Talk:Viktor Yanukovych/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Vandalism is not the problem with this article. More like irrelevance

Unless I'm missing something, this article suffers mainly from a lack of interest and edit activity. Acts of vandalism are the least of its problems. It appears to be an insipid puff piece on an eastern European dictator, full of unimportant (albeit often source-cited) info. The last couple months have made the article even more irrelevant if that's possible. It's definitely not a hopeful indication of WP's accuracy, or timeliness. I added the source-cited contribution (second paragraph of Consolidation of family power) about VY basically taking over the entire industry of his country for his own personal profit, which amounted IMO to adding a few relevant drops of information to an okean of largely nonsense and irrelevance. Maybe, HOPEFULLY IMO, this character will be gone from power soon, and s.o. can write an obituary to his political career to replace this mess.

Vive l'Ukraine!

What are we really protecting here? I have the sick feeling that if Hitler and Stalin were alive in the WP era, their WP articles might well read something like VY's! It seems WP's BLP policy is less than optimal. Paavo273 (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

the way to combat this is (being a 'puff piece') is to properly assess WP:WEIGHT --Львівське (говорити) 05:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Lol, the way to combat this is to ban all Ukrainian and Russian speaking users from editing the article. If it were possible it might cut out some of the tit for tat crap and POV, not to mention the absurd details and awful English permeating the article!1812ahill (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If this entire article couldn't be summed up as 'Viktor Yanukovych is the scourge of the earth, and I'll be the first one to dance on his grave when someone (I hope) kills him', then I'm a monkey's auntie... and I happen to be Ukrainian. I really don't care what anyone's POV is about the guy, POV's don't belong in Wikipedia articles, particularly when it's a BLP. Personally, I don't even have the stomach to try to clean up this mess. Perhaps I should spend a little time updating the Yulia Tymoshenko BLP instead. It does appear to have a distinct lack of information as to how she and hubby acquired their fortunes, and the fact that she is also a member of the Ukrainian oligarchy: but, apparently, she's one of the 'good guys'(?), therefore she is entitled to a subsection entitled 'Business career' which, by the standards of this BLP, should actually be entitled 'Robbing the coffers'.

This is not an encyclopaedic article but an exercise in flouting the concept of being a NPOV resource. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Need to explain substantive edits in talk and follow WP rules

1. Substantive changes to this or any article need to be faithful to the cited sources. Deletions of info, especially validly sourced info, should be SPECIFICALLY discussed in talk first or at least explained in edit summary. Random deletions or those based on personal preference ≈ vandalism. Changing info according to personal wording preference such that it no longer matches what the source says is just as much OR as if making it up from scratch. Paavo273 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

2. Changing wording to wish-washy language is not NPOV. It's just weasely. If there's a perceived issue of something being stated in WP's voice when it's a source author's opinion or not fully substantiated fact, the solution is to restate it with correct attribution. Better yet find sources to rebut the information.

3. Repeatedly deleting relevant, properly sourced info, especially without explanation, amounts to vandalism and can result in being blocked. Paavo273 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

UA parliament voted to remove VY, not just impeach

According to all reliable sources, Verkhovna Rada voted to remove VY; its resolution was widely quoted That is not at issue. "Impeach" has a different plain meaning, i.e., to charge an official (usu. w/ a crime). He was more than impeached. If s.o. wants to argue that he was improperly removed, or even per at least a couple pro-Kremlin sources that he was not EFFECTIVELY removed, those are separate issues from what the parliament clearly STATED it was doing. Paavo273 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

i dont understand what you mean, but it was in fact impeached then charged --Львівське (говорити) 20:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that "impeach" has a clear plain meaning in English. VR were quoted as voting to "remove." All I'm saying is let's make it clear in the heading what happened, and not let any source, including a non-English-based source, define our words for us NOR mislead our readers as to the plain meaning of words. Paavo273 (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

known location

how many sources are needed to confirm media reports? By my count at least a couple are reporting he's in moscow --Львівське (говорити) 21:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Known location is not Moscow,better not to add speculation supported by crap sources - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait till quality sources confirm it - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Glavcom and RBK aren't RS? (curious) --Львівське (говорити) 21:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Post them here to look at - ta - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

heading out but souce cites them if you read article, will link them over later if you havent seen yet. Sorry about the reverting, but virtually all press agree on kharkiv/donetsk/sevastopol at this point, it's not a rumor that the police are looking for him in sevastopol, many official reports, not rumors at this point. --Львівське (говорити) 21:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Liar - post your wp:rs or revert yout edit warring - Mosfetfaser (talk)

You're a liar, do some damn research or even a good search before accusing bad faith. Cool your jets, Starsky. --Львівське (говорити) 21:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You added and edit warred to keep in the article that the subject is in Moscow - no reliable sources are reporting that - you are repeatingly adding an unreliable source also - A WP:POV source - Mosfetfaser (talk) 21:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked you if Glavcom and RBK were reliable, you don't think they are? Is this a language barrier issue? How is the source POV? --Львівське (говорити) 22:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Post your links here please for me to investigate - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi y'all including User:Lvivske: When major news media, e.g., [1], say it, it's certainly fair game for a qualifed inclusion (e.g., "According to the Telegraph..."). If s.o. thinks he's not there, find a contemporary or newer source that say's he's (still) somewhere else to rebut. 'Honestly, I'm not clear HOW that statement is controversial or objectionable. Is it that s.o. thinks he didn't really want to go there, or that it's a diss on the UA border control security? Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Russian news agency has claimed.

