Talk:Vladimir Putin

Economic, industrial, and energy policies

Under Putin, the economic environment of Russia has changed, partly due to the attempted radical market-oriented reforms characterized as "shock therapy (economics)" under Yeltsin, to a State monopoly capitalism (stamocap) economy, where the state (under Putin), controls all major industries and the overall economy.

State monopoly capitalism (stamocap) theory, also referred to as crony capitalism, refers to an environment where the state intervenes in the economy under an autocrat, or authoritarian dictator, to protect large monopolistic or oligopolistic businesses from competition by smaller firms.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enealk (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 May 2014

Rfc regarding sentence in the lede

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

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

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

• Any sentence in the lead should be a summary of material in the body of the BLP. [1] represents "due weight" for what is in the body of the BLP, and the current lead is abominable in its stress of POV rather than letting readers read the more fully-formed sections in the body of the article. Collect (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it fell into recession subsequently due to falling oil prices and Western sanctions

It's a selection of two reasons of many. The system is stiff, no reforms are possible. Low oil prices could have been expected. Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to that sentence?--WatchingContent (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2016

Putin married Alina Kabayeva, Olympic gymnast, 2014. - Putinism: Russia and It's Future with the West by Walter Laqueur 2015 2601:483:C300:64E0:29D4:7496:89CF:DC5C (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

BLP, rumours are not allowed. SaintAviator lets talk 03:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

References

difficulty with editing this article

Anyone know - or can just confirm a similar experience - why when you try to edit this article it takes a long time to load and there appears to be some kind of lag/freeze? As in you type in a letter then have to wait three seconds for it to show, you type another, three more seconds, etc. I thought it was because the article was so long but this does not happen with even longer articles. It also happens regardless of computer, OS or browser. Weirdly enough, a similar thing happens on the Russian intervention in Syria article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Mines very fast. Its your PC or connection. Or maybe? No surely not.......... SaintAviator lets talk 23:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

"large scale protests"

Removed from the lede, as it is subjective and POV. A few thousand protesting liberals is not "large scale protests", not in a country of over 100 million. The rest of Haberstr's edits are an improvement as well, so I restored them. Athenean (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What do the sources say? That's what matters, not your personal opinion. And no, Haberstr's edits were pretty much POV pushing and weaseling. Like adding the word "alleged" where it's not supported by sources (or even Putin) or removing links to articles he doesn't like. Might as well noted that Haberstr has been warned several times by admins about his editing on Russia related topics for this very reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

What do they say? They say that the demonstrations were typically of the order of a few thousand people, i.e. not "large-scale" for a country of over 100 million. I don't see anything about "large scale" in the sources. They also say there were large counter-demonstrations, which is conveniently ignored. Athenean (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: Once again, for perhaps the 1000th time, please stop disparaging my character and good faith by calling my edits POV pushing and weaseling (and stop lying about what admins have said to me). If you disagree with the content of an edit just explain why and don't groundlessly attack others' good faith. As you know, several disparaged editors have repeatedly attempted in a civil manner to discuss this violation of WP policy (WP:GF) with you at the Admin Noticeboard [2]. You don't seem to 'get it' there, but I hope our persuasive efforts will help you eventually figure out what we're asking from you.Haberstr (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

In a nation of 145 million large scale would be 1 Million plus, minimum, in several locations. SaintAviator lets talk 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

There were large protests before and after the election because many people believed Putin had stolen millions of votes from his opponent. (217.42.27.219 (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

please explain

what exactly is POV or "weaseling" in this edit per the edit summary. Additionally, it's pretty obvious Athenean that you are purposefully "mimic-ing" my edit summaries which is obnoxious. Please stop.

Haberstr's edits were pretty clearly POV. Like adding in the word "alleged" for no reason. Or removing the link to the Russian financial crisis (2014–present) from the article. The fact that he's trying to sneak in POV changes under the guise of grammar fixes doesn't exactly help to inspire good faith.

Nznk's edit [3] was also a clear cut case of WP:WEASEL where they changed "reported" to "claimed".

• My* edits on the other hand did nothing of the sort.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit was a blanket revert of all my changes, which is highly disruptive and obnoxious. I have changed the "reported" and "alleged", but the rest of those edits stand. The claims by Zuyganov are not lede material, and the whole "electoral fraud" thing for the 2012 elections is more factually reported in Haberstr's version, not yours. And since when is the SOHR considered a reliable source? Last time I checked it failed the "reputation for fact checking" part of WP:RS. Athenean (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Anyway I re-instated the link to the Russian financial crisis (2014-present), and removed the "alleged". Anything else? Athenean (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating that link and removing the "alleged". However, SOHR is a reliable source - why wouldn't it be? If you got a problem with it I suggest taking it up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is a marginal partisan group, essentially a one-man-enterprize run by a certain Rami Abdulrahman. Dorpater (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

SOHR, this “group” is nothing more than a one-man blogger operating out of one of the bedrooms in his two bedroom home in Coventry, England, reading and repackaging other peoples’ blogs and tweets. It gets better – “He also runs a clothes shop” SaintAviator lets talk 00:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Marginal? Must be why they're quoted so often by so many sources. New York Times calls them a "monitoring group". NPR says they "monitor the conflict". Yahoo News mentions them. Reuters says that they've been "cited by virtually every major news outlet since an uprising ... began". Also that they have "been a key source of news on the events in Syria"\. And of course they also use them as a source [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-shishani-idUSKCN0WC0N8. We can keep going: The Economist. Associated Press. BBC ("a watchdog group"). The Guardian. DW. Etc. etc. etc.

Marginal my butt.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So while ya'll's opinions are appreciated they aren't really relevant since they contradict a wide array of sources and boil down to nothing more than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You always can, if you want to, bring it up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Lets get a consensus going (counting) 3 : 1 against the bedsit blogger. But bigger than that you are starting edit warring behaviour again (will we soon see MVBW?) by adding POV minor stuff not suited to a BLP. I suggest you go edit the linked article to vent your enthusiasms on minor points on the Syrian War topic (shakes head mutters 'I knew he'd try again') SaintAviator lets talk 01:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

No. That's not "consensus". That's vote stacking and tag teaming. Consensus is build on reliable sources. Local "consensus" does not trump general consensus on reliable sources. And this is a reliable source as shown by my links above. Again, please feel free to bring this up at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Per WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A self-published blog by an clothes-seller with no journalistic credentials (or even a secondary education) fails this criterion [4]. Athenean (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense. They DO have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" which is EXACTLY why they're used as by NY Times, BBC, The Guardian, Reuters, etc. etc. etc. I've provided links above. All you've done here is let us know what your personal feelings about the matter are. That's not how this works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's another vote against the one-man PR operative in the used clothing shop. No way his "SOHR" can be seen as a WP:RS Santamoly (talk) 18:00, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Again. Reliable sources disagree with your particular opinion. Your characterization of the organization does not inspire confidence either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And you guys really should drop the false "it's a blog by a cloths maker" narrative. Here is an extensive profile of the organization from a reliable source [5]. Let's see what THEY (as opposed to some Wikipedia accounts with battleground attitudes) have to say about them:

"The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has emerged as a prominent campaign group amid the country's revolt against President Bashar al-Assad, releasing daily casualty figures for the international media" (oh, but supposedly they're "marginal" (sic))

"The group of mainly professionals, many of them lawyers, monitored changes to the law and the judicial system, and worked to highlight cases of human rights abuses" (a clothes-maker running a blog? Riiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhhhtttttttt....)

"It now has more than 200 members and affiliates, covering every province in Syria, with some volunteers aggregating and publicising information from the UK" (a single guy running a blog? Who are you trying to kid? Please stop)

"The group says it is impartial in its reporting, recording the deaths of soldiers as well as civilians and protesters. The names of all those killed are carefully documented, along with the circumstances surrounding their death, including videos if they are available." (calling this source "partisan" makes sense only if you're hell bent on pushing a FRINGE POV to begin with)

Seriously, how are we supposed to have a serious good faithed argument when the claims being made on this talk are so flagrantly false and against reliable sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is so much y'all can do to help yourselves here. I've looked at the edits, and the biggest difference that I see is the "an announcement which led to large-scale protests in many Russian cities..." thing. If that's verified in the source, well, it probably should be in. The rest is mostly phrasing and not worth fighting over. The other thing, that y'all are discussing to death here, is about a report/claim by a blogger/press organization--a thing that has no place in this article, which is a biography. I'm almost tempted to really put my admin hat on and cut the whole "President Putin authorized Russian military intervention..." section as UNDUE and a BLP violation; the sources all go "Russia launches airstrikes..." or some variety thereof, not "Putin launches airstrikes...". This kind of metonymy is, in my opinion, not acceptable in BLPs. University administrators shouldn't get the credit for every graduate or every building, presidents shouldn't get all the credit for every job gained, and in this biography Russian politics shouldn't be completely subsumed. You already have 75k in Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War and 147k in Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War--it should seem obvious that a link will do. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Please do. Such action is long overdue. It's perhaps the only way to deal with the incredibly tenacious POV-pushers that plague this article. Athenean (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

That's the other guys, of course, right? :) Drmies (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to mention that the same applies to all that economic mumbo-jumbo in the lede. Athenean (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe so. But I said "almost tempted". I still hope that common sense will prevail and that the POV pushers on both sides will push toward the middle--like, the possibly GA-type article middle, in which case the White Whale and the Amur Tiger might also disappear from the article. And the "Under Putin, the Hasidic FJCR became increasingly influential" section. And any number of other sections. But this has to start with a serious discussion on what is relevant in a BLP and what is not--a discussion which here seems necessary, not so much in other articles. Look at, for instance, a similar very controversial issue: the Falklands War in Margaret Thatcher, a GA. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I dont know, look here below. Thatcher thrived in this war, and is even criticized for not doing enough. Its almost all about Thatcher, because it was (and theres more in the article).

