Talk:Viktor Yanukovych/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Any Ukrainian speakers?

Does anyone here speak Ukrainian? His website is in Ukrainian-only, and it would be nice to know what he's been doing since he won (or, perhaps, "won") the election, similar to the way that every step that Yushchenko has taken is recorded in his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.217.127.27 (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2004‎ (UTC)

Russia?

I've heard & read many reports saying that Putin is a good friend of Mr Yanukovych; and pumped lots of money into Yanukovych's campaign. Is this true? 63.146.46.202 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOAP

BTW, your question is a kind of unfulfilled here. You'd better start either formulating your requests for improving the article, or editing it yourself. On the way to it, you might want to create your own editors' account - which is free and anonymous. Feel free to join us. Best wishes, Ukrained 20:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

There is actually only one letter difference in the spelling of the name between Russian and Ukrainian. I do think the name should be listed in both Ukrainian (first) then Russian.

Ukrainian being required by law

I will leave it up to those who follow Ukrainian politics even closer than me, but if I remember correctly, last year Rada refused to pass the requirement of UA language for state officials. That's why I wrote "expected" rather than "required by law". Are my memories incorrect? --Irpen 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Issue requires additional research. Sashazlv 06:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Issue resolved. This is regulated by Law on languages in Ukrainian SSR. This law is one of few relict laws from Soviet times that is still in force [1] and last amended in 2003.

Стаття 6. Обов'язок службових осіб володіти мовами роботи органів і організацій

Службові особи державних, партійних, громадських органів, установ і організацій повинні володіти українською і російською мовами, а в разі необхідності - і іншою національною мовою в обсязі, необхідному для виконання службових обов'язків.

Незнання громадянином української або російської мови не є підставою для відмови йому у прийнятті на роботу. Після прийняття на роботу службова особа повинна оволодіти мовою роботи органу чи організації в обсязі, необхідному для виконання службових обов'язків.

I would strike out "full command" in the article, because "full command" has dubious meaning. Sashazlv 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, after the recent mess with parliamentary decree dismissing the cabinet, enforcement of laws in Ukraine is a joke. Sashazlv 06:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, but what would this mean then: "Верховная Рада Украины отказалась принимать законопроекты, которыми предлагалось вменить в обязанность государственных служащих в обязательном порядке владеть украинским языком. Например за проект Закона «О внесении изменений в Закон Украины о государственной службе”, внесенный народным депутатом Степаном Хмарой, проголосовал всего 141 народный депутат из 226 необходимых" --Irpen 06:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's now irrelevant what Khmara was proposing back in 2004. It's not part of the law. (I don't know, but for example, it may be that he was proposing that each Govt worker should pass a language exam, or something else). What is relevant is what is the Law. So far, Sashazlv provided a reference to the law. Any evidence that this law is not valid?

The law is the law. It's expected to be followed regardless of the level of enforcement. Or, let's at least put it this way, we should not promote or suggest any actions, which are against the law. Uapatriot 07:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Our goal here is not to promote or suggest anything but to report on the factual state of affairs. If the real situation contradicts the law, this is the problem of the law enforcement and not of Wikipedia. If you want to do something to make sure the law is enforsed, you write to Lutsenko, Drizhachny or Medvedko and not to the Wikipedia. --Irpen 07:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What about your good faith in supporting the law? Or, do you support only the law that you like? I checked the article on speeding, but I didn't find anything like "Many are violating the posted speed limits in rush-hour", while the factual state may be as such. Uapatriot 08:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that something along those lines belongs to the speeding article, I am not sure of the exact text. My main interest in Wikipedia are the Ukrainian topics and not the US law enforsement. Therefore, I care for this article and not for that one. I don't think what we support should affect the factual accuracy of Wikipedia. The law is not enforsed and this should be reported. If the law was enforsed, I would have objected to a lie. Articles should reflect the real state of affairs of the real world. And Yanuk's Ukrainian wasn't even the worst among others. Do you remember the Ukrainian of Azarov? Saakashvili's Ukrainian was better than of the virst Vice-Prime Minister of UA.

You want to change things? You vote. Or run for parliament or even for president. Changing things by hiding them from Wikipedia will not make them different and will not help Wikipedia either. I will restore the info but if you have a suggestion about a better way of relaying the information, please go ahead with them. Sweeping them under the rug is a wrong solution. --Irpen 08:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that what I support should not affect the factual accuracy of Wikipedia, but I think what we (as human society) support should be part of Wikipedia. Again, somebody may be a bad Samaritan and report where cocaine is sold to this wikipedia, and somebody may be a good Samaritan and report it to law enforsement authorities. I see it as a trade-off between factual accuracy and good faith. As well as there is a trade-off between free speech and responsibility recent example. It looks like we are choosing the different sides of the trade-off.

As one idea, I don't think we should point not all areas in which somebody is not so good. We should better point out, what people are good at. So, I think, making fun of Yanukovich, and pointing out his "numerous spelling mistakes in Ukrainian" is a bad thing. As a solution, I would propose to erase the whole paragraph. (Unless you really insist that all factual statements should stay).

