Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 1

"Putin has the highest [voter] approval rating of anyone in the world"

Currently or all time?

-G

Probably Hitler and Stalin got higher approval ratings because as in Russia now, they had control of the mass media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.29.69 (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin had high ratings, but they were also hated. The German Jews, I bet, didn't think too highly of Hitler. Stalin on the other hand, probably was high on the polls until Germany invaded(which that high approval rating disappeared once WW11 was over). I think those two(and everybody else) pale in comparison to the Kims of North Korea.

If we are talking currently, as of 2010, I'd say that honor goes to Kim Jung Il of North Korea. Of all time? A tie. Kim Jr and his pappy, Kim Il Sung 28 December 1972 - 8 July 1994(21 years,192 days). Maybe Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito) of Japan(or at least, up til WWII's ending. I'd say his radio address announcing surrender, upset a lot of the military and some of the public.)

The Lack of Media Freedom in Russia

I occasionally read the Putin biography and notice that often the biography does not contain important information about the lack of press freedom in Russia. This is one of the most important developments in the Putin administration. He has gone to great lengths to suppress freedom of the press to an extent that is unheard of in most democracies. Yet when I try to put detailed information about that, including well sourced information, it is usually quickly removed. My understanding is that it is being removed by a Russian. It is also noteworthy that many websites in Russia frequently are defaced if they contain material that is critical of the Russian President. It is a fact that most of the media in Russia is now controlled by the government. Is that going to hold true for Wikipedia also? I will try again to insert information about the problems that journalists face and the problems that anyone faces when they are critical of the Russian President. For example, a few weeks ago, supporters of the opposition were prevented from going to the city where a conference was being held with European countries. The government prevented that by simply declaring void the plane tickets of the opposition and preventing them from boarding the airplane. This forum ought not to echo the methods of the Russian government and therefore I request that true information about the lack of press freedom in Russia not be deleted from this site. Neutrality is one thing but aiding a dictator is quite another.

I note also that there are a substantial number of complaints from other visitors to this site that anything critical of Putin gets promptly removed. You fans of Putin need to realize that he is not viewed as a democratic leader by very large numbers of people. I urge all visitors to help edit this biography so that negative aspects of Putin's leadership are not prevented from being posted. I am sure he has done some things positive for Russia but the negative cannot be ignored or deleted. I am willing to work with the regulars here to produce a quality product but I will not sit idly by while they dictate the contents. A neutral point of view does not mean ignoring the ethical and moral issues surrounding a leader. Suppose Adolf Hitler were alive today and this biography was about him. Would it be correct to ignore his very great crimes in the name of preserving a "neutral point of view"?

In recent months, Putin's government has put enormous pressure on the opposition in a number of ways, using methods that are illegal in the civilized world. The government has interfered with the travel of the opposition, pressured hotels to deny meeting space, arrested opposition leaders, thrown some in prison and in general has behaved in an uncivilized way. Russia is rapidly becoming a dictatorship with all the implications that this has for the world.

Marktwain403

Smile?

Does Putin ever smile a genuine smile? ..or even better, laugh? Any link to a happy picture of him?

I can't believe it, but I found one: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Img/923/0004107.jpg --Scott 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have nightmares now. Craig Ponnan 05:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair?

I do not think he was preceded by Tony Blair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin#External_links_and_references 13:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC) He was. See G8#Past_G6.2F7.2F8_summits. "31st 2005 July 6–July 8 United Kingdom Gleneagles Hotel, Gleneagles / Muirton, Scotland http://www.g8.gov.uk " ellol

Is the article written from a US perspective?

What US-propaganda is this? If you want neutral and objective information about Vladimir Putin you'd better turn to the European Wikipedia pages.

Please state the parts which you don't agree with (or better, rework them yourself). -- Cordyph 17:38, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What's the European Wikipedia? Mr. Jones 11:02, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe he means the German Wikipedia Viihde 20:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the part "Putin is a rather atypical Russian leader: He is comparatively young, never touches alcohol, and is a sports enthusiast" is pretty ignorant and discriminating. Just because Yeltsin had an alcohol problem, you cannot call it typical for a Russian leader. Or can you give some other examples of alcohol-sick Russian Presidents? Gorbachev, Andropov, Brezhnev, Stalin? This is the level of the Tonight Show but not of the Wikipedia. Voevoda 11:08, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that alcholism is a pretty rampant problem in Russia both now and in the past. Evidence of this is the decline in state revenues when vodka sales were limited under Gorbachev's anti-alchol campaign. Also, how many times did Yeltsin appear drunk and incomprehensible in public while supposedly carrying out his duties.

US and Europe have also alcohol problems. Alcohol consumption are 10.6 liters per capita in Russia, 8.5 liters per capita in US and 13.5 liters per capita in France(by [World Health Organization report]). Bush is also alcoholic. So I suggest you write in Bush page "Bush is a rather typical American leader: He is quite old and alcoholic".--Ghoort 08:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Derek

Putin indeed is youngest of all Russian leaders. Stalin, Kruschev and Brezhnev were heavy drinkers, Lenin, Andropov and Chernenko were terminally ill, but you are right - Boris Yeltsin is also a sport enthusiast - he plays tennis.

I'm afraid you mix "drinking" and "alcoholic", because All mentioned above exept Yeltsin were not alcoholics and they didn't make importand decisions drunk.

Uncle Joe.

Putin does not have a drinking problem, he is young than most leaders, worked his way up from the bottom, active participant in Judo. Zscout370 (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of the exclusively US perspective has been removed. A few people seem to think that it is relevant to include in this article the allegation that US President George W. Bush refers to Putin as "Pootie-Poot". It's a cute nickname, and it probably tells us something about Bush, but this artcle isn't the place for American political trivia.

I think this bloke you guys are on about is gay. this comment was from Jáck Hóllóbréád

Thanks for sharing, Jäck.

I made some minor edits relating to the appointed governors and the proportional voting system. The view that these changes somehow subvert democracy is US centric. The majority of democracies use a proportional voting system, and I happen to be from an established democracy (the Kingdom_of_the_Netherlands) where governors are appointed by the Crown (and accepted or rejected by the local legislature). I am willing to accept that Putin championed these changes to tighten his grip on power, and (combined with his control over the national, but maybe not regional, media) they might well have that effect, but one of the US contributors will have to make an explicit case for that to make that argument stick. Maybe he just prefers a more European, and less American, type of democracy? (aboer)

Why is Putin popular?

Why and how is Putin so popular (and his opponents so unpopular)? Isn't Russia in a bit of a state? I've heard it suggested that the Russians have remained in a Soviet-era mindset, favouring a strong, stable, central leader over uncertainty and debate. What do people think? Any Russians or other ex-Soviets about? Is it about nostalgia for the USSR, the invasion of Chechnya or more than just those two?

Mr. Jones 10:23, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You really have to ask that Question? try here Russia pays off its Soviet era debts to the west and probably a million other positive reforms come on people we need to get educated. -Theblackbay 09:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Putin is popular because he's, in many ways, a Yeltsin's antipode. Yeltsin, his predcessor, was such an awful leader that even Putin looks very favorable and "strong" in comparison. And Russian Federation didn't know any more presidents yet.

Dear Mr. Jones, Is it really a Soviet minset to favor a strong personality over uncertainty? Would you, whatever nation is yours, want a weak president for yourself? Mikkalai 01:37, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't vote for Kerry for US. Putin's handling of the school hostage situation just tells me what kind of president he is. Putin is reverting Russia back to the USSR. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:52, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think Putin flipped some trigger in everyones head, people now feel very much like USSR - no one ever says anything about Putin, if you mention him, everyone says something very loyal about him. It's called self-censorship you know what if you say something wrong, you'll probably get trouble with other people who are loyal, thus you do the same.IMHO it is wrong, even if Mr.President is good, any of his actions are subject to debate, and it's not a matter of loyalty, because not people need to be loyal - it's president must be loyal to people, he's no tsar. In general I agree what he is doing, but what he is doing to political system is unbearable. Yeah I know what no politician will EVER refuse the power if he might take it, but that's not the deeds of a real father of the nation - bringing in his party which has no position but only to help current president, ruining governors elections, it's selfish, how is he going to give up all this to someone else, and to whom? or is he? Every democratic leader needs an opponent, otherwise he gets no feedback, but Putin is not totally responsible for zero competition - his opponents on the last election were so weak, so there was no matter how are they are covered, but it still means he's on the loose - no matter what he does no one can replace him, how can he get an opponent now? IMHO may be he is OK for economy, yet not so good for democracy.Gnomz007

Sorry, you say so loud words.. You really lived in USSR??
I'm too young to be able to remember how it was in USSR, but i'm sure situation in the country now is different.
You have something to say against Putin? Say it. You won't get in prison or somewhere, and you know it! You want to debate? Debate!
I agree with most of you wrote, but.. You say that things are going bad, but how could they be done better?? What are Putin's mistakes?
You, if you really have anything to say, why are you so silent?
Sorry, ellol 21:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC), Evgeniy V. Filatov.

Ok, I don't remember much of USSR and I'm really not NPOV about Putin. His mistake is simple, he does not adhere to the spirit of democracy, making subtle but steady shifts towards something which is not democracy, call it whatever you like. Making it OK for some harmless people to say something against Putin is not enough, do you think that they need to grab any common idiot like, I know, they did in USSR if he says something that nobody listens to. In US if Mr.President goes wrong there is senate(two parties with at least some kind of competitive programs) court, press and thousand of other guys to override or impeach him(does not work perfect but works), and what do we have in Russia, no use to critique president if nothing is making him respond, whoever fault is that it is a problem. I don't want a debate here, I just want to validate that if someone writes that he is not democratic enough to US standards, then I think that is true.
Gnomz007 22:46, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC),your Anonymous Coward.

I seem to understand you. It might be bitterly to watch your mothercountry turning into monster. And, really, antidemocratic tendency keeps for last years. Nevertheless, Russia is not a tyranny, no matter what "The Wall Street Journal" writes.
Don't forget there are some things getting better in Russia, e.g. economics grow [and as you probably know, the life 'level' in Moscow is comparable with that in Europe; so -- welcome back :-) ].
What about democracy, the 2008 pres. election is a key moment. I'm almost sure Putin will not play too rude (as if trying to participate in election). Russians still are not idiots, and he can't not to understand it.
ellol 13:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Problem with the critising Putin is that he is really popular. If you saying something against his politics, you sonn will be terribly unpopular. There are a lot of independent medias in Russia, but all they are super- liberal, pro-oligarch (corrupter enterpreneurs) and anti- Russian (especiaaly the Berezovsky's media-holding). His Excellence

Once again this discussion rejuvenated (feels like a response to my earlier rant in here :) ), 195.190.103.83, the question was what exacly brings this guy to such prominence. I doubt that the notion "anti-Russian" makes any sense at all. But that was said is a good illustration - it was the Shock therapy which made many people associate economic hardships with liberal wing, and the chaos of transition created such people as Berezovsky. Maybe the less-liberal image of Putin helped him a little, to get the trust of people blaming the Yeltsin's team for every problem. I guess this article will feature a good explanation to this phenomenon then it will be time for Putin to go. Gnomz007 22:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Putin is popular in Russia, not because he is seen as an antidote to Yeltsin but rather, because he meets the needs of the current stage of development in Russia's post-Soviet history. While it is true that Russians seem destined to be ruled by authoritarian leaders, it is important to remember that such autocrats were foisted on the nation by Tsarism and then Communism. In Putin Russia has chosen a man who shares many of the characteristics of his unelected predecessors, but despite this paradox, he was elected, and the West must treat him accordingly. The Russian Federation is no longer 'learning' democracy from the West. The period in the 1990s during which they were stumbling towards more capitalist and democratic structures is over. Stability has returned and in Putin, rightly or wrongly, they have a man who is prepared to stand up to the Western powers and assert Russia's new revitalised role as a gas-propelled superpower. Blair and Bush are intimidated by this prospect, and gone are the days when Russia would be condescended to, poked and prodded and openly criticised by the outside world. Putins' moves towards dictatorship are another matter entirely (as the West despairs over his moves towards altering the constitution to legalise a third term) but increasingly, none of the West's business. Russia is rising from her knees, and the rest of the world must realise this and start once more to look her in the eye as an equal.

CPC

Putin owns the Russian media. Thats all it comes down to.

Unsatisfactory. Try to pass it another time. ellol 11:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the state owned media makes a hero out of him. In every news session on first and second channel they tell about some marvellous thing the president accomplished. He plays a tsar, there certainly is a personality cult around him. He plays a kind of father or hero, riding u-boats and solving little children's problems, cracking down at corrupt local authorities and solving any problem he learns about. Putinjugend, his "talks with the people" or any Daily News session from Channel 1 are vivid examples. I thing it needs a mention. I^NT_ER^NA_ZI 21:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Riding an u-boat was the place once in old 2000 year, when Berezovsky and Gusinsky still owned their TV channels.

In every news session on first and second channel they tell about some marvellous thing the president accomplished. I wouldn't say so. They just don't picture Putin in black colour (see Press freedom and intimidation section), all the other he makes by himself -- and agree, it's his personal choice to solve problems rather than to create new. To speak with people rather than to isolate Kremlin. Yes, Putin mostly speaks only right, correct things. But is it a reason for blame?

I don't watch TV often. But I remember, there was a correct analysis of Kondopoga crisis, last time there are many talks about corruption.

There's certainly no personality cult around Putin.

Putinjugend is your invention. Walking together.

ellol 12:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear ellol, I can't imagine how you could have missed it. How else would you classify the tax-funded arrenged 'talks with people' with stand-ins with learned texts in 'please don't leave!'-fashion solving personal problems of simple people or appearing in each news session, with whole reports devoted to his dog - the Putinjugend, not my invention, but that of people at Kremling - wether the latest incarnation's called Idushiye Vmeste or Nashi, the sole doctrine of the youth organisations is the persona cult of VVP, their very structure is not any different from other totalitarian youth organizations, that's where their inofficial name hails from. Either you've never been to Russia and never seen tax-funded Russian media or you've never seen anything else.;) I^NT_ER^NA_ZI 11:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just watched news on NTV. 19:00. They lasted for 25 minutes. Themes: 1) USA put sanctions against 3 Russian companies for their contracts with Iran and Syria, though they don't harm these companies immmediately, they may cause specific troubles in their work; a short report from a factory in Tula which faced US's sanctions four times; guy from the factory said it's strange because all contracts are in agreement with international laws; some guy said about expansion of Russian armament companies into the world and said sanctions are not political in fact, just business. 2) Now briefly. Debris of 'Soyuz missile' in Wyoming; claim of US's agency; claim of Russia's agency. 3) 75 years from the birth of Raisa Gorbacheva, much about her biography 4) New rules of taking sick-lists; pay increased in 1000 roubles; a tendency: people are more often visiting doctors, but 30% less taking sick-lists; due to potential troubles with job; people who worked with temperature of 40 degrees C; a TV jornalist who ruined her hearth after such working and only surveved after an operation of heart transplantation; a story of italian singer who also sometimes works with high temperature; 5) A case in Leningrad Oblast where two high officeers after drinking with people in bar, went out, one returned and threw a grenade inside; happily, it was a grenade with 10-seconds delay and one of guys inside managed to kick it into corridor; 6 people injured; a criminal case "for murderous assault"; 6) A report about global warming: warm winter in Russia, cherry blossoms in the USA, report from Alaska, talks with profs from an university there, they explain threats like those arising from melting of 'frozen soils' in Alaska and Siberia; rise of sea level etc; however some scientists have an opinion that there's no actual global warming. 7) Fall of oil prices in the U.S., due to warm winter.

ellol 16:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What is Putin?

There should really be at least *something* in the article about the sharply divergent views of him in Western media: dictator or democrat, strong leader or weak puppet. If you're a native English speaker (or just better than me) and can come up with something that doesn't violate NPOV, please add it. 82.83.132.165 23:05, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is it absolutely necessary to rubberstamp him with a cliche? Do you think it will help to understand what he is doing? Even without this the article looks like a sophomore essay in politology. What really missing is descriptions of Putin's actions, i.e., facts are missing. Only newspaper sensations are mentioned. So, why don't you ask instead what did Putin do for Russian economy so far besides the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky? What is more important to know: what Putin does or what Western tabloids write about him? Mikkalai 01:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's not what tabloids write about him. It's what mainstream journalism writes about him. Certainly the article ought to mention Putin's alleged attacks on a free press in Russia. I think that in general the article ought to be considerably more detailed, to be honest. john 04:13, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I agree with john. We can stay NPOV and mention that some aspects of Putin's politics are highly criticized on the western opinion. This is not tabloid, this is just facts. For exemple, the way he handles the Chechnya "problem", the way he tries to control the Russian press (see the latest repression on the journalists that have not covered the Beslan hostage crisis in way that has pleased him), ... I'm far from Russia, and I think that, if we may be subject to anti-Putin propaganda, Russian people may be also subject to pro-Putin propaganda. So I guess that without entering into any dispute, we could mention the way US/Europe sees Putin. If someone could do that, it will be great. Otherwise, I will go back to my favorite newspapers... Lvr 14:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

People, people, just because you Americans think your the "most democratic country in the world" doesn't mean you really are!!! Honestly, you are not the capital of the world!! What happens and what works for your country my not work for other nations. What is happening in Russia, really does not concern and should not concern you or your leaders foreign policy in any way what so ever, Russia is Russia, America is America, and Putin is doing the best bloody job, he can FOR RUSSIA'S INTERESTS, just because it doesn't coincide with the beliefs of your polical heads doesn't give you the right to critisize what you dont know. LONG LIVE PUTIN, LONG LIVE RUSSIA, LONG LIVE THE UN.

---

It might be harder to put 'facts' about Putin in at this point in history without slanting them. Back in the day with kruschev, it'd be easy to say "Installed minimum wage," but now things are a bit more complicated, and saying "Kills Chechens" and "Stops terrorism" are the same 'fact' but you see where perspective determines which 'fact' is being written. Unless you want to post his entire budget proposal every year?

Photos with GW Bush

Once again what I already mentioned at GW Bush discussion page. Here (and then US-Russian summit) are some photos from Bush-Putin summit in Slovenia in 2001. The photos are not really public domain but may be published freely if the source and photographer are mentioned. So if you like them and would like to include them into an article, go ahead...

There's a wealth of damning information on Putin that isn't even touched on here. To name but a few things:

- Putin's ruthless control of the media;

- Mishandling of the budget (only tiny fracion of budget revenue goes to health and education, with disastrous and probably permanent consequences on life expectancy, literacy rates etc., while vastly more goes to the still over-sized military and police);

- The circumstances surrounding Putin's rise to power - the "Yeltsin family"'s need to install a leader who would allow them to hold on to the vast fortunes they had amassed by pillaging state resources, thus making permanent and irreversable the catastrophic series of mass thefts from the people and capital flight which went on throughout the nineties. Also allegations that the Chechnyan conflict was provoked by Putin (as FSB head) and the oligarchs propelling him to power in order to divert attention from the chasm of poverty, lawlessness, and decay which the country was slipping (as a direct result of the ruthless theft of those oligarchs), and to create the consequent atmosphere of fear, in which Putin could pose as a powerful, decisive figurehead, allowing him to rise from virtual anonymity to universal popularity and win an easy election; the strong evidence that the apartment bombings in Moscow and Volgodonsk, and the averted one in Ryazan (1999 I think) were orchestrated by the FSB to this end.

All of these things deserve a mention.

Palefire 14 Sep 2004

Cite your sources! Information means little if it is biased. Also, the "ruthless control of the media"? If you go to [1], and search "Putin", you will find many subtle snubs against him. Last time I checked,".ru" meant that the site in question was Russian licensed/based. Dzerzhinsky 20:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Note- Maybe those subtle snubs are allowed to make it seem as if the internet media isn't controled by the government. It is possible to argue a lot of things about Putin both ways. The only thing I have decided about Putin is that we don't really know what side he is on, besides his own. Dzerzhinsky 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Some changes

In the table: I put 'None' as the political party, just so people know there's no association (he's just a one-man propoganda machine, but let's not get into that)

In the bottom: I left the link, but I made the text say "prime minister of modern russia" to differentiate between the office held now and the office held before the communist revolution.

— Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Is this issue article really NPOV ?

I removed the NPOV placed by 80.139.9.254 ( or Voevoda ?). There are no arguments except the sentence "Putin is a rather atypical Russian leader: He is comparatively young, never touches alcohol, and is a sports enthusiast" which is definitely not something major in this article. Lvr 11:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's Putin's ideology? I know he's a former Communist but I've never heard him called a socialist or social democrat. Pimpalicious 2:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

he is a strong man. his political career has been rather bland with no particular drive to the left or right, or any kind of serious reform or revision. all he has done has been designed to give himself more power. --GregLoutsenko 7 July 2005 23:45 (UTC)

How old are you, kids?