RBC, a Russian newspaper and news agency, quoted an unnamed “prominent Russian businessman” as saying that the fugitive Ukrainian president flew into Moscow on Tuesday night and was later seen in the Radisson Royal Hotel Ukraine in central Moscow.

Sources later told the paper that Mr Yanukovych had then moved to the Barvikha Clinical Sanitorium, a health resort run by the Russian department of presidential affairs on the prestigious Rublyovka-Uspenskoe highway to the west of the city.

It has not been possible to independently confirm the report. Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

s.o. = someone. Let's tone down the rhetoric, please, gentlemen. There's no reason to exclude stuff covered by major media. If there's a controversy with opposing sources, you can just write it up as such. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Get some WP:RS or move along - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it. Paavo273 (talk) 22:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it. _

so post the well established that you want to quote - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A source with references to all of the well established sources was already used? Why is the content being held hostage like this? Avakov even said in a press conference today that they were searching in Sevastopol for him, it has a full quote and reference to the KP article. It's like you're asking to WP:CITEKILL for no apparent reason.--Львівське (говорити) 01:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dictator

He is a dictator

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Womble (talk • contribs)  

NO he is the elected President of the Ukraine. Idiot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.12.136 (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Are the two mutually exclusive? Methinks not. Also, there's no "the" before Ukraine. Paavo273 (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

opinionated source?

http://ukrainianpolicy.com/the-hunt-for-viktor-yanukovych

this looks opinionated to me? thoughts ? I removed it as such, if users disagree we can ask at WP:RS - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

UP isn't the root source, the content in the edit was straight forward, no direct quotes relaying any apparent bias. They're citing several news sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

so post your sources here for looking at - Mosfetfaser (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not blind - ukrainianpolicy.com is a seriously opininated biased external - Mosfetfaser (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

only bias I see here is you WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you're also not even reading the article since it ckites all of the media sources in it. I'm on my phone so I can't do all the legwork for you now but seriously, cut the baseless "bias" rhetoric --Львівське (говорити) 01:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There are no proper grounds for a WP editor to hold hostage relevant validly sourced info because he/she doesn't like it. It's the WP approved nature of WP editoring to add only info from valid sources. It's up to anyone objecting to provide his/her own valid sources to rebut. If there really was any question about the validity of sources, that would be something to discuss. Since major news sources are reporting it, it's pretty much fair game. (I had posted above the link above from the Telegraph, a major UK media outlet.) There IS potentially an issue of whose VOICE to use.

Also, the fellow editor mentioned WP:RS after which I quoted an applicable section from it. Immediately below that, the editor quoted it verbatim a second time. What's the point of that?

Also it's still baffling IMO what is objectionable or controversial about this material. VY 'been hangin' w/ VP a lot lately. As I understand it, it was kind of the original cause of him getting into sh** w/ his UA "constituents" a few months ago. (Causa causae est causa causati.) So what's the big deal if he stopped by VP's place again? Especially when the folks in Kiev are no fun anymore? Paavo273 (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser, your demands that every source should be scrutinized by you are a bizarre combination of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OWN. Decisions on neutral POV and informative, relevant content readers are probably interested in does not lie with you, and you alone.

Declaring that every source is unreliable unless you've sanctioned it lives in a parallel universe version of Wikipedia which I've never encountered. Demands of, "so post your sources here for looking at..." when there's been no consensus on this being the way in which to develop an article, the subject of which is currently at the centre of fast breaking, international reportage, is ludicrous.

Naturally, people who are actively developing the article are going to be double-checking sources and checking each other's sources in order that a verifiable, reliable account be formed and, yes, that means having to backtrack and update... it does not mean demanding that the article must grind to a halt because it doesn't meet with some sort of exacting content standards upheld by you. What you are expressing is known as WP:POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What I don't get is a quote like "Viktor then went to Kharkiv, Donetsk, and Crimea" gets a response like "the UP source is biased and opinionated"....how can a factual, non-loaded statement be biased? Is the writer biased and secretly working for the Kharkiv travel & tourism board? Are they trying to slam Crimea? Did they show blatant over the line favoritism by quoting the Interior Minister? I don't get it. What's even more stupefying is that a lot of it is mentioned on the Revolution article.--Львівське (говорити) 05:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Er, I didn't realise that this was considered 'speculative'. From my reading of AP and other major wire sources, this trail has been confirmed. What is speculative are reports that the CIA have whisked him away, etc. (Moscow has certainly denied his presence there). All of the Ukrainian borders have been closed off and there appears to be reasonable and rational evidence pointing to the fact that he has not left Ukraine. The search in Sevastopol has been called off due to the Russian military presence and extremely reasonable and rational nervousness over triggering a confrontation. How can well reported movements by major wire sources be considered 'biased and opinionated'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

