Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Vladimir Putin. 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Alexander J. Motyl as a source
Alexander J. Motyl seems to be a US academic so his blog is acceptable. His fiction book should be probably mentioned here. [1] Xx236 (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- No
- Says User:SaintAviator, who didn't sign here and didn't explain his opinion. Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am against inclusions blogs as reliable sources event if the blogger is an academic. Blogs do not have fact checking and nobody forbids bloggers to insert a little bit of humour, mischief or even funny hoaxes into their blogs. I am not sure that Vovichka fiction book is notable enough for this article. Do you have reliable sources confirming its popularity? Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The 2012 election was rigged
We cannot say Putin won when he stole over 8 million votes from his opponent. (AndrewGulch (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC))
Sure we can, if a reliable source says that the stolen votes were less than the margin of victory. You deleted this from the lead:
| “ | polls had indicated he was headed for victory even without fraud or irregularities. Shuster, Simon. "In Russia, an Election Victory for Putin and Then a 'Paid Flash Mob'", Time (March 5, 2012). | ” |
If you think this is inaccurate then please quote a reliable source that says it's inaccurate. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is inaccurate, and in any case the election cannot be considered valid when his other opponents were barred from standing as in 2004. (AndrewGulch (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC))
- There is no question that Putin won the election in Russia, just as Barack Obama won the election in the U.S. and Kim Jong-Un won the election in North Korea. We can argue about what winning an election means in different societies with differing systems of government and differing approaches toward civil liberties, but that is a separate question. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- No one tells that Kim Jong-Un won elections. As correctly noted on his page, "He was officially declared the supreme leader following the state funeral of his father...". Pages about Soviet leaders, even such as Gorbachev, also do not tell they won elections. The subject is highly problematic because same words have different meaning depending on the context. For example, Soviet "court" was not a court in normal (Westrn) meaning of the word. As one historian puts it, the Soviet political system, represented "a set of phantom institutions and arrangements which put a human face on the hideous realities: a model constitution adopted in a worst period of terror and guaranteeing human rights, elections in which there was only one candidate, and in which 99 percent voted; a parliament at which no hand was ever raised in opposition or abstention." The elections currently conducted in Russia are something similar to elections in the Soviet Union, but very different from elections in the US not because the vote was rigged (of course it was), but because opposition candidates were not allowed to register, there was no presidential debates, all TV channels were completely controlled by ruling "party" and discredited undesirable people, etc. In brief, there was no process of democratic elections. Therefore, mentioning a number of times that Putin "won elections" in introduction is indeed undue and should at least be rephrased. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is no question that Putin won the election in Russia, just as Barack Obama won the election in the U.S. and Kim Jong-Un won the election in North Korea. We can argue about what winning an election means in different societies with differing systems of government and differing approaches toward civil liberties, but that is a separate question. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Putin didn't steal any election, and his corresponding popularity polls would suggest such a move as superfluous. Solntsa90 (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is not a discussion forum. Read WP:TPG --OpenFuture (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- The popularity polls are falsified like the elections in Russia. (86.133.85.233 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC))
Personal fortune of Putin
Is it possible to add to the article information, that according to The Times, hidden personal fortune of Vladimir Putin is $40bn? Source: [2]. --Vayvor (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- AFAICT, the figure comes from political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky according to the 12 Sep 2013 article at CNBC.com. This appears to fall into the clear category of "rumour" at best. I find no source stating the amount as "fact" as such, and thus this is rather like the claims made about slews of people in the past. For us to raise "rumour" to implication of "fact" would violate WP:BLP entirely. Collect (talk) 14:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with Collect here - you would need much better and extensive sourcing for this to be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Another citation:
He (Adam Szubin, acting Treasury secretary for terrorism and financial crimes) declined to comment on a 2007 CIA report estimating Putin's wealth at $40 billion, but he said the Russian leader's stated wealth is an underestimation.
- And source: Vladimir Putin 'corruption': Five things we learned about the Russian President's secret wealth. --Vayvor (talk) 14:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- As I know this $40bn is said by Stanislav Belkovsky in 2008 or earlier. It is some kind of rumor, but may be we should add this rumor to article? Because official $100 thousands of annual income looks too small and this rumor is translated by reliable sources. --Vayvor (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- No. It is rumour, and actually unsubstantiated rumour, written by an opponent of the person. And a translation of an unsubstantiated rumour remains an unsubstantiated rumour. Collect (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to all editors: Wikipedia is not a battlegrounds
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for viewpoints of certain sides. Thus, the POV should be neutral, or at least 50% positive and 50% negative. Winterysteppe (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think you are correct. The pov should be neither neutral, or at least 50% positive and 50% negative. The pov should just reflect that found in credible sources. However, those sources should be used appropriately, and not in a self-selective, or over-emphasized, or culturally biased, or editorialized way. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Amnesty International. Is it possible to get unstuck here?
The conversation above about the Amnesty International report is stuck. Is there a way to resolve it? From where I'm sitting I just don't see how it's possible to discuss an issue with someone who flatly and explicitly refuses to follow Wikipedia policy (for example here or here). That kind of attitude from EtienneDolet (cheered on by a couple members of his tag team), especially when it's this stubborn and obstinate, appears to be INTENDED to prevent any kind of compromise or consensus.
Right now it's come down to me saying "we need to follow Wikipedia policy on this" and EtienneDolet responding with "no, I don't wanna" and me saying "come on, we need to follow WP:RS" and EtienneDolet saying "no, I don't like what those reliable sources say", and me saying "please, let's follow policy" and EtienneDolet saying "no, I don't wanna", and me saying "please, let's follow policy" and EtienneDolet saying "no, I don't wanna", and me saying "please, let's follow policy" and EtienneDolet saying "no, I don't wanna", and me saying "please, let's follow policy" and EtienneDolet saying "no, I don't wanna", and me saying "please, let's follow policy" and EtienneDolet saying "no, I don't wanna", and me saying "please, let's follow policy" and EtienneDolet saying "no, I don't wanna"... and that's basically where we're at. That's the discussion so far. Fun, huh?
I really don't know what I'm suppose to do here. Get on my knees and beg that editors follow Wikipedia policy? Implore and cry until they do? Seriously, this is stuck and if anyone has any idea of how to get unstuck I want to hear it but I don't see anything getting better until certain editors make at least a show of being willing to adhere to Wikipedia policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- (Been Asleep) WHOA WHOA 'Tag Team'??????? Thats uncalled for. Desist SaintAviator lets talk 00:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please try to be a bit less emotional and more factual, the link you provided ( [3]) does not reveal any anti-policy positions, but rather arguments that are in line with the policy. EtienneDolet is also a constructive user like you or me and does not deserve any sections meant to attack him personally. Dorpater (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am not "attacking" him, I am criticizing him. On the other hand calling someone "emotional" is a personal attack. Anyway, the link I provided has EtienneDolet saying that he does not care what reliable sources say, he'll remove the text anyway. Which IS an anti-policy position.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- (ec)Part of your (VM) problem is the way in which the AI press release is used. First of all, OR introduced through the use of "despite" is still WP:OR. Press releases, in general, are not regarded as being reliable sources for claims of fact. What you might have been able to state is:
- Amnesty International, in a press release, said the Russian actions in Syria are "a pattern of attacks that show evidence of violations of international humanitarian law."
- The wording you seem to wish is:
- Despite the lack evidence Medvedev mentioned, Amnesty International issued a report which stated that Russian airstrikes directly attacked civilians, civilian objects and have killed hundreds of civilians.
- There is a very strong difference between the possible edits, and, frankly, one would be extremely hard-pressed to make any claim that I and Etienne are even remotely a "tag team." This current article is a biography of a living person, and, unless you wish to claim that AI made a claim about Putin as a person, there is a string case that this is a coatrack in this article while it might be usable in other articles on Wikipedia.
- FromWP:RS/N in the past: A press release is a low quality self published source. It might be used for non-contentious, non-self-serving assertions about the organization that issued it, but most press releases are too promotional to use for anything. A press release from AI remains a press release, and if a news organization prints a press release, it is still a press release. As such, it is reliable only for AI's opinions at best. Collect (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for discussing this Collect. The "despite" is not in the wording I used. The wording I had was: " Amnesty International reported that Russian airstrikes have killed at least 200 civilians and that Russia's use of cluster bombs on civilian areas could amount to a war crime. Russia's defence ministry dismissed the report as containing "fake information" and "trite cliches"." - which is pretty close actually to what you propose above. In fact it adds a qualification from the Russian defense ministry.
- So that above is NOT the wording I "wish". The wording I put in the article is the wording I wish.
- Note also that we're not using the press release as the source - which would be WP:PRIMARY. We're using secondary sources which discuss the press release so the qualification from WP:RS/N does not apply (and that's just the noticeboard anyway)
- And no, I don't think you're tag-teaming with EtienneDolet, in fact I don't think you've been involved in this particular discussion/controversy at all. I know you're an independent and thoughtful editor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also, again, consider that current version misrepresents sources. If we can put in the fact that "United States and France" have made these criticisms, why, all of sudden, it's not okay to put in that Amnesty International and other human rights organizations have also made these criticisms? I mean, that right there, gives away the fact that this is all about POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- The secondary sources make clear that it is a press release from AI - so we still need to use it and cite it as such. What remains is the issue of whether that claim is directly related to Putin as a living person. And, last I checked, AI is not a nation. "Reported that" is, in fact, a claim of a statement of "fact", while it is clear that the SPS and sources citing that SPS are using the AI report as "opinion". And really I want to have this BLP conform strictly to Wikipedia policies. Collect (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Right, the AI report is a press release and that is the "self published source". The quote from RS/N you give above applies to self published sources. But we are not using the report itself - we are using secondary sources ABOUT that report, so these are not self-published, so the quote doesn't apply. All secondary sources are based on some self-published primary source.
