Talk:Anatoly Shariy

Slander of Sergei Ivanov regarding the statements of Anatoly Shariy

Anatoly Shariy has never said such things in public. Sergei Ivanov is a person who works against Shariy. Accordingly, mentioning his information is a conflict of interest. I attach a video where Shariy publicly talked about Romani and his attitude towards them. According to the Wikipedia policy - video is a more verified source than a web - archive

"Is genocide illegal?"  2018. Video about the condemnation of the arson of the C14 Romani people camp

03:23 - "My attitude towards the Romani people, I call them Romani, is known by those who know me. It's not about how they live, it's not about what they do, it's about the fact that it's illegal to decide in these ways, They should be imprisoned( C14) for that."

06:07 - "This is the main thing - whether we love Roma or we hate them / If there is a crime, then it is followed by a criminal case, and then the punishment. There is no other way."

07:46 - " It' s not about that, what difference does it make which Roma? Go to the police - the police do not act - go to the prosecutor's office. It's called the law.”

14:28 (about the burned camp) - "Whether it was located there legally or illegally - no right for a group of young, uneducated people to go there and burn something"

15:18 - "I could tell you that in all my life, not one Romani man has done me any harm - no one Romani man has been a party to crime, conspiracy, meanness against me - not one. Nor has any gay man ever done me any harm..”

16:46 - "I think that something bad has been done, that there is racism, that there is the germ of genocide, and not only against Romani peole. I hope that in spite of such representatives of Helsinki groups, they will soon notice it, open their eyes and notice it in human rights organizations, which are currently trying not to notice what has been obvious for several years

Sergey Ivanov is a distributor of fakes, which deserves special attention - https://varjag2007su.livejournal.com/4486553.html

https://blogs.korrespondent.net/blog/politics/3387886/

In addition, he regularly threatened Anatoly Shariy

Based on the above, NONE of Ivanov's assertions about Shariy are true. Wikipedia is an independent resource, there is no place for fakes and propaganda--Maxim victory1990 (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Anatoly Shariy has never said such things in public." Well, then you have to read some of his old stuff. There are saved pages from November 2010 (when Shariy was not that well-known) in which he called gypsies "filth of the world".

As his Wikipedia article says Shariy was a regular contributor at Obozrevatel and you can read some of his old articles. There you can find such interesting quotes as:

"I dedicated more than one or two articles to the gypsies. Or rather, not to Gypsies, but to Roma. So it is politically correct to call this beautiful nation nowadays, whose representatives are famous for their ability to dance, sing, climb into other people's pockets, beg and sell special medicines to suffering citizens, whom they “break” without drugs. To all outraged opponents, I humbly suggest that they point me to at least one doctor of science, a great inventor, mathematician or physicist - a representative of the Roma." Obozrevatel from October 2010

Another interesting quote by Shariy:

"We cannot pull the country out of the cesspool using the rotten rope of nationalism. We need Nazism. As necessary as air, as water. The Nazi idea. Thanks to Adolf Schicklgruber, the idea of Nazism has now become a taboo. But, in fact, Hitler built a nationalist state, not a Nazi one!" July 2010

These facts cannot be used in the article because there is not secondary source which reported about them. But with the RBC article the gas chamber quote is relevant enough to be added.

According to the Wikipedia policy - video is a more verified source than a web - archive

Where did you read that? The preferred sources are news articles, not Shariy's private videos. As there is a reliable article by the RBC, the quote can be put in.

Since he has gone into politics and become more popular among the pro-Russian auditory he has become more carefull with such remarks. However, it is a relevant and verifiable fact of his biography.

Regardless of what you think of Ivanov, the screenshots are true and can be verified with the help of the Wayback Machine.

By the quote, your quote of Shariy is not correct. He said "I could tell you that in all my life, not one Romani man has done me any harm regardless of my attitude to them.” So basically, Shariy does not deny that he at least had some "special" attitude towards gypsies in the past. And as he said in the beginning of the video ("My attitude towards the Romani people, I call them Romani, is known by those who know me.") Shariy's main criticism of this incident is that it is a case of vigilante justice.--KastusK (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I second that.--Aristophile (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Aristophile KastusK You know, I thought a lot about your words, but Anatoly Sharii's telegram channel said it all for me. Do you still think that Sergei Ivanov's slander is correct? His mention in this information is inappropriate. I sincerely think that in order not to mislead readers, it is worth adding these lines.

