of neutral-minded editors join in. Unfortunately the atmosphere in this article is so thoroughly unpleasant as to make that unlikely. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I particularly like the sentence "In 2013, Putin stated that gay athletes would not face any discrimination at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics" in the "International sporting events" section (why is that section even here???) Gee, that's nice of him. Note how that is presented completely out of context - nothing about *why* he *had to* make such a statement, other statements which aren't so "friendly" that he and his advisers' have made etc. Probably what happened is that there was text there about such discrimination and homophobia in the article but somebody removed it and added instead the above text to make Putin look good instead. Very typical for this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin's voice

It could be better if we add a record of the voice? What do you think about it? For example we can use this record. Gussha (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@Gussha: Good idea but the proposed sound file is too long. Would you be able to produce a 30-second excerpt? — JFG talk 20:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Why is this necessary? Bios don't usually include sound clips, and very few of our readers would be able to understand what was said. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not necessary but a number of BLPs have voice excerpts these days, even foreigners. The idea is not to understand what the person says but to give a sense of how they sound when communicating. — JFG talk 15:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Putin and Malaysia Airlines Flight 17

I'm astonished that this article doesn't already mention Putin's role in relation to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Putin is widely considered responsible for the attack by most of the world, for example the US government, and is regarded as a terrorist by many very reputable sources for this reason, and it played a major role in international sanctions against Russia and Russia's international isolation under Putin. In fact this should also be mentioned in the lead, not only due to being a major terrorist attack but also due to its role in sanctions against Russia and the continued isolation of Russia internationally. --Tataral (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

While it is easy to repeat "conventional wisdom" it is entirely a different matter to have facts to back up what is being said. Just because rumors, hunches, beliefs, points of view, etc. can be footnoted does not make them true facts.Федоров (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Mangled ref

This ref is mangled (the url):

<ref>{{webarchive |url= |date=5 November 2006 |title=Our Russian Model of Democracy is Titled «Sovereign Democracy» }} [[Vladislav Surkov]], briefing, 28 June 2006.</ref>

If anyone knows what the correct url is please restore. It was removed in this edit. -- GreenC 18:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

mistranslation of Putin's "geopolitical catastrophe" comment

This article says that Vladimir Putin said that collapse of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” This is not what Putin said. If people are basing that quote on the incorrect translations widely circulated in English, they should have checked the original version in Russian. (See below) If they base the quote on personal translation of the Russian original they need to brush up on their Russian grammar.

The Russian language does not have words for “a” and “the.” Whether a speaker has said “a book” or “the book” must therefore be determined by context.

The word Putin used is what Russian experts call a “simple superlative.” As a leading textbook notes, “The simple superlative does not show comparison, but rather indicates a high degree of the given quality.” That is why the correct translation is “a” rather than “the” major catastrophe. Putin clearly therefore did not say the Soviet collapse was “the greatest” geopolitical catastrophe.

There are enough troubling things about Mr. Putin’s recent behavior that there is no need to exaggerate, let alone to seriously mistranslate, things that he has said.

The official Russian government translation of Putin’s remark:

“Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century.”

Putin’s remark in the original Russian language (with the source in the following url):

Прежде всего следует признать, что крушение Советского Союза было крупнейшей геополитической катастрофой века. DeLespinasse (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I just googled the correct and incorrect translations of Putin’s comment. There were 1480 correct translations and 11,800 incorrect ones!

It was interesting to me that the incorrect translation may have originated with John Bolton, whose enthusiasm for stirring up military confrontations all around might have impelled him to circulate a mistranslation that exaggerates the imperial ambitions of Mr. Putin. DeLespinasse (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Paul deLespinasse, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Computer Science Adrian College Adrian, Michigan 49221

Currently: 2409 NW Maser Drive Corvallis, Oregon 97330

Good points SaintAviator lets talk 23:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
It's true that superlatives in Russian can be translated with just a strong adjective, but here with have a superlative + genitive ("of sth"). Are we still sure that an English superlative isn't most appropriate in such a case? Either way, this could be considered OR if RS overwhelmingly prefer 'the greatest', which it seems they do. Malick78 (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Given remarks by DeLespinasse and Malick78, wouldn't "one of the greatest disasters" be the most appropriate translation? — JFG talk 03:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

"I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls" DUE in this article?

Are we really going to add every badass thing Putin has ever said to this article? If so, this article will be longer than a Tolstoy novel. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Its so badass I like it. SaintAviator lets talk 01:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Info re Putins many murdered critics needs to stay in the lead

Hi again Saint Aviator,

That's Ok, you don't have to email me, as I earlier requested of you on your talk page. I just requested that because I sometimes find better and more direct communication via email than via public talk pages, and that I've found that mutual understandings can sometimes be found faster there. That having been said, here is why I believe the well cited information about Vladimir Putin's habit of assassinating his rivals should not be deleted from the article lead, it's simply because of two things:

  1. It's properly cited and widely known.
  2. It's critical to a proper understanding of the man, and therefore belongs in the lead.

While Putin has certainly done a number of good things for the stability and the economy of Russia, the fact remains that a preponderance of reliable sources report that he's also knocked off many of his rivals. To delete this fact from the lead prevents readers from being able to actually get a clear overall picture of who Putin actually is from the article lead. If you might be able to convince me here that I may be mistaken in either of these two points above, then I would be happy to agree with you that this info should be deleted from the lead. Please try to convince me here of this, and I will certainly be glad to learn of my error here. You have claimed that this well supported information is POV. Can you provide any cites here that would clearly disprove the "proving" cites provided in the lead? If not, please don't delete these properly supported facts from the lead.


