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.
We cite RS. That he was a defector is irrelevant. The Owens court report documents this as a possible issue. The New York Times is also a very RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It is relevant because other defectors too accuse big politicians of many wrongdoings [1][2] and they get coverage from WP:RS, but it doesn't mean they get inclusion on main biographical article. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)17:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Our job is not to seek parity between cosmetically similar circumstances, but to weigh each on their own merit.Mavigogun (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME is rather clear and unambiguous that "a living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." (and that applies on Wikipedia whether it applies in Russia or not - we don't make exceptions when it suits contemporary popular opinion) In this case, this isn't even formal accusations, but some unverified account of it by a prominent critic (not somebody whom you would expect to give a balanced account of anything, even if it were true), so as such not very much different from some unverified gossip: and we don't include gossip on Wikipedia, whether it is whoemever the Kardashians might be dating or what other monstruous thing (on top of all the previous ones) Putin might have done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Can you provide a link out to the court reports? My understanding is that the pedophilia accusation as yet does not have, by my reckoning, sufficient affirmation for us to include. That said, a court ruling or even charges may not be necessary for inclusion- but under conditions not met in this case. For example, the charges may build to a point that they raise to the level of a remarkable life event. Again, that's not where we are at, is it? Mavigogun (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll get back to you with that. Keep in mind that it is TOTALLY irrelevant whether the accusation is true or ever will be proven true. Our only concern is whether it is mentioned in RS (not trash sources), and it is. WP:Public figure, not BLPCrime, is our guide here, so please also go to BLP/N. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
You'll excuse me for being unconvinced, but I don't see any exception in BLPCRIME for public figures. In fact, particularly because Putin is a public figure, we should not report every unverified and unconfirmed allegation about him, no matter what other misdeeds he might have done. There's also a pretty big difference between the examples given (someone's unsavoury love affair, or their messy divorce) and an outright allegation they committed a rather specific and heinous crime. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This is about a possible motivation, mentioned in a court report and also mentioned in RS. BLP Public figure tells us how to deal with this type of thing. Go to BLP/N. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Here is the primary source, the so-called "Owen report":
We cannot use such a primary source alone, but we can include it among the secondary sources which mention or make use of it, so we should do that.
For reference, here is the deleted content under dispute:
In particular, the Owen report indicated that the poisoning may have been ordered over an accusation Litvinenko made four months beforehand in an online article, alleging that Putin was a paedophile and that he used his position as head of the FSB to hide evidence of it.[1]Vladimir Bukovsky, a close friend of Litvinenko, said he strongly urged him against publishing it, noting that despite his ferocious hostility toward the Kremlin, Litvinenko still had the mind-set of a security officer and "could not understand the difference between truth and operational information."[2] The New York Times concluded that Litvinenko's allegations of paedophila were "without any evidence".[2]
The preceding context mentioned in the Owen report ("possible motives" for the murder) is important to keep in mind:
In 2015–2016, the British Government conducted an inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko.[3] Its report states, "The FSB operation to kill Mr. Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin." The report outlined some possible motives for the murder, including Litvinenko's public statements and books about the alleged involvement of the FSB in mass murder, and what was "undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko, led to the murder.
So these two paragraphs are here in reversed order, and the one mentioning this possible motive has been removed, and that's improper. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
The motive is certainly still there, The report outlined some possible motives for the murder [...] and what was "undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko, led to the murder.. We don't need to report the evidence-less allegations (as concluded by the NYT), unless we want to bring more (and IMHO probably unnecessary) emphasis on them as opposed to the other possible motives (even the Owen report says "may have", not "was without a doubt the motive for it"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Of all the possible motives mentioned in the Own report, we only have permission (due weight) to mention the ones mentioned in RS, and the pedophilia accusation has been. That's why we mention it. This is just my speculation but RS may mention it because it, true or false, is so grotesque an accusation that it may have been the last straw for Putin, and from his POV, that would be understandable.
Keep in mind that by whitewashing this material out, we are also deleting the NY Times mention, which is favorable to Putin. Whitewashing has a bad side, as defense of the victimized party is also deleted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me Valjean has laid out the essential bit here- the pedophilia accusation is made mention of because it is integral to reports of the murder of a political rival- a topical and weight worthy subject. The pedophilia accusation would not be included independently, is that right? Mavigogun (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It won't be included at all because this is a BLP article and like NYT says these accusations lack any evidence. Further, I don't see if there are any new circumstances that would validate this claim, just like they didn't a few years ago. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)20:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Aman, you are confused. Truth or falsity is irrelevant. You are confusing WP:Truth with WP:Verifiability. We document what RS say about claims, true or not, and BLP's WP:Public figure tells us how we are supposed to include such claims about notable people like Putin. If we don't do that, we fail our primary goal with Wikipedia, as we are supposed to document the sum total of all human knowledge that is found in RS, and that includes facts, lies, opinions, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, nonsense, etc. We are supposed to be inclusionists who seek to include as much as possible of all that, including the nonsense, unless it isn't mentioned in RS or is so trivial only horrible sources mention it.
Keep in mind that PUBLICFIGURE applies to even the most outrageous and false claims as long as RS have mentioned them. Wikipedia does the victims a service by also providing the debunkings found in RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Aman, you seem to be missing the point- inclusion isn't about the credibility of the pedophilia claim. Litvinenko could have been accusing Putin of being a Martian wearing a human skin suit, or any other claim, fantastical or undemonstrated- it doesn't matter. If a mad man shot Elon Musk after declaring Musk was not human, but an actual robot, we would include the accusation when describing the event on the Musk page. Mavigogun (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Mavigogun, that is correct, but your indentation makes it look like you are addressing me, when you are actually addressing Aman. Just mention him first and remove a colon from your comment and from this response to you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Mavigogun, that is correct. (Aman is still confused.) The existing context is already there, but the allegation has been removed. (BTW, why the "nowiki"s in all your comments? They are unnecessary unless you absolutely want the tildes to show. I just use dashes.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
(I don't know what a "nowiki" is- I learned to sign with the 4 tildes, don't know of another way. Please, educate me! Mavigogun (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I think this can be reliably sourced and should be included (Litvinenko was not a "defector", but a highly knowledgeable expert on such subjects; that is why Putin ordered to kill him), but it is difficult to say if there is a consensus to include from discussions on this page (tl;dr for me, sorry). If someone wants to include, please start a formal RfC about it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to split the discussion, but I have non-BLP issues with the most recent version of the pedophilia allegations. I don't think we can give so much prominence to that one aspect of the report. I would be in favor of extending our summary of the possible motives that the report lists, as right now we're only mentioning the allegations of mass murder and the personal animus. Maybe something like
"The report outlined some possible motives for the murder including Litvinenko's allegations that Putin is a pedophile or that he had ordered a mass murder; Litvinenko's involvement with MI6; or personal reasons, based on what was "undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko."
I took some time to review coverage of the Owen Report, and the report itself. The pedophilia allegation is discussed enough as a possible motive that we should mention it here, but not enough weight in either the report or the coverage to justify a lengthy treatment in this bio. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers, could you clarify which sources you are citing for this? I've seen several discussions as to the alleged motivations behind Litvinenko's murder, and I don't think that is either an exhaustive list, or that the 'pedophile' allegations were seen as particularly prominent. I have the impression that most sources based their claims regarding motivation on a culmination of factors, rather than listing them as 'either X, Y, or Z', and starting a list off with one possible motivation out of many, implying it may have been sufficient on its own, seems questionable. This is at the core of the discussion on BLP/N, and doesn't become 'non-BLP' by being discussed here. Wikipedia needs to report what the sources have to say in a balanced, proportional manner, rather than emphasising one particular aspect that relatively few sources seem to think worthy of much comment at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi ATG. I'm not sure the discussion at BLPN has a "core", but fair enough: I didn't go deep into my reasons for bringing a proposal here, but you're right BLP lines aren't so simple. Yes, the list isn't exhaustive, which the "includes" should allude to. You're right about multiple factors amalgamating together, possibly, so it's probably more accurate to replace the "or" with an "and". I am not attached to the order, or really any of the individual items. Your point on emphasizing one reason over others is valid, but even more valid if applied to the status quo language. My main goal is to summarize the motivations rather than just list one.