On 2 April 1982 the ruling military junta in Argentina ordered the invasion of the British-controlled Falkland Islands and South Georgia, triggering the Falklands War.[159] The subsequent crisis was "a defining moment of her [Thatcher's] premiership".[160] At the suggestion of Harold Macmillan and Robert Armstrong,[160] she set up and chaired a small War Cabinet (formally called ODSA, Overseas and Defence committee, South Atlantic) to take charge of the conduct of the war,[161] which by 5–6 April had authorised and dispatched a naval task force to retake the islands.[162] Argentina surrendered on 14 June and the operation was hailed a success, notwithstanding the deaths of 255 British servicemen and 3 Falkland Islanders. Argentinian deaths totalled 649, half of them after the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror torpedoed and sank the cruiser ARA General Belgrano on 2 May.[163] Thatcher was criticised for the neglect of the Falklands' defence that led to the war, and especially by Tam Dalyell in parliament for the decision to sink the General Belgrano, but overall she was considered a highly capable and committed war leader.[164] The "Falklands factor", an economic recovery beginning early in 1982, and a bitterly divided opposition all contributed to Thatcher's second election victory in 1983.[165] Thatcher often referred after the war to the "Falklands Spirit"; Hastings and Jenkins (1983) suggested that this reflected her preference for the streamlined decision-making of her War Cabinet over the painstaking deal-making of peace-time cabinet government.[166] SaintAviator lets talk 04:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice the focus on Thatcher, as opposed to focusing on alleged misdeeds by the British forces, and other off-topic stuff. Athenean (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Except for the sentence "Argentinian deaths totalled 649, half of them after the nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror torpedoed and sank the cruiser ARA General Belgrano on 2 May.[163]" which adds context. Likewise here, it'd be enough to have just one sentence in the article on the number of casualties.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope. In fact it should be the sentence about the casualties that should be removed from the Thatcher article, rather than adding more irrelevant crap here. Athenean (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

My take also is that the casualties belong in the linked article. SaintAviator lets talk 09:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposing removal of economy information from the lede

The main (and obvious) argument is that this material is not directly related to Putin, in fact it is only very tangentially related to him. To devote an entire paragraph of the lede to this sort of stuff is WP:UNDUE. There is not a single country leader article that contains this kind of detailed info on the ups and downs of a country economy in the lede. This article suffers from far too much material not directly related to Putin in it, it is time to clean up, starting with the lede. Proposed. Athenean (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree, remove all SaintAviator lets talk 08:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that it can fairly be said that his popularity rests in part on Russia's rebound from the economic chaos of the Yeltsin years, something should probably be said about this in the lead (see these pieces, for example, which cannot be said to be "pro-Putin" particularly). However, it does not need a blow-by-blow account of the ups and downs of the Russian economy during his leadership (much of the other lead content is also too detailed, including the ins and outs of individual elections and the stuff about "tandemocracy" – and is that phrase even widely acknowledged or used? Equally, it needs more summary information about what he has actually done as president, eg in foreign policy, economic policy, dealing with post-Soviet issues etc) N-HH talk/edits 10:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - material related to economics is covered by any serious source which discusses Putin. For a good reason, both Putin's domestic popularity and Putin's foreign policy are closely related to Russia's economic outcomes. This proposal is a straight up WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT and it contradicts Wikipedia policy. And just to be clear - BOTH the positive and the not-so-positive need to be mentioned. In other words, this part of the current lede is fine (other parts have problems).Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Does it ever occur to you that how to concisely summarise germane content, especially in a lead, is a matter of judgment, and that people who happen to disagree with yours are not necessarily "POV pushing", "contradict[ing] policy" or trying to censor material they "don't like" but are just taking a different view about how best to select and present relevant information? The lead currently, in paras 3 and 4, goes into exorbitant detail about individual election results and economic statistics/trends respectively. By contrast, it tells us virtually nothing about Putin's actual policies or actions, including on the economy. I would argue that including the latter, in summary, in the lead is more important and more informative to a reader looking for information about Putin himself. Now, that's just my opinion of course, but – just like you – I would argue that my opinion is correct. N-HH talk/edits 17:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Sometimes people I disagree with are acting in good faith and the difference is simply a matter of opinion. But other times - and very frequently on articles such as this - nah, it really is just dedicated POV warriors editing against policy. The fact that all the arguments boil down to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT rather than being policy-backed is sort of indicative of that. Believe it or not, I'd put you in the first group.

So, in regard to the length of the lede. First note how several editors involved here were perfectly fine with a long lede that had information on economics as long as it was all positive info. Same thing with Syria, as long as it was pro-Putin puffery not a single one of them had an objection to it. It was only when the info was balanced and made neutral did these accounts suddenly discover the virtues of "shorter lede!" "too long!" "off topic!" etc. See what I mean?

As to the substance, note how long this article is. A four paragraph lede for an article this size is perfectly appropriate. Yes, there probably is too much detail about individual elections - that part I agree with, but that's not the issue being discussed here. However, the info on the economy is pretty sparse. It's basically two sentences. There's nothing UNDUE about it. And it's supported by sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I would remove from the lead the economic information as WP:UNDUE and out of WP:SCOPE with a biographical article. It's hard to attribute the booms and busts of the Russian economy to Putin himself. We've had similar problems elsewhere in this article and it has been resolved simply by its removal. I'd much rather see content in the lead that can be directly attributed to him, rather than indirectly influenced by him, or some other ambiguous premise. It's not as if the booms and busts of the Russian economy is authorized or set in stone by Putin. With that said, I agree with N-HH and think policy should be the main focus. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed it. There's very little support for its inclusion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

There's an ongoing RfC right above and tag-teaming is not consensus. I do think it ... funny, how all of sudden you've discovered the virtues of a shorter lede once it was made neutral. You were fine with the economic info being in there as long as it was all glowing and slanted pro-Putin. Whether or not the info should be in there depends on whether major sources which discuss Putin talk about the economy. And they do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, we should focus on policy, rather than the booms and busts of the economy in Russia, which are almost like bad weather, and may have nothing to do with Putin. Just because sources say so, doesn't mean it should be inserted there either, especially in the lead. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We should focus on what sources focus on, period. And if we don't base our articles on sources, what exactly are we suppose to base them on? Your own personal feelings and whims? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. That's not how Wikipedia works. With that logic, we'd have to add information on his dog Buffy in the lead just because it's reliably and extensively sourced. In fact, I could safely argue that Buffy has more of a personal connection to Putin than a boom and bust economic cycle which has little to do with him personally. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Uh... so you ARE in fact saying that we shouldn't base the reliable sources??? Holy crap, that was a rhetorical question, I didn't think you actually believe that. So let's ask it again - if not reliable sources, then what? Whatever EtienneDolet says? Is that "how Wikipedia works"?

Look. It's not that hard. If most serious sources on Putin talk about the economy so do we. Most serious sources do not discuss Buffy at length. Neither do we. There. Done.

And just to state the obvious one more time, whether or not "Buffy has more of a personal connection to Putin than a boom and bust economic cycle which has little to do with him personally" is NOT up to you to decide (honestly, I doubt whether you're qualified to answer that question). It's up to the sources. All these problems on the talk page and 90% of the problems with the article stem from the fact that you and a few others refuse to actually follow policy/sources but insist instead on offering your own personal opinions and using those as a basis for this article. Which is why this article is still crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. Do not use straw man arguments here, and stop putting words in my mouth. I simply said that just because something is reliably sourced doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in the article, and especially in the lead. Might as well add stuff about Buffy, Koni, and his favorite food in the lead too right? Aren't those things reliably sourced too? What I'm trying to say here is that it's effectively up to us, as Wikipedia editors, to decide that. This article has actually improved over this last couple of months. The Forbes information has been added. But besides that, without my guidance and opinions, we'd have analogies of warlord Charles Taylor in this article. And the civilian killings you have now backed off from is also a major improvement, which I had opposed as well. But that's besides the point. And please, don't personally attack me (i.e. "honestly, I doubt whether you're qualified to answer that question"). I am qualified to make observations and raise concerns just like any other editor here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

No, not right. Buffy and pals might be *mentioned* in sources about Putin but the economy under Putin is *discussed* in depth in sources about Putin. Are you seriously saying that how an economy does under its leader is as trivial as the leader's pets? Who's the one setting up strawmen? "You don't think useless trivia should be in the article therefore you also have to agree that very important stuff shouldn't be in there either" Huh? No, no, no. And no, it's not really "up to us" - it's up to editors who are actually following Wikipedia policy. An encyclopedia article is not a hodge podge of the editors' feelings and whims as you want to have it (as long as they are your feelings and whims of course).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, there you go. This now goes back to what you have said yourself. We, as Wikipedia editors, are to decide what is meant by in depth coverage or relevancy. We are to decide what is more significant, and what is even less so. We decide, for example, whether articles should be deleted or created, whether material should be added or removed, whether it's due or not, and etc. etc. And once we have that established, we have another hurdle to jump, and that is if it's personally relevant to Putin's life. In that regard, Buffy is more personally relevant to Putin's life than a boom and bust cycle of a capitalist economy. So at this point, I have not seen any semblance of an argument from you that assesses either of these points. Therefore, I am sticking with my original opinion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Against my better judgment I'm going to step in here occasionally as an outside observer. Closing out a proposal less than 12 hours after it was made is overly hasty. The world won't end if you wait a few days for people to respond. I also suggest that this be formally structured as a WP:RFC so as to include views from a wider range of editors. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (keep this info in introduction). Economic successes and the current crisis of Russian economy are attributed by multiple RS personally to Putin. This is because the ungoing economic sanctions by Western countries against Russia resulted from the disasterous political decisions (annexation of Crimea, the military intervention in Donbass, etc.) taken personally by Putin. In addition, the so called economic "counter-sanctions" which harm the economy of Russia were also decided by Putin. This is not a democratic country. Therefore, the "leader" is a lot more responsible. That all was described in numerous recent sources, as well as in older sources, such as "Putin. Itogi", Putin. Corruption and Putin. War by Boris Nemtsov who was recently killed ... My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please, no looney fringe type arguments based on looney-fringe sources. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is my judgement based on my knowledge of the subject. No one usually provides long list of refs in RfC voting. I only noted a couple of most notable books (ones that we have WP pages about). My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you're calling Boris Nemtsov "looney-fringe" pretty much illustrates that your views are themselves WP:FRINGE and that you're purpose here is just to push a POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Given your ideological predilections and propensity to personal attacks, your comment comes as no surprise. However, you can seek an opinion on WP:RSN, but somehow I doubt you will like the result. Athenean (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you have no idea what my "ideological predilections" are. All you know is that I disagree with your propensity to reflexively push pro-Putin POV by trying include only positive info and removing anything even mildly critical. And if you really think that one of the most prominent Russian journalists is "looney fringe" - which isn't surprising seeing as how you claimed earlier that BBC was not a reliable source - then you got no business editing a mainstream encyclopedia. I suggest other outlets which might be more conducive to your POV and will undoubtedly let you "publish" your original research all day, like Metapedia or Conservatopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, your contribs and long and troubled history give me a very good idea of your predilections (West=good, Russia=bad). With which "Conservatopedia" (sic) is closely aligned. Athenean (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

My contribs are just fine, you might want to think about yours instead. And if you honestly think that you have described... "my predilection" with any degree of accuracy you need to rethink that. But hey, I understand where you're coming from. If you're a dedicated POV pusher then anything that doesn't agree with your point of view is "POV" or "looney fringe", even if it comes from the most respectable sources. If your intent on Wikipedia is to "win" battles and treat it like a WP:BATTLEGROUND then you quickly fall into the mindset that everyone else must be the same.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Accusing others of what you are yourself guilty of, as usual. Nothing new or original here. You block log and checquered history shows who is the one treating the encyclopedia as a battleground. Nothing you can do will change that. But we digress. Not that it was me who first personalized the discussion, but hey, if you want to go down that route...Athenean (talk)

• Keep this information. As already said, I don't see any reason to remove this all from the lead. One of the reasons Putin enjoyed great popularity is simply the fact that his coming to power coincided with the recovery of the Russian economy (which actually already began when Primakov was the PM).Dorpater (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

