Talk:Vladimir Chernukhin

Recent Edits by Erokhin

@Erokhin:, I would loved to thank for your laborious contribution in the page Vladimir Chernukhin, but unfortunately I can't due to numerous serious issues.

1. First and foremost, you must understand that Wikipedia isn't a place to express your opinion. Wikipedia articles to be written based on secondary sources and from a neutral point of view. Moreover, due weightage should be given while summarizing any fact. There are numerous instances where you violated this fundamental guideline, let's discuss a few here:

"While the revelations of the Pandora Papers don’t explain the origins of Chernukhin’s wealth, they show the scheming involved in hiding it." - are your writing blogs here or opinion pieces?

"That raises the question over the extent to which it is Vladimir, not Lubov, who may be the ultimate source of some of the cash flowing into the Conservative party." - You are not allowed to read into or make interpretations. Wikipedia articles are written objectively. Read WP:OR and avoid repeating such kind of speculative contributions.

2. Your contributions are greatly (should I say completely?) limited only to enlengthen, repeat, detail in inordinate details of different controversies related to the subject. To put it simply, to introduce negative bias in the article. You must read two polices carefully - WP:NPV and WP:BLPREMOVE and the guideline Wikipedia:Attack_page. Wikipedia has strict polices when adding controversial statements about biography of living persons and it suggest removal of poorly backed controversial information.

3. If your objective is to push certain perspective regarding different contested area or domain, please specifically read WP:WIKIVOICE, which states:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

}}" You have distorted facts in many cases. For example, the Guardian article says Lubov Chernukhin "was initially ruled an “impermissible donor” ", whereas you dropped the word initially while quoting that segment, which can't be unintentional given the direction of your other edits.

4. If it is the case of a political conflict of interest or otherwise, please see WP:COIPOLITICAL and WP:COI and make sure you comply these policies.

5. Also, please pay attention to one of Wikipedia's central policy, that say's Verifiability WP:V. Don't add information that can't be verified from a secondary source. Avoid adding information solely based on primary references.

6. There is a MOS that provides the guideline on how a Wikipedia article will look like. Which should be follow while formatting a page, we can't arbitrarily make segments out of our choices. See WP:MOS for more.

You are strongly advised not to revert any changes made to the page without reaching a consensus through dialogue and that you demonstrate that you are able to grasp the key policies of Wikipedia before you edit the page with any controversial edits. If you aren't aware already please read WP:EDITWAR. Due to the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, all our emotions are high in solidarity with Ukraine, but Wikipedia is committed to remain a neutral, source backed, unbiased compendium. Vloskim Kramář (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Corrupt Angola-Russian debt deal

I removed the above mentioned section added by @Lawrus22. Neither of the references [https://www.occrp.org/ru/investigations/1934-russia-angola-debt-deal] nor [https://web.archive.org/web/20140401170148/http://www.cw-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/The-Corrupt-Angolan-Russian-Debt-Deal-Full-Report.pdf] provide any explicit allegation or proof of allegation specifically against Chernukhin. Such addition of contents having speculative judgement of the editor is in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:No original research. Being a new editor, @Lawrus22 is advised to add further contentious content only after discussing here in the talk page after successfully demonstrating that they understand Wikipedia's Fundamental Policies. Vloskim Kramář (talk) 09:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)