Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Well now

Putin is the gift that keeps on giving. I don't know if y'all are over on BLPN already, but the recent activity in the history gives me cause for concern. I see sections starting "Under Putin's leadership..." going in and out of the article--sometimes giving him credit for unprecedented growth, at other times blaming him for the devaluation of the ruble. And whether such content is reliably sourced or not should not be the only reason for in- or exclusion: this is still a BLP, and UNDUE is a serious matter. In general, I think we should be very wary of including such complex content in biographical articles: it's like what one sees sometimes in articles about university administrators, where the PR person gives the president/chancellor/whatever all the credit in the world for a university doing well, and the detractors responding by blaming them for every single bad thing that happened. You all know it's more complex than that, and that no one person can determine an economy, for instance--if only because such things are the result of counterforces as well.

Be that as it may, such articles should never become lists of pros and cons, according to this biased scholar and according to that biased TV network etc. It's an invitation to poor article writing and edit warring, and there's also discretionary sanctions blah blah. In other words, I urge you all to talk. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Be wary of including complex content in biographical articles? That is silly (and contrary to wikipedias basic mission). Lives are complex, ergo biographical articles should be complex. The problem is when articles regardless of whether they are BLPs ot not degenerate into he said she said where everyone tries to stack in positive or negative little tidbits instead of writing a coherent overview based on summarizing the totality of sources. If we followed our own editing policies the section on "foreign policy" here would simply summarize the article on Putins foreign policy, including both positive and less savory perspectives in proportion to their prominence in the relevant literature. But some people are argueing here that anything that reflects negatively on Putin cannot be included in a BLP. That is an argument that would be destructive to wikipedias mission and credibility if allowed to stand.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I have the same concerns Drmies. Now it appears that certain users, who haven't even participating in the talk page, are reverting contentious information that was overwhelming rejected at the WP:BLPN and at the talk page of this article. This kind of tag-team edit-warring has been happening a lot lately and is creating an atmosphere of ongoing instability that has forced this article to go under page protection just recently. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You are one of such "certain users" yourself. And your claim about what was the outcome of the BLPN discussion is your own claim based on your own bias, the discussion has not been closed. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not one of those users because I'm discussing it here and at BLPN. Such a discussion doesn't need to be closed either. We can't add such contentious information to this BLP article without a strong consensus, which is far from the case. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You "discuss" a little and then you claim to have won the consensus and then you revert. That is not how wikipedia works. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I said we cannot have contentious information placed in BLP articles until there's a strong consensus for them. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

That is of course true. Exclusion is the default for contested material. But you have been editwarring yourself, and using your claim that consensus agrees with you as a way to justify your editwarring. So it is at best a case of kettles and pots calling each other black.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The idea that Putin, the strongman of the country that lost millions of people due to Nazi aggression, is secretly funding the openly Neo-Nazi National Democratic Party of Germany is obvious nonsense. The author of these claims must be insane (there is no substantiation in the article for such a claim either). And yes, it does not belong there per WP:UNDUE anyway.Dorpater (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Said who? Sources please. No, according to currently quoted and other sources, he supports right-wing parties in Europe pretty much openly. Also, I partly agree with Drmies. I think complex statements can appear in the body of text (if reliably sourced), however placing them in intro is probably overkill, at least in this case. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"Right-wing" does not equal far-right (except for in the brains of far-left loonies). NPD for example is far-right, of the worst possible type. (AfD on the other hand is not).Dorpater (talk) 21:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Quoted source [1] tells "far-right". My very best wishes (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it just tells "right-wing" (concerning AfD). And it is only one source anyway. Sensational claims need multiple reliable sources. For example, the claim that Putin is funding nazis like NPD is a sensationalist claim that can only be added once a strong basis has been established.
I also can't see why you're constantly removing information on the good showing of the Russian economy until the present crisis. It is true that the Russian economy coped with the 2008-2009 crisis more easily than we Balts, however, their current situation is miserable. Dorpater (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

"The idea that Putin, the strongman of the country that lost millions of people due to Nazi aggression, is secretly funding the openly Neo-Nazi National Democratic Party of Germany is obvious nonsense." - why, because no one's ever said one thing and done another? Because there's no such think as Orwellian doublethink? Because Putin actually gives a toot about Nazi aggression? Anyway: [2].Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Funny thing with Russia, she polarizes some editors. I dont even think its always conscious. It just feels right. Its all about old pain, history. Its a good case for [3] Clearly this type of warring would be less without anonymous accounts. (sighs) It would be interesting to see IP locations SaintAviator lets talk 23:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think we are actually making some progress. But here is something problematic. It tells (this edit by SaintAviator): However, after the Western sanctions were imposed, some Russian domestic industries have thrived, showing significant increases in output, such as the dairy sector and meat production.. Unfortunately, the source tells about something different. "Dmitry Kostygin, chairman of Russian online retailer Ulmart, told CNBC that "food retailers are doing fantastic and some retailers are doing quite well" out of sanctions." He tells not about Western sanctions (which did not concern any food), but about Russian counter-sanctions which did concern food ("Russia food producers were given a boost by Russia's retaliatory ban last August on agricultural imports from Europe, U.S., Australia, Canada and Norway"). My very best wishes (talk) 04:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

{{collapse|

Scroll. (bangs head on desk) (sighs) Then you see this "Russia gross domestic product (GDP) data after the sanctions were imposed showed that some sectors of the economy were posting significant increases in output, such as the dairy sector and meat production." It might say other shit but it also says the shit I said it did. For your own edification google this 'Russia sanctions helping businesses to thrive'. Then get away from the panic button. Deep breath and chill, thats it. Nice and calm SaintAviator lets talk 05:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing surprising about this. Some goods are inferior - when incomes go up, people consume less of them and when incomes go down, people consume more of them. Here. It's sort of like saying "being so ill that you can't move is great because you get to stay in bed all day!" (in fact some goods, like canned soup, are sort of famous for doing great in economic downturns. They even wrote a song about that). Anyway. MVBW is right in that the article is talking about effects of counter sanctions (and commits another fairly basic and common error in economics, but nevermind).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are talking about the effects of counter sanctions. In addition, who is talking? This is not a fact (as claimed in the text), but a claim by company executives who are interested in presenting everything in the best possible light. Finally, this has nothing to do with this biography page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well Now My very best wishes your senseless wrong unchecked edit revert was seen as vandalism (rightly so) and got the article semi locked. Next time scroll all the way and read all the words. VM you need to read more widely on this. Its actually like saying, Germany cant send me meat, lets increase our own herds. No sanctions without sanctions. No brainer (shakes head, mutters something about standards, sighs ) SaintAviator lets talk 06:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

LOL, Russia, however, reacted with its own sanctions against the West, and as a result. So simple. Maybe switch to de caf. SaintAviator lets talk 23:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin punished own population, the economy is collapsing. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(yawn) Do you even know who this site really are? All fiat currencies collapse, we are in such a cycle now. Its Global. Think Bigger. BTW I deleted your message. Maybe you should reread your copy, yeah? SaintAviator lets talk 06:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Saint Aviator, WP:NOTAFORUM (and no, not all fiat currencies collapse).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

All collapse, you need to study. It will improve your editing, esp on economics. SaintAviator lets talk 10:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that Volunteer Marek has accused us all of shilling for Putin here, and all but admits that his editing is intended on countering the "Putin Bots", even admitting that he'll get blocked if he continues to edit in such a fashion. None to worry, I have reported him to the administrator notice board for proper action to be taken, and would gladly ask that anyone else share their views HERE, as this would be the relevant place to do so. Thanks, Solntsa90 (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You really really really need to 1) stop stalking my edits and 2) stop lying about me. I said nothing of the sort and you're portraying the comments on my talk, made by someone else, in a extremely dishonest way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

1.) No one is lying about you 2.) I linked to your comments for a reason: So people can see them for themselves and make their own judgements based on them. You clearly agreed with the conspiracy theory that we were all "Putin Bots", and even admitted that your continued behaviour would get you blocked from editing the article to a fellow user. This is the appropriate venue to mention this potential conflict of interest, since this is the Putin talk page. It's not revenge, I just told you, within the framework of wikipedia, I'm not going to let you get away with politicising every article to your liking when you think no one notices, which is what you're currently doing, given the evidence before us. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The talk page of this article is not the place to discuss this. This is more disruption from you as you hijack the talk page to engage in more harassment and stalking. All that needs to be said here is that you're full of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Funny, you had no problem hijacking discussions when it came to announcing to everyone that the only reason why I participated in the discussion, was your supposed belief that I only was there to "stalk" you. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well Im saddened to see the Putin Bot allegation, but it explains a bit of the editing here. Certainly I dont see any Putin Bots recently. Poroshenko Bots? Erdogollum Bots? Nazi Bots? Langley Bots? Zio Bots? Who knows. As someone pointed out on the noticeboard, it cant be proven. So we churn on right. Its the wonder of anonymous editing. Lets focus on NPOV. Solntsa90 I believe you may add some balance by editing here. SaintAviator lets talk 00:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Zio Bots"? Well, that explains a lot.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Does it? SaintAviator lets talk 03:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• (Personal attack removed) I dont know if any of the regular editors here actually receive payment from Kreml, but if they don't they should definitely complain, cause for the past several years they have maintained this article better than Putin could have done if he were writing it himself and they deserve credit for that. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
• And a comment to SoIntsa90: Working actively to neutralize and obviously and heavily biased article is not a "Conflict of Interest", it is improving the encyclopedia. Working to actively bias an article by excluding significant critical viewpoints is also not a conflict of interest (unless the editor doing this receives economic gain for that), but it is working contrary to the basic purpose and mission of Wikipedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 04:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have the courage to name these Putin Bots of yours? SaintAviator lets talk 05:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Havent kept track of who have been writing the page. A couple of years ago one of the most ardent Putin supporters was Greyhood. Now it looks like you and Etienne Dolet have taken up the mantle of protecting Putin from having his image tarnished by the consequences of his actions. (Personal attack removed) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You just crossed a Wikipedia line. Do you know Einsteins famous stupidity quote? No? Google it SaintAviator lets talk 07:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have been editing neutrally on this page you should have nothing to worry about. You can easily prove my accusations wrong by demonstrating that your editing is balanced and not pro-Putin. I have not looked through your contributions yet, but judge only from our recent discussions. When I look through your contributions what will I find? ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You're a funny guy. Did you know I like East Europeans. The ones I knew were tough. Kinda in your face guys. I like that, crazy, sometimes not so smart, but hey, likable. And like me they liked guns. SaintAviator lets talk 09:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's ad personam attack plus personal impressions about everything.Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

