Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Edit request on 16 February 2012

Add this at the bottom: Category:Kyokushin kaikan practitioners Here's reference/proof: http://premier.gov.ru/eng/premier/press/ru/4447/ Solovyevs (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done GreyHood Talk 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The article upgraded

I've done a bit of improvement to the article recently, in order to make it better structured, more readable and interesting. Hope everyone likes the general effect Face-smile.svg

I've added lots of stuff, and since the article is rather large, I had to remove lots of secondary-importance stuff as well. If there are any questions and proposals for further improvements, that'd be nice to discuss. GreyHood Talk 20:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Your edits were too big to just say "upgrade". Also there were big mistakes in the grammar - removing good English and replacing it with bad (e.g. "Putin is brought political stability...") reduced the quality of the article in my view. Please give detailed edit summaries in future to help other editors know what you have done. Thank you. Malick78 (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I see no point in giving detailed edit summary for every small addition or removal. The point of work is in the result, not in the process. If you have particular questions, let's discuss them, otherwise the plain reverting would look like WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour. I could have understood the opposition to mass change if the article was protected, good, featured etc, but here we had an article in a very poor shape, poorly structured and lacking lots of info. Now it is well structured and covers much more aspects of the subject - a good starting point for further editing if anyone really is interested in editing. GreyHood Talk 20:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Erm, no. You must give a detailed summary, especially when you add 12,000 bits! That's a HUGE edit (you said: "...every small addition or removal". That's a bare-faced lie). See here please. What you did hinders the work of other editors: instead of reading a summary, we have to trawl through the whole edit. Be considerate, please. And now: tell us below what you did. Please. ("Now it is well structured" - in your opinion! But I see bad grammar... We have an impasse.) Malick78 (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
      • If you see bad grammar, please go and improve the particular place to good grammar. GreyHood Talk 22:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
        • The revert did improve the grammar.Malick78 (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
      • OK, I'll try to give you a 250 symbols summary: cut the chronological part; added Energy policy,Religious and national policy,Military development, Programmes, Speeches and catch phrases, Other sports, Pets; split into subsections Foreign policy and Public image and popularity, the rest expanded. GreyHood Talk 22:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Though since you're on the talk page, it seems rather childish to limit yourself to 250 symbols when you could use more. Now please, continue to give proper summaries in your future edits. Malick78 (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 5-March-2012

In September 2011, Putin officially announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive term in the 2012 presidential election, which he won in the first round on 4 March 2011 as exit-polls and preliminary results show.[1]

Should read:

In September 2011, Putin officially announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive term in the 2012 presidential election, which he won in the first round on 4 March 2012 as exit-polls and preliminary results show.[1]

76.213.232.132 (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree ‹See TfD› ya lo cambiaron. 190.51.161.93 (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias?

Wow, this reads like a Kreml propaganda piece. Seriously, not even a single "Criticism" section? (Of which there are *many*!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.149.112.222 (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The lack of it suggests a serious neutrality problem here. Girabbit85 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ya this is absurd no other comparable politician has this level of praise -random guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.118.136 (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes his old friends at the KGB/FSB have made a very nice article for him, after reading this he is now my hero also! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.172.64 (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's scary :-s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.97.18 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And which blog are you people coming from I wonder? LOL Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 17:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that information on Putin criticism is virtually absent makes me suspicious. I came here out of curiosity to find more about all the controversy (the recent alleged voter fraud) and found no info at all. The issue appears to be glossed over in a single paragraph saying the fraud claims were countered by big pro-Putin protests proving he had support? Not exactly very fact-heavy. Typically when this happens on Wikipedia I just hit the History and browse to see if there was a bigger section on it during an earlier revision, and look into any additional sources cited there. However, this article... dozens of edits daily since the claims began (and often by the same people), but I can't find anything here. I'll just go back to searching news archives. 67.154.232.29 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least remove the phrase "peace and progress" from the intro. Perhaps it might be more NPOV to say that he he presided over territorial stabilization and economic expansion? Stargate70 —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC).

This has been rephrased. Otherwise, criticism is present in many places of the article, and as for praise, well, the subject is not an ordinary politician and has rather bright and multi-aspect media image. GreyHood Talk 20:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we all know that VVP is no ordinary man :) [1]. Närking (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you have read my recent additions ;) GreyHood Talk 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Criticism is mainly hidden, swamped by fawning language praising Putin's every act. It is biased and many editors would know who to point a finger at. I would agree though that he's no "ordinary politician" - he's nigh on a dictator. The article needs far more balance - specifically critical comments and view points. Malick78 (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You have a strange view on what is dictatorship. If Putin is dictator, then why he totally allows opposition and free media? Why all those guys continuoisly protesting against Putin and scolding him on Internet, radio and TV (including often the state channels) have not yet been shot, jailed, sent to gulags? GreyHood Talk 21:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe you haven't read that Yashin, Udaltsov, Navalny and many others were arrested today only? And where is the free nationwide media you are talking about? And what do you mean with "totally allows opposition"? You mean they are allowed to stay alive and not being shot? Närking (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
They attempted unsanctioned march or something, for which they would be arrested in most democratic law-abiding countries. The protest earlier the same day was allowed, they were able to speak there, but apparently they wanted to be arrested (they were aware that they would be arrested for unsanctioned march). GreyHood Talk 21:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Most democratic countries wouldn't have arrested them, actually. You know very little of democracy it seems.Malick78 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, apparently Navalny and Yashin have been released. And sorry, but the U.S. for example, suppressed some of their recent opposition actions quite brutally. [2] [3] GreyHood Talk 00:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Putin allows opposition and free media? Source? AFAIK, Putin allows neither opposition nor free media. The opposition wasn't even allowed to run for the presidency. Freedom of the media is a bad joke in Russia. Russia is considered an authoritarian regime (i.e. dictatorship) in the renowned Democracy Index, and Putin is, by definition, considered a dictator. Tataral (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, there are four opposition parties in the parliament and there have been four other presidential candidates. By definition, this is competition. And there are very critical to the government and rather popular media: Ekho Moskvy, Dozhd and REN TV, as well as many top tier newspapers and a totally free Runet. Also, there has been a series of 2011–2012 Russian protests recently, which gathered tens of thousands protesters each time and were totally allowed (when the particular place and time were sanctioned), while the leaders of the protests appeared on state channels in the news and talk shows in prime time. This is freedom of media and freedom of protest by definition. As for the Democracy Index, ha, as if somebody expected anything else from an American organisation, which doesn't represent global point of view and which composes ratings to serve their own purposes. At the very least, when the U.S., with their two-party dominance, corporatist rule, presidential dynasties, non-transparent and indirect election system, Guantanamo, suppressing Occupy Wall Street etc etc, calls Russia un-democratic, well, that's a pot calling the kettle black. GreyHood Talk 12:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea why you start talking about the United States, but as someone noted, talking about something else entirely is apparently the usual tactic in the Kremlin. The Democracy Index, published by the Economist Group of the United Kingdom, is a reliable, highly renowned source. Many reliable sources published in free, democratic countries consider Russia to be a dictatorship. No, it's not competition when the real opposition isn't allowed to run for the Presidency. Even East Germany had fake elections with "opposition" candidates approved by the regime. The article needs to reflect that his "election" is widely considered unfree and fraudulent, and that he is considered an authoritarian ruler. Also, it needs to include the criticism of him plagiarising his dissertation. Tataral (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
"I have no idea why you are talking about the United States" Yeah I was thinking along the same lines too. Guess the user hasn't hear of the term tu quoque. Anyway, to address the user's claims specifically, I can't see what the problem is with two-party dominance or presidential dynasties, and especially not if the party assuming governmentship have been elected through the (liberal) democratic process. I can't see either your point about "corporatist rule" or "non-transparent election system" especially when neither exist in the States. Occupy Wall Street hasn't been suppressed (how did Puting treat the demonstrators against the recent Russian presidential election?) and Gitmo is in the process of being shutdown. If you're going to call somebody's kettle black, make sure you know that the person's kettle is actually black in the first place.Festermunk (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
When all else fails, blame the U.S. Tataral (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
As for allowing protests, Reuters notes that: "The pattern appears clear: Putin will allow a few isolated protests, the place and time of which is agreed with the authorities, as a safety valve for disillusionment with his 12-year domination of Russia among mainly urban demonstrators"[4] (note the words "dictator" and "fraud", btw.) Tataral (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
"Dictator" etc. regarding Putin is neither common, nor global view, but just a biased opinion pushed by some media in the Western states that see Putin as a rival. As for the fraud claim in the recent elections it is a joke: it is technically impossible to falsify by carousel voting the 10,000,000 votes (all votes over 50% margin which granted Putin a victory in the first round; falsifying that would have required a million of carousel voters and tens of thousands buses, which is ridiculous). In all other respects the elections were highly transparent thanks to webcams. Putin's support is genuine, and he didn't need any fraud to win; in fact he was the most interested person to ensure the elections to be as honest as possible. Only the marginal non-systemic opposition was interested in fraud for provocation, and perhaps some stupid local officials who wanted to simulate exeptional Putin's support in their dominions for career purposes, and perhaps fraudsters from other candidates. Anyway, the U.S., the U.K., France and other countries have recognized Putin's win, that's a fact, and "dictator" and "fraud" are all non-neutral opinions. GreyHood Talk 19:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The statement by Reuters could be applied to many European countries - for example the United Kingdom allows "a few isolated protests, the place and time of which is agreed with the authorities, as a safety valve for disillusionment".
Last week, the Sky TV News Channel claimed that Putin was bribing voters in the public sector to vote for him. Very few British viewers of Sky News would have guessed that all this meant was that Putin had promised to increase public sector pay if elected, which is exactly what the British Labour Party did when it was elected in 1997. It seems to me that the news in some Western Countries is deliberately distorted to make people feel negatively towards the present Russian government.
When Russian peacekeepers prevented genocide in South Ossetia, this was misrepresented by the British state-owned BBC as a Russian invasion of Georgia! It would have been more accurate to say that Russian peacekeepers did a much better job than NATO peackeepers did in Srebrenica in 1995.
Many of the complaints of bias in this article, reflect a complete lack of understanding of the facts by editors, who have been misinformed by propaganda in their native countries.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So when is this heavy level of bias going to be filtered out / the biased parties banned from editing this particular page? Ben (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the article or the talk page? ;) GreyHood Talk 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
@Greyhood, "What about X" to deflect criticism of Putin or Putin's vision of Russia is a well-known technique of the Russian Foreign Ministry. You should take care not to sound like some official voice. VєсrumЬа TALK 01:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Please, comment on content, not on the contributor. And try to avoid personal attacks. As for the alleged "bias": I have substantial knowledge of Russian politics, and I do not see any serious problems with this article, although it, admittedly, needs a lot more work. I will help when time permits. Nanobear (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The article definitely needs to address the criticism. Why is there nothing about the plagiarism of his dissertation? [5] (even included in the List of plagiarism controversies). Tataral (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The accusation in plagiarism was rather lame, since the "plagiarized" work was referenced to. GreyHood Talk 12:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't stop it from being plagiarism if too much is used and not in an open manner. As for Nanobear's comment, if one editor edits consistently in a biased way and is disruptive, they have to be commented on directly. They themselves has forced it to happen.
Moreover, the fact that we have seen a few new editors appearing in this section, who've never been here before, and ALL are decrying the bias in this article - shows that the article has a problem. Consensus is that this should be dealt with. So let's! :) Time for more criticism of Vozhd' Putin (though whether us part-timers can really counterbalance the full-time(, fully-paid?) minions of Putin I don't know...). Malick78 (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Making such accusations is a serious thing, Malick. Stop undermining a collaboration spirit of Wikipedia, please. As for the new editors commenting here, not everyone did not like the changes, and it is always natural that people are more strongly motivated to voice their concern rather than approval. Anyways, the more concrete proposals to amend some wording etc. have been dealt with, while making general complaints is not constructive. GreyHood Talk 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please mark this page as having disputed neutrality? The article is blatantly biased. Reading the talk here, I doubt that this problem will be fixed any time soon, and the page needs to be marked as POV in the meantime. Robnormal (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please be more concrete and explain in detail what you find "biased". Otherwise this doesn't make sense. GreyHood Talk 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, where to start! As for "collaboration", you show little willingness to engage in it: exhibit 1 - your half-hearted edit summaries which make it hard for others to see what you're doing and why. As you can see - a multitude of people think there's a problem with this page. Why not read through it and tone things down a bit? Every time I do something you seem to revert me and delete something. (Btw, who cares which martial arts he does in the introduction? We don't need to name all three - especially with obscure words like karateka. Just say he does "martial arts". But hey, you reverted me... I tried myself.) Malick78 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Malick, perhaps this link can be of some assistance? Festermunk (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have some good experiance for getting good sugestions for improving biographic articles at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. If you want an opinion about this article being POV or not I would sugest to ask it there, cause you (should get) an advice from an editor who has no personal feeling about Putin or Central- and Eastern Europe... Anybody does not want this too happen? Mabey we should try this first before Festermunk's sugestion... It is more low key then his sugestion. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