An entire paragraph on Russia's economic performance is way too much, and the current version as it is phrased has nothing to do with Putin. For example, the article on Margaret Thatcher, a GA, devotes only one sentence to Britain's economic performance under Thatcher, and three sentences on Thatcher's economic policies. This is what we should be aiming for here: Putin's policies, not Russia's economic performance, which is affected by a large number of things, not just Putin. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Two sentences is all we need. And again, what matters is sources not other Wikipedia articles, or personal opinions (we're getting way too much of that here).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Well right now we have more than two sentences on Russia's economic performance, and practically nothing on Putin's policies. Not sure about which sources you keep talking about, but pretty much none of the sources currently used to source that paragraph in the lede have anything to do with Putin. In fact, some don't even mention him at all. Which is the best proof that it needs to go. Athenean (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

We have more than two sentences - four to be exact - in one short paragraph because this is actually the "compromise version". Which you guys are now trying to remove completely. Which is why these discussions are so frustrating - we work on trying to compromise and then one of you (EtienneDolet, Athenean or SaintAviator) comes in and say "we're gonna do whatever we want to anyway, thank you for letting us waste your time".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

And now it's two three sentences. Satisfied? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I don't recall any such compromise. The current version was imposed by brute-force edit-warring by you and your tag-team friends. That's not compromise. And copy-editing gimmicks are not a solution. Athenean (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you don't, now that you've changed your mind. Sort of convenient. And this wasn't a "gimmick". Your objection was that supposedly the info shouldn't be in here because it was too long. So I shortened it. Now even that is not enough for you. So who's being unreasonable? Who's unwilling to compromise? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Read my original post again. I never said that it was "too long". This is why it's impossible to have any kind of productive discussion with you: You always twist and misconstrue others' positions. Athenean (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• User Dorpater is not my "tag-team friend" just because we happened to agree with him about this. My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, obviously I didn't mean Dorpater. But you already knew that, didn't you? Athenean (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

For the same reason I am not a "tag-team friend" of anyone else just because I happened to agree with someone else on a number of occasions and disagree on a few others. My point is very simple: you should really stop making such accusations. Well, I do not really mind if you make them on my talk page, but I strongly object when you make them on arbitration or article talk pages. My very best wishes (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I actually never mentioned you. But it's interesting you are reacting so defensively.Athenean (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sure, I can see that you target another contributor. My very best wishes (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree - Putin and his policies should be the focus of the lead section, not the ups and downs of the Russian economy. Follow the guidance of the other GA articles on well-known national leaders.Haberstr (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think you mean "support"? The proposal is for removal of the economic material. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I've changed the first word from 'oppose' to 'agree'.Haberstr (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Wholesale deletions

Recent large number of deletions by VM are undiscussed. The sheer scope of deleting all this thought over hard work is IMHO a vandalism / edit warfare / revenge cocktail. Admin please. SaintAviator lets talk 01:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You are not seriously asking for admin help are you? If it concerns VM, steer well clear of all of them. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

See, VM suggests you get a block, and an admin jumps in to boldly threaten you with one [6] without any intervening giving of advice. Have you really learned nothing from the recent cases related to VM? Given the impossibility of improving things and the inevitability of being blocked if you continue to try, I suggest leaving the article alone. Let it turn into even more of a joke article than it already is. It is not a serious article that anyone would use for research, and I doubt if Putin is loosing any sleep over it! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

SaintAviator I'd appreciate it if you didn't describe my edits as "vandalism". That will quickly get you blocked. They were good faithed and constructive edits which removed a whole bunch of stupid junk from the article. This whole article is pretty much shit. Part of the reason it's shit is because there's so much trivial, inane, irrelevant promo puffery in it (while certain editors choose to try and remove info which is actually important, relevant and of interest to the reader under the pretense that this article is "too long", while leaving all the crap that must've been added by a some junior high kids) I'm not the only one who has noticed this, just the latest one whom you guys haven't managed to drive off with your tag team edit warring and constant drama board attacks.

Removing junk from an article is not "vandalism". Putting it back in... well, that's not vandalism either, but it is pretty disruptive. And in this particular case it appears that the only reason you put it back in was... because it was myself in particular who removed it. That's even worse, as it's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Please explain (without ad hominems, if you can), how this material you removed is "shit". This wouldn't be the first time you removed material on bogus pretenses would it [7]? And of course, this doesn't apply to anti-Putin material, does it. Oh no, not at all. Athenean (talk) 03:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your accusation that I've EVER "removed material on bogus pretenses" is totally false. And you're trying to pretend that *I* am the one making "ad hominens"? Seriously?

And why is it shit? Because it's inane trivia and puffery. Funny that in one discussion, on one issue, you're going on about how this article is too long so we should remove some text (the kind of text that doesn't agree with your POV). And on the very same talk page, in a different discussion, on another issue, you appear to think that ridiculous promo stuff that would look embarrassing on a high school graduate's resume is just fine and should be kept. Double standard much? Make-up-any-reason-no-matter-how-contradictory-to-get-your-way much? (and of course turn around and demand that others "assume good faith" even as you blatantly try to WP:GAME'em).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Evasion, straw men, and ad hominems. Par for the course, in other words. Evasion: You were asked to justify this edit [8], you didn't (because you can't?). Straw men: I never said that the economics paragraph from the lede should be removed because the article is too long, but rather on the grounds of irrelevance to the topic of the article. Here again is my proposal for your convenience [9]. Can you point to where I said it should be removed because it makes the article too long? That's right, didn't think so. And yes, you did remove relevant info on bogus grounds (although I'm sure it was justified in your head) here [10]. You could have easily found a source for this, but no, it doesn't fit your POV, so out it goes. What else is new? Athenean (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

VM I know your modus op now. Its not time yet for your IDONTLIKEIT carpet bombing, that comes when people revert. But I see the WP:BATTLEGROUND is here. Ironic. No this is your 'Mass Deletion cycle'. Soon you will do the 'mass additions cycle'. Hoping to keep causing enough chaos to wear people down to get the article POV anti Putin. I dont believe anymore you are a team player. I gave you that faith early on. So did others. You destroyed it. Im not interested why. After all these dramas it always comes back to you. This article would settle down if you were topic banned, probably for your own good. Its not personal BTW. SaintAviator lets talk 04:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what the frog you're talking about and all you're doing is putting your own WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality on display. I don't know if this article would settle down or not, but I am pretty sure that it would stay in its current sorry state or get even worse. And don't try to threaten me with some spurious topic bans which no one has even considered.

Like I said - DON'T refer to my edits as "vandalism".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

You know exactly what I'm talking about. You often do mass deletes / additions. What would you call it if someone came and deleted 9000 bytes in 7 sections in a short time? SaintAviator lets talk 05:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor. You do realize that that is what actual editors do in real life, right? Remove crap from author manuscripts. The only difference is that the problems are even worse on Wikipedia, and they are even worse than Wikipedia-average on this article.

Read WP:VANDALISM and then cut it out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think all the fuss / boards / time wasted over the last month with you at the centre has not damaged Wikipedia? Do you think you are disruptive? The key thing is Good Faith. Do you have it or are you gaming the system? These are the questions that can cross over into vandalism. A good faith editor after all thats gone on would have discussed. You need to self revert and discuss SaintAviator lets talk 05:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think that you're neither a police interrogator nor a qualified psychologists? Do you think that asking bad faithed question of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety is not actually dishonest? Do you think I went and filed those drama board discussions myself or something or are you just being daft? Do you realize that in none of these discussion was I actually sanctioned in any way and instead most of them WP:BOOMERANGed on the person filing them? Don't you think it wise to draw a lesson from that? Do you have something better to do than waste people's time with silly questions?

Since you already reverted me and then your tag team friend jumped in and reverted some more just for the thrill of it, there's nothing I could "self-revert" is there? Stop. Calling. Other. People's. Edits. Vandalism.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So No then on the remaining reverts? BTW I'm having trouble with your grammar SaintAviator lets talk 06:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Apropos nothing, there's little wrong with his grammar. And short of an issue of competence existing- and I do not think that is the case- statements such as "I'm having trouble with your grammar" constitute criticism of the editor, not content. However that's not the real problem here is it. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy Easter next week to the Putinists (isn't he a pious Orthodox?), and today for the Putin haters. Or the non-Orthodox Christians, or whatever. Offered in the spirit of hope. Drmies (talk)

• I was asked to throw random blocks around. Who wants one? OK--SaintAviator for false accusations of vandalism (the header here--now tweaked by administrative fiat), Athenean for failure to AGF such as in "Putin's reaction is relevant, and was removed on bogus grounds". Volunteer Marek, I'm having a harder time finding his violations than y'all's, perhaps surprisingly: Marek seems to be doing a better job than you all playing the ball, and not the man. However, there's "you're purpose here is just to push a POV", which is a lack of AGF and thus violates NPA, and "funny, how all of sudden you've discovered the virtues of a shorter lede once it was made neutral": no sarcasm on Russian topics, please. Plus, as understandable as it is, this and this is edit warring, whether broadly or narrowly defined and governed under two sets of discretionary sanctions. Finally, there's EtienneDolet, whose revert during an ongoing RfC is disruptive.

  So, I have enough here to block four people, and if I look harder I can probably find more; I could finger Haberstr for this edit summary. I think the edit itself is fine, but the edit summary and the POV accusation is not. And Tiptoethrutheminefield, I removed that tasteless remark of yours. Now, against my better judgment and against the advice of such worthies as Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, I do not wish to hand out blocks like Easter candy, but this is to say that anyone can hand out those blocks with good reason. On the bright side, the article has been trimmed some, though VM has been doing much of the heavy lifting and, I have to say, from 220k to 213k, that's minor, though it's a good sign.

  Cut down the snark, follow the accepted guidelines for RfCs. Y'all do NOT want to start reverting each other since just about every revert here is disruptive one way or another. But most of all, cut down the snark. Boris, I'm sorry. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Who asked you to hand out "random blocks"? Haberstr (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, Drmies, my edit summary was a description of how something seemed to me, and not an assumption of bad faith. There are obviously different understandings of POV/NPOV here, and edits clash for that reason. No reason to deny that, in fact it the foundation of good faith but different points of view editing. I assume, for example, that Volunteer Marek and I have differing points of view on what NPOV/POV is. ... But it is a violation of AGF to accuse others of "POV pushing," which is an assumption of bad faith.Haberstr (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, here are other examples, from March 26 & 27 on this talk page, of assumption of bad faith: you're purpose here is just to push a POV. (March 26) … your propensity to reflexively push pro-Putin POV (March 26) … then one of you (EtienneDolet, Athenean or SaintAviator) comes in and say "we're gonna do whatever we want to anyway, thank you for letting us waste your time" (March 26) … it appears that the only reason you put it back in was... because it was myself in particular who removed it. That's even worse, as it's classic WP:BATTLEGROUND. (March 27) … Double standard much? Make-up-any-reason-no-matter-how-contradictory-to-get-your-way much? (March 27) … your tag team friend jumped in and reverted some more just for the thrill of it (March 27) … But hey, I understand where you're coming from. If you're a dedicated POV pusher... (March 27).

