Wikipedia

Talk:Viktor Yanukovych/Archive 3

< Talk:Viktor Yanukovych
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cyberbot II in topic External links modified
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

What Wikipedia and this article are not and the WP-prescribed way for opposing views to coexist

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion
  • 1. This is the greater English Wikipaedia, not the voice of Putin's Kremlin channel RT or various other even more fringe sources. The language of the article fairly represents what the cited RSs say about the subject, RSs contributed in a collaboration of editors with often diverging views from across the relevant political spectra.
  • 2. IMO and IME most editors here will not object to validly sourced material added in the appropriate place, in the correct voice, and with proper weight assigned. IMO, even RT has a rightful place here for some of its fact reporting. IME, for certain factual info (not so much, e.g., as the Kremlin voice/propaganda-tool for Putin's Crimea adventure), it provides greater reliability than some mainstream Western sources (even for those of us who do not lean the Kremlin way).
  • 3. One thing that does not belong in the intro is a discussion implying or outright stating that VY is still the president of UA. Nobody (even Putin) except perhaps VY himself contends that. That sort of material does not belong, especially repeatedly, in the intro any more than stating that he has been removed belongs two or three times in the intro.
  • 4. If an editor produces RSs to back up his/her contributions, it most likely can stay without objection. It would however be helpful when using some of the more questionable "tabloid"-type sources that are in Russian only, to provide an English translation first in talk, to vet the material among the editing community prior to inclusion. (See WP guidance rel Non-English sources).
  • 5. It seems more than a little narrow-minded and self-serving that some contributors would rely so heavily on the "legality" of the vote to remove VY. Here's a guy who has been robbing his country's treasury and selling out his country's future to pad his own pockets on a grand scale--all well-established by RSs in this article. It is granted, as per the OSCE observer teams and maybe others, that he was democratically elected. But there does not appear from the relevant sources produced for this article so far, that there is much else democratic about the subject or his ex-UA government. In any case, I'm not saying that doesn't belong in the article, just not repeatedly in the intro. Paavo273 (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I would like to cut the first paragraph so it just says "Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Ukrainian: Ві́ктор Фе́дорович Януко́вич; Russian: Виктор Фёдорович Янукович; born 9 July 1950) is a Ukrainian politician who was the President of Ukraine from February 2010 until February 2014." Then leave all the stuff about how we was or was not removed and is or is not still President for later in the article. What do you think? Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Kendall-K1, 'Spose that would work. I agree, in case that is part of your premise, that there is still too much specificity there. 'Didn't want to totally delete the stuff about him claiming to still be president or the "legality" of his removal 'cuz then other, pro-VY editors would claim bias. I DO think it's important to establish, which the last paragraph of the intro does belatedly, that he left prematurely in the same sense that, e.g., Nixon and Milosevich did, as that's a big part of his legacy, at least for now.
  • Another possibility is that your proposed deletion, if accomplished, starts a whole new round of intro building.  :-)
  • IMO, another sentence that should go from the last intro paragraph is, "Yanukovych claimed on 21 February 2014 that after lengthy discussions he had reached an agreement with the opposition," 'cuz unless what the agreement actually was is elaborated it doesn't really mean much to readers and could just wait to be mentioned until it's developed down below.
  • If you do make that change to paragraph 1, I propose you add the following words, or words to that effect, to your new one-sentence first paragraph: "..., one year short of his full five year term."
  • Rel your edit to alleged higher education, I was of the impression that was a permissible and desirable intro to that section, which is then apparently fully sourced as to every alleged but not so much factual academic accomplishment. If you think some lead sentence does belong there but just not the one you deleted, I'd encourage you to craft one more to your liking, one perhaps a little more guardedly neutral. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that cutting that first paragraph so much is less than ideal, I'm just trying to keep the arguments out of it. You're right that not saying anything about how he left leaves the reader wondering what happened to him. I'm not going to edit myself, just offering a suggestion.
