Talk:Volodymyr Zelenskyy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Question

This edit summary. It refers to this article in Guardian. But I do not see anything about Zelensky there. So, I removed this claim. Welcome to re-include if it was indeed reliably published in Guardian or NBC. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The source from Ukrayina Moloda does state Ukrainian bloggers and politicians were upset that Zelensky downgraded Ukraine in front of a Russian audience, to help readers understand why Ukrainians are sensitive to this I added sources to show that Russia has invaded Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that you removed the whole content that during a 2016 festival in Jūrmala, Estonia Zelensky described Ukraine as a "beggar", as well as "an actress in a German film for adults". Although it may be a bit WP:SYNTH (done by the source that is) to claim he withdrew his request for Ukrainian government funding of 50 million hryvnias for the production of two new full-length films shortly after claiming "Ukrainians are not beggars".... but since Zelensky is a Ukrainian presidential candidate now it looks relevant to me that 2 years ago he called the politician, whom he is now competing against, "beggar", as well as "an actress in a German film for adults". So he basically said that (among others) Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is a prostitute. Fellow presidential candidate Poroshenko that is. I am quite sure that if Donald Trump would have claimed Hillary Clinton was "an actress in a German film for adults" back in 2014 this would be mentioned in the Wikipedia article about President Trump. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I am saying that an opinion piece from Ukrayina Moloda is not a sufficiently reliable source for contentious BLP claims. The Guardian would be OK, but it does not say anything about it, contrary to your assertion, unless I am missing something. As about Trump, OK, please try to include some info to the BLP page of Trump using sources like that, and you will be reverted immediately. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Well I agree with you that I do not have a sufficiently reliable source for Zelensky 2016 festival in Jūrmala, Estonia performance. By now I also have doubts if it is noticeable enough anyway to include in this Wikipedia article. I am waiting until sources like The Guardian and BBC News start to write about Zelensky.... if they start mentioning the 2016 festival in Jūrmala performances I will assume it is important enough to mention in the Wikipedia article about Zelensky (if they don't mention it vice-versa). But this early in the campaign it is unlikely that Zelensky will get mentioned by major English speaking newspapers/TV channels. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Removal of content from the article that stated Zelensky hired a tutor to learn Ukrainian

I also have a question about this edit made by My very best wishes. How can you justify that it is non-noticeable that an actor who was born, educated and lives in Ukraine needs a tutor to learn or even improve his knowledge of the Ukrainian language? If an American actor born, educated and living in the USA would need to hire an English tutor you would also consider that unimportant? Besides since Zelensky is a Ukrainian presidential candidate it is relevant if his Ukrainian would be so bad it needs tutoring. The poor Ukrainian language skills of former Ukrainian prime-minister Mykola Azarov are also mentioned in his Wikipedia article. I am happy that My very best wishes tries to keep Wikipedia articles NPOV, but I do believe that it is noticeable that Zelensky needed tutoring in Ukrainian. Maybe it can be included in a more NPOV way; like "To prepare for his role in He and She Zelensky hired a Ukrainian language tutor". By the way I don't consider 1+1 a primary source.... I consider primary sources his personal website or the website of his company. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This is very simple. Here is cited source. Where does it tell about the tutoring Ukrainian? On what page? Can you quote it please? I can not verify this myself with Google translator or whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Well I must admit that besides I have sources that say he hired a Ukrainian language tutor I can not find sources so far about his fluency of the Ukrainian language before he hired this tutor.... So I agree with you that by now information about this tutor does not belong in this Wikipedia article. My apologies to you for my aggressive approach towards you. I see now that you only wanted this Wikipedia page to be according Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons rules. I must admit that I for a moment I thought that you thought it is normal for Ukrainian presidential candidates to badly speak Ukrainian (I am not saying Zelensky does by the way) and that they call their opponents "actors in a German film for adults".... Again, my apologies for that. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Once again, welcome to improve this or other pages. And BTW, I would rather avoid directly citing something from his personal web site, or something that he said, quite possibly as joke: he is an actor who specializes in making fun of other people, himself and the entire country. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

It is a problem if we would avoid directly citing Zelensky now that he announced his candidacy for President... Especially since he is a frontrunner in election polls. I can not help to think he is morally obliged to only speak the truth since he announced his candidacy (the things he said before could all be jokes). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be very interesting if he wins given his role in the movie "Servant to the people". Arts becomes reality. Remember Last Action Hero? Another actor did it already. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that given the lack of expertise, his obvious lack of a clear plan of action and a lack of a good team around him (I do not have much faith in "Vladislav who refused to give his surname") he can only be a terrible president. Ronald Reagan had political experience as the Governor of California and an experienced team of politicians in his Republican party. Apparently Zelensky does not even want a team of experienced politicians around him, as a matter of fact to the naked eye it seems he doesn't have any team around him.... Zelensky seems so unqualified that I can not imagine any smart person to join his team.... I think that he has got nothing to gain and I have got no clue why he nominated himself other than vanity or he wants to be a puppet President for Ihor Kolomoyskyi. Wel since Zelensky was able to make me agree with a opinion article on RT News, something that I thought was impossible.... I guess it is not impossible that he would be a good president.... But I obviously doubt that very much! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that creating great team is the key, but creating a team from experienced (read corrupted) Ukrainian politicians would be a terrible idea. I am sure that someone like Anatoliy Hrytsenko is a lot better qualified for the office, but we live in times when virtual reality becomes reality, pretty much like in the Last Action Hero. Putin undermined the United States using his virtual propaganda machine. Now this is going to be virtual reality of Zelensky against virtual realities of others, including the RT. P.S. Kolomoyskyi controlling Zelenskiy is absurd promoted by RT. That never works. That is what Boris Berezovskiy wanted by installing "his" presidential candidate. We know how wrong he was. But I should not WP:SOAP here... My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I can't shake of the feeling that Kolomoyskyi is using Zelensky to make sure Poroshenko does not make it into the second round.... that will probably be enough for him and doesn't have to cost him much money... (Because Kolomoyskyi dislikes Poroshenko and Akhmetov.... and Poroshenko is now aligned with Akhmetov....)Ukrayinska Pravda also seems to suggest this.... Zelensky is quite popular in Southern Ukraine and Bloc Petro Poroshenko did quite well there in the 2014 parliamentary elections.... Also Zelensky seems totally dependent on Kolomoyskyi now that his film career in Russia has ended.... But I should not WP:SOAP and WP:CHRYSTAL here.... But it was nice to find out you are well informed and that we seem to be on the same wavelength 😇 (By the way I agree that these kinds of games by oligarchs to get "their" candidates in power is indeed very dangerous and not a good sign of the health of a society....). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

You would probably agree with that commentary. But here is the problem: Timoshenko was already a Prime minister and her work proved she can not fix the system. Can Zelensky? Of course not. Poor Ukraine. And one can not say: "this is all their fault" - with such a neighbor. My very best wishes (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Владимир Зеленский 2018 1.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Unimportant details