Heck - I do not like articles over 120K and would likely trim this one that much. <g> Collect (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Just as you were writing this I jotted down the same number elsewhere as a target. Drmies (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

LOL - GMTA - see Joseph Widney for my scissors. 140K down to 34K Collect (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

How about this: leave the lede alone for now, since that really should be determined by what's in the article itself, so it makes sense to tackle it at the end. But focus on the text body and start cutting. I tried to get that going but I do have a feeling - whether this is assuming bad faith or not - that if I do it, it will be reverted simply because I'm the one making the changes, but if someone else does it, it might stick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi Drmies, I did not think this was a RfC at that time. It really wasn't obvious upon first glance without the RfC template. I thought it was a simple proposal followed by discussion. At that moment, my understanding was that there were 4 users, as opposed to 1 user, that demanded its removal. But your point is well-taken and perhaps I removed it too early. I'll have it better-timed in the future whenever it's deemed necessary. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to disengage for a while and let less-involved editors do their thing. The article definitely needs to be cut back. Athenean (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thats the first target range in bytes thats been put up. Good. Its what we need. Discussion makes things go better. Lol. Considering the turbulent history here it honestly seemed to me like something else was going on. More of the same. A simple discuss on a target range by VM, being the reason for wholesale deletions, would have got me talking. There was also a period when people here, including VM, were adding a lot of stuff, bloating it out. @Drmies: BTW I never supported the TipToe aspersion, I disagree, I think you handled this well. I appreciate you seeing the Good Faith. This thread will be the catalyst that took the worst heat out of the editing. Seriously theres not been enough honest discussion, as it then morphs into snark. This is a good start. SaintAviator lets talk 23:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• I am happy to see these comments; good faith is like ... oh, come up with your own damn metaphor. If you have it, you'll get more of it from others. VM's suggestion about leaving the lead alone sounds like a good plan, and then you can fight over that lead later. (BTW, I saw some back-and-forths about this economic stuff, but there's a paragraph on that in the lead of the Thatcher article, so it shouldn't be entirely left out, I suppose--remember, Thatcher is a GA.) I seriously think that the more you all manage to cut that's not essential, the less opportunity there will be to fight over particulars. Only a few days ago there was a discussion about the reliability of a Syrian blogger or something like that; that shouldn't have to happen in an article on a Russian politician. Thank you all, Drmies (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

• Good Faith 'is' catchy. I now have a large store of Good Faith in you. Yes lets leave the lead till later. All the heavy fighting 'was' over these details, so your advice on reduction neatly solves it. I think that blogger too was a ref for just more non essentials. These points are wise points people SaintAviator lets talk 00:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

So. Can I remove the stuff I tried removing? It really was non-essential fluff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Not the stuff I re-added yesterday. I don't agree with the characterization of it as "non-essential fluff". Athenean (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• Talk detail guys. Best to be like Étienne & Collect below, takes a minute to outline the removal in a thread to keep it all clear. SaintAviator lets talk 01:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

And this is how ideas that sound good in theory, end up dying in practice. Just not enough good faith to fuel that engine.

Anyway - [11] this is restoring material that's obviously written in POV way. Gazprom was created "in national interest"? Really? Care to show me where it says that in the source? I'm pretty sure that's just a straight up POV misrepresentation of the source.

This is also unnecessary and is an instance of special pleading. The source is not reliable either.

And with regard to this I thought it was agreed to remove superfluous information about the election outcomes from the lede? Oh, wait, that's right, we can only remove anything that can potentially make Putin look bad (like the fact that there was voter fraud) from the lede, but not anything that makes him look good.

Athenean, you said you were going to step back. So step back for a few days, then come back and evaluate the effort once it's had a chance, rather than just trying to short circuit it even before it can get started.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am willing to disengage, but I was hoping you would do the same or at least focus on something else instead of trying to remove my edits the minute I said I was willing to disengage. I certainly don't agree with your "special pleading" characterization. If we're going to imply that Putin is involved in Politkovskaya's murder, then we should at least include his reaction. If you feel that source is not reliable, it's not hard to find another one. Regarding this [12], I really don't see why we should remove the 64% of the vote (I assume that's what you mean and not the other part of my edit which is just a copyedit). That's just a neutral fact, and we mention the margin of victory for the other two elections, so I really don't see the case for removing the 64%. I'm ok with the removal of the OSCE sentence (see below), but not this. Athenean (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Guys Im not feeling the love! From Drmies above 'VM's suggestion about leaving the lead alone sounds like a good plan'. Lets do that. It is a good suggestion. BTW for non minor edits a new discussion thread like below, would be best. SaintAviator lets talk 02:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to remove OSCE opinions from the lead

I propose removing the excessive amount of information (don't know how it got there) regarding voting irregularities from the lead:

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe observers evaluated election day voting positively overall but assessed the vote count negatively in almost one-third of polling stations because of procedural irregularities.

Reason being is that there's already criticisms mentioned in the previous sentence. Also, the lead can be shorter this way. Indeed, the OSCE is a notable organization, and its opinion counts. But such lengthy, and rather complicated, criticisms should not be in the lead. Instead, it should be elaborated somewhere in the body at best. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fine to remove this from the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Athenean (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course SaintAviator lets talk 23:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

typical possible editing style

Talk:Vladimir Putin/KGB shows a rough edit showing that there is no reason I can see why we should not quickly shrink this BLP by at least 25% without cutting any actual substance. Collect (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Good work. SaintAviator lets talk 23:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: I think that'll be great. By the way, aren't there any FAs that are 200,000+ bytes? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No comprehensive list by size so I looked at all of the last 6 month's FAs - 3% were under 18K, 94% were 18K to 70K, 3% 70K to 130K, 0% over 130K in size. I can safely say the chances of a 200K article ever reaching that status is minuscule or less. Collect (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Okay, well your work on the KGB section is good. Do you have that ready to go? It will be helpful since we can reduce quite a few bytes from there. Once that's done, we can look into other sections and reduce them as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Sorry, keep pinging you here. How do you feel about the "Speeches abroad" section? It's one of the largest sections, and I doubt that the topic (Speeches abroad) is notable enough to merit its own section, especially one of that size. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It is a tad like "reactions of foreign leaders"- type sections about notable deaths ... a very large amount of it is not of use to the reader much at all. Perhaps an RfC on its utter removal - allowing "really important stuff" too be moved into relevant sections, would be best. Collect (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Those sections are either not required or in need of heavy trim SaintAviator lets talk 22:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Putin as fascist

An excellent RS to consult http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967067X16000039 .--Galassi (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Soooooooooo how is that you wanted to improve this article again? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable source from an academic expert. So what is the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

RS is RS...--Galassi (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Might I suggest that consideration of this source be deferred until after the reorganization and trimming currently in progress is complete? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure we can wait, though we'll see how quickly this reorganization and trimming proceeds; I can see it getting bogged down in more petty reverts and sniping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure we can wait, though we'll see how quickly this reorganization and trimming proceeds; I can see it getting bogged down in more petty reverts and sniping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem.--Galassi (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

This is just one of many publications, and it is about country, not that much about Putin. One point many analysts agree about: Putin is unimportant. Almost nothing will change in the country if he disappears one day. The "ruling elite" are Chekists. According to Putin, the decision to take Crimea was made by "five men", and this is probably true. My very best wishes (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a reliable source from an academic expert. So what is the problem? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a speculative OPINION PIECE by an anti-Putin and Ukrainian nationalist ideologue. See WP:BIASED. From WP:RS: "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..." I hope the preceding guides your and our thinking when we consider using a biased source.Haberstr (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not a "speculative OPINION PIECE" but rather a scholarly article on the nature of Putin's government. Published in a peer reviewed well respected journal. By one of the top experts on the subject matter. From Rutgers University and Harvard. "Bias" is in the eye of the beholder.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your "top expert" has openly wrote about supporting Ukrainian nationalism, you can find this in both his publications and scholarly works on the subject.

Motyl is a AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL and an ACADEMIC. You would need a major proof that he is a "nationalistic ideologue" of any sort.--14:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

John A. Armstrong’s myth-symbol paradigm of ethnicity by Anna Siewierska-Chmaj in SPRAWY NARODOWOŚCIOWE Seria nowa / NATION ALITIE S AFF AIR S New series, 46/2015: 64–71 DOI: 10.11649/sn.2015.034 writes about Motyl's open support for Ukrainian nationalism.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That source most certainly DOES NOT say that Motyl is a "nationalistic ideologue" or that there is "Motyl's open support for Ukrainian nationalism". In fact, Motyl is barely mentioned in that source. This is a reminder that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

His ideology is obvious on his World Affairs page[13], but what matters is that this new contribution is just another speculative opinion piece. There is a wide array of opinion on Mr. Putin, much of it by professors and intellectuals with various ideologies. Why not start a new subsection called "Putin as Russia's Savior" too? Because, like a "Putin as Fascist," it would be WP:UNDUE.Haberstr (talk) 01:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what his "ideology" is and as far as the reliability of the source that's sort of irrelevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Here is what Per Anders Rudling writes about Motyl "The perhaps most intelligent denial of the OUN’s fascism and collaborationism is made by a political scientist, Alexander Motyl. Motyl’s argument differs from the crude denial of the OUN-affi liated historians. It is instead based upon the OUN’s failure to establish a state. While Motyl admits the OUN’s enthusiasm for a fascist Europe, its fascist intentions, he presents fascism is a model of organizing an existent state. This interpretation shifts the focus away from ideology to measurable achivement. Fascism, according to Motyl’s interpretation, becomes primarily an issue of whether a movement is successful in achieving its goal of controlling a state"(...)While Motyl’s stringent criteria for fascism disqualifi es the OUN, he defi nes contemporary Russia as an “unconsolidated fascist state." He presents himself as “a long-time critic of the Bandera movement,” yet his denial of

the OUN’s fascism and collaboration has become an important component of the narrative of diaspora nationalists and pro-OUN intellectuals. It is diffi cult to escape the notion that a definition of fascism which includes Medvedev’s Russia, but not Bandera and Stets’ko, is tailored to fi t the self-image and ideological needs of a community which to various degrees identifies with the pro-OUN tradition"[14].--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC) The salient part appears to be:

Fascism may be defined as a popular fully authoritarian political system with a personalistic dictator and a cult of the leader

Which appears to include the USSR for most of its existence in the first place, Castro's Cuba, Mao's China, Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Maduro's Venezuela and a host of other countries and eras. Are you sure you think this is a prudent course to follow? Especially since it offers a view:

