Talk:Arseniy Yatsenyuk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposal (Protection)

protect this article.--109.201.253.86 (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree that restricting editing to auto-confirmed users would help.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ironic that Toddy would say this after reverting the user who proposed the restriction. --Львівське (говорити) 20:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not at all - it would have stopped the IP editor from Lvov from making deletions of cited material from the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The POV content that was added by an IP user who both you and he are ignoring the ongoing talk discussion on that very source? Hmm. --Львівське (говорити) 21:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you are probably mistaken.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

'Restored this section since IMO it was prematurely archived by the bot. Also changed the archive settings. Not sure my new settings are optimal, but the old ones were seriously messed up IMO. Paavo273 (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

2013 foreign diplomacy

Maybe interesting: in june 2013

• he "called on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to toughen requirements for Ukraine for obtaining a new Stand-By Arrangement" http://www.ukrainebusiness.com.ua/news/9919.html
• After his meeting with McCain in Washington, McCain said the Senate resolution concerning Ukraine "may become tougher". http://www.unian.info/politics/804564-us-senator-resolution-concerning-ukraine-may-become-tougher.html Ssscienccce (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding informations to: Open Ukraine

I recommend to add the following text to the chapter: Open Ukraine

The western partner were also represented on the Website of the Open Ukraine Foundation[1] Strangely, after the influential of Western organizations in the new government formation from 25.Feb. 2014, was believed and reported by some public medias, the website and his facebook page were shut down in February 2014.[2] In early March 2014, the site and also the facebook page appeared again, but without the list of the Western partners.

New references: [1] http://www.openukraine.org [2] http://web.archive.org/web/20130726210943/http://www.openukraine.org/en

This part is also available on the german version of this article and is a curious but important fact, to add to this chapter about his Foundation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webslap (talk • contribs) 11:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014

The contents of this section added by User:Webslap were moved by User:Toddy1 to the bottom of the above "Proposed alternative ethnic origin wording..." section on 22 April at 20:22 UTC, linked HERE. Paavo273 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It helps to keep discussions all together, rather than having the same discussion split between many sections.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed alternative ethnic origin wording for AY--PLEASE type or paste your own version below

Last version by User:Solntsa90 minus languages spoken which was moved to birth and parents:

The official site of Yatsenyuk states his parents and grandparents were ethnic Ukrainians. Analytical, academic and press sources have stated that he was born tо Jewish-Ukrainian parents, with The Guardian having reported that he “has played down his Jewish-Ukrainian origins, possibly because of the prevalence of antisemitism in his party's western Ukraine heartland” In response to antisemitic slurs such as "criminal Jew" made by some candidates in the 2010 Ukrainian presidential election, the chief rabbi of Ukraine Yaakov Dov Bleich has said, "“Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not Jewish.".

Paavo273 (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this version is fine; It's factual, it covers both the anti-semitic fringe element behind saying that his family is Jewish, as well as the legitimacy that some of the rumors may actually have as reported by the papers. I think as long as what seems to be his official website lists his ethnicity as Ukrainian, we should say that, however, I can't help but notice that his family tree conspicuously lacks data for the rest of his family members, making our editing duties a bit more difficult. If you would like to add any alternative wordings that you find appropriate, please let the talk page know. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's putting too much emphasis on a couple of English language sources, which are not known for fact-checking (i.e. The Guardian). There are no reliable sources I could find, that state that he has Jewish origins (again it is only an article by an English-speaking Guardian journalist, who could well have confused the allegations with whether there is actually any evidence). Avaya1 (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Which way The Guardian article does not have an evidence? Please, provide reference beating The Guardian claim. I do not think that we shall rely on the chief rabbi statement. Here you can read more about 'the Yatz' [2]--96.241.218.72 (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

...a neo-Nazi blog? Seriously? Let's take this convo to Stormfront and get this over with. --Львівське (говорити) 15:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• • The blog, Neo-Nazi or not, provides the sources that are not Neo-nazis!--96.241.218.72 (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

What?? --Львівське (говорити) 17:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • Yes, what? How someone (Львівське) could ever say anything against Neo Nazis and, at the same time, publicly declare self as a Svoboda (Neo Nazi party of Ukraine) supporter!!--96.241.218.72 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

An IP editor from Virginia attempted a compromise wording.[3] User:Lvivske kindly pointed out that there were some very minor errors in the English and the formatting,[4] and I have tried to fix these minor errors.[5] I think the compromise suggested is useful, and in line with part of Wikipedia:No original research, which says: "If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". In this case, the adherent being cited is the Guardian newspaper.

