Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 2

message: I would like to say that he is the best presidente ever of russia...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.253.187 (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Russia is not a resort. It never were and it never wouldn't be. But this makes life more interesting. Adds spice. ellol 20:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those suffering persecutions in Russia and civilians of Czeczenia it could be very interesting.. --Gabriels m (talk) 10:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You must be pretty stupid to believe those numbers. Remember when Saddam received 100% in every election? Why do you think Maskhadov was elected? - PietervHuis (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also very interesting for those 20% of the population who survive on the beggarly wage and for who Putin is the only hope. ellol (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: If it is for the betterment of an article, its fine.  But judging from this, it won't mean much.
MrBosnia 03:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: best president

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

message: While many foreigners associate Putin with fears for establishing tyranny in Russia, many Russians associate Putin with hopes for modernization of the country. ellol 18:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, but citation needed. Moreover, in English WP "foreigners" don't really feel they are foreigners, "Westerners" might be more correct term, also because these fears are not shared by the rest of the world. In fact, "Western media" would be even more correct in place of foreigners, since this is a media opinion they attempt to substitute for public opinion, and this is actively pushed on people in Western mediacratic societies of today. Cfeet77 22:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Would such phrase be useful in the article?

message: While it's clearly not of geopolitical significance, there is some very odd (no, really, very odd) footage of Putin meeting a little boy, handling him in a slightly strange way, lifting his top up, and kissing his stomach.  I don't think many people are aware of this and think it should be mentioned somewhere inasmuch as Putin seems to be a very unusual creature indeed.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.12.121.252 (talk) 17:02, August 22, 2007 (UTC) 
::Is already covered in the Anecdotes section. 61.68.144.174 07:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Kissing the Little Boy on the Stomach" Incident

message: Unfortunately in the last hundred years or so the world has forgotten to educate the many countries about Russia, it's goals of change to better freedom and unity in world aspects. Living in Australia my entire life, and we a far from everyone being gurt by sea, only beneficial media gets to us and those who can afford travel, and fewer with the privilege of traditional humanised education such as meeting in any public place.
Perhaps here Russians can tell us what they like about Australia, or other countries, and people interested like myself can read, ask and learn more about Russia and Russia's changes from the former USSR to coping with surrounding indepndent countries as well as having to become more accountably democratic.
The modern Russia is young and the last several years has seen it become more respected.
Everyone I imagine is welcome in Australia.
Have a NIce Day,
Michael  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael from Australia (talk • contribs) 11:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russia to educate itself to the World 

message: This source claims that Putin initially worked in infamous 5th KGB Department that was responsible for prosecution of dissidents, etc. . Is that correct?Biophys 21:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only want to note that this resource is one of websites of Chechen separatists. One should be careful when working with such documents. Biophys is very right that he seeks to cross-check such information. ellol 08:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, thete is a book (by Andrew Jack, ""Inside Putin's Russia..." that tells the same - page 58). Also, Yuri Shvets, who studied together with Putin in the Academy of Foreign Intelligence, said: "...Vova was a leader - a snitch. Everybody hated the leader" (page 58).Biophys 20:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Did he work in 5th Department?

message: Just read something in the news about RAF stealth fighters driving the Russian bombers out of UK airspace...--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Times Online link.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 15:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't out of UK airspace. They were escorted by RAF fighters on approach to UK airspace. They remained in international waters. In regards to your statement, yes Russia has resumed strategic nuclear bomber patrols on a permanent basis not that long ago. 59.101.144.154 15:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Putin send "Bear" stealth bombers over Norwegian and UK airspace recently? 

message: Couldn't that article get GA status? Zouavman Le Zouave 17:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though there are a lot of references the quality and reverence of content is dubious, hence this is not a GA. 59.101.144.154 15:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article 

message: Are Putin a Germanophile?
As a traditional Russian Westernizer, it should not be forgotten that Putin is a confirmed Germanophile. He spent years working for the KGB in East Germany, speaks fluent German, and famously prefers beer to vodka.
189.12.88.22 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This info has been deleted from the article (correctly in my view) as not sourced. I did recently read somewhere that actually, German was Putin's weakest subject at school, and because of his "rectitude" he actually put a lot of effort into it so that he could speak it fluently. As for preferring beer over vodka - nothing particularly Germanophile there: avoiding vodka is part of his image (he may even score with that among young Russians who now prefer wine over vodka). I think I will look for the German at school source and put it in at the start of the article. I also remember reading that he lived so close to school that he went there without a coat even during winter. May be more difficult to trace back, however. --Paul Pieniezny 10:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germanophile 

