Talk:2007 Ukrainian political crisis

Title and scope

We don't have this article yet, but from what I see as what can be written, the subject of the article is the political crisis and not the election itself since, as of now, there is no clarity that the election will be held.

President announces the election claiming the violation of constitution in the way the coalition is formed and the parliament claims the presidential decree itself is unconstitutional and appeals to the constitutional court. Until the constitutional court addresses the issue, saying that election will be held (or that it won't be held) is a POV of either political forse.

I suggest renaming the article to Political crisis in Ukraine (Spring 2007) develop this article accordingly and start the election article when we have a better clue on whether the election will be held. --Irpen 23:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defenetly, very good idea. What would you think about creating a Political instability in Ukraine article, which would cover major post-Soviet crises in politics of Ukraine... UBK, Orange Revolution, 2006 constitutional crisis, ect, leading off to more deataled articles.. but that will definitely be more difficult to write. —dima/s-ko/ 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could write such article but I don't see it realistically coming out anywhere in the near future. Let's have good articles in each of this subject. We do not have an article about 2006 crisis at all. And those happen too often and, I don't deel optimistic that this one is to be the only one in 2007. That's why I suggested Spring in the title. I hope we will rename it to (2007) by the end of the year. Let's give it a couple of hours before moving to give a chance to others to voice their objections. --Irpen 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant, having articles on each subject.. I agree, more political crises will appear, so for now, the Political crisis in Ukraine (Spring 2007) is a good title, but the article's scope will become more evident later during the year, when we might move it as you suggested... —dima/s-ko/ 23:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of having an article on the crisis, but STRONGLY against moving this article on the election there. We've got other articles on category:cancelled elections, so even if this election is not held, the article should stay. —Nightst a llion (?) 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, the article on the crisis should be called 2007 Ukrainian political crisis. —Nightst a llion (?) 23:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can have an article about the elections that may not even be held in the end of the day, true enough. But as of now, this is not even the future election (that may be canceled) but the hypothetical election that was not even called. The election is to be called by the Central Electoral Commission and in view of the recent parliamentary quirk, a reappointment of Mr. Pidrakhuy as a head and dismissal of Mr. Davydovych, even the electoral commission is in the legal ambiguity. Moreover, as we have pointed out above, the election itself is in ambiguity, that is unless the Constitutional Court will finally break its multimonth silence and says something decisive on any matter for the first time. So, yes, not only future but hypothetical elections may have articles but if I choose what to devote my time to, the real crisis article or the hypothetical election article, I would have chosen the former. If you insist, I can start a political article from scratch since there is not much done hear yet.

As for the name, I would love to be sure that this is going to be the one and only political crisis, but from the rocking last two years I can't be sure of it. It seems to me that 2007 political crisis in Ukraine started on January 1 and I am not sure it will end before December 31, so we need something more narrow for this current mess.