And now Interfax and numerous other sources are reporting that he's in Russia, and he will even be giving a press conference tomorrow in Russia. So much for this "biased" source we couldn't include in the article. Such speculation. So bad source.--Львівське (говорити) 16:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes - This is a good neutral english language report - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26367722 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

which states the same facts so this comes back around to "neutrality" never being an issue in the first place --Львівське (говорити) 18:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

this is a biased opinionated source http://ukrainianpolicy.com/the-hunt-for-viktor-yanukovych/ this is not http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26367722 Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

and yet you still fail to explain to anyone here how you arrived at your bizarre conclusion. --Львівське (говорити) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please do explain your wikilawyering, Mosfetfaser. I'd be fascinated to know how you've established benchmarks for reliable and unreliable English language sources (overlooking the fact that non-English news sources are also acceptable for Wikipedia, and that the English language 'reliable' wire services source .eu news services)? If the news service has an .ru or .ua in its URL, does that automatically preclude it from being reliable? Do you have some sort of insider knowledge on each of the sources we're not privy to, or does it mean there must be a long, convoluted debate over every news source and an investigation into whether it carries quality content or should be automatically dismissed according to your personal benchmarking theories? Considering that the http://ukrainianpolicy.com/the-hunt-for-viktor-yanukovych/ article cites http://www.eleconomista.es, http://www.theguardian.com, http://www.kyivpost.com, http://ria.ru, http://www.pravda.com.ua, http://www.kyivpost.com, etc., I'd be interested to know which sources and citations you'd disqualify... or does it only become 'reliable' once the BBC reiterates the self-same information.

As you're so interested in Journalism, Ethics and Society, you might want to qualify how US and US allied states (to coin an old term, 'client-states') wire services are ethically unimpeachable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Participation involves justifying what you do AND the legality issue

1. If anyone actually has any policy to cite stating that BLPs must follow forward chronology, please cite it here. I never found any such authority. IMO it makes no sense to require readers to wade through a bunch of trivia, made even more trivial in recent months, to find what they're interested in. This is what VY will be forever most notable concerning. What would IMO make most sense is for s.o. to go through and delete the minutiae that is of very little interest to anyone if it EVER was, which reads like a press release from the then president's office. Then the important stuff would be closer to the top in any case.

2. Rel the legality, a starting place would be to establish whether the cited Russian source is a reliable one AND for the offering editor to provide an English translation as provided by WP:Foreign sources. If it's reliable and doesn't take up a bunch of unnecessary space being tangential at best, might there be room for BOTH views? The real point IMO is that this is pretty much MOOT, wouldn't ya' all say. It also seems kinda' funny to me for VY's camp and the Kremlin to complain given THEIR entire m.o.s. Paavo273 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

2. The issue is not moot. The interim government basically undermined itself and not only that Russia can use it as an argument, they have already done so [2]. Party of Regions MP Tsarev today: The Rada ousted Yanukovich and changed the constitution illegally. And yesterday there was this furious article [3] in Rossiyskaya Gazeta blaming Yanukovich for having 'stopped fulfilling his duties and gone into hiding' and also noting that the formulation of the impeachment ″due to self-removal from fulfilling the duties″ was null and void. I really can't understand the folks here who say it makes no difference whether a democratically elected president is ousted legally or illegally. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As he said, it's moot at this point since it's a technicality that nobody in Ukraine is even disputing, save for Tsarev, who is know for being a psycho. If Yanukovych himself was still out there arguing his right to the throne and formed a government-in-exile, that'd be one thing, but he de facto abdicated himself.--Львівське (говорити) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else not have a problem with the current order of sections of this article (having the "End of presidency" section all the way at the front)? An article should be written with the reader and audience in mind, and should not have any underlying motives. Yes, this man is a killer responsible for the death of peaceful protestors. But we are not here to discuss that. The article should be written according to common sense, in a chronological order, starting from birth to career to end of career, etc. That is the way it has always been and the way it will be. Take a look at the Featured article on Stephen Hawking, and tell me in which order the article is written. Every single article is written in the same order. There is a lead section for what you want; it lists a short summary, and the article goes in to greater detail later on.

You may think that the other information is trivial, but I highly disagree. Any encyclopedia article should be presented in a neutral light, and cover the entire topic, no cherry picking allowed. There is no logic behind keeping the end of presidency section in the very front of the article. Please open a request for comment if you want to see what the community's response will be, but I highly suggest that the stable version of the article is returned in a logical structure. DDima 05:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a BLP format? Follow that. I do see the point in putting the most WP:N stuff higher up, but at the same time that may be just a recentism thing. Intro should mention the impeachment, and the user should be smart enough to see the big impeachment section.--Львівське (говорити) 06:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Yes, this man is a killer responsible for the death of peaceful protestors. But we are not here to discuss that." You are very wrong; we are here to discuss what makes this subject notable. Based on that assertion, IMO you, User:DDima, as an editor and administrator on the site, should excuse yourself from participation in this and related articles because you have shown a clear, if honest bias and conflict of interest.

