![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think these accusations must be removed instantly, otherwise we seriously run the risk of WP being sued by Russian authorities. I understand there are many russophobes here, but this time it has gone too far. Thank you. Cfeet77 ( talk) 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I hereby declare that I will be personally removing such accusations instantly whenever I see them, even if such removal of mine violates the 3RR rule. You are welcome to report such potential violation to the ANI noticeboard if you find such reporting appropriate, even without first warning me on my talk page. Cfeet77 ( talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest to remove things like "Putins regime" - sounds biased. Your opinions please. Oleg_Str-- 212.111.199.30 ( talk) 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC).
Strongly agree. This user has a very valid point. NPOV terms such as this, which may be correct in the strictest sense of the word, nonetheless serve as a flashpoint for the ideological arguments that have been detracting from the quality of this article. The great thing about this article, from the perspective of what we're trying to do here, is that there's no shortage of facts, both good and bad, about the subject, so our research task is not difficult (there's already 150+ cited references across the V. Putin articles). Nor should the writing task be very challenging: Just a matter of organization and keeping the appropriate, neutral tone. This article should be a slam-dunk, as they say. We've just got to move some stuff around, remove the blatantly biased language, rely on the facts, and we've got ourselves a perfectly fine article, that neither propagandizes nor demonizes the subject. Ender78 ( talk) 02:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What you see since 2003, is the rising oil prices. The Russian economy as such did not improve much, and would plunge if there the oil prices fell (which is unlikely, but I just explain the obvious). This should be explained, instead of presenting Putin as some sort of miracle maker - actually, Bush helped the "rescuing Russian economy" (rising global oil prices) more. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"the economy bounced back from crisis seeing GDP increase six-fold " is biased POV. This part of sentence uses nominal GDP figures that are not adjusted for inflation (sixfold nominal increase means that economy doubled, and prices have tripled). For NPOV presentation, the sentence should refer to real (inflation-adjusted) GDP figures. Because Krawndawg does not agree, I am adding a NPOV tag to the section to alert readers that NPOV dispute exists.--Doopdoop (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Putin himself does not use such tendentious way of measuring GDP. For example, in 2004 he pledged to double Russian GDP until 2010, of course he meant inflation-adjusted GDP. -- Doopdoop ( talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
PUTIN'S REAL FAMILY BACKGROUND: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSBENOquJEM
I have supported creation of an article about Putin's foreign policy, but creation of
Criticism of Vladimir Putin I do not support.
The size of the section is not excessive, and the whole idea appears to be POV-forkish to me, while done with best intentions, no doubt. I know, a similar article exist on G. Bush, but I do not know the reasons. Per my quick check there is no similar article on B. Clinton, for example. So, my preference is to keep content in the main article, without fork. Thanks.
Kulikovsky (
talk)
00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea is precisely to allow for further expansion of the ideas presented, without it becoming a battleground. In this manner, we can summarize the criticisms in the main article, while presenting links into the more specific article throughout. We can also have some overlapping/duplicated content. My personal primary goal is simply to get the overall length of the main article shorter and more readable, NOT to whitewash or dissemble any of Putin's alleged abuses of power. Ender78 ( talk) 00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm disappointed this article lacks a controversy or criticism section, which seem to be neatly tucked away in the public opinion section while Anecdotes or "Putinisms" are clearly labeled. Every biographical article of a notable figure usually has a controversy section, from Rush Limbaugh to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and anyone that doesn't, especially of a political figure, should be suspect of whitewashing. Any complaint of POV is a red herring in regards to these matters. As a side complaint, I think the Second term and Foreign policy sections need to be cut down or split up better, especially if there is already a separate article dedicated to Putin's foreign policy.-- Waxsin ( talk) 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The article Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin should be replaced. Vladimir Putin should have an article that focuses on all his political positions, just like any other candidate. You can look at Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton to get an idea of how this article should look (or for another candidate such as Barack Obama or John McCain. And also check out her profile to see how this article is included in a general article about her. Hope this helps. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The article contains repeated mention of "Putin's" or "Russian regime". This wording is inherently pejorative and should be avoided in the interests of NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.15.114 ( talk) 16:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
His autobiography, Ot Pervovo Litsa
Ot Pervovo Litsa
Pervovo
Facepalm.jpg >>"Ot Pervogo Litsa"<< please fix it, or I will cry. 68.151.34.161 ( talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that the picture of Rumsfeld is relevant to the biography of the Russian President. Rumsfeld has never played any major role in Putin's life and has been for a long time out of the global political scene. -- Supernova ( talk) 08:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It is rather strange that the article says nothing about the ongoing war with Georgia in which Putin continues to play a major role and indeed is frequently described as Putin's war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.147.27 ( talk) 08:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not insisting on the inclusion of the term "Putin's war" although I don't consider it to be biased at all. However, the first bellicose rhetoric against Georgia came from Putin rather than from Medvedev. His fairy speech in Vladikavkaz, which preceded Medvedev's comments, proved that it was Putin who orchestrated the punitive expedition against Georgia. No need to downplay his role in the war.-- 93.177.151.101 ( talk) 18:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Putin sought to punish Georgia for a couple of well-known reasons. He just wanted a pretext. Regarding the state's rights to defend its citizens in another state, please see http://www.rferl.org/content/Does_A_State_Have_The_Right_To_Protect_Its_Citizens_Abroad/1193050.html. As for the military you refer to as "peacekeepers", they are widely known in Georgia as "piecekeepers" or "mirotWARtsy". As you can see not everything is that simple as presented by the Russian media. Back to the subject, however, all we need to do is say that Putin was first to respond to the crisis in Georgia and describe the (Western?) media allegations regarding his role in the conflict. It would be both neutral and fair, methinks.-- 93.177.151.101 ( talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Back to the subject: I don't think that the fact that Putin was the first to respond is a great event in his biography to deserve to be reflected in the article "Vladimir Putin". You have 2008 South Ossetia war for that. -- Supernova ( talk) 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
There are two sections on Putin's wealth - shortly before and after the section on his 2008 prime ministership - that should probably be merged, the text is substantially similar in the two sections. -- 128.255.137.24 ( talk) 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an extremely unusual name outside Greece. Would I be right in assuming he was named after Spiridon Louis, the winner of the marathon at the 1896 Athens Olympics? That would have been around the time he was born. -- JackofOz ( talk) 05:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I think that this page should be added to the category "Russian Orthodox Christians"
agomulka (
talk)
21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
. Thanks! --
MZMcBride (
talk)
06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
To me this quote needs to be removed. "His background in the KGB has nonetheless led Americans to believe he is fluent in English. During an interview with Dan Rather, Putin was pressured to end the interview with a few words in English. After some pestering by Rather, Putin ended by saying "good night" almost perfectly." There is no source for this and I haven't really heard anyone say that. Dunkergilligan ( talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This was reported by a News Corporation news portal, but User:Setraspdopaduegedfa keeps removing this [2], [3] claiming that it is "not a reliable source". Is this a joke? Since when are News Corporation news outlets considered "unreliable". Martintg ( talk) 02:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