Anyway, if you object to moving this article, I will start the independent crisis article and we can later discuss on what its final title should be. Regards, --Irpen 02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'll be fine. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With Akhristov's development the article became even more fit for the crisis name. --Irpen 04:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the elections didn't start yet. As soon as the opposition provides more information on their campaign, this article will swing back to being more fit for the "election" name. — Alex^(T|C|E) 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to voice my opinion, just don't take it into consideration while writing the article per WP:NOT#CBALL: now that Yushchenko dissolved the parliament, there is no way that he'll void his decree and let the parliament stay. They will still get kicked out because they failed to recognize the decree as legitimate, and at worst (if the Constitutional Court decides that the decree was unconstitutional) there will be both presidential and parliamentary elections. However, IMO, Yushchenko is intelligent and wouldn't make a mistake like that. Therefore, I'm confident that these parliamentary elections will occur. — Alex^(T|C|E) 08:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, that seems pretty likely to me, too. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he really took the parliament (majority) by surprise though. They are really not happy. Every single thing you hear them say is against the president. They pushed him around a bit too far, and he finally snapped. — Alex^(T|C|E) 07:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no parliamentary election should the Constitutional Court declare Yushchenko's actions to be illegal; the Rada will continue to function as before. The interesting development is that the Rada has expressly forbidden financing of this election. Óðinn 09:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he can still dismiss them for disobeying his decree. — Alex^(T|C|E) 22:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not problem with article name. It can be "failed" elections or rescheduled later in 2007. No needs to rename. Crisis in name will add bias to article - politics is always some kind of conflicts. --TAG 22:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to everything I mentioned above, I just read in the news that the Constitutional Court won't be able to cancel the decree until the elections are over. It takes them about two months to look it over. — Alex^(T|C|E) 08:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two months are barely a speculations. In the part 8 months judges did 0 (zero) decisions. 2 months is very optimistic from this point of view. In contrast - it's very-very critical situation now and judges can expedite all processing. Even more - they issued press release that it will take about 15 days to decide if they are willing to look on it or simply keep everything by refusing even looking at details (like using some formalities - only deputies can ask judges question, if you are no longer deputies - can not ask questions - i.e. has to ask questions in advance). IMHO, they will jump out from making any decisions. There are totally different problem - deadlines in elections law are designed for 120 days predictable time-frame, but now time-frame is 60 days and some deadlines (like making candidate list must be complete 90 days before elections) is already passed (in reality they were impossible). Basically - there is no law on how to arrange unscheduled elections. --TAG 09:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content deletion

It will behoove you to avoid deleting referenced statements. If you think there is "more", add it yourself. I was personally unable to find such options in the Constitution. Óðinn 09:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.president.gov.ua/content/10304.html — Alex^(T|C|E) 09:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was your source? — Alex^(T|C|E) 09:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me, blame the ammendments. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 09:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'be... http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm I guess, they haven't updated that in a while... Óðinn 09:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how much it changes the whole situation, though. If it wasn't for the ammendments, the President wouldn't have a reason to dissolve the parliament. — Alex^(T|C|E) 10:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually still don't see that he did :)Óðinn 10:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read my recent edit. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 10:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution of Wikisource Constitution is up todate. Both the Rada and President English version is out of date. The changes to the constitution in 2004 are not the cause (apart from the Imperative mandate provisons which Yushchenko defends. Most of the provison are more of less the same. The main issue which is a positive step is that Ukraine is no longer a Presidential dictaorship. Ukraine should become a full parliamentary democracy in line with the rest of Euorpe - After all both sides agree with EU integration.

PACE report calls on Ukraine to adopt a Full Parliamentary System The Council or Europe - Parliament Assembly has called on Ukraine to adopt a full parliamentary system in line with European Standards

"It would be better for the country to switch to a full parliamentary system with proper checks and balances and guarantees of parliamentary opposition and competition."

The PACE: Explanatory memorandum presented to the Assembly meeting held on April 19 by Mrs Severinsen and Mrs Wohlwend, co-rapporteurs on Ukraine raised concern about the inevitable conflict of power under Ukraine's Parliamentary-Presidential system between the Parliament and the President.

The report states: The failure to establish clearly defined and law-based institutions to guarantee in practice separation of power, democratic rights and freedoms, by providing for an effective system of checks and balances is at the very heart of the political struggle that has unfolded in the country over recent months and sparked into an open crisis upon the dissolution of the Verkhovna Rada (parliament) by the President of Ukraine on 2 April 2007

As co-rapporteurs of the Assembly's Monitoring Committee, we are deeply concerned about the political and legal implications of President Yushchenko's decision and the constitutional, institutional and political crisis that has unfolded thereafter. Even more worrying is the fact that the crisis has paralysed many already seriously ailing institutions which should be guaranteeing democracy, rule of law and human rights ... The undecided question on competencies and limits of different branches of power first led to a considerable confusion over the formation of the majority coalition and the new government following the March 2006 legislative elections, and has ever since evolved into an incessant tug of war between the President and the Prime Minister. ... The parliamentary–presidential system opted for by the Ukrainian lawmakers in 2004 has an in-built structural problem: it can work smoothly only if the presidential and parliamentary powers represent the same political vision. Cohabitation works in the case of highly mature democracies, which is not the case in Ukraine. Largely because of this structural cohabitation dilemma, all established European democracies apart from France (Also Cyprus) have opted for the fully parliamentary form of governance.

