Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) at 20:52, 6 May 2022 (→Pedophilia claim: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vladimir Putin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Template:Vital article

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Vladimir Putin. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Vladimir Putin at the Reference desk.

Vladimir Putin was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result April 15, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed August 16, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 24, 2004, March 3, 2008, September 24, 2008, and March 5, 2012. Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2020. Current status: Former good article nominee

Current consensus: Infobox image: Vladimir_Putin_17-11-2021_(cropped).jpg per Talk:Vladimir_Putin/Archive_16#New_image

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: Sports & games / Politics and law Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for Vladimir Putin (67 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 21,233 21,233 Early life 4,928 12,162 Education 7,234 7,234 Intelligence career 13,135 13,135 Political career 190 197,213 1990–1996: Saint Petersburg administration 5,252 5,252 1996–1999: Early Moscow career 6,623 6,623 1999: First premiership 3,356 3,356 1999–2000: Acting presidency 6,198 6,198 2000–2004: First presidential term 5,020 5,020 2004–2008: Second presidential term 20,749 20,749 2008–2012: Second premiership 4,594 4,594 2012–2018: Third presidential term 17,930 47,397 Annexation of Crimea 14,262 14,262 Intervention in Syria 4,155 4,155 Russia's interference in the 2016 US election 11,050 11,050 2018–2024: Fourth presidential term 11,980 85,606 COVID-19 pandemic 12,566 12,566 Constitutional referendum and amendments 4,380 4,380 Iran trade deal 934 934 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis 7,958 7,958 Full-scale invasion of Ukraine (2022–present) 34,652 34,652 ICC arrest warrant 4,755 4,755 2023 Wagner rebellion 8,381 8,381 2024–present: Fifth presidential term 12,228 12,228 Domestic policies 8,467 51,035 Economic, industrial, and energy policies 9,878 9,878 Environmental policy 3,877 3,877 Religious policy 4,360 4,360 Military development 6,988 6,988 Human rights policy 5,233 5,233 The media 3,963 3,963 Promoting conservatism 6,900 6,900 International sporting events 1,369 1,369 Foreign policy 3,126 81,528 Asia 9,682 9,682 Post-Soviet states 20,094 20,094 United States, Western Europe, and NATO 21,345 21,345 United Kingdom 1,252 6,195 Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko 2,666 2,666 Poisoning of Sergei Skripal 2,277 2,277 Latin America 2,579 2,579 Australia and the South Pacific 3,739 3,739 Middle East and Africa 14,768 14,768 Public image 226 35,573 Polls and rankings 24,662 24,662 Cult of personality 5,833 5,833 Public recognition in the West 3,510 3,510 Putinisms 1,342 1,342 Assessments 16,380 21,734 After the 2022 invasion of Ukraine 5,354 5,354 Electoral history 2,395 2,395 Personal life 20 45,120 Family 14,147 14,147 Wealth 10,831 10,831 Residences 19 7,611 Official government residences 1,538 1,538 Personal residences 6,054 6,054 Pets 1,009 1,009 Religion 2,873 2,873 Sports 4,536 4,536 Health 4,093 4,093 Awards and honours 605 605 Explanatory notes 43 43 References 44 530 Sources 486 486 External links 6,466 6,466 Total 488,772 488,772

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 8 times. The weeks in which this happened: March 2 to 8, 2014 (17th) March 18 to 24, 2018 (5th) July 15 to 21, 2018 (22nd) February 20 to 26, 2022 (3rd) February 27 to March 5, 2022 (2nd) March 6 to 12, 2022 (1st) March 13 to 19, 2022 (4th) March 20 to 26, 2022 (4th)

This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 72 million views since December 2007.

Vladimir Putin's health

Hello everyone!

I protest against the removing the subsection about Vladimir Putin's mental health, made by Aman.kumar.goel.

This user assumes that removed content violates WP:SYNTH and is based on poorly sources. Moreover, he wrote on my talk page the following text: "Note that I am talking about your poor edits to Vladimir Putin which are based on rumors and non-experts. To make claims about someone's medical health you need actual experts who can prove their credentials with regards to the claim they are making".

1. Current version of the article contains unproven claims related to Putin's physical health. Sources contain suspicions that Putin has cancer but there is no official confirmation of this fact. In other words, it is just rumours, but nobody cares about it.

In this case, what's wrong with the removed content about Putin's mental health?

The removed content didn't contain any allegation that Putin is mental patient. It contained the information about the facts that US intelligence, Boris Nemtsov and other people expressed their reasonable doubts about Putin's mental health. How is this any different from rumours about Putin's physical health?

2. As I said earlier, the removed content didn't contain any allegation that Putin is mental patient. So, there is no violation of WP:SYNTH, becase there's no a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.

3. The removed content was sourced by CNN, Republic.ru and Kasparov.ru. CNN is reliable English-speaking source. Republic.ru and Kasparov.ru are reliable Russian-speaking sources especially when it comes to news about Russian events.

