Talk:Sergey Aksyonov

From a legal point of view it seems Sergey Aksyonov is not Prime Minister of Crimea...

.... because:

his nomination should have been proposed by the Speaker of the Crimean parliament with the approval of the President of Ukraine and then approved by the Crimean parliament, presides over the Council of Ministers of Crimea.

It seems that the approval of the President of Ukraine was never gained... Not even by Viktor Yanukovych... So I don't think Aksyonov should be referred to as Prime Minister of Crimea... But as elected by his parliament or something... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The election happened at gunpoint in a building seized my foreign military. USchick (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The "appointment" was at gunpoint. The normal procedure was not followed. The election was therefore not legal - as has been confirmed by the Kiev District Administrative Court. To describe him as "the current Prime Minister of Crimea" is wrong. He should be described as "the current de facto Prime Minister of Crimea", or "unconstitutional appointed as de facto Prime Minister by Russian occupation forces" - which would be more accurate.101.98.175.68 (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Do I have to remember that Yanukovich was removed and the new government in Kiev "elected" in a Rada totally surrounded by armed protestors?. Perhaps we should add "Self-proclaimed" to Oleksandr Turchynov or Arseniy Yatsenyuk, other thing would be a crystal-clear double standard...--HCPUNXKID 23:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

At gunpoint

Dear User:LokiiT, please review your recent edit and advise your opinion. Thanks.

• According to the New York Times [1] "Crimea’s new pro-Moscow prime minister, Sergei Aksyonov, who was named Thursday by regional legislators meeting under the guns of the unidentified intruders."
• "preparing for another session of the Crimean parliament due to commence at gunpoint on Friday" [2] USchick (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

it seems User:LokiiT is continuing to ignore the talk page while editing warring to censor this information from the article. Ironically, he's saying use the talk page...here's another source from the moscow times: "Sergei Aksyonov ­— who was installed as prime minister of Crimea on Feb. 27 after a group of armed men seized the parliamentary building in Simferopol"--Львівське (говорити) 07:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the following quotes which are not in their respective sources and not appropriate:

• "it was occupied by armed Russian insurgents"
• "Aksyonov was voted into office through an armed coup d'état during the 2014 Crimean crisis."
• ...elected Aksyonov Prime Minister – a non-electable position.

These are not in the sources, and even if they were, they're highly contentious claims, just as it would be to say the same about the Ukrainain revolution (plenty of sources say that but we musn't take sides as you clearly seem to have). Also just because one source claims it was "at gun point" does not mean that's neutral wording, nor does it make it fact. I'd like to see more sources making the same claim before putting it in this article. Pravda is not a good enough source on its own to include contentious claims in a BLP. See WP:BLP. Many of those claims are quite outrageous, and merely based on hearsay.

And why did you remove the information and sources that I added that was unrelated to any of this? LokiiT (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

there are several sources saying it was at gunpoint. Actually, literally all sources state this. It would help, of course, if you read the sources.--Львівське (говорити) 14:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I read the sources and they did not say that. You're making things up and anyone can see that. LokiiT (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think this talk page is proof positive that you're fibbing and not reading the sources, I guess hoping to censor the content. There are several WP:RSs being used here, with full quotes. This is devolving into disruptive editing on your part.--Львівське (говорити) 15:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your 3 points, 'insurgents' is the accurate word, as it means a rebel or revolutionary - Akysonov has described them as Russian nationalist forces, and revolutionaries (comparing their actions to the 'coup' in Kiev. Insurgents is a neutral, accurate descriptor. I don't know why you're oppsing the coup d'etat part, since that's what happened. Also, I've replaced the 'a non-electable position' with 2 sentences explaining the procedure in that section. --Львівське (говорити) 14:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

• They are not referred to as insurgents in any English media that I've seen. They're referred to as soldiers, defence forces etc.
• A coup does not involve a parliament vote. No sources are calling it a coup; your opinion doesn't matter.

