Talk:Sergei Shoigu

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 07:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

this article has to be changed! hobbies?! in an article of an encyclopedia??? no, definitely it has no justification to have a passage about ones hobbies. this is irrelevant and trivial! therefor i have deleted it. interests of a person can be mentioned, but not like in a dating profile with an extra passage called hobbies. --Dasuprmastr (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sergey Shoygu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120424172049/http://www.interfiresport.com/about.en_16.html to http://www.interfiresport.com/about.en_16.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402231911/http://www.bestpeopleofrussia.ru/persona/1167/bio to http://www.bestpeopleofrussia.ru/persona/1167/bio

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Fluent in 9 languages? Really?

If I weren't too lazy, I would go and do some research on it, but the link that says he's fluent in 9 languages sounds like little more than Russian propaganda. If I can remember to do so, I'll see if I can find proof. -Zsshamalama

Completely agree. The source is very poor. 2A02:A310:460:C800:45DE:B29E:DBCC:CA8D (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it might be okay if it is just attributed to the source. It was picked up by mainstream western press as well, like the Washington Post: [1] He also speaks nine languages fluently, the outlet said. Endwise (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

have no doubt ! He is a polyglot. And , his people often do too , - PoliGlote .Endwise Zweite (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Does Mr Defense Minister do that? Sacramental sentences. In 9 languages ? Did He say it in English? :

"If someone kills Putin. Then it will be a person from his close circle

(Lassen sie uns Raten. Lawrow? Bortnikow?!)91.183.159.198 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the use of US State media as a source for Shoygu

According to the page on biographies of living people, contentious material, that is poorly sourced should be removed immediately without discussion. As the material has now been re-added by two editors, I'm making a note of the fact that their edits are a violation of that policy.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Another point; in the information I removed, it says that "Following one such trip on 21 March 2021, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty aired a regular Russian-language programme that was titled Putin and Shoigu: History of Love". I challenge whether this is relevant at all to the biography of a living person. Is it really so notable that US State media uploaded videos on Youtube about Shoygu? This feels almost like self-promotion. If this was mentioned in other media; say NYT or something like that I'd accept that it's a notable fact, but I really don't believe I'll be surprised here. The other passage does appear to be noteworthy. It concerns the subject's role within the Russian government, and Svoboda and the Wiki article as it was written before my edits both attribute the statements to Shoygu himself. But without stating when or in what context he made the statements. If anyone can find another article verifying that Shoygu said these things; and if it was said, this article should exist, then this information should probably go back into the article.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Please check WP:Verifiability. They are RS perfectly valid for any BLP. Even if you think they are biased, they are valid RS, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources. If you have concerns, please ask at WP:RSNB. The source is not YouTube record, but an interview on RFE/RL with historians like Nikita Petrov. The content is also non-contentious. His support of Putin is well known. My very best wishes (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a reliable source and saying it is so without addressing any of the arguments I've presented doesn't make it so. As I've pointed out repeatedly, state media for an adversary is not a reliable source of material for information about a Russian Defence Minister.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Of course the text about his good relations with Putin (which is a totally noncontroversial content) can be easily rephrased or expanded. Also, more references can be used, for example [2], [3],[4]. There are also Russian language references, for example [5], but English language sources are preferred. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

As about this source [6], no, this is a totally reliable, even scholarly RS (because it includes comments by well known historians). Well, it even cites what Alexander Prokhanov said about Shoigu. Prokhanov is certainly not a supporter of NATO, just the opposite. How about citing him? My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

US State media is not even close to a reasonable source for a BLP of an adversary of the US State, and the content of the reference that you say is helpful isn't even used in the deleted parts of the article. The article merely directed users away from Wikipedia, to US State media. As for your new sources; you have 1. Another state media source, 2. US State media again. 3. A news aggregator. None of which verify the deleted content. If this material is important, it should be trivial to find independent sources, that are not directly linked to state adversaries. And I'd strongly suggest (and repeat) that the claimed statement by Shoygu that I removed, if actually a statement by him, should be easy to find elsewhere.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is not a US source. And are you going to dismiss all US sources just because they are "US sources"? There are more. For example, this article in NYT [7]. According to it, "Mr. Shoigu last month called Ukrainian nationalists “nonhumans.”" That one [8] by The Guardian say: "Sergei Shoigu, this week accused American mercenaries of transporting chemical weapons to the frontlines of the conflict zone, although he did not provide any evidence for the claim." My very best wishes (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course I'm not going to dismiss all US sources, including the ones that you've linked. I'm on record in other edits trying to defend NYT as RS for instance. I've tried to be reasonable here, but that really is a stretch, and quite frankly I feel attacked by that assertion. I've made clear that my objection is towards **State media** for adversaries of this man. That is an obvious violation of BLP and you are doing a lot of groundwork to avoid addressing that very specific point, while I've been in my view very resaonable; stating repeatedly that if other sources agree with US State media, then this is verifiable information. Please retract your attacks on my judgement, and try to be civil.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Quick source check on the NYT article linked above. It cites This article which makes no mention of the word "nonhuman" or "Ukrainian" as a source for the claim that he used those words. Happy to be corrected with a specific quote, but this looks like an error by NYT. As BLP requires verifiability and sourcing of claims, this currently doesn't pass the sniff test because NYT appear to have made an error.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit again. Turns out I had Google Translate on, so it didn't allow search of the entire page, without scrolling down to allow the tool to apply it's translation. There is a Google Translate claim that he said non-humans, in reference specifically to people he was describing as neo-fascists and mercenaries. Not Ukrainians. So that's strike one for the NYT. Strike two is using Google translate, instead of a verified translation. But that's really irrelevant considering he wasn't as they claim talking about all Ukrainians. See My very best wishes, the good work you can do when you actually check sources?--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 10:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit again again. No serious enough objections to your current edits to revet them. Al Jazeera is state media, and it's my personal opinion that while the US state has taken a notably hostile line towards them, including deliberately bombing them, they usually are not 'friendly' to Russia. But they certainly have appeared more independent than RFE in their reporting. Not sure what others would think.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of NYT article, this is not an error, but interpretation of a primary source in Russian (your link) by a secondary RS (the article in NYT). This is precisely why we are using such secondary sources - to avoid our own interpretation of primary sources (as you do). Hence, the NYT article is a good source to use here, just as views by historians and others that appear in the RFE/RL interview. I do not have problems with citing even views by Prokhanov because they are reliably sourced.My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

