Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 18

Wholesale deletions

Recent large number of deletions by VM are undiscussed. The sheer scope of deleting all this thought over hard work is IMHO a vandalism / edit warfare / revenge cocktail. Admin please. SaintAviator lets talk 01:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You are not seriously asking for admin help are you? If it concerns VM, steer well clear of all of them. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

See, VM suggests you get a block, and an admin jumps in to boldly threaten you with one [1] without any intervening giving of advice. Have you really learned nothing from the recent cases related to VM? Given the impossibility of improving things and the inevitability of being blocked if you continue to try, I suggest leaving the article alone. Let it turn into even more of a joke article than it already is. It is not a serious article that anyone would use for research, and I doubt if Putin is loosing any sleep over it! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

SaintAviator I'd appreciate it if you didn't describe my edits as "vandalism". That will quickly get you blocked. They were good faithed and constructive edits which removed a whole bunch of stupid junk from the article. This whole article is pretty much shit. Part of the reason it's shit is because there's so much trivial, inane, irrelevant promo puffery in it (while certain editors choose to try and remove info which is actually important, relevant and of interest to the reader under the pretense that this article is "too long", while leaving all the crap that must've been added by a some junior high kids) I'm not the only one who has noticed this, just the latest one whom you guys haven't managed to drive off with your tag team edit warring and constant drama board attacks.

Removing junk from an article is not "vandalism". Putting it back in... well, that's not vandalism either, but it is pretty disruptive. And in this particular case it appears that the only reason you put it back in was... because it was myself in particular who removed it. That's even worse, as it's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please explain (without ad hominems, if you can), how this material you removed is "shit". This wouldn't be the first time you removed material on bogus pretenses would it [2]? And of course, this doesn't apply to anti-Putin material, does it. Oh no, not at all. Athenean (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your accusation that I've EVER "removed material on bogus pretenses" is totally false. And you're trying to pretend that *I* am the one making "ad hominens"? Seriously?

And why is it shit? Because it's inane trivia and puffery. Funny that in one discussion, on one issue, you're going on about how this article is too long so we should remove some text (the kind of text that doesn't agree with your POV). And on the very same talk page, in a different discussion, on another issue, you appear to think that ridiculous promo stuff that would look embarrassing on a high school graduate's resume is just fine and should be kept. Double standard much? Make-up-any-reason-no-matter-how-contradictory-to-get-your-way much? (and of course turn around and demand that others "assume good faith" even as you blatantly try to WP:GAME'em).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Evasion, straw men, and ad hominems. Par for the course, in other words. Evasion: You were asked to justify this edit [3], you didn't (because you can't?). Straw men: I never said that the economics paragraph from the lede should be removed because the article is too long, but rather on the grounds of irrelevance to the topic of the article. Here again is my proposal for your convenience [4]. Can you point to where I said it should be removed because it makes the article too long? That's right, didn't think so. And yes, you did remove relevant info on bogus grounds (although I'm sure it was justified in your head) here [5]. You could have easily found a source for this, but no, it doesn't fit your POV, so out it goes. What else is new? Athenean (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

VM I know your modus op now. Its not time yet for your IDONTLIKEIT carpet bombing, that comes when people revert. But I see the WP:BATTLEGROUND is here. Ironic. No this is your 'Mass Deletion cycle'. Soon you will do the 'mass additions cycle'. Hoping to keep causing enough chaos to wear people down to get the article POV anti Putin. I dont believe anymore you are a team player. I gave you that faith early on. So did others. You destroyed it. Im not interested why. After all these dramas it always comes back to you. This article would settle down if you were topic banned, probably for your own good. Its not personal BTW. SaintAviator lets talk 04:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what the frog you're talking about and all you're doing is putting your own WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on display. I don't know if this article would settle down or not, but I am pretty sure that it would stay in its current sorry state or get even worse. And don't try to threaten me with some spurious topic bans which no one has even considered.

Like I said - DON'T refer to my edits as "vandalism".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You know exactly what I'm talking about. You often do mass deletes / additions. What would you call it if someone came and deleted 9000 bytes in 7 sections in a short time? SaintAviator lets talk 05:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor. You do realize that that is what actual editors do in real life, right? Remove crap from author manuscripts. The only difference is that the problems are even worse on Wikipedia, and they are even worse than Wikipedia-average on this article.

Read WP:VANDALISM and then cut it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think all the fuss / boards / time wasted over the last month with you at the centre has not damaged Wikipedia? Do you think you are disruptive? The key thing is Good Faith. Do you have it or are you gaming the system? These are the questions that can cross over into vandalism. A good faith editor after all thats gone on would have discussed. You need to self revert and discuss SaintAviator lets talk 05:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that you're neither a police interrogator nor a qualified psychologists? Do you think that asking bad faithed question of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety is not actually dishonest? Do you think I went and filed those drama board discussions myself or something or are you just being daft? Do you realize that in none of these discussion was I actually sanctioned in any way and instead most of them WP:BOOMERANGed on the person filing them? Don't you think it wise to draw a lesson from that? Do you have something better to do than waste people's time with silly questions?

Since you already reverted me and then your tag team friend jumped in and reverted some more just for the thrill of it, there's nothing I could "self-revert" is there? Stop. Calling. Other. People's. Edits. Vandalism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So No then on the remaining reverts? BTW I'm having trouble with your grammar SaintAviator lets talk 06:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Apropos nothing, there's little wrong with his grammar. And short of an issue of competence existing- and I do not think that is the case- statements such as "I'm having trouble with your grammar" constitute criticism of the editor, not content. However that's not the real problem here is it. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Easter next week to the Putinists (isn't he a pious Orthodox?), and today for the Putin haters. Or the non-Orthodox Christians, or whatever. Offered in the spirit of hope. Drmies (talk)

• I was asked to throw random blocks around. Who wants one? OK--SaintAviator for false accusations of vandalism (the header here--now tweaked by administrative fiat), Athenean for failure to AGF such as in "Putin's reaction is relevant, and was removed on bogus grounds". Volunteer Marek, I'm having a harder time finding his violations than y'all's, perhaps surprisingly: Marek seems to be doing a better job than you all playing the ball, and not the man. However, there's "you're purpose here is just to push a POV", which is a lack of AGF and thus violates NPA, and "funny, how all of sudden you've discovered the virtues of a shorter lede once it was made neutral": no sarcasm on Russian topics, please. Plus, as understandable as it is, this and this is edit warring, whether broadly or narrowly defined and governed under two sets of discretionary sanctions. Finally, there's EtienneDolet, whose revert during an ongoing RfC is disruptive.

  So, I have enough here to block four people, and if I look harder I can probably find more; I could finger Haberstr for this edit summary. I think the edit itself is fine, but the edit summary and the POV accusation is not. And Tiptoethrutheminefield, I removed that tasteless remark of yours. Now, against my better judgment and against the advice of such worthies as Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I do not wish to hand out blocks like Easter candy, but this is to say that anyone can hand out those blocks with good reason. On the bright side, the article has been trimmed some, though VM has been doing much of the heavy lifting and, I have to say, from 220k to 213k, that's minor, though it's a good sign.

  Cut down the snark, follow the accepted guidelines for RfCs. Y'all do NOT want to start reverting each other since just about every revert here is disruptive one way or another. But most of all, cut down the snark. Boris, I'm sorry. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Who asked you to hand out "random blocks"? Haberstr (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, Drmies, my edit summary was a description of how something seemed to me, and not an assumption of bad faith. There are obviously different understandings of POV/NPOV here, and edits clash for that reason. No reason to deny that, in fact it the foundation of good faith but different points of view editing. I assume, for example, that Volunteer Marek and I have differing points of view on what NPOV/POV is. ... But it is a violation of AGF to accuse others of "POV pushing," which is an assumption of bad faith.Haberstr (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, here are other examples, from March 26 & 27 on this talk page, of assumption of bad faith: you're purpose here is just to push a POV. (March 26) … your propensity to reflexively push pro-Putin POV (March 26) … then one of you (EtienneDolet, Athenean or SaintAviator) comes in and say "we're gonna do whatever we want to anyway, thank you for letting us waste your time" (March 26) … it appears that the only reason you put it back in was... because it was myself in particular who removed it. That's even worse, as it's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND. (March 27) … Double standard much? Make-up-any-reason-no-matter-how-contradictory-to-get-your-way much? (March 27) … your tag team friend jumped in and reverted some more just for the thrill of it (March 27) … But hey, I understand where you're coming from. If you're a dedicated POV pusher... (March 27).

Heck - I do not like articles over 120K and would likely trim this one that much. <g> Collect (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Just as you were writing this I jotted down the same number elsewhere as a target. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL - GMTA - see Joseph Widney for my scissors. 140K down to 34K Collect (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

How about this: leave the lede alone for now, since that really should be determined by what's in the article itself, so it makes sense to tackle it at the end. But focus on the text body and start cutting. I tried to get that going but I do have a feeling - whether this is assuming bad faith or not - that if I do it, it will be reverted simply because I'm the one making the changes, but if someone else does it, it might stick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi Drmies, I did not think this was a RfC at that time. It really wasn't obvious upon first glance without the RfC template. I thought it was a simple proposal followed by discussion. At that moment, my understanding was that there were 4 users, as opposed to 1 user, that demanded its removal. But your point is well-taken and perhaps I removed it too early. I'll have it better-timed in the future whenever it's deemed necessary. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to disengage for a while and let less-involved editors do their thing. The article definitely needs to be cut back. Athenean (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thats the first target range in bytes thats been put up. Good. Its what we need. Discussion makes things go better. Lol. Considering the turbulent history here it honestly seemed to me like something else was going on. More of the same. A simple discuss on a target range by VM, being the reason for wholesale deletions, would have got me talking. There was also a period when people here, including VM, were adding a lot of stuff, bloating it out. @Drmies: BTW I never supported the TipToe aspersion, I disagree, I think you handled this well. I appreciate you seeing the Good Faith. This thread will be the catalyst that took the worst heat out of the editing. Seriously theres not been enough honest discussion, as it then morphs into snark. This is a good start. SaintAviator lets talk 23:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am happy to see these comments; good faith is like ... oh, come up with your own damn metaphor. If you have it, you'll get more of it from others. VM's suggestion about leaving the lead alone sounds like a good plan, and then you can fight over that lead later. (BTW, I saw some back-and-forths about this economic stuff, but there's a paragraph on that in the lead of the Thatcher article, so it shouldn't be entirely left out, I suppose--remember, Thatcher is a GA.) I seriously think that the more you all manage to cut that's not essential, the less opportunity there will be to fight over particulars. Only a few days ago there was a discussion about the reliability of a Syrian blogger or something like that; that shouldn't have to happen in an article on a Russian politician. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Good Faith 'is' catchy. I now have a large store of Good Faith in you. Yes lets leave the lead till later. All the heavy fighting 'was' over these details, so your advice on reduction neatly solves it. I think that blogger too was a ref for just more non essentials. These points are wise points people SaintAviator lets talk 00:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

So. Can I remove the stuff I tried removing? It really was non-essential fluff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not the stuff I re-added yesterday. I don't agree with the characterization of it as "non-essential fluff". Athenean (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Talk detail guys. Best to be like Étienne & Collect below, takes a minute to outline the removal in a thread to keep it all clear. SaintAviator lets talk 01:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And this is how ideas that sound good in theory, end up dying in practice. Just not enough good faith to fuel that engine.

