Wikipedia

Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 10

< Talk:Vladimir Putin
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Xx236 in topic Wishful thinking of Richard Sakwa
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

Like "pool", not "putrid"

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

   I'm surprised how often the consonantal (or is it a semi-vowel?) sound of English Y is inserted between the P sound and the oo sound in his name, and glad we've done a good job clarifying it for those who check the accompanying bio. Has anyone looked into verifiable info on this aberration? If it's verifiably associated with (the justifiably widespread!) contempt for him, or even a false meme, that fact might be encyclopedic.
--Jerzy•t 17:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, that's generally dependent on someones accent. Similar things happen in other words with a constant followed by that sound e.g., enth(y)usiasm, Z(y)eus, us(y)ally (again, this is accent dependant) Hollth (talk) 13:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Best practice is to use how the person pronounces his own name rather than presenting odd pronunciations. "Montpelier" has several distinct pronunciations - but each place has "correct pronunciations" used by those in that place. IMO, of course. Collect (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Pets section

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Really? Really?! I think this immensely trivial section can be substantially trimmed or deleted. Engleham (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Adding Litvinenko Inquiry to Putin article

Latest comment: 8 years ago23 comments11 people in discussion
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


The section on the Litvinenko Inquiry has been deleted. Reason given: "insinuations are against WP:BLP." Findings published in an official UK government inquiry report, and republished in every major western newspaper, are acceptable or not? Engleham (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Under a new heading Litvinenko Inquiry, the deleted section was as follows: In 2015-16 the British Government conducted a public inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. Its report was released in January 2016. Paragraph 10.6 of the report stated: "The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin." The report outlined a number of possible motives for the murder, including that Litvinenko's public disclosures about the FSB, including a plot to murder the dissident Boris Berezovsky were “areas of particular sensitivity to the Putin administration”, and because there was “undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko, culminating in his allegation that Putin was a paedophile. On the release of the report, British Prime Minister David Cameron condemned Putin for presiding over “state sponsored murder”. The Kremlin dismissed the Inquiry as “a joke” and "whitewash". British Labour MP Ian Austin said: “Putin is an unreconstructed KGB thug and gangster who murders his opponents in Russia and, as we know, on the streets of London - and nothing announced today is going to make the blindest bit of difference.”[1]

Also deleted, in the Personal Wealth and residences section was the following, so if you could commment on this as well please:

In 2014, the first detailed study of the alleged corruption of Putin and his inner circle – Putin's Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? by Karen Dawisha, was published in the West.[2][3] Engleham (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to see this venomous piece in the main bio article. "Putin was a paedophile" - this demonstrates idiotism of the person who wrote this rather than says something about Putin. There is no "findings", there is political speculation of hatred, even if - üser:Altenmann >t 06:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It may be true, or it may be only a smear. Litvinenko who made the allegation was in a position to know. Politics and freedom is a high stakes game and people play dirty, and certainly it's probably the worst accusation you can make. Not surprisingly, some newspapers are speculating it was what tipped the bucket. e.g. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/alexander-litvinenko-murdered-because-he-accused-putin-of-being-a-paedophile-a6824806.html Whatever the case, the inquiry Chairman, Sir Robert Owen, listed it in the report as one of what he concluded were five motivations for the murder which, as the report explicitly states "was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin." That's why it's relevant, that's why the media is republishing it, that's why it's notable, and that's why it deserves inclusion along with the other details. State sponsored murder with radioactive materials doesn't happen simply because someone called someone a bully. Engleham (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It is notable in the context of the corresponding article. "State-sponsored murder" is state-sponsored militant propaganda. "probably approved" no hint of proof. :It is notable in the context of the corresponding article. "State-sponsored murder" is state-sponsored militant propaganda. What you're sRumors are rumors are rumors regarless which Sir or other peer utters it, and it is not a job of wikipedia to spread it. Clean-cut WP:BLP issue. I am wondeering whether Obama's article has a section about his non-citizenship.- üser:Altenmann >t 06:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

:It is notable in the context of the corresponding article. "State-sponsored murder" is state-sponsored militant propaganda. What you're trying to say isn't clear here. At least to me. Also, please note, the inquiry report has official UK government status, so it is the position of the government, not simply Owen. It may help if you download the report at the above link and familiarise yourself with it. Given you deleted the entire section, have you any other objections to it, apart from it detailing that the inquiry report listed the pedo accusation as one of the likely motivations for the murder? Are you also not ok with the Dawisha inclusion, and why? Engleham (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

  • State sponsored murder with radioactive materials is something highly notable and therefore should be included. As about other claims, they are reliably sourced and appear in sources as the probable motif for the murder... My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Whatever. If you don't see difference between facts and insinuations from a highly POV source (political opponents) and subscribe under "guilty until proven" concept, fine with me. I don't have an axe to grind. - üser:Altenmann >t 16:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the official conclusion by UK court about the person (this is not just a claim by "political opponents") is sufficiently important to be quoted on this page, as described in multiple RS. Anything else depends on wording, etc. Obviously, the conclusion by UK court can not be just quoted, but should also be placed in appropriate context. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No I wouldn't add it is this biography, they offered no evidence at all for the claim. There should be a better place to add it, I imagine it has already been inserted into an article about the murder. We could also assume and add to the American presidents biography that he probably authorized all the torture in Guantanamo. The report is simply more of the same Russian, especially Putin in particular, bashing that Nato is propagating. As to the book, no also, not here in this biography, it is more promotional than anything useful about this person and belongs in the authors biography only.Govindaharihari (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No Do not include. Evidence was biased. Been shot to bits. This sort of adding of POV stuff is silly. SaintAviator lets talk 05:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. This is an official conclusion by UK court, not just a claim by political opponents. That was widely covered in Western and Russian press. The state-organized poisoning using radioactive materials is not just a notable crime, but something unprecedented, something that will be a part of the History. This is something Putin will be known for in the future, among other things. There is absolutely no doubts that the murder was arranged by Russian special services controlled by the president. Speaking of political murders organized by the Soviet/Russian government, from Trotsky to Markov, this is absolutely nothing new or unusual. Only the method was extraordinary. My very best wishes (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, include. I would like to remind several participants above that WP:Closing_discussions#How_to_determine_the_outcome are based upon Wikipedia policy, and arguments which contradict policy are discounted. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. Saying sources are WP:BIASED is not a valid argument, not to mention the absurdity of accusing most of the the media on the planet of bias. We also do not debate whether Reliable Sources are publishing truth, the standard for inclusion is WP:VERIFIABILITY. Wikipedia accurately summarizes what Reliable Sources say. If Reliable Sources say the moon is made of cheese then Wikipedia will accurately summarize those sources. (And I remind Include-supporters that it is equally improper to argue here that it is true.)
WP:BLP says that we must be careful of privacy concerns, and that unsourced/poorly sourced material must be removed. Neither of which remotely apply given that this has been covered by much of the major media on the planet. Most significantly BLP policy section WP:PUBLICFIGURE says:
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
We accurately report that it was said. We accurately report who said it. We cite one or more top-tier Reliable Sources making our coverage iron-clad verifiable fact. This dispute is toast. Half the people on the planet already heard this. Alsee (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, we accurately report what was said but unsupported accusations such as this do not belong in a wikipedia biography as per wp:blp - it is not a matter of not liking it or the subject not liking it, Putin thinks its a joke, that is not the wp:blp point - the allegations are already where they belong in the Alexander_Litvinenko#Inquest_in_London section. This article is about the life story of Putin, not all the speculated things he is claimed to have done without any presented evidence at all. not here Govindaharihari (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I would include the info. I would not go into that amount of depth for this article, however, I'd only have one or two brief lines. One saying it was probably authorised and one with the reactions would be sufficient in my opinion. The motives would be best suited to another article. As My Very Best Wishes says, it is widely reportable, notable and well sourced as it is from an official inquiry, so there should be some form of it. I would not include the book as the crux of the information (i.e., that there is corruption surrounding Putin) is already covered. Hollth (talk) 07:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, to move the discussion along: my interpretation of it is that a majority agree that the Inquiry should feature in the article, but a number have strong reservations about detailing the motivations. Especially due to the fact that the allegation some have speculated triggered the murder is, despite its publication in the inquiry report, wholly unsubstantiated. Suggested solution: we just provide the download link to the report at that point on the entry. "We know nuffin! It's over there. See for yerselves!" ;-) So, the suggested revision would read: (citations the same as first version at start of this discussion):

In 2015-16 the British Government conducted a public inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. Its report was released in January 2016. Paragraph 10.6 of the report stated: "The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin." The report outlined a number of possible motives for the murder, that made further allegations. On the release of the report, British Prime Minister David Cameron condemned Putin for presiding over “state sponsored murder”. The Kremlin dismissed the Inquiry as “a joke” and "whitewash". British Labour MP Ian Austin said: “Putin is an unreconstructed KGB thug and gangster who murders his opponents in Russia and, as we know, on the streets of London - and nothing announced today is going to make the blindest bit of difference.”

Your thoughts? Engleham (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

  • No We should not include that. This is Wikipedia, not a tabloid magazine. Jomlini (talk) 12:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No - we are supposed to write an encyclopedia, not a tabloid magazine.--Dorpater (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Mention in brief only Putin is considered a tad notable, and as long as we make absolutely clear that Wikipedia is in no way implying that he is a culprit, or using language which a reader might draw such an inference from, we still should mention that the government report exists. A fine line, but one we must seek. Two or three sentences is where I would consider it not UNDUE - one stating the report exists, the second with the opposition to that report. Collect (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree with mention of the relevant part of court report and Putin's response, but object to inclusion various venomous rants about "KGB thugs", "paedophiles", etc. as non-encyclopedic. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Engleham. If you think this RfC should be closed right now (I am not sure), please post a request for closure at WP:AN. My very best wishes (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm closing the discussion as the current text of the article at the time of the closure (edited by others, and appended below as a record) appears to meet the desires of most participants. Engleham (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In 2015-16 the British Government conducted an inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Its report was released in January 2016. Paragraph 10.6 of the report states: "The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin." The report outlined some possible motives for the murder, including Litvinenko's public statements and books about the alleged involvement of the FSB in mass murder, and what was "undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko, led to the murder. The Kremlin dismissed the Inquiry as "a joke" and "whitewash".