And you are wrong about the primary source in Russian (the interview with Shoygu). He said "Мы до сих пор видим последствия попыток этих нелюдей вместе с украинскими войсками навести свои порядки в Донецкой и Луганской областях.". "нелюдей" means nonhumans. Yes, he is not talking about all Ukrainians, but only about those who made Revolution of Dignity. He calls them "extremists", "ultranationalists" and yes, "nonhumans". My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I was not wrong, at least after I figured out my error. NYT misquoted him. As did you. As you admit.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No, the author of NYT article did not qoute (or misquote) Shoygu; he summarized/interpreted the opinion/views by Shoygu on the subject, and that is exactly what secondary RS suppose to do. According to this article, Shoygu said that Ukrainian nationalists (not all Ukrainians of course) are nonhumans. Looking carefully at the Russian text of the interview (that is what I did), it appears he calls "ultranationalsts" (etc.) all people who rebelled against Yanykovich. Hence, he labels people "nonhumans" for their political views and willingness to sacrify their lives for their country rather than for their ethnicity. My very best wishes (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're so insistent on a defence of NYT here. It is a clear error. End of story.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

"Shoygu" or "Shoigu"

Can we have some consistency? A native speaker making a decision would be helpful as sources vary. Battleofalma (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

The letter "й" is usually transliterated into English as "y" (there is WP:RUS for guidance), but sometimes also as "i", hence for example "Байкал" as "Baikal", "Алтай" as "Altai", "тайга" as "taiga", "Николай" as "Nikolai", and so on. It should be consistent with the article name ("Shoygu") but from what I can see, sources more commonly write it as "Shoigu". Maybe a RM is needed. Mellk (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I have more commonly seen "Shoigu" as well. Googling "Sergey Shoigu" gives me twice as many hits as "Sergey Shoygu", but looking at Google Ngrams, "Shoygu" appears to be slightly more common in books nowadays. So I think I would support a move, but I'm not exactly sure what his name is more commonly transliterated into English as. Endwise (talk) 13:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Endwise: According to Ngram, "Sergei Shoigu" is much more dominant. Note that the same letter "й" is also present in his first name, hence "Сергей" is transliterated as both Sergey and Sergei. Mellk (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh you're right, I forgot to check that. Then yes this article should definitely be moved, but probably to "Sergei Shoigu". Endwise (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I would move it but the page Sergei Shoigu exists as a redirect so someone else with the relevant permissions will have do it, or I will submit a technical move request later. Mellk (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

At 15:08, 12 February 2008 Ezhiki moved page Sergei Shoigu to Sergey Shoygu over redirect (WP:RUS) – apparently they misinterpreted WP:RUS or it fails to give clear guidance, or the guidance has changed since 2008, or the interpretation has changed. And several edits by double-redirect fixing bots have created page history which prevents a reverse move over the redirect. I'm on it. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Mellk (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong here, but I believe there is a specific rule for when й is transliterated as y or i. Or I may be thinking of another Russian letter. I think it may be one of the few examples where a Russian letter is not phonetic, and instead can sound different depending on the order of letters in a word.--ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

38.81.150.80 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)At the very beginning of the page where it mentions what year Sergei Shoigu became Defence Minister, it mentions twice that he served as Chairman of Ministers of Defence of the CIS since 2012 twice. "Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu[1][a] (born 21 May 1955) is a Russian politician and General of the Army who serves as Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation. Since 2012, Shoigu has also served as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Defense of the CIS since 2012." while it should say "Sergei Kuzhugetovich Shoigu[1][a] (born 21 May 1955) is a Russian politician and General of the Army who serves as Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation since 2012. Shoigu has also served as Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Defense of the CIS since 2012."