Or, another idea. What makes you think that the Ukrainian language requirement is not so much enforced? It may be that Yanukovich's knowledge of the language (while not perfect) is above the minimum required level. Uapatriot 09:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure, this paragraph is important. The rule of thumb is that more info is usually better than less info. Of course irrelevant info doesn't count. I think it is relevant. However, misleding info does not belong here at all. To say about the requirement and to ommit that the enforcement is lax makes an impression that Ukrainian officials are all fluent in Ukrainian. This is simply not true. I am sorry to see this pity state of affairs but my views on this don't matter. How do I know that it is not enforced. First, check the link above. Why would have the Rada even contemplate the new law that would have repeated the law we have. Most importantly, I've heard Azarov "speaking Ukrainian". Maybe Yanuk's Ukrainian is above the minimum level. There is no level below the level of Azarov. --Irpen 09:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hate long talk pages as a dial-up user... Gentlemen, let me stress two important thesises:

• tactical one - I agree with Uapatriot (regarding his thesises) and strongly disagree with both Irpen and Sasha (regarding their whole priority). Whatever "soft", "strict" or "drastic" the enforcement of law is, it's still the law. And Yanyk was the presidential candidate, not the regular citizen. So I guess we expect him to strictly obey every and each law, no matter is it good, bad or poorly enforced. This is obvious. That's why I will insist on deleting or rephrasing that passage as irrelevant. Irpen, you're welcome to develop the issue at Ukrainian language. Please don't let anybody think that we're inventing excuses for Yanyk. Ukrained 11:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Ukrained, please. No one is inventing excuses for Yanuk. You wrote "we expect him to strictly obey every and each law, no matter is it good, bad or poorly enforced". Good! I agree and this is exactly what I wrote in the original phrasing. I said that all UA official are expected to have a full command of Ukrainian. Others changed my phrasing by instead saying that it is required by law rather than simply expected. True enough, the fact is that this law is not always followed. I make no judgement in the article on how good or bad this is and if you want my opinion, ask me at my talk page. In the article, however, I want the readers to get the real picture, not the one wished by you, me, Sasha or Uapatriot. The real picture is that the law is not strictly enforced and the article should say it because it happens to be so, --Irpen 18:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, forgot one thing. Who are those who would accuse me in "inventing excuses for Yanuk"? Ukrained perhaps? My friend, you are accusing me in seven or eight thingss too many. I wrote you recently, that from the moment one I stopped responding to the "accusations" you keep inventing in your imagination. 7 or 8 times you have already "accused" me and others in different things and I used up all the time I have to respond to your unwarranted accusations. Reread the WP:AGF. --Irpen 18:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• strategic one - I fiercely oppose the downgrading of a "Doctor" and "Profffessor" unable to write Ukrainian. I strictly insist on keeping this detail. I mean Yanyk was a real statesman (also careless to laws): he was going to office, making meetings and decisions, participating in negotiations etc. But he's never been an intellectual and scholar (not an intellectual leader, Irpen, ultimately intellectual)!. We should and (I think) will stress this point whatever it takes. This is far more important than comparisons with Azarov. And ... Irpen and Sasha, if we (as intellectuals) let anybody think that Yanyk is a "Professor", than we should immediately get out of this country. This was not about the editing, but about your personal attitudes. Regards, Ukrained 11:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I said that I am fine with this info. I actually think it is good to have. --Irpen 18:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Irpen: Probably, I had to say right in front, but, yes, you have a valid point. Facts are facts. It is clearly not the case at this point of time that Ukrainian officials are all fluent in Ukrainian. It may be that the enforcement is low, it may be that the requirements are low and fluency is not required. If we have reasons to claim the lack of enforcement, then we have to be sure we are acting in good faith, in particular to suggest in no way that law violations are acceptable.

The link to proua.com is not working, I cannot check it. It may be that Khmara was introducing a required language exam for government workers, or something else that the majority in parliament found unacceptable. It may be that he was introducing small changes (in law each word matters), and the majority found it unnecessary. Anyway, what I know so far is that the parliament kept the status quo. Thus, in any case, it seems as we should be back to the issue of what the current law is.

Ukrained: Yanukovich was trying to use Ukraininan language. He was making mistakes. And, I agree, probably, too many mistakes. But it's something subjective. As his mistakes were brought to public attention, as part of the presidential campaign, he found better to limit further his use of Ukrainian. As a patriot of Ukraine :), I would rather see him using bad Ukrainian than not using it at all.

As long as the government official's language knowledge is above the required limit, as for the gov. off. he should be fine. He can write his wife's name in any way he wants. On the other hand, his use of word "proFFessor" became a famous element of the recent presidential compaing, and this element can be politely described as such (i.e as "famous" mistake(s)). Overall conclusion on his language proficiency may be left up to a reader. Uapatriot 19:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

UApatriot, ProUA is not the site I usually use to read daily news about Ukraine. I prefer korrespondent.net but its internal search engine is clumsy. I remembered vaguely that Rada rejected such law in end-2004 and entered a string (рада украинский язык государственный служащий) at Yandex [2] to find the newspiece and the proUA site was one of the first ones to come up. I just retried http://www.proua.com/news/2004/12/16/180908.html and it works. If it doesn't work for you now, try later. See also this at Interfax-Ukrayina. By saying that the law is not enforced, we do not claim that this is acceptable. In fact, we make no judgement on the fatcs here, we simly report them. My original phrase used "expected" but someone changed it "required by law". If we mention the law, the fact that this particular law isn't followed is relevant because otherwise it would have been misleading to a reader. --Irpen 19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(This link is working. Thanks. But not much of info in the article though.) I am fine with the "expected" edition. But I am not so fine with the lack of enforcement story, and I am not so fine with beating Yanukovich until death for writing his wife name is the wrong way. If the requirement is "в обсязі, необхідному для виконання службових обов'язків", then please, Ukrained, bring forward documental evidence (results of Yanukovich's language exams, etc) that this requirement is not satisfied, and Irpen, please bring documental evidence that this requirement is not enforced. Or, would it be Ok with everybody if we change "full command" to "в обсязі, необхідному для виконання" and withdraw the claim that Yanukovich is below the requirement? Uapatriot 20:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we are wasting time on a very minor issue. I support a change from "full command" to "command in amount necessary to discharge their duties".

