Talk:US President Biden says Russian President Putin must be ousted

CNBC?

@SVTCobra: not sure what you got from the CNBC source that wasn't available elsewhere. --JJLiu112 (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It was just one of the three sources I had read before I started writing. This did end up a little shorter than I first intended and as you noticed I didn't even add categories. I have now removed CNBC so as to ease a review if it is entirely redundant. BTW, not asking you to change name back, but ouster (see number 3) is a perfectly good word. --SVTCobra 06:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I tell you the truth, I've never heard of it (first impression seemed like a typo, as in the verb person who ousts) and anyway it seems either localised or in disuse. But I take it, I should consult before renaming. Nonetheless, 'ousted' is anecdotally more common in use. JJLiu112 (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd disagree 'ouster' is in disuse. Here it is in some recent headlines: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Cheers, SVTCobra 13:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4670609 [Passed]

Revision 4670609 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4670609 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

phrase "must be ousted" may be misleading

That is not what was said, verbatim. Titling the article like that imparts a bias as to what was meant or implied by the president. 2601:80:4680:9ED0:39D6:59DF:C2C2:C011 (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As it wasn’t aroundbquotation marks, it is understood to mean “he generally indicated these remarks”, rather than it was a direct quote. JJLiu112 (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

A contributor has requested that an edit be made to this protected page. Once this request is completed by an administrator, please remove this template. You may wish to ask for the help of a volunteer to make your requested edit.

A contributor has requested that an edit be made to this protected page. Once this request is completed by an administrator, please remove this template. You may wish to ask for the help of a volunteer to make your requested edit.

I've long been uncomfortable with this headline making such a claim, and I still am. The IP, above, put it best. It wasn't in quotation marks, yes. It's still a problem, in that we apparently interpreted Biden's intent rather than merely reporting on the facts of what he said. Should a {{correction}} be issued on the basis of neutrality? Heavy Water (talk) 01:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: - not sure. Both of the sources say the White House clarified he wasn't calling for ousting. They seem to have quickly realised that it might be seen as a call for ousting. The fact the Kremlin spokesman addressed the remark also suggests they interpreted it that way. Whether his intent or not, I don't think a correction is needed. However, I am open to convincing arguments. [₂₄Cr][talk] 11:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"Both of the sources say the White House clarified he wasn't calling for ousting": I'd still say this was analysis, and therefore not neutral, if the White House hadn't presented an alternative interpretation. But the fact that they did, and therefore that the en.wn article is choosing to promote one interpretation over another seems to me to make that all the clearer. Heavy Water (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Oust: "To expel; to remove."

To say "this man cannot remain in power" passively declares an urgency for change, but does not explicitly call for action.

To say "Putin must be ousted" actively and explicitly calls for action against Putin.

I believe the difference between the two is more than just subtle and to get to one statement from the other requires interpretation. Another interpretation is that Biden was implying Putin should step down, which would mean he is no longer in power but was not ousted (was not removed or expelled).

Interpretation after-the-fact by the White House is spin; "intended to bias opinion." I think our reporting in cases like this should stick very closely to the facts: Biden said "X," the White House said "X means Y" and let the readers decide.

I agree that a correction is needed. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 20:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"I think our reporting in cases like this should stick very closely to the facts: Biden said "X," the White House said "X means Y" and let the readers decide": Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Heavy Water (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)