Talk:2007 Ukrainian parliamentary election/Archive 1

Progressive Poll Data and Other issues
The below graph data has been updated to better reflect the naming convention and data presented in the main article.

IT is Essential to take into consideration the participation rate in order to CALCULATE THE NOTIONAL SEAT ALLOCATION. Some polls are expressed as a percentage of voters as opposed to "the percentage of the electorate". It is important that this distinction is made. Each poll needs to be analyzed further to make this important distinction. This is done by ensuring that the information publish is adjusted to reflect a sum of 100% based on the known/unknown data

Comments
The polls are showing a swing towards the opposition with the election expected result still unclear.

Note: The Notional seat Allocation is calculated on the basis of percentage of the voter participation rate the 3% percentage threshold is also calculated on the voter participation rate. Where the poll has indicated the estimated number that will not participate we have used that value in our notional seat allocation calculations where the information was not available we made an estimate based based on similar polls made at the time.

In order to calculate the notional seat allocation it is important to ascertain the participation rate in order to make an adjustment to reflect the percentage of voters as opposed to adult population that makes up the electorate. This is essential when a party/bloc polls is close to the 3% participation rate threshold quota (around 2.7% to 2.9% of the overall poll) as it is this value that is used to determine the number of parliamentary seats allocated to each party/bloc not the overall percentage as most polls report.

A lower participation rate increases the chances of a party that is above 2.5% and under 3% of the vote exceeding the participation rate threshold.

Most polls show that up to 22-30% of voters run the risk of being denied represented by a person/party of their choosing. The introduction of preferential voting and local electorate would increase the level of representation from 70% over the participating voters to over 90%. IE voters who opt to support a minor candidate should have the option and right to determine in the event that their chosen candidate/party is not represented the candidate/party they prefer to in order of their preference to represent them. Under the current system they are denied the right to chose who will represent them.

The table below includes the full set of relevant data available for each poll including tabulation reflecting 100% of the poll (Any discrepancies are highlighted in the Difference Column).It is a more accurate and concise refection of the published poll. Unlike the TAG:Odessa's preferred table published in the main article this table provides information on the percentage of voters who indicated they will vote for none of the main parties and who is undecided or who is supporting minor party candidates. This information is of considerable value when candidates/parties/blocs are above 2.5% and below 3% in the poll as the likely distribution of the undecided and unknown votes along with the participation rate are required to determine the notional allocation of seats and the outcome of the poll overall. An example of this can be found in the latest poll by FROM-Ukraine July 28 and other pols where either the Lytvyn Party, Socialists or Natalia Vitrenko are indicated to win more then three percent. In the FOX poll the first analyse shows Lytvyn missing out but when the undecided vote is reallocated according to the polls statistics Lytvyn in fact is lifted to above 3% of the participation rate. Similar examples also apply in other cases.

In addition there is a distinct difference between "Undecided", 'Unknown" and "None" which should also be presented.

It may be worth relegating the progressive poll data to teh discussion pages once the party list registration is final (September 2-3) and public opinion polls begin to focus on the parties that have nominated (September 10).

Progressive poll results tabulation
Explanation of above table. all information presented above is a tabulation of the published data. The 'diff' column is information showing the variance/missing data in order to bring the publish results to 100% The 'Other' column is a tabulation of published results for all other parties not listed in the above table where there was an indication in the published results

In order to calculate the notional results of the survey you need to take into consideration the participation rate which effects those parties/blocs that are close to the 3% (2.5% to 2.9% range)participation threshold imposed by Ukraine's current electoral system. This is the case in at least two polls where the outcome of a minor party is decided by the participation rate which in turn effects the number of seats allocated to the major parties. UkraineToday 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments
The Monitoring Center Poll dated 22-26 August shows a 2.3% will vote for the KUCHMA party.

September 2 will be the finalisation of the ballot list. It is expected that polls from this date will begin to better reflect the electorates opinion as they focus on the election itself. UkraineToday 09:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Participation rate on election polls

 * At first - there is no needs to include both Participation and Nonparticipation rates. One is sufficient, second can be calculated by 100-X formula ;-)
 * At second - Participation rate has no any effect on seat allocation. Those are proportional to % taken by parties with over 3%. --TAG 21:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WRONG AND MISLEADING (AGAIN)- The Participation rate is essential in calculating the number of seats allocated to each party. the 3% threshold is based on the percentage of the participation rate not the percentage of population which is reflected in the poll. A lower participation changes the seat allocation percentage.  Any party/bloc that is around 2.6/2.9% of the adult population can readily exceed the 3% threshold subject to the voter participation. without this information the calculation of the national seat allocation is false and misleading. An example is Lytvyn Bloc who polled 2.8% but when adjusted to reflect the polls participation rate brings his party above the 3% participation rate threshold entitlement.

In the interest of group harmony I have adjusted the data to better reflect the standard adopted in the publication of the table in the main article. UkraineToday 01:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppert User responsible for the vandalising of Wikipeda pages on Ukrainian Election
List of first 10 contributions Note the time... Take a look at the text of the edits made ...

Note the vandalism and added comments in the middle of teh citation and quotation of statements made by representatives of PACE in their report on Ukraine. This most certainly is not the act of someone acting in good faith.
 * 22:35, August 31, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007‎
 * 22:29, August 31, 2007 (hist) (diff) Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007‎
 * 22:23, August 31, 2007 (hist) (diff) Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007‎
 * 22:13, August 31, 2007 (hist) (diff) Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007‎
 * 20:53, August 31, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007‎
 * 20:45, August 31, 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007‎
 * 20:12, August 31, 2007 (hist) (diff) Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007‎
 * 19:48, August 31, 2007 (hist) (diff) Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007‎
 * 19:39, August 31, 2007 (hist) (diff) Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007‎
 * 19:37, August 31, 2007 (hist) (diff) Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007‎

UkraineToday(U 21:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Person responsible has been identified following further investigation
This person registered this account in order to deliberately set out to vandalise the content of Wikipedia article and also encouraged others to take similar action. They registered the account using the username of another person not their own as a means seeking to falsely place blame on someone else and also as a means of vilification, harassment and an attempt to avoid detection.

The user has been identified and their details recorded and logged. Report and complaint lodged. UkraineToday(U 21:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit Request
I request that either edit right are restored to the main article in order that missing and misleading information can be reinstated or that the topic "political crisis" whixch is misisng facts and relevant information be removed and link to

be inserted. You either provide a full open account of the political crisis to which the details of the constitutional Court challenge is most certainly relevant as it highlights issue related to the authority of the president to dismiss Ukraine's democratically elected parliament. UkraineToday(U 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This article was just recently protected, and the protection will expire within a few days. Please wait until then; this isn't an edit requiring immediate admin intervention. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional Court challenge
'''Information published on Wikipedia removed in overnight raid by supporters of the president. An act of censorship.. What they do not want published...'''

Accusation of political BIAS is aimed at User Tag:Odessa and others. WHY have you removed the section on the Constitutional Court Challenge the other information that is relevant to the election. This most certainly is relevant to the discussions,. are you seeking to censor the content...

The public is being denied the relevant information pertaining to the legality of the elections which are currently before the courts.

This information should be known and included in the main article. It was removed by certain users who are active supporters of the president's campaign and they are seeking to remove from the public eye information that is not to their liking or critical of the actions of the president.

'''All information contained in the Constitutional Court section is backed by citation and references and conforms to Wikipedia's policy that is unless wikipedia has a policy of bias exclusion of information. UkraineToday 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC). '''

Cleanup
The article is getting very, very big and avoids being as straightforward as it should be. I'll give anybody who's concerned with this a few days to clean up; if nobody takes care of this, I will clean up the article myself. — Alex(U 02:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I suggest you outline in more detail your concerns before you seek to "remove information that is relevant to the election". This is an election and I expect the content to grow unless they cancel the election on Tuesday. I am hoping to work on the discussion pages more and add more information to the main article on the weekend following the finalisation of the ballot registration on September 2. I think the progressive poll data could be archived to the discussion pages after a few polls have been published following the close of the ballot in one week. Remeber thishas been a six month campiagn.  I hope to clean up the discussion pages also over the weekend.UkraineToday 10:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

These political articles are clearly biased. I personally suggest removal. Craats 20:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be some glaring problems with the article (encyclopedic entry.)

There are a total of ten cited references for the entire article. Three of them, all against President Yushchenko, are not linked to anything. Readers have to dig into them, or take them at face value along with the article content based on those citations. Digging into them reveals the following.

There are two claims that either half or two-thirds of Ukrainians want to impeach Yushchenko. There are two cited references for those claims. One is Regnum, a Russian publication, claiming to cite and analyze a SOCIUM poll in Ukraine. There is no such poll on SOCIUM’s website, rendering Regnum’s article as propaganda. No surprise there. The other is to a ForUa article, which turns out to be a non-sequitur. The headline says what is indicated in the wiki citation, but the content of the article itself does not support the headline. There is nothing in the content indicating impeachment. Neither of those citations is linked to the articles they cite. If they were, readers could make shorter work of dismissing them -- in which case they're invalid to start with.

Consequently, the wiki article content that is based on these citations is invalid and should be removed. There is no substantive basis for it. It is not up to readers to discover they are bogus. It is up to whomever is attempting to cite the information to use valid information as citations. In this case, the citations are either erroneous or lead to non-existent source information, thus rendering portions of the article as propaganda.

The UkeToday character is an anonymous blogger who, as already noted, has attempted to use wiki to promote his or her anonymous blog as well as to peddle very biased information. Anonymous blogs by may or may not be entertaining, but they are not credible news sources. Hivedrone101 23:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As soon as the article protection expires, go ahead and fix it up. You know better what you're talking about than I do. :-) — Alex Khristov 23:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * : Okay, not a problem. I also noticed that the links to the various poitical parties point to Ukrainian language sites (except for Party of Regions), whereas they all have English language versions.  Next question is how to prevent repeats of vandalization.  I can help with clean-up and provide accurately sourced information relevant to the scope of the article.  But dealing with ongoing vandalism is another matter.  It's beyond the scope of my access, as I'm not an admin.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hivedrone101 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Political bias.
The article on the elections is heavily biased against the President.

Attempts to rewrite it are continually removed, and the original replaced.

Furthermore, the originator is using this Wikipedia to promote his own website.

Wikipedia should not be used to promote political opinion, or present bias, especially against a President of a sovereign country.

Please remove your bias, and allow constructive discussion.

if not, I feel the article should be removed. . Craats 21:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Craats, I will appreciate any your help as User:UkraineToday take everything personally them I edit. I've posted request for help long time ago at Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements but no editors has responded. --TAG 21:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above user :Craats is a sockpuppert (associated with User:Odessa) and has been reported.

All comments on the main artcile are backed by citations and references and are an accurate relfection of the campaign in good faith the same can not be said for the sockpupertaove who is being investigated.

If you have any serious issues of concern then aI suggest you outline which sections you take acception to and why. or is it a case that you do not like the facts and balanced opinion to be discusseded. Such as the isses outlined in the Constitutional Court Challenged section.

The fact remains that president of Ukraine has actaied unconstitutionally and his interference in the operation of the constitutional court is well and truely documented as is the current public opinion polls. All of whih are backed by citations and other supporting evidnce. Informtaion that certain people do not want published. I suggest that the adminstrators review the ip address of the bogus contributer. UkraineToday 00:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My account was already investigated and your accusations were denied by administrator . I don't need new accounts as my only one is not blocked (and it never was). It's your old anonymous account User_talk:217.12.205.67 that was blocked for spamming directly related to this article. --TAG 00:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Evidence of the fake user regsitration has been provided to Anthony.bradbury and review of the user posting indicates direct vandalism changing vertifable publihsed quotaions from PACE officals for example..

Odessa you have been caught out along with your collegues. The account is fake and you know it. http://en.for-ua.com/forum/read.php?6,33108 So who is lying here?? Information that was published in the main article was factual and backed by citation. Please outline in detail what asopects you obeject to as opposed to false blanket accuastion of bias. UkraineToday 02:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see this forum page for first time. But seems somebody named Freе-Speech is spamming this forum with links to your website and another one forua.wordpress.com for long time (evidence here, here and here). Your removal of comments - even if you feel that those are done using fake account violate Wikipedia policies and will not be tolerated. Please also read this WP:NOT. --TAG 03:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC

comments

 * Because it is irrelevant. It is already mentioned at the political crisis article. — Alex(U 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And please stop spamming the article with a bunch of crap. I'm fed up with it. — Alex(U 23:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It most certainly is not irrelevant. I have no problems in your attempts to remove the polling data it can stay in the discussion pages. BUT the constitutional Court challenge is most defiantly part of the election as there still is question surrounding teh legality of the election itself.  Until the constitutional Court rules it shoudl remine.  Please do b=bnot vandalise of remove this information just because you doe not like the content of teh information.


