Jump to content

Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya/Archive 1

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

Cleanup

This article needs a lot of work, particularly in Internet Sensation, We have a run-on sentence, and I can't seem to understand this phrase:

"The news of her becoming an internet sensation in Japan and China people falling in love with her"

I don't really want to dig through those references, so if someone would be so kind it would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Hemi9 (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hemi9: is it better now? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Born 1980

Just how reliable is that first reference in the article that says she's born in 1980? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure but all the news sources I came across said she was 33. —  dainomite   03:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I've found even more actually, this interview by Rossiyskaya Gazeta (already in the article) she says that my birthday and also the birthday of Crimea (today, as I write these lines, Vladimir Putin delivered his speech on the reunification of the Crimea and Russia). - that speech was delivered on 18 March. So the date is 18 March...
But earlier on the interview says something like "on March 11 post prosecutor appointed 33-year-old Natalia Poklonskaya"... so it's unclear whether she's 33 years old on March 11, or on March 20, when the interview was published. Ugh. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 04:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimean Berkut

Would it be correct to say that the Crimean Berkut units ultimately report to her as Prosecutor General? 83.70.243.45 (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Get a reliable source please to back up your statement. Assumptions are not allowed... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

A Russian source

I found a good source. Could someone who understands Russian check the content I will be adding to the article from this source (to the Biography section) starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint:, Moscow Connection has a native speaker of russian babel userbox on his userpage. Maybe they could be so kind as to do it. :) —  dainomite   01:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah then no problem, he'll see this message when he comes back to this article. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
There are more details, but the Wikipedia article already gives the main facts.
Before all this, she was known for being the state prosecutor in the trial of the "Bashmaki" gang. ("Bashmaki" is a old-fashioned/"uncultured" word for "Boots".) You can use these English-language sources to add a sentence or two about it: "Poklonskaya was an able prosecutor who had made a name for herself after acting for the state in the trial of a notorious local gang known as Bashmaki, or the Boots.", [1]. ("Local" means Crimean, the gang was Crimean. The trial took place in 2011 in Simferopol in Crimea. So the sentence about the Bashmaki gang should probably go before "she was transferred to .. Kiev", but I'm not sure.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Did you know...

Let's expand the article to the required minimum of 1,500 characters in 5 days and submit it to "Did you know". If the article has a picture (some cute drawing released under CC-BY-SA) by then (by the time it is reviewed and placed into the queue), it will have good chances to be the top line. (Especially if we ask the right people to ensure it goes to the top.)
I guess a hook like this, with a cute picture, would make Wikipedia look nice:

Did you know that...

--Moscow Connection (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Bleh, we're at 974 characters right now. —  dainomite   21:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright Moscow Connection, we're at 1547 characters as of now, so we can submit a DYK. I'm not so sure about "cute" at the beginning of it but what about...

Did you know that...

—  dainomite   21:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I would very much not recommend including "cute" in the description. Tezero (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. —  dainomite   23:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Your version is good. But I'm hesitating to submit a nomination yet. Cause only a "freely licensed" picture can be used (according to Wikipedia:Did you know#Images.) Therefore we don't have a picture yet. The article was created on March 19, so the latest time to submit it would be March 24 23:59 UTC. There's still time. Let's maybe wait. What do you think? By the way, I can write a short section about her crime-fighting career and I think there will be more info available soon cause she has now gone viral in Russia and today more articles about her appeared in major newspapers and on major Russian websites. (Actualy I'm hesitating to add a "career" section now, cause it would make the article more serious and more political. She is a surely a hero, she was a prosecutor in major cases, she was appointed Prosecutor of Crimea after several men had refused the position [obviously they were scared], in her speech [at the press conference that vent viral] she talks about the outrage and lawlessness in Kiev, etc. So I'm asking myself, does the article need to be serious right now?)
But if someone else submits the nomination earlier, I'm fully okay with that. Just don't forget to credit all people who has edited it (not counting vandalizing and reverting :D). (If we wait till Sunday or Monday, the credits will look better [crazier].) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Eh, sorry, I went ahead and started a "biography" section. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: It's not required to have an image to submit a DYK nomination though. Don't hesitate to expand the article either imo. The article shouldn't just be about her as an internet sensation but her as a person who just happened to become an internet sensation. Regards, —  dainomite   00:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
A DYK without a picture won't get many views. Simply because the first entry must have a picture, so without a pic it will be somewhere in the middle and no one will notice it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree this would be much better with a freely licensed fan art. We can wait a few days, DYKs are not ITNs. Also, I think in either case we should add a fair use picture from the conference to the article. It really needs to show the similarity between the manga-fanart and her actual likeness to drive the point. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I changed "anime-style" to "moe-style" in the above DYK hook. —  dainomite   07:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I changed it back to "anime-style" in the article. It would be okay to use the word if the Wikipedia article about the term "moe" contained only «The word has come to be used to mean one particular kind of "adorable", one specific type of "cute", mainly as applied to fictional characters» (I had to search very hard to find the sentence), but it doesn't. So no one who doesn't know what moe is will understand it. And many people who know the term will understand it in some other way. (I will submit the DYK tomorrow, on Sunday that is. I will list both versions, "moe-style" and "anime-style".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I made the edit to the DYK above off of benlisquare's edit in the article changing it from "anime-style" to "moe-style". I assume Benlisquare and yourself have a higher "anime-IQ" than I so I defer to the experts if you will. —  dainomite   03:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
It would be great if the "moe" article explained the main meaning clearly.
By the way, I hope someone invents a better hook than mine. My hook was okay at the time, but now we need something as crazy as her popularity is. Someone may come up with a clever play on words that will attract a million hits. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the moe article is quite vague and has a few other issues too. You could probably say that it's "anime-style" since the (western) sources say that, though technically such a wording really makes me a bit itchy. I'm not going to really oppose that wording though, since linking to the moe article might be confusing for general readers, unless someone happens to fix up that article. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nearing deadline for DYK