- And like I said, the wording I added to the article is actually pretty close to the wording which you proposed above. So how about we go with your wording, except we mention attacks on civilians (rather than the vague "humanitarian law") since that is what BOTH the primary and secondary sources say? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- "News reports" using a press release which on its own can not be used for a claim of fact remain unusable for making the claim as a "claim of fact" - the only thing that can be done here is to report AI's opinions as to what is involved. AI is not competent on its own to make such claims of fact in its SPS, and the belief that "all secondary sources are based on a self-published primary source" is actually wrong. When we have something ascribed as opinion from a press release rather than as a statement of fact, we have to use it as opinion and not as a statement of fact. Suppose, as a hypothetical case, Gnarph Associates issued a press release saying "Yevgeny Pushkinovitch shot and killed twenty people" - and a secondary source says "Gnarph Associates issued a report saying ..." that does not mean we can make a claim as a matter of fact that Mr. Pushkinovich did the act. So at most we might get away with "Gnarph Associates in a press release said 'Mr. Pushkinovich ...'" but that is the limit, and you would still need to gain a consensus that even that opinion belongs in the BLP. (apologies if Mr. Pushkinovich turns out to be a real name) Clearer? Collect (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Clear to me SaintAviator lets talk 00:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Collect, yes, you're right and I am not disagreeing with that. But, as your wording suggested, and as my wording stated, the text in question does in fact say more or less "Amnesty International issued a report saying that...". If the issue is over the precise wording, then I have no problem of changing "Amnesty International reported that Russian airstrikes have killed..." to "Amnesty International issued a report that said that Russian airstrikes have killed..." Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- "News reports" using a press release which on its own can not be used for a claim of fact remain unusable for making the claim as a "claim of fact" - the only thing that can be done here is to report AI's opinions as to what is involved. AI is not competent on its own to make such claims of fact in its SPS, and the belief that "all secondary sources are based on a self-published primary source" is actually wrong. When we have something ascribed as opinion from a press release rather than as a statement of fact, we have to use it as opinion and not as a statement of fact. Suppose, as a hypothetical case, Gnarph Associates issued a press release saying "Yevgeny Pushkinovitch shot and killed twenty people" - and a secondary source says "Gnarph Associates issued a report saying ..." that does not mean we can make a claim as a matter of fact that Mr. Pushkinovich did the act. So at most we might get away with "Gnarph Associates in a press release said 'Mr. Pushkinovich ...'" but that is the limit, and you would still need to gain a consensus that even that opinion belongs in the BLP. (apologies if Mr. Pushkinovich turns out to be a real name) Clearer? Collect (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- The secondary sources make clear that it is a press release from AI - so we still need to use it and cite it as such. What remains is the issue of whether that claim is directly related to Putin as a living person. And, last I checked, AI is not a nation. "Reported that" is, in fact, a claim of a statement of "fact", while it is clear that the SPS and sources citing that SPS are using the AI report as "opinion". And really I want to have this BLP conform strictly to Wikipedia policies. Collect (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
As to the question of whether this is DUE or UNDUE and whether this is about Putin or not. It's DUE because it's widely reported in reliable sources, it's not like we're talking just a source or two. As to Putin, the objection has been raised that "this isn't about Putin" because apparently "Putin isn't Russia" (which is true, he's "just" the head of the Russian government). But this is obviously a bad faithed argument - an excuse to engage in WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edit warring. Right now we have in the article the fact that there were "Notable victories occurred in the Aleppo offensive (October–December 2015), the Northern Aleppo offensive (2016), the Latakia offensive (2015-present) and around the cities of Damascus, Homs Hama and Daraa". Did Putin himself lead Russian forces in these offensives? Was he there running in the front line with a Kalashnikov in his hand, yelling "Urrrrraaaahhhhhh" to secure these "notable Russian victories"? No? Then why is that in there? If we can put these "notable victories" in an article about Putin, then by the same logic we can put in the airstrikes on civilians and the destruction of hospitals in the article about Putin, since they are both part of the same thing. The double standard at play here shows clearly that this for at least some editors - among whom I am NOT including Collect, just to be perfectly clear - is not about BLP, it's not about UNDUE weight, it's simply about pushing POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Now VM dont see this as anything but a little realty check, ok. [4] and here [5]. Its still 6 to 3 against so its out till a further time. Its ironic in an article about allegedly undemocratic Putin, that 3 editors now dont like democracy anymore and edit war with reverts, when its 6 to 3 against them. SaintAviator lets talk 03:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oh god, another article that is a huge POV mess. And like I said, it's not "6 to 3". Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus isn't determined by a bunch of "me too!" !votes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well AI has made some bad calls. SaintAviator lets talk 04:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oh god, another article that is a huge POV mess. And like I said, it's not "6 to 3". Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus isn't determined by a bunch of "me too!" !votes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Since we have a section on Syria, it might be useful to have some estimation on civilian losses there. The Amnesty International seems to be neutral enough and we have a Russian Defence ministry quote to balance it anyway. Do we have a better source? Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- This is the key point. Anyone can come up with an acronym to justify an individual action regarding a certain statement and/or source. But what is the result in the bigger picture? Some editors on this page are not even pretending to be interested in NPOV. Let's all imagine that we are actually working on an encyclopedia here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Alex, I agree. And it's not just "useful" I think it's actually essential to maintain POV. As I've been pointing out the current version is a misrepresentation of sources because it makes it seem like only United States and France are talking about civilians losses. But in reality it's also international organizations like AI, HRW, MsF etc. I also agree with Nomoskedasticity - this is why none of these discussions has led anywhere; it's impossible to find compromise with someone who does not want to compromise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Legitimate concerns have been raised about how relevant this kind of detailed analysis of events in Syria is to what should be a broad biography of Putin's life (I agree as it happens that the "notable victories .." content is equally marginal). And it's misleading to frame this as if it's those who want a debate about civilian casualties and targeting included who are nobly following WP policy while others blatantly disregard it; it's a legitimate editorial disagreement about what is relevant here and what isn't, and about weight and balance. As for policy and POV, some of the WP history of those involved here slightly undermines their claim to the moral high ground on issues relating to Russia, shall we say. N-HH talk/edits 22:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thats right about it being a bio, first. Also AB made a good point about balance. As the 'Puter in' of "notable victories .." I had hoped for a brief synopsis. Lets not bloat it. All civ casualty sources are problematic, its martyrs [6] or the coventry bedsit sohr SaintAviator lets talk 23:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Guys, I have noticed that it is much easier to achieve balance by adding referenced material rather than removing ones. Maybe if we add a sentence or two in effect that not everybody considered Russian intervention in Syria to be a bad thing it would balance the things up? I have noticed that Molobo added a citation [7] that Carla Del Ponte, who is certainly not a Putin's puppet, stated "I think the Russian intervention is a good thing, because finally someone is attacking these terrorist groups" [8]. Maybe if we move the citation here it would balance AI, so we can move on? Any objections? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- As long as AI is included and the text does not give the impression that it's only United States and France which are being critical of civilian targeting airstrikes, I'm fine with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- AB sounds ok. BTW youre right about adding lowering the tension, deleting the inverse. Right at the start of the brawl on the previous thread I said, re BLP guidelines, 'allegation / denial / in NPOV style' works for me. Then its balanced. Its a damn complex world. Black and white is rare. SaintAviator lets talk 01:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- This section is called Amnesty International. Is it possible to get unstuck here? The answer to that question is yes. We get unstuck by following policy.
- The claim regarding Amnesty International’s press release/report was added to the article on 15 February. There has been discussion about this claim, in different forms, ever since. The opposing views on this talk page clearly indicate that there is no consensus to include such claim. Therefore, it should be exluded. When a discussion over a recent change arises, there has to be consensus to keep this change, not the other way round.
- If the editors of this article follow Wikipedia guidelines, stop edit warring and start listening to each other, there would be no need for admins to protect this article so often. — 37 (talk) 10:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Tridek Sep, "following policy" does not mean "we filibuster any discussion and declare victory" like you're doing. Following policy means following WP:RS. Following policy means that consensus is determined by policy based arguments rather than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. In your comment above you, once again, fail to actually make a policy based argument - you just say "no consensus!" "no consensus!" no consensus!". Yes, we get it. You and a couple of other editors, absolutely refuse to allow any info which might reflect critically on Putin's government into the article. But that's not WP:CONSENSUS. That's WP:TENDENTIOUS. Now, either actually discuss the issue in good faith or let others do it in peace. We were actually making some progress here until you jumped in with your "no consensus!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek, I apologise if I failed to make a policy based argument. I was indeed referring to WP:CONSENSUS: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. I agree that the person who posts the greatest amount of "No consensus for that" is least likely to reflect real consensus. Therefore, I will not repeat myself. :-)
- Anyway, I’ve seen some good arguments against including the claim. I think it’s unfair to respond to these comments by just linking to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You’ve linked to that essay seventeen times now. I've read somewhere that the person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct. — 37 (talk) 17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh. Saying "I've seen some good arguments against including the claim" is not exactly a policy based argument. I keep linking to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT because that's the argument people keep making. And this ... well, I guess it's sort of progress, but it's still basically the same thing. WP:ISAWSOMEARGUMENTSAGAINSTITONCESOMEWHERE. What were these "good arguments" exactly? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Repeatedly referring to the same WP:XXX over and over again is unnessecary, it obviously has lost its effect by know, and it wasn’t even appropriate to begin with. Your question indicates it might be useful to reread the comments that have been posted on this talk page. You should try it sometime. If it really is your opinion that multiple editors just don’t know how to make good arguments, well, I guess my point still stands then. — 37 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Let us note that you *still* haven't actually provided or explained what these "some good arguments against including the claim" were.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Let’s note you don’t understand it should be the other way round :-) — 37 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not true. I have explained why the info should be included over and over again. It's well sourced. It's pertinent. It's of interest to the readers. It's notable. I provided numerous sources. So no, I think I understand perfectly well. I also see that you have - yet AGAIN - failed to actually provide ANY "good arguments against including the claim". You just - once again - simply ASSERT that there are some. Somewhere. Floating in the sky or something. Frolicking in the ocean. Meandering through the meadows. Hanging out at the cafes maybe. But they're not here on this Wikipedia talk page. So can you please actually do that instead of continually evading the question? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- You seem to have ongoing difficulties finding my comments. The only solution to that problem is searching this talk page using CTRL+F in combination with my signature, as I’m not the kind of person that repeats himself. It’s good to read, however, that you now understand the burden is on you. I’ve read the arguments you made in defence of the content you want to add, although I may have missed some, as you’ve been posting a lot of unnecessary clutter on this talk page. Some of your arguments do make sense, but all the ranting and rudeness isn’t very helpful. You can perhaps try to be more friendly to other users, it will help you achieve consensus faster, or not, but certainly will make your time on Wikipedia more enjoyable. — 37 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not true. I have explained why the info should be included over and over again. It's well sourced. It's pertinent. It's of interest to the readers. It's notable. I provided numerous sources. So no, I think I understand perfectly well. I also see that you have - yet AGAIN - failed to actually provide ANY "good arguments against including the claim". You just - once again - simply ASSERT that there are some. Somewhere. Floating in the sky or something. Frolicking in the ocean. Meandering through the meadows. Hanging out at the cafes maybe. But they're not here on this Wikipedia talk page. So can you please actually do that instead of continually evading the question? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Let’s note you don’t understand it should be the other way round :-) — 37 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Let us note that you *still* haven't actually provided or explained what these "some good arguments against including the claim" were.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Repeatedly referring to the same WP:XXX over and over again is unnessecary, it obviously has lost its effect by know, and it wasn’t even appropriate to begin with. Your question indicates it might be useful to reread the comments that have been posted on this talk page. You should try it sometime. If it really is your opinion that multiple editors just don’t know how to make good arguments, well, I guess my point still stands then. — 37 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh. Saying "I've seen some good arguments against including the claim" is not exactly a policy based argument. I keep linking to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT because that's the argument people keep making. And this ... well, I guess it's sort of progress, but it's still basically the same thing. WP:ISAWSOMEARGUMENTSAGAINSTITONCESOMEWHERE. What were these "good arguments" exactly? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Tridek Sep, "following policy" does not mean "we filibuster any discussion and declare victory" like you're doing. Following policy means following WP:RS. Following policy means that consensus is determined by policy based arguments rather than WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. In your comment above you, once again, fail to actually make a policy based argument - you just say "no consensus!" "no consensus!" no consensus!". Yes, we get it. You and a couple of other editors, absolutely refuse to allow any info which might reflect critically on Putin's government into the article. But that's not WP:CONSENSUS. That's WP:TENDENTIOUS. Now, either actually discuss the issue in good faith or let others do it in peace. We were actually making some progress here until you jumped in with your "no consensus!".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think including the AI info but adding more counter-comment and counter-counter-comment is the solution. This page is far too big and detailed already and too much of it is basically just conducting a debate about Putin and about issues that may be related to his actions. We don't want to make that worse, even if that might make it more balanced somehow. All the page really needs about Syria is a paragraph or two to say that Russia intervened in the civil war with air and other support on the side of the government, which enabled it to regain the upper hand in the conflict, before a ceasefire. Debates about whether Russia is targeting ISIS or "moderate" rebel groups, whether it is simply trying to retain its naval access, whether it is deliberately targeting civilians or whether the US ambassador for war crimes [sic] thinks Putin could or could not possibly be indicted – or indeed points about the US and Iraq – belong elsewhere, if anywhere. N-HH talk/edits 10:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree for the simple reason that many reliable sources discuss this info. And not just in context of "Russia" but in context of "Putin".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- AB sounds ok. BTW youre right about adding lowering the tension, deleting the inverse. Right at the start of the brawl on the previous thread I said, re BLP guidelines, 'allegation / denial / in NPOV style' works for me. Then its balanced. Its a damn complex world. Black and white is rare. SaintAviator lets talk 01:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- As long as AI is included and the text does not give the impression that it's only United States and France which are being critical of civilian targeting airstrikes, I'm fine with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Guys, I have noticed that it is much easier to achieve balance by adding referenced material rather than removing ones. Maybe if we add a sentence or two in effect that not everybody considered Russian intervention in Syria to be a bad thing it would balance the things up? I have noticed that Molobo added a citation [7] that Carla Del Ponte, who is certainly not a Putin's puppet, stated "I think the Russian intervention is a good thing, because finally someone is attacking these terrorist groups" [8]. Maybe if we move the citation here it would balance AI, so we can move on? Any objections? Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thats right about it being a bio, first. Also AB made a good point about balance. As the 'Puter in' of "notable victories .." I had hoped for a brief synopsis. Lets not bloat it. All civ casualty sources are problematic, its martyrs [6] or the coventry bedsit sohr SaintAviator lets talk 23:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Legitimate concerns have been raised about how relevant this kind of detailed analysis of events in Syria is to what should be a broad biography of Putin's life (I agree as it happens that the "notable victories .." content is equally marginal). And it's misleading to frame this as if it's those who want a debate about civilian casualties and targeting included who are nobly following WP policy while others blatantly disregard it; it's a legitimate editorial disagreement about what is relevant here and what isn't, and about weight and balance. As for policy and POV, some of the WP history of those involved here slightly undermines their claim to the moral high ground on issues relating to Russia, shall we say. N-HH talk/edits 22:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
IMHO N-HHs view is also my first choice. However, I tried that (I started this section) by keeping it small and relevant and linked to the main Syrian conflict article. Then it blew out, it got bigger and the edit war got worse. Why? VM dont take this personally, but you went into details, putting in stuff that belongs on the main Syrian conflict article. Leading to adding more counter-comment and counter-counter-comment as NH said. VM you always do this. It leads to adding more counter-comment and counter-counter-comment. I believe this option is allowed (allegation + denial), but is not good writing. I believe we will end up with this less desirable style SaintAviator lets talk 02:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly agree with N-HH's proposal and reasoning. And when we start including opinions of this and that individual (whether it is Stephen Rapp or Carla Del Ponte), we end up with an unencyclopedic mess of "so and so said this but so and so said that". Athenean (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Funny how you guys were perfectly fine with "details" in the Syria section, as long as these "details" were all about Russian "victories". Funny how when it was Russian "victories" then there was no "Putin isn't Russia" objections. But then somebody actually puts in something less than glowing about Russia's role in Syria and all of sudden it's "remove all details! They don't belong here! Putin isn't Russia!". It'd be funny if it wasn't sad.