I do not think that mention of the neo-Nazi blog in the talk page is relevant to this issue. The blog is not cited in the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed versions for ethnicity April 2014

Version 1 (for this discussion) of Solntsa90

The official site of Yatsenyuk states his parents and grandparents were ethnic Ukrainians. Analytical, academic and press sources have stated that he was born tо Jewish-Ukrainian parents, with The Guardian having reported that he “has played down his Jewish-Ukrainian origins, possibly because of the prevalence of antisemitism in his party's western Ukraine heartland” In response to antisemitic slurs such as "criminal Jew" made by some candidates in the 2010 Ukrainian presidential election, the chief rabbi of Ukraine Yaakov Dov Bleich has said, "“Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not Jewish.".

Version 1 of anon. user + Toddy1 (Please anon. user and Toddy 1 revise if this is not your final proposed verson)

"Yatsenyuk's website states his parents are and his grandparents were ethnic Ukrainians. However, the British newspaper, the Guardian, claims: "He has played down his Jewish-Ukrainian origins, possibly because of the prevalence of antisemitism in his party's western Ukraine heartland.""

Version 1 of Paavo273 (preferred by Paavo273)

According to Yatsenyuk, he comes from a family of ethnic Ukrainians." He is of partly Romanian ancestry, with one of his grandparents being an ethnic Romanian and citizen of Greater Romania from the region around Chernivtsi.

Version 2 (if consensus or DR or arb. determines a discussion of AY's possible Jewish roots should occur) of Paavo273

"According to Yatsenyuk, he comes from a family of ethnic Ukrainians. He is of partly Romanian ancestry, with one of his grandparents being an ethnic Romanian and citizen of Greater Romania from the region around Chernivtsi. Some academic and press sources state he was born tо a family of ethnic Jewish-Ukrainians. An article by Harriet Salem in The Guardian states that he “has played down his Jewish-Ukrainian origins, possibly because of the prevalence of antisemitism in his party's western Ukraine heartland.” On the other hand, Yaakov Bleich, a chief rabbi of Ukraine, responding to slurs such as "impudent Jew" and "thieving Jew" made against Yatsenyuk during the latter's 2010 presidential election campaign, stated, “Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not Jewish.” Further, Anna Rudnitskaya writing on the same presidential election in The Jewish Week asserted, “[Yatsenyuk’s] hypothetical Jewishness was never established.”

• ('Would also need further tweaking rel placement of some cites, and IMO discussion of Kuzio's position and mention of him by name w/b also warranted. IMO Kuzio is the most credible source brought up so far after the rabbi, which is not to say very credible; he is apparently a distinguished fellow, but not in ethnology AND he like all the others offers NO evidence.) Paavo273 (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Version 2 above is acceptable to me.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

ditto--Львівське (говорити) 19:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

References

(reflist added by User:Toddy1 on 8? April)

Good idea to add! Paavo273 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Some issues to discuss

Please do read the discussion in sections above.

Please agree, disagree, and otherwise respond to the following: (Please give rationale if possible.) Paavo273 (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• If AY has Jewish roots through his mom or dad or babushka or dedushka, it has to based on ethnicity (cultural and/or race such as Ashkenazy or Hebrew) OR faith?

• If there is some third category of Jewishness, what would that be?

• If AY denies that no one in his past lineage--Mom or Dad or either babushka or dedushka--at a minimum practices the Jewish faith or had Jewish ethnic ties, that we should not state AY or THEY were Jewish? (See discussion above involving Paavo273 and Solntsa90. Pvo has contacted AY's office twice at two different addresses, the second time with the level of specificity discussed by Solntsa90 above. 'Don't know whether his people will reply, but 'hoping...)

• It would be IDEAL to have evidence, rather than just uncorroborated statements, to establish his ethnic or cultural identity?

• That if AY's alleged Jewish identity is discussed, it should include both sides to the extent those are RSd?