Today's the deadline for DYK nomination (within the past five days; article created on 2014-03-19). I am in preference of nominating this page for DYK using this image: File:Natalia Poklonskaya fan-art by Itachi Kanade.jpg. That said, this is my preference, and you guys are still free to disagree and pick a different image. After the nomination's done, we have 15 days to get OTRS sorted out, which should be enough time. --benlisquareT•C•E 20:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

27 hours and 40 minutes are left.
But I've just nominated it. Yes, I choose the same picture absolutely independently. :) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC
Yes to that picture. Thanks M.C. for nominating. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's discuss it here: Template:Did you know nominations/Natalia Poklonskaya.
Cause technically the current alternatives don't look right:
  1. "Internet sensation" links to "Internet meme" (just terrible)
  2. "Anime-style" is not really a correct wording, it's a simplification. I've been thinking about it and now I think most people will hate it. "Moe-style" is much better. No one will understand it, but many years later they will [understand], and they will be grateful. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
To start with, should maybe "Internet sensation" link to "List of Internet phenomena"? (or "Internet celebrity"?) We can relink it.
And I will place the "moe-style" hook first now cause I like "anime-style" less and less. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair use

Uh, I really think we should try to get a freely licensed work instead of fair use like File:Natalia Poklonskaya fanart.png. If someone wants to see their fan art in Wikipedia, they should license it properly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: It's being discussed right above in the Fans and fan-art section. I just did a search on Flickr but no files (not even non-free fanart) came up. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 11:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: I know, and I also have concerns about the validity of the FUR rationale. Fan art can be created by anyone, including a Wikipedian with manga-style drawing skills. Can we really argue that we can use this image due to lack of free images? It is replaceable by a Wikipedian-created fan work. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
@Piotrus: Appreciate your concerns, I have already sent a mail to another artist regarding uploading their fan-art to Commons, let's see who gets a file on Commons first! starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: Good luck (sincerely). Based on my experiences, I expect nobody will reply (if they are Japanese artists, you should ask them in Japanese, their English is probably pretty poor). On a related note, I do think we have a much better case for adding a fair use real photo from the conference that sparked her raise to fame. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Nope, not Japanese... but on the Facebook page I see ... has favorited and replied to my tweet ... so the English can't be that bad. I'm no expert on fair use, unfortunately. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Based on my experiences, I am pretty certain we would have a good case to use an image from the TV conference such as [2] through I think there may be a nicer frame out there; preferably one where she is smiling - it shouldn't be too difficult to cap it from [3]. I'd be happy to review and tweak FUR once somebody uploads such an image (please echo me for fast response).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
An actual free image would be preferable, since that way it can be placed on the Wikipedia front page as well whilst the article is placed in DYK. The same can't be done with non-free fair use. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus:, If i spoke japanese I would just ask the person who created the file i added to the page and ask them to release it under CC-BY-SA but i dont speak japanese. If you know anyone that does they could render assistance. Sadly my friend that tracked down the original image/author doesn't speak japanese. —  dainomite   14:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be too hard for me (to explain something complicated in Japanese), but try asking at "ja:Wikipedia:Help for Non-Japanese Speakers" and here in the English Wiki at "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan". Don't hesitate to ask in the Japanese Wiki cause their article needs a picture too. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
@Dainomite: I was going to suggest exactly what Moscow Connection did above. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh awesome, I'll get right on that. Thanks for the finds you guys. —  dainomite   03:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Made the JP Wikipedia request here and at the EN Wikipedia's WikiProject Japan here. —  dainomite   03:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I've mentioned this already at WT:JAPAN, but according to his Pixiv profile self-introductory biography, it reads "中國廣東小青年一名，集結畫漫畫，畫工口，畫機器人于一身，我要出名啊！" (I am a youth from Guangdong Province, China. I draw manga, ero art, and mecha robots. I want to become famous!) I can write a letter for you guys in Chinese if you like. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have sent a message contacting the Vietnamese author of this other image. No reply yet. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for record purposes, the Pixiv ID of the above image is 42340241, and a max resolution unmodified image is mirrored at the booru entry here. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better if you asked the authors to register on Wikipedia and upload their works themselves (instead of asking them for permission). This way no confirmation letters would be required. (Point them to the Commons upload guide in their languages: [4].) Moscow Connection (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that's exactly what I was doing. Unfortunately Pixiv has some problems, because the author didn't reply on there, I sent a short Facebook message to the artist on Facebook but the initial response is positive: I didnt receive any message in my Pixiv account. You can send message here. About Natalia fanart, if you want to ask for permission then my answer is yes. You can feel free to use it - but I'm going to ask the author to upload to Commons. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, getting the author to upload the file themselves on Commons might be a little harder, since it's difficult to verify the identities of Commons users (anyone can create an account with any username and start uploading), and people on Commons are rather trigger-happy with deletions if an image is uploaded, and a TinEye search provides similar hits. Having the art creator create a Commons account and uploading it themselves increases the risk of the file being deleted in bad faith (because in reality nobody ever trusts a user with 3 edits and a red username on Commons, regardless of all the sugar-coaty "Commons:AGF" pages that nobody adheres to).