As for the higher ed, that sentence did draw a conclusion, and I don't like it in a BLP. The reader will certainly draw that same conclusion after he reads the section. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • RT is not more of a fringe source than everything else. All sides are trying to present the people they support in the best light. RT is much more professional and much more reliable than most.
  • It is not true. Russia Says Ousted Yanukovich Is Legal President of Ukraine.
  • It's strange, why are you proposing to delete Russian sources and didn't say anything about Ukrainian ones (like UNIAN and 5 Kanal)? And WP:NOENG: "Citations to non-English sources are allowed."
  • Quite the opposite. The last time I checked the article didn't explain why his removal from office is considered unconstitutional. It should be explained in detail. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the nature of the source of the material should also be considered. After all, RT presentations originate in a rather direct manner from the Russian government and indirectly from a former KGB agent who is intent upon restoring to Russia the "greatness" of the Soviet Union, and I suppose all its repressive glory. Can such a source be considered reliable simply because from time to time they cover subjects that are dear to the hearts of this or that reader? All sources fail to please me; none of them do a perfect job. But a source that originates from a people/government that has demonstrated for a number of decades to be able to twist the facts into a "truth" that supports their narrow objective of presenting themselves as always on the side of the truth and who defines an enemy as anyone who might disagree with them, to be an unreliable source. Zedshort (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
RT is controlled and funded by the Russian government. Anything it publishes on Ukraine is biased. It is not a reliable source, except for when citing opinions made by the Russian government.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 06:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Actually, IME RT, with all its Kremlin bias, does a credible job of highlighting many deficiencies of Western capitalist countries. But it really IMO loses all credibility as Putin's mouthpiece for his landgrabs, including Crimea, or other Kremlin projects. A serious conflict of interest there between supposed news reporting and the propaganda machine.
  • In addition to using VY to further his imperialist ambitions, Putin may have a much more worrisome-for-him connection to VY, according to some (See e.g., this article from Forbes), in that his fundamentally corrupt m.o., including a power base of ultimately self-interested oligarchs, is not greatly different from VY's, and he knows that even given his apparent iron grip on Russian political process, the Russian media, etc., under the right circumstances, he could be next on the chopping block.
  • Regarding the whole "legality" (IMO non-) issue, I think these words from this discussion on another site are relevant: "Was the American revolution legal? The Arab spring uprisings? What is the difference between these examples and (for example) Hitler's... creative election? Could it be that a government's actions after its rise to power legitimize it over the regime it replaces? – kleineg Mar 5 at 20:18" Or, I might add, the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution + a bunch of others? Paavo273 (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • You won't be able to ban the use of Russian sources cause it goes against the principle of WP:NPOV. If you really want to get rid of some fringe ones, you should start with Pravda.com.ua, UNIAN, Channel 5 (Ukraine). There is also Radio Free Europe funded by the U.S. Congress.
    Half of the article is based on rumors. Like, "Students of the academy assert that such a faculty did not exist, nor do they remember Yanukovych reading any lectures." sourced from Pravda.co.ua. It is obvious that the purpose of Pravda.com.ua and the likes has been to attack Yanukovich. This is what people who want to make this a reliable encyclopedia should worry about. All there gossips repeated by Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Though not irrelevant, funding is not the main issue. It's more editorial independence, journalistic integrity, and freedom of expression. RT is great for pointing out faults in Western countries. Not so much so Putin's militarism. Not so much the police state Russia has become and is ever becoming under Putin. Paavo273 (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
When you say stuff like "Putin's militarism", it doesn't look like an WP:NPOV. "Journalistic integrity"? Please provide proof that pro-Maidan journalists are more "integral" than people at RT. --02:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: as I've always said the impeachment was unconstitutional. At first I had only one Western source, by now it has become more accepted. Der Spiegel explains the issue in detail [1]. To be honest, the article leaves nothing open at all. There is also a similar article in Foreign affairs Review The Price of Victory in Ukraine. Quote:

The unconstitutional legislating spree that the opposition undertook on Saturday bears shocking resemblance. Article 94 of the Constitution, requiring the presidential signature for the promulgation of laws was soundly trampled. The retroactive amending of the law under which the former PM Tymoshenko was charged violates general principles of law. Article 111 requires the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court to take part in the impeachment, which was certainly ignored. Articles 112 and 114 on presidential succession and the naming of ministers were also dismissed. Articles 157 and 159 forbid the amending of the constitution in times of emergency and without verification by the Constitutional Court… and the list goes on and on.

Legal expert Mark Weller who is generally sympathetic to the Ukrainian view in the Crimean conflict admits Yanukovich ″was not removed through the lengthy process of impeachment, provided for in the Ukrainian constitution″ [2]. Generally, there is no dispute as to the legality of the impeachment, it obviously was unconstitutional. The only dispute there is (and we still see it on Wikipedia, too) that when Putin says 1 plus 1 equals 2 then we must disagree with him on that, too, because the evil Putin is never correct. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kendall-K1's comments above GerixAu (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess this one is usually stated as the simplest reason why Yanukovich's removal from office was unconstitutional (quoting from the 2014 Ukrainian revolution article):

In the Verkhovna Rada, deputies voted with 328 in favour (of the 447 deputies) and none against for impeaching Yanukovych. This was short of the 338 votes required by the Ukrainian constitution.

But surely, the list can go on and on. "They" just don't care to act within the law. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I've looked and this article already says it (the thing about the 338 required votes) as well. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please thread and sign your contributions

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey guys--I mean Lokalkosmopolit and Moscow Connection--could you please thread your contributions. It's nigh impossible to tell who's saying what here. Just start your contribution with one more colon than the previous edit. See Wikipedia help HERE for additional assistance and explanation. Could you also please sign your edits. Спасибо! Paavo273 (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

My last comment had broken indentation because 'blockquote' tends to break comments, I've noticed it before and I couldn't fix it. Also, I always sign my comments, where's the problem?
PS. ″Спасибо″ - is it some hint at my ethnic background? If so, you're mistaken. And even if I were Russian, this would not disqualify me from editing articles that have numerous pro-Ukrainian editors. Kiitos paljon, Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You've got this all wrong. I only made a suggestion--maybe it wasn't even you; I just saw your name in there a lot--to help the contributors get their messages read. If you look at this "thread," you'll agree, I'm sure, that it's a mess, a nightmare. Unsigned comments and left margins going every which way, or no indent at all.
Unless this is a private conversation NOT meant for the editors of this article in general?
Rel the perceived sleight about YOUR ethnicity, that's nonsense. I often include a greeting or close in Russian or Ukrainian to my article or user talk posts on these articles, esp. when it's evident the user has a cultural connection. 'Am a Russophile myself (in the second context of the IMO less-than-optimal WP article); 'used to live in an ethnic-Russian Ukrainian town. Paavo273 (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Stealth edits to VY under the edit summary "tidy up"

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi User:Gerixau, 1. It was encouraging to see your appearance here on the talk page above. Well, the unspecified substance of your agreeing with User:Kendall K-1 wasn't what I thought it might be about 'cuz you reverted him on that point.

2. As per my edit summary just now reverting part of your edits, as per my many previous edit summaries reverting, and as per my remarks some weeks ago now on your talk page, you should participate in talk before making substantive changes, especially to content that has been recently discussed on the talk page. I'm not the only one who thinks so. See, for example this link to an exchange I had with a third editor some time back regarding one of your stealth edits.

There are good reasons why the material is presented this way, and you have never offered any explanation as to why it should be different, just went ahead time after time changing it to your liking without ever participating in the discussion.

3. Actually IMO much of your recent two edits are unobjectionable or in one or two cases improve the article. However, there are a couple problems: (A) Your changes to the intro rel the 2004 presidential election are factually incomplete/incorrect: It was the 2ND round that was nullified and re-done. (B) Your combining of the info rel Mezhyhirya is problematic in the way previously noted many times, including on your talk page here. Paavo273 (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well it's great to hear that editors are taking the time to discuss these important issues, I am genuinely gratified. Thank you for the compliments. You may find these pages of interest and relevance: List of Wikipedia controversies , Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Blocking policy . Thank you again for your consistent recommendations. GerixAu (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

'Need to understand and follow policy when adding material to an article or reverting others' edits

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

1. Before adding info or reverting other editors' edits, 'need to read the edit summaries and follow WP policies, including especially NPOV. This includes especially the requirement that editors not use Wikipedia's voice, i.e., state as fact, what is only an opinion. Moreover, WP:No original research states a clear policy that you cannot make up stuff NOR make your own interpretation of sources you find. The statement about the constitutionality clearly violates ALL these rules. The following statement from the rule is specifically on point: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." I am not suggesting this info should be excluded, but it needs to be properly cited to a SECONDARY SOURCE (e.g., Voice of Europe which already appears in the article) and stated as the opinion that it is.