What a mess! The hyperlink tags look gawdawful, and should be reformatted. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was an edit by a newbie (maybe it was vandalism). Regards.--GoPTCN 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Reverted by Russavia. Later I've re-instated some intermediate edits. GreyHood Talk 19:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
There really should be some mention of his most recent election difficulties and the ensuing protests in the opening paragraphs of this article.--206.219.248.2 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2012‎

Remember that criticism sections are frowned upon, instead try to have criticisms woven into the article instead of taking them and lumping them together. About the protests and difficulties, I think it would be a good idea just to say a sentence or two and then have a read more link to the article for the election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012 and put more info about the difficulties there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

An authoritarian ruler

The Economist describes Putin as "Russia’s authoritarian prime minister"[6]

According to the renowned Democracy Index, Russia under Putin is in "a long process of regression culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime in light of the cynical decision by Vladimir Putin to return to the presidency and because of deeply flawed parliamentary elections."[7] Tataral (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To say the least, it is outdated, if not a complete joke. State Duma Approves Liberal Political Reforms. A successor to "authoritarian" Putin reverts Putin's earlier reforms (to which action Putin had to agree) and introduces liberal electoral laws. This means that 1) Putin is not the only authority in Russia 2) liberal reforms are pretty possible in the "authoritarian regime". GreyHood Talk 19:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Putin throws the people a scrap of 'liberalness' every now and then, but he is essentially authoritarian and there are enough sources to show general consensus on the matter. Tataral, please add whatever info you feel is necessary. Malick78 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Claims of "authoritarianism" should be supported by facts. Then, there is a question whether being more authoritarian is a bad thing. However in context with such non-neutral language as "regime" this is unacceptable anyways. GreyHood Talk 20:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What I find particularly ridiculous about the introduction insisted on by Greyhood, is that it includes lengthy praise of Putin's "outdoor, sporting" activities, "his physical capabilities and taking part in unusual or dangerous activities, such as extreme sports and interaction with wild animals.[21] A judoka, samboist and karateka, several times Champion of Leningrad in judo and sambo in his youth, Putin has played a major role in development of sport in Russia". It used about one word, without detail or context, to address his undemocratic rule, hidden away at the bottom of the lead together with all the sports mumbo jumbo. I think his authoritarian rule needs to be addressed prominently in the lead, as most other articles on people considered as authoritarian rulers do. The main thing that is to say about Putin, is that he has taken his country in an authoritarian direction, abolished democracy and achieved that his country is ranked as a dictatorship because of his rule. Tataral (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To be addressed more prominently, it should be global, widely accepted, non-controversial point of view, which it is not. And the POV-laden language is unacceptable: it is encyclopedia here not political journalism. GreyHood Talk 20:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
And there is no need to make the once made point second time in a POV-laden manner. GreyHood Talk 20:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The point of view expressed in the Democracy Index is the global, widely accepted point of view, expressed by reliable sources in all democratic countries of the world. The entire lead is written from the POV of Vladimir Putin, which is essentially a fringe and an extremist POV. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the propaganda of dictatorships. Tataral (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Fully agree on that. To say that it's a "regional Western point of view" is surely a fringe view that Greyhood is pushing. Närking (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Greyhood, you're not listening. We all the think the lead should cover his authoritarianism in more depth. It's globally accepted. What do we have to do? You ignore all our reasoning and we'll have to move onto a (non-binding, but pointing to consensus) vote or something next. (And less about the effing martial arts!) Malick78 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
"While the Putin presidency has been criticised by Western observers and domestic opposition as undemocratic,[18] Putin's leadership has enjoyed considerable popularity in Russia since 2000 and continuously high approval ratings.[19]" is already in the lede, so it seems the authoritarianism is clearly mentioned. Now, mentioning every sport Puting has participated indeed is unnecessary and undesirable in what should be a summary of the article, but it seems that stuff has been trimmed down. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not mentioned, it's deliberately hidden away and obscured, in the last paragraph with ridiculous amounts of praise of his "physical capabilities", and it doesn't really say anything. It belongs in the paragraph on "return of political stability", not in the paragraph on his outdoor activities. The mainstream position, supported by everyone else than Putin himself, is that he is an authoritarian ruler who heads an authoritarian regime. Tataral (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The introduction of Alexander Lukashenko could serve as a model for this article. Tataral (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be the other way round, in fact. The introduction in Lukashenko article should cover all aspects of Lukashenko activities, and not give undue weight to his alleged authoritarianism and human rights etc. There are much more things about Lukashenko to tell. GreyHood Talk 01:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: "his alleged authoritarianism and human rights" — I rest my case. Tataral (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Few points for everyone to consider: the article should be based on facts, not opinions, and especially not on controversial and unaccepted universally opinions. Claims on "authoritarianism", "un-democratic" are just opinions, and as such, they deserve a very little place in the article and no more than one line in the intro. The article should be based primarily on what the subject has done, not what others think of that, that's the best way to uphold neutrality. GreyHood Talk 01:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way, articles are not written from the POV of the article subject. "Putin has overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia, ending the crisis of the 1990s. He restored Russia's territorial integrity and established a strong power vertical" (from the current version) is no less of an opinion than the more predominant opinion that what Putin—the President elected with 107% of the votes[8]—has done is abolishing democracy and taking his country in an authoritarian direction, achieving that his country is widely considered an authoritarian regime. Tataral (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It's an almost universally accepted opinion, Greyhood. Only some Russians think he's benign. As for his high popularity: well, Stalin was popular for long periods too! When you control the media and present yourself as a saviour, the masses will buy it. There were no real opponents for him (they couldn't get the air time), so who else could the downtrodden Russian people vote for or support? His authoritarianism ensured his popularity, ironically. Until recently, however.
As for the intro: the bit on sports shouldn't be in the same para as the bit on authoritarianism, that's true. Let's split it.Malick78 (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Tataral, one polling station in Chechnya proves nothing. There may have been falsifications (and at some polling stations like one in Dagestan the results were cancelled), or just many people voted there with absentee certificates, or some other reasons. GreyHood Talk 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a picture book

According to WP:NOTGALLERY Wikipedia is not an Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context. In my view this article has way to much pictures; to me that looks not good and rather childish.... What is the added value of having pictures in this article on which Putin is looking at 2 man sign a treaty next to a blond woman with a not common hair due and a man that has a normal hair due? What is the added value of us knowing how his mom and dad used to look like? The same goes for George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin take a sunset walk on a pier along the Black Sea, April 5, 2008, Then President of Russia Vladimir Putin and wife Lyudmila Putina visiting the Taj Mahal in 2000, Putin speaking on the 2005 Victory Day Parade on Red Square. Saint Basil's Cathedral is on the background and a picture of a Sukhoi PAK FA... I suggest these pictures will be removed to make a better article or replace them with more relevant pictures like in Barack Obama. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of these pictures illustrate Putin's presidency and his policies, the Taj Mahal is related to his visit to India, and the signing of the treaty with Tymoshenko is discussed in the text so the picture is perfectly relevant. All sections should preferably be illustrated, and big sections require several images. While there is no excessive squashing of images, everything is OK. GreyHood Talk 19:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
This picture would also be a good candidate; but Mickey has nothing to do with the Ukr-Rus gas disputes...