This edit. Why his ethnicity is important? You just included it, along with several sources (2,8 and 9). Source 2 (his brief biography) does not mention it. So should we. Source 9 does, but this is an article on an entirely different subject: Jews in Ukraine. That's fine. Please place the list from this publication in page History of the Jews in Ukraine. Why it should be here? Regardless, you need WP:Consensus to include new info to the BLP page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

• Again? Deleting referenced information just because you felt like it and then telling me "you should first discuss it on the talk page"? Is it you usual tactics in Wikipedia? Of course it is, I've seen enough of your edits. Ethnicity/religion is absolutely normal part of biographical articles, especially when it comes to media personas and politicians, and you certainly know it. I didn't add "source 2", it was already there, and you know it. Other two sources are reliable and clearly state that his family is Jewish. Another source is the recent interview to Dmitry Gordon, also reliable. All you want (as usual) is to delete the info YOU personally don't want to see in the article, for this or that reason. AveTory (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you did not explain why his ethnicity was important. Cited sources also do not explain it. Therefore, I do object including this. Now, let me cite what WP:BLP tells about it: [1]: " When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections ... If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.". Please self-revert. You have been previously warned on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever, it's not the first time you are deleting perfectly sourced information for your own biased purposes. And to make it clear to the rest (from my talk page): Your deletions are not good-faith. You are not the first-timer here at Wikipedia and you know what's included into biographical articles and what's not, we had discussions about that several times. It is not even the first time you made changes to my edit - the previous day you deleted some of my text (which I don't mind after all), but was perfectly fine with the rest. What you are currently doing is vandalism. AveTory (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Interview to Gordon is a primary source. The statement is currently supported by three sources, only one of which, the "korrespondent" (essentially a tabloid) tells something about Jews. Why do you edit war to keep this content? Because you believe in the Jewish conspiracy, like you included here "the financial power in the country was controlled by Jews" ? My very best wishes (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you feeling alright? Just the day before you deleted my translation of Zelensky's words from the 2nd link that read "I have Jewish blood, I speak Russian, but I'm a Ukrainian citizen" with a comment "c/e; true, does not require a direct footnote quotation". Now you fail to see it. Korrespondent is one of the leading Ukrainian political magazines, you also had no problem with it the day before. Now it's "essentially a tabloid". In another paragraph - which you simply deleted and don't bring up anymore - Gordon tells how Zelensky received a grant to study in Israel at the age of 16 and then asks Zelensky why he didn't leave. It's not a primary source and a perfectly fine piece of bio information.

And I don't even know how to comment your messy attempts to accuse me of being a follower of some Jewish conspiracy theory (sick), trying to link me to some banned user you yourself brought up several years ago, trying to convince me that ethnicity/religion mustn't be mentioned at a media person's bio page for some reason and that I need to reach some consensus with you to add information at all. Seems like you are the one who have problems, not me. AveTory (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

• I am telling that the statement ("he was born ... to Jewish parents") is not supported by the currently used in-line references. Only this ref provides a list of "Ukrainian Jews", without even explaining what it means. Religion? Ethnicity? Citizenship? Moreover, the importance of this is not at all clear. So, I am looking for an explanation why you edit war to keep this content. You never edited this page before... My very best wishes (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

You keep proving your complete inadequacy (on Black Kite (talk)'s request), and I hope moderators will look into that. Why I should've edited the page before in order to be able to edit it now is beyond me, especially since it was created only about a month ago. And Jews are an ethnoreligious group, Zelensky was born Jewish and never tried to hide it, that's all you need to know to leave him, me and the article alone. And the fact that he is currently a Jewish candidate for Ukrainian presidency is already widely discussed in both Ukrainian (1 2) and Jewish (1 2 3) media, so it's of importance even if you "fail" to see why it's of importance in a biographical article. Dixi. AveTory (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Only now, after all this discussion, you did provide some sources. Still, I would expect that anything really important about a presidential candidate needs to be published in mainstream English language sources. Overall, these new sources do not appear to be very good. They call everyone a Jew, even Nicolas Sarkozy - [2] My very best wishes (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I still disagree with your inclusions. You push them by edit-warring, contrary to BLP rules I cited above. My very best wishes (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

If we have several sources covering his Jewish family background, then a brief mention in the body is DUE in my eyes. MVBW - I share your concern (and particularly so in present-day Ukraine) - but when a bio detail is well-sourced we include (if this were in sketchy fringe media... then not). Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Then how about this? Why passing TOEFL and disagreement with parents in his young years was so important? My very best wishes (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

TOFEL is borderline given one source at the moment. I will note that this is positive information in my eyes - it shows he made the "patriotic" choice to remain in the tough 90s when almost everybody who had a choice to leave (anywhere) - did so. (It may actually be self-promotion). I am neutral on the TOFEL bit being in or out.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Fine, let's consider this "consensus". Self-reverted. My very best wishes (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably also an unimportant detail...

....but still I find candidate Zelensky avoiding serious interviews and TV debates annoying... Unfortunately all candidates seem to do this.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

How come? I watched extremely detailed (one-two hours long each) interviews with several Ukrainian presidential candidates, including Zelensky, provided by Dmitry Gordon. These interviews are probably still accessible on YouTube. My very best wishes (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

He refused to take part in a debate between himself, Poroshenko and Tymoshenko a few days ago (only Tymoshenko turned up).... These long Gordon interviews are helpful but in a healthy democracy debates between the candidates takes place in the weeks prior to the (first round) of any election. Zelensky and Poroshenko refused to do that so they are both unqualified to be President of Ukraine or any other country... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Zelensky's support of the 2013-2014 Euromaidan movement

Not really relevant to this Wikipedia article maybe.... But I followed Euromaidan very closely at the time (not from within Ukrainian but I read almost all Ukrayinska Pravda articles published then) and I can not remember reading about an appearance of Zelensky on stage at Maidan Nezalezhnosti during the Euromaidan protests. Does anybody know how he supported Euromaidan? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not remember this either. Reading this though... My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

According to this opinion piece Zelensky did not take part in Euromaidan. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, and this is definitely an RS (author is well known expert). But I am not sure what's the context. This something so minor, compare to corruption scandals were people blamed Poroshenko [3], and the investigation was allegedly blocked by very same people he installed [4]. I am not sure if that thing with Ukroboronprom is covered anywhere on WP. This is something notable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mistakes in 2019 presidential election program

There are some remarkable mistakes in Zelensky's 2019 presidential election program.... Should this be mentioned in this Wikipedia article or would make it the article not up to Wikipedia standards? The mistakes are that he wants to create government post and institutions of eurointergration that already exist plus he wants to apply to a European Union membership plan ideally in 2024 when there is not such a thing as a European Union membership plan. There is a NATO Membership Action Plan and "official candidate" status to the European Union including negotiations; most likely who wrote the Zelensky election program mixed the two up.... The wanting to create government post and institutions that already exist seems to indicate a lack of knowledge about Ukraine by Zelensky (assuming he approved/read his own election program). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not a mistake on the page, but rather criticism of his proposals, speaking of which I am not sure what this Ukrainian language source actually tells. But I did check through Google translator another source you used and believe you are trying to read/interpret too much from it. Will fix it. Keep in mind: all candidates are saying they will admit the results of honest elections, but would challenge them in the event of obvious falsifications, which are quite possible in this country. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