"I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul." by US President George W. Bush, June 16, 2001, evidently finding Putin to be trustworthy and straight forward. ??? What a naive *******t! Evidently? Can we really find out what politicians think of each other? Can we really trust their diplomatic speeches? You know, when some come country posesses a nuclear arsenal, and becoming more and more hostile to the West, and you're U.S. president, you just can't say "that ex-spy looks like a stupid duck". AlexPU

Isn't it kinda naive to take what a President says about his meeting with another President at face value? As you said - people are complicated. Bush might not mean what he said - but merely to impress the idea that Putin and he are close.

Also, George W. Bush probably said that to foster good relations... Relations that are now gone as Putin refuses to allow a resolution against Iran to be passed in the UN Security Council. Russia, as a permanent member, has veto power. Dzerzhinsky 22:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gazprom

I have edited the sentence pertaining to Gazprom. The sentence implied Gazprom is completely state owned when in actuality, the Russian government has a 38% stake in it. It may push that above 50% by merging Gazprom with Rosneft. Source - The Economist p74 Dec11th-17th 2004 User:miltonjackson

I don't have time to edit this now, but the state now controls 51% of Gazprom and is working on merging it with Rosnef, which took over Yukos's assets last year.

Quotations

I've removed my previous essay on quotations. I cut my proposal to remove: "This is a man who reads." "Russia doesn't negotiate with terrorists. It destroys them" I agree that all of them make good points, but move the Wallace interview higher, so the one about slithouse would be read the last. Gnomz007 9 July 2005 00:02 (UTC)

I think, that most of these quotations are 1) Interesting to many people, because they explain position of the president of large country on the questions of inner policy(and not only it) which really alarm the world community. 2) Important, because they make the article more of NPOV. You can return that a man can't say things of NPOV about himself and his own doing (and that's right). But what he says is a POV as well. And now readers can compare what they read about Putin before with Putin's replies on much of it, -- and have better possibilities of making their own unbiased viewpoints. So such a rare situation can hardly be called bad. 3) telling much about character and personality of the man who the article is about.

I think that replacing Quotations with retelling of them and a short note that Putin likes using rude words would be an error, since it would lose half of the interest, most of the importance(so called effect of broken telephone: the information being retelled partially loses it's original sense) and all about Putin's personality.

And my last but not least. Gnom007, I respect you, but can't leave the sensation that you want to decide for all what is lousy, am I wrong? The words shithouse and circumcision even do not belong to Seven dirty words (yet the second one is a correct medical term); in my POV it's enough for they being acceptable in the article. Other opinions?

ellol 9 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

Guilty, I've rephrased this propoposal because I realised that I've lost the control my anti-Putin demons. I liked the one about "circumsion" to the point it said about circumsion. But I still do not like the layout of the section, at the end of the day the flow matters. Gnomz007 9 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)

BTW, how about moving the one about weakness (verbatim of course) to respective section, I think it will improve the flow, so the big ones will not hide it.Gnomz007 9 July 2005 01:50 (UTC)

To make it clear: I've heard all of Russia-only ones said on TV in Russia live. Gnomz007 9 July 2005 03:28 (UTC)

I have only one objecton. Russia doesn't negotiate with terrorists. It destroys them is a famous quotation which not only makes a good point but looks like a "key" for the logics of Putin's doing... my POV is that it worth "living" in the article, in that form or another.
Good luck! ellol 9 July 2005 10:13 (UTC)

True , but there are many "keys" in there, that is my initial point, but after a few cuts this whole issue looks totally overrated Gnomz007 9 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)

I think it might be appropriate to replace shithouse anyway. It doesn't make sense in English. "In the shithouse" means essentially "on the toilet." American English anyway. I've never heard the word shithouse used. I've heard rest room, toilet, bathroom, or outhouse. Shithouse seems to not compute with me Jmw0000 02:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You could replace "shithouse" with "outhouse" (though shithouse seems to be a perfectly acceptable bit of US slang and currently gets about 200K hits on Google). "сортире" is difficult to translate; it could also be "shitter" or "crapper". I believe the root is "срать", "to defecate", though it might simply be "сор", which gives us "mycop", i.e. garbage - linguists, please correct me. I think the point of using the phrase "shithouse" is to capture the shocking effect of Putin's use of puerile language. The harder word to translate in the phrase is actually "мочить", meaning essentially "to kill" but translating literally as "to wet". It's a bit of Russian street slang; the effect would be similar to, say, hearing George W. Bush using gangsta rap slang. Because it's more or less untranslatable ("whack" certainly doesn't do it justice), the "shithouse" variation is probably the best way to convey the crudeness of Putin's always-careful choice of words.

Russian word "сортир" is loan word from French "sortir".

The Quotations section takes up half the page. Could everyone consider trimming it down a bit? You can get more quotes in WikiQuotes so I don't see the point in flooding the page with it. Cyborg Ninja 29 Nov 2006 14:39 (UTC)

Putin's rating

--I Do think that his response to Bush's comment on Russian democracy should be included in the "Quotations" category as opposed to the "Putin-related Humor".

Sorry, what do you mean exactly, and for which reasons? ellol 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.fontanka.ru/2006/07/15/169614/

" - Нам бы не хотелось, чтобы у нас была такая же демократия, как в Ираке, скажу честно" Translated: " - To be honest, we hardly want to have democracy such as in Iraq"

Well, Putin did say the remark in question. I think that the "Putin-related Humor" section should be for stuff he didn't actually say. I have to admit, that remark is pretty funny. Dzerzhinsky 20:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

KGB Photo

Dear All,

A photo of President Putin in the KGB can be located at http://images.evrazia.org/images/putin-kgb3.jpg. Enjoy. Zscout370 01:50, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• And more here http://www.ticketsofrussia.ru/gov/putin/kgb.html. Zscout370 01:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Judo Section

What do yall think of it? Zscout370 14:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's more promising than a leader who's lit on stolichnaya all day.

New Photo

FYI: I uploaded a new photo of Putin, who is talking in this one. I personally think this is a better one, and it still comes from the website of the Russian Presidency. The earlier photo had Putin "looking stoned (in my POV)." Zscout370 (talk) 03:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

90s Batch

South and East Asian governments have a tradition of thinking about 'batches' of leaders based on their cohort. I usually think of Vladimir Putin as part of the larger group of positive centrist politicians who have emerged: George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Spain's Zapatero, Hu Jin Tao and Junichiro Koizumi. This perspective might be useful in contextualizing Russia under Putin in terms of its foreign relations against the backdrop of a world recently united by airplane and computer technology.McDogm--64.12.116.13 15:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you say Bush was a centrist? DanielCristofani 13:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Now that's interesting; and there's me thinking that extreme nationalism, conservative economic and social policies belonged to RIGHT and FAR RIGHT politicans' deluded visions. 82.176.196.155 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

On Power Personified.

There is a delicious portrait of the very inner workings of power:

It is of Russian President Vladimir Putin and champion Olympic Greco-Roman wrestler Alexander Karelin.

Karelin towers over Putin in a protective posture while Putin shows a hovering glee.

The "pinnicle" of society "needs" the more "base" elements for its existence.

Find it at: [2]

--Scroll1 22:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, those "pinnicles" of society. Is that a cross between a "pinnacle" and a "pickle"? --Uthar Wynn 01 03:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Putin's nickname

A common nickname for Putin in Russia is Iron fist Putin, which is an attempt to liken him to Stalin, I think it should be added to this article that many Russians liken him to the murderous despot.

Where did you get this information? I live in Russia but never heard such a nick from real local people. Believe me I'm not a person who likes Putin and I always woted against him, but let's not invent stupid nicknames for real people. I also think that he is definetely not the worst ruler of Russia, so let's think that he is the 1st step to a really good leader. MaxiMaxiMax 16:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, you're saying that his nickname in Russian would be "Путин-железный кулак" ("Putin-zheleznyj kulak")? Are you aware that such a noun-as-adjective form of nicknaming does not exist in the Russian language? Kazak 23:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Iron is not chugnny have no bloody clue what that is but what you have written in russian железный (which means iron) should translate into something like chelezni or something like that Deng 2005-11-30 02.50 CET

Just for fun: I heard that somebody named him "Наш железный Буратино" - "Our iron Buratino (Pinocchio)". Lucius

Right, I changed it. Sorry, I was thinking two different things at the same time, apparently. Kazak 02:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Путин-железный кулак" ГЫ ГЫ ГЫ, вот гон то :-) Хоть на voffka.com не ходи, в смысле тут смешенее...

Not all of us speak Russian, please translate. Dzerzhinsky 20:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That guy said something about "'Putin-Iron Fist' Ha-Ha-Ha, what the nonsense :). No need to go to voffka.com, i.e. it's more fun here." ellol 22:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heared him nicked "ducky" (утёнок) and simply "pu" (пу) on russian boards, but that's all completely irelevant to the article! [user:User:Internazi|I^NT_ER^NA_ZI] 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is random, but on Google Video, if you search "Buratino", you will find a music video of Putin.

Dzerzhinsky 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Diamond ring

Cool, now Russian headlines read "American businessman presented Vladimir Putin with a diamond ring".[3] "American Oligarch presented a ring to Putin. Why?" [4] Well Kraft decided it was a gift then :)[5] here is in English [6] Opps, forgot to sign Gnomz007

• Its alright, we can ammend the article accordingly. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 18:10 (UTC)

This paragraph was deleted - please see rationale in the discussion of the Second Term section. If others want to reintroduce it, perhaps you could offer a comment about how this story tells us something important about Putin - as it was, it read more like an "In Brief..." article from the sports section of a local US newspaper.

At the moment the ring story appears in its own section titled "Small International Controversy". This seems pretty overblown as the "controversy" only lasted about two days. The section also smacks of POV as it highlights the speculation that Putin "bogarted" the ring and leaves out the fact that Kraft himself stated the ring was a gift. I'm going to clean this up and move it to the "Putin-related humor" section. Regardless, no encylopedia article not talking about weed has any business using "bogart" as a verb. Shame upon your house, whoever did that. --squirrel 12:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lol. "This would be fun, if it weren't so sad." ellol 11:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV improvements

I've cleaned up the article some to conform more to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, a much more balanced perspective has been created IMHO. Tell me what you think. --Uthar Wynn 01 03:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Uthar, I can agree with a few of your lesser revisions, but most suggest that you are simply adding pro-Putin POV. The fact is that the ODIHR election report does not "refute" the criticisms of massive and one-sided campaigning by state-owned and state-allied news services, notably television. There is nothing NPOV about stripping the observation - evident to absolutely anyone familiar with Russian news - that Putin's actions and statements are carefully stage managed by PR experts - it is a hallmark of his presidency, and removing this non-judgemental observation looks like you're applying shampoo to this Kremlin's style. The Chechen conflict is not simply a sideshow in America's War against Terrorism - it has very deep historical roots and long predates 9/11, and not everything done by the Chechens is terrorism. The "friend and ally" caption you added to the photo is both silly and untrue - they are not "friends" in any meaningful sense, and the US and Russia are not allies (if they were, they would not be targetting one another with thousands of nuclear weapons. Pretending Russia is simply "improving" relations with Belarus is ridiculous and insults anyone who has followed the story for years (for those who haven't, Russian political commentators regularly raise the possibility of a wholescale absorption of Belarus by Russia).

All this to me suggests that the NPOV claim is a fig-leaf. I would argue for complete reversion to the text that existed at the beginning of 12 July. You could then go back over your proposed revisions much more carefully and see if there are any that really merit inclusion.

(As an aside, I find it strange that Uthar Wynn's piecemeal but wholescale revision of the text, over the course of two hours, doesn't attract any criticism from 216.183.184.253, who is nonetheless quick to slap down a subsequent reversion as "such a drastic rv" that must be discussed. Doesn't make any sense.)

I think most edits were just rephrasing, I think proper attribution of opinions and theories would have helped more.Gnomz007 14:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this article needs more NPOV and more facts, to allow an understanding of Putin's ideology, what he has done in Russia (right and wrong), and who is benefiting from it. There is a feeling of international anti-putin press in the article that doesn't leave the reader very convinced. I wished I knew more about the subject to add something of value. Thanks. Oscar. 14:13, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uthar Wynn reverted 100%

He is a confirmed vandal. Some of his edits of this article was deliberate vandalism as well. His massive rewording is nothing but to hide his vandalisms. there is no reason to waste time and sift for pearls in his contrib. mikka (t) 20:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC) And by the way, it is interestiong to notice that most of contribs from 216.183.184.25 account, who struggles to defend Utthar here, are reverted vandalisms. mikka (t) 21:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Mikkalai. I was being too generous...

And YOU are the most abusive excuse for an admin I have ever seen. You bandy about accusations indescriminately and are constantly drawing criticism for your unscrupulous deletion of anything which violates your biased POV. I caught you vandalising this very talk page earlier, deleting my comments, which is NOT acceptable behavior except in very limited circumstances.

A "confirmed vandal"?! What, is there some kind of "master list" now? And as far as the accusation that my "rewording" is just to hide vandalisms, I'll have you know that I reworded things because the article as it stood was little more than anti-putin propaganda. Everyone knows your radical anti-putin views, so don't try to hide behind your revert as "undoing vandalism" when all you're really doing is shifting the article back to your POV.

I admit that some of my rewordings went to far towards a positive POV of Putin, but many of them were to conform ths article to the NPOV policy. You should remember that you don't own this page, you aren't the only editor around here, and you aren't going to intimidate me with your admin status. You've made a lot of enemies on Wikipedia, and if you keep it up one of this days people are going to get you discharged as an admin. --Uthar Wynn 01 02:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Prime Minister and first term as President

I edited the paragraph concerning Kursk tragedy.

Some of these edits simply render correct English into fractured English (no insult intended, but let's call a spade a spade...).

At least it was not just, I for one found that it besides that there was some change in the actual message, I fail to help here - my writing is terrible too, I will just hope for someone to brush up Ellol's writings. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 23:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Really, my english must be bad. However i "dared" to spoil the perfect english of the article only in cases which involved(i hope) either a false fact, "understatement" of a significant fact or too much of "spitting" around a less significant fact, which resulted in the whole statement to be uncorrect. I only hope that someone will correct my english. ellol 18:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Text repolished. Again, no insult, ellol - your English is pretty good, just some awkward phrases that reduced clarity.

1) 118 people died on Kursk. See Russian_submarine_Kursk_explosion_(2000)

2)As for me, that passage seems a bit of strange.. IMHO, the proper president's action was sitting in his Kremlin and allowing professionals to do their job...

You're welcome to have your opinion (though as you note below, Putin was in fact vacationing on the Black Sea for the first few days of the crisis, not working in the Kremlin). However, rightly or wrongly, a broad spectrum of Russian media severely criticized Putin for not taking charge of the situation. This may have been a conscious move on Putin's part, but the fact is that the Russian military unfortunately but very evidently did not handle the situation well (viz: openly and forcibly injecting a protesting mother of one of the sailor's during a press conference; releasing next to no information; refusing any foreign assistance; attempting to focus attention/blame on the supposed "NATO" submarine). In such a situation, it is the responsibility of the civilian authorities who are supposed to be governing the country to take charge of the crisis. Putin was criticized for not evidently doing anything for several days.

I've re-edited this section. The "NATO" submarine rumours were coming from the Russian military and government, as proven by the fact that they wasted time exploring this theory despite the clear absence of any supporting evidence, the obvious presence of conflicting evidence (i.e. it was clearly an internal explosion), and with the knowledge that the submarine was testing an experimental torpedo of a type propelled by an highly explosive fuel that could have produced exactly this kind of disaster. It's worth mentioning this because it is unfortunately consistent with one prominent strand of Putin's policy, which is to play to nationalists by portraying Russia as under broad and immediate threat from the West (to be sure, this is partially contradicted by another, more pragmatic strand, which is to view the West as a short- to medium-term ally in Russia's own fight against terrorism). (As an aside, it was also just a staggeringly dishonest way of trying to shift blame for purely Russian decisions and negligence. It was as if the US government had hinted, in the absence of any supporting evidence, that the space shuttle disaster of Feb 2003 might have been caused by a collision with a Chinese satellite, and then refusing to rule this theory out until negative proof was produced.)

3) After several days of mounting public confusion and anger Was it really mounting? If it was, was it concerned with Putin's absense in Moscow?

According to all the Russian newspapers published at the time, yes it was.

I've had posted an objection to this, but removed it, anyway the question is not was Putin to blame or not for that. He had to do anything public if he cared more about people just to show support (at least for his PR), and yes - it does deserve mention, but somehow we all got it wrong, this it did not cause massive anger among population as a whole, but people who got hurt, and Putin's lantency was terrible. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 01:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your point here. Are you trying to say that the loss of the Kursk was only of concern to the families of the victims and maybe a few other people? If you go back and read the Russian newspapers or transcripts of the Russian TV news during this period, you will see this was the number one story for a week or more. Russians were shocked by the disaster on a flag vessel, then angered by the bumbling response of the authorities, both military and civilian. The government was pilloried. By any objective standard, Putin's initial response (i.e. for several days) was poor. As this was his first severe crisis as President (the Chechen war was a chronic crisis), it says a lot about his early days in power. The severe media criticism also fueled the Kremlin's desire to press on with its campaign to dominate Russian media.

If your point is simply that Putin emerged from the crisis with his popularity intact, I'd agree, but would qualify this. During the crisis, Western (and to some extent Russian) media overestimated the impact on Putin's popularity. Since Putin maintained such a low profile in the first few days, most of the widespread anger was directed against the navy and the ministry of defence. Putin only stuck his head up when it became clear that the Russian people were beginning to accept that there was nothing to be done. His performance at this point was masterly, conforming to a perfect image-maker plan: he accepted responsibility for the disaster, refused resignations, and was even exonerated by the Patriach of the Russian Orthodox Church. He did exactly what was needed at the moment and saved himself from being personally tarred. But that's just image stuff. His government's performance was a failure, and he personally failed to use the opportunity provided by this total disaster to implement military reforms. Overall, I'd give Putin a B+ for personal image management but an F for crisis management...

Welll... It seems to me that sometimes you use logics instead of facts.. may be you should better learn "listening to"? (sincerelly, no insult).
Yes this was a national tragedy N1 and people watched TV much time.. and news programms were more often than usually.. and all people feeled for those poor sailors..
And all were angry why the politicians had said semitruth or fairy tales(such as they managed to supply sailors with air and food).. And the president could act better (see Gnomz007's upper message), and it feeled especially bad when he later aswered that British journalist "What happend to the submarine?" "It sunk."..
BUT.
A. No people left their homes to "join" demonstrations of a type e.g. "Dismiss Government - Save Sailors". There just were no such or similar ones! (That is what i meaned when i wrote "No civil disorders happened")-- Unlike multi-thousand US demonstrations against war in Iraq. Reasons? I can try to evaluate some of them. 1) The reason of catastrophe was technical, there were no direct response of Government members (though the head of navy and some of lower-range officers were later dismissed) 2) Ratings of governments are always low in Russia, so it's hard to spoil them ;) people rare believe them(governments).. If you compare the crisis with what they did with the country in 1990s.. Imho, it's a wonder that something works, not that something doesn't work.. Do you know how do teachers, medics and scientists live in Russia? Never interested? (Sorry, but understand that people have also their own problems.. of which they rarely write in media!) 3) Russian menthality.. Protests in Russia are always less than in the rest Europe or USA.. Unfortunately.
B. To make it clear, the initial explosion was not the explosion of experimental weapon.. What exploded was an old H2O2 rocket, which are "dismounted" in "developed" countries.
C. I agree with Gnomz007's POV about Putin's behaviour. Only few words about Chechen crisis. Yes, Chechen crisis is hronic, but at August of 1999 it arose into an acute crisis.. Show you a simple picture "how-it-could-be": Chechen terrorists invade Dagestan. Nobody stops them. Then they occupy Dagestan. Then they begin occupying the South of Russia. And it's much probable that Russia desintegrates into some more little parts.
The threat for a country was real. And, by the way, that is why i wrote "carrying out of operation", trying to emphasise that hot moment of the whole Chechen war..
Sorry, i probably was too emotional and redundant; and i didn't answered all things i wanted to answer.. Hope i did some point, however. ellol 00:58, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, ellol, I think most of that was useful, and I liked your explanation of why there are no real political demonstrations in Russia. While nothing about the use of the word "anger" or any other part of the phrasing I used either states or implies that there were demonstrations directed against Putin, the fact that we are spending so many words discussing this shows that the text I wrote was not clear. My point, which I think you've shown you agree with, was that people were frustrated with the lack of information and disappointed (to say the least) with the way the crisis was handled. The fact that the crisis continued eventually forced Putin to say and do more than he initially appeared inclined to, i.e. more than just appearing on TV once a day or two after the submarine sank. That is the causal link I thought I was illustrating.