2. The intro must necessarily be brief. The WP guideline is four paragraphs. There is not room to place a summary of every section heading in the article. Also, see and understand the section rel Introductory text.

3. When adding the material back to the body, make sure it is stated in the correct voice and cited to a secondary source that actually states it. The Voice of Europe article is already included. Paavo273 (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Moscow Connection: It's not a solution to improving this article including per your vision for the article, to revert w/o substantive explanation based on personal preference when a rule violation has been pointed out. The law or constitution is a PRIMARY source, and the above policy quoted in bold prohibits a WP editor from making an interpretation of a primary source. I personally am NOT against your including this info in this article but it has to be per WP policy. The Radio Free Europe source is a secondary source and when properly attributed IMO is not a problem. I even added a subheading for it.
As far as what should appear in the intro, there simply isn't room to put everything there. The intro is already too long and needs shortening, not expanding. Paavo273 (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

VY's education

Latest comment: 10 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

How is it possible for the article to claim that the Horlivka Automobile and Road Institute (Donetsk State Technical University (DonSTU)), Horlivka does not exist when it is listed on The Open University as existing in the Ukraine? Also, why would an "honorary lecturer" be expected to attend any classes? An honorary position is bestowed by an institution as an honor, not for services! The Open University list of universities in Ukraine The website for the institute Twocs (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Привет/Hi fellow editors, including especially User:Twocs and User:Moscow Connection:
1. Re Twocs's 2nd point, that was exactly my thought when reading Moscow Connection's edits to the section. Universities give these even to people with little formal schooling (e.g., musicians, artists, businessmen) who made their local area proud. Along those lines, while I agree that section needed revising, I don't think that source, a Ukrainska Pravda article, should be deleted, ESPECIALLY UNLESS you have something more reliable for the relevant info. For one thing, that's the one that cites the honorary degree, isn't it?
2. Instead, I think the correct way is to Wikify/qualify the information to its source--give it a NPOV. If some of the claims (such as he was supposed to teach classes with or earn his honorary degree or whatever it said) are dubious or illogical, just state it with NPOV, without the diss.
3. For the other degrees/credentials, I'd say some of them should be included/restored EVEN if critical, but it would certainly be right to say stuff like, "According to an article questioning YV's academic credentials in Ukrainska Pravda..." or whatever. The WP standard from NPOV I think would be "Avoid stating opinions as facts" and "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts".
4. When Moscow Connection added his highly critical remarks of the article here in talk and added the neutral tag, I thought yeah this section in particular. So I think if you use a NPOV and the article author's voice, not WP's, much or most of that info still belongs. If anyone comes up with a better, more reliable source for the same info, great. Paavo273 (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, some of those are honorary degrees and all politicians have them. It's not fair to add "allegedly", "registered to a post office box", etc. in every sentence. It's not fair to mention a degree only to show it is unnotable. If some degree is unnotable, just don't mention it.
I left only the three that seem notable and are mentioned in his official profile.
I had to delete some paragraphs completely cause I couldn't delete just a part. They were entirely based on a single article in an opposition Internet newspaper. This paragraph was the most unbiased of all, but again, presented information in a strange, unbelievable way:

In 2001, while Governor General of the Donetsk Oblast, Yanukovych supposedly graduated from the Ukrainian Academy of Foreign Trade as a Master of International Law. However, very few of the then-enrolled students remember him in class, taking exams, or attending graduation.