Scott P. (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree but lets not actually state that Putin murdered his critics just that he is suspected due to the suspicious nature of their deaths.Apollo The Logician (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Point well taken. Done. Thanks much for the suggestion. Scott P. (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

These are conspiracy theories and innuendo. There is no evidence Putin murdered any of his critics. I'd like to remind everyone that WP:BLP applies. Khirurg (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources believe he did so therefore we must say he is suspected by some to be behind them. To say "X is suspected of X" in no way violates WP:BLP.Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Reliable sources. Hilarious. I sense an agenda or personal grievance. When I studied at Uni we found out that we could write anythng in our essays then find reliable sources to back it up. It could be crap, but we had the sources. Same applies in wikipedia. But I think the WP:BLP may be applicable here. Another point, its bad writing. Nothing in the lead till its in the body is good writing. Thats high school basics. Anyways, so he gets a few enemy agents killed. Thats what they are. So what. Lots of people would say good on him. He knows whats at stake. I think written well its a big plus for Putin, the strongest real leader on the Planet. Not a puppet like Barry or Lord Trump. As he says a little fear goes a long way. SaintAviator lets talk 21:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
There appears to be a fundamental difference of values going on here. Saint Aviator seems to believe that the assassinations are essentially acceptable political necessities, apparently because these critics were all "enemy agents." By most Western political standards, this is not at all an acceptable manner to deal with critics, even if they were on the payrolls of foreign states as Aviator seems to believe. I am currently attempting to engage in an email conversation with him and will not ask anyone to revert until after 04:00 UTC (three hours from now). I hope he engages in the email discussion by then. Otherwise, after 0:400 I would say by all means, someone else please re-insert.
He has explained to me that he will bring this matter up as a Noticeboard complaint, if this gets reverted one more time by myself. I assume if anyone else were to revert it he may also still do this, claiming that we are sockpuppets, or some other similar such baloney. I always prefer to first try to resolve such a misunderstanding privately by email first, then if that isn't possible, to do it publicly. Please wait until after 04:00 to restore the assassinations to the lead.
Scott P. (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Note that WP:BLP and WP:NEWSORG apply. We cannot just quote op-eds by people who think Putin is a murderer. A lot of the Clintons' opponents wound up murdered we cannot mention it without reliable source that say someone has made the link. TFD (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
TFD, please consider punctuating carefully and maybe running grammar check if English is not your first language and your posting in relation to a BLP. Did you just say "A lot of the Clintons' opponents wound up murdered"? Think carefully: this is a yes or no question, on the talk page of a BLP. I will gladly give you the opportunity to retract/rephrase/etc. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Drmies, there is nothing wrong with my punctuation or grammar although I admit I failed to pluralize source. It could be that you speak a non-standard version of English and if so I would be pleased to see one of your style manuals. The conspiracy theory about the Clintons is well documented (see Clinton Body Count). My point is (if you don't understand my use of grammar, it may explain why you missed my point.) We should not make accusations against living persons, whether Putin or the Clintons, although we can enter what has been reported in reliable sources provided we follow WP:BLP and WP:NEWSORG. (WP:BLP and WP:NEWSORG are links to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so your spellcheck may not recognize them.) For future reference, text that appears in blue are links (or should it be "is links" for noun and verb agreement - what does your grammar checker say?)
I notice by the way that in your posting below, you use colloquial and profane language. Is that the example you expect other editors to follow?
TFD (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't use any profanity. What I do see you do is beat around the bush. Your "A lot" sentence needs a semi-colon, most likely, right after "murdered". Your explanation does not deny that you said "A lot of the Clintons' opponents wound up murdered", which is a disgusting BLP violation, though you seemed to couch it some kind of conspiratorial language. So I will ask you again if you understood what you said. And you can patronize me all you want: your insulting me does not make me INVOLVED one way or the other. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Scott P. calm down my friend, I replied by email. I will not be making silly ANI time wasting complaints but others may over 3RR, thats what I meant for you to be careful, and I made that clear in the email. Yes Russians have no doubt killed some people for sure, agents of the Western Elites, personally I think thats fine. Do you think its not two way? It certainly is. Putins driver the Russ Turkish ambassador, other officials, that choir the plane over Sinia. This may seem strange to some unless you understand there is a war on. There is. So worded correctly put it in, but in the body first. Let people read it and know, dont f... with Russia or Putin. SaintAviator lets talk 01:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

