Jump to content

Talk:Mazhory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I am not crazy about any In popular culture-section in any Wikipedia article; I always expect (in a section whith that name) at any moment the phrase "in an episode of Family Guy Quagmire....." to come up... Where this sections not banned under WP:TRIVIA anyway? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, I know what your saying... I hate it when passing mentions from one episode of something are included, but here I thought the title of a song by one of Russia's biggest bands and the actual name of a TV series were somehow weightier than your "in an episode of Family Guy....." example. Trivia is random and minor, here it's a narrower focus and slightly more important. ;) Malick78 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The song is relevant because of the lyrics, which was part of the reason for the citation. I am not familiar with the TV show mentioned - is it relevant or a trivial mention?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was refering to this... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:38, 10 April 2012

Mentioning of "in an episode of Family Guy....." was a friendly warning; found the phrase in a picture on Wikipedia once... So for al inclusions seem to make sense although I am not sure if the Russian TV series naming is just a random coincident that it has the same name as this rich brats... I am not familiar with Suits and I thought that Russian TV only broadcasted films about WWII all hours of the day... They seem to do so the last time I had Russian TV channels at my disposal... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in favour of the current contents of that section. I think it makes mockery out of this serious issue. I am not sure we need this section. Oxy20 (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So far we have not established this phenomenon is widely (if at all) spread in Russia. Yet the current In popular culture-section only speaks of Russian artworks... Are we trying to learn Joe the Plumber that this concept that only exist in Ukraine runs so deep there that it's reflected in works of art/culture from Russia? Joe is wondering what concept that only exist in Canada runs so deep there that it's reflected in works of art/culture from his USA.... I'm starting to think the current contents of this section is more confusing the reader then helping... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I edited this info into the article already. Me a native reader of Russian ? You have not examined all parts of my Userpage on Wikipedia I do believe... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:54, 12 April 2012

  • Well, your Russian must be much better than mine. That was my main point. And I don't believe you have just a basic understanding of Cyrillic ;) Your userpage lies ;) Malick78 (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Era? As far as I am aware it is a new phenomen

[edit]

Something similar in Soviet Times was called connections. Being able to buy expensive closing (alleged Soviet times meaning of the word) is miles different from the current meaning of almost having inpunity to misbehave andcommit crime. I think in the article Mazhory we exploring it as a phenomenon rather then a word in language - otherwise we would have to involve discussion of music as well. It is a elevantly recent phenomenon probably late 90s or even after 2000. Oxy20 (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I once read (I think in Kyiv Post) that Mazhory (in the current meaning) was a legacy of the (President) Kuchma-Era. I read that was so since the current elite was formed there... So I think Oxy20's timing is right. But if this word was borrowed from another (now defunct) social phenomena that would be word mentioning. I was hoping too we where exploring it as a phenomenon rather then a word in language. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I left Ukraine in 1997 I have not heard "Mazhory" being used at all. I suppose back then it was "New Russians" but "New Russians" did not mean that degree of routine lawlessness and impunity that "Mazhory" signifies (though it might have signified even more extreme but not so routine lawlessness). ("New Russians" is not really in use now) So I think definitely it appeared no earlier then late 90s. And as I was reading news throughout my absence from Ukraine I think it is even as recent as last 10 years. Oxy20 (talk) 00:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Soviet-era mentality responsible for this? May be President and his adviser find it convinient to blame anyone other then themselves. But this kind of lawlessness just was not happening during Soviet times - certainly not on these scales. I do not think that the people quoted are that useful in this respect. The first one from the current people in power obviously would want to blame the past. The other commentator does not go as far, and mentios Soviet era mentality to please some high powerd officials. But even if that desire did exist back then I would argue it was manifesting in different ways. Oxy20 (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points; some expansion of this part of the article would be nice........ So much work to do on Wikipedia so little time I have.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there (Ukrainian) regional differences?

[edit]

Of course you have to have an elite that is well known and more important very well established and not in danger of “getting send out of power” in order for the Judicial system of Ukraine (a.k.a. "Lotto Super 7 but then less fair..") to facilitate these Mazhory. In Halychina there seem to be more political competition then in the rest of the country (in the Donbass Party of Regions seems to have at least 75% of all votes in any city); does that mean there is less Mazhory in Halychina (then in Donbass)? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think so. I think it is wrong to link it to politics. Or even just money. But basically this term is probably more about money then politics or perhaps equally between this two. If you have money - the idea is you will be able to buy impunity (no need for political connections). The funny side is, very often you do not have to pay that much money to the police at all for the to cover up for you! Mazhory is most often used in connection with traffic accident when expensive car will be immediately associated with "Mazher" as well connections with officials. Oxy20 (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To prove the point one of the most shocking recent cases - murderer who used automatic weapon in public walked free - and he is actually from the OPPOSITION (though most papers prefer not to mention it, he was representing the currently jailed Yurij Lutsenko's party. This is mentioned in the TV news in the second link):
http://www.0564.ua/article/130775
http://politics.comments.ua/2012/03/23/329642/deputatu-dali-2-goda-uslovno.html Oxy20 (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info (but) Ukrainian author and journalist Mykola Riabchuk backs up my conclusions. He goed even further by linking all Mazhory with Party of Regionss. Not sure what Wikipedia weight is opinion is though; I suspect not enough. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:51, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That a very heavily biased Liberal newspaper like Kyiv Post would criticise the conservatives and largely igmore the faults of the liberals is only to be expected.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at the sources we have tell and verify them then; not just shoot things down because a source might look arrogant... Be aware nobody should fall into the Calimero complex... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If only high ranking officials

