Talk:Anatoly Shariy/Archive 1

Is he actually notable?

This entire article reads as a WP:POV push Shariy as being a significant journalist. As far as I've been able to establish, having investigated him thoroughly for some time, is that he is essentially a self-published member of the blogosphere, and not recognised as a 'political journalist' per se. Any WP:RS accounts about him only attest to the fact that he was granted political asylum (5 years in Lithuania) during Yanukovich's presidency (that it was Yanukovich has been omitted, while his anti-Maidan stance and the 'Kiev junta' is stressed as if it were a natural offshoot of the previous issue).

Furthermore, RF state media such as Sputnik is not a reliable source for asserting that he is a 'political journalist' when the brunt of the articles on him are to emphasise the corruption of the Kiev government: it just makes him convenient, not a serious political journalist. What is the significance of the "Yousmi Web-Journalism Award" (nominations online in Belarus, but no longer running?). Is it a prestigious award? I can't find any information on it that'd indicate anything other than the fact that it existed... but then a lot of stuff exists in cyberspace... including sites like "Wake up from your slumber" as references. Speaking of stuff existing, WP:COATRACK articles exist in Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, he is quite hateable and searchable. So I guess he is notable an uk/ru societies. Of course, he is not a star political pundit; he is just a "gadfly", therefore nobody really writes elaborated articles about him. So I say, borderline notable. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I removed yusmi.by award as nonnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

(I've just noticed this discussion.)
He is certainly notable. Google News search in Russian: [1]. (Most of the news articles there discuss what he said. Some discuss some news about him.)
As Staszek Lem said, I'm not sure there are articles fully dedicated to his biography. But there is certainly enough information in reliable sources to write a lengthy article on him. Therefore, he is notable per WP:GNG.
By the way, he wasn't always self-published. See ru:Шарий, Анатолий Анатольевич#Журналистская деятельность до 2011 года. There are some very high-profile magazines and newspapers.
@Staszek Lem:. The Yousmi Awards are notable: [2]. [3]. I will add the award back. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

No they are not. Interfax was its sponsor, so of course it wrote about it, so the source you cited is not neutral. please find better sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I have found a professional opinion on him as a journalist: [4] (by Vladimir Posner, a very famous journalist). A very high opinion. "He allowed himself (and, as I understand it, continues to allow itself) to write and speak the truth about Ukraine." --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem with references about Shariy is that there is close to none coming from really neutral sources. Pozner is not an exception. And as a source Pozner is shallow: he uttered a platitude rather than an analysis. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

It's just an opinion after all. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I wrote a reply to the previous version and you deleted it. Now I don't know what to do. But I found an article that calls Pozner a legend, etc.: [5]. And Ukraine, Ukrainian media, and Ukrainian politicians are the same thing in the context of his quote. And surely you can say the same thing (about "speaking the truth") about many other journalists in Russia and the United States. I've even searched on Wikipedia and I have found some articles saying stuff like this. I don't think it's something unusual for Enwiki. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

you deleted it - Deleted what? Please cite the diff; I don't understand you. As for opinions, when there is close to none of serious analytical information so that the reader may see what and how actually Shariy writes about, opinions are nothing but POV pushing. For one quote of Pozner I can find 10 notable Ukrainian persons who will flood Shariy with shit. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted what? Please cite the diff; I don't understand you.— Deleted your reply (diff).
You're welcome to add some bad opinion about him. This will only make the article better. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I see. Beware the pitfalls of the word "it" in sentences with several nouns; I thought "it" was the 'reply' you wrote. Now; I am strongly against adding into an article any opinions on the article subject from persons who do not provide facts or falsifiable arguments to corroborate their opinion. Without that criterion, if Hryts'ko Holopupenko writes that Shariy is a rabid dog, this opinion provides us with a verifiable information about Holopupenko, not about Shariy, and therefore belongs, if anywhere, to the article about Holopupenko. Therefore I am against citing both Holopupenko and Pozner alike. The times we take something for truth because Aristotle say so, are long gone. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, okay, your reasoning makes sense. (And my reasoning also makes sense.)
I don't really want to argue about something that I found accidentally in the Google News. I just think that my addition improves the article, it adds to his biography....
Would you agree to leave it in but paraphrase into something shorter and simpler. Like, "Vladimir Pozner highly commended his work". And maybe something along the lines of "he left Ukraine and now is hiding from the country's authorities". --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Name

Are there any references which show how the name is officially spelled in Latin alphabet? Staszek Lem (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

All I've found is blogs and forums (plus YouTube) where someone has transliterated(?) his name, and it's been picked up by circular sourcing in the same venues. As a transliteration, it doesn't actually cut it. Why not Anatoliy Shariy if they're following that convention? Looks like WP:OR to me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Since he is granted asylum in EU, there must be an official spelling in his documents; that's what I am asking for. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. It's difficult to verify anything. His YouTube channel has changed to SuperSharij, so the infobox link is out of date. It's all guesswork. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Offtopic

Incidentally, Anatoly Wasserman was a sprawling piece parred back to a brief bio. Ultimately, we're talking about local interest, and I do think WP:N is is very much borderline. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The term "local interest" in English wikipedia typically has geographical meaning. In the case of youtube pundits I'd suggest to use the term "group interest" or something. Both persons enjoy zillions of views. I have no idea how to evaluate the real impact of such persons. Shariy is a gadfly with big ego, often funny to watch, but is he an influencer? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aye, there's the rub. Technology has made lots of 'stuff' available, but does that make it (or them) notable. 'The OMG cat' has surpassed them by gazillions, but what does that really mean? Of course the cat is not a political commentator, but it leaves me scratching me head (pardon the pun) as to significance of the reach of cyberspace. There are make-up artists and others who literally have millions of followers, but cyberspace is an imaginary geographic region unto itself. In that sense, this aside isn't completely off-topic. It raises the ongoing question of the ability to create the impression of notability —a mythologising, if you will— as opposed to genuine influence. It's like the talk show phenomena that is a modern device to emulate over the back fence chats and village gossip. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop removing the following section :