More ad Hominem I suspect, to investigate motivation. I enjoy how you selectively weigh in on this, thus supporting the thesis SaintAviator lets talk 22:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2016

The lede used to say that there was widespread evidence of vote-rigging in the 2000 election. There is no doubt that Putin did not really win the election as it was rigged. Here is a source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7123198.stm 92.15.197.99 (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, sloppy request.WP:FRINGE SaintAviator lets talk 22:38, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolute power create absolute responsibilty

[[Assassination of Boris Nemtsov[[ should be mentioned if Nemtsov is mentioned three times.Xx236 (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it should.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope - we only use what can be supported by reliable sources as claims of fact when it comes to contentious claims. Nothing to do with "absolute power" at all. Collect (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Lots of reliable source can be cited for the view that Putin or Khadyrov was likely behind the assassination.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• Boris Nemtsov has published several good books about Putin and his regime: "Itogi"("Results"), Putin. Corruption and Putin. War. They can be used here for sourcing. It is also true that Nemtsov was killed just like two other authors of similar books, Putin's Russia and Blowing Up Russia. The murders of Politkovskaya and Nemtsov had the same "signature". There are numerous RS that connect these murders and blame of them Putin, directly or indirectly, for example [4], [5] and books by Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky, "The Age of Assassins. The Rise and Rise of Vladimir Putin." and "The Corporation. Russia and the KGB in the Age of President Putin" (the books were published when Nemtsov was still alive). These authors, including Nemtsov and many others, make a point that Russia under Putin has evolved into an empire of criminals, including murderers, which could also be noted on this page. But I am not sure if any significantly "negative" information about Putin can be actually included after looking at the discussions and the behavior of certain users above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope SaintAviator lets talk 22:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

"Nope" what? Yes, just like I said, the presumably negative information about Putin will not be included in this page. How? That's how. My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I smell Mr [6]. Thats why 'Nope'. This is a BLP, WP:FRINGE theories are out. SaintAviator lets talk 04:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

War crimes

The article should mention that by deliberately targeting hospitals in Syria Putin is guilty of war crimes. (92.15.204.113 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

No need for new section. Noticed the discussion?— 37 ^(talk) 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Blanket revert

This blanket revert [7] is unacceptable. Using a recent removal as an excuse to re-add a whole bunch of stuff that was long gone is really pushing it. In particular the re-adding of the % decrease in GDP in 2015 is intellectually dishonest. I recall Volunteer Marek was the one who insisted on "either include all the info, up to the present, or keep it all out" [8]. Yet now that the economic info from the lede has been gutted, apparently the same user wants the % decrease in the economy, but without the percent increase in the past decades. You can't have your cake and eat it. In your own words "either include all the info, up to the present, or keep it all out". Athenean (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

All that edit was restore sourced material. And this has been extensively discussed. Your removals were just a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, sometimes shamelessly so.

As to the economic info specifically, the text does mention the increases early in Putin's term. If you want to include specific numbers then you should propose how to do that in a neutral way here - I'm open to that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs to the lede. And yes, you're right, it was extensively discussed - in favor of removing it, not in favor of keeping it. It's also intellectually dishonest how you ask others to propose stuff (so that you can veto it), but you don't apply the same standard to yourself - you can just add whatever you want, WP:CHERRY and WP:UNDUE notwithstanding. Athenean (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems VM is just ignoring what is being said on talk, making massive edits, doing his own thing. — 37 ^(talk) 04:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Tridek, the entirety of your comments on talk have consisted of "I don't like it" "I don't like it" "I don't like it" "I don't like it" "I don't like it" "I don't like it" "I don't like it" "I don't like it" "I don't like it" - with no substance to them. Or making up strawmen and grossly misrepresenting text and sources. So yeah after awhile that kind of obvious attempts at WP:GAMEing start to look like just noise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the discussion was not in favor of removing. Except for you and your tag team (who are now getting blocked). And you do realize that you are pretty much admitting above that you were removing well sourced material? Glad we at least got that cleared up - so the sources are indeed reliable. And I'm not going to discuss anything with you unless you strike your false personal attack above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It's always the same thing: When you add sourced material, it's "I just added sourced material, don't remove it". When others add sourced material, it's WP:CHERRY, WP:UNDUE, "crazy conspiracy theories", and other wikilawyering. You don't want to discuss? Fine, not my problem. Then you will be edit-warring without discussing, as opposed to edit-warring while discussing. Your call. Athenean (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to discuss, just not with someone who makes gratuitous insults. Your refusal to strike your personal attacks sort of tells that you're the one not interested in discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You're one to talk about "gratuitous insults". Wild allegations of tag-teaming (you're really one to talk regarding that one), smugly mocking people for getting blocked. You had better hope this never goes to arbitration. Athenean (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not mocking anyone nor am I tag teaming. I see that you refuse to retract the personal attacks, double down on the insults and are now making empty threats.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here are changes by VM in question. This is definitely an improvement. Some ridiculous segments have been fixed or removed, but important information retained. More changes needed. My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• As a general comment, I must tell that even version of this page on ruwiki looks much better than that one. In particular, it includes large "criticisms" section [9] that tells a lot of things (such as Putin's policies negatively affecting Russian economy) that are vigorously disputed above for unknown reason. My very best wishes (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, calm down everybody. No drama please. Nobody is here to attack or insult others. There is no tag team here. Lets all assume good faith. Undoing and redoing edits that were already discussed in the walls of text above is not the way to go. Let’s discuss new changes, but avoid repeating the old ones. — 37 ^(talk) 05:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

There is an insult right above. So yes, some people are here to insult others. And in this edit [10] you reverted not just the matter under discussion but ALL changes I made, including regular clean up. *THIS RIGHT HERE* that is "blanket reverting", not the edits I've made. And then you demand "assume good faith"!!! Classic. And yes, you are tag teaming here with Athenean, so please stop denying the obvious.

How about you self-revert your blanket revert and start approaching the discussion with good faith (including in the sections above)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I always discuss in good faith and I assume you do too. — 37 ^(talk) 06:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This discussion, where you misrepresent sources and other editors suggests otherwise. This blanket revert of all my edits, even ones which should be uncontroversial suggests otherwise. Your personal attacks above also suggest otherwise.

If you want to show that you are indeed editing and discussing in good faith you should self-revert your blanket revert [11], restore the material and changes since most of them are uncontroversial. That would indeed show some good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually Tridek, these edits by Marek [12] are beneficial to the article. The re-adding of the Amnesty international stuff and the lede changes are another story, but the cleanup of the body text is not problematic and long overdue. I would restore them myself but then god knows Marek might accuse me edit warring and breaching 3rr and whatnot. Athenean (talk) 06:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, agree, I see what you mean when mentioning 'regular clean up'. But you can't also remove and restore content, thereby ignoring all previous discussions on this talk page. I hope you can understand that.— 37 ^(talk) 06:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• I fear of getting involved but to try to help, I have been reading these edits and I support Mareks changes to the body and also support the additional detail figures in the lede about the growth, they gave me more valuable detail, no idea on the Amnesty international stuff yet as didn't see that change. Govindaharihari (talk) 06:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The small clean-up edits are indeed not an issue. But it has become a mess. It seems the entire 'In the decade following 2000...' paragraph got removed. Help me here. I mean, I don't think that is a clean-up edit? — 37 ^(talk) 06:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is a clean up edit imho, anything that attempts to improve the article in a good faith manner can be described as a cleanup edit. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of pedophilia?

Why is there no mention of the allegations that Putin sexually abused children? (79.67.113.41 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

Please offer reliable sources that support what you are claiming, but the Biography of Living Persons policy means that "allegations" must be posted with care. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It was reported in all the newspapers: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/555739/Litvinenko-accused-Putin-of-being-a-paedophile (79.67.113.41 (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

One newspaper is not "all the newspapers"; in that article, his wife says she doesn't know if it is true or not, hardly a strong accusation, leaving aside the fact that it was made by someone seemingly killed on Putin's orders. 331dot (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Didn't he once behave inappropriately with a child in public as well? (79.67.113.41 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

I don't care to debate whether this is true or not; the point is that because this is a BLP we can't just post every allegation someone makes; it must be done with care in keeping with the BLP policy. If you haven't already, please review that policy. I'm not saying it doesn't belong, just that it must be done with care. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say don't do it, but I wouldn't get surprised if you can. Considering that there's just so much POV throughout this article, this might be the one article where you can get by placing such nonsense. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not nonsense - whether true or not, serious allegations have been made publicly, and newspapers around the world have reported these allegations. (79.67.113.41 (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC))

I say no its silly and Im wondering if theres any liability for WP if this is done. SaintAviator lets talk 23:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing wring with wikipedia mentioning allegations that have already been reported everywhere. (92.15.200.197 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC))

BTW 79.67.113.41 are you a single purpose attack account? Whats your story? You have just been made. I'm suspicious because of the timing and the distraction you are causing. SaintAviator lets talk 23:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Ad personam. Please comment the allegations.Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Politvovskaya / Berezovsky / Putin

@My very best wishes: -- I see you removed this entirely. I'm not saying you're wrong. I do want to start a discussion about how to handle the issue. One option would be to just leave it out, as you did. Not crazy at all. Another would be to note that the Russian media did make the accusation, then find some contrary evidence, if such is to be found. Berezovsky was of course himself later found dead under circumstances which, as best I can tell, have never been clarified. There is a pattern of Russian media making implausible accusations that various Putin opponents were responsible for the murder of this or that Putin opponent. If we could get there, that would be amazing. But I don't know what the sourcing is.CometEncke (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not remove everything about it, but only one phrase: "In 2012 Russian media reported that the alleged murderers named Boris Berezovsky and Akhmed Zakayev as possible clients." If you want to discuss it in more detail, this should be done on talk page of Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya (welcome!), but basically, the claim about the involvement of Berezovzky and Zakayev is something dismissed by RS. Speaking of "Russian media", this has been described in detail in publications by Novaya Gazeta where Politkovskaya worked. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

alleged mishandling of the Kursk submarine disaster

http://inosmi.ru/world/20150814/229620230.html

http://www.rferl.org/content/kursk-disaster-putin-turning-point-russia/27184505.html

http://www.interpretermag.com/putin-of-the-2000-kursk-disaster-is-the-putin-of-today/

Xx236 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Could people stop spamming the talk page with multiple new sub-sections full of little more than unsuitable links and/or pithy claims or insinuations about Putin? The Kursk incident is noted in the article; if the complaint is about the use of the word "allegedly", there may be a better alternative, but this is still about a subjective judgment, and one being made in the links above by hardly disinterested commentators (eg those writing for Radio Liberty). Increasingly the accusations of partisan bot-like behaviour seem not only the unwarranted personal attack they certainly were, per ANI, but directed if anything against the wrong participants on this page. N-HH talk/edits 11:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please don't attack me Wikipedia:No personal attacks, I'm not a bot.