References

  1. ^ "Litvinenko Inquiry: David Cameron considers new sanctions against Russia after 'state-sponsored murder' of KGB spy in London". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 2016-01-22.
  2. ^ "Review: 'Putin's Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?'". International Policy Digest. Retrieved 2016-01-22.
  3. ^ Menon, Rajan (2014-11-25). "'Putin's Kleptocracy,' by Karen Dawisha". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-01-22.

Censorship?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Charges of criminality removed which had been posted by an IP. Kindly note that WP:BLP does apply to talk pages. That policy is not "censorship." Collect (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Putin implicated in poisoning of Litvinenko

Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

This has been published everywhere [1][2] and highly notable. Please do not remove it without discussion and consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the report stresses that its conclusions are based on many witness opinions that “would not be admissible as evidence” in court. So the report relied on undisclosed secret evidence, which may have been fabricated and which cannot be challenged publicly and that in his report Sir Robert was not bound by strict procedural rules that apply to court hearings. Lastly by classifying in 2013 several documents which could have become key evidence in the investigation, Britain effectively brought the enquiry to a halt. I dont think people appreciate these facts. SaintAviator lets talk 07:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to clarify, here is the document by the court. It includes chapter 12, Russian State responsibility – involvement of Nikolai Patrushev and President Vladimir Putin (pages 241-245). The conclusion by judge was based on the "evidence" by "a number of expert witnesses". Making a decision in courts based on testimonies by expert witnesses is a standard procedure. However, some of of the expert witnesses (Goldfarb and Yuri Shvets) were not "independent" and therefore could not be used in standard court proceedings, but others (e.g. Robert Service) were independent witnesses, according to the source. My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It wont go to trial, the evidence is too 'probably', i.e. its circumstantial. Too much secret stuff. This is a problem, for instance, there still remains the legal possibilty Litvinenko’s dad is right, when he said, ‘Berezovsky killed my son’. The so called evidence in this investigation is not even up to the standard of evidence of other cases i.e. Obamas killing of citizens as bombing collateral damage in Syria / Afghanistan or drone strikes. Thats not going to get up either, by the looks of it.
BTW I have a UK friend, he told me all the people he asks dont even care about the Litvinenko case. So its become a political thing, like so much these days.SaintAviator lets talk 04:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, according to this source, the conclusion was based on testimony from 62 witnesses. But of course, everything has been published long time ago in books. So, that is something beyond the reasonable doubt (if I were a juror), or "supermajority view" in terms of WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, sure, and every witness swore: "by my mother's bones I am sure it was Putin, who else?". After all, what's the deal? some bandits and spies killed some other bandit and spy. Ans BTw Putin's implication was based on on 42 witnesses, but of narrow closed-door hearing involving british spies. Was their name Bond?- üser:Altenmann >t 04:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you imply that Lugovoy and Kovtun did not poison Litvinenko, that they did not act on the orders from the FSB, or that Putin does not control FSB? My very best wishes (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
No one knows for sure. This UK finding is like the US position when Russia accused Turkey of funding IS with evidence, mind you. USA said no. People saw US position as political. Now Israel says Russia is right. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-israel-turkey-idUSKCN0V421N. So in time Re Litvinenko again Russia may be right. We'll have to keep an eye on developments. SaintAviator lets talk 23:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I think one should read comments in RfC just below. "No one knows for sure"? No, it is exactly the opposite. Most expert witnesses in the court knew for sure (as one can read in the link/PDF above). Most sources claim this (and a lot more!) for sure. Almost anyone who really studied this subject knows for sure, etc. Your examples are false analogy. To put it simple, UK is not Russia, Turkey is not Russia, and whatever one could say on entirely unrelated matters has nothing to do with subject of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
No. Ken Livingstone former mayor of London has doubts now after talking to Dr Julia Svetlichnaya who worked with Alexander Litvinenko in the years leading up to his death and gave evidence at the inquiry. She refutes its findings that the Russian state 'probably' ordered his killing. She alleges Litvinenko may have been in a plot to blackmail wealthy individuals or was handling Polonium for others.
Keep in mind; Since the Inquiry is not a court there is no appeal against its findings. Lugovoi and Kovtun might conceivably try to get the European Court of Human Rights to set the findings of the Inquiry aside on the grounds that the Inquiry has violated the presumption of innocence and was conducted in a way that has violated their rights to a fair trial.
Plus, Far from welcoming the Inquiry’s report the British government is deeply embarrassed by it, as the tepid tone of the statement from Home Secretary Theresa May purporting to welcome it shows. Though there has been a predictable flood of angry commentary in the British and US media, the only action the British government has taken is to protest to the Russian ambassador, and to impose asset freezes on Lugovoi’s and Kovtun’s non-existent assets in Britain.
Its a sham trial, The evidence of people like Goldfarb, Glushkov and Shvets is accepted uncritically and called reliable despite their obvious interest as opponents of the Russian government in a finding that the Russian state was responsible for Litvinenko’s death. Even Berezovsky – a person whom the Judge admits Mrs. Justice Gloster in the High Court found had no regard for truth – receives posthumous recognition as a reliable witness.
As for Litvinenko himself, he can do no wrong. His history of moonlighting for Berezovsky whilst working for the FSB, his bizarre claims that Putin is a paedophile, a heroin smuggler and a gangster, his peculiar death-bed conversion to Islam, and his repeatedly stated intentions to blackmail people (explained away as just wild talk) count for nothing. I wont even start on the judge. I could go on and on about the trials faults.
Lastly this is Litvinenkos brother from Italy. (They believe the British killed him) “My father and I are sure that the Russian authorities are not involved. It’s all a set-up to put pressure on the Russian government,”. Litvinenko told the Mirror, adding that such reasoning is the only explanation as to why the inquiry was launched 10 years after his brother’s death.. SaintAviator lets talk 02:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my question. Based on your response, you believe that Lugovoy and Kovtun did not poison Litvinenko despite to the existing material evidence, including the polonium trail. As a side note, all facts and statements related to Svetlichnaya are included in Litvinenko report [3] (pages 98-99). According to the judge, these facts do not contradict his conclusion, which is very much obvious anyway. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course I dont believe the findings, but whats truth got to do with Wikipedia! We all enjoy the game. Its about what can be referenced, mass opinions, which is fine. It is what it is, but its why good academic places dont allow students to reference Wikipedia. SaintAviator lets talk 10:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, this is not an opinion, but conclusions from research. Good quality criminal investigations (such as that one) or investigative journalism qualify as research. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Researched opinions, churnalism, media ownership consolidation, corruption, political motives, the flaws in Wikipedia, thats where we are going here. If you want to continue the discussion on a talk page, thats fine SaintAviator lets talk 04:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Syria

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Its been a great success for Putin but is not talked about in the article much. Its this terms (Presidential) defining foreign policy. Bigger than Ukraine by far.

Heres some background only, not refs, of why the next couple of weeks are notable, and why Putins Syria Gambit belongs here in his Bio.

And so, as we said earlier this week, it's do or die time for Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha. Either this proxy war morphs into a real world war in the next two weeks, or Aleppo "falls" to Assad marking a truly humiliating defeat for US foreign policy and, more importantly, for the Saudis' goal of establishing Sunni hegemony in the Arabian Peninsula.

There are loads of RS showing the Russian military successes and the Wests surprise. There are also loads of RS showing concerns over WW3 starting over the ME situation. My point? This is far more notable than the G8 mention. Im very surprised whoever has been editing here for the last few months has not thought this thru.

[4] SaintAviator lets talk 07:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed Putin's Syria policy is not mentioned in the article, a quite glaring omission. I agree that an addition is in order. Athenean (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes it should be in here (see? that's called being "consistent". The part I don't get is how you think one set of recent events (economy, crimea) does not belong in here, but another set (Syria) does. I think that's the opposite of "consistent".)Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
But please, let's do it in a neutral way. This mean that wacky conspiracy nutzoid sources like zerohedge aren't used.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Regarding consistency, I didn't mean that it should be added to the lede. In fact, it shouldn't be added to the lede, rather to the body of the article. I don't suffer from lede fixation unlike some people here. Athenean (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree, in the body. New section. Volunteer Marek no one suggested Zero Hedge as a RS. I went out of my way to phrase that clearly. To little avail. Moving on, I would recommend Athenean write something in the article. This editor has good writing skills and knows how to avoid the right wing hate opinion pieces that characterize non neutral writing. There is a knack to neutral writing, lets all try to use it to fix the significant deficiencies and unwanted additions in this article. SaintAviator lets talk 10:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
? You put the zerohedge source at the end of your comment above which I took to mean you were suggesting it as a reliable source. If you explicitly said somewhere that it isn't a reliable source (then why did you put it there?) and I missed it, my apologies. I also find that middle sentence in the above comment strange - "right wing hate opinion pieces"? What are you talking about? This just reads like general inflammatory POV rhetoric. Can you be specific about these supposed "right wing hate opinion pieces"? Where are they? What are they doing? What should we do about them?... Well, at least, be specific.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
(and isn't zerohedge itself sort of a "right wing hate opinion piece" kind of website? Maybe it just happens to be a "right wing hate opinion piece website" that at the same time loves Putin?) 22:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I accept your apology VM (If I may call you that). I guess we each bring different backgrounds to WP. At my non USA English speaking Universities block italics = quoted material, refs went at the end. Re right wing etc, it balanced your 'wacky conspiracy nutzoid' nicely. Balance and neutrality makes WP work. SaintAviator lets talk 00:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