This is a question of taste and of opinion of course; when I look at the Obama article I can not help to think it has a better selection of pictures... But if the most people here have no problem with the picture here it is fine with me. I replaced the picture of Putin and Tymo(shenko) with a picture of him and Yushchenko since he was the main man of the Orange Revolution and most part of that section is about fallout of these color revolutions. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The most important part of the story is gas disputes in which Putin and Tymoshenko played the most important roles, and this article is about Putin, not about the Orange Revolution or Yuschenko. GreyHood Talk 20:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Makes sence.... PS I was to lazy to look up how to spell the name of the Georgian President ;). Meaning I did not name him Mickey for POV-reasons (just to be clear). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There are too many pictures, true. Many have no relevance other than to show the Dear Leader meeting famous foreigners and suggest he's a statesman (and not just a bandit who got lucky). As for meeting Tymoshenko or Yuschenko - makes no difference to me which.Malick78 (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Plz do not use pictures of Putin with Yuschenko or Saakashvili, this could make wrong impression that Putin was friendly with them or that interstate relations were good at their time. With George W. Bush Putin at least was personally friendly and there was a short period of relatively good Russia-U.S. relations. GreyHood Talk 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
That makes little sense. Why should it matter if they were friendly? A comment by the picture will give the context anyway.Malick78 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Better not put up a picture of him with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych then... it is said Putin is not friendly with him...

in a Wikileaks diplomatic cable of January 2009 (then) Ambassador of Ukraine to Russia Kostyantyn Hryshchenko stated that Putin had a low personal regard for (now) Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.[1]
Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Putins feelings towards the Georgian President during the 2008 War in Georgia

For POV reasons I tried to find a quote of Putin in which he said he didn't want to replace the Georgian President during the 2008 War in Georgia, but I could not find it... If anybody has found this please put it in here. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Putin gets 107% of the votes in Grozny

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/fraudulent-votes-for-putin-abound-in-chechnya.html?_r=1

And still some Russians claim this to be a democratic vote in a democracy, contrary to accepted opinion elsewhere. Tataral (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Tataral, one polling station in Chechnya proves nothing. There may have been falsifications (and at some polling stations like one in Dagestan the results were canceled), or just many people voted there with absentee certificates, or some other reasons. GreyHood Talk 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyways, the foreign countries acknowledged Putin's win, and even the League of Voters created by protesters acknowledged that he got over 50% votes without falsifications. Of course, the League of Voters were not able to explain for what reason Putin had to falsify additional 10% of votes as claimed by them, or how could he technically have falsified such impossibly large amount, or why the data from the League of Voters was proven wrong [9]. GreyHood Talk 13:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Except that impartial analysts indicate that while Putin probably would have achieved his 50% majority to avoid a runoff, that would have been just barely. You disregard the possibility that 107% is just one data point indicative of tactics such as busing in voters who are told how to vote if they want to keep their jobs. VєсrumЬа TALK 13:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I particularly enjoyed listing on the radio to the complaints of the factory workers who were bused in for a Putin rally and were grousing they had yet to see the 200 roubles they had been promised as payment for their time. The person arranging the "supporters" indicated that "staffing" such events are a regular part of his business. Ah, yes, entrepreneurship in the new Russia. VєсrumЬа TALK 14:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Just one data point is just one exceptional data point, until it is proven that such points are many and overwhelming. I repeat that in order to get 10,000,000 additional votes which Putin got over the 50% margin, they should have used some 1,000,000 voters being bused by some 30,000-50,000 buses and voting each at about 10 polling stations, which would give about 100 additional votes per each polling station in the country. Technically hardly possible to organize and impossible to conceal without tons of evidence. GreyHood Talk 14:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
As for the story with the alleged pro-Putin rally participants which were not payed, this has been questioned as a likely provocation from the opposition (the video). I recall the people suspicuously openly spoke on camera without trying to hide, and the notebook of the person arranging the "supporters" for some reason contained the phone number of certain Igor Drandin, an opposition politician who was the author of that video on Youtube and also the author of the famous video with black Kenyan students supporting Putin, also widely seen as provocation (the video). GreyHood Talk 14:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Why would they need real voters? They just had to rub out the numbers in the final tally and think up something higher. Your reasoning is full of holes.Malick78 (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The numbers were counted at webcams, and announced at webcams. In this respect the elections were highly transparent. That's why the opposition had to resort to carousel voting argument. GreyHood Talk 18:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Webcams don't show everything. And who's going to sit and count how many people were recording voting on the CCTV? No one. Putin knew that when they were installed. As the BBC says: "It will take time to confirm whether or not the suspicions of violations hold water. And opposition activists had always maintained that the most likely moment for vote rigging might come after the polls closed, when votes were counted behind closed doors. The carousel voting happened too, by the way. Putin's henchmen have multiple methods.Malick78 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The votes were counted and showed before the webcams, there was a special TsIK instruction on that [10]. The videos are available for a year and it can be checked whether the counts shown before the webcams coincide with the TsIK data. About 3.5 million people registered on the webcam site, and they watched 7,9 million onlines from different polling stations during the elections. [11] GreyHood Talk 20:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
In fact, Russia now has the most transparent elections procedure in the world, at least among the large countries. Russia's Central Electoral Commission Head Vladimir Churov even says that without webcams elections in the U.S. will be illegitimate. GreyHood Talk 20:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Must be the joke of the day! Närking (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

just saying something: this is not that incredible, stuff like this happens in america too. :P 75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Irredentist and nationalist POV in the lead section

The article is not supposed to be written from a Russian nationalist POV. In his 10th(?) revert today, Greyhood again restores the wording "(Putin) restored Russia's territorial integrity", referring to Putin invading Chechnya and starting the Second Chechen War. Aside from being an extreme Russian nationalist and irredentist POV, it purposefully obscures the meaning of the sentence and avoids mentioning Chechnya or the Second Chechen War directly. That's unencyclopedic.

Also note that the article Adolf Hitler does not say Hitler "restored Germany's territorial integrity". It says he invaded Poland. Although it was portrayed as "restoring Germany's territorial integrity" in German propaganda of course, in the exact same way as Russia portrayed its invasion of Chechnya as "restoring Russia's territorial integrity" and using the exact same arguments ("Poland/Chechnya was part of Germany/Russia, so we take it back blah blah"). Tataral (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to alter the WP:HOMAGE to Putin, your content will have to be impeccably sourced and incrementally introduced. Kasparov's criticism being dismissed as that of a "marginal"—i.e., code word for outside the Kremlin power structure—politician and deleted (Gorbachev's comments have been deleted applying the same label) is simply the tip of the iceberg. Criticism is quickly cleansed. Meanwhile, even mention of a nudie calendar published in Putin's honor gets included. (I eventually deleted that content.)
On the bright side, any reader who comes along to digest the article who is not among Putin's sycophants recognizes it for what it is; after all, it is just as informative by what it excludes as by what it includes. VєсrumЬа TALK 14:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Chechnya was part of Russia and is part of Russia, which is recognized by Chechens and Chechen leadership. "Irredentism is any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state...". The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was never recognized as independent. Nothing to argue about here. GreyHood Talk 14:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To your comment, that Chechens recognize Russian leadership: 1) it is particularly clear from the high murder rate of high ranking, Kremlin-friendly officials; 2) if you would read the article about Ramzan Kadyrov, especially the part dealing with accusations of human right abuses, like /Based on extensive research, HRW concluded in 2005 that forced disappearances in Chechnya are so widespread and systematic that they constitute crimes against humanity./ it gets even more obvious, that Chechens are great supporters of Putin. Fermmyt (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Putin, the war against Chechnya, and war crimes

In 2001 the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has placed Chechnya on its Genocide Watch List, stating[12]

Chechnya was devastated, including the almost complete destruction of Grozny, the Chechen capital. Russian artillery and air indiscriminately pounded populated areas. Human rights organizations also documented several massacres of civilians by Russian units. Russian President Vladimir Putin proclaimed Chechnya pacified by Spring 2000. But peace has been elusive for Chechen civilians, victims of a continuing war of attrition. They are plagued by abuses committed by Russian forces – arbitrary arrest, extortion, torture, murder. Chechen civilians also suffer because there have been no sustained efforts to rebuild basic social services, such as public utilities or education. Chechen fighters also commit abuses against civilians, but neither on the same scale nor with the same intensity as Russian forces.

And in this city, Putin gets 107% of the votes (see above). Yes, we all believe it. Tataral (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You should really better research the subject. What seems unbelievable to you in fact is perfectly how the things should be.
Putin gets highest support in Chechnya and other Muslim regions. Of course they vote for Putin, for three reasons.
  • Firstly, they have no alternative. Who else? Chechens would never vote for Zyuganov, since he is a Communist-Stalinist and they remember the Stalin era deportation of almost all Chechens to Central Asia. They would never vote for Zhirinovsky, since he is Russian nationalist. Mironov's party also used some anti-Caucasus rethorics in their legislative elections campaign. As for Prokhorov, he is liberal (which is not popular among Chechens) and unpopular among poorer rural regions such as Chechnya, since he represents big business and middle class of the capitals.
  • Secondly, Chechnya is a traditional clan society. Families vote as heads of families vote. And they all vote as their clan leaders, which follow the example of Ramzan Kadyrov, the Head of Chechen Republic, who supports Putin. Nobody there wants to risk relationships with their family and kinship, since it can lead as far as blood feud.
  • Thirdly, they have positive reasons to support Putin. He has pumped lots of federal money in order to restore Chechnya from the war ruin (and they did reconstructed it nicely), and overall the return of peace and improvements in the level of life are pretty obvious in Chechnya. Also, Putin is more visibly supportive of Islam than other candidates. GreyHood Talk 14:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no way >99% of Chechens people would attend the elections, especially if they do not have anyone to vote for. One should be blind to ignore this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermmyt (talkcontribs) 15:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