message: I had the question "what is Putin's political party and political views" in my mind.
I think the article could be a bit clearer about this, without having to read everything through or read between the lines.
After searching for "party" I found this:
"While not formally associated with any party, Putin pledged his support to the newly formed Unity Party"
Does this mean that he is NOT a member of a political party? This is quite strange because whenever I hear about someone being elected in another country (or my own), he or she is a member of some political party.
If he is indeed not a member of any party, how do the voters know what he stands for?
Did the voters elect him as a single person?
Please forgive my ignorance here: if he was voted for as a single person, what are then his political colleagues, are they elected or appointed, and are they from several different parties?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.201.67 (talk) 12:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent question. No, he is not a member of any existing party. He used to be a member of the CPSU, but it was dissolved in 1991 (I believe this information was in the article the last time I read it). Both in 2000 and in 2004 he was elected as a single person, and the voters used to have very different guesses as to what he stands for (as if this mattered in Russia). Yes, he officially pledged support to the Unity Party of Russia in 1999 and (apparently not that officially, I am not sure) to United Russia, pretty much artificial bureaucratic parties without a coherent ideology. Parties are traditionally underdeveloped in Russia and are usually organized by the authorities. I tried to figure out whether Putin is classified as left or right some time ago, but failed to find enough sources. It is extremely difficult to tell what has been done by him personally rather than by somebody else in the Russian leadership. As to his inner circle, well, he has brought to power many of his former colleagues. Parties really don't matter that much in Russia. Colchicum 12:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Vladimir Putin IS the party of russia--124.185.189.204 21:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Party? 

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

message: Obviously there's a sort of misunderstanding among some Western contributors. Opposition group the Other Russia, which unites far left-wing and right-wing parties + a couple of important figures doesn't represent the whole Russian opposition. Other Russia is mostly known for Dissenters Marches and Harry Kasparov, but it's a mistake to equalize it with the opposition.
Speaking about opposition I would at first say about 1) Communists. The Communist Party of Russian Federation holds 10% of seats in Parliament. 2) Democrats. These forces are represented by parties Yabloko, Union of Right Forces, Civilian Power. None of these are represented in Parliament by now. 3) Russian nationalists. These forces luckily aren't in Parliament. That's the Movement Against Illegal Immigration and coalition the Great Russia. 
Other Russia is the best PR'ed in the West, and paradoxially that kills it inside Russia. For good or for bad, but no party/ political figure publicly approved at the West has no political future in Russia. ellol 08:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: centrist-right political party "United Russia"? LOL. See Left-Right politics. Colchicum 16:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for info. ellol 20:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition

message: Why is the article so silent about Putin's aggressive policy towards Georgia? Russia's embargo and economic sanctions have been in force since late 2006. Georgians in Russia suffer from the government-inspired discrimination. Please refer to the latest Human Rights Watch report for more details. Thanks. Shota-G., Oct. 06, 2007.
:There are more reasons to blame georgian president in ruined relations, than the russian one. Don't expect Wikipedia to represent the events from your point of view. Everything is perfectly covered, by the way, in Georgia-Russia relations.Garret Beaumain 15:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? The relations had been ruined long before Saakashvili came to power. It is not his fault that his Russian counterpart dreams reasserting Moscow's hegemony over the post-Soviet countries and that ethnic prejudices and xenophobia are rampant in Russia. Shota-G., Oct. 07, 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.43.69 (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would just drop a word here. Yes, relationships between two countries has deteriorated in the last few years due to some idiots in power. Moreover, in the last say 10 years there was some rise of xenophobia in Russia, which although was at least partially induces by certain circumstances. But don't forget that Georgians are traditionally treated well in Russia. People of Russia don't have an eye against people of Georgia, politicians do. ellol 13:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Ellol. Cheers, Shota-G., Oct. 08, 2007.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.43.69 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Putin and Georgia