4. The removed content and sources are already used in other Misplaced Pages's articles, namely Boris Nemtsov, Russia under Vladimir Putin. Previously, it was used in the article Putinism from which it was removed by My very best wishes with note "his mental health is definitely important, but this is about Putin, not about Putinism".

5. We discussed a necessity for creation a subsection about Putin's mental health (Talk:Vladimir Putin/Archive 16, the section "Mention the speculation about his mental health").

In conclusion, I would like to state that the removing of the aforementioned content committed by Aman.kumar.goel is politically motivated action as well as his threats to block me. I believe this user just likes Putin, that is why he removed the mentions of doubts about Putin's mental health. K8M8S8 (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

See WP:BLPGOSSIP and keep this kind of content out because we require medical experts who are related with the issue in order to say anything about mental or physical health of the subject. You can also take a look at these other related discussions on Talk:Donald Trump and Talk:Joe Biden for understanding what we exactly need before making such claims. Aman Kumar Goel 17:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Then name experts who diagnosed Putin with cancer and name any source possessing official medical report. Can't you do this? Ok, in this case, the current version of the subsection "Health" is just gossip too. You don't really need to be doctor to realize that Putin has sick mindset, unlike to say something about his physical health. The removed content had more rights to exist than rumours about Putin's cancer and deer antler blood baths. K8M8S8 (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You are free to remove the existing content but it has been properly attributed as a mere rumor. Aman Kumar Goel 22:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I was going to also add the rumor about him having Parkinson's disease, but experts told DW that diagnosis is incredibly difficult, making it highly speculative . The thyroid cancer was very well researched by Russian investigative journalists, so I think they are WP:DUE and comply with WP:BLP. The alleged mental health issues, however, are somewhere in between, in that they're not as difficult to diagnose as parkinsonism, and this Daily Telegraph article puts it in the context of the thyroid cancer rumors . Mental health will be very difficult to cover in any BLP, but I think the CNN source is good, as is the Daily Telegraph article. I don't know about Republic.ru and kasparov.ru. CutePeach (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the content on mental health, which was already included in this article, to the "Health" section, and added the Parkinson's rumours (as well as the DW caveat against armchair diagnoses). As you say, this issue is very difficult to cover in a BLP, so I hope this is appropriate. QueenofBithynia (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin's alleged paedophilia

By the way, the paragraph devoted to Putin's peadophilia (I got it out of the article Alexander Litvinenko) should be restored too. K8M8S8 (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

No. It has been discussed before as well]. See WP:BLP and WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Putin was a opponent of Litvinenko, thus the article written by Litvinenko is not WP:RS for this kind of allegation. Aman Kumar Goel 22:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: as per WP:CCC, the 2016 discussion isn't the final word, and IMO the IP there was correct in saying the allegations have been covered by enough newspapers to make them WP:DUE .

WP:BLP requires compliance with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, but it does not serve as a good reason to WP:CENSOR allegations some may find objectionable or offensive‍. Similarly, WP:EXCEPTIONAL only requires that exceptional claims be found in multiple high-quality sources, which is clearly the case here, and the BBC report proves the WP:PERSISTENCE of these allegations.

I saw K8M8S8's edit yesterday and I was intending to copyedit it for style and proper attribution, especially since the Guardian reported that Litvinenko had a long standing feud with Putin , and the New York Times said his allegations were made without evidence and provides a quote from Vladimir Bukovsky we can use for WP:BALANCE . It is known that Putin and the Kremlin have made paedophelia charges against their opponents , starting with the case of Yury Skuratov, so we can probably fill an entire article on the subject. CutePeach (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:CCC can only apply if circumstances have changed and in this case they haven't changed at all.

Just because they provided the coverage to a rumor, it doesn't mean it becomes credible enough for inclusion, because it is typical every MSM outlet likes to provide coverage to statements of made by a notable or non-notable rival against against another notable person but here we have to comply with WP:BLP. Aman Kumar Goel 13:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there was a consensus in that 2016 discussion about the sources, and if there was, it can change. The IP was ill informed about policy and didn't provide the sources as I have now done, and there are still more. WP:BLP in the general and WP:BLPCRIME in specific does not apply to public figures. I think the Bukovsky quote is enough for WP:BALANCE. CutePeach (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Only 2 IP editors agreed with inclusion against several editors, so no, consensus was against inclusion. Mention of "BLPCRIME" fials to create any difference. An allegation made by a rival more than 17 years ago is not noteworthy. Aman Kumar Goel 02:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

"...because it is typical every MSM outlet..." I suggest avoiding airing of political prejudice in this space. While we all have a perspective, including demonstration of prejudice in arguments for content here undermines the contributor's credible neutrality. It seems to me incumbent on we editors to forsake rhetoric creating the appearance of partisan advocacy, especially when a pattern of editing might lend credence to observations of partisanship. Mavigogun (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