I looked for sources that did that kind of summary. Others appear to have looked for sources that mention the pedo allegations, so I'm not including those in this list. Sources, all from 2016, and the possible motives they list:
The Guardian: allegations of mafia involvement and apartment bombing, work with MI6, personal dimension starting with corruption allegations and culminating in pedo allegations
HuffPo: "Owen cited five reasons": personal stuff culminating in pedo allegations, being a traitor to the FSB, work for MI6, connections to other Kremlin critics, allegations of mafia involvement
Reuters: bombing allegations, work with MI6, "highly personal allegations"
NY Times: traitor to FSB and work with MI6, connection to other Kremlin critic, "personal dimension"
BBC: work for MI6, allegations (unspecified) against Putin and FSB, connection with other Kremlin critics, "personal dimension"
Irish Times: not explicitly a motives summary, but mentions connection with Kremlin critic, work for MI6, advocacy for Chechen separatists, criticism of Putin culminating in pedo allegations
LA Times: criticism of FSB, work with MI6, connection to other Kremlin critics, allegations against FSB and Putin including pedo allegations
USA Today: not explicitly a motives summary, but mentions criticism of FSB and Putin, work with MI6, "highly personal" against Putin including pedo allegations
AP News: criticism of FSB and Putin, connection with Kremlin critics, work with MI6, traitor to FSB, "personal dimension" including "highly person" allegations and pedo allegations
I'd read the majority of those sources as citing generalised 'personal dimensions' for the particular enmity between Putin and Litvinenko (beyond the more obvious ones of a former FSS officer giving assistance to British intelligence etc), with the 'pedophile' element being merely the latest episode of a long-standing feud. Putin seems to have had plenty of motivations for enmity before those specific allegations, and given that no real credence seems to have been attached to them, I feel it is unwise to imply that they were actually the 'motive'. And if we list such allegations, we really need to make clear that not all of them were seen as particularly credible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
That's close to my reading as well. I think two bits of wording in the Owen report have led to highlighting of the pedophilia allegations: Owen's use of "culminating" in the line "highly personal attacks on President Putin, culminating in the allegation of paedophilia in July 2006" and his description of the Chechenpress article as "an article on the Chechenpress website that Professor Service referred to as the “climax” of Mr Litvinenko’s attacks on President Putin". Some sources have pulled out "climax" and misattributed it to the Owen inquiry. Are you looking for more balancing content than the NYT quote that CutePeach proposes to use? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm looking for two things really. A simple explanation that Putin had multiple reasons for enmity with Litvinenko that doesn't imply that 'pedophile' allegations alone were responsible for Litvinenko's death (which the sources absolutely don't support), and clarity that the Litvinenko's allegations weren't all taken seriously. Because they clearly weren't. If they were, we'd have sources shouting 'pedophile' from the rooftops.
The article makes Putin's wider record clear enough. We are supposed to at least make a pretence at neutrality. Leave the unverifiable mudslinging to QAnon and the FSS, present the readers with verifiable facts, and with assessments of Putin from sources seen to be credible, and let them make their own minds up from material which reflects what the balance of coverage can support.
As to exact wording, I'm still thinking about it, and frankly think this discussion would be more constructive if people weren't in such a rush to arrive at an immediate conclusion. It could probably do with more input from people less invested in the topic: or at least (given that everyone is going to have opinions about Putin) not so invested in this particular questionable allegation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
While RS is a necessary requirement for inclusion, it is not a sufficient requirement: WP:WEIGHT is. If we were writing a thousand page biography of Putin, we could probably include it. However, we are only supposed to include a summary of the major points about the subject. The fact that the NYT article concludes the allegations were "without any evidence" probably explains why there was no on-going coverage. In any case, the lack of on-going coverage means that there is no weight. We rely on sources such as the NYT to determine what is and is not significant about a person. TFD (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I protest against the removing the subsection about Vladimir Putin's mental health, made by Aman.kumar.goel.
This user assumes that removed content violates WP:SYNTH and is based on poorly sources. Moreover, he wrote on my talk page the following text: "Note that I am talking about your poor edits to Vladimir Putin which are based on rumors and non-experts. To make claims about someone's medical health you need actual experts who can prove their credentials with regards to the claim they are making".
1. Current version of the article contains unproven claims related to Putin's physical health. Sources contain suspicions that Putin has cancer but there is no official confirmation of this fact. In other words, it is just rumours, but nobody cares about it.
In this case, what's wrong with the removed content about Putin's mental health?
The removed content didn't contain any allegation that Putin is mental patient. It contained the information about the facts that US intelligence, Boris Nemtsov and other people expressed their reasonable doubts about Putin's mental health. How is this any different from rumours about Putin's physical health?
2. As I said earlier, the removed content didn't contain any allegation that Putin is mental patient. So, there is no violation of WP:SYNTH, becase there's no a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.
3. The removed content was sourced by CNN, Republic.ru and Kasparov.ru. CNN is reliable English-speaking source. Republic.ru and Kasparov.ru are reliable Russian-speaking sources especially when it comes to news about Russian events.
4. The removed content and sources are already used in other Wikipedia's articles, namely Boris Nemtsov, Russia under Vladimir Putin. Previously, it was used in the article Putinism from which it was removed by My very best wishes with note "his mental health is definitely important, but this is about Putin, not about Putinism".
5. We discussed a necessity for creation a subsection about Putin's mental health (Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 16, the section "Mention the speculation about his mental health").
In conclusion, I would like to state that the removing of the aforementioned content committed by Aman.kumar.goel is politically motivated action as well as his threats to block me. I believe this user just likes Putin, that is why he removed the mentions of doubts about Putin's mental health. K8M8S8 (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
See WP:BLPGOSSIP and keep this kind of content out because we require medical experts who are related with the issue in order to say anything about mental or physical health of the subject. You can also take a look at these other related discussions on Talk:Donald Trump and Talk:Joe Biden for understanding what we exactly need before making such claims. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)17:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Then name experts who diagnosed Putin with cancer and name any source possessing official medical report. Can't you do this? Ok, in this case, the current version of the subsection "Health" is just gossip too. You don't really need to be doctor to realize that Putin has sick mindset, unlike to say something about his physical health. The removed content had more rights to exist than rumours about Putin's cancer and deer antler blood baths. K8M8S8 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I was going to also add the rumor about him having Parkinson's disease, but experts told DW that diagnosis is incredibly difficult, making it highly speculative [3]. The thyroid cancer was very well researched by Russian investigative journalists, so I think they are WP:DUE and comply with WP:BLP. The alleged mental health issues, however, are somewhere in between, in that they're not as difficult to diagnose as parkinsonism, and this Daily Telegraph article puts it in the context of the thyroid cancer rumors [4]. Mental health will be very difficult to cover in any BLP, but I think the CNN source is good, as is the Daily Telegraph article. I don't know about Republic.ru and kasparov.ru. CutePeach (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have moved the content on mental health, which was already included in this article, to the "Health" section, and added the Parkinson's rumours (as well as the DW caveat against armchair diagnoses). As you say, this issue is very difficult to cover in a BLP, so I hope this is appropriate. QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: I removed this recent addition. I don't think this new paragraph is helpful because the text states already that Putin "reportedly" has cancer. (I am surprised that an editor of your experience is adding bare URL references to an article, but presumably this was a mistake. Also, the first source, the Daily Express is not considered to be reliable (WP:DAILYEXPRESS)). The second sentence simply repeats the unfounded speculation that Putin has cancer – various sources can't seem to agree what sort of cancer he has; now it is an unspecified ' blood cancer' – but without even bothering to give a name to the source of this hearsay. The person referenced is an "unnamed oligarch", not a medical professional or an analyst. The quote might as well be entirely fabricated. Now suppose that the Joe Biden article included a comparable sentence: "An unnamed businessman told The New York Post that Joe Biden has dementia". I think this would be removed. I don't think that we should be publicising any unsubstantiated rumours in a biography of a living person. --Hazhk (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I generally wait to see if an edit sticks, or is supplemented by better sources, before adding {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}. It took you three minutes to revert my addition. And no, the second sentence says he looked frail at the 2022 Moscow Victory Day Parade: he was pictured with a blanket and described as "coughing". I opened a new thread specifically to discuss this topic below. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Especially given the context, I’m not too worried about it being unnamed. There’s been a lot of health-related speculation from a lot of sources for an extended period of time, not explicitly refuted by the Kremlin IIRC, so inclusion does seem appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Are editors waiting for this to be officially announced in a news bulletin on RT? Or perhaps in a personal message on Россия-1, to a grateful nation, by Vlad himself? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Comments about Putin's declining health aren't new, and we already have a section on it. I don't think it is wise to include what amounts to a third-hand anonymous rumour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
