Talk:Vladimir Putin - Wikipedia

I have been researching this story for several years.

Putin's presence in New Zealand as a KGB agent in the 1980s has not been corroborated through any government records that I am aware of, as the article claims (and there is no evidence of this in any of the sources cited). David Lange did not allege Putin "served" in New Zealand; the source cited for this is former Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey's recollection of a flippant remark Lange made to him decades ago about whether Putin had visited New Zealand as a young man (“Of course, why wouldn’t he?”).

On Bob Harvey's claims:

Two of the three sources cited in this section relate to the unfounded claims of Bob Harvey that first appeared in Metro magazine and were later reported by other media outlets such as the New Zealand Herald. I have researched all the claims in the article and found most to be false, such as his speaking to a judoka in Wellington who claimed to have trained with Putin in a dojo on Cuba Street (there has never been a judo club on Cuba Street and I have found no record of the man he claims to have spoken to, a "Jako Milne", ever existing). The "eyewitness accounts" the Wikipedia article cites were mostly made up by Harvey.

I also spoke to Helen Clark (one of, if not the only, person in this story to have actually met Putin) and she roundly rejects all of Harvey's claims, including that Putin had some love interest in her. Harvey, generally, is an unreliable source. He once claimed former Prime Minister Norman Kirk was killed by the CIA.

The third source relates to a book about the expulsion of Soviet diplomat Sergei Budnik and claims a man resembling Putin was in New Zealand at the time, based on photographs and vision from an old television programme. These are available online and that man is in all likelihood not Putin (significantly older and with different facial morphology).

Could this section of the article pleased be removed or simply revised to say claims have been made about Putin's possible presence in NZ in the 80s? AidanWellington (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say so. Ymblanter (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re government records – unsourced, so has been removed from our article.

Re David Lange alleging that Putin served in NZ – that is a misrepresentation of the Harvey source, so has been removed.

Re the 3rd source (the non-Harvey one) for the shoe salesman sentence – does not mention shoe salesman, so has been removed.

Re the Harvey article's claim about "the legendary Jako Milne, who had at one time held multiple judo and boxing titles" and the dojo in Cuba St. Surely there would be some record somewhere of such a person or dojo, but I also haven't found any. See also the reddit thread linked below.

Bob Harvey claims that Putin was a KGB agent "based in Germany and Singapore. One of his roles was to report on Australia, New Zealand and Fiji." Do other sources support any of this apart from the Germany bit?

Re the man at the inquiry into the sinking of MS Mikhail Lermontov. The man is in this photo, where he is identified as Boris Ashikhmin, who acted as an interpreter. There is video footage of the man in part 9 of this TV documentary. The rest of this paragraph is based on the Bernie Napp ref below: Tom Broadmore, the NZ lawyer who appears next to Ashikhmin in the photo, "said Mr Ashikhmin worked for two years in Wellington at the Soviet Fisheries Office. 'Although anything is possible, I would be absolutely flabbergasted if that was Putin in disguise.'" Former Prime Minister David Lange was asked "does he think Mr Ashikhmin is Mr Putin? 'I don't think for a moment it was ever Mr Putin, (but) I suppose in those days anything was possible.'" Then Transport Minister Richard Prebble said "Mr Ashikhmin could have been a KGB agent, but the possibility it was Mr Putin was almost nil. 'This is loony conspiracy number 215 (on the sinking of the Mikhail Lermontov).'" Oxford University professor Christopher Andrew, author of a 1999 book on the KGB, said KGB agents always travelled under assumed names. Mr Putin was, however, unlikely to have been in New Zealand in 1986 because he was working, apparently, in Germany at the time." "Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry spokesman James Funnell said that 'while we agree it is a Putin lookalike, it's not him'.^[1]

See also this reddit thread with opinions about the Harvey article.

Bob Harvey is an entertaining storyteller, but his article and radio interview are parts anecdotal, speculative, dubious, or based on men's memories 15–35 years later. I don't think he is a reliable source, and think the whole paragraph should be removed from the article. Nurg (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't think it should mention stalin in the lead HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why? — Czello ^(music) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because he shouldn't be mentioned. He was a disgusting dictator that had like 100 million people killed, more than Hitler. And Stalin has nothing to do with Putin, Putin wasn't a Soviet dictator like Stalin. This this should be removed instantly HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@HumansRightsIsCool The comment relates to how long each was leader of Russia. How evil Stalin was is irrelevant. — Czello ^(music) 21:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stalin wasnt even the leader of Russia he was the leader of the Soviet Union, a different country. Mentioning Stalin is stupid. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, it does say "Russian or Soviet" as there is a great deal of overlap there. — Czello ^(music) 07:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you please just remove it or put it somewhere else in the page where its not the lead. This is bothering me. It makes this perfect page terrible HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@HumansRightsIsCool It's notable and relevant information, don't see why it shouldn't be in the lead. This seems to just be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. — Czello ^(music) 07:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because it is. And when I reach 500 edits I'm going to remove it HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Russian and Soviet are two different nationalities, why is Stalin even mentioned when he was the leader of a whole different country 80 years ago. This has nothing to do with Putin. The person that made that edit probably wants to promote Stalin on this article because Putin is a popular guy and the communist wants to promote mass murderer Stalin on dictator putins article HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