According to his opponents' claims, Putin worked in Fifth Directorate (counter-dissident) in Leningrad in late 1970s before being assigned to Foreign Intelligence. However, The Washington Post (harly sympathetic source) claims that he spent this time "spying on foreigners in Leningrad". According to Oleg Gordievsky, "spying on foreigners" (a.k.a. counterintelligence) was under of either Second (internal security and counterintelligence) or Sixth (economic counterintelligence and industrial security) Directorate (see Structure of the USSR KGB). Editor who claims that Felshtinsky's and Post's versions are identical does it on base of unverified claim that Second and Fifth directorates were one and the same. However, he fails to provide reliable source confirming his claim. Until he does so, separate entries for incompatible claims should be in article (Hint: "everybody knows it" rarely considered reliable source). Asks questions ( talk) 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Is he (Putin) still in control of Russia or does Dmitry Medvedev make the decisions?-- Kingforaday1620 ( talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
this is not the place to ask questions like that. this is a discussion page used to improve the article and should be treated as such. Dunkergilligan ( talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The primeminster has true power, except in the US. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.179.15.3 (
talk)
09:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Should this be included somewhere? He also said something like that about another standing president. Biophys ( talk) 04:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way Biophys, have you seen the new Prime Ministers website at http://www.premier.gov.ru? I do believe that Putin's is one of the few websites of world leading government leaders who actually prints articles on their own website which are critical of them, i.e. articles from Russian media and articles from international media. To myself, this shows an incredible degree of openness, and it would be interesting to know exactly why they have done this. Aeroflot used to do to the same thing on their website, but am not sure if they still do, haven't checked it for a while. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 06:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The infobox photo is well in the tradition of some Republican Americans wishing to show the "evil" Putin to the public. These kinds of pictures that portray someone in an exceedingly positive or negative way, as it is being done in the other two alternatives presented here, are not in line with WP:NPOV. Moreover they are eight years old and therefore simply out-of-date. The picture should be up-to-date and have neither too negative nor too positive attitude to it. Merry Christmas to everyone. -- Axt ( talk) 11:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: I can't see why "the picture is not vertical" could be used as an excuse to revert the other image of Putin and Medvedev. -- Axt ( talk) 11:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there is little doubt the leader of Russia right now is Vlademir Putin. Maybe it would make it easier for people not familiar with Russian history to inclued in this article the term of "paramount leader" to design Putin as the real power behind the goverment, albeit not the head of state who is Dimitry Medvedev. The critiria for this would be similar to the one used in China, see who gets more coverage in Russian media. Someone agrees?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgecalle ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Russavia today removed my edit which was sourced to this article in the Telegraph, a respected newspaper. It describes a woman who claims to be Putin's mother. Now, whether or not it is true, the source is good and so it should not be removed as Russavia did, calling her a 'nutter'. Furthermore, part of my edit said that 'little is known about Putin's childhood compared to other world leaders'. This is actually pretty obvious, and was sourced to the same Telegraph article. It was the article's opinion, not that of the 'nutter' as Russavia calls her, and so it really shouldn't have been removed. An explanation would be appreciated Russavia. Malick78 ( talk) 13:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
So please, don't tell me the English press, nor the western press as a whole, is any better than the Russian press, and dictate how they are the be all and end all of truth and all that is good in this world, because if I hear it again, it will only want to make me want to throw up. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's the view of a single author, a newspaper hack even. And it most definitely does not belong in the very first sentence of the article. If we have to write a separate article on his childhood, then we can do that. Because there is plenty out there on his childhood and early life, and it will only make such statements look utterly ridiculous. Info such as this, this, hell, we even have children's books which cover his childhood. And that's without even delving into Russian language sources. He may not have been a coke fiend in his early days, but this does not mean that little is known about his early life. There are details out there for anyone who cares to look. Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy says, I quote:
Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Alex. Until recently, the story, which is not new at all (so what the Telegraph claims: "Now in an extraordinary development, a Georgian woman has come forward to say she is his mother" is blatantly untrue) was in a note. I put it there. It should always have been there, as bordering on WP:FRINGE. I saw the ARTE broadcast by the way, I know Dutch and Russian (no Georgian) and I have to say that the lady's story did not ring true at all. Perhaps she had a son, Vladimir, whom she "gave away" to a relative of the father, because her new husband did not like him. But then the story went bananas with that Vladimir apparently disappearing without a trace into a Russian orphanage. At the age of 9-10, good grief - of course the state would have checked whether there were relatives left, because at that age the boy was unadoptable and would be a burden on the taxpayer. She also claimed that after she had seen Vladimir Putin on TV and started to claim it was her son (by that time her Vladimir must have been fifty at least and she had not seen him for more than forty years) the Georgian secret police came around and took along all the evidence she had of him. So what, they are blackmailing Putin with it now? Did not notice anything in August. And now there's supposedly evidence not taken by the secret police? The problem with the Georgian story is not only that surprise, surprise he landed in another Putin family, they allowed him to keep the name Vladimir (while his new father was already called Vladimir - guess how confusing that must have been), but there is also the little matter of the primary school records. So, small wonder Vladimir Putin was so good at school (he was not actually, he was a bit of a hooligan at first, but later became a hard-working but not so intelligent student) - he was 3-4 years older than the others. They claimed on the programme that "they" made him younger because there was an age-limit at which Soviet women were no longer to conceive and routinely aborted - but if you think about it carefully, you will notice that the math is in the wrong direction. By the way, Polish sites claiming that little is known about Putin's youth are as credible as right-wing Republican sites claiming that little is known about Obama's youth. This is the Russian version of Obama was born in Indonesia, I beg your pardon, in Kenya. And it is given too much space here. -- Paul Pieniezny ( talk) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with Bakherev and Pieniezny! And I don't especially understand the "arguments" of Bakherev who is speculating about solipsistic machinations of a mentally unstable person who is suffering from Napoleon syndrom. Are there sources for these subjective speculations beyond the usual Russian state media? I don't like to add another unnecessary subjective review of the Dutch documentary ( that's not our duty) but checking several reviews ( 1 - 4 years old) I didn't discover pointers to mental illness of the portrayed person. The 5-years-old (!)documentary seems not interested to check/decide truth or untruth but at a life portrait of an old aged Russian woman brought to Georgia. It is significant that all contributions of one certain side are carefully avoiding to mention the fact that Putina's "fantasy story" is supported/confirmed by village's older inhabitants ( espec. a school teacher)and documents about a "Vladimir Putin". We all know only a DNA analysis would clear this dispute but it will never take place. The story itself is a long runner for years ... in several media, in media of different countries (Poland, Germany, UK etc.) and shouldn't be excluded if reliable sources make this story a subject of discussion. Elysander ( talk) 19:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The view that Vera Putina is Putin's mother is a tiny-minority view and therefore is not to be included to this article per WP:UNDUE. Anybody disagrees? Dpktnyfzgjkjcf ( talk) 20:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
A clear misunderstanding of our duties! The Daily Telegraph is a reliable source and should be respected too if it is incurring somebody's displeasure or not at different times ;). Topic is not a by whom supported view that Vera Putina is Putin's mother but the story about this view/claim or anything else - reported and described by several media. Elysander ( talk) 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I found the article [13] in the Russian Newsweek on the tandemocracy to be quite informative as well as unusually critical to Putin (at least for a major Russian newspaper). Ca n we include some material from there Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Several editors for the past few years have criticized this article as being too pro-Putin. Recently, there have been numerous deletions of well sourced information on this page of criticisms of Putin.