Also, I would side with Rada in striking down Khmara's bill. I think it violates part 3 of article 22 of the Constitution. Sashazlv 20:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sasha's formulation is fine with me but with "are expected" rather than "required by law". If "required by law", then the lack of enforsement whould be mentioned. If you need proof, the Azarov's speach at VAYu's inauguration would suffice. --Irpen 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Azarov is not an example, but a counterexample. Because he is gone. And we can speculate that he is gone in particular because of his bad knowledge of Ukraininan. (There were rumors that he was one of the top candidates for the Prime-Minister position, but he was turned down by Kuchma due to his mova knowledge. Moreover, there were rumors that he was taking classes of Ukraininan language. This is exacly what the law prescribes.) Thus, I don't see any evidence yet.

Do you mean this speach: "давайте сядем вместе". I was not aware of it, or probably I didn't pay attention back in 2004. Ex-post it's still fun to read.

Absolutely agree that we are wasting time on a minor issue. Uapatriot 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity

As far as I know, his farther was Belorussian and the mother was Ukrainian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by mbuk (talk • contribs)

His selfassessment is that he is an Ukrainian. He was growing without farther. Officially, the Ukr gov't is not keeping track of nationality (contrary to the Soviet time). Uapatriot 23:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The question "nationality" whatever it means, was asked at the census. True, people were free to respond as they wished (within the offered choices, which lacked Rusyns for instance) or not to respond at all. --Irpen 23:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not only "within the offered choices". People were free to claim any nationality. Anyway, if Yanukovich claims that he is an Ukrainian, I don't see a problem with that. Uapatriot 00:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Premiership 2006 -

Yanukovych has been named the new PM of Ukraine, so the article needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.17.214 (talk) 09:59, 4 August 2006‎ (UTC)

Biased !

I wanted to learn something about Orange Revolution and the forecoming Ukrainian 2006 election. I've read pages about Ioutchenko and this one. How the two pages contrast !! This one is absolutely hilarous ! This page will learn you absolutely nothing about Yanukovitch ! It's certainly been written by some "orange fanatics".

Words that describe Yanukovych : "imprisoned for robbery, Communist, unable to write in Ukrainian, connected to organized crime, KGB, electoral defeat" !!!!

It constrasts so much with those describing his opponents like Tymoshenko or Yushchenko : " quite successfull, rise in power, ... suggested (..) her fortune was gained improperly (sounds better than connected to mafia, lol) , Significant economic progress , charismatic etc...

I my opinion this page is too biased to be honest and usefull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.236.229.116 (talk • contribs)

I have removed this part of the article "Some allegations reached the Ukrainian press that Yanukovych was in secret relationship with the KGB (which supposedly started during his imprisonment). There were no documented proofs provided to support such allegations, however. Proponents of this story argue that as an ex-convict, Yanukovych could not enter the Donetsk Polytechnic Institute, travel to the West, and later make a career, unless he was protected by some powerful "shadow force".". He also was blamed in things like double raping, but that kind of staff do not depends from him, it depends from what his opponents will say. --Oleg Str 13:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oleg, these allegations are notable. There was indeed no proof of that, only rumors. But these are notable rumors about this politicians. The solutions is to present this info as rumors, which they are, not to remove them. --Irpen 16:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That is right of course, but i think, that there is certain edge. It is important to keep in mind, that many such "rumors" were launched by his opponets and hardly collection of the dirty tricks will be good for this article... Those are directed to people whom for words "communists", "KGB" means "unleashed & unspeakable evil" ;-). Info about his connections with mafia or "clan" is more realistic, so I decide to leave it, that is IMHO.--Oleg Str 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

This is not a very good article because:

1) Nothing in the actual biography is cited with references. Almost every statement that is made is then contradicted by a statement like "but these are only rumors" or " but this has not been proven." This simply perpetuates the conflict going on in Ukraine right now.

2) The grammar is horrible. One section on Yanukovych's policies contains fragment sentences that aren't English (or at least not comprehensible).

3) This page should immediately be flagged with one of those warnings of bias.

4) The comment "[In fairness it is worth pointing out that Ukrainian is the language of Western Ukraine. People in Eastern and Central Ukraine speak Russian.]" is false. The official dialect of the Ukrainian language is known as the "Kyiv-Poltava" dialect. Western Ukrainians, or Galicians, speak a different dialect which is not exactly the same as the one used officialy in government circles in Kyiv and throughout Ukraine. While it may be true that people in Eastern and Central Ukraine speak Russian, they also speak Ukrainian, just as people in Western Ukraine know how to speak Russian, but predominantly speak Ukrainian. Describing the situation with such broad strokes leads to false statements that should be avoided in an unbiased encyclopaedia.

danielgaladza Danielgaladza 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need to state that he was born in USSR

do we really need to state that he was born in USSR? it is commonly seen as to provide the county which is current successor of the region in which s/he was born...(04:29, 21 April 2007)DDima 04:29, 21 April 2007

I have thought about this for some hours. Until 1939 some parts of of what is now Ukraina were part of Poland, and until 1940, another part was part of Romania. I do not know what revisions will happen in the future. By your logic, every time the state frontiers change, we go back and revise the historical facts (such as place of birth). So for instance, the Polish or Romanian baby who is now a Ukrainian citizen because his birthplace was annexed, magically has his past edited to make him born Ukrainian. And if in 10 years time, Ukraina is partitioned between Poland and England, you would want all the people in the Polish part magically edited into Poles, and the people from the other part similarly edited into being Englishmen and women?--Toddy1 07:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

From November 21, 2002 till December 7, 2004 Viktor Yanukovych was Prime Minister

Who were the other party's in that coalition? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On May 25, 2007, Viktor Yanukovych was assigned the post of appointed chairman of the Government Chiefs Council of the Commonwealth of Independent States

Is he that still? I mean: he isn't in goverment...... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please help fix this problem.