CutePeach, I am an administrator so please consider this a formal policy warning. You wrote WP:BLP in the general . . . does not apply to public figures. This is completely false. Please sit down and read WP:BLP from beginning to end. That policy applies to every living person without exception, even Vladimir Putin. As for WP:BLPCRIME, that applies to public figures formally accused of a crime but not yet convicted. In this case, there are no formal accusations, only rumors. BLP policy definitely applies, so be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Cullen328 (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: thanks for clarifying the WP:BLP policy. I read WP:BLPCRIME as saying that it doesn't apply to public figures missing the part where it said unless a conviction has been secured​​. I think we need clarify WP:BLP policy as to how it applies to autocratic leaders like Putin who accuse political opponents of crimes that they themselves were have been accused of. It is known that Putin has complete control over the Russian government, including the judicial system, so he isn't going to be "formally" accused of anything while he is still alive. We cannot allow WP:BLP to hinder WP:PURPOSE, and if this allegation is not covered in a WP:DUE fashion, we will either need to amend our policy, or the project's purpose.

@Aman.kumar.goel: regarding the 2016 discussion, consensus should be based on sources and policies, and not just by WP:POLL. I think the characterization of Litvinenko as Putin's rival is WP:OR, as sources mostly describe him as a critic or dissident. Since he was a former FSB officer alleging that Putin destroyed kompromat held by the FSB Internal Security directorate, he would appear to be a good source for the allegation - though Bukovsky said his FSB background made him unable to understand the difference between truth and operational information, which we can use for WP:BALANCE. Instead of adding K8M8S8's contribution back to the Personal life section, I suggest we summarize the text from Alexander Litvinenko to the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko section, as it has been given as one of the main reasons for the assassination. My apologies for my mistaken interpretation of WP:BLP above. CutePeach (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

CutePeach, Misplaced Pages editors do not repeat unsubstantiated rumors about living people. Period. End of story. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I added the Litvinenko accusation to the relevant section, since it is reportedly what Putin may have killed him for, according to that British government report. I will start a discussion on WP:BLP/N to clarify how the policy should apply here. CutePeach (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I reverted it because it seemed just another attempt of you to get around the BLP violation.

Forum shopping won't help since you haven't refuted any arguments provided here. Aman Kumar Goel 12:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad we're talking about refuting arguments, instead of relying on a 2016 discussion that didn't even make any arguments, so I would be glad if you could actually address my argument as to why this WP:DUE, regardless of whether it is true or not. Posting on a noticeboard isn't forum shopping when there are multiple editors who disagree, and that's exactly what noticeboards are for. CutePeach (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel:, please WP:AGF and WP:FOC. Please explain what about my edit violated WP:BLP. I can't know what you're thinking if you don't say it. CutePeach (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It is forum shopping when you are seeking resolution in favor of your BLP violation. Mentioning 2016 discussion shows that nothing has changed in these 6 years with regards to the one-off rumor, that's why you need to move on.

You are edit warring now but note that per WP:NOT3RR, people are exempted from reverting BLP violation. Aman Kumar Goel 14:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:Public figure applies, and if several RS (I use three or more as my rule-of-thumb) mention an accusation, regardless of its truth or falsity, we should cover it.

This is especially true for debunked false accusations as we set the record straight, a clear benefit to the slandered party, IOW very much in line with the spirit of BLP. Failure to cover the matter is whitewashing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: it takes two to edit war and you haven't explained how this violates BLP, or participated in the BLPN discussion. Diff 11 and 12 show two incrementally improved versions of the allegations with newer sources and a move to the section where they are WP:DUE. The discussion has moved on from including the allegations in the Personal life section, where I agree they are WP:UNDUE. CutePeach (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

My general apprehension is that Aman.kumar.goel has demonstrated less collaborative compromise than ridged argument for the position they originally brought to the table. Anything can be rationalized. Judgement and discretion and true collaboration require a good faith effort. I'd like to hear your, Aman, best drafting for including the references in question. This back and forth accusation of edit warring is useless- other than a participant's hope for a page lock with the state they prefer.Mavigogun (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Instead of asking me to compromise me with your BLP violation, you need to better comply with WP:BLP and look at the WP:BLPN thread started by CutePeach where there is consensus against inclusion of this BLP violation. And Valjean there is enough coverage of unconfirmed rumors against Chinese and American officials spread by defectors like Miles Guo, John Bolton, and others but we don't provide coverage to their unconfirmed rumors either. Aman Kumar Goel 16:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I was writing a new section below while you were writing this, so respond below. Your edit warring is not good. Follow BRD. You have also received DS notifications about this, so you know you shouldn't ignore them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I am free to revert the BLP violation per WP:NOT3RR and BRD would apply only when I am reverting a stable edit or the edit had consensus. Read the policies carefully before you cite them. Aman Kumar Goel 16:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Respond below. Properly-sourced negative content is not a BLP violation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Cancer surgery

