Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

personal wealth

Let's compare what the article currently says on this subject with what actual reliable sources say.

Our article:

"Figures released during the legislative election of 2007 put Putin's wealth at approximately 3.7 million rubles (US$150,000) in bank accounts, a private 77.4-square-meter (833 sq ft) apartment in Saint Petersburg, and miscellaneous other assets.[348] Putin's reported 2006 income totalled 2 million rubles (approximately $80,000). In 2012, Putin reported an income of 3.6 million rubles ($113,000). [349] According to the data, Putin was not one of the 100 wealthiest Duma candidates of his own United Russia party.[350] According to Russian opposition politicians and journalists, Putin is rumoured to secretly possess a multi-billion fortune.[351] via successive ownership of stakes in a number of Russian companies,"

Reliable sources (a summary):

"In 2014, Putin’s official income declaration stated that his annual salary amounted to RUB 7.65 million, just under EUR 143,000 at the time....However, journalists, historians, and economists who have examined Putin’s assets largely agree that he is likely to be a multibillionaire by the time he leaves office. Their only difference of opinion lies in whether his total estimated wealth amounts to USD 40 billion, USD 70 billion, or even USD 200 billion"

"(Browder) claimed that Putin was the world’s wealthiest man. Browder stated to CNN that Putin was “the biggest oligarch of all”. There is meticulous research into this claim. Research conducted by the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism has shown that, until now, Putin has been photographed with watches worth more than EUR 200,000. Some anti-corruption activists have even spoken of a value exceeding EUR 600,000. At official events, he has been seen wearing a Patek Philippe Perpetual Calendar, which costs around EUR 60,000"

"Now commonly referred to as “Putin’s Palace”, the estate is a pretentious building with Italianate architecture. According to Reuters research, it was financed by Nikolai Schamalov, one of Putin’s Dacha friends....Until now, the Kremlin has denied that Putin owns the estate... (but it's guarded by) Federal Guard Service of the Russian Federation (FSO), the government’s security service."

"Martynjuk and Nemstov’s report concluded that in reality, Putin lives a life of luxury. It claimed that he owns dozens of villas, airplanes, and ships. According to the authors, the toilet in one of the airplanes apparently cost about half as much as Putin officially earns in a year." - sooooooo... 113,000/2=57,000 dollars on toilet paper alone, in just one residence."

"Russian journalists are aware that writing about Putin’s money could get them into trouble, with unpleasant surprises ranging from tax audits to break-ins, for example. "

And that's just scratching the surface. When the Wikipedia article is that far removed from the reality of reliable sources, we've got a serious problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that if there is going to be the current level of detail about his official declared assets and income, there should be more about the allegations about his wealth (leaving to one side the Panama Papers by-association claims) so long as it is attributed. However, there doesn't need to be a hugely detailed laundry list of allegations clogging up the page or overwhelming it, just like it doesn't need excessive detail about anything else. And don't forget there is, immediately beneath the personal wealth section, two hefty paragraphs about "Putin's Palace" etc. Overall, there are four lines on what he modestly claims to have and nearer 20 on his alleged profligacy, so the balance is if anything the other way on one reading. And we should not ignore the fact that much of the criticism and claims about wealth comes from people he has fallen out with and opposition activists. As ever, simply saying "reliable sources" obscures that difficulty and also sidesteps questions of balance. WP:RS can be a blunt tool and does not live in isolation from other WP rules and guidelines. N-HH talk/edits 21:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

In selection of sources, the real consideration is not their "bias (as alleged by certain wikipedians), but their expertise on the subject. Has Bill Browder a qualification to judge about Russian finance and politics? Yes, certainly. How about Stanislav Belkovsky, who some consider a Putin's supporter? Yes, he is certainly an expert in this, and he is not a political opponent of Putin by any account. How about Boris Nemtsov? He is famous, and he authored three books, specifically on this subject. You dismiss best available sources, simply based on your personal opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The substantive allegation in Suddeutsche article is about Putin being a multi-billionaire. I think it would be fine to put that claim into the personal wealth subsection. OH wait, according to VM it's already there.Haberstr (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Moving something to another section could be fine, but that is not what you did [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The allegations about personal wealth in the first paragraph had already been deleted when I edited the subsection. I looked back through the edits and rediscovered them. You can see them now in my suggested edit below, of the 'Personal Wealth' subsection.Haberstr (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2016

Please change "His rumoured confessor is ultra-conservative Bishop Tikhon" to "His rumoured spiritual confessor is Russian Orthodox Bishop Tikhon Shevkunov, author of the Russian bestseller, Everyday Saints and Other Stories". StTakla1 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done -- sounds kinda spammy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I fixed this by just saying "Russian Orthodox Bishop Tikhon Shevkunov," without characterizing him in any way.Haberstr (talk) 10:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

economy edit

This edit is mostly fine - just nit picking a few things:

• The accession of Russia to WTO was indeed a big deal and should be retained, although the editorializing about the benefits or lack of them should be avoided.
• In the control over the economy paragraph, the fact that Putin's political opponents were forced into bankruptcy should be retained as should the citation itself (not sure why that was removed)

Otherwise these are good improvements.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• WTO was still there, just way smaller. Some dude, above, got this sucker (his words) down to 175k by trimming. Now we are 181k. Good start, but if we list all lifes victims, like these bankrupts, its just gunna bloat. SaintAviator lets talk 03:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't have to list'em, just have a short phrase describing the general situation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you notice that edit by SA above also removes the following phrase: In 2014, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project named Putin their Person of the Year Award for furthering corruption and organized crime. Do you agree with this removal? I would consider this important. My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding it to the "Recognitions" section, since apparently that section is being expanded even as rest of the article is being reduced in size, but then I might be accused of "using sarcasm" (even though I'd be dead serious).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Im following Drmies suggestions, which seem spot on SaintAviator lets talk 06:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have much of an opinion on whether it's worthwhile keeping or not, but I thought it lacked context--it seemed sort of haphazardly thrown in, that's all. Drmies (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, it could be in the "recognition" section. Anyway, the info itself is important, so wherever it goes, it does belong in there.

Also, I changed back that the economic crisis started when the ruble "depreciated" back to where it said that it "collapsed". Currencies "depreciate" all the time and it's no big deal (indeed, under some circumstances it can be a good thing). This wasn't just a depreciation, this was a collapse (the usual threshold employed in the literature as to what constitutes an "exchange rate crisis" is a depreciation or devaluation of more than 15%, here's we're talking about the currency loosing half its value).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

VM, with respect its not collapse. Control F here. [2] Collapse = Wiemar Republic kinda chaos. Have a read and here too [3]. Best phrase is recession. SaintAviator lets talk 06:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The economy is in recession. The value of the ruble collapsed. Not sure why you're pointing me to another Wikipedia article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Panama papers

Please do not restore without reliable sources linking the companies directly to Putin. Without such sources, this is a BLP violation. The fact that close friends of Putin used offshore companies should be mentioned in articles about them, not about Putin.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly SaintAviator lets talk 23:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources make the connection to Putin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really. They say that Rotenberg and Roldugin were involved and that they are Putin's friends. None of the sources says Putin was directly involved; most of them say he was not. Come on, I am not a fan of Putin by any means, but adding this info to the section "Putin;s private wealth" is clear an unambigous BLP violation. It would be great to have a section on Putin;s friends, and mention Rotenberds and Roldugin there, and write about Panama papers in the articles about them. But, at least at the level of what we know now, this info just does not belong to the article on Putin, and certainly not to the section on his personal wealth. Note that the info was earlier removed by two other editors, of which at least one (Altenmann) is clearly non-partisan.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to say that Putin was directly involved if that isn't stated by the source, but it is appropriate to mention what the sources say if Putin is mentioned by them even just to state that he's the close friend of these people who did whatever. LjL (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, may be in the section on friends, definitely not on his wealth.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

If reliable sources mention that "close friends of Putin" did something, while actually naming Putin as their close friend, it is not WP:SYNTH to mention it, and it's appropriate to mention it here given they name Putin specifically. If, instead, sources just mention people, and other sources say, for unrelated reason, that those people are Putin friends, then it's WP:SYNTH and inappropriate to reach the conclusion that Putin is tied to their deeds in this article. LjL (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree. If say a friend of Elon Musk gets to jail for drunk driving, and the source reporting this also mentions the guy is a friend of Elon Musk, does it become approppriate to add this info to the article about Musk? To the section about his driving style? Of course politicians a bit special, but it is still a BLP violation.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, according to official statement by Putin's press-secretary Peskov, that was a "disinformation" campaign directed personally against Putin, and yes, it certainly was described in media as something about Putin. That's why I think this should be included. My very best wishes (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I found the source which directly says this is Putin;s money [4]. At this point, this is a personal opinion, but with couple of more such sources we could indeed write that media state Putin was involved.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(ec) We should refrain adding any guilt by association charges in a BLP. I'd much rather see content in the article that can be directly attributed to him, rather than indirectly influenced by him (whether that's true or not), or some other ambiguous premise. By the way, I sent this article over to page protection. Let me know if you guy agree or disagree about that. I had immediate concerns about huge chunks of information (3,000+ characters worth) being rapidly added and removed. Since it's being talked about at the TP, that's encouraging so let's see if we still need a page protection at this point. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I think semi-protection would suffice at this point. Dorpater (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston had once semi-protected it. Do you think it would be necessary again? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