A editor put the tag "This article or section appears to contradict itself. Please help fix this problem" above the article. Can she/he please explain here (on this talkpage) the exact problem(s) please. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I need some help for the sections "Political positions" and "Cultural and political image"

I need some help for the sections "Political positions" and "Cultural and political image" Especialy how is image is with his suporters and he must want more then only make Russian the second state language (although he had changes to try to achieve that before (he was twice Prime-Minister) and never tried then so I do not believe he will try to do so since he promises to make Russian the second state language at every election campaign...) — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hear Yanukovych sing!

Here is the clip, can this be placed in the External links section? To show his style of speeching? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Factual issues

Ladies and gentlemen, I found some factual inconsistencies in the article and I'd like some experts to fix them.

The paragraph which I consider oversimplified and non-balanced:

During 2003-2004 Ukrainian Government headed by Viktor Yanukovych implemented the series of economic (tax, pensionary, fiscal, ets.) and political (the Constitution amendments) reforms that led to two-digit annual growth of GDP. Annual growth of GDP achieved 109.6% in 2003 and 112.1% in 2004 (cf. 102.7% in 2005), capital investments 131.3% and 128.0% (cf. 101.9% in 2005) correspondingly. The highest rate in processing industry, viz. engineering industry, building sector.

Was he the only one to praise? What about coalition, parliament, Leonid Kuchma etc? As far as I recollect, they had some kind of pro-cabinet coalition even before 2004, hadn't they? I marked this all as <dubiuos>, and I'm going to delete the whole section unless corrected.

Done deleting. Ukrained (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence which I failed to understand at all: is hardly relevant:

Erstwhile Yushchenko ally and former Prime Minister Tymoshenko announced her intention to lead her party into opposition immediately afterwards.

Who's announced whose intention of what party? Nevermind.

Everything political in this encyclopedia is deteriorating without User:AlexPU :(. Ukrained (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Oh, what is "viz. engineering industry"?Ukrained (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

can someone please attend to the information about whatever convictions he has? this section is highly contradictory and bits of it make no sense at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.108.159 (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yanukovych is against woman in important positions?

In a rally Yanukovych said "Tymoshenko has to go to the kitchen". Just campaign talk or sexisms? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

He is just making a joke about Mrs Tymoshenko; that is all. If you ever go to a Yanukovych for president rally, you will find that it is completely non-sexist.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, he never looked like a sexist to me but in this Kyiv Post article he sure looked like it an since in "the response part of the article" people said he was I started to doubt. Not a very good joke by the way (and not a good job by Kyiv Post either...). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Kyiv Post is a pro-liberal anti-conservative newspaper. It's a free country; newspapers have whatever political bias their owners and readers want. It is also based in Kiev - and people in Kiev are more likely to vote liberal than conservative.

As for your not thinking it a good joke - it made me smile. If you visit ordinary people's apartments you often sit and talk with them in their kitchen. Mrs Tymoshenko, who has five homes and boasts that she is one of the most beautiful women in the world, is not an ordinary person.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Remember that Kyiv Post is mainly read by foreigners. Let me give an example of its clever bias: (article dated 21 Jan 10). This describes as Yanukovych as a "former Communist apparatchik", damning him in the eyes of foreigners. But Yushchenko, Tymoshenko and Tigipko are all former Communist apparatchiks.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Do get the feeling that Kyiv Post's "pro-liberal anti-conservativnes" is getting the better of them the last weeks... However your example is a opinion piece or editorial, they are supposed to have biased opinions... However the In a rally Yanukovych said "Tymoshenko has to go to the kitchen" article is not an editorial so there I blame them for not saying in it "Yanukovych is not known for sexisms" or something like that... Anyhow I read plenty of stupid thinks in foreign press including that Yuchenko was born in Lviv....

I always talk with people in the living room (although roughly a 100 KM drive from where I live people do use the kitchen more for conversations then in "my" part of the world....). Doesn't Yulia boasts she has only 1 home ? Never heard her boast "I am the most beautiful women in the world". Have you been watching Russian TV again ? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion to User talk:Mariah-Yulia#One of the most beautiful women in the world as it is moving off-topic here.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why mention his conviction in full, twice?

I wanted to correct the bad English in this article (decent -descent) in view of the fact that he looks like becoming the next president, but now I notice far more grievous inaccuracies: mixture of British and American English but mainly the fact that his crime, conviction and the controversy over the squashing are twice in the article. With different references to boot. I do not know which version of English to switch to, though I myself would go for British, since Ukraine is a European country. And where does this conviction belong? The way a real encyclopedia would do it, would be: mention crime and conviction in the youth section, add something like "this would come to haunt him later" and then mention the controversy while discussing his political career, briefly mentioning "over his former convictions". That would also be the norm, according to chronology: the controversy arose much later. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I agree this article is in a pretty bad shape....