I have fixed it, thanks. Endwise (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2022

On the first line of this entry it says that Shoygu is a war criminal, but there is no substantiation of any conviction. Only that Ukraine alleged war crimes - no evidence that he did. Megaricht (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Military history missing?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the way the Soviet and Russian military and/or government works but there's no mention of his military history or appointment as General of the Russian Army. The right hand information panel mentions his service periods (although the "Years of service" don't match his "Allegience" years for the Soviet Union) in the military but the prose makes no mention of his time, promotion history, etc. Literally no mention of the words "army" or "military" refer to his service. - 85.159.97.1 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Because he never served in the army. That is, he was never even a simple soldier, not to mention a high position in the army. Modun (talk) 06:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

He has no military training - it seems he is basically a civilian with the rank of army general. This is not well described in the article. Nurg (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 This is VERY important, that he never was "only" a soldier! That one point, why so many russian Soldiers are dead.

Speech to the Federation Security Council. On the issue of improving and optimizing the trade in Synthetic[diamant's].

They touched to the depths of the soul the officers of the army and navy of Russia.NickSuperNick 2 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Awards

Shoigu was awarded highest honor by Order of Malta in 2012, please add (I’m not a registered Wikipedia user). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.222.183.137 (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It is present and properly sourced in the Russian version of this Wikipedia article: "Большой крест ордена Заслуг pro Merito Melitensi (Мальтийский орден, 5 июля 2012 года) — за милосердие, спасение и помощь[102]"--213.222.183.137 (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like nobody wants to add this to the article. Why?--210.57.254.222 (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove reference 35 - tweet no longer exists

Just a heads up, reference 35 is deprecated Smokerton (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

"professed policy as an information nanny" seems heavily slanted

"However on 22 May YouTube removed more than 9,000 channels relating to the Ukraine war due to its recently professed policy as an information nanny, thus deleting Solovyov."

I'm not really sure what value this characterization adds, and it seems inconsistent with how it is represented elsewhere on Wikipedia.

I can find nowhere in YouTube's policies where they profess they are an "information nanny".

Also, "deleting Solovyov" seems strange regardless - they are incapable of deleting him, although perhaps they deleted his account. TheFuzzbuster (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this nonsense; I've deleted it now. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Journalism is studied for 5 years. At the universities.

Wikipedia users are amateur, lay, luser's . Intrigued by the description of super personalities. Personality - very busy with things*. Yes, her "oprichna"! More than 1,000,000 spy officers on contract duty. Recruited for 71 years. 2nd and 3rd generation. From Military Espions de la Russia. In all countries and peoples. They use the possibilities of Wikipedia.org. To, - "to find a job". (For Russian Hiroïn, for a cheap job, for other benefits. Regional - Boss, - for the provision, for Sale 200 Kg. Diamaten ... )

Yes, please!

No critic. Praise and panigeriky.

And yet . Theft, poisoning, assault. Military intelligence officers - protected their master, his boss, the minister. Show us a supper class, supper

Razvedka.
 :: Semi - protection of the article about a "Bloody Tiger". Should be quite appropriate. In terms of: protecting the public, maintaining law and order. To avoid "retaliation" Ministry of Defense of Russia. do you see How and who do they protect in Ukraine? Please . You will protect his "Father Commander* in your country, in your city.

On your street.KleinpecanNr2 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

ɣ in IPA transcription

Tuvan_language#Phonology doesn't mention this allophone. (Then again, its consonants section is probably still work in progress). 89.64.69.18 (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2022

I wish to change the following sentence in the "Early Life and Education" section from "Alexandra Shoigu grew up in the Donbas town of Stakhanov, Ukraine and had traumatizing experiences being arrested by the Eastern Front occupation forces during the World War II" to "Alexandra Shoigu grew up in the Donbas town of Stakhanov, Ukraine and had traumatizing experiences while being arrested by the Eastern Front occupation forces during World War II." The word "while" was added to improve the flow of the sentence and "the" was removed because "World War II," as opposed to the alternative "Second World War," is not generally preceded by an article. Both edits were grammatically motivated. Laaff (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

"Under detention of" might be better than "while being arrested", for "arrest" is a transient verb, which cannot be used to describe a status. Once somebody is "arrested", this action ended and the person went "under detention". Despite this, I would answer your request, for the request is reasonable on the whole. UNITE TOGETHER, STRIVE FOR SURVIVAL! 08:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Shoigu palace

[9]-- Bancki (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

(And his competent opinion. About torture and inhuman treatment. Detained officers of the Supreme General Staff (low-ranking officers).91.183.159.198 (talk) 11:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2023

Remove this flag per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, should not be used with flags in infoboxes of military personnel. 175.158.60.94 (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Sam Sailor 13:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 December 2023

Remove the line "
(eleven years ago)" from the infobox Libirachi (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Why? Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 20:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It both states the obvious (6 November 2012 is clearly 11 years ago) and doesn't match the infobox formatting used on virtually every other page on Wikipedia - in short, largely for aesthetic and consistency purposes Libirachi (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)