Putin will undergo cancer surgery: https://www.news.com.au/world/europe/putin-to-undergo-cancer-surgery-transfer-power-to-outright-villain-report/news-story/d7f0e8f838f3b399e944879ee1455df9 Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I would avoid adding this for now. Unconfirmed claims by The Sun and anonymous Telegram channel, with mainly tabloids writing about it. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

How about from the Boston Herald? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This is based on NY Post article where it says "the paper is basing its scoop on a video off the mysterious Telegram channel 'General SVR'". In short, the claim about an operation very soon and temporary transfer of channel is from this Telegram channel. And publicised by this article by The Sun. Also a Russian-language article on this claim. Mellk (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I reckon it is premature, too- best to either have concrete sourcing, or to include the rumor at a later date when current interests are not served one way or the other by inclusion.Mavigogun (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I also wonder how such a move could play out since prime minister would become acting president (Chernomyrdin was briefly acting president during Yeltsin's surgery). Mellk (talk) 01:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS strongly suggests we should not base Misplaced Pages articles on unconfirmed rumours and reports like what is provided here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: In your edit you wrote that this was confirmed but it is in fact unconfirmed and entirely based off a claim from an anonymous Telegram channel, as those sources state. Mellk (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: What I requested was for you to please gain consensus per WP:ONUS before including disputed material, particularly when it involves "reports" from anonymous sources and is about a high-profile BLP. Your edits do not address this concern and are still based on the same kind of news reporting, which, per NOTNEWS, should be avoided... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be reverting editors both on this page and on the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine page. Your edit comment here indicated that you do not like the NY Post. I then added the Boston Herald as a second source. Multiple cites are picking up this material because of the details being provided in the report which include the type of cancer, the name of his surgeon, and the name of Putin's temporary stand-in when he is in surgery. That type of information is being covered by multiple sources as relevant. You are reverting multiple sources. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be confused, since I haven't edited the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine page in a while; and you still haven't addressed the key concern (which is that all of these are based, apparently, on some anonymous report - that should light up a bright red flag that that is information which might be appropriate for sensational "breaking news" style reports; but also that such speculation is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia ). News report filling up their pages with more details from those unconfirmed rumours does not change the fact those are still unconfirmed reports and shouldn't be included per WP:NOTNEWS. Sidenote, as for the NY Post, it's not that I personally like (or do not) like it; it is a fact that it is considered generally unreliable by the wider community (see WP:NYPOST). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No confusion here, and this is your revert on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article here: . You had reverted Mzajac at that time. Putin appears to be due for oncological surgery with 2-3 days recovery time in hospital according to multiple sources with his security council advisor Patrushev to temporarily take office during the recovery time. When you said you did not like the NY Post, I then added the second cite for the Boston Herald. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

That's for an entirely unrelated issue. Multiple sources repeating the same report (NDTV: an unverified report by US's New York Post has claimed.; Hindustan Times: the New York Post reported citing a Telegram channel purportedly run by a former Russian intelligence officer.; Boston Herald: Russian President Vladimir Putin, long rumored to be ill, is set to undergo cancer surgery, the New York Post is reporting.) do not change the status of that report as being unverified and at best rumours which should not be included on Misplaced Pages, which is an encyclopedia and not a breaking news/gossip website which needs to keep its readers entertained 24/7 with whatever. I'll note this hasn't been picked up by any of the more significant publications (Grauniad has nothing; NYT has nothing; neither has the Beebs), giving a good hint it probably shouldn't be here either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I found a sky news article: https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/global-affairs/putin-to-transfer-power-to-outright-villain-as-he-undergoes-cancer-surgery/video/19ff4be9ea1ddea764bc02cd436d464d

is this good? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Sky News Australia is still repeating the same report as the others (A video from the Telegram channel “General SVR” published on Saturday alleged Putin’s top spy chief Nikolai Patrushev will gain control of the Russian Government while the 69-year-old is recovering from surgery.). So still "an anonymous person on a Telegram channel said this". Still about as non-encyclopedic as any other rumour or gossip could be. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

And Sky News Australia does not seem to be a good source. Mellk (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Atrocities/Genocide

I REVERTED two BOLD deletions by User:Aman.kumar.goel. Instead of following BRD and DISCUSSING, the disputed deletions were restored. That's classic edit warring. Properly-sourced documentation is not POV pushing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Valjean: You had to see this edit which was POV pushing, and I reverted for being unexplained. It also remains undiscussed. There is no need to mention "genocide" claims when no one is even talking about it on the rest of the lead and dragging a disputed claim to lead just to determine Putin to be making "false" statements is POV pushing.