From the source cited: I think Putin looked rather frail during the ceremony...They said it was the weather, but it appeared kind of sunny to me so I’m not really sure. Not much to go on, really. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, he often appears, on the Nation's proudest day of celebration, with a granny blanket? Was half expecting to see him this time, leading the procession through Red Square, bare-chested, on horseback. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports facts as determined by reliable sources. One reliable source says that one unnamed Russian oligarch--none of whom are physicians--has heard rumors that Putin perhaps has blood cancer. That is not good enough evidence for Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a news paper or a place for third-hand anonymous rumours (WP:NOTNEWS). Especially not in a time of war, where the first casualty is almost always truth. Until we have something better than rumours about Putin looking rather frail, this doesn't go in. FFS, people, we're Wikipedia, not a gossip magazine. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Rumors about people out of favor with Western elites are fairly predictable and rarely true. The only time we should consider including them is if they become big stories. Are all the cable networks leading with this for days on end? If they were, I would include it. There have been rumors incidentally about the current U.S. president, who is older than Putin, losing his train of thought or forgetting people's names. But until it receives widespread coverage, we rightly don't mention it. TFD (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
There's a bit of a difference. If Biden actually had dementia or something as the Republican briefings would have you believe, then the White House would know and probably the Democrats too, and it probably wouldn't stay secret for long. The same isn't really true in authoritarian regimes, so you have to defer more to the sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
The section is the size of an article WP:FALSEBALANCE and simply full of daily media quotes WP:QUOTEFARM. Quote farm style should be fixed as its generally not suited to encyclopedic writing and perhaps and article split?Moxy-12:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Section '2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and invasion' not found
Agreed. Dugin is reported to be a major influence on Putin and his foreign policy on Ukraine and the world, so we can add these sources to the Foreign policy section. Tobby72's recent edit touched on the Eurasianism in the Assessments section [5], so it can also be expanded from that. CutePeach (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
credible reports by OHCHR that Putin ordered a kidnapping policy?
The sentence "As early as 25 March credible reports were published by the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights that Putin ordered a kidnapping policy whereby Ukrainian nationals who did not cooperate with the Russian takeover of their homeland were victimized by FSB agents" is not supported by the sources it quotes. None of the three sources ([6], [7], [8]) claims that according to OHCHR Putin ordered a kidnapping policy. What they actually say is that the HR Monitoring Mission in Ukraine documented the arbitrary arrests/enforced disappearances of 21 journalists and civil society activists, and the arrests and detention of 24 public officials and civil servants. One can also check the primary source here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
The current picture is about 8 months old. How about we use a picture from 2002 if we are not trying to update pictures anymore? Not to mention the picture I'm suggesting has better lighting and captures his entire face, unlike the picture used. Besides, its always better to use up-to-date images. Almost every other Wikipedia, besides the English one, also uses this image. Stuntneare (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: A frontal shot is always better. That's the main point. In that case, why was the image of Putin from 2016 changed recently to the current picture? The previous one was also better. Stuntneare (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
You don't have to believe in MoS, you just have to follow it. (Unless you persuade people to change it.) Stop kidding, everybody knows SPb. And re-read carefully the introduction to WP:OVERLINKING. The main point is that the more specific links are lost in the flood of the trivial, which is especially true for this article that needs even more cleanup. — Mike Novikoff22:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Novikoff: I also know the city name Saint Petersburg but having the article link would have been useful to quickly see the location on Russia map or see other details with just one click. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baptx (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers:, I agree with your and @AndyTheGrump:'s erudite analysis of the sources cited in the last discussion about these allegations [9], but we would be remiss to not include the premier British sources [10] [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/alexander-litvinenko-murdered-because-he-accused-putin-of-being-a-paedophile-a6824806.html] [11] cited in the first round of discussions [12]. I think the text @CutePeach: added to the "Litvinenko poisoning" section [13] was much more summarized than the text @K8M8S8: added to the "Personal life" section [14], and most of it is dedicated to balancing the claim rather than describing it. I think the Bukovsky quote is much more due than the NYT quote as he was a close friend of Litvinenko and his criticism cuts much deeper. I don't think the NYT quote makes the allegation undue, and that has been pointed out as an argument of WP:TRUTH, which is a bad argument for such experienced editors to make. We can always call an RFC if anyone thinks mentioning the allegation in the Litvinenko section violates BLP or NPOV. Gimiv (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I am happy to see this discussion resurrected. I think CutePeach's version overemphasizes the allegations of pedophilia as a motive, as compared to the emphasis in the sources. I also think the current version overemphasizes complicity in the apartment bombing as a motive. I'd prefer an overview of the many reasons mentioned in the Owen report. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
The stance I gave last time, which is that a general overview is sufficient in an article which is about Putin and not the Owen report; remains unchanged as far I see. So The report outlined some possible motives for the murder [...] and what was "undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko, led to the murder. does the job just fine. We don't need to report the allegations (or any other particular aspect of this "personal dimension to the antagonism", unless we want to bring more (and IMHO probably unnecessary) emphasis on them as opposed to the other possible motives (even the Owen report says "may have", not "was without a doubt the motive for it"). An encyclopedia is a "summary of knowledge", not a compilation of the whole of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that's a reasonable position. If we do decide on an extremely brief overview, I'd advocate for removing the part about the apartment bombings. Maybe something like "criticism of Putin and the Russian government", which covers a few of the possible motives, could replace the current language. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
So is this what all the BLP fuss is about on ANI? Putin is WP:PUBLICFIGURE and these allegations are relevant to the Litvinenko poisoning story. The Times article says Litvinenko made these accusations just four months before the poisoning, so even if it wasn't the only motivation, it is still noteworthy. It can be put in a sentence, or just two words. Francesco espo (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
This sentence does not make sense
"As he was constitutionally limited to two consecutive terms as president at the time, Putin served as prime minister again from 2008 to 2012 under Dmitry Medvedev."
Being constitutionally limited to two consecutive terms is not (presumably!) the reason that he served as prime minister again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.71.163 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it's exactly the reason. He serves two consecutive terms, takes a break as PM, then goes back to being president as the term limit has reset. — Czello15:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2022
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There is the link №117 after the sentence "Moscow continued to participate in the joint consultative group, because it hoped that dialogue could lead to the creation of an effective, new conventional arms control regime in Europe." in the sixth paragraph of the subsection "2004–2008: Second presidential term" of the section "Political career" in the text of the article. The link is broken: "Cite error: The named reference acar15 was invoked but never defined". Please fix this link. K8M8S8 (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request, 09 June 2022
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Category:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment should be added to the article, Putin has made clear that he doesn't even view Ukraine as a legitimate state, and instead considers it part of Russia.
Interesting reporting from the Guardian about a complex known as the "Fisherman's Hut" in Karelia that is reported to be Putin's personal dacha.[1] I can't find other WP:RS to back this up yet, but it could be potentially article-worthy in the near future, and if so, would deserve a mention from here.
"When Putin travels abroad, his bodyguards collect his excrements and take it with them. On board his plane, he uses a special porta-potty that is emptied only in Russia.[1] This is intended to prevent foreign intelligence services from receiving samples of DNA-compatible material from which they could draw conclusions about his state of health.".
This pro-Putin editor thinks that he can remove any content "discrediting" Vladimir Putin even without reference to the rules. "Apparently undue", - he believes. The Independent magazine (reliable source) believes different, but this noname editor doesn't care about the opinion of the respectable media. Moreover, he is busting balls threatening other users with sanctions for their "poor editing".