What we have also seen since the establishment of the current parliamentary majority coalition and the formation of PM Yanukovych's government is the struggle to move towards a fully parliamentary system, which in the existing constitutional order has been perceived by the opposition as usurpation of power by the majority.

Although Ukraine understandably has its own historic reasons to avoid the accumulation of power into the hands of one political force, it should nevertheless consider in the course of future constitutional amendments whether it would not be better for the country to switch to a full parliamentary system with proper checks and balances and guarantees of parliamentary opposition and competition.

212.92.18.12 08:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What some people don't know is that France is a semi-presidential system, just like Ukraine. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 09:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er. Could someone perhaps explain how this: "Президент України є главою держави і виступає від її імені.Президент України є гарантом державного суверенітету, територіальної цілісності України, додержання Конституції України, прав і свобод людини і громадянина." gives the President "obligations to fight with Constitution violations". Or did I miss yet another amendment that has nullified the principle of separation of power? :-) Óðinn 10:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's one of his reasons in Article 83: "Коаліція депутатських фракцій у Верховній Раді України формується протягом одного місяця з дня відкриття першого засідання Верховної Ради України, що проводиться після чергових або позачергових виборів Верховної Ради України, або протягом місяця з дня припинення діяльності коаліції депутатських фракцій у Верховній Раді України." I'm still reading to find other reasons he mentioned. — Alex^(T|C|E) 10:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo: "У Верховній Раді України за результатами виборів і на основі узгодження політичних позицій формується коаліція депутатських фракцій, до складу якої входить більшість народних депутатів України від конституційного складу Верховної Ради України." :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both from Article 83, which Article 90 refers to. — Alex^(T|C|E) 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I see no explicit prohibition for the opposition members to participate in the governing coalition. Óðinn 10:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can participate as a fraction, but not individually. Also, coalition must be formed within one month of the first meeting. See bolded text. — Alex^(T|C|E) 10:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm asking: where's the passage that forbids individual participation? As for the time limit: isn't is a bit odd that the president suddenly remembered it now, more then 1 year after the election?.. Óðinn 10:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indent) The Constitution says that fractions can participate in coalitions, not individuals. And no, it's not odd that the President remembered it a year after elections, because the coalition started expanding only recently. — Alex^(T|C|E) 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and thus threaten to secure enough votes to override any presidential veto? Very auspicious timing, I agree :-) Anyway, I do see the passage about the faction participation. What I don't see is why a group of individuals can's form their own faction. Óðinn 11:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if it was legally allowed, they wouldn't be able to gain 300 votes. As for coalitions, if individuals were allowed to join, then the constitution would state so. — Alex^(T|C|E) 11:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And... His other reason is passing of laws that go against the Constitution. Read this: http://www.president.gov.ua/done_img/files/ovpu-1_1.pdf — Alex^(T|C|E) 11:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or this: http://www.president.gov.ua/documents/5961.html — Alex^(T|C|E) 11:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I feel like I'm on the jury or something. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 11:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"fight with Constitution violations" - it was my translation of text "Такий конституційний статус Президента України зобов'язує його здійснювати заходи для зупинення порушень Конституції України" from president order - I've listed as reference. Well I'm almost fine with current text - except there are bias - as somebody has used word "only" - this interpretation is part of dispute. There are big issue - I'm unable to find official translation of Constitution to English (was willing to post to WikiSource and link from article in order to not quote too much). I've linked one "unofficial" translation in Constitution article. Maybe it will be nice to add reference here too. --TAG 11:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I've called office of our President - there seems to not exists "official English translation" of Constitution. Have no idea why they did not do this yes - changes were done so long time ago and it's very important document. Maybe this is related to some formalities that take a lot of time. --TAG 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explain this: the Coalition of National Unity banned individual membership in fractions. :-) They wouldn't do that for no reason, now would they? The presidential decree must be legitimate, and it has them worried. — Alex^(T|C|E) 02:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's their way of making a compromise, and they think that once they banned individual membership in fractions, Yushchenko will back down on his decree. —dima /talk/ 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I figured. I'm just saying that this mean Yushchenko's decree IS constitutional. — Alex^(T|C|E) 04:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact: If you will take a look on formation documents of Alliance of National Unity (in references) - they were formed with 3 individual members from beginning. --TAG 16:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know why that was overlooked. — Alex^(T|C|E) 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you willing to add this, MinJust published the English translation of the documents mentioned. [1] [2] [3]. — Alex^(T|C|E) 10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource: s:The Decree of the President of Ukraine On the Pre-Term Abatement of Authorities of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, s:Constitution of Ukraine. — Alex^(T|C|E) 11:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minjust just did that it was ordered by Yanukovych. They did extracts only for articles they are willing to use. There is no translation of others articles used by president. Please keep old reference to constitution from UNHCR (even taking in account that it's really-really bad translation) as this document can be taken in consideration only as whole. Maybe s:Constitution of Ukraine text can be expanded with English text from previous 1996 version for articles that were not changed. --TAG 12:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about doing that. I'll take care of that as soon as I can. — Alex^(T|C|E) 21:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I've already did this. Please review my work (make sure I've not copied wrong articles and not missing some) and maybe it will be nice to translate those missing articles on our own (with a clear note that it's not official translations). --TAG 21:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian sources