Another edit is already well discussed and does not deserve inclusion for being outright BLP violation. See the consensus at BLPN.

If an edit is reverted then get consensus on talk page instead of edit warring to restore the problem edit. Aman Kumar Goel 16:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No, BRD applies, so you need to get consensus for your deletions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

BRD = 1 edit made, another editor reverts, now it needs to be discussed before restoration. I am following BRD. Aman Kumar Goel 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You are deleting "falsely" and that's really bad. Putin falsely accused the Ukrainian government of committing "genocide" against its Russian-speaking minority. The "falsely" content is not a BLP violation because it is properly-sourced. Putin's claims of genocide are false and must not be allowed to stand alone, as RS have clarified the issue. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Don't misrepresent me. I never called it a BLP violation but POV pushing, because the current wording that "accused the Ukrainian government of committing atrocities" is good enough. No one is legitimizing the "genocide" claim anyway.

BLP violation is the 2nd edit/revert you made which has been already discussed, even on BLPN. Aman Kumar Goel 16:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I am in favor of completely removing the sentence "Putin accused the Ukrainian government of committing atrocities against its Russian-speaking minority", because Russian motives to attack Ukraine were not limited to this single issue. Aman Kumar Goel 16:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing that false claim is certainly an option, but it is a major excuse for attacking Ukraine, so I think we should keep it, but with the added "falsely". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not intend to misrepresent you. There are two different issues here, so it's good to keep them separate. I have stricken a sentence above to prevent confusion. I split them up below. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

1. The "falsely" deletion is not good. That should be restored. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, why we should even preserve that sentence? It is widely accepted that Russia attacked on February 2022 because of Ukraine's efforts to join NATO.

On 13 February, 9 days before the war, Russian ambassador said that Ukraine could drop NATO bid to avoid war. And also see this US News article that say "Putin has a history of invading and occupying countries that approach NATO membership."

None of those sources mention the alleged atrocities. Now given these reports, I find it better to get rid of the sentence because it cannot be treated as major aim to attack Ukraine. Aman Kumar Goel 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The false genocide accusation is a widely covered excuse given to attack Ukraine, even if the NATO issue might be the real reason. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Not really. That claim is very old and didn't emerged as a reason to attack Ukraine in February 2022. See this Wapo article that say "Millions of Russians and Russian-speaking people live in Ukraine and will continue to do so. Russia will always defend their interests using political, diplomatic and legal means.", and it is from 2014. That's why the US News article, which includes collaboration of a security expert does not even mention it. The no.1 reason behind February 2022 war has been mentioned as Ukraine's bid to join NATO. That's why I think we are better off getting rid of that sentence. Aman Kumar Goel 17:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

In Putin's address right before the invasion began, he claimed its purpose was the "demilitarisation and denazification" of Ukraine, and this has been consistently repeated by officials since the invasion began, so I would imagine that could be mentioned, but of course RS widely describe his narrative of nazification of Ukraine as baseless or false. Mellk (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk: But that will omit Ukraine's bid to join NATO as the factor which experts say was the main reason to attack Ukraine. Putin on 24 February address also mentioned NATO about 9 times. This is why I proposed that we should remove the existing sentence from the lead. Aman Kumar Goel 18:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but those guys have given a lot of different excuses. NATO expansion, Ukraine led by neo-Nazis, "genocide" against Russian-speakers, Ukraine not being a real state etc. I think the actual reason is attempting to keep Ukraine under the sphere of influence (and therefore out of NATO, as you said) and probably there are RS which agree with that. Removing the sentence is one option, though I think just a little bit of context would be helpful if it is possible. Mellk (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Also they were pushing the nazification narrative hard (and still do, and now there is a diplomatic incident with Israel) as a main reason, though it seems now there is a shift more towards NATO threat narrative. Mellk (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

They have said it since 2014. But yes, Ukraine's bid to join NATO led them to begin the war by 24 February.

This has been a focus of coverage by various sources, and Russia warning Finland, Sweden against NATO membership also confirms this is the most serious concern for Putin. Aman Kumar Goel 18:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Aman, you are clearly arguing for a perspective- regardless of how you feel you can justify it. Mellk's synopsis above is apt- there has been a wide number of justifications provided by Putin and his cadre, and outcomes from those justifications, and broadly reported consensus of manifestations- amongst those are characterizations of genocide. It is not our mandate to arbitrate political or practical truth. It seems to me you cite Misplaced Pages guidelines as a cudgel; those guidelines are only useful when applied with discretion, and a good faith effort at neutrality and collaboration.~~~~ Mavigogun (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

But no way we are going to cover all three reasons on lead. The lead would be better off without covering any of the reason. Aman Kumar Goel 20:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the decision, the "falsely" should not be deleted. That is my main concern, as it violates policy to allow a false claim to just stand there when RS have debunked it. Maybe covering all three is too much for the lead. In that case, cover the various explanations in the body and include the "falsely" with the RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Remove the current sentence from the lead and mention the "genocide" claim as "false" on Vladimir Putin#2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian_crisis_and_invasion. That will solve your concern. Aman Kumar Goel 20:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel, the article is now completely locked. An edit request can only be made for a content change that enjoys a consensus, so what about this:

1. We remove the sentence from the lead.
2. We do this with the existing sentence (bold part added as it's in the source): "...according to Putin, "for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime", a claim that is considered baseless.