There is good logic to keep what is notable at the front of an article, most obviously to make it easy on readers; and you haven't stated any WP policy or grounds to bury what makes the subject notable at the bottom of a bunch of trivia. Stephen Hawking is hardly analagous to Viktor Yanukovych, furthermore; and even if he were, it is still only your opinion.

The stable version of the article HAS been for some time with the notable information at front. If you want to change it, YOU should start the request for comment. You also shouldn't delete reasonable, logical subheadings that make it easier to find highly relevant events concerning VY.

There seems to be a pattern here of combined actions of editors to bury the info that makes VY notable along with deleting relevant, properly sourced content without comment as if to somehow rehabilitate Yanukovych or hide his misdeeds. Whether collusive or coincidental, I cannot say. I hope that you, especially considering you're an administrator on this site, do not condone deleting validly sourced relevant info. Paavo273 (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You can debate the LEGALITY. Time will tell, probably sooner rather than later, how relevant that is. There are some apparently credible sources on point. But it is absurd, and blatant OR, absent legitimate sources, to debate in the article itself WHETHER he is still president. There is also the issue of WP:Undue weight.

The bulk of this article is obvious crap that sounds like it came from VY's press office. Now that he is gone, it is even more useless. The only USEFUL purpose it really serves apparently, for some pro-VY editors, is to initially frustrate readers who want to read about what makes VY notable, i.e., the final, ignominious chapter of his presidency. It's highly probable IMO that until December 2013, about 70% or more non-European native English speakers never heard his name and a lesser but huge percentage couldn't find Ukraine on a map if their lives depended on it.

User:Ddima is absolutely correct about WP:NPOV. That BTW includes not giving the Kremlin line undue weight!

One thing about this FORMER hydra-headed politician, is his resiliency. It's not looking good for a political future in UA; maybe he can escape to Russia and become a bigwig there the way Otto Wille Kuusinen did. Paavo273 (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

No, there is apparently no BLP format; and no one including User/Admin:DDima has come up with any WP authority. There seems to be only one purpose to burying the info, the same purpose as there is in deleting relevant headings, and generally feeble attempts to whitewash this subject or hide the substance of his notability. Paavo273 (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree with Dima's concerns. This is very controversial and hot topic and we should be very careful not to start inventing guidelines that aren't there or interpreting policies to advance certain view, which, however prevalent it may be at the moment is still only one side of the coin. Now, to the argument ″"Yes, this man is a killer responsible for the death of peaceful protestors. But we are not here to discuss that." You are very wrong; we are here to discuss what makes this subject notable.″- First, it is premature for an encyclopedia to decide yet, what makes the man notable.
Second, don't you really see how openly partisan such an interpretation is? In 1993 in Russia, around 150 people got killed in the rebellion that Yeltsin ultimately crushed, yet no-one is claiming that this event is the most important thing about Yeltsin. Furthermore, his 1994 decision to send troops against Chechen secessionists cost thousands of lives. No-one is claiming these are the only things Yeltsin is known for. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the most important event that Yeltsin is known for is the August Coup....just sayin'...--Львівське (говорити) 00:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Listen, no one is trying to whitewash anything, or delete any information whatsoever. All I'm asking is that the article is written in a standard and chronological order, as any normal encyclopedia article would be written (Brittanica, et al.). Okay, maybe my statement was taking a little out of context, what I meant to say was that any information that is relevant to the topic should be mentioned, but in a LOGICAL order. That's all I'm asking. I can't believe we are even discussing this issue. We are writing this not for ourselves, but for our readers. And as a writer and a reader of Wikipedia, I was highly baffled when I went to this article to read up on Yanuk and instead of seeing his life and career from beginning to well .. the end, the impeachment section was listed before all of that. It's the same as building a house from the top down. It makes no sense. DDima 17:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the facts indicate otherwise. Shaky analogies and incredulity are not WP policy based.

One thing we agree on: This encyclopaedia is supposed to be written for the readers, and I would add to that readers who want to be informed on the subject. Asking them to wade through a bunch of largely pointless crap to get to the notability of the subject is hardly reader friendly.

This article continues to be vandalized. Paavo273 (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank-you DDima, I agree with your previous comment. GerixAu (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

'pro-Russia' should be removed

There is nothing in footnote [15] (i read the entire article) that claims that the eastern part of ukraine is "pro-Russia" as opposed to 'Russian speaking.' Either the highly misleading reference to 'pro russia' should be removed or another, credible source found. There is a big difference between 'pro-the-interests-of-Russian-speakers-in-eastern-ukraine' and 'pro-putin's russia politically' and this article makes a smear of the differences. Should be fixed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.245.96 (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