I think the approach above is in breach of Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research. The policy is that we go on what reliable sources say. If there is a disagreement between reliable sources, the policy is that we take a neutral point of view and give both mainstream viewpoints. It is a breach of Wikipedia rules on original research to create our own classification system for deciding what race someone belongs to. It is a breach of Wikipedia rules on synthesis to use the logic above with someone else's classification system (see WP:ORIGINALSYN). If you can find a reliable source that uses the logic above and classifies Yatsenyuk using it, fair enough.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Здравствуйте User:Toddy1: Thank you for the note on my talk page. I have no objection to the way you've reorganized things here.

Could you please explain what logic you are referring to and what you believe is OR. I infer you're talking about something in this section where you've posted. I am only asking for clarification about what people believe rel meanings of the terms, NOT proposing any language or content per se for the article. This relates back to one or more discussions between Solntsa90 and me rel the nature of the claims of Jewish identity. I want to represent accurately what Solntsa90 said (It's all in the recent archive of the last 7-10 days), so please correct me if I have not been faithful to what he said. Solntsa90 stated as far as I can tell that when the rabbi said AY is not Jewish he was referring to AY not being a "frum" (devout, religious) Jew, not one who (fastidiously or even at all) practices the Jewish faith and that therefore there was no conflict between the rabbi's statement and those of Harriet Salem and others. I am only asking that we try to clarify what we the participants of this discussion have understanding in common about.

In a much more recent talk post, Solntsa90 I believe stated that he agreed that if AY or his rep. provides a clear denial that he or his forbears are in any way Jewish, then Solntsa90 would at that point agree not to include reference to AY as having Jewish identity. (See bottom two lines of THIS page.

QUERY: What do YOU and other participants think about this?

There is a liberalized standard for public figures in the BLP policy, BUT IMO there is still plenty of WEIGHT to the argument that if the BLP subject denies it, it should not be included.

If your point includes that we should not even TRY to clarify what exactly the authors--Harriet Salem, Kuzio, the rabbi, et al.--mean by their use of the word Jewish, I would not necessarily object to your approach. I absolutely agree with you that WP policy requires we must not interpret, beyond the plain meanings of words, what sources say.

What would you say to this: Since you and User:Lvivske find acceptable my version 2, IF Solntsa90 agrees to it or something similar that we all agree on, maybe we could just form a consensus among the four of us participants for now, place that in the article space, and then IF and when AY's office replies, which could be a week or two, or never, take it up again? ('Have had good success getting replies from non-UA high officials, but 'don't know what the chances are here.) WDYT?

Paavo273 (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The final version, as it stands, sits just fine with me. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Citations

I think it would be a good thing to cite Famous Jews of Ukraine [Знаменитые евреи Украины], by Professor Shimon Dubnov, Rudolf Yakovlevich Mirsky, and Alexander Yakovlevich Naiman, pub 2009. Pages 18 to 19 cover Yatsenyuk. See Obozrevatel, 25 September 2009, Yatsenyuk is not just a Jew, but a famous Jew! [Яценюк не просто еврей, а еврей знаменитый!. There is also an article about the publication of the book (though not mentioning Yatsenyuk) on Unian 25 September 2009, [Presentation of the book "Famous Jews of Ukraine" [Презентована книга "Знаменитые евреи Украины". Incidentally the reason the book was published was because of the rise in ethnic tension in Ukraine, and the aim of the book was to show that Jews were useful members of society just like anyone else.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP policy, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones"". Since there are unused English-language sources, IMO those s/b used/exhausted first/instead if more info is 2B added. (As I noted above, there is a problem with the use of the citations in my proposed version above, which I took from a prior version that appeared in the article. Kuziak doesn't say exactly what Salem says, but the THREE sources attributable to him and OTHER sources are placed where Salem is QUOTED and cited.) Whatever the intent of the Dubnov et al piece, the publication shown in the .pdf file looks pretty pamphlety as to the print style. (Did this appear in a major publication?) In any case, as with any source, it should be vetted prior to use as to the nature of its publication (e.g., where, RS?), scholarship, etc; it MAY be fine; I dunno'. But it could also open a Pandora's box of foreign sources--to the extent that pretty soon we could have a spinoff article titled something like "Arseniy Yatsunyuk: Jewish or not Jewish?" Paavo273 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I pasted the wrong URL for the Unian article - sorry. The Unian article has a photo of the hardback print version.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding WP policy. WP:NOENG says "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." The book Famous Jews of Ukraine was sufficiently notable to have at least two major news outlets (Unian and Obozrevatel) write articles about its publication.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