- We don't need either Rapp nor Carla Del Ponte. All we need to say is that there was an Amnesty International report and what it said. According to sources.
- I personally never said anything about Russian victories, so I don't know who "you guys" refers to. But since you're on the subject of funny, I find it funny how you went ahead and gutted the Criticism of Amnesty International article yesterday [9], as if anticipating something. Not to worry though, Francis Boyle, is an academic and a reliable source, and it's very easy to re-add his criticisms to the article. Athenean (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- That sounds like you're making a threat.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sigh. How can that sound like a threat. — 37 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- That sounds like you're making a threat.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I actually was never fine with “details" in the Syria section of this article. (Oh no, please don’t drop the essay on me!) I once removed everything that got introduced to that section after a certain point, regardless of the editor. So yes, I agree with N-HH. Long live Exclusionism! — 37 (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Im guessing the unsigned one is you VM. VM I have always thought you over reacted to the successful results of Russias Syrian intervention. It is what it is. Its also a big picture view. Its not a personal issue SaintAviator lets talk 05:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble understanding what you're talking about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Im guessing the unsigned one is you VM. VM I have always thought you over reacted to the successful results of Russias Syrian intervention. It is what it is. Its also a big picture view. Its not a personal issue SaintAviator lets talk 05:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I personally never said anything about Russian victories, so I don't know who "you guys" refers to. But since you're on the subject of funny, I find it funny how you went ahead and gutted the Criticism of Amnesty International article yesterday [9], as if anticipating something. Not to worry though, Francis Boyle, is an academic and a reliable source, and it's very easy to re-add his criticisms to the article. Athenean (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Why not just this, as most want less:
President Putin authorized Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, on the 30th of September 2015, following a formal request by the Syrian government for military help against rebel and jihadist groups.[145][146] The Russian supported Syrian government forces and allies, Iran Hezbollah Iraq and their numerous militias, have achieved significant military successes since Russia's intervention, especially in 2016. Notable victories occurred in the Aleppo offensive (October–December 2015), the Northern Aleppo offensive (2016), the Latakia offensive (2015-present) and around the cities of Damascus, Homs Hama and Daraa. SaintAviator lets talk 05:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Because, once again for the fiftieth time, it excludes important info in order to push a POV. It only includes the "good stuff" - "notable victories". It purposefully omits any thing that can be construed as criticism. I as I already pointed out, the editors who oppose even the briefest mention of the Amnesty International report claim that this is because it's "not about Putin". Well, neither are "the Aleppo offensive", the "Northern Aleppo offensive" nor the "Latakia offensive". And again, it's not like we're talking about writing a whole new section on war crimes and targeting of civilians in Syria. One sentence will do the job just fine so any concerns about "article already is too long" are not justified, especially since there's all kinds of useless crap that could be cut from it elsewhere.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- For the last time. You dont understand that from a historical military perspective these results in Syria are quite something. Its a big picture view. Its not 'good news' its just big news. It just is. Then you follow it with stuff that belongs on another page, That requires counter claims. VM I dont think you 'get this'. SaintAviator lets talk 10:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The proposal of SaintAviator seems constructive. Including too much detail would be counterproductive. I suggest to limit the number of sentences to three or four. Wikipedia already has an article about the Syrian Civil War. It’s one of the best sourced I’ve seen. On Wikipedia, I mean. — 37 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wait... So first you guys say "we can't include this because article is too long" (which is ridiculous since it's a single sentence, but nevermind). Then when I point out that there's stuff which isn't directly related to Putin right in that paragraph, some of you, including Tridek Sep, say "okay, well maybe that stuff about victories needs to go". Then SaintAviator comes back and makes a proposal which basically amounts to keeping everything you guys want and excluding everything you want. And then Tridek Sep says "oh yeah that sounds good". And this is suppose to be a good faithed proposal at compromise? "I get everything you want you get nothing but hey! we compromised"? I think you need to look up "compromise" in the dictionary.
- Here's my proposal, based on Collect's wording above and the text added by Alex Bakharev, an administrator:
- "President Putin authorized Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, on the 30th of September 2015, following a formal request by the Syrian government for military help against rebel and jihadist groups.[145][146] The Russian supported Syrian government forces and allies, Iran Hezbollah Iraq and their numerous militias, have achieved significant military successes since Russia's intervention, especially in 2016."
- "Amnesty International, in a press release, said the Russian actions in Syria are "a pattern of attacks that show evidence of violations of international humanitarian law" and that Russian forces have deliberately attacked civilians and rescue workers. Similar criticisms have been made by government officials of United States and France."
- To facilitate the full implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2254 (earlier adopted unanimously 18 December 2015), US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced on February 12, 2016 in Munich that an agreement had been reached to seek a nationwide "cessation of hostilities" in Syria".
- So we're excluding some of the stuff I wanted in, and we're cutting down some of the stuff so the length doesn't go up. This should address these "too long" objections which have been made.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, I said the proposal of SaintAviator seems constructive. There’s no need to twist my words. Your proposal seems constructive too. But the “I versus you guys” mentality you keep displaying is bothersome. — 37 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, like I said, my proposal incorporates texts and suggestions from other users. And even objections from "you guys". SaintAviator's proposal is pretty much straight up "our way or the highway".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your proposal does indeed incorporate certain suggestions from other users (I did say it was constructive). But your proposal does not mention the criticism of IA’s report, which was also preferred by some users. Finding a compromise based on a partial exclusion of information is going to be difficult, I guess. I can’t stop thinking it will be easier to just delete all the claims that are perceived to be POV, rather than attempt to modify them. Exclusionism, you know. Do I have to link to that essay again? :-) — 37 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which criticism of AI report would that be? Actually, no one mentioned ANY criticism of the AI report, only that they .... didn't like it being in the article. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- SaintAviator's proposal seems fair enough right now. I'd support it. Dorpater (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again! Can you please actually justify this "support" based on policy rather than just making "me too!" kind of edits. That is exactly what has plagued these discussions here. Editors seem to think that just by ganging up they can get their way, and because they believe this, they are not interested in engaging in good faithed discussion. And that's how we get absurd "compromise proposals" like SaintAviator's which aren't compromises at all but a demand that "I get all I want".
- This obviously isn't working, something else needs to be tried here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- VM a proposal has been put forward, its reasonable and gathering support, please dont edit war by accusing editors of 'ganging up they can get their way'. This is unhelpful, assume good faith. I urge you to lay aside accusations like they are not interested in engaging in good faithed discussion. Edit warring undermines us all SaintAviator lets talk 01:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody's edit warring - the article is protected, remember? So that'd be impossible even if someone wanted to edit war. Are you just throwing out random accusations or something? Because what you are saying makes no sense at all. It's like you spun some wheel which has "accuse them of making personal attacks", "accuse them of edit warring", "accuse them of tag teaming", "demand consensus!", "demand good faith!", "file a spurious ArbCom request", etc. on it in different colors, and the ticker just happened to land on "accuse them of edit warring" this particular time. You know what undermines discussion? Random accusations, especially ones that make no sense in this context.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- A mere talk page discussion is not a way for editors "ganging up" so that "they can get their way". It's called WP:CONSENSUS building, and that's how things work around here. If there's any "ganging up" going around here, it would be done by tag-team edit-warring like this: [10][11][12][13][14][15]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nnnnnnnnnoooooo, WP:CONSENSUS is formed on the basis of policy based arguments. The diffs you provide were reverts, but they were made by editors who have provided those policy based arguments. The "ganging up" refers to the group of editors who are NOT providing policy based arguments but are merely taking turns edit warring to remove well sourced material per IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, and who swamp and derail discussions with cries "no consensus!" and support each other with empty "me too!" comments - i.e. those who are actively working to make sure CONSENSUS is NOT reached.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- VM a proposal has been put forward, its reasonable and gathering support, please dont edit war by accusing editors of 'ganging up they can get their way'. This is unhelpful, assume good faith. I urge you to lay aside accusations like they are not interested in engaging in good faithed discussion. Edit warring undermines us all SaintAviator lets talk 01:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- SaintAviator's proposal seems fair enough right now. I'd support it. Dorpater (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which criticism of AI report would that be? Actually, no one mentioned ANY criticism of the AI report, only that they .... didn't like it being in the article. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your proposal does indeed incorporate certain suggestions from other users (I did say it was constructive). But your proposal does not mention the criticism of IA’s report, which was also preferred by some users. Finding a compromise based on a partial exclusion of information is going to be difficult, I guess. I can’t stop thinking it will be easier to just delete all the claims that are perceived to be POV, rather than attempt to modify them. Exclusionism, you know. Do I have to link to that essay again? :-) — 37 (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, like I said, my proposal incorporates texts and suggestions from other users. And even objections from "you guys". SaintAviator's proposal is pretty much straight up "our way or the highway".Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, I said the proposal of SaintAviator seems constructive. There’s no need to twist my words. Your proposal seems constructive too. But the “I versus you guys” mentality you keep displaying is bothersome. — 37 (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The proposal of SaintAviator seems constructive. Including too much detail would be counterproductive. I suggest to limit the number of sentences to three or four. Wikipedia already has an article about the Syrian Civil War. It’s one of the best sourced I’ve seen. On Wikipedia, I mean. — 37 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- For the last time. You dont understand that from a historical military perspective these results in Syria are quite something. Its a big picture view. Its not 'good news' its just big news. It just is. Then you follow it with stuff that belongs on another page, That requires counter claims. VM I dont think you 'get this'. SaintAviator lets talk 10:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's actually the other way around. It's the editors opposed to mentioning of the AI report that are making policy based arguments (e.g. WP:UNDUE, Exclusionism, etc...), and the lone editor supporting its inclusion engaging in the obstructionist behavior that he accuses others of (e.g.WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, personal attacks, "my way or the highway", etc...). This has succeeded so far due to brute-force edit-warring by a tag-team that does not take part in the discussion, but whenever necessary revert on VM's behalf. Athenean (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Exclusionism" isn't a policy. It might be an ideology but even that is doubtful when it's applied so selectively ("I exclude what I want and I include what I want"). And if you're going to quote WP:UNDUE then you need to explain WHY it's UNDUE? Screaming "UNDUE!" "UNDUE!" "UNDUE!" is no more of a policy based argument than is screaming "No consensus!" "No consensus!" "No consensus!". I'm guessing you just threw that "etc." in there to make it look like there was actually something else there, but there's not.
- And no, I am not "lone editor" here, though I've probably articulated the sorry state of this article on this talk page the most. User:Nomoscedasticity, User:Maunus, User:MyVeryBestWishes, User:Alex Bakharev, User:Galassi and probably a few others have agreed here with me. User:Collect's suggested wording was pretty close to what I proposed as well. See... this is what you're doing: you're shamelessly, um, misrepresenting, the situation (claiming "lone editor" where in fact there's as many editors opposing you as there is on your side - why else would you guys need to all edit war sequentially to get your way on this article? If it was a "lone editor" then you wouldn't have this "problem", would you?) and you do this over and over again in the hope that if you just repeat it often enough it will become the truth. You are doing the same thing with the question of policy based arguments. You keep claiming that these have been made, but without actually having ever made them. THAT is the definition of "obstructionism", as well as WP:TENDENTIOUS.