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

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

message: Please, don't forget where you are: it is Wikipedia, not the tribune for expression your hate on Putin and your worry about democracy in Russia. This is biographical article that should be kept neutral, independent from editors' points of view, based only on external accounts from the respected sources.
About the latest edits:
Newspapers, radio stations and internet editions... are often careful not to be critical of Putin.
Did you ask them? This edit is unsourced OR. And you seem never listened to Echo Moskvi, watched Ren-TV or browsed runet. 
But this must be seen in the context of the immense power of the state over newspapers and television.
Another personal opinion expression: "it must be seen" is classical for Weasel words. WIkipedia does not point people how they should "see".
This sort of pressure would be illegal in most democratic nations in the world. Many in the West worry that Putin is gradually gathering dictatorial powers solely in his hands.
 
OR (can you provide a source what is legal for "democratic nations"?) and POV with weasel words (Many in the South worry that Putin eats little children on his breakfast). According to WP:CITE, if there's a controversy, we should write: "John Doe and Jack Smith, famous politicians, wrote in their books that they worry about Putin may become a dictator(link, link). Alex Ivanov, another famous politician, in reply, wrote in his book that he has different point of view (link)".
All this edits should be removed according to Wikipedia policies. Stating that article "glorifies" VVP is a reason for good laugh - there are more criticism than in articles on any G8 leader. Just try to write something like this in Angela Merkel or Gordon Brown.
PS. surely, all such articles as on current rulers should be forever protected from anonymous and newly registered users' edits.
Garret Beaumain 00:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the name mentioned in the title of this chapter: . All three banned now. --Paul Pieniezny 01:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Putin is building up a police state/dictatorship. No source... I have my own in Russia. But you can derive this much by simply paying attention to the news. -- 212.202.176.23 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me be your source from Russia: there's allright enough. ))Garret Beaumain (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Arkansaschemist and other Putin-bashers

message: How come this article does not mention that he is a billionaire? It was reported that Putin owns thirty seven percent share of Surgutneftegaz. 
* I do not think any of those sources are reliable. I am pretty sure he is not in Forbes list. Kulikovsky (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jamestown article tells: Belkovsky made his case once again on November 16, when he appeared as the main guest on Yevgeny Kiselyov’s “Vlast” program, which is simulcast on RTVi television and Ekho Moskvy radio. So, that is basically retelling story published in other reliable source. Moreover, this story was also published in Die Welt (first source I cited was Russian translation from German). So, this perfectly satisfy WP:RSUE.Biophys (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, that is not three sources. That is three media outlets rebroadcasting one - Belkovsky. I did not see any media endorsing his views. I doubt Belkovsky has direct knowledge of the matter, yet he does not tell his sources. Also, he is bashing Putin left and right and seems to be politically opposing Putin. Belkovsky cooperates with Putin's known political opponents. He is likely to be biased. That's my assessment of credibility of his statement. Now, his statement contradicts directly Putin's own declaration. Reuters reports: <...>Putin's declaration <...> lists his father's two Russian cars dating from the early 1960s amongst his assets, along with 3.7 million roubles ($149,400), a small apartment, a plot of land and 230 shares in a local bank. "What is published by the electoral commission is true," said Putin's spokesman on Monday. -- Kulikovsky (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Naturally, this contradicts Putin's statement. Naturally, Putin would deny this allegation. I am not a big fan of including any unreliable statements in BLPs. Hence this discussion. I think this needs to be studied more carefully.Biophys (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So let's just leave it out either way.  A debate over his assets (where there doesn't seem to be enough reliable sources on either side seems quite contrary to WP:BLP.  Mimimal peer-review + NPOV  (!= reliable source) = keep it out of BLP.  -Seidenstud (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is ironic in a way that the Russian Wiki has a humungous article totally dedicated to "Criticism of Putin"  with the first subsection headlined "Accusations of corruption before his presidency". It appears that the Kremlin is more concerned with manipulating the Western opinion thru its stooges than the Russians' who can always be topped if need be.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I am not sure what exactly "stooges" means, but I think that of those 80% of Russians who support Putin, some may also be Wikipedia editors, be well-educated and speak fluent English. And not work for KGB, but simply be patriots of their home country as private individuals. Without receiving a pay for what they say or even a credit for things they do. Personally I feel no need to contribute to the Russian WP article about Putin, because Russians have free access to various information sources, so they have a chance to compare different opinions and make an educated judgment by themselves without any sort of hand-holding. But it seems that English-speaking audience is so much ill-informed on everything related to Putin (you basically get all your information from BBC and CNN, that is, from Murdoch), that some of us may feel obliged to provide factual information to make at least a slightest possible correction of misinformation existing in the Western world. Cfeet77 (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: According to his financial statement for the 2007 Duma election Putin earned this and possessed that. In 2007 Kremlin politologist Stanislav Belkovsky alleged that Putin owns this and that that makes Putin the richest Russian and one of the top ten in the world refs. Neither Forbes nor Finance included Putin into their lists of billionaires (refs to the latest Forbes, Finance and whatever else). 
This way we present the notable allegations but show that they contradict  both the official data (duh!) and the opinion of main financial media. Developing a reasonable article about Belkovsky might help as well. If no objection I would try to make it this evening (Melbourne time) Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I think we need to present both points of view: Putin has trivial possessions derived mostly from the book royalties and from his presidential salary. Putin is a billionaire making into world top-ten. I guess the first one is mainstream  while the second is worth mention. I propose the following:
: According to his financial statement for the 2007 Duma election Putin earned this and possessed that. In 2007 Kremlin politologist Stanislav Belkovsky alleged that Putin owns this and that that makes Putin the richest Russian and one of the top ten in the world refs. Neither Forbes nor Finance included Putin into their lists of billionaires (refs to the latest Forbes, Finance and whatever else). 
This way we present the notable allegations but show that they contradict  both the official data (duh!) and the opinion of main financial media. Developing a reasonable article about Belkovsky might help as well. If no objection I would try to make it this evening (Melbourne time) Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not just Belkovsky: these allegations started several years ago aired by such prominent establishment figures as Ivan Rybkin. No-one tries to present the information therein as facts. They are very modestly billed as "allegations", which in itself does not require any counterbalancing. If you wish to present the data from his official financial statement for the 2007 Duma election -- go ahead. I think that would fit in perfectly as a second paragraph in the same section as an illustration of the guy's alleged mendacity.Muscovite99 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