Would that be a satisfactory solution? If so, we can make an edit request. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 May 2022

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change this sentence from the lead: "Putin accused the Ukrainian government of committing atrocities against its Russian-speaking minority, and in February 2022," to:- "In February 2022,"

Change this sentence on Vladimir Putin#2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and invasion: according to Putin, "for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime". to:- according to Putin, "for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime", a claim that is considered baseless.

References

1. "Putin's claims that Ukraine is committing genocide are baseless, but not unprecedented". The Conversation. 25 February 2022.
2. "Putin's claims that Ukraine is committing genocide are baseless, but not unprecedented". The Conversation. 25 February 2022.

Aman Kumar Goel 15:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Aman.kumar.goel, full protection has expired. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Pedophilia claim

2. The "pedophilia" claim and the NY Times description of it is not a BLP violation because it is all properly-sourced. See BLP's WP:Public figure. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation because it cites a poor source, a defector, for the information. Aman Kumar Goel 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

We cite RS. That he was a defector is irrelevant. The Owens court report documents this as a possible issue. The New York Times is also a very RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It is relevant because other defectors too accuse big politicians of many wrongdoings and they get coverage from WP:RS, but it doesn't mean they get inclusion on main biographical article. Aman Kumar Goel 17:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Our job is not to seek parity between cosmetically similar circumstances, but to weigh each on their own merit.Mavigogun (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

No, we cannot change our practices like that. Aman Kumar Goel 20:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is rather clear and unambiguous that "a living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law." (and that applies on Misplaced Pages whether it applies in Russia or not - we don't make exceptions when it suits contemporary popular opinion) In this case, this isn't even formal accusations, but some unverified account of it by a prominent critic (not somebody whom you would expect to give a balanced account of anything, even if it were true), so as such not very much different from some unverified gossip: and we don't include gossip on Misplaced Pages, whether it is whoemever the Kardashians might be dating or what other monstruous thing (on top of all the previous ones) Putin might have done. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Random, you seem to be confused, so discuss this here. WP:Public figure applies, so we are supposed to lean toward inclusion since RS and court reports exist. I'll see you at BLP/N. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a link out to the court reports? My understanding is that the pedophilia accusation as yet does not have, by my reckoning, sufficient affirmation for us to include. That said, a court ruling or even charges may not be necessary for inclusion- but under conditions not met in this case. For example, the charges may build to a point that they raise to the level of a remarkable life event. Again, that's not where we are at, is it? Mavigogun (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll get back to you with that. Keep in mind that it is TOTALLY irrelevant whether the accusation is true or ever will be proven true. Our only concern is whether it is mentioned in RS (not trash sources), and it is. WP:Public figure, not BLPCrime, is our guide here, so please also go to BLP/N. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You'll excuse me for being unconvinced, but I don't see any exception in BLPCRIME for public figures. In fact, particularly because Putin is a public figure, we should not report every unverified and unconfirmed allegation about him, no matter what other misdeeds he might have done. There's also a pretty big difference between the examples given (someone's unsavoury love affair, or their messy divorce) and an outright allegation they committed a rather specific and heinous crime. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

This is about a possible motivation, mentioned in a court report and also mentioned in RS. BLP Public figure tells us how to deal with this type of thing. Go to BLP/N. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is the primary source, the so-called "Owen report":

• The Litvinenko Inquiry. Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Chairman: Sir Robert Owen. January 2016. Search for pedophile (not full word).

We cannot use such a primary source alone, but we can include it among the secondary sources which mention or make use of it, so we should do that.

For reference, here is the deleted content under dispute:

In particular, the Owen report indicated that the poisoning may have been ordered over an accusation Litvinenko made four months beforehand in an online article, alleging that Putin was a paedophile and that he used his position as head of the FSB to hide evidence of it. Vladimir Bukovsky, a close friend of Litvinenko, said he strongly urged him against publishing it, noting that despite his ferocious hostility toward the Kremlin, Litvinenko still had the mind-set of a security officer and "could not understand the difference between truth and operational information." The New York Times concluded that Litvinenko's allegations of paedophila were "without any evidence".

The preceding context mentioned in the Owen report ("possible motives" for the murder) is important to keep in mind:

In 2015–2016, the British Government conducted an inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Its report states, "The FSB operation to kill Mr. Litvinenko was probably approved by Mr Patrushev and also by President Putin." The report outlined some possible motives for the murder, including Litvinenko's public statements and books about the alleged involvement of the FSB in mass murder, and what was "undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko, led to the murder.