- Anyway, since it seems like there's absolutely no chance you'll be willing to change your behavior on your own (let me link that for you just in case you missed it before: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) yeah, some outside editors need to get involved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's actually the other way around. It's the editors opposed to mentioning of the AI report that are making policy based arguments (e.g. WP:UNDUE, Exclusionism, etc...), and the lone editor supporting its inclusion engaging in the obstructionist behavior that he accuses others of (e.g.WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, personal attacks, "my way or the highway", etc...). This has succeeded so far due to brute-force edit-warring by a tag-team that does not take part in the discussion, but whenever necessary revert on VM's behalf. Athenean (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Nomos' comment wasn't policy based either. Galassi and Mvbw just revert, but are never seen at the talk page. Bakharev added highly questionable material by drawing comparisons to Charles Taylor. Collect never said that the material should be added, he actually said "you would still need to gain a consensus that even that opinion belongs in the BLP", which is far from the case at this point. So apparently, there is not much support for your additions VM. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please do not comment about other contributors on article talk pages. Both me and Galassi commented a lot on this article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Its Mar 6th. Blocks off today. We will need consensus. There will be no unanimous decision. I would bet on that. The less is better, avoiding the counter comment loop (edit warring) proposal above (In italics) has support and stands as the only proposal to date SaintAviator lets talk 06:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
OK there are seven supporters of this proposal above in italics, based on N-HHs original idea of less is best. Athenean / Dorpater / Étienne Dolet / 37 / Collect / and Me. I have tagged them here to say no below if they need to. Otherwise a yes is not required, as it was given above. Admins I'll leave this up awhile today before acting on consensus. Please consider a block on edit warring editors trying to void this consensus with tag team edit warring and ninja reverts etc. Other New Yes and New No votes can be added below. SaintAviator lets talk 23:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, PP protection over does not automatically mean that there must be consensus to coincide with it. Secondly, I'm seeing some bad arguments here, and don't see that any form of consensus has been formed, so please don't use this as an opportunity to start edit warring again. Everyone here has more to lose than to gain in getting stuck into each other and abusing each other from scratch.
- Personally, I think this needs to be set up as an RfC in order to bring some fresh eyes to the evaluation of the content. It might seem like prolonging the agony but, ultimately, it will shorten it... and what is required is that the RfC be presented neutrally, briefly summarising what content is being proposed. That allows other editors to make their own informed decisions about the proposed content and invoke policies and guidelines to explain their !votes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Proposal
- President Putin authorized Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, on the 30th of September 2015, following a formal request by the Syrian government for military help against rebel and jihadist groups.[145][146] Amnesty International, in a press release, said that, in its opinion, the Russian actions in Syria "show evidence of violations of international humanitarian law."
- Short, simple, non-argumentative. No detailed listing of actions, and properly attributing the press release as opinion and not as "statement of fact." Collect (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why the redundant WP:CLAIM (
"... said that, in its opinion..."
)? The NPOV presentation would be, "In a press release, Amnesty International stated the Russian actions in Syria "show evidence of violations of international humanitarian law." (unless they stated that it was their opinion that they'd said that their opinion was X). The attribution is already in place without trying to modify it further just in case the reader wasn't clear on the fact that it's their opinion, therefore should, for some reason, be treated with extra care. Sorry if I appear to be being a little pedantic about this, but it reads as WP:WEASEL to overstate that it's their opinion. It isn't just their opinion, but a press release statement, meaning that they 'stated it', and that it's not just an off-the-cuff situation where one of their reps said it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)- Mainly because the statement is one of opinion and not of "simple fact" here. "George Gnarph said that 1000 grams are the same as one kilogram" is a "statement of fact", attributed to the person making a statement of fact. "George Gnarph stated his opinion that the restaurant used far too much garlic" is a "statement of opinion" - cited as such. If we said "George Gnarph stated that the restaurant used far too much garlic" in any way that suggested this was a "matter of ascertainable fact" then we would be misusing a source. Collect (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Collect: My apologies if this came off as being critical of your proposal. What I was trying to say was that over-attribution intext comes off as drawing more attention to the content than succinct attribution. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mainly because the statement is one of opinion and not of "simple fact" here. "George Gnarph said that 1000 grams are the same as one kilogram" is a "statement of fact", attributed to the person making a statement of fact. "George Gnarph stated his opinion that the restaurant used far too much garlic" is a "statement of opinion" - cited as such. If we said "George Gnarph stated that the restaurant used far too much garlic" in any way that suggested this was a "matter of ascertainable fact" then we would be misusing a source. Collect (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Iryna's proposal has merit, by widening the net. Collect your good idea would need a Russian denial, short but pointed SaintAviator lets talk 00:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why the redundant WP:CLAIM (
Counter proposal. Which fleshes out the Syrian action putting an AI inclusion in perspective. Denial as per BLP policy.
President Putin authorized Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, on the 30th of September 2015, following a formal request by the Syrian government for military help against rebel and jihadist groups.[145][146] The Russian supported Syrian government forces and allies, Iran Hezbollah Iraq and their numerous militias, have achieved significant military successes since Russia's intervention, especially in 2016. Notable victories occurred in the Aleppo offensive (October–December 2015), the Northern Aleppo offensive (2016), the Latakia offensive (2015-present) and around the cities of Damascus, Homs Hama and Daraa. Amnesty International, in a press release, said that, in its opinion, the Russian actions in Syria "show evidence of violations of international humanitarian law." Russia's defence ministry dismissed the report as containing "fake information" and "trite cliches".[148][149][150] SaintAviator lets talk 01:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, that's just drumming up the hype, plus most of this information could only be considered as content for the article on the RF's military intervention in Syria, not in a bio on Putin, and certainly not by means of false balance. Editors aren't here to pander to boo-hurrah renditions of any subject matter. Such selective editing practices are POV, and this is BLP, not an op-ed piece on why Putin is 'evil' or 'a good guy'.
- What I'm saying is that criticisms of Putin's political actions have to be weighed up as to whether they are DUE or UNDUE in context. What editors need to decide is whether the Amnesty International press release is appropriate to use in the context. It's really that cut-and-dried. If is deemed to be due, then the earlier, simpler proposed variants by Volunteer Marek and Collect are actually well phrased and neutral: that is, Amnesty International said X and the RF Defence Ministry refuted it with X. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Those 'refuted with X' were mine and they did make VMs stuff become neutral. Right there. Im happy with less as a first option, BTW, always said so. Russia going into Syria is big and notable. As Im ex military to me the success Russia has is a big deal, Militarily. Because its hard to do. Not due to emotion. To me AI is chickenshit. Its in the linked article, where it belongs. But if people like it, keep it it to a low roar with denials. Iryna Harpy Im now going to scream in an enclosed space SaintAviator lets talk 04:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I with Iryna Harpy on this one. I still don't understand why we should add in this article an opinion of something Putin can at most be indirectly responsible for. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Like Russian military successes in the "Aleppo offensive" etc.? Look, pretty much anything to do with Russia's politics can be described as "only" indirectly related to Putin. If we limited this article to only stuff about Putin it's be all about his dogs and outdoor activities. Obviously, as a head of a government, Putin *is* directly responsible for political outcomes, situations, phenomenon. Same as any other world leader. You're interpreting this "not directly related to Putin" in just such a way which would let you exclude anything you don't like from the article. And I believe that's exactly what Iryna is referring to when she writes of "selective editing practices". Which has been a problem on this article and in this talk all along.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mind if the Russian military successes be removed. That's not something that we can personally attribute to Putin either. So out that should go as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Its tidy now, so less is fine. IMHO good RS in the future will show the significance of Putins personal input into a highly successful 'game changing' strategy in Syria. WP is often an 'after the fact' operation, and thats normal for encyclopedic stuff. SaintAviator lets talk 23:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, there has been no agreement to trade off selective military content. Étienne Dolet, the problem is that you're offering a compromise based on WP:CHERRY. If all RF military info is taken out, where do we stop? Should we take out certain aspects of political decisions as well because they aren't really just made by Putin alone? He's the head honcho, and is very actively involved in all aspects of the running of the country. Whether or not we like how he is presented in RS isn't our call, and to redact salient, sourced content is WP:CENSOR. As editors, the only decisions we make revolve around the content is properly attributed, and that we adhere to a neutral tone. (As an aside, this is why I keep my nose out of bios about politicians other than cite checking and tossing out loaded language: I'd probably be topic banned if I were to involve myself in bios on Western politicians for starters.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I topic banned myself from Obama and J Howard. So yeah ikwym. Re Military, it is well sourced military stuff. The Russian Syrian intervention IS high end military involvement, not boy scout playing. I hold its important, still. SaintAviator lets talk 23:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Iryna Harpy, I did not remove all information concerning Russia's military involvement in Syria. That vital stuff remains. As I have stated above, to say "Putin's government" was involved in the killing of civilians would mean to indirectly associate Vladimir Putin with such an act. That's guilt by association. This is unlike any other claim, simply because it is making him complicit in crimes against humanity in a BLP article. Besides, there's no way of discerning whether Putin was directly involved with the killing of civilians. Yet, to place it in this article would imply that he is. Or else, why would it be here? Place it somewhere else. As far as other indirect stuff, I can hardly find any. Almost all paragraphs I see the word Putin at least once. As for the ridiculous Charles Taylor stuff, it wasn't ever discussed. How can such a parallel be even added to this article? The notion that Putin is somehow involved in the killing of civilians is barely gaining any consensus, how can it be that Charles Taylor should? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with the Charles Taylor comparisons, etc. being removed. It's probably relevant to one of the articles about Syria, but not for this bio. Ultimately, that's why I'm better off not adding info to bio articles. In context, the content doesn't just pertain to Putin alone (although, I might add that they're not going to get any politicians or military personnel from the US into court as the US was, conveniently, never a signatory to the Hague agreement). That should be tossed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- EtienneDolet, as has been repeatedly explained, the sources say "Putin's government" is involved in the killings of civilians. That phrase has two words in it: "Putin's" and "government". And that's what we put in the article. Is it "guilt by association"? I don't know and it's irrelevant because that's what sources say. And like it or not but Putin happens to be head of "Putin's government". You are trying to have your cake and eat it to. If a source doesn't say "Putin's government" then you guys claim "Putin is not Russia so you can't put it in the article!". If a source does say "Putin's government" you guys claim "that's associating Putin with Putin's government and that's BLP!". It's really not that hard to understand that "Putin's government" has something to do with Putin and that if info about what "Putin's government" is doing is well sourced, it's actually NOT a BLP issue. You are trying to WP:GAME BLP to use it as "I get to remove anything I don't like!".
- And also, can you please drop insinuating, suggesting, implying or otherwise claiming that the proposed text is trying to say that "Putin is directly responsible"? I have asked you numerous times to drop that false strawman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not insinuating that. I clearly used the word indirectly when talking about what claims are being attributed to Putin's government/military, because that's as far as these claims can go. However, I did say that by placing the information here, it may mean to directly imply it in this article. And that's a big no-no, especially in a BLP. The part which could easily be read as implying the person was complicit in war crimes is violative of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Connection by parenthetical aside to a war crime is, in this case, all too clearly a "guilt by association" argument. And if you really think that I'm pushing some pro-Putin pov of some sort, why would I be willing to remove Russia's successes when it came to Syria? It's obvious that those successes should be removed too, because, in my view, it's not Russia's ultimate success, it's Syria's, thereby making it an even further stretch from being relevant to Putin's personal biography. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- We can keep having this discussion, can't we? If there are allegations that the Russian military is involved in violations of international humanitarian law in Syria, we can (and should) include these claims in Syrian Civil War and Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. This biography can and must include information on Putin's impact on Russia's foreign policy, based on the man's political views and ideology, but should not try to go beyond that scope. And please do not argue that Putin is politically responsible and accountable for the entire Russian foreign policy, that's no good excuse to duplicate the contents of Foreign policy of Vladimir Putin in this article (and that includes claims relating to Russia's successes).