[edit]

Changed article. It is just not true to say high ranking officials. There are not too many of those - not enougph to cause such a big problem. One of the links relates to a judge's assistent, essentially a secretary. Arguably this is not even a mid-ranking official but a low-ranking official. Oxy20 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also always worth remembering it is not just officials. It is wealthy. In fact I would argue most officials gain that status through wealth rather then directly through any official powers - this would be especially true of local government officials. (ability to give bribes out of public purse by plots of land rather then any other power over police or prosecutors). Most references mention not just official but wealthy as well so I added this to the article. Oxy20 (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{globalize}} tag (since today)

[edit]

Is this globalize tag not a bit too much... We are not even sure yet if this is a term is used outside Ukraine or if this is a phenomenon that is big outside Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:29, 13 April 2012

How can't you be sure "if this is a term is used outside Ukraine", if you already have some Russian sources describing it in the article? It's absolutely clear that this word is used throughout the entire Russians-speaking world and its usage in Russia is not less notable as one in Ukraine. There are also no grounds to presume that it originated in Ukraine. Maybe the fact that the authors of the article are interested in Ukraine (and far less interested in Russia) had had made them come across this word mostly in the context of Ukraine and thus they concluded that it's an entirely Ukrainian term/phenomenon. However, you need a scholarly source for such claim. Adding some cases of usage in news to prove it looks like WP:SYN. --glossologist (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Soviet-era the term Mazhory was connected with children of high-ranked officials; that does not proof the term is used in today's Russia. The Soviet Union imploded in 1991 and 2012 is not 1991. Words can become obsolete; also in Russia… They might use a different word for the same phenomenon. No offense but if you are not willing to provide scholarly source yourself for your above claims it is likely the article will not change. Ten points for guessing what wp:weight we should give to your (own) opinions. Please bring at least 1 source that proofs it's absolutely clear that this word is used throughout the entire Russians-speaking world and its usage in Russia is not less notable as one in Ukraine. Besides me and other editors are volunteers… Don’t get mad we might not got it right… — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references in the article [1] mentions mazhory clearly referring to the present. Unfortunately, I don't have a Russian slang dictionary within touch at the moment, but you can find plenty of sources in the Internet, like this, this (p. 37) or this. It's also mentioned in the modern (2009) edition of the Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language, although in a fairly different meaning from one portrayed in the article.
The modern Ukrainian meaning of the word has problems with sources as well. This source used four times in the article doesn't mention the word mazhor at all. Others mentioning it and giving some brief definition are news articles almost entirely about a same event.
P.S. I apologise if my previous comment had sounded somewhat rude. --glossologist (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was just a warning one should not expect to much from Wikipedia…. We (I mean all who since now edited on this article) are not proffesor’s (spot the reference in that!) at the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv…. Anyhow it now seems (to me) more and more clear that in Russia the term has kept its original Soviet meaning while in Ukraine the term has become sinister. More sources are always better but I believe that they are right about the current meaning of the word in Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think this is correct less emotional and much less connected with impunity to breal law Oxy20 (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I think the article is about mazhory as a phenomenon rather then a dictionery definition of the word. After all we would use singular for mazhor if we were writing a dictionery definition. It does not appear to be used as often in Russia and when used it does not appear to mean almost immunity from prosecution and lawlessness as in Ukraine. In Russia it appears to mean children of the wealthy who do not work and just waste their parents money - and making show out of it. So probably need to explain it.Oxy20 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that link to new York "force majeure" movy is completely irrelevant. "force majeure" is a legal phrase (in russian "Fors Mazhor" whic means some major disaster like fire or tornado that might affect liability to perform under a contract. Nothing to do with topc of this article! Oxy20 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is it plural? Force-majeure has no plural, yet the series is called "Force-mazhory"? It's referencing the 'mazhory' idea - since these are rich young people (lawyers). But hey, I've no proof of that, though it is surely self-evident ;) Malick78 (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, they are called Fors-Mazhory not just mazhory. In Russian Fors Mazhory has plurals. In english the series is called suits - because several of them. In russian suits even when trunslaed would not sound bad so they chose legalistic word. May be there was also an attempt to reference our "mazhory" but surely it was not the main reason for naming it "Fors Mazhory" in any case lets not speculate about it. Its relevance is questionable so I am confident it was correct to remove it, don't you agree? Oxy20 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears there is also a hint of lawlessness to that word in Russian as well. But certainly not nearly as much as in Ukraine. But it is not about just rich kids it describes an element of arrogance and missbahaviour. One of the few sources supporting strong connection of Mazhory with impunity from prosecution: http://kp.ru/daily/25665.4/827044/ Some more articles where the usage relates to Road Traffic lawlessness and used as "malchiki-mazhery" something I have not seen in Ukrainian media. So it appears mazhory also quite negative word in Russia - but not as negative as it became in Ukraine.

http://kp.ru/daily/24565/738928/?geo=1
http://kp.ru/daily/25708/908892/
http://kp.ru/daily/25821.5/2799419/
http://kp.ru/daily/24546/723782/
http://kp.ru/daily/24551/728268/
http://kp.ru/daily/25734/2724022/

