Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 2

Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 2

best president

I would like to say that he is the best presidente ever of russia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.253.187 (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, assassinating 22 journalists makes hime da best presidente ever of russia...--124.185.189.204 21:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Russia is not a resort. It never were and it never wouldn't be. But this makes life more interesting. Adds spice. ellol 20:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those suffering persecutions in Russia and civilians of Czeczenia it could be very interesting.. --Gabriels m (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

     Is that why 99% of Chechens voted for his party, Gabriel?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.41.36 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You must be pretty stupid to believe those numbers. Remember when Saddam received 100% in every election? Why do you think Maskhadov was elected? - PietervHuis (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also very interesting for those 20% of the population who survive on the beggarly wage and for who Putin is the only hope. ellol (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors here, such as Ellol, are not interested in a neutral article but want to glorify Putin in this article. Certainly that is against Wikipedia policy, but he and others get away with it anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.148.133 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you for examples when I had violated factual correctness while editing the article, let's discuss'em (and me) then. And if I hadn't, perhaps you should also think if all is okey with the image you keep in your brains. ellol (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum or general discussion on the subject of the article. You can go to a blogsite so as to voice your opinions on this person. If you can't improve this article in any other way, then go out of this discussion. I can delete this section. -Pika ten10 04:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I can delete the section." My comment: Just like in Russia, if you don't like an expression of opinion with which you disagree, then just suppress it.

If it is for the betterment of an article, its fine. But judging from this, it won't mean much.

MrBosnia 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV problem

"In April 1999, FSB Chief Vladimir Putin and Interior Minister Sergei Stepashin held a televised press conference in which they discussed a video that had aired nationwide March 17 on the state-controlled Russia TV channel which showed a naked man very similar to the Prosecutor General of Russia, Yury Skuratov, in bed with two young women."

Now, this whole "man very similar" needs to be cited and confirmed somehow. Right now the article is pretty much saying that Putin rigged the whole thing up as a smear campaign to help out Yeltsin. Which it may or may not have been, I dont know, I've never heard of this. But either way such a bold statement needs some serious citations to back it up.

24.137.76.86 02:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could even be viewed as original research, because in an encyclopedia you should not juxtapose two facts or one fact and one opionion (even if sourced) so as to make any reader conclude to something that is not sourced. --Pan Gerwazy 09:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put references to David Satter's interview there he gid this synthesis for us. Speaking of Skuratov-Putin connections, should we put into the article allegations by late Alexander Litvinenko that Putin himself was filmed with underaged boys in exactly the same bed as Skuratov?

Among other things, Putin found videotapes in the FSB Internal Security Directorate, which showed him making sex with some underage boys. Interestingly, the video was recorded in the same conspiratorial flat in Polyanka Street in Moscow where Russian Prosecutor-General Yuri Skuratov was secretly video-taped with two prostitutes. Later, in the famous scandal, Putin (on Roman Abramovich's instructions) blackmailed Skuratov with these tapes and tried to persuade the Prosecutor-General to resign. In that conversation, Putin mentioned to Skuratov that he himself was also secretly video-taped making sex at the same bed. (But of course, he did not tell it was pedophilia rather than normal sex.) Later, Skuratov wrote about this in his book Variant Drakona (p.p. 153-154). [1] or [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bakharev (talk • contribs) 11:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is his Job; as, "President of the Russian Federation"

Simple; to strive for a better future for his people; & in employing all the best talents; ensuring, as best as he can; social stability. Which is; exactly the same remit; as the "President" of the "USA". So in answering all the questions from the finger-pointers; "I" say this; "You Europeans; are making, a bad set of world social events, that have happened over the past 7 years; work against, "USA"-"RUSSIAN"; "RELATIONSHIP-STABILITY"; & you are doing this {People/Masses; & European Union}, by winding the situation up, at every chance you get. Poking fun at both leaders; in a rocking dynamic; one, then the other, to deliberately create the dynamic, where both feel that it is the other that is trying to; "Cut off their Manhood"; in political terms. When in actual fact; "EU"; is doing all the calling; & finger pointing; acting as the "Grim Reapers Proxy"; on planet Earth. Warning to both leaders should be; in political terms; you are both, people who have the rare ability to sit in the chair; as for Europe; if you both carry on listening; we are all going to die; & only the Presidents of "USA"; & "RUSSIA"; can stop it. & as for the "Fucked-up"; Euro-Clowns; they are all stoned; & are seeing little green men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.85.72 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would such phrase be useful in the article?

While many foreigners associate Putin with fears for establishing tyranny in Russia, many Russians associate Putin with hopes for modernization of the country. ellol 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, but citation needed. Moreover, in English WP "foreigners" don't really feel they are foreigners, "Westerners" might be more correct term, also because these fears are not shared by the rest of the world. In fact, "Western media" would be even more correct in place of foreigners, since this is a media opinion they attempt to substitute for public opinion, and this is actively pushed on people in Western mediacratic societies of today. Cfeet77 22:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kissing the Little Boy on the Stomach" Incident

While it's clearly not of geopolitical significance, there is some very odd (no, really, very odd) footage of Putin meeting a little boy, handling him in a slightly strange way, lifting his top up, and kissing his stomach. I don't think many people are aware of this and think it should be mentioned somewhere inasmuch as Putin seems to be a very unusual creature indeed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.121.252 (talk) 17:02, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Is already covered in the Anecdotes section. 61.68.144.174 07:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This anecdote was removed at some point since this last posting. Can someone readd it, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.75.155 (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the point to be honest. 77.250.171.134 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russia to educate itself to the World

Unfortunately in the last hundred years or so the world has forgotten to educate the many countries about Russia, it's goals of change to better freedom and unity in world aspects. Living in Australia my entire life, and we a far from everyone being gurt by sea, only beneficial media gets to us and those who can afford travel, and fewer with the privilege of traditional humanised education such as meeting in any public place.

Perhaps here Russians can tell us what they like about Australia, or other countries, and people interested like myself can read, ask and learn more about Russia and Russia's changes from the former USSR to coping with surrounding indepndent countries as well as having to become more accountably democratic.

The modern Russia is young and the last several years has seen it become more respected.

Everyone I imagine is welcome in Australia.

Have a NIce Day, Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael from Australia (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did he work in 5th Department?

This source claims that Putin initially worked in infamous 5th KGB Department that was responsible for prosecution of dissidents, etc. [3]. Is that correct?Biophys 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only want to note that this resource is one of websites of Chechen separatists. One should be careful when working with such documents. Biophys is very right that he seeks to cross-check such information. ellol 08:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thete is a book (by Andrew Jack, ""Inside Putin's Russia..." that tells the same - page 58). Also, Yuri Shvets, who studied together with Putin in the Academy of Foreign Intelligence, said: "...Vova was a leader - a snitch. Everybody hated the leader" (page 58).Biophys 20:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did Putin send "Bear" stealth bombers over Norwegian and UK airspace recently?

Just read something in the news about RAF stealth fighters driving the Russian bombers out of UK airspace...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Times Online link.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't out of UK airspace. They were escorted by RAF fighters on approach to UK airspace. They remained in international waters. In regards to your statement, yes Russia has resumed strategic nuclear bomber patrols on a permanent basis not that long ago. 59.101.144.154 15:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you guys are taking too much of "G, Galloways"; patented cough mixture; you know the one; "Mandrake, mixed in an alcoholic opium base"; "Euro-Fighter Typhoon", is not Stealthy; & nor are the "Bear Bombers". You Europeans wacked out on "Atropine"; are taking the world; closer to the end, than; "The Cuban Missile Crisis". Stop winding up the USA-Russia; divide; ordinarily, they have spitz & spatz; you lunatics seeing little green men; want so much more; like cowabunga dude & a mushroom cloud to go on your pizza; more. See a fucking doctor for your addictions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.85.72 (talk) 21:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article

Couldn't that article get GA status? Zouavman Le Zouave 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there are a lot of references the quality and reverence of content is dubious, hence this is not a GA. 59.101.144.154 15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germanophile

Are Putin a Germanophile? As a traditional Russian Westernizer, it should not be forgotten that Putin is a confirmed Germanophile. He spent years working for the KGB in East Germany, speaks fluent German, and famously prefers beer to vodka. 189.12.88.22 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This info has been deleted from the article (correctly in my view) as not sourced. I did recently read somewhere that actually, German was Putin's weakest subject at school, and because of his "rectitude" he actually put a lot of effort into it so that he could speak it fluently. As for preferring beer over vodka - nothing particularly Germanophile there: avoiding vodka is part of his image (he may even score with that among young Russians who now prefer wine over vodka). I think I will look for the German at school source and put it in at the start of the article. I also remember reading that he lived so close to school that he went there without a coat even during winter. May be more difficult to trace back, however. --Paul Pieniezny 10:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political Party?

I had the question "what is Putin's political party and political views" in my mind. I think the article could be a bit clearer about this, without having to read everything through or read between the lines.

After searching for "party" I found this:

"While not formally associated with any party, Putin pledged his support to the newly formed Unity Party"

Does this mean that he is NOT a member of a political party? This is quite strange because whenever I hear about someone being elected in another country (or my own), he or she is a member of some political party.

If he is indeed not a member of any party, how do the voters know what he stands for? Did the voters elect him as a single person? Please forgive my ignorance here: if he was voted for as a single person, what are then his political colleagues, are they elected or appointed, and are they from several different parties? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.201.67 (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. No, he is not a member of any existing party. He used to be a member of the CPSU, but it was dissolved in 1991 (I believe this information was in the article the last time I read it). Both in 2000 and in 2004 he was elected as a single person, and the voters used to have very different guesses as to what he stands for (as if this mattered in Russia). Yes, he officially pledged support to the Unity Party of Russia in 1999 and (apparently not that officially, I am not sure) to United Russia, pretty much artificial bureaucratic parties without a coherent ideology. Parties are traditionally underdeveloped in Russia and are usually organized by the authorities. I tried to figure out whether Putin is classified as left or right some time ago, but failed to find enough sources. It is extremely difficult to tell what has been done by him personally rather than by somebody else in the Russian leadership. As to his inner circle, well, he has brought to power many of his former colleagues. Parties really don't matter that much in Russia. Colchicum 12:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Putin IS the party of russia--124.185.189.204 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Total BS

The "anecdote" about Putin being a gay icon is total bullshit. For one its sources arent even credible, just some joke websites. Someone clearly made this to try to embarrase putin. Why would Putin be a icon for gays if he let the gays at the gay pride parade get arrested and beat up? Thats because its fake, some asshole who doesnt know anything about russia put it up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.88.237 (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition

Obviously there's a sort of misunderstanding among some Western contributors. Opposition group the Other Russia, which unites far left-wing and right-wing parties + a couple of important figures doesn't represent the whole Russian opposition. Other Russia is mostly known for Dissenters Marches and Harry Kasparov, but it's a mistake to equalize it with the opposition.