Anatoly Shariy belonged in 2008 to the homophobic movement "Love against homosexuality". On October 8, 2008, on the program Народный суд (People's court) on Ukrainian channel Inter, Anatoly Shariy made a rant against homosexuality, arguing that homosexuals should be "cured" and that Ukrainians are "becoming a minority". Complaining about a "homo-dictatorship", he claimed that homosexuals should be expelled from cities : "go 300 kilometers from here, build a city, name it Gomorrah and live there"[18][19]. His interview is correctly referenced. BobbyVinton (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• The source can't be checked. Stop edit warring. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop lying : the video was correctly mentioned in the source. BobbyVinton (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The link looked completely unreliable, so I didn't check it even. Now I've visited the site, but the part you added is just your personal opinion about the video. Find a third-party source. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Please tell me, how is it my "personal opinion"? I just quoted Mr. Shariy, nothing else. BobbyVinton (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited it, only to reflect his statements. BobbyVinton (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The membership to "Love against homosexuality" is mentioned on the website of the movement : "в эфире приняли участие представители движения «Любовь против гомосексуализма» Юрий Шмуляр и Анатолий Шарий". What is the problem here? BobbyVinton (talk) 20:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yousmi Web-Journalism Award

Remove the following:

In 2009, Sharij won the Yousmi Web-Journalism Award for "Best Story (Non-Professional)".

The award is self-nominated, there were twenty or so recipients in 2009, and the source is a press release. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Closing now that protection has expired. —MRD2014 ^{Merry Christmas!} 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. 1. Where exactly does it say the award is self-nominated? Why would it be self-nominated? 2. There are twenty or so recipients of the Pulitzer Prize each year, so what? --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

This should be reintroduced. It is absurd to refuse a source because of the country it is from. If we can't use a notable Ukrainian source to talk about an Ukrainian personality, what can we do then? Why is this article using a conspiracy theory website such as Sputnik then?

Second, this was labeled as "government news agency". Wrong. This news agency belongs to a private company. And that corporation, Inter, took an anti-Maidan stance in 2013-14, meaning it is certainly *not* a nationalistic news agency.

Third, this article is pretty much laudatory, and does not reflect at all that this person is widely considered as a pro-Russian propagandist in Ukraine and even in Lithuania (the country that gave him asylum), where he is suspected by the government due to his pro-Russian activities[6]. BobbyV1987 (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the change, mostly because I agree it doesn't make sense to remove something because it came from a government news agency when the news agency is not government owned. If it's believed the Ukrainian News Agency is not a WP:reliable source for BLPs or in general because it's too closely aligned with the government, then that should be said rather than some other thing which makes no sense. I know very little about Ukrainian journalism and businesses but reading Ukrainian News Agency, Inter (TV channel) and Dmytro Firtash, I'd say even calling it government aligned seems a little weird, although that doesn't mean it's reliable. If there remains dispute, I suggest this be brought to WP:RS/N, I won't revert if there are continued BLP concerns but those and RS/N discussions should be based on correct information rather than weird things which make no sense like the Ukrainian News Agency being a government news agency. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn/no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:47, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Anatoly Shariy → Anatoly Sharij – This is his official name in his international documents and has nothing to do with transliteration accepted in Wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. It doesn't matter how his name is spelled in the official documents. What matters is how reliable sources spell it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sources which misspell the name of a person cannot be reliable in this respect. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: How does he transliterate his own name personally? That's what we should be looking for. ONR (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • https://sharij.net/, https://www.youtube.com/user/SuperSharij. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Could we have a report on what reliable sources use? Tony (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Further comment - He has at least two Twitter accounts: https://twitter.com/sharijnet + https://twitter.com/anatoliisharii, so that gives us a third option (Anatoii Shaharii)... The fact is that there doesn't seem to be a 'preferred' Latin script spelling. To be honest, I'm still at odds with his notability other than self promotion. www.globalresearch.ca/the-end-of-journalism-in-ukraine-a-feature-interview-with-anatoly-sharij/5448838 (although a dubious source in itself, at least it's an Anglosphere source) uses Anatoly Sharij. Furthermore, this article is pushing the envelope on WP:BLPVIO with the illiterate addition of scandal-mongering surrounding Marushinets (backed up only by a self-published article by the purported notable the article is about, and a no-name brand online news org) which I am now removing... Oh, and add WP:PEACOCK to the manner in which the section is written. True or not, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• If I'm not mistaken, according to the transliteration scheme called "Passport 2007" in this Wikipedia article, his international passport would say "Anatolii Sharii". According to the "Passport 2004" and the most recent "National 2010" schemes, both "Anatolii Sharii" and "Anatoliy Shariy" are possible, but not "Sharij". --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • OK WITHDRAWING until more solid confirmation. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Marushinets

The case of racist Marushinets had international implications, not just some minor sexual harassment scandal. And this is a notable feat for a journalist, has nothing to do with "scandal-mongering". Just watch the freaking videos, and stop protecting rabid anti-Semite, Polonophobe, Hungarophobe and an idiot who claims that half-Europe belongs to Ukraine. And this is not hearsay, it is his own words reported by independent investigative source. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

no-name brand online news org -- All Ukrainian "brand" names are controlled by government, they will never report on themselves. By the way 'obozrevatel.com' is a no-brand but quite-name, and quite pro-regime and anti-Sharij, so I would say it is rather neutral source in this respect. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I wasted a bit of my time and added a ref to BBC. I hope this is brand enough for you. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

scandal-mongering -- Huh??? A diplomat for years posted anti-Semitic and otherwise racist posts. Yes it is scandal that modern Ukrainian govrnmnt (and the West) turned a blind eye on this. And now trying to hush-hush it. In a country which glorifies its SS heroes. If not for Sharij's reporting this ukro-Nazi would have still holding high diplomatic post. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Pozner shariy-615x461.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

"Russian black propaganda"

user:UkrainianCossack wrote in article "pro-Russian investigative journalist", with the edit summary "this man create anti-Ukrainian, Russian black propaganda". Please provide references to his video where you think Sharij does pro-Russian propaganda. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Remarks about inhabitants of Western Ukraine

Some months ago I wanted to add the controversial remarks of Shariy about inhabitants of Western Ukraine but they were reverted by User:Staszek Lem. Allegedly, the quote was taken by me out of context. I wonder what context would justify such a statement. What needs to be supplemented so that this information can be reintroduced into the article?--KastusK (talk) 11:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