Anyway - [6] this is restoring material that's obviously written in POV way. Gazprom was created "in national interest"? Really? Care to show me where it says that in the source? I'm pretty sure that's just a straight up POV misrepresentation of the source.

This is also unnecessary and is an instance of special pleading. The source is not reliable either.

And with regard to this I thought it was agreed to remove superfluous information about the election outcomes from the lede? Oh, wait, that's right, we can only remove anything that can potentially make Putin look bad (like the fact that there was voter fraud) from the lede, but not anything that makes him look good.

Athenean, you said you were going to step back. So step back for a few days, then come back and evaluate the effort once it's had a chance, rather than just trying to short circuit it even before it can get started.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to disengage, but I was hoping you would do the same or at least focus on something else instead of trying to remove my edits the minute I said I was willing to disengage. I certainly don't agree with your "special pleading" characterization. If we're going to imply that Putin is involved in Politkovskaya's murder, then we should at least include his reaction. If you feel that source is not reliable, it's not hard to find another one. Regarding this [7], I really don't see why we should remove the 64% of the vote (I assume that's what you mean and not the other part of my edit which is just a copyedit). That's just a neutral fact, and we mention the margin of victory for the other two elections, so I really don't see the case for removing the 64%. I'm ok with the removal of the OSCE sentence (see below), but not this. Athenean (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Guys Im not feeling the love! From Drmies above 'VM's suggestion about leaving the lead alone sounds like a good plan'. Lets do that. It is a good suggestion. BTW for non minor edits a new discussion thread like below, would be best. SaintAviator lets talk 02:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Putin as fascist

An excellent RS to consult http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X16000039 .--Galassi (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Soooooooooo how is that you wanted to improve this article again? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable source from an academic expert. So what is the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

RS is RS...--Galassi (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Might I suggest that consideration of this source be deferred until after the reorganization and trimming currently in progress is complete? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure we can wait, though we'll see how quickly this reorganization and trimming proceeds; I can see it getting bogged down in more petty reverts and sniping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure we can wait, though we'll see how quickly this reorganization and trimming proceeds; I can see it getting bogged down in more petty reverts and sniping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem.--Galassi (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is just one of many publications, and it is about country, not that much about Putin. One point many analysts agree about: Putin is unimportant. Almost nothing will change in the country if he disappears one day. The "ruling elite" are Chekists. According to Putin, the decision to take Crimea was made by "five men", and this is probably true. My very best wishes (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable source from an academic expert. So what is the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a speculative OPINION PIECE by an anti-Putin and Ukrainian nationalist ideologue. See WP:BIASED. From WP:RS: "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..." I hope the preceding guides your and our thinking when we consider using a biased source.Haberstr (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "speculative OPINION PIECE" but rather a scholarly article on the nature of Putin's government. Published in a peer reviewed well respected journal. By one of the top experts on the subject matter. From Rutgers University and Harvard. "Bias" is in the eye of the beholder.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your "top expert" has openly wrote about supporting Ukrainian nationalism, you can find this in both his publications and scholarly works on the subject.

Motyl is a AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL and an ACADEMIC. You would need a major proof that he is a "nationalistic ideologue" of any sort.--14:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

John A. Armstrong’s myth-symbol paradigm of ethnicity by Anna Siewierska-Chmaj in SPRAWY NARODOWOŚCIOWE Seria nowa / NATION ALITIE S AFF AIR S New series, 46/2015: 64–71 DOI: 10.11649/sn.2015.034 writes about Motyl's open support for Ukrainian nationalism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That source most certainly DOES NOT say that Motyl is a "nationalistic ideologue" or that there is "Motyl's open support for Ukrainian nationalism". In fact, Motyl is barely mentioned in that source. This is a reminder that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

His ideology is obvious on his World Affairs page[8], but what matters is that this new contribution is just another speculative opinion piece. There is a wide array of opinion on Mr. Putin, much of it by professors and intellectuals with various ideologies. Why not start a new subsection called "Putin as Russia's Savior" too? Because, like a "Putin as Fascist," it would be WP:UNDUE.Haberstr (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what his "ideology" is and as far as the reliability of the source that's sort of irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is what Per Anders Rudling writes about Motyl "The perhaps most intelligent denial of the OUN’s fascism and collaborationism is made by a political scientist, Alexander Motyl. Motyl’s argument differs from the crude denial of the OUN-affi liated historians. It is instead based upon the OUN’s failure to establish a state. While Motyl admits the OUN’s enthusiasm for a fascist Europe, its fascist intentions, he presents fascism is a model of organizing an existent state. This interpretation shifts the focus away from ideology to measurable achivement. Fascism, according to Motyl’s interpretation, becomes primarily an issue of whether a movement is successful in achieving its goal of controlling a state"(...)While Motyl’s stringent criteria for fascism disqualifi es the OUN, he defi nes contemporary Russia as an “unconsolidated fascist state." He presents himself as “a long-time critic of the Bandera movement,” yet his denial of

the OUN’s fascism and collaboration has become an important component of the narrative of diaspora nationalists and pro-OUN intellectuals. It is diffi cult to escape the notion that a definition of fascism which includes Medvedev’s Russia, but not Bandera and Stets’ko, is tailored to fi t the self-image and ideological needs of a community which to various degrees identifies with the pro-OUN tradition"[9].--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC) The salient part appears to be:

Fascism may be defined as a popular fully authoritarian political system with a personalistic dictator and a cult of the leader

Which appears to include the USSR for most of its existence in the first place, Castro's Cuba, Mao's China, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Maduro's Venezuela and a host of other countries and eras. Are you sure you think this is a prudent course to follow? Especially since it offers a view:

" Not being a type of group, disposition, politics, or ideology,

Which does not appear exactly congruent with the usual usage of the now-dysphemistic term. Collect (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, first that's original research. A reliable source gets to define "fascism" however it wants. Second, that's only the abstract. By virtue of it being an abstract, I'm sure it doesn't present the full definition and view of the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't simply say "use any marginal piece of subjective opinion, commentary or speculation that happens to appear in a newspaper or even an academic publication", nor does it operate in a vacuum or as a trump card, however useful it might be for people trying to score points while suggesting they are simply following WP rules to pretend that it does. Just because a publication or author may be said to be "reliable" in a WP or even general sense, it doesn't mean everything recorded in it or by them becomes an encyclopedic fact or even particularly significant. Opinions, assessments and judgments, however reputable or otherwise the publisher and however eminent or otherwise the holder of them, remain opinions, assessments and judgments – and often heavily biased, minority or even fringe ones (yes, even among academics). Putin's Russia is not normally described as "fascist" as the term is formally understood. And as it happens, even the piece being cited, in its abstract, talks about a "reconstruction" of the concept of fascism, which in turn "may plausibly" allow the label to applied to Putin – which is all a bit flimsy. N-HH talk/edits 14:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not "opinion", it's scholarly work. It's not "marginal", it's a publication in a well respected, peer reviewed, journal, by one of the top experts in the literature. Who's a professor at Rutgers University. It's only "opinion, assessments and judgment" in the sense that ALL scholarly work is "opinion, assessments and judgment". As to how Putin's government is described in the literature - actually there's a good bit of the debate in the literature as to whether it's "fascist" or something else, like "neo-imperialist". So the term does actually appear fairly frequently as a description. This particular article represents one particular side in that debate ("Putin is not just another authoritarian neo-imperialist but actually fascist" vs. "it's crypto-fascism or quasi-fascism, but not quite there... yet") but that means that that view should be represented along with others (and of course attributed).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Motyl openly wrote about his support for Ukrainian nationalism as construction myth of Ukrainian state. He is not a neutral author.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not true. Please remember that BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Before trying to insert this variant definition of "fascism" here as a valid claim of fact, I suggest you see how far you get inserting this source into the Fascism article as a redefinition of the term found there, as a claim of fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyway, for the moment I haven't inserted anything in the article. Mostly because on its own, with just this source, that would indeed create a POV problem. This is because this is part of a larger academic debate and to balance it we would need to have the publications from the other scholars who are working in this literature. I do strongly object however to trying to dismiss this source out of hand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What you said is all true and should be applied to attempts to introduce the figures and claims of the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" as well.Dorpater (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, that article is from a special issue of a journal which is dedicated to scholarly assessment of Putin's government "Special Issue: Between Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and Fascism in Russia: Exploring Vladimir Putin’s Regime" [10]. I think that using scholarly works in this Wikipedia article would be a huge improvement upon its current state and sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is valid source by a highly qualified historian, Alexander J. Motyl. However, some other historians are talking not about fascism, but about Corporatism. That's why Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky called their book (which describes the history of Putin coming to power) "The Corporation" [of Chekists]. Something about Corporatism in Russia, where Putin is allegedly the head of the "Corporation" should be included I think. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Motyl is a supporter of Ukrainian nationalism so he is hardly a neutral author here(John A. Armstrong’s myth-symbol paradigm of ethnicity

by Anna Siewierska-Chmaj in SPRAWY NARODOWOŚCIOWE Seria nowa / NATION ALITIE S AFF AIR S New series, 46/2015: 64–71

DOI: 10.11649/sn.2015.034)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That source most certainly DOES NOT say that Motyl is a "nationalistic ideologue" or that there is "Motyl's open support for Ukrainian nationalism". In fact, Motyl is barely mentioned in that source. This is a reminder that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. This is in fact your THIRD reminder.