The word allegedly is OR, the quoted BBC text doesn't support it.

Discussing the article isn't spamming.

Is there any rule that Radio Libert is unreliable?

Lidové noviny seems to be quite reliable, the article has been translated into Russian for inosmi.ru Is inosmi.ru unreliable?

Xx236 (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, his handling of Kursk disaster has been discussed in a huge number of RS, including books, and definitely should be noted. It is noted in this page on ruwiki. As far as I remember, this is also significant as an episode that led to closing of Russian media who criticized Putin. My very best wishes (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly.Xx236 (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I was just noting the irony that "bot" accusations were flying the other way, and that this talk page is now being inundated with short posts whose value is unclear. As for the Kursk incident, it and the impact it had on Putin's image is currently mentioned on this page, as I said in my initial response. As for Radio Liberty and opposition activist sources, the point is not necessarily so much about "reliability" as understood generally or on WP but about balance and perspective. We don't write Barack Obama's page by scooping up in great detail everything said about him in RT and other Russian media or on conservative talk radio. N-HH talk/edits 14:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Such scooping of details in a BLP with consequent denials leads to bloat. SaintAviator lets talk 23:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

2014 Financial crisis

Upgrading as agreed here with VM [13] in edit description

alright, let's update it then. Also, most reader will have a better sense how much 500$ is rather than 30k something rubles

SaintAviator lets talk 04:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Autism

Should the article mention that Putin is autistic? (79.67.112.168 (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC))

Autism is a defined medical condition - meaning one would need a strong reliable source stating as a fact that he has received such a medical diagnosis. So - in short - no, unless you can actually produce such a source. Collect (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources: [14], [15], etc. This idea has received an immense amount of coverage in reliable media sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And which medical doctor made the diagnosis, pray tell? "US Pentagon report from 2008 concluded that 'the Russian President carries a neurological abnormality', described as 'a form of autism' "  ? Really? Looks like "government agency takes pot shots without any medical diagnosis by a physician" here - like "Hitler has syphilis" during WW II. On - and the basis for this "medical diagnosis"

The study from 2008, which was based only on videos of Putin, claimed that the Russian president’s mother had a stroke whilst pregnant with him that left lasting damage.'

A diagnosis of a medical condition based on videos of Putin fails the laugh test here.

Your "separate" USAToday source? Same source!

Putin's "neurological development was significantly interrupted in infancy," wrote Brenda Connors, an expert in movement pattern analysis at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I. Studies of his movement, Connors wrote, reveal "that the Russian President carries a neurological abnormality."'

Medical diagnosis? Again - looks from here like a "political diagnosis" alas. Neither is remotely usable for making a claim of a medical condition about a living person at all.

Reason for releasing the "report" which has no medical value?

Putin's actions have been under particular scrutiny since early 2014, when Russian annexed Crimea from neighboring Ukraine. Since then, Russia has backed Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine while the United States and European allies have started a series of economic sanctions that have weakened the Russian economy.

Per your USAToday source. Sorry - find an actual real genuine fact-based medical diagnosis first. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned at WP:BLP/N. Collect (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, we will never have any medical records about any person. We can only rely on RS - as defined in policy. Simply telling that a claim was "absurd" (even though it was published in RS) is wrong. For example, Lenin did had syphilis, and Stalin had psychic problems according to his biographers. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And (last I looked) Lenin and Stalin are a tad less alive than is Putin and WP:BLP decidedly applies to Putin, presuming that he is alive, of course. Collect (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

This is all getting rather silly. The suggestion that this page is somehow under the control of pro-Putin POV-pushers is becoming increasinly untenable; if anything, the problem is the other way round, on the talk page at least. Anyway, the article is long enough without adding speculative medical diagnoses as well. The "but it was widely covered in RSs" might wash if we were writing a summary of media commentary on Putin rather than a broad encyclopedic biography, but we're not meant to be, last time I looked. N-HH talk/edits 14:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And accusing me of being "pro-Putin" would assuredly border on lunacy - I am "pro-BLP policy" as we all well ought to be. Collect (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course no one accuses you of that. And I am not telling this claim should be included. Most probably it should not, although honestly, I did not study this question.My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

• Should the article mention that Putin is autistic? No. Per my comments at WP:BLPN: Neither of the sources linked above makes the assertion that "Person A has medical condition B" (Assertion 1); on the basis of WP:V that assertion cannot be included. The sources do, however, make the assertion that "Government think tank C claims/theorises that (Assertion 1)". While this is surely interesting, on balance, I do not consider that it merits inclusion in an article on Person A; I would consider that it might merit inclusion in an article on Government think tank C. Additionally, a reasonable, and IMHO compelling, case could be made for exclusion from the article on Person A on the basis of WP:BLPSTYLE; particularly the first paragraph of the Balance subsection. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Second Collect and especially N-HH here. Dorpater (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully this sets a standard for inclusion. Though it seems blatantly obvious to me that this attempt to get Autism in was a bad idea SaintAviator lets talk 23:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

No. Sourcing is poor and diagnostic procedure is beyond absurd.CometEncke (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it has no place hereSaintAviator lets talk 11:11, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No - this is a red herring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Cost of living

Re [16] - I agree that it makes sense to mention the lower prices in Russia. However, the source here is not reliable. Numeo is user generated content - people report how much they paid for stuff. And I think it's relative to New York City too, which is not the right comparison anyway (NYC has much higher prices than other parts of US). You could try using PPP adjustments from the World Bank. But there's problems with that too. First, those are only periodically updated and the recent tumble of the ruble and the spike in inflation can play havoc with those adjustments and second, for a related reason, this gets into original research.

I think saying "cost of living in Russia is lower than US" is fine but you need a better source here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure OK VM. But this is how it reads now.

The Russian average wage has significantly declined and was reported by The Moscow Times to be 500 USD in the spring of 2015.

500 USD. Per what? Day Week month year? Its not good writing. I put in month twice now, you reverted. It needs a timeframe. SaintAviator lets talk 04:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It is per month. And it should say "salary" not "wage", those aren't the same thing. I'll fix it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The cost of living does not need to be there if the $US is not there. Makes sense. I also inserted the 8% as 'significant' is subjective. No need for ref name either SaintAviator lets talk 00:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

GDP statistics undue in lead

I removed the statement: "It entered a recession in mid-2014, and shrank by 3.6% in 2015."

To leave a statistic like that of which Putin can hardly be entirely attributed for is WP:UNDUE. So I gotta ask, how much of the 3.6% decrease in GDP be attributed to Putin's policy? The source itself clearly indicates that the decrease was due to an "oil slump". In fact, there's plenty of sources out there, including this one published by the Centre of European Policy Studies, that state that the sanctions were actually ineffective (Tridek Sep had also showed some other sources above that say the same). Most of the loss in GDP cannot be attributed to his policies, but rather due to the prices of oil in global markets. Indeed, any nation can be affected by that (some that come into mind recently are Azerbaijan, Oman, and others). These kinds of statistics be best placed in the Economy of Russia article, not in a BLPN article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Fully agree, its messy reading, + bloat. Anyone fully interested will click the main link re economy. SaintAviator lets talk 22:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian atributes the GDP drop to Pu - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/06/vladimir-putin-15-ways-he-changed-russia-world --Galassi (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"As former finance minister Alexei Kudrin reminded Putin during the president’s annual call-in show in April, the 7% annual GDP growth at the end of his first presidential term fell to just 0.6% in 2014, and the country’s economy is expected to enter recession this year. Not a great result for a man whose initials – VVP – stand for GDP in Russian." --Galassi (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

And the LATimes is even more direct - http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-putin-the-great-20141212-column.html.--Galassi (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin publicly said the Western sanctions have damaged Russia's economy. Russia is going to be overtaken by Spain this year. (92.15.197.99 (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Yawn, why not mention election fraud too

It satisfies the criteria for verifiability and reliable sources. You could just as easily question how much of the increase in the early period was due to Putin's policy rather than oil prices being high. What's good for the goose etc.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Russia's economy is dying. Its GDP is far lower than Italy's. Without China taking advantage of Russia's economic weakness the country would be in full recession. (92.15.197.99 (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC))

Off topic

Statements, even sourced ones, that fail to make clear how or why they relate to the subject of an article, should always be avoided. The aformentioned claim is one of them. It mentions a specific decline in the Russian GDP, but fails to explain how this decline relates to Vladimir Putin. Furthermore, the sources explaining the relation between the Russian output and the oil price, indicate that including this claim gives undue weight to the decline in GDP (same for PPP, real income, etc.) in the context of this article. In short, Étienne Dolet is correct to remove it.

In general, I think all statements should be verifiable and based on reliable sources (wow!). I previously mentioned that this was not the case for a statement in this article that linked the economical sanctions with the economical situation. It seems to have been rewritten since my last visit, but even now the claim is still not mentioned in the citation given. I suggest to find an actual source (I couldn’t) or remove this sentence as well. — 37 ^(talk) 20:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The statement *is* verifiable and based on reliable sources (wow!). What are you talking about?