So it comes down to interpretations of relative quality and relevance. Thanks for the links. I read the AY section in the book & was disappointed 2 find not only no evidence of AY's Jewish identity in those two pages, but as far as I can tell not even a single MENTION there of AY's Jewish identity. So is the only basis and the only actual assertion of AY's Jewishness the title of the book? If that's the case, мне кажеться we still have the same problem as with the other sources. Kuzio, whose WORD is ALSO IMO a poor source to authenticate AY's Jewish identity, is nevertheless apparently a notable individual with ties to UA and has his own WP article. Paavo273 (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2014

It seems to be an important fact about him, which should be added to his curriculum vitae directly after: "All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland" and leader of the parliamentary faction of "Fatherland".[8][9][10]"

Text to add:

Various media and observers reported that he had veiled his Jewish descent with views of the anti-Semitic sentiments prevailing in his own party.

The references to this information are: Harriet Salem, Who exactly is governing Ukraine? Who exactly is governing Ukraine?, The Guardian, 4. März 2014 Ukraine: The Rise of Yatsenyuk; Ben Judah, Ukraine: The Rise of Yatsenyuk, ISN Network an der ETH Zürich, 5. August 2009 Webslap (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"It", a pronoun, appears to me to introduce your remarks/proposal. I don't find an antecedent for that pronoun nearby. Is it AY's alleged Jewishness to which you refer? If so, that is covered in a prominent place in the first section of the article based on something at least resembling consensus, following protracted discussions here in talk by multiple parties the last few weeks (including now archived discussion) and an edit war or two. Paavo273 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Is youtube a reliable source?

Anybody help me out here, please. Personally, I'm an inclusionist when it comes to sources, at least a little more liberal than WP's definition. Especially if there is conflicting info and the reader can clearly understand the origin of the sources--who's saying what--so there's no issue with weight (including so that WP's voice is not involved) my m.o. is to allow it and let the reader decide. But the last three edits seem IMO 2B pushing it. Especially when there's no apparent means to authenticate the material. Paavo273 (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

History of this dispute

• 08:03, 8 April 2014 71.39.6.142 added the following text: "During the secession demonstrations in Crimea crowds chanted "Yatsenyuk govnyuk" (Yatsenyuk the shithead) protesting the interim government of Ukraine as illegitimate."
• 09:11, 8 April 2014 Toddy1 added a FACT tag.
• 21:54, 9 April 2014 Neptune777 deleted it, saying "I deleted this. Fact without source."
• 06:43, 10 April 2014 71.39.6.142 reverts Neptune777 saying, "Undid revision 603511168 by Neptune777 (talk) Check YouTube postings for recorded examples."
• 04:14, 11 April 2014 Paavo273 reverts 71.39.6.142 saying "Delete unsourced info. 'Need to follow WP rules--including citing RSs--to add info. 'Need to show relevance. There is already a discussion in talk to ask for page protection. Is this leading there?". Paavo273 accidentally marked this a minor edit - oops!
• 04:19, 13 April 2014 71.39.6.142 reverts Paavo273 and adds to the citations saying, "Undid revision 603696026 by Paavo273 (talk) Mentioned already YouTube recordings indicating the references alluded to." "YouTube recordings provided as references to the protesters references in Crimea.)" "Fixed the reference URLs."
• 02:52, 16 April 2014 Paavo273 reverts 71.39.6.142 saying "Watched the youtube video. IMO youtube is not an RS. Secondly, while at least a couple of people close to the mic. and maybe a whole group appear to say those words, they do NOT say WHY, contrary to the text. Also not a terribly encyclopaedic addition."
• 04:36, 18 April 2014 71.39.6.142 reverts Paavo273 saying "YouTube a perfectly reasonable source of popular opinion expressed by Crimeans. In this situation no other source would appear more authoritative."
• 06:10, 18 April 2014 DDima reverts 71.39.6.142 saying "This is not the place for trivial information from YouTube. The other such information was at least cited by reliable news sources. Not to mention this is HIGHLY unencyclopedic!"
• 07:51, 18 April 2014 71.39.6.142 reverts DDima saying "Undid revision 604698745 by DDima (talk) YouTube recordings show clearly the popular reaction. As such they are a highly valuable source of information on popular sentiment."
• 07:52, 18 April 2014 Sjö reverts 71.39.6.142 saying "Undid revision 604706578 by 71.39.6.142 (talk), per DDima"
• 04:39, 19 April 2014 71.39.6.142 reverts Sjö saying "Undid revision 604706684 by Sjö (talk)"
• 04:42, 19 April 2014 Lvivske reverts 71.39.6.142 saying "come on"
• 06:17, 19 April 2014 71.39.6.142 reverts Lvivske saying "Undid revision 604834516 by Lvivske (talk) Truthful account of popular sentiment about Yatsenyuk, properly belongs on this page."
• 06:37, 19 April 2014 Paavo273 reverts 71.39.6.142 saying "Undid revision 604841044 by anonymous user for reasons I previously explained but which were never responded to."