But none of that is really an issue. I read a few sources to see if Western analysts understand why Z. is more popular than T. and P. Some of them understand this better, others have no clue. Here is why. In the Western democratic tradition, it is implicitly assumed that the president is just an elected official who is going to serve the people simply by definition. So, the only real issue is who among the candidates was qualified best for the job. Not so in many Eastern countries. Here, the first and the foremost question is different: is it even an intention of the "leader" to become a "servant of the people", or he is going to be just another Eastern despot, meaning he will own the state for the purpose of becoming rich (this is modern Russia), to satisfy his vanity or even to enjoy killing and torturing his subordinates like Stalin. Looking under this angle, Z. may be indeed the best candidate. If the corruption is the most significant problem, then two other candidates have proved in the eyes of many that they are a part of the problem. People in the US do not understand it. Therefore, they have elected, for the first time in their history, someone who is not a Western servant, but an Eastern despot, simply by his very nature and behavior. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I remember reading a few years ago that in the publicity of film of Zelenky's company (I think it was 8 New Dates....) the (Ukrainian) production company lied about that it was co-financed by Russians (of course the film was financed before Maidan so I don't understand why they lied....) So I do not consider Zelensky an honest man so I don't consider him a good candidate (I do not exclude he is trying to be President to "satisfy his vanity", although I don't think he doing it for the money). Poroshenko is also a terrible candidate because he seems to be President to get his mates some money.... (see Petro Poroshenko#Corruption). Both are terrible candidates and most Ukrainian voters I see as idiots... Looking back, out all of the candidates Anatoliy Hrytsenko looks most qualified to become President of Ukraine.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

PS Since my obvious antipathy of Zelensky I am reframing from editing the article as much as I can for NPOV reasons (and while editing I just insert the facts from the source). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

This is nothing new (voting for hope). I checked version on Ukrainian WP... For example, that was interesting and could be included; that one is interesting . But I have a problem with assessing reliability of these Ukrainian language sources. Maybe this is "fake news", maybe a "kompromat". Therefore, I would rather avoid including such things to the BLP page. If someone else knows this better and wants to take the responsibility ... That one is probably an RS, but it's hard to tell how significant that was. Overall, all these things seem to be very minor, probably undue, unless covered more widely. I do agree with your comments above. For example who is going to vote for Poroshenko when he exiled Saakaschill, the only person known to successfully handle corruption in his own country at the post-Soviet space? But I would not be very pessimistic either. Whoever wins, he will be a much better president that the current president of the US. My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the things you mention above are all probably undue..... The accusations in the "друзі Кадирова"-source is made by a close confidant of Poroshenko..... so probably not true but a crude form of black PR....

I think not much will change the next 5 years. The oligarch Ihor Kolomoyskyi, who's tv channel seems to have propelled Zelensky to the second round of the election, together with the other oligarchs will probably be more than capable of sabotaging Zelensky if he would seriously started deoligarchization. Same goes for a Poroshenko government. Besides the Zelensky-team so far only seems to be good at trolling. I am sure that you can not force the IMF out of their demands of higher natural gas prices by trolling.... So just as the author of the very good a analysis you placed on this page predicts.... in 1 or 2 years Zelensky is probably as popular as Yushchenko or Yatsenyuk now...

I am waiting for the day when people finally realise that it is not politicians who can fix their lives but only themselves can do that.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

So, now they are going to debate [5]. This is usually done through a moderator-journalist who is respected by both sides. The moderator decides which questions to ask and controls timing. He/she usually asks questions of highly critical nature that would be interesting for the viewers. Wow! He invited Timoshenko as a moderator, apparently in a hope that she will debate with Poroshenko instead of him. He is making a KVN of politics. Or maybe he is just making a show and invites best actors. Or may be Poroshenko will refuse to have such moderator, and the deal to debate will be off. That reminds me story about Nasreddin: "Once Nasreddin was invited to deliver a sermon. When he got on the pulpit, he asked, "Do you know what I am going to say?" The audience replied "no", so he announced, "I have no desire to speak to people who don't even know what I will be talking about!" and left. Next day, when he asked the same question, the people replied "yes". So Nasreddin said, "Well, since you already know what I am going to say, I won't waste any more of your time!" and left. Next day, the people were prepared, and so half of them answered "yes" while the other half replied "no". So Nasreddin said: "Let the half who know what I am going to say, tell it to the half who don't." and left. My very best wishes (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

But now it seems that P. is making the KVN [6]. Saying, "yes, I agree to debate at the Stadium", but coming to a meeting at the time when there was no an agreement to meet is making a mockery of himself. I mean it is obvious that P. can come to the Stadium at April 18, as Z. requested. If he will not, this is only because he does not want. Why exactly he does not want is a good question, but the most reasonable explanation is obvious: he knows he will loose anyway and probably afraid that Z will make a fun of him, just as in the a story by Vasily Shukshin. My very best wishes (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Criticism of dubbing the movie "I, You, He, She" - is WP:COAT?

I think it is important to add about language criticism.

For example, observers criticize the quality of dubbing ("because of dubbing, the film did not become more Ukrainian, it acquired the features of a kind of Theatre of the Absurd, when Ukrainian reality suddenly appeared to show signs of strange foreign backstage" (Although the author further assumes that dubbing quality problems are related to a transition period in the Ukrainian cinematography)), express doubts about the reasons for filming in Russian (the film was shot for the Russian-speaking market in the first place).

Although there is a conclusion in the criticism, which, it seems to me, was better said like this: “The film is cool if viewed from the point of view of cinematography in a vacuum.”

Why is it important? Almost half of the film was financed by taxpayers' money substantially (according to the figures of the authorized department: this amounted to 17.62 million from 35.96 million UAH, although in February the film producers returned to the state 11.6 million UAH). If we were talking about an ordinary citizen, I would not ask this question. I would not even think of writing this in this article. But we are talking about a presidential candidate who played a major role and was co-director. --Kirotsi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you suggest to add: "but the quality of dubbing was poor"? Indeed, this looks as an undue/excessive detail to me. My very best wishes (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

It’s not about the dubbing itself, but about the person. There is a statement: the main requirement of state support was Ukrainian-speaking (україномовність). For this reason, it was previously denied public co-financing for "Servant of the People-2" (see 1st paragraph). As a result, the film “I, You, He, She” was not shot in Ukrainian, and the dubbing was criticized. For me, this raises a question about the personal qualities of the person in charge of the film project: how responsible is such a person who manages taxpayers' money?

