Talk:Denis Voronenkov

Others in his orbit

Who, whats, whens and wheres? Uppon the "hit" he was there to meet who? --Wikipietime (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This sort of discussions (talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject) here are out of the scope of Wikipedia. If you have reliable sources with relevant information about the late Denis Voronenkov include them in his Wikipedia article please. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

has the Russian Federation/Putin officially responded?

I did a preliminary search and couldn't find anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.28.48 (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

An initial reaction is referred to in the article. Yakikaki (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Intro

Why does it not say that he was under investigation by the Investigative Committee for corruption, and that even the opposition anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny uncovered evidence of it? The current description leaving this out is POV, it makes it imply to readers who may not know much about Voronenkov that he was simply murdered for being a Putin critic.

For example: https://www.rt.com/news/381997-voronenkov-kiev-shot-dead/

"Voronenkov had been on a federal wanted list in Russia since February 15, as well as on an international wanted list since February 27, charged with masterminding a large-scale fraud.

The fugitive lawmaker's alleged corruption also featured in an investigation by Russian opposition figure Aleksey Navalny, who had reportedly discovered that Voronenkov had far more assets than his officially-declared yearly income of 2.4 million rubles (about $41,700)."

—Nikolai Romanov (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

RUSSIA TODAY is an offical organ of the Putin regime and not generally considered a neutral Reliable Source - do you have any sources not under the control directly or indirectly of the Russian gov't? And since this is your first day on Wikipedia and your first post, welcome. 104.169.28.48 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

When you use terms like "Putin regime" that pretty much screams POV. And no media outlet is unbiased, all of them are too a certain extent. CNN, New York Times, WaPo, FOX, MSNBC, The Guardian, etc. They are all biased as well. But that is beside the point. The point is that the intro doesn't mention his corruption and Navalny's investigation into his activities, and the current description makes it seem like it is deliberately trying to put Voronenkov in a positive light and as if he was merely killed for being a critic of Putin. No mention of his corruption. Nikolai Romanov (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Sites like Radio Liberty and Unian are equally full of shit but when they agree with your viewpoint you don't say a thing about them.

Please sign your posts, Anon IP - and does Wikipedia consider Radio Libery or Unian Reliable Sources? That's all that matters - not any editor's "viewpoint" as you call it.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The article does state that he was suspected for fraud in Russia. Yakikaki (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Yaki that is twice now that you've commented about additions to the article that were not there when the initial comment was made - you should state, "the article has now been updated to reflect this" or some such.

• @Romanov. RT is not an appropriate source here. If you can source this better, then such claim should be placed in the body of the page. Only then, something might be summarized in lede, but not in the way you did it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • And why is that? Does it mess up the anti-Putin POV you are pushing? No other reason I could imagine for not providing the reader with a full picture of this politician. Care to clarify? Oh, and sure I can get another source, but for a fact like this does it even matter what source it is specifically? I mean you are citing the incredibly biased The Daily Beast, Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe, and even TASS in the article. If sites like TASS (Russian government owned, like RT) and The Daily Beast (highly anti-Putin) and RFE (US government owned) are acceptable I do not see why RT wouldn't be. Nikolai Romanov (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Here is the source from Navalny's own website: https://navalny.com/p/4173/ Nikolai Romanov (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this link/source is a valid WP:RS and can be used for sourcing in the body of the page. However, simply telling "a report of his activities was made by opposition leader and anti-corruption blogger Alexei Navalny" is not appropriate in lede because it tells and summarizes nothing about the person. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Then I will rephrase it to say "and an investigation by the anti-corruption blogger and Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny found that Voronenkov possessed more assets than his officially-declared income would allow." Nikolai Romanov (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead107.217.84.95 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Lede is an accepted spelling depending where one's English originates.104.169.28.48 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Value of the article

It is sad but unsurprising that the POV is very biased and one-sided, completely excludes Russian view on the issue, and huge values of information dedicated to subj's troubles with the law. I get it that English wiki considers most of Russian media unreliable sources, but siting unreliable sources is hardly worse than being blind on obvious facts. The man was unknown in Russia and never considered a politician until he flew to Ukraine, where he was proclaimed Russian politician by Ukrainian government. He did nothing, knew nothing, was responsible for nothing - you might want to check out his roles in State Duma, his political party, or his faction. what is his importance for the world encyclopedia? 194.127.4.20 (talk) 13:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

A Reliable Source is supposed be a scholarly, as-neutral-as-possible source. Like it or not, the Russian Federation is not a democracy, and it does not have a free press, and the current leader of the government has been VERY STRONGLY implicated in murders of his opponents within the RF and outside of it. Wiki is not "anti-Putin" per se - we report what Reliable Sources say. It sounds like your problem is with a free press. 104.169.28.48 (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The West doesn't have much of a free press either. In the US the media is owned by a small group of corporations who simply follow the elite's narrative and do not question them on important geopolitical issues, such as their anti-Russian stance. They may be technically not state-owned but they might as well be, as their actions reduce that fact to nothing but a mere formality. If you consider most of the Western mainstream media to be "reliable sources" despite the fact they are infamous for lying constantly, clearly have a conflict of interest, and have little trust among the majority of their people, then Russian sources should definitely be considered reliable. No one on the Wiki has yet explained how only favoring one side and completely ignoring the other is unbiased or neutral, even though the side being favored isn't any better than the one being suppressed. —Nikolai Romanov (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You are sadly misinformed, but your politics are clear, and I see little hope in bringing you around to the Wiki RS guidelines. Beware you don't want to cross the line to a POV warrior - that will lead to eternal damnation, and your worm shall not cease. HammerFilmFan (talk)

I am misinformed for questioning the statements of known liars? How so? I did not say anything that is inaccurate or wrong. Care to explain instead of using an ad hominem? And the Wiki admins' politics are likewise clear, censor anything that does not tow to their liberal POV. Nikolai Romanov (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The article - or reliable sources for that matter - have nothing to do with president Putin. Again, I insist that: 1) all information regarding subj. troubles with the law are missing - which is important and which is actual reason for him leaving Russia in the first place; 2) subj. is not a politician, he did not have any popular support and didn't even participate in popular vote. No one in Russia knew him until he got married to fellow member of State Duma and later until he ran away. Article creates a wrong picture of a political asylum seeker, which he was not. 194.127.4.18 (talk) 10:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Of course any allegations of criminal activity can be included, but they must be properly explained (what was the accusation, exactly? by whom? why?), important and reliably sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)