99% turnout is very well possible in the clan rural societies with strong authoritarian leadership, where they vote by entire families and by voting confirm support of their leaders. GreyHood Talk 16:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, a get out the vote competition with cash prizes for the village that does best (i.e., bribery) always helps. Apparently, there weren't any observers present, either, owing to security concerns. Interesting reading here. Grove is a Moscow-based journalist for Reuters. VєсrumЬа TALK 15:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
@Greyhood, re: your @#1 "no alternative," well, that's at the top of the lists of objective analysts who see, instead, symptoms of a political system that is not open or democratic, not your implication (my inference) that Russia has yet to summon up someone worthy of replacing Putin. Do not conflate by circumstance and by design. VєсrumЬа TALK 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Greyhood you wrote that "Chechens would never vote for Zyuganov, since he is a Communist-Stalinist and they remember the Stalin era deportation of almost all Chechens to Central Asia." Do you think Chechens don't remember the carpet bombing of their capital, their villages and the thousands of forced disappearances during Putin's presidency? A few years back there actually was one brave man who attempted to collect proof of voting fraud in the neighbouring republic of Ingushetia named Magomed Yevloyev. Of course he had to pay for this with his life, and the killer had to serve only a few months in prison.[13] Please read the chronicles of Memorial and Human Rights Watch before you speak for people in the Caucasus. If only out of respect for those who perished. Machinarium (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Chechens could also blame forced disappearances since 1990s on the activities of the rebel leaders (who did earn their money from ransoms and human trafficking). Admittedly, both sides are to blame for the atrocities of the war, but Putin in alliance with Kadyrov clan were able to destroy foreign-supported terrorists, stop the internal chaos and rebuilt Chechnya. GreyHood Talk 16:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
And reason 2 - that Chechens are culturally unable to engage in democracy would be hilariously absurd if it wasn't for the racist undercurrent. Well done.Malick78 (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course they are able to engage in democracy if they are provided with some real alternative candidates. But that could be democracy of their own kind with respect to their traditions. GreyHood Talk 16:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
(Oh, and your link to the propaganda page with photos (titled: Made by us: We have something to be proud of") has a pic of, and I'm not kidding, "Проспект В.В. Путина". Does that mean if I destroy a city in a genocidal war they'll name a big street after me too? And you think this guy isn't authoritarian...)Malick78 (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
(One more thing... the photos show a deserted city! No one dares walk around! Are they afraid of being shot? They drive cars... but won't get out of them :D )Malick78 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The professional architectural photos are intended to show architecture. GreyHood Talk 16:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Try getting a professional photographer in London or Paris to rid the area of all human life. Impossible. But in Putin's Russia... Malick78 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
When Grozny becomes a never-sleeping world city may be you would have some point. GreyHood Talk 17:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Greyhood you are shifting the blame of forced disappearances, when it is pretty well documented that most of these are the acts by a repressive regime. Again please read the chronicles of Memorial and Human Rights Watch, as well as the rulings of the ECtHR. Also carpet bombing a city isn't less of a war crime when its rebuilt afterwards. I don't think Assad in Syria is suddenly no longer responsible for war crimes if he rebuilds Homs. Anyway I'm glad you admit that both sides committed atrocities. But remember that that two wrongs never make a right. If you're going to add how Putin supposedly restored Russian integrity, and then not mention at what cost this happened it can only be read in a very cynical way. Machinarium (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Memorial and Human Rights Watch are pretty well known for being funded by the West and showcasing strong bias against the Russian government. They widely publicized disappearances allegedly forced by Kadyrov militia or federal troops, but ignored kidnappings and other crimes by Chechen rebels, and even ignored such significant process as expulsion of almost all ethnic Russians from Chechnya in 1990s. Then, war is war, it is strange to expect wars without deaths and actions that could be seen as human rights violations. GreyHood Talk 17:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty sure Memorial and HRW are reliable sources (and you skipped ECtHR rulings), but you seem to be genuinely convinced of a global conspiracy. Even if that were true, and human rights groups (whose members often payed with their lives) under-reported rebel atrocities, this has nothing to do with regime-atrocities. As I said, two wrongs don't make a right and neither does "war is war". Machinarium (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Having popped into Memorial's shabby offices in St P. I'm pretty sure if they receive any Western money it's a pittance. Stop libelling them and suggesting they do the West's bidding. They are against the Russian gov just as any normal human being would be against a repressive regime.Malick78 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Two-thirds of Russian voters voted for Putin. Are they not "normal human being"s? Again citing you, that Russians are "culturally unable to engage in democracy would be hilariously absurd if it wasn't for the racist undercurrent". GreyHood Talk 18:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
About 50% of voters probably voted for Putin (the 64% was artificially raised through fraud). But even so, if the Russian media actually carried the truth on the main channels, Russians would not vote for Putin (if they knew the billions he's stolen, etc...). Your logic (that Russian voters are told what happens) is, as usual, faulty.Malick78 (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, when Russian media started to cover protests and admitted protest leaders with their continuous criticism and allegations of Putin on the federal channels, his ratings started to grow. ;) GreyHood Talk 20:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A reminder that this talk page is not a forum. Discussions on personal opinions on whether election rigging was possible have no place on this talk page. Source it, or keep it to yourself. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error

Spelling error 'spyed' to spied — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.87.68.226 (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


KGB career - negative bias?

Why Putin's KGB career is emphasised in the beginning of the article and the text under the picture in that section tells 'Puting in KGB uniform'. 'KGB' has a slight negative meaning to at least some Europeans (and probably Americans). But after all, it was just a Committee for State Security. It should be merged to a section early career or pre-political career.Fermmyt (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's placement is chronological. The main article starts with his early life and education, and then goes on to his KGB career. That's what he did after graduating university. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Fermmyt is right, the word KGB has negative connotations for many - which doesn't fit the rest of the article very well. We should probably remove that particular period which isn't that or rewrite it to something like "Department of Homeland Security" that has more positive connotations. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I was pretty sure you were being sarcastic, although you did actually make this edit... a13ean (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
What? It is not the job of Wikipedia to whitewash history and it is DEFINITELY not the job of Wikipedia to make up names or use names that are for departments in other countries, departments that did not even exist. That he was a member of the KGB is a fact. It was a fact for more than a decade of his life. If you want to break negative connotation, then find sources to include more of what it is that he did as a member of the KGB. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we are not here to try and whitewash someone's history, even if some try hard. If he worked for KGB we write that he worked for KGB and nothing else. Närking (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on Maunus, KGB is the name of the organization he worked for, and the name used for that organization in English for decades. The KGB is an integral part of Putin's career and a major source of his political organization now. You could say "KGB, predecessor department of the Federal Security Bureau" if you wanted to be more perfectly accurate. Nathan T 17:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Early 2011 Putin said Russia didn’t need Ukraine’s contributions to win World War II: noticable?

Early 2011 Putin said Russia didn’t need Ukraine’s contributions to win World War II; is this noticable enough to put into this artice? This source does not give the context he said it in... But if it is found not noticable I do not feel the need to look up this context (for now...). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, successful world leaders often have a hazy view of history. Perhaps Comrade Putin should look at the T-34s used as war memorials. They were designed in Kharkov. Most of the USSR's best tanks were designed by the team from Kharkov. Without the delay imposed by the defence of Kiev in 1941, the Germans would have captured Moscow - huge numbers of Ukrainian soldiers died in those battles, or were deliberately starved to death by the Germans after they were captured by the Germans. Without the contribution by Ukraine to the defence of the USSR in the Great Patriotic War, the USSR would have been overrun by the Germans, and the majority of the Russian people deliberately starved to death by the Germans.
Russia is not unique in having a prime minister who has a hazy view of history. Britain's prime minister David Cameron made statements in 2011 that seemed to indicate that he thought that the USA was fighting against the Germans in 1940.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, it is not really notable. It would be nice to put in an article called "Musings of Putin" but it seems there is none! :P It just isn't important enough. I mean, its like when President Obama or vice-pres biden says things that are controversial. It would be nice if we could put it all in, but if we did half the article would be things like this because they happen all the time! We should put it in if the controversy lasts in a large way, i mean a very large way, but I don't see it happening. um, I guess I should of just said "ditto" to Toddy75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Too long?

The page now has 78 kB (12708 words) of "readable prose size" (and is 558 kB in size) - which is getting to the point when it should perhaps be trimmed or split: I'd prefer trimming the less important sections ("In popular culture", "Artistic endeavours" (singing with spies? Is that art? No. It's having fun) - do we need so much detail?), though they could of course become articles in their own right.Malick78 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The article is 188,042 bytes in size, which is smaller than the featured article Barack Obama and the good article George W. Bush (and note that there is much more to tell about Putin than about them, since he has been longer on political scene). Wikipedia:SIZERULE says that the articles over 100 K almost certainly should be divided. But this rule almost certainly and de facto doesn't work for the articles about the large countries or major political figures - it is impossible to adequately present such subjects below 100kb. GreyHood Talk 22:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Nevetherless, of course, the article should be trimmed where possible without the loss of aspects and key content. There is some doubling information in a number of sections, and the first half of the article may do with some trimming. I'm going to work on that. GreyHood Talk 22:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't doubt you will. Perhaps just wait for other comments before trimming the first part? That's the most important part, I'd say. The dross is in the second half.
As for Obama and Bush, well, I think they're better articles and hence the extra size is bearable. This article's quality is lower.Malick78 (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course, it is not a GA or FA still. However this doesn't mean that is should be reduced in size because of that. The size depends on the subject, not on the quality (it is quality which depends on size among other things). Anyway, there is no urgent need in reducing the size of this article. With purging the cash, it loads twice faster for me compared to Barack Obama or George W. Bush (c. 15 seconds against c. 30 seconds). GreyHood Talk 01:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This is not USopedia, where articles on US subjects can be as long as you like, but articles on non-US subjects must be trimmed to make them short because US readers are not very interested in non-US subjects. If this article is thought to be too long, and the articles on US presidents are longer, first trim the articles on the US presidents.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Erm, I didn't defend them because they are US. Either way, there are too many minor details here (like Putin singing with spies), which detracts from more important material. It's not the speed of loading which is important - it's readability and relevance. (Oh, and just because other articles are longer, doesn't mean they should be trimmed first Toddy1 - crap somewhere else doesn't mean crap is ok here).Malick78 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The article is perfectly readable since it is well-illustrated and well-structured and split into small sections devoted to various subtopics. Putin singing with spies is an important material, because it shows that 1) Putin hasn't lost his connection with Russian foreign intelligence, and 2) that he can sing, which is something that not every world leader can. Also, it is pretty telling that they sang a very famous in Russia song from a very famous Soviet spy movie. GreyHood Talk 13:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
a) the article is getting less and less readable, in my view. b) erm, of course the President still has connections to the secret service. Doh. c) the fact he can sing is covered earlier with his singing at the concert, but more importantly - if it's singing in private - how does it qualify as "artistic endeavours"? Art in private is rarely considered art, and a sing-song with some ex-spies is definitely not art. d) it's not "telling" if we don't know it's from a spy movie. The text doesn't mention that.Malick78 (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not too long yet. Articles that have a wide-ranging scope are allowed to be much bigger than 100K. Putin's article is so central to Russian politics that is has a much wider scope than regular biographical articles, and, I feel, a wider scope than even Barack Obama, for example. Nanobear (talk) 14:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  • It's getting long, and if we have non-notable stuff about him singing with ex-spies, it'll be too long very soon.Malick78 (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is too long, but I do agree that there is some useless info in the article which should probably be cut out. The personal life and public image sections have become pretty silly. There is way too much info under pets for example. I scratch my head reading it!... wait, looked again: there are articles specifically for each of his dogs? what is wrong with humans? haha, at least we can redirect to them instead of having large amounts of info about them in that section. I might come back and propose a change if i have time75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Let's cull the pets. :) Malick78 (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Disagree. Two of the pets are barely mentioned, and Koni the Labrador has been very prominent during many Putin's meetings with world leaders and on other occasions, such as GLONASS promotion. This is interesting and rather rare among the top political pets. GreyHood Talk 15:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Dogs ... do not take part in diplomacy. They don't rise to any importance/relevance - pull them from the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Which is why they have there separate articles. If they didn't have their own articles, then I might agree with you. But, they have their own articles so we should just redirect to them so we have more space for more important things. Also, who took out "Russian Orthodoxy" as Putins religion? I'll put it back in75.73.114.111 (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Nevermind I can't put it back in, as it's semi protected. Anyone else care to put it back in? Or tell us why it was taken out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There is enough place in the article currently for "more important things" and it is is established that this article is not too long in comparison to the articles about politicians of similar level. More to say, "more important things" are already in the article, so leave the dogs in place. Remember that this article is about Putin, and if he does diplomacy with dogs while others don't, that's not the reason not to mention the dogs, but exactly the opposite: it should be shown which particular characteristics of Putin's political style differentiate him from other politicians. GreyHood Talk 00:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Ground Up rewrite

May I suggest deleting this article and restarting but blocking all attempts by the KGB/FSB to influence the article to Tsar Putinkas favour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.172.64 (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a KGB agent and I take offense to your statement! ;P No, but I get the point. Some stuff needs changing. What is your suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.114.111 (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Recentist, undue weight and speculation material removed

Explaining this revert in detail.