I understand that the filmmakers put priority in the maximum financial success. But it is one thing when a person with questionable qualities of this nature is engaged in business and only business. Another thing is when he is a presidential candidate. At the same time, two events (postproduction "I, You, He, She" and preparation for the presidential campaign) took place approximately simultaneously, the second half of 2018.

I suggest adding after the last paragraph: "But the quality of dubbing was criticized,[7] in particular due to the fact that the film was financed by the state[8][9] on 49% of the cost.[10]" --Kirotsi (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I see. "Та й українська мова у фільмі Зеленського настільки штучна, що сміятися більше хочеться саме з неї, аніж із ситуацій, в які потрапляють герої. Коли двоє чоловіків-суперників сваряться між собою і називають один одного «козлисько», хочеться уподібнитися Станіславському з його легендарним «Нє вєрю!» Чого не скажеш про Притулу і його колег у фільмі «Секс…»: вони сиплють такими масними і колоритними жартами настільки природно, ніби слухаєш п’яні розмови заробітчан десь у маршрутці на Перемишль.".

This is not really about dubbing (and certainly not about mishandling state money, which appear to be your point), but about a poor quality text in Ukrainian version. I am not sure how this should be summarized, but obviously some sourced criticism of the movie can be included. My very best wishes (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the author simply did not pay attention to technical aspects. Other reviewers talk about it:

"Цей фільм класний, якщо розглядати його з точки зору кінематографії в вакуумі. Але є одне гігантське "АЛЕ", про яке я мовчати не можу. Фільм знімався повністю російською мовою крім тих гідкісних (sic!, should be "рідкісних", This is audible in the video review) моментів, коли львівський коп говорить українською або головний герой цитує Івана Франка", - підкреслив Тайлер.

"По-перше, дубляж такий палевний, що капець, він повністю псує весь фільм. По-друге, дубляж настільки пронизаний русизмами, що ось видно було, як вони викручувалися, щоб потрапляти в губи. По-третє, мені, може бути, менше горіло б в області п'ятої точки, якби на це неподобство не виділила гроші наша держава. Україна" [11]

"І все ж найдивніший ефект у картині справляє український дубляж. Фільм було знято російською мовою і для прокату в Україні дубльовано українською. По-перше, зі звукової доріжки чомусь чути тільки синхрон, та й той не дуже виразно, шуми істотно приглушені. По-друге, артикуляція губ не збігається зі словами акторів. Усе це створює відчуття, ніби дивишся закордонний фільм із нашвидкуруч зробленим дубляжем." [12]

There is criticism of the technical performance of dubbing. And the quality of the Ukrainian language, apparently, was reduced to dubbing, so that the sound of dubbing fell on the lips of speaking actors.

On the other hand, if You are right, it turns out Zelensky lied, telling about the reason for shooting the film in Russian:

"Автори комедії поспішили запевнити, що перший сценарій фільму був написаний саме українською мовою. Пізніше його довелося перевести на російську через литовську актрису Агне Грудіте, яка повинна була зіграти головну роль Яни. З часом Грудіте не змогла взяти участь у зйомках, а її роль дісталася Насті Короткій. Тільки от підлаштуватися знімальна група так і не змогла, тому за основу взяли сценарій російською мовою. При цьому Зеленський підкреслює: "Не всі сцени зняті російською"." [13]

You write that here "not about mishandling state money, which appear to be" my point.

Ok. How do You call such behavior: the film company receives a grant for the project (not knowing whether it will return a part of the amount), but does not fulfill one of the conditions (Ukrainian); explains this story with an actress who did not appear in the project; and in order to compensate for the non-fulfillment of the condition, they came up with an alternative (dubbing); but even this has claims?

I am worried exactly about the administrative and economic aspect: the disposal of public money. For if we delve into this story, the moral side of the candidate who claims that he is not like all politicians, that he is outside the system, may turn out to be worse. At the latter I close my eyes now. --Kirotsi (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to include something. This just should not be your own synthesis, and it should be "due" meaning we are not going to dedicate too much space to the criticism of the movie. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I will do it later. I'll think about how to write the most correct version. --Kirotsi (talk) 03:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. But your actual concern is not about the movie, but about the candidate. His "problem" is not being "pro-Russian", but being inexperienced in the politics. But I am really surprised by many publications which compared him with D. Trump like here. The problem of Trump is not the lack of qualification (although it is a part of the problem), but extreme political agenda (like anti-immigration), the utter disregard to other people, his confrontational behavior, and most important, his conflict of interest when someone rich (an "oligarch") is using his political position for the personal gain, as evident from the latest tax law in the US, from hiding his own taxes, and so on and so on. None of that seem to be a problem of Z. Speaking about the COI, this is actually the problem of P. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. However, it seems to me that in this comparative analysis our opinions will be difficult to come together. As I understand it, You talk about T. from the inside, and You look at P. and Z. from the side? (Or am I mistaken and You are not from the USA?). I see this story of P. and Z from the inside (Ukraine), respectively, I can talk about T. only from afar.

Therefore, my comparison between T. and Z. depends on expert opinion, primarily domestic authors. IMHO, among the latest publications is the best comparison here. The author described 5 common features and 4 key differences. The latter is scary.

As a historian, I clearly see the deja vu with the events of 2010, 1917-1920. Some political scientists and historians speak of the year 1659. However, I do not agree with the latter, too much "but". If we can consider the parallels between 1659 and 2019 +/-, then only in general trends. When I look at Z. and P., I rate not so much the social, economic, cultural policy as the state building ("державотворення").

In general, the comparison with Trump is not interesting for me. If you compare, I'm interested in another. Did Reagan and Schwarzenegger take part in the shooting in the films during their election campaigns? If so, how dense were their acting schedules? Team Z. constantly asserts that Ukraine will receive a new Reagan or Governor of the State of California, which power far exceeds the capabilities of Ukraine. At the same time, the team of Z. constantly referred to a tight schedule of performances (shows), when the team refused to meets of their candidate with journalists and reputable public figures. --Kirotsi (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, I would consider someone who just had accomplished his routine presidential duties and did not do a lot of damage to his country to be a good president. Consider these examples. W. Bush did a lot of damage to the USA. D. Trump does a lot of damage every day. Putin does a lot of damage to Russian people every day. One could argue that P. was a good president by such metrics, but I think the accomplishments were actually by the Ukrainian people. I expect at least the same from Z. Meaning primum non nocere. And I agree with Kuzio (your source) Z. is completely different from D.T. - as a person and in terms of political agenda and views (or the lack of political agenda and views). But my point is that these differences are not "scary", but good. That's why he might be a better president (no one knows for sure of course, just as with Poroshenko. I just listened an interview with an Ukrainian politolgiest who seemed to be very knowlegeable. He said Poroshenko is creating a dictatorship and will start political repressions. Not improbable, given that one of potential presidential contenders was placed to prison, and another was personally exiled by him).My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Could You show a link to an interview with a Ukrainian political scientist? I want to understand on the basis of which the conclusion was made "creating a dictatorship and will start political repressions". If we talk about dictatorship, I do not agree. Also, I do not see a return to the authoritarianism of the Kuchma's and Yanukovych's periods.