So.... where exactly did you "went out of your way" to make clear that you weren't suggesting zerohedge as a reliable source? Still not seeing it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
This 'Heres some background only, not refs,'.Then I used a block of italic which = a quote. Thus the quote was the background, which you would have read in the link I left. Which you didnt read right? A quick Control F would have found the quote in that links body. Meaning you would have understood the link was where the quote was from and thus the link was NOT a suggested RS. Savy? When I do suggest an RS it will be obvious, OK? SaintAviator lets talk 03:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess you can call that "going out of your way" of indicating that zerohedge is in fact not a reliable source. Despite the fact that you bring it up here for some reason. Oh, just for "background", right. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Athenean must be busy so I added the new section as discussed. Under Presidential third term after Ukraine fitted well. Will add a few RS re those cities over next day. Lots around SaintAviator lets talk 05:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed two sentences

Latest comment: 8 years ago34 comments7 people in discussion

I recently removed two sentences from the lede, on the grounds that they are not lede material [5]. First, the stuff about the G8 is not that important that it should go in the lede, nor is it personally related to Putin. The G8 was just a talking forum and hardly a major blow to Russia. It may be appropriate for Foreign relations of Russia, but I really don't think it belongs in the lede of this article. Second, the stuff about Russia's economy contracting due to sanctions is also not lede-worthy and is WP:RECENTISM, especially the notoriously unreliable IMF predictions, which are also WP:CRYSTALBALL. I don't see anything similar for any other world leader article, it's as if there is an effort to cram as much negative material in the lede as possible. Athenean (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not about G8, but about disasterous consequences of politics by Putin. This is really important and should stay in intro. Please do not remove. My very best wishes (talk) 05:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Im with Athenean on this one. Seriously? 'disasterous consequences of politics by Putin'. A led or lede is made up of a little bit of each major part of the body, like a good essay. Look at the body. This lede or led is too big and unbalanced. Its a Politicized Lede. Its fairly typical in Wikipedia. SaintAviator lets talk 06:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


The current state of the Russian economy under Putin belongs in the lede. The G8 thing... maybe not that specifically but something related to recent foreign policy and its consequences obviously is also needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, people get excited, put stuff in, not understanding true neutrality they defend it. This Lede or led is not giving a well written snap shot of the body. Its supposed to be a nice little quick synopsis for the newcomer. Not what we have now. It needs to be rewritten to reflect the body fairly, not add new chunks, or what some editor deems 'important'. And it needs to be smaller. That can be achieved if written well. SaintAviator lets talk 06:36, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The current economic state of Russia has no place in the lede, as this reflects current events, and not a snapshot of the man as a whole. In Mandela's biography, we don't talk about how he led the South African economy to ruin; ditto with Lech Walesa in Poland.

Therefore, I'm strongly against the two sentences being included in the lede. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but have you edited this article before? No? Then how did you get here? Gee... it couldn't possibly be because I had just made a comment on talk about. Let's see. I make an edit to Polish Constitutional Crisis, you show up and revert it, having never edited it before. I make an edit to Spetznaz, you show up and revert it, having never edited it before. And I just realized that even on David Irving, you only showed up there to revert an old edit of mine as well [6]. And now here. That makes it four articles where you've shown up, solely to engage in revenge reverting, because of the dispute we had at RT TV article. You really really really might think seriously about cutting that out. In the meantime, these edits and your corresponding talk page comments will be considered with exactly the level of seriousness they deserve.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, make that FIVE articles you followed me to in order to act like a creepy immature stalker [7].Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You sound like you need a nap and/or an extended vacation away from Wikipedia. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Look you two, that happened to me once, the following thing, it happens, we became friends. Sort it out based on the merit of the point(s). Its a good point by Solntsa90 about other Bios SaintAviator lets talk 08:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Except I'm not following anyone. There is merely an overlap between the interests of Marek's, and my own. I appreciate that you see my point of view on the matter, however. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Bullshit. Five articles in one week, five articles you've never edited before, five articles where you show up only to revert me or disagree with me on talk. One is a coincidence. Two or three means you've looked at my edit history. Five means you're purposefully engaged in WP:HARASSMENT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Uhhh...okaaayyy then.

Anyway, strongly against the two sentences in the lede, which so far, seems to be consensus. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

OK, let's not get sidetracked with personal accusations. The G8 stuff is hardly lede-worthy, and is also WP:UNDUE. These G-X organizations are just talking shops and are highly overrated. It's true that Russia's relations with the western countries (actually the NATO countries) are in the deep freeze now, and the G8 thing is related to that, but the world doe not revolve around the west anymore. Russia continues to have good relations with the rest of the world. So I still think removing this sentence is the best way to proceed. Regarding the shrinking of the economy in 2015, that is WP:RECENT and also WP:UNDUE. I don't see similar sentences in the lede of any biography article. Economies are notoriously fickle. Are we to include all the ups and downs of every economy in the lede of the biography article of each country's leader? Even the article on Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the perfect example of a leader whose policies have brought financial woe on his country, does not contain recent economic information in the lede. Second, and perhaps most important, the claim that the economy shrank as result of sanctions is totally unsourced and highly dubious. Unsourced material is to be aggressively removed per WP:BLP. Unless I hear rational, policy-based arguments on why this material should be kept (I doubt I will, but you never know), I will remove it. I have very little time for "this needs stay because Putin is bad" type arguments. Athenean (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The intro should simply summarize the page. Therefore, no sourcing required directly in the introduction. But the statement was reliably sourced. Moreover, the suspension of Russia from the G8 group as a result of its annexation of Crimea is merely a relevant fact, and an extremely important one. Hence it should stay in the intro. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you please provide the source in the article that says Russia's economy shrank in 2015 as a direct result of the sanctions? I can't seem to find it. As for the G8 thing, it is indeed a fact, but that doesn't mean it goes into the lede. There's a world of facts out there. That doesn't mean they all deserve to go into the lede. That the G8 is "extremely important" is just your opinion. I don't see a lot in the media, even the western media, about the demise of the G8 these days. It seems to have been quietly forgotten. I don't think Putin or anyone else in Russia loses a lot of sleep over the G8. And yes, the intro should summarize the page, not include a cherry picked selection of one POV's favorite facts. Athenean (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's a source [8].Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I am not opposed to rephrasing summary of economic and political results of his rule during last 15 years if there is new consensus for doing this. In particular, what had happened during 1999–2008 seem a lot less relevant/important right now. My very best wishes (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You didn't answer my question. Athenean (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
My very best wishes, mate, its not a competition. BTW the Russian economy has diversified its domestic production. Sanctions have had a positive effect on self sufficiency. Some call sanctions a blessing. That aside Athenean is being sensible. SaintAviator lets talk 06:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"Sanctions have had a positive effect ... Some call sanctions a blessing." Yes, sure. War is peace. This is something we had in the Soviet past. I do not have time to answer any imaginable question. If anyone wants to propose new version of paragraphs 3-5 in intro (this is all about economic and political results of rule by Putin), please post new version here and wait for consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Not everything is a 'give it to me, give it to me now' short term Mac world view. Like cheeses or wine, the best ones mature with time. [9]. SaintAviator lets talk 00:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mvbw: Please don't change the subject. The sentence is unsupported by any sources. Russia's recent economic contraction has much more to do with the price of oil than with any western sanctions. And recent economic fluctuations have no business in the lede of this article. This is a BLP vio, unsourced, and undue. Athenean (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree Athenean @Mvbw, is it me or do I sense a desire on your part to have stuff in the lede that in your view harms Putins image? Stuff that is selective, non neutral, does not belong there. What is your agenda? Do you see you come across this way? The rest of us like neutrality, good writing and balance. Would you mind stepping back and looking at this please? SaintAviator lets talk 05:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
While the drop in oil prices is probably the biggest factor, the sanctions have contributed as well. IMF says that about half the decline is sanctions [10]. So there you go, sources. Also any talk of "sanctions helped to diversify the economy" or "sanctions are actually good" needs to be backed up with sources or it's irrelevant.
And yes, Russian economic performance is relevant to this article and its lede. Particularly since this doesn't look like "recent economic fluctuations" but something that is likely to persist for awhile. It's a structural slump, not just a mild, ordinary, recession.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, the section "Economic, industrial, and energy policies" needs updating (and made to be less PR-promo-y).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a source. However, I still disagree that this material is lede-worthy. This is a biography article, not an article about Russia's economy. That it is a "structural slump" is just your opinion. However, I sense that we are not going to get anywhere just talking, so other dispute resolution mechanisms need to be employed. Athenean (talk) 06:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad to see that the G8 summit bit being discussed here because I too find it quite odd to have it placed in the lead. It seems out of place to me. How is that significant to the life of Putin? It reads more like a news item than an actual significant/notable characteristic into the man's life. What's even more concerning is that we don't even have a neutral statement of fact when it comes to the annexation of the Crimea. Instead, all we have in the lead is the West's reaction to it. That raises serious undue concerns which need to addressed asap in such an important BLP article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Correct Étienne Dolet SaintAviator lets talk 10:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Propose the G8 sentence be moved from the lede to the article body, in the "Relations with Western states" section. 10:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree that Russian economic performance is relevant to this article and its lede. And it is currently included (three paragraphs). Yes, this part could be improved. However, I disagree with removing the well known and important fact about international consequences of actions by Putin (as suggested). My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I moved the G8 sentence from the lead to the body of the article since it appears to be very little support for it to be included in the lead at the TP and that the WP:BLPN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Support again SaintAviator lets talk 03:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I put a "not in citation given"-template after the claim: The IMF has estimated that about half of the decline in GDP in 2015 was due to sanctions. This tempate has now been removed by User:Volunteer Marek, the same user who introduced the source yesterday. I have no intention in getting involved in the edit war Volunteer Marek seems to be fighting on this page, but I do like to explain my rationale.

The claim is a wrong interpretation of the source, a short CNN-article published in August 2015, which stated that the IMF expected the Russian GDP to shrink by 3.4% in 2015. This mid-year prediction should not be confused with a end-of-year analysis of the economical situation in 2015.

Also, the article mentions that half of the predicted decline could be caused by a combination of western sanctions and Russia's ban on product imports. Only mentioning western sanctions as a cause of predicted events is an incomplete citation.