It cannot be inserted into the article because it comes from author who falsely calls Sharij "pro-russian blogger", hence the source is non-neutral. Yes, there was a video, but it was not addressed to Western Ukraine people, but to neo-nazis SS-Galychyna lovers, who flooded Kiev after the Maidan coup and started teaching Ukraininas how to love Ukraine and hate Russian language, widely spoken in Kiev. Hence the vitriolic language of Sharij. He quickly removed the video, but it was disseminated by sharij-haters. As for "out of context", please read the Wikipedia article. Now, the video starts with "У меня есть несколько друзей из Западной Украины, я уважаю этих людей, я горжусь дружбой с ними, это вполне вменяемые люди. Мое обращение к невменяшкам прошу не счесть его шовинизмом и расизмом и еще чем-то." Please find a neutral source which analyzes the history with the video. I must say the video demonstrates a surge of Sharij's ignorance in history. In general, as a journalist, Sharij is great, but when he starts spilling his own brains on some subject, he demonstrates a limited intellect. Same with his "odnofamilitsa" who does not hesitate to speak in foul words turning her image from smart girl to privokzalnaya blayd. But again, all this must be discussed in neutral sources. Since there are none, the importance of Sharij appears kinda exaggerrated. In any case please read WP:BLP. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I have found this source which also mentions that Shariy later apologized for his remarks and that he was talking only about specific individuals. I propose to insert the following translation of the quote from the video into the article:

“ Unpleasant information came to me that in Kyiv, the inhabitants of Western Ukraine suddenly began to tell the people of Kyiv how they should behave, how they have to love Ukraine, how they need to sing the anthem, walk with the flag. I have several friends from Western Ukraine, I respect these people, I am proud of friendship with them, these are quite sane people. I ask my appeal to the irresponsible women not to consider him chauvinism and racism and something else.

In fact, until the 39th year you were nobody. You were instead of oxen, you were like marmots on their holes dug in the mountains. Or buried, you were dug in the 39th. Do you understand? The regions of Kyiv, Zaporizhzhya, Poltava have something to hate Stalin. You do not, you have to put Stalin a golden monument in one of your villages. And you have to pray at this monument in fact, because you saw civilization in the 39th year. You started to wipe your ass in the 39th. When they tell me they served soups to the Poles, I say this is impossible. They served soups to farm laborers of the Poles. Because no one would have allowed them to the Poles. You did not have land. You... I am Ukrainian, and you are not Ukrainians. You second... there, second... well, I don’t say second grade, no, you are just half-breeds. Three-timers, foursquads. You are half fucking Poles, half you are Hungarians, half you the devil knows what you are really. Do not tell the people of Kyiv how they should behave, how they need to love the country, love their flag. Because it is not your flag. You have no flag. You are not Ukrainians. [7]

”

The story about this video is pretty well-known and was mentioned by TV channels such as 1+1 and 24 Kanal. It is definitely important to mention it in the article.--KastusK (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

We do not insert extended quotes into wikipedia articles. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The source you cited is Goebbels-like propaganda which mixed truths with falsehoods and the truth is presented in twisted and misleading way. The title itself is biased: Sharij is described as "scandalous". The only "scandal" is the video in question. It was quickly removed and the scandal was fomented by the very people whom he called names: the Ukrainian neo-Nazis, because of whom Ukraine is in deep shit: lost Crimea and has civil war now. In case you do not know: the very first post-Maidan law was to ban Russian language. It was quickly cancelled, but this was but a tip of the iceberg of the hate fomented against Russians (25% of population) in Ukraine. Of course Russia grabbed the fat chance to "defend" Russians and prevent NATO from making military base in Crimea. Neo-Nazis alienated not only Russians, but Polish, Hungarian and Slovak minorities as well. I am not even speaking about part of the Ukrainian ethnos itself: Boiko/Lemko/Rusyns, who have been refused recognition from Day One of independence. Crimean Tatars were refused due recognition in Ukraine up to the moment Ukraine lost Crimea. And so on. The racist and outright neo-Nazist minority in Ukraine was extremely vocal and unpunished last 5 years. And the "civilized West" keeps blind eye on this. What is more, when Poland passed the "anti-Banderovite law" which penalized propaganda of Ukrainian Nazist affiliation during WWII, it was met with aggressive pressure from the West and backed off. THIS is scandal, but not because Sharij was "scandalous", but because Maidan brought to power the worst of the Ukrainians, thieves, too. The proof that Sharij was right is the landslide victory of the current president, a nobody comic actor, over Poroshenko, who destroyed the country while amassing 10x wealth by robbing the country including marauding the army he is boasting he created. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Your answer contains some mistakes. For example the Ukrainian government never intended to ban Russian language but it only wanted to abolish a two-year old law on the status of Russian language. However, this is a different topic.

Shariy received a lot of criticism for this video and it provoked a controversy. This article contains no critical information about this person although the controversy around the video received a wide media echo and his original quote is well documented. I propose to sum up the quote the following:

“ Unpleasant information came to me that in Kyiv, the inhabitants of Western Ukraine suddenly began to tell the people of Kyiv how they should behave, how they have to love Ukraine, how they need to sing the anthem, walk with the flag. I have several friends from Western Ukraine, I respect these people, I am proud of friendship with them, these are quite sane people. I ask my appeal to the irresponsible women not to consider him chauvinism and racism and something else.

[...] You... I am Ukrainian, and you are not Ukrainians. You second... there, second... well, I don’t say second grade, no, you are just half-breeds. Three-timers, foursquads. You are half fucking Poles, half you are Hungarians, half you the devil knows what you are really. Do not tell the people of Kyiv how they should behave, how they need to love the country, love their flag. Because it is not your flag. You have no flag. You are not Ukrainians. [8]

”

In addition I would add the information that Shariy later apologized for this statement and that he explained that he was only referring to specific individuals.--KastusK (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

never intended to ban Russian language -- bullshit. It IS banned or severely restricted in several areas. By the way, a funny fact: half a year ago when searching Ukrainian official documents I stumbled upon a document banning import of certain Russian books (such bans are issued nearly every month). Imagine that among the works of Dugin and the likes, there was a coloring book, Masha and the Bear! These Russians must be really cunning in their information warfare and Ukrainian minsitry of information or something is really vigilant! Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

later <...> and that he explained that he was only referring to specific individuals - this is just one example of twist in the article cited. Phrased in this way, means that he ranted and later, when shit hit the fan, he said "oh, sorry, my bad, I didn't mean to insult all W.Ukr." In fact, his rant started, kinda : "I am addressing only to some idiots among W.Ukrs", i.e., there was nothing to explain.