About the "political repressions". I have no questions about the situation with Savchenko. Yes, there are questions in the story of Saakashvili. However, Saakashvili himself is ambiguous. For example, I spoke with my friends, who had long left Georgia, their relatives remained in Georgia. I asked how people evaluate the rule of Saakashvili. The answer is: negative. And it was surprising to my friends, because they live in Ukraine and read (like me) about the success of Saakashvili’s reforms in Georgia. --Kirotsi (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I edited a fragment of an article on taxpayers' money (waste of public funds). Here I would like to say about some links that complement the picture, but now are unimportant in the article.

Earlier, I found a clause of the law, according to which national films ("національні фільми") are shot in Ukrainian or Crimean Tatar. It is possible to use another language. But this should not exceed 10% of the total duration of all replicas ("Стаття 3. Визначення термінів … національний фільм - створений суб’єктами кінематографії фільм, виробництво якого повністю або частково здійснено в Україні, основна (базова) версія мовної частини звукового ряду якого створена українською або кримськотатарською мовою, та який при цьому набрав необхідну кількість балів відповідно до оцінних елементів бальної системи, передбаченої цим Законом. … допускається використання інших мов в обсязі, що не може перевищувати 10 відсотків загальної тривалості всіх реплік учасників фільму"). There is also a comment by the head of the department.

The fact that Zelensky’s film project is a "національний фільм" can be seen in the list of films that have received state co-financing. Look at the spreadsheet "узагальнений рейтинговий перелік кінопроектів". Under the working title of the film "Він і Вона" ("He and She").

However, I was not sure that this is enough to avoid WP: OR. This morning I saw news from Ukrinform. --Kirotsi (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I think your edit is fine in terms of sourcing, and it is not WP:OR. But I do not think that the "allegation or incident is noteworthy" as BLP requires. Accusing someone of embezzlement just because his personnel made a poor translation to Russian is strange. This is even more ridiculous than the prosecution of Kirill Serebrennikov for "embezzlement". My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I would agree with you if I would evaluate everything as in a vacuum. However, it is not. Some things in behavior Zelensky unacceptable. By themselves, these things are insignificant. But the totality of this does not allow me to imagine that Zelensky was not involved, and that the dubbing process was uncontrolled. In addition, the Ukrainian dubbing (as a phenomenon) is of very high quality. I am referring to films that were released in cinemas, not for TV. Therefore, it seems to me that to assert that Zelensky has nothing to do with this, that technical specialists were failed: it means to pass the buck to someone.

About NABU. Perhaps earlier I would have thought so. However, I recently saw an investigation.

Journalists say: there is a lawyer Andrei Bogdan; he works with Kolomoisky; he is associated with the election headquarters of Zelensky; On April 3, Andrei Bogdan met with the director of NABU; the mediator who organized this meeting claims that it was an expert meeting; journalists doubt it.

Even without questions from journalists, I see a conflict of interest in the Kolomoisky-Zelensky-NABU triad.

What did the “expert” of Kolomoisky and Zelensky do at NABU? It is unknown. But this is enough to raise the issue of NABU impartiality. Maybe the agency is not interested to take the case and to look for a possible crime? --Kirotsi (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot more serious accusations [14], but we need to take a conservative approach, meaning let's allow the official organizations to investigate and publish whatever they found. Then, we can put it to the WP page. This way we comply with BLP and WP:Not news. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I know about this study of the hacker group (Original source: Here is the basis for the charges. However, this requires additional third-party confirmation due to more serious charges. So I do not take into account this.

On the contrary, I consider important and verified the question of the misuse of budgetary funds. But I will not insist that it remains in the article now.

Yesterday I listened to an interview with Vladimir Zelensky. And I had more questions. That's where he says about a film and a budget.

"… никогда не работал с бюджетом. Вот единственный у нас фильм "Я, Ты, Он, Она", где сопродюсером являлось "Держкино". Правильно? Правильно. Все деньги, которые они вложили, все деньги возвращаются. Потому что, слава Богу, кино заработало. Мы при этом ничего не заработали. Есть открытые цены. Меня на деньгах ловить совершенно нет смысла, вот, нет смысла, потому что нет для этого почвы нет."

Seriously? Co-Producer is Derzhkino (uk:Державне агентство України з питань кіно)? On the official website of Zelensky's company, such producers are mentioned: Zelensky himself, also Yakovlev [15] and brothers Shefir [16] [17]. This is a creative team of the "Studio Quarter-95".

The founders of the company: Zelensky (99.990%) and his wife (0.010%).

Therefore, on the basis of this interview, Zelensky either does not understand the production processes of his (99.990%) company, or is lying. In the first case, it is incompetence. In the second case, this is the typical behavior of a “normal” politician. That is, in the latter case, Zelensky acts as a typical representative of the political establishment. But the election campaign is built on the slogan “a new face in politics”, in particular. The face is new, but the essence is the same. And it's scary! --Kirotsi (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

In general, I agree with you and with recent commentary by Vitaly Portnikov ([18]). Feel free to revert my edit and include anything well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Should this Wikipedia article mention that French President Emmanuel Macron received presidential candidate Volodymyr Zelensky at the Élysée Palace in Paris on April 12, 2019?

It does not look important to me. And there are much more interesting things about his election campaign to mention. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Not particularly significant, but an important event of his campaign. My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Twitter in infobox?

Is it normal to include a link to the subject's Twitter account in the infobox? It must be coming from Wikidata because I can't figure out how to remove or edit it here. Funcrunch (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Exceptionally dirty campaign

I hope the exceptionally dirty campaign from the side of Poroshenko will be covered. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Who cares? He lost. In any event, that would belong to the page about Poroshenko.My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Who cares? History cares. Did you ever hear that a President falsely accuse a competitor of drug addiction, on every second telegraph pole? In any case, you are partially right: this belongs to the "2019 Ukr Pres Campaign page". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

liga.net reliable source?

As I see lots of personal info is sourced to liga.net. Is it a reliable source per WP:BLP. I have doubts . Staszek Lem (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No sources for "Selected Filmography"?

Seems to me that there are no citations in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazard Gamer (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Missing (important) TV show in selected filmography

The television show "Servant of the People" seems important enough to be included. In most media coverage of Zelensky (at least in the United States), the show is mentioned as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hazard Gamer (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

How to prononse it?