 * I'm not vandalizing, I'm cleaning up. Please keep the article on topic. I don't like the fact that the article is wandering off into carrying somebody's political views across. Wikipedia isn't meant to do that. — Alex(U 23:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To the editors of Wikpedia, please refer to UkraineToday 's profile. He makes no attempt to disquise his true intentions behind publication of his article. Although his article may be infact accurate, he has purposely ommitted any references to opposing opinions and contradictory views and news articles, making the article as a whole a very politically biased selection of information. Suggest UkraineToday be advised to include a balanced body of oppositional information which is available, concerning this political 'crisis'. A plethora of such information is available online and in print. The fact that UkraineToday states that the Presidents actions are Unconstitutional shows his bias and innacurate reporting, since the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, being the only body legally entitled to declare constitutionality, has not made a ruling on the Presidents Decree to terminate the Verkhovna Rada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.Fredericks (talk • contribs) 22:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the thing is... All of the information is already mentioned in another article. — Alex 22:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then I would assume there is no need for this article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.Fredericks (talk • contribs) 22:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia article have been the subject of attack by supporters of the president
Using fake user ids as apart of a campaign of deliberate vandalism of Wikipedia pages. They have registered and logon to Wikipedia with deliberate malicious intent. The users have been identified and are directly associate with the editors who have sought to remove Wikipedia publications that are critical or reflect poorly on the President of Ukraine. These articles are factual and backed up by citations and references. They are a historical record of recent events. User Alex, Dima and tag:Odessa continue to seek to censor this factual information aided and abetted by identified sockpuppets who they seek to protect. Problem is they have been caught out. UkraineToday 14:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional Court
The authority of the President to dismiss Ukraine's parliament has been challenged in Ukraine's Constitutional Court amidst concern that the President's actions are unconstitutional in that he has exceeded his authority to dismiss Ukraine's parliament.

An appeal against each of the president's decrees has been lodged in the Constitutional Court. The Assembly deplores the fact that the judicial system of Ukraine has been systematically misused by other branches of power and that top officials do not execute the courts’ decisions, which is a sign of erosion of this crucial democratic institution. An independent and impartial judiciary is a precondition for the existence of a democratic society governed by the rule of law. Hence the urgent necessity to carry out comprehensive judicial reform, including through amendments to the constitution. The Assembly reiterates that the authority of the sole body responsible for constitutional justice – the Constitutional Court of Ukraine – should be guaranteed and respected. Any form of pressure on the judges is intolerable and should be investigated and criminally prosecuted. On the other hand, it is regrettable that in the eight months of its new full composition, the Constitutional Court has failed to produce judgments, thus failing to fulfil its constitutional role and to contribute to resolving the crisis in its earlier stages, which undermines the credibility of the court. There is an urgent need for all pending judgments, and in particular the judgment concerning the constitutionality of the Presidential Decree of 2 April 2007, to be delivered. If delivered, the latter should be accepted as binding by all sides. The associated explanatory report under the sub-heading of Pressure on the courts expressed concern that "Several local courts have made decisions to suspend the Presidential Decree only to then withdraw them, allegedly under pressure from the presidential secretariat." (item 67) In emphasis the report (item 68) stated This is a worrying tendency of legal nihilism that should not be tolerated. It is as clear as day that in a state governed by the rule of law judicial mistakes should be corrected through appeal procedures and not through threats or disciplinary sanctions Pursuant to Article 149 of Ukraine's Constitution Judges of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine are subject to the guarantees of independence and immunity and to the grounds for dismissal from office envisaged by Article 126, and the requirements concerning incompatibility as determined in Article 127, paragraph two of Ukraine's Constitution Following the president's intervention the Constitutional Court still has not ruled on the question of legality of the president's actions. Stepan Havrsh, the President's appointee to the Constitutional Court, in prejudgment of the courts decision and without authorization from the Court itself, commented in an interview published on July 24 I cannot imagine myself as the Constitutional Court in condition in which three political leaders signed a political/legal agreement on holding early elections, which also stipulates the constitutional basis for holding the elections... How the court can agree to consider such a petition under such conditions. Olexander Lavrynovych, Ukrainain Minister for Justice, in an interview published on Aug 3 is quoted as saying According to the standards of the Constitution and the laws of Ukraine, these elections should have been recognized invalid already today. But we understand that we speak about the State and about what will happen further in this country. As we've understood, political agreements substitute for the law, ... The situation has been led to the limit, where there are no possibilities to follow all legal norms.
 * On April 19 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe passed a resolution in consideration of a report titled Functioning of democratic institutions in Ukraine. (Items 13 and 14) stated:
 * On April 30, on the eve of the Constitutional Court's ruling on the legality of the president's decree dismissing Ukraine's parliament, President Yushchenko, in defiance of the PACE resolution of April 19 intervened in the operation of Ukraine's Constitutional Court by summarily dismissing two Constitutional Court Judges, Syuzanna Stanik and Valeriy Pshenychnyy, for allegations of "oath treason." His move was later overturned by the Constitutional Court and the judges were returned by a temporary restraining order issued by the court.
 * On May 16,Viktor Yushchenko, for a second time, issued another decree dismissing the two Constitutional Court Judges Syuzanna Stanik and Valeriy Pshenychnyy.
 * On May 17, the Constitutional Court Chairman Ivan Dombrovskyy resigned and Valeriy Pshenychnyy was appointed chairman in replacement.
 * On May 23, The Constitutional Court of Ukraine acted to prevent the president's undue influence on the court system. The court's ruling was made after Viktor Yushchenko unduly sought to influence the court by illegally dismissing two Constitutional Court judges Valeriy Pshenychnyy and Syuzanna Stanik for allegations of "oath treason.".
 * On July 20 Susanna Stanik won an appeal against the President in the Shevchenko district court of Kiev. The Court ruled the President's actions illegal and reinstated Ms Stanik's entitlement as a member of Ukraine's Constitutional Court. According to the ruling, the President is obliged to cancel his decree on discharge of Mrs. Stanik.." The other two judges who were also illegally dismissed had previously tendered their resignations and as such were not subject to the courts order.

Please discuss do we need the section in what extent it should be in the article, etc? Edit warring is not the right way to do things. Alex Bakharev 00:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this article is strictly about the elections. Since the crisis was a major event, it deserved a separate article. Therefore the Constitutional Court shouldn't be mentioned here, since it is already mentioned in another article. — Alex(U 00:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice try but flawed argument the constitutional challenge is very much part of the Election it is a challenge on the election itself. This issue goes to the hart of the election

Until the challenge is resolved this information should remain.


 * Should not this issue have been discussed prior to the removal of the constitutional court challenge information first. The removal of this very important information brings Wilkip[edia into disrepute and leaves it open to the allegation of re-writing


 * This is the most significant question about the election if your are going to remove that then you should also remove the subjective issues about the political crisis. Talk about bias I have not problems with removal of the political campaign and progressive polls as the election list is now finalized but removal of information the Constitutional Court and legality of the the election is very much relevant,.


 * In addition information was removed was factual information in relation to teh Ukrainian Parliament holding its next scheduled plenary session o September 4 which if 300 or more members of parliament attend could very much result in the cancellation of the election

In my opinion the constitutional challenge info is relevant to the elections but having a half of the article filled with the one-sided explanation of the challenge is a classical case of WP:UNDUE we have summarize the problem in one or two sentences and provide a link to an article (existent or new) with the full info on the problem Alex Bakharev 10:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The full content of the article should be reinstated. There is no justification for its removal other then an act of censorship.Vandalism by idenitied users. The original article content that has been removed provided factual information pertaining to the valid argument of teh actions of then president being unconditional and also reference to his illegal interference in the operation of Ukraine's Constitutional Court along with quotations from PACE reports on the judiciary of Ukraine and the need for the Constitutional Court to rule on the validity of the presidents actions.

The CCC section should not be included in the article. There might be some information in there that could be included in the Crisis section, but there is no need to pollute the article with crap. Even the title is biased. This article is not about the crisis, it is about the elections. And the crisis article does a good job of explaining the events. — Alex(U 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Exit poll
Before I lose the link, here it is: http://www.exitpoll.org.ua/ — Alex Khristov 05:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Registered parties and blocs
What are the numbers in parentheses next to the titles of the parties? -- Magioladitis 10:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * THose numbers represent the number of candidates the said party put forth to get into the Verkhovna Rada. —dima/talk/ 20:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that we add these numbers in a separate column in the template and remove this section from the main article. What do you say? -- Magioladitis 11:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Projected seats
Gentlemen, please source all data. It is clear where the vote percentages are coming from but we cannot have projected seats number calculated by the Wikipedians. We need those sourced as well and ASAP too. No Wikipedian's math. This is an extremely high profile article now and we need to be as careful as we possible can with what we put. Being timely is important but we still have to source data. CEC server is now fast, unlike several hours ago but they do not project seats. Keep an eye on newspapers and update and reference properly. Thanks. --Irpen 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some one please add the projected seats.... I was refreshing the page for the past 1 hour. Axxn 20:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I will gladly do it. Just point out the reference. --Irpen 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey... I think the formula is 450* (% of votes got)/(Sum of % of votes for all the qualified parties). It won't do? Axxn 20:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 7.9% to go. If Tymoschenko/Yushchenko block gets 35.82% of the remaining vote, they will win. Axxn 20:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the voting system proportional in Ukraine? It can't be because there is a 3% threshold. -- Magioladitis 20:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians cannot project seats themselves on-wiki in highly changing environment. Wait an hour for the news-sites to project seats first. --Irpen 20:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok i got it. Per Axxn the system proportional after projection. If it is so we can mention that information to the main article, can't we?. -- Magioladitis 20:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we can. But we can't do the math ourselves. Wait a moment. --Irpen 20:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pravda.com.ua updates the numbers faster than the official CVK website and they update the number of projected seats too.. 450.org.ua provides an extrapolation by districts  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggerr (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

450.org.ua is a good source for projections. Also, not just pravda, but also korrespondent.net and proUA.com often update sooner than CEC and each time one of thre three comes ahead of two others. --Irpen 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 450.org.ua is confusing... why are they showing both 34.43 and 33.76 for the regions???? Axxn 21:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One is the actual number, and the other is extrapolation.
 * Also they are showing 175 seats for regions at 92.1%, while Pravda shows 173 seats at 93.15%. Given that Yanukovych is getting more votes as counting progresses, one of the sources is wrong. Axxn 21:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The first column is the projected result. The second is the original so far and the third is the number of seats according to the projected result. Pravda gives the seats according to the current result. -- 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So it's 175 according to the projected result which is expected to be higher. Pravda gives the original. -- Magioladitis 21:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6.79% to go now. Till now 88.6% of the votes went to qualified five parties. If the trend continues, the big 5 will get 6.02% out of 6.79. If the Yanukovych+Others get 57.73% of the remaining vote (3.92 out of 6.79) and Tymoschenko-Yushchenko gets 30.93% of the remaining vote (2.10 out of 6.79) then both blocs will tie at 44.31% of the total vote. Just a wild calculation to show that the race is still not over. I hope the remaining votes are from S & E. The counting is going on at snail's pace. Axxn 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncounted ballots: CEC page http://www.cvk.gov.ua/vnd2007/w6p001.html shows were the yet uncounted votes are to be expected from. Click on "По регіонах України (лідери)" link in the left-hand side frame.

Whoever can read Russian and Ukrainian 450.org.ua explains very well their projection method at its discussion site http://450.org.ua/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145

Looks very rigorous and reliable to me. --Irpen 22:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But it is based on pure extrapolation. See the trends: The 0.26% went as follows (From 93.21% to 93.47%): Yanukovych + Others: ~0.21%, Non-qualified: ~0.04%, Yushchenko-Tymoshchenko: ~0.01%. The next 0.56% (From 93.32% to 93.88%) to Regions + Others: 0.40%, Yushchenko-Tymoshchenko: 0.10% and NQ: 0.06%. Axxn 22:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They take into account which regions are uncounted yet and extrapolate narrowly region per region based on the region-specific data. There is no better way to do it with the given data. --Irpen 22:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the link from CVK given above. Quite surprised to learn that 19.95% of the votes in Kiev are still to be counted. Axxn 22:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And this is a bad message for Moroz. He is rather unpopular in Kiev. Ask me how I know, :) --Irpen 22:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The procedure became awfully slow. :( -- Magioladitis 22:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can't understand why counting is so slow in a Yushchenko-Tymoshchenko stronghold of Kiev... all the while they accuse others of stalling counting. More than 10% uncounted in Kiev (Still 19.95%), Sevastopol (17.12%), Crimea Rep (13.99%), Odessa (13.25%), Mykolayev (12.87%), Zaporizhye (10.68%). All except Kiev in Regions stronghold. Bad luck for Moroz. May he get some votes from Zakarpatya (9.53%) and Ivano-Frankovsk (9.48%). Only Tymoschenko stronghold other than Kiev with significant number of uncounted ballots: Vynnitsa (7.25%). Axxn 22:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The uncounted votes at 93.96%: Munc. Sevastopol (17.12%), Munc. Kyiv (17.03%), Rep. Crimea (12.06%), Odessa (11.47%), Zaporizhye (10.68%), Mykolayiv (10.24%), Zakarpatya (9.53%),Ivano-Frankovsk (9.48%), Chernivtsy (8.57%) and Vynnitsa (7.25%). Axxn 02:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The only addition comes from Volyn. Counting in other provinces seems to have died out. Axxn 03:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 6.00% still to go. If Yanukovich & Co. gets 56.22% of the remaining votes (i.e 3.37 out of 6.00) and BYT/OU gets 32.40% (i.e 1.94 out of 6.00), then both blocs will tie up at 44.31% each. Axxn 03:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Counting have restarted in Khersson, a Yanukovych stronghold. Currently counting undergoing in Volyn and Kherson. Axxn 05:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Results coming in from Volyn, Kherson, Vynnitsa and Khmelnitskiy. Counting in Khmelnitskiy at 99.87% is nearing the end. Axxn 06:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With just 3.14% of the votes still to be counted, Yanukovych + Others will need 70.98% of the remaining vote (2.23 out of 3.14) to tie with BYT/OU, provided 17.61% of the remaining votes go to BYT/OU. (0.55 out of 3.14). In Tymoschenko strongholds of Munc Kiev, 12.36% of the votes still to be counted. In Chernivtsy 4.38%. Most of the remaining uncounted votes in Yanukovych strongholds like Rep Crimea (10.37%) and Munc Sevastopol (13.37%). Axxn 12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just 2.65% to go. Based on rough calculations, 38% of the votes still to be counted are in BYT/OU strongholds and 62% in Yanukovych strongholds. Yanukovych needs 75% of the remaining vote to tie. Axxn 12:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2.44% of the votes to be counted. (61.6% in Regions strongholds). BYT/OU needs 11.7% of the remaining vote for a tie. Regions need 76.9%. Axxn 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2.17% to go. (64.5% in Regions strongholds). Regions need 83.3% of the remaining vote, BYT/OU needs 5.3%. Axxn 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only 1.0% to go. Update you calculations please. -- Magioladitis 20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 0.84% to go. Regions + Others need 136.17% of the remaining vote to overtake BYT/OU... i.e Regions can't get the majority now... Approx. 72% of the still uncounted votes in Regions strongholds of Rep Crimea, Luhansk, Dnepropetrovsk, Odessa and Mykolayev. 28% in BYT strongholds of Munc Kiev and Vynnitsa. Axxn 02:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