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

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

message: Even after having had a view on the history of the history page of the deleted 'Comrade Wolf' article, I do not understand why it has to be redirected here. 'Comrade Wolf' is a Russian joke character employed by Putin to denote the US, (to my knowledge it has never been employed to mean Putin). So even if 'Comrade Wolf' may not has the right to an own article (in the opinion of the Wikipedia community), I wonder why it redirects to a page that does not mention it.
Source: e.g. [konstantin2005.blogspot.com/2006/05/comrade-wolf.html] many more sources found when searching google
PS: I fear I do not breach Wikipedia ettiquete by posting this here, but this redirect is really annoying me (but I do not dare to change it)
:You surely do not breach Wikipedia ettiquete. You are welcome to the Wikipedia. Thank you for your note, I inserted a template for speedy deletion at the page. But you could do it yourself, you didn't have in fact to ask anybody. Wikipedia is free for all, and you are welcome to be bold. ellol (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The redirect is there per this AfD result.  It is customary to keep the original title as a redirect when one article is merged into another one.  If you feel this redirect is inappropriate, please list it on WP:RfD.  In its present form, it most certainly does not meet any of the CSD criteria for redirects.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Comrade Wolf]] forward 

message: Putin is the leader of the party United Russia. Though, don't know how is that legally explained, but the key must be here: http://edinros.ru  ellol 21:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was old vandalism by someone pretending to be funny. Since the rest of the edit looked serious, it was overlooked. I reverted that part. But nothing prevented you from doing so. Though taking an account and signing is always a good idea...--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Party

message: If the article retains the overall shape and form as it now has, I do not mind removing the template.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to NPOV

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

message: How about including some info on Putin's physical characteristics e.g. Height, weight, hair color, eye color, etc. I think that height is always very interesting for a world leader. Napoleonic syndrome, etc.  The IMDb biography for Putin reports that his height is 5' 5" (1.65 m).
See: IMDb Putin Biography
70.153.8.204 (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about info on phyisical characteristics? 

