Talk:Aleksandr Dvornikov

Hero
He is called the hero or Russia by Putin. This is propaganda though, and not something that everyone inside or outside of Russia agrees with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.5.92 (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Sloppy edit
“It is believed” that he is behind the train station attacks…and the source is a British tabloid? Somebody remove this. It’s just sloppy and inconsistent with the rest of the article. 2603:8081:6440:FC:5509:6D41:BDE9:94E (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nickname
There shouldn't be any need to write his nickname in every paragraph, it's stated as his nickname in the infobox and that should be enough. As it is currently it looks to be a smear campaign rather than contributing to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.253.9 (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

use of nicknames
Calling a person a butcher and implying he is known around the world like that just because another retired military from and ideological adversary country says so, is not encyclopedical, the only source to it is an american leftwing news outlet article citing certain person making that statement, thats far from facts, it biased and libellious, and there should be at least a correction, damaging other person reputation by hearsay is very very wrong, its a shame wikipedia allows this by "locking edits" and allowing this to go on. Juanriveranava (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you google "Butcher of Syria" it's clear that Dvornikov is referred to by this epithet by dozens of reliable sources from all around the world, not just "an American leftwing news outlet".
 * Also of the two sources for the nickname in the article:
 * - NBC is rated by 'Media Bias/Fact Check' as 'centre left. It is also rated as 'factual' (see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/nbc-news/).
 * - Sky News is rated 'Least Biased' and 'factual'. (see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sky-news/).
 * So, there appears to be no problem with the sourcing of Dvornikov's nickname and therefore it is neither 'biased' not 'libellous' for this article to mention his nickname. Shimbo (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It expresses the opinion of a retired Admiral, that is not encyclopedical, if there are dozen of of reliable sources, state them, otherwise it is an opinion, not encyclopedical knowledge as it expresses a perception and non a factual corroborated fact, those "sources" you state just replicate an opinion expressed by a military from an ideological adversary country.
 * not going to argue about left wing or not when you say centre left, sorry thats left, moderate or not is left. thus I am correct Juanriveranava (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedical knowledge is based on facts, presented in the most dispassionate and emotionless way, not opinions or perceptions, whether you or I agree or not with the opinion of the Admiral is not relevant to it, even though I would completely erase the mention to the nickname and opinion, I won't censor it either, but won't allow the use of wikipedia to create bias and animosity against anyone just based on something that someone who is clearly ideologically biased says. would be the same as me going to press and call you a name and then create a wikipedia article stating that you are known as a that and calling it encyclopedical just because it was posted by a "somewhat biased factual news outlet"Juanriveranava (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * All this is irrelevant I'm afraid. It's is not up to you to decide what is allowed on Wikipedia, it's up to Wikipedia policy, and that policy is extremely long-standing and extremely clear.
 * Wikipedia's policy is explained here: Reliable Sources. If something is stated in reliable sources then it is okay to include on Wikipedia - this is one of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia and you need to understand it if you want to contribute to the encyclopedia.
 * Note that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective (see WP:BIASED) so any argument based on a source being 'left-wing' or 'biased' or 'an ideological adversary' is a non-starter.
 * NBC and Sky News are both reliable sources and that is more than enough to include the description of Dvornikov as 'The Butcher of Syria'. However, as you asked me to provide more sources, amongst other reliable sources that have described Dvornikov as the Butcher of Syria are:
 * - NPR (https://www.npr.org/2022/04/15/1092882592/russia-ukraine-war-update-butcher-of-syria-putin-dvornikov)
 * - CNN (https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2022/04/10/petraeus-full.cnn)
 * - ABC (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-14/vladimir-putin-sent-the-butcher-of-syria-to-fix-ukraine-war/101057642),
 * - The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/alexander-dvornikov-new-russian-general-ukraine-b2055206.html)
 * - The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/butcher-of-mariupol-inflicts-brutality-he-learnt-in-syria-qg79f3xjk)
 * - Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-putin-new-general-russia-white-house)
 * That Dvornikov is routinely referred to as'The Butcher of Syria' in reliable sources (and reliable sources from all over the political spectrum) is incontrovertible
 * Also, your example of you creating an article about me to use as a source is not applicable as personal blogs are not a reliable source. If you found articles in reliable sources describing me (or anyone else) in unflattering terms then including that information on Wikipedia would be allowed by policy. Shimbo (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info i'll leave you one straight from it:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias_in_sources
 * A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.