Oxy20 (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rearranged the article a bit... feel free to start a chapter ‘’Term Mazhory 2010s Russia’’. I find it not very interesting to invest my time in finding information about mean children of the wealthy who do not work and just waste their parents money or bad drivers lawlessness; besides unless there are significant more of those kids in Russian then in an average country (or they have a characteristic that makes them noticeable like the Ukrainian Mazhory) I think these Russian ‘’Mazhory’’ might not pass the requirement Wikipedia:Notability or will fall under WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and if so we would not even be allowed to write about them on Wikipedia… (same goes for the drivers lawlessness). A possible section ‘’Term Mazhory the Soviet Union’’ could be more interesting but I do not want to spend my time in investigating countries that do not exist anymore………… — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably need to concentrate on one particular meaning of this word - rather then write a dictionery by attempting to explain sveral meanings. Also need to avoid research. Current meaning of this word and what phenomenon it represents is clearly supported by references. But trying to establish when it came into usage, historical background, whether it relates to something in Soviet Union - that is porbably already original research. So perhaps the way forward is to have the meaning explained as in the first few sentences of the article and state that this is mainly in Ukraine with some evidence of similar usage in Russia but to a lesser extent (supported by references of cause). And need to keep politics out of it as much as possible so that it is from NPOV. Oxy20 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhory has its current meaning in Ukraine since July 2009?

[edit]

Ukrayinska Pravda started to use the term Mazhory when referring to children of officials who had committed a crime in July 2009. Not sure that that proofs it has its current meaning in Ukraine since July 2009. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the refs for Oxy's edits here, it seems the term wasn't used back in 2009 in the case he mentioned (alternatively, perhaps his example just isn't appropriate: maybe the term isn't used because it doesn't fit the type (the people mentioned were punished and didn't get away with it, which is what mazhory means in the Ukraine)). That, perhaps, suggests why most examples from the source I gave recently (that Toddy objected to) mentioned the Party of the Regions: they've been in power since early 2010 and people in power are more likely to feel they have impunity to break the law than the opposition. Does this explain the perceived bias against the PotR? Basically: the term has been in use since 2010 and it's mainly PotR members, who, being in power, try to take advantage of their position - hence the term is used about them overwhelmingly. Would that not explain things? Malick78 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the media does not use it that much for very senior officials. Actually I think untill very recently it was mainly confined to Road Traffic behaviour / accidents, perhaps hooliganism. Oxy20 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First mention on well knowk Ukrainian website 2005 though not entirely clear whether in current meaning http://korrespondent.net/magazine/2373-deti-vlasti.
One of the first mentions - son of then president 2007 http://korrespondent.net/showbiz/187671-syn-yushchenko-uvleksya-blondinkoj
son of rich businesmen in road traffic case http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/events/325835-ukraina-itogi-2007-goda-ot-korrespondent-net
article on rich children http://korrespondent.net/kyiv/463846-korrespondent-issledoval-zhizn-stolichnyh-mazhorov
road traffic accident son of official 2008 http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/events/588844-v-odesse-zakryli-delo-protiv-syna-zampredsedatelya-oblsoveta-sovershivshego-masshtabnoe-dtp
Then it is used more and more. Oxy20 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All this searching through articles to find the first use of words is covered by WP:Original Research and WP:Synthesis.
As for the vendetta some of you have against conservatives in Ukraine - that is covered by WP:Soapbox and WP:Conflict of interest.
So let's stop breaking Wikipedia policies.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one has a vendetta, stop making wild accusations. And when a user deletes info that he himself added - perhaps it's a bad idea to reinstate it, Toddy1. The info has no source mentioning 'mazhory' so itself is OR and synthesis. I'll delete it again.
As for OR, your contention that 'mazhory' should cover all parties is OR itself without a source to back it up. It only works if the word was used a lot while the previous government was in power - something so far that hasn't been proven. I had a good source which only mentioned the PotR - and you claimed it was biased, without showing proof that the word is used for other parties (hence, that's your own thesis that it should/does apply to all parties). I was just asking for the word's earliest use to clarify the situation - to see if you complaint of bias holds water. Oxy was helping with that. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to curb debate.Malick78 (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatives in Ukraine????

[edit]

There might be conservatives in Ukraine but other then Toddy1 nobody seems to think Party of Regions fall under that umbrella... Academics speak of 2 blocs in Ukrainian politics[1][2][3]:

To claim Party of Regions must be conservatives cause they are "anti-liberal" (and in my perception they never where that much "anti-liberal") looks strange to me... Party of Regions looks to me to be Russophilia Socialism done by Ukrainian oligarchs....

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Backes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Ukraine right-wing politics: is the genie out of the bottle?, openDemocracy.net (January 3, 2011)
  3. ^ Pro-Russian bloc leads in Ukraine, BBC News (March 26, 2006)
  4. ^ a b Communist and Post-Communist Parties in Europe by Uwe Backes and Patrick Moreau, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008, ISBN 978-3-525-36912-8 (page 396)

Hence Malick78 can not be in a vendetta with something that is not there.... (to me all large Ukrainian political parties seems to be some sort of Socialism). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of opinion piece by Mykola Riabchuk

[edit]

The footnote to Wikipedia:No original research says:

Further examples of primary sources include ... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces or interviews...

The article gives very high prominence to a transparently dishonest opinion piece entitled "Like fathers, like sons: Ukraine’s untouchables" by Mykola Riabchuk. This claims that the only rich people and well connected people in Ukraine who commit crimes are either members of the Party of the Regions or are connected to members of that party. In case you have not noticed, the leader of BYuT is a convicted criminal residing in a Kharkov prison; she is also under investigation for a number of murders.