Listed here are the deletions for wider discussion, the banner of each is the sources which were deleted:
Firstly, let it be known, that I have raised this issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=260823856#Biophys, because there has been no WP:AGF on the part of either User:Inclusionist or User:Martintg, when they both wholesale reverted my extensive edits which along with removing some sourced info, also included a hell of a lot of improvements to the article, and they have been asked to explain this at the ANI thread. As to the edits in question, as my integrity as an editor has been called into question, I will address every single one of the above edits and the reasons behind them..... -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Council on Foreign Relations, Saint Petersburg Times and the official Kremlin website, president.kremlin.ru |
---|
In a December 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton said that "Putin has also suppressed many of the freedoms won after the fall of communism, created a new class of oligarchs, and interfered deeply in the internal affairs of former Soviet republics." [1] On another occasion, Clinton also made her other famous remarks about Putin by saying the following: "He was a KGB agent. By definition he doesn’t have a soul". [2] When asked at a press conference on 14 February 2008 about Clinton's remarks regarding his soul, Putin was quoted as saying the following in response: "I think that a head of state must have a head as a minimum. And in order to build interstate relationships, one must be governed by the fundamental interest of one's own country rather than by emotions." [3] |
Removed as they were the words of a US Presidential candidate, and sourced or not, it has nothing to do with Foreign policy, because this is where it was placed. It should be placed in Criticism of Vladimir Putin (along with 95% of the rest of the article), which will go along nicely with the article's 2 criticism POVFORKS Criticism of Vladimir Putin and Putinism. -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Asia Times, Radio Free Europe, inosmi.ru, International Herald Tribune |
---|
However, critics of Putin are seldom seen on major national TV channels like Channel One and RTR. Channel One (at that time ORT) used to belong to Boris Berezovsky, one of Putin's main political opponents, and was considered independent from Kremlin, but in 2001 Berezovsky was forced to sell his shares of ORT to another oligarch, Roman Abramovich. Since then, Channel One has been considered to be controlled by the Kremlin. The same occurred with NTV in June 2000: the owner of NTV, Vladimir Gusinsky, was forced to give up his shares in exchange for his freedom and the ability to leave the country. NTV was then captured by Gazprom on 14 April 2001. The NTV channel's news team immediately defected to TV6 and the channel was sued after that by LUKoil. On 21 January 2002, the channel was taken off the air due to a liquidation process ordered by 14 judges of the supreme arbitration court. Four months later the TV6 channel team appeared again on the news television channel TVS, which was launched instead of TV6. After a year and 22 days of broadcasting, TVS was shut down due to bankruptcy. Now there is only one national independent channel, Ren-TV. [4] There are also radio stations such as Echo of Moscow [5] and a large selection [6] of independent newspapers such as Novaya Gazeta, Moscow Times and Nezavisimaya Gazeta. [7] InoSMI project delivers selected Russian translations of articles dedicated to Russia from foreign and Western media online on a daily basis and has a daily audience of 70,000–90,000 visitors, most of them Russians. [8] [15] |
95% of it is unsourced information. It is the WP:BURDEN of editors adding information to provide references, or it may be removed. (Mind you, as Inclusionist and Martintg have re-added this information by wholesale revert, the WP:BURDEN is now on them to source it; that's if their wholesale revert was in good faith. The rest of the information which was sourced is more appropriate for Media in Russia. I also clearly stated to Inclusionist that I am re-writing a lot of this article, and the information would be re-included, except it would be referenced and NPOV. -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Associated Press |
---|
In November 2008, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev called for extension of presidential term from four to six years. Opposition criticized the move, stating that it would serve as "perpetuation of Putinism".
[9]
|
Again, included in Criticism of Vladimir Putin. It is not criticism of Putin, but rather of Medvedev, it's inclusion in this article is entirely misplaced. -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
UK Times Online, the San Diego Union Tribune, Radio Free Europe, The Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, the New Statesman, RIA Novosti |
---|
Nashi has been referred to as "Putin Youth", the "loyal youth brigade" and "Putinjugend" in the Western media. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] The Boston Globe said that "movement's brownshirt tactics certain evoke shades of Hitler Youth, as does the emphasis on physical fitness, clean living, and procreation for the Motherland". [15] Some British and American journalists view the emergence of this and, more recently, other similar organisations, such as Young Guard and Locals, as one of the signs of Russia under Putin "sliding into fascism, with state control of the economy, media, politics and society becoming increasingly heavy-handed". [16] [17] [18] In early 2008 it was reported that Nashi and other similar youth movements would be "radically reorganized" and would no longer function as a centralized federal project. The youth movements say they no longer need to organize street protests now that there is no longer a threat of an orange revolution in Russia. Political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky explained: "Putin was dissatisfied with how Nashi was faring, they were causing tensions with the West. Medvedev positions himself as a friend of the West, and aggressive national patriotic support does not fit in with that image". [19] |
This is an article called Vladimir Putin in a section called Criticism of Vladimir Putin. The above is not a criticism of Vladimir Putin, but rather criticism of Nashi. -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
UK Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, the book First Person, the book Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and the End of Revolution |
---|
There is a view that little is credibly known about Putin's childhood compared to other world leaders. [20] According to Putin's authorized biographies, his mother, Maria Ivanovna Shelomova(1911-1998), was a factory worker and his father, Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin(1911-1999), was conscripted into the Soviet Navy, where he served in the submarine fleet in the early 1930s. [21] His father subsequently served with the NKVD in a sabotage group during World War II. [22] Two elder brothers were born in the mid-1930s; one died within a few months of birth; the second succumbed to diphtheria during the siege of Leningrad. His paternal grandfather, Spiridon Putin(1879-1965), had been Vladimir Lenin's and Joseph Stalin's personal cook. [23] |
If Inclusionist would care to look, there is some solid consensus amongst editors (myself included) based upon policy that this edit was being used to introduce the article a WP:FRINGE view that some old chook in Georgia is Putin's mother. I would remind Inclusionist to read discussions before calling into question my integrity on this issue. And it is the inclusion of this, that there is no WP:AGF and he has acted in a WP:TENDENTIOUS way. -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Moscow Times, LA Times, BBC News |
---|
<ref name="LA Times">{{cite news |url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4815010.html |date=17 May 2007 |title=Russian Orthodox Church ends 80-year split |author=David Holley |publisher=Los Angeles Times}}{{Dead link|date=December 2007}}</ref>
Putin accused the US of provoking the 2008 South Ossetia war, arguing that US citizens where present in the area of the conflict following their leaders' orders to the benefit of one of the two presidential candidates. [24]. [19] |
travb ( talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do we care who journalist Anne Applebaum is married to? Are we attempting to WP:SYN anti-Putin POV by nationalist association? That her marriage calls her integrity as a journalist into question? PetersV TALK 04:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Sidney Blumenthal, describes Applebaum as an neoconservative editorial writer of the Washington Post.
National Interest, itself a conservative journal, on Applebaum; Anne Applebaum, recently named one of "the world's most sophisticated thinkers" by Foreign Policy, raised an important point in her Washington Post column on Tuesday—and an important concern. Applebaum, who is also an adjunct fellow at the neoconservative think-tank the American Enterprise Institute, is right on target in her argument that the oft-forgotten de-facto- independent republic of Abkhazia could trigger war between Russia and Georgia. There is a very real possibility that tension over Abkhazia will escalate, so understanding the nature of the conflict is key. Unfortunately, Applebaum’s analysis sheds no light on the situation, but rather points to a disturbing trend in American mainstream media: presenting simplistic and therefore misleading analysis of foreign-policy issues.
I can provide more, if one would like, but there is a small selection from different ends of the spectrum.
(od) I'm sorry, Russavia, but not including why we care what a particular person has said (that is, their credentials and/or official position) is bad writing at best. Your characterization of Applebaum can be taken as slander. Her marital status is immaterial to her credentials; she is a respected journalist and author. If you wish to include a <ref> that she is currently an adjunct felllow at AEI, that's appropriate. Labeling AEI in the article with a POV tag is not.
The same for Zhirinovsky. We don't know who he is speaking for, but we do know his positions. Including those again, is not only appropriate but necessary. Deleting such information renders the article useless for the average reader. Please desist from such deletions in the future.
PetersV
TALK
15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Some slanderous techniques remind me more at a mid level kind of Sippenhaft used systematically not only by yellow press today - true to the motto: Who is married or related to a child molester is anyway molester too. Elysander ( talk) 17:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
We can write "the American neoconservative Russophobic journalist and author Anne Applebaum" (because this is all verifiable as per WP:RS), or as I suggested in the interests of NPOV, we simply write "Anne Applebaum". Furthermore, this also goes to show why an overdependence on "quotes" in articles is a bad thing; in the article we have 3 lines devoted to Applebaum's quote. Then we also have Moscow's policies under Putin towards these states are viewed by politicians in the West[who?] as "efforts to bully democratic neighbors". in the article - I have added the "who", because do all politicians in the west think this? Of course they don't, this is the view of John McCain. And there was also the view of Hillary Clinton which I removed. In essence all 3 quotes say exactly the same thing, but we had 3 quotes (now two) scattered throughout the article. And when I mentioned that I will in near future gut this article and rewrite, it is exactly this type of thing that I was talking of gutting and rewriting. -- Russavia Dialogue 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
>widely credited for reduced corruption and lawlessness of post ussr russia Actualy, more than false statement- http://www.indem.ru/en/Publicat/2005diag_engV.htm http://www.google.com.tr/search?q=corruption%20increase%2011%20times%20russia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Still there are no mentioned allegations agains him about 1999 living appartment bombings in Moscow which are well known on the west.