"Supposedly"? He graduated. His official profile says so. How could it possibly be he didn't?
"Very few"? But it says that students actually saw him in class and taking exams. Why very few? If all the students always attended classes and Yanukovich came to a lecture just a single time, they all would have seen him. The same goes for exams. And how could it be that "Very few ... remembered him ... attending graduation"? It doesn't make sense, Yanukovich either attended or didn't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Moscow Connection, Thanks for your effort to improve this section. I left your additions mostly intact. Where I did change it was based on what a close reading of the cited sources indicated. 'Added attribution to the spinform website which looks a little bloggy, but especially given the dearth of info overall, we need MORE not less info.
Rel the Mtn. View professorship, I agree that it doesn't belong--including on the grounds that the website is dead and I can't find another one that mentions it.
I added back some of the UA Pravda info but with a more neutral tone. I really can't see how you can exclude UA Pravda, even if you weren't including spinform.ru.
Also 'found a new source from Kyiv Post which seems like a fairly balanced (at least by comparison) discussion.
QUERY: What do you think would be an ideal neutral source for this info? (I was thinking a statement and transcript from his alma mater.)
The thing IMO people are never gonna' grasp unless they live in that kind of system is that as the Kyiv Post article talks about, it's pretty common to be able buy what you need if you have the denghi. If VY did what he's accused of, WHY weren't the other candidates complaining? Maybe 'cuz they did the same thing? And they knew it's bad policy to throw rocks when you live in a glass house? In the West, that kind of thing gets around. (Couple examples: a German president had to resign over plagiarizing his PhD. He actually WROTE a dissertation, but stole s.o. else's info. Former US Sen. Ted Kennedy and VP Biden are widely known to have cheated on college exams, e.g., [3], a reason Biden could never make it as pres. on his own, but might slip in if Obama, e.g., has an accident.) IMO and IME living in UA, the normal reaction to this sort of thing based on how things work there would be "BFD".
IMO your logic is pretty sound rel his website reporting he GRADUATED. As to the BONA FIDES of his degree(s) (e.g., academic rigor) IMO the official site wouldn't carry much or any weight.)
I changed the heading on convictions back 'cuz I don't see anything else there EXCEPT criminal convictions and that's more specific than problems w/ the law. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The official site certainly carries enough weight. I guess no one can deny that it would be stupid to lie on the official site. And it didn't even say anything that could be doubted. Two university degrees and membership in the Academy of Economic Sciences. They were mentioned in this article just the same before my changes. I just said that these three were probably the only notable ones and that it was unfair to add some unnotable degrees only to demonstrate they were unnotable.
I will look closer into the changes in the academic section in a few days, but at first glance it looks okay to me. The Kiev Post paragraph seems okay and well balanced. Thank you for being objective.
Do you know what a conviction is? He wasn't convicted in 2005 and 2010. He was accused, but not convicted. So the section title is simply incorrect. It should be renamed somehow. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Здравствуйте Moscow Connection: How about "Criminal convictions and charges"? "Legal troubles" is kind of vague.
Rel your deletions and additions on 12 April, IMO it's perfectly reasonable to maker clear that he ASKED to be excluded. (I wouldn't use the term "expelled" (that may not have been you?) because that term is used in the source only with regard to Azarov, NOT VY. As far as your blanking/deletion of prior sourced info, if the wording is not IYO an accurate reflection of the sources, please re-word rather than delete.
My point in separating these two events is that they clearly are different events separated by significant calendar time. The first was the Party of Regions leader (backed up by some faction of the VR membership apparently) expressing unhappiness with VY. The second event, as you correctly noted, was VY REQUESTING to be excluded from the upcoming election.
Okay, now I'm thinking that maybe you deleted that info because when you checked the source, that info was missing there. That is simply because the paper is cutting off stories in an attempt to get paid subscriptions. The story, however, is widely quoted on the Internet. I pasted in the address of one of the archives of that story to the article, and I'll provide a link here, too. The quote by the P of R leader appears in THIS link between the third and fourth video boxes/spaces. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
He could not possibly ask to exclude him from the elections cause the elections are illegitimate. He is the only legitimate president and will be the only legitimate president until the end of his presidential term. And yes, I had checked the source just in case the source had its facts mixed up, but it didn't. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
↑ Don't regard this as propaganda. I'm just explaining you the legally correct version of events. (Just think, why would a person who is already a legitimate president and will be a legitimate president for another year even think about participating in illegitimate elections? To legitimize them?) --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: Actually, they are two separate events. There is a distinct difference between disavowal as an official decision made by the political party (entity 1) even without VY being present, and an official statement of personal position made by the disavowed party (VY - entity 2) as a public show of considering himself to still be the legal and tenured president. They are mutually exclusive events by fact of their being separate entities. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: I'm not sure what you mean. :) (I mean I'm not sure what you think I'm mistaken about.) I was simply explaining this edit: [4]. I wanted to explain that participating in the elections was never an option for him and that he asked to exclude him from the party, not from the elections. (By the way, I don't think he was ever officially disowed by the party before he asked to exclude him, that's why I deleted this: [5]. If he were, he wouldn't ask later.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Moscow Connection: I was (and still am) aware of the edits you'd made. The problem was simply that the incorrect source had been cited, but that's been rectified now by Paavo273's addition of a reliable source. Whether or not he was aware of having been disavowed, the source states that The Party of Regions had not only disavowed him, but had already nominated a new candidate/leader for the May elections (i.e., why would they have nominated a new party leader if they still recognised VY as still being the incumbent president?). Whether you have doubts or not is speculation on your behalf (that is, WP:OR) as there is a source indicating otherwise. I hope that has clarified your confusion and assisted in explaining why the section is relevant to the sequence of events: The Party of Regions had obviously disavowed him before his official statement, even if their position was only made clear at a later date. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: They hadn't nominate any candidate before he asked to exclude him from the party.
Why are you saying that Paavo273 added a reliable source? Did you look at the source? It doesn't say anything like that. I will remove the section again.
I guess the only way for Paavo273 to prove that the party actually disavowed Yanukovich in February would be to find an official statement by the Party of Regions. Official. By the party, not by someone who declared himself a party representative and not by some local party section or by the parliammentary faction. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Considering that another editor has added additional RS since your blanking the section whilst discussion was still underway on the talk page, it's become something of a moot point. Unfortunately, your WP:POINTy approach to editing is very much a current concern. The single source was already quite clear on the matter, and, no, there does not need to be an official statement from the party: contrary to what you are proposing, that would be an undesirable use of primary sources where there is a verifiable and reliable secondary source to draw on. I would suggest that your 'confusion' is not over what the secondary source demonstrates, but with the reliability of the source. If so, you should have taken it to WP:RSN. No more WP:TE, please. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