I agree 100% with you position fact that the crisis continued eventually forced Putin to say and do more.... But the text still contains ambiguity. Though "After several days of mounting public anger, Putin cut short his vacation " does not consist a "direct" casual link, it forces you to think that it implies such one. May be something like "After several days of crisis being lasted which involved mounting public confusion and anger Putin cut short his vacation" would reflect the situation better..ellol 21:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying about the cause of the explosion. My understanding was that it was an experimental hydrogen peroxide torpedo - the basic design was old, but I thought this was a new model.
I suspect we could talk about Chechnya here for a very long time, but if the article is missing important points about Putin's handling of the crisis then let's discuss these. I certainly agree (and wrote earlier in the article) that Chechen separatism posed a threat to Russia's territorial integrity. I hope you also agree that the "Chechen separatism --> Russian disintegration" argument doesn't come close to explaining everything.

The threat existed. Though Putin didn't resolve the crisis, he made the threat of losing integrity feeble. But Chechen problem is complex and i'm not enough prepared for a discussion of it still. ellol 21:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Well, I'm not too good at making points, but you actually got it, yes, the B+, this is what the people remember, and I this is what actually makes me right now get this section wrong, and try hard to remember my initial feelings.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 22:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
          • okay, I can agree on this. Do we need to fix the text to reflect this better?
            • Right now Ellol attempted to fix that adding that observation, plaintext - pro-Putin, well it could be but if you remove it, it may give wrong impression, on some sensory level this version it is just self-contradictory, maybe add this plaintext instead While Putin was cricised for his inaction, it did not have a lasting effect on his image. It's just the word mounting anger is somewhat too strong and may imply some manifestation. People involved must have felt that way, others were more confused than angered, and somehow granted him excuses, with time. Releasing too little of information probably helped Putin not getting all the blame, but at the end of the day that does not matter how it happened. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
            • well said, and good suggestion for wording, gnomz. We could be even more specific and say "While Putin was criticised by the Russian media for his inaction during the initial stages of the crisis, it did not have a last effect on his image and popularity"
              • Thanks, I've added it, but I fell that it sounds like Putin openly ignored public anger directed at him, while it was not totally directed at him, which allowed him to get away with it. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 18:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to say i also consider the point to be good. ellol 21:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I don't really understand the point about the absence of civil unrest. Is this supposed to prove somehow that the public approved of the way Putin and his government handled the situation? If this is the barometer, then I guess one can say that the absence of "civil unrest" in the US "proves" that the American population supports the war in Iraq, and that the absence of "civil unrest" in Zimbabwe "proves" that Zimbabweans are happy with their corrupt government.

Good point, but actually the absense or presense of that is a fact, what should not be confused, regardless of any other considerations.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 22:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I am really not trying to be unpleasant here, but this observation, while completely true, is simply not that important. It is like noting that his re-election was not accompanied by a spontaneous three-week celebration across Russia, or that the war in Chechnya did not contribute to the decline of the tiger population in Eastern Siberia, both of which are equally true and equally irrelevant observations. As it now stands, it reads like a blatant attempt to introduce pro-Putin POV, which (given your many other comments) I doubt is your intention.

I didn't want to write the following, until read this message.. It's a fact that people calmly sat at their homes though much feeling for the sailors. Do you understand the difference between a fact and a suggestion? If not, i can explain. What Gnomz007 and i said is more a fact than what you say, because while all of us use same sources of information, Gnomz007 and i watched the crisis from inside different points of Russia, while as i understand u not.. And people who we know in Russia has the same POV: yes it was a shock we survived.. but not a very important thing for our lives and our fates, no matter how cynically or pro-putin you find it. Sorry for my probable rudeness.. ellol 01:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Calm down, actually there is no conflict here, see above.

–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 02:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Gnomz you are right, there is no conflict. I did not suggest that this was an "important" event for Russians in a long-term sense. The only reason for discussing this is to show what Putin was doing and what this says about him and his presidency. (By the way, ellol, while I live in the West now, I lived in Russia for many years, including the first few years of Putin's presidency. So I will stake my personal and anecdotal recollections of Kursk against yours :) ).

I should not post that my blatant message, it just did not fit the logics of our discussion. And it seems to be no "conflict". Just i got too nervous by 5 AM and mistook the thread of discussion.. [And I'm glad to hear you watched the situation from "inside" and you lived in Russia..] Evgeniy aka ellol 21:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Just read throughtly, I did miss one disturbing thing - refusing any foreign assistance, maybe it should make it in the article, since it is the only thing that could be really up to him. I've read the paragraph, it may be pretty accurate, but as you see people tend to interpret it differently. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

4) New version: The first acute crisis which Putin faced after the invasion of Chechen extremists in Dagestan... Although Putin was yet a Prime Minister when the invasion occured, he took direct respect to resolving the crisis, and it is(was) a significant constituent of his public image.
ellol 16:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong, he was made prime minister after the first incursions. In any case, it is clear from the sequence of the article headings that this section is about his first term. If you want to make this point, please put it in the correct section. You might also want to explain how he "resolved" the crisis - six years later, it's not exactly obvious...

I've got it, resolved or not, at least he looked sort of promising, "assymetric response" if I remember correctly, it's all about image. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but that's quite different than suggesting that he "resolved" the crisis. If anything, it goes to show the limits and indeed inappropriateness of image-making in the face of a hard and complex problem such as Chechnya.

I agree, that's why the section is marked, as for #2 - see Farenheit 911 for similarities. A good example of point of view exaggeration, people who voted for Bush anyway had a good point about dissmissing tabloids. I had an experience with press distorting facts in mundane things just to make some news sound Pulitzer Prize-worthy, I barely can imagine what they do to political news behind your back. Some attribution in first paragraph would also help - sounds like an "insider's account"Gnomz007 17:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually see The Pet Goat Gnomz007 17:40, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And nobody has even asked Bush about his 'reading'? Would be interesting to know an answer) As i remember, Putin said that he(putin) had wanted not to bother specialists(to make it clear i'm not much pro-putin, better like position of Maximaximax).
ellol 20:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Bush sat down not for too long, just enought to aggravate his critics, technically he could not do anything, but so had Putin in case if he really could not do anything. Just a point about how some facts can be read. –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

there are indeed some interesting parallels between the way Bush and Putin acted when faced with these crises less than a year into their first terms. If Putin said this (I don't recall either way) it was a pretty bad excuse - it sounds too much like something a bureaucrat would say (for all his many weaknesses, Yeltsin in his prime would never had said anything so feeble). While I am only speculating, two other theories seem more likely. The first is that he was not kept properly informed about the situation and about the mood in the country for the first few days, and so was simply unaware of the navy's confused and ineffective actions. The second is that Putin's response was calculated to allow him to step in at the appropriate moment to comfort a grieving nation. These theories are not mutually exclusive. Either way, not a very good display of leadership and control: the former suggests incompetence, the latter suggests absolute cynicism.

Second Term Presidency

• An interesting note about protests: second term section does include Duma address and Kraft's ring controversy, yet no mention of pensioners' protests about monetary conversion of benefits [7] - found only this mention, probably wrong google keywords, while it did cause more problem when those two.(at least some TV reporter said sort of "first failure of "teflon president"")Gnomz007 18:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Really.. And I know who can write a corresponding passage the best and that man surely isn't me ;-)
"Chechnya" section imho need correction and some information, e.g. how much russian soldiers died there.. but not this time..
ellol 21:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[8]- this one is a collection of news in Russian... definitely not for the faint of heart. All I've got : On 1 January 2005 when the law(bill) of replacement of social benefits (free rides, free medication, discounted utility/apartment rent bills) for elderly, disabled and servicemen, with cash payments(of less value) took force, after that on January ?9? there were protests, mostly of pensioners, involving blocking of highways, which lasted for almost a week and made the government ?increase the pension payments to compensate for that?. It is also noted by the Russian and other press, that Putins approval rating reached it's historical minimum of 38% in January 2005.–Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 04:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

personally I think mentioning the ring "controversy" is a waste of space. It is only of any real interest to US sports fans, and it says nothing about Putin (unless the point is to claim that he is a petty thief, which is just not credible).

That was partly my point, more like trivia, anyway it is evident that the section is rather immature –Gnomz⁰⁰⁷(?) 19:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, let's kill it. I doubt even American sports fans will care about this in a few weeks. On a more important point, we really do need to get the second term section into better shape.

Pronunciation

Please add how to say the name: Pútin or Putín?

The first is correct. To be more detailed, correct pronunciation probably is p-oo-teen. ellol

The corect pronunciation is Pútin, with both the U and the I as short vowels (the Russian language has no long vowels at all).Elvarg 14:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it has, like "o-ooooOO!" when seeing big booobs :-) mikka (t) 22:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Lol... ok...? BirdValiant 05:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Pootie Poot should not link here

Bush's alcoholic nickname for Putin, Pootie Poot links to this article, it should link to either alcoholic dementia, or to a list of Bushisms.

I redirected it to the list of nicknames used by George W. Bush

in the 2004 presidential election putin got 92 percent of the vote in chechnya... which is impossible unless on the ballot it said "kill" instead of "vote for".

putin ripped off the election and is going to stay in power for a long time.

you have to feel so sorry for the U.S. people, when are they going to be free from crime and corruption in the government?

You have to feel sorry for the U.S. people, when are they going to be free from propaganda, ignorance, government control, feelings of agression against the entire world, imperialism, and militarism? - Russian mafia

Russia's domestic problems > USA's domestic problems. Sorry if the truth stings. 71.68.17.30 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Putin as sex symbol

I added the category "sex symbol" for Putin but my edit was mercilessly removed by doc glasgow. I maintain that Putin has some sex symbol status, at least in Russia. He is popular among some young women who regard him as a "dependable" and "manly" figure.

I've heard the same. Even though its probably not the case in the US, I'd recommend readding the tag. As evidence, you might note: [9] -Seth Mahoney 04:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Original researh. No evidence in reputable sex research references Paparazzi are not source. Also, the references given shows him as "masculinity symbol", i.e., "gender role symbol" not as "sex symbol". Which is unconfirmed anyway. Category removed. 07:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Being a sex symbol is purely a paparazzi matter - they're the only ones who would qualify as source on this (seriously, note the introductory definition of "sex symbol" in the article sex symbol: "A sex symbol is a famous and/or notable person, male or female, who is found sexually attractive by the general audience"). What would qualify as a "reputable sex research reference" anyway? -Seth Mahoney 21:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, its been three days with no response - I'm guessing there's no objection to my restoring the category. -Seth Mahoney 02:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed. Don't even try add categories without proof presented in articles themselves. mikka (t) 02:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Your aggressive attitude is fairly obnoxious. I'm also beginning to wonder if you understand what a sex symbol is. Care to offer some explanation for your removal of this category? -Seth Mahoney 04:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It is your insistence which is obnoxious. My opinion does not matter. Read above. mikka (t) 16:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, I don't even care that much, except that someone who clearly doesn't understand what the term 'sex symbol' means insists that it doesn't apply to a given person. What's the big deal if a bunch of women find Putin attractive? -Seth Mahoney 21:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please ask someone else to explain you the meaning of my phrases "original research", "don't add categories without proof persent in the article" and "my opinion does not matter". I tried to put it in the simplest words. Obviously I failed. Good bye. mikka (t) 22:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I know the meaning of the phrase 'original research' - perhaps you should revisit its definition, because it does not apply here. You're still not addressing the issue, which is what, precisely, you think the definition of 'sex symbol' is that you find it so controversial. -Seth Mahoney 03:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not even debatable if Putin has some minor sex-symbol status in Russia. He absolutely does. When teenage girl-bands are singing pop-songs called "I Want One Like Putin" there is little room for doubt. http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/362/4254_Putin.html The only question is ... is it relevant? I think it is, as Putin has a unique position in Russian History ... as both a leader of Russia, and sort of a pop-figure or celebrity. 22:55, 5 December 2005

At www.putin.su is a website that looks suspiciously like a Putin fanclub. Please, can somebody who speaks Russian better than I do confirm this? Dzerzhinsky 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It is exactly that: "klub fanatov Vladimira Vladimirovicha Putina" -- V.V. Putin's fan club.

Yes yes yes yes!!!! Putin is SEXY SEXY!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.88.179 (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dobby

After the first Harry Potter film came out, a Russian newspaper mischievously reported that the character of Dobby was in fact a stylised version of Putin. Shared details such as the sallow complexion and small stature were cited as evidence of this. However, the article was clearly tongue in cheek and the story has never been substantiated. It's a funny comparison, and one that appeals to me personally, but it's not worth including in this article (any more than, say, the fact that I think Dubya looks like a chimp or that Russian political provocateurs have commissioned porn films starring a supposed look-alike of Ukrainian politician Yulia Tymoshenko).

I completely agree. For a political figure, humor should be political. --EncephalonSeven 20:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

actually, I don't care if the humor is political or not. the valid point that's being made is that that dobby thing is not verifiable, its just a story. some people said that the emperor in the last star wars film was based on ukrainian president yushenko after he drank bad soup last year - funny, too (in black sort of way) but also completely improbable and not supported by any sources. as an aside, you put up a picture on this article of some guys sucking each other off, so i dont think you can be trusted as a credible contributor.

You have quite an imagination. If I remember correctly, the picture depicted Putin and Yeltsin riding one horse on a parade, which could be interpreted as a humoristic depiction of Yeltsin's patronage over Putin. And I already agreed with you that the picture was not particularly good. Do not forget to acknowledge that the other pictures that I found using Google image search were good. By the way, here is another one suitable for this holiday season: Santa --EncephalonSeven 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The "we will double your GDP!" picture which shows up in the history as "Revision as of 02:37, 29 December 2005" by EncephalonSeven linked (and still links) to scene of the type described. Perhaps this was just attempt by the site owner to prevent hotlinking, if so i'm sorry for accusing you of willfully linking to porn, but either way you should check these things more carefully. Kheppy New Year!

You are right. I actually checked, and it showed the right thing at that time, but they changed something on that site, and the link now points to the picture you described. The picture to which that link originally pointed showed Putin, dressed like Stalin, reading the telegrams from the workers. You can get this picture by running a search for "путин" on Google, at it should show up labeled "И В Путин 448 x 668 pixels - 60k - jpg broadbang.info". Well, next time I will insert a warning that if the picture does not show Putin (or something else what was intended to be there), it should be disregarded :) Happy new year! --EncephalonSeven 13:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Putin/USA POV

"After saying the US shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place: "But if the U.S. were to leave and abandon Iraq without establishing the grounds for a united and sovereign country, that would definitely be a second mistake."

And your point? This is a completely valid point, hopefuly not an effort to highlight the stupidity of Putin, as it has surely backfired. Indeed the USA shouldn't have gone into Iraq and they ended up needlessly openin a can of worms (division/civil conflict) they can not shut through diplomacy nor aggression

Putin-related humour — additions?

I have just watched a weekly TV-program "Realnaya politika" on NTV channel. Major presenter is Gleb_Pavlovsky, 2 other people (Mr. Parker, and man with a nick "Mr. Montblanc") make shorter reports. Motto of the program is 'a program about real power'. It's a sort of analysises of major events concerning Russia (politics, economics, social life). The program considers troubles of Russia, ways out. It considers dynamics of world. What are we moving to, and what we have now.

Considering serious problems includes grains of humour. What is interesting, the program included 3 short (3-5 mins) plays (of Mr. Parker) in a style, seemingly derived from style of "Kukly". That is, puppets (computer animation, not real ones) represented major politics. Putin is the main protagonist; (an interesting detail is that head of "puppet" Putin is never shown). Plays are direct "inheritors" of Parker's "Vladimir Vladimirovich" series.

ellol 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

And those guys say, that there is no free media in Russia... Liars, nobody else. I can't say that "Realnaya politika" is completely unbiased; it has an accent, yet every person has one. And except this program, I would name "Zerkalo" (mirror) with Nikolay Svanidze and "Postscriptum" with Alexey Pushkov. Yet i rarely watch TV. ellol 20:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

And there's no free media in fact. That "Real Politics" program is nothing but promotion of Putin's ideas. And "Vladimir Vladimirovich" series are just humorous stories based on recent politic events in Russia. Then, you've just killing me saying that "Zerkalo" is a free progam. It's shown on "Russia" channel (it belongs directly to the government) and is like other programs on this channel. Pushkov's "Postscriptum" is another kind because TVC channel belongs to Moscow city government and it is not on good terms with Kremlin. vh16^ru talk 15:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Guy, you are a maximalist. Programs are made by people, not by channels. And if sensible people freely express their point of view, it's interesting to hear them. ellol 07:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you don't understand a thing: if a TV program isn't in line with the position of the channel's chefs, it won't be started. That's evdent, i think // vh16^ru talk 16:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Appearances

Isn't the party rep in the submarine of the movie The Hunt for Red October named Vladimir Putin? --HJV 23:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.putin-loh.com/

The last name of the political officer (zampolit) is Putin, but nowhere either in the movie or the book is he referred to as Vladmir Putin. Agent Smith in The Matrix is not Joseph Smith. Same thing. Just because the last name matches doesn't mean it references the same person.

-- 209.182.101.246 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

The Washington Post has an article that goes into some detail about Putin's educational background and the new charges of plagiarism. Regular editors here might want to discuss working it into the article. Jkelly 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem, provided it is only made clear that Clifford Gaddy

http://www.exile.ru/2004-February-19/book_review.html

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/gaddy/19990815.htm

(Google is your friend!)

may have an axe to grind with Putin. The last text dates from just before Putin's taking over, and claims it is unreasonable "to assume that Russia's population and regional leaders would hand over power to a strong central administrator who could halt excessive looting and who could appropriate value from powerful regional and corporate interests and redistribute it for the benign purpose of ensuring equity. Unfortunately, a much more likely scenario is, as many observers have noted, a revival of support for strong central authority based on a real or perceived threat to national survival. This scenario is one for a militarized virtual economy." Putin as a new National Bolshevist Hitler - hm, does not seem to have happenened, really.Pan Gerwazy--pgp 09:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a minor thing about the article: The text, "Vladimir Putin has been accused by fellows Clifford Gaddy and Igor Danchenko at the Brookings Institution of plagiarism" reads like Cliff and Igor are from the "Brookings institution of Plagiarism". There either needs to be commas after "accused" and "institution", or the sentence needs to be restructured, as in, "Vladimir Putin has been accused of plagiarism by fellows Clifford Gaddy and Igor Danchenko at the Brookings Institution." I'm not sure how strict the Wikistapo are monitoring the changes here, some pages are pretty lax, some are run by tyrants. --Mcvoid 19:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)19:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotations 2

Are there any quotations any of you know of that were made by Putin, that don't have to do with terrorism and/or America? I think the diversification of that section would be helpful. Picaroon9288 01:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Putin gives plenty of speeches, and you can get hundreds of quotations. Kremlin's press service translates some of his speeches/press interviews and makes them publicly available on the Internet. The problem is, most Americans think of Putin as this ominous creepy Cold War-type stock "bad guy" character, who spends days and nights conspiring against American "freedom" and "democracy". So, whoever wrote this article probably thought that all of Putin's remarks are about America (meaning USA). The constant rehash of "war in Chechnya" news in certain media explains the abundance of terrorism quotations. Starz

Quotations of which kind should be added? Perhaps the section is too big now, which quotations should be removed? ellol 23:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Mamy

Any of you knows whether Vera Putina, in the Ineke Smits documentary movie is or is not the true Putin mama? Think you that this curious story should appear somewhere on the main page? Peppe (not logged)

what is different Vladimir Putin then every other leader did?

what is different Vladimir Putin then every other leader did?

Chechnya

I think we may add info about referendum held on March 23, 2003 in Chechnya. Main question was approval or disapproval of constitution of Chechen Republic. According to chairman of election committee of Chechen Republic A.K. Arsakhanov, 89,48% of people in lists took part in vote, and 95,97% of them voted FOR constitution. (Russian) [10] + photo [11] . It's still inaccurate, of course, if I'll add this info I'll find english sources. ellol 16:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It would probably be better if such information goes into the Chechnya article. There's a fundamental problem with this article as it is: it reads less and less like a biographical article and more like a history of post-Soviet Russia. Some of the digressions are necessary but we should try to keep it focussed on VVP himself. --Reallanguagehat 05:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, think you are right. ellol 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I wished for a short statement on the current situation. But not all like it, MarcMontoni changed it to In recent years, due mainly to the Putin government's campaign of stepped-up economic and political harassment, coupled with violent oppression [1] [2] [3] of the Chechen populace, the conflict in the Chechen Republic has largely subsided, at least as a two-sided conflict. I don't know may be mine was incorrect, but this is at least that much wrong. I reverted it to before my changes. Perhaps we have to wait for a real person from Chechnya, who would know real things. Links remained, why, good ones. ellol 20:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The language changes I made were factual, and were documented by the links. I understand the desire of some to avoid the reportage of facts that are detrimental to their worldview, but it **is** a fact that the Russian government led by Putin *has* engaged in extreme acts of military violence against the Chechens, and **has** engaged in a campaign of stepped-up economic and political harassment. No one who has read the legislation passed by the Russian government can conclude otherwise.