None of these publications assumes the guilt by association. They assume guilt based on the available information, which is something entirely different.My very best wishes (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't "guilt by association". it's what reliable sources say. These are explicit about Putin:

• "Putin Caught In Huge Panama Papers Scandal" [5]
• "Revealed: the $2bn offshore trail that leads to Vladimir Putin" [6]
• "Putin’s Panama Papers Caper" [7]
• "Putin's best friend is at the heart of Panama Papers scandal" [8] (text explicitly discusses Putin, not just his "best friend")
• "What the 'Panama papers' mean for Putin" [9]
• "'Panama Papers' Allegations on Putin Only Scratch Surface, Russians Say" [10]
• "Panama Papers: Putin associates linked to 'money laundering'" [11]
• "PANAMA PAPERS: WHAT IS THE SCANDAL AND HOW IS PUTIN LINKED?" [12]
• "Russia says Putin is main target of Panama Papers" [13]

If this "isn't about Putin" why is Putin claiming that this is a "US plot" "against him"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the above-evidenced worldwide resonance in sources, I really think it would be a captious use of BLP provisions to attempt to veto inclusion of information about this event in the Putin article when it would seem that "everyone but Wikipedia" agrees that the scandal involves him (even if only by being a US plot against him and not a real leak, which is apparently his official stance). Wikipedia doesn't give unsourced information about living persons, but Wikipedia also does not censor well-sourced information just because they are about living persons. LjL (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(I am still waiting for any single editor who is against censoring info to add anything to the article on Petro Poroshenko, who was, unlike Putin, directly involved with Panama papers - and, you know, by incidence tomorrow we are going to vote on EU-Ukraine agreement). Again, most of the sources say that Putin's close friends were involved, and, indeed, that his press secretary call the lead an attack on Putin. I do not quite see the difference with my Elon Musk argument. Right now, the piece was on the section on personal wealth of Putin (I have seen very few sources who said that Putin personally stole the money - definitely not "everybody but Wikipedia", and it was saying "well, you know, Putin was not caught yet, but we have such assholes over there who are btw verty close friends of Putin. We do not quite know what they were doing in offshores, but surely it proves Putin is evil". This is also not exactly what RS say. If the only reliable part is that the press secretary called it an attack on Putin - fine, my preference would be to add it to the article on Peskov, but if not, it should go to the foreign policy section and say "Putin's name was not mentioned in Panama papers, but some of his close associates'were, this is why Peskov said this is a CIA attack on Putin".--Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

russian money launderers - Reliable sources are discussing Putins personal wealth in the wake of the Panama Papers and in the light of what they reveal/conceal, but you think it all belongs on Peskovs page. ffs. If Putins wealth is discussed in RS around this subject then it is quite improper for you to insist Wikipedia alone wait until some paper is found with Putins name on it (which seems unlikely he operates like that- so you want to postpone Wikipedia following RS indefinitely). Wikipedia should follow RS not your agenda.92.3.12.19 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not have an agenda as everybody can attest, and you should login first if you want to contribute. The article is now semi-indef-protected and I hope it will remain protected for a long time.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ymblanter if you hadn't noticed, that IP is now a blocked sock that has been following me around, vandalizing my talk page and personally attacking me and many other users. Come to think of it, shouldn't we strike out his/her comment on that basis? Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Like I said to MVBWs yesterday, if you want it in so much start an Rfc. That will fail, Id bet on that. So why all the fuss? SaintAviator lets talk 23:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Why are you so sure it'll fail? Hopefully it's not based on the belief the numbers will be on "Putin's side" regardless of the arguments, which are already being made here, with or without an RfC. LjL (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A strong hunch, as its BLP related and Putin is not directly involved and the evidence he is indirectly involved is hearsay and Neutral editors tend to think clearly. Thats why Rfcs were made. In a BLP the decision would have to be strong consensus. Its like the Law, in a court this would also fail. No evidence. Go back re read neutrally. Its a weak case. SaintAviator lets talk 23:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Those are highly notable allegations of wrongdoing (not necessarily a crime) by the subject of the page - as described in multiple RS. No one is going to say that he is "guilty" - as would be in the court. We only summarize content as described in multiple RS. This is reference work. But the allegations and the reasons for making allegations, as described in RS, should be included per WP:NPOV, just it would be in any other page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

If any solid evidence about the rumours is supported in reliable sources, then we might consider using it. Right now, it appears to be lots of "X knows Putin, and X used this lawyer for foreign transactions, but we have no evidence at all that X did anything illegal, but the mud will stick to Putin so let's try." Putin could be Satan, but WP:BLP does not say that means we can ignore policy. Collect (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Which part of BLP policy is "clear on this"? The only part that seems relevant is this, from the section on Public figures: " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, this must be included per BLP policy. There is even a very similar 2nd example here. There is no need in RfC about it. Whatever the result of an RfC might be, it can not override our basic policies, such as WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• MVBW BLP protocol IS based on law. Like I said Rfc it if you want to back your self. SaintAviator lets talk 00:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what "law" is here. Which part of BLP is applicable here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively SaintAviator lets talk 01:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"... with regard to the subject's privacy". You omitted that part. Are we violating anyone's privacy by including this info? No. Can you point to which part of BLP - the parts that are actually in the text of the policy - apply here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• VM Im not having a 'go' at your grammar or English but the and in 'and with regard to the subject's privacy' , the and you omitted, changes the meaning, it means my points valid. SaintAviator lets talk 02:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, no - as the main text of the policy makes clear. "Conservatively" does not mean "in any way I want too". The actually relevant part of BLP policy is pretty explicit: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". "Conservatively" means that all info needs to be reliably sourced and privacy needs to be respected. Neither of which is an issue here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Staying on the topic heres the full quote, 'Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.' SaintAviator lets talk 03:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How about we let this sit on ice for a week? The situation should be clearer then, and you guys can fight about something else in the meantime. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Sure, but its out till then and if we dont agree after a week, MVBWs can do an Rfc SaintAviator lets talk 01:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

An RfC can be - not saying it will be - hijacked and discussion can be stone walled. An RfC cannot override NPOV and BLP policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• An Rfc introduces neutral partners to help clarify stuff. SaintAviator lets talk 02:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think that was a meaningful discussion, with at least some participants providing sources and policy-based arguments. Yes, some others did not, but it does not make this discussion a "fight". My very best wishes (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not going to denigrate anyones input. IMHO Boris is right here. Besides some regulars have not had their say yet SaintAviator lets talk 02:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

When the US State Department states that Putin treats Bank Rossiya as his own personal bank account, and when every leading newspaper in the entire western world has suggested that the fortune of Sergei Roldugin is actually Putin's, it takes a unique kind of infantile intransigence or autism/dyslexia in the comprehension of news sources to suggest that stating these facts would in the remotest way contradict WP BLP policy. The pandering to special needs or deliberately disruptive editing on this issue needs to stop. The fully sourced removed paragraph should be immediately restored, perhaps with a sentence that clarifies the allegations for the wilfully blind, such as: " It is considered inconceivable that Putin’s friends had become rich without his patronage, (cite Karen Dawisha in Guardian article if necessary), and it is believed by western authorities, including the US State Department that they, and most especially Sergei Roldugin, are acting as holding entities for the money. There is a blizzard of sources to support such a statement. Engleham (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not so urgent that we can't wait a while for the situation to become clearer. After all, on the scale of earthshaking revelations "Corruption in Putin's inner circle!" is barely ahead of "Sun rises in east!" Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

In the real world out there, yes. But this is Wikipedia. Anyway, I think it's fine to wait on details, but a short sentence or two plus a link to the main article should be in there already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I restored this. I thought it would be counted as my single edit (two sequential edits) on the page, but somehow Altenmann managed to make an edit precisely at the moment of my edit. My very best wishes (talk) 04:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Excellent. Every leading newspaper editor had to make a judgement call and on the evidence they made the decision to publish. For some Wikipedia snowflakes to tie themselves in gordian knots of procrastination just looks very silly -- like a schoolgirl's dormitory where the inhabitants are sitting on their beds chewing over whether to call Georgina an absolute rotter. To paraphrase Joe Orton: what do they need – a ***** telegram? Engleham (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Boris was right to suggest wait. In BLP the part about inclusion of controversial material is relevant. Quoting Altenmann, 'Specifically, the objection is that Putin is *not* among the persons listed. Hence inclusion it here would be WP:COATRACK. The subject belongs to Corruption in Russia or something'.

• This is relevant too WP:BITR SaintAviator lets talk 06:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"In BLP the part about inclusion of controversial material is relevant" - which part is that? Can you quote it here for us? Because I don't see ANYTHING in WP:BLP that would preclude us from including this and in fact I see stuff there which suggests we *should* include it.