See my first sentence. — 37 ^(talk) 22:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, which is just you making some rule up out of thin air as an excuse to remove something based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You also claimed the claim was not in the source and was not verifiable and not based on reliable sources. Why did you make that claim and are you still making it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The claim was removed not because it was unsourced, but because it was a case of WP:UNDUE. What are you talking about? — 37 ^(talk) 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Also why are you adding spurious tags to text that is clearly based on sources as you did here? That's also based on sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

See my edit summary. — 37 ^(talk) 22:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really helpful, since that's exactly what I'm asking you about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

You rewrote the claim according to the refs. It seems my spurious tagging has been helpful :-) — 37 ^(talk) 22:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It should go for all the points mentioned above. It also seems to have been a hasty inclusion, after that 'avoid the talk page' tag was inserted. SaintAviator lets talk 23:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the additions of Volunteer Marek and Saint Aviator. Not everything that has been published on the Internet about the Syria war needs to be included in this article. It already has a 'too long' template message in place. — 37 ^(talk) 23:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Athenean (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, the article is 'too long' because it has been stuffed full of promotional peacock nonsense (see section above), not because it has pertinent information in it. This is just an excuse to try and remove pertinent information for POV reasons and because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You want a shorter article? Leave this stuff alone and get to work cleaning up all the promo adulation stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) Regarding the % decrease of the russian economy in 2015, it seems some users want to have their cake and eat it. If you have to mention the % decrease in 2015, which is WP:UNDUE anyway, then we should also mention the % increase in previous years, which was in large part due to Putin's policies. Either both, or neither. You can't have it both ways. Athenean (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This is an important number that shows recent trends in Russian economy. Hence it should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case then we should also include the percentage growth in the previous decade, which was in part due to Putin's policies. You can't have it both ways. Athenean (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh no. The growth in the previous decade had happened despite the economic and other policies by Putin - simply as a result of very high oil prices. My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Says who? — 37 ^(talk) 04:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Says Mr [17] SaintAviator lets talk 04:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. I’m sure together we can create a reality we all can agree on. — 37 ^(talk) 04:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed but not including economic nonsense by MVBW, it smacks of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT] SaintAviator lets talk 05:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe his economic analysis is based on [18]. Who knows. — 37 ^(talk) 05:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hmm looks catchy. Get therapy here [19] SaintAviator lets talk 05:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

"Get therapy"? Please stop. You did just make a 3RR violation [20] and some of your comments on this page warrant an WP:AE action about you, especially since you was warned [21]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• Now, speaking about sources to support the statement (the growth had happen despite the policies by Putin), there are many of them, but here is one by Vladimir Milov and Boris Nemtsov. It is very comprehensive and specifically describes first 10 years of rule by Putin and attributes the problems to him: "Putin: what 10 Years of Putin Have Brought. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

www.putin-itogi.ru? Sure, anything more partisan and self-published? Btw editors that say stuff life this man does not deserve a decent blp page are the last one who should be threatening others with WP:AE action. Know what I mean? Athenean (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I provided an official link to English translation. This study qualifies as an WP:RS (a research publication by experts), especially since Milov is the former Deputy Energy Minister of the Russian Federation. Speaking about my comment on VM talk page, that was a joke, and I think an appropriate one. I was right in my comment: a lot of statements on this page are wrong or outright ridiculous, as already noted by someone else above. My very best wishes (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, this is clearly not a scientific source.— 37 ^(talk) 19:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@MVBW: I think you need to go over WP:RS again, because this is a self-published source, and self-published sources are generally not considered WP:RS. You do know what "self-published" mean, don't you? If not I can explain. As for your joke, I'm tempted to see if the admins at WP:AE will find it funny. I'm really tempted. Athenean (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The joke was addressed to VM. If he was offended (I hope no), that would be his responsibility to complain. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I see it more as a declaration of intent to sabotage this article. And I would bet that probably many admins would see it that way too. Athenean (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So, how exactly I am going to sabotage this article? Blow it up with dynamite? My very best wishes (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's see, how about removal of relevant well-sourced material because you don't like it [22], addition of WP:UNDUE material in the lede [23], general edit-warring and tendentious editing [24], talkpage trolling. Unless I'm missing something. Athenean (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You are. Your first diff shows removal of a cherry picked opinion piece by a crazy conspiracy theory, so no it's not "I don't like it". Your second diff shows addition of well source pertinent information. It's continuous removal is in fact the "I don't like it" here. Your third diff also shows restoration of well sourced and pertinent information, which actually *you* edit warred to remove. And your final accusations of "talkpage trolling" is baseless, unsupported and false. It's a personal attack and I suggest you strike it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would like to second User:Volunteer Marek in the request above. User:Athenean, you should strike the personal attacks.CometEncke (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

The children section of this article is incorrect. He has two daughters, and none of them are named Juri Hayes. 50.147.91.20 (talk) 08:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Already done Someone removed that name already. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin has never won an election

All independent observers agree he lost the 2000 presidential election, and only "won" due to voter fraud. So why is Wikipedia presenting false information? (79.67.116.122 (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

I've also heard the allegations that Yeltsin actually lost the 1996 election, but Zyuganov didn't actually want to become a president and so let Yeltsin assume office. Sounds crazy? Yes, but the source is a British academic historian at a television documentary. --Dorpater (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Everyone knows the 1996 election was rigged. Yeltsin stole millions of votes from his opponent, just as Putin did in 2000 and 2012. There has not been a fair election in Russia since the Cold War ended. (92.15.204.113 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

Only during the cold war era were elections free and fair in Russia? ;)--Dorpater (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Russia did not exist until 1991. Until then it was the Soviet Union. (92.15.204.113 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC))

• Of course Russia existed long before. But I think this comment by the IP actually makes some sense. None of these elections were fair or democratic, and especially the latest ones. Even in 2004, the only serious "opposition" presidential candidates, Ivan Rybkin was kidnapped, drugged and withdrew in the process. Given that, 2nd paragraph of introduction, which explains in length how Putin "easily" won all elections, is an overkill. My very best wishes (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

So change it. (79.67.112.168 (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC))

Oh no. I have had enough. If you really want to help, please register named account and help with improving WP, but I would strongly suggest editing other, less difficult pages. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Same guy. Banned? SaintAviator lets talk 23:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Quote from the British NGO Democracy Index is WP:UNDUE

Why no mention of Democracy Index being a British NGO, and why would this consistently be removed? It might mislead someone into thinking this is an international body of substance, such as a UN body or something, and not merely a self-interested report from an NGO funded by a magazine (in this case, the magazine being the modern liberalist slant of The Economist magazine.

Why is this being mentioned with so much weight in the lede? I have edited it to include the tag that The Democracy Index is a British NGO, but that gets removed.

Now, I think the reference to Democracy Index should be removed all together for WP:UNDUE, merely being the perception of a British magazine's view of the world (and their editorial stance has always been consistently anti-Putin, since he never supported neo-liberal market reforms).

Solntsa90 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You have a point Solntsa90. It's looking non neutral, unbalanced. SaintAviator lets talk 23:51, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree as well. It's just another western neoliberal think tank/propaganda outlet (same thing, really). Athenean (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I very strongly disagree. There is a link to the Index so readers can check it themselves. And this is an index which is widely used. So what if it's "British"? And last I checked The Economist was a perfectly reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Economist is actually one of the most shrilly Russophobic publications out there. Athenean (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You may think that. But the only question is whether or not it satisfies the criteria for WP:RS. And it does.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, because western propaganda outlets (Economist, IMF, BBC...) are considered RS by the wikipedia community due to systemic bias. However, the question of whether such material is lede-worthy is another matter. Athenean (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You know, when you refer to the Economist or the BBC as "western propaganda outlets" you sort of dispense with your own credibility. "Systemic bias" is not an excuse for POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No need to get personal. Propaganda outlets is exactly what they are, no less than RT. Russophobes exploit the systemic bias in wikipedia that considers these sources reliable to push their POV. Athenean (talk) 08:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing I said above was "personal". What I said is that your view of these sources is ... a bit strange to say the least. If you think the BBC and the Economist are "propaganda outlets" on par with RT you're sort of in the wrong place. Again - this isn't anything personal, it's just pointing out that your POV is pretty WP:FRINGE. Criticism is not necessarily personal. But now that you've put "personal" on the table... who exactly are these "Russophobes" you're referring to? THAT sounds like a personal attack. A cowardly and weaselly one at that since you're resorting to weak-ass insinuation rather than making the accusation outright.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Media control is an issue regarding neutrality because the stakes are very high. But things are changing. I saw awhile back CNN lost half its viewers in 2013. MSNBC lost 50% in 2 years. In 2013 RT becomes first TV news brand to hit 1 billion views on YouTube. Talking to people I find people dont trust MSM as much as before. Its due to the lies like WMD and the Exposes like Snowden. So yeah Athenean what you say can be sourced. In the USA 60% dont trust MSM. Here [25] and here [26]. SaintAviator lets talk 10:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Who cares. You seem to have a fairly fundamental misunderstanding of what "reliable" in the "reliable sources" means. We don't judge "reliability" by the number of "hits" that some website gets, or the number of viewers or the number readers. There are probably very few people out there who read academic scholarly sources. There is probably a ton of people who read trashy celebrity tabloids. Yet scholarly sources are hella more reliable than "random junk found on the internet". And honestly, when someone starts throwing out the phrase "MSM" that sets off a lot of WP:NOTHERE flags.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Was my point too subtle? Again what I provided is background. Over time reliability changes. We are in such a change. It takes time. One thing you learn having to churn out 4 x 5000 word essays per term at higher education is this. You can always find RS to support what you say. On WP in this environment thats being abused. That impacts WPs credibility. The result is this lower standard than it should be article. SaintAviator lets talk 00:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it was just weird and incorrect. You seemed to be saying that "reliability" should be judged by the number of hits a website gets or something. That's not how it works. And actually no, it's NOT always possible to "find RS to support what you say". Some things it's easy to find RS for. Some things it's hard. Some things it's impossible. Which is why some editors bring up this supposed "systematic bias" as a lame excuse for "I can't find reliable sources and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT so I'll do it anyway". It's basically an attempt to circumvent the encyclopedia's rules on reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hits dont equal RS, thats obvious. As an example. Unis RS excludes WP. WP excludes many publications as RS itself. Thus of course some things cant be RS about Putin, because they are not printed in the West. Systemic bias creeps in, from pro and anti Putin editors. I dislike that type of editing. SaintAviator lets talk 03:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, in your statement above you seemed to be making that argument. In fact it's pretty explicit. Good to see you've changed your mind. I don't know what you're talking about in those last three sentences. Whether something is or is not printed in the West has no bearing on reliability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand. I didnt change my mind SaintAviator lets talk 23:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