The paragraph should be restored because it is based on the reliable source and refers to the subject matter of the subsection of the article. Aman.kumar.goel should read carefully the article Russian warship, go fuck yourself to determine the direction of his further focus of efforts in communication with others. K8M8S8 (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree that it is a valuable piece of info supported by reliable source. It is a good illustration of Putin's paranoia. I have restored it. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Alex Bakharev: No, that information was not supported by a reliable source. The Independent did not say what the article text did, as they described it as an unconfirmed report, and we said it was fact. Endwise (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The Independant article does not in fact say that this happens, but says the "bizarre claim" was made in a French magazine. Including the story because it "is a good illustration of Putin's paranoia" violates policy. Unless it receives wide attention in reliable sources, it fails weight.
Also, please do not accuse other editors of being "pro-Putin." This is a personal attack and if you continue to make accusations, I will report this to Arbitration.
You're wrong to place emphasis on the "bizarre claim". The general context of the article does not question the report made by two investigative journalists of the french magazine Paris Match. By the way, this magazine is one of the largest weekly news French media. According to the original report,[2] the fact that Federal Protective Service collected Putin's excrements in Saudi Arabia in 2019 is confirmed by indirect sources but the existence of the same practice in Palace of Versailles on 29 May 2017, during the official visit of Putin to Paris, is confirmed directly. I hope, you will not consider my suggestion, adressed to you, to read the original source (The Independent article contained the link) as personal attack.
And, yes, we discussed claims about cancer, mental illness, paedophilia, and, as a result, we have not reached consensus yet. Where is a summing up? K8M8S8 (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
This user was not the only one and you know it very well. Many other users expressed different positions in discussions. K8M8S8 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
What that has to do with current discussion? Have you read the Paris Match report and especially its second paragraph? The title "Rumor or Tumor?" applies to the conclusion about suspected cancer but not to the fact that security service collects excrements. The last fact is confirmed (see above). And we are discussing this fact exactly. K8M8S8 (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I answered what you asked... "we discussed claims about cancer, mental illness, paedophilia, and, as a result, we have not reached consensus yet. Where is a summing up?" The report has been termed "bizarre claim" by your own source The Independent. I would say wait for much better source. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)16:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The "bizarre claim" applies to the fact that "Vladimir Putin’s bodyguards bag up his excrement while he is abroad so it can be brought back Russia" but not to the report of French journalists in which it was first reported. This report is not questioned by itself. The claim is bizarre because it's very strange function for security service, as Martinevans123 notes below. Read carefully. K8M8S8 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Cancer, mental illness and paedophilia are not comparable with agents collecting his shit. Theoretically an editor might have found a "bizarre report" that Putin was a alien from Alpha Centauri. That would very likely be discussed and discarded. What would that have to do with agents bagging up his faeces? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Then they all must think the claim has some substance. As news.com.au says, "Russian President Vladimir Putin has a bizarre task for his bodyguards". That's why the claim is bizarre. No normal person would do such a thing. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Of course it's covered by the Daily Express, Business Insider and news.com.au. That's what tabloids write about. WP:NOTATABLOID provides guidance on how to handle this type of story. Essentially unless it has widespread coverage in major mainstream, it lacks weight for coverage. The article is not supposed to prove that Putin is paranoid, but to summarize information about him in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
See Alex Bakharev's comment above: "I agree that it is a valuable piece of info supported by reliable source. It is a good illustration of Putin's paranoia." [00:06, 16 June 2022] Editors are not supposed to collect and insert information in order to support their opinions about the subject, but should insert information with a "weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" and fully attribute any opinions. TFD (talk)
What is the reason for adding it? Please cite specific policy or guidelines, i.e., don't just write "Should be added per WP:WEIGHT." Tell me what section supports it. TFD (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Providing interesting information is not a policy based criterion. The reason to exclude is NPOV: articles "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Someone who despises Putin, as you claim to, might find different things about him interesting than someone who adored him or had not strong opinions. Some editors may find fecal matter inherently interesting, while others may not. Since articles have limits on their length, not everything that is reported in reliable sources can be included. TFD (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have been clearer, that it's material that I judge readers in general would find interesting. Not just me or not just "editors who may find fecal matter inherently interesting". I wonder could you tell us what policy based criterion you used the last time you added some information to an article, assuming you have ever done that? I guess you will have referred to it in your edit summary. If you think this article is now full, as suggested by the template at the top, then we should consider which material could be reasonably removed, to allow it to be kept up to date. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
When I have added material to articles, I have followed the policy of weight. I ensure that articles summarize the key facts as identified in reliable sources. One way to do that is per WP:TERTIARY, to use a short article about the topic in a reliable source as a template. "Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other."
I do not second guess sources on how they decide which facts to emphasize. Also, the fact that this article could be expanded without exceeding article limits is not a justification to add material that lacks weight.
Different wikis may have different policies for inclusion. What readers may find interesting may be a good policy, but it is not a current Wikipedia policy.
Incidentally, how do you determine what readers find interesting?
Which short article about the topic, in a reliable source, per WP:TERTIARY, did you use? Yes, it's a shame that articles can be filled with material that readers won't find interesting. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I did not say I used one, I said that according to policy they can be used to identify the key information that should be included. You and I know that no tertiary sources mention this claim.
Also, please answer my question above: "What is the reason for adding it? Please cite specific policy or guidelines, i.e., don't just write "Should be added per WP:WEIGHT." Tell me what section supports it." T[01:09, 17 June 2022]
Ah sorry, I thought you were going to give us all a worked example of your policy-driven editing prowess. No matter. You and I know that no tertiary sources that mention this claim have yet been found (or, at least, I suspect that you probably surmise that). I promise never to write "Should be added per WP:WEIGHT." I'm still keen to really put the poo into Pootin. But I know that you, unlike his shitty underlings, are not just taking the piss. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
фокус: "The material claims that Putin's bodyguard is obliged to collect his feces and urine in bags, which, in turn, are placed in a special suitcase and delivered to the Russian Federation. According to investigators, in this way the Russian authorities hide information about the state of health of the Russian president." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
If you want an example, see Left-wing terrorism. The original article had been deleted, and I revived it. You can see my original re-write here. I used sections of textbooks on terrorism for the main points and main actors. While I personally oppose terrorism, I did not let my personal feelings get in the way, because what is essential is that the article reflects the sources, not my personal opinions.
I shall rephrase my question to you. What is the reason for adding this? Please cite specific policy or guidelines. Tell me what section(s) supports it.
Martinevans123, in other words you don't think this article's content bears any similarity to what we expect to find in a biographical article about Putin in a political encyclopedia, dictionary or textbook or in a media source such as the New York Times. Why do you think it is that all the experts have got it wrong and only you have got it right? TFD (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah right, experts. It's not just me who thinks the content deserves a mention. I suspect "political encyclopedias, dictionaries or textbooks" aren't updated that often. And just because the NYT doesn't publish something, I don't think that means it has to be outlawed here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment: The Independent is a fine source, they are listed as an okay news agency according to the reliable sources perennial, but I'm not sure why this trivia is notable or relevant. Who would care to know that useless and unusual information? I'm not sure if it fits in this article, what that would achieve, or where to put it but that's just my two cents.Lmharding (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
De-emphasize the fecal aspect or leave it out entirely. This claim is independently noteworthy for its connection with state-sponsored gene theft. To that end I put forth a less bizarre draft for consideration:
When Putin travels abroad, his bodyguards are believed to assist with prevention of gene theft by securing biological traces he may leave against loss.[1] This helps prevent foreign intelligence services from using collected samples to draw conclusions about the state of his health.
This is much less tabloid-y as the Business Insider even reports in the same piece [19] that French President Macron refused a Covid test in the Kremlin for similar reasons. Recently non heads of state including public figures and researchers have also raised concerns over genetic paparazzi which suggests that this seemingly bizarre practice is perhaps not only sound but ahead of its time. --N8wilson13:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Off the record: it should not be difficult at all to get these genes, they all have to go to the bathroom (sooner of later) :-) wonder if these genes can also be traced in the sewage, like is done to map other stuff, like drugs use and concentration areas of covid Lotje (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I mean washing their hands. If I would be in in that business, I would tapp of the water from the sink :-) haha But maybe that has been done already and it is top top secret. Lotje (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that to my attention @Aman.kumar.goel:. Upon looking closely I suspectTobby72 injected "mostly" on the basis that forensic psychiatry is a sub-specialty of professional medical practice and at the time of the edit it could appear to the reader that "These claims" referred to all the claims in the health section. However, as best I can tell the changed text was sourced to a DW article which speaks specifically to the speculation of Parkinson's and/or thyroid cancer. It reads, But one important voice has been missing from the flurry of articles and discourse speculating that Putin, who is leading the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has Parkinson's or thyroid cancer: Medical experts.