message: Indeed, the group has been compared explicitly to fascist youth organizations for its fierce loyalty to Putin and its militant nationalism, with particularly intense animosity directed toward supposed "enemies" from the west.
Nationalism is really a strange claim. Nashi is an antifascist group. Russia is a multi-ethnic state, what makes nationalistic slogans especially disruptive for the Russia's statehood. Indeed, you can't ever see in any official appearance the word 'Русский' what means 'ethnically Russian', but the word that's used is 'Россиянин' what means 'Citizen of Russia'. As Nashi was created with support of the Russia's tops, it shares the general anti-nationalistic mood. ellol (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be the official Kremlin line, but it is manifestly absurd to claim that Putin and Nashi do not try to create an atmosphere of Russians vs. the evil western enemies. A typical piece of Nashi propaganda was cited in the recent Time article: "Tomorrow there will be war in Iran. The day after tomorrow Russia will be governed externally!" As for those anti-nationalistic leaders of yours, Putin frequently cites external enemies as the ones driving domestic opposition to him in a turn very reminiscent of Soviet-era propaganda. This is what is meant by nationalism or militant patriotism, and it is not clear what is confusing to you about my wording. I will change it to 'militant patriotism' and rephrase it if you prefer. --Wilanthule (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: The meaning of the English words nation and nationalist differs from the Russian one. A nationalist isn't necessarily an ethnic nationalist. The word 'nationality', for instance, clearly denotes one's citizenship. The difference is specified in the majority of English-Russian dictionaries. Basically, the English word says that they're flag-waving patriots. 217.172.29.4 (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for that clarification! I should have been aware of this difference in usage so that I could answer the criticism better. --Wilanthule (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I have doubt that it belongs to the biography of Putin at all, since he is not a church official. Anyway the long discussion habout the union does not belong to the Family Life section. I have moved the text to Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and put a reference to it in the Foreign Relation section. Please discuss the pluses and minuses of the Union in Act of Canonical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate or elsewhere and keep the reference in Putin's biography short. I would not object if there is a consensus to remove it altogether. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in Moscow for the signing of the Act, and of course Putin was there, and at several other events that related to it.  It was the top story in the Russian press for the better part of a week, and I think Putin considered to be significant.  It was frequently discussed as the conclusion of the Russian Civil War, and the turning of the page on the whole Bolshevik period.  Putin also discussed it in terms of the unifying effect on the Russian people that he hoped it would have.  As such, I think it is worth noting in this article... though the conspiracy theories of an insignificant minority are not.  Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

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

message: I am tired of constant edit warring over which Putin's photo should go to the lead. There is nothing wrong in both of them but we can have only photo on the top. Lets have a straw poll:
===Tricolor photo===
Those in favor of the photo please put your arguments here:
*Official image from the Presidential website
*Considerably better quality than the other image
*The other image is random, grainy, has been cropped from a larger image
*He has a neutral facial expression whereas in the other image he has what might be interpreted as a sinister-looking smile
*He is not looking at the camera in the other image
*U.S. President articles (see George W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, etc, etc) all use their official White House photos like this one (posing against the backdrop of the U.S. flag)
*The Russian wikipedia article uses this image .--Miyokan (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading photo 

message: Those in favor of the photo please put your arguments here:
*Official image from the Presidential website
*Considerably better quality than the other image
*The other image is random, grainy, has been cropped from a larger image
*He has a neutral facial expression whereas in the other image he has what might be interpreted as a sinister-looking smile
*He is not looking at the camera in the other image
*U.S. President articles (see George W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, etc, etc) all use their official White House photos like this one (posing against the backdrop of the U.S. flag)
*The Russian wikipedia article uses this image .--Miyokan (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tricolor photo

message: Those in favor of the photo please put your arguments here:
* Unlike the above one, this is a photo of a man rather than a poster that has been groomed and edited. Nothing insulting about it. I do not know much about this Commons business, but on the French side there is a quite flattering real photo that i would suggest to those who might dislike this one.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Gray photo 

