Talk:Vladimir Putin

No more myths here please

I had again to do this revert. While the part on the governors is not entirely evident and may deserve some more discussion, the claims related to economy and emigration are just laughable. It is widely known fact that most sectors of Russian economy saw huge growth in 2000s (agriculture, construction, automotive industry - well, almost everything). It is widely known fact that Russia has positive net migration rate and that emigration declined throughout 2000s to negligible levels.

If someone needs it, I may present the needed statistics, but seriously, it is so widely known and easily checkable facts, that I'm astonished to see that some editors here push all that factually wrong and POV trash here. GreyHood ^Talk 01:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the other points.

Religion: even if true, the issue is extremely minor to feature in the lead. Four major traditional religions in Russia enjoy full freedom and state support, some of the minor sects and denominations in Russia may find it difficult to develop, but nevertheless they still exist and their problems are of very little concern to 99% or so of Russian population.

Media: there is no formal restrictions on media in Russia. Government-owned media provide - naturally - mostly government-friendly points of view, but also cover major opposition actions and give say to opposition figures, especially in the recent months. There are plenty of liberal, critically-minded, opposition-slanted or openly anti-government media sources in the Internet and in the printed press, a major radio station Ekho Moskvy, and such TV channels as REN TV and Dozhd. To ignore the existence of all these and claim that media in Russia is restricted is laughable. The state media may be somewhat restricted in its general policy serving state purposes, but it is expected to be so. And btw Ekho Moskvy is owned by the government via Gazprom Media, and nevertheless it continuously criticizes and scolds the government.

Governors: how governors are elected or appointed in Russia is a purely technical issue, in some democratic countries governors are elected and in some appointed. Currently the regional parliaments in Russia may reject the governor candidates which they don't like, and the possible return in the near future to the governor elections by the population was announced recently. There is no place in the intro to describe procedures and future plans, and overall this seems to be rather minor and temporary aspect of Putin's policies. GreyHood ^Talk 02:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, governors are elected, but they are mostly elected by V. Putin. Also, "near future" event is not a matter of fact. So, have some mercy, don't turn Wikipedia into a political battleground. Gritzko (talk) 11:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at this article with the headline "Russians are leaving the country in droves" [1]. Some quotes from the article: "Experts believe that 100,000 to 150,000 people now leave the country annually and warn that the exodus reached dangerous dimensions in the last three years." "The intellectual potential of the nation is being washed away, as the most mobile, intelligent and active are leaving." Närking (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Greyhood, you appear to be in denial. It is a fact that Russia is suffering a massive brain drain because of Putin. This other article cites a survey of those who were considering emigrating, 2.2 percent cited rising nationalism, one percent said higher taxes, and 28.9 percent identified the possibility of Vladimir Putin returning as president and a whopping 62.5 percent said they were considering leaving for all of these reasons combined. --Nug (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are the statistics on emigration out of Russia. Here is the graph. It is clearly seen that emigration continuously fell throughout Putin era down from huge 1990s levels and now constitutes slightly over 30 thousand per year. It is neglible by all means, especially in comparison to the huge size of the Russian population and to 800 thousand leaving Germany per year.

So all this stuff about huge emigration is a myth, one of the pettiest and silliest of myths about Russia, created out of nothing. You may read how this myth was created here. GreyHood ^Talk 18:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, brain drain actually declined under Putin. Nanobear (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you cite the last census? It was quite badly conducted, I'd say. Also I heard that it was patronaged by United Russia. All my relatives say nobody recorded them, for example. I recall, there was a good article at Vedomosti citing UFMS data and some peculiarities of their counting procedures, you may google for that. Gritzko (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody cites the census here, it was conducted according to standard procedures. GreyHood ^Talk 13:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the insertion of information into the lead, as it is quite undue for the lead of this biographical article. As you state, not every single aspect of Putin's political career needs to be in the lead. The mention of governors, for example, could be covered by statements that Putin has rebuilt a strong vertical system of government. It could also mention that the Russian economy, whilst getting its impetus with natural resources, has seen other parts of the economy boom (take this for example). Yadda yadda yadda. Either way, information needs to be presented in the lead in an NPOV way, and is supposed to summarise the subject, not delve into intricacies. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 11:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

rebuilt a strong vertical system of government Rebuilt? You mean the Stalinist system or what? Gritzko (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"strong vertical..." sounds far too pro-Putin, bearing in mind the destruction of democracy it involved. As for the exodus of Russians - that's generally what I hear, Greyhood, not that people are flocking to Russia because of Putin's good work. Please do present your "stats". From a nice neutral source of course. As for the intro - getting rid of Governors was a central part of his agenda - deserves to be covered.Malick78 (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are the statistics on emigration out of Russia. Here is the graph. It is clearly seen that emigration continuously fell throughout Putin era down from huge 1990s levels and now constitutes slightly over 30 thousand per year. It is neglible by all means, especially in comparison to the huge size of the Russian population and to 800 thousand leaving Germany per year. All this stuff about huge emigration is a myth, one of the pettiest and silliest of myths about Russia, created out of nothing. You may read how this myth was created here.

Destruction of democracy etc. is just another propaganda cliché and a myth.

"Vertical of power" is a phrase widely used in the Russian media both in the negative or in the positive sense. GreyHood ^Talk 18:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) @Greyhood, while I thank you all for the official government statistics per Russian authorities, I have to add that my spot check comparison for Latvia (i.e., compared to the statistics captured for emigration to/immigration from Russia) yielded much larger numbers in both categories, that is, the Russian statistics grossly understated counts. This is why we do not rely on primary sources.