 * Also from the policy of wikipedia:
 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
 * now that is the main goal of my intervention.
 * Is not what I want to be on wikipedia, Is following the policy, I invite you too to understand Wikipedia Policy if you want to contribute to the encyclopedia, and correct others on it.
 * What is the use of stating the opinion of a US Retired Admiral in a biographical article about an active Russian Army General, is he an authorized Biographer?, Historian?, Researcher? or what are his credentials to weight in the importance of his opinion, the way the article was redacted wasn't neutral at all as is obvious that it guides the reader to a negative perception even before reading. there were no balancing sources at all, also in just one paragraph it was stated who was giving the opinion, and I left that on the article.
 * Lastly, what I meant is that if I go to press (media) and just because I have been interviewed on mainstream media doesn't mean my opinions are authoritative, even if the "source" is reliable. Juanriveranava (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, obviously there is a dispute, so I'm going to RfC this to get other people's opinions. Shimbo (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Dvornikov's nickname
A dispute has arisen about whether General Dvornikov's nickname as 'The Butcher of Syria' should be included in this article or not. Opinion in favour is based on the fact that he is referred to using that nickname in multiple reliable sources. Opinion against is based on the sources being biased and the nickname originating with a retired US admiral whose opinion may not be definitive. --Shimbo (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason not to include that he has been called the Butcher of Syria somewhere in the article, but it should perhaps not be in the into. bop34 • talk • contribs 13:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, it appears that reliable sources quite frequently use this term. The remaining whitewashing, such as, will also need to be reversed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * im gonna revert your changes I have already stated the reasons for it, explain further what whitewashing means for you on this subject, the mention to the moniker is stated on the last version, no need to repeat it 3 times in the same article, it seems you are driven by personal prejudice other than what should be that is stick to policyJuanriveranava (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Whitewashing" would mean to remove well-referenced and relevant information which may be perceived as negative; pretty much as it means anywhere. In this case, if your objection is specifically due to the weasel wording, that should be pretty readily fixed. And this individual's relationship to atrocities is a substantial part of their notability, so just a brief "mention" is probably not sufficient weight to that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but in line with neutrality policy,the information in my edit is present, not omitted and also referenced using the same nickname 3 times in less than 4 paragraphs is not aimed at informing, is aimed at guiding the perception of reading, so much for neutrality, "it is believed that someone did something" that is speculative, the "reliable sources" specified are just replicating the same statements over and over again but they don't bring any new information to support the claim, who believe he is involved in the attacks to rail station?, he is known by whom as the butcher?, I can tell you from personal experience that he is not in other parts of the western hemisphere, all the news outlet sources cited use the same information, all of them a are western media, so no balancing sources, the "information" regurgitated is always in the fashion of "he is known as" but just one specifies the origin of the moniker, and I left that, again to be 100% clear my objection is about the neutrality of the redaction, the weight of the opinion made by the Ret. US Navy Admiral, and the lack of balancing sources, and the biased showed by the NBC Source, or "weasel" wording as you call it, funny how you refer to application wikipedia policy as weasel wording, wikipedia in english is not just used by north americans, europeans and australians, also "And this individual's relationship to atrocities is a substantial part of their notability"(sic) thats why there is a whole section for his "military reputation", where all the information about how he is known by who, and his alleged implication are stated (if you possess relevant information about this please cite the reference of the court or internationally recognized body), again accusing somebody of a crime (as targeting civilians is) without proof is libel.so no whitewashing here, just keeping it neutral, fact centered and useful. Juanriveranava (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - Per User:Seraphimblade - It's mentioned by multiple sources. Regardless of where the name originated from, it stuck. NickCT (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:Juanriveranava the only person opposing? He looks like an WP:SPA and possibly a WP:SOCK. NickCT (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - User:NickCTI am full member since 5 years ago, I have contributed several times in other articles, several before setting a user, so now you're trying to discredit me as a person but not discredit my arguments, so if somebody disagrees with the use of this information to promote russophobia and animosity is a bot, or a single porpoused account, nice interpretation of the rules. maybe you should read again, I said yes to the inclusion of the monicker, correctly stated and sourced as per Wikipedia Policy in neutrality and bias sourcing, refrain to the policy instead of making this arguments Juanriveranava (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You made five edits before focussing on this page - two in 2017 and three in 2018. In the last three days you've made fifty-three edits to the Aleksandr Dvornikov page/talk page, almost all of which removed information.