" Not being a type of group, disposition, politics, or ideology,

Which does not appear exactly congruent with the usual usage of the now-dysphemistic term. Collect (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, first that's original research. A reliable source gets to define "fascism" however it wants. Second, that's only the abstract. By virtue of it being an abstract, I'm sure it doesn't present the full definition and view of the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS doesn't simply say "use any marginal piece of subjective opinion, commentary or speculation that happens to appear in a newspaper or even an academic publication", nor does it operate in a vacuum or as a trump card, however useful it might be for people trying to score points while suggesting they are simply following WP rules to pretend that it does. Just because a publication or author may be said to be "reliable" in a WP or even general sense, it doesn't mean everything recorded in it or by them becomes an encyclopedic fact or even particularly significant. Opinions, assessments and judgments, however reputable or otherwise the publisher and however eminent or otherwise the holder of them, remain opinions, assessments and judgments – and often heavily biased, minority or even fringe ones (yes, even among academics). Putin's Russia is not normally described as "fascist" as the term is formally understood. And as it happens, even the piece being cited, in its abstract, talks about a "reconstruction" of the concept of fascism, which in turn "may plausibly" allow the label to applied to Putin – which is all a bit flimsy. N-HH talk/edits 14:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not "opinion", it's scholarly work. It's not "marginal", it's a publication in a well respected, peer reviewed, journal, by one of the top experts in the literature. Who's a professor at Rutgers University. It's only "opinion, assessments and judgment" in the sense that ALL scholarly work is "opinion, assessments and judgment". As to how Putin's government is described in the literature - actually there's a good bit of the debate in the literature as to whether it's "fascist" or something else, like "neo-imperialist". So the term does actually appear fairly frequently as a description. This particular article represents one particular side in that debate ("Putin is not just another authoritarian neo-imperialist but actually fascist" vs. "it's crypto-fascism or quasi-fascism, but not quite there... yet") but that means that that view should be represented along with others (and of course attributed).Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Motyl openly wrote about his support for Ukrainian nationalism as construction myth of Ukrainian state. He is not a neutral author.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not true. Please remember that BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Before trying to insert this variant definition of "fascism" here as a valid claim of fact, I suggest you see how far you get inserting this source into the Fascism article as a redefinition of the term found there, as a claim of fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's WP:OTHERSTUFF. Anyway, for the moment I haven't inserted anything in the article. Mostly because on its own, with just this source, that would indeed create a POV problem. This is because this is part of a larger academic debate and to balance it we would need to have the publications from the other scholars who are working in this literature. I do strongly object however to trying to dismiss this source out of hand.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What you said is all true and should be applied to attempts to introduce the figures and claims of the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" as well.Dorpater (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, that article is from a special issue of a journal which is dedicated to scholarly assessment of Putin's government "Special Issue: Between Nationalism, Authoritarianism, and Fascism in Russia: Exploring Vladimir Putin’s Regime" [15]. I think that using scholarly works in this Wikipedia article would be a huge improvement upon its current state and sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is valid source by a highly qualified historian, Alexander J. Motyl. However, some other historians are talking not about fascism, but about Corporatism. That's why Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky called their book (which describes the history of Putin coming to power) "The Corporation" [of Chekists]. Something about Corporatism in Russia, where Putin is allegedly the head of the "Corporation" should be included I think. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Motyl is a supporter of Ukrainian nationalism so he is hardly a neutral author here(John A. Armstrong’s myth-symbol paradigm of ethnicity

by Anna Siewierska-Chmaj in SPRAWY NARODOWOŚCIOWE Seria nowa / NATION ALITIE S AFF AIR S New series, 46/2015: 64–71

DOI: 10.11649/sn.2015.034)--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That source most certainly DOES NOT say that Motyl is a "nationalistic ideologue" or that there is "Motyl's open support for Ukrainian nationalism". In fact, Motyl is barely mentioned in that source. This is a reminder that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles. This is in fact your THIRD reminder.

Also, can you please format your comments correctly as they're pretty hard to read. Additionally I don't see the need to make the same comment three different times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As for the comment above – "It's not 'opinion', it's scholarly work. It's not 'marginal', it's a publication in a well respected, peer reviewed, journal, by one of the top experts in the literature" – academics like everyone else have and express opinions in their work, and sometimes those opinions are indeed marginal in terms of the mainstream consensus. This is a rather uncontroversial point, one would have thought. The wider point was simply that there is a difference between verifiable "facts", which expertise and research can help to establish, and broader assessments or opinions about more subjective issues. There is. I'm glad you also accept that the Motyl piece should not be used on its own, for NPOV reasons if nothing else – but there was none of that nuance when the link was initially posted here by someone else. Obviously academic works as a general rule are indeed preferred as sources, but the other risk with some of the cited material is that it is probably a little too esoteric for a generalist encyclopedia page. N-HH talk/edits 15:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oh, no. This whole issue published by Science (journal), including the publication by Motyl must be used on this page. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss mainstream academic research. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not being "dismissed", people are just querying – with good reason – whether it is an "excellent", "mainstream" or definitive source that simply "must" be used on this page. Even if it is used, the question is how exactly, especially in terms of placing what Motyl and others might believe and say in a broader context and with any countervailing opinions. Nor, as it happens, is it "published by" the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It appears to be a volume of Communist and Post-Communist Studies, which happens to be available via a database called "ScienceDirect". N-HH talk/edits 18:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

In addition, you only have to read the introduction to the volume to see where it is coming from, when it talks of a "misplaced hope" that Russia was "in transition to a system that would come to eventually resemble Western democratic market economies"; and for an acknowledgement that the "Putin as fascist" theory specifically is not only very much not "mainstream" but not even being explicitly argued: "Putin's political system could evolve into what, still only a minority of scholars such as Motyl, 2007, Motyl, 2010 and Motyl [sic], 2016 argue increasingly resembles a fascist system". N-HH talk/edits 18:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is ScienceDirect, well known for publishing main stream academic research. Yes, these sources can and possibly should be used. Yes, a lot of info from the publications (there are several of them) is relevant to this page. This is all. No judgement what exactly should be included at the moment. BTW, the comparisons with other historical figures are abundant in publications. This is not just a slur, as might be with respect to some other politicians. Such comparisons are based on historical analogies with Germany before WWII and made by respected historians (as in this issue). This is actually a common place. Nothing special. My very best wishes (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

ScienceDirect.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Motyl

I have found several scholarly sources that led me to cast doubt on assertion that Motyl is a reliable author in this regard. I quoted some above, but I think it is best to list them.

• Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe, Universität Hamburg; Per Anders Rudling, Universität Greifswald.

Review of Krytyka. Hefte 3-4; 7-8; 9-10 [16] "For his “correction” of Snyder Rusnachenko relies on Alexander Motyl, who since the 1980s has been an active denier of the fascist nature of the OUN (no. 9-10, p. 7)"

• The Carl Beck Papers in Russian & East European Studies Number 2107, Per A. Rudling The OUN, the UPA and the Holocaust:

A Study in the Manufacturing of Historical Myths[17] "Andreas Umland has taken Motyl to task over his use of this terminology. “If we would apply Motyl’s loose conceptualization of fascism to contemporary world history, we might fi nd so many ‘fascisms’ that the term would lose much of its heuristic and communicative value. . . . Motyl’s comment is in so far unconstructive as he deprives researchers of Russian nationalism of an important analytic tool.”

"Motyl elegantly, and implicitly, divorces the OUN from its ideological kin—the Ustaše, the Hlinka Guard, Mussolini’s Fascists, and Hitler’s National Socialists. Referring to Ukrainian Nazi collaborators would be impossible twice over, according to this line of reasoning" "While Motyl’s stringent criteria for fascism disqualifi es the OUN, he defines contemporary Russia as an “unconsolidated fascist state.”243 He presents himself as “a long-time critic of the Bandera movement,”244 yet his denial of the OUN’s fascism and collaboration has become an important component of the narrative of diaspora nationalists and pro-OUN intellectuals"

• Marco Carynnyk[18][19]

"By arguing that the involvement of the OUN in the Holocaust was minimal Dr. Motyl is absolving it of its participation in the killing of Jews."

"Stepan Bandera: The Life and Afterlife of a Ukrainian Nationalist: Fascism, Genocide, and Cult" by Grzegorz Rossolinski-Liebe page 522 ""In his evaluation of Bandera and the Ukrainian nationalism, Motyl did not discuss such aspects as fascism in the OUN or the pogroms in 1941. He called the ethnic cleansing in 1943-1944 the "Ukrainian-Polish violence in Volhynia", which, in his view had nothing in common with the ethnic violence conducted by the Ustasa and should be compared instead to the violence of the "Irish nationalists against the British". In addition to romanticizing the OUN-UPA's violence...""

The above leads me to conclude that he definitely is not a reliable author on this topic.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with inserts like Fascism and this guy Motyl is its like the SOHR or Autism argument. It should not be happening on a bio page. Its Tabloid crap. With denials and such its also a hell of a lot of 'bytes' not needed. 'Less and succinct' not 'what if and maybes' is whats required. SaintAviator lets talk 22:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

A peer reviewed academic journal is not a tabloid, and a paper in said journal by an academic from Rutgers and Harvard is not "crap". It's a reliable source. Likewise, an organization that is extensively cited as reliable by numerous prestigious media outlets isn't "tabloid" or "blog" or "marginal". It's a reliable source. You can, if you wish to, always bring up this issue at WP:RSN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Motyl is a respected academic published in a high profile, mainstream academic source. Stop pushing the Motyl WP:BLPVIO envelope here, MyMoloboaccount. And, SaintAviator, this is by no means 'tabloid' in any shape or form: it is undoubtedly an RS. The only question is whether it is considered to be DUE or UNDUE for Putin's bio. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

HI Iryna Harpy I always like what you bring. You said with style what I tried to say. I'll try again. One can ref loads of stuff, but should we? My current focus is trimming as talked about. So IMO, No. Even though Motyl be a Saint. SaintAviator lets talk 23:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Motyl's not a saint, a motyl is a butterfly. Which I guess, if you want to get poetic about it, is like a flying saint. A... saint aviator.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• It has been suggested this be bracketed until the biography has been dealt with to some extent; that's probably prudent. However, I'm a bit concerned to see a few misunderstandings here and a few hasty judgments. "Tabloid crap" is nonsense, and not just demeaning but also showing a lack of something: this article is by an academic, in a peer-reviewed publication. It cannot be dismissed as an "opinion piece" or whatever. That doesn't mean it should be included, but criticism of the publication, or criticism of the author as supposably a nationalist or ideologue of this or that kind, that's really neither here nor there. This publication is an RS, and there's little that can be done about that. It cannot be wished away, even if the author is a nationalist--the fact remains that the publication was peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal.