If this claim can not be verified, I suggest to remove it. — 37 (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The claim HAS BEEN verified. That's why there's a source there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

An example of some of the extreme POV in this article

Latest comment: 8 years ago22 comments3 people in discussion

It's literally too easy to scroll down in the article and encounter POV that is poorly sourced, or based on falsification of sources. Examples:

  • Putin has said that "[Orthodox Christianity] is much closer to Islam than Catholicism is". sourced to a Ukrainian nationalist website, The Economist [11], a book by Nikolas Gvosdev [12] (who got the quote from somewhere else but I am unable to find where), and this youtube video [13]. Yet even the Putin-bashing Economist admits that ""Some analysts of Christianity say Orthodoxy is in many respects closer to Islam than to the Catholics," he once declared, while stressing that he couldn't judge the matter himself. ". My Russian isn't that great, but this seems to be corroborated by the youtube video. A classic example of source manipulation to push the "Putin is bad" POV.
  • Putin has sought to harness and direct Muslim anger over the Charlie Hebdo cartoons against the West. Sourced to this Bloomberg article [14]. Except that it doesn't back the claim. As much as the article tries to lay "blame" on Putin, there is simply nothing here to back the claim in the source. The demonstration was organized by Kadyrov, not Putin. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that Putin was behind the demonstration.

There are countless examples of this. I will try to list them here to the extent possibleAthenean (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

These examples show appallingly low levels of academia. They have to go. SaintAviator lets talk 08:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh and what exactly makes it a "Ukrainian nationalist website"? Because... it is Ukrainian? You really should go around complaining about BLP when you're so keen on potentially violating it yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Violating BLP? How exactly? By removing poorly sourced and falsified material? If you think that website is a reliable source, why don't ask about it at RSN? Athenean (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
You called it a "Ukrainian nationalist website". What did you base that description on? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The "Support Ukrainian Troops!" banner at the top, for one, references to "occupied Donetsk", etc...But like I said, if you think it's RS, go ahead, post at RSN. Don't let me stop you. Athenean (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. Because a Ukrainian website has a banner that says "Support our troops" that makes it "nationalist"???? And what is this "etc." you speak off? You're trying to make it seem like there's more to it than that but somehow can't say what it actually is. Are you sure you just didn't jump the gun there and pretty much let it slip that you consider any Ukrainian website to be "nationalist"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, as a matter of fact, I am pretty sure I didn't. Don't try to put words in my mouth. And the red herrings are not going to work. Don't try to distract from the main issue: The material is poorly sourced and based on unreliable or falsified sources. If you feel this source is reliable, why don't you add the material back? I wouldn't recommend it though. Athenean (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, no, you called "Religious Information Service of Ukraine", which is affiliated with the Ukrainian Catholic University - an academic source, a "Ukrainian Nationalist website"... basically for no reason what so ever. Except that it happened to be a Ukrainian website. You also claimed The Economist wasn't a reliable source. And now you are calling them "falsified" sources. And don't worry, if I think this needs to go back in, I'll add it back in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well Im for removing or at least a consensus rewrite if its notable enough. SaintAviator lets talk 08:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

What's with the bravado? Btw, since you don't know what "falsified" means, let me explain. It means that the claim that Putin said Orthodoxy was closer to Islam than to Catholicism, instead of being backed by the economist, was in fact explicitly refuted by it. Anyway, this is getting boring. Athenean (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
And what's the the taunting? But no, the claim was not "refuted" by the Economist (which you called "unreliable"). How do you get that? Because of the "while at the same time" part? That's called "qualified".Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

On the Charlie Hebdo thing, how in the world are you going to claim that the source doesn't support the statement when the title of the source is "Putin Points Muslim Rage at Cold War Foes"? Oh wait I see - the source disagrees with your own personal original research. Please read WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The title is nice and catchy, and pleasing to some, however, it is not backed by anything in the article. There is simply nothing in the article that backs the claim that "Putin points muslim rage" or anything similar. It's just a demonstration in Checnya that Kadyrov called, and with which Putin had nothing to do with, and Bloomberg somehow spun that as the bogeyman Putin channeling Muslim rage bla bla bla. Utter nonsense. That you are even willing to argue this point is ridiculous. Athenean (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Of course it is backed by stuff in the article. There's like two paragraphs about it. Your original research and misrepresentation of the source is irrelevant. "Bloomberg somehow spun..." pretty much shows that you concede as much, you just don't like what the source says. *You* may feel it's nonsense, but reliable sources trump individual Wikipedia's editors personal opinion, no matter how deeply held.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Two whole paragraphs? Can you provide a quote from the body of the article (and not just the title) that backs the claim? That's right, didn't think so. Athenean (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Ummmm... how about you actually wait for me to respond before you start in with the "That's right, didn't think so". Because you're just making yourself look foolish. So here it is:
"Fifteen years on, Putin is now seeking to turn Muslim anger to his advantage by pushing for a united front against what he sees as a U.S.-led conspiracy to dominate the world. Putin is also trying to neutralize the threat posed by the return of Russian jihadis currently fighting for the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, a task complicated by his growing isolation over the war in Ukraine, officials and analysts in Moscow say."
That's what the title of the article describes. And then:
"“The protest was an attempt to meld Muslim opinions with Russian-wide views about the Western world, a lever to unite the population around Putin,” said Alexei Malashenko, a Middle East analyst at the Moscow Carnegie Center."
So there you go Mr.That'sright,didn'tthinkso. Care to apologize for how you're acting and admit that you might have been wrong? Didn't think so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice try. Except there's nothing in there about what Putin has done, only some demonstration called by Kadyrov, which is somehow "blamed" on Putin. But anyway, since you are so certain, why don't you add the content back? That's right, didn't think so. Athenean (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Jeez christ. Here it is again: "Putin is now seeking to turn Muslim anger to his advantage " - so yeah, it's about what Putin has done, your original research aside. Look, yes, we know, you don't like what the source says. Tough noogies. On Wikipedia we follow what reliable sources say, not what some editor imagines.
At this point it's hard to conclude otherwise, than that you are being obstinate on purpose and are playing tiresome WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games, and it appears your purpose is to actually stall the discussion rather than resolve the issue. The continued taunting reinforces that conclusion.
And why am I not adding it back in? Uh... because I prefer to discuss it first? And you're trying to do what? Taunt me into reverting you? Please stop playing these silly games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Right, right because you like to discuss first. Too bad you didn't follow that here [15], here [16], here [17], here [18], and here [19]. Or is it maybe because you know this is bunk but can't admit it? Athenean (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, you're going a bit crazy with the POV pushing. And it's obvious you are trying to taunt me into reverting you. Very nice of you, how Wikipedian. Now, do you care to actually address the issue? It looks like you're trying to derail the discussion (again). So let me say it again: "Putin is now seeking to turn Muslim anger to his advantage " - so yeah, it's about what Putin has done, your original research aside.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Except once again there is nothing in there about what Putin "has done" to turn "Muslim anger to his advantage". Nothing at all. Repeating an empty phrase is not an argument. So the issue is addressed. You may also want to watch the personal attacks. They are very poor substitutes for arguments. Athenean (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

spurious tagging, false edit summaries

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Re [20] and [21].

These reverts involve adding a "dubious" tag to a claim about the effect of Western sanctions. The text in brackets claims this is not based on the source. Here is the source. Here is what the source says (as I included in my edit summary):

"The IMF expects Russian GDP to shrink by 3.4% this year, as falling real wages, the higher cost of borrowing and shattered confidence hit domestic demand. And western sanctions, and Russia's retaliatory ban on imports of food and agricultural products, could be responsible for nearly half that decline."

The real problem though is the user's edit summaries. The first one tags it and says "see talk". There ain't NOTHING on talk by this user. This suggests this is just edit warring for sake of edit warring and the "dubious" claim is nonsense.

The second revert again repeats these demands for "talk" - even though the quote was provided - and also marks the edit as "minor". It is not minor.

Please stop using false edit summaries. And if you're going to demand others "discuss on talk" then don't make false claims that you're already discussing it on talk when you're not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Clicking on 'discuss' after the claim in the article (between brackets) will lead you to the section on this talk page where I posted my comment. It's the last comment under 'Removed two sentences', the same section where the dubious claim was discussed some days ago. Please do not remove the template so that other users can discuss. Thanks. — 37 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't really help if you put your comments in the wrong section. You also say " I have no intention in getting involved in the edit war" then proceed to tip-toe right to the 3RR line by reverting three times.
Your reasoning also is sketchy. The IMF predicted the Russian economy was going to shrink by 3.6%. It shrunk by 3.7%. Likewise the sentence explicitly says it's because of sanction. If you want to add "and Russian response to sanctions" that's fine.
Now please stop edit warring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think I posted my comment in the wrong section as it is the same section in which another user asked for this claim to be sourced, and the discussion in this section is still ongoing. I see you disagree with me when I say the claim misinterprets the source. Thats's fine, but please allow other users to discuss this as well. It's inappropriate to repeatedly remove a 'dubious'-template just because you think it shouldn't be there. Also, you might want to follow the advice you have on your userpage: The person who is most insistent on specific sources is least likely to have found the best sources. — 37 (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not "insisting" on that source - I'm just saying your claim that it is being "misrepresented" is absurd. Here's another source which says more or less the same thing [22] [23].
You asked for a source you got it. You claimed the source was being misrepresented, well it was shown not to be true (so you resorted to this "discuss first" strategy). Now you're claiming that I'm "insisting" on this one particular source. I'm not. Looks like you're just trying to move the goal posts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The two new texts you bring up also do not support the claim that about half of the decline in GDP in 2015 was due to sanctions. I'm not trying to move any goal posts. I'll even repeat my original suggestion: If this claim can not be verified, I suggest to remove it. — 37 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The original source DOES say that half the impact is due to sanctions and Russia's response to them. Will you please stop denying something that's clear as day in the source? It's frustrating to try and discuss something with someone who pretends that they can't see what's in front of them. Please take WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to heart. Now, the other two sources do not say "half" explicitly but both of them say that the sanctions have had an impact. So they support the initial source. So the claim HAS been verified, you just are claiming - for whatever reason - that it hasn't. But you can make up whatever you want, the source is still there and it still says that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
No, the CNN-article does not state that the Russian economy has shrunk and that half of this is the result of sanctions (and Russia's response to them). It merely mentions that the IMF, in the summer of 2015, expected this to happen. That’s a big difference as I couldn’t find a single source confirming that this prediction has effectively taken place (which is what is being claimed in this Wikipedia-article).
Oh ffs. The Russian economy DID shrink in 2015, by more than IMF expected in fact. They expected it to shrink by 3.4%. It actually shrank by 3.7%. Here is another source [24]. And it says "It matched the most recent prediction from the IMF". And it says "as the country struggled with a drop in the price of its oil exports and international sanctions". So yes, this "prediction" has effectively taken place. Will you please stop denying the obvious now? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Can half of the decline be attributed to western sanctions? I couldn’t find a source confirming that. I never said anything else. — 37 (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I concur with the user who said on this talk page that you sound like you need a nap and/or an extended vacation away from Wikipedia. There’s really no need to get frustrated. — 37 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
And I would appreciate it if you took your personal advice and kept it to yourself. You do realize that the user who said that was basically trolling, stalking me and wound up getting block hammered. You might consider NOT following their example or quoting them approvingly, especially when it comes to repeating thinly veiled personal attacks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeltsin's resignation was not unexpected

