Talk:The Vladimir Putin Interview

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

full video and transcript[edit]

Here's the full video and transcript, kremlin.ru media is cc-licensed: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73411/videos Victor Grigas (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Thanks for the transcript. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Victorgrigas: Saying that something is cc-licensed gives no useful information: Creative Commons licences range from CC0 through to CC BY-NC-ND. Checking the actual archived URL at https://archive.today/2024.02.11-233735/http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73411 shows that the licence is CC BY 4.0.
I guess we could add the transcript to Wikisource, since it's CC BY, and better that people have easy access so that they can analyse it. Boud (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I should have been specific. Victor Grigas (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video captions[edit]

Well, it's pretty obvious that captions have to be created for the video to be of any use. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a zoo. Why were captions created for the announcement of the "special military operation" video then? Though I admit that be of any use were strong words. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mention restricted access to him because he doesn't travel[edit]

Could we insert a mention that interviews with him are also rare because he doesn't travel (becuase of the ICC arrest warrant). Which means, he doesn't give interviews when he is overseas, and all interviewers had to travel to Russia to interview him. This would seem relevant to the article about a rare interview. What do people think? Should that be included? I'm happy to source it and include something - thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong approach. Find articles and cite that information if it appears, not the other way around. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really know if that's the case though? South Africa would have been obligated to arrest him, yet their government was still saying he was welcome there. — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 09:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putin Mocked Tucker Carlson over CIA[edit]

There was a point in the interview where this happened - he was a bit like Stalin during it. https://newrepublic.com/post/178898/tucker-carlson-putin-interview-mock-cia-dreams Orastor (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I don't see much value in commenting on a non-serious joke. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orastor, seems this was a noted part of the interview worth mentioning, as pointed out by this source and numerious others. It would be unusual to purposely omit it from the article, as it has been mentioned by numerous sources including Huffpost, Yahoo, Newsweek etc eg https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/putin-trolls-tucker-carlson-over-cia-rejection/ar-BB1i1SIT and the Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/putin-tucker-carlson-cia-interview-b2493559.htmlDeathlibrarian (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck sockpuppet edit. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claims[edit]

I argue that there should be a ‘claims’ section, and every fact should be marked and every falsehood refuted, all with references of course. This article is a good start: https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/02/vladimir-putins-terrifying-alternate-history/amp/ Victor Grigas (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a witch-hunt attempt to me. I wonder if that would impair the articles overall neutrality and balance. Wikipedia articles don't seem like appropriate places for "fact-checking". Can't you just analyze those claims in the analysis section? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles aren’t for fact-checking?!? Victor Grigas (talk) 15:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexiscoutinho: Neutrality means neutrally reporting what reliable sources say (cf WP:NPOV). According to all RS, Putin's views have nothing to do with reality or real history. A lot of RS have been published by various media about that interview and many of them call Putin's claims "false". This has to be reflected in the article. We simply may not write a WP:PROFRINGE article. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality means neutrally reporting what reliable sources say I know that. According to all RS, Putin's views have nothing to do with reality or real history. That's an overgeneralized claim. Firstly, it shouldn't be newsorgs that say what is true or false in history. It should be historians and academics. Not everything he said was wrong and history has an inherent degree of interpretation. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mass media are NOT reliable sources for historical facts. At the very least, consider something like Oxford or Cambridge history book series. Alternatively, you may consider wikipedia articles themselves 94.29.15.252 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that not their purpose. Show me a wikipedia guideline that says "fact-checking". It's one thing to write an encyclopedia article that covers the subject neutraly based on RS. It's another to hunt and list every single claim and assert that it's a lie. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facts should be marked as facts, lies should be marked as lies Victor Grigas (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chill. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can start with some easy facts, like in the first 2 days this interview has 12 million views on YouTube and 188 million views on Twitter. Facts that, mysteriously, aren't told in the article. emijrp (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1947[edit]

Zelensky’s father was born in 1947, and did not fight against nazis, contrary to Putins claims https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/pasaulyje/6/2192013/mazeikis-apie-istoriniu-fantaziju-kupina-putino-interviu-anot-jo-netgi-ldk-yra-sukurta-rusijos Victor Grigas (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have other better sources? I personally have no knowledge of lrt.lt reliability for example. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lithuanian National Radio and Television has been in operation for 97 years, its well-established. Victor Grigas (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, though that's not the best argument to show reliability... Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Lithuanian National Radio and Television is a member of the European Broadcasting Union. It’s not some fly-by-night podcast. Victor Grigas (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: Zelensky's (grand)father served in the Red Army during WWII, as said in Oleksandr Zelenskyy. emijrp (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Putin was talking about Zelensky's grandfather, and the fact that he fought in WW2 against the Nazis. He said father but meant grandfather. This was really obvious and clear to the russian-speaking audience. 85.174.192.49 (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NATO Expansion claims[edit]