As for destruction and other myths, rather odd that Echo Moscow's management was all changed after Putin complained ("You have been pouring diarrhea over me from morning till night."), that radio shows scheduled to feature opposition figures get yanked from the air, but another conversation and, again, based on sources, not personal contentions (neither yours nor mine) regarding raw data or regarding incidents and their implications. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Latvian and Russian statisticians just use different counting systems for migration. The Russian one is based on propiska system and takes into account citizens. Latvia has no propiska and has the non-citizens institute; this means that the Latvian system is more loose and takes into account more categories of people. Anyway, the Latvian statistics grossly overestimated the population of Latvia before the 2011 census, and this fact speaks against the reliability of Latvian statistics and the methods used by it. GreyHood ^Talk 20:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the chief editor of Ekho Moskvy Alexey Venediktov to whom Putin said these words, he firmly denies the involvement of Putin in the change of the Ekho's management. Venediktov will continue to work as the chief editor, and the owners explained the move by the need to improve the business management (there is quite a room for improvement: despite all the recent protests and the Ekho "pouring diarrhea" round the clock, the electoral ratings of Putin grow). GreyHood ^Talk 20:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That is a good reason not to use Russian stats. Eg. I'm an emigrant and I have propiska. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We have no better stats for Russia than the Rosstat. Lots of "emigrants" who retained propiska and the Russian citizenship, especially the younger ones, do actually return to Russia in recent years after the study or work abroad, and the numbers of such people widely increased, there are many publications on that [2], [3], [4] etc. Even if there is some unaccounted emigration in this respect, it doesn't influence demographics on a noticeable scale. GreyHood ^Talk 01:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice. In 2010-2011 a lot of sources claimed the enormous amount of emigration (eg. the same Ekho on multiple occasions). Any of these sources are more recent and more reliable (especially compared to Rossiyskaya Gazeta, an official media of Russian government) regarding the negatve trends. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(Btw, when exactly have you emigrated?) Whatever the most recent tendencies in brain migration, it is quite clear that overall Russian emigration declined several times under Putin, and brain migration declined as well in consequence. Most recent Jan-Nov 2011 official data shows a negative net migration of about 2 thousand between Russia and non-CIS countries (excl. Georgia), which is a bit worse than about 1.5 thousand surplus in 2010 [5], but the overall scale of the figures is too minor to seriously speak of a "new wave of emigration" or so. GreyHood ^Talk 02:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, seems what I've written above is the propiska-based data. However, the same source also contains the data on the general migration without restriction to propiska registration. And here we have c. 20,000 surplus in net migration between Russia and non-CIS countries (excl. Georgia). More people come to Russia from such countries as Germany and Israel than leave there (+693 and +254 surplus respectively). So the data irrespective to propiska actually shows moderately positive net picture for Russia, and there are absolutely no reasons to speak about the brain drain or emigration waves. GreyHood ^Talk 03:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've emigrated during the Fall'2010, and I bet I'm not listed as an emigrant (to date I receive all kind of mail, including that of official bodies, on my propiska address). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

From the headlines this week "Putin Plan Targets Population Drop" [6]. "Zubarevich said the earlier resettlement program only brought 30,000 Russians back to the country within four years." Apparently Putin has seen a problem and has tried to reverse it, but failed. Närking (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a note about "have seen": hardly in Moscow one can find someone age over 35, who doesn't know several emigrants in person. It was impossible not to notice this problem. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The circle of people you know depends on your social status and education. Anyway, over a million people emigrated from Russia in the last 20 years, and few more millions in the late USSR, with Moscow being the largest center and hub for emigration, so no wonder. And there is no point blaming this on Putin (hope the fact of your own recent emigration won't affect the neutrality of your own approach): firstly, the emigration reduced several times under Putin, secondly, there is a large positive net migration to Russia, thirdy, there is apparently a net surplus even in migration from some Western countries, fourthly, it is normal to migrate for better work or study in a modern globalized word (consider some 738 thousand emigrants from Germany in 2008 [7], more than 682 immigrants the same year). GreyHood ^Talk 13:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Though my emigration was not motivated by Putin's personality, it was exclusively motivated by the processes he represent, so there is at least one confirmed emigrant to blame Putin for. Seriously, FWIW I won't believe in any official stats of the period of Putin's reign, as I witnessed substantial fraud regarding such stats due to my professional experience in Russia. IMHO all such stats are those with known biases and thus are questionable sources. I would also note that 2010-2011 are known for escalation of emigration, so I wouldn't even mention the stats of 2008-2009. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: taking in account the level of the social acceptance of migration in Russia (and particularly in biggest cities), it is not normal to emigrate from Russia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your personal experience is interesting, but we can't use it as a source, nor it is a serious argument in estimating the validity of the sources. Overall, this discussion is rather pointless, since even if (contrary to the non-propiska official data) emigration rose in 2010-2011, there is no proof of any significant scale or importance of that, and there is no sense to add information on a two years fluctuation into the lead. GreyHood ^Talk 14:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@Dmitrij My experience was more or less the same. Living in Europe, I was not officially an emigrated person. There are some UFMS stats based on actual border records, and those are different from official-official stats based on those pedantic pals who cared to undergo ПМЖ procedures. Also, don't put too much passion into arguing with Greyhood. He is inconvincible and generally follows an algorithm: (1) remove all info unpleasant for Putin's image (2) argue endlessly at the Talk page till everyone else gets tired and forgets where it started. If you'd check pages on currently "hot" Russian political topics (like Russian_legislative_election,_2011) then up to 50% of respective talk pages are written by Greyhood arguing with somebody else (sometimes three or four persons at once). I personally started to suspect he is one of those paid nashist trolls praising Putin online on full time basis. Gritzko (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol, you are trolling yourself. You have returned to Russia, haven't you, Gritzko? So what was the point to consider you officially an emigrated person? And it is extremely funny when you suspect me "one of those paid nashist trolls praising Putin online on full time basis" without no any proof, while there is enough evidence that you simply continue your off-wiki and real life political activism and propaganda in the form of on-wiki advocacy. Stop it now, please, and stop pushing ridiculous POV. GreyHood ^Talk 15:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So, Greyhood, you are stalking my accounts on social networks, right? Tell me your real name and affiliation or you are going to my personal ignore list forever. Gritzko (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid calling Greyhood a troll, as (1) we are not supposed to do it and (2) such statements in fact damage credibility of another (your, mine) side of discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(No need to worry about accusations of trolling. WP:DUCK - as Greyhood himself says.)Malick78 (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you ask, I will. But, personally, I don't consider it a discussion when the other side is Greyhood (again). I just cannot afford to waste my time in such a way. So, back to the subject. We need some good immigration study to resolve the matter. Any ideas? Gritzko (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

