Talk:Ukrainian oligarchs

Ukraine High‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Mid‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More Ukrainian business oligarchs

can be find in this article by Kyiv Post. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 02:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Influence of oligarch is uncertain

I removed the completely delusional research, because the influence is extreme. The media is completely controlled by Pinchuk and Poroshenko. The Rada majority is lead by Poroshenko. Influence of Kolomoyski is extreme, as noted in its article. 87.78.201.74 (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mykola Zlochevsky Is a Ukrainian oligarch according to the New York Times

MrX, why would you be opposed to adding Mykola Zlochevsky to the page of Ukrainian oligarchs? Even the New York Times thinks he’s a Ukrainian oligarch. I get that you didn’t like my amateurish effort to add him to the list, but there was no need to delete my entire effort. I’m sure you could find a way to add Mr Zlochevsky to the page that would be acceptable to the the both of us, as opposed to deleting my entire contribution. Or, if you’d like I can try to fix it myself to meet with your approval. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The unrelated kinsman I'm not. I'm apposed to describing Burisma as "infamous" and adding your conclusion that "This list is not exhaustive." If you want to make the list more general, you can remove the introduction to the list, add cite #12 to all of the existing entires, then simple add Zlochevsky to the list with the NYT cite. It's more work, but it's also a lot more encyclopedic. - Mr X 🖋 23:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrX,I’m just trying to include Mr. Zlochevsky to the list of Ukrainian oligarchs. My comment that "This list is not exhaustive..." was a common sense observation, not a conclusion of original research. You don’t honestly think the list as written is representative of ALL Ukrainian oligarchs, do you? Even the link which describes the list doesn’t imply an exhaustive list. It just identifies ‘35 oligarchic groups within 2000s – 2010s’. But, I can leave it off if you’d like. I understand your opposition to ‘infamous’. It’s unnecessary and should be deleted. Ok, I’ll try to do as you’ve suggested. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 23:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I don't think anyone seeing that list would assume that is's exhaustive. Regardless, all article content should be directly verifiable in reliable sources. - Mr X 🖋 00:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Please feel free to edit it any way you like. I can learn a lot more from a fix and a friendly word of criticism than from a revert. Let me know what you think. Thanks, The unrelated kinsman (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welp... MrX, I did as you suggested and added cite #12 to all of the existing entries, then added Zlochevsky to the list. I guess Koncorde didn’t like our consensus and reverted the entire thing. Is this how wiki is supposed to work? I put a lot of effort and time into improving this article just to have it all reverted. So, what should I do now? The unrelated kinsman (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes that is sort of how Wikipedia works. Collaboration and consensus are how content disputes are resolved. Koncorde apparently though the Chernecko study list should remain intact, and an other oligarchs should be added to a separate list. I'm sure Konkorde will join the discussion here in due course. - Mr X

Sorry, apologies I didn't see this discussion. The Chernenko study, as the sole source for the 35 people, is I think completely unique enough to stand alone and indeed, as it's wholly based upon specific data points to which we don't have access it is probably WP:SYNTH to add them to the list. On that front, I am not convinced the Chernenko study should be used as a universal master list (which the author never intended), and adding to it with additional names etc is something I would object to. it just propagates the initial misstep. Chernenko's study is intended to look into the impact of oligarchs on business health rather than be some list to be used of oligarchs.

What I have done is added an entirely new section at the bottom that could be more easily and readily put into a table to replace the Chernenko study (which can then be used to add commentary and / or details elsewhere). The new sourced list shows the respective wealth of the oligarchs, and also contains analysis of the list. This list has been produced year on year by a reputable news source in Ukraine and actually goes all the way to #100 so has the potential to be maintained and updated. There may be some degree of overlap with the similarly relevant List of Ukrainians by net worth but we should be careful with some of these lists however, as "Ukrainian oligarch" does not necessarily require them to be of Ukrainian nationality. Being an oligarch is a state of financial wealth and political position, which can feasibly be held by foreign nationals that are resident (or just pals with other countries leaders). Koncorde (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a new editor I find this whole process frustrating as hell. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You get used to it. I would suggest the new section is the answer to all issues and when I get chance I will advance it by updating the tables. In any case at the moment Zlochevsky has been added to the page. Koncorde (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is often hard to find out who to talk with to gain consensus. By making a bold edit you attract the attention of people who are genuinely interested in a page, and have it on their watchlist. You can then discuss your issues with them. *Compare Wikipedia:Consensus*.