So these two paragraphs are here in reversed order, and the one mentioning this possible motive has been removed, and that's improper. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The motive is certainly still there, The report outlined some possible motives for the murder and what was "undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko, led to the murder.. We don't need to report the evidence-less allegations (as concluded by the NYT), unless we want to bring more (and IMHO probably unnecessary) emphasis on them as opposed to the other possible motives (even the Owen report says "may have", not "was without a doubt the motive for it"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Of all the possible motives mentioned in the Own report, we only have permission (due weight) to mention the ones mentioned in RS, and the pedophilia accusation has been. That's why we mention it. This is just my speculation but RS may mention it because it, true or false, is so grotesque an accusation that it may have been the last straw for Putin, and from his POV, that would be understandable.

Keep in mind that by whitewashing this material out, we are also deleting the NY Times mention, which is favorable to Putin. Whitewashing has a bad side, as defense of the victimized party is also deleted. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me Valjean has laid out the essential bit here- the pedophilia accusation is made mention of because it is integral to reports of the murder of a political rival- a topical and weight worthy subject. The pedophilia accusation would not be included independently, is that right? Mavigogun (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

It won't be included at all because this is a BLP article and like NYT says these accusations lack any evidence. Further, I don't see if there are any new circumstances that would validate this claim, just like they didn't a few years ago. Aman Kumar Goel 20:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Aman, you are confused. Truth or falsity is irrelevant. You are confusing WP:Truth with WP:Verifiability. We document what RS say about claims, true or not, and BLP's WP:Public figure tells us how we are supposed to include such claims about notable people like Putin. If we don't do that, we fail our primary goal with Misplaced Pages, as we are supposed to document the sum total of all human knowledge that is found in RS, and that includes facts, lies, opinions, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, nonsense, etc. We are supposed to be inclusionists who seek to include as much as possible of all that, including the nonsense, unless it isn't mentioned in RS or is so trivial only horrible sources mention it.

Keep in mind that PUBLICFIGURE applies to even the most outrageous and false claims as long as RS have mentioned them. Misplaced Pages does the victims a service by also providing the debunkings found in RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Aman, you seem to be missing the point- inclusion isn't about the credibility of the pedophilia claim. Litvinenko could have been accusing Putin of being a Martian wearing a human skin suit, or any other claim, fantastical or undemonstrated- it doesn't matter. If a mad man shot Elon Musk after declaring Musk was not human, but an actual robot, we would include the accusation when describing the event on the Musk page. Mavigogun (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mavigogun, that is correct, but your indentation makes it look like you are addressing me, when you are actually addressing Aman. Just mention him first and remove a colon from your comment and from this response to you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Now fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mavigogun, that is correct. (Aman is still confused.) The existing context is already there, but the allegation has been removed. (BTW, why the "nowiki"s in all your comments? They are unnecessary unless you absolutely want the tildes to show. I just use dashes.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

(I don't know what a "nowiki" is- I learned to sign with the 4 tildes, don't know of another way. Please, educate me! Mavigogun (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Your comments have a <nowiki> code, and that is not necessary. Just use four tildes, like you have just done. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think this can be reliably sourced and should be included (Litvinenko was not a "defector", but a highly knowledgeable expert on such subjects; that is why Putin ordered to kill him), but it is difficult to say if there is a consensus to include from discussions on this page (tl;dr for me, sorry). If someone wants to include, please start a formal RfC about it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Sorry to split the discussion, but I have non-BLP issues with the most recent version of the pedophilia allegations. I don't think we can give so much prominence to that one aspect of the report. I would be in favor of extending our summary of the possible motives that the report lists, as right now we're only mentioning the allegations of mass murder and the personal animus. Maybe something like

  "The report outlined some possible motives for the murder including Litvinenko's allegations that Putin is a pedophile or that he had ordered a mass murder; Litvinenko's involvement with MI6; or personal reasons, based on what was "undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism" between Putin and Litvinenko."