So, among of THOUSANDS of videos about

• how Poroshhenko marauded the army,
• how he was hitting a girl and pulling hats off people who asked unpleasant questions,
• how his henchmen were battering people and breaking their cellphones, and getting bonuses for this, too
• how Poroshenko was rigging elections,
• how Russian pseudolawyer mark feygin was spreading falsehoods and insults
• how killers are walking free under protection of SBU,
• how independent journalists are abducted and imprisoned by SBU,
• how mentally sick people become heroes of ukraine,
• how ukrainian media fomenting hatred on ethnic and religious grounds,
• how state budget stolen by appropriation and kickbacks
• how Donbass babushkas who built Ukraine's wealth (now stolen) are not receiving social security money,
• how Ukrainian church hierarch (metropolitan Filaret, I believe) called for killing off Ukrainians in Donbass and God will forgive,
• how certain political leaders (openly and unprosecuted) rally for cleaning Ukraine from Jews,
• how ukrainians spend a considerable part of their budget on food because "Ukrainians eat too much"
• how certain journalist calls Vinnytsa people slime who must be burned "as it was in Odessa on May 2nd",
• ..... and thousands more

- and you happened to pick a single video with some stupidity? I say, this is totally WP:UNDUE and POV pushing. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In fact you are trying to push POV because you are obviously a fan of his work and you do not want the article to contain any critical or controversial information about him. My proposed version of the quote is not taken out of context because it contains the intro in which he talks about the fact that he has friends from Western Ukraine. His rant is well-documented and received attention from media outlets such as 24 Kanal, 1+1 and Road Control. Whether you like it or not but this video became a famous point of criticism against Shariy during the elections which should not be discreeted.--KastusK (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I would not call myself fan of him, but he is funny to watch; I also think his smartness is limited (I already mentioned about this here). Yes it received attention in the media outlets who call him pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian, separatist, pro-Kremlin, odious, etc. without bothering to prove their statements. Meaning that these sources are far from being neutral towards this person, hence cannot be used per WP:BLP. I can point-by-point prove that 50% of the source you cited (appearing most neutral of the most) is a propaganda twist intended to smear Sharij by digging out an old removed video during election campaign. We do not have neutral sources which describe this episode in its face value. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you please tell me what is specifically wrong with this source? The article does not blame him for being pro-Russian or separatist and it provides a source to the video in which Shariy makes his Anti-Ukrainian remarks. 24tv.ua is an authentic source that is widely used on Wikipedia. So why is not possible to add this information to the article?--KastusK (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Because the source is demonstrably non--neutral towards Sharij. The video in question is not anti-Ukraininan. It specifically speaks, although I agree, in an insulting way, about western Ukrainians who are telling Kiev how they have to live and which idols to bow. I.e., he is speaking about how one part of Ukrainians of trying to force their view on other Ukrainians. So, at best, he is anti-Western Ukrainian, not anti-Ukrainian. Please also do not forget that Sharij speaks with irony and taking his text literally is impossible. In particular, "bowing to Stalin" part cannot be taken literally, although there is a grain of truth: USSR did consolidate the Ukrainian lands into what it is now. From the Polish point of view it was robbery (starting from the very Partitions of Poland): there are plenty of nations split between different countries and doing good. Not without tensions, but Hungarians live in Romania, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Consclusion: today there are virtually no neutral sources about Sharij, especailly in view of his battle with the government and govt-controlled media. I say, any sources which use the standard cliche "Anti-Ukrainian pro-Russian scandalous blogger" must be rejected on the spot. Although "scandalous" he is and he likes it.

And I agree that he is anti-maidan, because both sides agree on this. YOu are welcome to add this: it will be much more relevant description of his consistent position, rather than his obscure blurb. This is encyclopedia, not dirt-digging site. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So basically, what is wrong with the source? Yes, it is critical of Shariy, just as critical journalism has to be. But it is based only on verifiable facts. It does not accuse Shariy of being pro-Russian or being Anti-Ukrainian in general. It only refers to his Anti-Ukrainian remark. And if you ask me it is very Ukrainophobic to insult the half population of this country. Yes, this is an encyclopedia and not a dirt-digging site. And an encyclopedia is obligated to contain also critical information about politicians if they are based on reliable sources. We both know that Shariy made these statements and that they were sparked a relevant controversy.--KastusK (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I re-read the article and still think that individual facts, while true are presented in twisted, biased ways, and in general the text is extremely biased as a whole. The attention to negatives is attracted even by font: обвинил Шария в финансировании терроризма на Донбассе, (for passing some meagre monies to old babushkas) по статье "педофилия (but did not say that these accusation were false and Fejgin did this for years, and this still continues), etc.

We are not going to put each and every stupid blurb of a politician into wikipedia. Only notable statements and acts which made a cultural impact are discussed. See also WP:TRIVIA. We need a neutral secondary sources that discuss this impact, not just "he said, so later apologized". Sharij routinely insulted gays, gypsies, european immigrants, ukrainian politicians, journalists, the President, etc. That's why he is "scandalous". Heck, look at parliamentarians in Rada, who insult each other and even kick and punch each other. But we are not collecting all these dirt pieces into their biographies. And no, he did not insult half of population, it was an angry emotional speech against those aggressive ones who arrived to Kiev and started forcing their views down the throats of the rest of Ukraine, for whatever good reasons. If you want to tell the whole story in a neutral way, you have to also tell that he almost immediately deleted it, but, as it goes in the internets, the video was dug out of the cache and widely spread by his enemies. Staszek Lem (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The article does not contain a single wrong statement or an unproven accusation. It simply brings together well-known facts. It mentions that Gerashchenko despite his accusations against Shariy never opened a criminal case against him and it also mentions that Feygin was forced to refute his accusations of pedophilia against Shariy. So again: there is nothing wrong with this source. There are no falsehoods or unbased accusations in this article.