Speaking about opposition I would at first say about 1) Communists. The Communist Party of Russian Federation holds 10% of seats in Parliament. 2) Democrats. These forces are represented by parties Yabloko, Union of Right Forces, Civilian Power. None of these are represented in Parliament by now. 3) Russian nationalists. These forces luckily aren't in Parliament. That's the Movement Against Illegal Immigration and coalition the Great Russia.

Other Russia is the best PR'ed in the West, and paradoxially that kills it inside Russia. For good or for bad, but no party/ political figure publicly approved at the West has no political future in Russia. ellol 08:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ellol, eventually, the Russian people will see the wisdom of having free elections and a democratic country. Apparently, from your posts here, you approve of leadership similar to that of Stalin, that is able to stamp out all opposition. Why is the Western democratic tradition so much disliked by you and some other Russians? Do you think that dictatorships is the way to go? As John Kennedy said "Freedom has many difficulties and Democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to build a wall to keep our people in, to keep them from leaving us." Now I don't mean to imply that Putin is a communist or that communism will regain control of Russia. But I think it is abundantly clear that Putin is leaning towards the techniques that kept those communists in power for so many years. Building a wall was one of many elements of state control that Putin seems inclined to repeat. Not that he will build a wall but he does seem inclined to suppress any opposition by means that would be illegal in the west. You seem more than willing to help his regime in that regard.

Marktwain403 16:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marktwain, please, it's not a good idea to ruin the job of tens of editors by reverting once and once to your favourite version. It is edit war and leads to many errors. Garret Beaumain 12:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marktwain, please, keep calm. There's no point to discuss my views or situation in general. 1) Situation in general is too much to grasp; any such estimate (Russia is democracy/ Russia is authoritorian state) is inevitably politized. 2) My views are absolutely irrelevant here. Moreover, speaking about my views I'm sure they are way similar to those of you or some other Western guys. The difference goes a) from different historical background b) I live in Russia, you live outside. That creates difference in views. Indeed, e.g. for many Americans the United States is democracy/style of life the first place, but for many people outside the U.S. it's its agressive foreign policy the first place. Just observation.

I suggest to discuss narrow topic, which we can grasp. Call it political parties in Russia, their influence and opportunities to take part in elections. OK?

I've told you. There's pro-Putin centrist-right political party "United Russia" with majority of seats. There's socialistic pro-Putin political party "Fair Russia", leaded by Sergey Mironov, the future of the party being dubious. There's anti-Kremlin the Communist Party of Russian Federation with 10% of seats in the Parliament, which, it seems, will retain its influence, i.e. will be elected in the Parliament. Yes, Communists are anti-Kremlin, they believe the country is ruled by anti-people forces which sell the country to thugs.

There are three democratical parties. They are real parties, if you know Russian you can read their political programmes: SPS, Civilian Power.

There are Russian nationalists who were banned from the elections. I underscore that, Russian nationalists, nationalists of the Russian ethnic group. E.g., they don't consider Russians 16 million Ukraineans, 4 million of Tatars, 2 million of Bashkirs, 1 million of Chechens and other 150 nations who are also citizens of Russia with equal rights with the major ethnic group.

There is the Other Russia. Well, this organization is a salad of Communists, more rampant than the Communist Party and far liberals, as well as some other minor parties. Please, let me know where I can read political program of the Other Russia. I dunno. The Other Russia was recently refused from taking part in 2008 elections [4], because it's not a single party, while under new 2005 legislature only single parties, not blocks of parties, may take part in elections. Read about new legislature in the following passage. Anyway -- what prevented all those about 10 parties which constitute the Other Russia to merge into a single party and take part in elections, or if they would be banned under some pretext, to open a trial and struggle for their rights: Bloody Putin's regime? Or they themselves?

Okey, now, what do you mean -- return free elections? Usually when opposition leaders speak about "not free" elections they mean 2005 legislature ammendments. I.e. 1) Previously half of the Duma was composed from individual candidates, which were elected within each of 81 regions of Russia. The other half was composed from parties, which struggled on the federal level. Under new 2005 legislation[5], all 450 Duma deputies are elected by parties lists. 2) the barrier which the party has to overcome in order to pass into the Parliament has arisen from 5% to 7% of votes. 3)Blocks of parties were prohibited. 4) There are also less known changes like the minimal amount of parties to be represented in Duma has dropped from 4 to 2, but if 2 major parties gather less than 60% of votes, other parties are also allowed.

Usually representatives of SPS claim that rise of the Duma barrier from 5% to 7% votes sufficiently implicates their chances to pass into Duma. It is. But hey, don't you think that it's bloody Putin's regime which doesn't allow Russian democratic parties to realize their responsibility before the nation and unite into a single Democratic Party, which would certainly pass into Duma, because we have far more than 7% of people with democratical views. Or that's parties being unable to get to common views, compose a common political programm, find a common political leader? The state doesn't have to create comfortable conditions for every individual party, but to set rules of the game. New legislature amendments have a clear sense of increasing the role of parties, responsibility of parties in the political life; it's a step towards the American model, where there are only 2 parties, but they are powerful ones.

Of course, the state also doesn't have to create more comfortable conditions for the political party "United Russia". But it does. Anyway, programms of democratic/communist parties were announced on the Russian federal TV. Is there a preference towards the United Russia? Surely it is. But other parties aren't banned from the process of elections, as you might think.

An old Chinese proverb says that if a hungry person asks you for food, don't give them fish give them a fishing rod. When Western organizations provide aid for democratical parties in Russia, they give them fish, not any kind of fishing rod.

Now, please, tell me where I'm wrong! ellol 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

centrist-right political party "United Russia"? LOL. See Left-Right politics. Colchicum 16:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for info. ellol 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+ some more info on political parties in Russia (link in English): [6] ellol 20:26, 17 October 2007

Putin and Georgia

Why is the article so silent about Putin's aggressive policy towards Georgia? Russia's embargo and economic sanctions have been in force since late 2006. Georgians in Russia suffer from the government-inspired discrimination. Please refer to the latest Human Rights Watch report for more details. Thanks. Shota-G., Oct. 06, 2007.

There are more reasons to blame georgian president in ruined relations, than the russian one. Don't expect Wikipedia to represent the events from your point of view. Everything is perfectly covered, by the way, in Georgia-Russia relations.Garret Beaumain 15:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? The relations had been ruined long before Saakashvili came to power. It is not his fault that his Russian counterpart dreams reasserting Moscow's hegemony over the post-Soviet countries and that ethnic prejudices and xenophobia are rampant in Russia. Shota-G., Oct. 07, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.43.69 (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would just drop a word here. Yes, relationships between two countries has deteriorated in the last few years due to some idiots in power. Moreover, in the last say 10 years there was some rise of xenophobia in Russia, which although was at least partially induces by certain circumstances. But don't forget that Georgians are traditionally treated well in Russia. People of Russia don't have an eye against people of Georgia, politicians do. ellol 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Ellol. Cheers, Shota-G., Oct. 08, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.43.69 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

russia 's policies in its interactions with dictator governments

Unfortunately countries like russia and china are big obstacles in front of people who do not have a democratic countries and wish to have a democratic country. for instance in iran people are trying to change their totalitarian state and countries like united states are helping them but russia and china are big barriers since they keep to have political and economical interactions with iran. on the other hand iran is producing nuclear weapons that threatens all of the world but russia and china do not care.they are really disappointing us as iranians.----awyer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.34.25 (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visit to New Zealand as part of Mikhail Lermontov (ship) enquiry

A recent claim was made that he was in New Zealand in 1988: A man bearing a striking resemblance to [Mr Putin] was in New Zealand in 1986 for the inquiry into the sinking of the Russian cruise ship Mikhail Lermontov in the Marlborough Sounds. . Any chance this could be true or is documented anywhere? - SimonLyall 10:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Arkansaschemist and other Putin-bashers

Please, don't forget where you are: it is Wikipedia, not the tribune for expression your hate on Putin and your worry about democracy in Russia. This is biographical article that should be kept neutral, independent from editors' points of view, based only on external accounts from the respected sources.

About the latest edits:

Newspapers, radio stations and internet editions... are often careful not to be critical of Putin.

Did you ask them? This edit is unsourced OR. And you seem never listened to Echo Moskvi, watched Ren-TV or browsed runet.

But this must be seen in the context of the immense power of the state over newspapers and television.

Another personal opinion expression: "it must be seen" is classical for Weasel words. WIkipedia does not point people how they should "see".

This sort of pressure would be illegal in most democratic nations in the world. Many in the West worry that Putin is gradually gathering dictatorial powers solely in his hands.

OR (can you provide a source what is legal for "democratic nations"?) and POV with weasel words (Many in the South worry that Putin eats little children on his breakfast). According to WP:CITE, if there's a controversy, we should write: "John Doe and Jack Smith, famous politicians, wrote in their books that they worry about Putin may become a dictator(link, link). Alex Ivanov, another famous politician, in reply, wrote in his book that he has different point of view (link)".

All this edits should be removed according to Wikipedia policies. Stating that article "glorifies" VVP is a reason for good laugh - there are more criticism than in articles on any G8 leader. Just try to write something like this in Angela Merkel or Gordon Brown.

PS. surely, all such articles as on current rulers should be forever protected from anonymous and newly registered users' edits. Garret Beaumain 00:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the name mentioned in the title of this chapter: [7]. All three banned now. --Paul Pieniezny 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putin is building up a police state/dictatorship. No source... I have my own in Russia. But you can derive this much by simply paying attention to the news. -- 212.202.176.23 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be your source from Russia: there's allright enough. ))Garret Beaumain (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putin's Biography

I have tried editing this before -I do not think it is fair to label this book a biography- but it always get's reversed. It is a compilation of hours and hours of interviews, and thus is just a selected source of questions, and answers (mostly from Putin, but not entirely). Though it does seem to follow a rough chronological order, and organization of a biography, it is unlike any biography I have ever read- it is much more about getting a feel for the man (as much as you can from a book) and less about the facts of his life.

Second issue, which may be a non-issue, don't know... The page currently states that the translation is "From the First Person." I don't speak/write Russian so I don't know. But what I can tell you is that the book is sitting right in front of me and the title is very clearly "First Person: An Astonishingly Frank Self-Portrait by Russia's President Vladimir Putin". I don't know if the complete title is necessary for this page, but it seems at least some reference should be made to the fact you are not going to find this book in english as "From the First Person".

--67.185.216.23 08:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made an excellent point. I think edits are necessary and properly referenced they would not be reversed. Kulikovsky 20:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Mark Twain is using IPs to circumvent his ban, and this guy needs to take an account and wait a few days. Then he will be able to do what he want (and as you say).--Paul Pieniezny 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"From the first person" was just a way to render the idiomatic expression used in the Russian title. Now that we know the translated version, that should be the correct one.--Paul Pieniezny 17:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"От Первого Лица" should be better translated as "At First Sight". In current translation it doesn't make clear for me what does the title mean at all. What is "the first person"? Putin? does it then mean "from the Putin"? --Gabriels m 17:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed it has been fixed to no longer say "autobiography," now the question about the title is still up in the air. If someone has some definitive proof of a direct russian translation perhaps the best edit would read something like "Translated, "From the First Person" the book can be found in English under the title, "First Person,"". I just checked Babelfish, which tends to be pretty accurate, and it confirmed the Russian title "От Первого Лица" would translate "From the First Person," I would still propose my idea above, but I tend to leave the editing to the experienced editors for format and common practice issues of Wikipedia that I am unfamiliar with.