No, the democracy index is obviously important. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't we also consider the fact that an index from 2011 is pretty old? We're talking about a five year old assessment here. But more importantly, I am also concerned with the index itself. The 2015 index listed Cuba, Vietnam, and Myanmar as more democratic countries than Russia. That sounds a bit fishy to me. Despite my personal observations, any such index can be comparatively analyzed by other similar assessments. So other indexes may rank Russia lower or higher on their own scales. It's pretty useless to just leave one stat in the lead and leave all others behind. That's the definition of undue weight. So it's best to move such indexes or studies from the lead to the body where each study can be outlined in a more detailed fashion and left to the reader to judge. Or else, I do agree that there's too much weight given to just this one assessment. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes thats old. And undue. Needs to go as Étienne Dolet says. SaintAviator lets talk 03:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it needs to be updated. No it does not go. What exactly is UNDUE about it? It's relevant, it's on topic, it's of interest, it's a reliable source, it's notable. I'm sorry but this sounds like plain ol' WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. If you got other indices you'd like to discuss please bring them up here first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

One-party Communist dictatorship Cuba as freer than Russia (do you ever read Russian media or websites? There's lots and lots of pluralism despite Putin's grip of power), the monarchist theocracy Saudi Arabia were stoning people to death is a normal practise freer than Syria where there has been at least some political pluralism - come on, this list is complete crackpottery. 77.93.29.14 (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see. On one hand we have a reliable source. On the other hand we have the opinion of an anonymous IP editor on Wikipedia. Hmmm, which one should we go with? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

VM cant see that yet it appears. Outside help? SaintAviator lets talk 23:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I can't understand what you're saying.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see sanity has prevailed in the talk page consensus. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously though, a few articles such as Vladimir Putin, RT News etc. have been ruined by insidious anti-Russian bias; I'm not saying we add *pro* Russian bias, but the anti-Russian bias is apparent and obvious to anyone who actually reads these things and is observant enough to notice the small words attempting to change meaning and act as agents of persuasion.

Good work on this article though; Glad to see it has been thoroughly updated to a more encyclopedic rendition. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Solntsa90, you just got a off a week long block for edit warring, stalking and general disruptive behavior, which encompassed this very article. You might want to find a different topic to edit for awhile just to show that your intent on Wikipedia is not just WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ADVOCACY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I was blocked for a week for a 3RR violation, not stalking, not harassment, no other reason. Don't lie. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hes done his time, he can be here SaintAviator lets talk 06:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact that he's jumping right back into the kind of disruptive editing that led to his block in the first place sort of says otherwise. I mean, he can be here if he wants to, his business. But he's starting edit wars again. And using false edit summaries [27] (there's obviously no such consensus so claiming one where it doesn't exist is, um, untruthful).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Democracy Index is WP:DUE. This is an organization that tracks how democratic a country is, or not. Obviously relevant to Russia in general and Putin in particular.CometEncke (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin is not Russia. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

With respect, I concur that this information & source are not germane to this article; certainly not for inclusion in the lead section. Putin is not Russia is a very succinct way of putting it, but it is also accurate. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, and thank you for pointing out the obvious. I would also argue that the 3.5% decrease in Russian GDP in 2015 is way beyond the scope of the lede of this article. It appears a group of editors are confusing this article with Economy of Russia. Athenean (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin is not Russia. Indeed. Well said. Solntsa90 confirms his value here. BTW VM Wikipedia is redemptive, not vindictive. You have had warnings, yet you are here. He can be also unless you get a ruling otherwise , your comments are not helping reduce the edit war mood SaintAviator lets talk 23:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh please. Before you guys were trying to remove this text because supposedly it was "outdated". Now that I've updated it from 2011 to 2015 you start with this "Putin is not Russia" business. Nonsense. The source explicitly mentions Putin as the reason for the political developments. This is just more WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and more attempts at WP:GAMEing Wikipedia policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

No it's not. It's clearly undue because some random democracy index (based in the west) has a ranking on Russia, which has nothing to do with Putin, because Putin isn't Russia.

What is it about the discussions here that you don't like? You act in very poor faith about all the editors involved in this process that don't bash or make anti-Putin POV edits. Why is that? Solntsa90 (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

It's NOT a "random democracy index". SO WHAT if it's "based in the west". YES IT DOES have something to do with Putin as you would realize if you actually bothered to read the source. Putin IS head of the Russian government and the index is about the form of that government. No, the EIU is NOT an "NGO". Anything else you want to get completely wrong?

And I'm going to ignore your usual dishonest accusations which at this point really are form of trolling, especially when combined with the fact that you're WP:STALKing my edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The passage should stay IMO, all the ensuing ru-WP:IDONTLIKEIT notwithstanding.--Galassi (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There is also a multitude of RS which claim that Putin's rule is fascist, so mere "authoritarian" is quite middle of the road kind of description.--Galassi (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow! If there are indeed "multitude of RSs" claiming Russia is a fascist state, I'd like to see just a few of them. Dorpater (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?q=%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD+%D1%84%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 --Galassi (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't seriously mean vk.com is a RS.Dorpater (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There are over 600K links on the subject. A goodly number of them are RS.--Galassi (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Take Putin is a fascist to a noticeboard, Lol, Id love to see that SaintAviator lets talk 23:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Galassi So Russia's a fascist state. What do you want us to do about that? Is this something you want to add to the article? If not, your comments have to be deleted per WP:FORUM. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be added eventually, as there are heavy-duty RS apropos, for example - http://nv.ua/opinion/garin/u-kogo-uchilsja-putin-istorija-rossijskogo-fashizma-65239.html .--Galassi (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, many politologists and historians are talking not about neo-Nazi, but about Corporatism. That's why Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky called their most recent book (where Putin was prominently described) "The Corporation" [of Chekists]. Something about Corporatism in Russia, where Putin is allegedly the head of the "corporation" can be actually included I think.My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

None of these are reliable sources. In fact they are WP:FRINGE sources. Any material from such sources would constitute a BLP violation, and will be treated as such. Athenean (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Too long?

I wouldn't call this article "too long". Not exceptionally organized, perhaps. Too much detail in places, perhaps. But I don't think that this article deserves the "too long" tag, for such an important topic (vital article!) about an active politician. Oeoi (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

OK noted SaintAviator lets talk 07:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Vote-rigging

There were indeed accusations of vote-rigging in the 2000 Russian presidential election: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/692014.stm (AndrewGulch (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC))

An allegation ascribed to a single named person is not in the same category as general "allegations". Alex Jones makes "allegations" all the time - but the weight we should give such "allegations" is not the weight you seem to wish to use here. Collect (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

We had an IP user obsessed with vote rigging spam earlier, curious SaintAviator lets talk 23:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:TPG

Read it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

source falsification

A newly created account (not the first one to plague this article by any stretch) recently added this claim [28] to the lede of the article regarding the 2000 presidential election, sourced to this BBC article [29]. As is clear, the BBC article is not even about the 2000 presidential election, but about the 2007 legislative election. Pretty amazing that this case of blatant source falsification went unnoticed with so many watchers on this article. Athenean (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it too. With this pages history, lets watch these guys. One more blatant source falsification = vandalism SaintAviator lets talk 06:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I added the wrong source there. The introduction should mention that the legislative elections are rigged, just like the presidential elections. There has never been a fair election in Russia. (AndrewGulch (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC))

Allegations of vote-rigging do not belong in the lead of this BLP article. I might just have to send this issue over the WP:BLPN because this is concerning. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This kind of POV Undue editing is not good SaintAviator lets talk 23:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin has never been elected. (79.67.117.59 (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC))

Dictator

As Putin has never won an election, should the article describe him as a dictator? (92.15.207.55 (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

Wikipedia doesn't even describe Kim Jong un as a dictator.CometEncke (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Kim Jong un is more democratically elected than Putin. (92.15.207.55 (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

In that case I guess Chernenko was the last democratically elected leader of ex-USSR then. Gorby was too reform-minded already. --Dorpater (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin has never been elected because the 2000, 2004 and 2012 presidential elections were massively rigged by his regime. (92.15.207.55 (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

Are his popularity polls rigged too? I find it hard to believe that someone who receives more than 80% approval ratings would need to rig an election. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Etienne, if you find fake reasons to ban opponents from running, don't let opponents have airtime on TV/radio, and start a war in a neighbouring country to demonstrate how easily 'democracy' can deteriorate into anarchy, then you are acting undemocratically but may easily end up with a lot of popular support by default. Those are Putin's tactics. Malick78 (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Its delusional, rofl (then sighs) SaintAviator lets talk 00:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Very high approval ratings of the Leader (more than 80-90%) are in fact an indication of a dictatorship/totalitarian system being in place. All or most Supreme leaders had such high approval ratings, even Hitler. Everyone knows it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Now Im ROFLMAO, by your logic My very best wishes Truman, Kennedy, both Bush Presidents and others were dictators. Take it to a board if you think youre right. That could be fun. (Shakes head in disbelief) SaintAviator lets talk 02:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Bush never had such ratings. Anyway, this is only one of many typical features of totalitarian systems or dictatorships. My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Which one? Yes THEY did. Did you even bother checking or is this more truthiness SaintAviator lets talk 05:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You shouldn't compare Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler. There were no presidential elections in Nazi Germany. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not my comparison, but something published in multiple RS [30]. Did not you read them? My very best wishes (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