I agree with you the "crime, conviction and the controversy" should be in the "Youth section", with the 2006 controversy only mentioned in the "political career section", briefly mentioning "over his former convictions".

I got no preference for British or American English, although you should let us know which one it will be. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Points of improvement

To help the improvement of this article I suggest all things that improve the article should be listed here, I start:

• In it’s current form this article reads like a anti-Yanukovych campaign website; this is not a function of Wikipedia…
• I thought since Yulia Tymoshenko is a WP:Good Article we should keep that article as a blueprint of this one, which means this article has a lack of references and content (especially on his early Political career and on his Cultural and political image (it is only negative while about 50% sees something positive in him)

All help will be appreciated since currently this article is not worthy a Ukrainian President — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

When "President-elect of Ukraine"

I just undid a edit which declared Yanukovych "President-elect of Ukraine" because I thought it was to early since the Central Election Commission of Ukraine hasn't declared him winner yet. My question now is when can we "call" him "President-elect of Ukraine", what are the criteria? And what if the election results get contested, we must wait then till the last protest or court-case is done? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

The sentences:

"On January 29, 2010 the Prosecutor General of Ukraine Oleksandr Medvedko claimed that Yanukovych was unlawfully jailed in his youth, which completely astonished the former Minister of Internal Affairs and now acting minister Yuriy Lutsenko who was recently dismissed by the Verkhovna Rada led by the Party of Regions initiative."

Suggest that Lutsenko was fired to make way for an old conviction of Yanukovych to be undone. This is pure speculation and therefore should be removed, proven or explained. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Subject's name

I certainly do not want to cause discord over this issue, having seen how language can be a very contentious issue on other pages. But the general practice of listing a person’s name in something other than English or a Latin-script transliteration is to inform readers what the subject’s original name is, what he or she considers it to be. In the absence of better arguments, I see no reason to list a person’s name in the official language of the state under which he lives, even if he runs the state. Yanukovych is a native Russian speaker; his original name is therefore a Russian one. The Ukrainian version differs but little, and is appropriate to a footnote. An explanation of the mistransliteration of his name is worth a footnote also. What we are seeing, what I have been guilty of myself (having first posted the Cyrillic in this article), is overcorrection. We should be respectful of Ukrainian in the right context, but we should extend that respect to Russian where appropriate, and Yanukovych is a good example. Ukraine is, officially or not, a bilingual country. Yanukovych is not a native speaker of Ukrainian, and I do not see why the Ukrainian version of his name should take precedence. It was my mistake to begin with; I am fixing it.
— Ford 19:46, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I was thinking of this more as an election-related article rather than a bio. But it would be nice if the Russian Cyrillic name and transliteration were visible together, ditto the Ukrainian version. —Michael Z. 23:13, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

They are almost identical, anyway: one letter difference in Cyrillic, two letters in Latin. If it were me, I would respell the name Yanukovich throughout, but Yanukovych seems to have caught hold as the most common transliteration. Transliterations are always somewhat subjective, so I will find better things to worry about. I am by no means pro-Russian; indeed, I am pleased with the developments and only hope that the Rada can produce a reformist government when it becomes the state’s leading institution. But I see no problem using both Ukrainian and Russian in the same article, depending on the referent: Ukrainian for native speakers of Ukrainian, majority-Ukrainian towns, and central institutions; Russian for native speakers of Russian and majority-Russian towns. It is a fair and respectful solution that rests on solid principle.
— Ford 23:34, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

So does Mr.Yanukovi/ych actually spell and say his name? I'd have thought they would be the ones to put at the top (along with a romanisation I spose), and then a note later on could mention other versions used within Ukraine and in other countries too (e.g. UK, France, US, Mongolia!).
— Xipirho 11:41, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

In a way, the other names are already mentioned: there are links to the corresponding article in the other Wikipedias.
— Ford 13:52, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

Spelling in Latin script - see his website yanukovych.com.ua and press the 'Union Jack' symbol. The spelling used is Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych.

Pronunciation - see RT. If you live in England, RT is Channel 512 on Sky.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ninth Ukrainian-Russian meeting since Yanukovych in power by May 17 2010

By May 17, top Ukrainian, Russian leaders will have held their ninth meeting since Yanukovych in power (late February). Is that a normal rate? — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 07:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's extraordinary. I don't think leaders of the European Union meet that often. And Belarusian and Russian leaders certainly don't meet that often, even though Belarus is in a Union with Russia. Närking (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Who determines what constitutes as normal in this situation? Ukraine-Russia relations were pretty messed up over the past few years, so it's no surprise that they're making an effort to fix things.LokiiT (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Viktor Yanukovych's signature

Viktor Yanukovych's signature is available on the official site of the Ukrainian presidency, http://www.president.gov.ua. I wish someone could put it on Wikipedia, because I don't have the appropriate program to fix the colors of the signature. A.h. king • Talk to me! 15:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. The colors of the signature is now blue, but I don't see the problem in it not being black... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article...

about Yanukovych presidency so far and what might come from Reuters through Kyiv Post. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

POV-tag on cultural image section

I POV-tagged the cultural image section. Yanukovich is not proficient in the Ukrainian language, but this section underplays the fact that Ukrainian is not his native language. The result is that Yanukovich is made look like a functional analphabet, which is a misrepresentation.