Gabriels: The reference to first person is probably a direct reference to the common phrase/idea of first person. First off, first person, essentially means it comes directly from the person- for example a newspaper article written in first person would commonly use words like "I" or "we", adding an informal but personal approach. Or in videogames for example first-person shooters give you the direct view of the character you are playing, you are supposed to be seeing everything as they would. In other words, the title of First Person, or even From the First Person, is implying sort of an auhoritative but informal autobiography/biography of the president.--67.185.228.150 (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and make the edits soon in a professional manner, check back to see if I did and they follow Wiki protocols. Also, I noticed the claim that the book was paid for by his election campaign- it is not cited. I'm not sure in this case if it should be removed until it can be cited or not, I'll leave it be for now though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.47.209 (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Billionaire?

How come this article does not mention that he is a billionaire? It was reported that Putin owns thirty seven percent share of Surgutneftegaz.

I do not think any of those sources are reliable. I am pretty sure he is not in Forbes list. Kulikovsky (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do. Please see WP:Source. There are numerous reliable sources besides the Forbes list. He [Belkovsky] then asserted: “Putin is also a big businessman. He controls 37% of the shares of ‘Surgutneftegaz’ [Russia’s fourth-largest oil producer], with the market value [of Putin’s putative stake] coming to $20 billion. Moreover, he controls 4.5% of the shares of ‘Gazprom’ [Russia’s natural gas monopoly]. A couple more references: [8], [9], [10]. There are also possible links here with deaths of Roman Tsepov [11] and Andrey Kozlov. Biophys (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All sources you refer to seem to be questionable. That is probably not what you want to hear, but this is my opinion. Kulikovsky (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please clarify why they are not reliable per WP:Source?Biophys (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not 100% sure, but I see some problems with some of the sources. Kremlin, Inc appears to be a blog. Blogs and other self-published sources are typically considered unreliable as they lack editorial oversight or wide-spread peer-review. [12], [13] were both written and originally published by The Jamestown Foundation. I am not so sure if a think-tank with a very clear agenda is that reliable. This is not so straight forward, however, as the articles are signed (by whom exactly?) and one could argue that there is peer review available. The RFERL link does seem like a reliable source, except it only asserts that Putin has done business with Timchenko, et al., which is hardly saying that he is a billionaire. The WPS site also appears fairly reliable, however, it too does not state that Putin is a billionaire; it just talks about Timchenko's business interests, and a close relationship between him and Putin. Unfortunately, I cannot really comment on the Russian pages, as I don't read Russian at all. But these pages have their own slight issues per WP:RSUE -Seidenstud (talk) 07:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Jamestown article tells: Belkovsky made his case once again on November 16, when he appeared as the main guest on Yevgeny Kiselyov’s “Vlast” program, which is simulcast on RTVi television and Ekho Moskvy radio. So, that is basically retelling story published in other reliable source. Moreover, this story was also published in Die Welt (first source I cited was Russian translation from German). So, this perfectly satisfy WP:RSUE.Biophys (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is not three sources. That is three media outlets rebroadcasting one - Belkovsky. I did not see any media endorsing his views. I doubt Belkovsky has direct knowledge of the matter, yet he does not tell his sources. Also, he is bashing Putin left and right and seems to be politically opposing Putin. Belkovsky cooperates with Putin's known political opponents. He is likely to be biased. That's my assessment of credibility of his statement. Now, his statement contradicts directly Putin's own declaration. Reuters reports: <...>Putin's declaration <...> lists his father's two Russian cars dating from the early 1960s amongst his assets, along with 3.7 million roubles ($149,400), a small apartment, a plot of land and 230 shares in a local bank. "What is published by the electoral commission is true," said Putin's spokesman on Monday.[14] -- Kulikovsky (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, this contradicts Putin's statement. Naturally, Putin would deny this allegation. I am not a big fan of including any unreliable statements in BLPs. Hence this discussion. I think this needs to be studied more carefully.Biophys (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So let's just leave it out either way. A debate over his assets (where there doesn't seem to be enough reliable sources on either side seems quite contrary to WP:BLP. Mimimal peer-review + NPOV (!= reliable source) = keep it out of BLP. -Seidenstud (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good summary of this story:

In February 2004, presidential candidate Ivan Rybkin named three men as Putin's bagmen, including Gennady Timchenko, the co-founder of the Gunvor oil-trading company. After Rybkin made this statement, he vanished from the political stage. In September, the Polish magazine Wprost wrote that Timchenko, a former KGB officer and member of Putin's dacha cooperative in St. Petersburg, has a net worth of $20 billion. Officially, Timchenko sells the oil of four Russian oil companies, but how are the prices determined to generate such profits?

In a sensational interview in Germany's Die Welt on Nov. 12, Stanislav Belkovsky, the well-connected insider who initiated the Kremlin campaign against Yukos in 2003, made specific claims about Putin's wealth. He alleged that Putin owned 37 percent of Surgutneftegaz (worth $18 billion), 4.5 percent of Gazprom ($13 billion) and half of Timchenko's company, Gunvor (possibly $10 billion). If this information is true, Putin's total personal fortune would amount to no less than $41 billion, placing him among the 10 richest in the world. [15].Biophys 04:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kulikovsky's logic is laughable. The ilk of his consider state-run propaganda outlets such as ITAR-TASS apparently credible, but do not allow a well-known political scientist's view (never contested, much less disproved by the Kremlin) to be mentioned here as a mere "allegation". That Putin had been deeply involved in all sorts of shady business transactions from the early 1990-s has been discussed in the German and Russian press since the end of the 1990-s. The fact that this article totally overlooks this debate is its major drawback and makes it look like a Kremlin-sponsored campaign ad.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ironic in a way that the Russian Wiki has a humungous article totally dedicated to "Criticism of Putin" [16] with the first subsection headlined "Accusations of corruption before his presidency". It appears that the Kremlin is more concerned with manipulating the Western opinion thru its stooges than the Russians' who can always be topped if need be.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what exactly "stooges" means, but I think that of those 80% of Russians who support Putin, some may also be Wikipedia editors, be well-educated and speak fluent English. And not work for KGB, but simply be patriots of their home country as private individuals. Without receiving a pay for what they say or even a credit for things they do. Personally I feel no need to contribute to the Russian WP article about Putin, because Russians have free access to various information sources, so they have a chance to compare different opinions and make an educated judgment by themselves without any sort of hand-holding. But it seems that English-speaking audience is so much ill-informed on everything related to Putin (you basically get all your information from BBC and CNN, that is, from Murdoch), that some of us may feel obliged to provide factual information to make at least a slightest possible correction of misinformation existing in the Western world. Cfeet77 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Look, this has been discussed before and mostly editors suggested to include this information not, because there is no credible source. Kulikovsky (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mixing up the terms: we are referring to an allegation without saying whether it is true or not -- published in a credible source such as Die Welt.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course there are allegations. I do not see reasons to include those allegations or rumors to an encyclopedia. I am sorry for repeating myself, this topic has been discussed. I do not think I am saying anything new. Kulikovsky (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, if this were an opinion of a credible source such as Die Welt, then it should have been included into the WP article. This time however is seems to be not an opinion of Die Welt, but an opinion of Belkovsky alone, and this does not sound credible. Cfeet77 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This allegation is the only bit of information that is of any consequence in this article. I CAN see it has been discussed and thy opinion is against the majority's.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I think we need to present both points of view: Putin has trivial possessions derived mostly from the book royalties and from his presidential salary. Putin is a billionaire making into world top-ten. I guess the first one is mainstream while the second is worth mention. I propose the following:

According to his financial statement for the 2007 Duma election Putin earned this and possessed that. In 2007 Kremlin politologist Stanislav Belkovsky alleged that Putin owns this and that that makes Putin the richest Russian and one of the top ten in the world refs. Neither Forbes nor Finance included Putin into their lists of billionaires (refs to the latest Forbes, Finance and whatever else).

This way we present the notable allegations but show that they contradict both the official data (duh!) and the opinion of main financial media. Developing a reasonable article about Belkovsky might help as well. If no objection I would try to make it this evening (Melbourne time) Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just Belkovsky: these allegations started several years ago aired by such prominent establishment figures as Ivan Rybkin. No-one tries to present the information therein as facts. They are very modestly billed as "allegations", which in itself does not require any counterbalancing. If you wish to present the data from his official financial statement for the 2007 Duma election -- go ahead. I think that would fit in perfectly as a second paragraph in the same section as an illustration of the guy's alleged mendacity.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I appreciate your effort. Per my understanding of WP:BLP negative statements coming from questionable sources should not, or even must not be included into BLP. Best regards, Kulikovsky (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources?

So, where are reliable sources telling that Putin is a billionaire? Belkovsky's word? Rybkin's? They both seem to be biased. I do not see either one as a reliable source when we are talking about Putin's wealth. I would like to request fellow editors to refrain from adding this information to the article until they can provide a reliable source. Let's just follow WP:BLP policy. Thank you. Kulikovsky (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another Vladimir Putin

There will be another Vladimir Putin running for the parliament elections in December 2. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112200402.html?sub=AR Locoluis (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny )) Though Yabloko is not such a "small" party.Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not relevant, but as we touch Russian media in the article, there's an interesting new (independent, socially-political) TV channel O₂-TV with over 30 million audience (target audience are young people). If you know Russian, enjoy live broadcast. ellol (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade Wolf forward

Even after having had a view on the history of the history page of the deleted 'Comrade Wolf' article, I do not understand why it has to be redirected here. 'Comrade Wolf' is a Russian joke character employed by Putin to denote the US, (to my knowledge it has never been employed to mean Putin). So even if 'Comrade Wolf' may not has the right to an own article (in the opinion of the Wikipedia community), I wonder why it redirects to a page that does not mention it.

