Talk:Valentyn Nalyvaichenko

"deliberately injected compromising material of fraudulent nature"
References that to me seemed perfectly legit to me where removed today by Greyskullpowerof because stated they where "has nothing to do with subject or contains deliberately injected compromising material of fraudulent nature". Italic text We have a strong indication that the reference you have provided deliberately injected with only one purpose to sabotage and undermine public opinion about the Subject - since you could have provided other sources with neutral content rather than the Pravda link full of obscene and Id rather say "paid" content - the summary is ok - but the redirected reader inevitably gets to read profane commentary and such left there with only one purpose I indicated above - I would suggest we deliver another reference (agreed by you and me) which is neutral - do you agree that the "has to be referred FACT could have been Referred by another Media Agency - we could use as?Greyskullpowerof (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As of this case I would suggest same solution as stated above - for the reasons explained in my commentary to removal action taken.
 * The Ukrayinska Pravda reference does nothing more then sum up who was elected into parliament in the last election (what can be compromising or fraudulent about that... unless he was not elected into parliament... but he is...)
 * The Ukrainian Week reference states "First of all, Valentyn Nalyvaichenko, number three on the list did not receive a majority constituency from the united opposition (or obtain a place in the upper part of the list)", is Greyskullpowerof claiming Nalyvaichenko never asked to be a candidate for a majority constituency from the united opposition or to be on its election list? In any case, this Wikipedia article does not state so...

Kind Regards and stay tuned...Greyskullpowerof (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I am sorry; but I find it hard to believe that somebody could see these sources as "compromising material of fraudulent nature". Can Greyskullpowerof explain his deletion here please? —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  22:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PS I do not want to bite any newcomers; I am sure Greyskullpowerof acted in Good faith. But some explanation from his side is needed. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  22:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because an article is critical about something does not make it "(concealed "paid" abusive content - article is based on fictional data and is being part of Anti subject political propaganda". —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  23:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not "deliberately injected (this article with sources) with only one purpose to sabotage and undermine public opinion about the Subject".... Please assume good faith about me... I have nothing against Mister Nalyvaichenko nor his party... Your reasons for wanting new sources are ridiculous and you should stop being paranoid... —  Yulia Romero  •  Talk to me!  23:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Greyskullpowerof appears not to see the difference between critical journalism and slander... —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  23:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your refference is about thought of conspiracies and such and about UDAR in general - I suggest to use another source which deals with SUBJECT I am sure thers plenty of - I am not that comfortable using your reference just because of one "remarkably fit" line for the reasons a few hundred characters to the left <<<< let's decide on another source about subject and forget about this nasty attempt to use Ukrainian dirty PIT technology -Greyskullpowerof (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am (also?) not so sure the The Ukrainian Week reference is 100% accurate... Seems being written by an paranoid reporter to me... But please do not forget that its content might be true... (The Ukrainian Week is extremely critical about all Ukrainian politicians, they seem to have nothing against UDAR in particular). By the way English Wikipedia could never hurt Nalyvaichenko's career in Ukraine.... But since we both agree the source is about UDAR in general I agree with you: let's remove it. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I am glad weve come to an agreement. Sorry my aquintance with you happened to be that way. Wanna go fishing together one day? =)Greyskullpowerof (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me first of all state my complete incompetence on the subject at hand: to be honest, I have no idea why I started this article although it probably had to do with my work on ambassadors. But this ignorance of the subject might make me a reasonable arbitrator in this dispute. For now, I tend to agree mostly with Yulia because the contested source, although critical, is far from slanderous and because the Ukrainian Week is a respected publication. The fact that it's in English is also nice and replacing it might not be that easy. I think it's up to the editor removing the source to find an appropriate substitute that conveys the same information in English. Pichpich (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Raj. well in Ukraine it is common practice by the People who are in "slander" business to use several tricks in order to bilk out reputation from the paid to be slandered opponent - in this case it looks like PATTERN well known to be implemented by the Media Enforcers - link to                                                    an article which deals with conspiracy theories about Other Politicians in UDAR party just because thers one line about Subject in there but ALL FRAMED in a NASTY one - I am sure same in Mumbai happensGreyskullpowerof (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) +-+---+                                                        Yulia, thanks for understanding and prompt action taken - now it's quite neutral and deals with numbers only and the subject. So how about going fishing? =)Greyskullpowerof (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) (I have seen this before) Because the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Russian Tsar's where so manipulative people in Eastern Europe sooner assume "bad faith" then the average Westerner. But I am also glad to say: they are not so sensitive when it comes to personal addressing them (see above). And media in Ukraine is being accused of POV-pushing a lot (like here, further info is at: Freedom of the press in Ukraine). Although I assume that because it is critical to all The Ukrainian Week and Ukrayinska Pravda can be trusted but because the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and Russian Tsar's where so manipulative journalist in Eastern Europe sooner assume "bad faith" then the average Westerner.... I have also read some things on The Ukrainian Week that seemed to me as exorbitantly (what is called "Indirect proof" in this article looks to me as no proof at all...); Ukrayinska Pravda keeps things more basic or offers real proof when needed.

I am hoping to again go to Kyiv & Dnipropetrovsk this year... I'll update you when I have concrete plans =). —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  00:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Roit indeed, anyways I will b more than glad to take you dinner or fishing ;) let me know beforehand Greyskullpowerof (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

POV biography
The biography appears to be written by the secret service itself, besides being almost completely unreferenced (except ref 11 at teh end). I put the sign up. it is also pretty extreme POV, so violating the 2 core pillars of wikipedia - the page should not stay like this for long. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

POV tag attached. Obvious extreme pro-Nalyvaichenko bias.
POV tag attached. This entry is very anti-Wikipedian, and appears to have been written by Mr. Nalyvaichenko or his strong supporters. I see zero criticism of this long-standing Ukraine politician and secret service boss. Does such a portrayal seem even remotely credible? You will be in violation of Wikipedia policy if you short-circuit talk page discussion by removing this tag.Haberstr (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Replacing POV tag
As there have been two talk page entries about the purported POV of this article, yet no details or discussions ensued (other than general complaints and POV criticism, which I'm wary about when dealing with any WP:BLP), I don't believe that the tag should remain in place.

What I do recognise is that more WP:RS are needed in order for this bio to be encyclopaedic. Currently, the bulk of sources qualify as being WP:BIASED. This being the case, more WP:INLINE attribution is likely the most desirable method of dealing with the content. In addition, it would be greatly benefited by finding RS to supplement the content.

In light or this, I'm replacing the POV tag with a ref improve tag.

Any input from editors as to the change in tag is welcome. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)