International response
Is there a place in this article for the international response, specifically Russia's threats? Ostap 02:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I Think yes. Someone already should wright the introductionary paragraphs about the results and then the international reaction to the result. Can you add a paragraph about Russia's reaction with a good reference? For example here it is a good link written by Guardian Unlimited. -- Magioladitis 02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now gas supplies to Germany are going to be affected. Axxn 02:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, this should defenitly be included within the article. —dima/talk/ 02:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added a section. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You contradict even with your source. It says: "threatened to reduce gas supplies", while you say: "threatened to cut off natural gas supplies". There is difference between reducing and cutting off. Also "The Guardian" isn't suggesting — it speculates, I'm not sure if wikipedia is a good place to spread russophobic statements. —Phill —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible coalitions?
Should the article include discussion of the possible coalitions resulting from this election? Most sources expect a new orange coalition, but that hasn't been officially confirmed. BBC News and the New York Times are both saying that a coalition of the Tymoshenko and Our Ukraine blocs is most likely, but that a pro-Yanukovich coalition or a hung parliament aren't impossible. Should we present that analysis, or just wait for the official result? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait. — Alex Khristov 05:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We should reflect the situation as it is. The future of the parliament, and in particular, the format of the coalition are crucial elements. We don't have to speculate, but at least we have to state clearly the position of each party on forming the coalition. The article should also say that by law the parliament requires 2/3 deputies to be active. In other words, if any of the top three parties walk away the parliament became not legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggerr (talk • contribs) 02:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Split?
Maybe the Ukrainians voted to split the country? How about a "Donetsk Republic" along the "Proper Ukraine". ;) --Camptown 08:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well an East-West divide in Ukrainian Politics is what we really need. --Kuban Cossack 15:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the divide will eventually disappear, so there's no real need for the article. — Alex Khristov 19:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

What we think is not a valid source. What I think (also not a valid source) is that the divide is lessening as both the PR is getting more votes in Western UA and BYuT is getting votes in Eastern UA (Выборы Рады: Тройки лидеров парламентских выборов по областям) while the parties with more nationally focused messages (NU and PSPU) both lost votes compared with 2006.

I once wrote a stubby East West dissimilarities on Ukraine that can be restored and renamed or expanded if anyone has an interest in doing it. --Irpen 04:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That article would probably just turn into another gallery of images of the vandalized Russian culture center in Lviv. I wouldn't think an article on a divide that is lessening would be necessary, but I am not a valid source either. Ostap 04:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, with such articles much depends on having them started off the right foot. The east-west vector in Ukraine is very important and there are many studies of the issue. However, such article has to be started in a very careful and dispassionate way by a user who would devote much time to start with a decent at least 7-10 careful paragraphs to not repeat the flurry of two paragraphs "Soviet occupation of THIS and THAT" that popped up, deleted, resurrected, deleted and tagged lately. --Irpen 04:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Useless / biased opinion poll
On the page, you'll find (quote): According to the recent FOM-Ukraine public opinion poll published on 22 August by UNIAN, if the parliamentary election in Ukraine were to be held between 9 August and 19 August, the Governing coalition representing the Party of Regions and the Communist Party would win 228 Parliamentary seats and the Opposition coalition consisting of Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko and Our Ukraine/People's Self-Defence bloc led by Yulia Tymoshenko, 222 parliamentary seats. Let aside evidently outdated information (the verb tense form, to the least), I think that the whole opinion poll should be removed because the striking difference from exit polls clearly indicates us that it was just another tool in the hands of the President. Someone reverted my page to the original: I guess he has his points, but then we should change that 'would win' to 'would have won', at least. Billy Pilgrim 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In this article there were results of more than 20 pre-election polls. (Check the version as of August 31). They were deleted and only FOM-Ukraine poll was left as the "most recent" at that time. At this moment I don't see a point of keeping the FOM poll as the only poll. I think it would be valuable if instead overview of poll results will be provided. (August 31st version of this article could be a good starting point).


 * ok I agree. Let's delete the opinion poll. But I think we have to keep the exit polls. -- Magioladitis 18:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Map
The following map is more detailed than the one in the article, both in terms of presented geographic units, and in terms of representing the percentage of support for the leading party:  --Greger 07:15, 7 November 2007
 * Yes probably, but we don't know the copyright status. -- Magioladitis 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposal is to create a similar map based on the same official data. Greggerr (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no statistic merit in publishing the second highest polling party. A region can have 90% support for one party and the second place represent 5% or it could be 45% for one party and the second place 42%. This is a proportional ballot it is ot first past the post. If need be I suggest you update the map and record the percentage of each winning party for each region as was published for the 2006 election. The second place map has no encyclopedic value. I have included a Swing analysis chart based on the official published results.

Both the first place and the second place map is very misleading as it gives the false impression that Our Ukraine's votes is greater the it actually is. Ukraine uses a proportional representation voting system. It is not first-past-the-post, as such there is no second place winner. The second highest vote is also misleading as it does not take into consideration the demographic population density. The first place (Highest vote map has some interest but seriously needs review. A better option would be to produce a color graded map for each party based on the number of votes received in each district/region as exist for the 2006 election article.

Compare the map with the chart below. Perhaps they need to also present a third and fourth place map. Somehow I think the reason for the publication of the second place map is more to do bias editing and an attempt to promote one political party and not the facts. NPOV - LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. Fact is our Ukraine received only 14% of the overall vote yet the second place map gives you the impression they received much more. There is no statistical merit in either map as it is presented and even less with the second place map.

In Politics, runners-up only applies to single member electorates or parties using a first past-the-post voting systems, such as Great Britain, the United States of America, Canada or Australia's House of Representatives. It does not apply to multi-member proportional representation electorates such as exists in Ireland, Ukraine and many European countries or Australia's Senate elections.

The parties depicted are not Runners-up as they won seats. In the same way they are not second place as there is no placing in a proportional representation count. In some regions the so called first-place (highest vote party) received over 70 percent of the vote and the so called second place runner-up received only 5%. In other regions the first place (highest vote) party received 34% and the second place "runner-up" could have received 33% and the third place winner 32%. The map as displayed seriously distorts the presetation of the results of the election and does not represent the overall election results where the charts do.

If you look closely at the "runner-up" "second place" map and compare it with the "first place" (highest vote) map, you will notice a number of serious mistakes in the presentation of the data (Mistakes do happen) in some cases the party presented for a given area appears as both "first place" and "second place" winner. A mixture of both charts and maps (redrawn to accurately reflect the results) should be used if we are to present a full and accurate presentation of the election results. Some editors are showing a lack of professionalism and or bias in their assessment to support one particular party or blocs.

Constitutional Court and PACE commentary
I have removed, following Ostap R's example, a section inserted concerning the Constitutional Court and the PACE commentary. Ostap R removed it on the grounds that it is already covered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Ukrainian_political_crisis, in which the same section already exists.

It is relevant to note that that user 193.243.156.214, who inserted the section here and reinstated it after Ostap R removed it, is also engaged in a revert war concerning his inclusion of an additional pointer to the corresponding section within http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Ukrainian_political_crisis, and is the subject of a sockpuppet case alleging that 193.243.156.214 is a sockpuppet of UkraineToday, who inserted the Constitutional Court / PACE commentary section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Ukrainian_political_crisis. UkraineToday is the subject of an indefinite ban and it seems clear that he is using 193.243.156.214 to evade the ban and to continue to push his particular POV. The POV itself is heavily biassed, because it is largely non-sequital and most of it serves to create a context in which he can present the President's dismissal of Constitutional Court judge Syuzanna Stanik as intereference, without making any mention of the fact that Syuzanna Stanik was dismissed amid accusations, still under investigation, of receiving a USD12M bribe via her mother.Timberframe (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

193.243.156.214 has again inserted his piece, in contempt of the opinions of two editors who have removed it and without answering the reasons given by OstapR in the edit summary or by me here. At least his 3RR threat - coming from an alleged sockpuppet evading an indefinate block for abuse and issuing legal threats - is amusing. 82.153.175.147 Timberframe (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This paragraph that is being inserted is already in the other article and does not belong here. Ostap 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

User Timberframe is part of a group which includes other editors who are trying to prevent the publication of factual material relevant to the conduct of the 2007 election. The constitutional court challenge is very much an important part of the historical facts. They are seeking to have this information removed and in the process removes the NPOV aspect of the article as they remove factual statements that are critical of teh Presidents actions. They have even removed them from the discussion page. It is this sought of abuse that brings wikipedia into disrepute. Please stop Wikipedia is not here to publicise one political point of view. The allegations of sockpuppert are part of this groups efforts to prevent factual information being published. Ukraine's courts have ruled that teh president's interference in the operation of Ukraine's Constitutional Court ad his dismissal of Three Constitutional courts Judges was illegal. Whilst there are allegations against one of teh judges they have not bee tested or brought before a appropiate court and as such only form part of the political mileage used to justify the President's illegal actions. User Timdberframe has also misrepresented the comments by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in relation to Ukraine's judicial system ad teh Constitutional Court. The comments hare a direct quote from the PACE report cited. Contrary to teh false assertion these comments do jot just apply to the lower local Courts but to every court ad specific mention has also bee made to9 teh Constitutional Court. this factual information is part of the public record ad it is up to the reader not the political bias of some editors to determine the merit or otherwise of the statements made. ElectAnalysis (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdated article
could someone already put down that Tymoshenko was elected a prime minister, and Yatsenuk a speaker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.50.104 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried doig this but some users continue to vandalize the edits. And engaged in an edit war. Most noteable user TAG:Odessa and DDima and others. The inconsistancy i what is being published and what is not is most telling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectAnalysis (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And in which of your multiple ban-evading personas (see sockpuppet cases at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/UkraineToday_%284th%29) did you try to mention that Tymoshenko was elected a prime minister, and Yatsenuk a speaker? The article's history shows that your only contributions to the article under the name ElectAnalysis were in connection with graphical representation of the polls. Please link to the diff which proves that you did try to add this.Timberframe (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop this edit war
I do agree that the "Russian response" section in this article is not neutral point of view! But can we discuss this here first before we constantly remove the other ones edits. The election was months ago, constantly rewriting this page is not gonna change the outcome of it... so get over it!!! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is ot a private blog or vehicle of vilification icitig hatred. nor is it a extension of the maidanua.com.ua web site.

May edit are being made that are constructive oly to have then vandelised ad undone in an edit war in collusion. their aim is not to provide factual NPOV information but to promote a one sided political misrepsreentation of facts. Missing is the Constitutional Court Challenge and now information on the vote swing chart showing the change i voter support between the 2006 and 2007 election.

The suggestion of semi-protection ca only work if teh person who is granted editorial control is someone who is impartial and has not already participated in the edit of this document. Those person should seriously ask themselves are they acting i the best interest of Wikipedia and the dissemination. Their actions are most certainly bringing Wiukipedia into disrepute. Particularly by those that are using this forum as a vehicle for hatred and vilification. Notably User:Timeberframe and his associates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectAnalysis (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For me being not from Ukraine it is hard to tell where the regions indicated at your new charts are... This is an English wikipedian page and most reader do not understand Ukrainian alphabet... Your charts don't show if the regions indicated are close to Rusia/Rusian spoken. By constantly removing the "second place map" (where a get a better idea what language they speak in the regions) I get the idea that you have a problem that some Russian speaking voters vote for Byut and that you want to hide the fact (by making charts unreadable for most of us) that some Russian Ukrainians vote different then Russians in the Russian Federation (Byut being more pro EU then pro-Russian). And because some Russian speaking voters vote for Byut they don't see there future with Russia but with EU. And I get the feeling you have a problem with that. I am just guessing, but I can think of no other reason why somebody wants to remove "the second place map".... (althoug percentages on that map should be corrected) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Results
There is not one graphic that shows the outcome of the election Why is that?