Source: e.g. [konstantin2005.blogspot.com/2006/05/comrade-wolf.html] many more sources found when searching google

PS: I fear I do not breach Wikipedia ettiquete by posting this here, but this redirect is really annoying me (but I do not dare to change it)

You surely do not breach Wikipedia ettiquete. You are welcome to the Wikipedia. Thank you for your note, I inserted a template for speedy deletion at the page. But you could do it yourself, you didn't have in fact to ask anybody. Wikipedia is free for all, and you are welcome to be bold. ellol (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is there per this AfD result. It is customary to keep the original title as a redirect when one article is merged into another one. If you feel this redirect is inappropriate, please list it on WP:RfD. In its present form, it most certainly does not meet any of the CSD criteria for redirects.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Party

Putin is the leader of the party United Russia. Though, don't know how is that legally explained, but the key must be here: http://edinros.ru ellol 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stankonia is not a real place. Fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.14.222 (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was old vandalism by someone pretending to be funny. Since the rest of the edit looked serious, it was overlooked. I reverted that part. But nothing prevented you from doing so. Though taking an account and signing is always a good idea...--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

The overall thrust and treatment of the subject in the article violate the basic principles of NPOV as espoused by Wiki. By uncritically presenting the Kremlin's official line as facts and all abuses (hardly ever mentioned herein) of Putin's regime as mere "criticisms" the article runs afoul of the very essence of the NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."[17]. The article is riddled with assertions that actually present a point of view (contested by many) as a statement of fact, such as: Putin has been trying, with some success, to re-establish for Russia the strong and independent role (a lot of people concur that this is a mere picture created by state media); Putin's Russia has been seeking stronger and more constructive ties with Europe and the United States (an utterly hilarious statement, many will say!); Russia became a fully fledged member of the G8 (a highly dubious statement in many ways; in essence -- utterly incorrect: finance ministers' meetings take place in the G7 format); Putin's attention was equally focused on Asia, in particular China and India. (this is a mere point of view); Putin surprised many Russian nationalists and even his own defense minister when, in the wake of the September 11 attacks in the United States, he agreed to the establishment of coalition military bases in Central Asia before and during the US-led invasion of Afghanistan. (I should like to see a hand-written statement of the defence minister to this effect, whereupon we could write: "he states that he was surprised"); Russian nationalists objected to the establishment of any US military presence (I wonder who are the "Russian nationalists" -- I suspect it may be the Chelsea gang owned by Putin's friend Roman Abramovich but have some doubts) -- the entire paragraph is unsourced; etc.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that article should be corrected to satisfy WP:NPOV. Perhaps one should include a "Criticism" section. This article also misses a number of important points. What are personal political views of Putin? What kind of ideology he shares? What kind of political system did he establish in Russia? (because that is his political legacy). This article has been cenzored even to exclude some views openly expressed by Putin himself.Biophys (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user Muscovite that some points of the article aren't entirely correct or enough well sources aren't provided. And that may be discussed. But what do we have. I do not comment on all Muscovite's points. But e.g. "Putin has been trying, with some success, to re-establish for Russia the strong and independent role (a lot of people concur that this is a mere picture created by state media)" Really today you can speak about a sort of consensus among the "political class", and among the population about the need of the independent policy. I don't understand really the words "strong" (banging with nuclear weapons like the Soviet Union did? launching military operations in other countries? we don't see any of that.) and I don't really get the reference to the Soviet Union -- Russia was always historically an independent center of power. ellol (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys, about your idea on viewing Putin's personal views and the like. I wonder what would be your suggestions? "This article has been cenzored even to exclude some views openly expressed by Putin himself." Do you mean his quote about no former KGB man and a group of security officers working under cover? Driven out of the context? If you start to investigate Vladimir Putin's national importance speeches, you'll find out that's a man sincerelly concerned about the state and quality of democracy, freedom of press and civil society in Russia (Look here, I've selected some stuff.) And knowing you you won't trust any of that. So what then, you'll take some speeches you trust and some you don't, and 'll use only those from the first group? I would definitely object such an approach. Political system? We have here lots of the stuff, like abolishment of direct governor elections. If you want to introduce here something on the lines of Putinism -- well. The majority of Putinism article are speculations, the stuff that can't be independently checked. Something can be included, what's proven with numbers -- like investigation by Kryshtanovskaya, but note, the only thing that's proved is the share of siloviks in the political elite is 25% and even higher in Putin's "inner circle"; while the claim about 75% share of affiliated siloviks is founded on suspects -- the man worked in a structure considered as affiliated with KGB, so we consider him affiliated silovik. May be mentioned, but with clarification of that, imho. Another little piece of real data are those provided by Jason Bush -- about rise of the state presence in the economy shown with certain numberical data. ellol (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well-sourced views of notable people should not be removed per WP:BLP. Removing such views is contrary to WP:NPOV policy.Biophys (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the policies you mentioned. Generally, negative unverifiable statements about a living person should be removed. This is regardless of notability of persons expressed those statements. Kulikovsky (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second some new points aired above: the article, being quite lengthy as it is, fails to elucidate many consequential aspects pertinent to the subject (mind, the subject is a person, not Russia's current history). But my point here is quite to the point (pardon the pun). I believe, at the very least the Vladimir Putin#Foreign policy subsection in its totality is quite out of place here. It is too big and vacuous. The style is all journalistic bombast and propaganda clichés -- entirely unencyclopedic. I think most of the details in it should be transferred into Foreign relations of Russia, which is unduly short. Being full of selective and often irrelevant details it fails to give an idea of the major trends in plain view since 2002 under Putin (on which there is experts' consensus both within Russia and without): steady deterioration of relations with NATO, the US, the EU and most Western countries, constant fracas with political regimes in the "near abroad" (sometimes teetering on the verge of military conflict such as with Georgia) -- all that is billed in the article as During his time in office, Putin has attempted to strengthen relations with other members of the CIS, support of pariah regimes such as Syria, Iran et al. Any attempts to introduce some common sense in this section are sabotaged by User:Cfeet77 who is the de-facto author of this section. It ought to be radically trimmed and major negative trends as reported by world media be made clear without unnecessary verbiage. Incidentally, I wonder who sanctioned User:Cfeet77's wholemeal deletion of the entire subsection about media freedom under Putin -- [18]. I understand there has been no discussion on this account. If I am right the section should be restored as it is quite relevant. (At the very least there should be a summary and a link to Media freedom in Russia). My impression thus far is that User:Cfeet77's activity, being quite professional in many ways, amounts to systemic vandalism vis-à-vis this article. Muscovite99 (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see how personal attacks are relevant for a WP biographical talk page. If you feel that impartiality is broken by some editors or information they provide is misleading or plain false, please indicate such cases with concrete quotations and examples of diffs rather than delivering opinions of your own that come without any real argument. As to the discussed article's subject, personally I would accept any information in this biographical article that is: (a) fact-based; (b) sourced; (c) relevant; (d) balanced; (e) adheres to WP rules; (f) contributed according to fair and universally applicable rules. Cfeet77 (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss your, Muscovite, recent contribution. "Vladimir Putin is the first Russian leader since the end of the Cold War to have said in June, 2007, that Russia intends to aim its missile systems at targets in Europe". In fact, on June 4, 2007 on the eve of 33rd G8 summit Putin gave an interview to journalists of G8 countries. One of the questions was such:

CORRERE DELLA SERA : You said that you do not want to participate in an arms race. But if the United States continues building a strategic shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, will we not return to the situation and times in which the former Soviet Union’s nuclear forces were focused on European cities, on European targets?

VLADIMIR PUTIN : Certainly. Of course we will return to those times. And it is clear that if part of the United States’ nuclear capability is situated in Europe and that our military experts consider that they represent a potential threat then we will have to take appropriate retaliatory steps. What steps? Of course we must have new targets in Europe. And determining precisely which means will be used to destroy the installations that our experts believe represent a potential threat for the Russian Federation is a matter of technology. Ballistic or cruise missiles or a completely new system. I repeat that it is a matter of technology. [19]

This question is a part of the discussion over ABM region in Europe and should be placed there. ellol (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, when I hear voices saying "let's pour more criticism of Putin into the article", "this article is occupied by Putin's fans", "let's pour more NPOV" - when I hear all this, I feel very strange. WP is not about pouring more criticism or something, just because you would like to. It is about providing accurate factual information. So instead of saying all this, you can simply do the following for the article:

tell the truth as you know it;
provide references to where you found it;
don't try to pull quotations out of context;
be fair;
stick to the subject matter and don't try to glue clearly unrelated things together;
think, is it a WP style to promote media opinion that is not fact-based;
contribute rather than edit; I see far too many edits in this article that I feel are politically motivated or may even be originated by journalists working for Western media companies, that is, paid for.

I personally try to provide a reference for every sentence I contribute. If you are a critic of Putin, you are welcome, but please, do the same. Together we will find the truth. Cfeet77 (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Providing accurate information. Right. That is exactly what user Muscovite99 was doing. He provided some statements about Putin's fortune, which were clearly attributed to multiple reliable sources per WP:Verifiability. So why everything has been deleted?Biophys (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources were Rybkin and Belkovsky. Neither one is reliable. Belkovsky's statement has been recently discussed at this very page in length. If there something new you can say about Belkovsky's credibility or explain how Rybkin's statements are verifiable, credible and unbiased, I would love to hear that. NPOV does not mean you we can add to an encyclopedia any negative statement politics exchange. Kulikovsky (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations about his wealth have been multiple and made by well-known figures such as Rybkin. We do NOT present what is alleged as facts, we present those as ALLEGATIONS. As those are persistent and multiple, they are most noteworthy and relevant. The FACT for us is there have been publications in credibles outlets.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they cannot be presented as facts since they are unverifiable statements. Can you provide a reliable third party source saying those allegations are widespread? Kulikovsky (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be serious! ANY statement is ultimately unverifiable and can be reasonably questioned. What you are saying boils down to the following: "This article ought not to contain any material with reference to any sources i want to question." You should have respect for statements you may not like from sources you like to question. I, personally, from my long hands-on experience of living in the country in question, always tend to question any statements emanating from the Russian official sources, but i do not dismiss statements based on those.Muscovite99 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was there anything that made you think I am not serious? That aside you got it exactly right. Referencing reliable sources is a very important principle of WP. Especially in BLP. Please note that there are other editors pointing out the absence of reliable sources in this case. Kulikovsky (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Muscovite99. First, it is said "allegations" in the article. Hence they are not represented as facts. Second, the statements are clearly attributed to sources. Finally, we do not have to prove that "allegations are widespread". We only need multiple reliable sources per WP:verifiability, and we have them.Biophys (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please also read WP:Source. We do not need any proofs that Belkovsky is right or wrong. We only must be sure that he indeed made that statement, as published in a reliable source (such as a major newspaper).Biophys (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do [clarification: need either proof that he is right or that his views are not of "tiny minority" Kulikovsky (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)]. "If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article" (WP:BLP). Kulikovsky (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In brief, source is a publication, not a person, at least in WP.Biophys (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How novell. Does the publication you refer to have an author? Kulikovsky (talk) 04:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do. So what? The sources are publications.Biophys (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who is the author? Kulikovsky (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about wealth

Biophys seems to assert that a publication in a respected media gives any material a blessing. That may very well be true in classic peer-reviewed science publications. Not so in regular outlets. Many newspaper and magazines have an explicit disclaimer saying something like "articles do not necessarily represent POV of the publisher".

Also, the text is perfectly attributed. But please note, that attribution alone does not make a good source. Best wishes, Kulikovsky (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you read WP:Verifiability and WP:NPOV please? Yes, a publication in a respected media gives any material a "blessing", exactly as you said, as one of alternative views per WP:NPOV. Deleting sourced views as you do is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV policy.Biophys (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations in this case do not contain anything that can be inerpreted as Ad hominem attack (such as his alleged Pedophilia [20]). They are important exactly because they are to be found in credible publications.81.211.44.171 (talk) 20:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is also nothing wrong with creating article Criticism of Vladimir Putin where all sourced allegations about him would be combined together.Biophys (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, not all of them, but only notable ones. Also, it is not all clear. There may be an issue with this article being a POV fork, or that it may give disproportional appearance to person's critics.