In both cases, you're not sticking to the sources. This is a biography of a living person, and as such everything must be carefully sourced. LokiiT (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Most sources I have seen call them "pro-Russian gun men". --Nug (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct. It's usually "pro-Russian gunmen" or "self-defense forces"; Aksyonov calls them "Russian nationalist forces" in the TIME article. Me using the word 'insurgents' isn't off base as insurgents are "a rebel or revolutionary" and the TIME article says "if the Kiev revolutionaries did it, why can’t he? If the revolution used force to seize government buildings in Kiev, why can’t his supporters do the same in Crimea?" - ergot, they are considered armed revolutionaries or counter-revolutionaries, so 'insurgents' is an apropos word to use. --Львівське (говорити) 15:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: Do I have to remember that Yanukovich was removed and the new government in Kiev "elected" in a Rada totally surrounded by armed protestors?. Perhaps we should add "Self-proclaimed" to Oleksandr Turchynov or Arseniy Yatsenyuk, other thing would be a crystal-clear double standard...--HCPUNXKID 00:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Protestors were not armed with military automatic assault rifles and rocket launchers. --Nug (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Correct, the votes in the Rada were not made under duress, and it was televised and transparent. Crimea was done behind closed doors under gunpoint. The issue here now becomes Crimea not acknowledging Turchynov as president and still seeing Yanukovych as president, and Yanukovych allegedly approving Aksyonov's election. He claims to be not self-declared, but approved by Viktor-in-exile.--Львівське (говорити) 15:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you joking? Yanukovich was democratically elected and thrown out of office by violent mobs with guns among other weapons. LokiiT (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Correction: On 22 February 2014, 328 of 447 members of the Ukrainian parliament voted to "remove Viktor Yanukovych from the post of president of Ukraine" and hold early presidential elections on 25 May. No reports they did this while "violent mobs with guns among other weapons" were in the same building exists.... While in the Crimean parliament people with guns were there. PS Because of strong personal feelings I do not (make mayor) edit in articles about the 2014 Crimean crisis. If you are editing Wikipedia articles "to make a point" or to "correct obvious mistakes by bias Western media" you should remove yourself from those articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; not your personal crusade tool. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The only reason the vote was unanimous is because anyone who opposed them was in serious danger. Notice how Party of Regions isn't even represented in the new government while fringe fascists hold top positions? There were many reports of threats to those who were pro-Yanukovich. And I think you should perhaps take into consideration your own advice. LokiiT (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

Please, let's make sure this article is not pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian. Now it's too pro-Ukrainian. Like calling Aksyonov a criminal in the lead. --Wester (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

He is a convicted criminal. Here is the court document [3] and here is the media reporting his conviction that was upheld after an appeal [4] in 2010. How much more of a criminal would you like him to be? USchick (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT a court document. That is alleged internal police memo from the 1990s. The authenticity of that memo has not been verified by the police. The document does not even claim he was convicted of anything either, just that he was apparently shot while driving in a car. Geregen2 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Are the nickname "Goblin" and going back to the 1990s in the court report too. Please elaborate on the conviction, not on speculation from clearly biased sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.29.213 (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The nickname Goblin is in a court record dated 1994 [5] USchick (talk) 12:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, it is not a court document, and it does not even allege he ever was convicted of any crime, just that he is a "member of a gang".Geregen2 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

