Talk:Petro Poroshenko/Archives/2015
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Petro Poroshenko. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
'Net worth'
Since he is still a businessman, is it not suitable to include his 'net worth' in his information box, much like the article on Rinat Akhmetov, for example? 82.217.116.224 (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced about that. The article for Silvio Berlusconi features his net worth yet, in checking various pleasantly well-off US politicians, no allusion is made to their net worth: Dick Cheney; George W. Bush or Jeb Bush; Mitt Romney, etc. There seem to be a lot of politicians and ex-Presidents with nothing alluding to their 'net worth'. Poroshenko's notability is for being a politicians, not a business tycoon. I'd suggest that bringing such information to the table is WP:UNDUE and an attempt at WP:ADVOCACY for a game of 'chase and catch the oligarch'. I'm certainly not convinced that Rinat Akhmetov's WP:BLP should be carrying that information in the infobox. It seems that there are games of two types of rules being played here: one for Western political figures, another for Eastern European politicians. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but when I referred to Akhmetov, I did not do it because he is Eastern European or anything...it's just that I had just viewed his page. Also, no need to start chasing the oligarchs, just wanted to know whether it was 'due' to mention Poroshenko's net worth, seeing how his business career is featured here on Wikipedia. 82.217.116.224 (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Apologies for 'biting'. There's been a lot of tendentious editing surrounding all articles related to Ukraine and Russia for the past year, but that's not an excuse for me to assume bad faith. Ultimately, I honestly don't know whether it could be construed as a WP:BLP violation. Judging by the caution taken with Western politicians (or even retired ones as per the examples above), I'd say that it's preferable to err on the side of caution when it comes to the infobox. It definitely comes across as trying to make an UNDUE point where the notability of the subject is as that a political figure. If it's DUE anywhere, it would have to be in the body of the article provided that it meets the criteria of not being a WP:TROJAN or violating the WP:HARM principle. It's a matter of using good judgement (i.e., if WP:BIASED press call him a mass murderer, is it appropriate to have it in this article even though the fact of such aspersions is verifiable: I'd consider it to be UNDUE). Hope that helps. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Continuation
Responding to Iryna Harpy's message on my page concerning my edit, and having read the previous discussion, I think there are a few guidelines one can use for whether not including net worth in the infobox of any individual who was a politician
- Would the individual, if not a politician, pass WP:BIO on the grounds of their business interests or wealth alone? In other words, would they be notable if they had never held any political office, holding all else equal? Unfortunately there is no WP:BUSINESSMAN or anything like that, but one metric for this would be if they had founded or occupied an executive position in a company or organisation that would pass WP:COMPANY. There are those who inherited their fortunes, but the same metric ought to apply. If it cannot be reasonably established that the individual would be considered notable, then it should not be included. Virtually all billionaires would pass WP:BIO, I would note
- Is the individual independently wealthy? Did the bulk of wealth originate from some source other than their political career? This is almost a corollary to #1, since their wealth would almost always have to have been made before entering political office (unless they managed to become wealthy through some means completely detached from their political career afterwards, which would then bring us back to #1, but in a vacuum). I would furthermore add that by "political office" I more precisely mean the sort of political career that would make the individual able to pass WP:Politician, that is to say, excluding minor or relatively unimportant offices, dogcatcher or whatnot. While we could never be sure if the individual used his position to increase his wealth, if they would have been wealthy and notable enough to already pass WP:BIO before becoming a politician, they would pass. This would, I think resolve concerns of violations of WP:ADVOCACY for claims of, as Iryna said, "find the oligarch" or accusations of being a kleptocrat or whatnot. Furthermore, it would exclude those who have become wealthy through legal but politically-derivatived means; i.e. speaking fees, book sales, etc.
- Is the value of the individual's wealth supported by a reliable source? This one is simple but would result in the exclusion of some figures. It must both be verifiable and not WP:DISPUTED. If there is a figure given in Forbes list of billionaires, that is essentially settled as Forbes' list is generally regarded as authoritative. If there are other sources giving a consistent figure, then that would probably be fine. It is when you have different sources, potentially all acceptable under WP:RS, giving different figures, or "ranges" of the net-worth being given where you run into trouble and ought to leave it out, because you'd start skirting the limits of WP:BLP. There is an implication here, and that is "is the individually wealthy enough" for us to mention it?
So, looking at these criteria, let's first judge the people you named as suggesting double standard. I struggle to see how Dick Cheney would manage to pass #1, but he certainly would not pass #2- his wealth, whatever it is, is a result of contacts made during his career, speaking deals, consultancy, and so forth. George W. Bush would almost certainly pass #1, but probably not #2, while wealthy before becoming president, most of his wealth now comes, again, from the book deals, speakers fees, etc, etc, that all senior ex-politicians do these days. The same could be said for Bill or Hillary Clinton, for that matter. As for Jeb Bush, he'd pass #1, but fail #2 on the grounds that he is actually not wealthy at all; a article in the New York Times from a few months ago mentioned that he left office with $1.3 million in assets, certainly not a noteworthy sum, and has had a mixed post-gubernatorial business career. This is pretty much the parenthetical I gave- he would not be noteworthy for his business career or wealth alone. All of these people, by the way, fail #3- we do not know accurate figures for their wealth. Mitt Romney passes #1 and #2 with flying colors, but fails #3- we only have "estimates" of his wealth. If he were to disclose the actual figure or if a RS produced one, the he would pass and I would say it should be mentioned in the article.
Silvio Berlusconi easily passes all three, owning one of the largest media companies in Europe and having a net worth provided by Forbes. One might allege that he has used his position to increase his wealth, but that would not stand scrutiny under WP:DISPUTED. Michael Bloomberg, an American politician who owns Bloomberg LP, easily passes all three as well- and the net-worth is mentioned in his article. For that matter, it was his infobox that led me to insert the figure in this article. And as for Poroshenko, yes, he would pass #1, for he would almost certainly pass WP:BIO for his wealth and business interest alone and has founded a business that clearly passes WP:BUSINESS. He would pass #2, because his wealth has come from the aforementioned business interests and claims to the contrary would not be verifiable or credible. And he passes #3, because there is an unambiguous figure given in Forbes and several other reliable sources. Based on these three criteria, which I consider rational, logical, and in line with the principles, the inclusion of net-worth in the infobox in no way violates WP:BLP or WP:UNDUE and should stand. I would welcome your comments on the validity of these criteria and their applicability to this case. --Varavour (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Probably to early to put in this article per wp:recent events; but Poroshenko hasn't sold any of his assets, but is trying to do so
On 2 April Poroshenko stated, "If I am elected, I will be honest and sell the Roshen Concern." Well he is trying to do so, but bad economic times are not helping. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say that, according to BLP standards, I can't see how how a balanced inclusion as to the whys and wherefores can be presented without its UNDUE at this stage. It strikes me as falling into WP:SCANDAL without better and more detailed sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just keeping on top of this 'making good' on his promise situation, it certainly seems that Roshen is on the market, so I'd still veer away from any deliberations until something actually happens, and RS provide their analysis of the why's and wherefore's of his move. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)