If the ref doesn't support it, then that's a problem. But let's be honest, anyone who knows anything about Ukraine knows the east is pro-Russian. We don't need to ref that the sky is blue :) Malick78 (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been to East Ukraine a few times and I never noticed it being pro-Russian.... I think IP is on to something with his 'pro-putin's russia' remark. How popular is the Putin regime in East Ukraine? Never saw any poll on that.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that this is a sweeping generalization! I'm from Poltava. My whole family and most of our friends are from Eastern Ukraine (Kharkiv included)... and none of them have been anything less that anti-Russian and anti-Russification for generations. To be honest, I find these little smiley faces and assumptions to be snide, offensive and contrary to historical reality. You seem to be forgetting about the mass Soviet instigated migration of Russian workers into Eastern Ukraine after mid-way through the 20th century. While Western Ukraine was still speaking the Galician dialect, the heartland of Ukrainian culture, literary language and the push for Ukrainian patriotism was to be found in 'Велика Україна'. Western Ukraine only picked up the baton in the latter half of the 20th century (including having to learn cultural/literary Ukrainian from scratch). I'm not certain whether you're all extremely young or have very, very short memories. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well it is a generalization of the people but not the party, the POR is considered to be very pro Russian (linguistically) and in terms of foreign policy. That said, the people in eastern ukraine, while many are russian speaking, thats not the majority, an even among the vast majority they still identify as ukrainians and with ukrainian culture - rather than people in sevastopol who identify solely as russians. Now, let's not forget that Zaporizhian Host was in south east ukraine, and virtually all we see in stereotypical ukrainiannes (wheat, steppes, cossacks, etc) are all eastern things for the most part.--Львівське (говорити) 21:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

id also like to point out that Crimea is the only region in Ukraine that is 50% Russian, yet the media and the perception is that half of the entire country is 100% russian, and the other half is Ukrainian. This is, of course, a horrible misconception. --Львівське (говорити) 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

My main concern was to point out that Malick78 seems to represent a large number of people who like to categorise out of some sense of superiority/smugness. Unfortunately, his/her POV is brought into the vernacular and expressed in the media. I assume that this user has not encountered the long dialogue in the diaspora regarding what ethnicity and self-identification actually means. Transcribe this into terms that Westerners might understand: the Welsh ceased to be Welsh in the 60's when the Welsh language had become virtually extinct. The Scots ceased to be Scottish when their version of Gaelic had all but disappeared. Consider the Irish question: does that mean that Ukraine has somehow been divided into Russian Ukraine and the Ukrainian Catholic Republic? If and when it occurs, Malick78 is welcome to bring the discourse to the table... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to add that Malick78's "blue sky" comment in and of itself is sufficient evidence that he should have no place on wikipedia at all and should be permanently banned from editing. His comment is oversimplistic, patronizing, and just wrong. There is a reason, for example, why even in Kharkiv KPU (Communist Party of Ukraine) members 'defending' the statue of lenin are flying UKRAINIAN, not Russian flags. In the highly contentious topic of yanukovich/russia/ukraine, etc there are a number of similar-sounding but actually very very very very very different concept involved--the gamut from speak russian - speak russian as a first language - speak russian as an only language - partial russian ethnicity - full russian ethnicity - russian nationality - pro-russia 'culturally' - pro-russia politically - pro-putin politically. The gamut is HUUUUUUUUGE. Malick78 really deserves to be banned - and I mean this seriously - if his level of thinking on this or any topic is so simple that he thinks any of it is 'blue sky obvious' that somehow "pro-Russia" has a clear meaning much less reflects the de facto state of any given part of Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.245.96 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow, it was a throw-away remark based on years of hearing coverage of Ukraine mentioning the East as having Russian sympathies. Calm down. I have been to Ukraine, lived in Russia, and still live in Eastern Europe, so I'm not exactly new to this topic. Anyway, I see you've all quietened down in recent days - not surprising given recent events. Let's hope Ukraine pulls through all this and Putin himself is overthrown, but really - see my comment for what it was, a summary of general media coverage of the situation over recent years. Malick78 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I would have thought that, by now, you'd be aware of the fact that 'throw away' comments are not appropriate on an article talk page (I'm going to be a WP:CREEP and remind you about NOTAFORUM/NOTABLOG), particularly when there really isn't anything amusing about the subject in context... as you've just outlined. High profile events result in high levels of POV, trolling, etc. Tongue-in-cheek in this very, very wrong context earns you a trout slap. Save it for YouTube. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It was a comment related directly to article content and WP policy. Sorry if the tongue-in-cheek nature upset you or anyone, but don't lecture me on what is appropriate here. It was on topic, so no need to lecture. Malick78 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

frigate Hetman Sahaydachniy

The story of the Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaydachniy (U130) raising Russian flag is almost certainly a fake. See [[4]], [[5]], [[6]]. Anyway the story is very tangentially connected with the biography of Yanukovich and belongs to Ukrainian frigate Hetman Sahaydachniy (U130), 2014 Crimean crisis, 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine but not hear. I am removing this sentence. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Is he alive?