How to prononse it?--Uroboros (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Takes office

Can we decide when that is and add a hidden note to that effect? El_C 22:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that the date still keeps changing, but no sources have been provided to back this up. El_C 18:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not to include the Russian transliteration of his name

I considered doing what Homme had done. However, I did not proceed as several Internet sources, including the KVARTAL 95 web-site itself, uses the Russian transliteration of his name. I believe that the Russian transliteration ought to be included for clarity, just like there is both Kyiv and Kiev. Besides, even though he is not Russian, he is an avid Russian speaker. We can drop the patronymic, and even indicate explicitly that this is a Russian transliteration, but I think it should be in here somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleksandr Shturmov (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

What policy or guideline for including the transliteration do you refer? I would think the transliteration should not be provided just because he speaks Russian or one his enterprises used Russian for advertisement. Someone could speak 10 different languages and use 100 different languages for advertisement. The example with Kiev is different. Here, I think the transliteration is appropriate because of the history of the city, although one could reasonably argue it should not be included even for Kiev. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not referring to a particular policy. However, many English-speaking sources use the Russian transliteration, rather than the Ukrainian one. If you read an English-speaking source that uses the Russian transliteration and come to this page, you might end up confused as to why the name is suddenly spelled differently. Oleksandr Shturmov (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

But I think it is OK in footnote; and we also have a redirect from such page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps if you didn't make that change, this wouldn't have happened (later reverted). Oleksandr Shturmov (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

How to present his name

As a follow-up on a previous discussion, and due to ongoing modifications, I suggest that we have a discussion about how to present his name in general. Here are the criteria I consider important:

• Zelensky is a Ukrainian official.
  • The romanization of his name should adhere to the current, official Ukrainian policies.
    • Unfortunately, the proper Ukrainian transliteration (Zelenskyi) is not the one in use by major media outlets!
  • His name in Ukrainian should be shown.
• Zelensky is an avid Russian speaker, as well as a professional actor, targeting, among others, a Russian-speaking audience; his name has often appeared in English-speaking media, with the Russian, rather than the Ukrainian transliteration.
  • The Russian transliteration can be considered his stage name.
  • The Russian transliteration should be shown here for clarity and reference.
  • His name in Russian could also be shown for the same reasons.

Presenting 4-5 names from the start however, is probably heavy on the reader however. Hence, we have to prioritize what goes into parentheses, and what goes into footnotes.

Overall, I would go with the following form:

• Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky (Ukrainian: Володимир Олександрович Зеленський (footnote about pronounciation and official transliteration); born 25 January 1978), also known as Vladimir Zelenskiy (footnote about Russian transliteration, provide Russian spelling and pronunciation), is a Ukrainian politician...

Oleksandr Shturmov (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I would go with a form presented on another similar page. Ani Lorak is a Ukrainian-born musician who now works almost exclusively in Russia. As such, her name is presented thus:

• Karolina Myroslavivna Kuiek (Ukrainian: Кароліна Мирославівна Куєк, Russian: Каролина Мирославовна Куек, also transliterated as Kuyek or Kuek; born 27 September 1978)

I would therefore suggest that Zelensky's be as follows:

• Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky (Ukrainian: Володимир Олександрович Зеленський, Russian: Влади́мир Алекса́ндрович Зеле́нский, also transliterated Vladimir Aleksandrovich Zelenskiy; born 25 January 1978), is a Ukrainian politician...

with footnotes as appropriate. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, but "similar pages" includes Petro Poroshenko, Volodymyr Groysman, Viktor Yanukovych. For none of them do we provide a Russian spelling or transliteration. Also, Zelensky did not, and does not work "almost exclusively in Russia". There are a lot of Russian speakers in Ukraine. Hence, I would tone down the Russian slightly. Oleksandr Shturmov (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that Yanukovych is only Ukrainian, in that case I would keep Zelensky exclusively in Ukrainian as well. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Zelensky is not "an avid Russian speaker". He does not used Russian more than Ukrainian throughout his live because of "having an eager desire for it" (that is the meaning of the word avid) but simply because Russian is more used than Ukrainian in the part of Ukraine where he is from.... I think User:Oleksandr_Shturmov is well aware of this or does not know the exact meaning of the word "avid".... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Provide a Russian transliteration of his name is necessary. No matter what anyone says, but Russian is the first language of Zelensky, he even spoke Russian on his inauguration. —NachtReisender (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• I disagree. He is a Ukrainian politican, not a Russian one. He spoke a _couple of sentences_ during his inauguration not because he doesn't know Ukrainian well enough, but because he was talking about the East of the country, where Russian is the main langauge (and which is unfortunately paritally controlled by pro-Russian sepratists). If there is no Russian transliteration for Yanukovych, who was (and probably still is) pretty awful at speaking Ukrainian, then why should we give Zelensky's name in Russian?YantarCoast (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand why some editors are so obsessed with including the Russian transliteration of Zelensky's name in this article.... Meanwhile Zelensky himself is appointing a bunch of completely unqualified people from Kvartal 95 Studio in his Presidential Administration of Ukraine and even one as Deputy Head of the Security Service of Ukraine. Can we please focus on the important things about Zelensky.... Wikipedia is not a dictionary so it is not necessary to have a Russian transliteration of Zelensky's name in his Wikipedia article.... It is important to mention in his Wikipedia article that so far Zelensky's presidency has more cronyism than the presidency of Donald Trump.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the question of transliteration of his name is so insignificant that there is nothing to discuss here, as for me. Do you refer to Yanukovych? Okaaaaay, what's the problem to add Russian transliteration to his name as well? Both of these politicians speak Russian. And yes, Russian is a common language in Ukraine, no matter what anyone says. —NachtReisender (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Even if absence of Russian name in Yanukovich article was a valid argument, it's funny that it had been there until 2014. It was restored after a short discussion on a talk page, but then in 2016 it was removed again by an anonymous user. And since this "insignificant question" seems to cause edit wars in multiple articles about Ukrainian politicians I feel like there is need to have a broad discussion to make some rule about Russian names in biographies of people from Ukraine. --Qbli2mHd (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• "[his spokesperson] announced that ‘Zelenskyy’ is indeed “the official form of the last name that the President has in his passport.” Fouriels (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)"

References

Volodymyr or Vladimir?

Zelensky is not an ethnic Ukrainian. He comes from a Russian-speaking family and lives in a Russian-speaking environment. Zelensky has been called Vladimir all his life, but not Volodymyr (the Ukrainian national form of this name). The names are not translated. They were translated only in the USSR. 176.59.49.222 (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I have to disagree that he “lives in a Russian-speaking environment”. It might come as a shock to you, but high-level politics in Ukraine are conducted in Ukrainian. Maybe when he worked at Kvartal 95 he communicated exclusively in Russian and worked on Russian-language projects, but he has to speak Ukrainian now. Also, check the presidential website. It clearly says VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY in the English version. ~~ YantarCoast (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Map

Do we really need the “map of foreign heads of state at the inauguration”? in the Presidency section? It seems quite redundant, given that hardly any foreign leaders actually attended the inauguration.