I can see how you can read WP:POV and WP:V as supporting your wish to include what you want to include. I continue to object this interpretation in this case. This is because I see the the current primary source as unreliable and biased. I continue to object inclusion of allegations about Putin's wealth that contradict directly Putin's own statement. Please note that there are other editors against this inclusion.

Formally, those who want to add allegations need to prove that either

those are views of "significant minority" (WP:BLP) or
notable (WP:BLP.)

"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material" (WP:BLP). Kulikovsky (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see new publication about Putin's wealth in Washington Post: Russia's New Oligarchy. For Putin and Friends, a Gusher of Questionable Deals. by Anders Aslund. Biophys (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Reading. Kulikovsky (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially rebroadcasting what Belkovsky and Rybkin said. Plus Putin supposedly did not make to Eastern Europe rich people list last year :-D Kulikovsky (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, cannot see what Kulikovsky (or his bosses) is so exercised about: Russian translation of Belkovsky's allegations have been sitting quietly at a respectable and well-read site -- [21], uncontested, undismissed. I do not know where you guys physically habitate, but on this side of the fence the whole hoopla (at this page) is a perfect non-issue. The public at large in the RF take it in its stride that top man on the political totem pole should enrich himself. In effect, most people would suspect that somebody who does not do so is a half-wit, or worse, an American spy.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I have little intention to mess into the talk, I consider some your comments ('Kulikovsky or his bosses') in little agreement with the spirit of Wikipedia. It can be equally suspected that any user here has some bosses in business, mafia, or world governments and secret services. Please cut out that sort of stuff.

Equally it's wrong to admit that "people on this side of the fence" have any political pursuations. Basically "we" have no of them, and in a way all our Wikipedian job is a struggle with our indifference to whatever happens in the country. Agree, that ever real or imagined fear before Kremlin is also a struggle against indifference because actually nobody gives a damn.

In fact I can understand position of Kulikovsky. There are allegations of Ivan Rybkin -- no-more-a-politician, and those of Stanislav Belkovsky who didn't provide any sources. We can't know that for sure. BLP policy is appliable here. BLPs are no place for allegations. Create a page "Allegations of Vladimir Putin" and write there whatever you wish -- that wouldn't violate Wikipedia policies. (and surely Belkovsky's statement is uncontested. if it were, you would full-rightfully write here: "the kremlin officials had contested that statement what made a known international expert XXX to suspect that Putin actually owns a far greater stake and to speak about so-called 'Putins Business Gang' composed of several top Kremlin figures") ellol (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Alex Bakharev's version is fair enough. ellol (talk) 12:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to NPOV

If the article retains the overall shape and form as it now has, I do not mind removing the template.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...of Russia OR Russian Federation

Which are we gonna use folks, President of Russia & Prime Minister of Russia or President of the Russian Federation & Prime Minister of the Russian Federation. Also, see related discussion at Boris Yeltsin article. GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about info on phyisical characteristics?

How about including some info on Putin's physical characteristics e.g. Height, weight, hair color, eye color, etc. I think that height is always very interesting for a world leader. Napoleonic syndrome, etc. The IMDb biography for Putin reports that his height is 5' 5" (1.65 m).

See: IMDb Putin Biography

70.153.8.204 (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)H.E. Hall[reply]

Nashi -- nationalistic?

Indeed, the group has been compared explicitly to fascist youth organizations for its fierce loyalty to Putin and its militant nationalism, with particularly intense animosity directed toward supposed "enemies" from the west.

Nationalism is really a strange claim. Nashi is an antifascist group. Russia is a multi-ethnic state, what makes nationalistic slogans especially disruptive for the Russia's statehood. Indeed, you can't ever see in any official appearance the word 'Русский' what means 'ethnically Russian', but the word that's used is 'Россиянин' what means 'Citizen of Russia'. As Nashi was created with support of the Russia's tops, it shares the general anti-nationalistic mood. ellol (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the official Kremlin line, but it is manifestly absurd to claim that Putin and Nashi do not try to create an atmosphere of Russians vs. the evil western enemies. A typical piece of Nashi propaganda was cited in the recent Time article: "Tomorrow there will be war in Iran. The day after tomorrow Russia will be governed externally!" As for those anti-nationalistic leaders of yours, Putin frequently cites external enemies as the ones driving domestic opposition to him in a turn very reminiscent of Soviet-era propaganda. This is what is meant by nationalism or militant patriotism, and it is not clear what is confusing to you about my wording. I will change it to 'militant patriotism' and rephrase it if you prefer. --Wilanthule (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you mention that to compare an organisation to fascists is obvious bias? We can't keep such a phrase, even in weasel words form of "some compare to...". The whole paragraph is written in aim to derogate the organisation, which is not even a topic of the article.

Don't forget the "nazi law": "Who first call his opponent a nazi, has lost the discussion". ©Garret Beaumain (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no Wikipedia rule about not being able to report comparisons to fascists if such comparisons can be sourced. Since they were made in a commentary section of a reputable publication, reporting this accusation here is encyclopedic. Please point me to a Wikipedia policy/guideline that says othewise. Thanks, --Wilanthule (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Neutral Point of View rule fairness or Tone.

Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.

And a single article is not "widely", but "by one author's opinion". One would call George Bush a fascist [22] - try to add it into article about him.)) Garret Beaumain (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the English words nation and nationalist differs from the Russian one. A nationalist isn't necessarily an ethnic nationalist. The word 'nationality', for instance, clearly denotes one's citizenship. The difference is specified in the majority of English-Russian dictionaries. Basically, the English word says that they're flag-waving patriots. 217.172.29.4 (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification! I should have been aware of this difference in usage so that I could answer the criticism better. --Wilanthule (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So that's clearly my fault. But so, I don't object "militant nationalism" or "national patriotism". Happy new year people. ellol (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Wilanthule. I'm in no special favor of Vladimir Putin. But you make claims and seem to provide them with sources. You've wrote "and has been criticized by his political opponents as an attempt to marginalize them with Soviet-style propaganda". But this point can't be seen in the source you provide [23]. Indeed, meeting in Luzhniki was a forum of Putin's defenders, nor opponents. Perhaps that might seem Soviet-style for you, but can you discern Russian and Soviet culture? I guess no. Anyway your suggestion is OR. For Kolesnikov "It looked like a literal translation of an American campaign meeting produced by those same specialists." ellol (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will find a reference which is more explicit. I understand Russian culture pretty well and I assure you there are plenty of (fairly objective) people who think Putin's behavior is hilariously reminiscent of Soviet times. I appreciate your encouragement for me to find more reliable sources for these claims. --Wilanthule (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunatic Fringe comments do not belong in this article.

The opinion of Konstantine Preobrazhensky and a schismatic priest that ROCOR will suddenly go from being a bastion of Russian Monarchism to being a launch pad for FSB espionage because ROCOR is in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate were given undue weight by being added to this article. Preobrazhensky has made such comments about Fr. Victor Potapov, who was for decades part of the Voice of America's Russian Broadcasts. Keep in mind that ROCOR was even thanked by no less than Ronald Reagan himself for their help to the US during the Cold War... the same period of time that Preobrazhensky was a flunky in the KGB. Putin's role in helping to bring about reconciliation is notable, and has been noted in countless reliable source articles. Preobrazhensky's comments are Preobrazhensky's comments, and Fr. Victor Dobroff's opinions are even less notable. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main source is article in Wall Street Journal. It satisfies well WP:Verifiability. Yes, some believe that "Putin's role in helping to bring about reconciliation is notable" as you said. But others think that was a successful intelligence operation (also a great success of Putin's policies but of a different kind). All reliably sourced views should be represented per WP:NPOV. If you think this is a small minority view, you should justify that. I provided two reliable sources which claim this to be a successful Putin's intelligence operation. Please provide more sources that claim otherwise.Biophys (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such references might be appropriate in an article on ROCOR, or on the Act of Canonical Communion, but they are not here. The article in the Wall Street Journal was not about reconciliation between ROCOR and the MP per se, but about the reaction of a minority who have left ROCOR. That is an undue tangent for an article on Putin. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Preobrazhensky's views are far from being "fringe" or "lunatic". What he is saying is warranted by a plethora of other evidence (including that from the Moscow Patriarchate sources) and absolutely official documents such as these [24] [25]. BUT i would agree that the bit in question does not by rights belong to the section wherein it was. Perhaps should be moved into "second term" or foreign policy".Muscovite99 (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal-credo is not exactly a reliable source. There is not a plethora of reliable sources that assert that the reconciliation between ROCOR and the MP was for the purpose of providing hundreds of new parishes from which the FSB can conduct espionage in the west. That is fantasy. If the FSB wanted to conduct espionage in the west by means of the Russian ex-patriot communities, they would not need the parishes to do it, and even if they wanted to use the parishes, they would not have needed the Act of Canonical Communion to have done so. Christians tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. A slick FSB agent could easily become associated with a parish, were they so inclined to do so. But what Preobrazhensky has suggested is that somehow every ROCOR parish is now going to become a hotbed of espionage... and he has specifically made accusations against Fr. Victor Potapov who was a very prominent voice on the Voice of America Russian broadcast, and has a stellar record as an American patriot. Preobrazhensky, on the other hand, was a KGB agent, who fell from favor by bungling a job in Japan, and has had axes to grind against the FSB and the Russian government ever since. If you have a plethora of reliable sources that support Preobrazhensky's assertions in this regard... present them. I googled the topic, and aside from the Wall Street Journal article, which quotes him and Dobroff, and a number of Blogs, there was nothing. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Muscovite99. The sources are good; this is actually a majority opinion (based on published sources); but this material perhaps indeed belongs to a different section. Maybe we should make a new section "Relationships of Putin with Moscow Patriarchate". This is a notable subject.Biophys (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the assertion that purpose of the Act of Canonical Communion was to provide platforms for FSB espionage in every ROCOR parish is a majority opinion, please present the reliable sources that would substantiate that assertion. These views are worth mentioning in the article on ROCOR, since it explains why there has been a minority group that has gone into schism, and it would be worth mentioning in the article on the Act itself for the same reason, but it is not notable enough to warrant mention in this article on Putin. Likewise, you might mention that there are those who believe the moon landing was shot on a Hollywood set in an article on the Moon landing, but it is not notable enough to warrant mention in article on JFK, LBJ, or Nixon, when mention is made of the Space race. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that Biophys and Moscovite99 have been asked to substantiate the claim that the insertion they insist upon reflects a majority or even mainstream perspective on the Act of Canonical Communion. So far... nothing. Until you do, please stop trying to insert that into this article. That quote is in the ROCOR article, and the article on the Act itself, and that is more than sufficient note of this fringe conspiracy theory... which so far you have not produced a single person who espouses it who was not one of those who left ROCOR because the did not agree with the Act (and that includes Preobrazhensky... though he hardly went to Church before, he now doesn't attend a different Church). Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