>(but officially just 47% in Moscow[1]).

  • It is widely known that Putin has lower support in Moscow than in the country on average, still he has much more support in Moscow than any other candidate. Regional preferences haven't been mentioned in the other elections' results and no point mentioning them in the description of the recent elections as well.

>At a post-election rally in Red Square, tears were seen rolling down his cheeks. His spokesman ascribed them to the cold, though others such as the BBC said he had been "rattled" by recent protests.[2]

  • Already described in a different section in more appropriate context, and more accurately (Putin explained it himself).

>The election was criticised by the OECD,[3] other international bodies, and Russian civil society organisations for fraud, including carousel voting.[1][3]

  • OECD and other western organisations criticized every election in the recent years in Russia for fraud or irregularities or lack of competition etc (note that the West didn't criticized Russian presidential election, 1996 which had a very large level of fraud, but which brought victory to pro-western president Yeltsin). Mentioning it just about the recent election is WP:RECENTISM, mentioning it in general might be relevant to the Domestic policies section. However it should be noted that OECD has a strong bias towards Russia (and was criticized by Russia for its conduct and assessments of Russian elections) while tends to disregard issues in other countries, such as the U.S., to which the OECD observers have been admitted only recently and not even to every U.S. state.

Russian civil society organisations, mainly the League of voters, were already accused in lie and misuse of data. [14]

>Some claimed that Putin's share of the vote was inflated by up to 10%

  • Totally implausible claim, since due to the extensive use of webcams (which also were used during counting and announcement of the results) most of the process was highly transparent. As for the carusel voting which became the main argument due to transparency in other respects, it involves usage of absentee certificates, but only 1,6 million of votes were made via absentee certificates, which is about 2% not 10%. The basis for 10% fraud claims has been the lower level of Putin's support on the polling stations where the observers from independent monitoring groups were stationed, but since most of them were stationed in Moscow, Saint Petersburg and other big cities it is perfectly normal that the vote for Putin was lower there, and it is incorrect move or manipulation to extrapolate the same level of support to the entire country.

Note that the result of the election was recognized by foreign countries, including the U.S. and Europe, and that all candidates except Zyuganov acknowledged Putin's victory, and that Putin would have won even if 10% were taken off.

>On 11 March 2012 approximately 20,000 protesters demonstrated in Novy Arbat street against the fraud

  • Even BBC and other Western services acknowledged that attendance was much lower than expected and that the protest wave scales down. So mentioning this particular protest is hardly relevant as it is too minor and is WP:RECENTISM, while the article already contains a general link to the 2011-2012 Russian protests.

>MP Ilya Ponomaryov, a protest coordinator, described the protesters' plans: "We must be the government's constant nightmare and build up to a crescendo of protests at the time of Putin's inauguration in early May."[1]

  • This is WP:SPECULATION (not to mention WP:Undue weight given to the words of some minor politician). If the protesters manage to create this "nightmare" and it gets notable enough to report it on Wikipedia, including this article, than it should be added, but until then it is WP:SPECULATION.

Overall it seems evident, that unless it is conclusively proven (in courts) that there was some significant fraud or unless the post-election protests lead to something significant, mentioning all those protests and allegations is hardly appropriate here (i.e. in the article devoted to Putin rather than to the election, which has it's own article). GreyHood Talk 01:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

    • Moscow is special because it's the seat of government. That's where revolutions happen and that's why Putin was so worried by Moscow. Also, the capital has access to more varied media than the provinces, so the figure is telling. ALSO, sources report on it so they consider it notable!
    • "Already described in a different section in more appropriate context, and more accurately (Putin explained it himself)." You what? Since when has a person's own explanation been the only acceptable one? That's absurd reasoning. The BBC (and other media outlets) consider the tears to be important, and drew conclusions, so we can too.
    • "OECD has a strong bias towards" - so, the OECD likes Russia? I guess we can cite it more often then :) Joking aside, I think you mean 'against' (oh, but where is your source, dear Greyhood? Or is it just your opinion?) - but still, it's one of the most respected international bodies re: elections so should be cited. Sorry, it's gotta be there. (Moreover, just because every election is corrupt in Russia doesn't mean it should be mentioned just once does it? Why not mention it every time? Either way, here it is valid.)
    • "Some claimed that Putin's share of the vote was inflated by up to 10% - Totally implausible claim, since due to the extensive use of webcams..." In your humble opinion. However, sources report the 10% so we cite it. Just because you disagree, that means little. I quoted Putin's refutation of it (and for him to go to the trouble of refuting it means it's notable! Ta dah :) ).
    • The protest seems important to me, and was a test of whether the opposition activities would gather pace or fizzle out. It's notable.
    • Ilya Ponomaryov's words aren't speculation. They're a statement of intent. Quoted by the BBC so seem notable to me.
    • Lastly, you at first only deleted Ilya Ponomaryov's statement and when I readded it you deleted the whole para. Why? Because you were upset that I reverted? Surely the first edit shows you thought the rest of the section was ok? Now you are deleting wholesale. And I'm reverting. It's all well sourced and notable.Malick78 (talk) 15:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I did not immediately reverted your addition in full only because I had no time to explain it in full right at the moment. But seems I overdid with explanations. The reasoning is simplier: this material, while fully or partially appropriate for the articles on the 2012 Russian presidential election and 2011-2012 Russian protests is inappropriate for the article no Putin. There is not enough place to go into such detail about every Putin's election, and going into detail about the recent events only is too obvious WP:Recentism. No other events in the chronological part of the article are given comparable level of detail, and highlighting the recent events fails also WP:Undue weight. More to say, the claims by some minor opposition politician is too obviously WP:Speculation. While technically it is pretty possible they would stage more protests they simply might not get permission if they continue to applicate for much larger size of protests than they can afford - and the protest leader Udaltsov called for a protest of one million - they will never gather as much people or get permission for that. And their intention to become "the government's constant nightmare" sounds too funny and even more speculation. This is article about Putin, not about boastful intentions of those who oppose him. If they manage to do something significant on the scale making it appropriate to include it into this general overview article, that's it, if not, not (and leave it for the elections and protest articles). GreyHood Talk 23:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
" There is not enough place to go into such detail about every Putin's election..." - but there's room for stuff about pets, singing, and crappy paintings? Sorry, that logic is absurd. Allegations of fraud are incredibly important. Hence the international coverage. His pets don't get that. Malick78 (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this article is about Putin, including his personality. Which includes paintings etc. Pets and singing and painting btw did get international coverage as well. Allegations are just allegations however, they are more in place in the specific articles, and if if they should be added to the general overview article, than it should be in brief, general, neutral manner, without excessive detail or recentist slant or reproducing particularly dubious points. The allegations of fraud at 2011 elections are mentioned by the way, and the protests and elections articles are linked. GreyHood Talk 01:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
What is really sad, is that Putin would have won the election anyway, so there was no need to fiddle the results. But there are too many brown noses in the Russian state apparatus. They wanted to please the boss, so they orchestrated massive fraud in both the December Duma election and the March presidential election. I have no idea whether Putin is so cut off from normal life that he does not know this. Unfortunately this can happen with great leaders. As a result of the fiddling of the elections, Putin has lost the trust of much of the intelligentsia. There are plenty of reliable sources for this - the Financial Times has written articles on this for example.
The article does need to mention the fiddling of the election results, the protests, and Putin's reactions. It needs to do so in an even-handed way though. Editor Greyhood does us all a great favour in taking a critical look at dubious foreign sources such as the BBC. But international newspapers such as the Financial Times are mostly reliable.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It seemed even-handed to me. It included Putin refuting it and claiming 1% was the highest it could be. As for the FT versus the BBC, I see know reason to think the FT is better. Both have good reputations as sources. Oh, and Putin is not a 'great leader'. He'd have created a working democracy if he was one ;) Malick78 (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The fiddling of the election results never was conclusively proven on the significant scale (the more concrete evidence collected since December and its analysis suggest that no more than a few percents or few parliament seats could have been affected by fraud), nor the entire story with the 2011 parliamentary elections had any serious consequences so far (other than more time for the non-systemic opposition on TV, more transparency on the presidential elections and new rise of Putin's popularity as well as "anti-Orangism"). As it turns out, the parliament works, no demands of the protesters have been fulfilled, no major changes in foreign policy have happened, Putin has won the election and it has been recognized by most at home and abroad. GreyHood Talk 01:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

LGBT in intro

Is it just me or do others also consider it quite weird that, starting from the second sentence, the whole first paragraph only deals with his suppression of LGBT people. I mean, I just don't think that what I'd say in my second sentence if I talked about Putin. --The Evil IP address (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it as it doesn't comply with WP:UNDUE and WP:LEDE. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 13:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

User: Russavia removed this, not just from the lead, but from the article entirely:

Putin is currently supporting the oppression of LGBT people's rights in Russia. Despite the October 2010 European court ruling that Moscow’s relentless bans on gay pride parades violated Freedom of Assembly, Moscow’s authorities immediately set about banning a protest highlighting the plight of people incarcerated for homosexuality. Now, four Russian regions have enacted a law that could outlaw any gay-themed parades or protests entirely. A more sinister and far-ranging version of the UK’s Section 28, the law bans “homosexual propoganda” but is vaguely worded enough that it has an inhibiting effect, like Section 28 had, that far outweighs what the wording of the law would suggest. The Russian regions of Ryazan, Archangelsk, Kostroma and St. Petersburg have now all passed similar laws forbidding the “promotion” of homosexuality to minors, especially. There is quite a lot of concern as to how that would be applied to the Internet, or even to coverage of the issue in the mainstream media. The law also claims that homosexuality and pedophilia are linked. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
It may be your POV that it is sinister. Other people regard the promotional of homosexuality to minors as unethical. This article is not an appropriate place for you to promote your POV--Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
....I'm not even going to comment on that. Deep breaths, deep breaths... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Excuse me Somedifferentstuff, serious question here, do you have any idea how politics and laws in Russia work? You seem to be having a go at me for removing unsourced, inflammatory information from the lede of the article, and you also seem to be advocating for its inclusion in the article in the form that it was removed. It is original research, inflammatory, undue and it doesn't meet with the reality on how laws in Russia are introduced and passed, in particular in the federal subjects. I would suggest looking at the text which was removed, and if you continue to believe that it belongs in the article, then I think it's best if you write on different articles, because it would appear that you want to engage in advocacy and pov-pushing in this article. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 20:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

POV TAG

The lead is not written properly. Here is one example:

"Putin has overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia, ending the crisis of the 1990s."[4][5]

What? Why is there no mention of the massive protests???