I'm not going to get into a revert war on this. This sort of failure to accurately report what is really happening is one of the unfortunate limitations of WikiPedia.

The fact that someone is unwilling to call murder, "murder", doesn't change the definition but does reveal the prejudices of the utterer. MarcMontoni 15:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Why I reverted -- you completely forgot of such important facts like rise of local manufacturing, schools and other social things, referendum; that since August of this year about 300 boeviks returned to civilian life, using the amnesty set by Duma in September; that lots of former boeviks now act in local militia or governmental structures. That Akhmad Kadyrov fought against Russia in the First Chechen Campaign, but headed the Chechen government until was murdered in 2004 by boeviks... And, 200,000 of Chechen death toll is several times greater than the true number. ellol 15:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, note the Chechnya was (and continues to be) the part of Russian Federation, and not the recognised souvereign state. So defining the conflict as war between RF and *part of RF* is somewhat incorrect.

Kissing The Boy

Put a picture of him kissing that poor little boy.

It's super-funny but not really relevant. JD79 13:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

sheez people just get up themselves at the slighest thing. People obviously have nothing to do these days. 218.101.74.127 13:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid of militia man in moscow than the skinheads.

I tried to work there more than on year. But unfortunately, i had to come back because of my father illness. Soon i'll try to come back to Moscow, but suddenly i've noticed that my heart beats very fast and do not want to come back. I tried to analise, what's happening with me. I do not afraid of unemploiment, i don't afraid of the law, I am afraid of militia man. They can find any fact to get some money(mobile phone, golden rings and smth) that you've earned. (to be continued)

shirin sozokbaeva

Is Putin a militia man?

No. He is a former chekist, but he never worked for the militia. Dzerzhinsky 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist category

I have added this article to Category:Russian terrorists because Mr. Putin meets the criteria listed at Category:Terrorists. To wit,

• Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.

Vladimir Putin is the president of the Russian Federation and has been active in managing the campaign against separatist insurgents in Chechnya. As the article on Second Chechen War notes, "Violations of human rights conducted by the Russian forces drew international condemnation."

• Targeting civilians.

Second Chechen War states that, "the death toll from the conflict is unknown, with estimates ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands dead or missing, mostly Chechnya's civilians."

• Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.

The conflict in Chechnya has been primarily an insurgency and counter-insurgency, rather than a conventional war, since 2000.

• Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain).

The Russian occupation of Chechnya coerces the populace of that area to remain part of the Russian Federation and sends the message that attempts to gain independence from the Russian Federation will be met with violence.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted this, quite obvious, ridiculous addition.--Kalsermar 00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from derisive comments. It's a shame that I have to waste a revert on you, since you seem to consider actual discussion beneath your dignity.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the category. Nat, it is your right to believe in the points you outlined above, but unless you can support them with sources, it is nothing but original research on the verge of trolling. If you wish to discuss this as "civilized Wikipedians", please start with quoting sources that describe Mr. Putin as a terrorist in accordance to the points above. Sincerely,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not my understanding of how categories like Category:Russian terrorists work. The criteria for applying it are described here. Besides, what sort of sources, precisely, do you have in mind? A quotation in which X describes Vladimir Putin as a terrorist qualifies him for Category:People described as terrorists by X, rather than Category:Terrorists.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Nat, the sources I have in mind are reliable ones. The criteria in Category:Terrorists you are referring cannot be used based on your (or my, or any other Wikipedian's) judgement alone. You must back them with links to reliable published sources. When the claim you make (be it a statement or an assurance that something falls into a certain category) is backed by reliable published sources, then the category criteria can be safely applied. Please note, that according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it is your responsibility to find and add references. Without such references, the information you are trying to add may be removed by any editor, which is precisely what I had done.

As for your "described as terrorist by X" concern, this article is really not the place to raise it. This is not how existing policies work, and if you disagree with that, I suggest you proceed with WP:HCP and try amending it. Hopefully my answer was to your satisfaction. If not, feel free to let me know what your questions are.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The same (lack of) logic would classify George W. Bush as a terrorist, Ehud Olmert as a terrorist, etc. Lots of people would like to censor all mention of terrorism from Wikipedia (terrorism articles and categories are frequently nominated for censorship, and sometimes censored). If you don't share that goal, I suggest you refrain from debasing the language. Mirror Vax 16:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see that Nat does in fact have that goal. [12][13] So his actions, sadly, make sense. What's the problem, Nat? Do you have a favorite terrorist group that you want to protect from the stigma of "terrorist"? Mirror Vax 16:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you really expect me to have a serious conversation with you when you begin like this? As for Ehud Olmert, I'm a bit too busy with other things right now to take care of it myself, but, if you want to add him to Category:Israeli terrorists (you'd have to make it first; apparently Wikipedia doesn't know of any terrorists from that country yet), I will support you.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 21:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better you made a section in the article called "Criticism against Putins regime" or add the scandals or bad news that Putin committed. The reason why calling Vladimir Putin a terrorist is because the definition itself is very subjectively. See Wikipedia on the term "Terrorist", there's an entire article with million definitions. The most current view of a terrorist would be "suicide bombers", radical Islamic fundamentalists. A president has a very high status, they won't call him a terrorist but will use terms like "authoritarian", "oppressive". I have never seen a statesman called a terrorist. But it could be true that he "terrorizes" Russia. That's what Stalin also did ;) Deadmaster 20:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly understand the criticism that the term "terrorist" can often be subjective. However, Wikipedia does not consider it to be subjective; please see the criteria we use. However, according to the talk page for that category, I've concluded that this article should probably go in Category:State terrorism, instead, because that is more specific.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, don't play with words. It doesn't make things clearer, but insults memory of victims of Stalin repressions. ellol 14:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Lomography

Some say Putin, while mayor of Lenningrad, played an important role in saving the LOMO camera. If true it should be posted to the main article, perhaps in a trivia section.

Religion

Is Vladimir Putin Orthodox? see by yourself [14], [15], [16], and especially this one [17]. --Hectorian 04:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

All of this is just speculation. He has never openly stated that he is orthodox, or even religious. All of that church matter might be just politics...you know - appealing to the religion of the masses. I am against putting in the article that Putin is an orthodox until we have more concrete proof.

Praying in church at every Christmas and Easter reveals he is religious. We don't need his personal statement. Have you a statement from George W. Bush that he's United Methodist? Religion must be added. Garret Beaumain 18:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

When was he praying? The sources provided by Hectorian only mention the fact that he visited a monestery...so what's the big deal? Well, we do not even know if Putin is religious or not. Why? Because he has never said anything about God, while on the other hand, this is a common practice of W.Bush. Please provide a credible source in which it will be obvious that: 1-he is religious, 2-he is Christian Orthodox, 3-he prays every Christmas.

Is the Russian Veto...

on Kosovo's independence true? --HolyRomanEmperor 20:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is true. Not surprising...

Doesnt Putin play Go?

Doesnt Putin play Go? -Ste|vertigo 05:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized, as I am not sure how to fix all of the problems I am hoping that someone reads this soon and fixes it. Some of the examples are most of the mentions of Putins name have been changed to Hoskins, and other random word changes.--Wlf211 04:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! FYI, how the problem is usually fixed: you click 'history', choose the last non-vandalized version, click 'edit' and save the page with the appropriate comment. ellol 06:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

See under: Prime Minister and first term as President "Putin was caught..."69.6.162.160 02:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Brian Pearson

"In May 1990 Putin was appointed Mayor Sobchak's prostitute on international affairs." wtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.226.239.87 (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Putin welcomed as the murderer of Politkovskaya in Dresden

Today (October 10), 2000 demonstrators shouted angrily "Murder, murder!" at Putin when he arrived in Dresden: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,441835,00.html

Some were holding a sign: "Murder, you are no longer welcome." Millions of Germans are outraged because of the murder of this brave woman. - Free Europe.

This contribution was removed several times, because some Russians want to manipulate your opinion about Putin. The anonymous user who posted it was then banned by an admin because he defended his (and your) right of free information in this talk page. We have lots of fascists here which hate the values of our society. Do you know that more than 200 journalists have been murdered in Russia in recent times??? Anna Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday! That's how birthday presents are like in Russia!

Now Putin has even arranged to have an ex-KGB poisoned who had fled to London and investigated the murder of Politovskaja. But Putin made a big mistake, because the guy secretly took british citizenry in the summer and so the MI6 is now investigating. Hope Mr. Putin will some day sit in the accused's bench in Nurenberg, because it is now known that he himself ordered the bombing of Moscow apartments to blame the chechens and make the second caucasus war. That is just like Reichstag's burning was. Putin will end his days like Rasputin. 195.70.32.136 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That's really delicious! Give me also such weed! ellol 14:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Perhaps I should clarify the chronology.

89.55.95.221 's contribution about Putin-murder-of-Politkovskaya comprised with blanking of half page was removed by admin Ezhiki.

I only added the news on Putin and didn't blanket anything. So the admin Ezhiki must have manipulated the history. This is criminal behavior and abuse of his rights as admin.

Same message by user 89.55.55.45 was soon removed by me. I considered it as vandalism, but yes, I disliked it as well.

Days later, user 89.55.10.62 posted the same message (removed by admin Alphachimp); twice vandalized my userpage and removed notifications by users MER-C and Gwernol at his talkpage, for which action he was temporarily blocked.

Again, days later user 89.55.39.175 posted the message on this talk page you've just read. It's curious, that the same user within 10 minutes tried to remove block notification on 89.55.10.62 's talk page.

Now, I consider it proved, that all four IP's belong to the same vandal.

But it still is curious, may be 'Putin' page is cornered by brain-washed pro-Putin Russians? No: of all mentioned users only Ezhiki and I are Russophone, and only I live in Russia; it's up to Ezhiki whether he considers himself Russian. Those mysterious "some Russians" were in fact only me; it causes to suggest a personal attack.

ellol 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

update: what can be seen on user's 89.55.39.175 talk page, as well as his vandalisms on pages of MER-C and Gwernol seem to be acts of an ill person. I shouldn't in fact write that all. I'm sorry. ellol 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ellol you are a stalinist. Yes, the people who defend human rights in Russia are all (mentally) ill! See also http://www.rsf.org/ to learn more about one of the worst countries of the world: Putin's Russia.

Okey, I take my words about 'ill' backwards. But, what you wrote there -- deliberately removing critical contributions about Putin's responsibility for the murder of more than 200 journalists in Russia was -- intentional or unintentional -- lie.

I'm not a stalinist.

In fact, any of us should explain you first the basic principles of Wikipedia, which you need to adhere if you don't want that nobody would ever speak with you. That is -- our primary goal is to write good encyclopedic style articles. (In theory, talk pages are to discuss problems about articles' contents. What we do now is in fact flame.) Then -- always try to present Neutral point of view. Your original writing is already bad due to its tone: nobody would see for its contents if it's deliberately biased. Then -- no personal attacks, but calm tone of discussion; people may not forget some of insults for long. By the way, don't you want -- if not to beg excuse, to take some of your words backwards?

And, better create an account for yourself. I'm bored to trace all your IP's.

The only thing I can't comprehend is why you, without trying to understand what's happening, immediately started to fight... with pure emotions against facts and common sense.

ellol 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Okey, we've heard adversary of "bloody gebnya" (GB), now I offer to have a look at Putin's interview with German newspaper:

QUESTION: The fact that the famous journalist Anna Politkovskaia has been shot is in the headlines of all the newspapers. Can you please tell us how you are affected by the death of this journalist who criticized you very harshly?

"VLADIMIR PUTIN: First of all I would like to say that a murder is a very serious crime both with respect to society and with respect to God. The criminals must be found out and correspondingly punished.

Unfortunately, this is not the only such crime in Russia. And we will do everything we can to bring the criminals to justice.

And now, with respect to the political aspect of this affair. The investigation is looking at all possible variants. And of course, one of them, one of the most probable, is related to her work as a journalist. She really was a critic of the present authorities — something that is common to all media representatives — but she often adopted radical positions. And recently she mainly concentrated her attention on criticizing the authorities in the Chechen Republic.

I must say — and I think that experts would agree with me — that her political influence inside of Russia was negligible and that she was probably better known among human rights organisations and in the western media. In connection with this I think that one of our newspapers was correct when it stated today that Anna Politkovskaia’s murder has caused much more damage to the current authorities in general, and to the Chechen authorities in particular, than her reporting did.

In any case, I repeat that what has happened is absolutely inadmissible. This horrendous crime is damaging for Russia and must be solved. It causes both moral and political damage and is damaging for the political system that we are building, a system which must have places for all people, independently of their points of view. On the contrary, we must ensure that people receive the possibility to expose their points of view, including in the media. "

ellol 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I endorse Ellol's summary above in full. While I do in fact consider myself Russian, I also happen to dislike Mr. Putin intensly. I agree with most of the anon's edits substance, but not with the presentation. Blanking half a page to make one's viewpoint known is completely unacceptable. If that makes me a "brain-washed pro-Putin Russian", so be it, but the very least the anon could do is to pick up a dictionary and look up difference between "murder" and "murderer".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in fact I'm mostly pro-Putin. I don't think he acts wrongly -- imho he doesn't do enough. But I see no problems if people express anti-Putin views. It's the way that we have democracy. E.g., my best friend is anti-putinist. ellol 18:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is entitled to his or her point of view; I have no problem with that either. Most of my friends are pro-Putin themselves, and as far as our friendship is concerned it doesn't bother me a bit. My point was that while I have nothing against including either pro- or anti-Putin statements in the article, they must be well-balanced, properly referenced, and adhere to NPOV. Anon's edits were anything but. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a flame board, which is why I endorsed your summary, which in my view captured the essence of the conflict very well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be a good idea to put all POVs and mark them as such. How somebody is viewed by different groups is fairly encyclopedic, isn't it? Of course, that might just be me. It might also stop some of the edit wars... 65.5.201.252 21:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to add the {{POV}} template to the article (or to some of its sections) and then list portions/sentences which are not neutral here on the talk page. They can then be discussed and hopefully made more neutral.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Beware!

User ellol and Ezhiki may work for the FSB. At least they use the same methods: They have forged the history of this article (so that it appeared that a person critical of Putin blanketed half of the page) for creating a reason to silence him.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.55.56.255 (talk • contribs).

Ah, ain't I busted!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"Putin related humor"

This section should be turned into standalone leaf article, placed into Category:In popular culture. It would make this page less awful. Pavel Vozenilek 15:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This article has POV problems at it is--how about retaining a shred of credibility by removing the Putin humor section? While we're at it, how about writing about the incredible controversy and suspicion that surrounds Putin instead of blowjobbing him as the greatest Russian ever? Exeunt 12:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind. Perhaps we could leave here 2-3 entries and move others to a standalone article. E.g., "Vladimir Vladimirovich", "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq", one of images -- 'Lenin' or 'Dzerzhindsky'. ellol 15:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Controversy and suspicion among Western media and pro-Western liberals in Russia? Why not. This could go to 'Popular support' section. Just, I don't say all people support Putin. Of course no! About 70% do. And, imho. Putin is no great. He speaks right things, and tries to move the country in a sound direction. And people like it, in contrast to erratic policy of his predecessors. That's all. ellol 15:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Fontsize

Why is Putin's name so gigantic on the top? BirdValiant 08:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Because he is so great, I suppose :) Anyway, I fixed it. Thanks for the notice.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

At which age did Putin start judo trainings? 12 or 13? ellol 19:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"The wolf knows who to eat, as the saying goes."

It is invalid translation of Russian phrase. Putin told "The comrade wolf" and used verb кушает which is used for children. Only the little child can кушает. The whole phrase is like he spoke about a spoilt capricious child, not about an dangerous enemy. The phrase also in rhythm like a simple poetry for children. I think we must explain that in article because it shows Russian-American relations much better when both Wall Street Journal and Rossijskaya Gaseta.

Go on! The current english statement was taken from the official site. But of course people there (as in any other place) can't pay attention to each word. Just, what you propose needs some work, and if you are ready to do it, of course you can replace the current translation. At least, you have my support. ellol 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I did it. Please correct me if I did some mistakes. -Ghoort 08:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the verb "кушать" be referred to as the polite form of the verb to eat rather than simply the one used for children? In my opinion it's there due to the archaic origins of the rhyme more than holding any specific relevance to the meaning of the whole.

Perhaps you have confused these tho words which sound similar: кушает (childish way to say есть) and слушает, As far as I remember, he said "слушает, да ест", and in my opinion, more correct way to translate it in English is not the popular version "does not listen to anyone", but rather "listens, but is not paying much attention to what it hears, if any". Correct if I'm wrong, but the saying has nothing to do with "eating", it's about not being interested in interests of other parts. I suggest to correct that section, because it deals with the wrong quotation of Putin's words.Comrade^Wolf 17:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

comment of 205.211.239.132

HE IS AN EVIL MAN !!!!! 21:11 November 26,2006 HE ORDEDERED THE KILLINGS OF THE RUSSIAN JOURNALIST AND THE FORMER SPY.

he is evil

Maybe i´m wrong! (UTC)Dave

MAYBE THE ANTICHRIST?

that´s too silly!

As youngsters say, "Аццкий сотона жжот!" ellol 21:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor reorganization

The section on "Family and personal life" was stuck between two political controversies, so I moved that up for organizational flow. And, there were two "Trivia" sections, so I merged them together. Carmela Soprano 23:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Agent DROZDOV

I still think my reference to Patriarch Alexius II as a former KGB agent DROZDOV was appropriate, because that would explain to a reader what is going on the picture. Without my remark, this portion of the text is misleading. It basically says that Putin is a religious man, or at least he respects religion. But nothing can be further from the truth. Putin is not speaking with a spiritual leader. He is speaking with his subordinate. What do you think?Biophys 05:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also read this: [18], [19], [20], [21] (should be an original paper in The Washington Times)Biophys 06:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is a lot of hard evidence (much more than enough for Wikipedia). If you do not want to read the books by Mitrokhin and others - that is your problem. Biophys 20:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This could be fun. But hey, better a former KGB man than a pedophile. ellol 22:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracy with Poisoning

Okay, so I know that the spy has proportedly been posioned by Vlad, but this as of current, has not been proven. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for conspiracy theories. The article should be very careful to ensure that blame is not placed on any one until the investigation has been finished.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.42.230 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 November 2006

Agreed. Tnapoleao 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've tried to even things out a bit with this edit to point out that both of the allegations are disputed. I'm not sure if the sources themselves are considered "good sources" (I honestly don't know), but the info seems well-presented and they link to a lot of other articles to make their case. Here are the two links: Yushchenko, Litvinenko. Esn 06:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well my sources have been removed by an anonymous user on the basis that Justin Raimondo is a "crank", apparently. Ah well. I'm too tired to argue about this or find new ones, to be honest, and I hate edit wars. If anyone else feels up to the task, please feel free (at least the links are on the talk page now and won't get deleted here). Esn 21:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a follow-up link about the fired doctor story (found by another user on the Victor Yushchenko talk page): "I received death threats, says doctor who denied that Ukrainian leader was poisoned". This is for that anonymous user who deleted my previous sources for some odd reason. The one about the Litvienko case also had some interesting links. I am concerned that the section as it stands now does not present arguments from both sides. Esn 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The conspiracy theories are only relevant in an encyclopedic biography as examples of the president's growing controversy in some Western circles in recent years, not as a possible matter of biographical fact. 172 | Talk 10:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Litvinenko section

In this edit, the following passage was recently removed from the article on the allegation that it added nothing to the article and that it was unsourced:

Litvinenko publicly accused Putin in a statement, which was released shortly after his death by his friend Alex Goldfarb[22]. Critics doubt that Litvinenko is a true author of the statement released. They refer to the fact that the idiom "angel of death" encountered in the statement is not common for a native Russian speaker and it could rather be used by a person who natively speaks English. They also doubt that by the time of writing he was mentally capable of performing such complex activity as writing a public statement. They point out that it took 16 hours for him to recall the details of his meeting in the restraunt "Itsu" at about the time of alleged writing. Critics also refer to the fact that no video or audio recording of his words exists.[23] When asked about Litvinenko statement at a press conference after joint Russia-EU summit, Putin doubted its credibility by raising a question as to why it was not published before his death and saying that there could be no comments on a statement released after death of its author.[24]

I don't know, but I clicked on those links and those look like sources to me - the only unfortunate detail being that they're in Russian. Non-English sources are not forbidden on wikipedia, especially in cases where the argument in a certain language can be one-sided. Perhaps the section could be shortened and the user directed to the Litvinenko article instead, but I'm not sure that it was a good idea to just delete it outright. Esn 21:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sections devoted to conspiracy theories are unencyclopedic

I am open to addressing the reaction to the Litvienko death in this article, but, without offering any context, devoting an entire section to a narrative of conspiracy theories is about as unencyclopedic as anything that can be done to this article.