I've made an attempt [21] to re-align the text in that section with source content by re-organizing it and doing some trimming. --N8wilson14:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The short response to UNDUE and BLPGOSSIP is that WP helps readers by contextualizing and attributing claims within this area of interest. Neither of those practices in my understanding violate the policies you mention. WRT to those who have done no first hand experience in analyzing Putin's health, thats essentially all we'll ever have to work with as the same DW article above points out: A tight-lipped Russia makes speculation inevitable [...] For years, the Kremlin has kept tight-lipped about the state of Putin's health, prompting journalists and political scientists to analyze the president's every move... Responsible writing here on WP affirms this and acknowledges outright that the sources are not first-hand. --N8wilson14:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
If we are including opinion of some "Cornell University forensic psychiatrist Ziv Cohen" who has no first-hand experience then we are only going to allow addition of more WP:UNDUE content. This type of unqualified view does not fit well with WP:BLP unless it can be backed with actual reliable sources. This should be removed. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)19:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Do any such sources actually exist? I would imagine that if any of the medical experts who have examined Putin in person were to make their findings public, they would probably be imprisoned or killed. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
This is not what I was saying. I was saying that if we don't have ideal source that analyzed the subject's health then still we should avoid using sources that are mere speculations. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)23:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
"Putin has reportedly been receiving treatment for thyroid cancer from 2016 and is rumored to take deer antler blood baths and steroids." The source itself repeatedly states that this is only claimed by a single acquaintance of Putin. A rumour about his bathing in blood baths based on a single source from a single unidentified person is wholly inappropriate and not relevant to the general biography of Vladimir Putin. Requesting its removal. DeaconShotFire (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree, especially as CIA director has just stated they have no evidence Putin unstable or in bad health, which I've just added. In fact this whole section looks flaky to me, except to highlight there is a lot of poor info in the MSM on this topic. Rwendland (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, what does MSM mean? And is there a page that defines all the Wiki acronyms? I've Googled MSM, and searched Wiki:Help with no success... UpDater (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
One sentence reads "French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian denounced him as a "a cynic and a dictator"." The indefinite article "a" is repeated, so this should be changed to read "French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian denounced him as "a cynic and a dictator"." so as to conform to English grammar. DylPickle666 (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted one large deletion and one small deletion of reliably-sourced content as well as another edit that moved a statement attributed to one source to a different location with a completely different source. Please discuss these changed and reach consensus before reintroducing them. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. My problem is that neither of the content I delete (the big one and the small one) is attributed.
The second issue is that these sources, although reliable, do not backup their claims with solid facts. But rather they make a confident assertion based on extrapolating. These people did not publicly declare their feelings so how is it possible for these sources to know they were afraid? How many of them was afraid? And what from exactly? I don't think such a claim qualify to be included in the article at least without attribution to the RS that made the claim. Plus, we need to make a balance by adding the Russian POV on this subject to satisfy NPOV.
Another issue with section is WP:cherry picking, the sources that only goes with the Western narrative are cited which definitely against the rules. This section does not represent the Eastern world's POV at all.
Official by who? He is not officially designated a war criminal, not yet anyway. The UN comittee investigating war crimes in Ukraine has said it is til early to form a conclusion on this. Torbslifre (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
So does that mean that we must add this 'war criminal' label to US presidents wikipedia pages too? Afterall, according to the 'official' numbers, they are responsible for the death of hundred of thousand of civilians in many countries. And if not for Wikileaks, a lot of crimes would still be unknown to the public today. And what is official? Are we following what NATO decide to label their enemy? Does that make something 'official' or a 'fact'? Does Italy or Argentina have a say in this 'official' labeling? Oh that's right, my bad, Wikipedia isn't about 'facts' or 'neutrality'.96.20.197.194 (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this could cause BLP violations. We'd only put "criminal" in for peeps like El Chapo. If he was in jail, though, this could be a MAYBE. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I don’t see how Putin isn’t a war criminal and a multibillion sponsor of state sponsored terrorism. He uses targeted assassinations against political opponents, chemical weapons attacks , and he works with terrorist groups occupying Eastern Ukraine (designated terrorist groups by Ukraine even before the war). These groups have sent multiple rocket attacks to both civilian and non civilian targets. Whether it’s from poor equipment, incompetence, sending a message, or any combination of those is not known. But, these attacks fall under terrorism. This is why Vladimir Putin has disgraced and shamed the Russian people. He’s a hybrid between Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler. Not quite as extreme as the other but taking a little bit of qualities from both such as having wealth and power to coordinate terrorist attacks with terrier groups on civilian targets , and using an army to steal land and massacre civilians that resist. Delusional , evil , paranoid, wicked, irrational Man. Hernando12375 (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
What you don't see, or I don't see, doesn't matter - what do the RS's state? WAIT ... for the history books to catch up with this current event - many a tome will be written after the war which will give you much of what you wish to see him characterized as, and at that time such scholarly views are valid sources to improve this article. Eat healthy and exercise until then, so that you live to see it. :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
WP:RGW applies here, as well as WP:NPOV. Instead of moral grandstanding and denouncements, this article should focus on Putin's bio & political career, giving the reader the facts and letting them decide for themselves. Xcalibur (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Height
The article says:
Putin is believed to be self-conscious about his height, which has been estimated by Kremlin insiders at between 155 and 165 centimetres (5 feet 1 inch and 5 feet 5 inches) tall but is usually given at 170 centimetres (5 feet 7 inches).
However according to Google, 5ft 7in are equal to 152.4, not 170 centimetres as the article claims by the end of the quote. Is that a mistake? Charrua85 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Military Service
The infobox at the top right lists his service with the KGB, FSB, and Russian Armed Forces. Other than being commander-in-chief, did he serve in the Russian or Soviet military? Axeman (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Polls and rankings
My problem with section is that most of the content cited is not attributed. So I am planning to attribute the controversial content to the RS that makes the claim.
The second issue is that there are two sources, one of which is reliable, claim that the people who participated in the polls are afraid but the sources do not backup their claims with solid facts. But rather they make a confident assertion based on extrapolating. These people did not publicly declare their feelings so how is it possible for these sources to know they were afraid? They did not clarify how many of them was afraid or what from exactly or how they knew they were afraid. I don't think such a claim qualify to be included in the article at least without attribution to the RS that made the claim. Plus, we need to make a balance by adding the Russian POV on this subject to satisfy NPOV, so I am planning to add one.
Another issue with section is WP:cherry picking, the sources that only goes with the Western narrative are cited which definitely against the rules. This section does not represent the Eastern world's POV at all.
You see multiple western government sources cited in the article but absolutely no Kremlin affiliated sources.
We report what reliable sources say. It is true that many Russians support Putin because they believe his propaganda that they hear every day in the Russian state-controlled media, and others as "patriots" mindlessly support any government policy, even if such policy harms their country, but according to some sources, a high percentage of Russians polled don't want to answer questions about the war in Ukraine or Putin, and sources suggest this may be related to the severe penalties for criticizing the war or the Russian president. As I noted, we report what the sources say. For example, spreading "fake news" about the Russian army and the war in Ukraine is punishable by up to 15 years in prison in Russia, and "fake news" is anything that contradicts the official government position. It can therefore be assumed that those who don't want to answer in telephone surveys are more often those who do not agree with the official government position. By "Russian POV" you probably mean the Kremlin POV, and Putin's Kremlin POV is that the majority of Russians support him and his policies, and he tries to achieve this goal by controlling the media and spreading Orwellian propaganda, destroying political opposition, and intimidating anyone with a different opinion with severe punishments. I think this Kremlin POV is sufficiently represented in the "Polls and rankings" section. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
It is true that many Russians support Putin because they believe his propaganda that they hear every day in the Russian state-controlled media, and others as "patriots" mindlessly support any government policy, even if such policy harms their country
I don't think this is the right place to discuss that, do you? I think you're missing the point anyway. No, I think you're proving my point. The sources suggest that most Russians support Putin and that should be mentioned in the article.
a high percentage of Russians polled don't want to answer questions about the war in Ukraine or Putin
so what? how does this mean anything?
and sources suggest this may be related to the severe penalties for criticizing the war or the Russian president
if the aforementioned sources aren't sure of their claim and aren't able to make an assertion without extrapolating and much less back it up, then it should not be mentioned in the article.