I think they should be given as a last resort; only if no English sources are available. The sources should be accessible for the majority of the readers. Now, regarding this passage from one of such sources: "певні політичні сили через своїх представників публічно вчиняють грубий тиск як на окремих суддів, так і на весь склад КС України". I translated it as: "certain political forces, acting through their representatives, publicly apply rude pressure on the individual judges and on the Constitutional Court as a whole". Please correct me if this is inaccurate; my Ukrainian is quite limited. Óðinn 23:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there is no good English sources as events are current and those are published in Ukrainian news first. But I will try harder to find those in future. --TAG 00:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Read this: [4]. --— Alex^(T|C|E) 10:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Oleksandr Moroz say that it's impossible to arrange elections by the law that he has created 2 years ago. How funny ;-) Well - I've just tried to find this news in English and failed. --TAG 11:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Here is how voting done in Verkhovna Rada. Pay attention to person who command how voting must be done, how many people are present and how some people push more then one button. --TAG 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the same thing on the Rada Channel in Kiev, two years ago, people voting more than once.. We should mention this probably somewhere in the text, and in the Verkhovna Rada article. —dima /talk/ 20:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not two years ago. It's on April 10, 2007. They keep voting in exactly same way even after were dissolved. Take a look on results of voting for law proposal 2610. I've already mentioned voting like this and supplied some picture (one I was able to capture on my own - unable to watch this entire day). --TAG 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dima was talking about something else, not this video. :-) Nice find though. — Alex^(T|C|E) 23:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I'm sorry - I can see Rada TV every day from satellite. It's sad that it broadcast only over Europe - so Dima was unable to see this for 2 years. Anyway - I would like to thanks everyone who correct my bad English. --TAG 00:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. Too bad I can't watch it right now, would be pretty interesting to hear what they say. —dima /talk/ 01:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody can find English source for this ? It's about altering of words of PACE official by Party of Regions. --TAG 00:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure what's the point of the picture?.. Rada did not pass any resolutions on April 11, as far as I know; so I will edit the caption accordingly. The day before, however, at least 257 PMs were present. If the opposition choses not to participate, that's their problem. Their absence is not enough to create a no quorum situtaion.Óðinn 06:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if some voting did take place that day, how do we know this screenshot was taken at the time of the actual voting? They don't sit and vote there the whole day...Óðinn 06:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it quite ironic that so much fuss is created over one PM's lack of participation, while the opposition has become notorious for frequently boycotting the Rada over the last year. Óðinn 06:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much lack of participation as refusing to recognize the decree and the NSDC decision. Even the constitutional court says they must obey the decree and recognize it as legitimate, even though they didn't verify how constitutional it is yet. — Alex^(T|C|E) 08:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason opposition kept leaving the parliament building was because nobody listened to them. They were treated as though they weren't even there. — Alex^(T|C|E) 10:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? I've provided link above with similar video of voting. I've some others video recordings like Image:VerhovhaRada April 5 Voting.jpg. If you have better shot to illustrate point discussed in article about Akhmetov card - you are welcome to provide it. Per WP:V - I've provided link to reliable source that say some deputies do not bother attending meetings. Even more - on photo you have provided - there are still some seats empty - but if you will compare with results of voting on April 6 you will probably find out that there were more then 237-260 votes done for most of law proposals. If you cast doubt and claim and all voting was done in person - please state your sources. Here is deputy from Party regions state that his card was voting on State Budget 2006 - but he was in different city, here is same statement about 5 deputies from opposition on Holodomor voting on 28.11.2006. Voting with several cards is fact, but I accept any critique regarding photo demonstrating it. BTW, voting in person (and not cards) was clarified long time ago in 1998 by Constitutional Court of Ukraine. See part 2 of resolution (end of text). Deputies don't care about court resolution. --TAG 17:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretation of Wikipedia's Link Policy