Is this good wikipedia editing? Does it convey the results in a clear and unambiguous manner?

Let the facts speak for themselves and the First place "Maps" is interesting, the second place has not value, but should they stand alone. As correctly pointed out they provided a false and misleading impression. Surly we should be publishing a full and complete graphic showing the overall results.

друг, how can Lytvyn and the communist be in the non-governing coalition if he didn't wanted to be in the Party of region shadow cabinet []. Sorry, your chart is nonsence... It is clear in the article that Yulia and Victor Y got a small minority in parliament (if the have a small minority in parliament so of course they had a small one in votes too (people who read Wikipedia arn't idiots!). Besides Wikipedia isn't an exebition of images. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they are not party of the Governing coalition. I did not refer to them as opposition just non-Governing Coalition The above is just one of the various options available BUT it never the less shows more accurately the results of the election and the relationship between the various parties where the map does not. In fact we have no results graphic at all. all we have is a gallerey of images taht are false and misleading. They are preseetd as baig results of the election when in fact they are not.  They only show a distorted presentation of the geo- political landscape without taking into consideration the percentage or actual level of voter support. (Quantity of votes)

I am in favour of a mixture. Color graded/Shaded scale maps and charts ad maybe a map as a legend that correlates to the charts shwoig the geographical location of each region. The Map could have a better choice of colors also. The dark red for BYUT is not a good choice and the blue should be the same as the Ukrainian Flag which is the color PoR uses. Yellow is close to orange and more brighter over-all. It all adds to the presentation of accurate information. Which after all is what we should be striving to achieve in a NPOV publication.

Political crisis
The "Political crisis" section in the article, which I have deleted, was an almost verbatim duplicate of the corresponding section in 2007_Ukrainian_political_crisis but the two versions were beginning to diverge as editors improved one or the other. The Political Crisis is, of course the setting for the election, so it's right and proper in my opinion to have it linked from the election article, but retaining two versions of it seems like an unnecessary duplication and burden on editors who have to maintain not one but two versions of it. I've retained the link to the main article in the introduction, and this seems to be not only all that is needed but also the way in which wiki is intended to be structured. Prior to deleting the section from the election article I copied recent additions across to the main associated article so that no content has been lost. I'm not sure why the whole article also appears on this talk page as well, especially since it was posted without any reference to it or discussion of it. It will inevitably become out of date as the main article is revised from time to time; I suggest deleting it from here - any comments? -- Timberframe (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"Russian response" section needs rewriting!
Just because The Guardian speculated that this threat was a signal of Russia's displeasure at the prospect of a new government headed by Yulia Tymoshenko doesn't make it true! It should also be said that Gazprom denies that just like it does in the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute article (I put it in the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute myself, why doesn't that surprise me...). Besides I remember some comments from the Russian Government who congratulated Ukraine with it's election... Why is that not mentioned there... I wouldn't mind making the chances, but would like to hear other opinions first (unlike some Wikipedians...) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I certainly believe that the way the section is written is seriously violating NPOV. Maybe we can omit it. I making the following thoughts: Do you have to mention the responses of all the governments? I assume that many governments sent a typical "congratulations" telegram of something like this. I think the answer to my question is "no". Second question: Is the Russian response more important than the others? I presume yes. But.. is it important enough to have a separate section? Are we going to write something different than hasn't already included in the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute or elsewhere? Well.. I am not sure. My conclusion is that if we don't completely delete the paragraph, because you (and I am referring to people knowing the situation better) think Russian's response is mention worthy, then we have to shorten it and avoid referring Gazprom and all these stuff. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Simple it should be removed it is not related to the election article. It is being used to incite hatred against Russia. it has no encyclopedic vale and brigs wikipedia into disrepute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectAnalysis (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, I requested semi-protection. Let's see how it goes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection seems to be a good idea :), your points make a lot of sense. But I'm not sure how to rewrite it yet... And I am not sure what Gazprom would have done if the election outcome was a lot less Orange, The Guardian might be right, on the other hands the debts where real.... and Gazprom was right to ask to get paid... I think the part about Gazprom should stay but that there explanations for asking there money back should be given. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly, we have to avoid speculations ("would have done if..."). That's the point. I think Gazprom did, what it would have done in every case to defend its rights. The sentence itself, as written, contains speculation: "The Guardian speculated that this threat was a signal of Russia's displeasure". This is ok for a newspaper but not for an encyclopedia. If we have an official expression of Russian displeasure for the result we can add it, but the connection with Gazprom is NPOV stretching. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

For all the reasons already mentioned, I would question whether we need a section on the Russian response at all. All that can be said without speculation about Gazprom's move is that it was not inconsistent with the way the relationship between Russia and Ukraine was developing at that time, as described in Russia-Ukraine gas dispute; is there any evidence that it was a response to the election outcome at all? Apart from this move by Gazprom, Russia made remarkably little response; having the section at all suggests that there was more of a response than the facts support. I agree with Magioladitis that the geopolitics make a Russian response more significant than that of most other states, which would be a reason to retain the section heading, but only if there was anything noteworthy to mention beneath the heading.Timberframe (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The information that has bee published is it related to teh elections and is not Russia's response. You are showing your bias hatred towards Russia in allowing this statement to remain,. It detracts from the quality of the article and demonstrats a bias in the selective editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectAnalysis (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't use this kind of expressions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Racial hatred and vilification can only be seen for what it is. In what way does the published comments relate to Russia official response to the election. The published information is not a response to the election. If they did their research and wanted to preset accurate NPOV information the they would have found that the Russia government response was significantly different to the one published. Happy to assume good faith but will tollerate obvious political bias and others acting in collusion and vilification. Such actions brings wikipedia into disrepute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectAnalysis (talk • contribs)


 * Don't forget to sign your posts!!! Check your talk page for some friendly advice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From now on if a contributor doesn't follow the rules of the Talk page I'll revert their edits. This is becoming unreadable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Translate parts of the Russian version of this article (?)
There is a good compare section with data on regions and a comparisment with the 2006 election at the Результаты по регионам section [Результаты по регионам] (and furder) at the Russian version of this article. Would it be a good idea to translate that (parts) and put it on the English version page? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The map there is not readable (far too busy), but the table with the results, organized not in one big alphabetical mash, but by Region, that's a good table that I think we should take. Lot's of data, readable, obscures neither big picture nor details. Jd2718 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary
Highest Vote by Regions color Graded

Methodology. Each Party color is graded by saturation to represent the number of votes (percentage to the total number cast) of votes allocated to each of the highest vote polling parties per region.

This map forms part of a collection on the published results

NOTE: The above maps are not final and are just for discussion only. I am working on another format. Looking at the number of votes and not percetange this would show a better correlation between the variuous regions. I have not generated a map for the other parties as their percentage of the vote per region is quite small. But can do so if desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocracyATwork (talk • contribs)


 * Good move from your side. Maps looks good. But you have not followed my entire idea - % in region - is something that does not matter. Each region contribute different number of votes. In contrast - each from 225 electoral districts in the past were designed in such a way that voters difference beetwean them was minimal (10% difference max). This make % in each electoral district represent contribution in actual number of votes in the best way possible. So my original proposal was to make maps not for regions - but for 225 districts.
 * Regarding your objection on second place results - in no way this mean that second place win some votes - it's to demonstrate overall results of election in easy to understand way.
 * Tip: try creating map in SVG format. --TAG (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not true the variance in the districts does ot fall within 10% as TAG:Odessa suggests. They are admisitrative districs and not related to the number of voters at all. Nice try
 * The issue related to the "Second place" map is that under a proportional represetation ballot there is no second place. Unkess you consider the Socialist comming second, as they fell below the 3% overall vote threshold ad missed out o securing representation. There is no runner up as you would see in a single member "first-past-the-post" election. The Map seriously distorts the distribution and resulst of the election. (apatry from teh fact that it shows Yulia being in both first and second place for the same region)
 * Both maps and graphs need to be published. Is your goal is to present the results of the election or try and misrepresent the statictics by presenting a map that does not represent fairly or accuratly the results. eg.  Our Ukraine at best received less the one percent of the overal vote at any given region. (See the above regional highest vote map) Most of the population lives in the East/South of the country,.  The way the First and Second vote map is presented does ot convey the correlation of the vote to the region or the population.


 * Nice maps! I think it's better to dump the second place map once the "DemocracyATwork maps" are complete, after all Our Ukraine coming second with about 8% in Krym... it would look like there is a problem with map cause im most country's the runner up has more votes. Don't care mutch if the maps shows regions or districts. Yes districts would be more precies but results in 1 region will be more or less the same anyway! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I found a map (I thought it used to be on this tall page but can't find it in archievs) witch shows the results per region there seems to only be 2 Byut victories in "PoR teritory" (is one of them in Nikopol?) so I don't think a map with regions or districts makes a difference... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User:DemocracyATwork's "Ukrainian parliamentary election 2007 (Highest Vote) per Region.PNG" is much better then the original User:DDima map! Well done! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am having trouble following discussion, since it seems to move around the page quite a bit. This is the best map on this page, and should replace the maps in the article after numbers have been added for the shading for the smaller parties. Jd2718 (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Charts
Considertion should also be given to publishing the regional Swing chart.

The swing by regions is iterestig as it shows that the swing occoured predomiately in the regios where Yulia tymosheko already held the highest vote. She had in effect consolidated her vote i her patch so to speak predomiately at the expense of our Ukraine and the Solialists. Both the Communists and party or Regions increased their overall share of the vote. This information is not readily indicated by the tables and the maps alone. (Which is why some people here are trying to prevent this information being published.

2007

2006

A swing analysis is common in any election. It shows the change in voter percentage for each party by regions from 2006 to 2007.

I understand that some editors working in collusion are trying to push a non-NPOV in favour of Ukraine's President's political Party Our Ukraine and Yulia Tymoshcheko's party. Please stop this as it brings Wikipedia into disrepute. ElectAnalysis (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The map shows that there is not such a division among Ukrainians as some try to make us believe, popularity in of Byut in Russian speaking city's shows that people (in those city's) don't vote in ethnic lines. That is worth mentioning since Western media don't mention this and thus give the impression that there are ethnic tensions ore give the impression that Byut is a natonalistic party (I also have the impression that some Russian Wikipedians try to make us believe that). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Map does not show that at all. As stated in the discussion the map is very deceptive as it gives a flase impression and false statistics. Higehest vote party could have 70% of the vote and the second best party less then 10%. The map gives a impression that the second vote is a close race in some regions.  In some cases the comnined fiorst and secod does ot exceed the first place i opther rgeions.  produce a third ad eve a fourth place map if you like all will be false and misleadig.  The shaded map represeting the umber of votes is the only correct map tp be presnetd. Is it your intention and desire to publish false information to reinforce your bias misconceptions? are are you concerned about accuracy?  If the later the the map MUST be revised or deleted and the charts added.

These charts constitute Original Research and should not be included. The first and second place maps, taken together, clearly show regional preferences in the vote. Jd2718 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The charts above are based on official published results, (See above links) there is no more "original research" in these charts then exists in the published maps, which has no statistical merit at all. The graph above shows each of the top six parties per region where the "secod palce map govees a flase and misleadig iformation. Refer to the 2006 Ukrainian Election Wiki page and you will see there is a graded map publihsed for each main party. Under your flawed logic I guess all the data published is Original research.    The sign data in particular shows the chage in voter support something that is not show in the publihsed maps.  I suggest you re-work the maps to reflect the [percentage of support given to each party per region (Which the above graph shows) A good ecapmple is the map on the Presidetail election,  it bwould be better if the map showed goverig ciolaitio verus no goverining coalition if your going to provide a two party/allicance geogrpahical breakdown.

ElectAnalysis (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Arn't we having fun with those maps, where even worse then Victor + Yulia vs. Victor + Putin :) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't we put all 5 maps in the article as a compromise? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree... Just because one editor can not uderstand or does not know how to read a simple graph or understand what a Swig chart is should not limit Wikipedia to pubihsing false and misleadig data.  What's worst is that the second place map is misleading and has no statistical merit.   What I think is happening here is that some editors think that publication of factual details shows the current ruling parties in a negative light and therefore they do not want this information published. ElectAnalysis (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably not. I don't see how they help to understand results. Map is easy to understand, chart with Ukrainian letters on English encyclopedia is clearly not. Maybe in order to better understand maps they can be filled with different gradients of party color to get better feeling of 10% vs. 45% first/second place. --TAG (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Map is not easy to read if teh data preseted is false and misleading. Whay ot show a third ad fourth place? Piublciatio of the above charts shows the six main partoies and the relative change in voter support from 2006 to 2007. The Map seriosul;y distorts the presentaion of the results.  (Which is the true aim of Tag:Odessa not accuracy or truth).
 * Good Idea! User:DDima made those maps, should we ask him if he want's to change them? I wouldn't mind to do it myself, but I don't know how. Besides it could be rude to change his map! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * DDima should look at the published maps associated with the 2006 elections and the 2004 Presidetial elections. Does the map need to show district results?  Is not regioal results sufficent for the prupose of shwoig geogrpahical distibution (Note: There is also an inbuilt distortion i a gropolitcial map as the number of people living on one region differs in the number living in another region population distributuion is not even within districts or regsions.) The chart above shows teh reulst of teh elction nationally as well as a regsioal breakdown) In any case the map should be shaded to represent the level of support and the percentage of vote.  It would be useful to show aggregated governing coalition versus non govering coalaition support. but Some how I think the boys would ot suypport such iformatio as it does not show their supported team in a good light. Thats called selcetove bias editig in my book.