  • SaintAviator, Scott P., y'all settle down. Scott P, we don't do ultimatums: I'm off to look at the edit history to see what y'all have been up to. SaintAviator, did I just see you endorse killings? Please keep your bloody personal opinions to yourself, or save them for your grindr/tumblr/MySpace page--and do NOT go around on Wikipedia telling people to "dont f..k with Russia or Putin". Frankly, I'm baffled that someone would say this. Scott P., there are plenty of reliable sources for political assassinations, but that does not mean that a. Putin is responsible for that or b. that this is necessarily to be included in the lead. That's why we have talk pages--and this emailing, that's of no use to other editors. This is not something that is to be settled between the two of you: it's a collaborative matter. I hope that is clear. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Drmies updated. Well the email option exists so someone thought it was a good idea. Yes in some instances I endorse killings. Traitors, mass murderers, the death penalty, Im not alone. [4] Extra judicial killings? Its a reality. Israel does it, the USA does it (drones) Russia does it. Its less brutal that the USA illegally bombing civilians in Syria. Re the Killings in Russia: It can be baffling to understand but Im only reporting whats going on. Since you posted I updated with this insert. Re the killings are two way 'Putins driver the Russ Turkish ambassador, other officials, that choir the plane over Sinia'. The killings are ongoing. Russia has just released technical data post Tomahawk missile Syrian airfield attack by Trump from a Kremlin controlled outlet [5]. This is a another sort of warning since the USA is outclassed in EW and now everyone who bothers to research this stuff knows it. I think Scott P. is doing Russia a favour by reporting these killings here as it shows its hazardous to mess with Russia and especially now that Russia has the military edge in so many fields. But thats another story. SaintAviator lets talk 01:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • SaintAviator, 90% of what you just posted falls foul of FORUM guidelines. I won't hat it, since part of one sentence related to the current editorial dispute, but kindly stick to the matter at hand. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Well Im a big picture guy. I disagree with you on the 90% Id say 95% if interpreted hardcore. But I agree with TFD and his grammar choice. Like your interpretation of forum rules the tightness of that grammar style manual you're using is causing me to crave some fresh air. But you know despite Scott P's best intentions the Four Dueces is right again. Like the Clinton murder allegations, 'A Lot' apparently, these Putin allegations sadly fail BLP stuff unless theres some gymnastic wording and of course grammar. So despite my desire to 'stick it in as a warning' to the Elites who may peek in here, I dont think its 'on'. SaintAviator lets talk 03:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting my point. According to Snopes in "Clinton Body Bags," "Body count” lists are not a new phenomenon. Lists documenting all the allegedly “suspicious” deaths of persons connected with the assassination of John F. Kennedy have been circulating for decades, and the same techniques used to create and spread the JFK lists have been employed in the Clinton version."[6] Why do you want, in this article, to present "a disgusting BLP violation" about Putin? TFD (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You really want to know? You cant stop this stuff getting in here in a world where MSM vomits out anti Putin material as part of Russophobia and a good part of the English speaking world have drunk the koolaid. They dont know that they dont know, the West has no true democracy. So they lap up the propaganda, RS of course. This is a type of Denialism. On the up side it has no real effect whats put in here on Putin or Russia. Putin has a genuine aura of power about him and some extra judicial killings in this day and age mean nothing. Thats why Game of Thrones is so popular. Thats what people like. People know he will do what it takes to get things done. Besides it adds to his strong man image. He coundn't care less whats in here I'm sure. SaintAviator lets talk 04:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I just had to revert that ridiculous inclusion of speculative material about Putin assassinating people or whatever. Wikipedia is not a place to spread WP:RUMOURS, especially in the lead of a high exposure WP:BLP article. I believe we had this discussion once before but it was soundly rejected. Nevertheless, every now and then, there are users that'll drop bombs on the lead of this article to make some sort of WP:POINT using Op-Ed pieces. And even these Op-Ed pieces used as sources this time around are just atrocious such as "Obama Killed a 16-Year-Old American in Yemen. Trump Just Killed His 8-Year-Old Sister"...I mean really? These sources are not just opinion pieces, but sensationalist journalism. Also, stop the edit-warring. Scottperry here is dangerously close to violating the 3RR. Maybe its time to slap on a 1RR here Drmies? Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible compromise?

I think Aviator may have a somewhat valid point. How about if the Putin lead ending two sentences ran something like this:

"Since he assumed power, at least 17 (or whatever the well cited number is) of his critics have died under mysterious circumstances. Putin supporters point out that the US has also authorized and carried out the extra-judicial execution of American citizens via its drone program, and regularly executes foreign nationals abroad extra-judicially via the same program."

How about it?

Scott P. (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

PS, By the way, the fact that the Clinton man who supposedly was the cyber-mole, happened to mysteriously die by bullet to the back is so "unfortunate." Too much for the lead, but perhaps worthy of its own article here. Scott P. (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I came up with a version that I liked (though on reread I should fiddle with that overly convoluted grammatical construction that was munged entirely when I took out the first 'and'), which was promptly removed by User:Khirurg in this edit. It used your sources and read:
Putin is widely suspected of involvement in deaths of defectors including Alexander Litvinenko, opposing politicians such as Boris Nemtsov, and approximately 25 journalists, most notably Anna Politkovskaya, have been killed while investigating officials linked to him.
His edit summary was that "back to stable version,no conspiracy theories, thank you". I think it should be clear that following these links does not lead to "conspiracy theories" in the pejorative sense, though indeed assassinations by a head of government are conspiratorial in nature. These are good sources matching a general consensus of opinion, at least in the West where reporters don't have to worry - as much - about what Putin will do to them. Wnt (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Are you saying you would accept my second sentence above as the last sentence, if we accepted your sentence above as the second to last sentence?
Scott P. (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It all comes down to the wording due to the sensitivity of BLP stuff otherwise like the Clinton murder allegations it wont stand up. So far 'mysterious circumstances' is good....adds to Vlads mystique. (using street grammar manual) SaintAviator lets talk 03:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the help here Aviator. I just re-edited according to what now appears to be our compromise. Scott P. (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Good Luck. You'll need it if an admin has a close look. SaintAviator lets talk 05:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"So far 'mysterious circumstances' is good....adds to Vlads mystique." is the basis to this "agreement"? All I am reading from this supposed agreement is SaintAviator making FORUM-like comments for this material's inclusion into the lead, it's hardly a policy based rationale for inclusion and certainly not an agreement that adheres to the basic principals of our project. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
He means well. He crusades for truth. Yes its the wrong place for that, but his errors are thus in good faith. I was pulling his chain about 'mysterious circumstances' and mystique. SaintAviator lets talk 09:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The text I suggested (and as I had it in the pre version of that diff) was the whole thing. The lede is certainly not a place to point out that Putin supporters say that the U.S. is doing something -- besides, that argument is ridiculous and way off the point, I mean, droning an al-Qaida operative in Yemen with the tacit support of the alleged national government because they cannot send cops or hold a trial is fundamentally different from poisoning someone with polonium in a restaurant in defiance of the friendly country's laws. As for your first sentence, I found the 25 in one of the sources; I might have missed the other - we might do a better job getting those numbers together. To do this properly we should go full primary here (under supervision of secondary sources) and get the entire list of names spelled out as a field in one of the references. Wnt (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This material is not lede worthy, it doesn't matter how it's phrase. Scott, I recommend you read WP:LEAD, and WP:TRUTH. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of an article's lead. I note you were doing the same thing in Turkey a few weeks ago and got reverted there as well, for the same reasons. You keep adding material to the lead of articles that does not belong there. Khirurg (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

We provide detail about both Litvinenko and Politkovskaya in the main text, and as such should be touched upon in the lede. This is one reason why the version I revised (and you reverted) contained these names. The deaths of his opponents really are one of the top three things people think about when they think about Putin. Wnt (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
"Died under mysterious circumstances" is unacceptable since it implies wrongdoing without explicictly saying so. It implies that Putin was responsible for at least some of the deaths, but does not tell us who makes the accusation or how credible it is. Note that associates of the Clintons have also died under mysterious circumstances, but in the article Clinton Body Bags we outline the specific accusations, who made them and how credible they are. Also, I see no reason for putting the allegations in the lead. TFD (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@TFD: I don't like that phrase either. The phrase I prefer is the one from my recent edit (similar to the one I quoted above, but Scott fixed my grammar). When the purpose of multiple news stories is to express strong suspicion despite a lack of conclusive proof, that is the message we should send unambiguously. Wnt (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@Wnt: I'm not going to rehash what other editors have already stated about the inclusion, but it is UNDUE for the lead. Refactoring content that is simply undue will not make it 'more due'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Lede paragraph break

An edit I made before further editing was blocked was to change the paragraph break before the last lede paragraph.