71.39.6.142, maybe it would be simpler to find a newspaper or RT or something that mentions this incident. There is a clear consensus not have have your paragraph on the grounds that the only source for it is Youtube.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

First off its a youtube clip, not a good source. Second, is it notable? A crowd chanting some vulgarity for 20 seconds is hardly notable enough to make it into an encyclopedia. --Львівське (говорити) 15:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

But you cannot know that the crowd was chanting that. The sound-track may have been added later. This is a video with near-zero provenance.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

You make a good point. Another reason why youtube videos without independent verification are useless as sources in of themselves. --Львівське (говорити) 18:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

By the same token you cannot know for sure if a report from a printed source is not tampered with. For that matter you do not know if the editorial staff has been entirely unbiased. Printed reporting is no stranger to political influence. When in doubt follow the money.

In this day and age of social media, I fail to see why YouTube is less representative than a printed media source that may be extremely biased. --71.39.6.142 (talk) 01:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You're basically advocating self-reporting and literally that is original research. If it was a Youtube video of a CNN report, sure, but this is just sketchy local footage. If you want to talk about the relevance of this chant, start a blog or become a contributor to a news site and see if it gains traction. An encyclopedia is not a collection of every single mention of a person in public.--Львівське (говорити) 02:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have additionally provided a reference to the website run by Oles Buzina, a well known Ukrainian author, that supports the reference discussed. It should be sufficient evidence that the popular sentiment in question has taken root and is worthy of being reported here.--71.39.6.142 (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You have added a non-reliable source, just a webpage to some author. I've never heard of him. Besides, authors have their own points of view and can skew the information one way or another. § DDima 00:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because you are unaware of an author does not make his publications unreliable. Mr. Buzina is well known in both Ukraine and Russia. If you followed news sources available in these two countries and did not confine yourself to CNN and the like, you would be familiar with Mr. Buzina.

It is very amusing that you believe CNN to be a more reliable source when discussing a Ukrainian politician than a prominent Ukrainian author with substantial understanding of the local situation. This is the essence of bias in my view.

As a practical matter, CNN and similar media outlets frequently adopt highly biased positions in their reporting. --71.39.6.142 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

(The above remarks by 71.39.6.142 were inserted between already existing remarks--not preferred per Help:Using talk pages#Talk page use. Restoring the interrupted thread caused by this edit. Paavo273 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC))

'Need to comprehend, digest, and apply Wikipedia sourcing rules including WP:RS as well as comments made here in talk about this previously. Unlike the cartoon reference/comparison that was covered in the popular media and is at least slightly amusing, this is just crude namecalling of the sort junior high age boys do on the playground. Nothing informative, noteworthy, or encyclopaedic about it. Also need 2 keep in mind WP:BLP. Paavo273 (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Comprehended and digested. You seem to confuse the admittedly rough wording of the reference used with its meaning and significance when applied to a rather controversial political figure. The implication is that a segment of the public in Ukraine is not supportive of this politician. Hence the rude name usage. Public opinion of political figures is interesting, regardless of how unsavory the terms actually used are. --71.39.6.142 (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

But you need some proper sources. Youtube, internet forums, etc. are not useful here.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ethnic background section, WP:WORDS/WP:SAY, and consensus

Hi Avaya1,

• 1. Thank you for your efforts to ensure NPOV in WP articles.

• 2. There are problems however with your edits to the AY ethnic background section.

• 3. Firstly, this is a controversial section for which clear consensus was formed among editors for the verbiage in the current text. As such, an editor wishing to make changes, i.e., YOU, needs to obtain a new consensus of the involved WP community B4 making substantive changes. I was one of at least a couple editors who preferred there be no mention of AY's alleged Jewish ethnicity on the grounds there was no actual evidence of it. At least a couple further editors preferred apparently a much more definitive, robust, and PROMINENT section on the subject.