"inclusion it here would be WP:COATRACK" - How so? From WP:COATRACK (an essay, not policy): "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely". This is an article about Vladimir Putin. The sources all discuss how the Panama Papers leak relates to Putin. Where's the "coatrack"? What is this "another subject entirely" that including this reliably sourced material would make this article about? And if WP:COATRACK is not really a relevant Wikipedia acronym to throw out here, then neither is WP:BITR. A couple of sentences on a phenomenon which has received such widespread coverage just simply is NOT "undue". It would NOT make the article as a whole "less than truthful".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The judgement call on the validity of the accusations has already been made at least a hundred times over by professional editors accredited to news organisations with vast resources -- something far beyond the resources of this overheated cubbyhouse of keen amateurs. All that can done here is to astutely condense those judgements into a few sentences for the article and ensure it is updated promptly. Anything else is simply pretension. To suggest that Wikipedia should not republish what The Times/New York Times/Guardian/Telegraph et al have alleged is risible. The story ISN'T that Putin's name isn't in the Panama Papers: the story IS that the Papers provide further substantive evidence of what has been consistently alleged by the US Statement Department, scholars, investigators, and former associates of Putin -- that he has accumulated massive wealth, and it is held not in his name, but in the name of others close to him. The truism about wealth protection 'no rich person ever personally owns anything' goes double for crooks. The only surprise would have been if Putin's name HAD been in the Panama Papers. Engleham (talk) 07:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I must say I am strongly disappointed by the fact that whereas at this point roughtly a half of the editors (all of them in good standing) opposes immediate addition of this material to the article, it still get added. This is not how Wikipedia should work. Please remove the added material and abstain from re-adding it until the discussion gets completed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's best to reach a consensus here before rushing to add anything to the article. I'm sure we can all agree on something. Athenean (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The counter-argument that the story is not relevant to Putin is failed, dead, OVER. It should never have even been a starter. Why? Because the sources *themselves* have already judged that the money is Putins. It is not the role of editors here to distort the story (e.g. by such tactics as strictly quarantining mention of the wealth to his cronies). The role of Wikipedia editors is to summarise what authoritative sources have said. And publish promptly. Not diddle around arguing whether to -- and this is the crux of it -- pander to the idea that the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors in the interpretation of facts carry more weight than 100 authoritative news sources. They don't. The judgement call to put the material back up was correct, as each statement is fully sourced. The only thing to quibble about now is phrasing. Karen Dawisha has tweeted that there will be two weeks of Panama Papers revelations with regard to Russia, so obviously updates may be required. Engleham (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah Karen Dawisha, gets fellowships from Neo cons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Dawisha#Awards_and_fellowships

But phrasing isn't merely a "quibble", and neither newspapers nor anyone else have judged definitively that the money is Putin's. They have made assertions and innuendo, as newspapers often do, about connections to Putin, which is a much vaguer thing. Equally, the western media, much of which has a pretty transparent agenda, does not necessarily comprise "authoritative sources" for all things Putin-related (it's also notable that the Putin angle has pretty much dropped off the media's sightline, at least in the UK, after an initial flurry of headlines, although that speaks as much to the media's fickleness as anything else). Yes the coverage probably justifies mentioning this, but the level of detail and how the claims are presented matter. Again there seems to be an urge to seize on everything that suddenly appears in the media negative towards the subject rather than to take a balanced, historical and encyclopedic view of the topic. N-HH talk/edits 10:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, described the media allegations against the President as an “undisguised, paid-for hack job" and said that Western spy agencies were behind an all-out “information attack” to destabilise Russia before elections.

@Engleham: you have my total and unrestricted support on this issue. I am so tired of editors on here who want Wikipedia to second-guess whole rafts of secondary sources. We are encylopedians. And as for the ICIJ, well anyone who gets uppity and wants to fling mud at a group of investigative journalists needs to re-examine why they are working on Wikipedia in the first place. Are we or are we not in favour of freedom of information? If the allegations are false, then people will disregard them. Editors who want the allegations (which are being reported in great depth and in it has to be said convincing detail) to go unreported - why are you trying to hide them? What exactly is the problem with airing them and following them with the refutations? I'd like all of us to be Wikipedians, I'd like none of us to act like censors, which, right now, some are doing. Boscaswell talk 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree about not second-guessing or trying to discredit generally decent sources (something which both "sides" here engage in btw) – but that's a different point from at least being aware of potential bias and trying to look at a broader picture, as well as actually looking at what those sources actually say. WP:UNDUE is important and relevant to stopping BLPs just becoming charge sheets for editors with points to prove via cherry-picking, both of sources themselves and material from individual sources, and undue focus on the negative. As for the ICIJ, in its own summary of the papers, the only mention of Putin is as follows: "The leak ... reveals how associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin secretly shuffled as much as $2 billion through banks and shadow companies." Interestingly, a search for Putin in its archives brings up historical coverage of Putin calling – yes, for what that's worth – for Russians not to use tax havens and offshore investments. N-HH talk/edits 11:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Re this revert - with the edit summary "talk page agreement is that we first discuss, come to consensus, and then add this material in the appropriate form". I'm sorry but this is clearly not true. We have at least four users who feel that this material should be in the article currently, per WP:BLP. There's also several users who are probably in the "maybe" camp. On the other side several users haven't actually articulated why this material is a problem - as in they haven't explained which part of WP:BLP supposedly applies here.

That's NOT "talk page agreement".Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

We have WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus has not been reached at the talk page yet. Some users express doubts that material is BLP violation. Since this is new material, it just can not be added at this point. Please, join the discussion and argue why material should be added, why in this section, and why it should be formulated like this, rather than inserting a piece which was written three days ago and removed four times by three different editors. I still have hopes we should be able to come to agreement, and behave like civilized wikipedians, but if not, possibly this time an arbcom case will be accepted, with all kind of unwanted consequences as 1RR on EE articles etc. None of us wants this.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

"Since this is new material, it just can not be added at this point" Oh I see! We wait until the fuss has died down and if there is consensus, then we put it in. Great thinking! Using your reckoning, if this article were to be about the Nazi concentration camps, for example, and written in say 1942 or '43, no material would ever have been added, as there would have been plenty who would have argued against it. Ditto about the Gulags, and written in the 50's. A few articles in the newspapers, but all denied by the USSR and disputed by some editors, so we'd never have it in. Great thinking, Ymblanter! Let's shutdown inclusion of all contentious issues. You know, I edit Wikipedia because I belief in freedom of information and I used to think that others felt the same. Any time Putin comes up, well forget it. There is zero freedom of information, because there is a chorus of people saying it is biassed. That reasoning is ABSURD. We need to include the allegations and the refutations and we need to do it now. Boscaswell talk 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This paragraph that you just wrote demonstrates that you are not here to build an encyclopaedia but to pursue a personal agenda. In addition, it would help if you cool down.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I am in the may be camp: I believe material can be added if the phrasing and its location are properly discussed (though I personally believe it would look much better in related articles).--Ymblanter (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It's clearly not a BLP violation to cite sources saying that several close friends was mentioned in the Panama papers, but Putin himself was not. Such a thing does not accuse Putin of anything. Neither is it synthesis, as this is exactly what the reliable sources say. These arguments IMO does not hold up to scrutiny.

But it seems to give undue weight to a rather irrelevant topic. We already know Putin has dismantled Russia's democracy and that he is involved in nepotist corruption. All the Panama papers say are that some of this money likely is in Panama. I really don't think that's due weight or encyclopedic. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh now, they do accuse Putin (titles like "Revealed: the $2bn offshore trail that leads to Vladimir Putin"), and this is a highly notable and serious accusation.My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, adding references to that certainly means WP:BLP must be considered carefully so it's not violated. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it may be true that "We" "already know Putin dismantled RUssia's democracy and that he is involved in nepotist corruption", but is that actually in the article? If Wikipedia readers come here for their information, will they know it? (though of course this needs to be put in POV terms).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Bicker-free zone

With sources that state "A network of secret offshore deals and vast loans worth $2bn has laid a trail to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin" [14] it will be difficult to sustain an argument for not including this material. Instead of bickering about process, can someone please propose some text. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopedic biographies are not written based on sensationalist and vague media headlines or in order to recycle every piece of media speculation. The piece itself, as noted above, is even more equivocal. It does not directly say, pace claims above, that this is "Putin's money". It even admits his name does not appear in the papers; instead, it very generally suggests that his friends could not have acquired their money without his patronage and also repeats equally broad and speculative historical US claims that he is "able to draw on the wealth of his friends". That's the extent of the "connection" or "trail" to this money. Any accurate and balanced (in terms of the overall bio) representation of what is being reported would involve simply a brief, two-sentence mention saying something like "Associates of Putin were named in the Panama Papers ..." or "Following the leak of the Panama Papers, Western media highlighted Putin's links to individuals identified as having ...". Although in turn that slightly leads one to wonder how relevant this really is to his bio. N-HH talk/edits 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Except that these are NOT "sensationalist and vague media headlines".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And can we please drop these POV "Western media..." qualifiers, which are in fact something that is NOT supported by sources, but seems to be a Wikipedia invention particular to these articles, imported from god knows what corner of the internet? Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I was making a general point about headlines and relying on them, but in fact yes, when it refers to a definitive "trail to Putin", that is both vague and sensationalist, at least to the point where it is not suitable as a basis in itself for deciding on or drafting any content here. The content of the article underneath is what matters. The observation about "western media" seems pretty accurate too. I simply ran through the list of sources cited above, all of which are, er, western media, as well as relying on what I have seen of coverage. Wikipedia is about the craziest corner of the internet that I regularly peruse, as it happens. Anyway, do you have any suggestions for text? N-HH talk/edits 20:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Whatever happens it will be balanced per BLP. Heres some teasers. Alternative Refs for RT conspiracy ref. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] SaintAviator lets talk 23:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Even more sources

And the sources just keep on coming "Putin and the Panama Papers: Why power means more than money", this source talks explicitly about a "Putin network", "Panama Papers point to Putin", Official Silence In Russia Over Putin Allegations In Panama Papers, Kill it, spin it – Putin will do anything to stifle the Panama Papers story. And the story is barely two days old!