Koncorde, my understanding is that we’re supposed to be trying to build consensus. Don’t you think that maybe what you’ve done here might be construed by other editors as plowing over another editor’s good faith effort at consensus building? I mean, what you might want to do is revert what you’ve done here and spend a little time discussing things with MrX and I so that we can agree on the best course of action. It might make us all feel a little better about the process. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. WP:BRD is a relatively common foundation stone of how wikipedia is built. If you have a superior suggestion as to how to improve the page, by all means suggest away, but your contribution (copying the same reference 30+ times) was a waste of effort, and not a particularly efficient way of achieving what was desired. This is because it was approached from a very narrow perspective of making a small adjustment, rather than looking for more complete sources for an actual exhaustive list of oligarchs than provided in the Chernenko study. If you compare this article to Russian oligarch you will see that this doesn't even both with a list, and likely does not list every single oligarch in the text, but it does contain a lot more analysis and narrative. The Chernenko article is much better suited to supporting that kind of data. Koncorde (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, ‘superior’ edits don’t have to meet the consensus criteria? I couldn’t find that in the link WP:BRD you provided. My ‘waste of effort’ wasn’t my idea. It was done for consensus building with another editor who’s suggestion I was following. And, you know, if I’d been allowed to make a small edit to this page without it being completely reverted I might have found a way back Here at a later date to make better changes. I’ve actually done that with other pages that I’ve made small edits to. Maybe it would be better for the both of us if you’d stop following me around and reverting all my small edits. At least wait until you’re willing to build consensus with me. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you disagree that my changes are not an improvement? Has it not achieved the thing that you wanted to do? Was it not the simplest way to achieve what you wanted?

Then you, and MrX, or any of the thousands of other wikipedia editors are free to revert me or make further edits, amendments, suggestions or discussion. This is the description WP:BRD gives, and if you follow the image to the right you will see that we are now exactly at the point suggested. And I am not following you around, you happened to edit two pages on my watch lists. When you edit in a narrow band of interest on wikipedia this is likely to happen. And unfortunately, as I had not seen the conversation here, I was not able to contribute the quick fix that could have been made in time to save you the work. Meanwhile I will fix the table data and expand it with some further notes to compress the current 3 list stratification we currently have. Koncorde (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the things that are now missing because of your revert: The original list had additional notes that are now missing. That Zlochevsky is owner of Burisma and that Hunter was on the Board is now missing. The New York Times article that I linked to my edit is now missing. (It was a good link and I planned to use it again on another page, but now I can’t find it.) Yeah, go ahead and ‘fix the table data and expand it with some further notes...’ whatever, because your ‘superior’ edit doesn’t require you to follow the instructions that the graph you felt you needed to post tells you to do next. Hint: find a reasonable (if temporary) compromise The unrelated kinsman (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the notes were already in the section above, so were duplicated. Hunter Biden is irrelevant to this list however you might want to try and force your POV. And don't give me crap that you can't find your source. You can just click any of your prior edits to see what you changed. You are playing the "I'm just a poor newbie" card too hard. Koncorde (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So much for consensus building. This is not the response of an editor willing to ‘find a reasonable (if temporary) compromise’. The graph you felt you needed to post doesn’t tell us what to do in cases where the more experienced editor is completely unwilling to follow the stated guidelines. So what is my recourse? Thanks The unrelated kinsman (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what is wrong about my edits, suggest improvements, make edits yourself, discuss, be bold, be reverted, discuss and so on and so forth. If you have read the WP:BRD page it would be obvious, but it seems at present you only want to complain and make it untenable for others to work with you even when they are helping you to achieve your goals in a way that is both neutral and meets notability guidelines.

You are complaining about a process, but aren't suggesting or saying what is wrong with what has been done to the page or acknowledging that it has met your needs. You complained about what you did being reverted as if MrX and you control the consensus. You don't. It is fluid. And as more edits accumulate more people may gather and might wholesale revert, change, or amend any work anyone else does on Wikipedia - and I or MrX or yourself might revert them, and discuss, and offer agreeable interim edits.

I have explained why I made the edit, and did not merely revert - but also included your desired outcome in a new outline that has ultimately replaced a long-dead and not updated section about a subjective value of "importance". I have since continued to edit and improve the article by presenting the reliably sourced information that is complete (per the sources standards, which are pretty unequivocal) and could be expanded to up to 100 named individuals if we so wished (doubtful). It can be further improved with more sources notes and comments about each person in the top 10, with the potential for gallery images and or a list of business interests / companies they have influence in or senior political positions.

