Talk:Petro Poroshenko/Archives/2016

Diabetes status

Poroshenko is known to suffer from diabetes.Should be reflected in this article— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.38.94.45 (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Important

I think this info should definitely be included. This is serious. According to the publication, "Poroshenko’s action might be illegal on two counts: he started a new company while president and he did not report the company on his disclosure statements.". My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that the authors are also credible investigative journalists with "KyivPost", I'd agree that this information is significant for the content of the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a subject related to Panama papers, but one should use other, secondary publications. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is a good article (nicely NPOV I do believe) from good old BBC news. I am a bit clueless now how to best summery the article, writing many sentences about these accusations while Poroshenk has a relatively short Wikipedia article would look really odd. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm just wondering whether this can't be done with a little reshuffling of sections. At the moment, his 'business' career is handled as a major section with no overlaps between his policies of cleaning up corruption, de-oligarchization, etc. and the fact that he still hasn't sold Roshen. If a small overview section could be introduced, a short summary wouldn't be UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• Heres two good RS. Might he fall? [1] [2] SaintAviator lets talk 04:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Guys I made a draft. See Panama Papers

Ukraine’s president, Petro Poroshenko, set up a secret offshore company in the British Virgin Islands during the time when his troops were being defeated in bloody battles with pro-Moscow rebels. Leaked documents from the Panama Papers reveal Poroshenko registered the company, Prime Asset Partners Ltd, on 21 August 2014. Records in Cyprus show him as the firm’s only shareholder. SaintAviator lets talk 05:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@SaintAviator, Iryna Harpy, My very best wishes, and Yulia Romero: I've added in the section, Petro Poroshenko#Panama Papers with SaintAviator's text in the comment above copied in. Please move it if you think there's a better place for it, but I put it in the Presidency section as the company was registered during his presidency. There could be more added, so if you want to, please do add more. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  23:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Good move, and yes it needs adding to it SaintAviator lets talk 23:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I've given the text a tweak as it contravened WP:WORDS. Given that we're subject to WP:RECENTISM, I've tagged the section for current affairs. Given the magnitude of the leak and investigations that are to ensue, we have to run behind the ball, not with it. As tempted as I was to elaborate on the information there, the article is about Poroshenko per WP:TITLE, not about the Panama Papers. It may end up as a spin-off article in itself, but it has to stay in perspective for his bio at this stage. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Seagull123: The phrasing in SaintAviator's above draft is completely out of tone with the rest of this Wikipedia article.... Especially the line "during the time when his troops were being defeated in bloody battles with pro-Moscow rebels" (that's a good line for a Ludlum novel, but not for an encyclopedia). Please pay more attention to this the next time you edit information into an unknown (for you) Wikipedia article. Fortunately Iryna Harpy already fixed the phrasing. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It was, in fact, a double-whammy 'no-no' in that it was lifted directly from The Guardian (see WP:COPYVIO), as well as using the loaded language that the publication is known for. It's basically tabloid/yellow press journalism that is a reliable source only in as far as facts, not the tone. The difference between tabloid and RS is clear when you read the Reuters and BBC articles and compare them. MOS:OPED is exclusively for the publications, not Wikipedia editors (WP:NOT#JOURNALISM). Nowhere is it more important to adhere to a neutral tone than on BLPs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Draft see above. Someone else put it in SaintAviator lets talk 02:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have a question. According to Poroshenko spokesmen (article in BBC), he only had three accounts, each less than $2,500. Is it something supported by other sources, or just a smokescreen? Should this be noted? My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

At this stage, there seems to be more noise than substance in the reports. I don't know whether three accounts implies three individuals/corporations, nor do I know whether the amount of money (which has only disclosed on his behalf) is a technicality. When Roshen is sold, at least one of the accounts will have a heck of a lot more than that in it... but as to whether Poroshenko understood it to be legitimate and has been caught up in what appears to be dubious practices by Mossack Fonseca is for investigators to establish. We're bound to find out more details soon enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, SaintAviator, but I've reverted your addition from Kyiv Post. While it is RS, it's too hot on the heels of a breaking story to use at this juncture. It is, however, RS for the Panama Papers article as it also confirms info on other politicians who have suddenly found themselves standing in the spotlight. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Decommunization and deoligarchization

The recent edit that was reverted seems to have adequate sources. I think a Tweet from Petro Poroshenko himself that states: “UPA soldiers – an example of heroism and patriotism to Ukraine.” along with the second source is sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbacon143 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Poll

Poroshenko has 25% support, 70% disapproval, poll reveals. http://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/poroshenko-has-25-support-70-disapproval-poll-reveals/ SaintAviator lets talk 23:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So, he is rather popular! According to this source, he is "fourth most popular politician in Ukraine, with 27 percent of poll respondents viewing him favorably." The most popular Ukrainian politician at the moment is Andriy Sadovyi who has 41 percent support. The second-most popular politician is Mikheil Saakashvili who had 35 percent of respondents viewing him favorably... My very best wishes (talk)