All I can say on this topic is that no Russian sources can stand WP:NPOV, as there is just enough problems with credibility and biasing on each side. I think we need some EU studies, as (thanks to mr. Putin's overtake of media control) the US is now widely regarded as an enemy in Russia (read "potential POV dispute again") and I'm not aware of any other comprehensive research vehicle on the matter. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Official Rosstat data is credible and there is no reason to accuse it in POV. Rosstat data is used all throughout the country, and by international organizations when assessing and researching Russian economy, demographics, etc. Should we start discarding U.S. statistics about itself as POV , EU statistics about itself as POV, etc? This is getting ridiculous. No one else has even remotely as good technical capabilities as Rosstat to estimate things in Russia, and there is no credible evidence behind the claim that it manipulates statistics. GreyHood ^Talk 15:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dmitrij, I hope you have read this explanation of the emergence of emigration myth. This is pretty simple. GreyHood ^Talk 15:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure I read it. It can be attributed with zero-reliability, fact playing and weasel argumentation. It takes Rosstat numbers as credible, which indicates that either the author has a point of view he wants/needs to push upon the rest of us or he didn't even try to think about the matter before he wrote this. Please quite citing Rosstat and derivative sources. A crystal-clear fact: no single editor involved in this discussion, specifically those from Russia, will ever believe in these stats. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise than stating your personal misbelief you haven't provided any credible alternative stats, or the explanation why the Rosstat data is incorrect. As for the source on the myth creation, the author is from Russia and now an emigrant in California, the original author lives in Russia, and it was even re-translated back to Russian and published at Inosmi.ru. So it seems some (and in fact lots of) Russians both in Russia and abroad find it credible. GreyHood ^Talk 16:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(1) I've already stated my reasons I contest the usage of Rosstat as a source in any Russia-related article. (2) the fact that this publication was translated to Russian by InoSmi says exactly nothing about its credibility. Instead it says that InoSmi's editors found it worth notice. A lot of factually wrong material and misinformation is daily printed in Russia (you claimed the same about Vedomosti today, regardless of the fact that it has really solid reputation for fact checking, opposite to Dmitry Rogozin). Overall, it is pretty clear that consensus is that Rosstat is unreliable and the emigration from Russia is increasing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You have not provided any reliable sources and only stated your misbelief. Contesting "the usage of Rosstat as a source in any Russia-related article" is ridiculous to say the least, since most of Russian and international statistics on Russia is based on Rosstat. And sorry, there could be no consensus against the facts and mainstream reliable sources. GreyHood ^Talk 17:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your observation about consensus contradicts with the observations of the rest of participants in this discussion, which might suggest you something. I'm not supposed to provide another source of stats, as that's you who uses Rosstat as a source for deleting content from this page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

And to contest my deleting content based on reliable Rosstat data you should provide sources which prove that Rosstat data is unreliable. As for consensus, perhaps you haven't noticed, but two people support my position here, and so far only two actively contest it (including you, an emigrant with a confessed bias against the system represented by Putin, and another emigrant who returned to Russia - which may be an illustration of some of my assertions - but who is engaged in political activism against the current Russian government). GreyHood ^Talk 19:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Known bias? I'm not the source, my biases are just out of question. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding immigration, here is a paywalled article by Vedomosti claiming that professional immigration in 2009 was on the order of 100 000. That more or less matches my personal impressions. Note that this is only the brain drain figure, not the total immigration figure. Actually, Vedomosti had a thorough study of the subject with lots of numbers, but I suspect that one is paywalled as well. At least, I can't find it. Gritzko (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is some difference between the words immigration and emigration, Gritzko. GreyHood ^Talk 15:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The article is about immigration to various countries (see the numbers). Or emigration from Russia (see total). More helpful remarks? Gritzko (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Professional or educational emigration discussed in the article is different from emigration with no return. Aren't you a living proof of it?

I am a really rare exception. And chances are, I will return back to the norm. Based on my own experience and that of people I know: as a rule, people don't return. Gritzko (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, given that you address my personal details, may I ask you, what is your real name? Gritzko (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Vedomosti is an opposition-slanted edition which often publishes not entirely correct, cherry-picked, biased or even false information. For example recently they published that the Russian government allegedly plans major cuts in defense [8] (thus ignoring the completely opposite announcements, long-existing plans and actions of the government), which was immediately refuted by Vice Premier Dmitry Rogozin [9]. And they do such things very often.
• In this particular case, Vedomosti doesn't cite the source for their figures. So it can't be verified. The Rosstat data is surely more credible than some unreferenced figures of unknown origin. GreyHood ^Talk 16:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've just checked the latest UNFPA State of World Population report [10] and can't find any mention of huge migration from Russia there, and UNFPA is the only source mentioned by Vedomosti (in connection to a different figure of a total post 1992 emigration from Russia- and so far I can't find confirmation of the Vedomosti-claimed 3 mln at UNFPA). GreyHood ^Talk 16:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The source claims moderate fertility and death rate, high (world's second) rates of immigration and overall population decrease. Once calculated these numbers present the steady emigration rate (not as steady as immigration rate though). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The report claims the second highest cumulative number of immigrants in Russia, not the second highest rate (see List of countries by net migration rate), and -0.1% of population decrease forecast for 2011-2015. These numbers per se do not necessarily "present the steady emigration rate" and could mean anything including high negative natural growth plus high immigration, or a low immigration/emigration and close to zero natural growth. GreyHood ^Talk 17:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The natural growth and birth rate are discussed in the article. Regardless of how you interpret the numbers, the difference is pretty substantial. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
        • In which article? There is nothing on that in Vedomosti article linked above. If you mean the articles spreading misinterpreted Stepashin qoute - there is no figures on death or birth rate in them as well. GreyHood ^Talk 19:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
          • In the UNFPA report you've linked. And please stop breaking the formatting! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Name the relevant page please. On p. 127 the Russian version of the 2011 UNFPA report gives not birth rate, but fertility coefficient of 1.5 children per woman which corresponds to the Rosstat data. GreyHood ^Talk 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Vedomosti don't need to be verified. In contrast ti Dmitry Rogozin they have rock-solid reputation for fact-checking. The only problem with this publication is that it goes against your point of view. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Vedomosti have no rock-solid reputation for fact-checking, as the recent story shows, as well as many previous incidents. Rogozin is in charge of the Russian defense program, he is the primary source and verification. And an obvious thing is that credible media publications give or name their sources for the data. GreyHood ^Talk 17:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand you. Vedomosti is rare case of Russian media usable for verification. Rogozin is a primary source, and thus may be only used if his statement is supported by reliable independent third-party secondary source like Vedomosti. See WP:IRS for details. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ha, and other reliable independent third-party secondary sources (link provided above) supported Rogozin's refutation of a story made-up by Vedomosti. And Vedomosti simply can't be more authoritative on Russian defense plans than Rogozin, who heads these plans. GreyHood ^Talk 19:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see no reliable sources supporting rebuttal. I see just an obscure source informing about Rogozin's statement. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• You play a lost game here. Rogozin's rebuttal is all over Russian media ([11], [12], [13] etc.) and he is in charge of the defense. GreyHood ^Talk 20:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What is your argument about? The Chief of Gen Staff said armor is crap, they are not buying that. Rogozin (a politician) said they'll buy it, dammit. So what? The army will buy crappy armor then. How does it relate to Vedomosti? Gritzko (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