According to [7] there were reports of his death from a stroke. I guess we need better source than an Euromaidan activist to put it to the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• [8] Medics from the Rostov Hospital where Y. has supposedly died tell that they did not have such a patient. Lets wait for some reliable sources Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Putin claims Yanukovich is alive [9]. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Putin's denial is also being reported in the English language press (Reuters). Any spurious reports (gossip, hearsay, hoax) are never acceptable in a BLP... and until there is legitimate confirmation otherwise, Y is a 'living person'. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Disowned by his party?

In two places we say he's been disowned by his party, but I can't find that in the given source. Is it in the video, or some other source? If not, these should be removed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kendall-K1: The problem is the Kyiv Post is trying to get readers to subscribe. Its m.o. to get paid subscriptions is to withhold major parts of articles including the cited one. That's why it's not coming up. Here's a quote from shall we say an "opposite leaning" publication [10] that we could add to KP: Parliament—dominated by the opposition parties and supported by the former ruling Party of the Regions, which disowned Yanukovych—voted to free Tymoshenko, who became prime minister in the Orange Revolution. It annulled her seven-year prison sentence for embezzlement. She flew from the eastern city of Kharkiv to Kiev to address protesters. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty stupid. They should at least give some indication that more content is available. As it is, it looks like the story just ends. Anyway thanks for clearing this up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity?

Is he accused of crime against humanity, which is the category on this page? I think that is little too strong. All this page is reactionary POV information accusing Yanukovych of everything.

This page is biased. It is full of emotional attacks on him by all reactionary editors. People shouldn't use garbage words in this article like "predictably... blamed his enemies." People need to have valid sources and perspective to accuse him instead of saying anything people want and in the mean time the fascists are taking over Ukraine. People need to focus more on what kind of people are running Ukraine now than attacking him. 67.190.164.74 (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

2 my knowledge, that's not WP policy. This page is virtually all cited info from WP-valid sources (and IMO fairly NPOV). So much so that a young administrator, User:Y who happened by this article in the last 24 hours, deleted the banner cite tag at the top of the article. ('Course 'can't speak for his state of mind when he did it. He might have just thought editors were too lazy 2 add inline cites; the reality is the massive amount of LONG uncited material, complete with dated cite tags, was deleted in the last few days, as much for lack of relevance as lack of citations.)

In any case, specific examples of bias and "reactionary POV info..." w/b more helpful. Paavo273 (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a paragraph in the lead that says he "blamed his enemies" but I couldn't find that in the two given sources so I've changed it to what the source actually says. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Having checked both the source for his arrest warrant and the Wikipedia article on Crimes against humanity, I think you're right that he doesn't belong in that category, unless we find a source that says he does. So I have removed him per BLP. If you do have any more examples of bias, bring them here, or fix them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Article is not independent

I will not start a war on editions because I have no special interests on the matter, but I feel that as usual, Wikipedia is being used for political campaign purposes. This article, is not at all independent and it is clearly anti-Russian, anti-Yanukovych. I'm not Russian nor I have any links with Russia or Ukraine, I'm just an editor that believes in the independent position of Wikipedia.

I added a very relevant fact (either you like it or not) of Yanukovych political carrer on the beginning of the article (he won the 2012 elections, that is a relevant fact), and that was removed to the end of the article. You all should know that wikipedia shall not be a mean for your political purposes! Greetings. João Pimentel Ferreira 10:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joao.pimentel.ferreira (talk • contribs)

He did not win any election in 2012 unless I've misunderstood the sources. His name isn't even mentioned in the given source. That's why it was moved. The 2012 election may be relevant but it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

2010 presidency in the lead

Someone pointed out that the lead says nothing about his 2010 presidency, which would seem to be the most notable thing about him. I started to try to summarise from info in the article but quickly got bogged down, as that part of the article is a real mess. This really should get fixed. But please, just summarise, don't make stuff up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Rape issue

People I removed the rape issue regarding Yanukovych's biography since it was not recognized officially. I disgust that man deeply but we don't collect rumours here on Wiki. Otherwise, authors should specify what is rumour, and what is proven fact (or at least statement openly claimed by a named witness). AlexPU (talk) 12:45, 31 October 2004 (UTC)

Note regarding my November 9 edit. I was reshaping my previous info error, caused by poor legal terminology. By previously writing "free of guilt", I meant "free from conviction/criminal record", not guilt itself. In Ukrainian: З Януковича знято судимість згідно з КПК УРСР, що, однак, не означає, що переглянуто вирок суду. Про останнє стверджують представники Януковича, однак вони не надали громадськості достатньо документів для підтвердження цього. This notice has been made to preserve and demonstrate the objectivity and neutrality, both mine and of Wikipedia as a whole. AlexPU (talk) 19:32, 9 November 2004 (UTC)

"President-elect"

The mention of Yanukovych as "President-elect of Ukraine" is clearly wrong at this stage. The Ukrainian Supreme court has delayed the announcement of the official results by the Central Election Commission and only after such announcement does one become a president-elect in Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.52.150 (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2004‎ (UTC)

Good point, I've amended the article to reflect that. -- ChrisO 13:11, 27 November 2004 (UTC)

