Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

My addition

In a section about "internet popularity", I think I am justified by the reliable source's due weight to include cultural influences about her, including the fact that she is going to be added as a character in a video game. I was notified in the edit summary that the reason behind the revert was 'Ohconfuscious already cleaned this bit up'. Well, nobody owns the article. I want a real reason on why my edit was reverted, and not just a 'I don't like it' bit. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

My feelings on this: video games are a significant 'new and different' field compared to viral videos and drawings. The source also mentions a planned Grand Theft Auto game modified for her. One sentence coverage should suffice. starship.paint "YES!" 14:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course, anything else would constitute as undue weight, and I'd need more sources in order to expand that. However, I was a bit confused when I was reverted because 'one editor worked on this a bit' and all of a sudden, I can't edit that? I'd still like to get a response from the person who reverted me. Tutelary (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
First, in your edit-summary you mis-applied the concept of WP:OWN: Ohconfuscious is not the owner of this article. Obviously, Ohconfucius is not the owner of the article and you did not get reverted by him, but by me. That's not WP:OWN; this is called agreement between two editors. I just happen to agree with his cleanup of this trivia. Second, compare the page view statistics of Prime World of only 2328 views in 30 days to those of Halo_(series) with 104161. "Prime World" is clearly a very minor video-game compared to a really popular one, yet your edit introduced it as "popular": Popular Russian game.... So, in effect you are using this BLP to promote obscure games. In addition the game also happens to feature sexist depictions of its heroines as this sample image shows: File:Artiste from Prime World at Igromir 2012.jpg. It doesn't get any more WP:UNDUE, trivial or problematic than that in a BLP. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I was simply using the wording that the sourcing used. The source in itself described the game as popular. And no, that was not my intention. And Wikipedia is not censored. Also, please demonstrate good faith, I am attempting to improve the article and you saying that I am simply promoting a certain POV is the definition of bad faith. Also, just because you view something as sexist is not a good reason to omit something. Again, Wikipedia is not censored. Tutelary (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
A significant proportion of videogames are played by single males, news at 11. Honestly, are you using a photograph of cosplay at a games convention as an argument that a game is sexist? --benlisquareT•C•E 20:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Indiscriminately using the promotional language of the Russian source may not reflect the lack of popularity of this video game in the rest of the world. And please do not throw around slogans like WP:CENSOR. NOT promoting a minor, sexist video game in a BLP has nothing to do with censorship. It is good encyclopaedic practice. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I am attempting to improve the article and you saying that I am simply promoting a certain POV is the definition of bad faith. Please don't accuse good-faith editors of "bad faith". Please WP:AAGF. I did not say you are promoting any POV. Where did I say that? Please provide a diff. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, just because you see it as a questionable, sexist game does not serve as the reason to omit it. Tutelary (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Promoting obscure, sexist video games in a BLP is against the BLP policy and WP:UNDUE. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Again, you are Demonstrating bad faith with me. You also fail to mention any specific BLP policy, and a single sentence mention of an inclusion of the individual does not constitute as undue weight. Tutelary (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 3) You are at 3RR currently. Please follow WP:BRD and stop edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Your rapid-fire edit-warring and personal attacks of bad faith should stop. Please stop defending this clearly WP:UNDUE addition in this article using edit-warring and personal attacks. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I have not lodged any personal attacks at you, but you clearly mentioning that it is 'sexist' among other things as the sole reason for omitting is violating the sole principle of Wikipedia, in which it is not censored. I've already stated why I don't believe WP:UNDUE applies, and to attempt to say that I've personally attacked you, when you yourself have demonstrated bad faith by saying I am just here on this page to promote a game, rather than here to improve the encylopedia. Tutelary (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you are confused. Your diff is my reply to Benlisquare, not to you. Can you not see it is directly below his name and indented as a reply to him/her? It also happened after I asked you above to supply a diff where I accuse you personally that you were promoting the video. BTW, I have already amended my reply to Benlisquare to eliminate any concerns that I thought s/he was personally responsible for the promotion. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hold on a second, let's think about something you've mentioned. You've stated that inclusion would be promoting an obscure game, and you've reasoned using article hits, comparing this game with Halo. Fine, that's reasonable. But, you might be forgetting something that might be important when measuring "obscurity". Halo is an American game, and the primary audience are English-speaking Americans. The primary audience of Prime World, however are Russians. Surely you wouldn't expect Russians to visit the English Wikipedia, to read an English article about the game? Halo gets 20,776 views within 90 days on the Russian Wikipedia, whilst Prime World gets 24,623 views within 90 days on the Russian Wikipedia - this statistic is significant in itself. At least within CIS countries, Prime World is more relevant than Halo is. Your earlier reasoning had a tiny flaw, in that it assumed that there wouldn't be regional discrepancies when gauging the obscurity of a game. --benlisquareT•C•E 20:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you are forgetting something important. This is the English Wikipedia. And you are promoting a Russian game to a vastly wider audience through this BLP. In my opinion, the addition of this obscure video game into the article has the effect of promoting it to a vastly wider audience through this BLP. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
We are simply reporting on what the sources said. I am not going to synthesize the source by not going with what it says. Of course, it does have to be taken with a grain of salt, and put into context. "popular in russia' would be better than what I put as 'popular'. Nonetheless, I did not intend to promote the game in any case. Tutelary (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not promoting anything. Please be careful with your second-person pronouns. --benlisquareT•C•E 20:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I rephrased. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP combined with WP:DUE mean that adding fluff to promote a game here will never fly. WP:NOTCENSORED does not mean that crap can be put on any page. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have stated numerous times that I am not here to promote the game. I am here to put in a NPOV statement about how the subject is scheduled to be in a popular-in-russia video game. I do however am fond of you calling my contributions 'crap'. I am going to stop touching this page (unless I see overt vandalism) as it's making me stressed out. Just consider my 'crap' edit to be moot and void. Tutelary (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Please ponder the fact that the article text of Barack Obama has no mention whatsoever of the many conspiracy theories regarding Obama. The notability of those conspiracy theories is beyond question, yet they are not added to the main article—we can thank WP:BLP and WP:DUE for that. The reasoning is similar here—someone has chosen to exploit the subject of a BLP, but that does not mean the article has to amplify the exploitation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Promoting a game???