My statement on Greyhood (just in case for COI/etc debate). Given how much time the guy spends on Wikipedia (close to full-time, by my impressions) and how opinionated he is, it is highly unlikely any arguing will bring any reasonable outcome. In the past, I was protecting one single section of one single article from being badly POVed or entirely deleted by Greyhood. That took enormous effort. In 2011, I saw him doctoring numerous articles and claiming outrageous stuff on Talk pages. Now, I simply don't have the time to argue through all that BS, so I'll resort to the (undo) a my primary tool. All the best, Gritzko (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

---

@Dmitrij. Regarding those controversial outcomes of Putin's rule, we may resort to simply citing notable people. That will not shut certain editors up, simply because that certain editor has a pattern of accusing any critic of being pro-Western/opposition/biased/incompetent. For example, formerly he claimed on this very page that Gorbachev is biased/not-notable-at-all/etc and that his opinion should be erased, erased, erased. Western press is also biased/incompetent/etc. Basically, everybody is biased and incompetent unless they praise Putin now. But at least, that provides firmer ground for us and then we'll simply click (undo) in case the cleansing continues. Gritzko (talk) 08:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• This is why I suggest reporting him. Whether Greyhood is paid or not, he is totally unobjective and biased in his editing and dismissal of info he dislikes. It's gone too far and he's causing the rest of the users problems. Report, report, report.Malick78 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Moscow Times writes today again about the Russian brain drain [14]. A quote from the article: "The brain drain has had a major impact on the nation's economy and educational system. Each year, 15 percent of graduates leave the country, and since the fall of the Soviet Union, 800 institutes have closed their doors. In all, about 800,000 scientists have emigrated from Russia." Närking (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• The article doesn't mention sources of data and how many of those 15% return to the country after study or work abroad. Large professional and educational migration is normal in modern world, and Russia's problem is not about many young graduates temporarily or permanently leaving the country (it is agreed generally, and by Russian officials too, that it is good when people receive experience abroad). Russia's problem is not enough established scientists coming or returning to Russia.
• Interestingly, this article also doesn't mention how many institutes and universities were opened in Russia in the last 20 years, and how the total number of higher education students multiplied almost three times [15], which is good on one hand since it means that the majority of younger generations receive higher education, but on the other hand lots of people (will) have problems with receiving jobs corresponding to their education.[16] On yet another hand, however, only a (small?) share of graduates in Russia really wants to work in the professions they studied (or "studied") or have capabilities to do so. One of the effects of this is that the number or share of graduates leaving the country does not necessarily reflect the size of brain drain, given how much higher education is widespread in Russia and how not every educated person actually has brains.
• Overall, both the growth of higher education students and the problems with scientist jobs and brain drain started in 1990s and are not related to Putin's policies. Putin's policies led to the decrease of overall emigration and brain drain as consequence, though they were not able to stop it completely and reverse. GreyHood ^Talk 13:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Moscow Times is notable and has a good reputation. It's a good source. Stop arguing with everything anyone says just because you don't like it. People are still fleeing Russia in droves. Most sources reflect that, except the government ones. So let's go with the majority of sources. End of.Malick78 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Nope they don't. Please stop cherry-picking facts which per se don't mean that "people are still fleeing Russia in droves" and stop disregard the more reliable sources such as Rosstat. It has been explained above, and the link provided which shows down to the details how the myth about "people are still fleeing Russia in droves" was created. GreyHood ^Talk 14:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2012

Add this at the bottom: Category:Kyokushin kaikan practitioners Here's reference/proof: http://premier.gov.ru/eng/premier/press/ru/4447/ Solovyevs (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done GreyHood ^Talk 18:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The article upgraded

I've done a bit of improvement to the article recently, in order to make it better structured, more readable and interesting. Hope everyone likes the general effect

I've added lots of stuff, and since the article is rather large, I had to remove lots of secondary-importance stuff as well. If there are any questions and proposals for further improvements, that'd be nice to discuss. GreyHood ^Talk 20:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Your edits were too big to just say "upgrade". Also there were big mistakes in the grammar - removing good English and replacing it with bad (e.g. "Putin is brought political stability...") reduced the quality of the article in my view. Please give detailed edit summaries in future to help other editors know what you have done. Thank you. Malick78 (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• I see no point in giving detailed edit summary for every small addition or removal. The point of work is in the result, not in the process. If you have particular questions, let's discuss them, otherwise the plain reverting would look like WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour. I could have understood the opposition to mass change if the article was protected, good, featured etc, but here we had an article in a very poor shape, poorly structured and lacking lots of info. Now it is well structured and covers much more aspects of the subject - a good starting point for further editing if anyone really is interested in editing. GreyHood ^Talk 20:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Erm, no. You must give a detailed summary, especially when you add 12,000 bits! That's a HUGE edit (you said: "...every small addition or removal". That's a bare-faced lie). See here please. What you did hinders the work of other editors: instead of reading a summary, we have to trawl through the whole edit. Be considerate, please. And now: tell us below what you did. Please. ("Now it is well structured" - in your opinion! But I see bad grammar... We have an impasse.) Malick78 (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • If you see bad grammar, please go and improve the particular place to good grammar. GreyHood ^Talk 22:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The revert did improve the grammar.Malick78 (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, I'll try to give you a 250 symbols summary: cut the chronological part; added Energy policy,Religious and national policy,Military development, Programmes, Speeches and catch phrases, Other sports, Pets; split into subsections Foreign policy and Public image and popularity, the rest expanded. GreyHood ^Talk 22:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Though since you're on the talk page, it seems rather childish to limit yourself to 250 symbols when you could use more. Now please, continue to give proper summaries in your future edits. Malick78 (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 5-March-2012

In September 2011, Putin officially announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive term in the 2012 presidential election, which he won in the first round on 4 March 2011 as exit-polls and preliminary results show.[1]

Should read:

In September 2011, Putin officially announced that he would seek a third, non-consecutive term in the 2012 presidential election, which he won in the first round on 4 March 2012 as exit-polls and preliminary results show.[1]

76.213.232.132 (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree ya lo cambiaron. 190.51.161.93 (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias?