just a note for Frjohnwhiteford: do not be so verbose -- you abuse others' time. All you have said thus far is: "I am very unhappy".Muscovite99 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Muscovite99, I see that in the Russian segment of WP you have somewhat low credibility, as you have been constantly abusing the WP rules and had your account blocked several times in the Russian segment due to violations, as can be seen from your Russian talk page. May I advice you on this occasion to change your tone of discussion with other participants here to a more acceptable level. On the other hand, your critical contributions concerning Putin, you being a native Russian speaker, should obviously ruin the myth of political homogeneity existing in the Russian society that possibly exists in our Western friends' heads. You are therefore most warmly welcome to continue your effort in compromising the leadership of what the rest of us otherwise call our Fatherland. Cfeet77 (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, portal-credo website is actually sponsored by the presidential administration. Know the guy who runs it quite well.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ad hominem way of avoiding the fact that you have not substantiated the assertions that you have made here. As for Portal.Credo.ru, they are hardly associated with the presidential administration... unless you mean that of the US, via the CIA... but it is not associated with Putin, and has a reputation of being consistently opposed to the ROC. Most of it's members, including it's head Alexander Soldatov, are known to be affiliated with the Suzdalite-Schismatics of the so called "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (and to an even smaller faction of that group... those who are disciples of Gregory (Vassily) Lourie, who advocates the imyaslavy heresy) see http://www.georgefox.edu/academics/undergrad/departments/soc-swk/ree/verkhovskyras03.doc, and http://www.apologetika.narod.ru/protokol.html. It should also be pointed out that this is true of "Moscow News" as well. Neither of these are reliable sources... they are not up to the standards of American Tabloids. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Recommend that you consult the dictionary and learn what ad hominem actually means (it does NOT mean "insulting", or suchlike), in the first place (also, the pronoun "its" is spelt thus). Secondly, thanks for an enlightening lecture about the CIA, the USA, "the Suzdalite-Schismatics" et al. What you have written only confirms my suspicion you are not properly acquainted with the policy of this resource [26] (and above all WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves."). Apart from anything else this is NOT an Orthodox clerical site (for that you can go to Orthodoxwiki.org) and the very usage of such terms as "Schismatics" outside a quote is entirely beyond the pale here. In Russia's legal terms, what you unlawfully call "the so called Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" (i am the author of the Russian-language article on it (ru:Российская православная автономная церковь), therefore your link is otiose) is a legitimate religious organisation under Russian Law, absolutely on the same footing as the Moscow Patriarchate. So what you have written here is an insult to her adherents (I am not one of them) and Russian Law. Also, you obviously do not know what the term "presidential administration" means in Russia -- it is the President's staff, which consists of various factions (some might be even "Schismatic" in your lovely terminology), and above all the ROC is not part of it, as your posting seems to imply. Moreover, it is credibly known that both Putin and many of his aides (such as Alexander Abramov) are highly critical of the current state and leadership of the MP as the latter demands too much money and gives back next to nothing. I have also found "American Tabloids" (if i correctly understand what you meant) a fairly reliable source within their remit.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of what ad hominem means... it refers to attacking the person rather than addressing the argument... which is what you are doing here. Schismatic is a completely legitimate word. I would not put it in an article, beyond stating that the ROAC is considered a schismatic group by every recognized local Orthodox Church... but I mention it here, because we are dealing with a schismatic group with an axe to grind against the ROC... they are not an unbiased news source. You will have to provide documentation to support the claim that the Putin administration sanctions portal-credo. As for your comments about the leadership of the ROC... they do not get direct money from the Russian government, though the government has funded the reconstruction of Churches that the Soviets had destroyed. The ROC is one of the most respected Russian institutions, and Patriarch Alexei is one of the most respected Russian leaders, according to polls I have seen. Thus, I think the Russian people tend to see them as giving something back. Also, if you read WP:BLP, you will see that Wikipedia does not desire to do tabloid style journalism. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but ad hominem does not mean "attacking" as you said -- it means in Latin "To The Man" and your original phrase "This is an ad hominem way of avoiding" is totally meaningless: yes i am talking to you and in this sense i am being ad hominem. Thank you again for informing me that Patriarch Alexiy (not " Alexei") is "one of the most respected Russian leaders". Unlike you, i have lived all my life under all sorts of very "respected Russian leaders" starting from Brezhnev (still very, very respected, but much less than Stalin). Unlike you, I met him ("Alexei") personally a few times and actually worked at the Patriarchate when he was enthroned, also i know what the clergy and Moscow faithful think of him -- first-hand and thus i know very well that he enjoys zero respect within the Church and he is the favourite butt of sordid jokes among the young men at the Moscow Seminary. And this is not because they are churlish, but because they cannot bring themselves to have respect for a bishop who can't say so much as a short sermon (his beginning is usually "May God that the Lord give us..." - God and the Lord are apparently two different persons in his addled KGB mind). Yes, according to some public polls the ROC (not him) is reported to be the most respected Russian institution and the reason is very simple: the overwhelming majority of Russians have absolutely nothing to do with her (the actually practising believers are about ONE per cent of the population) ant thus the ROC is a mere national myth in their minds. Your arguments about tabloids i cannot understand. Do you consider major newspapers like WSJ tabloid? But all this is beyond the frame of the discussion -- this article is not about the ROC or some filthy KGB snitch. What you are doing here is wasting other people's time with your thoroughly uninformed and uneducated arguments. Better go to your personal page and find out the right spelling of the bishop who allegedly consecrated you: he is not "Archbishop Hillarion" [27], but "Hilarion" [28], just as the greek name (Iλαρίων) has it.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you need to read up on the logical fallacy Ad hominem, which if you do, you will see that it "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim." ... which is exactly what you were doing, and are doing here. Here you go down a number of rabbit trails to avoid the real issues here. The spelling of Patriarch Alexei's name is an issue that this article addresses, and unfortunately there is no consistency in how his name should be transliterated into English. "Alexei" is certainly one common way it is done. If you look it up on Google, you will see that this form gets 6,110 hits, while the form you suggest gets about half as many. As for the spelling of Archbishop Hilarion's name, thanks for your pointing out the error, though that too has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I met Patriarch Alexei once, and I almost got crushed once as the faithful pushed their way forward to receive communion from him. I know many clergy who have lived for years in Moscow and have a very different impression. I would remind you that not only are your comments abusive and contrary to the policy against personal attacks, but your comments about Patriarch Alexei violate the WP:BLP, which prohibit such comments about public figures even on the Talk Pages. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Talking to you i am beginning to understand why the whole world hates americans: it is one thing to be just an idiot but an idiot who teaches others and intrudes into other people's affairs is a whole different kettle of fish.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Muscovite99 for the referral regarding your violation of the WP:NPA policy. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Hope you will have had time to report your fruitful impressions-sharing trysts with the "many" Moscow priests to the local FBI (if you have one in your hickdom) before you have to read about those in your very own Affidavit. As for getting "crushed" I grant you that, Russians are very good at crushing and "pushing their way forward", especially when queueing for cheap vodka. As for a "public figure", Ridiger Alexei Michailovich under Russian Law is precisely the same private individual and citizen as myself and the fact that he is in effect treated by putin differntly is merely another testament to the fact that they are both wont to violate Law.Muscovite99 (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- And also a reminder of the Wiki's official policy NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."[29]. -- Nothing about "a majority or even mainstream perspective". Putin had been actively involved in this long process years before its climax in 2007, which makes it quite relevant to the article's subject.Muscovite99 (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UNDUE, that is were mainstream, vs. fringe views comes into play in Wikipolicy. Frjohnwhiteford (talk)

All i can see there is: "all significant viewpoints that have been published". The KGB connection of the ROC is mentioned practically in any outside-of-Russia publication about it (see e. g. here Putin and Orthodox Church Cement Power in Russia -- just one of the recent ones). The bottom line of what you say is that anything you do not like is "unreliable", or worse still -- "Schismatic". Thank God you have no Holy Inquisition at your beck and call.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there have been KGB connections with members of the ROC during the Soviet period (a fact not in dispute) does not establish that the FSB was behind the Act of Canonical Communion more than 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. To attempt to bolster that assertion based on documentation of the former is a leap in logic, unsupported by reliable sources. And as I said, in an article on the Act or on ROCOR, noting the opinions of Preobrazhensky and Dobroff would not be inappropriate. To note their opinion at every mention of the Act, as in this case, is to give their opinions undue weight. Portal Credo was reporting that the Patriarch died, and this was being covered up by the Church back in May... they are rumor mongers, with an axe to grind. Their credibility as a source is highly questionable -- it is not a question of whether I like them or not. I don't like everything the New York Times says, but I think they at least attempt to verify the basic facts of their stories before they report them. The same is not true of Portal-Credo. Also, I will again ask you to refrain from the personal attacks you have been making here. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, did you talk about that "portal-credo.ru" site [30]? Do you really think it is controlled by the Putin's administration , so they want to spread the message that "Killing priests is easy"? Too much for me to swallow.Biophys (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest that portal credo was controlled by the Putin administration. I said that it obviously is not. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am again deleting Biophys's violations of the WP:BLP, which state that:

"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Contrary to his assertions on my talk page, it does not mater that there is no article on Fr. Victor Potapov in Wikipedia, nor does it matter that he made these comments on a talk page. The fact that he made accusations which allegedly are based on a book also does change the situation. If the book even makes the accusations he claims, the book does satisfy the "extraordinary claims" requirement in the verifiability section of Wikipolicy. Anyone can write a book and make an accusation, but if you are going to call a respected figure at the Voice of America a KGB agent, or a crook, or accuse them of engaging in illegal activities, you had better be able to present more evidence than "some guy named Gennady said...". Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecumenical union of ROC and ROCOR

I have doubt that it belongs to the biography of Putin at all, since he is not a church official. Anyway the long discussion habout the union does not belong to the Family Life section. I have moved the text to Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and put a reference to it in the Foreign Relation section. Please discuss the pluses and minuses of the Union in Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate or elsewhere and keep the reference in Putin's biography short. I would not object if there is a consensus to remove it altogether. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Moscow for the signing of the Act, and of course Putin was there, and at several other events that related to it. It was the top story in the Russian press for the better part of a week, and I think Putin considered to be significant. It was frequently discussed as the conclusion of the Russian Civil War, and the turning of the page on the whole Bolshevik period. Putin also discussed it in terms of the unifying effect on the Russian people that he hoped it would have. As such, I think it is worth noting in this article... though the conspiracy theories of an insignificant minority are not. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That was a notable event and a personal achievement of Putin. Hence it belongs here, although mentioning it in the Act of Canonical Communion is also fine.Biophys (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leading photo

I am tired of constant edit warring over which Putin's photo should go to the lead. There is nothing wrong in both of them but we can have only photo on the top. Lets have a straw poll:

Tricolor photo

File:President Putin04.jpg

Tricolor photo

Those in favor of the photo please put your arguments here:

Official image from the Presidential website

Considerably better quality than the other image

The other image is random, grainy, has been cropped from a larger image

He has a neutral facial expression whereas in the other image he has what might be interpreted as a sinister-looking smile