- And BTW, EtienneDolet was correct to remove all claims added before page protection on which there is no agreement. WP:CONSENSUS anyone? What policy even allows that these claims can be restored? — 37 (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not insinuating that. I clearly used the word indirectly when talking about what claims are being attributed to Putin's government/military, because that's as far as these claims can go. However, I did say that by placing the information here, it may mean to directly imply it in this article. And that's a big no-no, especially in a BLP. The part which could easily be read as implying the person was complicit in war crimes is violative of Wikipedia policies including WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. Connection by parenthetical aside to a war crime is, in this case, all too clearly a "guilt by association" argument. And if you really think that I'm pushing some pro-Putin pov of some sort, why would I be willing to remove Russia's successes when it came to Syria? It's obvious that those successes should be removed too, because, in my view, it's not Russia's ultimate success, it's Syria's, thereby making it an even further stretch from being relevant to Putin's personal biography. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Iryna Harpy, I did not remove all information concerning Russia's military involvement in Syria. That vital stuff remains. As I have stated above, to say "Putin's government" was involved in the killing of civilians would mean to indirectly associate Vladimir Putin with such an act. That's guilt by association. This is unlike any other claim, simply because it is making him complicit in crimes against humanity in a BLP article. Besides, there's no way of discerning whether Putin was directly involved with the killing of civilians. Yet, to place it in this article would imply that he is. Or else, why would it be here? Place it somewhere else. As far as other indirect stuff, I can hardly find any. Almost all paragraphs I see the word Putin at least once. As for the ridiculous Charles Taylor stuff, it wasn't ever discussed. How can such a parallel be even added to this article? The notion that Putin is somehow involved in the killing of civilians is barely gaining any consensus, how can it be that Charles Taylor should? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I topic banned myself from Obama and J Howard. So yeah ikwym. Re Military, it is well sourced military stuff. The Russian Syrian intervention IS high end military involvement, not boy scout playing. I hold its important, still. SaintAviator lets talk 23:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, there has been no agreement to trade off selective military content. Étienne Dolet, the problem is that you're offering a compromise based on WP:CHERRY. If all RF military info is taken out, where do we stop? Should we take out certain aspects of political decisions as well because they aren't really just made by Putin alone? He's the head honcho, and is very actively involved in all aspects of the running of the country. Whether or not we like how he is presented in RS isn't our call, and to redact salient, sourced content is WP:CENSOR. As editors, the only decisions we make revolve around the content is properly attributed, and that we adhere to a neutral tone. (As an aside, this is why I keep my nose out of bios about politicians other than cite checking and tossing out loaded language: I'd probably be topic banned if I were to involve myself in bios on Western politicians for starters.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Its tidy now, so less is fine. IMHO good RS in the future will show the significance of Putins personal input into a highly successful 'game changing' strategy in Syria. WP is often an 'after the fact' operation, and thats normal for encyclopedic stuff. SaintAviator lets talk 23:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mind if the Russian military successes be removed. That's not something that we can personally attribute to Putin either. So out that should go as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Like Russian military successes in the "Aleppo offensive" etc.? Look, pretty much anything to do with Russia's politics can be described as "only" indirectly related to Putin. If we limited this article to only stuff about Putin it's be all about his dogs and outdoor activities. Obviously, as a head of a government, Putin *is* directly responsible for political outcomes, situations, phenomenon. Same as any other world leader. You're interpreting this "not directly related to Putin" in just such a way which would let you exclude anything you don't like from the article. And I believe that's exactly what Iryna is referring to when she writes of "selective editing practices". Which has been a problem on this article and in this talk all along.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I with Iryna Harpy on this one. I still don't understand why we should add in this article an opinion of something Putin can at most be indirectly responsible for. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Taylors gone, never discussed, no consensus. SaintAviator lets talk 03:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- SaintAviator, please do not delete my comments. — 37 (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- What comments? Did I? SaintAviator lets talk 06:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- SaintAviator, please do not delete my comments. — 37 (talk) 04:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Taylors gone, never discussed, no consensus. SaintAviator lets talk 03:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Edit clash issue. So Sorry, now restored SaintAviator lets talk 06:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. I already restored it. — 37 (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Rapp quotations on Putin's Syria affairs
I think the opinion of the opinion of the current United States Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues about whether Putin's actions in Syria can lead his persecution in international courts is relevant for Putin's bio. Taylor's precedent belongs to Rapp not to any wikieditor, is somebody finds the comparison to be ridiculous the criticism should be send to Rapp, not to editors. If some notable source criticizes the comparison we can also mention it here Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, Rapp may be notable, but just because a notable person said something that could happen Putin, doesn't mean it should belong in the article. Should we add every quotation about something that could happen to Putin made by a notable person in this article as well? I don't think so. Besides, there's hardly any consensus for the civilian massacre bit to be added in this article, let alone all this Charles Taylor stuff. In fact, there's hardly any support for the Charles Taylor stuff from users who actually like the civilian stuff being added too. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I really hate it when edits are made at a rapid-fire rate simply because it doesn't allow for an opportunity to mull over whether the content is significant, but perhaps being in need of better qualification. The fact that an editor pulled a large chunk of it as 'cut & paste' - more, indeed, than was actually cut & paste - made it even more difficult to ascertain what's significant and what's not. The brunt of Rapp's argument (as related by an RS secondary source), is directed at Putin's administration, but I don't think that the Taylor example/analogy is needed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
If some notable source criticizes the comparison we can also mention it here.
Euh, no. From WP:NEUTRAL: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. This BLP is certainly not an ancillary article (it has been listed as a level-4 vital article). We shouldn't mention anything about this ridiculous claim. — 37 (talk) 03:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)- Taylors gone, never discussed before, no consensus now. Get consensus to put it back SaintAviator lets talk 04:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- I really hate it when edits are made at a rapid-fire rate simply because it doesn't allow for an opportunity to mull over whether the content is significant, but perhaps being in need of better qualification. The fact that an editor pulled a large chunk of it as 'cut & paste' - more, indeed, than was actually cut & paste - made it even more difficult to ascertain what's significant and what's not. The brunt of Rapp's argument (as related by an RS secondary source), is directed at Putin's administration, but I don't think that the Taylor example/analogy is needed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- EtienneDolet, you keep saying "just because something is sourced, it doesn't need to be in the article" and now "just because something is notable, it doesn't need to be in the article". After awhile it becomes pretty clear that what you're really saying is "if I don't like it, it's not going to be in the article". And when it's pointed out that yes, things which are notable do indeed belong in the article, you fall back on the "no consensus! no consensus! no consensus!". This is THE textbook definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nope, you're claiming that just because something is sourced and notable, it should be added to the article. However, there's millions of things that are sourced or notable about Putin, but we can't add it all. For example, we can add a longer and more detailed section about his dog Buffy, but we don't, even though it's notable and there's a lot of sources about him. That's why we have Buffy's own article to place such information there. It's all just an attempt to remain in scope of the subject. That's just how things work around here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Tridek Sep, no. IF we were stating Rapp's view as fact then you'd be right. But we're not - which you of course know very well. All we're doing is saying "Rapp, who is notable, said this and this". That is precisely how it should be done. WP:NEUTRAL has nothing to do with it, the only question is whether Rapp is someone who is notable or not, and as EtienneDolet above says, he is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- EtienneDolet, you keep saying "just because something is sourced, it doesn't need to be in the article" and now "just because something is notable, it doesn't need to be in the article". After awhile it becomes pretty clear that what you're really saying is "if I don't like it, it's not going to be in the article". And when it's pointed out that yes, things which are notable do indeed belong in the article, you fall back on the "no consensus! no consensus! no consensus!". This is THE textbook definition of WP:TENDENTIOUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, Iryna Harpy, are you actually criticizing me for removing copypasted material? Material which you went on to restore, knowing it to be a copyright violation? You are also accusing me of pulling "more, indeed, than was actually cut & paste". In fact, it was only two or three (insignificant) words more:
Removed text: According to Rapp there is a precedent for holding a head of state criminally responsible for aiding forces in another country that are committing war crimes. Taylor was sentenced to 50 years in a British prison for, among other things, “aiding and abetting” the Revolutionary United Front as it massacred civilians. However here’s no forum to even litigate allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed in Syria right now and none in the foreseeable future, which mirrors allegations against the USA in Iraq.
Bloomberg: Rapp[...]said that there is precedent for holding a head of state criminally responsible for aiding forces in another country that are committing war crimes. Taylor was sentenced to 50 years in a British prison for, among other things, “aiding and abetting” the Revolutionary United Front as it massacred civilians. There’s no forum to even litigate the war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed in Syria right now and none in the foreseeable future.
Copypasted or not, I agree the Taylor analogy is problematic and should remain out. --Hillbillyholiday talk 04:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Iryna Harpy, I understand your concerns regarding paraphrasing, but this case is different. Copyvios are taken very seriously in Wikipedia, and it is Wikipedia policy (per WP:DCV in fact) to remove copyright material right then and there. Restoring copyright material, as you did here, is a big no-no, even if you promise to eventually paraphrase it (and I had no doubt that you were going to do that). In other words, the text that should be restored should not be the copyright version (even if it's for a second), but a paraphrased version. I know your edit was in good faith though, and I appreciate that you went out of your way to paraphrase the material, so I really don't want to sound too critical here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No, Hillbillyholiday, I was not criticising you. It simply put me in a position of having to make a quick decision as to retaining the brunt of the text by paraphrasing it as this article has been subject to some heated debate (let's just call that an understatement) with content being removed, restored, re-jigged, reconstituted, and liable to be lost somewhere between the rapid-fire editing... so I paraphrased it enough to remove blatant plagiarism long enough for other editors to considered the value of the content, knowing full well that it would be eliminated within a very, very short period of time as has now occurred. I should have expressed my thanks for your having spotted the cut & paste, but was busy with my blustering here on the talk page. Thanks, also, for weighing in on the discussion. The more fresh eyes on the content, the better. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- BTW Iryna, you are known for your high grammar skills SaintAviator lets talk 04:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- She is also known for many other good things, not only that SaintAviator. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- But of course. SaintAviator lets talk 06:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- She is also known for many other good things, not only that SaintAviator. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- BTW Iryna, you are known for your high grammar skills SaintAviator lets talk 04:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, no worries. Copyright problems aside, with material as contentious as that paragraph, I think it best to provisionally remove it, and if needs be, copy it over to talkpage for discussion. Anyway, thanks for explaining. --Hillbillyholiday talk 04:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Hillbillyholiday: Unfortunately, I tend to work on about 5 articles simultaneously (which was what was happening at the time), and I do know better than to restore COPYVIO. I'd only taken a cursory glance, and didn't realise the extent of the copy/paste. Loopy Harpy brain tends to be convinced that it's attached to a superwoman so, once I'd started, I just rushed through changing the text instead of popping it into my sandbox and/or here. Apologies to all for biting off more than I can chew. Moral of the story: don't copy edit one article while translating refs in another article, leaving comments on a TfD, an AfD, simultaneously cleaning up 'ethnic group' and 'country' infoboxes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is just random speculation/commentary from someone with an axe to grind that has been barely noted in the real world other than in passing. It no more belongs here than what someone with a similar post in Russia might have idly said about any US military escapade. As ever, adding yet more material on top to counter it is not an answer; nor is accusing people opposing its inclusion of tendentious or biased editing (especially when the hat might better fit the accuser, who happily removes perfectly well-sourced and arguably relevant material they happen not to like, loudly citing "NPOV" or "RS", while reverting removal of material that is genuinely weakly sourced or screamingly biased and trivial, just because they happen to like it). N-HH talk/edits 09:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Could we please just draw the line here on GRUDGE, ASPERSIONS, and general SYNTH diffs (I can attest to at least one of your diffs pointing to a genuinely disruptive editor, so don't just pluck anything that suits out of context). So many of these controversial article talk pages are absolutely toxic because the same editors rub shoulders on multiple articles. It's detrimental to the project to make talk pages so intimidating as to put off any new editors from involving themselves in the consensus process. Please drop all weapons before entering the arena when the going gets hot under the collar. It may be difficult to assume good faith when everyone genuinely feels as if they've been banging their heads against a brick wall, but it's still the best way to approach the most sensitive of subjects. Naturally, my interest lies in having the last word because I'm so brilliant and terrific that I can't get enough of listening to me!
--Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- The "Syria section" [16] is terrible. By supporting the discredited regime of Assad, Russia openly acts against the "coalition". That somehow get lost. Yes, the atmosphere is very bad, but this is not just the talk page. One of participants around here recently submitted a 3RRNB report (about VM), an ANI report (about VM), an WP:AE report (about Galassi), and an arbitration request (about VM and me), all of which were left without action. That is toxic and prevents improvement of the page. So, yes, please drop the "weapons".My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- MVBW you made three points. In response. 1. The UN is against the Jihadists. Russia is doing the most by far to kill them, under the UN mandate, in Syria invited by the legitimate Govt. Forget US regime change propaganda. You say Russia is against The Coalition. The Coalition who supplied IS / Nusra / Ansar? That one? Or the Saud one which promotes the warped Wahhabism doctrine which birthed beheaders of non believers? You have got to be kidding. (BTW Moderate beheaders dont exist) 2. After all this, you say drop your weapons. Left alone this article would afaik turn into anti Rus POV. Its turns Toxic when people fight to insert toxic POV stuff. Thats the reality here. Editors are willing to listen and compromise, I have found, to sensible suggestions. But they are not prepared, imho, to give up their discernment, or be gamed. 3. Personally I agree with those investigations 'that' editor got up. I sure learned a lot reading those statements, including that some admins dont see it as over. SaintAviator lets talk 05:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- The "Syria section" [16] is terrible. By supporting the discredited regime of Assad, Russia openly acts against the "coalition". That somehow get lost. Yes, the atmosphere is very bad, but this is not just the talk page. One of participants around here recently submitted a 3RRNB report (about VM), an ANI report (about VM), an WP:AE report (about Galassi), and an arbitration request (about VM and me), all of which were left without action. That is toxic and prevents improvement of the page. So, yes, please drop the "weapons".My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Could we please just draw the line here on GRUDGE, ASPERSIONS, and general SYNTH diffs (I can attest to at least one of your diffs pointing to a genuinely disruptive editor, so don't just pluck anything that suits out of context). So many of these controversial article talk pages are absolutely toxic because the same editors rub shoulders on multiple articles. It's detrimental to the project to make talk pages so intimidating as to put off any new editors from involving themselves in the consensus process. Please drop all weapons before entering the arena when the going gets hot under the collar. It may be difficult to assume good faith when everyone genuinely feels as if they've been banging their heads against a brick wall, but it's still the best way to approach the most sensitive of subjects. Naturally, my interest lies in having the last word because I'm so brilliant and terrific that I can't get enough of listening to me!