The reality as reported in the very good article on Corruption in Ukraine is that many prominent members of all political parties in Ukraine are under investigation for illegal activity.

Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and unbiased. It is not a soapbox. I think that everything whose only citation is Riabchuk's opinion piece should be deleted from the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy now..... Let's not drag Yulia Tymoshenko into this (nor Yevhen Shcherban; sources 7+8 are a very interesting reads in that Wikipedia article.. )... her daughter seems to behave better then Viktor Yushchenko's son.... or Viktor Yanukovych's son... This article is about Sons and Daughters. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote five of Wikipedia:No original research clearly says: 'University of California, Berkeley library defines "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event".' Has the author been involved in any events? No. The author merely interprets events. It's a secondary source. Please don't waste our time here Toddy1. Malick78 (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A second issue: even if you dislike the thesis in the article, it hardly means all the cited cases are inaccurate. It would still be reliable as a source regarding things which happened. And why is it "transparently dishonest"? I don't see it as such. It talks about abuse of power and how perpetrators avoid punishment: to compare that to a woman who's currently being punished is inconsistent ;) Lastly, it's published by a reliable source - Open Democracy. You haven't yet established it as being unreliable. And it's still secondary ;) Malick78 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if Corruption in Ukraine is a very good article; I think it will strugle to get through a Good article nominations and will not make it. But yes it does give a wider view on things then this Wikipedia article... I think the question we should now focus on is: is source 13 ("Like fathers, like sons: Ukraine’s untouchables". Mykola Riabchuk. Open Democracy. Retrieved April 14, 2012) an opinion piece. And if so are we allowed to use opinion piece... I think that as long if you don't take over the conclusion from an opinion piece you are allowed to use it. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riabchuk is a political propagandist. His opinion piece is trying to piggy-back on recent tragic events to make a political attack on the Party of the Regions. He is up to his neck involved.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Riabchuk - so I won't take your word that he's "a political propagandist". Please provide evidence. Until then, your opposition to his article is unfounded. It's published by a reliable source and will be deemed reliable till you have something to back up your claims. (Oh, and are you no longer claiming it's primary? You didn't say). Malick78 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is an opinion piece by a journalist. Wikipedia policy is that opinion pieces are primary sources. You have tried to claim that this opinion piece is a secondary source; "secondary source" as "a work that interprets or analyzes an historical event or phenomenon. It is generally at least one step removed from the event" - none of which applies to a liberal journalist writing propaganda about current events in Ukraine attacking the conservatives as criminals.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You call it attacking, I call it analysing. The point though is that he wasn't involved in the events he describes. That's what a primary source is. You've haven't shown that he is involved in the events.Malick78 (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NEWSORG. If you are not willing to accept that it is a primary source, then please place a notice on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The writer: "Mykola Riabchuk is a senior research fellow at the Ukrainian Center for Cultural Studies, in Kyiv, and co-founder and member of the editorial board of Krytyka, a leading Ukrainian intellectual magazine." Sounds pretty ok. Furthermore, you haven't said why it's "an opinion piece", and why it's primary, and how he's not "one step removed from the event[s]". You should explain your case better.Malick78 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Use of what appears to be a politically contentious opinion piece by a journalist--Toddy1 (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV I fully agree. If several templates were not placed alreadt I would NPOV. Probably should NPOV anyway. It is not about one party. To me the most shocking case involved OPPOSITION politician - murderer who used automatic weapon in public walked free - and he is actually from the OPPOSITION (though most papers prefer not to mention it, he was representing the currently jailed Yurij Lutsenko's party. This is mentioned in the TV news in the second link): http://www.0564.ua/article/130775 http://politics.comments.ua/2012/03/23/329642/deputatu-dali-2-goda-uslovno.html Oxy20 (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oxy - please could you add this to the list of examples, giving citations to the facts.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What the *(&^&! This list is suppose to be for "famous recent cases" and the last 3 cases this list is mentioning now are not famous cases! Let's not add another to this list to show that there is something wrong with all Ukrainian politicians. Wikipedia is not meant as a platform to attack Party of Regions! Let's not make it a platform to defend them either! Let's try to inform people what is going on in Ukraine, not what you think is going on.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendly advice

[edit]

I advice all the involved into the Use of opinion piece by Mykola Riabchuk (here above) discussion to read this small discussion and especially the contribution by Nomoskedasticity to that discussion. Nomoskedasticity made me a better editor. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ref tags

[edit]