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The lede says Yeltsin resigned unexpectedly. However by late 1999 his resignation was expected at any time due to his multiple health problems, as well as internal pressure. (79.67.113.41 (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have requested admin advice on investigating this users account. SaintAviator lets talk 23:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeltsin was widely expected to resign when he did. (79.67.123.165 (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC))

Vladimir Putin wiki critiques

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am wondering if some of the complaints are not a form of trolling the site as anti Putin and anti russian? While this is a very long wiki post, it would make for better reading if much of Mr. Putin's achievements were put into documents with links to those documents?

Other than that, I see this as very informative on a man who is a huge player in world events. Would be nice to see such in depth information on other world leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.8.154.96 (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian economy in the sources

Latest comment: 8 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Sigh. Since some editors are hell bent on denying the obvious (Russia's economy under Putin isn't doing so good currently) and insist on including only glowing positive news in the lede, here are the sources that say otherwise:

And that's just a one minute search. Come on folks, it's ridiculous to try and connive to keep this out of the article simply for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:POV reasons.

Let's put it in as simple terms as possible:

It is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on neutrality to ONLY include outdated news from 6 years ago that you like, and ignore more recent news which you don't like. End of story, POV is non-negotiable. Edit warring's not going to help. This is going in. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No one is denying that Russia's economy isn't doing too well at the moment. The issues here are 1) It is POV to blame it directly on Putin himself (and not backed by the sources; whereas the growth in the previous decade was directly due to his policies, at least in part), and 2) That recent economic events are undue for the lede of this article (Economy of Russia is another matter). Athenean (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh, no, people were in fact denying that the Russian economy isn't doing too well (I forget which one of you was doing it, but there were claims that these were only 'estimates' which 'there was no evidence materialized' which is of course completely contrary to sources). But hey, if no one is denying that now, then that's great, we're moving forward. So on to the issues:
Please explain how this is being blamed "directly on Putin himself". We are just stating what happened during his tenure. And in fact, per sources, he probably does deserve part of the credit/blame, do his international policies. That's what sources say.
Whether he deserves credit for previous decade is also not well established. Obviously high oil prices during this period also played a role. Again, per sources.
I don't see how given the widespread coverage of the Russian financial crisis (2014–present) this is "undue". Obviously this happened under Putin's tenure and is at least partly due to his policies. And it's not exactly new. It's 2016 now, not 2014. This appears to be simply a POV WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT objection. To reiterate, it's completely POV to cut-off the description of the economy under Putin in 2009, just because that's the end of the "good years". And like said, it's actually pretty transparent POV pushing. "Oh let's include only the years which make Putin look good but any years which make Putin look not so good are UNDUE gosh darn it!"Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
VM, some people are surprised when hearing this: in 2012 the oil-and-gas sector of Russia, accounted for only 16% of the GDP. In 2015 this is 15%. Gas is selling fine, so the GDP % of oil is quite small, unlike say for Saudi Arabia, where its 85% + SaintAviator lets talk 02:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Which part is "surprising"? The sources say what the sources say you know.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, I'm pretty sure - not completely, but pretty - that when you say 15% of GDP, you're not actually talking about oil and gas being 15% of Russia's GDP but rather you're thinking of oil and gas being 15% of Russia's *exports*.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Its 15% of GDP [26] see you were surprised. 70% of exports not 15%. It is surprising. BTW do you watch Max Keiser? With low levels of Oil as a % of GDP (7 to 8% which comes from 15% - Gas) Max was showing how the economy is diversifying. Hold on there VM Im NOT saying RS Max, lol. Just saying. SaintAviator lets talk 02:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Ugh, thanks for pointing out some primary-source based original research in that Wikipedia article. Add that to the list of things that needs to be fixed. That WB source only lists rents from oil and gas as % of GDP. That does not include other kinds of income (return on capital, labor, etc). Whoever put that in doesn't really understand national account statistics. I am a bit surprised by how high the export share is though. Compare with this.
And no, I don't watch Max Keiser, the host of "a financial program broadcast on Russian state media channel RT that features fringe economic theories". I really got better things to do with my time (and if I want to hear batshit crazy economic theories there's more entertaining ones out there).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Well its all about context. Russias economy can only be understood in a global setting, its not 'good' anywhere that counts. Many analysts are highly concerned about the USA, peddling fiction. Like unemployment. Future $ obligations. Debt. Solvency. Its good to have a broader view to write NPOV. Can I ask you a personal question? SaintAviator lets talk 06:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
You lost me there. And you can ask, I might not answer and if it's inappropriate it will be deleted. But you can ask as long as it doesn't violate Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
VM, clearly you are dedicated and hard working, persistent bordering on stubborn (that can be an asset) Q. Do you think you have an anti Russian bias? SaintAviator lets talk 08:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
SA, Q. Do not you think that blaming other contributors, reporting them to 3RRNB when they did not make violation, and suggesting them go away [27] is a bad idea? My very best wishes (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thats called a leading question; short answer. No. Long answer No, hes a single purpose account baby vandal afaik, if not, hes not. SaintAviator lets talk 23:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Lol, no, I most certainly do not have a "anti-Russian bias". That's actually sort of funny.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, good to hear. SaintAviator lets talk 23:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • We have an entire article on the Russian financial crisis, which is a direct result of Putin's foreign policy and the sanctions imposed. Failing to mentioni this in the lead is absurd.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
One man who wrote good books on the results of Putin's policies was Boris Nemtsov: see his "Itogi"("Results"), Putin. Corruption and Putin. War. He was killed just like authors of Putin's Russia and Blowing Up Russia. Same signature. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

POV pushing in the lede

Latest comment: 8 years ago36 comments5 people in discussion

Re [28]. Look, it's POV to artificially "stop" the description of Russia's economy in .... freakin' 2008 - eight years ago - simply because you guys are hell bent on only including positive information about Putin. Either we put in a full description of how the economy did, or we put nothing in it. You cannot pick and choose like that.

And if you're going to push POV can you at least try and be a little less blatant with the WP:ADVOCACY? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to talk POV, "the economic development of Russia experienced a significant setback" verbiage is POV. A GDP contraction in one year is not a "significant setback". Better to just say "Russia's GDP shrank in 2015". Athenean (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
How do sources describe it? (and it matters by how much).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes Athenean, "Russia's GDP shrank in 2015". Sounds neutral, Correct. BTW who is this guy doing these big undiscussed deletions? Name of Nomoskedasticity. VM hes saying exactly what you are saying. This is him 'NPOV -- can't do one without the other.'. Know anything about this? Its funny how he turned up and zoomed in on that discussed Lede issue. Anyway the articles shut down for awhile, but I reverted him first.
The solution is a discussed neutral language rewrite. Smaller, balanced, better, agreed upon. SaintAviator lets talk 09:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Nomoscedasticity is active on WP:BLPN. Athenean asked for an opinion there (somewhat inappropriately) and so he got one. And let me repeat my question - how do sources describe it? Russia's economic troubles didn't start yesterday and they involve more than GDP; oil, tax revenues, etc. I mean, we have a whole article on Russian financial crisis (2014–present) so claiming that mentioning this is "recentism" or "undue" is disingenuous to put it nicely.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Russian financial crisis (2014–present). That proves my point. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Proves what point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That it's recent, ongoing, and etc. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Even Putin himself admits there is a serious crisis, and not only the financial one [29]. My very best wishes (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Look guys, a lot of work has been done already on WP we can use. It saves time, its already been fought over, so we dont have to. Im talking about using snippets and links from and to pages like Russian financial crisis (2014–present). I did this pattern with the new Syrian intervention thing. Sure its basic, but its a solid way to start to resolve this. And we agree on how the stuff we insert is phrased. That way we dont have to rant on about how bad or good the economy is. Readers can link to a dedicated article on it. This also lessens bloat. SaintAviator lets talk 23:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The dispute is about the lede (though dog knows the article text could improvement as well). And I'm saying something really simple - you can't cut off the description of the economy under Putin at a year that suits your POV just because it makes Putin looks good. Either we have a description of the economy under Putin from beginning to end (that's "present") or we omit it whole sale (which would be lame but at least consistent).
One thing that you just CANNOT DO is to only present the cherry picked years/times when the economy was doing well and suppress any mention of the years/times when the economy was not doing well. That's not just POV pushing but it's actually very very very obvious, blatant, obnoxious POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
See heres how smooth discussion works VM. You made a suggestion above about the Russian financial crisis (2014–present). I think 'good point' and follow it up with an idea. You're then supposed to kind of smoothly build on it, suggest something or disagree. Things flow. Its not that hard. Then we all respect each other.
I do get your point you made about the years, of course. But your tone ensures further conflict. Revert wars are about unresolved conflict, right. Why not dial it down a few notches. I propose all years are in, (up to present), linked, neutrally written with no insinuations (that was the issue). Its not hard to do. SaintAviator lets talk 23:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but then how do we write it in the lede? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Id suggest you and Étienne Dolet Athenean and I and work together, on the economy in the Lede. The best win win would be this, based on the conflict to date. Re economy. VM writes the positive Putin $ in Lede, those boom years, Athenean writes the negative Putin $ in lede. The contraction period.