- This is just random speculation/commentary from someone with an axe to grind that has been barely noted in the real world other than in passing. It no more belongs here than what someone with a similar post in Russia might have idly said about any US military escapade. As ever, adding yet more material on top to counter it is not an answer; nor is accusing people opposing its inclusion of tendentious or biased editing (especially when the hat might better fit the accuser, who happily removes perfectly well-sourced and arguably relevant material they happen not to like, loudly citing "NPOV" or "RS", while reverting removal of material that is genuinely weakly sourced or screamingly biased and trivial, just because they happen to like it). N-HH talk/edits 09:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Hillbillyholiday: Unfortunately, I tend to work on about 5 articles simultaneously (which was what was happening at the time), and I do know better than to restore COPYVIO. I'd only taken a cursory glance, and didn't realise the extent of the copy/paste. Loopy Harpy brain tends to be convinced that it's attached to a superwoman so, once I'd started, I just rushed through changing the text instead of popping it into my sandbox and/or here. Apologies to all for biting off more than I can chew. Moral of the story: don't copy edit one article while translating refs in another article, leaving comments on a TfD, an AfD, simultaneously cleaning up 'ethnic group' and 'country' infoboxes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The Rapp stuff is out currently, and I don't see a strong desire to reinsert it here, so this debate is probably done for now. As for flagging up the recent contributions and more distant history of some editors here, it has more to do with transparency than "grudges" or "aspersions". If they are going to loudly proclaim their purported dedication to NPOV and proper application of WP's sourcing policies and accuse others of bias and tendentious editing, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the rather glaring problems there. Especially to avoid third parties coming by, taking a cursory glance and falling for it. N-HH talk/edits 10:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016
 | This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Putin married Alina Kabayeva, Olympic gymnast, 2014. - Putinism: Russia and It's Future with the West by Walter Laqueur 2015[1] 2601:483:C300:64E0:29D4:7496:89CF:DC5C (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- BLP, rumours are not allowed. SaintAviator lets talk 03:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ Putinism: Russia and It's Future with the West by Walter Laqueur 2015
it fell into recession subsequently due to falling oil prices and Western sanctions
It's a selection of two reasons of many. The system is stiff, no reforms are possible. Low oil prices could have been expected. Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Are you referring to that sentence?--WatchingContent (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
difficulty with editing this article
Anyone know - or can just confirm a similar experience - why when you try to edit this article it takes a long time to load and there appears to be some kind of lag/freeze? As in you type in a letter then have to wait three seconds for it to show, you type another, three more seconds, etc. I thought it was because the article was so long but this does not happen with even longer articles. It also happens regardless of computer, OS or browser. Weirdly enough, a similar thing happens on the Russian intervention in Syria article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Mines very fast. Its your PC or connection. Or maybe? No surely not.......... SaintAviator lets talk 23:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Economic, industrial, and energy policies
Under Putin, the economic environment of Russia has changed, partly due to the attempted radical market-oriented reforms characterized as "shock therapy (economics)" under Yeltsin, to a State monopoly capitalism (stamocap) economy, where the state (under Putin), controls all major industries and the overall economy.
State monopoly capitalism (stamocap) theory, also referred to as crony capitalism, refers to an environment where the state intervenes in the economy under an autocrat, or authoritarian dictator, to protect large monopolistic or oligopolistic businesses from competition by smaller firms.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enealk (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 May 2014
please explain
what exactly is POV or "weaseling" in this edit per the edit summary. Additionally, it's pretty obvious Athenean that you are purposefully "mimic-ing" my edit summaries which is obnoxious. Please stop.
Haberstr's edits were pretty clearly POV. Like adding in the word "alleged" for no reason. Or removing the link to the Russian financial crisis (2014–present) from the article. The fact that he's trying to sneak in POV changes under the guise of grammar fixes doesn't exactly help to inspire good faith.
Nznk's edit [17] was also a clear cut case of WP:WEASEL where they changed "reported" to "claimed".
- My* edits on the other hand did nothing of the sort.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Your edit was a blanket revert of all my changes, which is highly disruptive and obnoxious. I have changed the "reported" and "alleged", but the rest of those edits stand. The claims by Zuyganov are not lede material, and the whole "electoral fraud" thing for the 2012 elections is more factually reported in Haberstr's version, not yours. And since when is the SOHR considered a reliable source? Last time I checked it failed the "reputation for fact checking" part of WP:RS. Athenean (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Anyway I re-instated the link to the Russian financial crisis (2014-present), and removed the "alleged". Anything else? Athenean (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for reinstating that link and removing the "alleged". However, SOHR is a reliable source - why wouldn't it be? If you got a problem with it I suggest taking it up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is a marginal partisan group, essentially a one-man-enterprize run by a certain Rami Abdulrahman. Dorpater (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- SOHR, this “group” is nothing more than a one-man blogger operating out of one of the bedrooms in his two bedroom home in Coventry, England, reading and repackaging other peoples’ blogs and tweets. It gets better – “He also runs a clothes shop” SaintAviator lets talk 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Marginal? Must be why they're quoted so often by so many sources. New York Times calls them a "monitoring group". NPR says they "monitor the conflict". Yahoo News mentions them. Reuters says that they've been "cited by virtually every major news outlet since an uprising ... began". Also that they have "been a key source of news on the events in Syria"\. And of course they also use them as a source [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-shishani-idUSKCN0WC0N8. We can keep going: The Economist. Associated Press. BBC ("a watchdog group"). The Guardian. DW. Etc. etc. etc.
- Marginal my butt.
- Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- SOHR, this “group” is nothing more than a one-man blogger operating out of one of the bedrooms in his two bedroom home in Coventry, England, reading and repackaging other peoples’ blogs and tweets. It gets better – “He also runs a clothes shop” SaintAviator lets talk 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is a marginal partisan group, essentially a one-man-enterprize run by a certain Rami Abdulrahman. Dorpater (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for reinstating that link and removing the "alleged". However, SOHR is a reliable source - why wouldn't it be? If you got a problem with it I suggest taking it up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- So while ya'll's opinions are appreciated they aren't really relevant since they contradict a wide array of sources and boil down to nothing more than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You always can, if you want to, bring it up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Lets get a consensus going (counting) 3 : 1 against the bedsit blogger. But bigger than that you are starting edit warring behaviour again (will we soon see MVBW?) by adding POV minor stuff not suited to a BLP. I suggest you go edit the linked article to vent your enthusiasms on minor points on the Syrian War topic (shakes head mutters 'I knew he'd try again') SaintAviator lets talk 01:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- No. That's not "consensus". That's vote stacking and tag teaming. Consensus is build on reliable sources. Local "consensus" does not trump general consensus on reliable sources. And this is a reliable source as shown by my links above. Again, please feel free to bring this up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) Per WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A self-published blog by an clothes-seller with no journalistic credentials (or even a secondary education) fails this criterion [18]. Athenean (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nonsense. They DO have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" which is EXACTLY why they're used as by NY Times, BBC, The Guardian, Reuters, etc. etc. etc. I've provided links above. All you've done here is let us know what your personal feelings about the matter are. That's not how this works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Here's another vote against the one-man PR operative in the used clothing shop. No way his "SOHR" can be seen as a WP:RS Santamoly (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again. Reliable sources disagree with your particular opinion. Your characterization of the organization does not inspire confidence either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- And you guys really should drop the false "it's a blog by a cloths maker" narrative. Here is an extensive profile of the organization from a reliable source [19]. Let's see what THEY (as opposed to some Wikipedia accounts with battleground attitudes) have to say about them:
- "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has emerged as a prominent campaign group amid the country's revolt against President Bashar al-Assad, releasing daily casualty figures for the international media" (oh, but supposedly they're "marginal" (sic))
- "The group of mainly professionals, many of them lawyers, monitored changes to the law and the judicial system, and worked to highlight cases of human rights abuses" (a clothes-maker running a blog? Riiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhhtttttttt....)
- "It now has more than 200 members and affiliates, covering every province in Syria, with some volunteers aggregating and publicising information from the UK" (a single guy running a blog? Who are you trying to kid? Please stop)
- "The group says it is impartial in its reporting, recording the deaths of soldiers as well as civilians and protesters. The names of all those killed are carefully documented, along with the circumstances surrounding their death, including videos if they are available." (calling this source "partisan" makes sense only if you're hell bent on pushing a FRINGE POV to begin with)
- Seriously, how are we supposed to have a serious good faithed argument when the claims being made on this talk are so flagrantly false and against reliable sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again. Reliable sources disagree with your particular opinion. Your characterization of the organization does not inspire confidence either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) Per WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A self-published blog by an clothes-seller with no journalistic credentials (or even a secondary education) fails this criterion [18]. Athenean (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- No. That's not "consensus". That's vote stacking and tag teaming. Consensus is build on reliable sources. Local "consensus" does not trump general consensus on reliable sources. And this is a reliable source as shown by my links above. Again, please feel free to bring this up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is so much y'all can do to help yourselves here. I've looked at the edits, and the biggest difference that I see is the "an announcement which led to large-scale protests in many Russian cities..." thing. If that's verified in the source, well, it probably should be in. The rest is mostly phrasing and not worth fighting over. The other thing, that y'all are discussing to death here, is about a report/claim by a blogger/press organization--a thing that has no place in this article, which is a biography. I'm almost tempted to really put my admin hat on and cut the whole "President Putin authorized Russian military intervention..." section as UNDUE and a BLP violation; the sources all go "Russia launches airstrikes..." or some variety thereof, not "Putin launches airstrikes...". This kind of metonymy is, in my opinion, not acceptable in BLPs. University administrators shouldn't get the credit for every graduate or every building, presidents shouldn't get all the credit for every job gained, and in this biography Russian politics shouldn't be completely subsumed. You already have 75k in Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War and 147k in Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War--it should seem obvious that a link will do. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Please do. Such action is long overdue. It's perhaps the only way to deal with the incredibly tenacious POV-pushers that plague this article. Athenean (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's the other guys, of course, right? :) Drmies (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not to mention that the same applies to all that economic mumbo-jumbo in the lede. Athenean (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe so. But I said "almost tempted". I still hope that common sense will prevail and that the POV pushers on both sides will push toward the middle--like, the possibly GA-type article middle, in which case the White Whale and the Amur Tiger might also disappear from the article. And the "Under Putin, the Hasidic FJCR became increasingly influential" section. And any number of other sections. But this has to start with a serious discussion on what is relevant in a BLP and what is not--a discussion which here seems necessary, not so much in other articles. Look at, for instance, a similar very controversial issue: the Falklands War in Margaret Thatcher, a GA. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I dont know, look here below. Thatcher thrived in this war, and is even criticized for not doing enough. Its almost all about Thatcher, because it was (and theres more in the article).