Since when Toddy1 should all ref titles be in English? Please link to policy or remove the absurd tag. Malick78 (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Style#Foreign-language quotations is that translations into English should be given if you quote original text in a non-English language. Clearly the titles of articles are being quoted. It is a very good thing that the original language of the titles is being quotes, as it makes them easier to find if the URLs change, etc. But we do need them in English translation as well. I requested that they be translated on 14 April - see User talk:Yulia_Romero#Citing non-English sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the titles aren't being quoted - the info contained in the articles seems to be referred to. If I'm wrong please give examples. Malick78 (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Поймаем тюменских отморозков вместе! is not English. A translation should be given. There are many of these.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And where is that title quoted in the article's body? That's the issue. Malick78 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the article. You will see that the tag is placed in the section marked references. There is a whole load of stuff listed that needs an English translation. See below.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
   ^ a b c d e In Ukraine, scales of justice often imbalanced, Kyiv Post (10 April 2012)
   ^ a b "Ukrainian Woman's Rape Stirs Public 'Vendetta'". Leonid Bershidsky. Bloomberg. Retrieved April 10, 2012.
   ^ Charges dismissed against driver who killed pedestrian, Kyiv Post (1 December 2011)
   ^ (Ukrainian) Мажори активізувалися у літній період, Ukrainskyi Tyzhden (12 July 2011)
   (Ukrainian) Безкарна справа. Думки з приводу роковин загибелі Ігоря Індила, Ukrayinska Pravda (23 May 2011)
   (Ukrainian) У Запоріжжі "мажор" розстріляв двох чоловіків, Ukrayinska Pravda (6 July 2009)
   (Ukrainian) "Мажор", який ганяв по Києву з ножем, каже, що нарвався на "джигітів", Ukrayinska Pravda (14 July 2009)
   (Ukrainian) П'яний "мажор" у Нових Петрівцях збив студентів, машину ДАІ та трактор, Ukrayinska Pravda (16 September 2010)
   (Ukrainian) "Мажор", який спровокував смертельне ДТП, бере участь в автоперегонах, Ukrayinska Pravda (5 July 2011)
   (Ukrainian) Закони здорового глузду, Ukrayinska Pravda (13 July 2011)
   ^ a b c Gang-raped, strangled and set alight, brave Oksana loses her fight, The Age (30 March 2012)
   Unruly Untouchables, Kyiv Post (14 July 2011)
   Charges dismissed against driver who killed pedestrian, Kyiv Post (1 December 2011)
   ^ Ukraine rape victim searches for justice, guardian.co.uk (23 March 2012)
   ^ (Russian) Как отрывается «золотая молодежь», Komsomolskaya Pravda (1 April 2004)
   ^ (Russian) Мажоры берутся за ум, RUSSIA.RU (20 October 2010)
   ^ «Золотая молодежь», гоняющая на автомобилях с риском для нас, остается безнаказанной (7 April 2011)
   Поймаем тюменских отморозков вместе! (28 September 2010)
   Отец отомстил мажору за гибель дочери (24 June 2011)
   Насильники-мажоры повезли девушек на озеро в Боголюбово (23 January 2012)
   Мажоры на «Хаммере» задавили десятиклассника (25 August 2010)
   Уральские милиционеры подтвердили, что автохулиганы из Тюмени – «мальчики-мажоры (3 September 2010)
   Уральские мальчики-мажоры на «Лексусе» убили трех рыбаков на «Ниве» (12 August 2011)
   All articles by Komsomolskaya Pravda (Russian)
   ^ Gender, Generation and Identity in Contemporary Russia by Hilary Pilkington, Routledge, 1996, ISBN:0415135443 (page 261)
   ^ (Russian) "Молодёжные субкультуры". Libozersk.ru (Municipal Cultural Institution "Centralized Library System Ozyorsky Urban Okrug"). Retrieved April 10, 2012.
   ^ Women in the Face of Change:Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China, Routledge, 1992, ISBN:0415075408 (page 126)
   ^ a b c d e "Like fathers, like sons: Ukraine’s untouchables". Mykola Riabchuk. Open Democracy. Retrieved April 14, 2012. This source is an opinion piece, not a reliable source.
   ^ moskva.fm Мальчики-Мажоры — ДДТ
   (Russian) "Мальчики-Мажоры", ВРЕМЯ Z
   ^ Ya ne takoy kak vse, Amazon.com
   ^ (Russian) Lar$on, Moon Records Ukraine
   (Russian) LAR$ON .:я не такой как все:., Moon Records Ukraine
  • But those aren't quotes! They're title names. Stop misapplying policy. Wikipedia:Style#Foreign-language quotations says: "Quotations from foreign-language sources should appear in translation. Quotations that are translations should be explicitly distinguished from those that are not. Indicate the original source of a translation (if it is available, and not first published within Wikipedia), and the original language (if that is not clear from the context)." As for the tag - read it! It says: "This article..." - it's for articles! Malick78 (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Citation of Ukrainian and Russian language sources--Toddy1 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the topic of this article?

[edit]

What is the topic for this article?

  • Is it the use of the word in newspaper articles, popular culture, etc.?
  • Is it about the people?
  • Is it about crimes committed by the people?

--Toddy1 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lozinskij

[edit]

Having added information about this politician I received objection from one user for two reasons: 1. Refernces did not support him being a Mazhor 2. That mazhory usually avoid punishment and he did not - so is not mazhor.

1. I agree that there was a deficiency - so I deleted information on him. 2. I disagree. There is no indication that to be a mazhor one has to actually avoid punishment. As soon as crime is committed people and the press in certain cases label offender mazhor. It is actually not frequent that they escape punishment entirely - often the perception is that they are not punished sufficiently or that they will not be punished severaly. After all if we insist that actual avoidance of punishment is a requirement then neither Landik case (as he was punished) nor Makar suspects could be called mazhory. In Lozinskij case at one point it actually looked like he would escape punishment entirely - he was even nominated for a medal for that murder.

I looked for some sources to support the assertion that he is mazhor. The difficulty him being an MP (Member of Parliament) it is more headline catching to call him MP-murderer then mazhor-murderer for the press. However I did find quite a few refernces supporting the assertion that he is mazhor.