And if you want some laughs then you can check out this and if you have some nostalgia for the kind of slogans from the good ol' days, then check this one out: Public slams MSM for Putin focus after Panama papers leak (see! Even "the Public" is outraged about this!).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

And Sueddeutsche Zeitung has a useful graphic on the topic [20], although true, something like that may better be suited for an article on the Putin Network.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it nothing less than disgraceful that Wikipedia editors are fighting tooth and nail to stop this material making it into the article about Putin? Boscaswell talk 19:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Once your here awhile you will understand POV is the real fight. SaintAviator lets talk 00:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to the Putin article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

VM, if you don't see the problem with citing approving views from western media criticism as slam-dunk evidence for the prosecution but critical views from Russian media as merely evidence of how barmy and biased the Russian media is, we have a problem. You realise someone could just say the exact opposite of that? Indeed some do: both you and them are part of the problem with the Putin article. Some of us take a more sceptical stance all round. And, as for blocking the material, actually most people aren't fighting tooth and nail to prevent inclusion, they're just asking questions about how best to assess the overall coverage and include this issue in a biography of Putin. N-HH talk/edits 20:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS is not suspended just because the topic is Russian. It still works just fine. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

N-HH you are very much misrepresenting what I said or what I believe (I'm not sure how you know that). I'm perfectly fine with Russian media, which "has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Say, Moscow Times. It's actually not my problem that there is not much of such media left, after Putin got done with it. Would you claim that, I dunno, North Korean media is as reliable as "western media"? Here's the thing - which is actually pretty common sense - authoritarian regimes tend to have a lack of independent media and as a result there's not many reliable sources in those countries. You seem to imply that that means that we should start accepting the junk, propaganda, non-reliable sources that do exist in those countries.

And on the other hand, I very much oppose using bunk "western media" which lacks such a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Geez, it wasn't that long ago that I went through as many Wikipedia articles as I could find and removed crap like breitbart and VDARE as sources. But guess what, countries which have a tradition of press freedom, are going to have more reliable sources - precisely because they permit them to exist.

So this has NOTHING to do with "Russian media" vs "western media". It's simply a question of reliability. Yes, "someone could just say the exact opposite of that", but they'd be talking nonsense. If I say "2+2 does not equal 8" the opposite of that is NOT "2+2 equals anything I want it to equal, other than 8". It's still just 4.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I just pointed out that you had cited western media approvingly and cited Russian media to laugh at it. You did. I didn't say you thought all western media was great and all Russian media was shit. You, however, seemingly having missed my explicit statement that I am sceptical all round, pretty much directly accused me of wanting to use North Korean etc media, when I never suggested anything close to that. As a general observation, I stand by the point that everyone and every media outlet have their biases, even if some have more than others and some are more shameless about it than others. There are plenty of academic studies on this sort of thing btw. N-HH talk/edits 21:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, everyone is biased, some more than others. That's exactly is. WP:RS still works. We cite reliable sources and laugh at the silly things unreliable sources say. That's how it works. It has nothing to do with Russian or Western. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I did not "cite Russian media to laugh at". I cited RT to laugh at. That's a big difference. I can cite breitbart or zerohedgefund - i.e. "western media" - to laugh at if you want to too, that's not a problem.

And no, I did not "accuse you" of wanting to use North Korean media. I was just pointing out that your argument that "western media is biased so we should Kremlin controlled media for balance" pretty much applies to North Korea as well. Being skeptical is one thing. It is a good thing. But using your skepticism to justify reliance on non-reliable sources is not really skepticism. In fact, it's pretty much the definition of naivete. The "biasness" of, say, the Guardian isn't even in the same universe as the "biasness" of RT. This is equivocation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• Some editors express surprise, some disappointment. Welcome to V Putin. History here shows the fight is about POV, specifically getting some NPOV balance. But you may be surprised by whats been attempted to be added and the tone, partisan POV. Check out the archives. Hence a lot of us are cautious. Dont mention bloat. OMG. So BLP NPOV balance means just that. Allegation + denial with equal weight. I put some refs above. SaintAviator lets talk 00:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not what NPOV means. Read WP:NPOV again. NPOV means weight according to sources, not "equal weight".Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

• To append to the Panama piece: When Putin was asked directly about the Panama affair, he responded that he has no relation to Panama documents and he is not involved in corruption.[21]--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can add that. But to add we need to have a section on the Panama Papers to begin with. Which some people just insist on removing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Without having read all of the discussion

I may add that all the newspapers, including Süddeutsche Zeitung whose German original I can understand, make the connection to Putin. This is not about the misdemeanor of a friend of Putin, but about the fact that one of those off-shore companies paid for the wedding of Putin's daughter, that Rodulgin is a cellist who has nothing to do with finance and frankly, you can become wealthy as a musician but not sufficiently wealthy to own a lot of offshore companies and pump a real ton of money ($100 million +) into them. I am not saying that Western politicians are any better (some definitely are, others may not be). But a close friend of Putin's has a ton of money in offshore holdings, and this leads to speculation if maybe Putin has got something to do with this. And this should be included IMO. --Mathmensch (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Further issues

Ok, now we have a paragraph on Panama papers which I believe is as neutral as it could be - it is not mixed with anything else, making an impression Putin owns money, and it states what was stated in the sources and shows what is Putin's relation to the affair is. I hope this solves the BLP problem. Now the following questions should be discussed:

• Is it in a correct section? In the end, there have been speculations that this relates to Putin's personal wealth, but never proven, and Putin himself denies this.
• Should it be there at all per WP:UNDUE? It definitely makes the section unbalanced: 2/3 of the section goes to this paragraph, which is not about Putin's personal wealth. The best solution would be of course to expand this section so that the paragraph only becomes a small portion of it, but I have got an impression that some editors here are more interested in writing that Putin is evil than in building an encyclopedia, and therefore I do not expect this to be done now. Any other solutions?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Some of the editors, me included, were waiting a week (Boris idea) to see how it pans out. Thoughts: too big, too much POV, not balanced at all per BLP, no consensus, Undue, BLP violation. Look anything can be referenced. IMHO this should not be. Its speculation SaintAviator lets talk 07:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

    Also fine with me, I do not have strong opinion on the subject.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I've further reduced the size. The 'Guardian' sentence might also be deleted or greatly reduced in length, because it mostly restates the information in the succeeding sentence. Size/bloat matters, and readers can and should be directed to the 'Panama Papers' entry. Why was that link deleted?Haberstr (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb for content is comparing Putins BLP on the Panama Papers with Poroshenkos [22]. Considering Poroshenko was named, Putins should not be bigger. SaintAviator lets talk 23:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not a good rule of thumb at all. A good rule of thumb for content - indeed, THE rule of thumb for content - is comparing the coverage that Putin go in RELIABLE SOURCES to the coverage that Poroshenko got in reliable sources. That's it. That's all. That is the thing that makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia and that is the "rule of thumb" we follow. Reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, its many things SaintAviator lets talk 23:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It's nice to know that you disagree, and it's nice to know that "its many things" (sic), but that's not exactly helpful or constructive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

An NPOV and NOT Bloated 'Personal Wealth' Subsection

There is no reason to re-bloat the article. The key here is understanding that we don't need much detail on the 'Panama Papers' controversy, since it has its own Wikipedia entry. Also, please note that I added back the 'multi-billion dollar fortune' allegations to the first paragraph.Haberstr (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal wealth

See also: Panama papers

Figures released during the legislative elections of 2007 put Putin's wealth at approximately 3.7 million rubles (US$150,000), which included his bank accounts and a 77.4-square-meter (833 sq ft) apartment in Saint Petersburg.[348] His reported income was 2 million rubles (approximately $80,000) in 2006 and 3.6 million rubles ($113,000) in 2012.[349] However, journalists and opposition politicians claim that Putin possesses a multi-billion dollar fortune via ownership stakes in a number of Russian companies. [350] [351]