• 4. Your edit summary--"all sources 'state', not 'assert - read WP:WORDS"--that accompanied your improperly restoring of your unilateral edits is wrong: The policy, found specifically at WP:SAY does NOT specify that the only verbs available to use with indirect or direct quotes are "state" and "say" NOR that the words listed are prohibited. That would be a monotonous, ridiculous way to write. It states only that care should be taken to ensure NPOV. Please read and understand the policy guideline which INCLUDES the introduction to that whole article. It is only advising to take care when using those synonyms for "state".
• Nevertheless, if you and I were the only editors interested in this, I would be happy to compromise and find some other word that was mutually agreeable. But there are other involved editors. And given the extreme contentiousness of this subject (INCLUDING as clearly demonstrated by the edit-warring on this talk page concerning it), it is not the province of an editor who was not involved in forming the consensus to resolve the problem to make unilateral substantive changes without forming a new consensus among already involved editors. The most likely thing to be achieved by such action is a new flame-up that wastes a lot of editors' time.
• It appears you may be violating your own interpretation of the policy by adding the verbiage, "The same claim has been directed toward YT...". Just 'cuz you change the word from a verb to a noun, it does not change the potential for loading POV into the sentence's meaning. The specific word "CLAIM" (albeit in verb form) is mentioned along with "assert" and a bunch of other synonyms for "state" that you are wrongly reading as a "prohibited words" list. Still, if your purpose in mentioning YT's alleged Jewishness in the AY article is NOT substantive, then WHY is it there? To discredit the claim about AY? If so, that would appear to be a real actual violation of at least the spirit of the policy you have cited in support of your interpretation that one cannot use the word "assert." The "same 'claim' has been made..." verbiage also appears somewhat weasely: If the claim has been made by a credible, reliable source, and it's relevant to YT's BLP, why not MENTION the source. There in the YT article. How does it edify a reader wanting to learn about AY to learn that another person has also been called Jewish?

• 5. If you think YT's purported Jewishness is relevant to AY, explain HOW and discuss it here in talk and find consensus for it before adding it. And you need to discuss and obtain consensus for any other substantive additions to this subsection as well. I'd suggest a careful review of the copious discussion on this talk page among the various editors who eventually found consensus. Much of that discussion is now in recent archives. Paavo273 (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Haaretz article mentions claims about Mrs Tymoshenko being Jewish as a way of casting doubt on Yatsenyuk being Jewish. It is a weaselly way of doing things. I do not think it is helpful.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems the ethnicity debate has been blown out of proportion. Suggest that you change the article focus toward the discussion of this politician's performance track record. --71.39.6.142 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Bogus citations for "disputed by Russia Venezuela and others"

The lead to the article says:

Arseniy Petrovych Yatsenyuk[a] (Ukrainian: Арсеній Петрович Яценюк, Arseniy Petrovych Yatseniuk; born May 22, 1974) is a Ukrainian politician, economist and lawyer who is the interim[2] Prime Minister of Ukraine, disputed by Russia Venezuela and others,[2][3][4]

So let us have a look at citations [2][3][4]:

• Citation 4, Radyuhin, Vladimir (18 March 2014). "Putin thanks India for its stand on Ukraine". The Hindu. Retrieved 26 March 2014.. How is this relevant to the statement the statement it is being cited for?
• Citation 3, Ummelas, Ott; Eglitis, Aaron. "Putin on Ukraine Okay With China-Syria-Venezuela Minority". 11 March 2014. Retrieved 27 March 2014. No this one does not support the statements either.
• Citation 2, Obama Makes Push for Political Solution to Crisis in Ukraine". New York Times. 2014. This does not either.