Another:

While the Putin presidency has been criticised by Western observers and domestic opposition as undemocratic,[6] Putin's leadership has enjoyed considerable popularity in Russia since 2000 and continuously high approval ratings.[7]
  1. ^ a b c Moscow protest: opposition call for civil rights campaign against Vladimir Putin after his election victory, Telegraph, retrieved 11/3/2012
  2. ^ Putin election victory: What next for Russia?, BBC, retrieved 11/3/2012
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Irregularities was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Confucious was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Krone-Schmalz, Gabriele (2008). "Der Präsident". Was passiert in Russland? (in German) (4 ed.). München: F.A. Herbig. ISBN 978-3-7766-2525-7. 
  6. ^ Treisman, D. "Is Russia's Experiment with Democracy Over?". UCLA International Institute. Retrieved 31 Dec. 2007.  Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  7. ^ Индексы levada.ru

This should say, "The Putin presidency has been criticised by Western observers and domestic opposition as undemocratic." Period, next sentence. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


Massive protests? What a bizarre statement. Russia is a democracy and people have protested against things they disagreed with. The protests have been fairly large. As incidentally they have been many times in countries such as the United Kingdom, where there have been vastly bigger protests against what the government was doing many times in the past 30 years. And remember the United Kingdom is a much smaller country than Russia, so the proportion of the population protesting against the government has been much bigger. It is also worth remembering that the police in the United Kingdom sometimes kill people during protests, so there is a much bigger disincentive to protest against the government in the United Kingdom than there is in Russia.
So let's stop these double standards against Russia, and remove the grossly unfair tag.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The domestic opposition? Which domestic opposition are we talking about? The domestic opposition which is represented in the State Duma? Or the domestic opposition which is on the fringes of Russian politics? By this I mean Nemtsov, Kasparov, Navalny, Limonov, etc. It seems unusual to me that the fringes of society are deemed in this article to be "opposition" and the real opposition isn't mentioned at all. If anything, that is the POV problem with the article. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 20:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The massive protests are a joke compared to 1990s crisis which was worse than the Great Depression, and the protests have already ended while having lost in popularity and attendance towards the end. It is very uncertain whether some new protests would resume in few months. The protests had some effect on the course of the 2012 Russian presidential election campaigning, the growth of electoral transparency and Putin's ratings, but none of the protesters' demands were fulfilled except for the apparently long-planned reform of electoral legislation. Overall the significance of those protests is pretty small compared to other things discussed in the lead, it seems more a tactical episode rather than some strategic event (like election itself). And the story of those protests can't be told in full without account of much larger "anti-Orange" and pro-Putin rallies held at the same time, but the lead section has no place to incorporate all that. GreyHood Talk 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Btw, I did not see the Occupy Wall Street in the Barack Obama article, let alone its intro. GreyHood Talk 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you need to stop with this "but it isn't in the Obama FA" nonsense. Barack Obama may be a good model on which to base another FA, but the inclusion/exclusion of certain elements does not set any binding precedent for other FAs. And FWIW, the #OWS protests are not so much directed against Obama and his government, but rather the American "system" in general (notice that it is not "Occupy White House"). The recent protests in Russia have a prominent if not dominant anti-government/anti-Putin direction. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
This is not nonsense but a reasonable argument, though additional and not primary one, since indeed there should be no certain precedents for the most part (that's why I write "Btw"). The Russian protests were also initially directed against the election fraud rather than Putin, and then much larger protests were directed against what was seen as "Orange" movement, so presenting all those protests anti-Putin or placing them in the lead without additional explanations would be incorrect. GreyHood Talk 21:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
As for the balancing the mention of the western and oppositional criticism with the domestic popularity, well, that's a good way to tell the long story short and uphold neutrality. GreyHood Talk 21:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The whole article is horribly biased in a multitude of ways and deserves a POV tag. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Yet when people try to rebalance it, the usual suspects appear and delete the additions. Nuff said. (Oh, and hmm - the UK has a free media Toddy1 and is a functioning democracy - which is why the government is not terrified of small NGOs or big protests: Russia is a basketcase, with Putin having brought the state's structures to the brink of collapse so this huge country fears a few small NGOs and pretends they're working for foreign governments in order to make the people scared. How embarrassing a pitiful).
Oh, how come the 'amphora' bit doesn't mention the sham discovery? That the artifact was planted? See? More pro-Putin bias... Malick78 (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
AFAIK nobody claimed that the amphoras were a discovery. And if the UK has a free media, why they are always so biased against Russia and Putin and spread some pretty ridiculous stories, which later are refuted or never proven. As for NGO's, it is widely known that many of the Russian NGO's are financed by such American institutions as National Endowment for Democracy and International Republican Institute. And this with Russia having no counterpart to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which in effect makes the country freer than the United States in the respect of foreign influence. But recently they started to talk of making a similar legislation in Russia. GreyHood Talk 02:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the amphorae, I agree with Malick's edit.[15] These words should be kept. It reminds me how on 15 November 1902, President Roosevelt refused to shoot a tied and exhausted black bear during a hunting trip. You see things work just the same in the USA as they do in Russia. But normally we are not told about these things.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"things work just the same in the USA as they do in Russia".... in 1902. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Lothar - maybe you are right. In 1902 there was a free press in the USA just like there is in Russia today, so these things got reported. Lothar do you feel that the press are not allowed to report such incidents regarding US presidents in 2012? There have been tied-bear type incidents with the Obama regime - for example when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing apart from successfully applying for the job as US president. I thought that these episodes were reported in the USA. The ludicrous sycophancy of giving him that award was certainly reported in the Financial Times, which I think is available in the USA, just as it is all over Europe and the Middle East.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
lol "free press". Getting presented a Nobel Peace Prize is not comparable to having childish adventure-stunts staged for you, regardless of the means by which the laureate was decided. The kind of publicity stuff that TR did and Putin does to impress the public is like what one would do to entertain an 8-year-old boy. It at least shows some class and skill to get a bunch of Norwegians to fork over a prestigious prize, more than it does to have some of your countrymen/buddies fabricate some puerile "macho" exploit for you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Ha ha ha ha ha--Toddy1 (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
While I also agree with additional commentary on the amphorae episode, I disagree with using extensive citations which could instead be conveyed in a simple summary. Also, picking up the newspaper citation which says that the episode was just one in a series is pointless, because the section is devoted to this series. GreyHood Talk 00:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture policy

One of Wikipedia's policies can be seen here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images, which states, "Do not place images on the left at the start of any section or subsection. Images on the left must be placed somewhere after the first paragraph." This goes for the entire article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a recommendation, not a rule that should be used in 100% of cases. It is not always applied even in the GA/FA (see George W. Bush and Barack Obama). And applying some particlar style recommendations should not lead to the gross destruction of the article layout. GreyHood Talk 23:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The recommendation is not even consistently used in the article which they give as example. GreyHood Talk 23:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
What article are you referring to? Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Tiger stunt

The claims on tiger's death and stunt have been refuted, of course, and even Navalny has removed the mention of tiger's death from his blog post (Navalny also made a ridiculous claim that they forged the map of tiger moves - why would they need it if they clearly have some tiger which is constantly photographed?). So far the claims on the use of a different tiger and it's subsequent death were made based on attempts at photo comparison mostly by non-specialists and on hearsay. In it's entirety the story remains somewhat unclear, but the tiger's death claim is more certainly rubbish. The workers of Khabarovsk Zoo, however, support the claim of a stunt [16] (and apparently there were reports on it years before), but the tigeress which they named and which disappeared from the Khabarovsk Zoo was alive in Zelenogorsk Zoo in 2009, at least a year after [17], and her twin brother - which could also be used for a stunt - is also alive, so the claim on the tiger's death is not based on any facts and contradicts the existing evidence, which also casts some doubts on the claim that the tiger was from the zoo at all. The fact that the whole show was carefully orchestrated is not new, and the hearsay story that it was from the zoo and died had circulated before, but at least the death part is repudiated by known facts. GreyHood Talk 01:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
[18] - the blogger who claimed the death of the tiger, which led to the renewed wave of the media interest to the story, retracted his claims. They continue to insist on stunt, though. GreyHood Talk 02:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
[19] - the blogger who claimed the death of the tiger, which led to the renewed wave of the media interest to the story, retracted his claims. They continue to insist on stunt, though. GreyHood Talk 02:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • "Why would they forge the map of the tiger's movements?" - well, Greyhood, if you read your own links to the end, you'd find out here ("маршрут Аралии [... - ложный")], that a tiger from a zoo can't survive in the wild, so they had to fake it :)
  • As to your use of the word "refute" regarding the death, please use it carefully. "Refute" can mean to "prove untrue" or to "deny" - for the benefit of non-Russian speakers, none of Grey's links "prove the allegations" untrue. They just quote some people who deny the rumours. And the denials are absurd (sample quote: "не только на морде смотрятся" - ie, when comparing tigers with different stripes, you "don't just look at the faces". WHAT? If the faces are different, why compare the rest of the damn tiger? The "scientist" is clutching at straws and talking shit. As the blogger who found all this out says: "Играть в игру "найди 10 отличий" учат еще в садике." - "I learnt to play spot 10 differences in kindergarten"!).
  • As for your logic that since a photo of the tiger in a zoo in 2009 (from a school newspaper! Ha ha!) proves the tiger Putin shot didn't die soon after the stunt, it "casts some doubts on the claim that the tiger was from the zoo at all" - wow! That is logic even Putin would be proud of!
  • "AFAIK nobody claimed that the amphoras were a discovery." - well, why would you let your lack of knowledge stop you from suggesting to everyone that it couldn't have happened? :) In actual fact, Putin emerged from the water holding up two amphorae, exclaiming "Treasure!". (Reports of bulges in his trunks, and the trousers of his PR guys, have not been substantiated.) Later, however, his spokesman admitted it was staged. Time to add that. You're welcome :) Malick78 (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • And Grey's words: "the blogger who claimed the death of the tiger, which led to the renewed wave of the media interest to the story, retracted his claims" - should read " the blogger who claimed the death of the tiger, which led to the renewed wave of the media interest to the story, HAS retracted his claims." It happened today. To say he "retracts" it is a bit strong, he never clearly retracts it, he just says that others have shown evidence that the tiger survived for longer.Malick78 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The tiger in the wild is called Serga, it is a real wild tiger, and no point in faking her moves.
    • The newspaper sources already have confirmed that the tiger called Aralia is alive. [20]. GreyHood Talk 20:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • As for the map, Svetlana Mironyuk of RIA Novosti refuted Navalny's claims and called them disinformation. The data for the map is received from a state agency which manages government communications, and the map was designed by a different company, so nor RIA Novosti who manage the map neither the designers of the map could have any facts to call it fake (Navalny has claimed he talk to a man hired RIAN to make the map) - they just publish the data provided by the federal service [21]. GreyHood Talk 20:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Your link says that the tiger on the map is Ser'ga, and the tiger Putin shot was Aralia. So, the map IS fake. It's not his tiger. Now, how can we phrase that in the article so that you and Russavia don't delete it? (And the fact that Navalny was the one to bring this to attention is pertinent). Oh, and are you really giving us Facebook pages as sources now Greyhood? Malick78 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
        • The map is not fake, but apparently it shows a different tiger, not the one that was filmed. That's the point, while the claim was that there was no living tiger at all. And the refutation has been made by the RIAN chief editor. GreyHood Talk 22:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Moscow Times writes about the tiger stunt today [22]. Närking (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The WWF is clearly a pro-western, US-funded organisation participating in this smear campaign against Russia! Anything they say is biased and must be ignored! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Greyhood, could you please leave proper summaries which describe your changes: saying "fix the tiger, make the diving part shorter" when you are deleting info that shows Putin in a bad light (especially when you have, just last week, argued on this page that the article is not too long: why should it need shortening?) and then restoring bad grammar ("stunting" isn't a word) and readding a link to a school newspaper. This is not ok and makes other editors' jobs harder keeping up with your numerous edits (many of which have insufficient edit summaries). Malick78 (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not re-add the link to the school newspaper, but added a new one, which you then doubled for some reason. The reasoning for the tiger part edits was on the talk page. The shortening is need for the descriptions of the items in the list to have similar length. GreyHood Talk 22:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
They don't need similar length: some are controversial or involved deception - so need more space to explain what happened. If your edit reasons are on the talk page, then say so in the edit summaries please (other editors don't have ESP).Malick78 (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture POV problem