Wikipedia articles often contain controversial statements of political figures if they received some attention in prominent media outlets. The article of Oleh Tyahnybok ("[You are the ones] that the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine fears most"), Yulia Tymoshenko ("It's about time we grab our guns and go kill those damn Russians together with their leader") and Victoria Nuland ("Fuck the EU!") also contain controversial statements of these political figures. Shariy's comments on Western Ukraine received a lot of attention in several media outlets which I have already listed up above. I agree that most of them are not very neutral but 24 Kanal is definitely a reliable source and I can not understand why we should withhold this information.--KastusK (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Are you really comparing the political impact of Nuland and Timoshenko with Sharij? :-) Wow!. Anyway, it seems that Sharij's team does not care shit about this article. Therefore go ahead, I am stopping arguing this issue, since it is waste of my time and not within my encyclopedic interests. I still consider this part of witch hunt, because it is cherry-picking among tens of thousands of his posts and therefore far from being representative of his views. What is really needed to find is an analytical article in reliable sources about his language: "selyuki v vyshivankax", "kastrulegolovye", "rahuli", etc., a classical case of hate speech. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Pro-Kremlin attitude

And here we go again. I have added an authentic trustable source for my edits. Why do you revert my edits User:Staszek Lem?--KastusK (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

And here we go again: I wrote it clearly in edit summary: WP:BLP: accusations without evidence do not belong here. In wikipedia we do not care who cpreads false accusations: Deutche Welle of Donald Trump or BBC. No one ever provided any proof that Shariy is Anti-Ukrainian or pro-Kremlin. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not write that he is Anti-Ukrainian or pro-Kremlin. I wrote that he was accussed of being pro-Kremlin by the Anti-Corruption Foundation. That is a relevant organization and I provided a source for this fact. Shariy does not make a secret out of the fact that he is a former admirer of Putin.--KastusK (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I am writing for the third time for you: It does not matter who says/writes falsehoods without evidence. Wikipedia is not in the business of further spreading these falsehoods. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Deutsche Welle does not spread falsehoods. The article clearly refers to this video by Shariy, in which he justifies the suppression of the protests in Russia.--KastusK (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is the full quote from DW about protests:

Что говорил про протесты:

Выпустил ролик в день протестов 26 марта (почти 850 тысяч просмотров). С одной стороны, подчеркнул, что "власть обязана ответить на это расследование". С другой - вскоре перевел тему на Майдан, утверждая, что ничего хорошего Украине те события не принесли, и в очередной раз отчитал действующее украинское руководство. В том же ролике оправдывает задержания людей на митингах в России тем, что правоохранительные органы не должны "ждать, когда будут первые "коктейли Молотова".

Please explain what is wrong with Sharij here. the "from one hand" sentence is criticism of Russia. The next is about criticism of Ukraine. Third is support of detention of people at unsanctioned meetings. OK last one is agreement with Russian police actions. Now, where DW calls Sharij proRussian because of this? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not write anywhere that DW calls Shariy pro-Russian. The heading of the section which I have edited was "Accusations of anti-Ukrainism and pro-Russian attitude". I have only written that the Anti-Corruption Foundation accused Shariy of being pro-Kremlin and his support of detention of demonstration participants is an indication for this claim. I have only reproduced the content of the DW article while you claim that DW spreads falsehoods although you can easily verify the information.--KastusK (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

And I have written it does not matter who accuses whom. Wikipedia is not in the business of spreading false accusations, including DW. We are enclyclopedia not news tabloid. By the way, you are responding to my comment about your inclusion of a particular DW peice. My question means that that this piece about protests has no relation to proRussianness of Sharij and hence does not belong to this section.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, are you familiar what was going on between sharij and navalny? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, I re-added Navalny's opinion without surrounding fluff. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Also I have finally found (and added into the article) the real criticism of Sharij (as opposed to name-calling) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you please explain to me where DW does spread any falsehoods in its article? I provided you two links which prove that Shariy is a former admirer of Putin and that he defends the actions of the Russian authorities during the Anti-corruption protests. These are relevant facts in a section which deals with the claimed pro-Russian attitude of Shariy. The reader should decide by himself which conclusions he would like to draw from these informations.--KastusK (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It retransmits the falsehood spread by Navalny and his team (regardless the attribution).

Regarding his opinions about demonstrations, they are based on similar events in Ukraine, which, in his, opinion were the reason of the disaster in this country and has nothing to do with support of Putin. In one of his videos he explained the stupidity (or disingenuity) of this argument: I say that Hitler was murderer. Putin says that Hitler was murderer. Therefore I support Putin.... right? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

which prove that Shariy is a former admirer of Putin -- first, this is your original research, second, being a former admirer does not prevent one to become a current hater. Also, being an admirer does not mean being a supporter. For example I admire Trump (believe it or not, but unlike most modern American Presidents he fulfilled nearly all his pre-election promises (their popularity is a separate issue)), but I didn't vote for him and will not. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yury Melnik of Lviv National University pointed out to the one-sideness of Sharij's criticism: he criticizes "pro-Ukrainian and pro-European forces in Ukraine and opposition forces in Russia", while he seldom comments on the actions of the Russian state. I think he does this "one-sideness journalism" to get more viewers for his blog (it would likely get banned in Russia if he would openly criticise the Russian state and the scandal that this "one-sideness" brings he probably welcomes because it brings more views to his blog). Shariy is simply selling out to get viewers for his blog because he does not want get a real job... (and is unlikely to het hired by a respectable newspaper by now). His selling out makes him despicable in my opinion....Too many people like him are involved in Ukrainian politics (again my personal opinion)..... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree, he is making big money with billions of views on youtube. At the same time the behavior of Ukrainian government and nationalists are doing a good job to make him strive. Also, I am pretty sure that last 2 years he has become a talking head of some Ukrainian forces (no way he can get so much insider info by himself). Still, much of his reports are from open sources; still another part is recycling of scandals reported elsewhere earlier. As for criticizing "opposition forces in Russia", this is bullshit. This was a one-time stunt (in several installments) of a personal beef with Navalny (I say he is a Russian mirror of Sharij). By the way, personal beefs is a considerable part of his blogs. Personally I think he as politician is of small value as a possible statesman. Any his talks on subjects other than dirt digging demonstrate his limited brain power (I wanted to write "intelligence", but this word is ambiguous).

All that said, regardless, in wikipedia he deserves the NPOV treatment, like everything else. I am saying that because vast majority of Ukrainian media, for obvious reasons, are far from being neutral towards Sharij, to put it mildly.