Since the statement "disputed by Russia Venezuela and others" is not supported by any citations that actually mention this, I am deleting it.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You must be joking. Russia most certainly disputes the legitimacy of the entire interim Ukrainian government. If you are unable to settle on "reliable sources" you must be missing the whole picture here. Censorship anyone? --71.39.6.142 (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No I am not joking. People posting impressive-looking fake citations undermine the credibility of Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you insisting that Russia does not dispute the legitimacy of the interim Ukrainian government? What citations are you looking for to prove this point? --71.39.6.142 (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A mention of the Russian position on the interim Ukrainian government in Washington Post: [6]. Should also be available from the Russian Foreign Ministry directly. Will this do?--71.39.6.142 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Russia's irrelevant opinion isn't intro-worthy either. --Львівське (говорити) 22:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Russia's opinion on whether it recognizes the interim government in Ukraine is completely relevant. The language in question is "disputed by Russia". This position is clearly stated by the Russian Foreign Ministry. --71.39.6.142 (talk) 02:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

maybe somewhere in the body but not the intro. Russia's opinion is just an opinion, and a meaninglessly fringe one. --Львівське (говорити) 02:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

You do not seem to comprehend what is stated. Russian opinion about its own position is all that matters here. We are talking about the Russian government's view of the interim Ukrainian government. As to the position of the statement in the article, I don't care, but it needs to fit into the context properly. --71.39.6.142 (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, I sense a very strong bias in your statements. I wonder if you are able to make credible contributions to such topics. --71.39.6.142 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

71.39.6.142, maybe it would be best if the article had a paragraph in the section on Yatsenyuk's prime-ministership mentioning that Russia "disputes the legitimacy of the entire interim Ukrainian government", and saying why; you could use the Washington Post article as a source. So that it has a neutral POV, you could also use this Daily Telegraph article, which mentions "Russia’s rather clumsy efforts at telling bare-faced lies when presented with incriminating evidence. Who will ever forget the bizarre press conference at the height of the Crimean crisis, in March, when Vladimir Putin insisted that Russia had no troops in Crimea, when the province was swarming with Spetsnaz special forces?"

Clearly, the issue of dealing with Russia's attempts to annex part or all of Ukraine is the central crisis of Yatsenyuk's prime-ministership. However, as it is a current and ever-changing event, the approach taken on Wikipedia has been to confine the article on Yatsenyuk to Yatsenyuk, and to write about the crisis in other articles. In time (if any of us are still alive) information about the crisis can me summarised in the article on Yatsenyuk. Suggest you look at the article on Maurice Bishop, which is an example of how to handle this.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I hope it doesn't come to the firing squads and executions as a summary. You are still going to have to make on-going changes to the article to keep it relevant, especially in the Political Positions section. It seems a rather daunting task to separate the person from the role when talking about a politician. Especially one who appears to have taken position on some highly controversial issues in a country as divided as Ukraine is today. I don't know about you but I think it rather short-sighted to deny the Russian language its special role in Ukraine. Imagine the French Canadians reaction if French were to be deprived of its status. --71.39.6.142 (talk) 06:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yatsenyuk is a Russian speaker himself, and the law was highly controversial to begin with - and not in force for very long. Not entirely comparable to the Quebec example. The proposed repeal was short sighted and probably should have been tacked a year from now, but I don't know what this has to do with anything...--Львівське (говорити) 07:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The attempt to repeal the law is a clear evidence of immaturity on the part of the interim government. They should have foreseen the reaction, both in south-eastern Ukraine and among the hawks in Russia. Given the risk of Russian military intervention it was rather unwise, to put it mildly. A perfect example of an ineffectual government creating problems rather than solving them. --71.39.6.142 (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course they were immature, they were one day on the job. I think they thought it would score a lot of points with the Maidan crowd since they were already undoing the rest of Yanukovych's more controversial laws. The blowback is really overrated though, all polls show the vast majority of people don't care about language laws. This is all off topic though.--Львівське (говорити) 07:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Most people do care about firefights in their neighborhood. If the Russian bear rolls across the border, I am afraid AY will have to head for the exits. Hope his green card application is lined up. One less Ukrainian politician, one more rabbit west of Mississippi. --71.39.6.142 (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Right now, Yatsenyuk's performance is below par. The country is on the brink of civil war. He has yet to show that he is able to rise above the blame game and bring the country together. History will remember the man, not a male rabbit. If he can't swing it, he should be man enough to step aside and let somebody else do the job. Blaming Russia as the sole reason for trouble in Ukraine is not going to cut it.--71.39.6.142 (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yatsenyuk in German television:we remember Soviet march against Germany and Ukraine during Second World War

ARD tagesthemen 7.1.2015 21:10min

Wir können uns alle sehr gut auf den sowjetischen auf die Ukraine und nach Deutschland erinnern. Das muss man vermeiden und keiner hat das Recht, die Ergebnisse des zweiten Weltkrieges neu zu schreiben.