Ukrainian is not the native language of a wide majority of the population in Eastern Ukraine, so this presentation in effect stigmatizes them as well --94.139.82.189 (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, somebody translated Yanukovich's quote "эти козлы, которые нам мешают жить" to "goats that do not let us live". That somebody was clearly drinking inferior American vodka to come up with this. I fixed the translation to "goats that make our lives difficult"[3], which actually makes sense. To make it absolutely clear, genocidal goats have long been gone from Ukraine. --94.139.82.189 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

File:UA.Yanukovich.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:UA.Yanukovich.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yanukovych and wreath

On May 17, 2010 during the visit of the President of Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev Viktor Yanukovych was attacked by a pine wreath. The wreath assault was later aired on several national channels (1+1, STB, Shuster Live, others). Even though the accident was censored as much as possible on the Russian internet it continues to beat records outside of it. The incident stirred numerous creative ideas in Ukraine and abroad and was named as the Pine Struggle (Ukrainian: Ялинковий спротив). The event was coincided with the Yanukovych's intent to sign the agreement with the Russian Federation to give up some of the Ukrainian territories in Crimea. Viktor Yanukovych called it demilitation (Russian: демилитация). The Kievan Brotherhood society filed criminal charges on the presidential escort for their negligence.

Apparently some Garik 11 does not like this fact and keeps on deleting it. He calls it gibberish. That incident also is mentioned on the other versions of wikipedia. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable, non-encyclopedic. Also your reason for reverting me, being that it was an "important meeting" in which territories were supposedly yielded, isn't even relevant since you didn't add anything about the meeting whatsoever. Perhaps that meeting and its outcome can be added in a different section if it was important, however the wreath incident is still non-notable (unless you're implying that the wind has something against Yanukovich).

Moreover, given that you keep using words like "attack" and "assault", in reference to an inanimate object that the wind pushed over, I think it's a safe assumption that your intentions here are rather to poke fun at and discredit Yanukovich, which obviously isn't acceptable.LokiiT (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Negative. I only mentioned how this fact was portrayed. During the meeting no territories were yielded, yet other developments in that regard took place. Nonetheless that fact was totally deleted by Garik 11. Another point, why are you referring to him as Yanukovich and not Yanukovych? Discredit or poking fun would be inventing something that never took place. Yet that was fact and carries a significance of international scale. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Aleksandr, you are mistaken saying that I do not "like this fact". On the contrary, I find it very entertaining. Yet the reasons it should not be there are stated above by other users and also in my past comments. Please note that the article on Yanukovych is already in terrible shape and badly needs some major clean-up and copy-editing as shown by the templates "Inappropriate tone" and "POV". The kind of edits you keep supplying will lead us deeper into unencyclopaedic territory. Garik 11 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The wreath incident itself is unnotable indeed. It's the following blatant censorship on TV that matters for this article. And ensuing public anger that made the inceident a meme. No doubt this all should be mentioned. Happy edits, Ukrained (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure this should be in this article...

but there is a debate going on in Ukraine about a book he wrote. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Qualifies for adding in my opinion. Plagiarism revelations have been a major media-scandal. So your ref won't be lone for sure. Ukrained (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Def should be in--Львівське (говорити) 22:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Alrighty Then! Here it is. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Some good sugestions for improving this article

Some misunderstandings lead to some good sugestions for improving this article (here) at the Biographies of living persons Noticeboard — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote the section "Cultural and political image" a bit today.... Is the neutrality of this section still disputed by anyone?

Or can we remove the tag that says it is? Must admit I did not do a lot of rewriting; but I have (other) priorities outside Wikipedia these days.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Surname

Surname “Yanukovych” Belarusian origin. It is not a Tartar. For more details see the talk page Russian Wikipedia (section “О фамилии”) (in Russian)[4]. --Klvgeh0 (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

agreed--Львівське (говорити) 12:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A Crimean newspaper claimed, in November 2011, his surname was a derivative of the Tatar name Yanhilde; that is a fact they claimeds that not WP:OR, you can't just remove (this) sourced information per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Editors can not just set aside what is in the sources about Yanukovych. Ten points for guessing what weight we should give to your own opinions about his origins. Also please notice the difference between the sentences A Crimean newspaper claimed, in November 2011, his surname was a derivative of the Tatar name "Yanhilde" and Viktor Yanukovych is also of Tatar decent... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears to be original research to me. The source itself wasn't very credible, and it sounds like guesswork. They just associated "yanhilde" with "yanuk" and through sythesis assumed that yanukovych must be a derivative of the crimean name. Seems sketchy. The source added proving its a Belarusian names seems more credible than some Crimean newspaper.--Львівське (говорити) 20:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yulia Romero, please understand me wrong. I did not know English. There are many authoritative scientific sources, which states that the name “Yanuk” Belarusian origin. Crimean newspaper is not an authoritative source (WP:FRINGE). --Klvgeh0 (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid I did understood your objections wrong; I thought you had something against people calling him Tatar, while you where just trying to improve the article. I apologise for that. Now I think of it that Crimean newspaper seems to fall under WP:FRINGE. Let's see/wait if others object against it's removal; if not I think these "Tatar roots speculations" are best removed. Your English is not bad by the way. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All right. I would like to add that the name “Yanuk” is known in the Belarusian literature and national culture. It had the advantage of the Belarusians Catholic and Lithuanians. This name is a folk form of Catholic named Jan. Lithuanians have “Jonùkas”. Belarusians have a lot of names ending in -uk (Petruk (Peter), Gabruk (Gabriel); compare the names of the Lithuanian: Petrùkas, Gabrùkas). Many Belarusians and Lithuanians after it was Polonized. --Klvgeh0 (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the background info Klvgeh0! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to think now that info about his origins should be moved to the section Personal life (seems best placed there) or Cultural and political image. Sentences like: Yanukovych has half-sisters from his father's remarriage, but he has no contact with them does not sem to say much about his Early life. Not sure if the Crimean Newspaper theory falls under WP:NOTEVERYTHING.... the section Personal life is not that full though... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how any of this fits in with "personal and cultural image" in any way...--Львівське (говорити) 22:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It is that I don't think the fact that his grandfather and great-grandparents were Lithuanian-Poles & Yanukovych is not ethnically Ukrainian, but rather of Russian, Polish, and Belarusian descent has anything to do with his early life; the overload of information about his origins in the current "Early life-section" seems to suggest his origins had a great impact on his pre-teen life.... + all the information about his origins is mentioned twice in the section (His mother was a Russian nurse, his father was a Polish-Belarusian locomotive driver is already saying that he is not ethnically Ukrainian, but rather of Russian, Polish, and Belarusian descent). Either the redundant sentences (in my opinion) are best removed or placed elsewhere in the article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Wife is seldom seen in public