Currently we have a long paragraph about the economy, but it ends "Under Putin's leadership, Russia has been scored poorly on both the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index and Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index." This seems closely related to his domestic popularity ratings and Time's Man of the Year rating; hence it belongs in the final paragraph with those.

Can we agree on this much? Wnt (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Before such an agreement lets discuss Ledes. They are a tempting target for sensational claims, which make for bad writing. A lead is like a synopsis of the article, not a place to score some points that are not in the body. Scott is bringing this to Jimbos talk page and other topics and I think we should carefully consider his input has started another edit war. Scott you appear to be a crusader for truth and are accusing editors of idealogical-POV-blindness and favor-based-POV-blindness and in a further topic accuse other editors of an 'editorial-gang-bang'. SaintAviator 23:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
There are valid reasons to suspect bias in articles on Wikipedia nowadays. The problem is that it is hard to prove. The advised solution is WP:AGF -- approach editing problems without starting in on the editor first. Scott did say a few things that went afoul of this; however, when you start in on this whole "crusader" thing above you're doing the same thing. My hope is that most of us actually want a fair article, and we can work on problems one at a time until we get a solution. Which brings me back to my desire here to move a carriage return - I'm hoping we can decide whether to do so without making an overall judgment about any editors. ;) -- oops, I forgot to sign that; I'm surprised it didn't get autosigned (01:04, 9 May 2017‎) Wnt (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Vladimir Putin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The rank is colonel

I fixed this in the article and provided a source, but my edit was undone by Iryna Harpy without an explanation. Fedorkov Dmitry (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of biased ratings that do not reflect consensus

I propose that we remove the "B" ratings from the top of this page. They do not at all reflect the quality of article and the consensus on this talk page that the article has huge problems with neutrality (see eg. Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_15#The_larger_neutrality_problems_with_this_article for one of many discussions of this issue). --Tataral (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. It is so ridiculously anti-Russia and pro-Western I still can't believe noone has revolted over this article yet.

I also propose a new round of voting, as i believe this article should be at least A-quality, if not Great. (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment if no one has any concern with the suggested rating, I will change it. Yes the article has a number of problems that were never sorted out. Lorstaking (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I have now changed it to C per consensus here. Lorstaking (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Does Russian Hitman Vitaly look like PuTin?

Italic text Vitaly claims PuTin is his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man's Hat (talkcontribs) 17:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vladimir Putin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Controversial presidential program.

Unsourced gibberish
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.

e.g. repatriation.All former USSR nationals and these descripts .To fatherland Russia. Honorable Mr. President certainly do not have enough time. To get to all in time. And, here the Wikipedia helps.

1).Even these programs do the offending of officials to obscene thought.
2).As a former KGB General, Mr. President certainly know something more about the poisons and human infections catalog. (Toxins with shifted effect, etc.)According to Repatriation Program the fatherland is committed ...?
So, in the frills of a certain A. Ravinard (Jewish descent). Repatriated to Moscow from Brussels to die (possibly resulting in a methylmercury poisoning).FlüchtigeJud (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The lede should mention the elections Putin "won" were rigged: (2A00:23C4:6386:400:9509:6419:ED94:DA91 (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2017 (UTC))

No chance of that opinionated reporting in the header. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The BBC is a neutral source. Here is another: (2A00:23C4:6386:400:9509:6419:ED94:DA91 (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC))
If there is official accepted vote rigging we can add it to the header, if it is opinion we cant. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
How can it be official when Russia won't allow an investigation? (2A00:23C4:6386:400:9509:6419:ED94:DA91 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
So there you go, sorry, more opinion. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Not an opinion - the Russian government ruled out holding an inquiry into the rigged 2012 election. Unlike in a democracy like the United States, where Russian interference in last year's presidential election is being officially probed. (2A00:23C4:6386:400:9509:6419:ED94:DA91 (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC))
this is the biography of Vladimir Putin unless all of this is something to do with him them there is no place for it here, perhaps in another article, conspiracy theories about V Putin Govindaharihari (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
1) this is an article on Putin, not his "biography" 2) there is widespread (aka, almost universal) news journal and investigative reporting that the Putin election was 'rigged' (big surprise) - this is not "opinion" - in the West, we are fortunate that we have a free press and unfettered ability to investigate such things - the BBC is a Reliable Source, and can be used (along with many other journals that have drawn the same conclusions) - the Russian Federation is not a democracy - remember, this is a Stalinist (almost) regime that is in control of Russia today. (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Early life and education

Please add the missing original surname and change "Maria Ivanovna Putina (née Shelomova" to
"Maria Ivanovna Putina (née Shelomova and Shalomovich"

The information is from a book authored by Putin himself: First Person : An Astonishingly Frank Self-Portrait by Russias President 00 edition (9781586480189) - p. 122., quote: "My mother Mariya Ivanovna Shalomovich"".

