Talk:Viktor Yanukovych

Old talk

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

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 19:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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.

"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.

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

Yanukovych's site is in both Ukrainian and Russian. The last posting was dated on Nov. 27.

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 Dec 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 Dec 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 [1]). 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, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

First vote

Didn't Yushchenko win the October vote by a hair?

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

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)[reply]

Actually, Putin can hardly be a friend of Yanukovych, rather his master. As you can see from the article, Yanukovych is very likely to be the (former) KGB agent. Thus, Putin's regime may have a certain control over Yanukovych. Although this is just my version (however, a logical one). I have no evidence. Politically, Putin and Yanukovych are certainly allies - unequal ones.

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)[reply]

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.

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)

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)[reply]

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

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 [2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- I said that I am fine with this info. I actually think it is good to have. --Irpen 18:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3] 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]