Also, can you please format your comments correctly as they're pretty hard to read. Additionally I don't see the need to make the same comment three different times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As for the comment above – "It's not 'opinion', it's scholarly work. It's not 'marginal', it's a publication in a well respected, peer reviewed, journal, by one of the top experts in the literature" – academics like everyone else have and express opinions in their work, and sometimes those opinions are indeed marginal in terms of the mainstream consensus. This is a rather uncontroversial point, one would have thought. The wider point was simply that there is a difference between verifiable "facts", which expertise and research can help to establish, and broader assessments or opinions about more subjective issues. There is. I'm glad you also accept that the Motyl piece should not be used on its own, for NPOV reasons if nothing else – but there was none of that nuance when the link was initially posted here by someone else. Obviously academic works as a general rule are indeed preferred as sources, but the other risk with some of the cited material is that it is probably a little too esoteric for a generalist encyclopedia page. N-HH talk/edits 15:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, no. This whole issue published by Science (journal), including the publication by Motyl must be used on this page. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss mainstream academic research. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not being "dismissed", people are just querying – with good reason – whether it is an "excellent", "mainstream" or definitive source that simply "must" be used on this page. Even if it is used, the question is how exactly, especially in terms of placing what Motyl and others might believe and say in a broader context and with any countervailing opinions. Nor, as it happens, is it "published by" the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It appears to be a volume of Communist and Post-Communist Studies, which happens to be available via a database called "ScienceDirect". N-HH talk/edits 18:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition, you only have to read the introduction to the volume to see where it is coming from, when it talks of a "misplaced hope" that Russia was "in transition to a system that would come to eventually resemble Western democratic market economies"; and for an acknowledgement that the "Putin as fascist" theory specifically is not only very much not "mainstream" but not even being explicitly argued: "Putin's political system could evolve into what, still only a minority of scholars such as Motyl, 2007, Motyl, 2010 and Motyl [sic], 2016 argue increasingly resembles a fascist system". N-HH talk/edits 18:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is ScienceDirect, well known for publishing main stream academic research. Yes, these sources can and possibly should be used. Yes, a lot of info from the publications (there are several of them) is relevant to this page. This is all. No judgement what exactly should be included at the moment. BTW, the comparisons with other historical figures are abundant in publications. This is not just a slur, as might be with respect to some other politicians. Such comparisons are based on historical analogies with Germany before WWII and made by respected historians (as in this issue). This is actually a common place. Nothing special. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

ScienceDirect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Motyl

I have found several scholarly sources that led me to cast doubt on assertion that Motyl is a reliable author in this regard. I quoted some above, but I think it is best to list them.

• Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe, Universität Hamburg; Per Anders Rudling, Universität Greifswald.

Review of Krytyka. Hefte 3-4; 7-8; 9-10 [11] "For his “correction” of Snyder Rusnachenko relies on Alexander Motyl, who since the 1980s has been an active denier of the fascist nature of the OUN (no. 9-10, p. 7)"

• The Carl Beck Papers in Russian & East European Studies Number 2107, Per A. Rudling The OUN, the UPA and the Holocaust:

A Study in the Manufacturing of Historical Myths[12] "Andreas Umland has taken Motyl to task over his use of this terminology. “If we would apply Motyl’s loose conceptualization of fascism to contemporary world history, we might fi nd so many ‘fascisms’ that the term would lose much of its heuristic and communicative value. . . . Motyl’s comment is in so far unconstructive as he deprives researchers of Russian nationalism of an important analytic tool.”

"Motyl elegantly, and implicitly, divorces the OUN from its ideological kin—the Ustaše, the Hlinka Guard, Mussolini’s Fascists, and Hitler’s National Socialists. Referring to Ukrainian Nazi collaborators would be impossible twice over, according to this line of reasoning" "While Motyl’s stringent criteria for fascism disqualifi es the OUN, he defines contemporary Russia as an “unconsolidated fascist state.”243 He presents himself as “a long-time critic of the Bandera movement,”244 yet his denial of the OUN’s fascism and collaboration has become an important component of the narrative of diaspora nationalists and pro-OUN intellectuals"

• Marco Carynnyk[13][14]

"By arguing that the involvement of the OUN in the Holocaust was minimal Dr. Motyl is absolving it of its participation in the killing of Jews."

"Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist: Fascism, Genocide, and Cult" by Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe page 522 ""In his evaluation of Bandera and the Ukrainian nationalism, Motyl did not discuss such aspects as fascism in the OUN or the pogroms in 1941. He called the ethnic cleansing in 1943-1944 the "Ukrainian-Polish violence in Volhynia", which, in his view had nothing in common with the ethnic violence conducted by the Ustasa and should be compared instead to the violence of the "Irish nationalists against the British". In addition to romanticizing the OUN-UPA's violence...""

The above leads me to conclude that he definitely is not a reliable author on this topic.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with inserts like Fascism and this guy Motyl is its like the SOHR or Autism argument. It should not be happening on a bio page. Its Tabloid crap. With denials and such its also a hell of a lot of 'bytes' not needed. 'Less and succinct' not 'what if and maybes' is whats required. SaintAviator lets talk 22:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A peer reviewed academic journal is not a tabloid, and a paper in said journal by an academic from Rutgers and Harvard is not "crap". It's a reliable source. Likewise, an organization that is extensively cited as reliable by numerous prestigious media outlets isn't "tabloid" or "blog" or "marginal". It's a reliable source. You can, if you wish to, always bring up this issue at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Motyl is a respected academic published in a high profile, mainstream academic source. Stop pushing the Motyl WP:BLPVIO envelope here, MyMoloboaccount. And, SaintAviator, this is by no means 'tabloid' in any shape or form: it is undoubtedly an RS. The only question is whether it is considered to be DUE or UNDUE for Putin's bio. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

HI Iryna Harpy I always like what you bring. You said with style what I tried to say. I'll try again. One can ref loads of stuff, but should we? My current focus is trimming as talked about. So IMO, No. Even though Motyl be a Saint. SaintAviator lets talk 23:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Motyl's not a saint, a motyl is a butterfly. Which I guess, if you want to get poetic about it, is like a flying saint. A... saint aviator.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• It has been suggested this be bracketed until the biography has been dealt with to some extent; that's probably prudent. However, I'm a bit concerned to see a few misunderstandings here and a few hasty judgments. "Tabloid crap" is nonsense, and not just demeaning but also showing a lack of something: this article is by an academic, in a peer-reviewed publication. It cannot be dismissed as an "opinion piece" or whatever. That doesn't mean it should be included, but criticism of the publication, or criticism of the author as supposably a nationalist or ideologue of this or that kind, that's really neither here nor there. This publication is an RS, and there's little that can be done about that. It cannot be wished away, even if the author is a nationalist--the fact remains that the publication was peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.

  As for "this is not what fascism means"--if the author was far off the mark it wouldn't have been published; again, that's really sort of all there is to it. If y'all want to leave this for later that's fine, but don't pretend this can be wished/whisked away as partisan or unreliable or fringe. And yes, please don't go around accusing Motyl of things that the BLP won't allow. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There's also the broader misunderstanding about "reliable sources", which crops up all the time on contentious pages. Motyl's published works, like those of most other academics, are "reliable" in the WP sense. That doesn't mean he is "right" in everything he says or that he is even discussing things where anyone could be proved "right" anyway. All the above shows is that – shock – academics disagree about a lot of things, especially when it comes to interpretation, and can also be as partisan as you like, just like WP editors (albeit usually from a more well-informed perspective). Citing such disagreement to say he is "unreliable" or wrong and hence cannot be used on the page is as misguided as saying that any argument he makes simply "must" be used as if it were unimpeachable. And no it's not tabloid crap or a newspaper opinion piece, but the stuff about fascism in particular is opinion about a fairly arcane aspect of this for a generalist encyclopedia and, as noted even in the introduction to the volume in question, not mainstream opinion at that. The fact that someone might hold marginal opinions on subjective topics is no bar to being published. N-HH talk/edits 08:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tabloid Crap was my bad. My post after that was better. I just think yes its Rs, he may even be genius, but should we go there? Its still a big article SaintAviator lets talk 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing, User:SaintAviator. User:N-HH, I don't want to drag this out--I think it should be left for later--but the very fact that something is published in an academic journal typically means it's not a "marginal opinion". The word "opinion" already is a misnomer: "theory" is a better term. (I live in a state where evolution is taught with a disclaimer; I know a little bit about this stuff.) Again, that doesn't mean it should be included, but it's not fringe, nor is fascism/the accusation thereof "arcane". Much will depend on whether this is the only scholar saying something like this. But again, it's probably best left until later, and then this discussion can be rebooted, groundwork for a positive conversation having been laid here, and misunderstandings gotten out of the way. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, in that this meta-debate is all getting a little theoretical and abstract until someone suggests in more detail what they actually want to use this piece for on the page (although the header and OP in this sub-section might give a clue, perhaps). The problem for me – to continue it briefly – is that this is a pattern I see in how people try to use source material across WP pages. They cherry-pick something that buttresses their particular agenda and then try to claim "RS" as a trump card, when things are of course more complicated than that.
Again, as a general point, I'd repeat that academics can and often do hold views that are at the margins of mainstream consensus and get them published (I'm not sure I ever applied the term "fringe" specifically to this). Publishers don't vet or assess views in quite that way, and sometimes it's in their interest of course to print the controversial (in this case even the introduction to the journal, which I quoted above, acknowledges that Motyl is in a "minority", possibly of one, with his fascism theory). Indeed, it is when such ideas go mainstream that science, in particular, advances of course.
And talking of science, the comparison with evolution doesn't quite work: evolution is about verifiable facts and is not described as a "theory" in the sense that it is speculative; this is about subjective classification and the use of terminology, which ultimately is opinion or, as I also said, interpretation. Evolution is either correct or not; by contrast there is no objective "truth" as to whether Putin is objectively a fascist or not. Further to that, my point about arcane is that some of the scholarly debate about the "nature of Putinism", whether it is fascism or anything else, is a bit too high-level for an encyclopedia biography, especially one that most people seem to agree is too long. Again, I don't think that's that controversial an observation. N-HH talk/edits 16:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Way too many pictures in this article....

According to the Wikipedia guideline WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Currently this article has too many pictures that have no relevance to Putin. What is the relevance of having a picture of one of his friends? So we can recognise his friends if we happen to be in the same street? Also to many pictures of Putin meeting foreign politicians. He is the president of Russia; the president of Russia meeting foreign politicians is not significant. I rather have somebody with more insight then me which pictures are significant to delete these unnecessary pictures. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the picture of his best friend. So I removed it. There was three photographs of anti-Putin protestors up until recently (I removed one of them). That's WP:UNDUE, especially considering how popular he is (80%+ approval rating). Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• His very high ranking are probably fake. This has been explained in a RFE/RL publication by a Russian politician that you just removed from the page [15]. Did you actually read the publication you removed? My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not my underlining point, and I don't think that was ever relevant to the topic of discussion here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

RFE/RL is considered a reliable source? Athenean (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you read this publication? My very best wishes (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I updated the ratings image through commons. It was outdated. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That 80% number is outdated, but indeed there is no need for a lot of anti-Putin pictures in this Wikipedia article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was actually referring to his approval ratings at the time of the protests. Yes, too many photographs of anti-Putin marches. It needs to be sorted out. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What are these "anti-Putin photographs"? Can you please enumerate them? I'm not seeing any. Is the lighting bad in some of the portraits or something? Even before your recent extensive, and un-discussed changes (say, this version) all I can find is a SINGLE - as in one, the integer less than two and more than zero - photo of some anti-Putin demonstrators. Is that what you mean by "too many". Or do you just mean "even one is too many"? Not clear on this. If not... can you enumerate all these "too many anti-Putin photographs"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I'm also trying to figure out what "anti-Putin photographs" are. The picture with Medvedev, who still has his full head of hair, maybe that one. Please, let's not get silly. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: by anti-Putin photographs I meant the photographs of anti-Putin marches. But I could see why it can be interpreted as such, so I updated my comment to clarify that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. For better or worse my immediate comparison is the GA Margaret Thatcher which--again, for better or worse--has 17 photos, none of them "anti-Thatcher". One could expect an image or two of the massive protests, but they're not there. Perhaps that article needs one. Ours has 33, none of them negative, unless I missed something. Is the photo that Marek signaled gone? I can't open that version right now or my browser will crash, haha. I mean, wouldn't someone expect a Pussy Riot photo in here, maybe? But I'm sure you all can agree on that one way or another. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, if you're going to change your comments, please use strike through like this: "too many anti-Putin photographs too many photographs of anti-Putin marches (corrected after VM pointed out my error)" rather than changing your comment outright. Otherwise the comment of the person replying to you might no longer make sense.