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

message: User:Miyokan put the tag but i fail to see any of his reasons expalained for doing so. Also, in my view his recent deletions of perfectly valid material may well be judged as NPOV violation on his part. Nothing personal, but Miyokan seems to be trying to ignore what Time itself is officially stating: TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement.  (last paragraph). What is one meant to make of his complaint of lack of praise? There is Time's editor's quote in there: given the title for his "extraordinary feat of leadership in taking a country that was in chaos and bringing it stability". Apart from stubbornly deleting Kasparov's reaction, which is not valid, on the pretext that Kasparov is a mere somebody, the link to the public (that is pretty much EVERYBODY'S) reaction on the Time's site is also removed, as it fails to be to Miyokan's liking apparently as well.Muscovite99 (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you're saying is that we should leave in those statements about Putin that are positive and delete those that are negative? JdeJ (talk) 08:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a laugh, next time make a educated argument rather than throw around baseless accusations. No, I'm saying don't cherry pick statements to represent a topic (like Putin receiving the Time award) from anti-Putin figures (with low support). Don't put in topics that are unrelated to this biography (eg the paragraph about the Act of Canical Communion allegedly being an FSB operation), lunatic fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) and give undue weight to a certain view (WP:UNDUE). To see what is a well-written, generally NPOV article on a leader, see the George W Bush article, a far more controversial figure around the world. --Miyokan (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it was not that seriously meant. Honestly though, it seems to be rather accurate all the same. You argue consistently for removing critical views from the article. And at least in the West, someone like Kasparov is a very well-known and respected figure, in no way (WP:FRINGE) or (WP:UNDUE). JdeJ (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  I am not that sure who is exactly more controversial right now. Suva Чего? 09:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I put a quote here from Time's policy (TIME's Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement) because you moved the bit into "Honours" section  of the article and bowlderised all the negative reaction thereto , which is most relevant.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Muscovite99 on this one, well argued JdeJ (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Afraid, we are talking at cross purposes.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV violation claim

message: Due to excessive edit warring, this page is protected for a week. Please use the time to come to a consensus on what to include. Once the protection expires, please also consider splitting off some content as this page is over 100KB. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think our actual goal is to follow WP:NPOV policy, which tells that all significant sourced views must be represented in  the article, no matter if this article is about a "national leader" or not. In that regard, the article is missing Criticism of Putin and fate of his Russian opponents chapter per this source  and many others. Indeed, very few prominent Russian journalists and politician dare to loudly criticize Putin personally, publicly suggest that he was involved in various criminal activities, or has been brought to power as a result of FSB coup: Litvinenko, Politkovskaya, Tregubova, Yushenkov, Schekochikhin, and Rybkin (who else?), and what had happened to them? That is notable and discussed in many hundreds publications.Biophys (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point made by all of you. Of course we should follow WP:NPOV, but the task is to decide what that is in this case. I don't any editor here is dishonest, on the contrary. To take user Miyokan as an example, he and I disagree on some points in the content, but I don't doubt his honesty and his commitment to WP:NPOV. It's just that some of us think that things should be kept in the sake of NPOV and other users want to leave them out for NPOV. As Alex said, this should be dealt with rather fast and by trying to find some common ground. JdeJ (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point made by Biophys: the article, while being unbearably lengthy, misses the major point, that is the atrociously criminal nature of putin's regime. I am certain that multiple windy quotes from kremlin-connected and kremlin-bankrolled mouthpieces need to be curtailed, as they do not contain any information, just mere propaganda bluster.Muscovite99 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Could somebody change the infobox & succession box: from President of Russia & Prime Minister of Russia to President of the Russian Federation & Prime Minister of the Russian Federation? GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WHY? Russia's Constitution, Article 1: "<...>The names "Russian Federation" and "Russia" shall be equal" . What's the problem? The Russian officialdom do like to use "The RF" for some obscure reasons, but if you look at the RF Foreign Ministry's letterheads, they always say "The Foreign Ministry of Russia" only -- for reasons even more obscure.Muscovite99 (talk) 12:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