Yes I meant that, you write for the opposing side. We get balance. EtienneDolet and I and others watch. You both are the main protagonists, you both get to work on neutrality. You talk to each other. If it works, its over. Rules> NPOV Short, punchy, fair, linked?. Feel free to suggest rules SaintAviator lets talk 04:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea on principle. I'm willing to do that. Athenean (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Excellent. Halfway there. BTW admins are watching for progress SaintAviator lets talk 06:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, let's see how that works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Go for it. SaintAviator lets talk 07:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on discussion on BLPN [30], I removed it for now, but a shorter and more neutral version might be fine. Things that actually should be noted are the Annexation of Crimea, starting War in Donbass, military action in Syria on the side of Assad (i.e. against the international coalition) and war in Georgia a few years ago. My very best wishes (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
So, User:Athenean, instead of trying to remove the stuff you "DON'T LIKE" and restoring only the stuff that you "LIKE", as you tried again to do here [31] (that edit summary should've said "wording"), how about you make a proposal for how the performance of the Russian economy in the last two years should be described? And then I'll make a proposal for how the early years should be described.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, how about Russia's economy shrank in 2015 due to the combined effect of a fall in the price of oil and the Ukraine crisis. So now how about you stop edit-warring and do what you said you were going to do. Athenean (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, how about During the early years of Putin's tenure, rising oil prices buoyed the Russian economy. And I'd change yours "and the economic sanctions related to the crisis in Ukraine".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
So much for good faith. This is a waste of time. It's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who cannot or will not do so in good faith. Athenean (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You made a proposal, I made a proposal. I commented on your proposal, you can comment on mine. What did I do that's not in good faith? Back that up or remove what is an explicit personal attack. Your accusation of bad faith is... in bad faith and just further evidence that you appear not to be interested in the least in compromise (maybe you - wrongly - think you can just get your way by edit warring, so hey, why compromise? You might find out why).
So let me stretch my patience a bit further. What is the problem with the suggested wording? What makes it "not in good faith"? Are you actually interested in working this out via discussion, yes or no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh come on, you gutted a whole paragraph that was reliably sourced and replaced it with a single POVish sentence? Do you really think people can't see through this? Whatever game your playing, it's not going to work. In fact, it's already not working. I strongly suggest you adopt a more collaborative attitude. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
And you've been removing a whole bunch of stuff that is reliably sourced for no other reason than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. And to the extent that commentators at BLPN had opinions about this matter, it was that the lede - including this part - needs to be shortened. In fact, my suggested sentence is not that different from what another commentator suggested there. So yes, we replace a long undue paragraph with a single sentence. Two actually. One for the early "good years" and one for the later "not so good years". You made your proposal, I made mine. You are now rejecting compromise. And at the same time have the chutzpah to demand "more collaborative attitude" from me? Seriously?
And there's nothing POV about my proposal - at least you didn't point out what exactly was suppose to be POV about it.
So should I take your "it's not working" as an admission that you are unwilling to seek consensus here and intend to just edit war your way to victory or something? Are or are you not interested in compromise and discussion? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Trying to bait me (especially in such a crude fashion) is also not going to work, any more than you edit-warring will. Athenean (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Once again, making one-two short paragraphs which summarize most important positive and negative consequences of rule by Putin (per sources) is fine, however making a panegyric to Putin and removing all negative well sourced consequences goes against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
MVBW as per the understanding, what are you doing here? Let them work it out SaintAviator lets talk 01:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

OK didnt work. Edit war in progress. Another block coming so man up. Its Vote time: all economic stuff 'out of Lede' or 'all in lede', pending a rewrite, pleasing to everyone (sniggers / ROFL). SaintAviator lets talk 08:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Out. SaintAviator lets talk 08:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you rapping? Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess SaintAviator lets talk 10:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
But if I really was it would go like this:
We tried a 'role play' / to make the pain 'go away' / a VM Athelean 'switch' turned into a 'b...h' / now the lede is delete to lose the heat / or a block is here to stay / better to fight another day. SaintAviator lets talk 10:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Dude that was fucking awesome. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Nice. Anyway, the bottomline is that this article *does* need to mention something about the economy. And it needs to cover the whole period of Putin in power, not just the years when the economy was doing good. Can we try and come up with something? How about we try a different tack. First we decide on the factual matters - what happened to the economy. Then we can discuss whether we attribute the ups and downs to Putin or oil or sanctions or whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Latest comment: 8 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

First, and fairly obviously, the article is outdated. This isn't helped by the fact that some editors are trying to remove any info on the economic situation past 2008 from the lede. You know, some stuff has happened in the last... eight years? It needs to be included. Along the same lines pretty much every sub-section in the "Domestic policies" section is outdated. The first part of that only goes up to Medved's presidency. Putin's been the president since 2012. That's just one example, the rest of it is hopelessly outdated too. Hence the outdated tag.

Second, the whole article reads like a promo piece written by the Human Resources department. Almost like a resume. And the level of praise and gushing gets obnoxious at times. Putin succeeds at this, Putin successfully does this. "Strong management of this". Putin created that. It's almost impossible to click anywhere in this article without getting some of this shlock. Hence the promo tag.

Third, some sections of the article are hopelessly POV. The stuff on Ukraine appears to have been constructed as a WP:POVFORK of every other article on Wikipedia about the Ukrainian crisis. It's like stuff that didn't make it into those other articles for POV or non-RS reasons wound up here to tell "Putin's side of the story". There's excessive quotations and use of Wikipedia as a platform for Kremlin's views. I've tried to clean up the worst of it, but there's plenty of left. Hence the POV tag.

The "too long" tag was already there and yeah, it looks appropriate too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree with the tags. The article is too long and outdated, and also very POV (though not for the reasons you have identified, but more because of stuff like this [32]). What I really don't agree with is stuff like this [33]. Three uninvolve editors at BLPN concurred it was not appropriate for the lede, and re-adding in the lede after User:EtienneDolet moved it to the body of the article is sloppy and POV, as now we would have the same sentence twice in the article. Athenean (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
BLP is not the appropriate venue for discussing this as this is not a BLP issue by any stretch (also that discussion ain't over). And just going by common sense - as well as Wikipedia policy - you CANNOT put only the positive aspects of Putin's Russia's economic performance in the lede and then contrive to exclude the more recent negative aspects. Either we have a complete description of how the Russian economy did under Putin, beginning to end, which means both the good early years and the bad recent years, or we don't have anything in there about economics. You can't cherry pick like that - it's textbook POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't wikilawyer. Nothing you will say will invalidate the opinion of the users who commented at the BLPN. There is a clear consensus (6 users vs. 1) to remove it. Whereas the stuff you removed refers to his presidency over a long period of time, and is warranted in the lede. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the lede. Athenean (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
No, again, this is a POV issue. You can't cherry pick only the positives (from long time ago) and remove the negatives (which are the most relevant today). You've got it topsy-turvy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
What need's to be done, if we really want to improve this article, is highlight specific sections of the article you find problematic, and we can work together to resolve them. But placing tags, commenting on the talk page only because you have to, then saying vague riddles about the problem itself will not help get us anywhere. So for starts: what particular sentence or paragraph did you find problematic in terms of it being a promo piece? If you cannot justify the details beyond just saying "It reads like a resume" then I cannot take your word for it and have that specific tag removed.
As for your revert, I find that information quite important and much less recent than that of which pertains to current oil prices and sanctions. I don't suggest the lead be looking like a BBC newspiece that might as well have been published a couple of days ago. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I *did* highlight some sections. And I *did* give some examples of promo-language (just ... use Ctrl-F as SaintAviator suggests). But frankly the whole article is written in a promotional tone from top to bottom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
And WP:RECENTISM is an essay not a policy, and one which you're misusing (see WP:GAME) at that. It's not that hard. You are stopping the description of what happened to Russia's economy... in 2008. Eight freakin' years ago. And I'm sorry but, Russia's economic troubles didn't start "a couple of days ago" and are a very significant and notable part of Putin's presidency.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Great, that whole management bit can be resolved. Anything else? Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, the whole thing needs to be combed through from top to bottom. I'll try to do some more clean up on it tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek So what's the progress here? Again, if there's no specifics laid out, I'll have to remove the promotional tag. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, gee, maybe I'd have had time to work on it if you hadn't, um, "distracted me". But now I'm afraid you'll have to wait a little bit longer since, thanks to you, I had to deal with other stuff. Please leave the tag alone for now (and I already gave some examples) and I'll provide more examples shortly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Those examples you gave have been dealt with already. Unless you don't provide anything else that concerns you, the tag will be removed. The Wikipedia community cannot run off your schedule. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek So what's happening here? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you start a new section for this conversation, it's a little hard to note your comments because this back and forth is taking place in the middle of another conversation. And I'm sure you can be patient, rather than resuming an edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Why not hold off on that 'clean up' VM. List the issues here. We need consensus. Im with Étienne Dolet about 'we can work together to resolve them'. I'm against you going rogue and cleaning things up. Uh uh. Its disturbing to read this above 'There is a clear consensus (6 users vs. 1) to remove it.' Yet you put it back? Is that correct? If so thats way out of line. If so please self revert. Theres no need to edit war. BTW Athenean points about BLNP are sound ones IMHO. SaintAviator lets talk 08:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Like I wrote earlier, Athenean wrote that as soon as he got a couple "sort of support" comments at BLPN. But the discussion has changed. Now there's support for including the info in the lede - as it should be, otherwise the article is clearly POV (because, as explained repeatedly you guys are trying to put in only positive economic news but are trying your damned hardest to keep any negative economic news out).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
One could just as easily argue that you "are trying your damned hardest to keep any negative economic news in". Athenean (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
No, actually one couldn't. Here's the difference: I'm saying BOTH good and bad need to go in because that's in the sources. You are saying "only the good stuff because WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT the bad stuff". Or another way. The negative economic news is part of the story. So is the good news. We need to tell the whole story, otherwise it's POV. You want to cherry pick sources and facts to include only the good news, because you *want* POV. See the difference? Not that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Litvinenko report - UNDUE and POV wording

Latest comment: 8 years ago37 comments6 people in discussion

Re this edit. The text inserted says:

"The inquiry has been criticised as politically motivated, biased, lacking in evidence, and logically inconsistent"

This is all based on a single source. Which is just an opinion piece by a single individual. [34]. This is not an authoritative opinion. It's not a widespread opinion. It doesn't match what other reliable sources say. And in fact the author of that source has some pretty bizarre ideas about Wikipedia itself (Wikipedia is run by Hillary Clinton!). So this isn't even a notable opinion nor is it an opinion which doesn't violate WP:FRINGE.