In April 2016, 11 million documents belonging to the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca were leaked to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. According to The Guardian, Putin’s name "does not appear in any of the records," but it and other Western media published reports on three alleged friends of Putin who are in the records and may have served as trustees for Putin, managing offshore companies worth US$2 billion in total. .[352] [353] Süddeutsche Zeitung investigators think it plausible that Putin or his Putin's family will profit from those funds.[354][355] Putin has denied allegations that he is linked to or will benefit from the wealth discovered in the documents.[356][357]Haberstr (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about "re-bloat", it's about including important info which is being covered in dozens of reliable sources. There's plenty of other stuff to cut if you want to. And in fact this article is much smaller than it used to be. "Re-bloat" is not a reason to remove well sourced material without consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a good thread title, its the way forward SaintAviator lets talk 23:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• As stated above, a good rule of thumb for content is comparing Putins BLP on the Panama Papers with Poroshenkos [23]. Considering Poroshenko was named, [24] Putins should not be bigger, SaintAviator lets talk 23:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Good question! The amount of dedicated content depends on coverage in RS per WP:NPOV, which in turn depends on significance of the claim. Coverage of alleged involvement of Putin in this affair in press seem to be significantly greater than coverage of Poroshenko. But materials about Poroshenko have been included in his BLP page without any struggle. Why you and some others object to including these materials here so much? There is no any logic behind it. This is something else. My very best wishes (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why? Anything can be RS sourced, anything. Doesn't mean it should be. The issue is as always the Non NPOV. Non Balance. BTW what question is Good? SaintAviator lets talk 01:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• The information on Putin's personal wealth are not a problem, and personal wealth appears on bios about any politicians in the world where the subject has been discussed by RS. As regards the Panama Papers, the information is still being presented discreetly in contrast to the oversaturation in the media. So long as it remains circumscribed (remembering that Putin's bio is far longer and more comprehensive than Poroshenko's: so WP:WEIGHT must be taken into account), it's fine as it currently stands. Nevertheless, I'm a stickler for not overstepping WP:RECENTISM and any speculative and op-ed content being added... so if I come across additions that even vaguely smell of POV pushing, I'm going to pull it. Apologies if this sounds as if I'm being high-handed, or making threats: my intention is merely to let it be known that I have no qualms about yanking anything that's for Wikinews to handle rather than encyclopaedic content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You gotta do what you gotta do. BRD is the key here. When recentism is reined in, time will change the RS weight. SaintAviator lets talk 01:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Let me explain. Weight. This leak is a mortal wound for Poroshenko. Someone threw him under the Bus. Tymofiy Mylovanov, the president of the Kyiv School of Economics, stated “Trust has been lost, and it has been replaced by suspicion". Its over for him, its only a matter of time.

Putin: the leak will not harm him at all. The hysteria even makes him look good. 1) they make the Western press look ridiculous in its obsession with Putin 2) the absence of any notable Americans makes it look like a CIA operation. With no John Doe there is a line of thought Russia set up the USA who took the bait.

But for now what is added excitedly will be one day out of relevance. SaintAviator lets talk 02:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Up above, on top of this page, it pretty clearly states: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.". In other words WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Its background material re WP:WEIGHT & WP:RECENTISM in reply to Iryna. SaintAviator lets talk 03:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

To my eyes it reads much more like your personal interpretation of how it will all play out, not to mention the irrelevancy of musing on Poroshenko's fate (remember this is Putin's biography, not his). We could use a lot less of that sort of thing from everyone concerned. It would be nice if folks could stay on track instead of veering off into general commentary. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, telling something like "Someone threw him under the Bus" is bad. I am not sure why SA uses broken English. Actually, his English was not bad at all when he edited pages. But the analogy with Poroshenko makes some sense. Right now his BLP page has a section entitled "Panama papers". Same should be here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A Putin Poroshenko BLP comparison is useful. Under the Bus? Its Western Slang SaintAviator lets talk 06:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Making a section on Panama papers here in the situation when Putin is not mentioned in the papers, denies his involvement and there are multiple reliable sources saying his involvement has never been proven is a straight way to arbcom.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources are saying/alleging that he was actually involved because that were his money. Yes, this is not proven and therefore belongs to allegations and should be described as such per our BLP policy about living persons. This is all. What would be the reason for the arbitration? My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the current long version was imposed by brute-force edit warring. The version in boldface by Haberstr at the top of this thread is in my opinion sufficient. The rest contains a lot of speculation and conjecture. Athenean (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, more and more I see the 'Panama Papers' speculation scandal to be part of a solid and RS-based history of speculation on Putin's wealth. I see it categorized, very soon, as just the latest instance of that speculation, fairly well-founded speculation that we need to include in an NPOV version. But I think we'll soon realize that PP isn't 'special' or much different from other attempts to puzzle out 'how rich is he' and 'where is his money' ... Haberstr (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wild speculations, tabloid rumours, far fetched conjectures are the flesh of this article, take them out and it will no longer be bloated. All this will end in a few years when Putin is out of office. After all, who is talking about Ahmadinejad now? Sic transit gloria mundi. Ardhanarishvara (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Aside from using hyperbolic phrasing, overblown rhetoric, and a latin phrase whose relevance is obscure, this comment fails to address ... well, anything at all, or to make specific suggestions about... anything at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Good point. BloatVille. All we need to have on Panama is something like Poroshenkos, a seperate section, a few lines and a link to Panama Papers. The recent edits by H are a start SaintAviator lets talk 21:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the Putin article. What we need to have on Panama is the stuff from reliable sources which discusses Putin. Why the fig should anything about Poroshenko be in here at all? I'm having trouble understanding you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Article to be trimmed

To > 180K by consensus for starters, perhaps using WP:SUMMARY then to < 170K and onto <160K SaintAviator lets talk 04:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• "To be trimmed" does not mean deletion of information. The information must be moved in some other place. Look at the article Presidency of George W. Bush, which is split in pages like George W. Bush's first term as President of the United States, etc. This is how WP:SUMMARY works. - üser:Altenmann >t 15:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• • Trim Plus WP:SUMMARY would get it to 140K SaintAviator lets talk 23:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Article too long

This article is too long. Howabout spitting off 'domestic policy', 'foreign policy' and 'public image', to sub-articles? LK (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Shortening the first two and linking to appropriate articles makes sense. In fact, for all the talk of bloat, it's really three sections that are responsible for the big length - 'political career', 'domestic policy', and 'foreign policy'.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I've also noticed some additional information about his pets being added in the last couple of hours. There's quite a bit of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS adding to the bloat. Given the amount of ground that this bio needs to cover, trivia is superfluous (← note the art of understatement). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ive been the Main bloat eliminator. Im for splitting. SaintAviator lets talk 06:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not just do our jobs? Cut down the size of the 'domestic policy', 'foreign policy' and 'public image' subsections by leaving out the details, since we have Wikipedia entries on those topics? And less about his pets would be great. This article would ideally, in my opinion, be in the 140-160K range; it doesn't need to be cut down to almost nothing. We were already, before the Panama Papers and residences bloat, at 180K. Barack Obama and Donald Trump are both at 280K, so don't think 180K is spectacularly 'bad'. Haberstr (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

H in theory I agree, about removing details, NPOV style. Its been suggested by many. We all saw me try that and MVBW recently and others reverted. Same thing occurs in other articles. People think their 'stuff' is great, and want it in. As such team work, collegiality, is low. The only way to reduce is to Fork, in this climate. Or aim for about 180K with co operation SaintAviator lets talk 23:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

PS my own preference is reduce to < 140K without forking SaintAviator lets talk 02:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. All important sourced info, which is not a content fork or duplication should stay on the page per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Quality >>> Quantity. More precisely getting the quantity right in terms of xK size, should not be achieved at the cost of sacrificing quality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess peoples positions are now clear SaintAviator lets talk 23:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Rfc regarding sentence in the lede

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

---

Is the sentence It entered a recession in mid-2014, and shrank by 3.5% in 2015. regarding the Russian economy appropriate for the lede, or is it WP:UNDUE? I would appreciate it if the regulars of this article were to let someone uninvolved comment before rushing in and turning this into the usual talkpage flamefest, for once. Athenean (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lol, sure SaintAviator lets talk 05:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• If we have a paragraph about economy, then, yes, the phrase should be included per WP:NPOV. Perhaps we should not have a paragraph about economy at all (I do not have opinion about it), but this is a different question. The idea that "regulars" should not comment is wrong. What frequently happens in such cases are comments by people unfamiliar with the subject.My very best wishes (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Any sentence in the lead should be a summary of material in the body of the BLP. [25] represents "due weight" for what is in the body of the BLP, and the current lead is abominable in its stress of POV rather than letting readers read the more fully-formed sections in the body of the article. Collect (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

That's why such RfCs are useless. Should phrase "..." be included? Yes or no, please! Neither. It should usually be rephrased or whole paragraph rewritten (for example as in diff you provided). Saying that, I think that current version is much better and explanatory than version in your diff that tells "...only to see problems after that period due to Western sanctions...". Which problems? This is completely unclear. This is very poor summary. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Russia has not counted for anything since it lost the Cold War, and Putin is destroying its economy with his disastrous policies. (92.15.207.55 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC))