The number of pictures used in this article has created a neutrality issue. There is some amount of "glorification" taking place which has created a POV issue that needs to be remedied. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that on the article on George W. Bush the size of the pictures of him were set to "thumb" such that user's preferences controlled the size. Please can we have this feature on the article on Putin too. It seems a good feature.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree, it's almost like a cult page.Malick78 (talk) 16:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. it is shocking. The article on two-term president, and one term prime minister Putin has 32 photos showing him, whereas the article on two-term president of the USA George W. Bush has only 29. Those extra three photos are completely unacceptable! And poor Bill Clinton, who also served two terms as US president only has 23 photos showing him - clear evidence of a pro-Republican bias on Wikipedia! This is shocking!--Toddy1 (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
SDS and Malick: Could you provide some specific examples and explanations? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It's the style of them and their fawning undercurrent: do we need a shitty picture of his? Him in an F1 car? Why is there no picture of him exclaiming "Treasure!" with the fake amphorae? That is more instructive than the F1 one. I presume it's not here because it would be negative. And we can't have that. Do we need two photos of him as a child? Probably not. And why one of him in a fighter plane? It's repeating the F1 one surely? Showing him as a 'daredevil'. Oh, and it's even repeating a later photo of him in the cockpit of a Tupolev. And then there is a photo of him doing martial arts, skiing, on a motorbike. These are repeating the same theme. Meanwhile, the better Bush article has photos of him at important moments - signing things, etc. Our photos of Putin and Medvedev, for example, are at less significant times (one doesn't even mention the occasion). Oh, and then we have Putin in a yellow car promoting a Russian brand... but we can't even see it's Putin! He's too small!
Basically: too many show Putin being a hard man. It's his image, true, but can't we show more substance? And less insignificant stuff? Really, a junk Confucius Peace Prize? It's a joke award from a totalitarian state. Yet we dutifully include it as if it were something big... Malick78 (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The US president's Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing whatsoever was a junk award rigged for him by the Obama regime's real life equivalent of Hank Ferris. Yet this worthless junk award merits its own article!--Toddy1 (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Woosh, this Brit has no idea who Hank Ferris is and why you're mentioning him. Either way, the Nobel is big, the Confucius thingy isn't. And Norway and Sweden are democracies, China is a runaway killing machine (prisoners, miners, babies with tainted milk... you name it, they kill it). So, one gets its peace prize respected, the other... Malick78 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"The US president's Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing whatsoever was a junk award rigged for him by the Obama regime's real life equivalent of Hank Ferris. Yet this worthless junk award merits its own article!" = off-topic WP:POV, WP:SOAP. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that a group of people are applying double standards. If something happens in Russia - they they say it is bad. If much the same thing happens in USA, you say that is fine, and that anyone who notices the double standard is a bad person.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
That's a problem to take up elsewhere. This is neither the Barack Obama nor the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize article. If you want to complain about double standards, why not rustle up some RS to back you up and go contribute over there, hm? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oil&gas

This is a stub section to make sure Greyhood starts arguing about my recent edits in an orderly fashion, in the right place. Welcome, Greyhood! Yes, Greyhood, Russian economy heavily depends on oil exports, you cannot conceal this fact. But please plase write your ridiculous arguments right here. I'll read them all. Maybe. Gritzko (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Erm, ok. For what it's worth... the edits seemed fine with me.Malick78 (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No point in concealing the fact that oil and gas exports and petroleum price play important role in the Russian economy. However there is no point in highlighting this fact too much since it borders with spreading the myth that Russian economy is only oil and gas and nothing or almost nothing else.
Few facts:
    • Significant growth of oil prices started only in 2004-2005,[23] but the Russian economy started growth (and rather large growth) well in 1999-2000. [24]
    • Russian economy is not only export. The recovery of oil and gas and other minerals was only 9% of GDP in 2011 [25] and only 6.8% was oil and gas [26] (with figures not much larger in the previous years). The share of oil and gas in GDP gradually falls.
    • Unprocessed oil and gas takes only 45% of Russian exports. More of the rest are oil-based products and fuels, but this is considered manufacturing [27]. So the phrase in one of the last edits about the "oil and gas, which is the majority of Russian exports" is oversimplified, and certainly not correct if we speak about raw materials vs manufacturing.
    • Federal budget grew much faster in the last decade than oil prices [28]. And it is not clear whether "a five-fold increase in price of oil and gas" is correct description - it was four-fold increase in 2000-2011, but seven times increase in 1999-2011.
    • In 2008 only 23% of federal budget revenues came from exports oil and gas (customs tariffs), and 18% from taxes on petroleum and mining companies [29]. However, when we speak about the consolidated budget (federal budget + regional budgets) the similar figures for oil and gas would be just 14% and 10% [30].
  • All this means the following:
    • The economic growth in the early 2000s was not very much dependent on oil and gas prices. So it is incorrect to ascribe early economic growth under Putin to petroleum prices.
    • Overall, the dependence (whatever its scale) of the Russian economy on oil and gas is not Putin's invention, and the share of this sector in the Russian GDP actually is falling.
    • However, oil and gas money constituted a very large share of the federal (but not so consolidated) budget in the Putin era. This means that it is more correct to speak that it is not the Russian economy on the whole, but the federal budget which is dependent on oil and gas.
  • And a qualitative addition to the figures: Russia is a northern cold country and Russia is industrial country, which means that it needs lots of fuel for itself, but it is also a (very) resource-rich country, so no wonder that it produces much energy, have lots of facilities for that, and takes the opportunity to export abroad a lot (every country in similar conditions does that: the U.S. [31], Canada, Norway). This is not good or bad feature of the economy, just the fact. GreyHood Talk 20:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • We need to revert your additions on oil and gas simply because they are not entirely correct factually, and because all the key information in more generalized and accurate form is already in the lead. But if you have proposals to make some important additions in accurate wording, let's discuss them. GreyHood Talk 20:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
You're clownish. Gritzko (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be doing your own research Greyhood. That is a waste of time. If you have a source saying that early growth was not because of oil, that's relevant. To synthesise facts (the oil price went up in 2004, growth started in 1999) is pointless - you may miss something. Specifically, in this case, after a crash (in 1998), growth is easier (or, rather, can look more impressive). This growth in a depression can be achieved through modest oil sales. And while this may not be why the growth happened, you have to find a ref to prove that your hypothesis is true. Not rely on your own stats. WP isn't based on OR. Malick78 (talk) 12:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
BTW regarding the prices, there was a recovery in 2000-2001, compared to the dip of 1997-1999 (caused by the Asian crisis AFAIR), and then it went crazy in 2005-2008. Gritzko (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
All what I say is that growth was not because of oil only. An excerpt from Putin's biography by Richard Sakwa: Although energy exports played a critical role in Putin’s mini ‘economic miracle’, this should not be exaggerated. As one commentator put it, ‘It would be wrong . . . to state that the growth in the Russian economy in the last seven years reflects nothing else than the boom in oil prices’. (Sakwa 2008, p. 243) Then Sakwa writes about "prudent fiscal policies", "macroeconomic stabilisation" etc. And by the way you just have named one additional reason for major growth in the first few years - recovery from a low base. But even such a recovery wouldn't become possible without a stabilized situation and a competent management. GreyHood Talk 22:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Unless the recovery was driven by prior recoveries in surrounding/closely-connected economies, for example. Either way, your source doesn't pin down the cause: "prudent fiscal policies", "macroeconomic stabilisation"... are very nebulous. Malick78 (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Sakwa writes on all this in detail, and his biography of Putin is considered the best. "Prudent fiscal policies" means that more taxes became collected, which means that more money became pumped into federal budget rather than to oligarch pockets. A large part of the money was not spent immediately, but sterilized in reserves and funds, which gave instruments to macroeconomic stabilisation, most importantly currency stabilization. Inflation was curbed, budgets were taken in time and with surpluses, investments grew. The economy became more predictable and started to work properly. GreyHood Talk 22:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought the new fiscal policies were credited much more to the now sacked Alexei Kudrin than to Putin. Närking (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Whatever, Putin was the head of state then, and he made Kudrin Minister of Finance and Vice Premier. And of course all the technical work was made by the Ministry of Finance and related government agencies, the President just needed to choose the strategy, to approve and promote their actions. GreyHood Talk 23:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood - please could you add to the article the relevant arguments from Sakwa's biography with citations.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, later when I have time I've add more stuff from Sakwa. Basically there is already some relevant stuff on these points in the lead, but Sakwa as a scholarly source clearly would be better. GreyHood Talk 01:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

outregous propoganda article

we donate to Wikipedia to keep it free - and yet what we see is a major article like this - almost a flat out celebration of other ways one of the most undemocratic, and criticized leaders of the world - even if they (who criticize) all are wrong – why is there so little of it it in the article and so much of highly doubtful praise??

we have system here to block average users from editing, but what about system to curb obviously biased/corrupt people from keeping away any light from such propaganda articles? Isn't there a system for a popular vote on ban for a user from editing article or something?

there are millions of leads out in the web that prove what I said about Putin (just do some google search if you just fell from moon) - I tried to edit "Russian presidential elections 2012" by trying to add some independent, non potentially Russian government controlled sources and each time they all were removed - without giving adequate reason or even doing their edits correctly - by some people who appear almost like they are paid for it - I post this as yet another futile attempt at a start of discussion or something - if someone believes something can be done to improve this article, to be less laudatory and fight those that make it like this ("greyhood" is one outrageous example - just read some of his countless obviously one-sided comments here) - but I simply resign myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.105.8 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Are there any specific instances, where you think that the article is biased?
If there are, perhaps you could list them here, with an explanation why you think they are biased.
But please do not make personal attacks on editors who have to the best of their ability tried to make a strictly factual article.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the problem: many of us do not consider him to be aiming at the 'facts', just his version of them. Yet another passing editor has spotted this it seems.Malick78 (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said - I resign, because I consider it futile, given the large interest for some persons (driven either by monetary gains or some other more obscure motives) to make this article into glorifying propaganda, and the relatively small interest for some people for others to read and acknowledge the truth

But just to back up my opinion with some facts, although there are way too many points to list - here are few:

  • already in the heading we read «Putin has overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia ...»