The first one looks like a good analysis on mazhery.

http://www.day.kiev.ua/212384

"«Мажорство» угрожает не только обществу... Когда случился дикий инцидент при участии печально известного нардепа Лозинского с убийством 55-летнего жителя Кировоградщины Валерия Олийныка"


http://bezdurakov.com.ua/Linchevanie-kak-sredstvo-ot-raka.html "После Лозинского и Ландыка украинцев трудно удивить выходками мажоров"

http://od.vgorode.ua/news/83911/ "То, что я увидел и прочитал, меня нисколько не удивило - такое, к сожалению, происходит сплошь и рядом по стране. Вспомните: Ландик, Лозинский… А роликами, где мажоры издеваются над простыми людьми, завален весь Интернет"

http://www.ukr.net/news/subject/mazhory_i_society-4847.html "В СМИ все чаще появляются сообщения о преступлениях, совершенных чиновниками, их родствениками и детьми. В обществе таких людей прозвали мажорами. В большинстве случаев они уходят от уголовноо преследования, откупаются от жертв и милиции или просто запугивают. Тем не менее, благодаря СМИ такие историю все чаще не остаются безнаказанными, хоть и наказание часто присуждается достаточно мягкое. Среди наиболее резонансных фигурантов - Виктор Лозинский, Роман Ландик, Рудь, Файнгольд-младший и компания мажоров из Николаева"

http://ukraine-russia.livejournal.com/7594699.html "Автор - большой молодец. Он правильно показывает, что бурные, но кратковременные медиа-истерики вокруг ландиков, лозинских и прочих "зарвавшихся мажоров" "

http://ru.tsn.ua/ukrayina/v-centre-ternopolya-posledovateli-lozinskogo-otgryzli-uho-sportsmenu.html "В центре Тернополя около Кафедрального собора мажоры, которых уже назвали местными Лозинскими, зверски избили и покусали биатлониста"

I hope this does prove that he is indeed perceived to be a mazhor.

Oxy20 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Oxy20 is trying to proof that there is something wrong with all Ukrainian politicians by trying to get Mr. Lozinskij into this article his behaviour wil fall under Wikipedia:Advocacy... Not a single word about (the person) Yulia Tymoshenko belongs in this article since her conviction had nothing to do with Mazhory. If you want to do something about Ukrainian politicians join UDAR or something.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was her choice to name party after herself. OK the last sentence might not have been needed. But "БЮТ" is Yulia Tymoshenko Party - that what it stands for. I see nothing inapropriate in naming the party to which an offending MP belonged at the time the crime was comitted especially given some other statements in the articles.Oxy20 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had not placed any info about Roman Landik's party membership; yet Oxy20 found it necessary to mention 3 times that Lozinskij was a member of Yulia Tymoshenko's party. Are you trying to use Wikipedia to make Tymoshenko look bad? Wikipedia is not a blog, leave your personal opinions about anybody out of it while you are editing as I did while editing about Landik (and Lord knows I dislike Party of Regions). Why did you not add that Landik was a member of Party of Regions and a member of a local parliament for Party of Regions? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Read here why I did not mention Landik's party membership. Since the sources that Oxy20 found seem to call Mr. Lozinsky an example of Mazhory he seems to belong in the list of examples. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great!! The introduction has a bit saying that "most" of these people are Party of the Regions, citing an opinion piece that says "all" of them are, and you delete any reference to the fact that some of them are BYuT. Now all normal readers will assume that Lozinskij is Party of the Regions too!--Toddy1 (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was needed to add nuetrality. There is a statement " Journalist Mykola Riabchuk concluded after analyzing news stories concerning crimes committed by Mazhory (and their parents), since late 2010, that most cases of Mazhory crimes appeared in Southeastern Ukraine alongside the capital city of Kiev (where an enormous number of national VIPs is ominously concentrated) and most people involved where members of Party of Regions (the Party of Regions is the most influential party in Southeastern Ukraine).[13] "
  • Lozinskij case goes completely against heavy POV of the above - yet after your edits - it might look like it does not and in fact it might seem that Lozinskij is actually from party of region.
  • It is relevant that shortly after the murder Lozinskij was nominated for an award by a fellow MP. Why did you remove that?
  • You did not need to name the party Lamdik belongs to becayse what is written just above the examples implies they are all Party Of Regions related anyway. And I must say incorrectly as the third case clearly is not and neither is the 1st really.
Oxy20 (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a tool to add neutrality to newspapers articles it is an encyclopaedia. You guessed that a reader in England would automatically assume that Landik must be a member of Party of Regions because it states in the article that "what is written just above the examples implies they are all Party Of Regions related anyway"? Don't assume when writing an encyclopaedia, as a casual reader I would have never assumed that. Don't use Wikipedia as a tool to convince people of your views, it is not the place for it. Read WP:5. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Journalist Mykola Riabchuk - This scetion has to go from the page - otherwise readers might be misled.

[edit]

The statement of Mykola Riabchuk - namely asserting that Mazhory is largely confined to one particular political party has been previously been nominated to violate NPOV.