Please, Anatoly's words from 24.03.2021

“It's funny when the Office of the President tries to throw in my statements that were made 11 years ago ( generously sprinkled with fakes, fabricated at quick fix ) about gays or the Roma. Like, look, he's a Nazi, what's more, he's a real fascist.

I never apologized for those statements.

Because I "apologized" with a couple hundred quality Nazi investigations, not with idle chatter. I "apologized" when I covered the smashing of a camp or the murder of a Romani man in a train station. In a few years I have become the Nazi's number one enemy, and I am quite satisfied with that.

As for gay people. I'm just a guy from Karavaevka. I spent my childhood in the Soviet Union. I had never seen these gays in my life, I had never been to Europe, and I was sure they would attack me with obscene suggestions as soon as I stepped off the ladder. As a Christian I will always stand by my opinion, but I must say that I have never had a problem with a gay man in my life. Or maybe it was, but I don't know if he is gay or not. I've been living in a different world for 10 years. And for a long time I have demonstrated by deeds, not by talking, how you can change yourself in your head, in your priorities, in your goals, and even in your appearance, and, of course, in your attitude toward certain things. Thus Zelensky's employees, who are quite lacking in intelligence, do not understand that they, once again, create a plus instead of a mythical minus for me. I was able to transcend this and become cleaner, calmer and more humane. I personally always remember Saul, who persecuted the first Christians, imprisoning them, and then went blind and had an epiphany. And he became Paul, the apostle. Sharii is fully apologetic about his past. He digested it some time ago and moved on. And has gone very far in 11 years. This is quite noticeable by the barely audible bark sounding deaf somewhere dozens of miles behind him.” --Maxim victory1990 (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. His statement about his old quotes should be added to the article.--KastusK (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to revert these and similar edits over the past few months that appear to violate WP:ATP rather blatantly. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is an ATP issue: critical material about public persons is present in many wikipedia articles. The current coverage is neutral: Sharij admitted that indeed he was an idiot and said his views changed. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

We're not going to gain consensus from such arguments. Please demonstrate all BLP criteria has been met, starting with WP:RS and WP:IS. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the past problems with this article, some of which are discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive325#Anatoliy_Shariy_-_Article_being_constantly_bloated_with_heavy_POV, are unchecked. When I saw this edit, I assumed that the article is not being carefully reviewed for such problems. --Hipal (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not that concerned with this bio. In the past it was on my watchist due to heavy antisharij pov-pushing. Later I de-watched it, because if sharij claims 2 million subscribers, let them care about this bio. I came back a couple days ago out of curiosity and de-watching it again. By the way, thanks for the link to arbcom's ruling on BLP. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Shariy vs. Feygin:

A part of this section was removed with edit summary "ditto - section should be a summary". - Summary of what? This as an episode independent of the previous paragraph, already summarized from references cited. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Of the material from the {{see also}} link, Mark_Feygin#Anatoly_Shariy_lawsuit. --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

YOu deleted the piece missing there. I put it there and trimmed the section here to a summary level. Lembit Staan (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how the 2021 libel ruling is due at all. The two refs hold little or no weight, nor encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Opinion of Yu.Melnik

I removed it as a biased description of Sharij. Melnik says Sharij criticizes "pro-Ukrainian forces". "Pro-Ukrainian" is a value judgement, politically loaded in current ukraine. In fact, Sharij criticizes government and media and corruption. If functionaries who allegedly steal millions from budget are "pro-Ukrainian" then Ukraine is an interesting state. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. I don't see how the reference could be considered an exception to WP:BLPSPS. --Hipal (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Dispute over recent cleanup