 * You may like to review the contemporary discussion on DDima's talk page . He begged off a similar proposal at the time. Jd2718 (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We need to show six parties as the socialist party came second in some regions. But the second place map most defiately has no statitcal merit and should be removed/replaced.  If you have the orginal maps it is not hard to create additional maps with a gradiant color scheme. I think the swig chart also has sigificant merit as it shows the change in the electorate.  Swing charts are a very common electoral analysis tool. Well worth publishing.  ElectAnalysis (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ElectAnalysis: Your main statement is that publishing the second highest polling party has no statistic merit.


 * Tag:Odessa I strongly disagree.


 * First, you didn't provide any evidence to support your claim.
 * Second, on your talk page user:TAG actually providedthe opposite evidence of the second place map being used by a government organization
 * Third, your logic is not valid. Let's consider your example. In one region party A has got 90% and party B obtained 5%. In another region, party A gained 45% and party B obtained 42%. Ukraine is not under system when the winner take all votes. Now, you claim that it's wrong to indicate on the second place map the two regions in the same color, presumably because in one region party B has got 5%, and in the other 42%. Indeed, these two numbers are significantly different.

In reply to the above.

Such critique would also apply to the first place map. In one region party A has got 90%, and in the other the party obtained only 45%. These numbers are significantly different as well. Let aloe issues related to populations distribution.

The gradient color scheme should be used instead. Or, five maps for the five parties, which are present in the parliament as was the case in the 2006 published results.


 * There is nothing wrong with the second place map, which could not be said about the first place map. Greggerr (talk) 08:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the charts. The 3-d bar chart by region was quite hard to read, labeled only in Ukrainian, presented the data poorly (those sorts of 3d things - it's hard to see which region a longer bar in the back might belong to) and implies a spatial randomness (by organizing the data alphabetically). The misleading display in effect constitutes a "synthesis" and thus is a piece of "original research." What was useful about the chart (percentage by region) should be incorporated into the map, perhaps by keying darker coloring to higher percentages. The swing analysis uses strange abbreviations, and in any event just recapitulates what is in the tables, below. Jd2718 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The chart is readable if you are interested you can click on it and you get a larger version of it i the same way as the map.

There is no second runner up in the Ukraine for regions. The map is statically misleading. It does not show the relationshiop of each of the main parties per Region, where as the bar chart does. More improtamtly is that the map goves the impressio that the party represeted was in fact a secod user up. This is wrong. Ukraine is not a first-past-the-post electoral system as exists i Great britian,Canada or the USA. It does not have runer-up like you would expect in GB, Canada or the USA. Produce a third runner up map and you will have the same distortion in the results.

The series of charts, collectivly show the swing (changes of voter support form 2006 to 2007)

The charts in fact provide more information ad are more accuate then the maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.243.157.184 (talk • contribs)
 * Please read my argumentatation again. Your charts with Ukrainaian region names are useless on English wikipedia. Stop pushing them. Maps will be changed with color gradients, stop removing them. Please read rules of Wikipedia on talk pages and follow them. --00:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a "Vote By Region" section in the article. We dump the chart an just write down the % each party got in every region, with links you then can find out where those regions are. Readable for everyone (onlike the chart now, where you have to look real hard where a bar belongs...) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is everyone aware that the user you are making compromises with was banned months ago for persistant and outrageous POV pushing? Ostap 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the perso pushing a POV is you not me.


 * Yes, User:ElectAnalysis (indef blocked) and IP addresses 81.23.24.xxx are indeed the latest manifestations of User:UkraineToday (indef blocked) - see Suspected_sock_puppets/UkraineToday_%284th%29 and the links from there to the previous cases. But the fact that his POV pushing knows no limits doesn't mean that he isn't something of an authority on electoral systems and the presentation of poll data.  If he were to value his peers' opinions as much as his own he would be an asset to converstaions such as this.  Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to discuss the merits of his opinions even in his self-imposed absence. Timberframe (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you have a point. Ostap 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well User:ElectAnalysis has a point. The original "second place map" was misleading... It gave the impression that Byut scored 30% in Odessa whole she scored only 9.86% there.(source: Central Election Commission of Ukraine []. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Strange... On User:ElectAnalysis's Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 (VoteByRegion).PNG chart Byut scored more then 10% in Odessa. Probabley because on the Ukrainian version of the Central Election Commission of Ukraine website Byut scores 13.72% in Odessa []. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true read the statiocla resulst from the Ukrainian Web site (Links above) This is teh data that was used to produce the charts.


 * Vote by region is tricky - because there is no 25-27 regions for voting. There are 226 electoral districts and those are on map. You can see similar maps for vote during Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2006 by district at:

. --TAG (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong their is the foreign Offices regions which is small in number.. that is the 27th region. Take a look at the links above and look at the offiial site. Its shows the resulst on 27 regions.  24 oblasts 2 urban (Kyiv and Sevastopol) plus foreign Emabssies combined.  Nice try...


 * The above maps are better then the current highest vote and second highest vote maps BUT

I think the color shading should be more consistent. Choose a color and dimisish it to white. In any event a map does not present the overall election resulst. As outlined above It's main limitation is that the population is not evenly distributed each electoral district has a vastly differet number of electors regisitered. The MAPS alone do not work. Best if we publish both maps and charts. What is improtat here the geo-politcal divide or the voters? A map withoutthe chart provides false infomation. There is no compariosion with teh 2006 elction result. The swing chart provides this. What is it you are trying to convery elections results? The the map does not convey that information. It looks good (Well if the colors where better chosen) but it does not represent the resulst of the election. Bot maps ad chats is the way to go.Chose which ones you think should be pubished or publish them all. I would suggest as a mimium the overall national Vote Percentage chart (Top six or all parties)and the National vote swing. But at the same time the regional swing chart is of some interest even if some here do not know how to read a chart but think they can read a map.)

A map reflecting the Governing coalition and non-Governing coalition would be of interest of it showed the percentage transition. BUT it needs to be stated that the MAP does not represst the vote or results of the election which is what is overall missing. Have fund with your propoganda toy boys and girls.


 * Perhaps we have to go back to basics and ask: what are we trying to illustrate? For me, there are three important parameters which benefit from an analysis by region: the national distribution of support for the various parties, the distribution of support for each party within each region and change in support over time (otherwise known as swing).

User:TAG.Odessa's graded maps for each party and User:ElectAnalysis's charts illustrate these parameters; the 1st place, 2nd place maps do not. In a country such as Ukraine - which does not return deputies on a regional basis - who came second (or even, arguably, first) in a region is meaningless - it's the region's contribution to the national support for each party which determines the outcome of the election. If you're accustomed to a first-past-the post system it can be difficult to comprehend that the regions aren't constituencies, they are simply small administartive components of the national picture. I agree that the 3D bar charts are difficult to read, and the presentation could be improved; perhaps a map of Ukraine with a pie chart in each region showing distribution of votes among parties and the total area of the pie proportional to the sum of the votes returned for all the parties, and a similar map with a bar chart in each region showing swing.


 * On the question of original research I think we must distinguish between presenting official data in a readable format and presenting interpretations of that data. The charts that ElectAnalysis offered are derived directly from the Electoral Commission's data with nothing added or taken out; for me that makes them verifiable and not original.  I see presentation of verified data in graphical form as analogous to what happens when an editor writes an article on wiki: the words are original but the factual content is faithfully reproduced from the verifiable sources.  On the other hand interpretation of the verifiable data risks the introduction of POV or unverified techniques and so could reasonably be challenged as original research.  For example when ElectAnalysis refers below to "most notable the loss of support for Our Ukraine" I would class this as original research if not POV and would certainly contest whether the data actually supports the statement.
 * That is in dicussion not in the presentation of information on the publication. Nice.  LET TEH FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSLEVES. The data shows a significant loss i some resgioos to Our Ukraie and the Socialist Party.


 * One comment on the swing charts: percentage swing (which is what ElectAnalysis's chart shows) is not a useful measure in an electoral system such as Ukraine's, rather it's the absolute swing measured in votes which determines the impact on the national outcome. A 10% swing to party A in a small constituency does not balance a 10% swing away from the same party in a large constituency, rather it leaves a net loss of votes for the party at national level (which is the only level at which the votes count).Timberframe (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True in part. User talk:Timberframe The regional maps and charts only show the perceatge of the vote for that regions. That is why there is an overall swing chart ad also a vote by region map which shows not percetages by actual numbers of votes. (A reaso why you need more the one map/chart  The maps have the same "distorion" but is is masked by the other distortions in that the maps do not show magnitude.


 * I aggree and if your look there is a statisical swing chart which is accurate. The regional swing chart is just provided as a basis of staticital interst but unlike the map they are are statisically correct and more informative.


 * Let's split this issue on two. First is inclusion of region charts by ElectAnalysis. IMHO, as those are region based - but not vote districts - they can not be included. Even if region names in them will be converted to English - Wikipedia must not assume that readers are familiar there each region is located on map of Ukraine. This lead to conclusion that if anything will be shown - it must be map.
 * The you ca provide a location key map to show you the region location. Agai teh real wuestio is accuracy of the data presetend. The map is not accurate and has not statisical merit as outlined above.


 * Next - there are multiple levels of summaries for election data - Ukraine overall, Oblast' level, vote district and vote station. The best possible will be vote station level - but we have no map for this level of details at the moment. Next level is vote district - so it's nice compromise to show results of voting on vote district level. Compared to Oblast' level - 25-27 areas vs. 225 is nice level of details. Taking in account that those districts were designed in such a way that number of people in each of them was similar (in the past, not sure about now) - showing % in them will represent effect on final outcome much better then on Oblast' level. This is something I'm confident.
 * Impossible to produce a map by voting station/polling place and the same issue of distorion in the statical value applies as would a regional map. The regions are clear they are based on 24 oblasts 2 metroplitan districs and Foreign Embassies (Which Missing from the map).


 * Now we come to tricky questions -
 * should we show maps for each winning party like it was in 2006? IMHO, this can be good addition we currently missing.


 * Yes a good option for regions. Best to include the charts as well. there is ot oe chart that whos teh overall results or swing. Not one.


 * should we show 1st (and 2nd place) maps? Those maps have purpose - they are intended to demonstrate that there is no separation on region levels for parties and it's simply different % of people support each party in each region. Showing only 1st place map will support myth about division of Ukraine that UkraineToday is pushing as POV. This 1st place map is plan simple - two parties dominate and has clear regional line of separation. The 2nd place map do complement this 1st place one - it's easy to remember that party in region was first and see who also has strong support in region. With 3-4 major parties in Ukraine and complicated (compared to 1st) distribution by region - 2nd place map is the last level of details that is reasonable for inclusion. The only issue I see with both maps - those need to use color gradients to better represent % - as no winner take all law exists.
 * The above commets are original research. Thedre is no suggestio as to a geogrophical divide other the what the reader may read ito the statistcal data. teh maps try to iompose this impressio but as stated the data presented is false a disleading.  The Charts do provide correct information as they respesent the magnitudes and scale of the vote per party per region.


 * The maps DO NOT show the differce of % in voter support as you claimed. That is the problem it does not display fairly or accratuly the distribution of the vote.


 * Summary:
 * ElectAnalysis charts must be removed.
 * WHY? They can not sit side buy side. How do you draw that conculsion other the by opushing your POV ad not supponting WP's NPOV.


 * 1st and 2nd place map changed to add gradients and restored.


 * Second Preference map should be removed or a third place map added (for reasons outline above they have no statisal merit). Better still retain the charts one image shows all. If you want you can show a map as a Key Index so the viewer can locate the reggio on a map.


 * Results for party by region created and added to commons and in article as thumbnails. --TAG (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Chart does this in one image


 * I agree with you,TAG. But who will make those maps... Can you ask User:DDima and User:Olegzima? How does this sort of thing work on Wikipedia? I guess you can just use there maps as a blueprint and just change tem. I personaly would'nt mind doing it, but lack the skills... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a blank map of Ukraine BUT Again I think the sharts and the first preferce (Shaded correctly) MAP only should be produced or a map for each of the winnig parties CPU and Lytvn will look bare. BEST OPTION IS KEEP THE CHARTS ...

The Other issue not addressed is the Swing Chart which shows the shift in voter support from 2006 to 2007 A Region Party chart could show the swing in brackets along with the percentage value (See Presidential election 2004 maps). There is no reason to break the map down to 226 districts) Regions (24 + 2 = 1) resolution is sufficent.