I'm still wondering where the plural "photographs" came from, as there was only one (out of something like 40) photo of anti-Putin march. And yes, it got removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't really an "error", it just needed further clarification. At any rate, at the time I removed the photograph, there were three photographs of anti-Putin/opposition marches; two of which were from the same rally (February 2012). I removed one of two February 2012 rally photographs. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether it was an "error" or not is not the issue. The issue is that you shouldn't alter comments you made previously after they've been replied to. That confuses the conversation and it makes it seem like someone was responding to something you didn't actually say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you should take up your own advice and strike the "corrected after VM pointed out my error" accusation if you indeed feel that it being an error never even mattered in the first place. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You made a comment. I replied to that comment. You went back and changed your original comment so that it *looked like* my reply didn't make sense. You shouldn't do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I already said that I updated my comment below Drmies' and your comment. So I don't think that's an issue. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

But you didn't strike through your original comment. I don't like it that you're making it look like I'm replying to something which you didn't actually say. Whatever. Just don't do it in the future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There have also been pro-Putin marches over the years. We could include one of each. Or none. Athenean (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) If we're going to have only one pic per section (presumably), I think it's POV to have as the only pic in the "Third term" section a protest. Even more so considering Putin's high approval ratings. Athenean (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to have only one pic per section how exactly would you balance out a singlepic? Or if we put in the 13th, or whatever, pic of Putin taking oath of office - but only once per section! - how would you balance that? We can't exactly include one half of a protest pic and one half a "Putin taking the oath" pic can we? And of course what matters for POV is not "pic per section" but rather the overall distribution of photos. I don't think a single - one! - photo of anti-Putin demonstrators is so nefarious that its very presence will skew the article, pollute its purity, and turn it into an iniquitous decretum.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Having one pic per section is not a rule set in stone. I think we can make an exception to that rule so as to resolve this issue once and for all. As of now, I too think that a picture of a couple thousand protestors is undue for that section. What we have now is just one picture of him taking the presidential oath with Yeltsin in 2000. Thereafter, we see a picture of protests. That just doesn't properly signify the recurring election victories and high approval ratings he has garnered over the coming years. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

So the idea is that if he were elected president 100 times in a row, we'd do well to just ignore the MOS guidelines against having 100 pictures of the same subject, and include all 100 oath, one per section describing his term of presidency, just to ensure that readers can correctly gauge the height of the accomplishment? LjL (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) @ VM: It would be best if you toned down the sarcasm. Anyway, we don't have to have only one pic per section. I don't think that's going to work, and it's going to cause a lot of problems. We can easily achieve balance by adding a pic of a pro-Putin demonstration. Athenean (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Athenean but I did not say anything sarcastically. Everything I said, I meant literally. Including one picture of an anti-Putin demonstration is not going to ruin this article. So, please either a) point out which part of my comment is actually sarcastic or b) strike your comment, as unfounded accusations can be regarded as personal attacks. You are choosing to discuss editors rather than contents, which is explicitly something Drmies warned everyone about. Although, I guess, at the end of the day, it's really up to you if you want to heed that advice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the great advice, but I wasn't being sarcastic. A single pic of anti-Putin demonstrators in a section that actually discusses these demonstrations, is not UNDUE. And it doesn't need to be "balanced" by anything, seeing as how many other pictures there already are in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Further, not having any such picture would strike me very much as POV, as surely, Putin can't be the only world leader ever not to have been protested... or one of the very few Wikipedia can't afford to showcase pictures of protests against. LjL (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is whether it is due or not. For example, George W. Bush has had one of the lowest approval ratings in the history of America. Yet, he doesn't have one anti-Bush protest picture in his article (there's an anti-war one but I don't think that counts). On the other hand, we got Putin here who has a 90% approval rating, who until recently, had 3 protest pictures in his article. Something about that is just not right. This is not to say I am against placing any anti-Putin protest picture, as long as it is balanced out of course. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Does it have 3 protest pictures in the article *now*? No? Is anyone here saying that there should be 3 protest pictures in the article? No? So ... I'm unclear on the relevance of that observation. And I'm guessing the reason why it had 3 protest pictures before is because it had 457 pictures in total, or something like that, so 3 as a proportion of the overall number wasn't actually that many.

And please please please go and put some anti-Bush protest pictures in that article. I'll click that <thank> button and even revert anyone who tries to revert you (but only once because edit warring is bad you know!).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd certainly expect the Bush article to have a protest against him depicted... hell, that was one contested president. Though mostly (at least internationally) because of the war, so it sort of makes sense for the protest pic to be one concerning the war. (What is Putin most contested/protested about?) LjL (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no doubt that an anti-Putin picture needs to be in the article as well. Let us decide on which one to use. Dorpater (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My point about the 3 anti-Putin protest photographs was that there was a false balance when it concerned the article as a whole. That false balance is still reflected with just one photograph of anti-Putin protests, as opposed to the even larger pro-Putin marches that accompanied them (i.e. the "Anti-Orange" people). It was hardly a lopsided anti-Putin rally as the article now deceivingly makes up believe. Even the 2011–13 Russian protests has that balanced out. Hence, we should be doing that here as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It was hardly "false balance". And it hardly is "false balance". A single picture (or even three out of oodles) and a few lines about the protests is hardly unbalanced, at least for a neutral kind of a scale, given the size of this article (even after the deletions). "non-false balance" does not mean "absence of anything which is critical of Putin".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, we can't ignore the fact that counter-demonstrations took place. Will add that to the article shortly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We are not ignoring it, are we? It's in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, great! Much more balanced now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

But I do retain my initial concerns regarding the photographs. There's still a false balance when it comes to just one photograph of protestors. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

undue additions which re-bloat the article

While it makes sense to include a (short) list of important recognitions, these additions are a bit trivial. In particular, honorary degrees for famous people are handed out like phone numbers at a singles bar which means that most of them are not really notable.

As far as this "Angel of Peace" medal goes, the listing fails to mention that 1) this was part of a traditional, diplomatic, exchange of gifts, not an actual recognition of anything, 2) the fact that it is supposed to represent "solidarity between populations" can actually be taken as a subtle - and diplomatic - criticism of Putin, not an honor. Also, if this medal is really that big of a deal, why can't I find it mentioned in the biography of any other person on Wikipedia?

In other words, this text is WP:UNDUE and since we're trying to cut down the article to manageable size, it doesn't belong there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that the "Angel of Peace" medal is undue. It's a medal that is widely sourced and bestowed by perhaps the most notable person in the world. But yeah, these honorary doctorate stuff I find in BLPs everywhere. That includes not just politicians, but academics, writers, and journalists as well. But I guess the argument can be that it's more relevant for academics than politicians? However, I don't know if that is the case at heart. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No one's questioning the fact that the medal was given or that the pope was the one that gave it. What's at issue is that it's not important enough to include, as it's pretty much given to every head of state that visits the Vatican more or less as a formality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, not everyone receives that medal. If that's the case, then the President of Portugal, who recently visited, should have received one. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the importance of the visit. But if this medal was significantly notable, it would be here, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't measure notability based off of Wikipedia categories and such. I ran into that issue just recently actually. Serbia's highest distinction didn't even have a category, so I went along and made one. I think I'll do the same for the Angel of Peace. But I'd rather start with making an article first, then moving on with the category. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This story and this story give some context on the issue. Apparently the Angel of Peace is not a medal in the sense of an award but a medallion, something like a St Christopher. So it was a nice gesture of goodwill and hopes for peace; as the second story tells it, "one of his customary gifts to visiting presidents." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The absence of the word dictator / autocrat

The article should state that Putin has been labeled a dictator and/or an autocrat. No, it should not say in the lead "he is a dictator of Russia", but just like with articles on many other figures, this should be there along the lines of "Some have described him as a dictator and an autocrat". There's plenty of non-fringe, reliable references for this: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Those are mainstream sources, and opinions of major political figures (Dalai Lama for example). Again, I am not saying we should say Putin is a dictator / autocrat, but the very spirit of NPOV demands we note some major and reliable outlets describe him as such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The only way to make it happen & get it to stick is via an RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Putin has never won an election so the article should describe him as a dictator. (109.159.10.245 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC))