This needs to be removed as it's a fairly obvious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, or the same caveat should be appended to every statement in the article that has received any kind of critical response.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is published in The Guardian, which meets the criteria for WP:RS. I have attributed the criticism to the author, but removing it is inappropriate. Seems another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wouldn't be the first time either. Athenean (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Being published in a RS is the minimum requirement for inclusion only, all content still has to be relevant and meet the requirement for neutrality and weight. This is someones personal opinion which conflicts with many other personal opinions and it clearly does no merit the weight it is getting here. Should we provide the opinions of everyone who has commented on the validity of the report in a reliable source? (obviously not, only those that merit weight)·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
But it's an opinion piece and you're using Wikipedia voice. Attribution is not enough. What matters is whether this view is notable, whether it is inline with other reliable sources and whether or not the author satisfies criteria under WP:FRINGE. And seriously, anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton runs Wikipedia, doesn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
There are clear guidelines for what is WP:RS, and the Guardian satisfies it. And I'm not using wikipedia's voice. Everything else is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, because it spoils the image of Vlad-the-cartoon-villain. I note there are plenty of similar "opinions" by Masha Gessen and Julia Ioffe (e.g. Putin is promoting Sharia law") in the article, but not a peep on those, eh? No way. The material I have added is sourced, relevant, properly qualified, and given due weight. If you have any problems with the source, go post at WP:NPOVN, or WP:RSN, but I fully stand by the piece. The author does an excellent job of making the case for why the "inquiry" is suspect. Athenean (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
1. No there is not a "clear guideline", whether something is RS depends on the claim and the context. 2. not everything in an RS can be included in every article - it has to be sufficiently relevant AND sufficiently neutral.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with "IDONTLIKEIT" it has everything to do with WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRY. Put simply, this is not a representative view but a fringe one, by a fringe author (who thinks Hillary Clinton controls Wikipedia) which you cherry picked to push your POV. It needs to go.
Also, I noticed that you reverted my POV tag. The matter is obviously not settled. Can you please restore it? 23:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
First of all, the source is neutral. Unless you can come up with a source that says it's not neutral, then all we have to go on is your word. Secondly, even if the source were not neutral (let's pretend) while wikipedia articles have to be neutral, that doesn't apply to the sources used. Is Masha Gessen neutral? Julia Ioffe? Btw, what do you consider "neutral"? Is anything that does not portray Putin as a bloodthirsty reincarnation of Stalin not neutral? So far, we have a perfectly reliable source, versus the opinion of two wikipedia editors. I think it's quite clear where we stand. If you have concerns about the source, post at WP:RSN. Otherwise stop this. Athenean (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
A statement of opinion is never neutral. Saying that it is shows a fundamental failure to understand wikipedias content policies and the NPOV requirement, and specifically the WP:UNDUE policy which explains clearly that weight and neutrality is determined by a sources standing relative to toher sources, not the venue of its publication.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree with maunus, and also let me point out that what is NOT neutral is CHERRY-PICKING a FRINGE source to try and sway readers to a particular point of view. Which is what you're doing. So it is *your actions* and *your edits* which are in violation of NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec) The paragraph as of now is neutrally worded and balanced. Its context is much better than what it was a few days ago. The fact of the matter is that no one knows for certain Litvinenko's murder was approved by Putin. Even the British report says it was probable, and even Western mass-media has picked that up. So there must be commentary from all aspects of the spectrum to give our readership an understanding as to why it was probable and not definite. Dunkerley's report is a good inquiry into that. Until recently, there was just the British government's report, and the Kremlin's reaction to it. A little commentary is necessary. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
But whose commentary? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind. It could be any part of the spectrum. The murder was probably ordered by Putin, but no one knows if it was for sure. It would be a grave disservice for our readership to not provide context and inquiries into the affair. After all, context doesn't hurt, it can only make things better. The entire Litvinenko affair is engulfed by all the hype. Our job as editors is to provide what we find relatively significant, it's up to them to draw their own conclusions. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE requires us to represent views with weight relative to their prominence relative to all relevant views. Hence we cannot cherrypick commentary from one side of the spectrum or the other, if the spectrum is equally distributed we would have to represent both sides of the spectrum. If one side of the spectrum is more prominent then that is the one that should receive more prominence. Dunkerley is clearly a pro-Putin writer, who has made a career of defending Putins Russia from offense. Do you believe that this is the most prominent perspective from which to write about Putin and Russia. I would say that the very fact that he thinks there is a need to defend Putin shows that the opposing view is at least equally prominent.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The paragraph is most certainly not balanced as it clearly gives UNDUE weight to a WP:FRINGE opinion of a single person (William Dunkrerley, who also happens to think that Wikipedia is controlled by Hillary Clinton's campaign). There is a ton of sources which reported on the report and which did NOT say the things that Dunkrerley is saying. The fact that User:Athenean CHOSE to include ONLY THIS ONE fringe source is clearly POV. It is literally meant to push a point of view. Again, I would appreciate it Athenean if you would at the very least restore the tag to its proper place - otherwise it's pretty obvious that you are attempting to reignite the edit warring that has plagued this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, I don't mind putting different opinions over this matter. As long as they're relevant and provides new insight into the case. We need to keep in mind that there's no surety as to who was responsible for Litvinenko's murder, even from the British report itself. Why is there such a level of doubt? Well, that should be elaborated. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
One problem is that the article's already too long. So it'd be best to just mention the report and what it says and eschew any commentary. The bigger problem of course is that currently we have just one fringe cherry picked opinion in the section, which is clearly not neutral.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. ED. Bon. The probably in the finding, denotes lack of surety, which means doubt exists which allows a bit of a section on such doubt, for balance SaintAviator lets talk 00:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Agreed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what this means. There is a report. It's notable, it's been reported on, we mention it. That's really all that needs to be done here to satisfy neutrality. One thing that is completely contrary to neutrality is cherry picking fringe source in an obvious attempt to sway readers to a particular point of view.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be pretty hard to convince anyone here or at the RSN (if it ends up there) that the Guardian publishes fringe theories. Referring to some article he wrote about the similarities with Clinton and Wikipedia doesn't help. Even if he did say that "Hillary Clinton controls Wikipedia", that wouldn't make Guardian article unreliable. That's like dismissing Bernard Lewis as a historian just because he denies the Armenian Genocide. In fact, I've heard no conclusive reasoning as to why the Guardian article is fringe and how that is even possible. Also, no one is cherry picking anything. I repeatedly have said that if it's notable, and relevant to the case, I don't mind it being placed in the section, regardless of what spectrum it represents. But in my view, the report should suffice. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
VM lets play colors. Black = 100% yes. White = 100% No. Easy. Q. So whats Grey? A. Grey = Probably. Savy? So a little doubt exists. The judges verdict was Grey. Not black. Thus a little doubt can be referenced. Its Simple.
VM please consider these points and be reasonable. BTW there is no consensus MVBW. Do we need outside help to go forward. SaintAviator lets talk 02:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • There is an RfC about this above. Thee present text was standing for a while without anyone's objections. Of course one could make this section significantly bigger, but this should be done by providing relevant factual information on the matter, rather than personal judgements/opinions. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The RfC is to have a section included in this article, which is fine with everyone here. Besides, just because there's a RfC, doesn't mean we can't add anything to that section per consensus we reach here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You said the RfC is the consensus, which is not true. If you have a problem with the source, please refer to the RSN board. But up till now, I haven't seen any reasonable justifications why the source itself can be considered unreliable. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not have any problem with the source. I have problem with text included without consensus by Athenean. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You claim that Athenean is adding personal opinions to that section. However, that cannot be further from the truth. It's a well sourced statement. You're also okay with expanding the section. Wonderful. So either you have to have a problem with the source, or you're going to have to stick to your guns and explain how sourced material could be a personal observation. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
VM is not saying that it is Atheneans personal opinion but Dunkleys personal opinion. That is true regardless of how "well sourced" his opinion is. And the question is why we should include Dunkley's opinion, and not someone else's. Dunkley is first and foremost known as a Putin apologist, not as an academic expert in Russian politics.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I don't mind including someone else's opinion. I think I've made that clear already. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
But you have not many any argument for why specifically Dunkley's opinion should be included. Which is what we are discussing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

ED, first, according to this edit summary [35], if there is NO CONSENSUS for inclusion, then the material needs to stay out until consensus is established. It's also very disappointing to see you edit warring right after you ran to 3RR board to report others. I'd appreciate it if you showed some good faith and remove the material until it can be discussed properly.

Also, it is incorrect that it's a "well sourced statement". It *is* in fact one person's opinion - and that person is known for bizarre views like that Hillary Clinton controls Wikipedia - published as an opinion and its inclusion is clearly POV and UNDUE. At the very least the section needs to have the POV tag restored until this is resolved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes. It does seem there was an RfC on this issue and the closure said [36]:

"I'm closing the discussion as the current text of the article at the time of the closure (edited by others, and appended below as a record) appears to meet the desires of most participants. Engleham (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC) In 2015-16 the British Government conducted an inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Its report was released in January 2016. Paragraph 10.6 of the report states: "The FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin." The report outlined some possible motives for the murder, including Litvinenko's public statements and books about the alleged involvement of the FSB in mass murder, and what was "undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko, led to the murder. The Kremlin dismissed the Inquiry as "a joke" and "whitewash"."

so ... basically Athenean is refusing to respect consensus by changing this text. Hell, they're not even trying to establish a new consensus. Just reverting.