It is really not helpful for the consensus building process when certain users reinsert the questionable material into the article, especially after the initiation of the RfC. Also, dismissing a RfC as "useless" is also concerning. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Gimme a break. The following is NOT how Wikipedia is suppose to work: 1) remove text per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, 2) run very quickly to the talk page and start an RfC, 3) demand that the text be not restored until the RfC concludes. That's about as blatantly bad-faithed WP:GAMEing as one can witness on Wikipedia. Starting an RfC is NOT suppose to be some kind of immunity from edit warring restriction or some kind of magic spell one casts to make sure one's disruptive edits don't get reverted. Try something else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I commented in a number of RfC and believe that one is indeed useless (for the reason explained above), possibly even disruptive as waste of time. Many discussions on-wiki are useless even if started in a good faith. My very best wishes (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Re Useless, can you elaborate? SaintAviator lets talk 23:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, this sentence is due, just as pointing out that Russia also experienced relative prosperity under Putin. Dorpater (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Where do the inclusions in the lede stop? Why not Syria? Hockey? Ukraine? Its a BLP not A Russia sum up. Also agree with Étienne Dolet SaintAviator lets talk 23:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• No This is a biography of a politician, not an article about the Russian economy. The lead should summarize the main events of his life. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable suggestion, but it means that the entire paragraph about economy should be removed. Leaving only successes and removing well sourced failures would go against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• No its edit war detritus SaintAviator lets talk 06:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• Include - sources explicitly link the performance of the Russian economy to Putin and his policies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• No The inclusion of random facts to disparage subjects is undue, and context must always be included. For example we would need to explain how that compared with similar economies, how meaningful the rate is for describing the economy, the reasons for the fall and the track record in prior years. Considering the price of oil fell 75%, the economic performance may well have exceeded expectations. TFD (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph in question: Putin's first presidency was marked by high economic growth: the Russian economy grew for eight straight years, seeing GDP increase by 72% in PPP. This growth was a combined result of the 2000s commodities boom, high oil prices, as well as prudent economic and fiscal policies. However, it began to experience problems subsequently due to falling oil prices and Western sanctions imposed as a result of Russian annexation of Crimea and military intervention in Eastern Ukraine. It entered a recession in mid-2014, and shrank by 3.7% in 2015. There is no way to consider this as something disparaging the subject. To me, that sounds laudatory: assigning economic successes to Putin, whereas they had actually happened due to high oil prices. Removing the entire paragraph might be an option, but this is not the question asked at the RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Absolutely yes As already pointed out by others, the lead can NOT explain how Russia had a strong economic growth under the beginning of Putin's leadership, and then pretend it doesn't have massive economic problems now. That would be a big violation of NPOV. It's possible to delete the whole paragraph, but I do think the economic status of the country somebody is leading is significant and has due weight in a lead. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes per OpenFuture. The economic downturn is relevant. Just as good record in early 2000s is. I remember checking statistics about ex-USSR average wages a couple of years ago: only Estonia had it better then. By now, not only Kazakhstan but even Azerbaijan seems to have a higher average wage than Russia. How could this possibly be irrelevant? Dorpater (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• No Noting my position that the lead should be a "bare summary", if we add year-to-year commentary, we will soon end up with a very long ephemeral series of statements. Collect (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

But that's a bit of a strawman - nobody wants to add "year by year commentary". General overview + latest year info should be sufficient.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, this is essentially your second !vote in this RfC, and then you vote for a third time below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Do not include sentence The lead should focus on the person, not the Russian economy. Aeonx (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• No The lead needs to follow the Wikipedia Policies put in place. Thanks, RFC Volunteer Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes The significant economic success in 2000-2008 is the key to Putin's popularity in Russia and so it is rightfully in the lede. We cannot mention the success and not mention economic losses in 2014..2016. I t will be dishonest Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Summoned by bot. Relevant to the subject of the article and not given undue weight. Coretheapple (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
• Yes. Summoned by bot. It's debatable (but probably not undue) whether the economic ups and downs are of the Russian Federation are essential to the lead, but to the extent this information is deemed to be necessary enough to explaining Putin's success and notability, clearly we need to present a complete picture of those economic fortunes. One (incredibly short) statement to bring that story up to date is not much of a feature. Even considering that there is a preceding statement about recession, I don't view it as excessive to bring the content a little bit more up to date. This seems like information readers might reasonably want to know, if being presented with the economic influences on the man's domestic popularity in the lead at all. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
• No. Please remove the entire paragraph about Russian economy from the lede, per WP:UNDUE. This is just one aspect of Putin's life while there are so many more aspects to cover and it's really arbitrary to put so much emphasis on that one aspect. 12:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
• No As is made clear by some interesting comments above, this "inclusion" is not from a desire to follow policy, but a desire to make a point. As such, the inclusion would require an actual positive consensus which it is quite clear is lacking. Lacking a clear consensus for inclusion, the default is exclusion from the BLP. Collect (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm... you do realize that this is like your THIRD VOTE in this RfC? You might want to strike one or two of them. One !vote one editor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Given that his notability is contingent on his being a high-profile political figure, as already noted by other editors, a brief statement is DUE for the lead for the sake of context (the emphasis, however, being on brief). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment summoned by bot This is not a well-framed discussion. As the lede is currently written, yes, this sentence is quite necessary because we need a holistic picture of the economy is we present it at all. That's the real question, though; why is so much of the lede devoted to Russia's economy under Putin? The paragraph could be pared down to one sentence, methinks, and the lede given over to, you know, biographical material. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Bios are contingent on the person's notability. Putin is notable as being a high-powered world leader, therefore the bio is not going to focus on trivia about his favourite hobbies, or whether he has pets. (Incidentally, you forgot to sign your comment). Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, yes, he is notable as the president of Russia, and therefore a subtantial part of the lede should be about his presidency. Nonetheless, when the accepted norm for a good lead (see GAN or FAC) is still four paragraphs, an entire paragraph about the Russian economy (not even about his policy, which would be better) is entirely undue. I didn't forget; I typed an extra tilde, which meant that it was rendered as a timestamp, rather than a signature. I have fixed it; thanks for pointing it out. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I stongly agree with Vanamonde. In fact I couldn't agree more. It's about time someone pointed out the obvious. This is a bio article, not Economy of Russia. Athenean (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether something is UNDUE or not depends on how much it is covered in sources. If one of the main things that sources talk about when discussing Putin is the economy, then it is appropriate for us to do likewise - it is not undue. If you think the info should be shortened (while maintaining NPOV) that's fine. But obviously economic outcomes are important in regard to Putin and his government.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• No to any discussion of the economy in the introduction, but if there must be, then yes to this sentence. Summoned by bot. I don't really think information on the economy during part of his presidency is necessary for the introduction, as just looking at the sections throughout the article demonstrate that the Russian economy is only a relatively small part of the article, and therefore does not need to be reflected in the introduction. This seems like some editors really wanted to portray Putin in a positive light by including GDP growth figures. I'd leave the whole paragraph out, but would definitely include if we're listing info on GDP growth during previous years. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Strongly agree. You make a valid point that the Russian economy is a small part of the particle. Furthermore, a quick survey of other longstanding world leader articles, from Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Xi Jinping, and Dilma Rousseff, shows that in none of these articles is the country's economic performance mentioned in the lede. I was also ok with just reducing the coverage of the economy to one sentence, however considering the stances of some of the users involved in this discussion, I think that may not be possible. Athenean (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This is WP:OTHERSTUFF. For Rousseff and Jinping, economic issues SHOULD be in those articles and they SHOULD be summarized in the ledes. The fact that those articles don't do that means there is a problem with OTHER articles, not with this one. For Obama, Merkel and Cameron the situation is different because it's covered differently in sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• No economic performance is bases on many factors inside and outside the country.....base more on international influences over one leaders actions in his term. -- 17:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

"mostly valid edits"

Re this revert [26] which claims that the interceding changes were "mostly valid".

Here are the valid changes that were made [27]. "Putin was an officer in the KGB" was changed to "Putin was a KGB officer for 16 years". "where he rose quickly through the ranks" was changed to "rising quickly through the ranks". In a couple of instances the word "Putin" was changed to the word "he".