I agree and I don't think an RfC is necessary since this can be very very very very well sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Here is what I think about this page. The issue is not the wording ("dictator" or not), but providing an adequate description of everything he was able to accomplish as a head of the state. More precisely, a brief description/summary of everything important what sources describe as his personal accomplishments. What I mean? For example, (a) suppression of political freedoms in the country (that should be described on this page instead of calling him a "dictator" or referring to another "human rights" page), wide-spread corruption (see refs in my previous comment), wars in Georgia and Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, economic and political isolation of Russia, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Call me biased, but I think that My very best wishes's (yeah, suck on that group genitive!) note on books should be very well taken. Books, academic articles, newspaper/magazine articles--in that order. But I think that goes for every topic. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As a widely held view (the authoritarian character of Putin's regime) it should be noted in the article per WP:NPOV. Dorpater (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It is what it is. Personally I like a strong dictator. Im in the West and our democracy is a sham. So, yeah bring it. SaintAviator lets talk 00:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There are book sources too, ex. Aaron Rosenberg (1 September 2007). Vladimir Putin: President of Russia. The Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 83–. ISBN 978-1-4042-1903-8., Tatyana Tolstaya (18 July 2012). Pushkin's Children: Writing on Russia and Russians. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 148–. ISBN 0-544-08003-3., Stephen K. Wegren; Dale R. Herspring (16 August 2009). After Putin's Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-7425-5786-4., Steven Rosefielde (2005). Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower. Cambridge University Press. pp. 68–. ISBN 978-0-521-83678-4. - and there are others. Mainstream newspapers cited above should suffice. It is clear that labeling Putin as an autocrat and dictator is not a fringe, niche view but a relatively common description. Not-neutral, of course, and we should be careful with the wording - as I noted above, only some use those terms, and they are clearly controversial. Those views, however, should be present here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• It should be in but briefly. The reality is that while Russia has elections and Put's is very popular the ruling powers in Russia wont risk Western style democracy for the singular reason its easily bought i.e US congress. The West has tried to muscle into Russia via NGO's, now tightly controlled by Russia. There is no doubt a small group in Russia make the decisions and this is found in RS by guys like Motyl etc, who identify it as dictatorship, autocracy etc. The main reason for this tight control is Russia's elites see Russia as a nation / culture being threatened by NATO / Western interests and they can achieve a lot to resist this via a largely benevolent (Unless your against them) autocratic state i.e rapid large scale military modernization, S400, S500, Su35, Pak50 etc. SaintAviator lets talk 08:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone noticed, but it was added yesterday by VM. Athenean (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I did see it, I'm saying its reasonable and why i.e no reverts from me. SaintAviator lets talk 08:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to argue against the fact that Putin has been described as an autocrat or a dictator, and the page should acknowledge that, as it now does, but it's also hard to see the latter in particular as anything other than an exaggeration, and one often set out hyperbolically by political opponents. The term has a specific meaning after all, which for all his faults, Putin surely falls short of. Also it's hard to escape the observation that rather than people asking "what does the overall record say about this person?", we instead get a succession of talk page sections which assert a negative characteristic and then say "here's a couple of sources which say as much". From autism to fascism to dictatorship, we seem to be starting from an assumption and then citing evidence that appears to back it up. N-HH talk/edits 21:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Salient point N-HH. This dynamic is the core driver in our recent edit wars. Let me explain. Hes not a Dictator per se, or as you put it, its an exaggeration. He has done tremendous good for Russia, rebuilding Russia from the dark post Soviet era, recently pounding Daesh etc. Hes smart, decisive and on and on. Editors can find loads of RS showing this, and do, and put it in. But theres the tight Govt control, the Crimea issue, Ukraine etc, and the other editors put in this stuff. Both sides of editors feel they are right. Hes bad vs hes Good. So it has to be about balance. The key is Russia is at war, Putins group knows it. Its a new type of war, like but different to the Cold War. Arms build ups, proxies, power plays, economic warfare, alliances, nuclear potential etc. Its real and dangerous. Putin and his group are doing what they know they have to do. If we have this wider view, both sides can be right. SaintAviator lets talk 23:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation of the source

About this sovereign democracy business.

Here's what the article said before I toned it down a bit:

"Putin's administration has often been described by various academics as a "sovereign democracy"."

Hmmm. Various academics. Here is what the source given as citation actually says:

"Vladimir Putin’s conceptual statements and his annual state of the nation addresses to parliament, as well as statements and deliberations by government officials, pro-Kremlin ideologists and members of the presidential team, who expound on the topic of what the government wants, are significant in analyzing the current political process and simulating the future. They come up with phrases like ’sovereign democracy,’ ’managed democracy,’ ’a doubling of GDP,’ ’construction of an efficient state’ and ’national projects.’ In spite of their bombastic nature, they are not all signs of an over-exuberant existence of Putin or his associates but, rather, a “binder solution” essential for the structure of the state."

So it's not "academics" which describe Russia's system as "sovereign democracy" but rather "pro-Kremlin ideologists and members of the presidential team", who are making "bombastic" pronouncements.

And this is putting aside the question of the reliability or notability of this source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, "sovereign democracy" is nonsense invented by Vladislav Surkov. It does not belong to the page. P.S. I am sorry for not editing this page. Among other reasons, I usually edit only BLP pages of people who are interesting to me, and this is not one of them. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there are three cited sources for the content, including a book by the academic and writer on eastern European affairs Richard Sakwa. That said, while the one – relatively obscure – source misleadingly singled out as if it were the only one cited and as if, in fact, we should instead follow its polemical tone is particularly hostile to the term, even Sakwa puts the term in quotes and credits it to Surkov. Hence, while a rephrase is clearly justified, the page should in fact probably describe this as a self-description or directly credit Surkov rather than talk vaguely about "some commentators". N-HH talk/edits 21:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Or just omit it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ratings, polls, and assessments

A very bulky and fractured, oddly obscure at times section was adding considerable bytes so it was trimmed down. SaintAviator lets talk 07:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've divided this disjointed section into two sensible sections: "Polls and Rankings" and "Assessments." Polls and Rankings is fine and has been made chronological, but perhaps it is too large. Assessments needs to be balanced and dominated by RS-centered mainstream consensus. That he's a dictator is not the mainstream consensus point of view. As I've said before, most Western publications rate Putin's government as 'authoritarian' and/or 'authoritarian democratic'. Inside Russia, the consensus may be similar on 'style of governance', but with the VERY important caveat that many if not most think that he saved Russia from disintegration. Haberstr (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Private border crossings in Russia?

Quote: Владимир Путин (2006): "Раньше мы в анекдотах только слышали о приватизации метра государственной границы. Но мы рождены, чтобы сказку сделать былью, и из 400 с лишним пунктов пропуска 300 с лишним государству сегодня не принадлежат."

What is Putin talking about? Is it worth mentioning in "Borders of Russia"? - üser:Altenmann >t 04:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Second presidential term (2004–2008)

Trimming article for length: A lot of No Ref lines. Trimmed for length. Too wordy. Some trivia and bloat. SaintAviator lets talk 05:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Third presidential term (2012–present

Trimming article for length: Very similar to above plus weighted towards trivia i.e. tiny % protested SaintAviator lets talk 05:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

comment is free

Re this - that's not an author writing in the Guardian except in a very loose sense. Comment is free are basically self-published, but editor approved extended comments. It's essentially a group blog hosted by the Guardian.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is interesting, but it's just your opinion. If Seumas Milne's view is good enough to be published in The Guardian, it's good enough for WP. And Seumas Milne isn't just some blogger, he's a journalist who works for the Guardian. Athenean (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what exactly you're referring to as "my opinion". It's a blog. What exactly is "opinion" here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it's a blog. The Guardian is RS. If it's good enough for the editors of the Guardian it's good enough for us. Everything else is just opinion. Athenean (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not "my opinion" that it's a blog. It *is* a blog. Yes, The Guardian is RS. But this isn't the Guardian - it's a collaborative blog HOSTED by the Guardian. Yes, there is a difference, whether you like it or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see the word "blog" anywhere. RS is RS, end of story. Athenean (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• One needs a cutoff for "opinions" sections. While views by well known politicians and historians who wrote books on Russian politics and history arguably can be used, the opinions by journalists, even famous, probably should be undue on this page. Otherwise, we would need a separate page about this. BTW, I would suggest to recreate the deleted "Criticism" page in a user space and use it for for improving this article. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Undue? Why, because it's not critical of Putin? If anything, what's undue is the opinion of marginal and partisan figures like Kasparov. Athenean (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment is Free is not a hosted blog, it is the comment and op-ed section of the online, and in some cases printed, Guardian newspaper. Seumas Milne is not a random poster but a noted journalist and columnist, and a former comment editor of the Guardian. Whether his opinion is worth including is another matter, but let's not invent reasons for excluding it. Again, on the point of consistency and bias, I've seen editors decrying its inclusion nonetheless insisting on including far more marginal and unilluminating online comment from far more marginal figures here and on other pages. N-HH talk/edits 11:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty much a blog hosted by the Guardian. Regardless this is a cherry picked opinion. Speaking of blogs hosted by reputable newspapers, here is one seumas-milne-breaks-the-first-rule-of-spin-never-become-the-story. Quote: "He was always overly sympathetic to authoritarian regimes and under sympathetic to countries that enjoyed democracy and the rule of law". Or we can go farther left than the Guardian: [28]. Plenty other sources like that can be found on Milne. He's WP:FRINGE when it comes to Putin (or a whole bunch of other stuff) and there's no reason why his opinion should be given such disproportionate weight in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that in the discussion above we had editors arguing that a academic, scholarly, journal article should not be included. This Milne piece not even close to that level of reliability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well we can go back and forth on this, but it's not a blog as that term is commonly understood. It's a repository of columns and op-eds by journalists and third-party contributors, many of which (if not all) will also appear in the printed paper. Pieces will be commissioned and edited by the Guardian. As for whether Milne's comments need to be included, as I said I'm agnostic. But neither the fact that some people are critical of him or his views nor your unilaterally declaring him "fringe" makes his opinion worthless per se. As noted in the discussion about academic sources, when it comes to opinions and assessments, people disagree with each other. That's the nature of opinions. The problem here comes when some WP editors declare one opinion "right" or "better" or "more reliable" than another, simply based on which one they happen to agree with. N-HH talk/edits 16:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's sort of the thing though - if we include Milne's opinion, which says that "Putin has been demonized in the West" then it becomes appropriate to actually include *some* of this demonization, because that is what Milne is commenting about. It doesn't make sense to have "all these bad people are wrong" in the article but not what the bad people actually are wrong about. So the way I see it, either we have both Milne and Motyl and all the other people who are critical of Putin, or we go sparingly and have neither. Which is I think the preferred approach. Of course this does not mean that we shouldn't have *any* assessment in there - we still need that but it should be at a sufficient level of generality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the removal of most opinions is fine, but let's keep factual information on the page. For example, last paragraph removed here is merely a description of some his residencies. That should be restored I think. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We already have many opinions of people that are critical of him, such as Kasparov, Nemtsov, and even the Dalai Lama. I don't see why we shouldn't have the opinions of people like Stephen Cohen, a notable Russia scholar, and Seumas Milne, a notable journalist, for balance. Athenean (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd actually be fine with excluding the MENTIOn of Kasparov or Dalai Lama by name as long as the fact of criticism is retained. The problems with Milne and Cohen are that 1) they're not exactly praise of Putin, rather these are criticisms of people who are critics of Putin, 2) both, while I guess notable, represent pretty WP:FRINGE views. So the short answer is WP:DUEWEIGHT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Obama gets a lot of "dictator" criticism from his political opponents as well, but is it really detrimental to his article? Doubt it. But if we are to place Dalai Lama's and Kasparov's criticism, we must also be able to balance it out by including contextual stuff like the 'demonization' that Putin suffers, per Milne of course. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Seumas Milne doesn't appear to be some random blogger to me. I think his opinion counts. It's always better to place criticism of Putin under a certain context. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

He's not a random blogger, but he is WP:FRINGE. And there's a lot of journalists out there, why single him out? And everyone's opinion counts in some way, but we can't include "everyone" can we? I also don't think this constitutes "placing criticism of Putin in context", whatever that actually means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Context as in how and why and to what extent the west views him the way that they do. I think Milne and Cohen give a good insight into that. So it should be added. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Milne and Cohen are definitely not WP:FRINGE (which as far as I can tell only applies to science articles). You can't have the "dictator" stuff in there without balancing it. That's just not NPOV. Athenean (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Should this be included?