Earlier today, I converted a new section of the article that consisted of a narrative of conspiracy theories into a section on Putin's crime policies-- important material that makes the article more encyclopedic previously not addressed. [25] But then I was reverted by editor accusing me of "suppressing documented information." [26] Frankly, this is a dishonest misrepresentation of my edits. My rewrite mentioned, "the poisoning of Litvinenko raised suspicions that his death might be the work of Putin's security service colleagues." I contextualized the discussion on the basis of two relevant topics to an encyclopedic biography on a Russian president: (1) a discussion of the politics of crime and (2) the notability of the allegation in Western circles. The previous version, however, discussed Litvineko under the heading "Unnatural deaths of political critics"-- an obvious attempt to spoil the well against the subject of the article (and, I think, afoul of the Wikipedia living persons guidelines). 172 | Talk 03:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you do not like the title of the section, change it. If you feel it needs balance, add it. But do not delete an entire section and replace it with pro-Putin propoganda, and then cynically claim it's an attempt to make the article more "encyclopedic". You used the word "notorious" to describe a Putin critic, followed by a rambling criticm of him (and he's not even the subject of the article!). Are you under the impression that "notorious" is an objective, encyclopedic term? And why is your campaign to make the article more encyclopedic focused only on negative information about Putin (see section below)?BrianH123 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You are distoring my edits. I did not call him "notorious." I said that his claims gained him notoriety, and this is an indisputable fact; his claim that Prime Minister Prodi was the "KGB's man" gained him notoriety in Italian circles, for example. Anyway, this is no longer an issue; the word was replaced with "publicity" by another editor-- and edit I support. Moreover, pointing out the use of a single word-- I admit probably not the best word choice for a first draft-- is a diversion from a question concering the contents of an entire section of the article. Focus on the broader question about how to neutrally contextualize the subject matter. 172 | Talk 04:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The definition of notoriety is "The quality or condition of being notorious; ill fame."[27] So what distinction are you trying to make? Moving on from that issue to another specific one, your latest edit watered down the murders of journalists under Putin. Apparently you think it's more "encyclopedic" to be vague about these murders than specific. Why is that?BrianH123 04:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Notorious seems to be the opposite of WP:PEACOCK. Shouldn't have been added. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

BrianH123, it's the quality or condition. It is an indisputable fact that Litvinenko gained the 'condition of ill-fame' among some circles, following, for example, his allegations against the Italian prime minister. I wouldn't have called him "notorious"; he was not known and viewed unfavorably by everyone. Still, following your response, I see the confusion the use of the term generates, and, as I said earlier, I retract it. Regarding your comment "Apparently you think it's more 'encyclopedic' to be vague about these murders than specific," refer back to my initial post under this heading made on 03:05, 2 December. Or I'll summarize the problems with your proposed version [28] here: Including a section on "Unnatural deaths of political critics" in an encyclopedia biography on Vladimir Putin implies that the editors of the Wikipedia article are suggesting a causal relationship between Putin, the subject of the article, and the "unnatural deaths of political critics," the subject of the section. Wikipedia has guidelines on biographies of living persons that caution us from structuring entries about contemporary politicians in such inflammatory ways. The guidelines not only protect Wikipedia from the possibility of legal retaliation, but also aid editors in achieving the neutrality on which the site's goal of establishing public credibility as an encyclopedia rests. Contrary to what you may assume, I am not pro-Putin. I'm not a Russian citizen, or an American with any influence on U.S. policy on Russia. I'm pro-Wikipedia and pro-encyclopedia. 172 | Talk 07:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic or not, check out Death_of_Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Conspiracy_theories on wikipedia. The point is not to prove if the theories are wrong or right, but to give information about how the world was informed and what the world was informed of. Bib 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Negative information about Putin not allowed?

The large number of unnatural death of Putin critics is, like it or not, causing political repercussions in Europe[29]. Don't these deaths and political repercussions merit even mention in the article? If so, why is this information being repeatedly deleted? I note that article manages to find room to mention that Putin "works out regularly" and once kissed a little boy on the stomach. This People Magazine style trivia is evidently considered "encyclopedic", but the fact that 14 journalists critical of Putin have been murdered in recent years evidently is not. I would like to have the rationale for that explained to me. --BrianH123 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments above distort the content of my edits. My new section states, "the poisoning of Litvinenko raised suspicions that his death might be the work of Putin's security service colleagues." It also mentions that "some notable homicide or attempted homicide victims in the former Soviet Union have been Putin critics, such as Viktor Yushchenko (September 2004), Anna Politkovskaya (October 2006), and Alexander Litvinenko (November 2002)." The way you present these topics, however, is grossly unencyclopedic. See my comments above. 172 | Talk 03:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's your edits that are unencyclopedic. Labeling a critic "notorious" is not being encyclopedic. And you don't get away with it just because he's dead.BrianH123 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See my post above. Be ready to discuss the other issues at hand. Focusing on the use of a single word-- now changed-- is a distraction. 172 | Talk 04:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You really do thrive on assuming bad faith, don't you? It can't be that I objected to what you wrote. It must be that I was trying to create a "distraction" for some nefarious purpose. BrianH123 04:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The new version by 172 seems fine to me. BTW, Brian, watch out for 3RR, which it looks like you're already past. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't believe so. I deliberately let 172's version stand to avoid that. BrianH123 05:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

bias re: yukos

under the section on putin's second term:

"One of the most controversial aspects of Putin's second term was the prosecution of Russia's richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, President of Yukos oil company, who knowingly and purposefully robbed the Russian State and Russian people of hundreds of millions of dollars. While much of the international press saw this as a reaction against a man who was funding political opponents of the Kremlin, both liberal and Communist, the Russian government has argued that Khodorkovsky was in fact engaged in corrupting a large segment of the Duma to prevent changes in the tax code aimed at taxing windfall profits and closing offshore tax evasion vehicles. Certainly, many of the initial privatizations, including that of Yukos, are widely believed to have been fraudulent (Yukos, valued at some $30bn in 2004, had been privatized for $110 million), and like the other oligarchic groups, the Yukos-Menatep name has been frequently tarred with accusations of links to criminal organizations."

smacks of pro-putin propaganda

Yes, it does. It was added by an anonymous user in this edit. BrianH123 16:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I took out the phrase you italicized. It's vague and overheated. It's also redundant in at least two ways: If you do something purposefully, you have to do it knowingly, and it's not possible to "rob" someone without knowing you did so. BrianH123 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If the information is obvious and well known, it needs to be sourced as it stands, via WP:BLP. Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue should be sourced in Mikhail Khodorkovsky article. You cannot source one and the same piece information in each and every article it is mentioned. Wikipedia will turn into endless list of references. Each piece of data is referenced in the directly relevant article. `'mikkanarxi 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The way it is now ("robbed" without "knowingly and purposefully") is better, but better still would be something more specific and dispassionate than "robbed". BrianH123 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, specifically, they have stolen, a short word for "embezzled, fraudulently appropriated" and other $20 words. `'mikkanarxi 23:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Stolen" is not specific, but whatever. It's not like we're writing an encyclopedia or anything. BrianH123 00:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sufficiently specific in this page; see "stealing". All detailed specifics are in the corresponding article. We don't have to quote an exact sentence here, do we? `'mikkanarxi 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed section: "Crime"

This piece does not belong to a biographical article, hence removed. You may want to create Crime in Russia.

In the 1990s, the growth of organized crime (see Russian mafia and Russian oligarchs) and the fragmentation of law enforcement agencies in Russia coincided with a sharp rise in violence against business figures, administrative and state officials, and other public figures. Putin inherited these problems when he took office, and during his election campaign in 2000, the new president won popular support by stressing the need to restore law and order and to bring rule of law to Russia as the only way of restoring confidence in the country's economy. [30]

However, although street mafia-linked violence has decreased, criminal groups currently remain heavily involved the corruption of state and public officials. The Russian homicide rate doubled during the 1990s, and remains high to this day. [31] While the continued prevasiveness of crime in post-Soviet Russia does not appear to diminish Putin's domestic popularity, violence in Russia has taken a toll on Putin's reputation in the West. For example, some notable Russian homicide or attempted homicide victims in the former Soviet Union have been Putin critics such as Viktor Yushchenko (September 2004), Anna Politkovskaya (October 2006), and Alexander Litvinenko (November 2006). Some Western Russian experts have cautioned against making any assumption of involvement of Putin associates in the deaths of Kremlin critics. "There is no direct evidence linking this to Mr Putin," said Alex Pravda of Chatham House and St Antony's College, Oxford. Pravda added, "You have to remember that an important aspect of Russian life at the moment is a lack of co-ordination between government, corporate and other organisations." "You should not assume, therefore, that an order, if there was one, came from the top. In Russia, a lot of things are done independently. But there is an obsession with security in Russia these days, and that permeates political life and could have influenced people." [32]

`'mikkanarxi 20:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

subjective removal. I don't approve of what you did.216.37.86.10 17:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Quotations?

What has happened to the quotations section and why has it been deleted without discussion? User 81.106.199.17 (talk).

Quotations were erased by user Savidan on December, 4.

You can see the last version of Quotations here, and their code exposed here.

The problem was the Quotations were too big. Savidan said "i know of no other world leader whose bio is stuffed to the gills with quotes--these belong on wikiquote". Other user left a message above recently, "The Quotations section takes up half the page. Could everyone consider trimming it down a bit? You can get more quotes in WikiQuotes so I don't see the point in flooding the page with it. Cyborg Ninja 29 Nov 2006 14:39 (UTC)"

Of course, according to common Wikipedian policy, you are free and welcome to work on Quotations. ellol 22:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I did it according to my taste. But the above comment remains true. ellol 19:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV disputed

Two fifths (almost a half) of this wiki article on Putin is devoted to "humor" about Putin, comparisons to unlikable characters from films, and various negative perceptions coming from dubious sources (is "citation needed" a source?).

Compare that to the George W. Bush article which has less then 1/10 of it devoted to his "criticisms and public perception", not to mention that there are absolutely no citations or images of him as the "Mad" character or him holding the children's book upside down, or his antics with things like "nucular weapons" (giving a middle finger to cameras?)? Or perhaps an explanation how he ever graduated from Yale, since wikipedia seems to investigate one's academic work quite deeply (as in the allegation of Putin's plagiarism)...

I know that this is an article about Putin and not G.W.B., but wikipedia needs to apply the same standard to all world leaders, whoever they are, limiting it's articles to balanced reporting of facts. I actually have no objections to G.W. article (above questions are meant to show how ridiculous this POV approach is); rather, all world leaders' articles should follow the same standards and not sound like someone's personal soap box. In this case Putin's article leaves a lot to be desired, like more serious approach to descibing his actions and/or achievements and failures rather then concetrating on negative suggestions and painting his image in certain colors.

Compare beginings of paragraphs about Bush and Putin:

Bush article:

"Time magazine named George W. Bush as its Person of the Year for 2000". (That's the first sentence of Bush "criticism" paragraph)

"Bush enjoyed strong support among Americans..."

"Bush began his second term with an emphasis on improving strained relations..."

"As one of the most popular governors in the nation..."

"Days into his first term, Bush announced his commitment to channeling more federal aid to faith-based service organizations..."

Compare that to beginings of paragraphs in the Putin article:

"Putin was appointed Prime Minister ... making him Russia's fifth prime minister in less than eighteen months."

"... Putin, a virtual unknown, to last any longer than his predecessors..."

"...This put all of his opponents at a disadvantage, giving him the element of surprise and an eventual victory..." as if he stole his victory (which could be said of Bush)

"One of the most controversial aspects of Putin's second term was the prosecution of Russia's richest man...". (note: Putin was not the judge nor in the jury and was certainly less connected to the affair then Bush was to Enron).

"...Kremlin-controlled or allied media accused Putin's chief rivals..." (I haven't seen a single reference as to president Bush's media connections in Bush article. Does that mean that they don't exist?)

"In international affairs, Putin has been trying..." - yet another negative conotation...

"While President Putin is criticized as an autocrat..."

"Putin surprised many... "

"During his time in office, Putin has attempted to..."

Putin has been trying, has been criticized, and has been attempting things. He has also "surprised" (a quality no one would want from a leader who has his finger on world's second largest nuclear arsenal).

Putin article needs to be neutral.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.97.140 (talk • contribs)

What's your point? Many of the sentences you refer to are just stating facts, and the "negative connotations" are in the eyes of the beholder. For instance, Putin was completely (not "virtually" as the article says) unknown before becoming the PM -- which is not surprising for an FSB agent. Or you don't like that the article mentions criticism of Putin -- but article on Bush does so too. Lebatsnok 14:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Butcher of Grozny

To which particular period does this refer? When did it originate? Do we think the phrase warrants a mention in the article? --80.1.72.245 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would disappoint you, the vast amount of Russian society approved Putin's harsh treatment of boeviks in about 1999-2002. ellol 00:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes but I have seen the phrase used in English Newspaper articles. I'd like to find out who first used it and quote it in the article.--80.1.72.245 01:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I offer you also to carry out an intense search in South and North Korean, Polynesian, Latin American and other newspapers. ellol 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Who will be in third term as Russian Federation President?

Perhaps it is not appropriate to look into future for wikipedia but I find it appropriate when talking about this individual. It is now a very popular joke in Russian Federation that Putin will change law just before the third term and will be once more the president. What do You think.

Please have a look at the last citation in 'Democracy' section... I commented it out, but your question shows that it's needed. My personal opinion -- if you look at current ratings, you see Putin's about 40-60%, then go Zhirinovsky, Medvedev, and Ivanov with about 10%. Since Putin claimed he wouldn't participate, someone of these would have a chance to win, and/or that guy who Putin will announce as his successor -- as it was with the win of United Russia party at 2000 elections, one short remark made by Putin ('Who will you vote for?' 'I will vote for United Russia') which appeared only few times on news, led to the striking win of this newborn party. Hope this helps. ellol 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Today there were news that Russian Federation democratic parties link here [33] (Sorry i'm bad at using wiki and giving links) - Jabloko, SPS, DPR didn't join. But I hope (though it is not a wikipedia style) that in two years they might bring out a new contendant. But the question is will he/she succeed.

IMHO, it is unprobable. Main question for every party - what economic program they have. But democracy is not an economic term. Third Putin's term is unprobable. In most cases I hear him he don't break his word (if give some). And in this case he will be in no big danger if promise to take 3d term, because dangers for him are IN country, not OUTSIDE it and most population would support Putin.

Vladimir Putin and Boris Jelcin relation

What is the relation between Vladimir Putin and Boris Jelcin? It is largely argued now in Russia and outside that Russia is at a deadlock (Ofcourse taking into consideration that the only thing that brings money is recources and not business). So what sources can be placed to clear up the relation between the two and say why 'Jelcin (democrat) gave power' (i'm not saying he gave it himself) to Putin who 'definetly smells of nothing near to democracy'.

Ah, I assume you meant Boris Yeltsin ;). Well, to be honest, usually these talk pages are here to talk about how we can make the page better. However, I think it's fair to note that I've been thinking about this a lot recently, even as an American, and I've remembered that Putin, when he was inaugurated, was a bit of a question mark, and it took several years for us to figure out what his ideas were (they do not seem to be in accordance with Yeltsin's). -Patstuart^talk|edits 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the answers can be found at Alexandr Letvinenko. But I still believe that this topic should be here in for discussion and perhaps listed in a bio of Putin Vladimir.

You mean Alexander Litvinenko, right?

Dzerzhinsky 23:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Press freedom and intimidation

I temporarily removed the new contribution for further discussion:

As of December, 2006, The Russian government is putting increasing pressure on legitimate opposition groups, particularly the movement led by Garry Kasparov. Government agents entered Kasparov's offices during the week of December 10 and seized books and printed materials related to a March on the following Saturday. Kasparov's office claimed that the raid was illegal. Later during the Saturday march, approximately 70 marchers were arrested. It is said that thousands turned out for the March. Additional arrests were made in other locations around the country. Kasparov, the former world chess champion has been a severe critic of the Putin regime, accusing it of undermining democracy in Russia. There is no doubt that government harassment of opposition political groups has become a standard tactic of Putin's government.

December also cast a dark cloud on the reputation of the Russian government around the world, as world attention centered on the poisoning and death of former KGB agent Alexander Litvineko in London. Litvineko, in a dramatic deathbed statement, blamed President Putin for his murder. The murder involved the apparent first use of radioactive polonium-210 as a poison.

I don't doubt in your literature talents, but can't not to raise a question: are we a wikipedia article or yellowish papers?!! As it is now, it doesn't pass. The Russian government comprises executive, legislative and judiciary branches. Be more strict: who were 'government agents', MVD, FSB or OMON? What was the official reason for intrusion and arrest (for several hours or for 2 days????) 'It is said' doesn't fit. The last sentence of first passage is propaganda. Above all, the whole message is not sourced.

About Litvinenko murder, let's wait for the end of the official investigation, and then put it into the article or not. ellol 23:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Ellol, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a yellow press. Alexandre Koriakine 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

---

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, she was the thirteenth journalist to be killed in Russia in 2006. We had this nonsense in the article for almost two months, and people read this as credible source. In fact, Politkovskaya was thirteenth journalist killed after Putin's inauguration in 2000. What irresponsibility! It should be a lesson for us all. ellol 17:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

First it occurred in Nov 25, it was vague, but not a mistake yet. In Dec. 2 it already took the form mentioned above. ellol 17:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why adding opinionated stuff is considered OK, while removing seeming bias is seen as pro-Russia propaganda ?! ellol 17:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Ellol, 13 in 6 years is not much better than 13 in one year. Normally the number should be close to zero. But "13 since 2000" is certainly not the right number: European Federation of Journalists has a data base in which all non-natural deaths of journalists in Russia are listed; if you want, you can count how many murders are there in 2006. (You'll be surprised.) [34] As Stalin said, the death of one person is tragedy; the death of one million people is statistics. In Russia, the "mysterious" murders of journalists are maybe not yet statistics, but no longer a tragedy either. Lebatsnok 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

On the election article, it says the European group has criticised the elections and that the CIS have called them free and fair.

However on this article it says the European group has called them free and fair and fails to mention the CIS at all. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 15:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right, in the OSCE report there is not a single word that the elections were free and fair, rather something contrary to this, so I am going to remove this paragraph from the Vladimir Putin page. After all, necessary data are provided in Russian presidential election, 2004, which seems enough. Colchicum 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Innacurate translations

Товарищ Волк знает кого кушать. Кушает и никого не слушает. - the proper translation is "Comrade Wolf knows who to eat. (He) eats and doesn't listen to anyone." The explanations that follow are fine as they supplement nuances lost in the translation, but the translation itself given in the article is innacurate. With respect, Ko Soi IX 09:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Putin Legislation

I compiled an annotated list of important laws proposed by Putin, but User:Colin Keigher deleted it. However, the article about George W. Bush does contain a link to such a list, and I think it is an important mean to characterize Putin's policy. Is it worth including or not? Here is the section:

Vladimir Putin legislation and programs

Legislation proposed by Putin, approved by the Federal Assembly of Russia, and signed by Putin [35]

• Proposed on May 192000, signed on July 292000:

Federal Law On Modifications and Additions to the Federal Law On General Principles of the Organization of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of State Power of the Subjects of the Russian Federation

О внесении изменений и дополнений в Федеральный закон "Об общих принципах организации законодательных (представительных) и исполнительных органов государственной власти субъектов Российской Федерации"

It authorizes the president to dismiss the heads of Federal subjects of Russia.

• Proposed on May 192000, signed on August 52000:

Federal Law On the Formation of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation

О порядке формирования Совета Федерации Федерального Собрания Российской Федерации

It replaces the heads of the legislative and executive Bodies of the Federal subjects of Russia with representatives of these bodies as Members of the Federation Council of Russia.

• Proposed on January 152001, signed on December 252000:

Federal Constitutional Law On the State Anthem of the Russian Federation

Федеральный конституционный закон "О Государственном гимне Российской Федерации"

It changes the Russian anthem to a version based on the musical score of the pre-1991 Soviet anthem.

• Proposed on August 302000, signed on February 122001:

Federal Law On Guarantees for Former Presidents and Their Families

О гарантиях Президенту Российской Федерации, прекратившему исполнение своих полномочий, и членам его семьи

• Proposed on January 152001, signed on March 222001:

Federal Constitutional Law On Modifications and an Addition to the Federal Law On the State Anthem of the Russian Federation

О внесении изменений и дополнения в Федеральный конституционный закон "О Государственном гимне Российской Федерации"

It approves the new text of the anthem written by Sergey Mikhalkov.