  • I consider accusations that editors are trying to promote a game here on Poklonskaya's page to be rather insulting and even bad faith. The only thing we are trying to promote is that Poklonskaya is apparently so popular in Internet culture that she has inspired video game characters. The focus is not the game itself, it's the phenomenon of Poklonskaya inspiring video game characters. starship.paint "YES!" 09:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
    • We do not know what is in the mind of editors, which is fine because that is not relevant. What matters is the proposed text, and that text uses a BLP to promote a game. No one is suggesting that an editor intended to promote anything—promotion is just the effect of the text. Similarly, there is no suggestion that any editor has added caricatures in order to denigrate a public official—it's just that cartoons have that effect. The phenomenon of these cartoons will disappear within a couple of months, but the Obama conspiracy theories I mentioned just above will last forever and are much more significant and notable. Johnuniq (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Perhaps the proposed text has to be reworded. I've said above, the focus should be Poklonskaya inspiring video game characters. I propose instead: Following her Internet popularity, Poklonskaya was noted to have inspired a character in a Russian video game. starship.paint "YES!" 11:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
        • That would be fine if Poklonskaya had anything at all to do with the cartoons or the game. She does not. She is merely a public official who has caught ephemeral attention due to her appearance. The correct way to handle this is to make an article on the topic which is "caricatures/games inspired by the appearance of public officials". Johnuniq (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
          • We're going to have to agree to disagree at this point; you don't think she has anything to do with the game. I think that inspiring a character is something to do with the game ... and is an accomplishment of Poklonskaya. starship.paint "YES!" 12:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any source that shows minimal information such as even confirming that Poklonskaya knows the cartoons or game exist? Has Poklonskaya commented on them? Has anything in Poklonskaya's life changed because of the cartoons or game? Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Outdented for you. Not sure about the game, but she definitely knows of the drawings - original Japanese news source in Japanese, re-reported by Japanese culture site in English, re-reported by Philippines news source. "The divorcee replied that while she doesn’t watch Japanese animation herself, her nine-year-old daughter does, and couldn’t be happier that the same country that makes the cartoons she enjoys is now enshrining her mother in the medium’s style ... Despite her lack of personal interest, though, Poklonskaya doesn’t mind being the subject of so many sketches. “Public figures and people in the government are often drawn, and this cannot be avoided,” she said matter-of-factly."
  • As to whether her Internet popularity has affected her in real life ... it has certainly affected her employers, the Russian Prosecutor's Office: see AFP source: "Russia tried Tuesday to stop a flood of inquiries about the telegenic young lawyer it has appointed as prosecutor for newly annexed Crimea, whose looks have won her a huge Internet following. The Russian prosecutor general’s office said it was tired of answering questions about 34-year-old Natalya Poklonskaya, who has become an unlikely Internet star and even the heroine of Japanese manga cartoon strips.
  • But I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here - whether the cartoons / game character have any effect on Poklonskaya doesn't take away that she has caused them, albeit inadvertently. starship.paint "YES!" 04:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, I had seen them thanks, and I'm glad to have had my question answered. Let's say a politician is found in a hotel with an "escort"—there might be a lot of gossip about that if anyone cares about the politician. That would be an event that required the subject of a BLP to take an action (they arranged the liason) and so reports of the event might be considered for inclusion in their article. However, even in that case it would be reasonable to ask whether the politician's life changed because of the event—if reliable sources state that the politician lost the next election because of the escort, the answer would be an overwhelming yes. If there was just a couple of weeks of media excitement, the answer would be no. In the case of Poklonskaya's article, we are talking about an event removed from the subject—she did not arrange anything, and the reports above merely confirm that she has commented in a professional and expected manner. I still do not see anything that I would regard as a life-changing event, and my preference would be for an article on the topic to be created—I'm not sure exactly what the topic is, but it is something to do with Internet phenomenon or Internet celebrity. Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • @Johnuniq: if that's your answer then I'm not sure why you asked those questions, especially the question on whether Poklonskaya was aware and had commented on the drawings. If she had not commented in a "professional and expected manner" and instead criticized the drawings in a negative way, might you have called for the drawings to be removed? Because I'm not sure what kind of a response she could give that would elicit a positive response from you instead of a dismissive one.
  • As Poklonskaya is not a politician, she doesn't need to run for office in elections so I can't foresee much "life-changing" (rather strong term?) effect of the drawings in the first place. Yet it is proven above that her overall Internet popularity has caused in real life for many people to contact her office with various enquiries. It's not that hard to imagine that those enquiries would have been directed at Poklonskaya herself if her phone number was available. Of course, this is not a life-changing event, but it is true that her popularity is affecting the workload of the Prosecutor's office. starship.paint "YES!" 07:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding compromises