What is important is that the current maps must go, if wikipedia is to be a publication of encyclopedic value as the provide false and misleading information. 193.243.157.184 (talk)


 * Hey, the Ukrainian presidential election, 2004, that's how I got to know Ukraine :) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will make usefull comment later :), after thinking about what is best opition now... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against the swing chart and never deleted it. But I Still agree with TAG. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * well you would. I sugest you base your assessmet on facts and not emotions. if you look at all teh past elctios resulst over the last four years you will see that very little has changed in terms of voter support. Those tryig to push the mapos ar doing so because the false and mislaedading data favoutrs the perception they wat to make.  But in realy the information is false and mieladig.  i think truth should out weigh false facts ad politcial bias.  Which Tag:Odessa, DDima amd Timber Frame constently demonstrate.

I suggest, in the interst of truth and factual information that you 1. remove the First and Second place maps and replace them with color graded party support maps 2. publish at least the following charts inaddition to the revised maps.





{| class="wikitable"
 * + Swing Analysis comparison 2006 to 2007:
 * [[Image:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 (Swing).PNG|300px|Swing 2006 to 2007 (Top Six parties)]]
 * [[Image:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 (Swing).PNG|300px|Swing 2006 to 2007 (Top Six parties)]]
 * [[Image:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 (Swing).PNG|300px|Swing 2006 to 2007 (Top Six parties)]]


 * Thanks for trusting me! Is this the first time you trust someone who likes Yulia Tymoshenko? Hahahah :). Judging from the information on the Russian page of this article you are right that things haven't changed that much (makes me wonder where the new Byut voters come from... new voters?). What do you think of my idead Translate parts of the Russian version of this article (?) (see below/end of talk page)? I am not making chances while while the discussion is still ongoing that has been done too many times on this article already...Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

PS please sighn your post with the ~ X 4 times Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ukrainian parliamentary election 2007 (HighestVote).PNG
Should this map be used in the article? I'm not even sure what it means... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Swing analysis
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Election+Vote+Swing+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&btnG=Search

A swing analysis is common in any election. It shows the change in voter percentage for each party by regions from 2006 to 2007.

If you take a look at the graphs above you will see that it provides much more information the the flawed second place highest vote map published Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007. The published map only shows the geographical relationship of voter support. It does not show the full strength or relationship between each of the parties. What is more relevant geographical distorted distribution or the relationship of each party's support.

Most interesting in that the Swing graph shows the relationship between each of the parties of each region ad teh change of voters support from 2006 to 2007. The maps do not provide this information, most notable the loss of support for Our Ukraine. (Which could explain why some people here are pushing not to publish this information)

You need to ask yourself what is the aim of wikipeaida and is this information valuable and does it convey information not provided else where i the publication. The answer is YES. Is there ay justofactio to not publish this information. The answer is NO. By not publishing this information we are providing false and misleading statical information 0Most notably the second place winner per region map)

The above graph/charts shows the relationship between both the geographical region and all parties be it not published as a map. One user tries to claim that the data presented is "original research" There is no more original research in presenting the swing and voter percentage the looking up the values on the official published election results,  Which presumable is what the person who created the statistical flawed distribution map has done. I see no debate or complaint by the person who engaged in the undeclared "edit war" applying the same logic to the original publication.

Further more the publication of the swing chart is very much a valuable resource in that it shows, at a quick glance, the change in voter sentiment both overall and per region. Just because he/she is not capable of reading a simple graph does not mean others have such difficultly. Swing charts are very common electoral analytical tools ad are also published by Wikipedia i relation to other elections. Why not Ukraine? Maybe it is a case of some editors seeking too much ownership and not respecting their wishes and opposing views of others. Maybe it is just plain political bias. Either way it does not serve Wikipedia well. You sought it out in the mean time we will arrange to have this information published on anti-wikipedia.com


 * Please read here for information on how government funded vote counting system was generating maps for all 1st, 2nd and even 3rd places. Per Verifiability this make it legal to include in Wikipedia unless strong reasoning will be provided to not do so. Even more charts proposed by you has problem - % in region does not play huge role in elections results, it's number of people who voted in district that matter. IMGO, this justify removal of your charts and inclusion of maps. --TAG (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User Tag Odessa comments that the percentage pf votes does not play a huge rile i teh elections is false. It is the percentage of the vote that 1. determines the thresh hold (3%) 2. The number of positions election to each party. The swig analysis is as stated based o the published data by the Ukrainian Electoral Commission. It is a common ad well established means of recording ad displaying change in voter support.  The publication of second place maps as indicated has no statistical mrit what so ever.  if the maps where published by the electoral authority the why is there no link accreditation or citation attached to them?  The swing chart also shows the full extent of all teh top six parties in relation to each other. User TAG:Odessa is seeking to prevent this valid ad significant information form being published for other alteria motoves not made clear in his comments. If you look at other election reports on wikipedia you will find similar swing analysis charts. Why are they not acceptable for Ukraine.  This is not your private blog or a extension of the Maidanua.com.ua web site.

I think the table showing the votes by oblast (strictly not region) in the 2006 and 2007 elections would be accessible and meaningful to a wider readership if (1) the oblast names were given consistently in English (Latin transliteration rather than Cyrillic - at present there's a mixture) and (2) it were supported by a map showing the location of the oblasts such as for the benefit of readers who aren't familiar with Ukrainian oblasts. I'm willing to do that if others agree this would be a good move. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Results overloaded
Folks, I appreciate the work that went into the maps and charts, but I did not realize that we intended to put everything in. The result is information overload, largely with repetitive data, rendering the result hard for the reader to decipher. Can we choose the best and clearest of these, and stick to those? I will start pruning. I'd like advice/help. Jd2718 (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all you didn't wait for feed-back before you made chances! If there would be no feed-back for a couple of day's then your chances would be justifydable (you waited 4 minutes...). I don't see a problem with too much information. Mabey the Regional Analysis of the parliamentary elections is overlaping information. The rest not (in my view) if people think there is too much information the can stop reading.... We just have to get the least interesting stuff (exit polls and others) at the end of the article! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The balance is about right now.. Apart from the very large graphic showing limited information and false/misleadig statictics. This is offset by the correct additional information. - D@Work


 * I know you worked hard. Let's get that out of the way. You made a very large number of edits, expanding the detail of the article. I, in turn, reduced or removed or consolidated several specific items. Let me put together a list, and we can get discussion. I expect at the end that consensus will fall somewhere in between. Jd2718 (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * some improvement but you lost some valuable information in the process. - D@Work


 * the little maps for each party, giving graded colors to represent % of votes. I object that the colors mean different things on each map (different percentage ranges) creating misleading images for the readers.
 * Not true all the minor regional party maps represent the percentage of the regional vote allocated to each of the top six parties. te oly differnec is the scale. The Large map shows an even greater distorion in the statictal distribution.  teh reguiosal maps show what is published by the Ukrainian CEC. the highest Vote map shows a each of the parties in relation to teh oeverall total vote.  The big "Winners" ,map does not. The Highest vote map alos shows the oblast names for those not familiar with Urkaine. Like the charts they all compelement each other.  - D@Work
 * the raw vote table and the percentage vote tables above the main map convey exactly the same information. As they were duplicative, I removed one. (moved position of swing table to compensate)
 * I agree ad support this move.- D@Work
 * the party by party region by region 2006 vs 2007 table was massive and unreadable.
 * Yes byut havig cut it dow to the regios it is acceptable and more accurate. Worth keeping.
 * the exit poll data was added at the moment the election was taking place, but before results were available. It was superseded by the actual results. As there is no remarkable difference, there is no reason to keep it. agreed
 * I agree some of the pre-poll opinion polls also shopws a degree of accuracy. te exit polls where not that accurate. o need to publihsed them but I am happy to see them also remai for historical comarison at a future election next year. - D@Work
 * the small regional map for winning party duplicates what is already in the large map.
 * False. The informatio on the small Highest Vote maop shows the relatioship of each of teh "Winnig" parties i relatio to the overall vote (As opposed to reguioal percetage) It also provides a region name geographical locatiom the map goes hand in hand with the chart that shows the relatioship between each of the major parties. - D@Work
 * the article as written used abbreviations for parties that were never written out. I wrote them out. Wrote out in results section instead (better placement). Jd2718 (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not in the best mood today. I'm sorry if I appeard a bit grumpy. That's because I'm a bit grumpy!

I suggest this new order in the article:


 * •	1 Political crisis
 * •	2 Results
 * o	2.1 General results
 * o	2.3 regional results of the six most important political party's
 * o	2.3 Swing Analysis comparison 2006 to 2007
 * o	2.5 Format of ruling coalition
 * •	3 Election time line
 * •	4 International observers
 * •	5 Exit polls, public opinion polls and analysis
 * o	5.1 Exit polls
 * •	6  Registered parties and blocs
 * •	7 Regional Analysis of the parliamentary elections
 * •	8 References
 * •	9 External links

I think for a non Ukrainian (such as myself) that is the most interesting way to read it (i guess that we could make stubs too). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we start by dealing with some easy things.
 * The order you propose is pretty much what's there, and I can't see any objections, except about the specific question of whether a particular graphic belongs.
 * Fopr the sack of compromise the large dictrcit maop ca stay BUt it maiist more or less teh same objections to the previous map provided by user:DDima - D@Work


 * The lack of names going with the abbreviations, I started to deal with by naming the three main parties in the lead. Should we add all 6 (party names with abbreviations?) to the general results? For example, now, BL shows up in the first results table, but its not until much later that we identify it as Blok Lytvyn.
 * The mai reason the top six parties are listed is that they either own represetion or had represention the previous parliament. corss matchig abreiatos to log names is good policy - D@Work

Let's see if we can't start with these 3. Jd2718 (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Care to comment on the exit polls? I am going to stick with what I wrote: they predicted the election, they were accurate, and they were useful before the results were known, but now they really don't add anything.
 * Use full for future election comparison assumig teh electoral system remains the same. - D@Work
 * Well if there where no "scandals" or anything newsworthy serounding the exit polls they can be removed! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * see above comment - D@Work
 * And substituting the swing analysis for the uninteresting photo makes sense. Two down. Four to go. I think we may want others to comment. Jd2718 (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Swing Anlysis is a quick and appopriate way to demonstate the change in voter support. - D@Work
 * Well the Results of the Ukrainian parliamentary elections table seems redundant. It has the same numbers as in the tempelate but then in a graphic... and the tempelete is easyer to read. I sugest a deletion of it. I think we should move up the tempelate Summary of the 30 September 2007 Verkhovna Rada election results up.
 * Agree Job well done - D@Work
 * Place under there the
 * Maps showing the winners results per electoral districts (226 electoral districts in total)
 * Top six parties ot winners. 227 Electoral Dirstricts not 226. - D@Work
 * and under there the
 * Swing Analysis comparison Ukrainian parliamentary election 2006 to Ukrainian parliamentary election 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariah-Yulia (talk • contribs) 01:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I personaly found the 'party by party region by region 2006 vs 2007 table very interesting... maybe it can be placed at the bottom of the article for freaks like me :)
 * I agree I thik it is i teh right position now. - D@Work
 * The little maps for each party, giving graded colors to represent % of votes should be placed to the articles about those party's. I guess for a "foreigner" it looks a bit strange to have them inside this article..... if the would like to now they can use the linksMariah-Yulia (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The little maps for each party, giving graded colors to represent % of votes should be placed to the articles about those party's. I guess for a "foreigner" it looks a bit strange to have them inside this article..... if the would like to now they can use the linksMariah-Yulia (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The party regioal maos should reside abive the regional table they are based on that table. teh correspodig charts to the right are also based o that tabvle. There is a ew versuio on commons but ot showig up o teh en.wikipedia. local copies eed to be deleted ad commos used instead. agai they are well positioned to the right of the table. - D@Work
 * For the party by party region by region 2006 vs 2007, could the numbers be aggregated to, say, West, South, etc, you know, the bigger areas? That would hold the size down, and we could still link the full data table? Jd2718 (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The size of this table and breakwod is fie as it currently is. teh same tables exist i other versions of wikipedia. - D@Work
 * Have to think about that...... I'll tell tomorow! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I gues we van put this map:
 * in a stub with the full 'party by party region by region 2006 vs 2007 table. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * in a stub with the full 'party by party region by region 2006 vs 2007 table. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Results overloaded (part II)
I made a new section of this chapter for the sake of readability! I sumarise on what we need to work on now (in my opinion):
 * 1 the little maps for each party, giving graded colors to represent % of votes, delete them or let them stay? User:Jd2718 thinks the small regional map for winning party duplicates what is already in the large map.
 * 2 the party by party region by region 2006 vs 2007 table, User:Jd2718 wants too aggregated to, say, West, South, etc, (the bigger areas). That would hold the size down, and we could still link the full data table?
 * there is nothing wrong with the size It does not beed changing. The regional classifacatios into NSEW & C is logical and has bee adopted byu all other WIKIpedia coutrtioes.,  What are you goig to save one or two lines.. LOL
 * 3 Does the 227 district map stay?
 * I do not see any value i retaiig the biug district map. Ot has teh same distrortio as the previous 1st place and 2d place maps. The choice of colors is bad design and the information is statistocallyt misleading. If the reader wants more detail the that can refer to the CEC web site. O eoe had you argue voer two Lies ad the you wat to overlead the distorted detail ad remove the informative imformtation.  LOL
 * 4 What to do with the Political crisis section?
 * It should remain as curretly published highlighig briefly the two main issues. The formatio of a consitutional Majority threaterig teh presidets powerpf veto and the Constitunional Court Challenge.. Bthe way it is is brif ad concise with a balace NPOV backed up by citations.
 * 5 what too do with the swing analisys?
 * the Wisg alaaysis show sthe chage of voter support. it also shows that the swing was a stregtherning in their existing strong holds.  The revised charts show this morfe clarely as they have bee reformeted to reflect the regional catergorisation NSWE & C and the publihsed data table.