Hello. What the problem with this information? The reactions from Europe - this is a fact, they are confirmed. The performance on European channels is also a fact. There are no violations, no value judgments. But you Hipal seem to be vandalizing it. You are deleting information that is confirmed, but you don't like it. --Maxim victory1990 (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please focus on content and make a policy-based case for inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out on your talk page, it's best to work from sources that are reliable and independent. Otherwise we risk violating most if not all content policies. --Hipal (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hipal The thesis about Shariya's expressions about homosexuals is a proven one. Many Ukrainian media have written about it, we have come to agreement with other people about this information, which needs to be for the equation of TRUE information. International reactions are also a thesis that has been confirmed by many media and various sources. These are all things that are consistent with the rules. I advise you to pay attention to Follow the normal protocol --Maxim victory1990 (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Did I make any edits relevant to that topic at all? --Hipal (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Meanwhile, you've completely ignored my concerns, while edit-warring to restore disputed content to a BLP without giving any explanation at all. Consensus is required. Please work collaboratively to build consensus. --Hipal (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The sharij.net, sharij.com.ua, etc are his blog, so are not reliable nor independent, no usable outside the strict BLPSPS limits, correct? --Hipal (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

They are admissible sources about Shariy himself, his views, or statements. And as usual, views and statements must be attributed to him, while facts usually dont require attribution, unless questionable. Additionally, since Shariy is a journalist, his posts at youtube may be considered as his professional publications and therefore information reported there (i.e., not rumors, nor opinions) is usable in wikipedia. His information is mostly reliable: for many years his opponents are regurgitating some 3 or 4 his mishaps out of several thousand videos. However recently he abandoned his journalism in favor of rabid political bickering, so I unsubscribed from him 2 years ago. - Altenmann >talk 01:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not how WP:BLP works at all, which is why I brought up BLPSPS. Are you ignoring it, think it doesn't apply, something else? Perhaps you didn't look at the content in dispute? Or are you just responding to Maxim victory1990's last statement, and focusing only on Shariy's comments on sexual orientation?

We can take it to WP:BLPN if needed, but I don't see how they convey any due weight, and are definitely something other than encyclopedic as used. --Hipal (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I dont care about the subject, also I dont understand why you got excited. BLPSPS says , in boldface, "unless written or published by the subject of the article", i.e., just what I wrote. There are many other things in WP:BLP, such as about "self-indulging", etc. It is pointless to go further, because I am not suggesting any additions. BTW, while I am at that, I support removal of the laundry list of "reactions", because of the "self-indulging" clause. - Altenmann >talk 05:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

The article is fully protected, and I'm hoping editors will work collaboratively to resolve the dispute. That's what editors should be here to do.

I support removal of the laundry list of "reactions", because of the "self-indulging" clause. Exactly. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hipal. Apologies for not answering, I just had some work to do. Anyway, I don't understand these battles between us at all. Look, I want to add facts about Anatoly, which are true, but they are neutral-positive. And you, you want to take away all the positivity and leave only the negativity. Please, follow the normal protocol . Let's come to a common consensus and come to a common denominator, let's make the interpretation neutral --Maxim victory1990 (talk) 10:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

On March 24, 2021, Anatoly Scharii apologized for his 11-year-old statements "regarding gays and Romani people". Scharii stated that he had apologized "with a good few hundred quality examinations". As an example, the blogger recalled his reports on the smashing of a camp of the Romani people and a murder case at the train station. Sharii stated that he had sufficiently apologized for his past. [2][3][4][5]

References

Hipal Is it okay? Maxim victory1990 (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

And you, you want to take away all the positivity and leave only the negativity. Please retract, stop making assumptions about other editors, and stop using those assumptions as rationale in your arguments.

If you will reread the comments above, you'll see I've made no comments on the sexual orientation and cultural issues at all. --Hipal (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hipal OH,ok And you, you want to take away all the positivity and leave only the negativity. - sorry. So let's add this, yeah ? :)Maxim victory1990 (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Without looking at the refs for the moment: My initial concern is WP:NOTNEWS. What encyclopedic context is available from any of the refs (historical, cultural, etc)? --Hipal (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hipal Okay, well, look -Achieving neutrality = [As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process]. → So now I suggest that we all come to a common consensus.

Second, there is nothing in this article which is encyclopedically important, if I think about it logically. Isn't this expression : After that for several years he suffered from compulsive gambling? Or paragraph "Registration of Shariy as parliamentary election candidate"? Wiki - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not bound by the same constraints as a paper encyclopedia or even most online encyclopedias. The length, depth, and breadth of articles in Wikipedia is virtually infinite.

Third, the thesis about Anatoly's apology is worth adding, see - -Due and undue weigh Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

So, I still think it is important to add this thesis. Let's come to a common correct wording :) note, I don't want to delete anything, I just want to add this factMaxim victory1990 (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP article, where content should be removed if it doesn't meet our content policies, and should not be restored until there's consensus to do so.

If you don't understand WP:NOT and WP:POV, then we're probably wasting time here. --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I dont understand what's that fuss about. I was trimming extensive quotes and noticed that sharij's apology is mentioned in the article already. - Altenmann >talk 00:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Graduation from tank school

I decided to add info about his first wife, whom he profusely thanked for saving him from ludomania in his blogs and posts. I found a reasonably reliable ref, a 2007 interview (i.e., before all controversies) with both of them with detailed description. Here I noticed he sayshe started gambling at the age of 17 and it was for many years. At the same time the tank school was reformed twice and changed names since 1992 (so wikipedia says) and was shut down in 1999, when sharij was 21, i.e, no way he could play casinos and graduate at the same time. Since it was sourced from websites of unknown relibility, I removed this claim.- Altenmann >talk 16:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Position towards Russian politics

I would like to find out why my well-sourced edits were removed from the article. @User:Hipal, @User:Altenmann.--KastusK (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Shariy criticized opposition activist Alexei Navalny and called specific representatives of the Russian opposition "crap". Navalny accused Shariy of being a pro-Kremlin blogger, while Shariy responded to these accusations by saying that he would not like Vladimir Putin in recent years anymore. Shariy claimed that Navalny's documentary film He Is Not Dimon to You was not made by the Anti-Corruption Foundation, but by "guys who don't speak Russian well, but who are professionals." During the 2017–2018 Russian protests, he stated that the authorities are obliged to respond to the investigation of this film, but also justified the detention of participants of the demonstrations because according to him, law enforcement should not "wait for the first Molotov cocktails".

References

• To start, it's a lot of content for a single reference, drawing heavily from a reference that devotes a total of three paragraphs on Shariy. Lots of quotes too. --Hipal (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• The text is not a coherent description of sharij opinion on russian politics. Neinher is the ref cited. This is (a) a cherry-picked element of much longer bickering between sharij and navalny. (b) a cherry-picked remark about russian police handlung protests.

Neither sharij is expert in russian politics to give him any encyclopedic weight in wikipedia, nor the cited author is any authority. - Altenmann >talk 19:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

This article is wayyyy to long for a person that outside of Ukraine hardly anybody heard of.... That is way it needs to go! Ever heard of the Wikipedia rule Wikipedia:UNDUE? Wikipedia is not a newspaper about a person that nobody outsides Ukraine cares about! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I am trimming this article periodically. The fact that he is interesting only in Ukraine makes it extremely difficult to find balanced sources that overview Sharij, because inside Ukraine opinions about him are extremely polarized. Therefore I am trimming the text gradually, and during each iteration I am culling the pieces which look most outlandish to the current state of the article.

By the way, you are mistaken about "nobody outside Ukraine". Statistics show he has more views from Russia than from Ukraine.:-) - Altenmann >talk 23:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

What does this have to do with cherry-picking? He made hundreds of videos about Russian Politics as well. How are these statements more "cherry-picked" than for example the forever long sections about his criticism of Poroshenko and Zelensky? I would agree to shorten the statement a bit, but his conflict with Navalny is not less relevant than the majority of the content in this article. In addtion, Deutsche Welle is definitely a reliable source. And why was his gas chamber quote removed from the article as well? RBK Ukraine is a reliable source which mentioned this quote.--KastusK (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We need to agree that the sources are reliable. Assertions without any evidence don't help us move toward any agreement.