How would you classify this document? A police record? The rest of it is on the Russian Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It says "Оперативная информация" on top, meaning approximately "Information update", an internal police memo. But whatever it can be classified as, it does not say he was convicted of a crime in court, just that he is a member of a gang and his nickname is Goblin. Curiously enough, Rada deputy Senchenko who accused Aksyonov, was accused of being a part of Salem gang himself 5 years ago: [6] Geregen2 (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course! That's how he knew. Thank you for writing the information in a way that people are willing to find acceptable. Also, before people get too excited about this not being a real document, "Оперативная информация" is much bigger than an "update." It's more like an "Open case." USchick (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Ukrainian government was overthrown by the maidan revolution, and some could affirm was replaced by a self-proclaimed transitory government, thus illegal. But this is POV. Even if you think it is illegitimate, or not, this is POV. And the organized crime section is POV too. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I've put some of the sources here in this, and found a Washington Post editorial that lends credibility to the Toronto Star story (without really lending any facts to it, mind). The allegation is definitely worth reporting. Though there still is a credible doubt that the entire set of stories is kept alive by partisan considerations (just picture how the Barack Obama article would read if 80% of the newspapers in our language were sympathetic to the Republicans) the bottom line is that we can't be better than the available sources. Wnt (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any substantial POV issue in the article. There is stuff that's critical but it's well sourced. That's not POV. Removing tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering that a whole lot of edit warring has been taking place in this article over the past few weeks, including your drive-by revert of my changes, there is clearly no consensus for removal of that tag. The article has serious issues; it reads like something straight out of the Yatsenuk government's PR office. Want specifics? Just take a look at my previous edits which have been met with endless reverts as per usual. Also just a reminder that using Kyiv post and Ukraine Pravda as sources for the bulk of this article is simply not going to cut it. That would be the equivalent of using RT for the bulk of the information in the Ukrainian Revolution article. LokiiT (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Self-declared PM

Since wiki works on reliable sources, here's some media who do in fact refer to him as self-declared: Washington Post, Baltic Times, The Guardian, Globe and Mail, Global post, The Nation. Let's put this to rest. --Львівське (говорити) 16:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I could find you 10 times as many that don't call him that. LokiiT (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You "could" is not the same as "did", like Lvivske. And let's not get silly here, it's not a question of finding a source which omits the words "self-declared", it's a question of sources which directly dispute that. Reliable sources and all.

Also, you better seriously substantiate that POV tag or leave it alone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The POV tag has been more than substantiated. Articles that are neutral and uncontested don't contain discussions like these. Are you capable of editing articles without edit warring and calling your buddies to assist you? I really wonder. LokiiT (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

No, no it hasn't. Some guy yelling "WP:IDONTLIKEIT!" on the talk page is not the same thing as providing legitimate reasons for a POV tag. There are articles that are neutral but which some POV-warriors still have a problem with. See for example, 9/11 Conspiracy theories or Climate change, where there's no shortage of editors who'd like to either push their POV into the articles, or absent that, smack it with an unwarranted POV tag - yet neither of those has POV tags on it. "Controversial" or "there exists some loud mouthed fringe" does not equal "POV". You have not adequately explained the reasons for the tag, hence, it has no business being here, until you can do so.

As far as your personal attacks. You're the one who's actually edit warring. Here and on other articles. And not using the talk pages in a meaningful manner (as in providing sources, discussing, seeking compromise - just reverting - etc.). Now. Who are these "buddies" that I have supposedly called in to assist me? You ready to back that up with any, even circumstantial evidence, or is this just more of poisoning-the-well and bullshitting-in-the-hope-that-nobody-notices? Let's have real and relevant names. And diffs. And evidence. And please no crap from five years ago that nobody cares about (lest your own past sock puppetry get dragged out). And maybe... some kind of collateral here? As in, if you got nothing, you'll admit it and drop the POV pushing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

tldr; Your version is The Truth and anyone who opposes you is a POV warrior. Gotcha. Don't worry, I'm not going to waste my time here any longer, as my desire to improve this article is obviously no match for rampant emotion-driven nationalism. Again, I was not part of a group of agenda pushing edit warriors who spent a great deal of effort filling wikipedia with fascist/russophobic propaganda while scheming to get their opponents banned. Your behaviour here and in other articles has shown me that you have not changed a bit since back then, and you have no right to ask me to forget. Pot, meet kettle. Your gaslighting won't work when we have a documented history to check up on. LokiiT (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