P.S. By the way, regarding your edit of "Residence" section: the source cited demonstrates that he owns the villa, but there is no proof this is his place of residence and it does not say he resides there. By the way, this is not a news: it was already known in 2019. Also I've re-read the articler and see "slidstvo.info" writes: " Невдовзі подружжя, у якого, судячи з фото в соцмережах, нещодавно з’явилася дитина, планує переїхати до вілли на березі Балеарського моря. Так, принаймні, кажуть наші джерела." Meaning that this place is definitely not "Residence" yet. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Please do not use reverts blindly, without looking at edit summary and actual edits.

Please state your objections to article content in talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Major fix of article mess

I fixed the major mess with article structure. Please follow the pattern and do not add content in chaotic way.

Also, please follow our rules for references and external links. In particular, the authors of the added texts: please format the footnotes which look like

• [8]

in a proper way. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

revert of Алый Король's edits

@Алый Король: You deleted huge chunks of referenced text. Please explain your deletions of whole sections, one by one. I agree that the article requires cleanup, but not in such a drastic way. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I do not think that some sources you cited, such as b2blogger.com, are admissible in Wikipedia. Please review our policy about reliable sources. Specifically, the article you cited from b2blogger does not mention its author, so we do not know what kind of expertise and truth it provides. In general, blogs are admitted as sources in wikipedia only in limited circumstances. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Editors need to work in small edits with clear edit summaries. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

POV - Rollback to stable version?

I think a rollback to a stable version is in order. This article has become quite a mess in the past year, and it doesn't appear that the care required for a biography is being followed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely out of question without solid arguments. I split the article into sections. Please contest them one by one. Sharij has become quite notorious in Ukraine and his "adventures" are well documented.

I do not know who the heck is Hipal, but I do know Ronz is a seasoned Wikipedian and I am surprized he throws such suggestions lightly. Recently the article was actively edited by relatively new users who are nonnative English speakers. They "sit on both sides of the fence" and this will hopefully ensure the NPOV of the article. Surprizingly, there is little edit warring going on here, despite sharply polarized opinions about Shariy. If anything, the article requires proofreading and other wikihelp. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion. (I've changed my username, and am using both to help avoid confusion).

I appreciate what you're doing here. I'm just wondering if it's out of control. It looks like WP:BATTLE problems, possible even WP:COI.

Far too much of the expansion appears based upon poor sources. I'm also concerned that there are problems with translation into English. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

If the chaotic battle continues, we will have no choice, but to request locking the article on a wrong version. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

That's how I started this discussion. Roll back to a stable version and work from there... --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Moved to talk page - Awards

Awards and recognition

In 2009, Sharij won the Yousmi Web-Journalism Award for "Best Story (Non-Professional)".. In April 2016 Shariy was named laureate of the Russia-based International Literary-Media Oles Buzina Contest (Международный литературно-медийный конкурс имени Олеся Бузины). .

On November 16, 2017, in a rating of the personalities by number of readers in the Ukrainian segments of Facebook and Twitter, Sharij got the 12th place with the aggregate audience of 511,000 people.

On March 18, 2019, the company Brand Analytics published its ratings of Russophone YouTube-bloggers for February 2019. In terms of viewer engagement rate (defined by the company as the sum of likes and comments), where Sharij's vlog holds the 1st place, who collected about 3 million likes and 430,000 comments. In terms of audience, with 1.8 million subscribers he was on the 38th place. The company notices that political topics usually attracts a small fraction of YouTube viewers. In summer 2019 Sharij was downgraded to the 2nd place in the engagement rate category, beaten by vlogger Mamix.

Journalist Vladimir Posner commented on Sharij's work, saying that Sharij was one of those who had the right to be called a journalist, because, unlike many others, Sharij is calling a spade a spade. "He allowed himself (and, as I understand it, continues to allow itself) to write and speak the truth about Ukraine. He once ended up making a run of it and now is forced to hide from the authorities of this extremely democratic country"

In 2019 Sharij was included into the list of Top 100 most influential people and phenomena in Ukraine according to the "Vesti". He took 34th place.

Absolute world champion in the first heavyweight, the only holder of champion belts in all prestigious versions among professional boxers of today - Oleksandr Usyk. During his press conference in Kiev, he expressed about Sharij : "Anatoly is a handsome man, by the way. I have seen how he breaks them open. I do not react in any way to what is said by those who speak. It does not matter if it is bad things or good things. To those who say good things, I am very grateful, to those who come in and say 'what are you talking about? "We bring happiness to people", they should respond, but they don't carry anything. Some figure asks an official request that I give him how much I earn and where I pay. Are you crazy? Jean Belenyuk was attacked then. I would like to ask to gather all the dissatisfied people who do not like me. I will go out and fight with them. No matter how many of them there are, I will go out alone against them." Oleksandr Usyk conducted joint broadcasts with Sharij, where he publicly admitted that he had been watching it since 2014 and supported it.

Repeatedly Anatoly Shariy was included in the top most popular Ukrainian political bloggers on Facebook, those who actively maintained their pages on Facebook and whose posts attracted the largest audience in their category.

Brand Analytics presented the June 2020 ranking - Top 20 Russian-speaking YouTube bloggers in terms of involvement, where Anatoly Shariy is the 3rd with 4.4 million people involved.

Shariy entered the list of TOP 20 opinion leaders in social networks and took the twelfth line of the rating of opinion leaders in social networks

He was also included in the top-list of people who have more influence on Ukrainian youth in social networks. Shariy entered the top 20 and took the 10th place.

References

Awards and reception (version as of end of 2019

In 2009, Sharij won the Yousmi Web-Journalism Award for "Best Story (Non-Professional)".

Journalist Vladimir Posner commented on Sharij's work, saying that Sharij was one of those who had the right to be called a journalist, because, unlike many others, Sharij is calling a spade a spade. "He allowed himself (and, as I understand it, continues to allow itself) to write and speak the truth about Ukraine. He once ended up making a run of it and now is forced to hide from the authorities of this extremely democratic country"

On November 16, 2017 in a rating of the personalities by number of readers in the Ukrainian segments of Facebook and Twitter, Sharij got the 12th place with the aggregate audience of 511,000 people.

On March 18, 2019, the company Brand Analytics published its ratings of Russophone YouTube-bloggers for February 2019. In terms of viewer engagement rate (defined by the company as the sum of likes and comments), where Sharij's vlog holds the 1st place, who collected about 3 million likes and 430,000 comments. In terms of audience, with 1.8 million subscribers he was on the 38th place. The company notices that political topics usually attracts a small fraction of YouTube viewers.