  As for "this is not what fascism means"--if the author was far off the mark it wouldn't have been published; again, that's really sort of all there is to it. If y'all want to leave this for later that's fine, but don't pretend this can be wished/whisked away as partisan or unreliable or fringe. And yes, please don't go around accusing Motyl of things that the BLP won't allow. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There's also the broader misunderstanding about "reliable sources", which crops up all the time on contentious pages. Motyl's published works, like those of most other academics, are "reliable" in the WP sense. That doesn't mean he is "right" in everything he says or that he is even discussing things where anyone could be proved "right" anyway. All the above shows is that – shock – academics disagree about a lot of things, especially when it comes to interpretation, and can also be as partisan as you like, just like WP editors (albeit usually from a more well-informed perspective). Citing such disagreement to say he is "unreliable" or wrong and hence cannot be used on the page is as misguided as saying that any argument he makes simply "must" be used as if it were unimpeachable. And no it's not tabloid crap or a newspaper opinion piece, but the stuff about fascism in particular is opinion about a fairly arcane aspect of this for a generalist encyclopedia and, as noted even in the introduction to the volume in question, not mainstream opinion at that. The fact that someone might hold marginal opinions on subjective topics is no bar to being published. N-HH talk/edits 08:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Tabloid Crap was my bad. My post after that was better. I just think yes its Rs, he may even be genius, but should we go there? Its still a big article SaintAviator lets talk 09:53, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing, User:SaintAviator. User:N-HH, I don't want to drag this out--I think it should be left for later--but the very fact that something is published in an academic journal typically means it's not a "marginal opinion". The word "opinion" already is a misnomer: "theory" is a better term. (I live in a state where evolution is taught with a disclaimer; I know a little bit about this stuff.) Again, that doesn't mean it should be included, but it's not fringe, nor is fascism/the accusation thereof "arcane". Much will depend on whether this is the only scholar saying something like this. But again, it's probably best left until later, and then this discussion can be rebooted, groundwork for a positive conversation having been laid here, and misunderstandings gotten out of the way. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, in that this meta-debate is all getting a little theoretical and abstract until someone suggests in more detail what they actually want to use this piece for on the page (although the header and OP in this sub-section might give a clue, perhaps). The problem for me – to continue it briefly – is that this is a pattern I see in how people try to use source material across WP pages. They cherry-pick something that buttresses their particular agenda and then try to claim "RS" as a trump card, when things are of course more complicated than that.
Again, as a general point, I'd repeat that academics can and often do hold views that are at the margins of mainstream consensus and get them published (I'm not sure I ever applied the term "fringe" specifically to this). Publishers don't vet or assess views in quite that way, and sometimes it's in their interest of course to print the controversial (in this case even the introduction to the journal, which I quoted above, acknowledges that Motyl is in a "minority", possibly of one, with his fascism theory). Indeed, it is when such ideas go mainstream that science, in particular, advances of course.
And talking of science, the comparison with evolution doesn't quite work: evolution is about verifiable facts and is not described as a "theory" in the sense that it is speculative; this is about subjective classification and the use of terminology, which ultimately is opinion or, as I also said, interpretation. Evolution is either correct or not; by contrast there is no objective "truth" as to whether Putin is objectively a fascist or not. Further to that, my point about arcane is that some of the scholarly debate about the "nature of Putinism", whether it is fascism or anything else, is a bit too high-level for an encyclopedia biography, especially one that most people seem to agree is too long. Again, I don't think that's that controversial an observation. N-HH talk/edits 16:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Way too many pictures in this article....

According to the Wikipedia guideline WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE Images should have significance and direct relevance to the topic, and not be primarily decorative. Currently this article has too many pictures that have no relevance to Putin. What is the relevance of having a picture of one of his friends? So we can recognise his friends if we happen to be in the same street? Also to many pictures of Putin meeting foreign politicians. He is the president of Russia; the president of Russia meeting foreign politicians is not significant. I rather have somebody with more insight then me which pictures are significant to delete these unnecessary pictures. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the picture of his best friend. So I removed it. There was three photographs of anti-Putin protestors up until recently (I removed one of them). That's WP:UNDUE, especially considering how popular he is (80%+ approval rating). Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• His very high ranking are probably fake. This has been explained in a RFE/RL publication by a Russian politician that you just removed from the page [20]. Did you actually read the publication you removed? My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not my underlining point, and I don't think that was ever relevant to the topic of discussion here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

RFE/RL is considered a reliable source? Athenean (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Did you read this publication? My very best wishes (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I updated the ratings image through commons. It was outdated. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That 80% number is outdated, but indeed there is no need for a lot of anti-Putin pictures in this Wikipedia article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was actually referring to his approval ratings at the time of the protests. Yes, too many photographs of anti-Putin marches. It needs to be sorted out. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What are these "anti-Putin photographs"? Can you please enumerate them? I'm not seeing any. Is the lighting bad in some of the portraits or something? Even before your recent extensive, and un-discussed changes (say, this version) all I can find is a SINGLE - as in one, the integer less than two and more than zero - photo of some anti-Putin demonstrators. Is that what you mean by "too many". Or do you just mean "even one is too many"? Not clear on this. If not... can you enumerate all these "too many anti-Putin photographs"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, I'm also trying to figure out what "anti-Putin photographs" are. The picture with Medvedev, who still has his full head of hair, maybe that one. Please, let's not get silly. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: by anti-Putin photographs I meant the photographs of anti-Putin marches. But I could see why it can be interpreted as such, so I updated my comment to clarify that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. For better or worse my immediate comparison is the GA Margaret Thatcher which--again, for better or worse--has 17 photos, none of them "anti-Thatcher". One could expect an image or two of the massive protests, but they're not there. Perhaps that article needs one. Ours has 33, none of them negative, unless I missed something. Is the photo that Marek signaled gone? I can't open that version right now or my browser will crash, haha. I mean, wouldn't someone expect a Pussy Riot photo in here, maybe? But I'm sure you all can agree on that one way or another. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, if you're going to change your comments, please use strike through like this: "too many anti-Putin photographs too many photographs of anti-Putin marches (corrected after VM pointed out my error)" rather than changing your comment outright. Otherwise the comment of the person replying to you might no longer make sense.

I'm still wondering where the plural "photographs" came from, as there was only one (out of something like 40) photo of anti-Putin march. And yes, it got removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't really an "error", it just needed further clarification. At any rate, at the time I removed the photograph, there were three photographs of anti-Putin/opposition marches; two of which were from the same rally (February 2012). I removed one of two February 2012 rally photographs. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether it was an "error" or not is not the issue. The issue is that you shouldn't alter comments you made previously after they've been replied to. That confuses the conversation and it makes it seem like someone was responding to something you didn't actually say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, you should take up your own advice and strike the "corrected after VM pointed out my error" accusation if you indeed feel that it being an error never even mattered in the first place. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

You made a comment. I replied to that comment. You went back and changed your original comment so that it *looked like* my reply didn't make sense. You shouldn't do that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I already said that I updated my comment below Drmies' and your comment. So I don't think that's an issue. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

But you didn't strike through your original comment. I don't like it that you're making it look like I'm replying to something which you didn't actually say. Whatever. Just don't do it in the future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There have also been pro-Putin marches over the years. We could include one of each. Or none. Athenean (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(unindent) If we're going to have only one pic per section (presumably), I think it's POV to have as the only pic in the "Third term" section a protest. Even more so considering Putin's high approval ratings. Athenean (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to have only one pic per section how exactly would you balance out a singlepic? Or if we put in the 13th, or whatever, pic of Putin taking oath of office - but only once per section! - how would you balance that? We can't exactly include one half of a protest pic and one half a "Putin taking the oath" pic can we? And of course what matters for POV is not "pic per section" but rather the overall distribution of photos. I don't think a single - one! - photo of anti-Putin demonstrators is so nefarious that its very presence will skew the article, pollute its purity, and turn it into an iniquitous decretum.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Having one pic per section is not a rule set in stone. I think we can make an exception to that rule so as to resolve this issue once and for all. As of now, I too think that a picture of a couple thousand protestors is undue for that section. What we have now is just one picture of him taking the presidential oath with Yeltsin in 2000. Thereafter, we see a picture of protests. That just doesn't properly signify the recurring election victories and high approval ratings he has garnered over the coming years. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

So the idea is that if he were elected president 100 times in a row, we'd do well to just ignore the MOS guidelines against having 100 pictures of the same subject, and include all 100 oath, one per section describing his term of presidency, just to ensure that readers can correctly gauge the height of the accomplishment? LjL (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

(ec) @ VM: It would be best if you toned down the sarcasm. Anyway, we don't have to have only one pic per section. I don't think that's going to work, and it's going to cause a lot of problems. We can easily achieve balance by adding a pic of a pro-Putin demonstration. Athenean (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Athenean but I did not say anything sarcastically. Everything I said, I meant literally. Including one picture of an anti-Putin demonstration is not going to ruin this article. So, please either a) point out which part of my comment is actually sarcastic or b) strike your comment, as unfounded accusations can be regarded as personal attacks. You are choosing to discuss editors rather than contents, which is explicitly something Drmies warned everyone about. Although, I guess, at the end of the day, it's really up to you if you want to heed that advice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the great advice, but I wasn't being sarcastic. A single pic of anti-Putin demonstrators in a section that actually discusses these demonstrations, is not UNDUE. And it doesn't need to be "balanced" by anything, seeing as how many other pictures there already are in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Further, not having any such picture would strike me very much as POV, as surely, Putin can't be the only world leader ever not to have been protested... or one of the very few Wikipedia can't afford to showcase pictures of protests against. LjL (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The issue here is whether it is due or not. For example, George W. Bush has had one of the lowest approval ratings in the history of America. Yet, he doesn't have one anti-Bush protest picture in his article (there's an anti-war one but I don't think that counts). On the other hand, we got Putin here who has a 90% approval rating, who until recently, had 3 protest pictures in his article. Something about that is just not right. This is not to say I am against placing any anti-Putin protest picture, as long as it is balanced out of course. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Does it have 3 protest pictures in the article *now*? No? Is anyone here saying that there should be 3 protest pictures in the article? No? So ... I'm unclear on the relevance of that observation. And I'm guessing the reason why it had 3 protest pictures before is because it had 457 pictures in total, or something like that, so 3 as a proportion of the overall number wasn't actually that many.

And please please please go and put some anti-Bush protest pictures in that article. I'll click that <thank> button and even revert anyone who tries to revert you (but only once because edit warring is bad you know!).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd certainly expect the Bush article to have a protest against him depicted... hell, that was one contested president. Though mostly (at least internationally) because of the war, so it sort of makes sense for the protest pic to be one concerning the war. (What is Putin most contested/protested about?) LjL (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no doubt that an anti-Putin picture needs to be in the article as well. Let us decide on which one to use. Dorpater (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

My point about the 3 anti-Putin protest photographs was that there was a false balance when it concerned the article as a whole. That false balance is still reflected with just one photograph of anti-Putin protests, as opposed to the even larger pro-Putin marches that accompanied them (i.e. the "Anti-Orange" people). It was hardly a lopsided anti-Putin rally as the article now deceivingly makes up believe. Even the 2011–13 Russian protests has that balanced out. Hence, we should be doing that here as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

It was hardly "false balance". And it hardly is "false balance". A single picture (or even three out of oodles) and a few lines about the protests is hardly unbalanced, at least for a neutral kind of a scale, given the size of this article (even after the deletions). "non-false balance" does not mean "absence of anything which is critical of Putin".Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, we can't ignore the fact that counter-demonstrations took place. Will add that to the article shortly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

We are not ignoring it, are we? It's in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, great! Much more balanced now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

But I do retain my initial concerns regarding the photographs. There's still a false balance when it comes to just one photograph of protestors. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ratings, polls, and assessments