I wish to express my concern at the misinterrepation of Wikipedia's Link policy by some users who seek to remove or change links (External and or citation)

Normally links to blogs are to be avoided but they are not prohibited.

http://ukrainetoday.blogspot.com is a blog that is specificly related to the article subject matter and as such is permissable.

Likewise http://action-ukraine-report.blogspot.com is a valuable collection of article, reviews and letters to the editor again specificly related to the content to the article and as such is also permitted.

http://digg.com/users/UkraineToday Links to the digg cateloge is also permitted as it is also specfically related to the content of the article and is a collection of additional links to vartious news artciles related to the subject matter. It is not an automated RSS feed and does not fall under the provison of item 11 of links to be avoided ... Wikipedia encourages such link if they are relevant to the content of the articles published. It most certainly is not SPAM or commercial promotion as suggested or implied by others who are seeking to prevent publictaion of this information. UkraineToday 06:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following extract from Wikipedia's Link policy pages are presented to highlight the false and misleading arguments made by some users who seek to prevent the publicatiion and inclusion of informative and relevant links

Wikipedia:External links#What to link

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

Is it accessible to the reader? Yes
Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Yes
Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? Yes

Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.

When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question:

Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.

Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked

Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. (Applies) An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Wikipedia:External links#Links to be considered

For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews. A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories. Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such. The following extract from Wikipedia's Link policy pages are presented to highlight the false and misleading arguments made by User Odessa in seeking to prevent the publicatiion and inclusion of informative and relevant links UkraineToday 06:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

The Ukrainian parliament is scheduled to hold its next regular Autumn plenary session on September 4 in accordance with article 83 of Ukraine's constitution.

If more then 300 members of parliament register their attendance to this session then legality and rational for teh early election will once again become be brought into question

If less then 300 members at and then teh session fails and the president within 30 days from September 4 can then but not before terminate teh authority of the parliament.

The president and opposition have claimed that 1616 members of teh parliament have resigned. Kiev post recently reported that nearly 120 members have resigned. The agreement reached on May 28 was based on the parliament no longer maintaining competence and the establishment of grounds for dismissal under Article 90.

September 4 is shaping up to be either the beginning of the election or the end. Anyone that takes an serious independent look at the legalities and constitutional issues surrounding the President;s actions must seriously question the legality of the president's action. the only authority given to the president to dismiss a democratically elected parliament is pursuant to Article 90 which does not currently apply. The president's intervention in the operation of the Constitutional Court has prevented the court from fulfilling its obligation and ruling on the legality of the president's actions. This most certainly mounts to a bloodless unconstitutional coup. democracy is based on rule of law and the president has acted to prevent rule of law prevailing. It is worth reading the section on the constitution and on Pace's recommendations again. Whilst PACE has understandably called on Ukraine to resolve this crisis by internally it has also stress the need to ensure that the solution conforms to Ukraine's current constitution and has called on the Constitutional Court to rule on the question of the president's authority. It has not yet done so. If either side to teh conflict feels that they have been robbed and denied justice in the process the conflict has the potential of seriously escalating. PACE may end up regretting that it did not apply the "test of constitutionality" its failure to ensure that the solution adopted conformns with Ukraine's constitution serious undermines PACE itself and set a very dangerous precedence.