>1) the apartment bombings werent blamed on chechens, and its not proven it was done by militants
See Boris Beresovsky allegations, now killed and dead Alexander Litvienenko allegations, CIA allegations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.105.251.14 ( talk) 06:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There have been changes to several photos in the articles, and it really doesn't bother me what ones we use, but instead of reverting and calling such revisions vandalism, let's simply gather concensus which photos to use. There is no need to get into an edit war over a trivial matter.
In the infobox, there have been changes from:
to
to
Previous to gaining Kremlin permission to use photos, this poor quality photo was used in the infobox.
Please indicate which photo editors would prefer, or make another suggestion, but let's not change anything until we can all decide.
OPTION #1
OPTION #2
OPTION #3
OPTION #4
The other photo which is changed is the one of Putin with Medvedev. Originally, it was Putin and Medvedev together at the Victory Day parade. Let's get rid of it, sure.
The photos which are being changed to/from are:
File:Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin edit.jpg (Option #1)
or
Please indicate which photo editors would prefer, or make another suggestion, but again let's not change anything until we can all decide.
OPTION #1
OPTION #2
--- Actuallly, I changed it to Option 2 from this Victory day image when I changed it the first time. Even though I do have a preference for the August 2008 image because it has more style, I would support the other image as well. -- Axt ( talk) 12:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Another interesting option will be the recent Christmas image:
I believe it correctly show the tandemocracy. Neither of the two men occupies the chairman armchair (I believe it is Medvedev's cabinet, so it is actually Medvedev's armchair), both men seat on guest chairs to show that they are equal. On the other hand the body language and seating arrangements is quite clear who is the boss there
Alex Bakharev (
talk)
00:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we use a cropped version of this image in the infobox:
File:Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin edit.jpg
This picture seems fine to me and is up-to-date (2007), whereas all the others are from 2000 and not exactly pretty (it has even won some awards). -- Axt ( talk) 17:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
umm, sorry, I don't know how to use this, but the article (to me) does seem like it's written by the Kremlin- or has Putin's leadership really been that positive? Christinaross ( talk) 19:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Infact author of those articles is just going mad and critics Russia or Putin on every aspect. He fights separatists - thats bad, send some oligarchs away/to prison - bad again. There is no analitics here. Just emotion emotion emotion emotion. So... Using that kind of press as motivation is a good sighn of that "fanatics enthusiasm" mentioned above.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 09:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday Mr. Putin said "Ukraine is run by criminals who can't solve economic problems" [20]. I placed it in the foreign affairs section but I'm not sure it shouldn't be in the lead. I mean if the Prime Minister of the UK would say: "Ireland is run by criminals who can't solve economic problems" it would be in the lead of the Gordon Brown wiki article. I don't see why Mr. Putin should be treated differently..., but I'm bias, since I rather like 1 of those "criminals".... — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 23:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Dunno as for the "lead". But can you provide direct quote in Russian please? Actualy Putin is damn right ;-).-- Oleg Str ( talk) 10:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC) I mean maybe he sad smth like "жулики" /cheaters/, which is quite diff then "criminals", "Кримiнальна влада", you know ;-). Then it not that bad, keepin in mind that half of Ukraine think so.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised to see there is a criticism section on Putin, actually, a link to a whole article. There is no criticism section on Bush. Why is this? Is it because wikipedia writers are pro-american and anti-russian? Either there should be criticism of everybody, or criticism of nobody, there should be no double standard. I am calling on this section and article to be deleted, unitl a section criticising Bush, yuschenko and others is in place on there respective articles. It's ridiculous: it quotes an american journalist saying "Russia is bad, Putin is Bad". If I was to write a section on the Bush article, criticising him, and I cited a russian media journalist who said "bush is bad, guantanamo violates human rights", it would be promptly deleted and I would be told that "this is an opinion, not fact". there is the double standard, so why isn't something being done? It shows clear blatant bias in the article and wikipedia. Guitar3000 ( talk) 14:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree as for removing "Criticism". When it is in one section it's more clear what is it that somebody was criticised for. I mean that articles about ppls are tend to be more positive in tone. And Criticism alows to put some balance to this as even good ppls have something to be criticised for. However I think some changes are needed. 1. "Gorbachev in his interview" - it's saying smth like "sharply criticized". But there is no his quotes. 2. "Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal wrote: "Russia has become, in the precise sense of the word, a fascist state" - blah blah blah. Yes, it is criticism of a kind "Putin is bad, Russia is bad". If it's releavant to the article, then we should add all, what Osama Bin Laden or Sadam sad about US and it's presidents /after friendship between them was stopped/ ;-). So if nobody minds I will make changes when I will have time. -- Oleg Str ( talk) 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this relevant to Putin? Or is it just baseless accusation? (edit: and crappy journalism?) Rebelyell2006 ( talk) 06:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
As the lead suggests "bringing political stability and re-establishing the rule of law" must be much more important than restoring Russia's 19th century-like imperialistic foreign policy goals within what they still see as their "Satellite states". Behind "his record on internal human rights and freedoms" one should probably see the continuous establishing of dictatorship through disallowing democratic opposition and free journalists by any means possible.
Something is apparently wrong here. Russia is not a normal trading partner of the west but rather an arrogant world power that is dangerous not only militarily but more importantly in that sense that it tries to intoxicate its neighbors by anti-democratic behavior as well as controlling strategic industry enterprises in other countries as a political means only. That all developed under de-facto leadership of Putin which continues still today. Omichalek ( talk) 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
the picture captioned "President Bush and Putin at the 33rd G8 summit, June 2007." should probably be changed to something showing that George W. Bush is no longer President, such as "Former President Bush" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Be.perlmutter ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed from the article the photo of "Putin" with Reagan and Gorbachev in Red Square, and have done so for the following reason: pure and simple it is tabloid rubbish (nee gossip). It is not confirmed that it is Putin, and considering the western press' knack for egregious nuttery, such as the infamous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad photo, and WP isn't a vehicle to promote the opinion of some journalistic hacks who don't know the meaning of the word "research". If the reporter did their job they would notice:
Just who are the people who confirmed to Souza that this is Putin? Prob the same people who confirmed Iraq had WMD. I wait with bated breathe the next revelation from the US government "intelligence" that the kid in the photo is none other than Putin's unknown, long-lost son. Why doesn't Souza release the photo in extra high res, so that everyone can see for themselves, rather than relying on "experts". Sure, the photo is getting a little media attention, we could have all sorts of fun with it, such as [21] (the contact sheet comment is especially funny), but is it encyclopaedic? Not at all.
If it's actually confirmed that it is Putin, I'll be the first to reinsert it into the article; it is more interesting than a simple photo of Putin in uniform, but we are first and foremost an encyclopaedia, not a gossip outlet. -- Russavia Dialogue 11:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is there a criticism section for Vladimir Putin, but not one for Bush? Bush is far more criticized around the world than Putin ... having this section for him but not for Bush isn't a neutral position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.250.226 ( talk) 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Tell me please what is a difference between two situations. One is when criticism is part of the article and another when there is only a link to a separate article. Does it mean something?-- Oleg Str ( talk) 15:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
clinton_says_putin_has_no_soul
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).press_conference_feb_2008
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: others (
link)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think these accusations must be removed instantly, otherwise we seriously run the risk of WP being sued by Russian authorities. I understand there are many russophobes here, but this time it has gone too far. Thank you. Cfeet77 ( talk) 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I hereby declare that I will be personally removing such accusations instantly whenever I see them, even if such removal of mine violates the 3RR rule. You are welcome to report such potential violation to the ANI noticeboard if you find such reporting appropriate, even without first warning me on my talk page. Cfeet77 ( talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest to remove things like "Putins regime" - sounds biased. Your opinions please. Oleg_Str-- 212.111.199.30 ( talk) 13:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC).