By "Russian POV" you probably mean the Kremlin POV, and Putin's Kremlin POV is that the majority of Russians support him and his policies, and he tries to achieve this goal by controlling the media and spreading Orwellian propaganda, destroying political opposition, and intimidating anyone with a different opinion with severe punishments. I think this Kremlin POV is sufficiently represented in the "Polls and rankings" section.
Firstly, I think you should put your own personal opinion and feelings away while editing on Wikipedia. Being emotionally driven won't help.
Secondly, you misunderstand WP:DUEWEIGHT. It's not that by writing one biased section we achieve balance. It's by representing each side evenly in the whole article that we achieve balance.
The sources suggest that most Russians support Putin and that should be mentioned in the article.
The results of the public opinion polls are mentioned in the article and no one is trying to delete them, so I don't understand what you are trying to achieve with your disruptive edits?
Firstly, I think you should put your own personal opinion and feelings away while editing on Wikipedia. Being emotionally driven won't help.
Secondly, you misunderstand WP:DUEWEIGHT. It's not that by writing one biased section we achieve balance. It's by representing each side evenly in the whole article that we achieve balance.
There should be balance throughout the article as well as in individual sections. The article should mention Putin's support according to public opinion polls, but also the reason why many Russians said they support Putin or why they don't want to express their opinions in these polls.
Lastly, what you said did not take us anywhere. It doesn't change the fact that most Russians support their president.
Again. The results of the public opinion polls are mentioned in the article and no one is trying to delete them, so I don't understand what you are trying to achieve with your disruptive edits? As for supporting Putin, it may not last forever because more and more Russians will eventually realize how they have been lied to by his regime and dragged into a senseless war, and many of them are probably realizing this right now during Putin's "partial" mobilization for his imperial war in Ukraine. --Tobby72 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Again, this is not the right place to discuss your opinion on the matter, please pay attention to that so we can focus on the main topic of the discussion.
The article should mention Putin's support according to public opinion polls, but also the reason why many Russians said they support Putin or why they don't want to express their opinions in these polls.
I don't mind mentioning why many support him if the claims are backed by solid proof, not by inferring. The section already said that the MSM in Russia is owned by the government, which is more than enough context. We don't need claims that jump to conclusions nor original research that are aimed to push the reader toward a specific side. You need to know that even RS are biased so we need to take that into consideration. Who are we to take sides? Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Anonymous sourcing (aka the offical declined to be identified, etc.) is part and partial to any free press - we rely on their internal confirmation processes to determine if their source is reliable, which they do by cross-checking, looking at documentation, etc. - we can't delete content due to personal opinions. Also, "Eastern World" covers a whole lot of ground - everything from India to Japan to the former Turkic republics of the USSR - and the opinions will vary widely. About the only 'pro-Putin' backers in that world are North Korea and Red China - and again, you would be up against a press controlled by ruthless dictatorships. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mention anonymous sourcing.
we can't delete content due to personal opinions
Not add it, either.
Also, "Eastern World" covers a whole lot of ground - everything from India to Japan to the former Turkic republics of the USSR - and the opinions will vary widely
So what? Same in the west. Oppinions will always vary. It's a gain game after all.
Oh, boy. I can see you have perhaps not an agenda, but a monomania about this topic if you can't see what I was (very plainly) explaining to you. What you are trying to do in the name of NPOV is ignoring the proper balancing of what an editor should be doing. HammerFilmFan (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
So I was searching Commons and I found these two photos: I think a newer photo could work; there doesn't seem to be too much of a difference between the current one and these two, and a more recent photo, when a lack of major difference between the current and proposed ones, could work better. I'd prefer to obtain community consensus first before a photo change, though; what do y'all think? InvadingInvader (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The current photo was in 2021, but I do agree that a newer photo could work. The second photo had a better angle but with some shadows, while the first one is like the current one but on a different side. I think the first one fits better than the current. MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
The second photo shows him almost smiling. It looks pretty odd to me, because he isn't often seen with a smile on his face, not even a half-smile like that. Keep the current photo, it's fine. MrDemeanour (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
The one right above MrDemeanour is my personal preference. The exposure looks a little high, but it looks more suitable for the article. The most recently proposed photo relative to my reply would also be okay, and I would side with it if consensus develops around its implementation, but if push came to shove, the one above MrDemeanour would be my choice. InvadingInvader (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Option EI propose to put this photo, I have processed it and now it even looks like an official portrait. Finally, the Press Service of the President published a newer photo where Vladimir Putin looks directly into the camera. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the one currently used in the article looks better than all of these new suggestions. It's also only from last year so the fact that people think it's too old and in need of an update is baffling. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
No, we must change the current picture, It makes him look depressed and I honestly don't know where it came from it and when you do a reverse image search you don't find any information.
Donald Trump, Barack Obama and George Bush all have official portraits as their Wikipedia photo (as the should) and here is some random image for Putin.
Wikipedia must be consistent and unbiased so only an official government photo is acceptable. Truthseeker15516 (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that states that 'official portraits' have to be used. And the suggestion that such portraits are inherently 'unbiased' is questionable, to say the least. Ultimately, selection of particular images is often subjective, but we need better arguments for selecting one specific one (apparently dating from 2012) than those presented by Truthseeker15516 above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump what is your point George bush dates back to 2003? And official photos are the appropriate photo because they are represent the officially sanctioned photo of the person in question and cannot be disputed as misrepresentation if the source is the person themselves.
Besides what arguments and sources were used to justify the current image? Truthseeker15516 (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I am under no obligation to repeat myself because you are unable to understand what I have just said. As for why the current image is in use, I've no idea - I suggest you look through the talk page archives to see if there has been any discussion. And then, if you still want the photo changed, come up with a justification based on the relative benefits of actual images, rather than one based on WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I have given my suggestion but I don't know how to embed an image so people will have to click on the link which is in wikipedia also.
Consistency is important and wikipedia is a great resource because it is committed to accurate and unbiased information and hence it should be consistent. Truthseeker15516 (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
To add to this, it took nothing more than a few clicks to confirm that the photo currently used in the article infobox is sourced to www.kremlin.ru - the Russian Presidential Office. [23] I'd have to assume that would count as 'officially sanctioned' were that a consideration (it isn't). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Federal Security Service connections
According to this page Putin "briefly served as director of the Federal Security Service (FSB)". Patrushev is rarely mentioned.
Putin is independent since 1999. [24] All presidents of Russia have been independents during their terms. It should appear this way in the infobox of the article. --HermanHn (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Medeved was not independent, he was Putin's puppet. Putin uses the party (or more than one), so yes, he is independent, the party is dependent. You cannot describe Russia using Western notions.Xx236 (talk) 08:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
How is it "poorly referenced" or "defamatory"? The source is literally an Oxford Publication.
See WP:LIBEL "The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view, with referenced information through the citation of reliable published sources"
See WP:BLP "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source."
Its not NPOV when you degrading neutrally written text with sentences like "heavily criticised ", "that backed up the deteriorating Assad regime", "across Syria that targeted the.... hospitals, gas-stations, schools and civilian infrastructure." Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)11:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
These are not my personal statements. These edits are derived fromthe contents of the source itself.
i) The following citations show that Assad regime was on the verge of collapse in 2015.