Wow, this reads like a Kreml propaganda piece. Seriously, not even a single "Criticism"

Agreed. The lack of it suggests a serious neutrality problem here. Girabbit85 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ya this is absurd no other comparable politician has this level of praise

-random guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.118.136 (talk) 09:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes his old friends at the KGB/FSB have made a very nice article for him, after reading this he is now my hero also! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.172.64 (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's scary :-s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.97.18 (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And which blog are you people coming from I wonder? LOL Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 17:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we at least remove the phrase "peace and progress" from the intro. Perhaps it might be more NPOV to say that he he presided over territorial stabilization and economic expansion? Stargate70 —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC).

This has been rephrased. Otherwise, criticism is present in many places of the article, and as for praise, well, the subject is not an ordinary politician and has rather bright and multi-aspect media image. GreyHood ^Talk 20:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that VVP is no ordinary man :) [17]. Närking (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you have read my recent additions ;) GreyHood ^Talk 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism is mainly hidden, swamped by fawning language praising Putin's every act. It is biased and many editors would know who to point a finger at. I would agree though that he's no "ordinary politician" - he's nigh on a dictator. The article needs far more balance - specifically critical comments and view points. Malick78 (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You have a strange view on what is dictatorship. If Putin is dictator, then why he totally allows opposition and free media? Why all those guys continuoisly protesting against Putin and scolding him on Internet, radio and TV (including often the state channels) have not yet been shot, jailed, sent to gulags? GreyHood ^Talk 21:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you haven't read that Yashin, Udaltsov, Navalny and many others were arrested today only? And where is the free nationwide media you are talking about? And what do you mean with "totally allows opposition"? You mean they are allowed to stay alive and not being shot? Närking (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

They attempted unsanctioned march or something, for which they would be arrested in most democratic law-abiding countries. The protest earlier the same day was allowed, they were able to speak there, but apparently they wanted to be arrested (they were aware that they would be arrested for unsanctioned march). GreyHood ^Talk 21:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Most democratic countries wouldn't have arrested them, actually. You know very little of democracy it seems.Malick78 (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, apparently Navalny and Yashin have been released. And sorry, but the U.S. for example, suppressed some of their recent opposition actions quite brutally. [18] [19] GreyHood ^Talk 00:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Putin allows opposition and free media? Source? AFAIK, Putin allows neither opposition nor free media. The opposition wasn't even allowed to run for the presidency. Freedom of the media is a bad joke in Russia. Russia is considered an authoritarian regime (i.e. dictatorship) in the renowned Democracy Index, and Putin is, by definition, considered a dictator. Tataral (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, there are four opposition parties in the parliament and there have been four other presidential candidates. By definition, this is competition. And there are very critical to the government and rather popular media: Ekho Moskvy, Dozhd and REN TV, as well as many top tier newspapers and a totally free Runet. Also, there has been a series of 2011–2012 Russian protests recently, which gathered tens of thousands protesters each time and were totally allowed (when the particular place and time were sanctioned), while the leaders of the protests appeared on state channels in the news and talk shows in prime time. This is freedom of media and freedom of protest by definition. As for the Democracy Index, ha, as if somebody expected anything else from an American organisation, which doesn't represent global point of view and which composes ratings to serve their own purposes. At the very least, when the U.S., with their two-party dominance, corporatist rule, presidential dynasties, non-transparent and indirect election system, Guantanamo, suppressing Occupy Wall Street etc etc, calls Russia un-democratic, well, that's a pot calling the kettle black. GreyHood ^Talk 12:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea why you start talking about the United States, but as someone noted, talking about something else entirely is apparently the usual tactic in the Kremlin. The Democracy Index, published by the Economist Group of the United Kingdom, is a reliable, highly renowned source. Many reliable sources published in free, democratic countries consider Russia to be a dictatorship. No, it's not competition when the real opposition isn't allowed to run for the Presidency. Even East Germany had fake elections with "opposition" candidates approved by the regime. The article needs to reflect that his "election" is widely considered unfree and fraudulent, and that he is considered an authoritarian ruler. Also, it needs to include the criticism of him plagiarising his dissertation. Tataral (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"I have no idea why you are talking about the United States" Yeah I was thinking along the same lines too. Guess the user hasn't hear of the term tu quoque. Anyway, to address the user's claims specifically, I can't see what the problem is with two-party dominance or presidential dynasties, and especially not if the party assuming governmentship have been elected through the (liberal) democratic process. I can't see either your point about "corporatist rule" or "non-transparent election system" especially when neither exist in the States. Occupy Wall Street hasn't been suppressed (how did Puting treat the demonstrators against the recent Russian presidential election?) and Gitmo is in the process of being shutdown. If you're going to call somebody's kettle black, make sure you know that the person's kettle is actually black in the first place.Festermunk (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

When all else fails, blame the U.S. Tataral (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

As for allowing protests, Reuters notes that: "The pattern appears clear: Putin will allow a few isolated protests, the place and time of which is agreed with the authorities, as a safety valve for disillusionment with his 12-year domination of Russia among mainly urban demonstrators"[20] (note the words "dictator" and "fraud", btw.) Tataral (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Dictator" etc. regarding Putin is neither common, nor global view, but just a biased opinion pushed by some media in the Western states that see Putin as a rival. As for the fraud claim in the recent elections it is a joke: it is technically impossible to falsify by carousel voting the 10,000,000 votes (all votes over 50% margin which granted Putin a victory in the first round; falsifying that would have required a million of carousel voters and tens of thousands buses, which is ridiculous). In all other respects the elections were highly transparent thanks to webcams. Putin's support is genuine, and he didn't need any fraud to win; in fact he was the most interested person to ensure the elections to be as honest as possible. Only the marginal non-systemic opposition was interested in fraud for provocation, and perhaps some stupid local officials who wanted to simulate exeptional Putin's support in their dominions for career purposes, and perhaps fraudsters from other candidates. Anyway, the U.S., the U.K., France and other countries have recognized Putin's win, that's a fact, and "dictator" and "fraud" are all non-neutral opinions. GreyHood ^Talk 19:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