Do you have a complaint or any suggestions about how to improve the article from this point forwards? Koncorde (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already suggested a way to move forward from my point of view. You rejected it out of hand. You’ve ignored the very process you’ve been wanting me to follow, insisting that your edits are the best and only way to proceed without any need for consensus. Why? Why don’t you want to listen to MrX’s or my input? The unrelated kinsman (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't given any way to move forwards from your "point of view". You explicitly told me to put the information in the table above. I have done it exactly what my edit summary said, and what I have explained here, and my considerations of how I came to those decisions.

In contrast as yet you have not explained what was wrong with my edits, or what is better about the version I made previously? Koncorde (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Koncorde, saying I ‘haven’t given any way to move forwards’ is disingenuous. I don’t think you’re discussing in good faith, and I don’t think you’d like to reach consensus with me, at all. Please, why don’t you step back, take a deep breath and re-read the conversations above. Start at my statement “As a new editor I find this whole process frustrating as hell.” Thanks The unrelated kinsman (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have still made no suggestions and are now making wholesale reverts without explanation.

Do you have any suggestions of improvements because I am about to rebuild the article quite considerably with some additional citations? Koncorde (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"That Zlochevsky is owner of Burisma and that Hunter was on the Board is now missing." is irrelevant to this list. Is there some other aspect of this dispute that I should weigh in on?- Mr X 🖋 14:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TUK wants a full cessation on improvements to the article until he (or he and you) have approved them. Feel free to comment on that.

TUK intended to add Zlochevsky and Burisma. Both are now mentioned in a detailed section on wealthy Ukrainian oligarchs. There is the opportunity with the notes field to expand any information that is both relevant to "Ukrainian oligarchs" as a subject, or the individual if it's relevant to them. I will be adding from the sources below some commentary on the impact / assessment of the oligarchs, and their relevance to Ukrainian politics post 2014 and current tensions with Russia / West (which has been neglected in the article whose sources are largely referencing out of date information, or unsourced). Koncorde (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue with any of that, as long as we don't turn this article into a WP:COATRACK. - Mr X 🖋 16:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more of a COATRACK at the moment because of the Chernenko study, and the removed "most influential" list which had a synth tag since 2017. Want to get down to "who, what, where, why, when" and then some element of notable and significant coverage / criticism with some links to maybe more notable historical events in Ukraine in an un-synthetic way (which is the way the "usage" section is currently set up). Not sure what to do with Chernenko study, it has a prominent position at the moment but think that the actual content of his study is probably more relevant than another list (although I like the fact it references important companies). Koncorde (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with it Konc. Do what you do. (Been busy with ‘life’) Maybe I’ll come back and add something sometime. The unrelated kinsman (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Sources:

Discussing historical growth

Kuchmagate comes up a few times in a few articles, but this article is devoid of any mention really of the period. May be worth linking to in some fashion, and which functionally ties the political aspect of the Oligarchs and Russian influence to Orange Revolution, but don't want to be bogged down immediately with this.

Discussing post 2000

Russian oligarchs

Is there a similar list of all the russian oligarchs? I was not able to find one. 89.12.67.66 (talk) 16:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ukrainian oligarchs. No such user (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian oligarch → Ukrainian oligarchs – In line with Russian oligarchs. Charles Essie (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. The Night Watch (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It should be the other article that’s to be moved per WP:SINGULAR and WP:PLURAL, and WP:CONSISTENT with the parent article Business oligarch, as well as Business magnate, Robber baron (industrialist), Captain of industry, Tai-pan, Media proprietor, and so on. —Michael Z. 20:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this move request should be declined, then let’s just rename Russian oligarchs → Russian oligarch without a formal discussion. —Michael Z. 20:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PLURAL (plural titles for "groups or classes of specific things"). The article treats the Ukrainian oligarchs as a class of people rather than as an archetype (cf. bourgeoisie, boyar scions, French peasants, timariots). — AjaxSmack 05:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike those examples, the Ukrainian oligarchy is not a collective social class or demographic group treated as a class of humanity in that sense.

Oligarchs are rich and connected individuals wielding influence on politics and society. You’ll notice from the article that sources identify them as a list of top 100 individuals and 35 specific organizations.

They are not defined by who they are or how society treats them, but by what they do. —Michael Z. 15:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PLURAL, as the article is about an existing and relatively well-defined group of people and not about some archetypal character. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator, also the article is about Ukrainian oligarchs as a group, not any individual oligarch. JIP | Talk 11:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.