Taking this from the DYK nom to the talk page, because that's what the talk page is for. Dr.K., you keep repeatedly advocating at the DYKN for the current state of the images to be dropped. How do we know that after the image is dropped again to a single one, your next agenda after that won't be to push it further to a state of having no image at all? The editors of the article have made multiple compromises already, and leeway has been given bit by bit in reducing the parts that have been hotly discussed, with the intention of satisfying everyone's concerns. However, you've been showing signs of taking a mile when given an inch in the past, what's there to convince me that I'm not going to see something similar again? You know the "fool me once, fool me twice" saying. You've made your personal standpoint and opinion very clear in your talk page engagements that you have a strongly anti-"anime" sentiment, given that you make claims that the images are an "industry assault" on this individual. The signs really don't point to a genuine compromise solution when you put common sense into the equation, which gives me the right to be skeptical. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very sure what's there to discuss regarding further action on the pictures. The article in the current state is the compromise. We can't budge any more. If you want to discuss the rationale, sure, I can do that again, but no more changes. starship.paint "YES!" 13:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I made my position clear at the DYK nom page long time ago, in reply to Moscow Connection. As far as your unsupported PAs about next agenda, taking a mile when given an inch in the past and "fool me once, fool me twice", one last time: Please drop them, or provide the diffs to prove them. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Here we go again. How about some substantiation for your position, Dr.K.? starship.paint "YES!" 03:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Welcome back Starship. Sorry, but I am not going to repeat my points. I think my position for a minimalist approach on cartoon art for this BLP is clear enough. If it isn't to you, sorry again, but so be it. Btw, my notification system doesn't work for some reason. I never got a notification from your link to my name. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay then. You've been given the chance to reiterate your substantiation here - since you didn't, then your position on minimalist approach is simply that - just a position - if so, I don't see that worthy of any change to the article. starship.paint "YES!" 04:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Starship, if we ever agree on something, I'll order a bottle of Dom Pérignon. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 05:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Your wine doesn't further any discussion, which could be your intention, maybe. starship.paint "YES!" 01:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
"My wine" was an attempt at humour. YMMV obviously, but in case you did not get the humour, let me be explicit: I have nothing to discuss further on this subject. You stated just above: The article in the current state is the compromise. We can't budge any more. That's as clear a declaration as any that any further discussion is futile. Ergo, I have nothing to discuss with you on this subject any longer. I hope that makes it clear, since obviously my attempt at humour failed to convey the message. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Very well then. starship.paint "YES!" 02:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