Just because something is verified by a reliable source does not mean it should be included, which is why I've brought up NOTNEWS and asked, What encyclopedic context is available from any of the refs (historical, cultural, etc)? --Hipal (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As I have already explained Shariy made hundreds of videos about Russian politics. Why is his position towards Russia and his conflict with Navalny less relevant than the other content of this article? This looks like an attempt to silence everything what could make him look like a pro-Kremlin blogger.--KastusK (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, for starters. How does criticizing Navalny makes him a "pro-Kremlin" blogger? What even is "pro-Kremlin" to you? Is Dmitry "kamikadzedead" Ivanov who constantly bashes Navalny's politics of "smart voting" as ineffective a "pro-Kremlin" blogger in your opinion? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

For my starters, regarding "less relevant". You says he has hundreds of posts about russuan politics. Why dont we cite all of them? That's why I speak of cherry-picking. Same with navalny. The babble which found its way into wikipedia not at all explained what was that about. Talking cherry-picking again; rather than an analytical encyclopedic description, just a couple of factoids. On the other hand if somenoe bothers to do decent investigation, one will inevitably find it was nothing but a petty conflict of two stubborn and unpleasant personalities which has nothing to do with russian politics.

As for allegedly long sections regarding Porosh and Zelen, I believe I started trimming them already. But as I explained earlier, this must be done carefully, because it is a major multiyear undertaking of sharij and surely must have an adequate coverage here (in a "double-summarized" way, ie summarizing analytical secondary sources which do decent analyzis, rather than cherry-pick 5 or 6 sharij's blunders out of 3-4 thousande of his vidoes). I have already mercilessly butchered all other happenings with Sharij, and more to go. - Altenmann >talk 22:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Vladimir Zelensky???????

What the hec* was this all about? The current president of Ukraine name on English Wikipedia is spelled Volodymyr Zelensky..... Why would you spell it otherwise on English Wikipedia? Consistency is a minimum requirement on a encyclopaedia like Wikipedia.... On no main English media (I am talking about BBC, CNN etc) is Zelensky's first name spelled Vladimir.... If you want to spell it as Vladimir.... start your own blog! On Wikipedia the rule WP:COMMONNAME is important! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Dont be so excited. Probably someone was citing russophone sources ans didnt think much. Of course he is Volodymyr. "Why would you spell otherwise" - because, like, who cares? I've seen Trump's team spelled him Zilinsky or something in some official docs. - Altenmann >talk 21:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, User:Yulia Romero. An interesting point indeed, but what exactly made you spell encyclopedia "encyclopaedia"? Maybe you should start your own encyclopedia instead of accusing others of "wanting to spell" common names by simple benefit of the doubt? Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Whydoesitfeelsogood did not learn that "Whataboutism" is not an effective way of argumentation..... A typo on a wp:talkpage is not just as bad as disregard of logical rules in Wikipedia articles. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 09:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Whom was this reply addressed to? And why does it make a bold presumption of overstating your personal opinion as a fact? Wouldn't "I just made a typo" sound much less convoluted? And by the way, just so you know, "encyclopaedia" is not a typo :) --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

sharij deprived of refugee status

I cannot believe someone would buy dubious claims broadcast by ukrainian media citing unnamed "sources". Julia Romero, I thought you are a serious Wikipedian. I understand you dont like sharij, but you have to be extra diligent per WP:BLP. - Altenmann >talk 01:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a sourced fact, though. There are English news articles about him being stripped of Lithuanian citizenship (not "refugee status", as it is not a personae gratae title to be "stripped of"). --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It is a sourced bullshit. Show me the chain of evidence. Media today are no longer investigative, they are sensationalist copycats. I did do my research and see that it was Mark Feygin who is behind this fake newspiece. - Altenmann >talk 22:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Lest you remain alone in your discussion, I would strongly suggest you change the tone. What you think has nothing to do with what should be factually stated in the article. I was merely correcting the other editor and showing them their wrong, not telling them what I think of Shariy's relations with the Lithuanian government. Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

One sentence, one paragraph

Hi, just wondering why styling the lede and everything is the aforementioned format convenient for readability? What exactly makes the paragraph break so important to keep? The way I see it, merging multiple sentences into a couple of paragraphs has no incidence on the article's style. Regars, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

A normal practice is to make a paragraph per microsubject, no matter how large it is. This makes scanning an article easier. You look at the first sentence and either read the paragraph or skip it. We are reading encyclopedia articles for a particular piece of information, unlike novels, where we are enjoying plot (still skipping pieces we consider boring), or a sci article, if we want to understand it in full, we cannot skip anything for fear of losing the chain of reasonjng.

Doing in an opposite way, i.e., putting all sentences together without logical connection between them is an element of the style known as "wall of text".