~~ YantarCoast (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Well previous Ukrainian president Wikipedia pages have no such maps... So I say this one also should not have one. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent official spelling changes

I know there has been some discussion about spelling the current President's name, but relatively recently the official website of the President of Ukraine has started using the spelling "Zelenskyy." Should we change all of the spellings in accordance with this official move? I know

My apologies, I think I answered my own question. The editors already know about this, and it does not seem like people feel it to be necessary to update the spelling. I apologize for this triviality. Danukski (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Autograph-VolodymyrZelensky.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Spokesperson Iuliia Mendel doesn't object to other spellings of his name...

Does the information that Spokesperson Iuliia Mendel doesn't object to other spellings of Zelensky's name belong in Wikipedia? (See footnote 1.) I say not, this kind of trivial information has dogged Wikipedia for years... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Readers will come here to find out how to spell his name which appears in recent news with at least four different spellings. Then they’ll want to know why this article spells it differently from what Zelensky uses.

This is not “trivial.” It is the subject of published articles. This discussion page has 1,500 words on the topic already. It belongs in the text, not in note [a]. His own or his campaign’s only known statement on this question is relevant. —Michael Z. 2019-06-18 13:59 z 13:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it is actually very relevant and should be retained, since it confirms that the variations aren't mistakes that should be called out as such. The use of a note in the opening near the name is a good way to incorporate the information, while maintaining flow.--The Navigators (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Entertainment career

This information has been removed, with the following edit summary: "per WP:RECENTISM - all these minor details are hardly relevant now. What was notable is described above in this section." I think it is relevant and should be included. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"the quality of dubbing", what he said when "Kvartal 95 had made its last movie with its legal Russian subsidiary", long time ago, etc. How that is important, especially now? This is WP:RECENTISM. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Svaty are not matchmakers

Svaty are not matchmakers. Svaty are parents of the wife in relation to the parents of the husband and vise versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.222.42 (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Image

I suggest to revert to older image. New image (with someone else hand on his shoulder) is ... strange. And BTW, it was inserted only recently. So reverted per WP:BRD. My very best wishes (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Languages that Zelensky speaks

Zelensky barely speaks Ukrainian, and every time he tries he ends up mixing Ukrainian and Russian, so that the way how he speaks is a permanent subject of jokes in Ukraine.

As it should be clear for anyone who have ever listened an interview with Zelensky in English, his English is very far from fluent. He often misunderstands questions and widely using non canonical gramma constructions.

I suggest to update the statement about languages to “his native language is Russian, he also speaks some Ukrainian and English”. Dime (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Renaming

Quick check shows that "Volodymyr Zelensky" is more common spelling. WP:COMMON NAME please. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not correct as this version does not comply with Ukrainian transliteration rules from 2010. Thus Volodymyr's passport says Zelenskyy. So does his official website president.gov.ua IChester (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC) iChester (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[Note 2]

Phrasing in lead paragraph

Per WP:BRD, I'm bringing something here for discussion. IP user 149.110.68.62 (talk · contribs) merged two sentences into one, like so:

Zelensky is the president of Ukraine. He has been in office since 2019. → Zelensky is the president of Ukraine since 2019.

(For conciseness, I've trimmed out various clauses and parts of noun phrases, leaving the same overall sentence structure. To see the actual text, have a look at the linked edits.)

I disagreed with this edit and reverted it; as I said in my edit comment, I find "is ... since" to be awkward, and think "has been ... since" is preferable.

The same IP user came and redid the edit, as well as changing the spelling in the lead sentence from Zelensky to Zelenskyy. Rather than getting into a revert war, can we discuss the matter of phrasing (and, I suppose, of spelling the man's name) here? -- Perey (talk) 10:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Pandora Papers

To add to this article: mention in the article text of the Pandora Papers. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Official Visit to the United States of America (2021)

Currently a whole section of this Wikipedia article is devoted to Zelensky's Official Visit to the United States of America (2021). Is that not too much attention for a visit that did not seem to have changed anything anywhere? Atleast according to Wikipedia:Notability only the information about the shooting of a Presidential aid should stay in the article. Or does Tim Cook only meets 1 person every year and/or is meeting the California National Guard a honour that few people ever received? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022

Photo is not appropriate and kan be seen as offensive 83.137.6.166 (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Couldn't find anything offensive in any picture on this article. Next time please be more specific about which picture you're referring to and with appropriate reasoning. ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 17:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2022 (2)

In the movie section at the bottom of the article, "version" is spelled wrong next to the Paddington movie. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• djdj5050 - (talk to me) •°*”˜.•°*”˜ 17:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

change "seperatist" to "separatist" (the latter being the correct spelling) Gzhanstong (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 03:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 7 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The crux of the discussion is whether COMMONNAME applies in this case or SPNC does. Since the preferred transliteration was clarified, some outlets have gone with "Zelenskyy" (e.g. Sky News) and some outlets have stuck with "Zelensky" (e.g. BBC). This, to me, indicates that the matter of transliteration for those outlets is a matter of house style more than anything. Hence, I am not satisified that "Zelensky" is common enough to pass this muster.

WP:BLP dictates that we afford a certain level of sensitivity to living people. The matter of transliteration, especially as it applies to Ukranian topics (famously, see Kiev vs. Kyiv), is one of those where we we must consider said sensitivities. I am satisfied that the clarification is enough to pass the spirit — if not the letter — of the WP:SPNC. After all, COMMONNAME even allows for us to deviate from the most commonly used name if it would be inaccurate, and I daresay SPNC has that squarely in mind. Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Volodymyr Zelensky → Volodymyr Zelenskyy – This is the official spelling per the article's opening sentence. The article's title is outdated, this should not be controversial. —Legoless (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Although the transliteration of the President's surname into English appears to be predominant in the form "Zelensky", the official English-language Presidential website uses the transliteration "Zelenskyy" and that is how the name is transliterated in his passport. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
• support he appears to use 'Zelenskyy' [19]—blindlynx 00:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  Specifically per WP:SPNC For minor spelling variations (capitalization, diacritics, punctuation and spacing after initials, etc.): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed—blindlynx 21:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Please demonstrate that the proposed title is WP:COMMONNAME.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support  Four or five spellings are commonly used, one appears to be the most common in scholarly articles, but not the only commonly used one. Arguably, Volodymyr Zelenskyy better satisfies the WP:CRITERIA of precision and recognizability. He’s the only one we’ve ever heard of with that official spelling of the surname, and lets us redirect to the article from Zelenskyy. It also represents a WP:NPOV by respecting the living person’s own spelling, instead of imposing someone else’s preference (see WP:BLP, “high degree of sensitivity”). WP:COMMONNAME also lets us consider exceptions for accuracy and neutrality.