This means that the text above stays as is until there is consensus for changing it (we can have another RfC on the matter).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Wonderful, we have consensus the 'probably', the doubt, can be represented. We just need to agree on source. To be consistent, are there any RS being used in WIKIPEDIA in a piece like Athleans source? same type of colume? Same guy? Newspaper? Any in this article? SaintAviator lets talk 05:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The RfC agreed upon wording and there's sources there already. It shouldn't be changed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Nah doesnt work like that. Heres a RS from Obamaas page for comparsion [37] SaintAviator lets talk 06:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually yes, it does work like that. There was an RfC. There was an agreed upon wording. It was closed. So don't change it unless another RfC changes the consensus. I don't care about Obama's article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Then we need another Rfc. SaintAviator lets talk 23:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Tabloid tag

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

A tabloid tag has been added to the article. Please provide specifics as to why this tag should remain. What can we do cooperatively to address the concerns? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek Here's the new section if you haven't seen it yet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
What tabloid tag are you referring to?
As for promo language, here's a couple quick examples. Let me emphasize that these are NOT exhaustive. Like I said, there's a ton of peacock terms and adulating praise in the article and it's actually easy to find. Meaning, this is going to take some serious work so please don't remove the promo tag until it's done. I'll try to highlight further problems as already mentioned ones get fixed. Here:
In 2007, Russia's GDP exceeded that of Russian SFSR in 1990, meaning it overcame the devastating consequences of the 1998 financial crisis
A central concept in Putin's economic thinking was ...
The whole paragraph beginning with "Under Putin as President and Premier..."
And the paragraph after that.
And more In the decade following 2000, energy in Russia helped transform the country, especially oil and gas energy. This transformation promoted Russia's well-being and international influence...
"Putin personally supervises and/or promotes a number of protection programmes for rare and endangered animals in Russia..." (lol, I think you forgot dolphins. Putin likes the dolphins.)
"Putin regularly attends the most important services of the Russian Orthodox Church on the main Orthodox Christian holidays" - why is that in here?
"In November 2001, Putin attended a Civic Forum sponsored by his administration with the purpose of bridging the chasm between state officials and grassroots activists including former Soviet dissident and Helsinki Watch, Ludmila Alekseeva." - I think this one is someone's idea of a joke.
"Putin met with a similar group on International Human Rights Day and proclaimed that his heart was with them" (ok I think I get what maunus was saying...)
"On the lighter side, Putin has won international support for sport in Russia"
Ok, I could keep going. Seriously if you printed this out article on dead trees, hung it up on a wall and threw a dart at it, you'd hit some ridiculously inflated promo peacock language.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh yes, this page is even more ridiculous than the corresponding page on ruwiki. My very best wishes (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that kind of language was indeed what I meant when I called this article a joke.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Well its a bio, other bios have such stuff. Obama is a supporter of the Chicago White Sox, and he threw out the first pitch at the 2005 ALCS when he was still a senator

During his presidency, he has acquired charms and trinkets that he carries in his pocket; included are a rosary given to him by Pope Francis, a poker chip, and a Coptic cross. “I carry them around all the time,” the president has said. "I’m not superstitious. I don’t think I have to have them on me at all times.

WOW. Deep. BUt wait, theres more.

Obama met Trinity United Church of Christ pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright in October 1987, and became a member of Trinity in 1992.[408] He resigned from Trinity in May 2008 during his first presidential campaign after some of Wright's statements were criticized.

OMG SaintAviator lets talk 05:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that stuff's in Obama's "personal life" section. The stuff I posted above is all over this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
(and the Wright stuff isn't trivia, that was actually a significant issue during the campaign).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Its still soppy SaintAviator lets talk 06:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hillary. That summer, she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez (which fired her and shut down overnight when she complained about unhealthful conditions). (reaches for tissues)

When the allegations against her husband were first made public, Hillary Clinton stated that they were the result of a "vast right-wing conspiracy",[199] characterizing the Lewinsky charges as the latest in a long, organized, collaborative series of charges by Bill Clinton's political enemies[nb 8] rather than any wrongdoing by her husband.

OK denial, bit tabloidy.

In her 2003 memoir, she would attribute her decision to stay married to "a love that has persisted for decades" and add: "No one understands me better and no one can make me laugh the way Bill does.

OMG get me more chocolates, I gotta subscribe to this tabloid. Waaaaa

Best one, Moochelle Obama

She essentially became the English lady of the manor, Tory Party, circa 1830s.

You cant make this tabloid shit up. So get real its everywhere. But having said that, I dont write like that, so Im not against NPOV style. In fact I prefer it, as long as its not used to be POV the other way SaintAviator lets talk 06:30, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That other articles are crappy is not wanting this article to be.,·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)a valid argument for wa
'The other' not 'That other'. Or 'That the other'. "Wanting this article to be"!!!! What? What are you saying? Your grammar raises a point. Was the above Tabloidy stuff just badly written? SaintAviator lets talk 23:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Another example of cherry picked POV pushing

Latest comment: 8 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

In the Relations with Europe, NATO, and its member nations. Stephen Cohen is quoted at length, but again - while he is certainly RS - he is not representative of general views, something he's been criticized for. As a result the section is unbalanced as it - once again, like other parts of the article - fails to present mainstream views instead favoring WP:FRINGE or borderline fringe views. All for the sake of POVVolunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, certainly. Let's fix it. And BTW, this page indeed has a number of problems, as was mentioned on this talk page above. Unfortunately, I do not have time for this... My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
We have to have a source, not just some opinion by Wikipedia users, that states Cohen is as you portray him as. Besides, just because something is not tabloid material, or not mainstream, doesn't mean it's not reliable or insignificant. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Cohen's dominates that whole section is a pretty clear indication that he's getting UNDUE weight simply because his views can be used for POV pushing purposes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Can you present he is not representative of general views SaintAviator lets talk 05:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The burden of evidence works in the opposite direction. YOU need to demonstrate that the view of a person who believes wikipedia is contreolled by Hillary Clinton is representative.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Uh uh you say its true show me the hard core RS evidence. Lets see it SaintAviator lets talk 06:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you understand what "burden of evidence" means? It lies on the person who wants to include something. Exclusion is the default.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
According to Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen
According to American scholar of Russian studies Stephen F. Cohen
Not mentioned that Cohen cooperates with "the flagship of the left".
Eltchaninoff isn't referenced at all (he doesn't publish in English, but several of our editors read French).
Surprisingly Anne Applebaum isn't referenced, she writes English.
Surprisingly Timothy Snyder isn't referenced, he writes English, he is academician.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, unlike much content on this sort of topic, the section reads relatively factually and neutrally and is all the better for not being loaded up with too much comment and conjecture, whether from an "RS" or not, and whether favourable or negative re Putin. Nor is it actually that heavily weighted in favour of Cohen - his work is cited twice I think, and one of his assertions (about the shift in media coverage, following the US govt shift in attitude) is included, attributed. The bigger "POV" problem would seem to in terms of what some might prefer this section to say than what it does. Encyclopedic neutrality does not consist in filling pages with commentary that I happen to agree with; it consists in not relying too much on commentary at all. And btw, if the comment above about Clinton is meant to refer to something Cohen has said, absent evidence of him having said it, I would strike that as a BLP violation. N-HH talk/edits 08:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Finally some common sense SaintAviator lets talk 09:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Pretty much the whole opening paragraph of the section is Cohen. And the problem is not how many times he's cited. It is that he's *the only one* being cited. Which is a pretty clear case of cherry picking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Then do what I do an add a balancing section. Why so much drama? SaintAviator lets talk 23:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Far right groups section misrepresents sources

Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

As far as I could see from the sources, Putin is suspected of this, but this may or may not be true. Nevertheless, these claims are represented as fact in the article. For example, the Guardian source doesn't say Putin funds these far-right groups. It has links with them. Other sources use the word "reportedly" when talking about these claims. This raises serious concerns which may have to addressed at BLPN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Le Pen has admitted to taking the money. We can put in "reportedly" in there if you'd like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, this is heading to BLPN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Be my guest. Just one thing. Please allow the discussion to take place rather than reverting at the sign of the first half-hearted support.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Please be aware that this is a BLPN article. Adding such serious allegations, rumors, suspicions, and other such questionable material should be avoided. In fact, they should be removed until clarified. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The information is well sourced and has been widely reported everywhere from New York Times to every other half-sized newspaper out there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes BLPN, let me know when SaintAviator lets talk 05:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't just load up a section based on newspaper reports which themselves are a lot more nuanced than than the content presented here. Le Pen's admission is in fact simply that the party borrowed money – as all political parties do – from a bank that happened to be Russian. It may well be a front bank for the FSB, but nothing explicitly says that. The NYT pieces merely says that "Jobbik ... is now under investigation by the Hungarian authorities amid allegations that it has received funding from Russia". None of this offers factual confirmation of state Russian funding, suitable for an encyclopedia entry on Putin himself. As with content on the RT page, what one or two editors are trying to do here is pretty transparent. N-HH talk/edits 08:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree, we tried being reasonable, but its like the tactic is flood the talk page. Then some of them just edit without discussing. SaintAviator lets talk 08:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry to annoy your little Putin fanboy fest with our irritating "tactics".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Case proven SaintAviator lets talk 23:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Removed Tony Abbott quote

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I removed the Tony Abbott quote cause it's more relevant to Australia's own foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia, and not in a biography about Putin. It belongs in either the Tony Abbott, the Foreign relations of Australia, or the Australia–Russia relations articles at best. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree SaintAviator lets talk 04:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with this one as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Wishful thinking of Richard Sakwa

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The crisis may encourage the president to allow the economic and political rejuvenation of a system made for inertia http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/08/oil-prices-russia-putin Putin may yet surprise us - he has, attacking Ukraine. Xx236 (talk) 11:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_10&oldid=1137301170"