EU sanctions should be in lead?

An editor put the EU sanction information itno the lead. Someone else removed it, with the edit summary "That content is already in the article itself." But that is kind of the point. The lead should only contain material that is in the article itself. It should contain the most important facts. This seems to me a fairly significant one about her, and about how a major geopolitical player sees her position. I thought it belonged in the lead, myself. Any other views? hamiltonstone (talk) 04:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a short bio and not everything should be in the lead. How significant is the sanction for her work and her life? What source says it is significant? Johnuniq (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The above reasoning is pretty much why I removed it from the lead. Linking WP:LEAD for reference. —  dainomite   06:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Mejlis

The video I mentioned in my edit summary: [1]. I've just watched it. Actually, she just reads out to Refat Chubarov some warning. And the document she reads simply mentions that Mustafa Dzhemilev (not Refat Chubarov) is barred from entering Russia. And the video's description says that after the warning Chubarov was barred from entering Russia. It doesn't say when this "after" happened exactly. But you can see that the video ends and Chubarov goes his way, no one wants to arrest and expel him or anything. (And by the way, it surely doesn't count as a public announcement. There's too much text and maybe I missed something, but it surely doesn't.)

And by the way, I don't see how all this and the sentence saying "On 4 May, Poklonskaya accused the Crimean Tatars' self-governmental body (the Mejlis) of extremist activity, warning that the Mejlis could be dissolved and outlawed across Russia" is relevant in a Career section of an encyclopedia article. It just makes it look like it's her personal fight against Mejlis. Which this certainly isn't. She just does her work. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Top queries of 2014

Would someone care to add a sentence or two about her being one of the top queries of the year 2014 in both Russia in Ukraine (in both Google and Yandex). Here's the only source I've found in English [2]. (There are more sources in Russian, but I'm busy with something else. I would really appreciate if someone else took care of this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Some sources:

--Moscow Connection (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Maxim magazine entry is at BLPN