Strongly agree. This user has a very valid point. NPOV terms such as this, which may be correct in the strictest sense of the word, nonetheless serve as a flashpoint for the ideological arguments that have been detracting from the quality of this article. The great thing about this article, from the perspective of what we're trying to do here, is that there's no shortage of facts, both good and bad, about the subject, so our research task is not difficult (there's already 150+ cited references across the V. Putin articles). Nor should the writing task be very challenging: Just a matter of organization and keeping the appropriate, neutral tone. This article should be a slam-dunk, as they say. We've just got to move some stuff around, remove the blatantly biased language, rely on the facts, and we've got ourselves a perfectly fine article, that neither propagandizes nor demonizes the subject. Ender78 ( talk) 02:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What you see since 2003, is the rising oil prices. The Russian economy as such did not improve much, and would plunge if there the oil prices fell (which is unlikely, but I just explain the obvious). This should be explained, instead of presenting Putin as some sort of miracle maker - actually, Bush helped the "rescuing Russian economy" (rising global oil prices) more. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 12:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
"the economy bounced back from crisis seeing GDP increase six-fold " is biased POV. This part of sentence uses nominal GDP figures that are not adjusted for inflation (sixfold nominal increase means that economy doubled, and prices have tripled). For NPOV presentation, the sentence should refer to real (inflation-adjusted) GDP figures. Because Krawndawg does not agree, I am adding a NPOV tag to the section to alert readers that NPOV dispute exists.--Doopdoop (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Putin himself does not use such tendentious way of measuring GDP. For example, in 2004 he pledged to double Russian GDP until 2010, of course he meant inflation-adjusted GDP. -- Doopdoop ( talk) 19:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
PUTIN'S REAL FAMILY BACKGROUND: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSBENOquJEM
I have supported creation of an article about Putin's foreign policy, but creation of
Criticism of Vladimir Putin I do not support.
The size of the section is not excessive, and the whole idea appears to be POV-forkish to me, while done with best intentions, no doubt. I know, a similar article exist on G. Bush, but I do not know the reasons. Per my quick check there is no similar article on B. Clinton, for example. So, my preference is to keep content in the main article, without fork. Thanks.
Kulikovsky (
talk)
00:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea is precisely to allow for further expansion of the ideas presented, without it becoming a battleground. In this manner, we can summarize the criticisms in the main article, while presenting links into the more specific article throughout. We can also have some overlapping/duplicated content. My personal primary goal is simply to get the overall length of the main article shorter and more readable, NOT to whitewash or dissemble any of Putin's alleged abuses of power. Ender78 ( talk) 00:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm disappointed this article lacks a controversy or criticism section, which seem to be neatly tucked away in the public opinion section while Anecdotes or "Putinisms" are clearly labeled. Every biographical article of a notable figure usually has a controversy section, from Rush Limbaugh to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and anyone that doesn't, especially of a political figure, should be suspect of whitewashing. Any complaint of POV is a red herring in regards to these matters. As a side complaint, I think the Second term and Foreign policy sections need to be cut down or split up better, especially if there is already a separate article dedicated to Putin's foreign policy.-- Waxsin ( talk) 22:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The article Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin should be replaced. Vladimir Putin should have an article that focuses on all his political positions, just like any other candidate. You can look at Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton to get an idea of how this article should look (or for another candidate such as Barack Obama or John McCain. And also check out her profile to see how this article is included in a general article about her. Hope this helps. QuirkyAndSuch ( talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The article contains repeated mention of "Putin's" or "Russian regime". This wording is inherently pejorative and should be avoided in the interests of NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.15.114 ( talk) 16:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
His autobiography, Ot Pervovo Litsa
Ot Pervovo Litsa
Pervovo
Facepalm.jpg >>"Ot Pervogo Litsa"<< please fix it, or I will cry. 68.151.34.161 ( talk) 07:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that the picture of Rumsfeld is relevant to the biography of the Russian President. Rumsfeld has never played any major role in Putin's life and has been for a long time out of the global political scene. -- Supernova ( talk) 08:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
It is rather strange that the article says nothing about the ongoing war with Georgia in which Putin continues to play a major role and indeed is frequently described as Putin's war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.177.147.27 ( talk) 08:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not insisting on the inclusion of the term "Putin's war" although I don't consider it to be biased at all. However, the first bellicose rhetoric against Georgia came from Putin rather than from Medvedev. His fairy speech in Vladikavkaz, which preceded Medvedev's comments, proved that it was Putin who orchestrated the punitive expedition against Georgia. No need to downplay his role in the war.-- 93.177.151.101 ( talk) 18:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Putin sought to punish Georgia for a couple of well-known reasons. He just wanted a pretext. Regarding the state's rights to defend its citizens in another state, please see http://www.rferl.org/content/Does_A_State_Have_The_Right_To_Protect_Its_Citizens_Abroad/1193050.html. As for the military you refer to as "peacekeepers", they are widely known in Georgia as "piecekeepers" or "mirotWARtsy". As you can see not everything is that simple as presented by the Russian media. Back to the subject, however, all we need to do is say that Putin was first to respond to the crisis in Georgia and describe the (Western?) media allegations regarding his role in the conflict. It would be both neutral and fair, methinks.-- 93.177.151.101 ( talk) 15:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Back to the subject: I don't think that the fact that Putin was the first to respond is a great event in his biography to deserve to be reflected in the article "Vladimir Putin". You have 2008 South Ossetia war for that. -- Supernova ( talk) 16:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
There are two sections on Putin's wealth - shortly before and after the section on his 2008 prime ministership - that should probably be merged, the text is substantially similar in the two sections. -- 128.255.137.24 ( talk) 22:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an extremely unusual name outside Greece. Would I be right in assuming he was named after Spiridon Louis, the winner of the marathon at the 1896 Athens Olympics? That would have been around the time he was born. -- JackofOz ( talk) 05:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I think that this page should be added to the category "Russian Orthodox Christians"
agomulka (
talk)
21:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
. Thanks! --
MZMcBride (
talk)
06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
To me this quote needs to be removed. "His background in the KGB has nonetheless led Americans to believe he is fluent in English. During an interview with Dan Rather, Putin was pressured to end the interview with a few words in English. After some pestering by Rather, Putin ended by saying "good night" almost perfectly." There is no source for this and I haven't really heard anyone say that. Dunkergilligan ( talk) 05:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This was reported by a News Corporation news portal, but User:Setraspdopaduegedfa keeps removing this [2], [3] claiming that it is "not a reliable source". Is this a joke? Since when are News Corporation news outlets considered "unreliable". Martintg ( talk) 02:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
According to his opponents' claims, Putin worked in Fifth Directorate (counter-dissident) in Leningrad in late 1970s before being assigned to Foreign Intelligence. However, The Washington Post (harly sympathetic source) claims that he spent this time "spying on foreigners in Leningrad". According to Oleg Gordievsky, "spying on foreigners" (a.k.a. counterintelligence) was under of either Second (internal security and counterintelligence) or Sixth (economic counterintelligence and industrial security) Directorate (see Structure of the USSR KGB). Editor who claims that Felshtinsky's and Post's versions are identical does it on base of unverified claim that Second and Fifth directorates were one and the same. However, he fails to provide reliable source confirming his claim. Until he does so, separate entries for incompatible claims should be in article (Hint: "everybody knows it" rarely considered reliable source). Asks questions ( talk) 17:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Is he (Putin) still in control of Russia or does Dmitry Medvedev make the decisions?-- Kingforaday1620 ( talk) 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