text: Muscovite99, I see that instead of constructive discussion you try to engage into direct or indirect attacks targeting other editors whom you think have views opposing to yours. In connection to this, may I again remind you your own low credibility in the Russian segment of WP for breaking WP rules and deteriorating credibility in this segment. I see that by proposing to move the Foreign relations section, you intend to suppress information about arguably one of the most major Putin's achievements during his rule. This is plain unacceptable. Cfeet77 (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, I suppose that as long as you have your own proven vandalism history, you are not a proper person to talk about other contributors' vandalism. Cfeet77 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is an ad hominem way of avoiding the valid points I have made. You brush aside the fact that in addition to myself and Frjohn, an administrator has also judged the information irrelevant to this article . You are saying that an administrator has "perpetrated vandalism" too? I suggest you stick to the issues rather than attack editors. If you want to play games, I could point out that while you accuse us of "vandalism" and violating WP:NPOV, only you have a persistent history of being warned for violating WP:NPOV on this article    and you are the only one who has violated 3RR on this article .--Miyokan (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If a person who happens to be an administrator is engaged in editing he is just an editor as in this particular case -- there are no senior editors. I do not think I said anything personal -- i just stated simple facts that you had been actively editing out other people's material, not vice versa and for reasons, which in many cases are essentially party political. Talking about specific bits, i do not mind treating the piece about the Act as not relevant hereto. But most of the other stuff is perfectly legitimate.Muscovite99 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If my edits constitute vandalism, isn't it odd that the page is protected in the vandalized form?  These comments of Muscovite99 are ad hominem.  This needs to stop. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to ask everyone to avoid personal attacks per WP:CIV and remember about WP:AGF. So far I do not see any consensus building here. Main question: what is relevant and what is not. But this is up to sources, since we are not doing any OR. If they claim something to be related to Putin, it belongs here. (1) Do we agree about that? If we do, we can move further.Biophys (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on which sources, and what they actually say.  The WSJ article, for example, only said a splinter group in ROCOR has a conspiracy theory about the reconciliation.  The WSJ did not assert that this theory was valid.  If this theory is only that of a fringe group, it would be undue weight to include it in this article... though in an article on ROCOR or the Act of Canonical Communion, it would be worth noting their opinion. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If everyone agree that what is relevant and what is not should be decided by sources, then we should go to the next step. First, which sources are reliable?  That is defined by WP:Verifiability policy. (2) Do we agree on that? If we agree on that, next question is: what is majority opinion, and what is minority opinion? This should be also decided by reliable sources. If five reliable sources make one claim, and only one source makes the opposite or different claim, then the second view is a minority opinion. (3) Do we agree on that? I will wait for responses of others.Biophys (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That again all depends on which sources we are talking about, and what they actually say.  There is no point in talking about hypotheticals here.  Get specific.  You said you had a plethora of sources that verified that the Act of Canonical Communion was an FSB operation.  Where is the plethora of sources? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am waiting for opinions of of others. If we all agree on these principles, we can talk about specifics. Do you agree with (1-3) above? Yes or no, please.Biophys (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Right. WP:AGF also tells the following: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.". Words like "Lunatic Fringe comments" about a source that clearly satisfies WP:Verifiability might be considered as the "evidence to the contrary".Biophys (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not describe the Wall Street Journal as Lunatic Fringe... they simply reported the opinions of such. Preobrazhensky (your "reliable" source) accused Fr. Victor Potapov, who was a speaker on the Voice of America Russian Broadcast for decades of being a KGB agent.  This is a man who was an outspoken critic of the Soviet Union, and of its persecution of the Church.  I would describe such opinions as being that of the lunatic fringe. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, according to your source, Konstantin Preobrazhenskiy tells the following "Thus Potapov acted as the agent to purchase property for the KGB here in the United States, using the church as a cover. This newly acquired property will be used to install the leadership of the Moscow-run ROCOR. As I stated and written about so many times, the ROCOR churches will be used as outposts for KGB agents in cassocks.". Why do you think this is wrong?  Criticizing Soviet Union or working on the Voice of America does not mean he was not an agent.Biophys (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