 * You have to understand how that looks.
 * Also, despite your extremely limited edit history, you appear to have a deep interest in Wikipedia policies, particularly policies that might enable you to remove reliably sourced information from this page. You have tried multiple possible policy interpretations and non-policy arguments for removing information. Each time the reason one policy doesn't allow you to remove the information is explained to you, you come up with another.
 * You have to understand how that looks.
 * The fact that you are now talking about other editors' 'russophobia' does not help your case.
 * is an administrator. I'll leave it up to him to decide whether you are acting in good faith or not. Shimbo (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I might have five edits recorded to my user in english, several others I made logged out, others in other languages as english is not my mother tongue, get out of your bubble please, I as many others like me use wikipedia as a neutral source of information, If I wanted to get a negative perception of this subjet I'll refrain mostly to western media, If I wanted positive perception of it I would refrain to RT or Sputnik, I am deeply interested in policy because it was the argument given to me in the first place that I should stick to policy, so I recognized that I wasn't fully versed and I did my research on it, and found out the basis behind my arguments, now what you mean is that I must adhere to your interpretations of the policy or I'm wrong? I won't apologize to have an ability to look for information and state a correct argument, also I might add, you were the one who pass judgment on me before anything, I won't allow my intentions be judged by the likes of you, based on I don't know what. and then again you haven't given a single opposing and fundamented argument against mine and recur to ad hominems.Juanriveranava (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have stated my case and reasonings, now I'm gonna disengage from this discussion for a while and let the community to decide; I believe I have fulfilled my duty as an editor trying to introduce a different POV to balance out the negative weight the original redaction had nevertheless I'll state some of the highlights I've recognized and reasoned from this exchange:


 * 1.-discrepancies between the original (prior my interventions) and what is stated on WP:BLPBALANCE,WP:WEIGHT,WP:BLPSTYLE,WP:PROPORTION.
 * 2.-Although my recorded contributions to the wikipedias (plural) might be "extremely limited", the interventions of some of my fellow editors at least to my appreciation were discrepant with WP:BITE.
 * Lastly, Thank you all for your input, I appreciate your feedback User:NickCT, User:Shimbo, User:Seraphimblade, User:bop34
 * Apologies for any grammatical mistake/typo!.
 * Cheers. Juanriveranava (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Replaced
It was recently said he was replaced. This is a rumour right now but I just heard it on youtube, so he may no longer be in charge of the invasion. If true then the article should mention this. (Source I used, in german: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqj2pHjipec) 2A02:8388:1600:A200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately YouTube is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP). I had a quick look for a more reliable source, but couldn't find one, the rumour appearing in only in newspapers like The Washington Examiner and The Daily Mail, which aren't regarded as reliable.
 * If you can find a reliable source (i.e. one in the list at WP:RSP) then go ahead and add this information to the article. Shimbo (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the British Ministry of Defence a reliable source for this? https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1540571414050312192 IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if it was worded as "On [whatever the date was] the British Ministry of Defence said Dvornikov had been replaced", then that would be okay.