A very bulky and fractured, oddly obscure at times section was adding considerable bytes so it was trimmed down. SaintAviator lets talk 07:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've divided this disjointed section into two sensible sections: "Polls and Rankings" and "Assessments." Polls and Rankings is fine and has been made chronological, but perhaps it is too large. Assessments needs to be balanced and dominated by RS-centered mainstream consensus. That he's a dictator is not the mainstream consensus point of view. As I've said before, most Western publications rate Putin's government as 'authoritarian' and/or 'authoritarian democratic'. Inside Russia, the consensus may be similar on 'style of governance', but with the VERY important caveat that many if not most think that he saved Russia from disintegration. Haberstr (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Family

Wordy trivial trimmed SaintAviator lets talk 07:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Autism

Not a forum.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it true that Putin was diagnosed with a high-functioning form of autism? See here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11392680/Vladimir-Putin-suffers-from-Aspergers-syndrome-Pentagon-report-claims.html (217.42.27.219 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)) See wp:Talk page guidelines: article talk pages are for discussions about the article, not about the subject. - DVdm (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Since this US study says he has actually been diagnosed with the condition it should be mentioned in the article. (217.42.27.219 (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)) I suggest you check with your local shrink as to how valid a "diagnosis by looking at videos" is. Collect (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC) The study from 2008, which was based only on videos of Putin, claimed that the Russian president’s mother had a stroke whilst pregnant with him that left lasting damage. Collect (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Did his mother suffer a stroke? (217.42.27.219 (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)) No RS source for that claim either AFAICT - but would any reputable shrink perform medical diagnoses based on seeing videos of people? Collect (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC) Autism round three, Roflmao SaintAviator lets talk 22:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Economy

The lede understates the severity of Russia's long-term economic problems. The country is actually now being surpassed by Spain. (217.42.27.219 (talk) 14:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

Alas - we are bound by Wikipedia policy to follow WP:RS, WP:BLP and WP:NPOV which leave no room at all for editors to insert what they "know" is "truth." Collect (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Spain's GDP is now larger than Russia's. (217.42.27.219 (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

Need reliable sources here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This report from 2014 says Russia's economy was almost as small as Spain's: http://uk.businessinsider.com/russia-economy-gdp-v-spain-2014-12 (217.42.27.219 (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC))

• Removed lead bloat / distraction re this. Leads very important, as suggested we fix it later, but not with stuff that does not belong there. At this trimming rate, we take on lead in a few days SaintAviator lets talk 22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions

Under 200k--that's progress. Well done. I don't know about balance and that's not for me to judge; I hope everyone is equally happy or unhappy, and at any rate there's a ways to go. Let me ask you all, for example, why this article needs 11 paragraphs of "Economic, industrial, and energy policies". The first two paragraphs are quite general and strike me as appropriate, but the moment we hear "Putin obtained approval for a flat tax rate" it seems to me we're into head-of-state-gets-all-credit territory again, and I do not see how the cited sources support that he personally gets to take credit for it. And may I add that the Heritage Foundation is clearly a partisan source, that it's not peer-reviewed neutral academic etc., that its publications are meant to influence policy, and that the article cited doesn't focus on Putin or Russia at all? All these things should be pretty obvious.

Now, that National champions program, that seems Putin-appropriate. Y'all should cut the rest--all the great economy! stuff of that section, and the three terrible economy! paragraphs of the next section, "2014 downturn". BTW, that "greatest improvement in corruption" award, I suppose that's notable, but it is really thrown in there completely at random. I also think the "public image" sections should be shortened to just a few paragraphs, since there is a main article. Just a few pros and cons or whatever will do. And why so much detail on so many things, but not a nice, juicy putinism in a little quotebox? Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to brag or anything, but I once got this sucker from 222k down to 177k. Once is enough, though. What this article needs is a hard limit, like the limit on the length of edit summaries. (Or maybe a siren that goes off at 180k!)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree Drmies. SaintAviator lets talk 10:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

economy edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VM, with respect its not collapse. Control F here. [21] Collapse = Wiemar Republic kinda chaos. Have a read and here too [22]. Best phrase is recession. SaintAviator lets talk 06:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

References

undue additions which re-bloat the article

While it makes sense to include a (short) list of important recognitions, these additions are a bit trivial. In particular, honorary degrees for famous people are handed out like phone numbers at a singles bar which means that most of them are not really notable.

As far as this "Angel of Peace" medal goes, the listing fails to mention that 1) this was part of a traditional, diplomatic, exchange of gifts, not an actual recognition of anything, 2) the fact that it is supposed to represent "solidarity between populations" can actually be taken as a subtle - and diplomatic - criticism of Putin, not an honor. Also, if this medal is really that big of a deal, why can't I find it mentioned in the biography of any other person on Wikipedia?

In other words, this text is WP:UNDUE and since we're trying to cut down the article to manageable size, it doesn't belong there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that the "Angel of Peace" medal is undue. It's a medal that is widely sourced and bestowed by perhaps the most notable person in the world. But yeah, these honorary doctorate stuff I find in BLPs everywhere. That includes not just politicians, but academics, writers, and journalists as well. But I guess the argument can be that it's more relevant for academics than politicians? However, I don't know if that is the case at heart. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

No one's questioning the fact that the medal was given or that the pope was the one that gave it. What's at issue is that it's not important enough to include, as it's pretty much given to every head of state that visits the Vatican more or less as a formality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, not everyone receives that medal. If that's the case, then the President of Portugal, who recently visited, should have received one. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends on the importance of the visit. But if this medal was significantly notable, it would be here, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't measure notability based off of Wikipedia categories and such. I ran into that issue just recently actually. Serbia's highest distinction didn't even have a category, so I went along and made one. I think I'll do the same for the Angel of Peace. But I'd rather start with making an article first, then moving on with the category. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This story and this story give some context on the issue. Apparently the Angel of Peace is not a medal in the sense of an award but a medallion, something like a St Christopher. So it was a nice gesture of goodwill and hopes for peace; as the second story tells it, "one of his customary gifts to visiting presidents." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The absence of the word dictator / autocrat

The article should state that Putin has been labeled a dictator and/or an autocrat. No, it should not say in the lead "he is a dictator of Russia", but just like with articles on many other figures, this should be there along the lines of "Some have described him as a dictator and an autocrat". There's plenty of non-fringe, reliable references for this: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Those are mainstream sources, and opinions of major political figures (Dalai Lama for example). Again, I am not saying we should say Putin is a dictator / autocrat, but the very spirit of NPOV demands we note some major and reliable outlets describe him as such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The only way to make it happen & get it to stick is via an RfC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Putin has never won an election so the article should describe him as a dictator. (109.159.10.245 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC))

I agree and I don't think an RfC is necessary since this can be very very very very well sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Here is what I think about this page. The issue is not the wording ("dictator" or not), but providing an adequate description of everything he was able to accomplish as a head of the state. More precisely, a brief description/summary of everything important what sources describe as his personal accomplishments. What I mean? For example, (a) suppression of political freedoms in the country (that should be described on this page instead of calling him a "dictator" or referring to another "human rights" page), wide-spread corruption (see refs in my previous comment), wars in Georgia and Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, economic and political isolation of Russia, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• Call me biased, but I think that My very best wishes's (yeah, suck on that group genitive!) note on books should be very well taken. Books, academic articles, newspaper/magazine articles--in that order. But I think that goes for every topic. Drmies (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As a widely held view (the authoritarian character of Putin's regime) it should be noted in the article per WP:NPOV. Dorpater (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It is what it is. Personally I like a strong dictator. Im in the West and our democracy is a sham. So, yeah bring it. SaintAviator lets talk 00:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

There are book sources too, ex. Aaron Rosenberg (1 September 2007). Vladimir Putin: President of Russia. The Rosen Publishing Group. pp. 83–. ISBN 978-1-4042-1903-8., Tatyana Tolstaya (18 July 2012). Pushkin's Children: Writing on Russia and Russians. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 148–. ISBN 0-544-08003-3., Stephen K. Wegren; Dale R. Herspring (16 August 2009). After Putin's Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-7425-5786-4., Steven Rosefielde (2005). Russia in the 21st Century: The Prodigal Superpower. Cambridge University Press. pp. 68–. ISBN 978-0-521-83678-4. - and there are others. Mainstream newspapers cited above should suffice. It is clear that labeling Putin as an autocrat and dictator is not a fringe, niche view but a relatively common description. Not-neutral, of course, and we should be careful with the wording - as I noted above, only some use those terms, and they are clearly controversial. Those views, however, should be present here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• It should be in but briefly. The reality is that while Russia has elections and Put's is very popular the ruling powers in Russia wont risk Western style democracy for the singular reason its easily bought i.e US congress. The West has tried to muscle into Russia via NGO's, now tightly controlled by Russia. There is no doubt a small group in Russia make the decisions and this is found in RS by guys like Motyl etc, who identify it as dictatorship, autocracy etc. The main reason for this tight control is Russia's elites see Russia as a nation / culture being threatened by NATO / Western interests and they can achieve a lot to resist this via a largely benevolent (Unless your against them) autocratic state i.e rapid large scale military modernization, S400, S500, Su35, Pak50 etc. SaintAviator lets talk 08:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone noticed, but it was added yesterday by VM. Athenean (talk) 08:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I did see it, I'm saying its reasonable and why i.e no reverts from me. SaintAviator lets talk 08:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to argue against the fact that Putin has been described as an autocrat or a dictator, and the page should acknowledge that, as it now does, but it's also hard to see the latter in particular as anything other than an exaggeration, and one often set out hyperbolically by political opponents. The term has a specific meaning after all, which for all his faults, Putin surely falls short of. Also it's hard to escape the observation that rather than people asking "what does the overall record say about this person?", we instead get a succession of talk page sections which assert a negative characteristic and then say "here's a couple of sources which say as much". From autism to fascism to dictatorship, we seem to be starting from an assumption and then citing evidence that appears to back it up. N-HH talk/edits 21:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Salient point N-HH. This dynamic is the core driver in our recent edit wars. Let me explain. Hes not a Dictator per se, or as you put it, its an exaggeration. He has done tremendous good for Russia, rebuilding Russia from the dark post Soviet era, recently pounding Daesh etc. Hes smart, decisive and on and on. Editors can find loads of RS showing this, and do, and put it in. But theres the tight Govt control, the Crimea issue, Ukraine etc, and the other editors put in this stuff. Both sides of editors feel they are right. Hes bad vs hes Good. So it has to be about balance. The key is Russia is at war, Putins group knows it. Its a new type of war, like but different to the Cold War. Arms build ups, proxies, power plays, economic warfare, alliances, nuclear potential etc. Its real and dangerous. Putin and his group are doing what they know they have to do. If we have this wider view, both sides can be right. SaintAviator lets talk 23:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Another misrepresentation of the source

About this sovereign democracy business.

Here's what the article said before I toned it down a bit:

"Putin's administration has often been described by various academics as a "sovereign democracy"."

Hmmm. Various academics. Here is what the source given as citation actually says:

"Vladimir Putin’s conceptual statements and his annual state of the nation addresses to parliament, as well as statements and deliberations by government officials, pro-Kremlin ideologists and members of the presidential team, who expound on the topic of what the government wants, are significant in analyzing the current political process and simulating the future. They come up with phrases like ’sovereign democracy,’ ’managed democracy,’ ’a doubling of GDP,’ ’construction of an efficient state’ and ’national projects.’ In spite of their bombastic nature, they are not all signs of an over-exuberant existence of Putin or his associates but, rather, a “binder solution” essential for the structure of the state."