]https://www.freitag.de/autoren/hans-springstein/nachrichtenmosaik-ukraine-folge-114]

[7]

[8] This is interesting, Ukrainian PM claims Soviet marched against Nazi Germany and not the other way around. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

World Without Nazism opinion http://worldwithoutnazism.org/articles/tegi/zayavleniya_liderov_dvigeniya/zayavlenie_prezidenta_mpd_mir_bez_natsizma_borisa_shpigelya_v_svyazi_s_vyskazyvaniem_premer-ministra_ukrainy_yatsenyuka_v_efire_federalnogo_nemetskogo_telekanala_ard/ They say Yatsenyuk acts as Hitler's "advocate" Cathry (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No surprise. For Mr. Yatsenyuk the Ukraine is still Reichskommissariat Ukraine, the civilian occupation regime of much of German-occupied Ukraine (which included adjacent areas of modern Belarus and pre-warPoland) between September 1941 and March 1944. And a deap silence of Mrs. Merkel signifies her hope to restore it. Въ 95.220.136.182 (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Arseniy Yatsenyuk

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Arseniy Yatsenyuk's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "signed":

• From Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement: "Ukraine crisis: EU signs association deal". BBC News. 21 March 2014. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
• From Political positions of David Cameron: "Ukraine crisis: EU signs association deal". BBC News. 21 March 2014. Retrieved 21 March 2014.
• From Dmitry Medvedev: "Medvedev signs police reform bill into law". RIA Novosti. 7 February 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sacramental statements Mr. Arseniy Yatsenyuk

Zitat : "Russia, together with the gas exports to Europe terrorism."

(Resonate in some brains.) 21052014Nr4 (talk) 15:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yatsenyuk is still PM

Yatsenyuk remains PM until the Verkhovna Rada approves his resignation. If the parliament declined his resignation, he will also stay PM. So please be careful on this topic. A.h. king • Talk to me! 10:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Should article be titled "Yatseniuk"?

On google I'm getting over 1 million for Yatseniuk (supported by Reuters, Interfax, Guardian, Globe and Mail, etc.) and around 300k for Yatsenyuk. At a 3:1 ratio, should the page be renamed to reflect common use in English? --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 16:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

His Twitter account is https://twitter.com/Yatsenyuk_AP, his official website is http://yatsenyuk.org.ua/, and his foundation, http://openukraine.org/en, uses the "yu" spelling too. So the question is do we go by what he calls himself or what the majority of the media uses? YantarCoast (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No the article should not be titled "Yatseniuk". He is not Jesus. As for the Google hits - you would expect to get more hits for an unqualified word than a qualified word (see example below):

• "Hollande" About 84,100,000 results
• "Francois Hollande"About 11,800,000 results

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No mention of "Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany" quote?

This now-famous statement, revising the history of WWII, was made during an interview with ARD in Germany. Why isn't it in the article? Mr Bee Pod (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2015

note--source page not found so cannot verify if it is sic or misspelling of oppositon = opposition

Srednuas Lenoroc (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Done The mistake was in the source, so I added [sic]. Also added an archived version since the link is broken. Stickee (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Arsey has good grip on lectern

but stronger graip for personal gifts

he can be moved deppite US grounding

Add it to the article. Source. Latrin and lectern ususly differ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yatsenyuk would refuse to resign from his position unless he were carried away. “It’s not a European action, but we won’t overcome this evil any other way,”[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Acting Chairman of the National Bank of Ukraine

2004 – 2005 – Acting Chairman of the National Bank of Ukraine

• Saved the national currency from devaluation, prevented the country from inflation, returned all deposits and provided the economy with credits in the time (period) of Orange Revolution in 2004; • Saved Oshchadnyi Bank (Saving Bank of Ukraine) from bankruptcy.

Ольга Валявська (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110605093536/http://www.kyivpost.com/blogs/bloggers/tarasgkuzio/5094 to http://www.kyivpost.com/blogs/bloggers/tarasgkuzio/5094

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arseniy Yatsenyuk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258027306987&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.day.kiev.ua/3047200
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121030190210/http://www.cvk.gov.ua/vnd2012/wp300pt001f01=900.html to http://www.cvk.gov.ua/vnd2012/wp300pt001f01=900.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)