I guess these are "valid changes", all in a paragraph that nobody cares about or has any problem with so I would rather describe them as "inconsequential". The problem is that these are not "most" of the changes that were made. The changes that were made involve:

• The removal of the Democracy Index from the lede. Again. Despite the fact that this was discussed previously and obviously most editors think it belongs there. And also in contravention of the agreement not to mess with the lede.
• Major changes to the "Personal wealth" section. This is obviously not "valid" nor "uncontroversial".
• Inserting an image of "Sevastopol's liberation" which is UNDUE.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The he his is fine, "valid changes" as you said. "Personal wealth" this was being discussed when MVBW put it back. Its still being discussed and as it is is correct while we discuss. You should RFC it VM. Lede free time ended when MVBW ended trimming by mass reverts. So. "Sevastopol's liberation" whats the issue? SaintAviator lets talk 01:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

VM dont be hasty reverting, its Battlefield mentality, give others the chance for input SaintAviator lets talk 01:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss content not editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Im interested in other editors views on content, when its just reverts as a fait a compli, the collegiality index is low. We are in such a cycle now. SaintAviator lets talk 06:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Your accusation about "Battlefield mentality" discusses editors, not content, and isn't a statement about "interest in other editors view on content".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

VM I dont know what your saying, Im not going to get drawn into some vortex of dispute with you that achieves nothing. Im interested in other editors views on content in a civil manner. That holds. I see you reverted, and so the cycle continues. Im not seeing any solution to this. Back on topic, "Sevastopol's liberation" whats the issue? SaintAviator lets talk 07:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Aviator: you got it vice versa: It is the person who added the info must prove his edits. In this case, the question is: Which part of article text is illustrated by the image? - üser:Altenmann >t 15:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I was hoping they would explain it SaintAviator lets talk 23:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This subsection shows a nice, Wikipedia normal, civil Volunteer Marek, and I give a standing ovation to the concept of focusing on troublesome edits and not on assessing or disparaging editors' motivations. Which none of us know unless the editor comes out and states his/her motivations. And even then you don't know ...Haberstr (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not a valid comment about improvement of content. Neither this explains your most recent edits on the page [28]. My very best wishes (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with MVBW. Haberstr, such wholesale removal and reworking of content bears no relationship to consensus-based changes to content. In fact, it is the antithesis of 'trimming' if one compares what is under discussion as to what is 'bloat' and what is valid content in the threads here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

What "wholesale removal and reworking of content"? All of us can work through problems if there are specific charges about specific edits. Admittedly, there appears to be disagreement on how we go about accomplishing removal of bloat and reduction of the article's size. Does that mean none of us do anything? No. Does that mean one version of the article or subsection, perhaps a version preferred by you, magically becomes the permanent article? No.Haberstr (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

In this edit you removed and changed a lot of materials. In particular, you removed a paragraph that starts from "According to Russian opposition politicians and journalists...". Where this removal was discussed and agreed about? My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) A pic of Putin in Crimea is not undue, after all, we have a whole section on it. Also, I think the article can do without this lovely quip from Hillary Clinton [29], which was added without an edit summary. We can't add everything that anyone has ever said about Putin. Athenean (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Clinton is a far more important person on a world scale, and far more an expert on Russia, than the Dalai Lama. My edit merely added that she considers Putin as a bully. One word, that's all. I'd prefer to remove the Dalai Lama and add her, though I admit it is nice to have non-Western voices in Wikipedia articles. A non-Western voice with some legitimate expertise would be better than the Dalai Lama.Haberstr (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessments: Added Trudeau & Clinton on negative, Sarkozy on positive

These major world leaders add a more mainstream feel to the section. Former Indian Prime Minister Singh also could be added on the positive side,[30] if it were balanced on the negative side.Haberstr (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. Trudeau and Clinton are not major world leaders. That may of course change if Clinton becomes president, but for now, she's hardly a major world leader. Athenean (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sevastopol image

If this image is to be included (I say "nay") then the caption needs to clarify the context - this is a visit in the aftermath of the Russian seizure of Crimea. Otherwise the image conveys the false impression that Sevastopol is actually part of Russia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I see your point now. No objection from me. Athenean (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. As a BLP, this article is topical enough without images that don't meet with WP:PERTINENCE unless we include WP:UNDUE descriptions about the circumstances surrounding the event. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've gone BOLD and removed it. If there are any PG arguments for its inclusion, other editors are welcome to state their case. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No, no, I meant amending the caption, not removing the image. I think the image is not undue. Athenean (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I would keep the image. Annexation of Sevastopol is the major point of Putin's policies in the last years. It also shows a typical attributes of him and his policies: Ribbon of Saint George, Botox face, hysterical fans separated by metal barriers, etc. I understand we need some article trimming, but IMHO I would rather remove one of a zillion official photos with different politicians. I have no objection in referencing to the annexation in the photograph's capture (although the annexation is discussed in the article text just next to the photograph). Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No need for removing the image. It is actually bizarre that we are even talking about removing the image. Ladaherra (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• The image is okay, but the caption needs adjusting before it is returned. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't remove the image. Why are we even talking about this? Just a one little image. JohtajaKekkonen (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

We're talking about it because, unless it's duly captioned for the section it's in, it normalises the exceptional circumstances of the 2014 May Day celebrations in Sevastopol, and the reasons for his presence. It's known as 'context': simply adding yet another of the barrage of publicity pics this article is littered with, and with a caption that reads as 'look at how popular he is, and how popular the accession was', and that all is right with the world now is POV. Again, see WP:PERTINENCE which I pointed to originally, and the context in which other editors have understood there to be problems with the caption.

Keeping the image with the current caption is fine by me so long as other editors are satisfied. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

He has never been elected

The 2000, 2004 and 2012 elections were all demonstrably rigged. (217.42.104.15 (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC))

Your point being?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That the introduction should not say he won 72% of the vote, as the elections were rigged. (217.42.104.15 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC))

This is not what our policies say.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Any nation has elections it deserves.Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Putin Rigged Sochi Olympics

This Sunday, May 8, 2016, Russian officials Vitaly Stepanov and Grigory Rodchenkov will appear on the TV show "60 Minutes" and testify about doping amongst Russian athletes at the Sochi Olympics. At least 4 gold medal winning Russians at the Sochi Olympics were on steroids. Vitaly and Grigory are in the USA for their own safety. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

What does it have to do with Putin? Did he compete in the Olympics and take steroids?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

He organized the Olympics and his team won. He was able to know about the steroids. If he didn't know, it was his choice.Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Guilt by association? He is responsible for everything which happens in the country, and he built a dictatorship, so let us add here every single murder in Russia since 2001 since Putin is definitely responsible for it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Putin is responsible for the level of criminality (I don't know - low or high), not for every single.

According to the NYT the political police helped to manipulate the doping control. I don't know if they are right, but if they are - is it possible that any police in Russia opposes Putin?Xx236 (talk) 05:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Let us may be wait for a reliable source stating Putin is personally responsible for the doping scandal, and until such source comes I would advise against adding original research to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. But they wont. Lol. Goodbye. SaintAviator lets talk 07:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Fenya is illegal?

If fenya is illegal - is Putin using fenya because he can do anything, or his phrases don't belong to fenya (but to which dialect ?).Xx236 (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I do not think it is illegal. Swearing in public is illegal, but Putin does not swear in public.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Russian media sources not meeting WP:RS?

Hi @Fyddlestix: @MjolnirPants: @David Gerard: @Doug Weller: @Checkingfax: Based on the consensus discussion on the Sorcha Faal reports articles talk page relating to the WP:RS of Media of Russia where content was sourced by Russian mainstream media and removed as being unreliable, and where hundreds of them are cited in this article, can you please advise me of which ones should be deleted please? As some of you have already stated that Izvestia Trud and REN TV are "propagandizing conspiracy theory bullshit" and only have "passing amusement value", can I immediately delete them? I will await a firm majority consensus on this issue before proceeding. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I first thought this is a serious question but apparently you are just trolling.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Ymblanter: I can assure you that is most certainly a very serious question, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sorcha_Faal_reports.3B_multi-parter. And at it's most basic, what is being discussed/determined is if an editor (or small group of editors) have the right, on an article-by-article basis, to determine the reliability of all Media of Russia sources? Can you imagine the chaos if this is allowed? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

|}

Speeches section deleted

I've added some to the Munich speech discussion in the NATO relations subsection, and then deleted the Speeches subsection. The idea is to eliminate repetition. Of the other two paragraphs in Speeches, I assume the speech regarding the Crimea is already in the Crimea subsections.Haberstr (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Collapse: WP:SOAPBOX

Extended content
Throne Putin takes the Throne of Byzantine Emperors on Athos Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC) Do you mean that Mr Putin uses the throne as a soapbox? Quite possible. I would like to discuss Michel Eltchaninoff's books here, but I don't have any partners, his books are unfortunately published only in French and German (and Polish).Xx236 (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Media

Russians do get right of reply. NPOV. Balance. And all that. Problem with the RS VM? SaintAviator lets talk 06:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

propaganda model is the RS SaintAviator lets talk 07:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean one-to-one ratio, if the sources give much more weight to one side. Rather, following NPOV requires balancing the weight as found in the sources. The problem here is that comparatively few sources take your position. Binksternet (talk) 07:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, your supposed reference to propaganda model fails verification in that it doesn't talk about Putin or the Russian media response, so your fusion of sources violates WP:SYNTH. Not only that, but Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. Binksternet (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thats a POV. So your answer is nothing? Thats Bias. If you were truly NPOV you would reinstate the first part, RS is fine. The second part a WP Link is usually fine but this one is low on RS SaintAviator lets talk 07:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You edit war to keep the following text inserted by you: Russian media often claims that western media is biased. [31]. Not only this is poor English, but this has nothing to do with subject of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Who cares about poor English? Let Putin's article be "ridiculous," remember? Zaostao (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

LOL precious. MVBW, Poor English? Explain. Go on. SaintAviator lets talk 23:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

|}

Inline citation removed

I removed the following inline citation:

Born in Saint Petersburg, Putin studied German at Saint Petersburg High School 281, and speaks fluent German.<ref>{{cite web |title=When Was St. Petersburg Known as Petrograd and Leningrad? |url=http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/fl/When-Was-St-Petersburg-Known-as-Petrograd-and-Leningrad.htm |publisher=About.com |first=Matt|last=Rosenberg |date=12 August 2016 |accessdate=16 September 2016}}</ref>

The referenced article does not mention Putin at all, so it is not relevant as a source. There are two other inline citations for the same sentence, so all is good. Leschnei (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2016

why does it say "the collapse of the Russian ruble" ? only has 1 cnn post from january when there was a spike and ruble now stabilised at last year's avg.