With this attitude, you will be blocked or topic banned much sooner. Ymblanter (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wdym "much sooner", you were going to ban me later? HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 08:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Look, you are basically saying "I do not care about consensus, I may not currently edit the article, but as soon as I have a technical ability, I will". Users who reason in this way get blocked, whether it would be before this particular edit of after it. Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not without consensus. — Czello ^(music) 08:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Whatever I say, no matter how convincing I am, you won't agree with me because we have different types of mindsets HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@HumansRightsIsCool: on Wikipedia we do not remove information just because someone finds it offensive. If you think that Stalin should not be mentioned in this article you must explain how and convince other editors that the information is not relevant. Saying that Russia and the Soviet Union are different countries is not convincing anyone, you will have to come up with a better reason. If you have no such reason then you must stop asking, before someone accuses you of editing tendentiously, of not being here to build an encyclopedia, or just blocks you from editing. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

These are the crimes Vladimir Putin has committed: war crimes, mass murder, attempted genocide, mass destruction of property, mass kidnapping, mass child abductions, persecution, oppression, human rights violations, invasion, discrimination, corruption, forced displacement, crimes against humanity, espionage, electoral fraud, propaganda, state terrorism, mass censorship, abuse of power, tyranny, torture, animal cruelty, pollution, organized crime, violations of international law, unlawful imprisonments, abuse, child abuse, brainwashing, coercion, extortion, looting, illegal annexations, mutilation, forced disappearances, assault, hate crimes, fraud 187.161.132.88 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but he never claimed porn-star hush-money was business expenses. So he can't be all bad. And not sure about the animal cruelty. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

hey Stalin is mentioned in the lead. Can someone remove that HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where is any information about the crimes of this inhuman piece of filth? 46.133.151.16 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Here is the ICC case. For future reference, please avoid using vulgar language like "inhuman piece of filth"; see WP:SOAPBOXING and WP:NOTFORUM. JDiala (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be noted somewhere in the lead that although he is technically a dictator, he does enjoy widespread support among the Russian population (as noted in "Public Image" section). The way the lead discusses his rule suggests he's a comic-book villain ruling with an iron fist people desperate to resist him, when in truth it is more complex as most Russians approve of him (higher approving ratings indeed than even democratically elected US politicians).

UPDATE: I actually boldly edited this in myself. Anyone contesting this may discuss here. JDiala (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Saying "enjoys considerable support" is debatable (no one actually knows what exactly support he has right now), but simply "support", as in the current version, is not misinformation, just a very poor summary of the corresponding section of the page. There was a complex dynamics of his support over the years. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

again with attacking a strawman. "Human rights issue is already mentioned" has nothing to do with: "Corruption Perceptions Index, The Economist Democracy Index, Freedom House's Freedom in the World index, and the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index." As I mentioned: WP:UNDUE weight on the fact that a dictator manipulates society by media to receive favourable domestic approval instead on how much he has destroyed democracy in his country. To remove destruction of democracy and gradual but sure fall into neo-totalitarianism is clear indication of intent to glorify Putin. His legacy will be neo-totalitarian Russia and possibly it's subsequent crisis with division, not his "approval" rating by zombies (zombification of Russian society by disinformation) watching only state-owned media that NEVER criticise Putin for anything. YBSOne (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good point. When we talk about dictators in unfree societies (consider Saddam Hussein as an example), we do note they enjoy a personality cult, but this is not the same as a "public image" in democratic countries. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit should be reverted for being poor quality.