An OTRS ticket would provide much more accountability, which is why I generally prefer using OTRS requests. OTRS tickets can affirm with much more backing that an image, indeed, has adequate permission from the copyright holder. OTRS is very easy as well; all you need to do is get the copyright holder to send you an email using this template format, and then the process is managed on our side. I find it much easier than having to actually teach someone how to upload an image to Commons (you have to tell them what license templates are, how to pick the right one, how to fill out the form, etc). --benlisquareT•C•E 01:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah damn, I wish I had seen this earlier. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

OTRS

For an example of how you might word an OTRS request letter to someone, here's one I created earlier for User:Dainomite at WT:JAPAN:

您好！我的名字是Dainomite，一名英文維基百科編輯者。我的維基百科用戶頁面在<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dainomite>。

我非常喜歡您畫的娜塔莉亞·波克隆斯卡婭圖片（Pixiv ID: 42268115），也希望能在維基百科上用您所畫的圖片。您可不可以把這個畫放在一個CC-BY-SA版權許可上？這樣，我們可以把您的畫放在維基百科上，讓全世界看。CC-BY-SA版權（詳細文：<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.zh_TW>）尊重您的權利——所有使用圖片的人必須把您的名字寫成原創者。更多信息在這裡：<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/zh-hans>——這頁面提供版權信息和許可函格式。

如果您感興趣的話，請隨時通知我。謝謝你考慮這個請求。

祝好，Dainomite

Hello! My name is Dainomite, an editor from the English Wikipedia. My Wikipedia user page can be found at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dainomite>.

I believe that your artwork of Natalia Poklonskaya (Pixiv ID: 42268115) is very good, and would really like to use your image on Wikipedia. Would it be possible if you release the aformentioned artwork under a CC-BY-SA license? This way, we are able to use your artwork on Wikipedia for the whole world to see. The CC-BY-SA license (detailed text: <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.zh_TW>) respects your rights; anyone who would like to use your image must attribute your name as the original creator. More information can be found here: <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/zh-hans> — this page provides information on copyright licenses and the format for sending permission letters.

If you are interested, feel free to contact me at any time. Thank you for taking my request into consideration.

Regards, Dainomite

Obviously, you would tweak here and there it to suit the sitation. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

That's Chinese, not Japanese, for anyone confused. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Can I check what happens once the email is sent? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, generally what happens is that if all's good and dandy, and they tell you that they agree with the terms of the license, you upload the file to commons using commons:Template:OTRS pending, and then request them to send an email in the format of commons:Commons:OTRS#Declaration of consent for all enquiries to either permissions-commons@wikimedia.org or your personal email (to which you will need to forward to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, whilst also including the email header). The OTRS process then takes a few days depending on the workload of the volunteers, who then verify the permission information, and then replace the template to show that the OTRS ticket is valid. Nobody except OTRS volunteers are able to view the OTRS database, for obvious personal protection reasons. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay... lastly I didn't see a Vietnamese instruction manual, pretty unfortunate, had to send the instructions in English. But this OTRS is pretty confusing, I hope I haven't made a mistake somewhere. Already uploaded the file to Commons and asked the artist to send the email. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 14:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The OTRS guys are pretty patient and understanding in case of screw-ups, and there's something like a 15 day leeway period to get things ready, so there's probably not much to worry about. Generally I'd prefer having them send the permission email to you first, so that you can check that they've done everything right, before forwarding it to OTRS. One thing to make sure, though, is that the permission specifically states the version of the license (e.g. "CC-BY-SA 3.0", and not just "CC-BY-SA"). --benlisquareT•C•E 14:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention: If you had any prior correspondence on Pixiv or anywhere else, take a screenshot of the conversation, save as PNG, and attach it to the forwarded email. --benlisquareT•C•E 14:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Eh it's not going to be pretty... I sent a whole load of convoluted instructions prior to that... mostly involving asking the artist to upload to Commons directly... >_> starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 14:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