So it's not "academics" which describe Russia's system as "sovereign democracy" but rather "pro-Kremlin ideologists and members of the presidential team", who are making "bombastic" pronouncements.

And this is putting aside the question of the reliability or notability of this source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, "sovereign democracy" is nonsense invented by Vladislav Surkov. It does not belong to the page. P.S. I am sorry for not editing this page. Among other reasons, I usually edit only BLP pages of people who are interesting to me, and this is not one of them. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there are three cited sources for the content, including a book by the academic and writer on eastern European affairs Richard Sakwa. That said, while the one – relatively obscure – source misleadingly singled out as if it were the only one cited and as if, in fact, we should instead follow its polemical tone is particularly hostile to the term, even Sakwa puts the term in quotes and credits it to Surkov. Hence, while a rephrase is clearly justified, the page should in fact probably describe this as a self-description or directly credit Surkov rather than talk vaguely about "some commentators". N-HH talk/edits 21:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Or just omit it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

Re [35]. Putting these two paras together and connecting them by a "however" or by a "on the other hand" is WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless the sources explicitly connect Putin being a dictator to Gorbachev's opinions this is WP:OR then.

Also, it's stylistically and ungrammatically incorrect. The "on the other hand" and/or the "however" suggests that these are opposite opinions, which isn't true (one can be a dictator AND pull a country out of chaos).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition, the original text was telling : Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev credited Putin with having "pulled Russia out of chaos", but has also criticized Putin for restricting freedom of press and for seeking the third term in the presidential elections. Strangely, the end of the phrase ("but has also criticized Putin...") has disappeared after the edit. POV-pushing 101. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I said more needed to be done in my edit summary, but instead you revert. Gorbachev has said that Putin 'saved' Russia, as I'm sure you know.[36] In any case, the NPOV way to begin that paragraph is something like, "Opinions vary on Putin ... Some believe ... Others believe ...." The emphasis should be on the dominant opinion, which can in this case be found in the middle -- at 'authoritarian' and 'authoritarian democracy' -- not the extreme minority 'dictator' position. If you don't understand that, then we disagree on NPOV. Also and by the way, that section is an incoherent mess and poorly titled right now.Haberstr (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed things. My joking Wikipedia motto: Gotta do it yourself if you want it done right!Haberstr (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, but this your edit is also highly problematic: it removes mentioning of the famous Ozero and improperly labels Boris Nemtsov (about whom we have a separate page) as an "opposition politician". My very best wishes (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

comment is free

Re this - that's not an author writing in the Guardian except in a very loose sense. Comment is free are basically self-published, but editor approved extended comments. It's essentially a group blog hosted by the Guardian.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is interesting, but it's just your opinion. If Seumas Milne's view is good enough to be published in The Guardian, it's good enough for WP. And Seumas Milne isn't just some blogger, he's a journalist who works for the Guardian. Athenean (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand what exactly you're referring to as "my opinion". It's a blog. What exactly is "opinion" here? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it's a blog. The Guardian is RS. If it's good enough for the editors of the Guardian it's good enough for us. Everything else is just opinion. Athenean (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No, it is not "my opinion" that it's a blog. It *is* a blog. Yes, The Guardian is RS. But this isn't the Guardian - it's a collaborative blog HOSTED by the Guardian. Yes, there is a difference, whether you like it or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't see the word "blog" anywhere. RS is RS, end of story. Athenean (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• One needs a cutoff for "opinions" sections. While views by well known politicians and historians who wrote books on Russian politics and history arguably can be used, the opinions by journalists, even famous, probably should be undue on this page. Otherwise, we would need a separate page about this. BTW, I would suggest to recreate the deleted "Criticism" page in a user space and use it for for improving this article. My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Undue? Why, because it's not critical of Putin? If anything, what's undue is the opinion of marginal and partisan figures like Kasparov. Athenean (talk) 03:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment is Free is not a hosted blog, it is the comment and op-ed section of the online, and in some cases printed, Guardian newspaper. Seumas Milne is not a random poster but a noted journalist and columnist, and a former comment editor of the Guardian. Whether his opinion is worth including is another matter, but let's not invent reasons for excluding it. Again, on the point of consistency and bias, I've seen editors decrying its inclusion nonetheless insisting on including far more marginal and unilluminating online comment from far more marginal figures here and on other pages. N-HH talk/edits 11:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty much a blog hosted by the Guardian. Regardless this is a cherry picked opinion. Speaking of blogs hosted by reputable newspapers, here is one seumas-milne-breaks-the-first-rule-of-spin-never-become-the-story. Quote: "He was always overly sympathetic to authoritarian regimes and under sympathetic to countries that enjoyed democracy and the rule of law". Or we can go farther left than the Guardian: [37]. Plenty other sources like that can be found on Milne. He's WP:FRINGE when it comes to Putin (or a whole bunch of other stuff) and there's no reason why his opinion should be given such disproportionate weight in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that in the discussion above we had editors arguing that a academic, scholarly, journal article should not be included. This Milne piece not even close to that level of reliability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well we can go back and forth on this, but it's not a blog as that term is commonly understood. It's a repository of columns and op-eds by journalists and third-party contributors, many of which (if not all) will also appear in the printed paper. Pieces will be commissioned and edited by the Guardian. As for whether Milne's comments need to be included, as I said I'm agnostic. But neither the fact that some people are critical of him or his views nor your unilaterally declaring him "fringe" makes his opinion worthless per se. As noted in the discussion about academic sources, when it comes to opinions and assessments, people disagree with each other. That's the nature of opinions. The problem here comes when some WP editors declare one opinion "right" or "better" or "more reliable" than another, simply based on which one they happen to agree with. N-HH talk/edits 16:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's sort of the thing though - if we include Milne's opinion, which says that "Putin has been demonized in the West" then it becomes appropriate to actually include *some* of this demonization, because that is what Milne is commenting about. It doesn't make sense to have "all these bad people are wrong" in the article but not what the bad people actually are wrong about. So the way I see it, either we have both Milne and Motyl and all the other people who are critical of Putin, or we go sparingly and have neither. Which is I think the preferred approach. Of course this does not mean that we shouldn't have *any* assessment in there - we still need that but it should be at a sufficient level of generality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the removal of most opinions is fine, but let's keep factual information on the page. For example, last paragraph removed here is merely a description of some his residencies. That should be restored I think. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We already have many opinions of people that are critical of him, such as Kasparov, Nemtsov, and even the Dalai Lama. I don't see why we shouldn't have the opinions of people like Stephen Cohen, a notable Russia scholar, and Seumas Milne, a notable journalist, for balance. Athenean (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd actually be fine with excluding the MENTIOn of Kasparov or Dalai Lama by name as long as the fact of criticism is retained. The problems with Milne and Cohen are that 1) they're not exactly praise of Putin, rather these are criticisms of people who are critics of Putin, 2) both, while I guess notable, represent pretty WP:FRINGE views. So the short answer is WP:DUEWEIGHT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Obama gets a lot of "dictator" criticism from his political opponents as well, but is it really detrimental to his article? Doubt it. But if we are to place Dalai Lama's and Kasparov's criticism, we must also be able to balance it out by including contextual stuff like the 'demonization' that Putin suffers, per Milne of course. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Seumas Milne doesn't appear to be some random blogger to me. I think his opinion counts. It's always better to place criticism of Putin under a certain context. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

He's not a random blogger, but he is WP:FRINGE. And there's a lot of journalists out there, why single him out? And everyone's opinion counts in some way, but we can't include "everyone" can we? I also don't think this constitutes "placing criticism of Putin in context", whatever that actually means.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Context as in how and why and to what extent the west views him the way that they do. I think Milne and Cohen give a good insight into that. So it should be added. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Should this be included?

I just saw this publication. This is something big, important and reliable. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If and only if Putin is implicated in improper acts. If he is, then it is important. If it simply impacts people who know Putin, then the difficulty of using guilt-by-association inferences is evident. Collect (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, it does. But of course everyone familiar with Russian politics knows about numerous older publications about people who keep his money (Gennady Timchenko - the infamous Gunvor (company), Roman Abramovich, etc.). That was never a secret. But unfortunately, I am kind of busy and hesitant to contribute here and will let others decide. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How about if we defer adding controversial stuff while the article is being trimmed down to something within sight of a reasonable length? Or has the trimmification process stalled? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, this does suggest that a good chunk of the [Personal wealth and residences] section is bullshit. So in the spirit of trimming we could go ahead and cut some of that out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say about 80% of that section could be torched. Seriously, "260 shares of Bank Saint Petersburg (with a December 2007 market price $5.36 per share"? The contrasting views about his personal wealth should be summarized far more concisely. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I suspect you do not understand how important his dacha Ozero was. That is where Yury Kovalchuk and some others came from. And remember that in addition to Putin's Palace, he has several other fantastic palaces. This part is really important as something he really cares about.My very best wishes (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Even the Guardian's coverage admits Putin is not mentioned in the documents: "the president’s name does not appear in any of the records ... his friends have earned millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured without his patronage ... The documents suggest" etc. Yes, the paper has made the link itself based on what they have seen and extrapolated, but even the website has now switched to highlight the PM of Iceland. The Guardian's angle on this doesn't suddenly invalidate and supersede every other piece of evidence re Putin and his wealth. Interestingly, showing how the same basic story can mean different things to different people, the lead story on the Independent website has done much the same guilt-by-association thing, but instead with David Cameron (whose late father is mentioned although he is not himself). No one seems to be rushing in quite the same way to dump that coverage into his page. Looking at the previous section, we seem to have yet another example of people arguing that newspaper comment and inference is OK if it suits their take on a subject, but unconscionable if it tends to go the other way. N-HH talk/edits 12:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

While I can see that someone might latch onto a connection with David Cameron, it is quite different. My take is that David Cameron's father may have evaded tax using bearer shares, an instrument which David Cameron himself has made illegal. There was no attempt to make a case about wrong doing by David (as opposed to Ian) Cameron. By contrast, it is very much a strong working hypothesis that Putin's cellist friend was acting on his behalf in order to hide his wealth, this being an explanation which fits multiple facts. 37.152.237.190 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, this is classic "false analogy" argument. To put it simple, Putin and David Cameron are very different people, just like Russia and UK are very different countries, humans and monkeys are different animals, etc. Most important, no one judges anything based on a single publication: there is already a significant literature about personal wealth of various politicians, and people who know that literature are making their qualified judgement. As a policy note, it does not really matter if something appears in "records" (a primary source), it only matters if something appears in multiple secondary RS. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's rather an apposite analogy (which merely implies elements of similarity in principle, not direct equivalence) for the reasons stated, which was made simply by way of observation. Anyway, someone has already added the info, albeit under the current presidency section rather than in the wealth bit. N-HH talk/edits 16:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel that naming and listing every house Putin owns is useful, especially considering that we have to trim up this article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)