I have started a thread there, permalink. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the discussion of whether it should be included in *this* article, should be on *this articles* talk page. BLPN is a *noticeboard*. CombatWombat42 (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on Maxim as I've never read it. I don't personally think Natalia Poklonskaya "sexyness" is particularly important information, it is clear that Maxim does. It is also clear that Maxim is a source of news for a large number of people, again not news I consider interesting. Additionally Natalia Poklonskaya's "sexyness" is undesputably mentioned in more than just Maxim therefore it seems valid to include the "news" of her rank in that particular publication. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never read the magazine myself and I expect it to be not quite "decent", but these are reliable third-party sources: [3], [4], [5]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The thing we have to decide is how much of this sexist trivia must we include. She is a law enforcement officer and those attributes are irrelevant to her career. We included a section on her youth and attractiveness due to the internet phenomenon. Fine, but let's not pile on. Let's consider, how is the Maxim information helpful in our understanding of the professional woman featured in the article? I think its helpfulness factor is zero. We get no new insights for her, other than that the sexist classification itself, which is useless in any meaningful way and may well be damaging to her due to the undue weight presented by over-emphasising the sex factor in the article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Like it or not, she's receiving coverage based on "sexist trivia" in secondary sources. It's what she's popular, and therefore notable, for. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 01:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Any article should depict a full picture of the subject matter. It should not over-emphasise the lurid details of "what she's popular, and therefore notable, for", otherwise her article will become a cartoon of the actual person and that would be in violation of BLP. In any case, her notability has been established, so her article is no longer in danger of deletion. Therefore we don't need to add more of these trivia to bolster her notability. Otherwise this article of a woman legal professional will be converted to a collection of sexist trivia. That would not only be undue weight, it would also be downright sexist and a parody of what she really is. Articles on Wikipedia should not be parodies or caricatures of the subject matter unduly focusing on lurid details. She is a legal professional not a sex object. Women in other fields, including tennis, who frequently pose for pictures and have filled the internet with such images are ok to be described as sexy because that's part of their professional self-promotion milieu. We should not stunt this article at the phase of her transitory internet notability. We should try to expand and add to it to reflect what other things she has done in her life, especially in the legal field. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You see, I very much appreciate your desire to protect this article and in other circumstances I would possibly agree with you that this particular rating was not really important... But when I look at what's left of the "Internet popularity" section, it really saddens me and all I want is to make it better, which means longer. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with starshippaint and Moscow Connection. Poklonskaya's professional achievements as a lawyer are what make her notable and worthy of a wikipedia article; but what makes her famous is her internet popularity, and it merits being given rather more weight here than at present. This article gets over 15,000 visits a month; Aigars Štokenbergs, Minister of Justice of Latvia, gets around 100. Why do you think that is? The reasons may well be trivial, sexist and unfair (from several points of view – it's quite clear that Poklonskaya's notoriety has brought her opportunities that might otherwise have evaded her) – but this is how things are. Bear in mind WP:SOAP: wikipedia exists to reflect the world as it is, not to change it. GrindtXX (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Using clichés like WP:SOAP does not advance the discussion one single byte and is a form of personal attack. I take this as a sure indicator that the level of this discussion has just reached the dumps. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems the tide of the WP:Consensus is turning against you so you start talking about personal attacks and how "the level of this discussion has just reached the dumps", suspicious. It seems starshippaint, Moscow Connection, GrindtXX and myself disagree with you on policy based grounds, it might be time to add the reference back in. CombatWombat42 (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
It might be time for you to WP:AGF and not throw around insulting and unsupported terms like "suspicious" against good-faith editors. There is nothing "suspicious" about my good-faith reply which was dismissed unjustifiably and heavy-handedly as FORUM. But ironically your statement about your "suspicions" further reinforces my comment about this discussion having gone to the dumps. As far as consensus, you forgot that Johnuniq and Tokyogirl79 at BLPN also agreed that the Maxim edit should remain out of the article. That means there is no consensus for your proposal. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
The views of a "men's" magazine may be appropriate for an article on that magazine in order to show issues that they believe are important. However, the discussion at WP:BLPN has affirmed that public officials are not rated by their weight or sexiness factor or other personal attribute. If Newsweek publishes an analysis of Poklonskaya, the views of Newsweek will be appropriate for this article because that magazine is a reliable source for encyclopedic issues. Per WP:CONLIMITED, a few editors on this talk page are not able to override community consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 23:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
"However, the discussion at WP:BLPN has affirmed that public officials are not ..." — Where exactly? I think you are misrespresenting the outcome. You were the only person who voted to "omit". --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:CONLIMITED, a few editors on WP:BLPN are not able to override community consensus. CombatWombat42 (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
You were the only person who voted to "omit". Not true. Tokyogirl79 also did not support inclusion of the material. I didn't support inclusion either. a few editors on WP:BLPN are not able to override community consensus. What community consensus? I see 4 editors supporting inclusion, three opposing. There is no consensus present of any kind, let alone a community one. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Glad you admit that, I was parroting Johnuniq, because his argument is equally valid as mine. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I was not trying to second-guess Johnuniq. I cannot speak for him so he can clarify this further. I only replied to the immediate points raised by you and Moscow Connection. I think John was making a more general argument but, again, let's wait for a clarification from him. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't count you cause you were the one who started the thread asking for community opinion. And from what I see, no one at the board really cared except one person. (And it's kinda obvious you are against, it's not like anyone can possibly pretend not to notice it.) "Didn't support" doesn't mean "was against". --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources for 4chan and Reddit