About the "Criminal convictions" section title. I think it would be better if the part about his youth is removed (cause it is already present in his biography) and the section is dedicated solely to legal proceedings against him that took place during his political career. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: I've explained 100,000 times why the info is incorrect. Why don't you try to understand? (I will tell Lvivske that the head of the parliamentary faction is not the head of the party and I will provide a link to the article about the Party of Regions. --Moscow Connection (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: Aside from being given to 'slight' exaggeration, you appear to be suffering from a case of 'broken record'. I hope all of your doubts have been assuaged by the discussion below. Regards. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: The broken record is the Kyiv News. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Content blanking on his disavowing by Party of Regions

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

The user Moscow Connection is vandalizing and blanking the info on the Party of Regions reaction to the impeachment here. His argument is that "This is practically vandalism. The source doesn't say it." Considering he was warned, I told him I vetted the info, and yet continued to say this, this is a flat out lie to blank content.

The source verbatim reads:

"Yanukovych and the circle of people closest to him are responsible for that. We, the Party of Regions faction and members of our party, strongly condemn the criminal orders that led to human victims, an empty state treasury, huge debts, shame before the eyes of the Ukrainian people and the entire world."

Further, here is a screenshot [6]. I hope that whoever else is editing this article will see what's going on here --Львівське (говорити) 18:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