References

Discussion

A lot of these look trivial, promotional, and poorly sourced. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

• Why did you remove the section? I had to revert. This article already looked like an attack page, and you removed the only positive information that remained. Let me draw your attention to the other sections ("Political views of Shariy", "Controversies", "Lawsuits"). They should be removed or trimmed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I added the version from the end of last year for comparison, in case it would be easier to start with the expansion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: Could we please avoid edit-warring and wait for other user's opinions? --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Poorly sourced information should be removed per BLP. Please revert.

Yes, the article needs a complete going over. Feel free to do the same with any other section whose references are similarly poor. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

All I know now is that some of the text you removed has been in this article for 5 years or so. This was a nice short page then.
I don't know who needed to trash this article, but now it looks like a collection of far-fetched "controversies". Who are the haters who could do this? He's actually a very respected journalist. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Let's just wait for other editors to arrive. Let's see what they say. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Please revert per BLP. Feel free to restore anything referenced with high-quality, independent references. If there are none, then the section doesn't belong in the article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

To start with, Interfax is a reliable source. Vladimir Pozner Jr. and his website are too. And ITC.ua, definitely, and there are also some other IT websites. And some of the sources are actually Ukrainian or pro-Ukrainian propaganda media, so I wouldn't say they are too high of quality, but it's strange that you aren't opposed to using them in other sections.
Just look. Hromadske.TV, Vesti.ua, UNIAN, Ukrayinska Pravda, Censor.net are used throughout this article. If even Hromadske.TV and UNIAN say Shariy is influencial, then he must be. The sources are roughly of the same quality throughout the whole article. And as far as know, if one decides to free a Wiki article from possible BLP violations, s/he should start with material that is "potentially libellous". I fail to see anything even potentially libellous in the section that you deleted. But I can see plenty of that elsewhere. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

can see plenty of that elsewhere -- Not everything contentious must be deleted from articles. Bios of public persons often discuss libelous issues. See WP:BLPREMOVE how to handle this. In particular the fact that Sharij sued for libel several times but failed, and this was widely reported. Sharij does not hide his homophobia and racist remarks towards fugitives in Europe, so no big wonder this was reported. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Moscow Connection, do you realize that here on the English Wikipedia we have sanctions for biographies? I'm glad you're finally discussing quality of sources. I'm not extremely familiar with situations like this, but I thought that such reliance on non-English sources was frowned upon at the very best, and a stretch for the requirements of BLP. Also, just because a source is reliable doesn't mean it deserves mention. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately for quite few subjects from non-English countries English sources are extremely scarce. I happen to know some Lithuanian, Czech, Slovak, and Russian, and there are quite a few notable subjects for which there are close to none English sources. Some of my recent such discoveries are Rumcajs, Léon Clifton, Čiurlionis Mountain, Vincas Svirskis, Alley of Angels in Donetsk, Konstantin Dushenko, Der Beobachter an der Weichsel, ...., and many more. Yes, this is English-language Wikipedia, but the notability is not restricted to anglophone civilization. And of course, non-English sources are not frowned upon. Sorry, this would be wikiracism. What the policy says is that with other things equal, English-language (not "English") sources are preferable, for obvious reasons of the ease of verifiability. And we should be proud of enwiki being truly international one. IMO only dewiki is coming close in this respect (as well as in terms of verifiability, notability, and NPOV). Staszek Lem (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

So let's check on the use of non-English sources and get that out of the way. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Non-English reliable sources are allowed and aren't "frowned upon". If you can't read them, then AGF. (As far as I can see, Staszek Lem has already checked some sources in that section and corrected some errors.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

If you'd provide some strong evidence, it would help greatly. Focusing on editors and behavior undermines arguments and could appear disruptive. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Praises by individuals

I do not think that blurbs by individual persons must be included into "Awards and recognition", per WP:UNDUE. If they were part of critical analysis of his activities, with examples and arguments, this would make sense. But quoting someone merely saying "He is a good man" has little encyclopedic value. In any case, Usyk's paragrapn is blown out of proportions. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It's a good start that we can agree that some of it is inappropriate. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on this article for some time and I did quite a few reverts since 2017 myself. Frankly, I cannot remember how I stumbled on this article back there. For quite a while little was happening here, but there was a flurry of activity recently and it is a good thing to have more eyeballs and hands. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I also agree that these numerous internet stats look like WP:PEACOCK, but they do show his notability in the russophone blogosphere (in fact, stats say that he has more Russian subscribers than Ukrainian ones). I am sure after some time there will be analytical articles and we can safely delete all this fluff. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the internet stats look unencyclopedic. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Problems related to our policy WP:NOR

The new editors have to review this policy, especially its WP:SYNTH part. A common mistake is overgeneralization. Long stroy short, here is an example of I've just fixed.

Old text: Repeatedly Anatoly Shariy was included in the top most popular Ukrainian political bloggers on Facebook, those who actively maintained their pages on Facebook and whose posts attracted the largest audience in their category,

while in fact the source cited supports only: In the same month he was number 3 of the top most popular Ukrainian political bloggers on Facebook according to the rating of Espreso TV. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stay close to what the source cited says: summarize it, not generalize. Staszek Lem (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Lost neutrality?

Well, the majority of edits which I made were removed. In particular, those official documents and sources that indicated that Anatoly Shariy was not pro-Russian. My edits with references to sources were called poor quality by users. But the engaged media, which simply called Sharia pro-Russian, were taken with great pleasure. Well, if you have a different point of view on him, it does not give you any right to manipulate references and facts. Officially, no one has proved that Shariy is the Kremlin's project, no small Ukrainian media, which is diligently attempting to prove it, are not neutral and reliable sources. They are involved in propaganda, which is mentioned by people who simply hate Shariy. Let's speak with the facts, not the way that Espreso TV (which is mostly biased) called Shariy a Kremlin project. These are not reputable publications, just plain slander.--Maxim victory1990 (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Алый Король Who are you ? You are deleting all the information that I have added. I did not remove it, I just added it. Do you think this is adequate ? you are breaking the rules - WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE, WP:Reliable sources