He is not looking at the camera in the other image

U.S. President articles (see George W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, etc, etc) all use their official White House photos like this one (posing against the backdrop of the U.S. flag)

The Russian wikipedia article uses this image [31].--Miyokan (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gray photo

Those in favor of the photo please put your arguments here:

Unlike the above one, this is a photo of a man rather than a poster that has been groomed and edited. Nothing insulting about it. I do not know much about this Commons business, but on the French side there is a quite flattering real photo that i would suggest to those who might dislike this one.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is more informal and better quality.Biophys (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say the official photo doesn't seem awfully good quality to me. Relata refero (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current picture on the article looks like something from a propaganda poster--I don't mean to say it is, just that it looks about as ridiculous. RobertCDavis (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions

Neutral

I actually do not care much so far as there are no problems with the copyright and the edit war stopped Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV violation claim

User:Miyokan put the tag but i fail to see any of his reasons expalained for doing so. Also, in my view his recent deletions of perfectly valid material may well be judged as NPOV violation on his part. Nothing personal, but Miyokan seems to be trying to ignore what Time itself is officially stating: TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. [32] (last paragraph). What is one meant to make of his complaint of lack of praise? There is Time's editor's quote in there: given the title for his "extraordinary feat of leadership in taking a country that was in chaos and bringing it stability". Apart from stubbornly deleting Kasparov's reaction, which is not valid, on the pretext that Kasparov is a mere somebody, the link to the public (that is pretty much EVERYBODY'S) reaction on the Time's site is also removed, as it fails to be to Miyokan's liking apparently as well.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reason in my edit summary. This is not an article on Time Magazine, it is enough to say that person was the Time Person of the Year without adding that TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor, which applies to all TIME candidates rather than just Putin and should belongs on the Time Magazine Person of the Year article. Printing only Kasparov's criticism (note: someone with miniscule support in Russia) is a violation of NPOV because why, out of all of the opinion's, does his opinon get to be written. Furthermore it is a violation of NPOV because why there is no mention of 'praise' for Putin getting the award and there is only criticism of him getting the award. Saying that Kasparov's reaction is EVERYBODY's reaction is quite far from the truth, maybe for some Putin critics, but as you know Putin has huge support in Russia. Pretty much all average Russians considered it 'cool' and positive that Putin got this award.--Miyokan (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that we should leave in those statements about Putin that are positive and delete those that are negative? JdeJ (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a laugh, next time make a educated argument rather than throw around baseless accusations. No, I'm saying don't cherry pick statements to represent a topic (like Putin receiving the Time award) from anti-Putin figures (with low support). Don't put in topics that are unrelated to this biography (eg the paragraph about the Act of Canical Communion allegedly being an FSB operation), lunatic fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) and give undue weight to a certain view (WP:UNDUE). To see what is a well-written, generally NPOV article on a leader, see the George W Bush article, a far more controversial figure around the world. --Miyokan (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was not that seriously meant. Honestly though, it seems to be rather accurate all the same. You argue consistently for removing critical views from the article. And at least in the West, someone like Kasparov is a very well-known and respected figure, in no way (WP:FRINGE) or (WP:UNDUE). JdeJ (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that sure who is exactly more controversial right now. Suva Чего? 09:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put a quote here from Time's policy (TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement) because you moved the bit into "Honours" section [33] of the article and bowlderised all the negative reaction thereto [34], which is most relevant.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Muscovite99 on this one, well argued JdeJ (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted the Time's own statement rather than uninvolved people's opinions - "Time Magazine stated that the award is "not an honour", but is given as "a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world".[35]--Miyokan (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid, we are talking at cross purposes.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

Due to excessive edit warring, this page is protected for a week. Please use the time to come to a consensus on what to include. Once the protection expires, please also consider splitting off some content as this page is over 100KB. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Stifle! Guys, the page cannot be kept protected for long, VP is the current leader of a large country with a turbulent present, thus, every hour he can be involved in something important. Lets use the time-off we get wisely so to solve as many disagreements as possible Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think our actual goal is to follow WP:NPOV policy, which tells that all significant sourced views must be represented in the article, no matter if this article is about a "national leader" or not. In that regard, the article is missing Criticism of Putin and fate of his Russian opponents chapter per this source [36] and many others. Indeed, very few prominent Russian journalists and politician dare to loudly criticize Putin personally, publicly suggest that he was involved in various criminal activities, or has been brought to power as a result of FSB coup: Litvinenko, Politkovskaya, Tregubova, Yushenkov, Schekochikhin, and Rybkin (who else?), and what had happened to them? That is notable and discussed in many hundreds publications.Biophys (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point made by all of you. Of course we should follow WP:NPOV, but the task is to decide what that is in this case. I don't any editor here is dishonest, on the contrary. To take user Miyokan as an example, he and I disagree on some points in the content, but I don't doubt his honesty and his commitment to WP:NPOV. It's just that some of us think that things should be kept in the sake of NPOV and other users want to leave them out for NPOV. As Alex said, this should be dealt with rather fast and by trying to find some common ground. JdeJ (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point made by Biophys: the article, while being unbearably lengthy, misses the major point, that is the atrociously criminal nature of putin's regime. I am certain that multiple windy quotes from kremlin-connected and kremlin-bankrolled mouthpieces need to be curtailed, as they do not contain any information, just mere propaganda bluster.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody change the infobox & succession box: from President of Russia & Prime Minister of Russia to President of the Russian Federation & Prime Minister of the Russian Federation? GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHY? Russia's Constitution, Article 1: "<...>The names "Russian Federation" and "Russia" shall be equal" [37]. What's the problem? The Russian officialdom do like to use "The RF" for some obscure reasons, but if you look at the RF Foreign Ministry's letterheads, they always say "The Foreign Ministry of Russia" only -- for reasons even more obscure.Muscovite99 (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know their Constitution allowed for both names. I withdraw my request. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is all well and fine to include criticism of Putin, but including criticism of other things unrelated to Putin is irrelevant and a clear violation of NPOV. I have no problem with including the Nashi bits that actually mention Putin - Nashi has been referred to as "Putin Youth" and the "loyal youth brigade" in the Western media.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] - But including the other Nashi stuff that doesn't mention Putin is irrelevant and a violation of WP:NPOV. Nashi is not Vladimir Putin. The criticism of Nashi belongs in the Nashi (Ours) article, not the Vladimir Putin article. Similarly, with regards to this comment - Opponents of the Act claim the unification of Churches was in effect a successful intelligence operation that allows Russian special services to dispatch hundreds of priests who will create "new spy nests all over the world, absolutely untouchable, working under the cover of the church." ^[6] ^[7] - it is irrelevant to this article. This is not an article on the FSB and including it is a violation of WP:NPOV

It is also a clear violation of WP:NPOV to include only the cherry picked Garry Kasparov's comment to Putin receiving the award as there is no positive reaction written. I have no problem with including, Time Magazine stated that the award is "not an honour", but is given as "a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world.^[8].

With regards to this sentence - and the uniformly positive and extensive coverage that Putin receives from the state-controlled media.^[9]^[10] - No where in these sources does it say that state run media is responsible for Putin's high approval ratings. It is a clear misrepresentation of sources.--Miyokan (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat to source that statement -- look here, for instance: [38] (5th para from the bottom).Muscovite99 (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Guys, there are 2 problems:

1. the article is blocked. Let's face it: the reason is starkly plain -- vandalism that had been perpetrated by Miyokan (no doubt) and arguably by Frjohnwhiteford (The proof are all their edits for the a few days before the blocking). The only solution -- they ought to state that they shall adhere to the Wiki's policies, that is WP:NPOV (PLEASE read it).

2. we are being told the article is too long, which is about true. I think the simplest and most obvious solution is moving the "Foreign policy" section (by far the longest and least relevant) into Foreign relations of Russia, which is tiny, in its entirety.