this is not the place to ask questions like that. this is a discussion page used to improve the article and should be treated as such. Dunkergilligan ( talk) 02:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The primeminster has true power, except in the US. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
58.179.15.3 (
talk)
09:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Should this be included somewhere? He also said something like that about another standing president. Biophys ( talk) 04:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
By the way Biophys, have you seen the new Prime Ministers website at http://www.premier.gov.ru? I do believe that Putin's is one of the few websites of world leading government leaders who actually prints articles on their own website which are critical of them, i.e. articles from Russian media and articles from international media. To myself, this shows an incredible degree of openness, and it would be interesting to know exactly why they have done this. Aeroflot used to do to the same thing on their website, but am not sure if they still do, haven't checked it for a while. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 06:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The infobox photo is well in the tradition of some Republican Americans wishing to show the "evil" Putin to the public. These kinds of pictures that portray someone in an exceedingly positive or negative way, as it is being done in the other two alternatives presented here, are not in line with WP:NPOV. Moreover they are eight years old and therefore simply out-of-date. The picture should be up-to-date and have neither too negative nor too positive attitude to it. Merry Christmas to everyone. -- Axt ( talk) 11:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: I can't see why "the picture is not vertical" could be used as an excuse to revert the other image of Putin and Medvedev. -- Axt ( talk) 11:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there is little doubt the leader of Russia right now is Vlademir Putin. Maybe it would make it easier for people not familiar with Russian history to inclued in this article the term of "paramount leader" to design Putin as the real power behind the goverment, albeit not the head of state who is Dimitry Medvedev. The critiria for this would be similar to the one used in China, see who gets more coverage in Russian media. Someone agrees?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgecalle ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Russavia today removed my edit which was sourced to this article in the Telegraph, a respected newspaper. It describes a woman who claims to be Putin's mother. Now, whether or not it is true, the source is good and so it should not be removed as Russavia did, calling her a 'nutter'. Furthermore, part of my edit said that 'little is known about Putin's childhood compared to other world leaders'. This is actually pretty obvious, and was sourced to the same Telegraph article. It was the article's opinion, not that of the 'nutter' as Russavia calls her, and so it really shouldn't have been removed. An explanation would be appreciated Russavia. Malick78 ( talk) 13:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
So please, don't tell me the English press, nor the western press as a whole, is any better than the Russian press, and dictate how they are the be all and end all of truth and all that is good in this world, because if I hear it again, it will only want to make me want to throw up. -- Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's the view of a single author, a newspaper hack even. And it most definitely does not belong in the very first sentence of the article. If we have to write a separate article on his childhood, then we can do that. Because there is plenty out there on his childhood and early life, and it will only make such statements look utterly ridiculous. Info such as this, this, hell, we even have children's books which cover his childhood. And that's without even delving into Russian language sources. He may not have been a coke fiend in his early days, but this does not mean that little is known about his early life. There are details out there for anyone who cares to look. Wikipedia:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy says, I quote:
Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 20:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Alex. Until recently, the story, which is not new at all (so what the Telegraph claims: "Now in an extraordinary development, a Georgian woman has come forward to say she is his mother" is blatantly untrue) was in a note. I put it there. It should always have been there, as bordering on WP:FRINGE. I saw the ARTE broadcast by the way, I know Dutch and Russian (no Georgian) and I have to say that the lady's story did not ring true at all. Perhaps she had a son, Vladimir, whom she "gave away" to a relative of the father, because her new husband did not like him. But then the story went bananas with that Vladimir apparently disappearing without a trace into a Russian orphanage. At the age of 9-10, good grief - of course the state would have checked whether there were relatives left, because at that age the boy was unadoptable and would be a burden on the taxpayer. She also claimed that after she had seen Vladimir Putin on TV and started to claim it was her son (by that time her Vladimir must have been fifty at least and she had not seen him for more than forty years) the Georgian secret police came around and took along all the evidence she had of him. So what, they are blackmailing Putin with it now? Did not notice anything in August. And now there's supposedly evidence not taken by the secret police? The problem with the Georgian story is not only that surprise, surprise he landed in another Putin family, they allowed him to keep the name Vladimir (while his new father was already called Vladimir - guess how confusing that must have been), but there is also the little matter of the primary school records. So, small wonder Vladimir Putin was so good at school (he was not actually, he was a bit of a hooligan at first, but later became a hard-working but not so intelligent student) - he was 3-4 years older than the others. They claimed on the programme that "they" made him younger because there was an age-limit at which Soviet women were no longer to conceive and routinely aborted - but if you think about it carefully, you will notice that the math is in the wrong direction. By the way, Polish sites claiming that little is known about Putin's youth are as credible as right-wing Republican sites claiming that little is known about Obama's youth. This is the Russian version of Obama was born in Indonesia, I beg your pardon, in Kenya. And it is given too much space here. -- Paul Pieniezny ( talk) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagree with Bakherev and Pieniezny! And I don't especially understand the "arguments" of Bakherev who is speculating about solipsistic machinations of a mentally unstable person who is suffering from Napoleon syndrom. Are there sources for these subjective speculations beyond the usual Russian state media? I don't like to add another unnecessary subjective review of the Dutch documentary ( that's not our duty) but checking several reviews ( 1 - 4 years old) I didn't discover pointers to mental illness of the portrayed person. The 5-years-old (!)documentary seems not interested to check/decide truth or untruth but at a life portrait of an old aged Russian woman brought to Georgia. It is significant that all contributions of one certain side are carefully avoiding to mention the fact that Putina's "fantasy story" is supported/confirmed by village's older inhabitants ( espec. a school teacher)and documents about a "Vladimir Putin". We all know only a DNA analysis would clear this dispute but it will never take place. The story itself is a long runner for years ... in several media, in media of different countries (Poland, Germany, UK etc.) and shouldn't be excluded if reliable sources make this story a subject of discussion. Elysander ( talk) 19:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The view that Vera Putina is Putin's mother is a tiny-minority view and therefore is not to be included to this article per WP:UNDUE. Anybody disagrees? Dpktnyfzgjkjcf ( talk) 20:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
A clear misunderstanding of our duties! The Daily Telegraph is a reliable source and should be respected too if it is incurring somebody's displeasure or not at different times ;). Topic is not a by whom supported view that Vera Putina is Putin's mother but the story about this view/claim or anything else - reported and described by several media. Elysander ( talk) 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I found the article [13] in the Russian Newsweek on the tandemocracy to be quite informative as well as unusually critical to Putin (at least for a major Russian newspaper). Ca n we include some material from there Alex Bakharev ( talk) 00:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Several editors for the past few years have criticized this article as being too pro-Putin. Recently, there have been numerous deletions of well sourced information on this page of criticisms of Putin.