Again September 4 is a crucial date in the resolve of the current crisis which is by far from being resolved. UkraineToday 09:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. The parliament won't have the quorum to do anything. THe date is anything but significant. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's September 6 in Ukraine and the sky didn't fall. Nothing happened. There are not enough remaining members in parliament for a quorum of 300 members, and there hasn't been for months. Parliament does not have 300 members, and is therefore inquorate and invalid. Ukraine's Constitutional Court never bothered ruling on the presidential decree dissolving parliament after Parliament dissolved itself. Whether or not the Presidential decree dissolving Parliament was legal remains an unanswered and now moot question. Parliament dissolved itself, and new elections are the only way to get a new Parliament. Hivedrone101 01:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rada website list only 287 deputies - so there simply were no way to invite 300 for meeting. Actually in parliament on Sept 4, 2007 near 12:00 were present only ~130-150 (as can be seen from Rada TV translation). They keep voting for each other as can be evidenced from this article. --TAG 08:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a discussion of the politics behind the page rather than about the page content. So be it, I'll throw in 2 quickies. 1 - to Hivedrone101: can't dispute that VR is inquorate; the excuse they are using is that it remains in power until its replaced at the election, conveniently ignoring that the 300 quorum rule still applies; 2 - to TAG: english version of the story you linked to.Timberframe 19:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

I believe this article is getting a bit big for its subject. As soon as the Constitutional Court issues their ruling, I think we need to split/move (depending on the ruling) this article. I don't think anything should be done before the ruling, though. — Alex^(T|C|E) 05:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But to where shall we split it to? I don't really like the idea of spliting it; there are way longer articles on subjects. —dima /talk/ 00:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll split it to a separate article about the crisis. This article is getting to be more of an article about a crisis than about the election. A good example of such a split is the Orange Revolution and Ukrainian presidential election, 2004: they're both related, but the Orange Revolution needed an article of its own. — Alex^(T|C|E) 08:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitutional court challenge goes to the heart of the Crisis. This is the crisis as the president has clearly exceeded his authority and has acted illegally by interfering in the operation of the Constitutional Court in order to prevent the court from ruling on the constitutionality of the president's actions. There could not be a more serious offence. The summary of the Constitutional Court is accurate and reflective of the facts. Any attempt to remove it would be seen as a demonstrate absolute bias the size of the article is not a problem. UkraineToday 20:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of links

I've been following this page and a few others related to it for some time, as well as the antics of user:UkraineToday who seems to have quite a history of making enemies of just about everyone contributing to en.for-ua.com, from which he/she has been banned repeatedly. I'm not here to criticise his/her work, obviously a lot of time has gone into his/her research. My gripe is with his/her trying to justify linking to other websites as sources when those sites are nothing more than his/her own blogs. I'm referring specifically to http://ukrainetoday.blogspot.com and http://digg.com/users/UkraineToday. These are not sources as such since they are simply the same author's opinions expressed in a different location. It seems that user:UkraineToday is trying to pass them off as somehow more validating or verifying the opinions he/she publishes in the Wiki article, whereas all he/she is really doing is reducing the authority of Wiki to the level of his/her other blogsites. IMO this is not professional, and contributes little to Wiki. Furthermore, considering the passionate and extensive political credo appearing on his/her user page, I think his/her articles will require a lot of balancing from a broader spectrum of contributors before they can be considered to be of merit in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia rather than a personal blog.Timberframe 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you see any links that are spam, go ahead and remove them per WP:BOLD and WP:SPAM. — Alex Khristov 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex! I'm new to Wiki and don't want to start mucking with other people's work 'til I've learned the ropes. Just wanted to let you all know my thoughts as a reader. I'd been flicking between the "crisis" and "election" pages trying to catch up with where the Orange Revolution fizzled out to, and got the feeling that reporting was a bit unbalanced (eg words like "illegal" pre-judging rulings that haven't been handed down yet). The more I read user:UkraineToday's contributions and discussions the more I worry about his/her ability to present or even recognise anyone else's POV, he/she seems to be just pushing the same opinions as self-proving facts. I don't want to detract from the work he/she's done - because he/she is obviously quite expert in interpreting poll data, for example, but I'd like to see some balancing POVs and more obvious distinction between POV and fact.Timberframe 07:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Rada - 06.04.jpg

Image:Rada - 06.04.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below for additional comments made by the parliamnetary Assemble of the Council of Europe ...