I relation to this {{cn}}: [6].

I was absolutely sure there was a source for Reddit in the article 2 years ago (and none for 4chan). But now I'm looking at the references and I don't see any.

I've searched Google News and here's what I've found: "Pixiv" [7], "Weibo" [8], "Pixiv" [9], "Pixiv" [10], "Reddit" [11], "4chan" [12]. I guess you can mention both websites now. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Would be fine with me.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Very likely false claim

The last sentence under personal life is "It is also very well known that during the last five years she had another illegal job, prostituition, during which she met Sergey Aksyonov - and that is why nowadays she is the Crimean prosecutor." That's a pretty extreme claim, which really should have a source if it's gonna be up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.11.146 (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted, editor warned.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Intro

[13]. Of course it is already noted below, but I think this should be included in intro as something really important. Her work in Crimea and everything that follows (this is probably the most important consequence) is something she is actually known for. Well, perhaps this requires more context in intro. If so, that can be easily fixed. BTW, a lot of content here is sourced to RT (TV network). This is not the best source for an article on the subject like that, although I am not telling all refs to RT TV should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I would also add in intro some of the most notable cases she prosecuted. I can't say she is as important as Andrey Vyshinsky, but definitely an interesting person. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
No, now the article looks like an attack piece. I'm reverting it. Please don't put it back until there's a consensus. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
"looks like an attack piece" is not an explanation. No, it's not. What exactly was not sourced or incorrect in the edit you reverted? My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The information is already present in the article. There's no need to put everything negative one has to say in the lead section. It already states that Ukraine "declared her a wanted criminal", that's enough bad things. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You also substituted the links to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and "Crimean crisis" and such for "Timeline of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" and "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation". It was perfectly okay like it was, there's no need to attack Poklonsklaya over and over and demonstrate how she was "on the wrong side". --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not trying to "attack her and demonstrate how she was on the wrong side". That would be stupid. Everyone already knows what is her "side" and what she is doing. I am trying to improve this page. Here is your change [14].
  1. Version you restored tells "While the Autonomous Republic of Crimea sought independence from Ukraine..." and makes reference to this source. However, this source tells something different: "After the peninsula joined the Russian Federation, she was appointed as Crimea's acting chief prosecutor by Russia’s General Prosecutor Yury Chaika". That is what appear in my version.
  2. I agree with you that statement about "Ukrainian judicial authorities declared her a wanted criminal" (that's not my edit!) may be excessive and might be rephrased. I am simply trying to make it clear why she was sanctioned by the European Union. This is something more important than claims by Ukrainian authorities and therefore should be definitely included. Here is what I suggest:
After the takeover of Crimean legislature building by Russian special forces and election of Sergey Aksyonov by the legislators during the 2014 Crimean crisis, she resigned from Ukrainian service and was appointed Prosecutor General of Crimea by Aksyonov on 11 March 2014. After Crimea came under full Russian control, her appointment was confirmed by Russian authorities on 25 March 2014, around the same time Ukrainian judicial authorities declared her a wanted person due to alleged involvement in conspiracy to overthrow constitutional order. She is barred by European Union from entering EU countries for "actively implementing Russia's annexation of Crimea".