text: *What needs to stop is your abuse of other editor's time by discussing ussues essentially unrelated hereto and of which you are most distantly and desultorily informed. (See my very "ad hominem" message for in your lovely  "Lunatic Fringe comments").Muscovite99 (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *You are yet again violating the policy against personal attacks.  Please stick to the issues. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: Mikoyan et. al., take a look at , particularly the quote: 
"Putin's popularity ratings are a bubble that exist within a political vacuum, a bubble that nonetheless needs to be continuously pumped up with injections of hot air from state television." I believe that is a legit citation for some observers seeing his popularity as a result of state-controlled praise in the media. As for saying "some Western observers", that is not legitimate. We do not add the nationality of the "observers" in other quotes, so why add it here? --Wilanthule (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The accepted concensus is that Putin is popular because of the economic prosperity under his administration. I can find you plenty of western sources that Putin is so popular because of this and don't even mention state run television as a reason for his popularity. The 'state run television brainwashing' is WP:UNDUE bordering on WP:FRINGE, some distinction needs to be made that economic prosperity/political stability/national pride are the main reasons Putin has a huge approval rating while the 'state run television brainwashing people into loving Putin' is a disputed, lesser held view, given mostly by some western critics and sparsely held in Russia, mostly by unpopular liberals like Garry Kasparov.--Miyokan (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the phrase "state run television brainwashing" (unless it is a quote) is not acceptable, the term "propaganda" should be used. But the view itself is perfectly legit and it is not confined to western media -- read e.g. former deputy minister Milov's view : "Не стоит переоценивать и авторитет Путина. Это не настоящий, а телевизионный, искусственно созданный авторитет. Аппаратчики во власти это понимают лучше всех. В действительности они в гробу видели своего нынешнего босса. Ждать от них, что они лояльно перестроятся и станут подчиняться главе правительства, наивно; скорее всего, эти же люди первыми начнут бегать к новому шефу в надежде повысить свои аппаратные позиции." and the very lat sentence: "Дмитрий Медведев, судя хотя бы по моему личному опыту, человек вовсе не мягкий, а очень даже властный, за ним стоят мощные фигуры из так называемой «ельцинской семьи», а под рукой послушная пропагандистская машина, готовая в 24 часа развернуться на 180 градусов и обнаружить массу не замечаемых доселе недостатков «всенародного лидера» Путина.". Note this is not a dissident journalist but a former senior member of Putin's government saying.Muscovite99 (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This  Milov's view is so obvious and true, especially for anyone familiar with Russian history! One can only wonder how can Putin allow Medvedev to be elected and declare Putin an "enemy of the people" or just quietly get rid of him ("pustit' v rasxod"). It means that Putin is not really a boss in Kremlin but a dummy manipulated by others, unless of course he has some hidden plans for the last moment which seems increasingly unlikely.Biophys (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Based on the VOA source, you could say that the author believes Russian media to be controlled by the State... you might say the VOA believes it... you might even say that the US government believes it. You cannot say it is a fact.  The fact that you have Russian media which attacks Putin all the time would tend to disprove the assertion. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  So I think the consensus is: "A view among some Russian and Western observers is that Putin's popularity is a consequence of propaganda on state-run television, but this view is controversial." Nobody is asserting in this article that it is a FACT, because it is hard to establish facts about such things. But NPOV would require including the criticism, especially now that is so well sourced. --Wilanthule (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think a statement to that effect would be completely defensible, and would have no problems with it.  There should probably be some info in the article, however, about how cold warriors in the west have tended to demonize Putin.  A few links to Pat Buchanan's editorials in which he provides a more favorable assessment of Putin might be in order as well. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll Numbers due to State Controlled Media 

message: Принцип наиболее благоприятствующей нации в международном праве does not translate into Principle most conducive to the nation in international law. Either former or later is incorrect.--Dojarca (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *The Russian term as it stands is frequently used, but it is not generally correct; it would have to be "Режим наиболее благоприятствуемой (SIC!) нации". Many web references specifically to Putin's thesis are the way we have it, which may well be the case. But the most reliable source appears to be this , which has it thus in full: "Диплом на тему: « «Принцип наиболее благоприятствуемой нации» Науч. рук. Л. Н. Галенская, кафедра международного права. »" Muscovite99 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect translation 

message: Why is this article protected? There is no warning or justification whatsoever in the heading, but it CANNOT be edited by a common Wikipedian. Is this fact the result of another of Mr. Putin's strategies toward censoring & silencing the media? --AVM (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's 'protected' due to recent edit wars. Vlad the bad, had nothing to do with it. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is someone wants to contribute to the subject of "Putin's strategies toward censoring & silencing the media", there is article Media freedom in Russia. It is not protected.Biophys (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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