I have deleted the following, which user 193.243.156.214 added at the end of the "Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe" section

See below for additional comments made by the parliamnetary Assemble of the Council of Europe in relation to the president's inteference in operation of Ukraine's Constitutional court in order to prevent the court from ruling on his decree.

Firstly, I consider that drawing the reader's attention to a specific section of an article which has been crafted to give a NPOV analysis of a complex political situation gives undue weight to that section and unbalances the overall neutrality which the article should be seeking to create.

Secondly, in the guise of an innocent and helpful pointer to the reader, the editor has created an impression that PACE has criticised presidential interference which is not supported by the article. The article does contain additional quotations from PACE; these appear under the heading "Constitutional Court". Here we find a quotation from PACE deploring the systematic misuse of the judicial system by "other branches of power" and the fact that the "Constitutional Court has failed to produce judgments"; the quotation does not imply that the President interfered with the operation of the Constitutional Court. A later quotation from PACE says: "Several local courts have made decisions to suspend the Presidential Decree only to then withdraw them, allegedly under pressure from the presidential secretariat." This refers to local courts, not to the Constitutional Court, and interference from the President's Secretariat (not the President himself) is "alledged" rather than stated as fact. The only Presidential interference in the operation of the Constitution Court to which the section refers is his dismissal of Syuzanna Stanik and Valeriy Pshenychnyy, and no PACE comment on this action is included. Thus, contrary to the impression created by the line which I have deleted, the article does not contain any "additional comments made by the parliamnetary Assemble of the Council of Europe in relation to the president's inteference in operation of Ukraine's Constitutional court".

For both these reasons, the line which I have been deleted could be seen as pushing an anti-Presidential POV.Timberframe (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reorganize

This article is essentially unreadable. There is no clear summary of events. There is no clear timeline. There is a decided lack of identification of the key players. And the heavy dependence on in-line quotes is poor style.

I am going to reduce it to a summary of events. We can carefully build it up from there, but if you want to make a point, make it on talk and let it be discussed. Jd2718 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very much concerned that you are seeking to selective edit issues by removing factual cited information as user Timberframe has and continues to do. Notably his removal of comments made by the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) o Ukraine's Imperative mandate provisions and the false and misleading interpretation provided by Ukraine presidential supporters. DemocracyWorks (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further more user timber frame has also sought to remove the warning of a presidential coup given by Olexander Morz and published on for-ua on February 29, 2007. There are also published statements as far back as 2006 where the president was planing to destabilise Ukraine's parliamentary governance. Nice try at trying to selectively rewrite history by omission. DemocracyWorks (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On February 9, 2007 Oleksandr Moroz, Speaker of Ukraine's Parliament and leader of the Socialists Party of Ukraine, expressed concern that

“

Ukraine's President and his Party Our Ukraine and Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc were actively planning to destabilize Ukraine's political and democratic development in the hope of securing fresh parliamentary election that will see them elected to a more favorable position to that what they managed to achieve in the March 2006 Parliamentary election.^[1]

”

Thaks to Fred Bauer for retsorig the integrity of the article following user Timberframe's bias editing.DemocracyWorks (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written as a news article and carries no encyclopedic value. There is no analysis portrayed, only sequence of events is reflected and familiarization with the Constitution of Ukraine and Constitutional Court system. The first sentence of the article seems to be written to accuse the President of Ukraine, putting the name of current president in front of the title of the official post.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Socialists revealed Yushchenko plan!". For-ua. 2007-02-09. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)