 * Twitter is not a reliable source, but Dvornikov's removal does now seem to have been reported in reliable sources, e.g.: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/06/25/russia-shakes-up-top-command-ex-syria-war-general-sacked/ Shimbo (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that source. Why is this article protected from editing? IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is semi-protected (see WP:SEMI), probably because it's related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and so attracts propaganda. To edit it you need to get your user-ID confirmed (see WP:CONFIRM) Shimbo (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

"by such post" is bad grammar. I'd fix it, but I recently learned how unwelcome edits from non-Wikipedians are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.241.135 (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse.   Shimbo (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to improve the article because it is protected from editing. Why is that? IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected pages cannot be edited by unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as accounts that are not confirmed or autoconfirmed (accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia). Semi-protection is useful when there is a significant amount of disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users, or to prevent sockpuppets of blocked or banned users from editing, especially when it occurs on biographies of living persons who have had a recent high level of media interest. Juanriveranava (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Further attempted whitewashing
Juanriveranava is making further attempts to remove Dvornikov's well attested nickname. We have previously had an RFC, the result of which was a consensus that the nickname was widely used in reliable sources. The only arguments against its inclusion were raised by Juanriveranava and were largely spurious, e.g. accusations of 'bias' and 'Russophobia'. Juanriveranava also gives every impression of being a WP:SPA, having made only one edit on any topic in the three months since the RFC. how should we proceed? --Shimbo (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Call it what it is Shimbo 1)the well attested nickname is still present, just not in the Biographical Info of the said person, but in the section pertaining his military reputation, where it belongs, you seem to not understand how leading to someone reading is to claim as a consensus and unchallenged fact as someone's name, date of birth, place of birth, the use of a monicker (expressed as an opinion and now you want to make it a fact), since July the article stayed settled on the inclusion of the nickname properly referenced as an statement which it is, and god, even as a trend if you like, but always and in line with neutrality standards, all of this was present on the last edit regarding this subject, even when you could've changed it right afterwards and you didn't; now 2 months later you come again, listen you already got a message from other user of how unwelcoming your stance to people is regarding this matter, you got the problem mate, also you are now trying to relive passed arguments that you should've addressed months before in the moment when they were exchanged;seems you have a craving to elevate to encyclopedical knowdlege something that is not factually truth as it is very easily verifiable that he is not known like that in many other parts of the world, this is the world enclyclopedia not the western media verification encyclopedia, it is mentioned on the article who has expressed what opinion about his deeds based on facts, then you need to let people make their own conclusions, you want to feed that narrative to everyone in the world who access this encyclopedia, prior my interventions the article was clearly biased and stated many opinions and conjecture as facts you didn't change a single of them, I will always oppose to the imposition of one POV in spite of others (very much like the Russian Govt does), when truth doesn't assist, you want to expand on the monicker, go ahead and contribute on the military reputation section, where it belongs. Juanriveranava (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Dude, it wasn't me who added the nickname to the infobox, it was User:RenatUK.
 * Then, having made one edit on any other article in the meantime, you reappeared to delete the nickname again. Over 90% of all the edits you've ever made on Wikipedia are on this single article. It's textbook single purpose account behaviour.
 * As you're resorting to personal attacks and random accusations that wikipedia is 'biased' now, I'm going to let the administrators deal with you. Shimbo (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And I modify it to stay as was agreed upon in july, and you placed it again, what kind of game is this?, i didn't erase it from the whole article, even in your rfc @Bop34 stated that it should be included but perhaps not in the info box, and I agreed, where did I try to whitewash or remove it from the article?, look I'm 36 yo, and have a full time job, once in a while when I can and where my expertise and knowledge would make it relevant, I try to partake on the improvement of the quality of the information, grammar or otherwise, sorry mate, not all of us are retired and have spare time to make many edits per week to satisfy your standard, I wasn't the one personally attacking you or any other, as a matter of fact It was me who was personally attacked since the beginning, the history of edits is here, and everyone can fact check what I stated, the corrections I made and everything, I get you come from another era, and you have embedded certain ideas and it's ok, just don't force me to accept them and make arguments implying I should refrain to policy first then when confronted with policy interpretation that is different from yours, start with the ad hominems and trying to rebuff me personally but not my arguments, and then when you couldn't construct a dialogue because it seems you want to impose your way of seeing and understanding things, that honestly make me think you are on a sort of crusade to name this guy disregarding the biographies of living persons policy, you now claim now that I'm attacking you, come on!, you may have 18000 o 100000 edits under your belt, that doesn't make you infallible, my arguments have always been clear, referenced, and based on policy, it would be interesting to review your participation on every Living Person Biography, I'm pretty sure there are other inconsistencies, please don't over state me, thats textbook defamation,I never said the whole wikipedia is biased, the bias showed in this particular article prior my interventions is irrefutable and on record, as the first 3 or 4 comments on the talk page show, after reading it for the first time it was evident the egregious violations to what I read and understood as neutrality policy and flagged by at least other 3 users that had to intervene, you never showed up nor make any comments, or corrections, why?.
 * Since you have seem to forget and even when other user had already pointed you have a very aggresive and confrontational response to this, I'll leave you an extract of the single proposed account page for your consideration: Existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account, act fairly and civilly, and not bite newcomers. Remember that every editor on Wikipedia was new at some point. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.
 * Also from wikipedia and on advocacy: the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view. Juanriveranava (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)