In this interview (and in The Putin Interviews from 2017 by Oliver Stone) Putin claims that spoken agreement of NATO not expanding further to East was broken. He is criticizing that it was not written and signed by the officials of that time. Should be added to Interview summary. 95.102.254.61 (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add it! Victor Grigas (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He can't. The article is only editable by ECP+ users. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript migrate to wikisource please?[edit]

I’m on mobile, can someone migrate this transcript to Wikisource? http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/73411 Victor Grigas (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Victorgrigas:  Done wikisource:Interview to Tucker Carlson Boud (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False Claims[edit]

Quote: Putin advanced a conspiracy theory that the US government is secretly controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), rather than its elected officials. He also blamed the CIA for the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage. This was not directly claimed in interview. You can argue that the second part was implied, but truly CIA was used as an example. What was claimed was that US as a collective entity is responsible. Both the transcript and the interview themselves are freely and readily available, so references to news media should not be considered a reliable source. Furthermore, every claim made by news agencies should be checked against the interview: I'm fairly certain, there are more false claims there. 193.233.3.99 (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's indeed the case, then it's a pretty grave problem. We should not be distorting statements of living people. That section might be a good example where the primary source is a good reference. I propose backing each summary with a second primary reference quoting the interview directly. This is to ensure transparency and ultimate verifiability. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or simply not use unreliable secondary sources if they are indeed distorting the statements. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partitions of Poland[edit]

(Not a word about the Partitions of Poland.) I am very surprised this statement was deleted, while Russia was able to go more west across the Dniepr to the Neman with the Third Partition of Poland. I do not remember Suwałki Gap or the Free Port of Odesa was mentioned. Most of the attention went to the war in Ukraine.Taksen (talk) 08:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Putin referring to the Gleiwitz incident or Operation Himmler? Quite a few people visited those articles on 9 February and knew what he was talking about. These topics could be mentioned in the article.Taksen (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Snyder analysis of interview[edit]

https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/27951 Victor Grigas (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced section[edit]

@Alexiscoutinho: In this edit you added a template "unbalanced section". As far as I can see, you never explained why you think the section is unbalanced. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple. That section mostly shows negative assessments. It hardly shows a more conservative POV or global south POV. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is about an academic discipline (history), and the question is not where somebody comes from (geographically or politically). The question is if a certain view corresponds to academic consensus or is a fringe theory. In another comment above you said that "[i]t should be historians and academics". While your idea to exclude "newsorgs" has no basis in our guidelines, of course academics should be preferred. Snyder is an excellent one and I added a quote of his to the section. One last point: WP:BALANCE. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not focusing on history. That template was added to the analysis section that does not need to talk exclusively about history. There was a lot of recent politics discussed there and, as such, different POVs are just as welcome. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BALANCE demands that we represent viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. If you have RS with different viewpoints, feel free to add. If not, there is no reason to call the section "unbalanced". Rsk6400 (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that there are no "alternative viewpoints" in reliable sources? What even is the point of those templates if you can't keep them in sections? By your argument, I would be forced to fix it and until then, everybody else should consider the section balanced? That's ridiculous. The template literally says "may be unbalanced". What's the big problem in keeping it? This article is far from being finished or good. It's so new. Why are you guys suppressing a template that suggests improvements? It feels very presumptuous to believe that just the negative stuff is true and reliable. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 00:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Homie, if you have reliable sources to add, please feel free. As it is, the section in question doesn't really have any indicators that it "may be unbalanced", so the template is simply unnecessary. Tdmurlock (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How "does it not have any indicators"? Don't sections with purely negative and critical assessments/reactions seem at least "fishy"? A reader doesn't need to know anything about Tucker or Putin to feel that the article is very one-sided. For example, the article still misses a lot of notable points from the interview, such as when Putin said that he asked to join the Western missile alliance regarding Iran. We know very well that reliability doesn't mean neutrality. Many if not most of the used sources are biased. As such, one would expect that omission is affecting their coverage. Once again, I'm not saying they are unreliable... These are reasonable arguments to justify keeping the templates for now. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:UNDUE "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." A reaction section demonstrating reactions from predominantly one side or the other isn't inherently "fishy" at all, as long as it those views are presented proportionally in accordance with the sources. the views presented in the reaction section appear to be in accordance with their proportion represented in reliable sources. "Many if not most of the used sources are biased." This is too vague to be a meaningful argument, unfortunately. in fact, the sources cited seem to be fairly middle-of-the-road. Feel free to add reliable sources to the article, or point to specific sources which you view as "biased"- otherwise the template is simply a WP:TAGBOMB. Tdmurlock (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tdmurlock is spot on. Alexis, if you have reliable sources that give a different view, be bold and add them. That would be more constructive than repeatedly tagging the section. – Asarlaí (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cinderella157: Does that proceed? Do I have to edit the article myself to prove my point? Can't I just keep a "may be unbalanced" template for a while if I genuinely believe the sections are missing alternative POVs? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't I just keep a "may be unbalanced" template for a while if I genuinely believe the sections are missing alternative POVs?
— User:Alexiscoutinho 14:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No if no RS with "alternative POVs" were presented. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No sources presented, no proposals to improve the article have been made here. I'm afraid this is the continuation of a pattern of not adhering to WP:RS and WP:BALANCE and diminishing reliable sources in favor of (what?) described here (link) (the referenced discussion went into the archive without any conclusion). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know from where you're coming from. Not going to entertain this discussion with you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this looks like consensus against keeping the maintenance tags. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for Cinderella, who I fully trust. Though if he doesn't answer soon, I'll probably concede. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RL. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said "doesn't answer in the next few days". I hope I didn't spook you into answering sooner than you desired to. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is barely two weeks old and information (such as analysis) is still being added. The analysis is all negative (one sided), which is not surprising. The purpose of Template:Unbalanced section is a prompt to editors appropriate for an article such as this during its early development. Who might be providing positive analysis is probably more significant than the analysis they provide. While I would tend to support the addition of the template for an appropriate short period (say one month), this particular hill is not worth dying on Alexiscoutinho. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least agree to keep them until 8 March (1 month since the article creation)? Alexis Coutinho (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter views[edit]