He isn't "self-declared" as that would imply he alone thinks he holds the position. And, yes, WP works on reliable sources – and we don't have to wait until every single source mentions something before we can use it – but we seriously don't go around cherry-picking throwaway and pejorative descriptive labels from the media and claiming them as a "fact", especially in a BLP. "De facto", as the lead currently has it, is fine and sets out the issue clearly enough. We also don't give equal prominence to occasional nick-names, ie "The Goblin", in the lead either. Let's try to have some objectivity and detachment rather than battling for one side or the other in the real-world dispute. N-HH (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Goblin

As per my last comment in the main part of the section above, please can people stop adding the pejorative "nickname" of "The Goblin" to the infobox (and/or the lead)? This is an encyclopedia not a childish battleground for name-calling, even if you can find one or two sources that happen to refer to it as an alleged name used by some in the past. Unless it is genuinely widely used and accepted, which it appears not to be – unless anyone has any evidence to the contrary – it should not be there as definitive "fact" at the top of the page. I don't believe that George Bush's has "Dubya" or Tony Blair's "Bliar" etc and nor should they. Thank you. N-HH talk/edits 21:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a reason that isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The infobox has a specific field for nicknames, yet you say nicknames aren't allowed. Many if not all sources discussing him mention this nickname, making it notable. Please justify deleting cited, notable information because it's "pejorative".--Львівське (говорити) 18:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Where does WP:N have anything strictly to do with article content and where was my justification anything close to that I simply didn't like it? As I explained, unless the name in question is "widely used and accepted", and/or someone who is in a field where nicknames are a given, the option is rather obviously not meant to be filled in. When the sources don't say much more than that "in the 1990s, when he was supposedly known by the nickname 'Goblin'", as in this Guardian piece, insisting it goes in at the top of the page as if it were some kind of definitive alternative name is, as suggested, childish name-calling. The point is, quite correctly, noted in the body with a bit more nuance. Can't you just leave it at that and leave the real-world propaganda battles out of it? A forlorn hope on WP generally, and this topic in particular given the way most editors dedicated to it conduct themselves, but this is meant to be an encyclopedia not a proxy battleground or political blog-fight. N-HH talk/edits 16:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

POV tag added

This entry is quite strongly biased against Mr. Aksyonov (be especially careful about bashing living individuals) and takes a very strong line against the Crimean rebellion. I think we need to step back and recognize that most of the events that gave birth to the short-lived republic of Crimea are uncertain. We need more words like 'allegedly', and 'X said' ...Haberstr (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

everything is sourced, no need to 'allege' something unless its actually an allegation. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course it's biased against him, he gained power thanks to Russian soldiers helping him with an armed coup d'etat, and imprisoning Members of Parliament in Crimea in the building with armed gunmen, and forcing the Parliament members to vote in favour of him, what did you expect? Denver45 (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal feelings, everything in Wikipedia must be properly sourced. Fully half the content in the article is "sourced" from a non-existent 404 page (Ошибка 404. Запрашиваемая вами страница не найдена), and it's aimed at a living person (which compounds the problem). I propose that all the 404 material be deleted promptly. Nothing can justify such sloppy (or malicious - not sure which) material. Santamoly (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ukinform

I do not mind adding this info, but it should be based on a reliable source, not on a blog.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Russian bias

Someone has said that this article is pro-Ukrainian. That is not possible. The introduction speaks volumes: "an internationally disputed federal subject of the Russian Federation located on the Crimean Peninsula" could only be written by a Russian propagandist. Crimea is Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory. Imagine Nazi propagandists describing France in 1943 as ""an internationally disputed colony of Nazi Germany located in Western Europe". To accept the current wording is the equivalentRoyalcourtier (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

All Crimean articles have this intro, which was the result of community consensus. Invoking the Godwin's law is not going to be helpful in this case.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Lamg-md

Moldovan is a non-existent language, Moldovan language clearly explains that this is Romanian, and Template talk:Lang-md explains that the template was created for historical usage in cases Romanian text was written using Cyrillic alphabet. Usage in the articles for anything else is inappropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)