How does that article relate to anything we're talking about here? Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I responded to your comment above ("Are his popularity polls rigged too? I find it hard to believe that someone who receives more than 80% approval ratings would need to rig an election."). In brief, the popularity "polls" and "elections" mean nothing in political systems that are not democracies. This is all well known. My very best wishes (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, but what am I supposed to do with that article you showed me? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Nothing, its worth nothing. Hes seems incapable of basic proof checking POTUS historical approval ratings on WP. This behaviour of yours MVBW is soft core edit waring. Youre wrong, own it SaintAviator lets talk 05:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

These IP user name threads like Autism are many and share a theme, anti Putin POV. At first I thought time waster, might be a Sock. Investigate? Maybe. But regardless, now I see that they are so blatantly not valid, like Autism and this one, and get no real support, they actually strengthen us NPOV users by making anti Putin POV look ridiculous SaintAviator lets talk 23:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Most dictators like Putin and Nasser have high approval ratings because they control the press, and rig elections. (79.67.117.59 (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC))

Putin isn't a dictator; There is simply no evidence to even suggest as much. He has won more elections than George W Bush has. Solntsa90 (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

George W. Bush won the 2004 election. Putin has never won an election. (79.67.117.59 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC))

I suggest deleting this section. It has nothing to do with a real content suggestion, and has BLP implications. Its existence just encourages more of the same. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Me too, not just this one, a few others too. If they go on Im doing a Sock Hunt SaintAviator lets talk 02:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

What "section" are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The one you have posted the above in! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Update, all these IP user names are from the same place: Checked using WP tools under IP address. Its one person SaintAviator lets talk 03:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted four of the IP-editor's talk page election-related sections, they were all just blatantly spamming the same fringe thing. There are two still there (I left these ones because they had additional postings with them), plus this one. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Polls

Internal polls are meaningless as they are controlled by the Kremlin. The media and press are censored and controlled by the government. The 72% figure for the 2004 presidential election should not be included in the lede as it is a false figure. (AndrewGulch (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC))

Without providing sources, your posts can be seen as spamming. --Dorpater (talk) 18:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

AndrewGulch, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, stop just trying to start a fight by posting your opinions about Putin. Discuss the article instead. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not my opinion. The fact is that the results were falsified by the Kremlin. He did not get 72% or anywhere near that. (AndrewGulch (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC))

Read WP:NOTAFORUM point 4. Then read WP:RS. Then realize that if you get 72% you get 72%. If you win an undemocratic election, you still won the election. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

edit summaries which are quite far from accurate - especially considering that the source did not support the claim per discussions above

[31] has a snarky edit summary: It's in the source, Collect. be more careful...

The claim was: despite allegations of vote-rigging referring to the 2000 election, using [32] as the source for that claim.

The source states:

Mr Zyuganov has made accusations of vote-rigging, which may or may not be supported by international election observers. However, there seems little doubt that Mr Putin was the country's favourite.

In short, the source states that a single person made such an allegation, and that the allegation was unsupported by "international election observers" as such.

In short the claim was taking a comment about one person's charges, and making it into a general claim that Putin likely rigged the election.

I find the reversion and its outright misstatement about what the source states to be abhorrent and contrary to the letter and intent of WP:BLP and ask whether others find that source is accurately represented by the claim ascribed to it. Collect (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I also found it concerning. I'll have to remove it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The claim was: despite allegations of vote-rigging referring to the 2000 election, using [33] as the source for that claim.

The source states:

Mr Zyuganov has made accusations of vote-rigging, which may or may not be supported by international election observers. However, there seems little doubt that Mr Putin was the country's favourite.

In short, the source states that a single person made such an allegation, and that the allegation was unsupported by "international election observers" as such.

In short the claim was taking a comment about one person's charges, and making it into a general claim that Putin likely rigged the election.

I find the reversion and its outright misstatement about what the source states to be abhorrent and contrary to the letter and intent of WP:BLP and ask whether others find that source is accurately represented by the claim ascribed to it. Collect (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

William M. Connolley Criticized by who? According to the sources, it was merely the leaders of some opposition parties such as Zyuganov. Does that merit inclusion? Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Bordering on vandalism SaintAviator lets talk 23:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

One of the sources for this claim is a broken link. The other is just a bunch of accusations by his opponents. Very far from something lede-worthy in a BLP article. Athenean (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Do y'all really want an article on Putin that fails to indicate the widespread concern about his democratic bona fides? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Way I see it, that is already addressed by the Democracy Index stuff. In any case, that material was not properly sourced. Athenean (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec)SaintAviator: No. Talkpages are for commenting on the article not the contributor. You are in the wrong here. Athenean (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, see my comment below SaintAviator lets talk 10:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, apparently the concern is not so "widespread". Even if it were, it's hard to say that such claims and allegations belong in the lead. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If you don't stop your sniping and deleting other users' posts, I'm going to call on an admin. Then everyone will lose. HalfShadow 07:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead -- an admin is exactly what is needed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Both of you shut your collective pieholes. I could be doing important things right now. HalfShadow 07:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

We have had maybe five threads on this vote rigging theme in under a week? Some were deleted. Some by IP only accounts [34] Plus other odd themes, the one on Autism was silly. That was a time waster. Why dont we have this taken to another level to bury or not this one as a constant Lede addition. SaintAviator lets talk 10:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin has never been elected because he stole millions of votes from his opponents in the 2000, 2004 and 2012 elections. It's well known that he has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome. (79.67.117.59 (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC))

See what I mean? SaintAviator lets talk 02:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2016

TheIronBuck31 (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

while Vladimir served in his army, he was once shot in the shoulder by an enemy, he had to undergo some surgeries, and he was unable to move his arm for weeks

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 03:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

more blatant POV pushing, whitewashing

This edit This edit (corrected diff) removes the mention of an Amnesty International report as UNDUE. WTF? And replaces it by a quote from Lavrov. Can you try and not be so obvious in the over the top POV pushing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It was not replaced. It was deleted. The other material rounds out this small section, in Putins page. Its a BLP not a place to just load it up to create WP:UNDUE. Its not the Syrian war page. If you like details like that, edit there. We cant bloat the article with minor cherry picked stuff that oddly from you is always casting Putin / Russia in bad light. POV? Yes you did. My stuff is neutral, your problem VM is you hate Putin being neutral. You are the POV pusher round here. Own it. SaintAviator lets talk 08:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to stuff the Putin article choc full of praise for Russian's foreign policy then the criticism need to be also included. And I'm sorry but saying that a report from Amnesty International is "minor cherry picked stuff" is dishonest bullshit. And don't tell me what I "hate" as you got no idea and comments like these only reveal your own biased WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude to editing these articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree 1 critical 1 denial, that sort of thing. Thats what I left, one of each. You had 2 to 1. As per BLP guidelines an allegation is followed by a denial. What you do VM is only add the criticals, hence you have history of WP:BATTLEGROUND fights i.e recently with Solntsa90 and Athenean. I was a bit harsh above. After looking at your contribs, I dont know how much insight into the POV condition you have. BTW as stated above Putins BLP does not need bloatedits. Note the tag. Its too long. SaintAviator lets talk 09:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Here’s what happened folks. I put a tag after a sentence. VM removed the tag, calling it absurd and spurious. I rewrote the sentence. VM did not challenge it. VM thought it was better to put in a new sentence because, as we all know, Putin is bad. Funny what a ‘spurious’ tag can do.

Seems VM is the one who is adding ‘spurious’ content.

It’s always nice to learn a new word. — 37 ^(talk) 17:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Your tag was spurious as the source does actually say. The claim that it "failed verification" is false. Also, this section is about this edit (corrected the diff) above, where SaintAviator removes well sourced info based solely on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, the source didn’t say anything about the ‘international community’. I rewrote the sentence. Nobody seems to object. — 37 ^(talk) 18:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Does that kind of information even belong in a BLP about Vladimir Putin? That would mean to attribute the killing of civilians to him in some way, or else why have that information here? It's more suitable for the Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Recently the US bombed a MSF hospital in Afghanistan. Yet that info is not to be found in the Barack Obama article, and rightly so, because it doesn't belong there. Yet when it comes to Putin, everything must be included here. It always Putin's fault. Civilians in Syria are killed? Putin's fault? The west imposes sanctions on Russia? Putin's fault. The price of oil falls? Putin's fault. There is a snowstorm in Russia? Putin's fault. Athenean (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• That does belong to the page. If reliable sources tell that "Putin is targeting Syrian civilians" like here, there is nothing we can do about it. But this is nothing special. They did the same in Chechnya and in Moscow. My very best wishes (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That article points to the very same Amnesty International report and does not provide "Hard Evidence" that Putin is directly ordering the massacres of civilians. In fact, it doesn't even mention the word Putin in the body of the article at all. Yet, the headline somehow does. Oh the wild wild West. Sigh. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I already said that the section on the Syria war is too long. Yesterday, I removed the most recent additions of Volunteer Marek and Saint Aviator. Athenean agreed. New text got added anyway.— 37 ^(talk) 19:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Putin is not "targeting Syrian civilians". The article is from the "Atlantic Council" a hardcore neocon propaganda outlet. Athenean (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's the original article. Somehow, the title of this article changes from "The Toll of Russian Air Strikes on Kafr Nboudha" to "Hard Evidence That Putin Is Targeting Syrian Civilians". That's horrible journalism and an exemplary model of Western systemic bias against Putin. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, impressive example. Who reads past headlines anyway? — 37 ^(talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I am really surprised that you do not understand it. This is very simple. Making a decision about Russia being involved in this war was a personal responsibility and decision by Putin. This is according to Russian law. Putin never denied it. Hence almost all sources, including Russian ones consider him responsible. My very best wishes (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What Russian law makes Putin personal responsible? Can you be more specific?— 37 ^(talk) 20:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Please read President of Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no such 'personal responsibility'.— 37 ^(talk) 20:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Barack Obama responsible for every death in Afghanistan? Libya? Iraq? The only ones claiming "Putin targets civilians in Syria" (an insane accusation), is the Atlantic Council, a hardcore neocon propaganda outlet. You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of sources here. I don't know if that's because you don't know what a reliable source is, or if it's intentional. Athenean (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Every President (and every person) is responsible for his decisions. That is what sources tell about. But I was always surprised while talking with you guys, why do you always care so much about Obama, even on this page? Probably, as people now talk in Russia, "We never lived [in Russia] as bad as under the President Obama". My very best wishes (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in Obama. I'm just using that article as an example to illustrate how hollow your argument is. As for the rest of your post, I think you're losing me there. Not sure I follow. Athenean (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What sources? Remember when I asked you to be more specific?— 37 ^(talk) 20:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