My screenshot: [7]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I see now. Looks to me like you're behind the paywall. The rest is below the 'announcement to readers' notice. --Львівське (говорити) 20:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay. There are only "READ MORE IN SECTION" and a comments section for me. By the way, I looked at your screen shot and it's just some party official. And another link you provided on the noticeboard is a statement by the parliamentary faction. I'm sure the info you re-added as it is right now is incorrect. I believe he had never been officially disavowed by the party (the whole party) before he asked to exclude him a month later: [8]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
As I stated before, the announcement is by Oleksandr Yefremov and he is the head of the party, and his statement was made on behalf of the party and all of its members. I don't know where you're cooking up this "just some party official" or that he wasn't disavowed by the party in spite of clear evidence and sources. --Львівське (говорити) 20:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"Head of the party"? Oleksandr Yefremov is "a Party of Regions faction leader in the Verkhovna Rada" according to the Wikipedia article. He is not the head of the party. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That makes him the head of the party...--Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No, it does not. Please look at the infobox in the Wikipedia article "Party of Regions". This is a BLP, the info is potentially defamatory. Please remove it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I reverted you before checking here on the talk page. Thanks for the screenshot, it's a pain in the butt that Kiev Post is behind a paywall, and especially that it's not obvious you aren't seeing the entire text if you haven't registered. We have a slight disagreement among the sources as to whether it's Yefremov or "members of our party" who "strongly condemn." But there's agreement that Yefremov is the one who made the statement. I've gone with the longer quote, which I think is clearer. There is also a slight disagreement as to whether Yefremov is "a leader" or "head" but I don't think that's significant, as he's clearly speaking for the party either way. Change it if you want. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

he's leader of the parliamentary faction of the POR, and the KP refers to him as "head" of the party, so I think it's splitting hairs to debate this as he's at the top of the pyramid nonetheless. KP says "Party of Regions head Oleksandr Yefremov" and "Oleksandr Yefremov reads a statement on behalf of the Party of Regions in which he states that Yanukovych was responsible for the violence and bloodshed in Ukraine." The quote from Yefremov clearly indicates that he's speaking on behalf of the entire party. ("We, the Party of Regions faction and members of our party, strongly condemn...") --Львівське (говорити) 05:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
1. Is he the head of the party? - No, he is not. 2. Is the address you have found yourself made on behalf of the whole party. - No, it is not. 2. If Kyiv Post says calls him the head of the party, but he is not the head, it only proves that Kyiv Post is not a reliable source. 3. I'm sorry, but I think there are users who want to keep this incorrect information in the article even knowing it's incorrect. It's a BLP and this info must be removed. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
This only shows you are arguing from an WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. --Львівське (говорити) 14:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The user Львівське doesn't seem to follow WP:NPOV I suggest WP:M WP:RFM --Wrant (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not unreliable info, and blanking sourced info is never a solution. If the suggestion I had made after the first time it was blanked was followed (as referred to in the attempt at DR or whatever the other day), this probably would have never come up or at least in this way. Blanking sourced info will rarely if ever lead to a positive outcome. Paavo273 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Why it's not mentioned that according to the Constitution for a removal there is a need of a parliamentary enquiry committee which reports to the constitution court. And after this process there can be a vote.

Article 111


"The President of Ukraine may be removed from office by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by the procedure of impeachment, in the event that he or she commits state treason or other crime.

The issue of the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is initiated by the majority of the constitutional composition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

To conduct the investigation, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine establishes a special temporary investigatory commission whose composition includes a special procurator and special investigators.

The conclusions and proposals of the temporary investigatory commission are considered at a meeting of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. For cause, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, by no less than two-thirds of its constitutional composition, adopts a decision on the accusation of the President of Ukraine. The decision on the removal of the President of Ukraine from office by the procedure of impeachment is adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine by no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition, after the review of the case by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the receipt of its opinion on the observance of the constitutional procedure of investigation and consideration of the case of impeachment, and the receipt of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Ukraine to the effect that the acts, of which the President of Ukraine is accused, contain elements of state treason or other crime. --Wrant (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The specific reason it's not mentioned the way you apparently envision it to be is that original research AS WELL AS interpretation or application of primary sources by WP editors is strictly not allowed: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." This has been covered here before recently. Paavo273 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:NOR Doesn't apply here, it is the original source called "Ukrainian constitution" you can look for the Article 111 I didn't interpret anything as you suggest the Article is posted above. You can use it without interpretation by quoting the Ukrainian constitution in the article. --Wrant (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Paavo is correct, this is literally the definition of original research. --Львівське (говорити) 22:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