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A website where you can buy the book isn't a good enough source to add the information since the information you want to add could not be found in the source you provided. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 22:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
At the provided link I didn't found anywhere text saying that such a source is unreliable. Could you please provide a policy where it says that a source must be a ebook to be reliable? Or this is a personal assumption? I have the book and quoted it. The claims of the 00 edition of this book have been reviewed also by others and they confirm that the surname was indicated as "Shalomovitch", see here, the review says: "Something damning in the first addition of Putin’s book: First Person: An Astonishingly Frank Self-Portrait by Russia’s President. It states his mother’s maiden name was Shalomovitch which is a Jewish surname. But this is changed to Shelomova in the second addition which is an attempt to cover this up". It really says so in the book of Putin, I can scan the page and upload it.
There are other sources available online if necessary, I quoted this one, because it is authored by Putin himself. Then how a source authored by Putin can be an unreliable source? Only because it is not an ebook? Then please show a policy opposing the use of books that are not ebooks, so far you have not. If you don't show this, defining a book authored by Putin as not reliable source is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ztob (talkcontribs) 07:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Update on Pet ownership

is updating something we should do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avidiwiki (talkcontribs) 20:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

JFG, who considers Russia a democracy?

The claim that Russia has become a democracy since 2008 is just laughable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. What Russia has is a lot of resources and the will to sway ideas in other countries. In any event -- I'll revert the edit unless high-quality sources are produced to support the claim. 13:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Nomoskedasticity (talk)

That is indeed one of the lamest excuses for edit warring I've seen in a long time. Volunteer Marek  22:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Full Democracy is a rare thing, USA is flawed, Ukraine is a Hybrid regime. [7] Russia does not need a flawed democracy like this one [8]. She appears to be doing very well without it.

In my view, the idea that there is a single, one-size-fits-all solution to social and political conflict around the world, and that democracy is the name of it, is based on a disregard of historical and cultural conditions, and a failure to see that democracy is only made possible by other and more deeply hidden institutions. And while we are willing to accept that democracy goes hand in hand with individual freedom and the protection of human rights, we often fail to realise that these three things are three things, not one, and that it is only under certain conditions that they coincide. [9] SaintAviator 22:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether democracy is a good thing is not what's under dispute here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you all likely believe the West with the flawed democracy it has is better than Russia. In thinking this you overlook the pros of Russia system. But good thing or not theres not a lot of true democracy around, so any insinuation Russia is worse off without it needs referencing. Putin has achieved a great deal with their system. S400 S500 Powerful Jets, cruise missiles and on and on. Then theres this comment above 'What Russia has is a lot of resources and the will to sway ideas in other countries.' Wow. That level of insight shows if ever this article is to achieve a Good Article rating there has to be some changes. SaintAviator 07:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Off Topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The purpose of democracy is to get Powerful Jets and cruise missiles?? oh my... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh Dear. SaintAviator 08:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
enough... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What's your point? The question is whether or not Russia is a democracy, not whether or not democracy is a good thing. Remember your topic ban from Russia articles because of your talk page behavior. Volunteer Marek  20:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I do remember my selective ban involving a few articles for six months. Do you remember your entire Wikipedia ban for a year? I dont think you will forget that. But back to the topic. When deciding on something defining it is a must. Surely even you get that. In defining democracy we find that its true form is not somethng very common. This puts the subject and Russia experiences with it into context. Its not that hard to grasp these ideas. I think given time you will get it. SaintAviator 22:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
"Do you remember your entire Wikipedia ban for a year? " Nope. Probably because that never happened. Volunteer Marek  22:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Then stop referring to my ban SaintAviator 09:12, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vladimir Putin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vladimir Putin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2017

I Want to add something about how putin will run for another term That guy0110 (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 Happy Holidays! 22:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


"experienced democratic backsliding according to both the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index and Freedom House's Freedom in the World index."

Should this be included in the introduction, or is it a violation of our WP:NPOV policies? Freedom House is an NGO funded by the US Government and the Economist Group is based in London and strongly associated with forwarding the interests of British imperialism in the economic sphere. I can't imagine we would cite Russian government backed NGOs in the introduction of articles on American leaders, so how is this acceptable here? Claíomh Solais (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking into this article further, in the key and most critical parts, the floor is given to the geopolitical enemies of the subject and the open, unchallenged espousing of their hostile propaganda (usually under the "safe" Anglo cover of human rights). It is literally, wall to wall, Yanks and Brits who are cited as so-called "experts" here. And not even ones who are pretending to be impartial. Literally CIA agents and Council on Foreign Relations people. For example Marian Leighton is described here as such "Dr. Marian K. Leighton has been working in the United States Intelligence Community since 1980, first as a Soviet analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, then as a counterterrorism specialist at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and again with the CIA as an independent contractor". If we are going to have any sort of credibility at all when it comes to the WP:NPOV, this article and many others covering figures the Anglo-Saxons Uber Alles have decided to take a dislike to, need some serious oversight and reviewing for conflict of interest. As far as I am aware, Wikipedia is supposed to be in spirit an international and non-partisan encyclopedia, not Anglopedia. Claíomh Solais (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I reverted your edits until we have consensus that they are appropriate. No opinion on the issue itself.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vladimir Putin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda in lead.