OTRS is all 100% done on my side for the ones I've uploaded (4 of them), now we're just waiting on the OTRS volunteers. As for File:Natalia Poklonskaya fan-art by Itachi Kanade.jpg, I believe User:Starship.paint is on the chase for this one? Hopefully this one turns out perfectly as well, I actually prefer this image, and think it would be suitable to represent the page for DYK. --benlisquareT•C•E 20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

eh I'm still working on it. Artist says I sent you in DA message, so sorry that I cant use my email for this. But I have no idea what DA message is. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
If worst comes to worst, get him to send you the entire permission statement ("I hereby affirm that...") through whatever communication medium you're using, and then take a screenshot of that. It's best to get an email through, though. Also, it might be easier for him if you get the statement already prepared for him, and just get him to read it and then send it to you once he acknowledges it, so you can forward it on to OTRS. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Finally SUCCESS?? Artist doesn't (want to) use email so I used DeviantArt. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Replied on my user talk page. --benlisquareT•C•E 08:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I am impressed we got so many free images (commons:Category:Natalia Poklonskaya). I honestly expected we would get nothing... glad to be wrong! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Pixiv artists are more friendly and generous than you'd expect. Many of them wouldn't mind the extra publicity on their artworks, and would gladly share them under Creative Commons, and even if you do come across one that isn't interested, asking doesn't hurt anyone. Thing is, many artists don't even know what free licensing is, and I've had to explain these concepts on many occasions. If more people became aware of such licenses and what authorship rights they grant, things would be much more different. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Manga-style art or anime-style art

The article seems to use the term anime rather than manga, but seeing as we are talking about drawings rather than animations, wouldn't the term manga be more appropriate? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the term "anime" either, but for some reason, every single western English-language source, and every single Russian source, is using the words "anime" or "аниме". Only sources from Japan and China use the words "萌え" or "萌化". "Anime" spcifically refers to an animation, that is, a moving picture that may be in the form of a video; still images are not anime, and such artworks are never referred to as "anime style" in Japan (or China). That said, I wouldn't really say that these artworks are manga either, as they are just artworks, there is no dialogue, like a comic book. This is one of those things that brings a dilemma—use the proper and correct technical term (moe), and the majority of English speaking readers (i.e. the primary audience of enwiki) will be confused (and the moe (slang) article isn't helping either), however if we use "anime" or "manga", we're, you know, somewhat wrong.

"Moe" can refer to a lot of things (in one defintion it could mean something that makes your heart burn with passion, like Ronnie Coleman if people like that sort of thing), but one such subset includes art that is created in a specific style reminiscent of what people in Taiwan refer to as ACG (Japan doesn't use the same terminology though), kind of similar to saying that it's a certain genre of artwork. See Moe anthropomorphism for something related (though since Natalia is already a human, we cannot use the label of "anthropomorphism"). --benlisquareT•C•E 03:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC) --benlisquareT•C•E 03:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Simferopol incident

Her investigate into the Simferopol incident is a significant part of this article and should be reflected into her biography section.

Please do not delete again with out a discussion. RonaldDuncan (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

added in additional reference to Simferopol incident press conference since User:Moscow Connection did not feel that youtube was sufficient of a reference hope that is OK :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
whilst I think this adds to the article if User:Moscow Connection wants to delete this section again that is fine from my point of view :) RonaldDuncan (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I will revert your addition again.
  1. Poklonskaya is not a police investigator.
  2. The case has absolutely no relevance to this article. In the YouTube video you are trying to use as a source she is just informing the press about an important criminal case, as every official would do in her place. And the video can't be used as a source for anything. (I personally like the video, though.)
  3. I think the only purpose of what you are doing is to advertise a highly controversial article.
  4. The sentences you are adding don't say absolutely anything about her. The first one talks about what happened in Simferopol. The second one says she said something, but doesn't explain what exactly. What's the point? (See #3.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I had to delete the part again. (The edit summary explains why.) Frankly saying, I'm a bit confused cause the Simferopol incident article is confusing too.
If you want to add some info about the investigation to this article, please explain why it is an important part of her career, what she does exactly as a supervisor or investigator and propose a couple of sentences that talk about her in relation to the investigation rather than about the case itself. (For example, what she thinks about it, how she wants to investigate it properly, how she investigates it, something...) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
(addition) I've tried to find some sources about what she does as the prosecutor general, particularly in relation with this case, but unsuccessfully. I think if we come up with a couple of sentences about her duties as the prosecutor general, Simferopol incident can be mentioned as the current highest profile case. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep her work history in the article and she is wiki notable for the fan art. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Hard to do a search when "Simferopol incident" isn't even an official name for the incident.
Eh reference 12 "save the world" does mention her staging a press conference regarding the incident. @Moscow Connection: do you see it as relevant to add in? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Graduation

According to this video she has 12 years of "serious experience" behind her, so she must have graduated from Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs in 2002, at the age of 22, correct? Can somebody work this into the article? Revlurk (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