- Maybe so. But I said "almost tempted". I still hope that common sense will prevail and that the POV pushers on both sides will push toward the middle--like, the possibly GA-type article middle, in which case the White Whale and the Amur Tiger might also disappear from the article. And the "Under Putin, the Hasidic FJCR became increasingly influential" section. And any number of other sections. But this has to start with a serious discussion on what is relevant in a BLP and what is not--a discussion which here seems necessary, not so much in other articles. Look at, for instance, a similar very controversial issue: the Falklands War in Margaret Thatcher, a GA. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Please do. Such action is long overdue. It's perhaps the only way to deal with the incredibly tenacious POV-pushers that plague this article. Athenean (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- On 2 April 1982 the ruling military junta in Argentina ordered the invasion of the British-controlled Falkland Islands and South Georgia, triggering the Falklands War.[159] The subsequent crisis was "a defining moment of her [Thatcher's] premiership".[160] At the suggestion of Harold Macmillan and Robert Armstrong,[160] she set up and chaired a small War Cabinet (formally called ODSA, Overseas and Defence committee, South Atlantic) to take charge of the conduct of the war,[161] which by 5–6 April had authorised and dispatched a naval task force to retake the islands.[162] Argentina surrendered on 14 June and the operation was hailed a success, notwithstanding the deaths of 255 British servicemen and 3 Falkland Islanders. Argentinian deaths totalled 649, half of them after the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror torpedoed and sank the cruiser ARA General Belgrano on 2 May.[163] Thatcher was criticised for the neglect of the Falklands' defence that led to the war, and especially by Tam Dalyell in parliament for the decision to sink the General Belgrano, but overall she was considered a highly capable and committed war leader.[164] The "Falklands factor", an economic recovery beginning early in 1982, and a bitterly divided opposition all contributed to Thatcher's second election victory in 1983.[165] Thatcher often referred after the war to the "Falklands Spirit"; Hastings and Jenkins (1983) suggested that this reflected her preference for the streamlined decision-making of her War Cabinet over the painstaking deal-making of peace-time cabinet government.[166] SaintAviator lets talk 04:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Notice the focus on Thatcher, as opposed to focusing on alleged misdeeds by the British forces, and other off-topic stuff. Athenean (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Except for the sentence "Argentinian deaths totalled 649, half of them after the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror torpedoed and sank the cruiser ARA General Belgrano on 2 May.[163]" which adds context. Likewise here, it'd be enough to have just one sentence in the article on the number of casualties.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. In fact it should be the sentence about the casualties that should be removed from the Thatcher article, rather than adding more irrelevant crap here. Athenean (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- My take also is that the casualties belong in the linked article. SaintAviator lets talk 09:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. In fact it should be the sentence about the casualties that should be removed from the Thatcher article, rather than adding more irrelevant crap here. Athenean (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Except for the sentence "Argentinian deaths totalled 649, half of them after the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror torpedoed and sank the cruiser ARA General Belgrano on 2 May.[163]" which adds context. Likewise here, it'd be enough to have just one sentence in the article on the number of casualties.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Notice the focus on Thatcher, as opposed to focusing on alleged misdeeds by the British forces, and other off-topic stuff. Athenean (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Proposal to remove OSCE opinions from the lead
I propose removing the excessive amount of information (don't know how it got there) regarding voting irregularities from the lead:
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers evaluated election day voting positively overall but assessed the vote count negatively in almost one-third of polling stations because of procedural irregularities.
Reason being is that there's already criticisms mentioned in the previous sentence. Also, the lead can be shorter this way. Indeed, the OSCE is a notable organization, and its opinion counts. But such lengthy, and rather complicated, criticisms should not be in the lead. Instead, it should be elaborated somewhere in the body at best. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's fine to remove this from the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Athenean (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes of course SaintAviator lets talk 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Proposing removal of economy information from the lede
The main (and obvious) argument is that this material is not directly related to Putin, in fact it is only very tangentially related to him. To devote an entire paragraph of the lede to this sort of stuff is WP:UNDUE. There is not a single country leader article that contains this kind of detailed info on the ups and downs of a country economy in the lede. This article suffers from far too much material not directly related to Putin in it, it is time to clean up, starting with the lede. Proposed. Athenean (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, remove all SaintAviator lets talk 08:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given that it can fairly be said that his popularity rests in part on Russia's rebound from the economic chaos of the Yeltsin years, something should probably be said about this in the lead (see these pieces, for example, which cannot be said to be "pro-Putin" particularly). However, it does not need a blow-by-blow account of the ups and downs of the Russian economy during his leadership (much of the other lead content is also too detailed, including the ins and outs of individual elections and the stuff about "tandemocracy" – and is that phrase even widely acknowledged or used? Equally, it needs more summary information about what he has actually done as president, eg in foreign policy, economic policy, dealing with post-Soviet issues etc) N-HH talk/edits 10:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - material related to economics is covered by any serious source which discusses Putin. For a good reason, both Putin's domestic popularity and Putin's foreign policy are closely related to Russia's economic outcomes. This proposal is a straight up WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and it contradicts Wikipedia policy. And just to be clear - BOTH the positive and the not-so-positive need to be mentioned. In other words, this part of the current lede is fine (other parts have problems).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Does it ever occur to you that how to concisely summarise germane content, especially in a lead, is a matter of judgment, and that people who happen to disagree with yours are not necessarily "POV pushing", "contradict[ing] policy" or trying to censor material they "don't like" but are just taking a different view about how best to select and present relevant information? The lead currently, in paras 3 and 4, goes into exorbitant detail about individual election results and economic statistics/trends respectively. By contrast, it tells us virtually nothing about Putin's actual policies or actions, including on the economy. I would argue that including the latter, in summary, in the lead is more important and more informative to a reader looking for information about Putin himself. Now, that's just my opinion of course, but – just like you – I would argue that my opinion is correct. N-HH talk/edits 17:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it does. Sometimes people I disagree with are acting in good faith and the difference is simply a matter of opinion. But other times - and very frequently on articles such as this - nah, it really is just dedicated POV warriors editing against policy. The fact that all the arguments boil down to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT rather than being policy-backed is sort of indicative of that. Believe it or not, I'd put you in the first group.
- So, in regard to the length of the lede. First note how several editors involved here were perfectly fine with a long lede that had information on economics as long as it was all positive info. Same thing with Syria, as long as it was pro-Putin puffery not a single one of them had an objection to it. It was only when the info was balanced and made neutral did these accounts suddenly discover the virtues of "shorter lede!" "too long!" "off topic!" etc. See what I mean?
- As to the substance, note how long this article is. A four paragraph lede for an article this size is perfectly appropriate. Yes, there probably is too much detail about individual elections - that part I agree with, but that's not the issue being discussed here. However, the info on the economy is pretty sparse. It's basically two sentences. There's nothing UNDUE about it. And it's supported by sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would remove from the lead the economic information as WP:UNDUE and out of WP:SCOPE with a biographical article. It's hard to attribute the booms and busts of the Russian economy to Putin himself. We've had similar problems elsewhere in this article and it has been resolved simply by its removal. I'd much rather see content in the lead that can be directly attributed to him, rather than indirectly influenced by him, or some other ambiguous premise. It's not as if the booms and busts of the Russian economy is authorized or set in stone by Putin. With that said, I agree with N-HH and think policy should be the main focus. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I removed it. There's very little support for its inclusion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- There's an ongoing RfC right above and tag-teaming is not consensus. I do think it ... funny, how all of sudden you've discovered the virtues of a shorter lede once it was made neutral. You were fine with the economic info being in there as long as it was all glowing and slanted pro-Putin. Whether or not the info should be in there depends on whether major sources which discuss Putin talk about the economy. And they do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again, we should focus on policy, rather than the booms and busts of the economy in Russia, which are almost like bad weather, and may have nothing to do with Putin. Just because sources say so, doesn't mean it should be inserted there either, especially in the lead. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- We should focus on what sources focus on, period. And if we don't base our articles on sources, what exactly are we suppose to base them on? Your own personal feelings and whims? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, we shouldn't. That's not how Wikipedia works. With that logic, we'd have to add information on his dog Buffy in the lead just because it's reliably and extensively sourced. In fact, I could safely argue that Buffy has more of a personal connection to Putin than a boom and bust economic cycle which has little to do with him personally. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Uh... so you ARE in fact saying that we shouldn't base the reliable sources??? Holy crap, that was a rhetorical question, I didn't think you actually believe that. So let's ask it again - if not reliable sources, then what? Whatever EtienneDolet says? Is that "how Wikipedia works"?
- Look. It's not that hard. If most serious sources on Putin talk about the economy so do we. Most serious sources do not discuss Buffy at length. Neither do we. There. Done.
- And just to state the obvious one more time, whether or not "Buffy has more of a personal connection to Putin than a boom and bust economic cycle which has little to do with him personally" is NOT up to you to decide (honestly, I doubt whether you're qualified to answer that question). It's up to the sources. All these problems on the talk page and 90% of the problems with the article stem from the fact that you and a few others refuse to actually follow policy/sources but insist instead on offering your own personal opinions and using those as a basis for this article. Which is why this article is still crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I said. Do not use straw man arguments here, and stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said that just because something is reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in the article, and especially in the lead. Might as well add stuff about Buffy, Koni, and his favorite food in the lead too right? Aren't those things reliably sourced too? What I'm trying to say here is that it's effectively up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to decide that. This article has actually improved over this last couple of months. The Forbes information has been added. But besides that, without my guidance and opinions, we'd have analogies of warlord Charles Taylor in this article. And the civilian killings you have now backed off from is also a major improvement, which I had opposed as well. But that's besides the point. And please, don't personally attack me (i.e. "honestly, I doubt whether you're qualified to answer that question"). I am qualified to make observations and raise concerns just like any other editor here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, not right. Buffy and pals might be *mentioned* in sources about Putin but the economy under Putin is *discussed* in depth in sources about Putin. Are you seriously saying that how an economy does under its leader is as trivial as the leader's pets? Who's the one setting up strawmen? "You don't think useless trivia should be in the article therefore you also have to agree that very important stuff shouldn't be in there either" Huh? No, no, no. And no, it's not really "up to us" - it's up to editors who are actually following Wikipedia policy. An encyclopedia article is not a hodge podge of the editors' feelings and whims as you want to have it (as long as they are your feelings and whims of course).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, there you go. This now goes back to what you have said yourself. We, as Wikipedia editors, are to decide what is meant by in depth coverage or relevancy. We are to decide what is more significant, and what is even less so. We decide, for example, whether articles should be deleted or created, whether material should be added or removed, whether it's due or not, and etc. etc. And once we have that established, we have another hurdle to jump, and that is if it's personally relevant to Putin's life. In that regard, Buffy is more personally relevant to Putin's life than a boom and bust cycle of a capitalist economy. So at this point, I have not seen any semblance of an argument from you that assesses either of these points. Therefore, I am sticking with my original opinion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, not right. Buffy and pals might be *mentioned* in sources about Putin but the economy under Putin is *discussed* in depth in sources about Putin. Are you seriously saying that how an economy does under its leader is as trivial as the leader's pets? Who's the one setting up strawmen? "You don't think useless trivia should be in the article therefore you also have to agree that very important stuff shouldn't be in there either" Huh? No, no, no. And no, it's not really "up to us" - it's up to editors who are actually following Wikipedia policy. An encyclopedia article is not a hodge podge of the editors' feelings and whims as you want to have it (as long as they are your feelings and whims of course).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I said. Do not use straw man arguments here, and stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said that just because something is reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in the article, and especially in the lead. Might as well add stuff about Buffy, Koni, and his favorite food in the lead too right? Aren't those things reliably sourced too? What I'm trying to say here is that it's effectively up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to decide that. This article has actually improved over this last couple of months. The Forbes information has been added. But besides that, without my guidance and opinions, we'd have analogies of warlord Charles Taylor in this article. And the civilian killings you have now backed off from is also a major improvement, which I had opposed as well. But that's besides the point. And please, don't personally attack me (i.e. "honestly, I doubt whether you're qualified to answer that question"). I am qualified to make observations and raise concerns just like any other editor here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, we shouldn't. That's not how Wikipedia works. With that logic, we'd have to add information on his dog Buffy in the lead just because it's reliably and extensively sourced. In fact, I could safely argue that Buffy has more of a personal connection to Putin than a boom and bust economic cycle which has little to do with him personally. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- We should focus on what sources focus on, period. And if we don't base our articles on sources, what exactly are we suppose to base them on? Your own personal feelings and whims? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again, we should focus on policy, rather than the booms and busts of the economy in Russia, which are almost like bad weather, and may have nothing to do with Putin. Just because sources say so, doesn't mean it should be inserted there either, especially in the lead. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- There's an ongoing RfC right above and tag-teaming is not consensus. I do think it ... funny, how all of sudden you've discovered the virtues of a shorter lede once it was made neutral. You were fine with the economic info being in there as long as it was all glowing and slanted pro-Putin. Whether or not the info should be in there depends on whether major sources which discuss Putin talk about the economy. And they do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I removed it. There's very little support for its inclusion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Against my better judgment I'm going to step in here occasionally as an outside observer. Closing out a proposal less than 12 hours after it was made is overly hasty. The world won't end if you wait a few days for people to respond. I also suggest that this be formally structured as a WP:RFC so as to include views from a wider range of editors. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose (keep this info in introduction). Economic successes and the current crisis of Russian economy are attributed by multiple RS personally to Putin. This is because the ungoing economic sanctions by Western countries against Russia resulted from the disasterous political decisions (annexation of Crimea, the military intervention in Donbass, etc.) taken personally by Putin. In addition, the so called economic "counter-sanctions" which harm the economy of Russia were also decided by Putin. This is not a democratic country. Therefore, the "leader" is a lot more responsible. That all was described in numerous recent sources, as well as in older sources, such as "Putin. Itogi", Putin. Corruption and Putin. War by Boris Nemtsov who was recently killed ... My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please, no looney fringe type arguments based on looney-fringe sources. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is my judgement based on my knowledge of the subject. No one usually provides long list of refs in RfC voting. I only noted a couple of most notable books (ones that we have WP pages about). My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that you're calling Boris Nemtsov "looney-fringe" pretty much illustrates that your views are themselves WP:FRINGE and that you're purpose here is just to push a POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given your ideological predilections and propensity to personal attacks, your comment comes as no surprise. However, you can seek an opinion on WP:RSN, but somehow I doubt you will like the result. Athenean (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but you have no idea what my "ideological predilections" are. All you know is that I disagree with your propensity to reflexively push pro-Putin POV by trying include only positive info and removing anything even mildly critical. And if you really think that one of the most prominent Russian journalists is "looney fringe" - which isn't surprising seeing as how you claimed earlier that BBC was not a reliable source - then you got no business editing a mainstream encyclopedia. I suggest other outlets which might be more conducive to your POV and will undoubtedly let you "publish" your original research all day, like Metapedia or Conservatopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh no, your contribs and long and troubled history give me a very good idea of your predilections (West=good, Russia=bad). With which "Conservatopedia" (sic) is closely aligned. Athenean (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- My contribs are just fine, you might want to think about yours instead. And if you honestly think that you have described... "my predilection" with any degree of accuracy you need to rethink that. But hey, I understand where you're coming from. If you're a dedicated POV pusher then anything that doesn't agree with your point of view is "POV" or "looney fringe", even if it comes from the most respectable sources. If your intent on Wikipedia is to "win" battles and treat it like a WP:BATTLEGROUND then you quickly fall into the mindset that everyone else must be the same.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Accusing others of what you are yourself guilty of, as usual. Nothing new or original here. You block log and checquered history shows who is the one treating the encyclopedia as a battleground. Nothing you can do will change that. But we digress. Not that it was me who first personalized the discussion, but hey, if you want to go down that route...Athenean (talk)
- My contribs are just fine, you might want to think about yours instead. And if you honestly think that you have described... "my predilection" with any degree of accuracy you need to rethink that. But hey, I understand where you're coming from. If you're a dedicated POV pusher then anything that doesn't agree with your point of view is "POV" or "looney fringe", even if it comes from the most respectable sources. If your intent on Wikipedia is to "win" battles and treat it like a WP:BATTLEGROUND then you quickly fall into the mindset that everyone else must be the same.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh no, your contribs and long and troubled history give me a very good idea of your predilections (West=good, Russia=bad). With which "Conservatopedia" (sic) is closely aligned. Athenean (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep this information. As already said, I don't see any reason to remove this all from the lead. One of the reasons Putin enjoyed great popularity is simply the fact that his coming to power coincided with the recovery of the Russian economy (which actually already began when Primakov was the PM).Dorpater (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- An entire paragraph on Russia's economic performance is way too much, and the current version as it is phrased has nothing to do with Putin. For example, the article on Margaret Thatcher, a GA, devotes only one sentence to Britain's economic performance under Thatcher, and three sentences on Thatcher's economic policies. This is what we should be aiming for here: Putin's policies, not Russia's economic performance, which is affected by a large number of things, not just Putin. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Two sentences is all we need. And again, what matters is sources not other Wikipedia articles, or personal opinions (we're getting way too much of that here).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- An entire paragraph on Russia's economic performance is way too much, and the current version as it is phrased has nothing to do with Putin. For example, the article on Margaret Thatcher, a GA, devotes only one sentence to Britain's economic performance under Thatcher, and three sentences on Thatcher's economic policies. This is what we should be aiming for here: Putin's policies, not Russia's economic performance, which is affected by a large number of things, not just Putin. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well right now we have more than two sentences on Russia's economic performance, and practically nothing on Putin's policies. Not sure about which sources you keep talking about, but pretty much none of the sources currently used to source that paragraph in the lede have anything to do with Putin. In fact, some don't even mention him at all. Which is the best proof that it needs to go. Athenean (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- We have more than two sentences - four to be exact - in one short paragraph because this is actually the "compromise version". Which you guys are now trying to remove completely. Which is why these discussions are so frustrating - we work on trying to compromise and then one of you (EtienneDolet, Athenean or SaintAviator) comes in and say "we're gonna do whatever we want to anyway, thank you for letting us waste your time".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- And now it's
twothree sentences. Satisfied? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well right now we have more than two sentences on Russia's economic performance, and practically nothing on Putin's policies. Not sure about which sources you keep talking about, but pretty much none of the sources currently used to source that paragraph in the lede have anything to do with Putin. In fact, some don't even mention him at all. Which is the best proof that it needs to go. Athenean (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) I don't recall any such compromise. The current version was imposed by brute-force edit-warring by you and your tag-team friends. That's not compromise. And copy-editing gimmicks are not a solution. Athenean (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe you don't, now that you've changed your mind. Sort of convenient. And this wasn't a "gimmick". Your objection was that supposedly the info shouldn't be in here because it was too long. So I shortened it. Now even that is not enough for you. So who's being unreasonable? Who's unwilling to compromise? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- (ec) I don't recall any such compromise. The current version was imposed by brute-force edit-warring by you and your tag-team friends. That's not compromise. And copy-editing gimmicks are not a solution. Athenean (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Read my original post again. I never said that it was "too long". This is why it's impossible to have any kind of productive discussion with you: You always twist and misconstrue others' positions. Athenean (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- User Dorpater is not my "tag-team friend" just because we happened to agree with him about this. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oh no, obviously I didn't mean Dorpater. But you already knew that, didn't you? Athenean (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- For the same reason I am not a "tag-team friend" of anyone else just because I happened to agree with someone else on a number of occasions and disagree on a few others. My point is very simple: you should really stop making such accusations. Well, I do not really mind if you make them on my talk page, but I strongly object when you make them on arbitration or article talk pages. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I actually never mentioned you. But it's interesting you are reacting so defensively.Athenean (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, sure, I can see that you target another contributor. My very best wishes (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I actually never mentioned you. But it's interesting you are reacting so defensively.Athenean (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- For the same reason I am not a "tag-team friend" of anyone else just because I happened to agree with someone else on a number of occasions and disagree on a few others. My point is very simple: you should really stop making such accusations. Well, I do not really mind if you make them on my talk page, but I strongly object when you make them on arbitration or article talk pages. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree - Putin and his policies should be the focus of the lead section, not the ups and downs of the Russian economy. Follow the guidance of the other GA articles on well-known national leaders.Haberstr (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you mean "support"? The proposal is for removal of the economic material. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- You're right, I've changed the first word from 'oppose' to 'agree'.Haberstr (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Family
Wordy trivial trimmed SaintAviator lets talk 07:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"large scale protests"
Removed from the lede, as it is subjective and POV. A few thousand protesting liberals is not "large scale protests", not in a country of over 100 million. The rest of Haberstr's edits are an improvement as well, so I restored them. Athenean (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- What do the sources say? That's what matters, not your personal opinion. And no, Haberstr's edits were pretty much POV pushing and weaseling. Like adding the word "alleged" where it's not supported by sources (or even Putin) or removing links to articles he doesn't like. Might as well noted that Haberstr has been warned several times by admins about his editing on Russia related topics for this very reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- What do they say? They say that the demonstrations were typically of the order of a few thousand people, i.e. not "large-scale" for a country of over 100 million. I don't see anything about "large scale" in the sources. They also say there were large counter-demonstrations, which is conveniently ignored. Athenean (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Volunteer Marek: Once again, for perhaps the 1000th time, please stop disparaging my character and good faith by calling my edits POV pushing and weaseling (and stop lying about what admins have said to me). If you disagree with the content of an edit just explain why and don't groundlessly attack others' good faith. As you know, several disparaged editors have repeatedly attempted in a civil manner to discuss this violation of WP policy (WP:GF) with you at the Admin Noticeboard [20]. You don't seem to 'get it' there, but I hope our persuasive efforts will help you eventually figure out what we're asking from you.Haberstr (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- In a nation of 145 million large scale would be 1 Million plus, minimum, in several locations. SaintAviator lets talk 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- There were large protests before and after the election because many people believed Putin had stolen millions of votes from his opponent. (217.42.27.219 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC))
Autism
| Not a forum. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Is it true that Putin was diagnosed with a high-functioning form of autism? See here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11392680/Vladimir-Putin-suffers-from-Aspergers-syndrome-Pentagon-report-claims.html (217.42.27.219 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC))
|
Economy
The lede understates the severity of Russia's long-term economic problems. The country is actually now being surpassed by Spain. (217.42.27.219 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC))
- Alas - we are bound by Wikipedia policy to follow WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV which leave no room at all for editors to insert what they "know" is "truth." Collect (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Spain's GDP is now larger than Russia's. (217.42.27.219 (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC))
Need reliable sources here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- This report from 2014 says Russia's economy was almost as small as Spain's: http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-economy-gdp-v-spain-2014-12 (217.42.27.219 (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC))
- Removed lead bloat / distraction re this. Leads very important, as suggested we fix it later, but not with stuff that does not belong there. At this trimming rate, we take on lead in a few days SaintAviator lets talk 22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
typical possible editing style
Talk:Vladimir Putin/KGB shows a rough edit showing that there is no reason I can see why we should not quickly shrink this BLP by at least 25% without cutting any actual substance. Collect (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Good work. SaintAviator lets talk 23:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Collect: I think that'll be great. By the way, aren't there any FAs that are 200,000+ bytes? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- No comprehensive list by size so I looked at all of the last 6 month's FAs - 3% were under 18K, 94% were 18K to 70K, 3% 70K to 130K, 0% over 130K in size. I can safely say the chances of a 200K article ever reaching that status is minuscule or less. Collect (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Collect: Okay, well your work on the KGB section is good. Do you have that ready to go? It will be helpful since we can reduce quite a few bytes from there. Once that's done, we can look into other sections and reduce them as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Collect: Sorry, keep pinging you here. How do you feel about the "Speeches abroad" section? It's one of the largest sections, and I doubt that the topic (Speeches abroad) is notable enough to merit its own section, especially one of that size. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is a tad like "reactions of foreign leaders"- type sections about notable deaths ... a very large amount of it is not of use to the reader much at all. Perhaps an RfC on its utter removal - allowing "really important stuff" too be moved into relevant sections, would be best. Collect (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Those sections are either not required or in need of heavy trim SaintAviator lets talk 22:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is a tad like "reactions of foreign leaders"- type sections about notable deaths ... a very large amount of it is not of use to the reader much at all. Perhaps an RfC on its utter removal - allowing "really important stuff" too be moved into relevant sections, would be best. Collect (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Collect: Sorry, keep pinging you here. How do you feel about the "Speeches abroad" section? It's one of the largest sections, and I doubt that the topic (Speeches abroad) is notable enough to merit its own section, especially one of that size. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Suggestions
Under 200k--that's progress. Well done. I don't know about balance and that's not for me to judge; I hope everyone is equally happy or unhappy, and at any rate there's a ways to go. Let me ask you all, for example, why this article needs 11 paragraphs of "Economic, industrial, and energy policies". The first two paragraphs are quite general and strike me as appropriate, but the moment we hear "Putin obtained approval for a flat tax rate" it seems to me we're into head-of-state-gets-all-credit territory again, and I do not see how the cited sources support that he personally gets to take credit for it. And may I add that the Heritage Foundation is clearly a partisan source, that it's not peer-reviewed neutral academic etc., that its publications are meant to influence policy, and that the article cited doesn't focus on Putin or Russia at all? All these things should be pretty obvious.
Now, that National champions program, that seems Putin-appropriate. Y'all should cut the rest--all the great economy! stuff of that section, and the three terrible economy! paragraphs of the next section, "2014 downturn". BTW, that "greatest improvement in corruption" award, I suppose that's notable, but it is really thrown in there completely at random. I also think the "public image" sections should be shortened to just a few paragraphs, since there is a main article. Just a few pros and cons or whatever will do. And why so much detail on so many things, but not a nice, juicy putinism in a little quotebox? Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not to brag or anything, but I once got this sucker from 222k down to 177k. Once is enough, though. What this article needs is a hard limit, like the limit on the length of edit summaries. (Or maybe a siren that goes off at 180k!)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Agree Drmies. SaintAviator lets talk 10:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)