• Proposed on May 252001, signed on December 152001:

Federal Law On Modifications and Additions to the Federal Law On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation

О внесении изменений и дополнений в Закон Российской Федерации "О статусе судей в Российской Федерации"

It introduces disciplinary and administrative responsibility of judges.

• Proposed on May 252001, signed on December 152001:

Federal Law On Basic Guarantees of Suffrage and Right of Referendum of the Citizens of the Russian Federation

Об основных гарантиях избирательных прав и права на участие в референдуме граждан Российской Федерации

It prohibits to conduct a referendum within the last year of a term of the president or State Duma and disallows mass media to comment on election campaign.

• Proposed on April 292002, signed on July 252002:

Federal Law On Modifications and Additions to the Russian Federation’s Legislation in Connection with the Passing of the Federal Law On Countering Extremist Activities

О внесении изменений и дополнений в законодательные акты Российской Федерации в связи с принятием Федерального закона "О противодействии экстремистской деятельности"

Federal Law On Countering Extremist Activities О противодействии экстремистской деятельности

These regulations define the notion of extremism and establish measures to counter it, including procedures of suspension of political parties, public and religious associations.

• Proposed on September 122002, signed on January 102003:

Federal Law On the Election of the President of the Russian Federation

О выборах Президента Российской Федерации

It considerably changes regulations concerning the nomination procedure and doesn’t require the nominees of political parties that are represented in the State Duma to collect one million signatures in support of their registration anymore. Each of the other nominees has to collect two million signatures rather than one million required before.

• Proposed on January 42003, signed on October 62003:

Federal Law On General Principles of Organization of the Local Self-Government in the Russian Federation

Об общих принципах организации местного самоуправления в Российской Федерации

It establishes a limited list of powers of the local self-government and defines the circumstances under which they have to be delegated to executive power bodies of the Federal subject.

• Proposed on January 312003, signed on July 42003:

Federal Law On Modifications and Additions to Some Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation in Connection with the Passing of the Federal Law On Basic Guarantees of Suffrage and Right of Referendum of the Citizens of the Russian Federation

О внесении изменений и дополнений в некоторые законодательные акты Российской Федерации в связи с принятием Федерального закона "Об основных гарантиях избирательных прав и права на участие в референдуме граждан Российской Федерации"

It establishes that a mass media can be suspended if it violates election legislation twice during an election campaign.

• Proposed on February 192004, signed on March 252004:

Federal Constitutional Law On Formation of a New Subject of the Russian Federation within the Russian Federation as a Result of Unification of Perm Region and Komi-Permyak Autonomous Area.

Об образовании в составе Российской Федерации нового субъекта Российской Федерации в результате объединения Пермской области и Коми-Пермяцкого автономного округа

It merges the Perm Oblast and Komi-Permyak Autonomous District into the Perm Krai.

• Proposed on September 282004, signed on December 112004:

Federal Law On Modifications to the Federal Law On General Principles of the Organization of Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of State Power of the Subjects of the Russian Federation and the Federal Law On Basic Guarantees of Suffrage and Right of Referendum of the Citizens of the Russian Federation

О внесении изменений в Федеральный закон "Об общих принципах организации законодательных (представительных) и исполнительных органов государственной власти субъектов Российской Федерации" и в Федеральный закон "Об основных гарантиях избирательных прав и права на участие в референдуме граждан Российской Федерации"

It replaces the direct election of the heads of the Federal subjects of Russia with a system whereby they are proposed by the President and approved or disapproved by the legislative power bodies of the federal subjects.

• Proposed on December 82004, signed on April 42005:

Federal Law On the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation

Об Общественной палате Российской Федерации

It institutes the Public Chamber of Russia.

• Proposed on December 82004, signed on May 182005:

Federal Law On the Election of Deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation

О выборах депутатов Государственной Думы Федерального Собрания Российской Федерации

It establishes that the State Duma will be elected by closed party-list proportional voting only, entirely eliminating the single-member district plurality voting system that accounted for half of the 450 seats before, and raises electoral threshold from 5 to 7%.

• Proposed on April 142005, signed on July 212005:

Federal Law On Modifications to the Russian Federation’s Legislation on Elections and Referenda as well as other Legislative Acts.

О внесении изменений в законодательные акты Российской Федерации о выборах и референдумах и иные законодательные акты Российской Федерации

It considerably toughens formal requirements for nomination, allows electronic voting, makes funding the parties participating in the State Duma receive from the government ten times higher and establishes that a member of the State Duma loses his/her seat as (s)he leaves his/her faction.

• Proposed on June 292005, signed on October 142005:

Federal Constitutional Law On Formation of a New Subject of the Russian Federation within the Russian Federation as a Result of Unification of Krasnoyarsk Krai and Taimyr (Dolgan-Nenets) Autonomous District and Evenki Autonomous District.

Название: Об образовании в составе Российской Федерации нового субъекта Российской Федерации в результате объединения Красноярского края, Таймырского (Долгано-Ненецкого) автономного округа и Эвенкийского автономного округа

It makes the Taimyr Autonomous District and Evenki Autonomous District parts of the Krasnoyarsk Krai.

• Proposed on September 262005, signed on December 272005:

Federal Law On Parliamentary Investigation by the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation

О парламентском расследовании Федерального Собрания Российской Федерации

It regulates the parliamentary investigation and prohibits parliamentary investigation of the activities of the President, court and investigative authorities if they comply to the processual law. Also it establishes that no parliamentary investigation should last longer than a year and that the cases processed by a court should not be subject to it.

• Proposed on May 232006, signed on July 122006:

Federal Constitutional Law On Formation of a New Subject of the Russian Federation within the Russian Federation as a Result of Unification of Kamchatka Oblast and Koryak Autonomous District

Об образовании в составе Российской Федерации нового субъекта Российской Федерации в результате объединения Камчатской области и Корякского автономного округа

It merges the Kamchatka Oblast and Koryak Autonomous District into the Kamchatka Krai.

• Proposed on November 82006, signed on December 302006:

Federal Constitutional Law On Formation of a New Subject of the Russian Federation within the Russian Federation as a Result of Unification of Irkutsk Oblast and Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous District

Об образовании в составе Российской Федерации нового субъекта Российской Федерации в результате объединения Иркутской области и Усть-Ордынского Бурятского автономного округа

It makes the Ust-Orda Buryat Autonomous District part of the Irkutsk Oblast.

Colchicum 18:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Notice how the George Bush article has it on a separate page? :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 22:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Putin's criticism over the U.S policy

I don't know if it would be good to add in this article (or his list of quotes article) this quote about his recent criticism of the U.S foreign policy that he made yesterday

“ Unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved a single problem: they have become a hotbed of further conflicts. ”

[36]--JForget 21:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it's normal to put this quote in list of quotes article. As for Putin page, this speech is viewed in the beginning of Foreign policy (btw I was an anon user who took part in its editing). The general problem here is we shouldn't make it too long. Any way, the current version is not ideal, so be bold and if you see how you may make it better go ahead. Just one proposal, imho it's better to work with the speech itself. Thank you for the interest. ellol 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Number of references

Hey guys, Is there really a need for so many references to the one statement (e.g. In the Chechen war section, there are seven references to the one statement)? You may improve the article by picking the best sources out of the lot. 59.101.176.223 09:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Edition to the protest and explanation of changes

This was the original text:

“ On March 3, 2007, a demonstration of several thousand opposition protesters (see Saint Petersburg March of the Discontented) was suppressed by city authorities in St. Petersburg. Several thousand members of liberal and leftist groups (the number differs from 1,500 to 15,000 according to different estimates) chanted "Down with Matviyenko", "Shame to Putin", "Revolution", "No to police state" as they marched down Nevsky Prospekt. OMON beat dozens of protestors with truncheons but several thousand broke through police cordons. Officials stated that 100 people were detained, including heads of National Bolshevik Party and Vanguard of Red Youth and a member of United Civil Front. Organizers of demonstration state the number of detainees is several hundreds. The action was not sanctioned by сity authorities. Governor of Saint Petersburg Valentina Matviyenko called the action "provocation". Analogous demonstration took place in December in Moscow, though was of less scale. Russia's television stations covered these protests only briefly. ”

Ok one sentence at a time.

On March 3, 2007, a demonstration of several thousand opposition protesters (see Saint Petersburg March of the Discontented) was suppressed by city authorities in St. Petersburg.

Several thousand is an estimation not even backed up in the later part of the addition (1500 -15000) therefore numbers removed until a more accurate number is provided.

Changed suppressed to stopped, as march was unauthorized. Hence stopped.

Several thousand members of liberal and leftist groups (the number differs from 1,500 to 15,000 according to different estimates) chanted "Down with Matviyenko", "Shame to Putin", "Revolution", "No to police state" as they marched down Nevsky Prospekt.

Again numbers are questioned do deleted.

Guys it is not relevant what they chanted. Their slogans are irrelevant - it is a protest.

OMON beat dozens of protestors with truncheons but several thousand broke through police cordons.

Don't demonise OMON, that is POV.

Again issues with numbers.

Officials stated that 100 people were detained, including heads of National Bolshevik Party and Vanguard of Red Youth and a member of United Civil Front. Organizers of demonstration state the number of detainees is several hundreds.

No problem with this but state your sources.

Minor grammar correction regarding organisers estimate of detainees - 'is several hundred' to 'substantially larger'

Governor of Saint Petersburg Valentina Matviyenko called the action "provocation". Analogous demonstration took place in December in Moscow, though was of less scale. Russia's television stations covered these protests only briefly.

Relevence to Putin's term?

This information should be placed on the March of the Discontented page not here.

Lastly I would question the actual inclusion of this information in the article - it is of trivial importance considering the fact that we are dealing with a presidential term - this information may be better left on Matviyenko's page on events in St Petersburg. Please discuss this otherwise I will consider deleting this addition. 59.101.157.29 14:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the importance of this event is minor, at least, if considered alone. IMHO, it could be mentioned in some broader overview of political life in Russia, if anyone would manage to write it. ellol 15:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Politically Motivated Additions

SPAG

I have removed a political edit from the article. Below is the sections removed with the reasons for removal.

“ While heading the Committee for External Relations, from 1992 to March 2000 Putin was also on the advisory board of the German real estate holding St. Petersburg Immobilien und Beteiligungs AG (SPAG) which has been investigated by German prosecutors for money laundering.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] ”

See http://www.buzzflash.com/mediawatch/03/10/03.html

A German foreign intelligence investigation probe [allegedly] found that Russian crime lords transferred money through Rudolf Ritter (founder of SPAG) into correspondent accounts at a Romanian bank and then used it to buy St. Petersburg real estate via SPAG

Ritter has denied these charges.

Ritter has not been convicted on any charges.

My question is why are you guys adding this? The whole thing is questionable, as Ritter has not been convicted of anything. How about innocent until proven guilty? Try to assume good faith, besides why is there guilt by association of Putin on a possible fictitious charge that isn’t even addressed to him?

I see this as politically motivated information as at the moment it is only based on speculation and not proved fact. Therefore I have removed it. 59.101.157.29 05:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important not to remove sourced stories of controversies surrounding any politician. I think the the fact that Putin was on the board of a firm investigated for the money loundry is relevant and important and seems to be very good sourced. I do not see much of the misrepresentation of the sources there. If you have source of the other side of the story you are welcome to put them to the article (if the addition will grow above a couple of sentenses we would have to put it into a separate article. I am restoring deletions Alex Bakharev 07:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

We must Add the controversey of Putin surrounding the recent deaths of detractors

Considering that Senator Allen's wikipedia page had an entire section dedicated to his use of the term "macacca" and wiki's were very very quick to add an entire section for Ann Coulter's use of the word "Faggot"....when wikipedians go into a frenzy when it comes to controversey over politicians, I think it is absolutely relavant to add to this page Putin's controversial and accusatorial involvement in recent deaths of his critics. If this is not relevant, then NOTHING is on any other politicians page. Wiki's love to add "controversey" sections to political pages...especially conservative ones. Now this communist needs his fair share. Putin is looking very suspicious and it IS relevant.

Anonymous author

Please, better formulate your thoughts. I removed the following passage:

Russians have good reasons not to trust or respect the press, but they are nonetheless affected by what they read in the newspapers and watch on television. As a result, the outcome of elections is greatly influenced by press coverage. Vladimir Putin has shown himself adept at manipulating public opinion. He has also demonstrated a desire to exert more control over the lives of the country's citizens. That makes sense for a man who spent most of his career in the KGB, but it augurs badly for the future of independent journalism in Russia.

What exactly did you want to express? "Russians have good reasons not to trust or respect the press, but they are nonetheless affected by what they read in the newspapers and watch on television. As a result, the outcome of elections is greatly influenced by press coverage." Sky is blue. What you said here might as easily refer to any country, including U.S. "Vladimir Putin has shown himself adept at manipulating public opinion." You convicted Putin of manipulating public opinion and suppressing independent journalism without providing any proofs. It's good that you did it politically correct, but still you need solid proofs. ellol 02:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to reconsider your overmanagement of this article, because it's way too easy for the average reader to detect your extreme bias. The fact is that Putin's government has stolen or bought all major media outlets, and forced independents to close or shut up using new laws, lawsuits, or outright physical threats. The end result is that only the government line is provided. Eventually, this is going to fail Putin (or his successor) for the same reasons the Soviet propaganda machine eventually failed. One of the jokes running around the Soviet Union in the late eighties was "Why do Soviet televisions have windshield wipers on them? To wipe the spit off." Governments try the same brutal tactics and thought control over and over again, and everywhere it happens, it works for awhile but eventually it fails. Russians will have their day again. Maybe next time they won't squander it quite so badly. I was in contact with the leaders of a fledgeling political party there that was forced to fold. Its leaders are now in exile and still fear for their lives -- and it wasn't because of threats they received from Chechens or the mafia -- but by their own government. It is irrelevant to an *honest* article about Putin that a majority of Russians now like him and think he's doing a great job; that was true of Genghis Khan, Napoleon, and Hitler as well. They all had their admirers and supporters, and yet they all brutally oppressed vast numbers of political minorities. You suppress facts disparaging of Putin, and yet you maintain a clear bias for purported facts favorable to him. Putin, like almost all other world leaders (including the one in the USA), has little care for the rights of individuals, and a lot of care for his own power. It's sad that you are blind to it. MarcMontoni 13:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1997 there were just over 21,000 registered periodicals, virtually no electronic media, and just under 100 television companies. More than half of all media were owned by the state. A decade later, there are more than 58,000 periodicals, 14,000 electronic media, and 5,500 broadcasting companies. The state's share in the newspaper and journal market in 2006 was estimated to be less than 10%, while its share in electronic media, which today reach 25 million people, is even smaller. Today it is not the Russian state but foreign companies that own shares in more than half of all Russian broadcasting companies[37]

I discussed the situation with people at Russian forums, and I have such opinion: there is no problems to find any information if you want to; after all there is internet which remains zone of absolute freedom even in Russia. If you want to, you watch REN-TV which remains perhaps the only unbiased TV channel in Russia, but broadcasts not that much entertaining stuff than main channels. If you are interested to get unbiased info you'll get it, or at least you'll have possibility to view all existing biases -- pro- and anti- Russia. Ah, I completely forgot it, there's site inosmi.ru which allows rich gathering of Russian translations of latest articles, published in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The National Interest, La Monde, and dozens of others. But, but if you aren't interested, if the only you want in life is to lay before TV and watch the First Channel -- you'll have a somehow pro-government biased view. When people speak about freedom of speech in Russia, the real talk goes about the "swamp" -- teenagers and pensioners with passive life position. All who want to get information, get it.

When will you understand that Russia can't be described using terms of Soviet Union? In the U.S. the time when the country changes is 50 years; in Russia it is only 5. Soviet Union is recent history for the U.S., for Russia it was an epoch ago. But any way, you are free to remain among your delusions. ellol 18:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

When did Putin agree to run for president?

The article indicates that on the day on which Putin was nominated as prime minister, he volunteered to run for the presidency. ("Yeltsin also announced that he wanted to see Putin as his successor. Later, that same day, Putin agreed to run for the presidency.") The source for this is a BBC article that appears to based on an incorrect translation. (Mr Yeltsin said he wanted Mr Putin to succeed him as president in next year's elections. Mr Putin immediately responded by saying: I shall definitely stand for the post of Russian president.") It seems that Putin actually said that he would support the office of the presidency, and not that he was planning to run for president. I certainly do not recall Putin saying this in August of 1999. Would it be possible to find the Russian text for this? - JackRus

JackRus, that moment is viewed in memoirs of Boris Yeltsin [38], if you can read this extract it would be great, if not I'll translate most important parts. The passage refers to August 5, 1999, when Yeltsin offered Putin to become a Prime Minister. Before this, Yeltsin thought of his candidature as a future president, but never shared his thoughts with anyone. The extract proves that Putin wasn't eager to become a president. So, at least from POV of Yeltsin, "I shall definitely stand for the post of Russian president" is nonsense.

Август — самая отпускная пора. Назначение Путина будет как гром среди ясного неба. Все мгновенно накалится. Но несколько амортизирующих недель, когда людям так не хочется влезать в политику, выходить из благостного настроения, у нас будут.

У Путина будет время, чтобы взять разгон.

... Вызвал секретаря и сообщил ему, что завтра две встречи. С кем — скажу позже. Волошина попросил готовить документы.

5-го, рано утром, я встретился с Путиным.

Я объяснил положение вещей. Предстоит жестокая борьба. Прежде всего - предвыборная. Но не только. Удержать ситуацию в стране под контролем будет непросто во всех областях. Очень тревожно на Северном Кавказе. Возможны какие-то политические провокации в Москве. Трудно понять, способен ли нынешний состав правительства удержать инфляцию. От того, как новый премьер поведет себя в течение ближайших не только месяцев, но и недель, зависит буквально все. Зависит будущее страны.

"Я принял решение, Владимир Владимирович, и предлагаю вам пост премьер-министра".

Путин смотрел на меня внимательно. Молчал.

"Но это еще не все, - продолжил я. - Вы примерно представляете, почему я вынужден отставить вашего предшественника. Я знаю, что Степашин ваш друг, тоже петербуржец, но сейчас нужно думать о другом. Ваша позиция должна быть предельно корректной, выдержанной, но твердой. Только так вы достигнете и авторитета в обществе, и успешного итога парламентских выборов".

"На кого будем опираться на выборах?" - спросил Путин. "Не знаю, - честно ответил я. - Будем строить новую партию. Я, как человек, который намучился с парламентом больше, чем кто бы то ни было в истории, знаю, насколько вам необходима твердая опора в Думе. Но главное - это ваш собственный политический ресурс, ваш образ. Создавать его искусственно не надо. Но и забывать об этой проблеме нельзя".

Путин задумался.

"Предвыборной борьбы не люблю, - признался он. - Очень. Не умею ею заниматься и не люблю".

"А вам и не придется ею заниматься. Главное - ваша воля, уверенность. Ваши поступки. От этого все зависит. Политический авторитет либо приходит, либо нет. Вы готовы?"

"Буду работать там, куда назначите", - немногословно ответил Путин.

По-военному...

"А на самый высокий пост?"

Путин замешкался с ответом. Чувствовалось, что он впервые по-настоящему осознал, о чем идет разговор.

"Не знаю, Борис Николаевич. Не думаю, что я к этому готов". - "Подумайте. Я верю в вас".

В кабинете висела напряженная тишина. Каждый мельчайший звук я слышал очень отчетливо. Особенно ход часов.

У Путина очень интересные глаза. Кажется, что они говорят больше, чем его слова.

ellol 21:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Khodorkovsky

User 212.125.64.141 made the following contribution into the article. Perhaps it could be added if properly formatted:

The only question is why Khodorkovsky funding political oponents of the Kremlin? Was he scared that Putin will bring a change to better from so called 'the 1990's Russia'? Indeed with the comming of Vladimir Putin, Russia has experienced a rapid economic growth and stability with in the country. Corruption has significantly dropped.

Same user voiced the opinion concerning "Popular Support" section:

Well ofcourse- why would the West ever want Russia to get back on its feet?! There just always have to be propoganda in the news about how 'democratic' they are! There will always be those 'funny Russians' in Hollywood films - where most people get their knoweledge about them and that they only drink Vodka with Polar Bears and do nothing else all day!

Putin's biography: Title: English translation?

"His biography, От Первого Лица" -- We should add the English translation of this to the article. -- 201.50.254.243 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Guys what do you think if we combine all the controversies in the article into one section at the bottom of the article above the Criticism section? It would be a better read then and from what I've seen is the more common format in Wikipedia. If I wouldn't have naysayers I will proceed to create the section through cutting and pasting of existing information. 59.101.205.24 08:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe this article is extremely biased in favor of putin. What the hell? seems like it's been edited constantly by kgb sons of bitches. Wikipedia belongs to KGB!

Vladimir Putin Senior was in NKVD (not "land forces"), Junior was a taxi driver for a while in the early 90s

• http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/p/putin-first.html
• http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,270555,00.html

There is LOTS of mistakes in the article. --HanzoHattori 11:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you see mistakes you know what to do :). Do help us out here and correct any inconsistencies on sight.

Thanks 59.101.161.148 13:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Journalists, media freedom

Who is editing this article? Putin himself?

Here is a list of journalists killed under Putin's reign, each one listed in the SOURCE cited within the article:

Vladimir Yatsina (shot by Chechen militants 2000) [2] Aleksandr Yefremov (remote-controlled mine on Russian controlled Chechen road 2000) [2] Igor Domnikov (beaten to death in entry of his Moscow apartment building 2000) [2] Eduard Markevich (shot in the back, Sverdlovsk, Russia, 2001) [2] Natalya Skryl (beaten to death near her home in Rostov-on-Don, Russia 2002) [2] Valery Ivanov (shot 8 times, while entering his car in Togliatti, Russia 2002) [2] Roddy Scott (body found shot to death, in Galashki Region, Russia 2002) [2] Sergei Kalinovsky (murdered beside a lake outside the city of Smolensk, Russia 2002) [2] Aleksei Sidorov (murdered in Togliatti, east of Moscow 2003) [2] Adlan Khasanov (by bomb in Grozny, Chechnia, claimed by rebel leader Basayev 2004) [2] * Paul Klebnikov (drive-by shooting, described by police as contract murder 2004) [2] Pavel Makeev (hit and run, body found hidden in ditch 50 meters from impact area 2005) [2] Magomedzagid Varisov (machine-gunned outside Makhachkala, Russia 2005) [2] Vagif Kochetkov (beaten/assaulted near his home in Tula Russia 2006) [2] Anna Politkovskaya (shot in a Moscow elevator, 2006, exclusive critic of Putin) [2] Ivan Safronov (thrown out a window for reporting a 3rd Bulava launch failure, 2-3-2007) [3]

He was also working on a story about Putin personally selling arms to Iran freak, Ahmadinejad [4]

additionally, three Russian journalists are listed as killed in Chenchnia in October 1999. Since Putin officially controlled the reigns in August, 1999, those fall under his watch as well.

This makes a total of NINETEEN journalist killed in Russia, under Putin.

I will change the article again, and contact the administrators of WikiPedia to settle this dispute. My version is fair, because I do not list 19 victims, I list 15, since the 3 killed in 1999 are not presently suspected of Kremlin fault, and Basayev has claimed Khasanov. The other 15 are brutal mob-like barbaric acts, unworthy of any democratic leadership and cannot be whitewashed. I refuse to allow that.

FOOTNOTES: [2] Archive list of victims, all years, http://www.cpj.org/CPJ_killed_data_12.06.xls [3] Current 2007 list from above source, http://cpj.org/killed/killed07.html [4] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6426043.stm DanaSaurSchloss 05:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dana. First of all, welcome to Wikipedia.

Let's work on this issue. I think, it's not relevant to speak, under whose presidentship journalists were murdered. Imho, high journalist murder rate is connected with socially economical reasons, rather than personal will of Putin. Most of them were 1) casualties in Chechnya (and Putin doesn't bear any personal responsibility here, just as Bush is not personally responsible for murders of journalists in Iraq), 2) killed while observing local a) criminal b) business c) political issues -- again, Putin's responsibility is a strange idea. You are mistaken, speaking that "15 journalists were working on stories critical of Putin and/or the Kremlin policies":

1. Photo-reporter Alexander Yefremov, May 2000. His car with 2 officeers was exploded by Chechen warlords. 2. Igor Domnikov, June 2000. While mainly interested in Literature, he wrote several critical articles touching activity of Vice-Governor of Lipetsk District Sergey Dorovsky. While the trial on 16 members of the band of killers headed by Tagiryanov is going, journalist of Novaya Gazeta believes the main customer of the murder was Sergey Dorovsky. 3. Eduard Markevich, September 2001. Was an editor of a local newspaper, opposition to authorities of his town. Dark story. In 2003 investigation was stopped. 4. Natalya Skryl, March 2002. Was a reported of newspaper in Rostov District. Covered situation around local business: Metal plant, building of a sea terminal. Investigation was stopped. 5, 7. Valery Ivanov, Alexei Sidorov -- editors of the same newspaper in Tolyatti, consequently killed. Neither killers nor customers were found. Criminal. 6. Roddy Scott, British reporter, September 2002. Killed in the Russian republic of Ingushetia. Russian soldiers found his body in Ingushetias Galashki region, near the border with Chechnya, following a bloody battle between Russian forces and a group of Chechen fighters. 8. Adlan Khasanov, camera operator, 2004. Was killed in the same terroristic act when Chechen warlords killed Akhmat Kadyrov, father of the Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov. 9. Paul Klebnikov. In August 2006 a source close to the case told Reuters the investigation was now focussing on a possible link between Klebnikovs murder and his interest in the possible misappropriation of Russian funds intended for the reconstruction of Chechnya. 10. Pavel Makeyev, 2005. Journalist was knocked down by a motorcycle when he was viewing night races. Dark story. Nobody was convicted, investigation was stopped. 11. Magomedzagid Varisov, June 2005. The best known political analytic and journalist in Dagestan was shot by a killer. I failed to find info about the trial. 12. Vagif Kochetkov, killed in 2006 in city of Kirov. Murderer stole money and mobile, documents from his bag also disappeared. The trial is going on. 13. Anna Politkovskaya, October 2006.

I also note that Safronov's death was not recognized by CPJ as a murder. He was listed in 2007 unconfirmed murders. Wait until CPJ confirms that (if it does), then it's ok to include him in the list.

So, my point is, that it's better to speak, how many were killed in 1990s, and how many in 2000s, as if speaking about certain eras in life of the country, without making special references to anyone's presidentship. Anyway, if you still insist that it's important to note how many were killed under Putin, ok, but we will need also to note how many were killed under Eltsin.

As you know, Putin was appointed prime-minister of Russia in August 5, 1999. Acting President was Eltsin; you should understand, that the first figure in Russia that time was Eltsin. In dec. 31, 1999 Eltsin resigned from his position and Putin officially became "fulfilling the duties of president". He officially became president after March elections in 2000. So, a point when Putin became acting as a president was January 1, 2000. So we have a total of 30 murdered before Jan 1. 2000, and 14 murdered after, by the version of CPJ.

The last but not least. Please, read WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. You should know, that all questions in Wiki are settled by the way of a discussion and consensus. You should understand that you can't just "allow or not something". Answering your question. A plenty of users edit this page, in theory, unlimited number of them. I was the user who cancelled your edit for the reasons I explained above. I have no information about Putin editing Wikipedia. Any more questions?

User:Ellol

Re: Ellol -No review committee or mediation?

No more questions. I stand corrected. Thanks for educating me about WikiPedia.

I remember when I first heard about this, I thought it was absolutely great. An unbiased, factual encyclopedia on line. For 3 years I have let my subscriptions run out, and left a few trees in the forest by not buying hard copies.

Now, it appears, I was entirely wrong. Any topic can have a bunch of hooligans hanging out all night, playing Goebbels with their favorite subject, and there is no accountability? No oversight? No final authority? No final review? That is not an encyclopedia. That is propaganda anarchy.

The most attentive (or those with the most spare time on their hands) can rewrite history any way they see fit, and keep writing retrograde versions over the truth?

So Putin's KGB, which certainly has the most resources to dedicate to the task, can man this web page "behind the curtains" and make sure he looks good 99.9% of the time that anyone seeks data.

And, although I do not care to see what lies they have about Dubbya (almost as sick and vile a cretin), I am sure Libby and Rove are keeping their guys up at night, to whitewash his lies. But as much of a fascist as he and all his lying pals are, they do not dare condone -or ignore journalists murdered during his administration, no less 19, or being the prime suspect in two of the assassinations. That is the DEFINITION of Putin. Besides the deranged company he keeps -and defends (Kim-ill and Ahmadinejad). This article reads like a tour guide. Girls want to kiss Putin.

Right. Kiss Polonium Putin. OK, take it away. You can have it. You can erase this farewell. I will go shell out the bucks for a new encyclopedia and whack a few trees. At least there, somebody with a real name and address has to accept responsibility for any lies, slant or spin they print. This is no encyclopedia. It is a bloated blogsite -with a veil of academic legitimacy.

Well, Dana, all is not so easy. You may have a look at the history, the major squall of attacks on this page is "Putin is an asshole" and "Don't trust him he's a bad guy." If this is done by FSB personnel, they have a weird sense of humour. But after all, if you feel the dispute is not resolved properly, feel free to address the Arbitration Committee, or let's continue dispute. Perhaps you do not quite understand this, but Russia is a presidential republic. Prime minister is the second figure in the state, and it's appointed by the President after approval by the Parliament. Do you understand that Yeltsin could in any moment dismiss Putin from his position, while Putin was a Prime Minister? But it was a conscious policy of Yeltsin to put forward that figure who he considered to be a good pretendent for position of President. If you are interested about my personal perception of Putin -- well, if mantra of Bush's administration is "was on terror", mantra of Putin's administration is "stability, stability at any price". Perhaps it's not exactly what Russia needs now. I'm sure, that the following year will bring some really interesting news about Russia. ellol 05:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ellol -No review committee or mediation?

you are 100% correct. Wikipedia is nothing more than force-fed propoganda. Wiki-hawks impose their view using "NPOV" as their disguise. in reality, they are forcibly imposing a single viewpoint and they absolutely will not tolerate any dissent. This site is a farce.

Russian sources

i understand that this is an article on a russian topic, but is it ok to have russian lang. sources for an english encylopedia?

Yes, it is OK. Of course, English language sources are preferrable and should be used first when possible.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some concerns on content and NPOV

The section on Media Freedom seems somewhat journalistic (e.g. "The toll of the past week in the city of Samara alone is very worrying"). Furthermore, the content of that section seems a bit detached from the subject of Putin himself, perhaps warranting inclusion in another article or at least a bit of NPOV summary.

As an inexperienced and junior "wikipedian", I'm hesitant about making such major changes myself (plus time pressures currently deny me the means), but I thought it best to make a note of my concerns.

Edit; just saw some of the comments above about this article's impartiality etc. Well, I can assure all the critics I'm a fresh-faced, totally neutral student of politics, and have no bias one way or another! My concerns are with style, and placement of content - the content itself seems acceptable to me.

Media Freedom in Russia

Why is this section under Putin's biographical entry? It has nothing about Putin in it, it should either be an article in its own right . I dont understand why its there at all Pubuman 07:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You know I couldn't agree more. It should be separated into a new article especially considering its size to the rest of the article. If people want to comment on media coverage in Russia here, then it should be presented through policies or other government levers.

Also as a side note, the sections on the first and second presidential terms are very brief and selective. Can someone who knows expanded them through addition of policies, state programs, national projects (and their results), changes to the economic regulations, overall economic change, research (military and civilian), infrastructure developments, etc. It may also be better to break-up foreign ploicies by region (e.g. EU, Central Asia, US, etc.) 61.68.182.129 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree too. It would be a good idea to make a separate article on this subject (there is such article in Russian Wikipedia), and describe this here only briefly.Biophys 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact I just created article Media freedom in Russia. You are welcome to improve it.Biophys 17:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody should consider some shortening of the section here, because it would be not natural to work on two articles simultaneously. ellol 10:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys I have removed this section from the Domestic Support section as it clearly belongs in the Media Freedom section. I've pasted the section below.

"The high approval ratings must be seen in a context of a country where the government controls most of the mass media. In late 2006 and early 2007, opposition forces under the umbrella organization the Other Russia mounted demonstrations in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other cities. The Russian police disrupted the demonstrations and detained some demonstrators, including the former world chess champion, Gary Kasparov. However, several of the protests were alllowed to be carried through. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› "

Mind you it doesn't seem NPOV, i.e. there is continual debate regarding the first sentence. As for the rest - it was included in the article before but deleted as inconsequential later. 59.101.249.215 16:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the media is really strange. I would believe -- major TV channels. ellol 17:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work guys, I will try and do some work on the new article after mid year exams.Pubuman 00:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Again somebody claims "The high approval ratings must be seen in a context of a country where the government controls most of the mass media."!! Read at least Media freedom in Russia, it's incomplete yet, but there's no total control of the government over informational flows. ellol 16:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order

Is it possible for someone to arrange his foreign policy in chronological order.

Threat to bring back Cold War

Putin recently said if US puts missiles in Europe, Putin promises to target Europe. [39] -Yancyfry 02:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Alas, our poor world still holds on the system of Mutually assured destruction. It's military logics. Objects of military "nuclear" infrastructure are the top in the list of potential targets. I believe, American icbm's top priority are missile shafts of the "potential adversary", as well as Russian icbm's top priority are shafts of their "potential adversary". Of course, God keep these nations from a war. Putin exactly said[40], "And it is clear that if part of the United States’ nuclear capability is situated in Europe and that our military experts consider that they represent a potential threat then we will have to take appropriate retaliatory steps. What steps? Of course we must have new targets in Europe. And determining precisely which means will be used to destroy the installations that our experts believe represent a potential threat for the Russian Federation is a matter of technology. Ballistic or cruise missiles or a completely new system." ellol 04:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The key words are "part of the United States’ nuclear capability is situated in Europe". This has never happened before, even during the Soviet period. If the Americans bring their nukes to Eastern Europe, Russia will have to respond symetrically, e.g., by moving its nukes to Cuba. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes? Really? 1) The interceptor missiles are not nuclear 2) But nukes have already been deployed here [41], let alone the Soviet Period. Colchicum 14:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Those nukes were NATO's, not American (as if it really mattered). And the Unites States is the only state that actually used this sort of weapon. So the scare is very real. Putin knows what he is talking about better than you and me. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Those nukes are American, most of them in the strictest sense possible. Of course, all the American nukes are also NATO's in a sense. Putin knows what he is talking about better than you and me. I am not so sure. Does he know about circumsition or WCs better than anybody else? He cannot keep in mind everything. The interceptor missiles are not nukes. As to the scare, it is probably not that easy in a parliamentary democracy, of course, unless Russia attacks NATO first or someone else goes mad. Well, everyone can go mad, but then there is no reason to fear more right now. And the Unites States is the only state that actually used this sort of weapon ...when no particular authorizing procedure existed, during a war of defense. Well, if Putin would attack US like Imperial Japan did, I'll not object against such an action. Colchicum 15:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely you know, that there are kinds of secret information, accessible to a very tide circle of people, including the President. As Strugatsky wrote, "Burn before reading" :). You don't want to dispute, that some of information about Strategic Missiles may be of this kind? ... Surely you won't object. Vapor heated up to the temperature of several thousand degrees can't object anything. No matter in which country you would be. ellol 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This would return us to the situation of the Missile Crisis. It's costly and senseless. Is that any sense, if American sites would start burning 5 minutes earlier, and less percentage of Russian nuclear capabilities would be destroyed? I don't think so. In any way, nuclear war would be a global defeat for the whole world, without a chance for anybody to win. It would kill billions and return humankind to Middle ages. Any way, Putin noted, that they wouldn't do this thing. ellol 14:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I know what he said as well as you do. Let's not spoil the fun with boring quotations. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed the quotation. ellol 14:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriately long coverage of "media freedoms"

Half of this supposedly biographical page is occupied by the very partial examination of media freedoms in Russia. As most people living in Russia are not concerned about this (see the polls) and the section explicitly contradicts WP:UNDUE, I suggest we move it elsewhere. Instead, it would have been helpful to mention some of the topics that Putin himself considers important (see his assessment of his term here). --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say, there's no need to search for the proper place. The contents of this section is fully placed in Media freedom in Russia. I believe, the section should be deeply shortened, given there's a link to the main article. ellol 13:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Do you think kunstkamera.livejournal.com and saisisa.com are valid encyclopaedic sources? --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There are just photos, and practically no other information. Just photos do not prove anything, but they do not harm. ellol 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Putin's opinion on his term (for processing)

"I think there are things of which I and the people who have worked with me can feel deservedly proud. They include restoring Russia’s territorial integrity, strengthening the state, progress towards establishing a multiparty system, strengthening the parliamentary system, restoring the Armed Forces’ potential and, of course, developing the economy. As you know, our economy has been growing by 6.9 percent a year on average over this time, and our GDP increased by 7.7 percent over the first four months of this year alone.

When I began my work in 2000, 30 percent of our population was living below the poverty line. There has been a two-fold drop in the number of people living below the poverty line since then and the figure today is around 15 percent. By 2009-2010, we will bring this figure down to 10 percent, and this will bring us in line with the European average.

We had enormous debts, simply catastrophic for our economy, but we have paid them off in full now. Not only have we paid our debts, but we now have the best foreign debt to GDP ratio in Europe. Our gold and currency reserve figures are well known: in 2000, they stood at just $12 billion and we had a debt of more than 100 percent of GDP, but now we have the third-biggest gold and currency reserves in the world and they increased by $90 billion over the first four months of this year alone.

During the 1990s and even in 2000-2001, we had massive capital flight from Russia with $15 billion, $20 billion or $25 billion leaving the country every year. Last year we reversed this situation for the first time and had capital inflow of $41 billion. We have already had capital inflow of $40 billion over the first four months of this year. Russia’s stock market capitalisation showed immense growth last year and increased by more than 50 percent. This is one of the best results in the world, perhaps even the best. Our economy was near the bottom of the list of world economies in terms of size but today it has climbed to ninth place and in some areas has even overtaken some of the other G8 countries’ economies. This means that today we are able to tackle social problems. Real incomes are growing by around 12 percent a year. Real income growth over the first four months of this year came to just over 18 percent, while wages rose by 11-12 percent.

Looking at the problems we have yet to resolve, one of the biggest is the huge income gap between the people at the top and the bottom of the scale. Combating poverty is obviously one of our top priorities in the immediate term and we still have to do a lot to improve our pension system too because the correlation between pensions and the average wage is still lower here than in Europe. The gap between incomes at the top and bottom end of the scale is still high here – a 15.6-15.7-fold difference. This is less than in the United States today (they have a figure of 15.9) but more than in the UK or Italy (where they have 13.6-13.7). But this remains a big gap for us and fighting poverty is one of our biggest priorities."[42]

And now please substantiate Putin's claim that these achievements are due to him. Colchicum 15:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen such a claim. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, thechnically you are right, he might be proud of what other people have done, although this is sort of strange. Colchicum 08:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Things are done by the state, while Putin is only the head of the state. Note: Putin sais "we", rarely "I". Or at least, "I and the people who have worked with me". ellol 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Things are done by the state -- It is far from obvious. The things might be done by ordinary citizens or by external circumstances (e.g. high petroleum prices, which have nothing to do with Putin). Colchicum 08:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a solid opinion. Not digging into details, I believe it would do. ellol 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of Putin's alleged successes have more to do with looting the private sector. For instance, his government may have paid off its foreign debts, but the way it did it was by theft of resources previously held in the private sector. The re-nationalization of the oil and gas industries, or their illegal transfer to the corrupt friends of Putin, are perfect examples. MarcMontoni 16:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

Why does anything added to this page about the unnatural deaths of people who are critical of Putin always removed? wrc_wolfbrother 17:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Half of Russia is critical of Putin. If anybody voices it publicly, it changes little. ellol 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's worse than that, because it's not just information about his dead opponents. It's **anything** critical of Putin. For instance, he had his military conduct a bloody massacre of Chechens. When I tried to provide that for balance in the section on Chechnya, it was promptly removed. Soviets used to have a joke about their televisions: "Q: Why do Russian televisions have windshield wipers on them? A: To wipe the spit off." It's unfortunate that WikiPedia has become a tool of Putin's propaganda machine. MarcMontoni 16:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a massacre. But not only Russian military murdered Chechen combatants and noncombatants. Also Chechens murdered civilian Russian population. And I'm afraid it all just can't be reflected adequately in a short statement. Btw, a joke told twice is twice funnier, than a joke told four times. ellol 16:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

... and who cares? The issue at hand here isn't which is worse, the Putin-led Russian Government or the Chechen rebels. The issue is, as I already stated, that all criticism of Putin, and especially the unnatural deaths of those critics, is removed ASAP. Is this an encyclopedia of information, or a Russian propaganda outlet? wrc_wolfbrother 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If he speaks English, then why does he always speak through interpreters?

I've been trying to add the comment that Putin strangely uses interpreters when conversing with english-speaking people, but someone keeps removing it.

Has it ever been explained why he feigns a lack of understanding of english, to the point of using interpreters when talking to english-speaking people?