Listed here are the deletions for wider discussion, the banner of each is the sources which were deleted:
Firstly, let it be known, that I have raised this issue at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=260823856#Biophys, because there has been no WP:AGF on the part of either User:Inclusionist or User:Martintg, when they both wholesale reverted my extensive edits which along with removing some sourced info, also included a hell of a lot of improvements to the article, and they have been asked to explain this at the ANI thread. As to the edits in question, as my integrity as an editor has been called into question, I will address every single one of the above edits and the reasons behind them..... -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Council on Foreign Relations, Saint Petersburg Times and the official Kremlin website, president.kremlin.ru |
---|
In a December 2007 article in Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton said that "Putin has also suppressed many of the freedoms won after the fall of communism, created a new class of oligarchs, and interfered deeply in the internal affairs of former Soviet republics." [1] On another occasion, Clinton also made her other famous remarks about Putin by saying the following: "He was a KGB agent. By definition he doesn’t have a soul". [2] When asked at a press conference on 14 February 2008 about Clinton's remarks regarding his soul, Putin was quoted as saying the following in response: "I think that a head of state must have a head as a minimum. And in order to build interstate relationships, one must be governed by the fundamental interest of one's own country rather than by emotions." [3] |
Removed as they were the words of a US Presidential candidate, and sourced or not, it has nothing to do with Foreign policy, because this is where it was placed. It should be placed in Criticism of Vladimir Putin (along with 95% of the rest of the article), which will go along nicely with the article's 2 criticism POVFORKS Criticism of Vladimir Putin and Putinism. -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Asia Times, Radio Free Europe, inosmi.ru, International Herald Tribune |
---|
However, critics of Putin are seldom seen on major national TV channels like Channel One and RTR. Channel One (at that time ORT) used to belong to Boris Berezovsky, one of Putin's main political opponents, and was considered independent from Kremlin, but in 2001 Berezovsky was forced to sell his shares of ORT to another oligarch, Roman Abramovich. Since then, Channel One has been considered to be controlled by the Kremlin. The same occurred with NTV in June 2000: the owner of NTV, Vladimir Gusinsky, was forced to give up his shares in exchange for his freedom and the ability to leave the country. NTV was then captured by Gazprom on 14 April 2001. The NTV channel's news team immediately defected to TV6 and the channel was sued after that by LUKoil. On 21 January 2002, the channel was taken off the air due to a liquidation process ordered by 14 judges of the supreme arbitration court. Four months later the TV6 channel team appeared again on the news television channel TVS, which was launched instead of TV6. After a year and 22 days of broadcasting, TVS was shut down due to bankruptcy. Now there is only one national independent channel, Ren-TV. [4] There are also radio stations such as Echo of Moscow [5] and a large selection [6] of independent newspapers such as Novaya Gazeta, Moscow Times and Nezavisimaya Gazeta. [7] InoSMI project delivers selected Russian translations of articles dedicated to Russia from foreign and Western media online on a daily basis and has a daily audience of 70,000–90,000 visitors, most of them Russians. [8] [15] |
95% of it is unsourced information. It is the WP:BURDEN of editors adding information to provide references, or it may be removed. (Mind you, as Inclusionist and Martintg have re-added this information by wholesale revert, the WP:BURDEN is now on them to source it; that's if their wholesale revert was in good faith. The rest of the information which was sourced is more appropriate for Media in Russia. I also clearly stated to Inclusionist that I am re-writing a lot of this article, and the information would be re-included, except it would be referenced and NPOV. -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Associated Press |
---|
In November 2008, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev called for extension of presidential term from four to six years. Opposition criticized the move, stating that it would serve as "perpetuation of Putinism".
[9]
|
Again, included in Criticism of Vladimir Putin. It is not criticism of Putin, but rather of Medvedev, it's inclusion in this article is entirely misplaced. -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
UK Times Online, the San Diego Union Tribune, Radio Free Europe, The Boston Globe, the Daily Mail, the New Statesman, RIA Novosti |
---|
Nashi has been referred to as "Putin Youth", the "loyal youth brigade" and "Putinjugend" in the Western media. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] The Boston Globe said that "movement's brownshirt tactics certain evoke shades of Hitler Youth, as does the emphasis on physical fitness, clean living, and procreation for the Motherland". [15] Some British and American journalists view the emergence of this and, more recently, other similar organisations, such as Young Guard and Locals, as one of the signs of Russia under Putin "sliding into fascism, with state control of the economy, media, politics and society becoming increasingly heavy-handed". [16] [17] [18] In early 2008 it was reported that Nashi and other similar youth movements would be "radically reorganized" and would no longer function as a centralized federal project. The youth movements say they no longer need to organize street protests now that there is no longer a threat of an orange revolution in Russia. Political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky explained: "Putin was dissatisfied with how Nashi was faring, they were causing tensions with the West. Medvedev positions himself as a friend of the West, and aggressive national patriotic support does not fit in with that image". [19] |
This is an article called Vladimir Putin in a section called Criticism of Vladimir Putin. The above is not a criticism of Vladimir Putin, but rather criticism of Nashi. -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
UK Daily Telegraph, The New York Times, the book First Person, the book Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and the End of Revolution |
---|
There is a view that little is credibly known about Putin's childhood compared to other world leaders. [20] According to Putin's authorized biographies, his mother, Maria Ivanovna Shelomova(1911-1998), was a factory worker and his father, Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin(1911-1999), was conscripted into the Soviet Navy, where he served in the submarine fleet in the early 1930s. [21] His father subsequently served with the NKVD in a sabotage group during World War II. [22] Two elder brothers were born in the mid-1930s; one died within a few months of birth; the second succumbed to diphtheria during the siege of Leningrad. His paternal grandfather, Spiridon Putin(1879-1965), had been Vladimir Lenin's and Joseph Stalin's personal cook. [23] |
If Inclusionist would care to look, there is some solid consensus amongst editors (myself included) based upon policy that this edit was being used to introduce the article a WP:FRINGE view that some old chook in Georgia is Putin's mother. I would remind Inclusionist to read discussions before calling into question my integrity on this issue. And it is the inclusion of this, that there is no WP:AGF and he has acted in a WP:TENDENTIOUS way. -- Russavia Dialogue 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Moscow Times, LA Times, BBC News |
---|
<ref name="LA Times">{{cite news |url=http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4815010.html |date=17 May 2007 |title=Russian Orthodox Church ends 80-year split |author=David Holley |publisher=Los Angeles Times}}{{Dead link|date=December 2007}}</ref>
Putin accused the US of provoking the 2008 South Ossetia war, arguing that US citizens where present in the area of the conflict following their leaders' orders to the benefit of one of the two presidential candidates. [24]. [19] |
travb ( talk) 02:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do we care who journalist Anne Applebaum is married to? Are we attempting to WP:SYN anti-Putin POV by nationalist association? That her marriage calls her integrity as a journalist into question? PetersV TALK 04:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Sidney Blumenthal, describes Applebaum as an neoconservative editorial writer of the Washington Post.
National Interest, itself a conservative journal, on Applebaum; Anne Applebaum, recently named one of "the world's most sophisticated thinkers" by Foreign Policy, raised an important point in her Washington Post column on Tuesday—and an important concern. Applebaum, who is also an adjunct fellow at the neoconservative think-tank the American Enterprise Institute, is right on target in her argument that the oft-forgotten de-facto- independent republic of Abkhazia could trigger war between Russia and Georgia. There is a very real possibility that tension over Abkhazia will escalate, so understanding the nature of the conflict is key. Unfortunately, Applebaum’s analysis sheds no light on the situation, but rather points to a disturbing trend in American mainstream media: presenting simplistic and therefore misleading analysis of foreign-policy issues.
I can provide more, if one would like, but there is a small selection from different ends of the spectrum.
(od) I'm sorry, Russavia, but not including why we care what a particular person has said (that is, their credentials and/or official position) is bad writing at best. Your characterization of Applebaum can be taken as slander. Her marital status is immaterial to her credentials; she is a respected journalist and author. If you wish to include a <ref> that she is currently an adjunct felllow at AEI, that's appropriate. Labeling AEI in the article with a POV tag is not.
The same for Zhirinovsky. We don't know who he is speaking for, but we do know his positions. Including those again, is not only appropriate but necessary. Deleting such information renders the article useless for the average reader. Please desist from such deletions in the future.
PetersV
TALK
15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Some slanderous techniques remind me more at a mid level kind of Sippenhaft used systematically not only by yellow press today - true to the motto: Who is married or related to a child molester is anyway molester too. Elysander ( talk) 17:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
We can write "the American neoconservative Russophobic journalist and author Anne Applebaum" (because this is all verifiable as per WP:RS), or as I suggested in the interests of NPOV, we simply write "Anne Applebaum". Furthermore, this also goes to show why an overdependence on "quotes" in articles is a bad thing; in the article we have 3 lines devoted to Applebaum's quote. Then we also have Moscow's policies under Putin towards these states are viewed by politicians in the West[who?] as "efforts to bully democratic neighbors". in the article - I have added the "who", because do all politicians in the west think this? Of course they don't, this is the view of John McCain. And there was also the view of Hillary Clinton which I removed. In essence all 3 quotes say exactly the same thing, but we had 3 quotes (now two) scattered throughout the article. And when I mentioned that I will in near future gut this article and rewrite, it is exactly this type of thing that I was talking of gutting and rewriting. -- Russavia Dialogue 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
>widely credited for reduced corruption and lawlessness of post ussr russia Actualy, more than false statement- http://www.indem.ru/en/Publicat/2005diag_engV.htm http://www.google.com.tr/search?q=corruption%20increase%2011%20times%20russia&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Still there are no mentioned allegations agains him about 1999 living appartment bombings in Moscow which are well known on the west.