If I can be blunt, Wrant appears to be another SPI/sleeper account. --Львівське (говорити) 21:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
No this is my own and only account stop with your accusations. --Wrant (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
The OR rule may not apply assuming this is the verbatim text of the section from the UA constitution. What DOES APPLY is the other rule rel primary sources I both cited and quoted. Conceivably, the primary source may be able to be quoted, but it probably would look kind of funny in its own section without any analysis, which is strictly not allowed. And that would obviously include juxtaposition with any argument an editor might want to make about it. Paavo273 (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Here you have your second tier source http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html "However, it is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- i.e., 338 lawmakers. "--Wrant (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Righto. And that one is already in the article quoted just like you're quoting it. HERE. And has been for quite a long while--without looking up the diff., I'd estimate based on recollection a month or longer.
Paavo273 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Russian language version of VY's name

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've just reverted the removal of VY's Russian language name. Personally, I know that he was a Russian language speaker for most of his life (and can be fairly certain that his birth certificate would have used the Russian spelling), therefore see some form of justification for its featuring here. Outside of that, is it useful or edifying for the reader? Any arguments for retaining it? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that he was born in 1950, it's highly unlikely that his birth certificate was in Ukrainian, nor his name (all standard paperwork was exclusively in Russian). While I'm not convinced that it's edifying - his notability being based on his political career in the post-Soviet era - I'm honestly not swayed either way, and am fine with it remaining. I'd rather not be presumptuous when it comes to a BLP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Removal from power"

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Didn't Viktor Yanukovych flee from the country? He was replaced according to the constitution by an acting president because he abandoned office. That is not "removal from power".Royalcourtier (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Still, he was removed from power. If he weren't, he would return from Kharkov or wherever he was on February 22. And he says he didn't flee, he just had other things to attend to in the eastern Ukraine. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Per Moscow Connection, he says he didn't flee. As this is a biography of a living person, we don't make WP:POV allegations or accusations, many of which are blatantly biased and attributable to the yellow press. As he has sought political shelter in the Russian Federation, there has been no trial where he could defend himself or be indicted. Ultimately, he was ousted and we don't indulge in original research by speculating as to political circumstances. WP:NPOV is arguably the most crucial Wikipedia policy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Viktor Yanukovych. 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  All 3 instances pointed to later archived captures of 404 errors. I've replaced these with correct captures of the articles. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The ACT of abandoning the estate as result of removal from office versus the BACKGROUND to his removal

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:Gerixau: The only "unexplained migration" of material in this article that I know of has been by you. The reasons for this material being placed where it was originally has been explained repeatedly on this talk page, and AFAICT you never bothered to respond AT ALL. Your only contribution by way of explanation while persistently changing the info, in fact, was AFAICR "tidy up." I am not the only editor who thinks the material makes more sense placed as it was, as one or more other editors also reverted your changes.

If your intention is to improve the article, please look at the different headings and understand the logical differences between them rather than just clumping the related material together.

SPECIFIC SUGGESTION: If you want to improve the article, it would IMHO make more sense, IF a consensus of editors is to combine the material, to SHORTEN the info under the Abandonment subheading and re-situate most of it to Background to Removal. (A lengthy description of the leader's lavish home appears IMHO to lack a direct connection to the event of his removal from office and instead belongs to what led to that event.)

QUERY 1: What would you say to that?

QUERY 2: Have you contributed substantively to this section? To this article?

QUERY 3: Do you see a logical distinction between the act of abandoning the estate and the background including REASONS he was removed from office? Either way, please explain. A third possibility that is always there is to come up with some entirely NEW headings and subheadings.

The real issue is that editing WP is supposed to be a collaborative effort, and it calls at a minimum for at least trying to identify why article content authors place info where they do.

      • If you have ideas for change, especially where your sole proposed contribution is REORGANIZATION, it would seem reasonable to expect you to at least explain yourself or even better, to seek consensus, on this page first.

Other editors' input, especially including from those who have edited this section previously, would also be appreciated. Paavo273 (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive and thorough feedback. Obviously some substantial effort has been given to this latest post and your ongoing commitment to this article is indeed unquestionable. Your queries and suggestions will be given all the attention and consideration that they deserve. GerixAu (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Viktor Yanukovych. 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 67 external links on Viktor Yanukovych. 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.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Viktor Yanukovych. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Viktor_Yanukovych/Archive_3&oldid=1137297943"