Now there is even stronger case for its removal. The way the article is now would seem to imply that offenders in the examples section are all from one particular party which they are not. So now it is not just NPOV - it is actually very missleading. Oxy20 (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source that disagrees with him and place that one in the article. You are a slow learner…. Wikipedia does not care about your personal views… — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a different way - state parties in the examples section. Then it will be clear, how about that? That is a better way - at least factual rather then using sources of questionable reputation as far as impartionality of opinion is concerned. Oxy20 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia is a tool to inform readers. Yet most Eastern European editors (and Eastern European Diaspora editors) use Wikipedia as a tool to convince people of there personal views. YES I KNOW THAT THERE ARE HARDLY DECENT UKRAINIAN POLITICIANS OUT THERE! But as an editor I try not to let my feelings influence me; and so should you... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. For this reason facts as to which party each one of the mazhory section belonged can be stated. But an opinion whose impartiality has been disputed should not. Don't you agree? Oxy20 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree most people involved in Mazhory crimes where members of Party of Regions? If the answer is "No" you might be using Wikipedia as a tool to convince people of your personal views (by removing a source that states "Yes"). And that would be wrong... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The cited article does not say most. It says all. See quotation below:
"It is no accident that all the heroes of these stories are either members of the Party of Regions or their close political-cum-business associates."
Oxy has produced citations showing that some "heroes" of such stories are from other parties.
It is WP:Synthesis to do an analysis of the exact proportions of people of different political groups in these stories. Oxy has found citations that show that the claim by Mykola Riabchuk is not true.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, it now states it is his personal view; Andriy Portnov view is also his personal view... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Mykola Riabchuk for his view to be included? The view is clearly wrong, and he is not some great authority to report the fact that he made that absurd statementOxy20 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent Spot Toddy1 I have very grave concerns how one user took a clearly false and outrageous statement and converted it into a more resonable in order to include in the article. That is now clearly not a reputable source. That statement is now clearly for deletion (in any case it should have been deleted).Oxy20 (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oxy20 I did not made this edit. I was trying to work out a compromise between Toddy1, you and Malick78... Don't make me look bad because I tried to make a compromise... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry assumed it was you as you appeared to defend it. Oxy20 (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Yulia you did add "most" ;) My edit, which you link to above, says "all". ;) Malick78 (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read a simuliar piece by this man on Kyiv Post and remembered he did not say "all".... in that piece ;). I had not read this source.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the RS page the only uninvolved editor to comment said it was a fine source. Btw, the source says "between late 2010 and late 2011" is the time his analysis covers. Perhaps, between those times it was only PotR MPs who were mentioned in press coverage. That doesn't mean the source is disreputable.
  • I would however highlight, again, however, that parties in power usually abuse power more than opposition politicians - who can't be sure of avoiding punishment. For this reason the term (a recent one) may seem to cover the PotR more (but hey, they're leader is a legitimately convicted criminal so they probably do contain more than the usual quota of thugs (Tymoshenko being illegitimately convicted, btw ;) ).Malick78 (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toddy1: "Oxy has found citations that show that the claim by Mykola Riabchuk is not true" - sorry, where are those citations? Are they in the period Riabchuk covers? Malick78 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, 'mazhor' is not used about the subject of the article (and we don't know that the subject evaded justice anyway). It's used about a different case: "Ранее мы писали, что в Одессе «мажор» на джипе, находясь в состоянии алкогольного опьянения, на бешеной скорости сбил киоск с продавцом" - the mazhor in that case isn't named. Please Oxy, I don't want to check all your "cases" - can't you just make sure the word 'mazhor' is used regarding who you think it's regarding and then get back to us when you're sure of your sources? Malick78 (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have any of you actually read the Riabchuk article? At no point does he say it's only PotR affiliates that commit these crimes. He says that he analysed 100 cases that he came across (i.e. he didn't search for them, he happened upon them) and they were all PotR people. Mention this caveat, and the source is fine to use (it is RS - Open Democracy is certainly not fringe). I can see two of you don't like his views, but as an RS it's fine to draw upon his work in our article. It is a view, not the only view - so feel free to add other viewpoints from RS. WP encourages the presentation of different significant viewpoints.Malick78 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps putting his description of the methodology here will help you: "By late 2010, as such tendencies became all too obvious, I began to collect the stories of violent crimes committed by Ukrainian VIPs and, especially, their offspring. The list is certainly not exhaustive since I picked up the stories occasionally, inter alia, while searching materials for different projects and screening only a handful of sources. Yet, having gathered about a hundred stories of this kind in less than a year, I found out it tempting to classify them and to denote some distinct features and tendencies." It surely, is obvious, that he's not claiming to have done a comprehensive survey. Yet, published by an RS, and the writer having reasonable credentials, surely means quoting him with caveats is ok. Malick78 (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • At no point does he say it's only PotR affiliates that commit these crimes. he analysed 100 cases that he came across (i.e. he didn't search for them, he happened upon them) and they were all PotR people. - appealing to the literality of what he said is not that helpfull. The question is not what is a literal intepretation of what he said. The question is how would a reasonable person understand what he was saying and could he understand how a reasonable person would understand what he is saying. To me it is clear that the intended message is that they are all Party of Region and he ought to have understood that that is how it would be interpreted.Oxy20 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to emphasize that point I would like to state that even in law it is how an ordinary person understands the message that matters. So for example if I am selling something and give statements that are literally true but such that most people would interpret in a different way and I ought to have known that - then according to law (at least English but suspect in many other contries as well) missrepresentation or even fraud occurred.Oxy20 (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the writer having reasonable credentials- on what basis do you say that? My opinion that he has no credentials at all. He is not even a good biased writer. A good propagandist writer would say something like "representatives of all aprties have been implicated but by a large degree more from PoR then from any other. So to me he is really discredited person and so are the publications that gave him a platform. Just like I would dismiss any scientist that claims that the Earth is a cubical rather then spherical.Oxy20 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case I can claim (just like you did with Lozinsky) that in any case it is completetly irrelevant even just because the word mazhory is not mentioned in it.Oxy20 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to know his credentials, read the article: it clearly states them at the top right in the description of the writer. Also, Toddy's request for comment at the RS noticeboard received an answer that the writer was clearly RS. So, you'll get nowhere with that tack. As for the lack of the word 'mazhory', well, it lacking in an English language article is hardly the red flag that it lacking in a Russian language article (i.e. the ones you supplied) is. The article gives an unambiguous description of the topic (children of rich/influential people getting away with crimes), which coincides exactly with ours here.Malick78 (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the person makes such outrageous statements that were proven to be misleading credentials would have to be extremely high to warrant inclusion of their opinion. His alleged credentials are: 1. senior research fellow at the Ukrainian Center for Cultural Studies - that institute covers folk culture, artists etc and is not well known, 2. co-founder and member of the editorial board of Krytyka, a "leading" Ukrainian intellectual magazine - questionale why a Ukrainian "leading" magazine has to be non-profit. I suppose if we find that only 100 copies of it a sold per month he can state - it is still leading and claim all other magazines are non-intellectual. To me it is self publishing giving he is the founder and also the fact that it is not for profit.Oxy20 (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not ask for other editors input on the talkpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Soviet Union. This seems to become a bit to heated and seems to become a war of wills rather then editors looking for a compromise. I am sorry if my attempt at a compromise was to Bold. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me the language of Riabchuck is such that it is immediately clear that he represents marginal views. But no harm in seeking opinions of others. I suppose as wider audience as possible. I am still very alarmed (not at you but) at the user who took these extremist views and converted to something less ourageous so that it could have a chance of surviving in the article. I think by so doing that person himself admits that the original source is nonsence. Oxy20 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yulia - you mentioned Kyiv Post. Do you mean the article dated 12 April 2012? It uses exactly the same words as the US website. The Kyiv Post article is clearly labelled as an opinion piece in the URL.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean that article dated 12 April 2012 but in my memory that article said most.... I stated somewhere above I do think it is right to use facts from opinion pieces; but it seems 2 editors are saying Riabchuk is not speaking the truth... And since Oxy20 found respectable sources that proof other politicians then Party of Regions have been seen as Mazhory. It is clear that Riabchuk piece can only stay in as an personal opinion (if included that other politicians then Party of Regions have been seen as Mazhory) of him. I would say remove this personal opinion of him since the tone of the article suggest Riabchuk seems on a mission to harm Party of Regions... rather then inform readers what is going on in Ukraine. It came to that conclusion after reading this. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for remembering wrong... I truly thought the content of Mykola Riabchuk's piece was different.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Lozinsky & Roman Landik