If fraudulent elections, tens of thousands of protesters against Putin's regime, and almost no free press is seen as stability, then it's alright by me, but does it? The reference goes to some NYtimes article about some Chinese award to Putin (China has an even worse regime and is a partner of Russia) that attributes stability to to Chechen war - a nice way to reach stability - occupy a neighboring state?! As to the economical progress - here are few to counter that: [32] [33] [34] [35]

funnily that some of the economical growth references (nr.12) points to this page: [36]

where you can read amongst all: «The list of Putin's attacks on democracy is striking in both its range and depth. He has conducted an inhumane war in Chechnya, seized control of all national television networks, emasculated the power of the Federation Council, tamed regional barons who once served as a powerful balance to Yeltsin's presidential rule, arbitrarily used the law to jail or chase away political foes, removed candidates from electoral ballots, harassed and arrested NGO leaders and weakened Russia's independent political parties. International election observers concluded that the parliamentary vote in December 2003 and the presidential vote in 2004 were the least fair in Russia's post-Soviet history.»

  • In heading: «As Russian Prime Minister, Putin's approval rating was 52 percent in January 2012, according to the state-run pollster VTsIOM.»

Even in English Wikipedia article you can read, that VTsIOM is a state funded/managed pollster, even this particular quote itself notions to that. State run pollster in a presidential state, with high autocratic tendencies, and amongst the lowest press freedom indexes in the world (142 out of 179), as can be seen in this Wikipedia article: [37] Additionally there are sources which contest the 52%: [38] (gives 26% to Putin) And others which I don’t have time to search now, which give more realistic figures like ~50% in the 4 March elections. Even later in the Putin article itself you can read this: «One analysis attributed Putin's popularity, in part, to state-owned or state-controlled television.[230]» Nothing of this in the heading. I can confirm myself, from real experience in watching Russian TV - Putin propaganda in almost every news release Additionally having 52% in January according to official pollster, which usually gave precise election prediction - he won with 63.64% just a few month later - a remarkable progress with so many people protesting against you. So why this doubtful information has to be in the heading? (since many or most people probably read only that)

  • There is no criticism section or page as such (the closest we come to that is the "Assessments" sections, which does not give much of useful information).

It can be found somewhere long into history, but there is no sign of it now. Putin has been criticized for Chechnya war, 2008 Georgia war, impending on press freedom, lowering democracy, vote rigging, iron fist type rule etc. etc. Again you might say that they all are wrong, but such criticism is widespread and worldwide, and still very little reported here. Here is one criticism article: [39]

  • there were massive reports of vote rigging both for the Duma legislation, and the 2012 presidential elections (where Putin won), with tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of russians going into streets protesting, with massive arrests, and horrible scorn by the Putin himself

can't find a word about it here

Few sources: [40] [41] [42]

212.93.105.8 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that your objections to VTsIOM are mistaken.
  • I know that the communists are very much against VTsIOM. But as communists are against freedom and democracy, that is not surprising.
  • I also know that people planted anti-VTsIOM propaganda in an American newspaper, and this propaganda proved to be lies.
As for VTsIOM being state owned; well the BBC is state owned, state run, and state funded, and this is not seen by Wikipedia as a valid objection to regarding the BBC as a reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Britain has a Press Freedom Index ranking of 28. Russia is 142. Zimbabwe, for comparison, is 117. You can bemoan all you want how everyone has it out for Russia, but maybe the simpler answer is that there are very real problems that you just choose to ignore. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There are some problems in Russia, of course, as in most other countries. But seems that the Press Freedom Index is fairly subjective, to say the least. As the article says, it is "based on a questionnaire sent to partner organizations of Reporters Without Borders (14 freedom of expression groups in five continents) and its 130 correspondents around the world, as well as to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists... Due to the nature of the survey's methodology based on individual perceptions, there are often wide contrasts in a country's ranking from year to year." So that's pretty much dependent on which particular journalists and organisations they question, and is strongly influenced by the past reputation over the current situation. GreyHood Talk 20:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Independent pollster Levada Center, with a liberal reputation by the way, gives results of polls similar to VTSIOM when it comes to Putin's ratings of approval and trust from the population. The figure of only 26% support comes from the site SupeJob.ru, which is much less established as a polling service and is originally and primarily a webservice where people search jobs online. They write that their poll was conducted only among the "economically active population". This means that older people, pensioners, disabled persons etc. were not included. This already invalidates the claim that this result might represent the view of all Russian voters. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear - they do not explain methodology - but looks like they conducted poll online among the people registered on their site - which means that 26% is the support of Putin among economically active persons with Internet access who often change and seek jobs. Naturally, this excludes 40% Russians who still are not Internet users, non-working people (due to age or disability) and people with well-established jobs who never change them. It is widely percepted that Putin has more support among the older people, blue collars, military, police, officials than among easily job-changing managers, IT specialists etc. GreyHood Talk 20:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Small edits please, everyone

Could people restrict themselves to making edits to single sections at a time, please? This one today contained a copyvio (about the environmental activities of Putin) but also some other unhelpful edits, and could not be reverted because subsequent edits meant it couldn't be undone. If we edit small portions at a time, it would help other editors react to our edits. Continuing editing like this would be, IMHO, not constructive and against the spirit of collaboration. Persistently doing so would even be disruptive. Malick78 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Malick, why you constantly point out smallish things which you could easily fix instead of reverting and removing? There is just one sentence which has significant differences from the original - you could have added more differences if that was not enough for you - that would be more constructive and friendly. Thanks, I'll fix the wording myself, but it would be more constructive if you just do it instead of plain deletion. GreyHood Talk 21:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Copyvios are serious business around here. Make too many of them and you could find yourself banished for good; we recently lost a bureaucrat/ArbCom member in such a scandal.
And Greyhood, if your intention is to make this into a GA-, A-, or FA-class article, you should be aware that having significant conflict between editors and edit wars can cause the article to fail a review. It is in your best interests to keep the environment as collaborative as possible—and if that means taking it one section at a time, I suggest you do so. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I am always ready to discuss and resolve conflicts. I just hope that everyone would be constructive, would avoid unilateral removals of factual content justifying that by little easily fixable flaws, and would concentrate on discussing content rather than criticising other users on every possible occasion. GreyHood Talk 22:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
It couldn't be undone because subsequently Greyhood edited parts of it, stopping a revert. I'm sure he knew that would happen. Just so others know, the copyvio was this: "Putin brought together 13 countries at a November 2011 conference endorsed by World Wide Fund for Nature, and raised over $330 million in funds to preserve the the [sic] endangered species." which, I'm everyone would agree, is almost the same as the original news article: "Not only did he bring together 13 countries at a November conference endorsed by WWF last year, but he also raised over $330 million in funds to preserve the soon to be extinct species." It's not for us to clean up your mess, Greyhood. You were lazy, and it's not good enough. Malick78 (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, 1) The sentence starts differently 2) the tense of the verb was changed 3) the date was inserted amid the first bolded bit 4) full names of the organisations were used instead of the abbreviations 5) two parts of the sentence were connected differently. Not enough? Well, please, fix it yourself - that would be easier for you as a native speaker. That would be constructive and friendly. Could you do that? GreyHood Talk 22:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Again, if you think what you changed was enough - please go back and read up on what is expected of WP editors. You clearly do not know.Malick78 (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Is constructiveness and friendliness expected from WP editors? GreyHood Talk 15:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Tagging in the article

I suggest everyone to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes. The point of tagging an article is enhancing constructive work and discussion, not expressing personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

  • Dispute templates are used to alert other editors that work is needed on a certain article, and auto-categorize pages so that patrolling editors can aid their talent to the problem. No patrolling editors came here thanks to the NPOV tag which was in the article for about a month, and only one Latvian IP came here without any concrete proposals, without actual intent to engage and with a very poor argumentation. That is quite telling.
  • They should normally not be used without a clear description from the applying editor of the rationale, preferably presented in a numbered list form on the article's talk page, in a section which includes the name of the template that was applied. I request such rationales and lists of issues for any tag added to the article or one of the sections, otherwise having tags without clear constructive purpose is not helpful.
  • As these items are dealt with, it is suggested each line be struck through. Some guidance should be given by the posting editor as to what action will resolve the matter when using section and article (page) tagging templates. Without concrete proposals to amend the perceived faults tagging lacks a constructive point.
  • It is preferable that in-line templates be applied to content that is being objected to on bias or fact grounds. Inline templates are preferred because they can be attached directly to disputed sentences. Section templates follow next in preference to tagging a whole article. Tagging for the whole article without identifying concrete places and issues is not helpful. If few minor points are contested, this does not justify tagging the whole article.
  • Many editors consider use of any banner template in an article a serious measure of last resort, and would prefer other measures be exhausted before such detractions from the project be used. If one must be used, please make a thorough note listing deficiencies or items being disputed in bulleted or numbered paragraph format under a clear notice section heading on the article's talk page. The initial placement of the NPOV tag resulted in some discussion concerning images - and since then 1) some of the images were removed 2) no further concrete proposals were made or concrete major issues identified. As apparently the most productive and therefore constructive editor here, I am interested in further constructive work on the article. Name the concrete issues on talk, make concrete proposals, and we'll try to work on them and discuss them. This is called constructive work.

On this basis, I remove the NPOV tag. Do not reinstate it without following the clear recommendations of WP:TM/DISP and my requests above - we need constructive work, not disruption and making points. Name concrete issues and identify concrete places in the article, start discussing them on talk, and even without tagging (which has obviously been unhelpful in drawing more editors here) we could improve the article. GreyHood Talk 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Incoherent comment partially in German left by an IP

Ignoring unstable situaltion with Mr.Putin can cost friendly countries losing their revenue in Russia