"year 2015 marked a qualitative change in Putin’s support for the Syrian dictator. In 2015, the Syrian regime was losing ground, which reportedly alarmed both the Russian and the Iranian leadership. In July that year, Qassem Soleimani, commander of the Iranian elite Quds force, came to Moscow. A senior regional offi cial reportedly said, “Soleimani put the map of Syria on the table. The Russians were very alarmed, and felt matters were in steep decline and that there were real dangers to the [Syrian] regime..." (pg. 69)
"Moscow’s intervention unambiguously saved Assad from an imminent fall and projected great-power status.." (pg. 80)
ii) Targeting hospitals and civilian infrastructure has been a key aspect of the Russian campaign, with large media attention, and hence it is mentioned. These are from the following citations:
" It is with greater precision than in the past that Moscow hit civilian targets, such as hospitals, bakeries, and gas stations where people lined up for gas and this speaks volumes to Moscow’s fundamentally diff erent approach to counterinsurgency to that taken by the West, regardless of technological improvements. After Russia entered the Syrian theater, attacks on health-care facilities only increased, as Moscow helped Assad double-down on eliminating opposition" (pg. 77) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Nobody said that you are misrepresenting sources but you are using the wording which violates WP:NPOV.
That is way too much for the lead. Why should half the paragraph be about something already forgotten at this point? Clearly undue and does not follow WP:LEAD. Mellk (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
"When the Assad regime in Syria was on the verge of collapse in 2015, he ordered a military intervention against the opposition and jihadist groups, by launching an extensive aerial bombing campaign which has been criticised by various international bodies."Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Please change "The level of support for Putin in Russia is over 69 percent" to "As of November 2022, the level of support for Putin in Russia is over 69 percent". Praxeria (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought, maybe that sentence itself should be removed, there is no reliable information on the level of Putin's approval rating in the Russian Federation; we don't see it for other leaders, why should Putin be any different. Praxeria (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
I've reinstated the rev1124087453 version of the lede mainly because of the first paragraph. The article described him as a "statesman", this is indeed a bold edit and should be discussed first. Another editor complained about the approval rating that is mentioned in the first paragraph, so I've removed it. If the editor who implemented these changes on November 28 is opposed to the long-standing version, discuss your version here first before reverting. Vacant0 (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Convicted war criminal
I see that there is nothing in the article that even remotely mentions the fact that he is a convicted war criminal.
I wonder, why?
I think it should be added right at the beginning.
The article does not mention that Putin is a "convicted war criminal" because Vladimir Putin has never been formally charged with, much less convicted of, any war crime. (Whether or not you think he should be is, in this case, irrelevant.) General IzationTalk 21:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
It should not be added to the lead as Putin was never charged with or convicted of any war crimes. Personal views are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Michael60634 (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Why is his intelligence officer career mentioned in the first line
George HW Bush was in the CIA. His intelligence career is not mentioned in the first line. Is it mentioned in Putin's first line in order to paint Putin in a certain light?
Putin's overwhelming significance is as a Politician. Only that needs to be mentioned in the first line. His intelligence career can be mentioned in subsequent lines. NeutralityForAll (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
See [25]. Putin has not appeared in public for quite some time and has only released video statements against a plain background (which Zelenskyy seems to think might have been pre-recorded, edited or deepfaked). Russian leaders are unsurprisingly upset with him for saying that. I’m not sure whether this information belongs here, in Zelenskyy’s article, or somewhere else, though. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Seems to largely be a non-notable conspiracy theory. Uproxx wouldn't be considered a reliable source for information like this given that it's a pop culture / entertainment site. — Czello10:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Note that I added the links again as Mike Novikoff has stopped responding in the ANI discussion. I'm very much open to discussion about what should and should not have links. My position is that there should be at least some consistency with the articles of other world leaders. Michael60634 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
First of all, such formatting as [[Leningrad]], [[Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic|Russian SFSR]], [[Soviet Union]] constitutes MOS:SEAOFBLUE, of which MOS:GEOLINK is a specific case, so we unlink both RSFSR and USSR. Second, a link to St. Petersburg aka Leningrad is a textbook case of MOS:OVERLINKING: it's a major city that everyone is aware of, just like Moscow, Berlin, Paris, London, New York, etc. And finally, RSFSR during the Soviet era was merely a nominal entity, it never had any independent significance, so it's worth mentioning here no more than e.g. Leningrad Oblast.Note also that "consistency with the other articles", when presented as a sole argument, is a well-known invalid one (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). Some of the other articles might need to be corrected too, and when it comes to overlinking, it should be decided on an individual basis, since each place of birth may have a different level of prominence. — Mike Novikoff06:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for finally discussing the changes you made. As mentioned by others in the ANI discussion, the MOS is a guideline, but not a requirement.
With that said, a link to Saint Petersburg is not overlinking. You can find many, many links to Saint Petersburg on Wikipedia. And there are multiple well known Saint Petersburgs in the world. The other is in Florida. Your viewpoint on the significance of the RSFSR in Soviet politics or life has no meaning in relation to what can and cannot be linked on Wikipedia. I would argue that a union republic had much more significance in the USSR than an oblast within said union republic did, but that's my opinion. Soviet Union may not need to be linked, but again, it seems to be common practice to link it.
I don't understand your argument about a place of birth having a "different level of prominence" for each person. It's just a location. Everyone, regardless of who they are, has a location they were born. Michael60634 (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
the MOS is a guideline, but not a requirement – WP:GUIDES: "Guidelines are sets of best practices supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines ..." You can find many, many links to Saint Petersburg on Wikipedia. – And most of them shouldn't be there. That's what WP:OTHERCONTENT is about. The other is in Florida. – MOS:OVERLINKING has already taken care of that: "London, if the context rules out London, Ontario".See also MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose ... present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."a place of birth having a "different level of prominence" for each person – Of course it doesn't depend on a person, just on a place. The purpose of linking is to clarify things, not to emphasize or to draw attention to them. A link is redundant if the subject is already clear enough: St. Petersburg is not Butka. — Mike Novikoff09:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
For Saint Pete's sake, it's an infobox parameter. The infobox is there to give readers information at a glance. That means short. The shortest and clearest way to tell the reader where Putin was born is with the words "Saint Petersburg". One of the most famous cities in the world. Everyone knows what Saint Petersburg is. We don't have to say what it was called at the time. We don't have to say what country it's in. We don't have to say what the country was called at the time, and definitely not what administrative division it was in. That's for the body, not the infobox. And especially not an infobox that's already this long. Levivich (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I'm ready to support you, but... You see, our discussion here means nothing. While we are talking, someone does this. The worst of the possibilities, it even includes WP:INFOBOXFLAG. They are totally ignoring both MoS and our discussion, and there's no one to revert it. So what? I wash my hands. One famous Russian writer had put it as "If I ever had children, I'd hang a portrait of Pontius Pilate in their room, so that they know the hygiene." — Mike Novikoff00:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Flags in infobox
@Synotia Let me first state that I understand your reasoning completely, as it's something which is commonly done. But it isn't correct. As I stated in my edit summary, flags should not be used per WP:INFOBOXFLAG. This is not just a matter of preference, but of official Wikipedia guidelines. It must additionally be noted that no post-1917 Soviet/Russian leader uses flags in their infobox, nor do American presidents (at least not most, such as Nixon, either W. or H. W. Bush, or Reagan). There are several other examples of flags not being used, as it's, again, against MoS. Therefore, I think it is generally better that flags are not used.