Banking on every one's reasonable support.Muscovite99 (talk) 12:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite99, I see that instead of constructive discussion you try to engage into direct or indirect attacks targeting other editors whom you think have views opposing to yours. In connection to this, may I again remind you your own low credibility in the Russian segment of WP for breaking WP rules and deteriorating credibility in this segment. I see that by proposing to move the Foreign relations section, you intend to suppress information about arguably one of the most major Putin's achievements during his rule. This is plain unacceptable. Cfeet77 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I suppose that as long as you have your own proven vandalism history, you are not a proper person to talk about other contributors' vandalism. Cfeet77 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ad hominem way of avoiding the valid points I have made. You brush aside the fact that in addition to myself and Frjohn, an administrator has also judged the information irrelevant to this article [39]. You are saying that an administrator has "perpetrated vandalism" too? I suggest you stick to the issues rather than attack editors. If you want to play games, I could point out that while you accuse us of "vandalism" and violating WP:NPOV, only you have a persistent history of being warned for violating WP:NPOV on this article [40] [41] [42] and you are the only one who has violated 3RR on this article [43].--Miyokan (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a person who happens to be an administrator is engaged in editing he is just an editor as in this particular case -- there are no senior editors. I do not think I said anything personal -- i just stated simple facts that you had been actively editing out other people's material, not vice versa and for reasons, which in many cases are essentially party political. Talking about specific bits, i do not mind treating the piece about the Act as not relevant hereto. But most of the other stuff is perfectly legitimate.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If my edits constitute vandalism, isn't it odd that the page is protected in the vandalized form? These comments of Muscovite99 are ad hominem. This needs to stop. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask everyone to avoid personal attacks per WP:CIV and remember about WP:AGF. So far I do not see any consensus building here. Main question: what is relevant and what is not. But this is up to sources, since we are not doing any OR. If they claim something to be related to Putin, it belongs here. (1) Do we agree about that? If we do, we can move further.Biophys (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on which sources, and what they actually say. The WSJ article, for example, only said a splinter group in ROCOR has a conspiracy theory about the reconciliation. The WSJ did not assert that this theory was valid. If this theory is only that of a fringe group, it would be undue weight to include it in this article... though in an article on ROCOR or the Act of Canonical Communion, it would be worth noting their opinion. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone agree that what is relevant and what is not should be decided by sources, then we should go to the next step. First, which sources are reliable? That is defined by WP:Verifiability policy. (2) Do we agree on that? If we agree on that, next question is: what is majority opinion, and what is minority opinion? This should be also decided by reliable sources. If five reliable sources make one claim, and only one source makes the opposite or different claim, then the second view is a minority opinion. (3) Do we agree on that? I will wait for responses of others.Biophys (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That again all depends on which sources we are talking about, and what they actually say. There is no point in talking about hypotheticals here. Get specific. You said you had a plethora of sources that verified that the Act of Canonical Communion was an FSB operation. Where is the plethora of sources? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for opinions of of others. If we all agree on these principles, we can talk about specifics. Do you agree with (1-3) above? Yes or no, please.Biophys (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I generally agree with Biophys, but the problem is precisely "good faith" of some editors (the Guideline actually goes on to say in bold red: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism"). And Frjohnwhiteford himself/herself states here "It depends on which sources, and what they actually say". What is one meant to make of this? If what they say i dislike it therefore should be bowdlerised? First, we need to leave this ROCOR business aside -- it is incidental here. As far as i am concerned i can put up with the way it is now. What is really important, in my view, is 1) methodical editing out any mention of the negative reaction to Time's non-honour (there are positive quotes, thus there ought to be other ones as well); 2) editing out any mention of the f-word (i mean fascism). This view of putin's regime (either as gravitating towards fascism, or blatantly fascist) has been in the press since 2006 and ignoring it would be against the Policy. The actual problem with both points are a couple of editors (am trying not to be "ad hominem") who are deleting those references essentially on the basis they do not like to hear it. That's it. This is not a discussion about sources -- the whole issue is abused and misunderstood. We are not ASSERTING anything on the basis of whatever sources (note verifiable is NOT Wiki's policy), we simply say that certain sources say this and that without us lending "undue weight or asserting as being judged as "the truth"" -- which is the core of NPOV). And that is what we need to agree upon -- NO CENSORSHIP [44]. I for one am perfectly ready to tolerate any third party's views on the subject, but this has to be observed by every one.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC) ((For Frjohnwhiteford: See my messages for you in the "Lunatic Fringe comments do not belong in this article" section.))Muscovite99 (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. WP:AGF also tells the following: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.". Words like "Lunatic Fringe comments" about a source that clearly satisfies WP:Verifiability might be considered as the "evidence to the contrary".Biophys (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not describe the Wall Street Journal as Lunatic Fringe... they simply reported the opinions of such. Preobrazhensky (your "reliable" source) accused Fr. Victor Potapov, who was a speaker on the Voice of America Russian Broadcast for decades of being a KGB agent. This is a man who was an outspoken critic of the Soviet Union, and of its persecution of the Church[45]. I would describe such opinions as being that of the lunatic fringe. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to your source, Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy tells the following "Thus Potapov acted as the agent to purchase property for the KGB here in the United States, using the church as a cover. This newly acquired property will be used to install the leadership of the Moscow-run ROCOR. As I stated and written about so many times, the ROCOR churches will be used as outposts for KGB agents in cassocks.". Why do you think this is wrong? Criticizing Soviet Union or working on the Voice of America does not mean he was not an agent.Biophys (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks here, that needs to stop... or this will have to be referred to a notice board. What I mean by it depending on the sources in question and what they say is that there is no way we can agree on an abstract formula here... which is what Biophys seems to be getting at... because not every source has equal weight, and what a given source says or does not say determines what you can document based on that source, even if we assume the source is a reliable source per se. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to stop is your abuse of other editor's time by discussing ussues essentially unrelated hereto and of which you are most distantly and desultorily informed. (See my very "ad hominem" message for in your lovely "Lunatic Fringe comments").Muscovite99 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are yet again violating the policy against personal attacks. Please stick to the issues. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if you continue with attacking tone like this, your behaviour will be reported according to WP policy rules. May I remind you that you already had your IP blocked for violations in the Russian WP, and this will be mentioned in the report notice. I also don't see whom you mean beyond yourself when you talk about "other editor's time". Cfeet77 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nice, I see that you, Muscovite99, have been engaged in direct vandalism in Russian Wiki, for what you have been punished as per your Talk page. No wonder then you know for sure what vandalism means when you attempt to attribute it to other editors! How dare you label other editors as vandals when you yourself have been punished for vandalism! But I see that for some reason the camp of Putin opponents in this article is composed largely of this kind of people. Cfeet77 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll Numbers due to State Controlled Media

Mikoyan et. al., take a look at [46], particularly the quote: "Putin's popularity ratings are a bubble that exist within a political vacuum, a bubble that nonetheless needs to be continuously pumped up with injections of hot air from state television." I believe that is a legit citation for some observers seeing his popularity as a result of state-controlled praise in the media. As for saying "some Western observers", that is not legitimate. We do not add the nationality of the "observers" in other quotes, so why add it here? --Wilanthule (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The accepted concensus is that Putin is popular because of the economic prosperity under his administration. I can find you plenty of western sources that Putin is so popular because of this and don't even mention state run television as a reason for his popularity. The 'state run television brainwashing' is WP:UNDUE bordering on WP:FRINGE, some distinction needs to be made that economic prosperity/political stability/national pride are the main reasons Putin has a huge approval rating while the 'state run television brainwashing people into loving Putin' is a disputed, lesser held view, given mostly by some western critics and sparsely held in Russia, mostly by unpopular liberals like Garry Kasparov.--Miyokan (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the phrase "state run television brainwashing" (unless it is a quote) is not acceptable, the term "propaganda" should be used. But the view itself is perfectly legit and it is not confined to western media -- read e.g. former deputy minister Milov's view [47]: "Не стоит переоценивать и авторитет Путина. Это не настоящий, а телевизионный, искусственно созданный авторитет. Аппаратчики во власти это понимают лучше всех. В действительности они в гробу видели своего нынешнего босса. Ждать от них, что они лояльно перестроятся и станут подчиняться главе правительства, наивно; скорее всего, эти же люди первыми начнут бегать к новому шефу в надежде повысить свои аппаратные позиции." and the very lat sentence: "Дмитрий Медведев, судя хотя бы по моему личному опыту, человек вовсе не мягкий, а очень даже властный, за ним стоят мощные фигуры из так называемой «ельцинской семьи», а под рукой послушная пропагандистская машина, готовая в 24 часа развернуться на 180 градусов и обнаружить массу не замечаемых доселе недостатков «всенародного лидера» Путина.". Note this is not a dissident journalist but a former senior member of Putin's government saying.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Milov's view is so obvious and true, especially for anyone familiar with Russian history! One can only wonder how can Putin allow Medvedev to be elected and declare Putin an "enemy of the people" or just quietly get rid of him ("pustit' v rasxod"). It means that Putin is not really a boss in Kremlin but a dummy manipulated by others, unless of course he has some hidden plans for the last moment which seems increasingly unlikely.Biophys (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the VOA source, you could say that the author believes Russian media to be controlled by the State... you might say the VOA believes it... you might even say that the US government believes it. You cannot say it is a fact. The fact that you have Russian media which attacks Putin all the time would tend to disprove the assertion. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I think the consensus is: "A view among some Russian and Western observers is that Putin's popularity is a consequence of propaganda on state-run television, but this view is controversial." Nobody is asserting in this article that it is a FACT, because it is hard to establish facts about such things. But NPOV would require including the criticism, especially now that is so well sourced. --Wilanthule (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think a statement to that effect would be completely defensible, and would have no problems with it. There should probably be some info in the article, however, about how cold warriors in the west have tended to demonize Putin. A few links to Pat Buchanan's editorials in which he provides a more favorable assessment of Putin might be in order as well. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect translation

Принцип наиболее благоприятствующей нации в международном праве does not translate into Principle most conducive to the nation in international law. Either former or later is incorrect.--Dojarca (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be rendered as "The principle of most favored nation in international law," assuming that the Russian version is correct. Oyama no taisho (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian term as it stands is frequently used, but it is not generally correct; it would have to be "Режим наиболее благоприятствуемой (SIC!) нации". Many web references specifically to Putin's thesis are the way we have it, which may well be the case. But the most reliable source appears to be this [48], which has it thus in full: "Диплом на тему: « «Принцип наиболее благоприятствуемой нации» Науч. рук. Л. Н. Галенская, кафедра международного права. »" Muscovite99 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this article protected?

Why is this article protected? There is no warning or justification whatsoever in the heading, but it CANNOT be edited by a common Wikipedian. Is this fact the result of another of Mr. Putin's strategies toward censoring & silencing the media? --AVM (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's 'protected' due to recent edit wars. Vlad the bad, had nothing to do with it. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone wants to contribute to the subject of "Putin's strategies toward censoring & silencing the media", there is article Media freedom in Russia. It is not protected.Biophys (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting this article, especially at this time is not clever. I think we should give temporary editbans on this article to those who start editwars on it rather than protect the article fully for long periods of time. Suva Чего? 19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. This is waste of time. I am going to leave this article voluntarily and do not come back. Happy editing.Biophys (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeted deletions of my comments

I just was going to do something else, by my commnets have been repeatedly deleted, which is unacceptable. My statement is perfectly sourced to a reliable secondary source - a book. If you want I can provide exact pages and citation, but this is completely irrelevant to Putin. So, I suggest to stop.Biophys (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this book a reliable secondary source? Is it a peer reviewed source? The summary of the book on the link you provided made no mention of the accusations you claim it contains. Anyone can write a book and make an accusation, but if you are going to call a respected figure at the Voice of America a KGB agent, or a crook, or accuse them of engaging in illegal activities, you had better be able to present more evidence than "some guy named Gennady said...". You are posting libelous accusations, and it needs to stop. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you take a look at the top of this talk page, you find the following statement:

"Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."

Please stop repeatedly inserting it, contrary to Wikipedia policy. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Segment in question

First of all, let me repeat the disputed segment of text. This is not something I claim. That was written in a published book.

It was claimed that all Preobrazhensky' views are "lunatic fringe" because he suggested that Potapov is a KGB agent. I have checked a recent book by%

Overall Article Construction

As I read this article, it ticks off more like a list of Putin's offenses rather than a comprehensive study of who he is and what he has done. It may be entirely true that this Russian political leader is as villainous as the article portrays him to be, but it doesn't have to read so poorly. The article completely lacks the narrative flow of other articles, such as that of Bill Clinton or other world leaders. RobertCDavis (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ 'Putin Youth' opens new campaign against British interests, December 6, 2007, The Times
^ Thousands march in latest youth rally for Putin, December 6, 2007, San Diego Union Tribune
^ Putin’s fanatical youth brigade targets Britain, September 2, 2007, The Sunday Times
^ Pro-Putin Youth Group Looks To Preempt Postelection Rallies, November 30, 2007, Radio Free Europe
^ Pro-Putin youth out to take Duma by storm, November 25, 2007, Telegraph
^ Cold War Lingers At Russian Church In New Jersey By SUZANNE SATALINE, Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2007
^ Putin's Espionage Church, an excerpt from a forthcoming book of Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy "Russian Americans: A New KGB Asset"
^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7152017.stm
^ [49]
^ [50]

[1] 'Putin Youth' opens new campaign against British interests, December 6, 2007, The Times

[2] Thousands march in latest youth rally for Putin, December 6, 2007, San Diego Union Tribune

[3] Putin’s fanatical youth brigade targets Britain, September 2, 2007, The Sunday Times

[4] Pro-Putin Youth Group Looks To Preempt Postelection Rallies, November 30, 2007, Radio Free Europe

[5] Pro-Putin youth out to take Duma by storm, November 25, 2007, Telegraph

[6] Cold War Lingers At Russian Church In New Jersey By SUZANNE SATALINE, Wall Street Journal, July 18, 2007

[7] Putin's Espionage Church, an excerpt from a forthcoming book of Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy "Russian Americans: A New KGB Asset"

[8] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7152017.stm

[9] [49]

[10] [50]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]