  I took some time to review coverage of the Owen Report, and the report itself. The pedophilia allegation is discussed enough as a possible motive that we should mention it here, but not enough weight in either the report or the coverage to justify a lengthy treatment in this bio. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that it deserves short mention, such as you propose. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  That would indeed seem a better option than what was previously in the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, could you clarify which sources you are citing for this? I've seen several discussions as to the alleged motivations behind Litvinenko's murder, and I don't think that is either an exhaustive list, or that the 'pedophile' allegations were seen as particularly prominent. I have the impression that most sources based their claims regarding motivation on a culmination of factors, rather than listing them as 'either X, Y, or Z', and starting a list off with one possible motivation out of many, implying it may have been sufficient on its own, seems questionable. This is at the core of the discussion on BLP/N, and doesn't become 'non-BLP' by being discussed here. Misplaced Pages needs to report what the sources have to say in a balanced, proportional manner, rather than emphasising one particular aspect that relatively few sources seem to think worthy of much comment at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi ATG. I'm not sure the discussion at BLPN has a "core", but fair enough: I didn't go deep into my reasons for bringing a proposal here, but you're right BLP lines aren't so simple. Yes, the list isn't exhaustive, which the "includes" should allude to. You're right about multiple factors amalgamating together, possibly, so it's probably more accurate to replace the "or" with an "and". I am not attached to the order, or really any of the individual items. Your point on emphasizing one reason over others is valid, but even more valid if applied to the status quo language. My main goal is to summarize the motivations rather than just list one.

I looked for sources that did that kind of summary. Others appear to have looked for sources that mention the pedo allegations, so I'm not including those in this list. Sources, all from 2016, and the possible motives they list:

• The Guardian: allegations of mafia involvement and apartment bombing, work with MI6, personal dimension starting with corruption allegations and culminating in pedo allegations
• HuffPo: "Owen cited five reasons": personal stuff culminating in pedo allegations, being a traitor to the FSB, work for MI6, connections to other Kremlin critics, allegations of mafia involvement
• Reuters: bombing allegations, work with MI6, "highly personal allegations"
• NY Times: traitor to FSB and work with MI6, connection to other Kremlin critic, "personal dimension"
• BBC: work for MI6, allegations (unspecified) against Putin and FSB, connection with other Kremlin critics, "personal dimension"
• Irish Times: not explicitly a motives summary, but mentions connection with Kremlin critic, work for MI6, advocacy for Chechen separatists, criticism of Putin culminating in pedo allegations
• LA Times: criticism of FSB, work with MI6, connection to other Kremlin critics, allegations against FSB and Putin including pedo allegations
• USA Today: not explicitly a motives summary, but mentions criticism of FSB and Putin, work with MI6, "highly personal" against Putin including pedo allegations
• AP News: criticism of FSB and Putin, connection with Kremlin critics, work with MI6, traitor to FSB, "personal dimension" including "highly person" allegations and pedo allegations

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

References

1. https://globalnews.ca/news/2469321/ex-kgb-spy-alexander-litvinenko-was-killed-for-calling-putin-a-pedophile-u-k-report/
2. ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/world/europe/vladimir-putin-russia-fake-news-hacking-cybersecurity.html
3. "Full Report of the Litvinenko Inquiry". The New York Times. 21 January 2016.

Comment deletions on this talk page

I was having a polite discussion with another user here on this talk page and I received a notification, that he replied. When I got here it told me that our messages were removed. I am unsure who deleted them, but if a disruptive editor was making changes on this talk page, how can we recover past discussions without disturbing current discussions? If anyone can fix this, can you please do so? I don't know how to merge multi-pages. Many thanks! MagnoliaSouth 07:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Magnoliasouth:, it must have been archived Lotje (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lotje:Aha! Many thanksMagnoliaSouth 09:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Y're most welcome Lotje (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Writers have grappled with Vladimir Putin for two decades: Greyness, greed and grievance have been the dominant themes. The link after that sentence should have its ugly tracker tags removed.

Please remove: ?utm_content=article-link-3&etear=nl_today_3&utm_campaign=r.the-economist-today&utm_medium=email.internal-newsletter.np&utm_source=salesforce-marketing-cloud&utm_term=3/22/2022&utm_id=1097236 0xDEADBEEF (T C) 12:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi 0xDeadbeef, full protection has expired. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request - CS1 Maintenance

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Citation 570 (ref name="lib") - Change |authors= to |author= (See Category:CS1 maint: uses authors parameter). Aidan9382 _(talk) 13:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Aidan9382, full protection has expired. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

...and thank you, Aidan9382, for implementing the request. Thus resolved. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On citation # 663, there is a broken link. Can you help correct it and have it point to https://money.com/vladimir-putin-net-worth/? This is the original content that was on the outdated time.com/money link. money.com is no longer a subdomain on time.com, however, the original content from money is still available on the link I provided. the https://time.com/money/4641093/vladimir-putin-net-worth/ link is pointing to an irrelevant homepage ) Please remove https://time.com/money/4641093/vladimir-putin-net-worth/ and replace with https://money.com/vladimir-putin-net-worth/. Thanks! CamerasAndCoffee (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

References

1. https://money.com/vladimir-putin-net-worth/
2. https://time.com/money/4641093/vladimir-putin-net-worth/

 Done Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Soviet Union articles
• Unknown-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Top-importance Russia articles
• Top-importance B-Class Russia articles
• B-Class Russia (sports and games) articles
• Sports and games in Russia task force articles
• B-Class Russia (politics and law) articles
• Politics and law of Russia task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• High-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report