I hope User:Jd2718 didn't chance his mind in the last hours, if so sorry for using your "old" opinions! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can these be remade so that the same color intensity equals the same percent of the vote? Otherwise, we are inviting readers to compare parties at a glance with a misleading scale.
 * Waiting for comments.
 * The maops are consistet. the only difference is the scale of the minor parties.  They ca not be the same scale as the major parties. This is the same case as with the 2006 maps.  they charts provide a correlation to the overall vote.  This is why I have included the charts,.  they complement the maps ad vicea vesra.
 * I like the 226/7 district map, with the well-graded colors. Has anyone suggested deleting it? I think we may already agree here.
 * The large dictroc maop has bad choice of colors ad has the same distrorioop ad limitatios as the previous 1st and 2d place maps. there is o reaso or justofocatio for cush detail being publihsed wikipedia  Whart does it show.  The loss of support of Our Ukraine thats all. This iformation exist in the charts.  if a reader wants mre detail the they can look at the CEC web site.
 * Go ahead and edit the political crisis section. I have no idea how controversial it is, and won't until a few people have had a go at it.
 * The single swing analysis is fine (I don't think it's really necessary, but it does not detract in any way). Do you have other thoughts about its positioning? Jd2718 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer to my own questions!
 * 1 but the little maps in the articles about the party's through linking people interested can compare results with the 'big map' in this article
 * 2 I agree with User:Jd2718 orininal plan, mabey the full (original) table can be used in a new article called Trends in recent Ukrainian elections. That article (Trends in recent Ukrainian elections) could also say something about north-south devision and Russians speakers voting 'blue and commy' and Ukrainian speakers voting 'orange'.
 * 3 Yes, I think it shows most complete the election results then User:DDima's map!
 * 4 make it as short as possible, since it has already has it own's article. Personoly I think it is only here to tell why it has an election. Even more personaly: I find it very uninteresting what caused the election since nobody challenges the election anymore (the last time I checked Party of Regions didn't want the results to be undune!
 * 5 keep it! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. The little maps showing the degree of support for each party are important because seats are allocated on a proportional basis, therefore understanding the proportion of votes for each party rather than their rank is important. Therefore I propose we keep the maps but I agree strongly that we must have common colour intensity scales.
 * 2. Ukraine is undergoing a process of massive change, and that justifies retaining the swing data in some form. Traditionally, each of the three strongest parties have had predominant geographical areas of support and the challenge for each is to make inroads into the others' "territories".  Therefore from the point of view of understandng how party support is developing I think it's useful to look at swing by region.  This is difficult to show on a map, and I suggest we keep the table.  I agree that in the long term this could form part of a separate topic plotting changing trends, but I'm not sure if we have data from enough elections yet to start that article.
 * Suchy a artickle would invitable be suibejective ad ope to original resheach ot suitable for wIkroedia. if you weat your ow blog create one. Wikipedia is ot your blog not News forum,  Stop pushing your bias polical POV.
 * I have suggested (and started working on) a summary of the data by larger region (South, West, etc). The trends you are pointing to will still be highlighted, we can link to the full data, but the article itself will have a smaller table. Does that sound reasonable? Jd2718 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. My only concern is that if you select regions which are too large and too few you'll lose sight of the trends.  But by all means try it and let's discuss it when we have something to look at. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3. It's not essential, and doesn't relate directly to the outcome of the election, but it does highlight the existance of an east-west division which has been the subject of some heated debate. I vote for keeping it but won't push the point.
 * 4. I originally deleted it completely and just left the link to the "Crisis" page. Others felt I'd gone too far and in retrospect I agree.  We need something to put this snap election into context.  I think the two paragraphs do that adequately and the interested reader can follow the link to the "crisi" page for more.
 * 5. I think this refers to the bar chart. The one reason to keep it might be that it shows that apart from the already small Socialist party, all the major parties gained support, which indicates that the electorate is concentrating more on the big parties and starting to dismiss some of the smaller ones.  This is a significant process in Ukraine's development into a functioning democracy.  That having been said, it's not an important point for this article and if it belongs anywhere it can be created later in the "Trends" article.
 * -- Timberframe (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It shows that OU-PSD did not increase their vote. Again the charts ad maps complemet each other they show grophical more detail information. They provide a correction beween the parties, regions and overall vote. LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSLEVES.

I think we are down to just #1. Can the coloring on the little maps for each party be made consistent? For the big vote analysis chart, I can remake the chart in summary form. Give me about a week. And for the Political Crisis, I don't care what any of the parties think; I am not here as an advocate for any of them. I do think that the two paragraphs there are enough. Do they read ok to you? Jd2718 (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the regiosal maps are consistet the only differencr is in the scaling. You can not use the same scale for miort parties ad major parties.  you would lose valuable informatio.  teh same exists in the 2006 maps. Agai the cgarts compemets the maps ad provide a cross correlayio to the over all map.Stiop tryig to maiputate teh results.  If you want I can change the color of Lytvyn to green (But Green is usually refers to a environment party.)


 * Yes! Do you have any idea how too make the coloring on the little maps for each party consistent? Thanks in advance for the remake the region 2006 vs 2007 table/chart in summary form. I'll promise you a barnstar if your ready :)! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * they are consistent... Only the scale is different That is why the charts are there...
 * Ha! That'll be my first. And no, I don't know how to color. By the way, part of what we are doing is shaving the size of the article down. Given the topic, it was just too big. I notice that we have edged back about 25%, which is a good thing. Jd2718 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User:80.97.94.178 is helping too with edging back the article... How can I be NPOV if I say nothing who was right or wrong in the conflict leading up to the election (I don't even care who was right or wrong!)? I need some time too come up with a colorscheme idea! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The coloring is consistent in what way do you claim they are not. Or is this just a excuse you are comming up with. If you like I can publish a Green Lytvn map amd update the charts to reflect that color scheme.  Blue for PoR, Yellow for BYuT, Red for CPU, "Green/Grey" for Lytvn and Pink for Socialist.  This is the colors used in the parliament seating map. The only point of contenion is Lytyvn. Green or Grey, (It does not matter you dicide which) The big map is the main map that is out of sync.It also does not correctly reflect the relations between the main leaders and the total vote.  The other party regional maps do. The charts suport the maps and vice a vesra,. D@work


 * again you need to view the updated maps on common. Ther origial local en.wikipedia maps are blocking the updated Common maps/charts.


 * The problems with the maps are that the darkest collor for Por is 80% of votes of that region and that the darkest collor for SPU is >8% at first glance that is very misleading. By the way (it's not a problem but) I don't understand why BYuT collor isn't dark red but yellow. Dark red was used for the 2006 election maps. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking User:DemocracyATwork
I'm not sure Blocking User:DemocracyATwork was such a good idea, although had a lack of tact a lot of things he said made sence + he made maps, shutting him up means only "Orange"-editors are working on this article (atleat that's how it looks like). I think that that is unhealthy and whill make this article unbalanced. I am in favor of unblocking him! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a great shame that it took him so long to start working collaboratively. He has an enviably deep and clear-sighted understanding of polls and what the results mean and was beginning to be a real asset to this article. But he has been repeatedly evading blocks since last September and until very recently he did not show any inclination to moderate his behaviour; it was inevitable that his past would catch up with him.  I'm in contact with him by email and would be delighted to if he continued to forward his graphics and comments to me; I could then share them here for consideration.
 * He has always been constructive. User TimeberTallk (Alsias Peter Crosby) has been stalking him since Timberframe joined Wikipedia. UkrTdoay exposed Timberfram and others who where in volved in reckless and usupported allegations that Ukraine was engaged in the genocide and mass murder of unwanted children. An allegation that was not supported by any credible iterational welfare agency. This outragours allegstion was part of a self promotio shecme to draw attetiuon to a so called fraudlulent charity organsiation operatig uder the name of p-ced to whcih Mr Crosby is associated. This is the real motive behind Timberframe's actions) User UkrToday was banned the first time on a falsley trumped up charges following an act of vandalism by a user (who has been idetified as being Richard connected with the forum that Timberframe moderates. A forum where anyone that is opposed to the current governing coalition are banned).  Richard, Timberframe and others openly advocted that people log on to wikipedia and vandelise the cotyets of articles. Richard logged on and fraudulently created an account under the name of another person and proceeded to vandalize the contents of wikipedia. User TimberFrame also registered an account and proceeded to hound his victim. He continues to do so today.  his motive is clear ongoing political bias and personal revenge.) - D@Work
 * Why are you talking about "him" when we all know it's "you" evading yet another block? -- Timberframe (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think the article appears unbalanced, feel free to amend it. Be guided by what is relevant to the proportional representation polling process.  Don't be put off by what the results may be seen to show.  If they appear to show an east-west divide, a swing to orange, or whatever - so be it; nobody says that the outcome of the election itself has to be balanced, only the way we present the factual and relevant data.  I'll do what I can, but my time is limited. I'll probably be of most use as a reviewer of others' input. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Any any tempt to provide balance to the article is rebuffed by your Peter (TimberFrame) and your associates. Who continue to prevent balance and accurate information being published. for the record I am neither Orange, blue or red. But I am prop Parliament ad rule of constitutional law" if that is a crime.  - D@Work


 * I'm certainly not Orange! And I don't evade blocks. Jd2718 (talk) 11:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The last days User:DemocracyATwork contributed with a creative way but I really didn't like the use of sockpuppets. Moreover, he vandalised the talk pages and I can't understand why someone to do something like that. It's a pity because he really helped the article to become more balanced. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Sockpuppert allegation is part of the ongoing harrassmet and denial of free speech that user Timberframe is well known for . the original charge was fraudulent and based o false facts. The article is now in a much better shape the it was before. But it was a constant battle to get to where we should have been in the first place a NPOV balanced and informative article.   - D@Work
 * By violating the rules, by not playing fair, you've forfeited the right to participate. Shame, you had things to say, but sorry, you earned your ban and can't stay here. Jd2718 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite his constant personal attacks on me, I respect his experience and would urge editors not to revert his edits SOLELY because he's evading multiple blocks -- Timberframe (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been reviewing his edits, and keeping bits that are of value. And, believe it or not, I think he is following this discussion. Not only is he pushing his own content -- he also seems to be incorporating parts of the discussion. However, he has no right to be here. I want to be careful not to welcome him because some of his content is ok or good. He earned his ban through bad behavior, which he continues as he evades. Jd2718 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He was banned by a corruput admisitrator making false allegations. His ban followed the attemps of a group of disadents (namely Richard) who is directly associated with Peter Crosby who were advoctaing publicly to trash Wikipedia's p[ages to prevet the publicatio of a balanced POV. Richard had registered an account frauduletly under the name of another user and procedded to vadandelise Wikipedia pages falsly plavcing the balme on the user he regstered as. Thid fraudulent account has since been deactivated. HOWEVER the corrupt adminsitrator (An Ukrainian disapra livig i Australia) falsly banned him based on flase statements and assumptions. A complete denial of natural justice.