There is no reason for "In a March 2018 speech, Vladamir Putin showed an animation of raining nukes down in Florida.[25] After this speech, a naming contest was announced for Russian Nukes, where Russian viewers decided to name one of the nuclear weapons "GoodBye America." to be in the lead or in the article in general. It adds undue weight to the article and also violates neutral point of view policy, by trying to make Putin look like an evil monster who wants to destroy America.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It was all sourced material. And he did show a animation of nuking Florida. This was during his speech. And a poll did show Russian users vote for naming a nuclear bomb "Goodbye America." Putin himself has said he supported this poll of naming of Russia's new nuclear technology. He said so himself, in his own speech, which can be read here: I noticed you called me a "George Soros bot" without any proof whatsoever. I think you're the one with a biased viewpoint. Zerdek (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Fruitloop (but not the Soros comment). Leads are supposed to summarize what's in the body and should contain key information, rather than what CNN happened to mention today. Also, when mentioning things like this, context should be provided and the significance explained. Zerdeck, why do you think it is important? TFD (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Because when your threatening to use nuclear weapons that can kill millions of people, that is very important. And when you have a poll backed by the president himself, where online Russian users vote to name a nuclear bomb "Goodbye America" that is most certainly important and noteworthy. I mean this is something that could lead to the deaths of millions of people. It's very important, and absolutely needs to be in the lead. Many news networks (ABC, NBC, BBC) are talkinga bout this. Many celebrities on twitter have mentioned this. It absolutely merits being in the lead. This is all sourced content. Zerdek (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually he didn't. The news media said that it looked like Florida but there is no proof that it was indeed Florida. If you saw the video you would see the planet the nuke is traveling around looks nothing like our planet. Also If I was to type into google "All the reasons why putin is a great president" and copy and paste them into the lead that would be adding Undue weight to the article.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
He denies it, but many have called out it's uncanny resemblance to Florida. Many news sources have also called it Florida. And yes, I think when people threaten to use nuclear weapons, on other nations, that absolutely belongs in the lead. It's newsworthy and very important. Especailly when your a leader of a country stating this. Zerdek (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
He denies it Ok then it should not be in the lead, Thank You--Fruitloop11 (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
But many other sources do not. And the animation has and uncanny resemblance to Florida. Putin denies that he helped Trump be President, when other sources have claimed he did. And this topic is in the lead. Zerdek (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Zerdek, Putin has said lots of things. Based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines, why do you think this belongs in the lead? TFD (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I do plan on putting this in the "foreign policy" section of this article. When someone threatens to use nuclear weapons that have an uncanny resemblance to an actual place, with many reputable sources backing this also, then I think that merits being something added to the lead section. Feel free to add why you think it shouldn't be in the lead. I consider this just as newsworthy as trying to get Trump elected, or annexing Crimea - all of which are in the lead section. I think anyone would agree that nuclear annihilation would certainly rank as very news worthy. Zerdek (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I suggest you read the content policy and guidelines. You cannot say that someone threatens to use nuclear weapons is important unless you have a source that says that, per synthesis. You should also explain under which circumstances he intends to use them. Are the bombs falling this weekend? I notice the picture shows them falling on the west coast of Florida. Will it be OK to go to Mar a Lago? Incidentally the fact that something else is in the lead cannot be used to justify putting other stuff into the lead.
TFD (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

U.S. publication recognition

I don't think this deserves to be its own section. I suggest someone make it a subsection somewhere else. (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin resigned from the KGB, rather than retired

In the paragraph after the lede, the current article reads: "Putin was born in Leningrad in the Soviet Union. He studied law at Leningrad State University, graduating in 1975.[6] Putin was a KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel before retiring in 1991 to enter politics in Saint Petersburg." It is now clear, based on an interview Putin gave to American journalist Oliver Stone (see minutes 9:37–10:20 in Part 1: Oliver Stone Interviews Putin on U.S.-Russia Relations, 2016 Election, Snowden & NATO), published on 15 June 2017, that Putin resigned from the KGB, rather than simply retired. Therefore, the article should be corrected accordingly.Davidbena (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

2018 presidential election

Block evasion by banned User:HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why is there no mention of the fact that the election was rigged? Putin stole millions of votes from his only opponent. ( (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC))

Source? Sovietmessiah (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
That will require the citation of reliable sources. Do you have any to offer? General Ization Talk 18:26, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2018

His fourth term began after his inauguration on the 7th of May 2018. Niklonikita (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2018

2018–present: Fourth presidential term: His fourth term will begin after his inauguration in May 2018.[176] THIS IS IN past tense It has already happened His Fourth term began after his inauguration on may 7 2018 [1] Niklonikita (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


About Salisburry

There is no public proof that the poison was Novichok, rather biased if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodhands Fi (talkcontribs) 11:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2018

Relations with the United Kingdom should be a subheading of Relations with the United States, Europe, and NATO because the UK is part of Europe and NATO. (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D ( • ) 18:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, Not done as the text about the UK is as big as the Relations with the United States, Europe, and NATO heading. L293D ( • ) 18:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

"Experts" or "Western analysts"? Attribute opinions? Mention "electoral authoritarianism"?

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. - --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.[10]
  • Building an Authoritarian Polity: Russia in Post-Soviet Times by Graeme Gill. Cambridge University Press.[11]
  • Authoritarian Modernization in Russia: Ideas, Institutions, and Policies, edited by Vladimir Gel'man. Routledge.[12]
  • The Origins of Dominant Parties: Building Authoritarian Institutions in Post-Soviet Russia by Ora John Reuter. Cambridge University Press.[13]
  • 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)

  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

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)

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018

In the last sentence of the fourth paragraph, "... during the U.S. presidential election in 2016, which both Trump and Putin have frequently denied and criticized" would be more clearly expressed as "... during the U.S. presidential election in 2016, an allegation both Trump and Putin have frequently denied and criticized." Myshmiley (talk) 08:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 10:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2018

The last paragraph under the heading Relations with the United States, Europe, and NATO: "With the election of Trump, Putin's favorability among Americans in the United States received a sharp increase. According to Gallup, 22% of Americans have a positive view of Putin, the highest since 2003.[311] According to Putin, the U.S.–Russian relations, which were already at the lowest level since the end of the Cold War,[312] have further deteriorated since Trump took office in January 2017.[313]" would be clearer written as "With the election of Trump, Putin's favorability in the U.S. sharply increased. A Gallup poll in February 2017 revealed a positive view of Putin among 22% of Americans, the highest since 2003 [311]. However, Putin has stated that U.S.-Russian relations, already at the lowest level since the end of the Cold War, [312] continued to deteriorate after Trump took office in January 2017. [313]" Myshmiley (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Fish+Karate 10:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

untitled (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Personal image and mention of the Badasvlad game

Hi friends! Recently I added the mention of the Badasvlad game to the Public image section but it'd been removed citing unreliable source. I am somewhat new to Wikipedia and would appreciate any help on that reversion. The game has its own dedicated website and it is available on iTunes, Google and Amazon Appstores in both English and Russian versions. It has youtube and text descriptions along with game pages on Facebook, Twitter, VK and Instagram. The game name, description and appearances speak for itself. I believe it merits inclusion to the Public image section. Any comments are appreciated, thanks all, guys! Timelan (talk) 10:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

Remove unrelated photo from the top of the page. It's vandalism. (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

add Putin khuylo! nickname to the article

This is how most people now call Huilo, so it should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons the article is protected, so that you can not add this or similar junk.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Putin's Annual State of the Union Addresses

In his annual address to Federal Assembly in March 2018, Putin made major announcements about Russia's new military capabilities.[1] Cyrusep Preceding comment added by Cyrusep (talkcontribs) 23:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)


Putin loves ABBA and The Beatles

So says good source. Vandalism is forbidden on Wikipedia. See history (15:17, 15 January 2019‎). Yellow Man 1000 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC).

