Talk:Mikhail Tolstykh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Georgian?[edit]

Is he Georgian? Jaqeli 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is an ethnic Georgian but born in Ukraine. The Yahoo news article says he is a native of Abkhazia but Givi himself has stated he's born and raised in Donbass but his family are third generation immigrants from Abkhazia. Tomh903 (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the info on him being ethnicaly Georgian. He mentions that his great-grandfather was Georgian and his family moved from Abkhazia to Ukraine. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TheMightyGeneral, what if he would mention that his father is from Mars and mother is from Venus? There is no real evidence of his origin. One thing is for sure, he has a speech impediment. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to novorosnews.ru Givi has no relatives in Georgia and his call sign he got because he resembles Georgian. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except of his own interviews, the Givi's biography could not be really checked as there are no real records of him. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance?[edit]

Does this person really warrant a wikipedia entry? He is a low level combatant in the Ukraine conflict. If it is decided to keep this entry, then allegations of war crimes should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.145.75.112 (talk) 12:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Roughing up a few POW hardly classifies as a war crime. Besides, the DPR has not signed the Geneva Convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.131.150.30 (talk) 12:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Besides Geneve Conventions do NOT apply, because state of war is NOT declared.93.129.35.83 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Givi ranked up to Colonel (?)[edit]

USER: ZMG11 several sources mostly from social networks talks about Givi has been ranked up to Colonel nowadays (4 September 2016). This is still an untrusted source becaouse there are no official links. If anyone speak russian, is pleased to check russian social networks in order to verify this questionable topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZMG11 (talkcontribs) 12:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

war criminal[edit]

the opening paragraph describes him as a "war criminal", and cites the CBC. however he has not been tried nor convicted of any war crime, and the CBC article states Givi and other warlords who have been killed in the past two years have publicly assaulted prisoners of war and been engaged in what can be classified as war crimes. this is not the same as being a "war criminal". i want to ask here first before putting an edit request template to remove the assertion in Wikipedia's voice that Tolstykh is a war criminal, just in case i might've missed something. .usarnamechoice (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please change:

Mikhail Sergeyevich Tolstykh (Ukrainian: Михайло Сергійович Толстих, Russian: Михаи́л Сергéевич Толсты́х; 19 July 1980 – 8 February 2017), better known by his nom de guerre Givi (Ги́ви), was a Ukrainian separatist officer and war criminal.

to

Mikhail Sergeyevich Tolstykh (Ukrainian: Михайло Сергійович Толстих, Russian: Михаи́л Сергéевич Толсты́х; 19 July 1980 – 8 February 2017), better known by his nom de guerre Givi (Ги́ви), was a Ukrainian separatist officer.

...per the Wikipedia policy on recently deceased people. if the person responding to this request disagrees with this change, then please add a failed verification tag to the end of the sentence after the wordphrase "war criminal", please. .usarnamechoice (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Tolstykh's death is confirmed by reliable sources and occurred more than two years ago, so WP:BDP does not apply. small jars tc 21:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing "and war criminal" to "who has been accused of war crimes" or something simliar? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. i will put in an edit request when the helpdesk discussion is over. :) .usarnamechoice (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please change the first sentence from war criminal to accused war criminal, per the discussion at the Wikipedia help desk. .usarnamechoice (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion being referred to does not seem to provide consensus for this change. small jars tc 18:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, i have struck that part for clarity. i did not mean to imply consensus was established there. :) .usarnamechoice (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. A09 (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nevermind .usarnamechoice (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Revert this edit, as it changes perfect English grammar into something ungrammatical. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:E07A:2192:A002:3D4A (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back to accused of war crimes. 'accused war criminal' means he was a war criminal and he was accused of something. 'Accused of being a war criminal' would be another way of putting it if you prefer but 'accused war criminal' is simply untrue because he was not convicted. It may be possible in the future to simply write that he was a war criminal if there is consensus of academioc scholarship saying so or he is convicted after death. NadVolum (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"accused of war crimes" and "accused war criminal" mean the same thing. This isn't something to debate over, you're flat-out wrong. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:5910:DCBA:E9D2:3E91 (talk) 2601:18F:107F:BA80:5910:DCBA:E9D2:3E91 (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see it has been put back to the incorrect english again. Google search on "accused war criminal" says about 44,500 hits whereas 'accused of war crimes' says about 1,130,000 results. That's because accused war criminal is bad english used sometimes as a short form in some press headlines where they like to assume the result but it shouldn't be used in an encyclopaedia. Other reasonable forms are 'accused of committing war crimes' 103,000 results or 'accused of being a war criminal' at 171,000 . NadVolum (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad English, and using the google results is bad form here. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:5910:DCBA:E9D2:3E91 (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try this again, since NadVolum can't quite grasp English grammar.[edit]

This edit needs to be either reverted or the text "and accused of war crimes" be changed to "accused war criminal" as it is not proper grammar in its current state.

Honestly it should be reverted altogether to just say "war criminal" since HE ADMITTED TO THE FUCKING CRIMES, but Nad seems to enjoy wikilawyering too much to let this pass and I don't have the time to fight him on it. 2601:18F:107F:BA80:5910:DCBA:E9D2:3E91 (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This is a content dispute, so don't expect us to edit war for you. Please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the Edit protected template. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've given my evidence that what you want is wrong. Can you point to anything showing that what I put in is wrong or that you are right other than your strong assertion that you are right and I am wrong? I get that he was a nasty piece of work, however Wikipedia requires that what it says can be backed up directly by reliable sources and I think ensuring Wikipedia is a reliable source is more important than letting people just write their own thoughts about some dead no-good. NadVolum (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]