>1) the apartment bombings werent blamed on chechens, and its not proven it was done by militants
See Boris Beresovsky allegations, now killed and dead Alexander Litvienenko allegations, CIA allegations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.105.251.14 ( talk) 06:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
There have been changes to several photos in the articles, and it really doesn't bother me what ones we use, but instead of reverting and calling such revisions vandalism, let's simply gather concensus which photos to use. There is no need to get into an edit war over a trivial matter.
In the infobox, there have been changes from:
to
to
Previous to gaining Kremlin permission to use photos, this poor quality photo was used in the infobox.
Please indicate which photo editors would prefer, or make another suggestion, but let's not change anything until we can all decide.
OPTION #1
OPTION #2
OPTION #3
OPTION #4
The other photo which is changed is the one of Putin with Medvedev. Originally, it was Putin and Medvedev together at the Victory Day parade. Let's get rid of it, sure.
The photos which are being changed to/from are:
File:Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin edit.jpg (Option #1)
or
Please indicate which photo editors would prefer, or make another suggestion, but again let's not change anything until we can all decide.
OPTION #1
OPTION #2
--- Actuallly, I changed it to Option 2 from this Victory day image when I changed it the first time. Even though I do have a preference for the August 2008 image because it has more style, I would support the other image as well. -- Axt ( talk) 12:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Another interesting option will be the recent Christmas image:
I believe it correctly show the tandemocracy. Neither of the two men occupies the chairman armchair (I believe it is Medvedev's cabinet, so it is actually Medvedev's armchair), both men seat on guest chairs to show that they are equal. On the other hand the body language and seating arrangements is quite clear who is the boss there
Alex Bakharev (
talk)
00:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Why don't we use a cropped version of this image in the infobox:
File:Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin edit.jpg
This picture seems fine to me and is up-to-date (2007), whereas all the others are from 2000 and not exactly pretty (it has even won some awards). -- Axt ( talk) 17:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
umm, sorry, I don't know how to use this, but the article (to me) does seem like it's written by the Kremlin- or has Putin's leadership really been that positive? Christinaross ( talk) 19:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Infact author of those articles is just going mad and critics Russia or Putin on every aspect. He fights separatists - thats bad, send some oligarchs away/to prison - bad again. There is no analitics here. Just emotion emotion emotion emotion. So... Using that kind of press as motivation is a good sighn of that "fanatics enthusiasm" mentioned above.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 09:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday Mr. Putin said "Ukraine is run by criminals who can't solve economic problems" [20]. I placed it in the foreign affairs section but I'm not sure it shouldn't be in the lead. I mean if the Prime Minister of the UK would say: "Ireland is run by criminals who can't solve economic problems" it would be in the lead of the Gordon Brown wiki article. I don't see why Mr. Putin should be treated differently..., but I'm bias, since I rather like 1 of those "criminals".... — Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 23:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Dunno as for the "lead". But can you provide direct quote in Russian please? Actualy Putin is damn right ;-).-- Oleg Str ( talk) 10:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC) I mean maybe he sad smth like "жулики" /cheaters/, which is quite diff then "criminals", "Кримiнальна влада", you know ;-). Then it not that bad, keepin in mind that half of Ukraine think so.-- Oleg Str ( talk) 10:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I am surprised to see there is a criticism section on Putin, actually, a link to a whole article. There is no criticism section on Bush. Why is this? Is it because wikipedia writers are pro-american and anti-russian? Either there should be criticism of everybody, or criticism of nobody, there should be no double standard. I am calling on this section and article to be deleted, unitl a section criticising Bush, yuschenko and others is in place on there respective articles. It's ridiculous: it quotes an american journalist saying "Russia is bad, Putin is Bad". If I was to write a section on the Bush article, criticising him, and I cited a russian media journalist who said "bush is bad, guantanamo violates human rights", it would be promptly deleted and I would be told that "this is an opinion, not fact". there is the double standard, so why isn't something being done? It shows clear blatant bias in the article and wikipedia. Guitar3000 ( talk) 14:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree as for removing "Criticism". When it is in one section it's more clear what is it that somebody was criticised for. I mean that articles about ppls are tend to be more positive in tone. And Criticism alows to put some balance to this as even good ppls have something to be criticised for. However I think some changes are needed. 1. "Gorbachev in his interview" - it's saying smth like "sharply criticized". But there is no his quotes. 2. "Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal wrote: "Russia has become, in the precise sense of the word, a fascist state" - blah blah blah. Yes, it is criticism of a kind "Putin is bad, Russia is bad". If it's releavant to the article, then we should add all, what Osama Bin Laden or Sadam sad about US and it's presidents /after friendship between them was stopped/ ;-). So if nobody minds I will make changes when I will have time. -- Oleg Str ( talk) 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this relevant to Putin? Or is it just baseless accusation? (edit: and crappy journalism?) Rebelyell2006 ( talk) 06:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
As the lead suggests "bringing political stability and re-establishing the rule of law" must be much more important than restoring Russia's 19th century-like imperialistic foreign policy goals within what they still see as their "Satellite states". Behind "his record on internal human rights and freedoms" one should probably see the continuous establishing of dictatorship through disallowing democratic opposition and free journalists by any means possible.
Something is apparently wrong here. Russia is not a normal trading partner of the west but rather an arrogant world power that is dangerous not only militarily but more importantly in that sense that it tries to intoxicate its neighbors by anti-democratic behavior as well as controlling strategic industry enterprises in other countries as a political means only. That all developed under de-facto leadership of Putin which continues still today. Omichalek ( talk) 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
the picture captioned "President Bush and Putin at the 33rd G8 summit, June 2007." should probably be changed to something showing that George W. Bush is no longer President, such as "Former President Bush" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Be.perlmutter ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I have removed from the article the photo of "Putin" with Reagan and Gorbachev in Red Square, and have done so for the following reason: pure and simple it is tabloid rubbish (nee gossip). It is not confirmed that it is Putin, and considering the western press' knack for egregious nuttery, such as the infamous Mahmoud Ahmadinejad photo, and WP isn't a vehicle to promote the opinion of some journalistic hacks who don't know the meaning of the word "research". If the reporter did their job they would notice:
Just who are the people who confirmed to Souza that this is Putin? Prob the same people who confirmed Iraq had WMD. I wait with bated breathe the next revelation from the US government "intelligence" that the kid in the photo is none other than Putin's unknown, long-lost son. Why doesn't Souza release the photo in extra high res, so that everyone can see for themselves, rather than relying on "experts". Sure, the photo is getting a little media attention, we could have all sorts of fun with it, such as [21] (the contact sheet comment is especially funny), but is it encyclopaedic? Not at all.
If it's actually confirmed that it is Putin, I'll be the first to reinsert it into the article; it is more interesting than a simple photo of Putin in uniform, but we are first and foremost an encyclopaedia, not a gossip outlet. -- Russavia Dialogue 11:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Why is there a criticism section for Vladimir Putin, but not one for Bush? Bush is far more criticized around the world than Putin ... having this section for him but not for Bush isn't a neutral position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.250.226 ( talk) 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Tell me please what is a difference between two situations. One is when criticism is part of the article and another when there is only a link to a separate article. Does it mean something?-- Oleg Str ( talk) 15:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
clinton_says_putin_has_no_soul
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).press_conference_feb_2008
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: others (
link)