Sigh it's not the first time I have to show someone this exact thing: Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.Synotia (moan) 16:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Boud Quite true, perhaps those attempting to place it do not realize that "crimes against humanity" is a specific crime, not a category of crimes. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I'm assuming good faith. This event is a good occasion for people to learn more about the last few decades of progress in constructing international humanitarian law - war crimes vs crimes against humanity vs genocide vs the crime of aggression. For example, maybe someone previously uninvolved in Amhara genocide could have a look and help with the WP:SPLIT recommended by the closer of the recent title debate there - the sourcing for "genocide" is very weak, but fresh editors are needed. Starting the split could help make it easier to focus on two complementary articles. Boud (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:[59]
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health;"
Since Putin is accused of the systematic forced deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia, how does that not fit into being "(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population", and thus a crime against humanity? Heracletus (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Putin has not been charged with "crimes against humanity", which is a specific offense. He has been charged with "unlawful deportation" and "unlawful transfer of population". [26]331dot (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@Heracletus: It could be that the ICC Pre-trial Chamber II doesn't yet see that it has enough evidence for the full chain of showing that the deportations are "part of" the wider pattern of systematic attack, showing that the systematic attack is deliberately against civilians, showing that the attack is wide enough to qualify as "widespread" (as an attack on civilians, not as a military attack) and that Putin was aware of all of that (Putin's lawyers could argue that it was generals or commanders lower down the chain who decided on attacking civilians, and that civilian deaths are unavoidable collateral damage). There are quite likely precedents on how to interpret what is needed as evidence for all of these things to be proven together. There are highly experienced lawyers (judges) preparing these cases. They might personally wish to file stronger charges, but they're only going to file charges that they think have a fair chance of leading to a conviction based on strong evidence and surviving responses by defence lawyers. In any case, in the Wikipedia article, we can only use what the ICC (WP:RS) states the charges are - which are for "only" a war crime (which would lead to a prison sentence). Boud (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
As of March 2023 Associated Press and Reuters are reporting that Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko allegedly agreed to be in talks with Putin over this in response to Ukraine. Note this allegation is under investigation and subject to ICC investigations.67.180.47.171 (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
The plan is old and has little to do with Ukraine. Putin’s new announcement is nuclear sabre-rattling aimed at Ukraine’s supporters. See yesterday’s ISW assessment.[27] —MichaelZ.00:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Convicted war criminal
I once made a suggestion to include a mention of this guy being a convicted war criminal. It was rejected
He's been charged with a war crime by the ICC, but there has been no trial nor conviction. As WP:BLPCRIME notes, [a] living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. The article should certianly mention the charges, but we cannot pretend that he has already been convicted of them—nor assert his guilt for them—until proven in a competent court. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)17:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
He is an accused war criminal; he has been indicted and an arrest warrant has been issued for him by the International Criminal Court. He is currently a fugitive from the ICC whose arrest is sought by a large number of countries (all the countries that are obligated to act on an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court). This is widely described as the most significant indictment in the history of international criminal law since the Nuremberg trials. It clearly warrants a prominent mention. It is far more important than his previous career as an intelligence officer, for example. --Tataral (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Just noting that Putin is supposed to be in South Africa for a summit in August which technically means they would need to arrest him, although South Africa refused to arrest Omar al-Bashir when he visited while under indictment and they even tried to withdraw from the court(but it was held to be unconstitutional in South Africa). 331dot (talk) 09:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
While I personally tend to agree with "the most significant indictment in the history of international criminal law since the Nuremberg trials", my agreement here is irrelevant. If you have sources, then the next question is in which article this would be relevant. For the article on Putin, it would seem rather distracting, since it's obvious that he's a highly notable person anyway, and this article is about Putin, not about international criminal law. An obvious article/section would be International criminal law#History, which is currently completely sourceless! Best would be an opinion by a notable expert on international criminal law... Boud (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Adding @Tataral: since I forgot to ping. Boud (talk) 13:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
"in connection to his alleged criminal responsibility for illegal child abductions during the war" is undue for lead. It appears to be lending credibility to the allegation by putting them on lead. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk)04:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I would respectfully disagree with what I perceive to be both sides in this discussion. I don't agree that we need to wait for the legal process of conviction to describe anyone as a war criminal, provided that's what RS say. That said, in this case I don't think we have yet met, or even approached, the threshold of invoking that term based on my reading of RS. Of course, the time may come when that changes, even in absence of a legal process. Chetsford (talk) 07:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree that if many RS called him a "war criminal" that would quite possibly merit describing Putin that way here, but I wonder if they will do this without a conviction by a court. I do wonder(see above) if he should be described as a "fugitive". 331dot (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
All these. stories! Relatively.
72 000000000 euros. From the Russian Federation. In favor of ... 1 person .
(Case “YUKOS”)
By Judgment. International Court of Justice. Arrest warrant issued for Secretary of Defense Shoygur. (Justice of the insurgent satellite state. ) Now . Order for the arrest of the President. In the Russian Federation, -ninternal conflicts. Insider intrigues. Diplomats from Russia in Brussels. Was aware of the upcoming/possible issuance of an arrest warrant against President Putin. For several months. In advance . On the other hand . Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Surrounded by. Like water behind the "iron wall".
Without the help/support of users of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. All this "inter - bluff". It could end.
For example: mass suppression of insiders. Or . Atomic bomb for Ukraine. Avter a while .
Real. Interest. In execution. assignments. for arrest. imperceptibly. Possibly . Insider. just press / suppress mobbyng / unterwerfen . President Putin . By the way: all known bank accounts of the Putin family arrested. However . Fund of Financial Support of Users Wikipedia. Can be created. From budget funds. Chetsford Zweite (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2023
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the "Education" portion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin where it says:
Putin met Anatoly Sobchak, an assistant professor who taught business law,[g] and who later became the co-author of the Russian constitution and of corruption schemes in France. Putin would be influential in Sobchak's career in Saint Petersburg, and Sobchak would be influential in Putin's career in Moscow.[39]
I am not sure how that changes the underlying meaning in any meaningful way - 'scandals' would also need a reliable source describing them as such. Also, is there a particular reason that you have capitalized 'Corruption Scandals'? Tollens (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2023
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The ICC warrant technically makes Putin a fugitive from international justice [28]. Perhaps it shouldn't be phrased that way, but I think the warrant merits inclusion in the lead somewhere. 331dot (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The article should include accusations of paedophilia made against Putin. To my knowledge, this has not been seriously investigated in Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.197.51 (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Because this is historically groundbreaking, even if (as expected) he never sees the inside of an ICC courtroom. His international travel will be limited since he can't go to countries that are members of the Court. It's going to be a significant part of him. 331dot (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The main table in List of people indicted in the International Criminal Court describes several people for whom ICC arrest warrants have been issued as "fugitives". I seem to remember official ICC documents describing at least one or two of them using the word "fugitive". In this case, there's a question of whether the word immediately follows by definition, or whether it's a question of interpretation for which we need to wait for an ICC statement - under the likely scenario in which Russian authorities do not detain and transfer Putin to the Hague any time soon. Boud (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Noted. Notwithstanding the article's secondary definition which involves simply being "a wanted man" or being in another country where the wanted cannot be apprehended, "fugitive" has strong primary notes/connotations of being "on the run", which isn't really the case with him. There doesn't seem to be anything to be done about the two categories (they invoke "fugitives" and "wanted" both), but I think the lead is good at present (describe him as being wanted/subject to arrest warrant toward bottom, without actually using the more-or-less synonymous "fugitive". MinnesotanUser (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I'd tend to agree with MinnesotanUser. We should absolutely include the warrant in the article, but using the term "fugitive" in the lead - even if used by RS and perhaps technically accurate – seems like it would WP:ASTONISH and confuse the unacquainted reader, who may be more familiar with "fugitives" hiding in caves and racing down back alleys to avoid the police, versus a head of state pretty much conducting business as usual; receiving guests, hosting state dinners, traveling to international meetings, making public speeches, etc. Given the choice between RS that accurately use the term "fugitive" and RS that, equally accurately, more precisely describe him as the subject of an ICC indictment, I think the latter is preferred. (Whether an ICC warrant is really that important of a document to necessitate it being in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the lead is maybe another question for discussion.) Chetsford (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 April 2023
This edit request to Vladimir Putin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Found a type under the “Public Image” section regarding COVID. The word “oin” should be corrected to “in”
ORIGINAL: “ Polls conducted in November 2021 oin the wake of the…”
12:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Question: CamerasAndCoffee I'm not seeing either of those links in the references. The only mention of net worth I can find by searching comes up as reference #708 in my browser (What is Russian President Vladimir Putin's net worth?) which points to https://www.foxbusiness.com/features/what-is-russian-president-vladimir-putins-net-worth. It's cited in Vladimir Putin § Personal wealth. Are we looking at the same article? --N8wilson 22:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Already done Hi IP, does the first paragraph in the section 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and invasion not work? Justiyaya 13:13, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Cannolis (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
_02_(cropped).jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpg)
_headshot.jpg)
_2.png)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Czello (music) 09:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