In regards to the section "Public Image", the view of Putin is much more nuanced then him merely having a high approval rating; serious problems about corruption being attributed to Putin and trust in him are in opposition to his high approval rating. Only mentioning one, but excluding the other two, is dishonest. In fact, the article explicitly addresses the point in your parentheses about higher approval ratings than Western leaders, arguing the two are not comparable. Related to this is how significant Putin's high approval rating actually is. The mere fact that Putin's approval rating is high does not mean much. What matters is how scholarly sources, ideally ones from the political sciences or specialists in modern Russia, interpret these high approval ratings. I saw no footnotes from JDiala addressing this (such a problem also exists with the previous summary, ideally a scholarly source explaining the significance of, say, Freedom House should also exist).

While the original summary is not the best it could be, this summary is far worse and should be reverted if it hasn't been already. HetmanTheResearcher (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The concept of "good-tsar bad-boyar" where Russians support their leader despite authoritarianism, corruption and repression is extremely significant in Russian culture. This dynamic should be touched upon in the lead, I feel. My very best wishes writes that his public image isn't uniform but rather reflects "complex dynamics." Of course it's true that polls fluctuate from time-to-time but broadly speaking it is undeniable that the "public image" section indicates clear and lasting support. Not once has an opposition leader had remotely comparable public support to Putin. JDiala (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

In neo-totalitarian regimes there is no opposition, so what image Russian society could know of any opposition to dictator? YBSOne (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's polling and other measures to gauge opinion. That's the entire point of the public image section. JDiala (talk) 07:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

But my argument is that polling is made among manipulated society, and that opposition leader is not given equal air time on state-controlled media. State-controlled equalls party-controlled. So presenting such raw data without context is just manipulatory. YBSOne (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Exactly. Votes and polling are not reliable sources to determine approval ratings in any authoritarian society. Everything is controlled by the dictator, and Russia is no exception. Only sources from foreign agencies get close to the truth. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are no reliable sources indicating that the polling is inaccurate, and in any case the polls were in fact included in the article. The point of the lead is to summarize the article. JDiala (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is the quote:

Putin said: "As soon as the coup began, I immediately decided which side I was on," although he noted that the choice was hard because he had spent the best part of his life with "the organs."

What does it mean when he spent a part of his life with "the organs"? and why is there the word "the" included? There seems to be a lack of an explanation for this, and if anyone could find any, that would be perfect. 98.33.79.56 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Organs in this context means "part of an organisation", usually a critical part. So I'd assume he means "the organs of the Soviet Union that carried out the coup". --2001:8003:1C20:8C00:A599:8FED:E2E0:7A4A (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Many sources and first-hand accounts indicate the 1999 Apartment Bombings were carried out by Putin. Additionally, FSB agents had confessed to planting the bombs themselves, and some were found with explosives on their persons. Sources indicate Putin deliberately planned these attacks as means to justify the Second Chechen War, and used the incident to showcase a strong response, which would help him gain popularity throughout Russia and be elected. >>Remove “jihadists” as the perpetrators. 2607:FEA8:4D80:9D00:98B8:9A17:9CE7:BE99 (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article 1999 Russian apartment bombings. YBSOne (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Putin and Alina Kabaeva have two sons. Ivan born in the spring of 2015 at the Sant’Anna clinic in Lugano, Switzerland and Vladimir is born in the spring of 2019 in Moscow.^[1] Sneuper (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Putin's mother was a factory worker", this is denied by Putin in his interviews with Oliver Stone. He claims she was not a factory worker but worked different jobs...including being a warden, so that she did not have to give her son to an orphanage (assumed meaning: she worked so that she could help provide for her family and help take care of her only living child). Can Somebody please correct this? ScionDeMartinez (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure an interview with Putin is the best source- it's a primary source and Putin is not the most trustworthy person in the world. But can you provide this source? It may be possible to say "According to Putin, his mother....." while leaving the other sourced information. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure he has much reason to lie about the job of his mother despite anyone's opinion of his trustworthiness. But, I see your point. Not sure how to do sources on Wikipedia but here is the eISBN: 978-1-51073-343-5. And, the ISBN: 978-1-51073-342-8. The First Interview, Trip 1, Day 1, July 2, 2015. His answer to the first question. Can be found on page 5. Quote: "VP: My mother didn't work at a factory. She was a worker, however, but she did different jobs. But I was an only child. They had lost two children before me. One during the Siege of Leningrad, during the war. And they didn't want to give me up to an orphanage. And, that's why my mother was working as a warden-" He also mentions afterward that his father worked in a factory, but this is never mentioned on his Wikipedia page. ScionDeMartinez (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

On his other birthday and mother newsweek.pl in PolishYBSOne (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This should be added but not accepted as truth. It's not proven and as with Putin's claim about his mother's job should be listed as a claim by various journalists. ScionDeMartinez (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply