Talk:Natalia Poklonskaya: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m →‎Intro: typo
Line 53: Line 53:
:::"looks like an attack piece" is not an explanation. No, it's not. What exactly was not sourced or incorrect in the edit you reverted? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
:::"looks like an attack piece" is not an explanation. No, it's not. What exactly was not sourced or incorrect in the edit you reverted? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 17:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
::::The information is already present in the article. There's no need to put everything negative one has to say in the lead section. It already states that Ukraine "declared her a wanted criminal", that's enough bad things. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 18:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
::::The information is already present in the article. There's no need to put everything negative one has to say in the lead section. It already states that Ukraine "declared her a wanted criminal", that's enough bad things. --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 18:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
::::You also substituted the links to "[[Autonomous Republic of Crimea]]" and "[[Crimean crisis]]" and such for "[[Timeline of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation]]" and "[[Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation]]". It was perfectly okay like it was, there's no need to attack Poklonsklaya over and over and demonstrate how she was "on the wrong side". --[[User:Moscow Connection|Moscow Connection]] ([[User talk:Moscow Connection|talk]]) 18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:14, 19 May 2016

Very likely false claim

The last sentence under personal life is "It is also very well known that during the last five years she had another illegal job, prostituition, during which she met Sergey Aksyonov - and that is why nowadays she is the Crimean prosecutor." That's a pretty extreme claim, which really should have a source if it's gonna be up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.11.146 (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism reverted, editor warned.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[1]. Of course it is already noted below, but I think this should be included in intro as something really important. Her work in Crimea and everything that follows (this is probably the most important consequence) is something she is actually known for. Well, perhaps this requires more context in intro. If so, that can be easily fixed. BTW, a lot of content here is sourced to RT (TV network). This is not the best source for an article on the subject like that, although I am not telling all refs to RT TV should be removed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add in intro some of the most notable cases she prosecuted. I can't say she is as important as Andrey Vyshinsky, but definitely an interesting person. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, now the article looks like an attack piece. I'm reverting it. Please don't put it back until there's a consensus. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"looks like an attack piece" is not an explanation. No, it's not. What exactly was not sourced or incorrect in the edit you reverted? My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The information is already present in the article. There's no need to put everything negative one has to say in the lead section. It already states that Ukraine "declared her a wanted criminal", that's enough bad things. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You also substituted the links to "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" and "Crimean crisis" and such for "Timeline of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" and "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation". It was perfectly okay like it was, there's no need to attack Poklonsklaya over and over and demonstrate how she was "on the wrong side". --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]