To explain the above by the way of an example, please tell me which two sentences in the lede you want to put together, and I will try to explain why I think it is better to keep them apart. And you will explain why it is good to keep them together. - Altenmann >talk 22:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Now it came to my mind yet another reason of the paragraph-per-subject style: dynamic maintenance of the article. Time and again when reviewing recent changes I saw, if the style is a wall-of-text type, a "drive-by" wikieditor often fails to find a good place to make an addition, resulting in various issues, most critical being: broken flow of logic (thys further degrading readability), broken assignment of footnotes (wnen someone to insert something in a logical place into a long papagf with a single footnote at the end), and duplication (when the wall of text looks impenetrable, and one doesnt even try.) - Altenmann >talk 22:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest this:

Anatoly Anatolyevich Shariy (Ukrainian: Анатолій Анатолійович Шарій, Russian: Анато́лий Анато́льевич Шари́й; born August 20, 1978) is a Ukrainian journalist, videoblogger and politician. The Ukrainian media commonly refer to him as "pro-Russian" and "anti-Ukrainian", labels he denies and contests in courts.

Following his investigative work in Ukraine in the 2000s he received several death threats, which eventually led Shariy to seek asylum in the European Union, asserting prosecution by Ukrainian law enforcement bodies related to his journalism. Establishing himself as a refugee in Lithania, Shariy moved to and established himself in the Netherlands by mid-2013. During that time, he became a critic of Euromaidan and the subsequent events leading up the the Revolution of Dignity. Since then, Shariy had always considered the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War to be an internal conflict and a civil war inside Ukraine, although he does not deny the Russian involvement in the conflict. He considers Crimea, as well as separatist Donetsk and Lugansk areas to be part of Ukraine.

In June 2019, Anatoly launched the Party of Shariy (Ukrainian: Партiя Шарiя), which took part in the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election. During the 2020 local elections the party candidates entered several city and oblast councils. Starting February 2021, both Shariy and his Party were accused of treason and incitement to ethnic or racial hatred by the Security Service of Ukraine. He claims these accusations are without merit, were politically motivated and suspects president Vladimir Zelensky to be the initiator of this action.

--Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, I didnt simply merge sentences, you tweaked a text to make the paagraphs into coherent stoties, and I like it. Only one remark: dutch citizenship. Is it in the aricle somewhere with a regerence? I am asking it here, because I've got tired rereading the bio again and again, so I am asking you, because it is your text. - Altenmann >talk 00:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The only RS I could find is from Russian WP and does not state what I have exactly phrased, so in that regard I have modified the lede (the RS itself can be found here). Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Recent sock edits

Regarding these edits by GlobalSocks → [6]. As far as I can see (and read), Shariy wasn't "spotted", the people came to his house and confronted (assaulted?) him. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Arrested again

this time in Spain at request of Security Service of Ukraine https://twitter.com/ServiceSsu/status/1522118101118115840 --Mikoan (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is now mentioned in the article. This will be interesting to see what happens, e. g. if Spain will extradite him to the Ukraine, and what could happen afterwards. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

This article may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards

This is article now is a mess... It is completely unreliable for people used to reading a biography on English Wikipedia... The information is so scattered all over the place that it is hard to get a neutral picture of the man. Plus it is full of basic mistakes like the lead includes information that is not covered later on. I tried to fix this Anatoly Shariy was/was not a persona non grata in Lithuania... I have no idea in what chapter of this Wikipedia article this information might be in... "Notable investigations and incidents" or "Controversies" or "Biography"? Or all 3 of them... So I had to keep it in the lead only even though that is bad practice... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I did try to fix the article tonight. I expect of course for doing this many "thank you's" for doing this and many Christmas cards from various people around the globe with no sarcastic remarks for many years....

PS I did not deleted any information... but did place some of the in my view unnecessary information in the section Anatoly Shariy#Notes. I might have rather deleted this information myself but since the man is so controversial I really wanted to avoid long discussions on this Talkpage... I do not want to get involved in this kind of echo chamber discussions again where editors, I included, are just talking not to each other but to themselves.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Pedophilia accusations

I think the accusations should be added into the article, at least as disputed as there is as well evidence for a d against this claim. 2A02:3030:802:B9C5:1:0:8C89:C49C (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)