22 is a pretty much standard graduation age for Ukraine.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I was just thinking that the year of graduation (2002) would be a nice addition to the first sentence in the biography section. I could do it myself I think, but just wanted to run it around you guys first... Revlurk (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
We can't add anything without a source. For example, maybe she worked while still in college. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Not really in favour of using YouTube as a source. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It has been mentioned in other sources too. Here, for example. "Over 12 years in law enforcement agencies of Ukraine". But we don't know how these 12 years were counted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It would be unbelievably stupid to assume she must have been 22 when when she graduated, are you 10 years old yourself? She might have graduated at 20-24 (being on some kind of internship for 23+). If a person wishes to know what year she graduated they can try to calculate that themselves, the only way you could put it into this article would be to say "this suggests she graduated at 22", you can't just write it as fact. Anonywiki (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It looks like you know nothing about education in the states of the former Soviet Union. If Wikipedia were a lottery, I would advise you to bet on her graduating at 22. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it's 99.9999999999% chance and it's written in law, you can't put it unless there's a source saying it. Anonywiki (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree. That's what I meant actually. That we can't put it unless there's a source cause there's a big chance she didn't graduate at 22. (By the way, sorry if what I said didn't sound polite. But it was like you were attacking me... And she couldn't have possibly graduated at 20.)
Most probably at 21: [5] (for people who can read Ukrainian [or Russian, every native Russian speaker can read it and guess the words that are different])
17 (graduated from school) + 4 (at university) + 12.5 (over 12 years). --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Quote from her own mouth, take it as you will: "I was always a prosecutor, and my main duty for all the 12 years was to act as a prosecutor in court. I was supporting the prosecution on criminal indictments. It was my main function, main direction of my work." We do know that she's primarily worked in courts during this time, and was never an actual detective (her statement was in response to the journalist's question asking whether she worked as a detective). Now, we can't really use YouTube videos as references, so are there any Russian-language media sources which discuss these things, so we can cite these statements? --benlisquareT•C•E 17:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's kinda annoying how we can't use YouTube videos. E.g. in this interview she herself states directly that she was born in Yevpatoria, but apparently because it's a YouTube vid we can't add it to the article unless some other source publishes it? It's ridiculous. Revlurk (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Well to be fair, we have these policies for a reason - a reliable source would allow for greater accountability. Since YouTube is user distributed content, there is always the potential for bad faith individuals to generate misinformation. Sure, the video that we have here is quite certainly trustworthy in regards to its content, there's not much we can do but follow procedure until we discover something else to cite the information with. It can't be helped, it's just one of those things that we often have to put up with unfortunately. --benlisquareT•C•E 17:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

New RT story (from yesterday)

'She annexes your heart': Reasons why Crimea prosecutor Poklonskaya not to be messed with Just came across this. Would this be a suitable addition for the External links section? 83.70.255.54 (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Fails WP:ELYES Ging287 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Internet popularity" section

We need to completely rewrite the "Internet popularity" section. First, we must try to restore the chain of events that led to her going viral. I think now the story the section tells is largely incorrect. Also, it should look more "encyclopedic".

Here are some of the events:

  • The press conference was uploaded to YouTube by a Crimean newspaper.
  • Excepts from the video were reposted by a Japanese user (or two users).
  • A link to the Japanese video was tweeted by a popular Japanese Twitter user and reposted 8 or 9 thousand times.
  • People discovered her real-life images on the Internet. The media reported it.
  • People on Pixiv started drawing pictures of her. The media reported it.
  • Also, some stuff she said became internet memes is Russia. (She said something like: "This is simply chaos!" and "Here, I am the prosecutor and I will not allow any of this 'nya nya' stuff". But it hard to translate. Google "няш-мяш", it's a classic already. And the phrases can be used in everyday life.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
We probably shouldn't make the section too large without expanding her biography first, and when shuffling around this section, it's probably best to avoid (or minimise) lengthening it. Otherwise, we might give the impression that the article overly focuses on the internet aspect, and not the political aspect. Most of the complaints directed towards this article have been in this regard (see the DYK nom as an example). There is information out there on her personal life, family, her political career, obtained from video interviews, however we need sources that we can cite. Most sources are in Russian, however my ability in any Slavic language is essentially next to zero (the best I can do is read Cyrillic and recognise a few phrases based on word roots), so I am unable to assist with the finding of references. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't actually want to expand it. I wanted it to remain as small as it is now and probably even smaller. But I am concerned that it may say something that is uncorrect. And also that it's hard to read because of the lengthy explanation about how the video was titled in Japanese. And the sentence listing Reddit, Vkontakte, Weibo, etc. can be shortened or completely avoided. And I don't think Guangming Ribao is one of the major Chinese newspapers, or is it? If it is not, it probably shouldn't be mentioned. If we delete something like this, we can add something without making the section too big. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The whole Guangming Ribao section can be shortened into "national Chinese media outlets". It has millions of readers, so technically it is big, but then again in China one street has the population of a Swedish city. Also, we should only drop names if they're sourced; to date, I haven't seen a single third-party reliable source which mentions 4chan. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, I think Russian memes (e.g. "няш-мяш", "I'm not a Pokemon") should come after DYK (if DYK happens at all). I think some people hate the article for what it is, and I'd really like the DYK nomination to go through. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to the Russian memes, but you know what the enwiki contributor community is like. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems like I came late to this conversation. Okay exactly what is inaccurate in the section now? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 06:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The order of events for starters; we originally wrote that some random Japanese person uploaded a video without even mentioning where it came from. The video was filmed and published by Аргументы Недели-Крым (Argumenty Nedeli-Krym), a Crimean newspaper. The popularity of the video led to media coverage (let's call this "A"), and then this media coverage led to fan-art, and this fan art led to more media coverage on the fan-art (let's call this "B"), which then made the fan-art more well-known and popular. In other words:
  1. the spread of a viral video caused "media A",
  2. which led to fan-art,
  3. which was then reinforced by "media B".
  4. After that, "media B" and the fan-art reinforced one another in a positive feedback loop.
Something like that, anyway. I think Moscow Connection might be able to explain it a bit better. --benlisquareT•C•E 07:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I did understand that this is what happened. The article was factually accurate at the time of my above post (due to your edit which clarified). But, there could be improvements made. Perhaps we should make it more explicit that Crimean video A was uploaded first on 11 March (in fact it has more than 1.7 million views now). Then after that, mention the Japanese clipping and reupload. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I think we need to find a source that would say that the video was clipped and reuploaded. Yes, we know it for sure (it's obvious), but we need to find a source that would say it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I have found a CBC source which says the original video was uploaded on March 11. There is more within the source as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"Internet meme"