What bands he likes seems like trivia that does not carry enough weight to be part of the article. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
We can find sources for all kinds of crap. .. including a list of 100 of his favorite bands, singers and songs.... some Western orientated some not.... but it's not the kind of junk we need to cover here. I am sure he also likes cars and fine food and some sort of booze.... but just no need to list crap like this WP:ONUS. And let's be honest the only reason its trying to be pushed in here is because it's related to the Beatles. --Moxy (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Unless his love for these two bands is subject of extensive RS coverage and borders on obsession, leave it out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yellow Man 1000 your source is an article about Dmitry Medvedev's favorite bands, not Vladimir Putin's. Schazjmd (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Watches in personal wealth section

There has been some reporting mentioning Putin's collection of expensive watches, such as by Business Insider, Bloomberg , ABC News, Vice, Radio Free Europe, Bilanz, The Telegraph, and The Independent, and that's excluding all of the self-published watch enthusiast sites (which generally have photos of Putin wearing a gewgaw on his wrist worth more than most Russians make in a year). These site often have links to Russian articles (possibly RSs) that I can't read. I'd lean towards a sentence like "Putin has a watch collection reportedly valued at over $700,000, six times his annual reported income, including watches from Blancpain, Patek Philippe and a $500,000 A. Lange & Söhne." (I'd A lot of the reporting on his personal wealth is tied to incredible speculation and unconfirmed reports by political opponents, but his watches are well-documented by reliable sources and provide a tangible window into his allegedly substantial personal wealth. (Even if the watches were all received as gifts, that still creates concern from a corruption perspective.) Putin is also reported to have a fondness for nice watches, so I don't think this would be excluded as trivia.-Ich (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Numbering the Russian Presidents & Prime Ministers

We've got numbering in the infoboxes of the other Russian presidents & prime ministers. WHY is the numbering being removed from this bios' infobox? At the very least, have an Rfc for all the Russian presidents & prime ministers, so we can have consistency on this matter. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Image problem

There must be an official presidential image of president Putin's, because I have recently noticed that the image of the article is constantly being updated. Therefore there must be a presidential image so, it doesn't happens difference in the image position of the article. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The current main photo is not good - the head behind him is distracting. Needs changed ThePickeringtonian (talk) 02:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Minor spelling error

End of Early Life section, in “russian constitution”, the r should be capitalised. AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 22:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Information relevant to Putin concerning the tragic 1999 apartment bombings

Hello again. I don't mean to cause problems, but I have noticed that the neutrality issue I raised on the Russian apartment bombings page has come to a close. To me, that seems to imply that the people concerned think that page is currently 'neutral' in perspective on the issue, with regard to the facts. From my perspective as an outsider to the field of Russian history and politics, it is manifestly obvious that if the statement included in the lead section of that page which reads:

"According to historians, the bombings were coordinated by the Russian state security services to bring Putin into the presidency."

is considered a well-cited and uncontroversial statement on the 'Russian apartment bombings' page, then it should be added to this page. My call for further citiations for that statement has been removed, and at least one new source was added. To me, it seems to mean that the statement is considered both cited and neutral by the community. The only question left is whether or not the statement is relevant to this page, and consistent with the guidelines for biographies of living persons. I am currently of the persuasion that it is, but if I am wrong, please let me know. It should be added to the fourth paragraph of the subsection entitled "1999: First premiership". The paragraph I am referencing currently reads:

"Yeltsin's main opponents and would-be successors were already campaigning to replace the ailing president, and they fought hard to prevent Putin's emergence as a potential successor. Following the Russian apartment bombings, Putin's law-and-order image and unrelenting approach to the Second Chechen War against the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria soon combined to raise his popularity and allowed him to overtake his rivals."

After my edit, the whole paragraph would read as follows:

"Yeltsin's main opponents and would-be successors were already campaigning to replace the ailing president, and they fought hard to prevent Putin's emergence as a potential successor. Following the Russian apartment bombings, Putin's law-and-order image and unrelenting approach to the Second Chechen War against the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria soon combined to raise his popularity and allowed him to overtake his rivals. According to historians, the bombings were coordinated by the Russian state security services to bring Putin into the presidency."

Here's what my edit does not do:

-It does NOT promote a claim about what actually happened in the bombings. It is a claim about what historians believe happened.

-It absolutely doesn't accuse President Putin of any wrongdoing whatsoever. This is a claim about what historians say about the FSB, not a claim that Putin "dun did it".

-It conforms to the statements made by the leading KGB & FSB scholar in the Western world.

-It brings an important statement (considered to be neutral on the 'Russian apartment bombings' page) to a relevant part of Putin's page, giving us some clarity about the circumstances surrounding the ascension of Putin to the presidency.

I hope:

-It's not true and the statements made by the scholars, investigators, journalists and witnesses are all wrong.

-If this statement isn't allowed on this page because of lack of good citations, then it must be removed on the other page as well, or at least put in question with a 'citations needed' banner. It could also just be modified.

-We will treat this living person's biography like any other person's biography.

-We can maintain a respectful decorum in this conversation and just 'go from the sources'.

There is absolutely no need to label me as your enemy or your friend- I am neither. I'm not taking a position against what you believe & I'm not taking a position for what you believe either. I am merely copy-pasting a sentence and the sources for that sentence from one page to a second page because the information seems extremely relevant on the second page. I think that my claim that the sentence is relevant to this page is unquestionable, but that may be wrong too.

I (or you) will make the edit to this page after a period of time if there is no discussion of what I have written here, or after a consensus is reached on this page.