[edit]

Everybody is free to create an (wp:stub-)article about Viktor Lozinsky & Roman Landik so all can see what party they belong to without making every member of there parties look like a Mazhory in the makking. That is how I solved a problem with Viktor Yanukovych I used to have on Wikipedia. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for Vladimir Pylypenko. Head start: he was expelled from the BYuT faction in September 2010 (see here (in Ukrainian)). This article (in Ukrainian) suggest he is a tool of any Ukrainian who wants to pay him for anything... so him nominating Lozinsky for a bravery award could be Black PR against BYuT. Hence we must be careful when writing something. Don't assume anything... Read the book “Virtual Politics - Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World” (by Andrew Wilson, Yale University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-300-09545-7) and you will see Ukrainian politics used to be (and so might be now) full of dirty tricks. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As of July 2009 he was a member of BYUT. If his actions in Lozinsky case were black PR against them why did it take them so long to expell him? In any case I do not think there is any need to name any political parties in this article. Term Mazhor is nowdays used very often when reporting serious car accidents where one of the cars could be considered of presige brand - no political element is needed. No need to involve politics into this at all. And would doubt that Vladimir Pylypenko is notable enougph for his own article.Oxy20 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Politics does seem to be an important aspect in more cases. I don't think we should try to hide it.Malick78 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not. But at he same time money can equally well (if not even better) buy unfair advantage. When they report traffic accidents in Ukraine journalists often use mazher if the car is a 4x4 or is perceived expensive. Can find tens if not hundreds of such cases - with no hint of any political connections. There is no reall no need to actually name any political party here. Oxy20 (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:POLITICIAN Pylypenko is notable enough for his own article. I was not saying it was Black PR but that we must be careful in assuming it is not (or is...)…. The book by Wilson makes a strong case that if you assumed that Communist Party of Ukraine (renewed) was a genuine party you where completely wrong at the time…. Wilson says it was a project by Victor Pinchuk to steal votes away from Communist Party of Ukraine (so it would not rebel against Kuchma). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well even if he passes notability are there reliable secondary sources on him that cover more then his involvement in Lozinsky case? Would anyone actually want to read about him, especially in English? What's the point in writing something that probably nobody (or almost nobody) wants to read? Even Lozinsky and Landik (while ceratinly meeting notability requiremt) did not receieve much coverage outside of Ukraine so chances of people searching for them in English I would imagine are slim. Oxy20 (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether someone wants to read it is no reason to not write it... it's certainly not a WP rule. If they're MPs, the can have pages - they're notable enough. Malick78 (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said they definitely meet the notability requirement - so if someone acually wants to write a page (or translate - Russian page on Lozinsky is quite good - may be even a bit too neutral.) they are most certainly allowed. Oxy20 (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no multiple issues anymore (I think so)

[edit]

I just finished rebuilding the article (basically I put a lot of stuff that was background info about the word Mazhory in a Notes-section). I do believe this solved all the multiple issues described at the top of the article. Can we please remove this multiple issues-warning now? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mazhory&oldid=1210761167"