Is the naming of the section accurate? Is she really a Internet meme? Isn't an Internet meme a concept like planking or Harlem Shake (according to the article itself) She's more of a viral video / pictures plus fan-art. Would "Internet fame" be more accurate? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 00:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this needs to be changed. She is not a "meme". Phrasing it as an internet fandom or something would probably make more sense. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you guys have any suggestions on what the section should be called? I think it should be called something like 'Popularity' or something like that. Ging287 (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I've recently changed the title to 'Internet Popularity'. I think it better suits an encyclopedic article. Think of this article in 2-3 years. Right now, this article is likely to be expanded and have tons of edits. I see 'Popularity' as the long term word in this case. Ging287 (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I changed it to "Internet sensation" for now, but I agree with Benlisquare that something like "Internet fandom" would seem okay. (But I don't think I saw it being called "Internet fandom", so we must find a source first. I definitely saw it being called a meme by reliable sources, though. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Heh. She knows...

She knows. It looks like she doesn't know what to think, though. "Well, you know... First of all, I am an attorney. And your kawaii things and all that are allowed there." She's not "shocked" by it, but I wouldn't say that she's flattered either. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

She acts the exact same way any girl/woman ever acts about such a thing. Anonywiki (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I also find it funny that her daughter pays attention to the drawings. I found this article where it says "“My daughter looks at these pictures every day,” Poklonskaya explained in comments given at another time than shown in the video above. “She happily tells me, ‘Mom, you’re becoming an anime heroine in Japan,’ which of course is very exciting for her. As for myself, though, I’m too busy to really pay much attention to the drawings.”" and "Despite her lack of personal interest, though, Poklonskaya doesn’t mind being the subject of so many sketches. “Public figures and people in the government are often drawn, and this cannot be avoided,” she said matter-of-factly." Interesting! —  dainomite   18:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a meme

Actually, now I think it's an Internet meme. The meme is to draw a picture of her. Everyone draws her just the same as everyone was making Harlem Shake videos. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


Clarifying the timeline of events in the Internet popularity section

The above sections were getting too long. I will be working worked on this (STILL IN PROGRESS) Please add your comments later now. starship.paint "YES!" 03:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: You might want to consider tagging the article with {{In use}} while you are working on the article, and remove it when you're done. So others know that the article its currently undergoing a renovation of sorts. Regards, —  dainomite   05:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Dainomite. But the article is fine now. Clarified that the original video was 11 March and the Japanese one was 13 March. Given that the CBC source links to the 11 March video and the Bloomberg source links to the 13 March clip, I'm going to cite YouTube for the video lengths (5 min+) and (0:39). This is for clarity, I guess. I'm going to do it and if I'm wrong, then revert / discuss etc. starship.paint "YES!" 05:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Just wondering if anyone knows if the Inquirer is counted as an RS... starship.paint "YES!" 05:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's an Agence France-Presse article, isn't it? It's mirrored by the Inquirer. --benlisquareT•C•E 06:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Derp. I wasn't expecting that. starship.paint "YES!" 11:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Fans and fan-art