My goal is 100% neutrality and verifiability- just going from the sources. Simple. No disrespect to anyone is implied by the edit.

Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC) (modified)

What might be agreed on other pages, particularly those of less prominence, does not automatically apply here. I would point out that no peer-reviewed academic article or book published in the academic press has made that claim. Historians who believe that these were false flag operations do not agree on the reasons for it. In any case, what goes into this article is determined by the weight provided to the topic in sources about the topic. An alternative view is that Yeltsin resigned because his popularity rating was at 2%, he was a serious alcoholic with heart issues and was facing investigation for corruption. Presidents have resigned for less. TFD (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Francois Hollande

change ((Francois Hollande)) to ((François Hollande)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:75ef:109b:bc8a:555f (talkcontribs)

 Done, thanks for noticing--Ymblanter (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2019

Hi. Could you please add the pronunciation for his name: [vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪr vɫɐˈdʲimʲɪrəvʲɪtɕ ˈputʲɪn] - the Language Reference Desk has confirmed that this is the correct Russian pronunciation. An audio file is also available if desired to format it the way the German wiki article does. Thank you. (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC) (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! (talk) 21:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Fiona Hill was the top Russia expert on NSC

Ymblanter, I submit she is well-positioned to provide this analysis and hence this edit should be restored --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soibangla (talkcontribs) 18:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not see why it should be restored. What she said is fully trivial and is a spillover of the Trump shit storms.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter, the section for Putin's KGB days is sparse. The edit provides details of what he was doing, from an expert, and a careful read shows her comments were not limited to Trump, but to businessmen generally, which is not trivial. It helps to understand Putin's modus operandi as the Russian leader today. soibangla (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a lot of academic literature on the point much better than Fiona Hill.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter, I don't see why that means we shouldn't include her analysis as the top Russia expert on the NSC that advises presidents on their decisions, and other editors are free to add more to enhance the section further. soibangla (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Open an RfC and see what other editors think.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I oppose adding politicians opinions with this UNDUE manner in this BLP article, especially U.S. biased politicians.-SharabSalam (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Fiona Hill is not a politician. soibangla (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter, opening an RFC is wholly disproportionate to the magnitude of the edit. soibangla (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Then you have to accept that there is no consensus to add her opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter, I have presented compelling reasons why her analysis is appropriate. You haven't provided compelling reasons to exclude it. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
To be precise, you presented reasons which you think are compelling but nobody else thinks so. It is also your opinion that I have not provided compelling reasons, which is obviously different from mine. The policies do not say I need to convince you. The policies just say you can only add this text to the article if there is consensus for adding it. Currently, we do not have consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter, nobody else thinks so To be precise, you alone reverted it and no one else has supported your reversion. One person made a specious argument against including comments from politicians, but Hill is not a politician. soibangla (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
You probably need first to read WP:BRD and then count the number of people who posted anything in this topic.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Ymblanter, count the number of people who posted anything in this topic Thanks for making my point. I guess we're done then, huh? soibangla (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I also oppose adding her unsubstantiated serious accusations against Putin, "when he joined the KGB in Leningrad and St. Petersburg. They went after American businessmen and set up sting operations." Extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidences . These are serious accusations. Also her own belief that Putin was targeting Trump, is totally unneeded in this BLP article.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Putin’s secret children?

This article names the two confirmed daughters of Putin, Maria and Katerina, born to ex-wife Lyudmila. However, there are sources that state he may have a third daughter with alleged girlfriend Alina Kabaeva (whose supposed relationship with Putin has never been confirmed). Another source refers to Katerina as Putin’s third child. There were also news reports earlier this year about Kabaeva giving birth to twins. Should any of this be mentioned in the Putin article? ThePickeringtonian (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

We must follow the policies, WP:BLP and WP:RS.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I will also add WP:NOTRUMOR.-SharabSalam (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

User Mircea85 and incorporation of Crimea into Russia

This user must be banned or something else . He is here to edit for the good of Russia and nothing more: (see). - (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC).

Just read:

"President Putin grabs power in Russia for a further 16 years", by Marc Bennetts: “President Putin could rule Russia until at least 2036 after parliament voted yesterday in favour of a constitutional amendment to “reset the clock” on how long he can remain leader.
Mr Putin, 67, has been in power since 2000. Another 16 years in office would make him modern Russia’s longest-serving leader, overtaking Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator who ruled for 29 years from 1924 until 1953. If Mr Putin survived in office until 2036 he would, at 83, be the oldest person to rule Russia in its more than 1,000-year history.” (Marc Bennetts, Moscow // Wednesday March 11 2020, 12.00am GMT, The Times)
—Pietadè (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Alina Kabaeva and rumoured children

I am re-including the speculation about Alina Kabaeva and children in the article. Speculation can be discussed (assuming due weight). The allegations have not been confirmed but have been repeatedly discussed by reliable sources for a number of years, so they warrant inclusion. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

add NYT RSs, since 2020 Pulitzer items?

X1\ (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Comparison to Hitler

I added details and quotations to this section. I also added a 'criticism of comparison to Hitler' sub-section for individuals who publically defended Putin from claims of similarity to nazi fuhrer adolf hitler. Guodata (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not think is quality content at all. Rather than do strange historical analogies from a hodgepodge of opinions by politicians and pundits, why don't we just cover academic assessments of Putin's regime, leadership style, supporters and influence? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I started a BLP noticeboard discussion[14]Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
A "critcism" subsection is not needed or desirable. The addition looks like overcoverage; Guodata, we default to exclude per WP:ONUS particularly due to the caution required in a BLP. VQuakr (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
It is rather odd that you would compare somebody to Adolf Hitler but not present viewpoints that say otherwise or actually say the contrary. For now I've duplicated the expanded section to the page Russia_under_Vladimir_Putin#Criticism Guodata (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah posting the same content elsewhere isn't better, though I appreciate you being open about it. As I noted at the BLPN discussion, a sentence or two of counterpoint from secondary sources that Putin is no AH seems reasonable. Paragraph after paragraph on this viewpoint is undue. VQuakr (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)