Talk:Valentina Matviyenko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The article Valentina Matviyenko is very vague, has no references, sounds politically biased towards her ("one of the most prominent and popular female politicians") and does not mention important recent events (e.g. that she is not elected anymore). But Matviyenko occupies a very important position, so the article should certainly be improved as soon as possible. Colchicum 14:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Page move/ name change[edit]

I understand proper transliteration is important, but Valentina Matvienko receives much more google hits and thus the more popular usage. As well, the picture in the infobox even spells it this way. I suggest adding a proper translit beside the russian text--Lvivske (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the move. Please see the section of WP:RUS dealing with the people's names, follow the procedures outlined there to justify a spelling different from what WP:RUS produces, and propose a move at WP:RM. Please also note item #4, which explicitly advises against using search engine tests as a sole tool to determine the spelling to be used. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:31, February 16, 2009 (UTC)

United Russia[edit]

Valentina Matviyenko is NOT a member of United Russia. She has consistently stated that although she broadly supports the party and its policies, she prefers not to join it so as to "represent all the people of Saint Petersburg regardless of their party affiliation". InArm (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"the highest political position attained by a woman in the country since the 18th century"[edit]

The blurb on the main page is highly misleading. Her new job of a figurehead chairperson has been widely seen as a demotion, not promotion. Colchicum (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Colchicum (talk) Interesting, I never heard this supposition. Do you have any sources that say so? I'd really like to read their reasoning.Cosainsé (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The sources say it is the third highest political position in Russia. Your edit on the informal calling was funny by the way, but not true. The "тетя Валя" is a popular and neutral variant (use google for it), just can't find a suitable high quality source, as is always a problem in such cases. GreyHood Talk 23:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't need Google here, I am a local and I can tell aunt Valja from Valka the Glass. Anyway, as long as there are no sources this doesn't belong here. Colchicum (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Polysemy. GreyHood Talk 09:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
There is something here; it tells: "Однако наш герой романа Запал, как видно, на красы Валюши (кличка - Полстакана Иль Валька-Красные трусы)." That's how she is known in Russia. However, the link to original text is broken, and all other links from this page are broken. Somehow I am not surprised... Biophys (talk) 03:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is not how she is known in Russia. Except for some circles of Russian intelligentsia, of course ;) These two names are based on baseless allegations in drinking too much (or not not enough too much ;) as half-glass suggests) and the connections with Komsomol in her youth. GreyHood Talk 09:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
GreyHood Talk, it does not matter whether drinking allegations are baseless or not. Both nicknames connote a lack of respect for her from the general public. Also, why do you say that she is only known by those names in "intelligentsia circles"? And why "of course"? If she was as good for the city as you claim, there should be no "of course". Cosainsé (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Restructuring of article and transliteration question[edit]

I have done some reorganising and cleanup of the wording. Also the personal life sections were split apart and the political career section was just a timeline of short sentenses so I gave that bullets. I have a question about the transliteration. Sometimes the y variants are used in the article and sometimes not. Does this matter? For example in the photo it is 'Matvienko' and I believe that is more correct - like Dostoevsky. Also her son's name is sometimes Sergei and sometimes Sergey. Is there a wikipedia guideline about this? At least it should be consistent within the article. The description of her political rank seems verified and accurate. Obotlig (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you basically doubled the contents of the rest of the article in the overview. While it is normal to double some primary points in the intro, don't think it is good for the body of the article. GreyHood Talk 09:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
As for the transliteration, there is WP:RUS. GreyHood Talk 09:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I didn't add new material to the article, it had and still has the problem of the introduction having too much (later duplicated) detail. Thanks for the pointer on transliteration. Obotlig (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

'in the news'[edit]