How would you suggest to make it better? What is problematic? Linking? I am making a link to "Timeline" simply for convenience of a reader, so that they can quickly look at details by following the link. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

  • It's not better, it's not convenient. To me it does look like you want to demonstrate that she was "on the wrong side" and you want the article to mention "Russians" who "took over the building". What has Poklonskaya to do with any takeovers of any buildings or whatever? She was in Kiev at the time. It does look like you want to make the Prosecutor General of Crimea look as illegitimate as possible. What do "Russian special forces" have to do with the topic of this article? --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Current version simply tells: "During the 2014 Crimean crisis, she resigned from Ukrainian service and was appointed Prosecutor General of Crimea on 11 March 2014". It is entirely unclear who appointed her and why. Version above makes it clear that she was initially appointed by Aksynov who in turn was "elected" by legislators (actually only by a few of them who were let in) in the building occupied by Russian special forces. Does it make Aksenov and her appointment "illegitimate"? We do not tell this directly and leave it to a reader. But this is something relevant to her appointment and to ban by EU. Of course we could make it simple and just tell that she was appointed by Chaika and later Putin. Would it be OK? I do not mind, but it is not precise.My very best wishes (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, probably the intro should be made shorter rather than longer, and the controversy about her appointment should be described in the body of page. I only wanted to make a few minor fixes here. I checked ru:Поклонская, Наталья Владимировна, and it provides a lot more info. I still can fix a few things if you do not mind. P.S. I was not the only one who thought about Andrei Vyshinsky after looking at her biography (see here). This is an obvious analogy. Not sure if you know how he died; that was very interesting story. My very best wishes (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The minor fixes made the article worse. Sure, the Russian Wikipedia article has lots of additional information and it will be nice if someone translates it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I realize that it was you who who created and extensively edited this page, but it definitely needs improvement to include more info from the same page on ruwiki and properly reflect what she is currently notable for in the body of text and intro. I mean this, this and of course the bans by EU, USA, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
That is what she does with kids. As a summary of sources, including her own statements, I would say she is notable as a manifestation of Great Russian chauvinism (this is an incorrect redirect right now). This is notable as the leading ideology behind the current expansion of Russia and behind the previous expansions, including even the Soviet Block (as Nikolai Berdyaev said). And as always, this also leads to oppression of ethnic minorities, political repressions, etc. - that is what she does. Obviously, there are people, for whom taking over the Crimea and Donbass was "strictly business". Not so for her and a lot of others. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
And there is also something else, given her internet popularity, as explained here. Not sure if this is something previously seen in Russian history. For example, Rosalia Zemlyachka, who conducted similar policies in Crimea before, was very different.My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Natalia Poklonskaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Facial damage

It has a paresis of the face, so her lips smile curve. She got it after beating her. 

 She was beaten inside her entrance after it achieved imprisonment bandit.

She survived several assaults on his life. http://www.zakon.kz/4618301-prokuror-kryma-natalja-poklonskaja.html http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/915656 91.202.186.38 (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

new picture

I don't know how to "add" pictures through code on here. But I'd like to add this picture of Natalia on here: https://pp.vk.me/c637529/v637529582/1d185/BN_gT5g9rR4.jpg She looks really beautiful in that picture. Kahtar22 (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natalia_Poklonskaya/Archive_3&oldid=1140387240"