After User:Fuzheado mentioned it on twitter, I couldn't very well leave out the reference to Madame Prosecutor's anime fans. Anime fans of Prosecutor--Brad Patrick (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@BradPatrick: Wonder if the fan artists will release the sketches to Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY -- Fuzheado | Talk 17:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I will have my Japanese connections to ask those in Japan to release the fan art as CC-free. I will then create a gallery. Then, post the gallery here and on the other language wikis, such as the GERMAN and RUSSIAN. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Geraldshields11:, that would be much appreciated. I added a free-use image to the page earlier but having a CC-free image(s) would be awesome. —  dainomite   23:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove the moeshit please. It isn't relevant to the person. Should we start uploading every anime picture of Putin, Obama, William Henry Harrison, etc. to their pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:26FF:2EF0:0:0:0:37 (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Putin isn't notable for "anime pictures", and neither are the rest. The section within the article specifically deals with Natalia's online following, which is a significant part of her notability. You're comparing apples and oranges here. The pictures are placed within one subsection of the article, and aren't representing the entire article; since the article is discussing her online popularity in Asia, wouldn't it make sense to demonstrate exactly what is going on? Furthermore, everything within that section is verified and justified by third-party reliable sources, so if there is anyone to complain to, it would be Komsomolskaya Pravda, Bloomberg News and BBC News. Otherwise, it's just tantamount to saying Wikipedia:I just don't like it. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
If Natalia's online "following"(if a handful of small pictures can even be called that, especially since they were created over the period of just few days - all signs pointing to a fad) is "significant part of her notability" then the article should be removed as per WP:NOTABILITY rules. Not everyone involved in the Crimean crisis has to have an article. Out of smug curiosity, if I get some of the creators of the Rule #34 versions of her artwork to release their pictures CC-free, will they be included in the gallery? So relevant~ 178.183.4.97 (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead and nominate this article for deletion then. Show me some actions, don't just tell me all these words. If you truly think that she does not meet the notability criteria, go for it. --benlisquareT•C•E 09:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah no, none of that is a good enough reason to ruin an article with fan art. Also there are plenty of anime pictures of Putin, try again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:26FF:2EF0:0:0:0:37 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There are no free-license artwork images of Putin available, only ones with standard copyright which Wikipedia cannot accept. Furthermore, "anime pictures of Putin" are not covered in huge amounts by the mainstream media, unlike the case with Natalia. In fact, there is zero media coverage of Putin "anime pictures" at all. All content on Wikipedia needs to be verified and backed up by third-party reliable sources, and this cannot be met in the case of Putin. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
@Benlisquare:, congrats on your OTRS spree. But, I don't think there should be 5 fan-art in the article. My main concern is that the fan-art is too small and can't be seen clearly. Maybe we can lower to 4 but each fan-art can be increased in size. The thumbnails need to be increased somehow. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I've modified the dimensions to make them larger. That said, anything beyond 250px would no longer really be a "thumbnail". --benlisquareT•C•E 12:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but there are now two columns which isn't that nice. I still recommend cutting one photo and change to width=217 |height=250. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 12:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
There will always be varying display resolutions amongst readers. Those on 720p and 1080p displays will see 5 images on one row, those on 1024x768 will see two rows, and those on tiny netbooks will see three. Even if we reduced the count by one, we can never "satisfy" every reader. --benlisquareT•C•E 12:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Extremely disappointed this has even been discussed let alone added to the article, just because she has fan art doesn't make it relevant enough to actually add photographs to this page. This isn't deviantart, and Wikipedia should not further the concept of 'waifu' let alone source an article with the word in the title. Just because she's attractive doesn't mean this article should get special treatment, focus on her actions as a public prosecutor not the fact that a bunch of people on the internet think she's hot enough to draw anime art of.

Rick Santorum's page mentions the fact that an internet campaign equated his name to frothy anal lube, it doesn't mean that it's relevant enough to post pictures and memes about it on his page. A short text explanation is far more than enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.26.131 (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The addition of the word "waifu" was a vandal edit, check the article history. As for Rick Santorum, there are no freely-licensed imagery of such things (as required by Wikipedia policy; we cannot accept copyrighted material), and likely never will be due to derivative work clauses of copyright laws. Rick Santorum is also much more notable based on the other events he's been in; you cannot deny that a significant proportion of media coverage of Natalia is because of her internet following in China and Japan. Including "meme" material in Santorum's page would be hardly beneficial for the reader; this is a different case to Natalia, since readers would need to understand why she became so popular in Asia, and how that came into place.