OK so his sons should be kept out of this article (see talk entry right above). But the fact that his wife Lyudmyla is seldom seen in public seems noticable enough for me to be in this article (about her husband).
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, a politician's spouse is fair subject matter for the politician's article. The sons can be mentioned in passing, I think. Malick78 (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Convictions to the lead?

Despite being a Ukrainian, I suggest that we mention Yanukovych's convictions in the lead. No matter how disgracing, this is a sensationally distinct feature of his biography that shouldn't omitted. Happy edits, Ukrained (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Opening paragraph for sure, it makes up a big section of the article. But not the "is a Ukrainian president and ex con" type of lede that was being pushed a few months back, that's just not neutral. --Львівське (говорити) 22:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Ukrained and Львівське on this. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not the "ex con" for sure. He came a long way since:))) Ukrained (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think adding the convictions in the lead would violate undue weight WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. This person is not mainly known for his convictions. The lead only summarises the most relevant facts of his life per WP:LEAD. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But his conviction is a well-known fact and is something very unusual for a president in Europe. Närking (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be unusual to the average person but unless the European press or the world press refer to him as an ex-con and they make a big deal out of this conviction to the present day, we have no place advertising this fact on the lead. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe pair it with how the POR has criminal connections? Or the Donetsk clan/mafia stuff? With reliable sources, of course. Just think doing so would make it flow better and give the convictions better relevancy (in a way, summarize the negatives that are prominent parts of his bio)--Львівське (говорити) 21:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims of this kind need extraordinary sources and in any case are not related to his old convictions. If you are out to prove that his government is criminal and run by Mafiosi you must supply industrial-grade citations. Also you should consult WP:BLP. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand, I'm just saying if we're going to include the past convictions in the opening paragraph, pair it with the other stuff thats already covered in the article so that it's not totally out of place.--Львівське (говорити) 21:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It is all a matter of weight. I don't think pairing up his old convictions with present government scandals would make the situation any better. If the old convictions are old enough and forgotten by the international press they have no place in the lead. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The convictions were mentioned widely in the British press when he came to power, so, they are relevant and not undue.Malick78 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

How about expanding the lead altogether?

He is in English speaking press (only?) known for presumed attempts to limit freedoms and the sentencing of Yulia Tymoshenko. Should this also be mentioned in the lead? I Say Yeah!
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure on Tymoshenko as we have his claims of personal neutrality and offers of condolences in the case against her unsupported claims that he directs the persecution in person. But attempts to limit freedoms should be mentioned indeed as he has repeatedly told journalists something like threats. Ukrained (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think saying something to the effect that he has earned political scorn and/or condemnation by the EU and human rights groups for XYZ--Львівське (говорити) 08:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Львівське; better leave Tymoshenko out of the lead yes. To much info for the lead and no smoking gun he is behind her sentence. When did Yanukovych threatened journalists? Did I miss something? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

I removed the whole "DIRTY DICTATOR AND MURDERER" and "Died Jan. 24th 2014" from the article. I didn't sign in because I barely use my Wikipedia account anyway, but perhaps this article should become semi-protected? 75.89.204.34 (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've just requested an increase in the protection level of this article at WP:RFPP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Revised order of info in article

I see a lot of BLPs (and BDPs) where what is most important or of most potential interest to readers about the person gets first attention. For English WP readers worldwide, IMO his early life, fine details of election results, etc. are not important at all. There's a war going on in his country. Euromaidan is what he will always be known for even if he manages to survive his term (which is looking to some as s/w doubtful). QUERY: Is there a clearly stated policy that forward chronology or some other format must be followed in all BLPs? (In any case, it is NOT followed in A LOT of articles.) If there is such a policy, please state it. Absent any policy, IMO it serves the interests of readers of this article to put current, important stuff first. In any case, why should readers have to read or scan through trivialities to get to what is important? Is there any disagreement that Euromaidan is the most signficant political event in VY's career and in Ukraine's history since the break up of the USSR? Paavo273 (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Obama's article as a template is not authoritative, is it? Absent some specific WP rule or guideline rel ordering of article info, IMO we should arrange in order of importance. Surely at this point, VY's inauguration and election campaign are not germane. I propose as a compromise, if a chronological structure is by consensus called for, that it be a REVERSE chronology, which would place more relevant items ahead of the completely trivial. One editor has proposed FORWARD chronology. Another editor has organized topically. Absent a WP directive, we should work together to come up with a mutually satisfactory arrangement that benefits the article and its readers. Paavo273 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Relative prominence of tags

Absent some specific WP policy that states multiple tags must be bulleted in a single block, IMO it's better to show with greater prominence in individual space on a seriously deficient article such as this. I can give MANY examples, if anyone wants, of articles that are tagged with multiple tags--in the more PROMINENT format. Paavo273 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In English, please. -- По Англиский, пожалуиста. -- Auf Englisch, bitte.