Kolovrat19 (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016

I forgot my password to account but "collapse of the Russian ruble" still needs to be removed.. stupid to have it there as I say above, and just an attack on putin I probably think

KMilos (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: It's sourced. Please gain consensus for your edit EvergreenFir (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Emperor"

The article states that "Putin describes Donald trump as his "pawn", "a puppet", "my little marionette,", and ""a very liyal soldier for Russia", depending on Emperor Putin's mood.". If the quotes are correct there should be references. In any case, Putin is not an "Emperor". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:700:300:420C:3486:B8D4:B802:8C68 (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 00:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Critics.

No critics section? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 00:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Wiki censorship. There's plenty of criticism and controversy surrounding Putin. Also note the article is protected now. 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Opinions of senators in article

I really don't see why we should add opinions of senators from the US Congress onto this article. If that were the case, we'd have to add every senators' assessments regarding Vladimir Putin. Why just McCain's? Why not add Barbara Boxer's? Jeff Flake's? Dick Durbin's? There are 99 Senators to choose from. And why stop at the United States? There's many French, Italian, Swedish, and etc. legislative politicians that said similar statements. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

US policy is set by Congress and the key Congressional leader on Russian affairs is Senator McCain. He is NOT "every senator" --the Senate is hierarchical and he is at the top as chief GOP spokesman on the issue in Congress & he chairs the critical military affairs committee --and he was GOP presidential candidate. Why not Sweden too???--because McCain sets policy for about 40% of world's military strength. Rjensen (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The United States has many committees with many different senators heading them. What makes McCain special? Why not quote the head of the Foreign Relations committee? Governmental Affairs? Homeland Security? What you're doing is nitpicking at this point. Remember, this is a WP:BLP and before adding contentious material that calls Putin "Vladimir Putin is a thug and a murderer and a killer and a KGB agent", you're going to need pretty strong consensus for it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

the military affairs committee for 70 years has focused on Russia, and the media and RS have focused on it and its chairman. The agriculture committee is less relevent for Putin. The contentious statement is fully sourced and attributed not to Wikipedia but to Senator McCain. We can indeed add the Senate Foreign Relations chairman Bob Corker: he's made these recent headline on Putin: 1) "Sen. Bob Corker denounces Donald Trump on Putin" - CNNPolitics.com Sep 8, 2016. 2) "Key GOP senators join call for bipartisan Russia election probe" led by Corker [today]; 3) "Corker thinks Russia tried to meddle in election" - [Nov 15] etc etc. Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Hence, there's no end in sight for the amount of quotations by senators. That's why such a lengthy quote from McCain is undue. You can try to summarize them all though. For example, "Corker, Senate Foreign Relations chairman, has denounced Putin. As has McCain, leader of Senate Arms Committee, and etc. etc." And why should it end with senators? We can add the opinions of Ashton Carter, Joseph Dunford, Eric Fanning, and so forth. So it still begs the question, where does it end? That's why I believe these opinions shouldn't even be included in the article. Heads of state and politicians on a federal level have more sway in decision making when it comes to bi-lateral relations with Russia. That should be the main focus. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with EtienneDolet. We can't possibly include every colorful accusation by every Putin-basher. McCain's allegations are moreoever quite extreme, and I remind everyone that this is a BLP article. Furthermore, the "Assessment" section is currently extremely unbalanced. All the assessments are in fact insults, ranging from the extreme ("dictator") to the bizarre ("self-centered"), with the sole exception that of Gorbachev and Kadyrov (!). The individuals quoted are also a motley collection of marginal figures, such as failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to the Dalai Lama and Garry Kasparov. Completely unbalanced and needs a re-write. Athenean (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• This is a part of section "Public image", and the opinions by highly notable politicians represent his public image. Actually, this particular opinion expresses views by a very large part of political establishment in US in many other countries, and it does not matter if certain WP contributors agree with such views. Therefore, I think this opinion must remain on the page simply per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

McCain is one of the most well known senators and is also the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as well as a former presidential candidate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

A failed presidential candidate. Who is pushing WP:FRINGE views and conspiracy theories on top of that. Sorry, no way. Athenean (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Also chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee and one of the most well known senators. And CBS news is not fringe. You know what is a BLP violation? Referring to living persons such as McCain, a respected politician - as "fringe" based on nothing but your own personal opinion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"He is is a thug and a murderer and a killer..." is WP:FRINGE, I don't care how many committees McCain is sitting on. As are allegations by unnamed sources (i.e. nothing more than rumors). This is well into BLP territory. And don't lecture others about edit-warring while you are yourself guilty of it. Athenean (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That's why it's properly attributed. If a US Senator makes these kinds of statements, it's notable. We are not saying it's true. We are only saying McCain said it. You know how this works.

As to the "allegations", that's your own personal opinion, unsupported by sources.

One more time. CBS news is not "fringe". Stop making stuff up.

And of course I see that the ol' tag team is hard at work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The McCain stuff is borderline conspiracy talk with no factual basis to what he's saying. I think he's losing it. I could tell he's getting a bit too old already. Maybe it's time he retires or something. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The "factual basis" of what he's saying is irrelevant. We are not saying it in Wikipedia voice. We're attributing it to McCain.

And you have some freakin' nerve invoking BLP and then violating it right in the same breath right here with your comments about "he's losing it", and "he's getting a bit too old". Please strike your BLP violations or ... well, you know how this works too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

There are lots of Senators. I don't see why we HAVE to include McCain, whose hostility to Putin is well-known. The assessment section is almost entirely negative anyway. The hacking allegations are also WP:RECENT and premature, since the investigations are just starting. We should at least wait until they conclude. Not to mention that in your edit-warring, you clumsily added it out of chronological order, in between things that happened in 2007. Athenean (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And you of all people, have some "freakin' nerve" to talk about tag teams. Just like you did when you accused others of edit-warring while you were yourself chest-deep in it. Athenean (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think we need an RfC on this. My opinion is as well that if McCain says anything which only demonstrates that he is an idiot, it should be in article about him and not anywhere else.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you think of his statements is irrelevant. The important part is that he is a very well known Senator, and his statements about Putin have been widely reported on in reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you would oppose adding opinions of Russian politicians, who praise Putin and say Obama is an idiot. What about adding them about the article about Obama? Well, we need to stick to WP:WEIGHT, and not add all junk to articles only because a 100th idiot said Putin is evil.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It depends which ones and what the coverage was like in reliable sources. I wouldn't oppose it on principle or anything. It depends. Just like it does here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I open an RFC then.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Dictator?

As Putin has never won a free election, should he be described as a dictator in the article? And should the allegations that he has a form of autism be mentioned? (KDandridge (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC))

Omg, no, not at all. what is this, why should editors have to waste there time with throwaway sock accounts. Govindaharihari (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

It was widely reported in 2015 that Putin had been formally diagnosed as having a form of autism. (KDandridge (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC))

read wp:blp - no you won't will you User:JackWildFan or User:HarveyCarter - Govindaharihari (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

What? What are you talking about? What about the reports that Putin has autism? (KDandridge (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC))

Lol - stop wasting editors time, go away. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Putin has been diagnosed with autism. This needs to be mentioned in the article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11392680/Vladimir-Putin-suffers-from-Aspergers-syndrome-Pentagon-report-claims.html (KDandridge (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC))

Lala la la lol Govindaharihari (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Govindaharihari, who's sock puppet is that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I know you can read , please read the section to discover the mystery.Govindaharihari (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I was wondering who the master account was, but thanks, I figured it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Name

There is are inconsistencies between the first IPA of Putin, /ˈpuːtɪn/, and that in the full name, [ˈputʲɪn], i.e. the "t" is either hard (t) or soft (ty), and the /u/ is long or short. And is the "i" truly /ɪ/ (uncommon in modern Russian), or should it be /i/? The Cyrillic does not have a hard or soft indication for the т. Of course personal names are often idiosyncratic. Which is correct?

BTW, by convention (if I understand correctly), the first occurence should be in brackets, not slashes which are reserved for single phonemes. D A Patriarche, BSc (talk) (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2017

In the section "Second presidential term (2004–2008)" replace the text "was gone and life expectancy declined in period preceding Putin’s rule." with "was gone and life expectancy declined in the period preceding Putin’s rule." 2001:4898:80E8:9:0:0:0:25A (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for noticing.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)