So when is this heavy level of bias going to be filtered out / the biased parties banned from editing this particular page? Ben (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the article or the talk page? ;) GreyHood ^Talk 00:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Greyhood, "What about X" to deflect criticism of Putin or Putin's vision of Russia is a well-known technique of the Russian Foreign Ministry. You should take care not to sound like some official voice. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, comment on content, not on the contributor. And try to avoid personal attacks. As for the alleged "bias": I have substantial knowledge of Russian politics, and I do not see any serious problems with this article, although it, admittedly, needs a lot more work. I will help when time permits. Nanobear (talk) 02:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The article definitely needs to address the criticism. Why is there nothing about the plagiarism of his dissertation? [21] (even included in the List of plagiarism controversies). Tataral (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The accusation in plagiarism was rather lame, since the "plagiarized" work was referenced to. GreyHood ^Talk 12:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't stop it from being plagiarism if too much is used and not in an open manner. As for Nanobear's comment, if one editor edits consistently in a biased way and is disruptive, they have to be commented on directly. They themselves has forced it to happen.

Moreover, the fact that we have seen a few new editors appearing in this section, who've never been here before, and ALL are decrying the bias in this article - shows that the article has a problem. Consensus is that this should be dealt with. So let's! :) Time for more criticism of Vozhd' Putin (though whether us part-timers can really counterbalance the full-time(, fully-paid?) minions of Putin I don't know...). Malick78 (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Making such accusations is a serious thing, Malick. Stop undermining a collaboration spirit of Wikipedia, please. As for the new editors commenting here, not everyone did not like the changes, and it is always natural that people are more strongly motivated to voice their concern rather than approval. Anyways, the more concrete proposals to amend some wording etc. have been dealt with, while making general complaints is not constructive. GreyHood ^Talk 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please mark this page as having disputed neutrality? The article is blatantly biased. Reading the talk here, I doubt that this problem will be fixed any time soon, and the page needs to be marked as POV in the meantime. Robnormal (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please be more concrete and explain in detail what you find "biased". Otherwise this doesn't make sense. GreyHood ^Talk 19:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, where to start! As for "collaboration", you show little willingness to engage in it: exhibit 1 - your half-hearted edit summaries which make it hard for others to see what you're doing and why. As you can see - a multitude of people think there's a problem with this page. Why not read through it and tone things down a bit? Every time I do something you seem to revert me and delete something. (Btw, who cares which martial arts he does in the introduction? We don't need to name all three - especially with obscure words like karateka. Just say he does "martial arts". But hey, you reverted me... I tried myself.) Malick78 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Malick, perhaps this link can be of some assistance? Festermunk (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I have some good experiance for getting good sugestions for improving biographic articles at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard. If you want an opinion about this article being POV or not I would sugest to ask it there, cause you (should get) an advice from an editor who has no personal feeling about Putin or Central- and Eastern Europe... Anybody does not want this too happen? Mabey we should try this first before Festermunk's sugestion... It is more low key then his sugestion. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

someone please fix the lede

What a mess! The hyperlink tags look gawdawful, and should be reformatted. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was an edit by a newbie (maybe it was vandalism). Regards.--GoP_T^C_{N 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)}

 Done Reverted by Russavia. Later I've re-instated some intermediate edits. GreyHood ^Talk 19:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

An authoritarian ruler

The Economist describes Putin as "Russia’s authoritarian prime minister"[22]

According to the renowned Democracy Index, Russia under Putin is in "a long process of regression culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime in light of the cynical decision by Vladimir Putin to return to the presidency and because of deeply flawed parliamentary elections."[23] Tataral (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To say the least, it is outdated, if not a complete joke. State Duma Approves Liberal Political Reforms. A successor to "authoritarian" Putin reverts Putin's earlier reforms (to which action Putin had to agree) and introduces liberal electoral laws. This means that 1) Putin is not the only authority in Russia 2) liberal reforms are pretty possible in the "authoritarian regime". GreyHood ^Talk 19:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Putin throws the people a scrap of 'liberalness' every now and then, but he is essentially authoritarian and there are enough sources to show general consensus on the matter. Tataral, please add whatever info you feel is necessary. Malick78 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Claims of "authoritarianism" should be supported by facts. Then, there is a question whether being more authoritarian is a bad thing. However in context with such non-neutral language as "regime" this is unacceptable anyways. GreyHood ^Talk 20:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What I find particularly ridiculous about the introduction insisted on by Greyhood, is that it includes lengthy praise of Putin's "outdoor, sporting" activities, "his physical capabilities and taking part in unusual or dangerous activities, such as extreme sports and interaction with wild animals.[21] A judoka, samboist and karateka, several times Champion of Leningrad in judo and sambo in his youth, Putin has played a major role in development of sport in Russia". It used about one word, without detail or context, to address his undemocratic rule, hidden away at the bottom of the lead together with all the sports mumbo jumbo. I think his authoritarian rule needs to be addressed prominently in the lead, as most other articles on people considered as authoritarian rulers do. The main thing that is to say about Putin, is that he has taken his country in an authoritarian direction, abolished democracy and achieved that his country is ranked as a dictatorship because of his rule. Tataral (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To be addressed more prominently, it should be global, widely accepted, non-controversial point of view, which it is not. And the POV-laden language is unacceptable: it is encyclopedia here not political journalism. GreyHood ^Talk 20:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