@ User:Andrew J.Kurbiko: Thank you for your (IMO) excellent contributions to this article. Could you please say what you mean and to whom you are referring in the last sentence of your Russian response above, Сначала ништяки, а потом только пуля в висок!

The whole comment from above: "получается, "я правилам всем вашим вращенье придавал, а осью был мой детородный орган", а мы тут с вами все же пытаемся создать более-менее цельную биографию. можно в общей инфориации написать про отсидку, можно вставить пару фоток "проффессора - на зону" (пол майдана в плакатах), но давайте попытаемся соблюдать хронологию! С верху - отсидка и губернаторства, потом премьерства, потом уже президенство. А то почему-то сначала идет евромайдан, а потом инавгурация. Нам порядок нужен, организованность... Статью про гитлера вам для сравнения. Сначала ништяки, а потом только пуля в висок! (уруру, простите что на русском)"

My Russian is so bad, I can't really get it all even with the computer translation. This is what came up on google translate:

"it turns out, " I'm all your rotation rules attached and the axis was my genital organ ," and we're with you all the same trying to create a more or less coherent biography. You can write in the general informations about his release , you can insert a couple of pictures " proffessora - a zone of" (sex Maidan in posters ), but let's try to respect the chronology ! From the top - and stints governorship then prime minister , then already presidency . And that reason is evromaydan first , and then inauguration . We need order , organization ... Article about Hitler you to compare. Nishtyaki first , and only then a bullet in the head ! ( ururu forgive that in Russian )," Paavo273 (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2014

http://ocdn.eu/images/pulscms/YjY7MDMsMmU0LDAsMSwx/452fb42465a7dd87e793e3793b193e7c.jpg

2A01:1161:1:2:9D5A:7029:C3C7:5D79 (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change (link is to an altered photo of Yanukovych).
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please alsoYanukovych cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No hiding of prison background, please

Ladies and gentlemen, the "Criminal convictions" section should always remain in the top of the article, beyond any doubt. This is most certainly dictated by both the chrono-logic of a bio article and the need to reflect the sensational hyper-important fact of a Europe state leader with 2 prison terms. I suggest that we stop the practice of lubricationless anal-raping the common sense by bowing to weak pressure of Yanukovych's PR hente.

Precisely the reason why I recently tagged the article with "POV". Happy edits, Ukrained2012 (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

получается, "я правилам всем вашим вращенье придавал, а осью был мой детородный орган", а мы тут с вами все же пытаемся создать более-менее цельную биографию. можно в общей инфориации написать про отсидку, можно вставить пару фоток "проффессора - на зону" (пол майдана в плакатах), но давайте попытаемся соблюдать хронологию! С верху - отсидка и губернаторства, потом премьерства, потом уже президенство. А то почему-то сначала идет евромайдан, а потом инавгурация. Нам порядок нужен, организованность... Статью про гитлера вам для сравнения. Сначала ништяки, а потом только пуля в висок! (уруру, простите что на русском), --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Google translation of the above text is as follows, in case anyone is interested. Doesn't make much sense, so is probably idiomatic

it turns out, " I'm all your rotation rules attached and the axis was my genital organ ," and we're with you all the same trying to create a more or less coherent biography. You can write in the general informations about his release , you can insert a couple of pictures " proffessora - a zone of" (sex Maidan in posters ), but let's try to respect the chronology ! From the top - and stints governorship then prime minister , then already presidency . And that reason is evromaydan first , and then inauguration . We need order , organization ... Article about Hitler you to compare. Nishtyaki first , and only then a bullet in the head ! ( ururu forgive that in Russian),

174.65.10.224 (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, honestly, his criminal past is one of his most notable features.--Львівське (говорити) 17:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Viktor Yanukovych/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This is not a very good article because: 1) Nothing in the actual biography is cited with references. Almost every statement that is made is then contradicted by a statement like "but these are only rumors" or " but this has not been proven." This simply perpetuates the conflict going on in Ukraine right now. 2) The grammar is horrible. One section on Yanukovych's policies contains fragment sentences that aren't English (or at least not comprehensible). 3) This page should immediately be flagged with one of those warnings of bias. 4) The comment "[In fairness it is worth pointing out that Ukrainian is the language of Western Ukraine. People in Eastern and Central Ukraine speak Russian.]" is false. The official dialect of the Ukrainian language is known as the "Kyiv-Poltava" dialect. Western Ukrainians, or Galicians, speak a different dialect which is not exactly the same as the one used officialy in government circles in Kyiv and throughout Ukraine. While it may be true that people in Eastern and Central Ukraine speak Russian, they also speak Ukrainian, just as people in Western Ukraine know how to speak Russian, but predominantly speak Ukrainian. Describing the situation with such broad strokes leads to false statements that should be avoided in an unbiased encyclopaedia. danielgaladza Danielgaladza 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)