Hence, "show, don't tell" applies best here - readers would understand and learn more by seeing, rather than just being told. Five examples of small thumbnail images are given in the relevant section about her online following, which is ample for anyone to understand what is going on; the bunch of images on the page hardly obstruct anything else on the page (it also happens to be at the very bottom of the prose, below her more important biographical information). There are also more than 10 images on Commons (and a few more that have yet to be OTRS processed) - obviously not all of them need to be included within the article since that would be meaningless clutter, so we have a link to the commons gallery instead (These images are all free-license content released on a Creative Commons license by their author, something that will never happen with Santorum "meme" images due to sweat of the brow doctrines in copyright law). --benlisquareT•C•E 00:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that her page contains more fan art than the actual page describing fan art on Wikipedia? The article sufficiently covers the fact that she became popular in Asia due to the anime-style fan art, can you really sit here and tell me that five pictures are necessary to communicate to the reader why she became popular there. There is zero reason why you need it in addition to the entire section of her two section page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.26.131 (talk • contribs)
The article will be built as more sources become available. Today is not a deadline, and I promise you, in 3 months time, this article will look much more different. Keep in mind - she has only just been appointed to office - there is hardly much information about her, compared to other people that hold office. There will be more sections, there will be more paragraphs, there will be more prose. --benlisquareT•C•E 00:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I still don't believe that the existence of fan art or memes related to her is enough to warrant their inclusion in this article, this is intended to be a encyclopedic reference. She may be known for the fan art, but she is a public prosecutor first. It should not essentially dominate the article. Edit: Missed where the vandalism occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.26.131 (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, it isn't supposed to dominate the article. It's just an ill-effect at the lack of information available at present time. Sure, more information is warranted on her public and political life, but we don't have much at the moment. All we have is a little information on her political life, and some information on an online following. As more information becomes available in the future, the article will definitely be expanded - there is no deadline, and Wikipedia articles are forever changing. It's too early at the moment, and mainstream media sources haven't reported on much else (and on Wikipedia we can only report on what others write in third-party sources). For example - we don't even have a real-life photograph of her: This is because of copyright and Wikipedia policy. As soon as we can obtain a free-license image of her, just like any other biographical article (be it Jackie Chan, Barack Obama or Jimmy Wales), the article will be improved with it.

Currently the only thing Russian websites have been reporting within the past 48 hours is not how hard she's working in catching snipers, but look at all these weird and crazy things those Chinamen are drawing of her, which I agree, is kind of bad, but this is the state of the media at the moment. Once everyone in the media starts to report on serious issues again, I assure you, all the contributors here will do their best to expand and improve the article with serious political and other biographical information. Give it some time, and it will be achieved. What you're seeing here is merely the temporary state of the article. --benlisquareT•C•E 00:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Lack of information still doesn't warrant the use of five fan art images in this article. The text explains that there is plenty of it, I don't believe it should be included at all as her internet popularity is far less important than her public position, but if it must be included it should be limited to one. The manual of style on image use covers this:
Articles that use more than one image should present a variety of material near relevant text. If the article is about a general subject for which a large number of good quality images are available, (e.g., Running), editors are encouraged to seek a reasonable level of variety in the age, gender, and race of any people depicted. Adding multiple images with very similar content is less useful. For example, three formal portraits of a general wearing his military uniform may be excessive; substituting two of the portraits with a map of a battle and a picture of its aftermath may provide more information to readers. You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can.'
Four of the five have a blonde haired woman sitting at a desk in a military uniform, the other one simply replaces the desk with russian flags in the background. The last image is the only one significantly different in style and is still the same basic idea. It's unnecessary, looks bad, and shifts the importance off of her professional position.
Would you prefer it if I made the image sizes smaller? The purpose of having five is to show to the reader that there is multiple variety and a large quantity of it. If you think it's cluttering the article, I can reduce the size of the images so that it doesn't. I specifically chose 5 because 10 is insanely over the top (and Commons has 10 free-licence images of her art). I strongly disagree with displaying only one, because it gives an unfair representation and impression which favours one artist's style over the rest, despite that each one has a different artistic or visual style. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that the article needs more than one to convey the fact that the art exists, if you want to link to the commons gallery then I could really care less, but the use of multiple images in the article doesn't do anything when the text clearly states that there were many of these images released as a result of her popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.26.131 (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, "show, don't tell" is what is being attempted here. People are generally better visual learners, and images act as visual aids. --benlisquareT•C•E 01:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

How about making the gallery smaller and neater. Like this, for example:
=== Gallery ===
More on Wikimedia Commons.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You can do that by modifying the template params (|width=120 |height=130) without changing the existing template. I've reduced the size of the thumbnails; it's not large enough to clutter the page or be too distracting, and people can click for the larger image if they're interested. One thing I don't like about vanilla <gallery></gallery> is that it hangs left; this might be a personal thing, but it might look better being centred. I've also considered using {{Multiple image}} or {{Auto images}}, but in each attempt I've tried, it didn't look as neat. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Although, <gallery mode="packed-hover"> looks pretty good as well.
It bunches the images together so it has less of a presence. --benlisquareT•C•E 04:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Support packed-hover mode. There's no problem with multiple fan-art. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Support the mode, but I don't really like the central alignment, both of the pictures and of the headline. (That was one of the two reasons why I proposed to change the gallery. The other was the size.) I think if everything were left-aligned, it would look neater. (There's no headline now, it's good.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Packed-hover mode - it works. Thanks Moscow Connection. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 07:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Do we really need a gallery though? I think one thumbnail would have sold the point. --68.123.153.140 (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Natalia_Poklonskaya/Archive_1&oldid=1136252418"