And there is no need to make the once made point second time in a POV-laden manner. GreyHood ^Talk 20:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The point of view expressed in the Democracy Index is the global, widely accepted point of view, expressed by reliable sources in all democratic countries of the world. The entire lead is written from the POV of Vladimir Putin, which is essentially a fringe and an extremist POV. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the propaganda of dictatorships. Tataral (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree on that. To say that it's a "regional Western point of view" is surely a fringe view that Greyhood is pushing. Närking (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Greyhood, you're not listening. We all the think the lead should cover his authoritarianism in more depth. It's globally accepted. What do we have to do? You ignore all our reasoning and we'll have to move onto a (non-binding, but pointing to consensus) vote or something next. (And less about the effing martial arts!) Malick78 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"While the Putin presidency has been criticised by Western observers and domestic opposition as undemocratic,[18] Putin's leadership has enjoyed considerable popularity in Russia since 2000 and continuously high approval ratings.[19]" is already in the lede, so it seems the authoritarianism is clearly mentioned. Now, mentioning every sport Puting has participated indeed is unnecessary and undesirable in what should be a summary of the article, but it seems that stuff has been trimmed down. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not mentioned, it's deliberately hidden away and obscured, in the last paragraph with ridiculous amounts of praise of his "physical capabilities", and it doesn't really say anything. It belongs in the paragraph on "return of political stability", not in the paragraph on his outdoor activities. The mainstream position, supported by everyone else than Putin himself, is that he is an authoritarian ruler who heads an authoritarian regime. Tataral (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The introduction of Alexander Lukashenko could serve as a model for this article. Tataral (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be the other way round, in fact. The introduction in Lukashenko article should cover all aspects of Lukashenko activities, and not give undue weight to his alleged authoritarianism and human rights etc. There are much more things about Lukashenko to tell. GreyHood ^Talk 01:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: "his alleged authoritarianism and human rights" — I rest my case. Tataral (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Few points for everyone to consider: the article should be based on facts, not opinions, and especially not on controversial and unaccepted universally opinions. Claims on "authoritarianism", "un-democratic" are just opinions, and as such, they deserve a very little place in the article and no more than one line in the intro. The article should be based primarily on what the subject has done, not what others think of that, that's the best way to uphold neutrality. GreyHood ^Talk 01:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way, articles are not written from the POV of the article subject. "Putin has overseen a return of political stability and economic progress to Russia, ending the crisis of the 1990s. He restored Russia's territorial integrity and established a strong power vertical" (from the current version) is no less of an opinion than the more predominant opinion that what Putin—the President elected with 107% of the votes[24]—has done is abolishing democracy and taking his country in an authoritarian direction, achieving that his country is widely considered an authoritarian regime. Tataral (talk) 04:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's an almost universally accepted opinion, Greyhood. Only some Russians think he's benign. As for his high popularity: well, Stalin was popular for long periods too! When you control the media and present yourself as a saviour, the masses will buy it. There were no real opponents for him (they couldn't get the air time), so who else could the downtrodden Russian people vote for or support? His authoritarianism ensured his popularity, ironically. Until recently, however.

As for the intro: the bit on sports shouldn't be in the same para as the bit on authoritarianism, that's true. Let's split it.Malick78 (talk) 12:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Tataral, one polling station in Chechnya proves nothing. There may have been falsifications (and at some polling stations like one in Dagestan the results were cancelled), or just many people voted there with absentee certificates, or some other reasons. GreyHood ^Talk 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a picture book

According to WP:NOTGALLERY Wikipedia is not an Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context. In my view this article has way to much pictures; to me that looks not good and rather childish.... What is the added value of having pictures in this article on which Putin is looking at 2 man sign a treaty next to a blond woman with a not common hair due and a man that has a normal hair due? What is the added value of us knowing how his mom and dad used to look like? The same goes for George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin take a sunset walk on a pier along the Black Sea, April 5, 2008, Then President of Russia Vladimir Putin and wife Lyudmila Putina visiting the Taj Mahal in 2000, Putin speaking on the 2005 Victory Day Parade on Red Square. Saint Basil's Cathedral is on the background and a picture of a Sukhoi PAK FA... I suggest these pictures will be removed to make a better article or replace them with more relevant pictures like in Barack Obama. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of these pictures illustrate Putin's presidency and his policies, the Taj Mahal is related to his visit to India, and the signing of the treaty with Tymoshenko is discussed in the text so the picture is perfectly relevant. All sections should preferably be illustrated, and big sections require several images. While there is no excessive squashing of images, everything is OK. GreyHood ^Talk 19:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This picture would also be a good candidate; but Mickey has nothing to do with the Ukr-Rus gas disputes...

This is a question of taste and of opinion of course; when I look at the Obama article I can not help to think it has a better selection of pictures... But if the most people here have no problem with the picture here it is fine with me. I replaced the picture of Putin and Tymo(shenko) with a picture of him and Yushchenko since he was the main man of the Orange Revolution and most part of that section is about fallout of these color revolutions. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The most important part of the story is gas disputes in which Putin and Tymoshenko played the most important roles, and this article is about Putin, not about the Orange Revolution or Yuschenko. GreyHood ^Talk 20:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Makes sence.... PS I was to lazy to look up how to spell the name of the Georgian President ;). Meaning I did not name him Mickey for POV-reasons (just to be clear). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There are too many pictures, true. Many have no relevance other than to show the Dear Leader meeting famous foreigners and suggest he's a statesman (and not just a bandit who got lucky). As for meeting Tymoshenko or Yuschenko - makes no difference to me which.Malick78 (talk) 20:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Plz do not use pictures of Putin with Yuschenko or Saakashvili, this could make wrong impression that Putin was friendly with them or that interstate relations were good at their time. With George W. Bush Putin at least was personally friendly and there was a short period of relatively good Russia-U.S. relations. GreyHood ^Talk 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That makes little sense. Why should it matter if they were friendly? A comment by the picture will give the context anyway.Malick78 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Better not put up a picture of him with Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych then... it is said Putin is not friendly with him...

in a Wikileaks diplomatic cable of January 2009 (then) Ambassador of Ukraine to Russia Kostyantyn Hryshchenko stated that Putin had a low personal regard for (now) Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Putins feelings towards the Georgian President during the 2008 War in Georgia

For POV reasons I tried to find a quote of Putin in which he said he didn't want to replace the Georgian President during the 2008 War in Georgia, but I could not find it... If anybody has found this please put it in here. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Putin gets 107% of the votes in Grozny

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/europe/fraudulent-votes-for-putin-abound-in-chechnya.html?_r=1