  Google Scholar, since 2018

  • “Volodymyr Zelensky” -Wikipedia 1,070
  • “Volodymyr Zelenskyy” -Wikipedia 165
  • “Volodymyr Zelenskiy” -Wikipedia 156
  • “Vladimir Zelensky” -Wikipedia 148
  • “Volodymyr Zelenskyi” -Wikipedia 109
  • “Vladimir Zelenskiy” -Wikipedia 33
  • “Volodymyr Zelenski” -Wikipedia 24
  • “Vladimir Zelenski” -Wikipedia 11
  • “Vladimir Zelenskii” -Wikipedia 8
  • “Volodymyr Zelenskii” -Wikipedia 6
  • “Vladimir Zelenskyy” -Wikipedia 2
  • “Vladimir Zelenskyi 0

  Google News (I presume it truncates results at 100)

  • “Volodymyr Zelensky” -Wikipedia 100
  • “Volodymyr Zelenskyy” -Wikipedia 100
  • “Volodymyr Zelenskiy” -Wikipedia 100
  • “Vladimir Zelensky” -Wikipedia 100 (dominated by results from TASS)
  • “Volodymyr Zelenskyi” -Wikipedia 27
  • “Volodymyr Zelenski” -Wikipedia 15
  • “Vladimir Zelenskiy” -Wikipedia 7
  • “Vladimir Zelenski” -Wikipedia 2
  • “Vladimir Zelenskyy” -Wikipedia 4
  • “Vladimir Zelenskyi” -Wikipedia 1
  • “Volodymyr Zelenskii” -Wikipedia 1
  • “Vladimir Zelenskii” -Wikipedia 0

   —Michael Z. 23:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Zelensky appears to be most commonly used by most English-language media outlets in English-speaking countries. What he prefers, what the Ukrainian government prefers or what the "official" transliteration is are all irrelevant. See WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • See WP:NAMECHANGES. "Zelenskyy" was clarified as the correct English transliteration subsequent to much English-language reporting on this individual. —Legoless (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I repeat, see WP:OFFICIALNAME and WP:COMMONNAME. Your reasoning goes against our practice. Most English-language media outlets are still using Zelensky. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Zelensky is still the most WP:COMMONNAME in English-language media.-- Aervanath (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. According to the Ukrainian transliteration, "Zelenskyi" is generally correct. By the way, now the government of Ukraine plans to check the correctness of transliteration in foreign passports.-- Jafaz (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as Zelensky remains more common, even in these uncertain days in Ukraine. --Killuminator (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SPNC: "For minor spelling variations [...]: when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed". Ryvyly (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It's not any sort of name change. It's merely a variation in transliteration. So this doesn't apply. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Luis Guzmán never changed his name, either, but he is nevertheless given as an example of this rule. Ryvyly (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support, Volodymyr Zelenskyy is the official and widely used name (of a country's president!). RZuo (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME, no reason to change the name at the moment. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 05:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: There has not been enough debate on whether WP:SPNC applies here, specifically: For minor spelling variations (capitalization, diacritics, punctuation and spacing after initials, etc.): when a consistent and unambiguous self-published version exists, it is usually followed. I'll note that Ryvyly's comment pointing to Luis Guzmán as an appropriate example needs to be corrected - or another example given - as I have removed that example from the SPNC guideline after a review (details can be seen in the diff). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 15:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Per WP:SPNC, particularly the passage quoted by blindlynx and Ryvyly. Though it has been pointed out that the proposed move reflects a change in transliteration rather than an actual name change, I feel that this example still clearly falls under the spirit of SPNC, as the proposed change is predicated upon the subject self-publishing this name for themselves. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Reliable sources seem to predominantly use single Y.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential source

France24: Military tactics: Zelensky plays both sides in Ukrainian crisis, 18/02/22 Jr8825 • Talk 17:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Reference 9 is suspicious

It is one of the few articles I have found that say Zelensky is leaning towards authoritarianism. I can't find much information about the author but the three other articles by him on the same website all seem like they are propaganda by the Russian government. Rmacleod18 (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)rmacleod18

@Rmacleod18: thanks for raising your concerns. The EUObserver is generally a high quality outlet, but I've also had my own reservations with the David Clark opinion piece (I, like you, was initially suspicious – as it was being misrepresented by several editors to add claims that Zelenskyy was responsible for "democratic backsliding", a phrase neither source uses). I searched around and found a strong FT article making the same criticisms of Zelenskyy, which I added to that sentence so that it's not reliant on Clark's article. I'm going to go ahead and remove the cite from that sentence as it's an opinion piece, so not an ideal source anyway. It remains in the Controversies section for now, where its allegations are covered in more detail; if other editors feel it's WP:UNDUE then I don't object to its removal. It does however appear to be a genuine criticism a number of Ukrainians and Ukraine experts have levelled against Zelenskyy over the last couple of years. I've also looked at the Clark's other articles for the EUObserver and they are critical of Putin, so I think it's unlikely he's a paid-up propagandist. The problem, as I mentioned above, is that several editors were going beyond what the sources say, so it's worth keeping a close eye on the page. The other question is whether this criticism is sufficiently important to include in our article lead section. I'm afraid I don't currently know the answer to that as I haven't dug around and read a wide enough range of sources yet. Jr8825 • Talk 18:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Zelensky bio and Trump

Zelensky bio. In the section on controversies, the author cites an exchange with then President Trump and Zelensky. Trump is reputed to have asked Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden. Zelensky DENIES the exchange. Further, Zelensky’s denial is cited in an earlier passage. 172.223.160.182 (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Social issues - legalisation of weapons

(for context see social issues section)

So now that all Ukrainian citizens can be armed (on paper, see: [20]) should this be mentioned in his social views section? Obviously it is quite a different situation when he said that he opposes them in the RBC Ukraine source as it is full out war now, but it is quite a contrast as he said he was against it all before. So maybe it should be mentioned here. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The arming of civilians may be relevant for inclusion, although general mobilisation is already mentioned (which might cover this?) – regardless, it would best fit in the section on his response to the invasion, rather than the section on his social policies. Jr8825 • Talk 00:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps it can be said as he "announced general mobilisation and arming of civilians" in 2022 Russian Invasion section. I suppose it can be covered under general mobilisation but general mobil. doesn't always entail that so I think its worth bringing up. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

American Democrat group support giving war weapons to civilians. Joaeko (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Connections with Ihor Kolomoisky

Not sure if this is worth adding but some news sources have started to pick up previous accusations of Zelenskyy being a puppet for Ihor Kolomoisky

During the campaign, then President Poreshenko described Zelenskyy as a "candy wrapper", and said he was a "puppet" of a Ukrainian oligarch, Ihor Kolomoisky.

Zelenskyy's team denied this - although investigations show he had travelled frequently to meet with Kolomoisky, an exiled billionaire accused of stealing $5 billion from Ukrainian account holders at his bank.

This quote is from ITV news ~45 mins ago from the time of writing. I've searched the archives for this talk page and the only reference I could find was Ihor Kolomoisky co-financing a movie or some productions. Is this worth writing upon? --DannyDouble (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Add his official FB link please

https://www.facebook.com/zelenskiy.official Also his official twitter account https://twitter.com/zelenskyyua — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.137.1 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)