• I believe it is usual among diplomats. It provides a number of advantages:
  • You can think of your reply while the interpreter doing his job
  • Eliminating chances to misunderstand the person you are talking with. E.g. Berezovsky recently made a sensation answering yes, on the question: "Do you support The Other Russia" (Later he said that he thought the question was "Do you support the other Russians)
  • Eliminating chances to say something funny or stupid because of the imperfect language
  • Somehow showing that he is on equal grounds with his opponent --Alex Bakharev 03:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not all diplomats do it this way, but indeed, relying on interpreters is a common practice. Among those that have the choice (that is, that know the language under question), it's sometimes viewed as a question of image, too. In any case, "feigning" does not belong here. Digwuren 20:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Putin's own words, he started learning English during his first term but does not have enough time for extensive practice. He understands English but would not speak in public. Besides, the United Kingdom and United States are perceived as alien countries here, and their language as a tool of modern cultural imperialism. It would have been preposterous to broadcast interviews of a Russian president speaking some foreign tongue, with a Russian translation. I don't think many Russians would appreciate that. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that Putin's language skills are somewhat exaggerated. It is probably true that his passive knowledge of English and German is quite good, but that is where it ends. The few times I heard him speak Englsh he was merely reading out a pre-written speech, stuttering and mispronouncing many words. The claim that he 'speaks German with near-native fluency' is way over the top. Listen to him speaking some German here. At best, I'd assess it as 'intelligible'. His Russian is probably better than mine though...Vlaflipje1982 18:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I've seen an old TV interview when he was in the KGB where he was speaking english.

"worlds only true democrat" statement

Shouldn't it be noted that Putin laughed after he said that? QZXA2 19:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved these words to Anecdotes. ellol 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gabala Station

Historian Anne Applebaum believes that "Whether by waging cyberwarfare on Estonia, threatening the gas supplies of Lithuania, or boycotting Georgian wine and Polish meat, he [Putin] has, over the past few years, made it clear that he intends to reassert Russian influence in the former communist states of Europe, whether those states want Russian influence or not. At the same time, he has also made it clear that he no longer sees Western nations as mere benign trading partners, but rather as Cold War-style threats." Putin is playing a dangerous game By Anne Applebaum, 05/06/2007 British historian Max Hastings also now described Putin as a "Stalin's spiritual heir" in his article "Will we have to fight Russia in this Century?", and tells that although "a return to the direct military confrontation of the Cold War is unlikely", "the notion of Western friendship with Russia is a dead letter" A blundering Bush, Tsar Putin, and the question: will we, in this century, have to fight Russia? by Max Hastings

I removed these quotes for now. The problem is that they seem to illustrate Western comments to Putin's proposal on Gabala Station. But, both these articles are dated June 5, while Putin's proposal was made on June 7 [43]. So this is more of desinformation, rather than actual comments of Western analytics on Putin's proposal. ellol 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. We should avoid personal allegations in articles about living persons, lest they bring Wikipedia into disrepute. This project is not a soapbox. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I want only to say, that as these quotes were added again to the article, I left them in the text but marked as an example of surge of rhetorics following Putin's Munich speech. ellol 14:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some issues

I had a look at the text, and noticed some problems. I changed "study judo" into "practise judo" - since I suppose that was a mistranslation from Russian. I still have no clue what is meant by "disappointed Major". The major problem concerning the language of the artticle is the mixture of British and American English.

Some of the things in the humour are trivial and could easily be deleted. However, if we do keep something about "uncanny resemblances", should not we better refer to Arnolfini Portrait. I have seen the portrait in London, and the Arnolfini-Putin likeness is indeed striking. The pregnant Flemish lady bears an uncanny resemblance to Inge Vervotte, a young Belgian politician. Considering that a number of esoteric websites quote the Arnolfini-Putin resemblance as evidence of Putin being the Anti-Christ (yes, really - eg[44] ) I think that would be more noteworthy than some silly jokes about flying a whale to the moon (not presently relevant with all the oil money) or resembling a Harry Potter character. --Pan Gerwazy 09:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe I pointed out the resemblance in the article about two years ago. If someone keeps deleting it, he should explain himself here. Anyway, the portrait should be mentioned. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not deleted there. Only someone sourced it, and the source was later deleted. I have put it here as well. Perhaps there is a better link than mine - if we use that one we will have to add something about that Antichrist sillyness. Just noticed that most art critics seem to think that the lady is not pregnant - no doubt someone will link that to Putin's ideas about Russia's demographics (which according to some sources are not as bad as they look, thanks however mainly to immigration from Central Asia). Is there a Russian source for that "disappointing"? --Pan Gerwazy 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some more issues

I think it would be great to have a section placing Putin's views in context of the political spectrum. They may look trivial to some Russians, but in fact they aren't. Colchicum 14:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Putin recently told that "We have fewer such (dark) pages than do some countries, and they were less terrible than in some countries," ... "We have never used nuclear weapons against civilians and we have never dumped chemical weapons on thousands of kilometres of land as was the case in Vietnam." [45]. He probably forget that Soviet atomic bomb was tested on Soviet soldiers and civilians in Kazakhstan (many thousands died), and that defoliants were used on the cotton plantations in Soviet Asian republics. So, when Soviet schoolchildren were forced to work at these cotton fields, they contracted a lot of practically the same agent orange as in Vietnam. The difference: everything was tried on own people, not abroad.Biophys 06:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

God Bless America. ellol 17:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Marktwain403's edits to Media freedom section

Marktwain403's edits to the Media freedom seem completely inappropriate. It makes the section way, way too long. It's also a very poor cut-and-paste job from the already-existing article on the very same topic. It's also, as others have argued, inappropriate for this biography. I'd like others to weigh in before I revert Marktwain403's latest edit. --ElKevbo 02:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead ElKevbo, that's what the separate article was created for. There is no need to repeat the information twice, especially as it is not directly connected to Putin's biography.59.101.213.17 04:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I took what appeared to be some of the most pertinent and interesting info from the other article to use as a summary in this article. I'm hoping that both Marktwain403 and our anonymous friend(s) will try to discuss their proposed changes here this time instead of reverting without discussion. --ElKevbo 15:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You are going to have to work with me too, Elkevbo, if you want to avoid a continuous revert war on this. It may well be that Putin's suppression of the media may turn out to be the most important aspect of his administration and I will continue to try to post this information. I am willing to shorten it and provide better references if you will allow a good portion of it in the biography. Even though I may not have provided the best references, they do exist and the information I posted is valid. You can find that out for your self with a short search on the Internet. Also, Putin's primary opposition right now is Kasparov and a biography of Putin would not be complete without that information.

Marktwain403

A paragraph or two would be most appropriate. Anything more would be giving this undue weight in this particular biographical article. I'd be more than happy to let you write the summary if you can keep it appropriately short and well-referenced! The bulk of the material, however, belongs in the main Media freedom in Russia‎ article and not in this one. --ElKevbo 21:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Selected quotes

I removed the "Selected quotes" section yesterday but that change was reverted without discussion. I assert that the inclusion of such a section is inherently POV as it is the work of Wikipedia editors cherry-picking quotes they (the Wikipedia editors) believe represent Putin or his views. Further, all such quotes belong in Wikiquote or, at best, integrated into the body of the article in the appropriate place(s). --ElKevbo 15:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Selected quotes" section is very informative and absolutely necessary; your subjective judgment is no reason for removing it. If you want to remove it, you must provide a better reason than your likes or dislikes (which include applying labels such as POV without giving a reason for it other than saying "inherently"). If you think it's biased, you're free to provide other quotes. Note that most of these quotes were first "cherry-picked" by journalists -- I don't think many Wikipedians are listening to the Putin's speeches and doing the "cherry-picking". -- However, "anecdotes" section is not really necessary: most of it could be included in "selected quotes". Lebatsnok 15:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fans of Putin Influence this Biography

Ellol, Why are you such a fan of Putin that you don't want any negative information in the biography? All of your edits serve to show him in the best possible light when in fact he is rapidly becoming a dictator in Russia. Your edits are not from a neutral point of view.

• In fact, Wikipedia is not a place to label someone "a dictator" and push such a point of view. If there's a positive and relevant information, it must be included as well. Garret Beaumain 08:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lack of Media Freedom in Russia

I occasionally read the Putin biography and notice that often the biography does not contain important information about the lack of press freedom in Russia. This is one of the most important developments in the Putin administration. He has gone to great lengths to suppress freedom of the press to an extent that is unheard of in most democracies. Yet when I try to put detailed information about that, including well sourced information, it is usually quickly removed. My understanding is that it is being removed by a Russian. It is also noteworthy that many websites in Russia frequently are defaced if they contain material that is critical of the Russian President. It is a fact that most of the media in Russia is now controlled by the government. Is that going to hold true for Wikipedia also? I will try again to insert information about the problems that journalists face and the problems that anyone faces when they are critical of the Russian President. For example, a few weeks ago, supporters of the opposition were prevented from going to the city where a conference was being held with European countries. The government prevented that by simply declaring void the plane tickets of the opposition and preventing them from boarding the airplane. This forum ought not to echo the methods of the Russian government and therefore I request that true information about the lack of press freedom in Russia not be deleted from this site. Neutrality is one thing but aiding a dictator is quite another.

Marktwain403 00:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edits are unsourced and are obviously a poor cut-and-paste job from another article or a previous version of this article. Your edit adds too much length to this article when there is already another article dedicated to the topic under discussion. Finally, this article should concentrate on Putin as it is a biography and not a political statement or condemnation.

Please review our Neutral Point of View and verifiability policies. And please cease ad hominem attacks on other editors. We welcome your contributions and I'm sure that reasonable people can agree that the developments regarding press freedom in Russia are alarming and worthy of documentation. But let's make sure we're doing it in a responsible manner consistent with Wikipedia policies and in the correct articles. --ElKevbo 19:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if we are going to have a section about Media freedom in Russia it must be argumented talk. There are positive and negative sides and trends in situation about independence of media from the state. Simply blaming the situation in general would not help neither Russian journalists nor people of Russia, but hazard reputation of Wikipedia as a truthworthy source. Again, there's no point in removing info that Putin is supported by 80% of population or writing it's about lack of media freedom. Better high approval rating is about economic recovery after Russian financial crisis of 1998. Nobody is going to claim that Vladimir Putin is an ideal person or president. But his high approval rating obviously certifies that his policy is supported by majority of population. Usually to the end of second term people start to get annoyed by their president. But as it still holds at 80%, it means that either people notice certain positive changes in their lives which happened during Putin's terms, or he managed to give them the hope for decent future. 99% of info about Putin at Russian three major TV channels are mere information blocks without positive or negative emotional background.

If Vladimir Putin was a dictator he wouldn't be named in ironical context "Uncle Vova", "Mister Pu" or other ways that I heard myself. If Vladimir Putin is a dictator and Russian a dictatorship, shouldn't we just nuke each other to end this all stuff? Look around, more than half of the world are ruled by regimes sufficiently more undemocratic than Vladimir Putin's government, shouldn't we nuke them as well? ellol 20:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Most or all of that discussion should take place in the Media freedom in Russia‎ article, not this one. A brief summary of that article and a link to it is definitely appropriate for this article. --ElKevbo 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Elkevbo and Ellol, you are living in a fantasy world. Anytime a ruler has control of the press or most of it, it is not surprising that they will get high marks in the polls. What ridiculous reasoning you are using. The brutal dictator Stalin had the affection of a very substantial segment of the Russian people. He killed millions! The reason is that most of the time his terrible crimes went unreported.

I note also that there are a substantial number of complaints from other visitors to this site that anything critical of Putin gets promptly removed. You fans of Putin need to realize that he is not viewed as a democratic leader by very large numbers of people.

Marktwain403

First, I don't know what your response has to do with the issue at hand: inclusion of a summary of and a link to the Media freedom in Russia‎ article. Ellol is removing all reference to the issue and that article. You are inserting a very large chunk of text poorly cut from another article or a previous version that removes all of the accompanying and necessary references. Both of those extremes are unacceptable and make this article worse. I don't understand the resistance to do what is done in other Wikipedia articles: write a brief, neutral, and well-references summary of the issue and include a link to the longer and more extensive article.

Second, I again ask that you cease your personal attacks. Accusing me of being a "fan of Putin" is laughable, silly, and pointless. Please address the issues raised.

Finally, to repeat what I've already said to you: I have no wish to remove information from Wikipedia. You're welcome to include information critical of Putin in this and other articles. But that doesn't give you or anyone else free reign to do so indiscriminately and in a manner contradictory to our policies and practices. --ElKevbo 21:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

MarkTwain, I'm not fan of Putin. There are no complains, there were few complex issues but we got through them. Leave bones of Stalin rest in the place. It was long ago. There was cult of personality. There was a threat of physical destruction of dissidents. There was total censorship, i.e. all newspapers were to reconsile their issues with bosses from Communist Party. Nothing of that can be seen now. Compared to Stalin times media freedom in Russia is absolute: you took a wrong example. I live in a real country among real people. Russian private company Medialogy investigated Russian television in 2006: of all 13890 messages about Putin, 118 contained positive background and 38 contained negative. Positive and negative are about 1% of total messages. [46] This rejects any your suggestion about cult of personality of Putin. ellol 21:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, organizations of professional journalists disagree with you on whether or not there is a free press in Russia. There are many people who say there is very substantial suppression of dissent that happens in many ways. Do you deny that Kasparov's people were prevented from flying to Samara by the government? They certainly were prevented. Why do you deny what is a proven fact about the lack of media freedom in Russia? I don't contend that it is total, but it is very much present. Did you read the reports of "Reporters without Borders" and "Freedom House"? They have no motivation to lie about Russia.

Marktwain403

Yes, detaining some Other Russia people for several hours so they were late to get in Samara by airplane and missed Russia-EU summit was a dubious covert action of Russian authorities which perhaps directly contradicts Russian constitution which guarantees freedom of transition. How does this concern media freedom? Stop spitting around, lay your arguments on table. ellol 21:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ellol,

Surely you can see that one type of suppression is not really any different from another type. Those people wanted to travel to Samara wanted to do so to express their opposition to the government. That is just another aspect of free speech. And with respect to travel to Samara, they were not just delayed but prevented entirely from going. How do you answer the statements of professional organizations of journalists who are highly critical of the lack of press freedom in Russia? Are they just lying?

Marktwain403

Marktwain, the source sais there were 38 negative, not positive, statements on Russian TV about Putin. Stop reverting negative to positive. Or, are you just playing? It's unimportant what the source sais? Also, "The above should be understood in a context where the Russian government has almost complete control of the means of mass communications. It should not be very hard to be popular in a country where dissent is largely prohibited." statement is original research, which contradicts policy Wikipedia: No Original Research. ellol 21:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Ellol,

I don't understand your statement about 38 negative statements on Russian TV. I never mentioned that, you brought it up. As for references, it is a standard scholarly practice not to have to reference things that are generally known. I would say that it is generally known and generally accepted that there is very little media freedom in Russia. You didn't answer my question about what you think of the formal statements on press freedom put out by the two professional organizations, Reporters without Borders and Freedom House. Do you disagree with the consensus of reporters and others that media freedom has declined under Putin? Just to refresh your memory Eloll, here is what was said by Freedom House. Do you dispute this assessment? Do you prefer a regime that goes to great lengths to suppress criticism? Tell us, Ellol. Is that why you go to such great lengths to suppress any unfavorable comment about Putin in Wikipedia?

A report from the Organization "Freedom House" contained the following comments about Russia: "Media freedom was further curtailed in 2006 as President Vladimir Putin’s government passed legislation restricting news reporting and journalists were subjected to physical violence and intimidation. Although the Russian constitution provides for freedom of speech and of the press, authorities are able to use the legislative and judicial systems to harass and prosecute independent journalists ...Despite public objections, Russia’s parliament also passed amendments to the Law on Fighting Extremist Activity, which Putin then signed in July. The measure expanded the definition of extremism to include media criticism of public officials, and authorized up to three years’ imprisonment for journalists as well as the suspension or closure of their publications if they were convicted ...Authorities continued to exert influence on media outlets and determine news content in 2006."

Marktwain403

Forger about negative statements. You just weren't enough accurate and reverted my change "positive" to "negative". All is long ago written down: see this article [47]. I am too tired today and not going to repeat all its statements. Read it yourself. What Freedom House speaks are just words, not fully supported with facts. Then read at Media freedom in Russia certain claims from this article which exactly answer your question. There's no consensus, other than that in your mind. ellol 01:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

"It's generally accepted there's very little media freedom in Russia." Hm. I always thought there are certain problems with it, and the problem is the improve the situation. Hey, move in Russia, and watch Ren-TV. Or ask Marianna Maksimovskaya, whether she has only little freedom of speech when she discusses Other Russia organization or makes report about some new tensions between Russian journalists and authorities, or makes a sharp analysis of top political figures in Russia at her "Operation Successor" series. I'm wondered what would she answer you. ellol 01:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Under the heading "Second Term" the following was added.

"As reported in the New York Times [49]Putin faces an increase in internal opposition, mainly led by chess champion Gary Kasparov. Demonstrations in several Russian cities were met by police actions, including arrests and interfering with the travel of the protesters. The demonstrations were generally ignored or given very little notice in the government controlled press."

The statement concerning the "government controlled press" is POV. Please consider revising. (Also if you really consider 3000-5000 protesters a formidable opposition in a country of 144 million you've got to be joking.) 59.101.213.17 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Communist

Why isn't the Russian public disturbed by the fact that their country is being led by a former USSR official who's "Friends" that had some of the highest ranking positions in the the Soviet Union.--[[User:Franky210|Turtopotamus]] 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, because postimperial Russia stands among the least ideological countries around the world? Perhaps, because people believe that the only thing worth of discussing is money?

1992 should be considered change of geological epochs. Communist ideology doesn't exist now, but nothing had appeared instead, not even anti-communism, as in e.g. Poland. Hey man, if you know the Russian National Idea, it wouldn't be hard for you to become president of Russia. But nobody knows that idea yet, not even Putin or his opponents. ellol 18:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Some more specific answer is that Putin was in power for enough time for people to assess him for his deals, not his background. In 1999-2003 he solved Chechen problem and there was no other option. In 2003 he set the idea to double GNP of Russia in 10 years and his government made it working. In 2005-6 he set the idea of national projects and assigned people who made them working. Then he set the idea to revive specific areas of Russian industry by creating mighty corporations with governmental management... well we'll see if this works. ellol 18:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the original poster failed to realize that KGB agents were one of the most intelligent, connected and well educated people in the USSR. It of course makes sense that someone with that background should be on top. Go spread your red scare dogma somewhere else.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.230.161 (talk) 23:13, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Missing from the main article

Vladimir Putin served in Finland as young KGB officer at Soviet Embassy in Helsinki and later in Consulate of USSR in Turku. I think this Finland period should be also be mentioned in main article, before he was being transfered to DDR.

According to one French TV document Vladimir Putin´s mother is claimed to be a daughter of ethnic Russian father and Georgian mother. She claimed that her son was taken away from her from Georgia to Leningrad by her boy´s grandfather. Any prove of this story?

According the just published claim in Helsingin Sanomat 31.07.2007 Vladimir Putin has from his father´s side Tver Karelian roots as claimed among the Karelians in Daughter Karelia (Tver), Spiridon Putin is said to be a Karelian, not Russian.

JN

The French TV story you allude to is not really absent from the article. But you got the story wrong: according to that fable, Putin's mother was unmarried whzen she gave birth to him (casual relationship with a Russian guy who, unknown to her, was already married) and later married a Georgian man and went to Georgia where she still lives, unbothered by the whole world (except for journalists specializing in hoaxes) and surrounded by Vladimir's half-brothers and half-sisters. According to this story, Vladimir's stepfather did not like him being there and so, when his mother's sister suggested taking care of her nephew, his mother agreed willingly: one mouth less to feed. With Victorian cruelty, Vladimir's aunt then disposed of him in an orphanage, from where he got adopted by an elderly childless couple, who surprise, surprise, were also called Putin and, in order to make a natural birth claim more plausible (it is then claimed that over a particular age, women were no longer allowed to conceive in the Soviet Union) made Vladimir three years younger than he really was - simultaneously explaining why Vladimir was such a good pupil at school (was he really?). All we know for sure is that there is an old lady, called Putina, in a God-forsaken hamlet in Georgia, who claims to recognize her son in Vladimir Putin.

The problem with the Finnish story: though it probably is a hundred times more plausible than the Georgian one (and I say that without having researched it), we need some corroboration. By the way, if you want to contribute, please take an account, since this is an article which has been vandalized a lot by anonymous editors. --Pan Gerwazy 09:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Anekdotes

Section about anekdotes was removed by an user as trivia section. Perhaps it yet worth looking on it [48] to rewrite it in a proper manner or so. ellol 21:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is all I want you and others to do; incorporate some of it into the text if needed and send some of the quotes to Wikiquote. Then leave the rest out. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vladimir Putin/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

needs better referencing plange 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)