To my knowledge it's not clearly defined what counts as a view on Twitter. I think until then this statistic should be removed or at least changed to "impressions". 2001:2042:9C2B:9800:20FB:4333:7646:EEEA (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something to add[edit]

The article mentions that Putin avoided the question of if he'd be satisfied with the territory in Ukraine that Russia currently occupies. It may be good to add any other questions he avoided; I recall at least twice he never replied to Carlson's question as to why he invaded Ukraine when he did, and not earlier in his presidency. I'm not sure of the best way to work that into the article though. — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 11:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarreness of the interview[edit]

Given the unexpected and unusual nature of Putin's response to the first question in the interview, I propose adding the word "bizarre" (or in alternative "unconventional" or "unusual") to accurately depict the scene for readers.

> Putin replied with a bizarre "history lecture" lasting around thirty minutes

The term "bizarre" is not intended to impart a bias but to provide a clearer depiction of the context. Offering a lengthy history lecture instead of a direct answer to a straightforward question is, by most standards, unconventional, and could indeed be perceived as bizarre. This word would contribute to painting a more vivid and accurate picture of the event for the readers.

I understand Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and the potential concerns about introducing subjective language. However, factoring in the common understanding of a conventional response to a political question, this addition may provide better insight into the unusual nature of Putin's reply.

Please note the interview was defined as bizarre by the media across all political spectrum. Examples:

KYuZz (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SYNTH/Original Research concerns[edit]

In the background section of this article it says:

"Carlson said before the interview, "We are not here because we love Vladimir Putin. We are here because we love the United States," but he has often defended Putin and promoted pro-Russian disinformation about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including the Ukraine bioweapons conspiracy theory."

As per WP:SYNTH, "articles should not combine material from multiple sources to... imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". The above excerpt from the background section combines information from 4 sources in order to impeach Mr Carlson's statement and in doing so, implies that he may not have been truthful in saying "We are not here because we love Vladimir Putin". The Variety article the quote was sourced from does not make any comment on the quote, and the other 3 sources do not contain the quote at all.

Based on this, this part of the article should not remain in its current form and I ask that an editor who is able to edit WP:ECP articles rectifies this. To be clear, I am not requesting that all the information in this part of the article be removed entirely, but that the article should be edited so as to avoid violating WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. 130.43.139.154 (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 May 2024[edit]

The Vladimir Putin Interview → Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin – There are many interviews with Putin, not just carlson's. Coddlebean (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the official name of the interview episode? If it is "The Vladimir Putin Interview" then per WP:NCTV the correct name of this article would be The Vladimir Putin Interview (The Tucker Carlson Interview). Gonnym (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since editors are deciding to ignore guidelines, I'll formally oppose the proposed title on grounds of WP:NCTV and not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as below. Gonnym (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; there being other interviews is not a reason to move as none of them has its own article. WP:COMMONNAME should not be used to make titles less formal. The proposed title has an air of laziness and casualness about it. Make it a redirect instead. Asperthrow (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Vladimir_Putin_Interview&oldid=1223219294"