I just saw this publication. This is something big, important and reliable. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If and only if Putin is implicated in improper acts. If he is, then it is important. If it simply impacts people who know Putin, then the difficulty of using guilt-by-association inferences is evident. Collect (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, it does. But of course everyone familiar with Russian politics knows about numerous older publications about people who keep his money (Gennady Timchenko - the infamous Gunvor (company), Roman Abramovich, etc.). That was never a secret. But unfortunately, I am kind of busy and hesitant to contribute here and will let others decide. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How about if we defer adding controversial stuff while the article is being trimmed down to something within sight of a reasonable length? Or has the trimmification process stalled? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, this does suggest that a good chunk of the [Personal wealth and residences] section is bullshit. So in the spirit of trimming we could go ahead and cut some of that out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say about 80% of that section could be torched. Seriously, "260 shares of Bank Saint Petersburg (with a December 2007 market price $5.36 per share"? The contrasting views about his personal wealth should be summarized far more concisely. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you do not understand how important his dacha Ozero was. That is where Yury Kovalchuk and some others came from. And remember that in addition to Putin's Palace, he has several other fantastic palaces. This part is really important as something he really cares about.My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Even the Guardian's coverage admits Putin is not mentioned in the documents: "the president’s name does not appear in any of the records ... his friends have earned millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured without his patronage ... The documents suggest" etc. Yes, the paper has made the link itself based on what they have seen and extrapolated, but even the website has now switched to highlight the PM of Iceland. The Guardian's angle on this doesn't suddenly invalidate and supersede every other piece of evidence re Putin and his wealth. Interestingly, showing how the same basic story can mean different things to different people, the lead story on the Independent website has done much the same guilt-by-association thing, but instead with David Cameron (whose late father is mentioned although he is not himself). No one seems to be rushing in quite the same way to dump that coverage into his page. Looking at the previous section, we seem to have yet another example of people arguing that newspaper comment and inference is OK if it suits their take on a subject, but unconscionable if it tends to go the other way. N-HH talk/edits 12:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

While I can see that someone might latch onto a connection with David Cameron, it is quite different. My take is that David Cameron's father may have evaded tax using bearer shares, an instrument which David Cameron himself has made illegal. There was no attempt to make a case about wrong doing by David (as opposed to Ian) Cameron. By contrast, it is very much a strong working hypothesis that Putin's cellist friend was acting on his behalf in order to hide his wealth, this being an explanation which fits multiple facts. 37.152.237.190 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is classic "false analogy" argument. To put it simple, Putin and David Cameron are very different people, just like Russia and UK are very different countries, humans and monkeys are different animals, etc. Most important, no one judges anything based on a single publication: there is already a significant literature about personal wealth of various politicians, and people who know that literature are making their qualified judgement. As a policy note, it does not really matter if something appears in "records" (a primary source), it only matters if something appears in multiple secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's rather an apposite analogy (which merely implies elements of similarity in principle, not direct equivalence) for the reasons stated, which was made simply by way of observation. Anyway, someone has already added the info, albeit under the current presidency section rather than in the wealth bit. N-HH talk/edits 16:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel that naming and listing every house Putin owns is useful, especially considering that we have to trim up this article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• Here is edit in question. These are not his houses. These are factual materials as described in multiple RS that are highly relevant to the accusations of corruption. My very best wishes (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Putin is not named in the Panama leaks, (bangs head on keyboard). This is worse than autism. Seriously MVBW's. C'mon. BTW its bloating like this we need to stop SaintAviator lets talk 00:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

As I already said, it does not matter if someone was named in these papers. The papers are a primary source. It only matters what reliable secondary sources tell about someone. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• One word, Bloat. SaintAviator lets talk 02:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not think that it should be added unless it receives significant on-going coverage, otherwise this we could rename this article, "All the horrible things about Putin you probably never heard and may even be true." And no I am not familiar with Russian politics, it is a riddle wrapped in an enigma, and leave interpretations to reliable sources. Incidentally, there are legitimate reasons to hold overseas accounts, particularly for people and governments involved in international trade. It is a lot easier for example to wire money from the Caymans to NYC than it is from a local branch in Omsk. TFD (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree, its just so obvious. But this sort of addition thread plagues this article and caused the situation we had, a huge article full of trivia, bloat, conjecture and rumours. Drmies helped this by Ok'ing heavy trimming, ongoing. SaintAviator lets talk 03:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There's also WP:NOTNEWS to consider. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. All this shock jock anti Putin demonization stuff like panama leaks / Autism / rigged elections / phantom wealth belongs here Wikinews not here, already. SaintAviator lets talk 04:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Surely it does not belong to Wikinews. It belongs to Conspiracy theories about Putin. Seriously, where have you seen top politicians not making fortunes for/with their buddies? - üser:Altenmann >t 04:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but not here. SaintAviator lets talk 04:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

But this is indeed getting extensive coverage from reliable sources - and not "conspiracy" ones but mainstream. While there might be some further developments, having a general statement of information about this does NOT run contradictory to WP:NOTNEWS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This NPOV & Mainstream 'Assessments' Subsection (after we split up that 'Polls, Rankings, and Assessments subsection)

Assessments[29]

Critics state that Putin has moved Russia in an autocratic direction. [307] He has been described as a "dictator" by political opponent Garry Kasparov,[308] and as “self-centered” and isolationist by the Dalai Lama.[309] In 2015, opposition politician Boris Nemtsov said that Putin was turning Russia into a "raw materials colony" of China.[310]

Many Russians credit Putin for reviving Russia's fortunes.[311] Former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev , while acknowledging the flawed democratic procedures and restrictions on media freedom during the Putin presidency, said that Putin had pulled Russia out of chaos at the end of the Yeltsin years, and that Russians “must remember that [Putin] saved Russia from the beginning of a collapse."[312][313] Chechen Republic head and Putin supporter Ramzan Kadyrov states that Putin saved both the Chechen people and Russia. [314] Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger writes that the West has demonized Putin.[315]

I am having a lot of difficulty understanding why any well-organized editor would want to keep the present mish-mash, especially the disordered insertion of polls, instead of switching to my edit, which separates the 'Polls and Rankings' into one section and 'Assessments' into another. In addition, I don't understand why any NPOV editor would want to keep this edit[30], which fronts the 'dictator' accusation by Kasparov, which is not at all the mainstream and predominant criticism of Putin, and lies about what Gorbachev actually said, since acknowledging is not the same as criticizing. It also lies about the Dalai Lama, who called Putin neither a dictator nor an autocrat in the cited source. The main mainstream criticism is authoritarianism or 'moving toward' authoritarianism. NOT that he is a dictator. But in a generous and cooperative spirit, I have kept the accusation in, just not fronted it in the 'anti-Putin' paragraph. On the second paragraph, I have deleted the opinions by Cohen and Milne, which are essentially adding on to Kissinger's opinion that the West has demonized Putin. For more on 'why demonization is bad' readers should surely go to the full Wikipedia article on Putin's public image. In any case, I hope all will agree this is a nice compromise overall, and relatively brief (though as I've said in edit summaries, there are too many polls in the 'polls' subsection). Improvement, of course, I'm sure can be made. I suggest that perhaps Putin critics might want to focus on improving 'their' little paragraph. I think a much more well-known international political figure can be found than the Dalai Lama, with more on-point criticisms.Haberstr (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't look into detail of your edit, but it seems you are confused yourself. The article did not say that dalai lama call Putin dictator. On a general note I would notice that citing various praises and scorns from indiscriminate sources amounts to original research from primary sources. We need secondary sources which analyzed these praises and scorns and made analytical conclusions. Polls are OK, but individual opinins, without explanation of reasons under these opinions, is chaff. Just look [url=http://www.kommersant.ru/Tests/Test10.aspx at this]. Very funny (if you know Russian (or know how to use Google Translate)). - üser:Altenmann >t 15:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not confused, and I am saddened that you did not look in detail at my edit. That may indicate a lack of cordiality and respect, or maybe you are too busy to read two short paragraphs but are not too busy to make obviously false accusations against my edit. But if you are going to make charges, read more carefully: I did not say the previous edit said that DL called Putin a dictator. I said that the previous edit [31] states that the Dalai Lama either said Putin was a 'dictator' or an 'autocrat'. That's what this means: "Putin has been described as a "dictator" or an "autocrat" by some sources, including his political opponents like the chess grand-master Garry Kasparov, and international figures like the Dalai Lama."Haberstr (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You also state that I am "citing various praises and scorns from indiscriminate sources." Which of the two sources I have added is an indiscriminate source? Henry Kissinger or the president of the Chechen Republic? Gorbachev, the Dalai Lama, and Nemtsov were added by previous editors. If you want to learn more in detail about the basis for individuals' opinions about Putin, you obviously need to go to the Wikipedia article discussing Putin's public image. We are being urged to keep things relatively brief in the main Putin entry.Haberstr (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

Re [32]. Putting these two paras together and connecting them by a "however" or by a "on the other hand" is WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless the sources explicitly connect Putin being a dictator to Gorbachev's opinions this is WP:OR then.

Also, it's stylistically and ungrammatically incorrect. The "on the other hand" and/or the "however" suggests that these are opposite opinions, which isn't true (one can be a dictator AND pull a country out of chaos).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition, the original text was telling : Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev credited Putin with having "pulled Russia out of chaos", but has also criticized Putin for restricting freedom of press and for seeking the third term in the presidential elections. Strangely, the end of the phrase ("but has also criticized Putin...") has disappeared after the edit. POV-pushing 101. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I said more needed to be done in my edit summary, but instead you revert. Gorbachev has said that Putin 'saved' Russia, as I'm sure you know.[33] In any case, the NPOV way to begin that paragraph is something like, "Opinions vary on Putin ... Some believe ... Others believe ...." The emphasis should be on the dominant opinion, which can in this case be found in the middle -- at 'authoritarian' and 'authoritarian democracy' -- not the extreme minority 'dictator' position. If you don't understand that, then we disagree on NPOV. Also and by the way, that section is an incoherent mess and poorly titled right now.Haberstr (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed things. My joking Wikipedia motto: Gotta do it yourself if you want it done right!Haberstr (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but this your edit is also highly problematic: it removes mentioning of the famous Ozero and improperly labels Boris Nemtsov (about whom we have a separate page) as an "opposition politician". My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind if you reinsert 'Ozero' even though it is not 'famous' and it bloats up the article. As a compromise, how about just inserting the name of his housing cooperative without going into the entire story? The beginning of Nemtsov's Wikipedia entry states, "Boris Yefimovich Nemtsov was a Russian physicist, statesman and liberal politician," while our Assassination of Boris Nemtsov entry begins, "The assassination of Boris Nemtsov, a Russian statesman and politician opposed to the government of Vladimir Putin ..." Your statement and apparent belief that Nemtsov was not an "opposition politician" is false. The reason he must be described as such in the entry is that such a description indicates possible bias on his part. When making accusations against living persons, we must indicate such things to readers.Haberstr (talk) 00:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Ozero" is not just a housing cooperative. Yes, one could say that Nemtsov was a physicist, a liberal politician, an author of books on Russian politics, and a lot of other things. Therefore describing him as an "opposition politician" in this context is POV directed to "poison the well." Here is the problem (see my response here). You and some others are making massive removals of well-sourced information on this page without WP:Consensus. Do not do this again. Please get consensus prior to making any changes. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

We need to inform readers of the _possibility_ of bias when publishing negative assertions against living persons. It has nothing to do with 'poisoning the well', since we are not saying bias is a fact, merely that it is a possibility. Why do you not understand that an opposition politician _might_ have bias against a political opponent? The other facts about Nemtsov are not relevant to his _possible_ bias, so they do not need to be relayed to readers in this context. I think the preceding is obvious, so please inform me regarding what specifically your confusion continues to be.Haberstr (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you really suggest to (mis)represent in a negative light any publications that provide information which might be viewed by certain wikipedians as "negative" about living persons? This is contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. If we do not have a page about the source or the person, then providing a neutral qualifier would be OK. However, when we have a page about the source, there is no need in any qualifiers, negative or positive. By the same token, one could call Nemtsov "the best expert on Putin's corruption" (as someone who published several books on this subject), but this should not be done as well. My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I second MVBW here. There is long tradition in wikipedia to avoid any qualifications of the cited persons, other than indicating the professional expertise on the subject covered by the citation/quote (to indicate that this is not just a random person cited). And even the latter is redundant, if we have the person's bio. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

MVBW & Altenmann: I have no idea what you're talking about. I believe we MUST indicate (according to WP:BLP rules) to readers that Nemtsov was an opposition politician. It is a fact and misrepresents nothing. Also, there is NOTHING negative about describing him in that way, it is an entirely NEUTRAL qualifier. In fact many would consider it a good or great thing to be an opposition politician in Russia. I also have no idea why you're writing about how we represent 'publications'. Publications are adjudged based on the RS rules. Please stay on topic, and in that way we can have a fruitful discussion! Altenmann, although you assert such a long tradition, you provide no evidence of it in Wikipedia policy.Haberstr (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of well sourced information without consensus

• This mass-removal of well sourced content was not agreed about. Some of that was not even discussed. Some of that was discussed a little and objections to removal were stated (see above). Please self-revert if you respect WP:Consensus. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• Its bloat, trivia. 0.00009790209 % of the population protested. Thats trivial. Its just more trivial material. Syria Crimea under same heading is not. We have been asked to trim, Not add or keep all this periphery bloat. Panama leaks is more of the same, it belongs in Wikinews not here SaintAviator lets talk 04:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • How did you count this 0.00.. ? - üser:Altenmann >t 04:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Mean of protester estimate 14,000 (in article) as % of Russias population. SaintAviator lets talk 08:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This was done in several edits.

• (cur | prev) 20:21, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (170,471 bytes) (+82)‎ . . (→‎Annexation of Crimea) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 20:17, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (170,389 bytes) (-1,159)‎ . . (/* Intervention in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea * stated elsewhere / rumour / clarified title /) (undo | thank)
  • Revert. What rumour? What "stated elsewhere"? - üser:Altenmann >t 04:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• (cur | prev) 20:10, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (171,548 bytes) (-3,870)‎ . . (→‎Third presidential term (2012–present): Minor stuff removed / seriously bloat / does not rate like ukraine syria) (undo | thank)
  • Revert. "LGBT propaganda law" is far from trivia. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• (cur | prev) 20:04, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (175,418 bytes) (-3,475)‎ . . (→‎Third presidential term (2012–present): Bloat / lots of stuff happened in 3rd term / Trivia) (undo | thank)
  • Revert. Or please prove that protest were trivial. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• (cur | prev) 20:03, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (178,893 bytes) (-1,670)‎ . . (→‎Third presidential term (2012–present): Bloat / Hes not in leaked docs / strong 'so what' / trivia) (undo | thank)
  • Support. Panama is all insinuations. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• (cur | prev) 20:00, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (180,563 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Personal wealth) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 19:59, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (180,562 bytes) (-4,095)‎ . . (→‎Personal wealth and residences: Wealth + residencies a bad mix / trivia / bloat / conjecture) (undo | thank)
  • Tentatively agree with trimming, but the stuff about residences must be not simply deleted, but moved elsewhere, because it is a notable, discussed topic. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
• (cur | prev) 19:54, April 4, 2016‎ SaintAviator (talk | contribs)‎ . . (184,657 bytes) (-877)‎ . . (→‎Personal wealth and residences: bloat / However there is no evidence Putin actually does own a stake in the companies) (undo | thank)
  • I second this edit per WP:BLP. "According to Russian opposition politicians and journalists, Putin secretly possesses" - WTF is this if not rumor? - üser:Altenmann >t 04:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• This article has a 'Too Long' Tag. An Admin asked us to trim. Its gotta come from places like above. Description space is limited. SaintAviator lets talk 04:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• • @Altenmann. As anyone can see, this series of edits by SaintAviator was not about any rumors. That was removal of well-sourced and important information about

1. Anti-Putin protests in Russia,
2. legislation against the LGBT community,
3. a televised rally by Putin,
4. Panama Papers
5. The economic development of Russia
6. Official residencies of Putin
7. His personal wealth

Maybe some of that should indeed be removed, but one needs WP:Consensus for doing this. In fact, the discussion about Panama papers is currently ungoing, and I do not see any definite conclusion. Make an RfC if you want to remove a lot of relevant and sourced stuff. My very best wishes (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I commented my opinions itemwise. As for Panama, since it is contestable, it is definitely out now, per WP:BLP. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you make a Panama Rfc as its your idea to include it. Back yourself SaintAviator lets talk 04:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, no. It was not me, but another uninvolved user who included Panama papers, and it was not me who included all other important and sourced information that you just deleted. My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• This was you right?

Should this be included? I just saw this publication. This is something big, important and reliable. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC) SaintAviator lets talk 06:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• That was me who started this discussion, but it was not me who included this info in the page. This material was re-included for the 2nd time by yet another uninvolved contributor [34], but removed again by Altenmann [35]. Not a good idea because this material is highly notable, it is written directly about Putin (as the quoted sources tell), and that was published in a large number of secondary RS. This is not a BLP violation by any stretch of imagination. Quite the opposite: removing this information goes against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey all--I encourage trimming (who wouldn't?), but what should be trimmed is not up to me to decide. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• I Understand. I got it to 160 K, but stuff keeps getting added. Some advice on the Panama leaks might be needed SaintAviator lets talk 23:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you did not provide any valid policy-based arguments about your removals. So, I restored some well-sourced text you removed without consensus.My very best wishes (talk) 02:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Edits of SaintAviator

Please do not create confusion: all your individual edits, with edit summaries are already listed above, and commented. No need to repeat. Please answer there.- üser:Altenmann >t 05:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Im not confused. I cant write a talk page summary till after I have edited the article. The threads above, written while I was editing, are Not my summary. Summaries I agreed we should write about 2 weeks back when the trimming started SaintAviator lets talk 06:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would like to notice that SaintAviator continue removing important information from the page, even well known facts, such as that Putin served as a head of the FSB [36]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Calm down, these were unrefed. BLP unsourced material should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion SaintAviator lets talk 02:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal wealth and residences

Trimming article for length: Conjecture, trivia, rumours of wealth, bloat. 168000 bytes SaintAviator lets talk 05:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think that SaintAviator needs to do the following. (a) Self-revert. (b) Explain each of their edits (simply telling: "let's trim" or "the article is too big" is not going to work). (c) Wait for a few days to let other contributors to comment. (d) If others agree, make the changes. If others disagree, drop the issue or make an RfC. That is how WP:Consensus works, especially on contentious subjects, such as that one. Agree? My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I have already reverted 3/4 of his removals, for the ones I see direct multiple opposition in the talk. Fortunately, they were consequential edits. I preserved this part of his removal, because they violate WP:BLP, and their restoration require RFC, not vice versa. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Correction: the "residences" part is clearly salvageable into a separate page, and if deemed necessary, summarized in a separate section, because clearly not all his residences are his "personal wealth": some of them are gov't, and lumping them into the same section is confusion. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Residences explained below. Panama violates BLP, yes, no brainer. Some stuff was unrefed. The Putin owns 70 billion is typical of anti Putin creep. Like mission creep. Kinda grows. A lot is just minor stuff that begins like this; accusation inserted, denial inserted, repeat, now multiply across the article = bloat = 230 K article. Its still too big. I just had a message on my TP. Not surprised. What we really need is pure NPOV. It sounds easy, but very very few can do it. SaintAviator lets talk 06:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, how does "Panama" violate BLP? Please point specifically to the portion of the policy which is relevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The part about inclusion of controversial material. Specifically, the objection is that Putin is *not* among the persons listed. Hence inclusion it here would be WP:COATRACK. The subject belongs to Corruption in Russia or something. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This is relevant too WP:BITR SaintAviator lets talk 06:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Content forking

Being a "drive-by" editor in this page, it just now came to my attention that the political part is forked across three pages: this one, as well as Political career of Vladimir Putin and Presidency of Vladimir Putin. In this light, edits of red">Aviator make some sense: this is the main article about Putin and it should not be overburdened by detail, which must go elsewhere. Therefore I would like to suggest y'all to reorganize the three pages per Wikipedia:Summary style . In particular, IMO Residences of Vladimir Putin may well be a separate page, since there are many of them and lots was written about them. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, forks. Drmies the admin mentioned the best sizes of articles. This one was a beast. Ways to go yet. Truly its not personal, but a lot of content was and is either does not belong or should be elsewhere. And Reorganization is good i.e. Residences of Vladimir Putin and personal wealth do Not belong together. SaintAviator lets talk 06:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with suggestion by Drmies to reduce the size of this page. However, this should not be done by removing all well sourced information that you perceive as "negative". Why? Because doing so is against WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I noticed that you already managed [37] to rename Putinism to Presidency of Vladimir Putin, although this is not the same... My very best wishes (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

No, they are not the same. And you may have already noticed that Presidency of Vladimir Putin has the section "Putinism". And anybody is welcome to expand it and even make into a separate article, similar to Reaganism, and what is more, this was discussed in the talk page. And I don't understand, do you agree or not

• that the three articles are heavily forked
• that they are better to be rewritten according to WP:Summary style.

Or do you think the old title "Putinism" justifies content forking? There are some other nice titles to duplicate the same content, such as Putin's Empire, Putin's cult of personality, or (other side of fence) Putin's charisma, Putin's miracle. Shall we? - üser:Altenmann >t 14:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Bravo SaintAviator lets talk 06:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Luke Harding link

Alternatively, can someone delete the Luke Harding link? ...Haberstr (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Alternatively to what and where? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wrong idea

• "Under 180K is goal" [38] is wrong. Our goal is a good and informative page in agreement with "five pillars". It can be big if needed, or perhaps some content should be placed to separate pages that need be created. My very best wishes (talk) 12:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that much of the 'supportive detail' in this article is unnecessary bloat. This is especially so when there are other Wikipedia entries on topics (for example Panama Papers) where such detail can and should be provided. Also: the 'residences' subsection should not include sentences about anything other than Putin residences. Haberstr (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no such consensus whatsoever. Start an RfC if you wish. However, that would be useless. There is a general advice that pages should not be too big for the reasons of readability. However, the leading policy here is WP:NPOV. If something needs more space to satisfy WP:NPOV, let it be. If you can improve readability and satisfy NPOV, that's fine. However, if someone is trying to push their POV under the disguise of reducing the size, then no. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

NPOV trumps any other consideration including some arbitrary size goal that someone came up with. Yes, shorter is generally better but not at all cost. That's just common sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly there is bloat. Other articles are covering much detail repeated here. NPOV + less bloat is achievable SaintAviator lets talk 23:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLP

States clearly:

Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association,

Which, try as I might, seems quite to suggest that any proposition on the order of "listing friends of Putin who are not even charged with crimes is a sufficient basis for suggesting that Putin has committed crimes" is contrary to stated Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No, the relevant portion of BLP policy is public figures. Why do you think this source relies on guilt by association ("John is a con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists.")? It does not, just as a lot of other sources mentioned in the thread just above. These sources rely on circumstantial evidence. In addition, speaking about this your edit (edit summary), could you please tell which of the quoted sources call these claims "rumors"? Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

John is a friend of Frank. Frank is a mass-murderer. John supports mass-murderers. This is what we have here.  :Ivan is a friend of Putin. Ivan used a Panama law firm which also handled money laundering deals. Therefore Ivan is a money launderer. Therefore Putin supports money launderers.

@Collect: I have to say that your comparison is laughable. Perhaps you don't understand the allegations, because they are nothing like what you have tried to say they are. And they are of the greatest importance. They involve *extremely* *close* *friends* who could not have come by the companies they have, such as Sandalwood, and the hundreds of millions of dollars, without the say so of the man at the top. Allegedly, yes...you'll be excited to know that Putin's name doesn't appear on the share certificates or any other documents. But guess what? He is in total control of Russia and its oligarchs get in his way only if they have no fear for their life. Which they do, so they don't. This is common knowledge. If it is just the mainstream media which is going bananas about it, then we can say so. But we can include the allegations, say that the mainstream media went overboard about them if you like, we can include the refutations. What exactly is wrong with doing that"? Boscaswell talk 19:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Laughable" that I actually think non-negotiable policies mean something? I realize you "know" that Putin is an absolute dictator with over $200 billion in his hip pocket -- but unless you find a reliable source making the claim as a statement of fact Wikipedia does not allow us to state it as a matter of fact. Is that actually clear? I can find a "source" saying "John Doe is a devil-worshipping paedophile", but Wikipedia does not allow such allegations and rumours to be spread when your source does not even have Putin's name in it. And if there is damage - the "kill the witch before she gets a trial" form of justice you evoke is not worth it when you say "if she was innocent, then we will apologize" <g>. So assume Putin is actually Satan - unless you have a reliable source saying he is Satan as a statement of fact we can not simply word the allegation or rumour into a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Is this sufficiently clear? Collect (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You give an example of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" which is much different. I grant that some people think the two are alike, but actual outside sources make a clear distinction.

Simon, Karl, Jared, and Brett are all friends of Josh, and they are all petty criminals. Jill is a friend of Josh; therefore, Jill is a petty criminal. is more nearly "guilt by association."

Simon and Paul are felons. Jim is a friend of Simon and Paul, therefore Jim is also a felon. is the absolute direct case of "guilt by association". And that is what is being presented here.

http://thelogicofscience.com/2015/01/27/the-rules-of-logic-part-3-logical-fallacies/ among a huge list of sources which give examples of each type of fallacy. Collect (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The news.com.au source states "However there is no evidence Putin actually does own a stake in the companies", so clearly that source does not make a claim of vast wealth as a matter of fact. The wps source makes no claim of fact at all about any vast wealth. The Guardian is explicit in not stating anything as "fact": "with claims that the president presides over a secret multibillion-dollar fortune", "with speculation over the fortune appearing on the internet", " Belkovsky claims that after eight years in power Putin has secretly accumulated more than $40bn (£20bn). ", and so on. "Alleged" is the same as "rumour" a neither requires any evidence at all. Luke Harding's opinion in The Guardian: "Vladimir Putin has secret assets hidden abroad, leaked US cables from the former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice allege." "Other classified cables referred repeatedly to the "secretive Swiss-based oil trading firm Gunvor" as an alleged source of Putin's undisclosed wealth." When a source specifically distances itself from "allegations", the word "rumour" is properly used. The Mirror [39] is clear: "A gigantic sum, that, if true, would make him the wealthiest man in the world. The £140billion, claimed by Putin critic and hedge fund manager Bill Browder, is more than twice the fortune of Microsoft founder Bill Gates." (bold added). Rumours should be attributed as rumour and not presented as claims of fact. Collect (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

So this is all "allegations" including widely published claims by Stanislav Belkovsky. Fine, let's replace "rumors" by "alleged". My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As MVBW say, these aren't "rumors" but "allegations". There is a difference. But yes, they should be attributed and not presented as fact, you're right about that. But they should be included. Not excluded.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• According to quoted source, "A network of secret offshore deals and vast loans worth $2bn has laid a trail to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin. ... The documents suggest Putin’s family has benefited from this money – his friends’ fortunes appear his to spend. The files are part of an unprecedented leak of millions of papers from the database of Mossack Fonseca, the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm.", and so on. This is called circumstantial evidence and has nothing to do with your examples. In addition, once again, which sources tell about the "rumors"? That one certainly does not. Accusations or allegations - yes. Rumors - no.My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If we personally construct "guilt by association", that's WP:SYNTH and we must not do that. If WP:RS do something which you in your personal understanding of logic call guilt by association, we report it, like we report other relevant things that RS say (RS are allowed to make inferences that we can use, even ones you don't like, contrary to us here), as doing otherwise would be alleged WP:TRUTH instead of WP:V. LjL (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No - if we iterate claims of guilt by association as fact, then we are guilty of violating WP:BLP. Else we should use the Protocols for "facts" about secret cabals. Policy is that we should not give credence to such claims by asserting them in any way as "fact." Collect (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

But we ARE NOT "iterating claims of guilt by association as fact". We are simply reporting what reliable sources say. That's it. If a source says "papers leave a trail leading back to Putin" then that's what we write. What we cannot write is "Putin stashed away millions" - and it would be only in that case that we would violate BLP. But that's not what we are doing here.

And LjL is exactly correct - what BLP prohibits is Wikipedia editors constructing guilt by association, it does not prohibit reporting what reliable sources say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

But that's begging the question and assuming that we simply have to include this material, as well as relying on the old cop-out of "we're just reporting what others have said, not endorsing it". WP material has to be sourced, but not all sourced material has to be included – indeed recently the page has seen a lot of sourced material, correctly, removed in the interests of concision. It has to be relevant, of due weight, BLP-compliant and not overly speculative, among other things. WP is an encyclopedia and this is a broad biography, not an ever-expanding respository for everything said in the media about Putin in the past couple of days, and certainly not just for everything that could be said to reflect badly on him or using phrasing based on newspaper headlines. N-HH talk/edits 15:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@N-HH: are you trying to suggest that the allegations are not of great significance? I am sure you can agree that they are not, but you appear to be trying to throw cold water on them. Why, precisely, is this? Boscaswell talk 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to throw cold water on anything, nor do I have hidden motives for anything. I've acknowledged there may be something worth including here, but the question is what it is exactly. I'm just asking that an encyclopedic biography has some perspective and detachment rather than everyone rushing in to cut and paste lots of media inference and conjecture. This is about basic, general principles not about being pro- or anti-Putin. This page has enough trouble as it is being squeezed between those two poles (each of them claiming, of course, to be just "reporting the facts" in the face of the appalling, glaring bias of the other). N-HH talk/edits 20:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so let's get constructive here. *What*, specifically, do you think is "worth including here"? 21:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised no one has tried to insist this goes in. I mean, it's sourced, right? And to multiple outlets, so why not just say, "were reported to be dating"? N-HH talk/edits 15:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The question under discussion in this thread is BLP. Here is the policy. It even gives an example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Yes, that is exactly what we should do here. As about notability of the claims, if this is not notable, then nothing really is. My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, my post was meant to be a joke as well as to make a point, but you do actually think gossip about Wendi Deng should be in here? At least you're consistent in wanting this page to be driven by every passing media frenzy I suppose. N-HH talk/edits 21:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you're completely missing his point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

That's why I framed my response as a question, in case I was. He cited the text from BLP about an affair, in response to my link to a story about an alleged affair, and talked about "this" being notable, so it was a reasonable inference. Even if MVBW is not in fact in favour of including the Deng material, my original point still stands as an analogy. But thanks for your condescension. N-HH talk/edits 21:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not even know who Wendi Deng is. I simply quoted the BLP policy and suggested it be followed. Do you suggest that the policy should not be respected? My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Its like I went to school with a guy who became an alcoholic therefore some of his problem was my fault. Crazy. God help me if I get a WP page. Now Poroshenko actually did the bad deed. Hes got some Panama text coming, but its very quiet on his page. So why is everyone here when Putins name is not even leaked? SaintAviator lets talk 07:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it's more like if you went to a school with a guy, you stole a bunch of money, then your buddy hid it for you in his locker so that when your locker got searched it wouldn't be found. That's the proper analogy here. And that's why the sources are reporting on this so much.

I don't know about Poroshenko, take it up on that page. But my understanding is that he put his own money (rather than the country's) in Panama and did so legally. So there's not much there, except maybe for the fact that rich people will take advantage of tax loopholes. Here, Putin, what it looks like is laundering of ill-gotten money. Different kettle of fish altogether.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Poroshenko acted illegally. Hes damaged more now.

It's more like if I went to a school with a guy, who had a bunch of money in his locker (legal) but some jealous guy Barry, from Langley heights said I, the Footy Captain, stole it, with no proof. Our school beat Langley heights in two big football games 'The Crimea Cup' And the Syrian Trophy'. So Barry is pissed. He figures to get me off the team that makes him look weak SaintAviator lets talk 03:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If your convoluted analogy is suppose to say that the information found in the papers is false or fabricated, then, uh, you need a source for that. Putin's media can make all the noise in the world about how this was a CIA plot or the evil boogeyman Soros is behind it, but the thing is, even if those wacky conspiracy theories were true, that doesn't change the fact that Putin and his cronies got busted. Which is why this is being covered in so many sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not Putin, others got busted. Hes not named SaintAviator lets talk 23:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

N-HH, let me repeat my question here, because maybe you missed it above (I mis-signed my comment). Above you said "I've acknowledged there may be something worth including here, but the question is what it is exactly." So, let's get constructive - what exactly do you think is worth including here? Can you make a specific suggestion? Then we can work off of that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)