What's more concerning than the wording in the article itself is the actual intent in which this particular bit of information is being forced into this article. Using non-RS articles that senselessly claim that "Putin Is Targeting Syrian Civilians" to justify these edits is particularly concerning, since it demonstrates that the underlining motive is indeed to portray Putin as a murderer of civilians. That's a very big no-no, especially in a BLP article. This is textbook POV pushing and it cannot be tolerated. I suggest removing such contentious and ill-conceived information from this article at once. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It should go for all the reasons mentioned above. — 37 ^(talk) 21:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is simply not true. There are literally hundreds and possibly thousands publications in RS about it [35]. The only question how exactly this should be described in the page. Same about civilians killed during wars in Georgia, Ukraine and Chechnya. My very best wishes (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So Amnesty International is not a reliable source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The article on Amnesty International's website does not claim that Putin is personally responsible, it doesn't even mention Putin. Interpretations like these only underline the problem raised by EtienneDolet. — 37 ^(talk) 22:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that unless Putin was right there in the cockpit pushing the button then we can't blame him for Russian actions in Syria. That's a ridiculous standard and you're just moving the goalpost. You wanted reliable sources, you got them, now you're making extra demands. Here is another source: [36] Amnesty International accused Vladimir Putin’s government of knowingly targeting residential areas in “indiscriminate attacks”. And here is the fact that Putin is personally denying these charges [37]. And here is another source which blames Putin [38]. And another. And another. I'm sure you'll come up with some absurd reason to dismiss these sources as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't say that. That's not what personal responsibility in a legal context means, since that's what MVBW was talking about when he mentioned Russian law.— 37 ^(talk) 23:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

So you're dropping your objections? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you want me to comment further? You said you were sure I'll come up with absurd reasons. Make up your mind.— 37 ^(talk) 00:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you dropping your objections? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Objections to what? Including the claim that Putin is personal responsible for the killing of civilians in Syria? Euhh, yes, I do object to that. The suggestion of Étienne Dolet was aimed at removing such allegations from this BLP, not to add more.— 37 ^(talk) 00:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm starting to lose patience here. Objections to including the Amnesty International report text. The text which was added DOES NOT ... DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT say that "Putin is personal responsible for the killing of civilians in Syria" (sic). No one ever tried to add that to the article. No one has made "such allegations". You are misrepresenting the text like crazy. So is EtienneDolet. You are very obvious about the fact that you're not acting in good faith. I mean, seriously, you guys are not even keeping up appearances.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

All the sources provided by VM cite the same Amnesty report (or rather, they distort it, because the report does not make the insane claim that "Putin targets civilians"). The sole exception is Newsweek, which actually reprints a piece of propaganda from the Atlantic Council, a neocon think tank. This is classic WP:CHERRY to push a by now familiar POV. Athenean (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Well of course they cite the same damn report because the text they're suppose to cite is about the god damn report!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Please stop with this inane obstructionism. And how YOU feel about secondary sources is not at all relevant, important, or significant here. Go start a blog to complain about it if you want to. In the mean time please stop disruptively removing well sourced material. Or if you must go to WP:RSN and ask'em about whether these are reliable sources. Jeez.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Again. why is this being removed? It's well sourced. It's notable. It's been widely reported in sources. It's about Putin. There has been no good reason provided for removal of this info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because something is "well source" or "widely reported" doesn't mean it belongs in a BLP of someone who is indirectly responsible at most for what is being claimed. Let's not forget that this is a BLP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In other words what you are claiming is the right for yourself to remove any material that you WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. That's not how it works. Is the material sourced? Yes, very well sourced. Is it on topic? Yes, sources explicitly mention Putin. Is it notable? Yes, this has been widely reported upon. Is it of interest to the reader? Yes of course. Is it a BLP issue? No, that's a BS excuse invented to push POV by removing any critical information from the article. Sources disagree with you, get over it and please follow Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources don't explicitly mention Putin. Please show me what part of the Amnesty report that does. Also, the preceding sentence already mentions "not discriminating between combatants and civilians." Why do you want to keep adding more and more to that? Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about?!?!??? How can you sit there and say something which is blatantly untrue and at the same time is easy to check???

This source is titled "Hard evidence that PUTIN is targeting civilians".

This source says "In a major new report on Russia’s intervention in Syria, Amnesty International accused VLADIMIR PUTIN'S government of knowingly targeting residential areas in “indiscriminate attacks”, before covering up the evidence and effectively lying to the international community.

This source is entitled "What VLADIMIR PUTIN is up to in Syria"

This source says "President VLADIMIR PUTIN launched action in the war-torn country to support Syrian president Bashar al-Assad - but a watchdog claims he has blood on his hands"

And these aren't new sources. They were mentioned explicitly above (and dismissed by one editor because "they were all about the same thing", which has to be the most ridiculous objection I've seen in awhile).

But fine. I'll assume good faith, and I'll assume that you didn't read the above discussion closely enough. But since what you said was blatantly untrue, how about you self revert and restore this material since in fact sources DO mention Putin? Or at least stop edit warring about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Amnesty report itself, is what I'm asking. The Newsweek junk has already been discussed and dealt with above. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean "Newsweek junk"? Why is it "junk"? Newsweek is a reliable source. And no, it has NOT "already been discussed and dealt with" (whatever that's suppose to mean). And perhaps you didn't notice, but it's not just Newsweek. There's FOUR sources up there and more can be easily found. So let's see....

You claim that "Sources don't explicitly mention Putin". This is easily shown to be completely false (and has been pointed out already).

When provided with explicit quotes from sources you refer to one of the sources as "junk" even though it's reliable.

You pretend that the other sources which were ALSO provided don't exist. I don't know, I'll continue to assume good faith. Maybe you were reading so fast that somehow you missed the fact that there are four sources up there not just one. But again, if you just made a mistake... because you were reading so fast... then simply drop this and undo your edit.

And then you ask for "The Amnesty report itself". What does that mean? We report what reliable SECONDARY sources say. And these are all reliable secondary sources which discuss this report. It appears that you are demanding that *your own* personal interpretation of a primary source be accepted instead of how secondary sources see it.

I don't know man, it's getting really hard to assume good faith here. One ... "error" after another. Pretending sources haven't been provided. Pretending they don't say what they obviously say. Pretending they don't exist even when they're shown to you explicitly. It's sort of piling on and you're just making it more and more obvious that your intent here is not NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and we can add to that list the fact that you were pretending right above that the text being added to the article was "Putin is personal responsible for the killing of civilians in Syria" (sic) when it was nothing of the sort.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

In case you haven't read what I said above about the Newsweek:

That article points to the very same Amnesty International report and does not provide "Hard Evidence" that Putin is directly ordering the massacres of civilians. In fact, it doesn't even mention the word Putin in the body of the article at all. Yet, the headline somehow does. Oh the wild wild West. Sigh.

And I continued saying:

Here's the original article. Somehow, the title of this article changes from "The Toll of Russian Air Strikes on Kafr Nboudha" to "Hard Evidence That Putin Is Targeting Syrian Civilians". That's horrible journalism and an exemplary model of Western systemic bias against Putin.

So Newsweek's a joke. The rest refer to the Amnesty International report which doesn't even mention the word Putin. Secondary sources referencing a primary source in an exaggerated and unrepresentative fashion is not POV. Those guys want to sell their articles to the public, or have people click on their flashy news titles when they post them on Facebook or something. So again, I ask: what part of the Amnesty International report states that Putin was directly involved with the killing of civilians in Syria? To add such contentious information that Putin was at most indirectly responsible for is not recommended under basic Wikipedia guidelines, especially for BLP articles. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Newsweek's a reliable source. How you feel about it personally is irrelevant. What you are doing is dismissing a source out of personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Your interpretation of the Amnesty International report is just that - your own interpretation, in other words original research. I gave you several (not just Newsweek) sources which explicitly mention Putin (which you shamelessly tried to deny). You are explicitly admitting here that you are unwilling to follow what reliable sources say because they don't match your POV. Are these sources reliable? Yes. Your opinion that they are "exaggerating" or whatever is beside the point. The fact that you flaunt your refusal to follow WP:RS is telling.

And for the thousandth time. The text being added is NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT that "Putin is directly involved with the killing of civilians in Syria". Please drop this ridiculous strawman. The text being added is that Putin's government is involved. I mean, who else? Russian military is killing civilians and targeting hospitals. That's what human rights organizations are saying. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders. Yet you come here and are trying to tell us that this is unrelated to Putin. Sure, he probably doesn't know about it. It's some rogue elements in the Russian army or something. His bad generals. Putin never knew about any of it and if he did he would have stopped it for sure. I sometimes wonder if this whole talk page isn't some psychological experiment in how much absurd shameless lying people are willing to put up with.

As to the current sentence - it misrepresents the sources. It pretends, falsely, that it's only "United States and France" (you know, the evil "West") which have criticized the killing of civilians. Which is nonsense. It's actually human rights organizations which are saying this - and that is the relevant part which you are so hell bent on removing. This is POV pushing and whitewashing, about as blatant as it gets.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Saying "Putin's government" would mean to indirectly associate Vladimir Putin with the killing of civilians. That's not something that is tolerable in a BLP article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You're making stuff up. This has nothing to do with BLP. The only question is: do reliable secondary sources describe and report on this phenomenon? And yes, they do. A lot.

One gets a sense that when you say "intolerable in a BLP article" you actually mean "anything that might be even remotely critical of Putin will not be tolerated (by me and my POV tag team) in this article".

And again. If the government headed by Vladimir Putin is targeting hospitals and killings civilians, then, yeah, I guess that does "indirectly" associate Putin with that. So what? If many reliable sources back that up - and they do - then it needs to be in the article.