Yanukovych's site is in both Ukrainian and Russian. The last posting was dated on Nov. 27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.11.234 (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2004‎ (UTC)

End of Premiership

Has his premiership ended automatically with the vote of confidence or does the President have to dismiss him? Also is the vote binding - the BBC News stories suggest it isn't. Timrollpickering 23:46, 1 December 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the constitution does allow Kuchma to ignore the vote of confidence but parliament can override his veto if need be and order him to dismiss Yanukovych. The final say would rest with parliament, but the actual dismissal would have to be performed by Kuchma. He doesn't seem to have acted on the vote yet. -- ChrisO 23:54, 1 December 2004 (UTC)

Ukrainian constitution does not permit no-confidence votes if the government has served for less than a year (article 87 of the constitution which can be found at [11]). Yanukovich was confirmed on March 16, 2004, which means there can't be a no-confidence vote before March 16, 2005. Until then, only the President can dismiss the government. This is the reason why the vote was not binding. Andris 20:25, 2 December 2004 (UTC)

First vote

Didn't Yushchenko win the October vote by a hair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzajac (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 December 2004‎ (UTC)

Yes, he did. I will re-write the first paragraph. Andris 08:57, 29 December 2004 (UTC)

Where is Yanukovich headed

"Opposition lawmaker Oleh Lyashko warned that Yanukovych himself was in danger if he does not offer some concessions.

'Yanukovych, you will end like (Moammar) Gadhafi,' Lyashko told thousands of angry protesters. 'Either you, a parasite, will stop killing people or this fate will await you. Remember this, dictator!'" [12]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.198.18.8 (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

IBTimes

Does this really belong in the article? I don't think we want to put Yanukovych on trial, and even if we did, this would be inadmissable.

The IBTimes reported that "[Estonian foreign minister] Paet is heard telling Ashton that there was evidence both protesters and security forces came under sniper fire during the deadly protests in the Ukrainian capital last month. During the conversation Paet airs the possibility that members of the opposition coalition might have had something to do with the shootings."

Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. It is very tangential to the Yanukovich biography. We do not discuss other versions about the origin of those snipers, nor any other alleged Yanukovich's crimes against humanity but giving a whole paragraph to the info that a minister of a small foreign country, whose guess is probably as valid as the guess of any reader of the article in a private talk doubted that the allegiance of sniper is proven. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree on this point. In reality, it only accounts for hearsay and, again, as I've noted above, Wikipedia is not gossip. Unless there is more substantial evidence (whatever anyone's position is regarding whether they like or dislike him), turning a BLP into a scandal sheet is inappropriate. Not only has it been turned into a disjointed read, there are a number of current affair reportage articles regarding allegations, etc. already developed. Information of this nature belongs in those articles and can be pointed to by the use of hatnotes or in the 'see also' section. At the risk of being reverted, I'm removing the section. If it's reinstated, whoever reinstates it needs to provide a solid argument here as to why. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree GerixAu (talk) 08:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Still in office?

Raido Free Europe reported that the first impeachment vote on February 22 failed by ten votes and so Yanukovych was in fact not impeached. (http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html) US Secretary of State John Kerry is adamant that the 'rule of law' be followed in Ukraine, yet he has ignored the basic fact that the impeacment of Yanukovych failed, and so constitutionally the elected president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, should still be in office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikepowelson (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I realize that the parliament removed him from office, but given that he is still in some degree of control, is it fair to say his term ended? Hiberniantears (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Lots of people anticipating events, and adding wishful thinking. Can we just abide by the rules of Wikipedia? Events, if they unfold, will occur quickly enough. RodCrosby (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's validly cited info that he's gone from office. If you have a newer valid source to say "he is still in some degree of control" of the presidency of UA, then okay to rebut properly added info. Paavo273 (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Anybody who thinks as VY does that he's still in office, have a look at this (also, incidentally, a valid source confirming he's gone from office): [13]

Paavo273 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's an opaque situation. Mr. Y has apparently lost Kiev, but the legality of the parliament's actions has just been questioned on Sky News. RodCrosby (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO the reality of VY's loss of power in UA is not opaque. Legality is a whole 'nother thing. There's been a big lack of THAT all around the last couple months (some would say the last 24 years). Based on the relevant news media I'm reading and those I and others are citing in the article, he's lucky if he's still in control of his office there in Kharkiv. His arch-rival was just freed from a prison in that city at the direction of parliament. The vote to remove VY was nearly unanimous meaning his eastern UA MPs also deserted him. If you have newer (than what is cited in the article) valid sources indicating he holds any power feel free to cite them with the info in the article. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How does the impeachment process work in Ukraine? Is it a two-step process where impeachment is just like filing charges while another body conducts a trial and determines removal? If so then he would still be in technically power even though he was impeached pending further proceedings. He has clearly lost the capital. It also seems that Parliament later voted to return to the old constitution so which constitution was the impeachment vote taken under? --Kurtkoeh (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that by the recently reinstated 2004 constitution, which Yanukovich got the courts to throw out in 2010, there are two ways to remove the president. One is impeachment, which is a three step process that requires a 2/3 vote, a 3/4 vote, and supreme court ratification. The other is removal for health reasons, which is a majority vote. It's unclear to me which of these parliament followed - or whether parliament just figured that since Yanukovich was happy to ignore the constitution, they would too - since the vote or votes against him have been unanimous. In fact, I came here to get clarification on it and found no mention even of the vote, which should definitely appear whether or not it is either legal or ultimately upheld. Warren Dew (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I can only repeat what I said yesterday after I read about the vote in Verkhovna Rada: the impeachment is clearly null and void for even a legal layman like me to understand.
Last year when the crisis began, this newspaper article explained how an impeachment should look like under the constitution that was legally effective both at the time the article was published and at the moment the Rada vote took place. The procedure as provided was very difficult but not impossible, it is sure that it would have taken some time. The deputies however made the foolish decision just to get their will by doing all at once and breaking the law.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of that going around and not only in UA. How was it a foolish decision? Paavo273 (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