And still some Russians claim this to be a democratic vote in a democracy, contrary to accepted opinion elsewhere. Tataral (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Tataral, one polling station in Chechnya proves nothing. There may have been falsifications (and at some polling stations like one in Dagestan the results were canceled), or just many people voted there with absentee certificates, or some other reasons. GreyHood ^Talk 13:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyways, the foreign countries acknowledged Putin's win, and even the League of Voters created by protesters acknowledged that he got over 50% votes without falsifications. Of course, the League of Voters were not able to explain for what reason Putin had to falsify additional 10% of votes as claimed by them, or how could he technically have falsified such impossibly large amount, or why the data from the League of Voters was proven wrong [25]. GreyHood ^Talk 13:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that impartial analysts indicate that while Putin probably would have achieved his 50% majority to avoid a runoff, that would have been just barely. You disregard the possibility that 107% is just one data point indicative of tactics such as busing in voters who are told how to vote if they want to keep their jobs. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I particularly enjoyed listing on the radio to the complaints of the factory workers who were bused in for a Putin rally and were grousing they had yet to see the 200 roubles they had been promised as payment for their time. The person arranging the "supporters" indicated that "staffing" such events are a regular part of his business. Ah, yes, entrepreneurship in the new Russia. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Just one data point is just one exceptional data point, until it is proven that such points are many and overwhelming. I repeat that in order to get 10,000,000 additional votes which Putin got over the 50% margin, they should have used some 1,000,000 voters being bused by some 30,000-50,000 buses and voting each at about 10 polling stations, which would give about 100 additional votes per each polling station in the country. Technically hardly possible to organize and impossible to conceal without tons of evidence. GreyHood ^Talk 14:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

As for the story with the alleged pro-Putin rally participants which were not payed, this has been questioned as a likely provocation from the opposition (the video). I recall the people suspicuously openly spoke on camera without trying to hide, and the notebook of the person arranging the "supporters" for some reason contained the phone number of certain Igor Drandin, an opposition politician who was the author of that video on Youtube and also the author of the famous video with black Kenyan students supporting Putin, also widely seen as provocation (the video). GreyHood ^Talk 14:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Irredentist and nationalist POV in the lead section

The article is not supposed to be written from a Russian nationalist POV. In his 10th(?) revert today, Greyhood again restores the wording "(Putin) restored Russia's territorial integrity", referring to Putin invading Chechnya and starting the Second Chechen War. Aside from being an extreme Russian nationalist and irredentist POV, it purposefully obscures the meaning of the sentence and avoids mentioning Chechnya or the Second Chechen War directly. That's unencyclopedic.

Also note that the article Adolf Hitler does not say Hitler "restored Germany's territorial integrity". It says he invaded Poland. Although it was portrayed as "restoring Germany's territorial integrity" in German propaganda of course, in the exact same way as Russia portrayed its invasion of Chechnya as "restoring Russia's territorial integrity" and using the exact same arguments ("Poland/Chechnya was part of Germany/Russia, so we take it back blah blah"). Tataral (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to alter the WP:HOMAGE to Putin, your content will have to be impeccably sourced and incrementally introduced. Kasparov's criticism being dismissed as that of a "marginal"—i.e., code word for outside the Kremlin power structure—politician and deleted (Gorbachev's comments have been deleted applying the same label) is simply the tip of the iceberg. Criticism is quickly cleansed. Meanwhile, even mention of a nudie calendar published in Putin's honor gets included. (I eventually deleted that content.)

On the bright side, any reader who comes along to digest the article who is not among Putin's sycophants recognizes it for what it is; after all, it is just as informative by what it excludes as by what it includes. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Chechnya was part of Russia and is part of Russia, which is recognized by Chechens and Chechen leadership. "Irredentism is any position advocating annexation of territories administered by another state...". The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was never recognized as independent. Nothing to argue about here. GreyHood ^Talk 14:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To your comment, that Chechens recognize Russian leadership: 1) it is particularly clear from the high murder rate of high ranking, Kremlin-friendly officials; 2) if you would read the article about Ramzan Kadyrov, especially the part dealing with accusations of human right abuses, like /Based on extensive research, HRW concluded in 2005 that forced disappearances in Chechnya are so widespread and systematic that they constitute crimes against humanity./ it gets even more obvious, that Chechens are great supporters of Putin. By the way GreyHood, are you by any accident a Nashi member?Fermmyt (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Putin, the war against Chechnya, and war crimes

In 2001 the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has placed Chechnya on its Genocide Watch List, stating[26]

Chechnya was devastated, including the almost complete destruction of Grozny, the Chechen capital. Russian artillery and air indiscriminately pounded populated areas. Human rights organizations also documented several massacres of civilians by Russian units. Russian President Vladimir Putin proclaimed Chechnya pacified by Spring 2000. But peace has been elusive for Chechen civilians, victims of a continuing war of attrition. They are plagued by abuses committed by Russian forces – arbitrary arrest, extortion, torture, murder. Chechen civilians also suffer because there have been no sustained efforts to rebuild basic social services, such as public utilities or education. Chechen fighters also commit abuses against civilians, but neither on the same scale nor with the same intensity as Russian forces.

And in this city, Putin gets 107% of the votes (see above). Yes, we all believe it. Tataral (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You should really better research the subject. What seems unbelievable to you in fact is perfectly how the things should be.

Putin gets highest support in Chechnya and other Muslim regions. Of course they vote for Putin, for three reasons.

• Firstly, they have no alternative. Who else? Chechens would never vote for Zyuganov, since he is a Communist-Stalinist and they remember the Stalin era deportation of almost all Chechens to Central Asia. They would never vote for Zhirinovsky, since he is Russian nationalist. Mironov's party also used some anti-Caucasus rethorics in their legislative elections campaign. As for Prokhorov, he is liberal (which is not popular among Chechens) and unpopular among poorer rural regions such as Chechnya, since he represents big business and middle class of the capitals.
• Secondly, Chechnya is a traditional clan society. Families vote as heads of families vote. And they all vote as their clan leaders, which follow the example of Ramzan Kadyrov, the Head of Chechen Republic, who supports Putin. Nobody there wants to risk relationships with their family and kinship, since it can lead as far as blood feud.
• Thirdly, they have positive reasons to support Putin. He has pumped lots of federal money in order to restore Chechnya from the war ruin (and they did reconstructed it nicely), and overall the return of peace and improvements in the level of life are pretty obvious in Chechnya. Also, Putin is more visibly supportive of Islam than other candidates. GreyHood ^Talk 14:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is no way >99% of Chechens people would attend the elections, especially if they do not have anyone to vote for. One should be blind to ignore this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fermmyt (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, a get out the vote competition with cash prizes for the village that does best (i.e., bribery) always helps. Apparently, there weren't any observers present, either, owing to security concerns. Interesting reading here. Grove is a Moscow-based journalist for Reuters. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)