Let me restate again that the version you're trying to have in the article misrepresents the sources by falsely pretending that it's only "United States and France" which is making these criticisms, whereas in fact it's highly reputable international human rights organizations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin was not directly involved with the killing of civilians. To place it in this article would imply that he is. Or else, why would it be here? Place it somewhere else. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

One more time. The text is not saying "Putin was directly involved with the killing of civilians". Please stop pretending that it does. How many times do I have to ask you? I've asked at least three times now. The text says, per reliable sources, "Putin's government was directly involved in the killing of civilians". That's what sources say. The sources which you first pretended didn't exist (even though they were shown to you repeatedly) and which you then tried to dismiss because... well, because you didn't like'em personally. Please stop this WP:GAME where you try to set some kind of Wikipedia record for obstinacy and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You're saying things that I've never ever said here. I said the text implies that he did, or else why would it be on an article dedicated to his biography? Putin's government means Putin in an indirect sense. It's hard to say Putin's government even deliberately ordered the killing of civilians. That's just tabloid material. And even if it did, that would mean to indirectly associate it with the killing of civilians with him which is not strong enough of a claim to belong in a BLP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources say what sources say. Take it up with them. Write a letter to the editor. In the meantime stop trying to dismiss reliable sources per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Stop constructing strawmen arguments about some text that noone's actually trying to add to the article. Stop trying to conduct original research. Stop pretending that no sources have been provided when in fact quite a number has been provided. Stop pretending that there is only one source here when in fact there's quite a number. Stop playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Some sources say things for the sake of publicity. Which is fine. This doesn't mean they are any less reliable than other sources. But sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. In this case, the sources have bloated, exaggerated, and misconstrued the Amnesty International report. So if we were to cite the Amnesty International report as a primary source for the killing of civilians, we need to consider the report itself, not some tabloid articles which are hardly in compliance with the primary source they refer to. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is your own personal opinion so who cares. You know very well that reliable sources trump one editor's personal IJUSTDONTLIKEIT so there's really no point in repeating these theories of yours.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The reliable source, in this case, would be the initial report itself, which doesn't mention the killing of civilians by Putin. To insist otherwise would be a violation of the basic guidelines of BLP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nooooooo. You need to read WP:RS again. The initial report is a primary source. The sources which I provided are the secondary sources and yes, they are reliable. This isn't a BLP issue. It's an issue of you pretending that the reliable sources which have been provided do not exist. It's an issue of your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And it's an issue of you edit warring. Again. Making 3 reverts in just a couple of hours. And frankly, I'm having a hard time believing that you are actually that ignorant about the policy on reliable sources. That kind of a claim is just strange coming from someone who's been around like yourself. Although I guess not, in light of your admission above that your intention is to ignore Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources because... you don't like them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

These secondary sources, as I have already said, do not properly represent what the report actual;;ly says. So if we are to get rid of any discrepancies between the report and the secondary tabloid/OP-ED material, then we'll have the refer to the actually report itself. And even if the report says Putin's government or the government of Russia or the Russian military as the culprits in the killing of civilians, that would only mean that Putin is at most indirectly involved with the killing of civilians. That's something we should refrain from inserting in a BLP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

"These secondary sources, as I have already said, do not properly represent what the report actual;;ly says" - THAT IS YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION WHICH DOESN'T MATTER ON WIKIPEDIA!!!! Jeez f christ, how many times does this need to be pointed out to you??? *YOU* think they "do not properly represent". I, and other editors think they do. What's next, you claim the right to add and remove text to this article as you seem fit? You using this article as a vehicle for personal beliefs and propaganda? (Oh wait...) No. Please stop with the stubborn obfuscation. You are clearly engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing here and you blatantly and explicitly claim that *YOU* personally are so super special that *YOU* get to ignore reliable sources at will is plainly disruptive and contrary to whole host of Wikipedia policies. If you don't want to follow Wikipedia policies on reliable sources then you shouldn't be editing here.

And to the long list of failing to observe WP:RS, of conducting your own personal original research, of being fairly obvious about not acting in good faith, of edit warring, of acting in a WP:TENDENTIOUS manner, of playing stupid WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games on the talk page just to derail discussion and annoy other editors, we might as well add a pretty obvious case of WP:CRUSH.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Please, don't shout. As far as I can see, there's at least five users (i.e. Tridek Sep, SaintAviator, Athenean, N-HH, and myself), as opposed to just one, who are against having this addition of yours in the article. That seems like a clear-cut consensus to me. Again, you haven't really explained the extent in which Putin was directly or indirectly involved in the killing of civilians. All I hear is a rehash of the same arguments through an effort to bring to bear guilt by association charges against him just because he happens to be the head of government. That's not good for BLP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Hi VM I hear what you are saying and the other side too. Im a big fan of BLP guidelines, accusation PLUS denial, worded as NPOV as possible. A way forward? SaintAviator lets talk 06:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

You have a suggestion? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That was it SaintAviator lets talk 07:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers regularly use a reference to the leader of a country as shorthand, especially in headlines. We can have esoteric debates about the extent to which Putin genuinely does exert greater control in Russian than other leaders in their own countries, but the bottom line is that WP:RS – despite its entirely reasonable acceptance of newspapers as sources for basic reporting of facts – does not mean "directly transpose newspaper-speak and media commentary into encyclopedia pages". N-HH talk/edits 08:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thats good, I like that SaintAviator lets talk 10:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

""directly transpose newspaper-speak and media commentary into encyclopedia pages"" - What does that even mean? Nobody's doing that. All that is being done is that text based on numerous reliable sources about notable aspects pertinent to Putin and his government is being added to article. And then some people are removing it for POV pushing reasons, according to their WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, making up a whole bunch of ridiculous excuses along the way.

Is this info backed by reliable sources? Yes. Is it about Putin? Yes. Do the sources say this is about Putin's government? Yes. Is it of interest to the readers and pertinent to the topic? Yes. Why is it being constantly removed then? The only reason left is that some editors are hell bent on whitewashing this article to push their POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think I've heard this one before. WP:REHASH anyone? Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT anyone? It wouldn't be necessary to repeat myself if you didn't keep pretending that you didn't hear something. It's pretty obvious that it absolutely does not matter what arguments or sources or policies are brought to the table, you will insist on getting your way no matter what. Hell, you have said that you intend to disregard WP:RS and ignore reliable sources because... you feel like it. If Putin's mom showed up on this article and said "yes, this is well sourced and notable" you'd probably attack her and accuse her of "exaggeration and bias". This conversation is pretty useless at this point for the very simple reason that you are obviously not discussing or editing this article in good faith. Your stated intent to ignore policy is evidence of that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, as has been already argued above, this should be included. This is something claimed in multiple RS and highly significant. Remember that BLP does not override WP:NPOV. Quite the opposite. It requires an even more rigorous application of WP:NPOV. Please read the policy. WP:NPOV is not about writing panegyrics to politicians, but about fairly representing claims as published in majority of RS. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Include I concur with Marek and My very best wishes. This is relevant and reliably sourced and should be included. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That makes it 6 exclude 3 include. SaintAviator lets talk 01:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Consensus is determined by policy-based arguments. Above we have: EtienneDolet explicitly saying that he don't care what reliable sources say and that he's not going to follow Wikipedia policy, WP:RS, on this one but rather just remove it according to their own original research ("I think those sources are biased") and POV. Then you have Athenean who's complaint appears to be that... all the sources provided are about the topic! I really don't even know how to respond to that. Then we have you, who's just engaging in a little sideline cheerleading and helping out with the tag-team edit warring, having said nothing more substantial than "me too!". Tridek Sep is also just basically giving "me too!"s to EtienneDolet and just repeating the bullshit assertion that the text in question "holds Putin personally responsible" for the civilian deaths in Syria. Which has been repeatedly pointed out to be nonsense. That leaves N-HH who's possibly actually making an argument here but it seems mostly to be that some users are being "hypocritical" rather than about the text itself. I don't know where you get "6". So no, it's more like 1 vs 4.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP do not require pages about politicians to be hagiographies, but equally such pages are not meant to be hatchet jobs or venues for pursuing real-world political arguments. Constantly shovelling in negative information, while taking the moral high ground, accusing others of "POV-pushing" and saying "it's in an RS", is kind of missing the point. All sorts of things are said in "reliable sources", but not all of them have to be included on a page: you have to make some assessment of relevance, of weight and of what is "fact" and what is commentary or judgment. And of course half the people now editing warring over this diff don't even seem to believe their own self-righteous statements about sourcing anyway: both the material being put in and the material being taken out in it are sourced, but funnily enough people are insisting on taking out the content that arguably paints Putin in a better light (re the level of pre-election support) while simultaneously adding that which appears to paint him in a worse one (re Syria). It would be funny if it weren't so obvious and hypocritical. N-HH talk/edits 10:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then what DOES determine whether it should be included? Relevance? Check. Notability? Check. Wide-spread coverage? Check. Of interest to readers? Check. You're basically saying "not everything that's in reliable sources needs to be included so I get to remove anything IJUSTDONTLIKE at whim". No, that's not how it works. Please make actual policy based arguments not just "I do what I wannnn!"

As to the hypocrisy thing, it's a bit of apples and oranges. On one side you have people removing weaseling and editorializing which, true, appears in a reliable source but essentially as an offhand comment (personally I actually don't care that much if it's included). On the other hand you have editors fighting to exclude something that's been reported in a TON of reliable sources, IS the main point of these sources and which is essential to making sure that sources are not mis-represented.

See, right now the text says that only "United States and France" have criticized Putin government's attack on civilians. That 1) is POV and 2) misrepresents the sources. The reason is that it's not just "United States and France" (i.e. the evil "West") that are making these criticisms, but it's international, independent, human rights organizations!. Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch. Doctors Without Borders. Others. So right now we, as Wikipedia, are basically lying to readers - because it suits some editors' POV.

The fact that editors like EtienneDolet are fine with keeping the "United States and France are criticizing" part but are fighting to remove any mention of Amnesty International saying the same thing at all cost pretty much belies the claim that this is a BLP issue. Or any other issue. They're ok with it being in there as long as it's presented in as POV way as possible.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)