Staszek Lem Hipal/Ronz KastusK Please join the discussion, this is abnormal behavior. --Maxim victory1990 (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Maxim, please do not start personal quarrels and discuss specific article content. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Aly Korol, please explain your objections to every deleted paragraph and refrain from massive edits and reverts. This editing style makes constructive discussion impossible. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Currently I am reviewing/restoring/editing the edits of Aly Korol and until now I find them reasonable. My concern was big amount of change in one action, which caused suspicion in unreasonable deletion. Continuing... Staszek Lem (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm mostly done ith the conflicting edits. However the new sections of Aly Korol about Sharij's anti-Poroshenk and anti-Zelensly activities look quite underreferenced. Still, I am restoring them without change, for later review. If anyone will edit these piece, please do this section by section, to save time for review by other editors. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed edit of Maxim

[9] - This edit referring to Sharij's video is removed because it refers to a primary source and does not support any text of article based on secondary sources. Sharij posted thousands of videos and social media posts, often saying opposite things, and we are not going to use them randomly here. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Please use proper formatting of references. I am not going to spend all my life as a copyrighter here. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, there is no need in second-hand relelling of a couple words Human Rights Watch said about Sharij. Please find the original report (I am sure it is readily available) and add it as a commentary to the car shooting incident, not in a random place in the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Remarks about the usage of gas chambers

@Staszek Lem:, concerning your removal of well-sourced information: You did not give a reason why Segodnya is not a reliable source. Shariy himself wrote for this newspaper and dozens of Wikipedia articles refer to this newspaper. What makes it less serious than for example Obozrevatel, NewsOne or all the other sources which were used in this article?--KastusK (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes sharij said that. Before sharij went into politics, every second his video had homophobic or racist blurbs. But the removed statement said that "a controversy sparkled" . No evidence is presented that, as the source says, "попал в громкий скандал", it is just an opinion of Юрий Божко , who obviously biased towards Sharij, as seen from his phrasing "сбежал в Европу как якобы преследуемый по политическим мотивам". Hence the author is not a reliable source with respect to sharij. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

And again a user, @ValterUdarnik:, tries to censor this unpleasant information. The Web Archive also saved screenshots from 2011 (when he was not as well-known as today) which prove that this was the profile of Shariy. Concerning the fact that Shariy also openly spoke positively about the hanging of gays in Iran, it is not surprising that he also published remarks about gas chambers.--KastusK (talk) 11:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@ValterUdarnik:, before you start an edit war, use the talk page. Just because you do not understand how the Wayback Machine works, it does not mean that Shariy did not made these statements. You can click on his blog profile and find dozens, maybe hundreds, of saved blog entries which were published by him since 2010 (when he was not a well-known figure and there was no reason to discredit him). So it is indeed his profile. When Sergey Ivanov published these screenshots in 2020 Shariy did not respond to them, but instead he simply deleted the old entries and changed the name of the profile into the one of Zelensky. Considering the fact that Shariy also said he would not distinguish gay people "from the dog shit on the side of the road" or that homosexual people "should sit and be happy that they are not getting killed", his quote about the usage of gas chambers is not surprising for anyone who knows this man.--KastusK (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

After Shariy investigation, a Kyiv dog killer was detained...... How is is this noticable enough to be a Wikipedia article?

This Wikipedia article currently contains information that after Shariy investigation, a Kyiv dog killer was detained...... How is this noticable enough to be in an Wikipedia article? This Wikipedia article is a joke full of information about non-events and puffury to make the subject of the article look like a good person. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, some time ago it was made to look him like a bad person :-) That's politics to you.

I agree; dog killer case looked suspicious to me as well. I do not think this investigation received much independent coverage. REmoving. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I also re-read and removed the "brothel orphanage" case, because even from our article it is clear that this case was not discovered by Shariy, he merely wrote about it.

On the other hand, the "why the baby sleeps" case did receive independent coverage (I mean coverage of the article about the case) and independednt references must be added (they were in the older version). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The remaining three cases did receive independent coverage, but I agree the text can be trimmed. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Scandalous remarks in the media

I'm wondering how this section corresponds with the concepts of neutrality and undue weight. Someone added text referring to 24tv.ua, but is one source enough to say that this remark was scandalous? Moreover, the article says that Shariy apologized for his statement, but no references to the apology are provided. The text was transferred to the WP article without any confirmation. Is this normal practice here? --Алый Король (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

In this episode not Shariy's statement itself, but his following lie about it not being published on his YouTube channel, is what I would call rather "scandalous". Unfortunately, it only has been dissected in the article on Roadcontrol, which, I'm afraid, doesn't meet the WP:reliable source criteria. --A random user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.118.149.15 (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a long discussion around this quote in the section Talk:Anatoly Shariy#Remarks about inhabitants of Western Ukraine. 24 Kanal is definitely a sufficient source.--KastusK (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is experiencing constant attempts of discreditation by ukrainian far-right users. Heavy POV

The user EricLewan e.g. introduced a whole smearing campaign into this article claiming e.g. that Shariy was a pro-russian propagandist while the "genre" of his Youtube account was "pro-Russian propaganda" . Shariy clearly stated he wanted Ukraine to be a neutral country and this includes normal ties with Russia. How can this be considered "pro-Russian propaganda"?

The Ukrainian Security Service, which is now underminded by openly far-right extremists, accused him of treason some days ago based on the fact that he once participated in a russian talk show (via videochat) while there are several ukrainian political activists who this in person and not only via video.

And this is then inserted by users like EricLewan whithout mentioning or at least remarking what this claim is based on, creating the illusion he was some kind threat.

Shariy was and is a critic of the pre-coup d'etat Viktor Yanukovich administration which many accused of being pro-russian. In fact he fled the country due to threats because of his investigation exactly when this administration was in power.

So how can he be labeled as "pro-russian"? This is a vaguely coined campaign-term which is being used by every advocator of ukrainian far-right extremism in order to discredit everyone who doesn't agree with their open hatred towards Russia.

I urge the moderators to keep an eye on this article and penalize such behavior which clearly violates this fundamental principle of the whole Wikipedia Project.ValterUdarnik (talk) 11:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Why was? He is still alive! It's hard to call him a pro-Russian propagandist simply because he says what can benefit him. Today it's one thing. Tomorrow it's a different one. But this in itself is enough of a reason to call him a propagandist. By the way, what is pro-Russian or pro-any-other propaganda in your view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.119.129.218 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)