Such a pity to see it on the main page after the elections with fraud. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Alleged fraud you mean, which means almost nothing since opposition in Russia is sure to find fraud in any major election. And isn't it more importrant that she is the highest ranking Russian woman politician for 215 years and a governor who achieved so many successes, even if there were some controversies? GreyHood Talk 12:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
These are not just "some controversies". By the end of her rule her ratings in St. Petersburg had become abysmal even among Putin supporters, yet somehow you managed to hide this important fact of her biography from Wikipedia readers. Good job! Colchicum (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Add it to the article if you have the sources for figures (there has been no information on ratings so far and I didn't remove or hide any). All what I know that in 2009-2010 her ratings were falling but quite decent nevertheless. The snow story must have worsened them even more, of course. And the overall record of what has been done in the city is impressive. GreyHood Talk 12:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I know where I am and I know that I should edit if I want and so on. But my English isn't good so I wrote that I wrote: it's a pity. If you trust the list ('And the overall record of what has been done in the city is impressive') - it's a double pity, and that's all. The city didn't see such winters from the Blocade. There were more houses at Nevskij broken that in the WWII years. I'll try to show this article to somebody who will edit but the page is on the Main page right now, and it's a pity right now too. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I thought you, as a Russian Wikipedian, would be happy to see on the MP an article which tells much about recent developments in Saint Petersburg, as well as a very good article Catherine the Great alongside. As for the weather, those two winters were unusually cold throughout the whole of Europe (just read the linked articles), and there were multiple problems with snow in many countries. Even the best governors can't rule the weather. GreyHood Talk 14:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
As for the infrastructural record, it is really impressive. The Dam, the Ring Road, the new Metro Line - why do you think this shouldn't be trusted? GreyHood Talk 14:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
We, as Russian Wikipedians, would be happy to see an accurate article written by people who know what they are talking about, not some fairy tales made up just for the sake of Russia being featured on the main page. Colchicum (talk) 14:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Show me please exactly, what are the fairy tales you talk about. The article tells facts, and it includes a fair share of criticism and is balanced. If the overall effect seems not in accordance with your own negativistic views on the subject, please remember that facts are more important than opinions, and that your views are not universal. GreyHood Talk 14:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no point in arguing with you as long as you are not into the subject. Hopefully Lvova will find someone willing to invest his time into this mess. Meanwile note the conspicuous absence of any discussion of the reasons behind her move to Moscow and of the details of the election. So it appears that Mironov was ousted and she just decided to give up the city and replace him. Haha. The description of the 2003 election has also been whitewashed for some reason [1]. Colchicum (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think I'm not in the subject? Could you finally make some concrete statement what is wrong with what is already in the article? Do you realise that almost all present criticism mentioned in the article was added by me? As for the reasons behind Mironov ousting, you just might have noticed I'm more interested in hard-fact infrastructure topics than in political speculations, when you can never be sure and always go along the edges of libel and BLP. As for the "whitewashing", I've just removed unreferenced and potentially BLP-problematic parts (not to violate BLP is a requirement for ITN posting). GreyHood Talk 15:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
One line was open with one new station, for example. Two cold winters - hey, it wasn't the first winter with snow in this city; and the joke is nobody saw any snow-clearing equipment on streets the most part of the winter. As I say I'll try to find a user that can edit in English without problems, but don't tell me that she was blessing for poor city and her victory was fair. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Line 5 contains much more stations and half of them were opened under Matviyenko or will be opened soon. Wrong again, according to my knowledge the situation in non-central districts of the city was better in the second winter and there was much more equipment (and in the center there is just not enough place to load the waste snow in principle).
I'm not particularly interested in election affairs, but I'm well aware of the infrastructural development of the city, both present and historical. And I can say for sure that the period of Matviyenko governorship was quite good in that way (could you name the better 8-year period in the 20th century, with a similar list of achievements and without major drawbacks?). GreyHood Talk 15:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I hope you have noticed that problems with snow and construction are mentioned in the article. So everything is OK, and if you want to write directly something like "Matviyenko was not a blessing for a poor city", you know very well, Stasya, that Wikipedia doesn't allow that. GreyHood Talk 15:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Just as it doesn't allow something like "Matviyenko was a blessing for the city", which is how the article reads now. Colchicum (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't say anything like that directly that way. If the overall impression is so, this might be just your perception. And we better discuss facts than perceptions, opinions and speculations. GreyHood Talk 16:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think that you shouldn't read what I write? I wrote that she open the line with 1 new station. Later it was opened some others; all of them were began in 80s, so Matvienko couldn't destroy nothing in this area. It was good for the city, of course, that she couldn't, but she try do a couple of new projects and didn't work with an infrastructure. And I think this discussion is useful only for a history, so I think we should close it. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear GreyHood, looks like this discussion is a bit dated, but I am about to edit the article a bit, and I wanted to address your comments. You wrote that you are not particularly interested in election affairs, but we both should agree that they are essential for a politician. By the end of Matvienko's term, the opposition whom the article calls marginal and conservative came to include much wider, mainstream, and younger population. That was a result of the appallingly rigged elections being well documented and the evidence going viral. But that is just a matter of exposure. Throughout her term Matvienko was extremely corrupt. Of course, during her term some things were done (she is being paid a salary for exactly that, right?), but the damage that was done to the city is inestimable. Again, I will add some info about it, since the article looks a bit dated in this regard. Best, (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Valentina Matviyenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)