When laws work in favor of evil people, laws need to be broken. My personal opinion. 77.70.30.216 (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, who cares if laws were broken? The last 4 years countless laws, procedures, and constitutional provisions were broken, so they missed a minor detail in impeaching him. Who cares? All levels of government respect the decision, it was all done with actual votes and not absentee button pressing / hand votes, and nobody is even arguing the point, even from the party of regions. We're not wiki lawyers here. Saying it's "null and void" isn't for any of us to state. He was de facto impeached, and de jure entirely relies on recognition which he has none. I'm sure we'll see some new laws in place soon so no ex post facto "null and void" claims can be made. If we want to be wiki lawyers, we could also argue that the 2010 constitution itself is null and void since he implemented it illegally, so parliament isn't bound by its rules. --Львівське (говорити) 06:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• here is an article on the constitutionality involved in english 1 --Львівське (говорити) 08:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There have been some claims here at talk that no-one cares whether the impeachment was legal or not. I don't think it is up to us to decide that. The Western source rferl offered by Lvivske mentions some things that were violated by the impeachers. My article simply explains things in more details, but it is in Russian.
It seems reasonable to expect that if Russia wants to oppose the interim government or to put its legality in doubt the fact that the previous president was ousted illegally matters. It would be absurd to think otherwise. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

as long as we use reliable sources to explain the legality neutrally, and don't use our amateur lawyer skills to determine situation, that's fine. --Львівське (говорити) 16:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Apart from some of the posts, please remember the template at the top of the page (i.e. this is not a forum).1812ahill (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs clarification

The following sentence under the section "Criminal convictions" does not make sense to me. Can someone rewrite this?

"The signature of the judge in Yanukovych's case had also been forged as a charge of battery"Zedshort (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The article is not neutral

The article is clearly anti-Yanukovich. It chooses words and phrases that prejudice the reader against him.

Also, it doesn't represent "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" as WP:NPOV prescribes to do. (Beginning with the very first sentence that says he "was" a president. You may not know but some reliable media speak about him as president in present tense. "Is a deposed president" would be better, in my opinion.)

Here's just a small sampling of other non-neutral things:

1. "Yanukovych claimed on 21 February 2014 that after lengthy discussions he had reached an agreement with the opposition." — It sounds like he didn't actually sign an agreement, like it was his imagination.
2. "[P]itting ordinary Ukrainians against Yanukovych's special police units" — Those were innocent "ordinary" citizens, but the Ukrainian police were an evil "special" police force and it was "Yanukovich's", probably some private Yanukovich's "units"
3. A paragraph concludes with "A warrant for his arrest was issued on 24 February, accusing him of "mass killing of civilians."" — It sounds like it is some well-known fact that there were some mass killings and he is responsible. A concluding sentence is important in a paragraph.
4. "Criminal convictions" — 1. Non-neutral title. 2. The section doesn't belong in the "early life" section of the biography cause it mentions unconnected cases from many different years: 1967, 1970, 2005, 2010.
5. "Alleged higher education" — 1. Non-neutral title. I suggest "Academic degrees". 2. The section doesn't belong before the political career section and its content doesn't belong in the biography section at all cause it starts in 1999 and discusses some unconnected facts and rumours about 2000, 2001–2004. 3. It sounds like a gossip column: "[l]ittle evidence", "[i]t was reported in 2000 that Yanukovych received", "reportedly headed the faculty", "supposedly graduated". Every sentence expresses a doubt.
6. Most section titles include words with negative connotations: "spending", "debt", "[d]owngrading", "Holodomor", "Chernobyl", "alleged attempt to remove opposition", "press censorship allegation", "[i]mpeachment", "[a]rrest", "Abandoned", "[m]assive corruption and cronyism", "[a]ccusations of poilce abuse and vote rigging", "intervention". (The only positive title is "Awards".)

I have tagged the article for neutrality cause the readers must know that it does not present information with due impartiality. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with some of this but despair of fixing it. Disagree with some of it too. The "Criminal convictions" section does belong in "early life" because the convictions happened in his youth. I'd love to remove all instances of "alleged" but that will never fly. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)