 * I agree with you both! Were being very friendly! Do you think he/she will become more friendly if I give him/her one of my Yulia Tymoshenko T-shirts? (I try to see the Humor of this edit-war) cause even if the article would say the elections were illegal, it would change nothing! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crisis
Two paragraphs should be sufficient to explain what led to the snap elections. The crisis article itself is a mess, and has no leading summary. We do need at least a minimal summary here. I think it is important to say something more than the two sides were fighting. What I've left, I believe is fairly NPOV, though it might need tweaking. Jd2718 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I still think keeping it up to absolute minimum is the best choice since NPOV writing is easiest then. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but there is two main issues. The argumentative issue of the formation of a constitutional majority and the challenge of the authority of the present. Whilst the issue is covered in more detail in the associated main article a brief introduction to the two issues is appropriate. ort none at all. The president's actions and interference in Ukraine's Constitutional Court has been declared illegal by Ukrainian Courts.  There is no further appeal. It should also be noted and agreed by Timberfame that the resignation of the opposition did not trigger authority of the president to dismiss the parliament (Article 90 (3) until October 5th 2007. The outcome of the election has not changed overall. Had the SPU received an additional 0.14% of the vote the overall results would have bee more or less the same as the previous government. Ukraine is not more unstable the before.  This is by ad by and not related to the Wikipedia discussion.  Timberframe ad co cotinue to make false representations in a ongoing attempt to prevent free speech and a balanced NPOV .  His efforts to ban D@work (UkrToday) were based on false allegations and fraudulent registration of a user account to discredit his political detractors .  Look more closely at the results and view the charts.  Take off your orange colored glassed ad let the facts speak for themselves.  there is an updated charts on commons.wiki.  The local en.wiki version needs to be deleted so the commons update can be shown.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.94.178 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comments is a good argument for keeping the paragraph to an absolute minimum. Or we'll keep fighting over it, personally I didn't keep track of events at the time so can't write a long factual piece about it. Your remark: if the SPU received an additional 0.14% of the vote the overall results would have bee more or less the same is a good point and I put it in the article. I'm signing off now, already spend hours on this article (please Yushenko new elections in 2011 please!).Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think that comment (SPU 0.14%) should be in the article as it is subjective. LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELF. I have spent months fighting the bias of some editors and administrators. If the president tried to dismiss the curret parliament unconstitutionally I would hold the same views and opion. Again let the facts speak for themself.  As to the reslve of the ogoig politcial crisis, Ukraie will remai bittley divided util there is fresh Presidetial elctions. Chaces that will also involve fresh simultaneous parliamentary elections. A majority of two is not a stable majority under the circumstances.  But that is also subjective and not the topic for publiciation on wikipedia other the in discussion on the talk pages.
 * I suggest that any summary of the crisis must start a lot earlier in order to present a balanced picture. The crisis began immediately after the 2006 election, in which three parties (BYuT, OR and the socialists) campaigned alonside each other on the Orange platform and won a majority but could not agree on the distribution of senior positions.  The defection of the Socialist deputies to an alternative PoR-led coalition, folowed by the defection of sufficient OU deputies to create a parliamentary majority was the trigger for both BYuT's mass resignation from the VR and the president's subsequent dissolution of parliament, because the Socialist's defection from the Orange camp was widely seen as a betrayal of the electorate's mandate.  If we're going to have a "crisis" section, let's have a mention of all of its salient points. -- Timberframe (talk) 10:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * On reviewing the evolution of the crisis summary, it's clear that it has never presented the events leading up to the president's dissolution, and so starts at the end of the crisis instead of the beginning. User:UkraineToday seeks to present the dissolution in isolation as the entire crisis and reinforce the POV by juxtaposing articles about the court challenge and PACE criticism.  The "power struggle" was only latterly between the president and the ruling coalition; it began with the minority coalition wrestling power from the majority by exploiting their disunity and Moroz's power craving to create a balance of power within the parliament which was at odds with the will of the electorate.  That is the "crisis" that User:UkraineToday doesn't want you to consider. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As a postscript to this, if we're going to comment on the SPU's performance in the 2007 election (which we shouldn't because that is subjective) I would say that the fact that they lost support at the 2007 election is significant because it is probably the first time in contemporary Ukrainian politics that the electorate has used it powers at the ballotbox to punish a party. This to me seems far more significant than the fact that they "nearly" clung on to minimal representation in the VR. They did the same to OU to possibly greater extent, we could speculate whether they were punishing the parliamentary party for its part in failing to form a coalition, or the president for his management of the situation. -- Timberframe (talk) 10:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Political Crisis Summary
What is wrong with the comment below.. be constructive now and make your submissions. Remember Balance NPOV with citations.

There are three main issues as I see it that should be summarized in brief


 * 1) The President's decree ad his concerns on the formation of a two-thirds constitutional majority potentially (Not a certain) overriding his power of veto and its ability to make limited constitutional changes.
 * 2) The question of legality of the president's actions/decrees, The fact that the court has still not ruled since the president's interference in the operation of the Constitutional Court in order to prevent the court form ruling on his decrees.
 * 3) The holding of elections including the deferment dates

All three issues should be brief one paragraph each with relevant citations

Item 1. Above
 * There are in fact two levels of constitutional majority applicable. 1 two-thirds and the other three-quarters. (FYI Moroz was aiming for 300 in order to strengthen the parliamentary system and to bring it in line with European standards). whilst party/bloc membership transfers are questionable under Ukraine's undemocratic Imperative mandate provisos (PACE's categorization not mine) there is nothing preventing a member from voting on conscious on individual issues in support of the governing coalition or against it.  Not even Ukraine has adopted a system that prevents members from deciding how best to represent their constituents)

If you want to make it shorter get delete the second paragraph,. The first paragraph discusses the oppositions tatics and the last paragraph referes to the challenge of presidential authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.94.178 (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The first two items present a wholy anti-presidential view. There was much more to the "crisis" than the president's dissolution of parliament.  That act, and the challenges to it, warrant inclusion but equal weight should be given to the failure of the orange majority to form a government after the 2006 election, and so does the defection from the orange camp by Oleksander Moroz's Socialist group to provide the PoR-led coalition with a majority.  The list of factors that contributed to the crisis could be extended still further to include mention of the controversial laws on the Cabinet of Ministers and Opposition.
 * The effect of forming a two thirds majority is certainly worth a mention, but this should be presented objectively. Any "concerns" need citations to support them and should be presented in a balanced way, for example it was not only the president who was concerned. -- Timberframe (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated graphs based o percentage of total national vote
I hope you find these maps to be to your liking. Personally In prefer to base the grading on the percentage of total national vote as it removes one layer of distortion in comparison.
 * I like it. The maps are clear, relevant and intuitively understandable.  They manage to convey both the geographic distribution of each party's support and (by comparing the maps with each other)the contribution of each region to the national outcome.  Well done.  I would nominate this set of maps as the standard for depicting proportional represntation outcomes worldwide. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Have fun in making your decision to enhance the presentation of the wikipedia orange elections results ... do not let a few facts get in your way. Propaganda is the way to go and Wikipedia has become nothing more the a propaganda war of false "Political censorship" information PR sheet. Hey a constitution is only another publication and who cares is a head of state ignores the rule of law. we can hide behind false facts ad misrepresentation. SO much for the Let the Facts speak for themselves... You should take another look at the 2004 election data. It certainly confirms that the so called "Orange revolution" was a con. A PR protest rally based on specious objections... Statistics show that there is a common 4-6% swing i ay re-election or bye-election. So if Yushenko won the third round on 52% percent of the total vote that would suggest that he had 48% of the vote in the second round vote. The voting patterns in all five ballots are more or less the same. Interestig do'nt you think.
 * Ah, well, that's history and politics for you. The fact is that between 2004 and 2006 the Orange movement gained substantial support and with Moroz's Socialist party on the Orange bandwaggon throughout the 2006 election campaign won a majority of seats in the VR.  Moroz could have chosen to support PoR from the outset and the PoR-led coalition would have won fair and square.  Instead, he betrayed his supporters by changing sides after the election, and produced a balance of power which did not reflect the will of the electorate.  If the ends justify the means, that justifies the president's decision to refer the matter back to the highest authority in the land - the people.  And sure enough, Moroz's former supporters duly punished him in the 2007 elections and sufficient of them transferred their support to other Orange parties to re-confirm the intention they had tried to express in 2006.  That's not pro-orange or pro-presidential, it's pro-democracy.  As you might say in capitals: LET THE PEOPLE SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. -- Timberframe (talk) 11:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

if you look at the other maps The first place and regional percentage maps you will see that Our Ukraine was placed no, 1 in Закарпатська but if you look at the map based on the total vote you will see that Lviv was in fact Our Ukraine's strongest region. another example of what is wrong with the first place and second place maps. The region maps are still valided but they only tell a part of the story. If I find the time I might recreate the 2006 and 2004 elections maps based on the same methodology. There really is no advantage in breaking it down into administrative dictricts.

Ukraine is undergoing a process of massive change / I wish.....

 * (Somewhere) on this talk page User:Timberframe suggest that:
 * Ukraine is undergoing a process of massive change, and that justifies retaining the swing data in some form. Traditionally, each of the three strongest parties have had predominant geographical areas of support and the challenge for each is to make inroads into the others' "territories". Therefore from the point of view of understandng how party support is developing I think it's useful to look at swing by region. This is difficult to show on a map, and I suggest we keep the table. I agree that in the long term this could form part of a separate topic plotting changing trends, but I'm not sure if we have data from enough elections yet to start that article.
 * Although the idea of BYuT becoming very populair in “’blue’’/POR territory sounds apealing to me :) the Template:Regional results of the six most important political party's at the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 shows that ByuT gains only 5% tp 7% more votes in only 3 (Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov and Odessa) “PoR territories” while Our Ukraine only wins up to 2% in them 3 "PoR territories”. I don’t think such a swing in 3 regions is a massive change! Only in Zakarpattia Oblast and Rivne Oblast there is a big gain by Orange party’s and a very small win for PoR but those Oblasts are not in Russian speaking territories a.k.a. PoR territories. Looking at the data I get the idea that most SPU voters now voted for BYuT. And as your friend D@work mentioned before if the SPU would have won 3% the outcome would not have been much different then the 2006 elections! I think if SPU had won seats in the rada we would now have a cabinet (leaded by) PoR with SPU and CPU with possible help from BL.
 * Making it seems if there are chances going on when there not (there) doesn’t help anybody. Or am I missing something? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if that was right, it wouldn't be up to us to interpret. But I don't think that it is right. Jd2718 (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSLEVES. But please ot bais politicial statemest like you currently have.
 * M-Y, you are missing my point. The "massive change" of which I spoke is not the 2007 election but the transition from an archtypal Soviet single-party state in which the "electorate" plays no signifcant part in shaping its destiny to something approaching a democracy in which different parties compete for public support for their ideologies.  As I said above, any party which wants to gain significantly more support than at present must do so by targetting their opponent's traditional "home" territories.  This is a key strategy in the "massive process" and is well worth watching, even if to you 2006 looks much like 2007.  If you support a fottball team, you don't walk away from the match after 10 minutes because nobody has scored a goal yet! -- Timberframe (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, a problem related with not face-to-face communication....... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Where do we go now.......
If been away for a couple of days because this article was costing me too much time... I was hoping things would have setteled itselfs and I must say the article now looks pretty OK now.... But I got the feeling that not everybody thinks so. can they please
 * 1 point
 * 2 for
 * 3 point tell us what improvments they sugest and please do not argue about political thingys from the past here. Improve the article is your task now! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Mariah-Yulia, you are welcome to edit article. But UkraineToday is banned and not allowed to contribute to Wikipedia per Banning policy. Ban is per person - not account. All his new accounts will be banned and edits reverted. --TAG (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think banning users is Putinesq, at least he got things moving. But his style is wrong. It would be a lot better for all if UkraineToday would be more like User:Kuban kazak‎. I will make sure he doesn't replace Orange propaganda with anti-Yuchenko propaganda! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It your own opinion and I accept it. But rules were not invented by me. --TAG (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with these..... (charts)
I think there unreadable (Cyrilic and I never now where the bars belong too) and don't give much new information. I prefer wikitable's Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think they are unreadable (maybe user Mariah-Yulia is not use to reading charts) they show clearly the relationship between each party and region. They complement the maps and tables, filling in the missing gaps and information. What needs to be noted in the above charts is the differece in preseting iformatyio based on the percetage of the total national vote versus the percetage of each regions. The natioal vote being more accurate and informative the publciation by regional vote as it takes into consideration the distribution of the population.DemocracyWorks (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

delete?
I propose deleting the following chapters:
 * 5 Exit polls polls where correct, so why should we remind people of them
 * 6 Election time line Wikipidia isn't a course on how to conduct ellection, atleast not in this article
 * 7 Registered parties and blocs all partys got votes so are already in the election results table

Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Plan seems good - espesially taking in account that you implemented it. It's good to Be bold in editing. But please take care on details. For example there 3 numbers for voters turnout - 62.7%, 63.22%, 62.02% --TAG (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks I missed that! Hmmm at the CEC [] site the mention 57,94 % activity whas that the real voters turnout? User:Greggerr was Be bold in editing in placed the 3 chapters back in. Claiming consensus about keeping exit polls, while me and some other users had consensus about a week ago to remove them. That's why I'm not sure about being Be bold in editing......... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Mariah-Yulia, let me thank you for article maintenance given continuous infringements by UkraineToday.

Second, the idea of keeping exit polls was to illustrate that the official results are in pair with the exit polls. It was not the case for the last presidential elections. Election timeline is not so essential, but on the other hand, without the timeline the article became too empty with only data tables. Wikipedia is not a paper. The section with the registered parties and blocs is indeed redundant. However, in support of the section I could mention that a similar section is kept in the article for 2006 parliamentary elections.
 * I agree that the exit polls have provided a valuable check on the credibility of the offical results, and that credibility / corruption has been an issue to varying extents in all the elections since 2004 if not earlier. However, as it is a long term issue affecting several elections I think the detailed analysis belongs in Elections in Ukraine; for this article we should just mention the significant fact that the exit polls generally agreed with the official results. -- Timberframe (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you want to delete something from this article I would propose to exclude a table in which results of the 2007 and 2006 elections are compared. The table is more appropriate for Elections in Ukraine. The purpose of this article is to provide description and outcome of a particular election. It's not the best place to provide comparative analysis across different elections. --Greggerr (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Greggerr has a good point, I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timberframe (talk • contribs) 13:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree too and moved the table to there! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Jan/Feb 2008: What has been achieved?
Comparing the current version of the article vs. the previous stable one as of Dec 25, 2007, it can be noticed that (1) maps have been changed (I'm fine with that), (2) the overview of the political crisis was rewritten (the older one is actually better), (3) the results by regions are added (this is an improvement, but oblasts should be given alphabetically), and (4) the big table with comparison of 2006 and 2007 results was added. The main problem with the table is that this article is not the right place for it. Minor problems include the mixture of oblasts and cities, abbreviations, city names do not really follow naming policies, numbers don't follow the manual of styles, but I don't want to be too nagging on that. :) Let's move the table into Elections in Ukraine, return back the previous summary of the 2007 political crisis (or combine the two), and enjoy the rest of the weekend. Greggerr (talk) 06:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the table showing additional cities had to go as it was double counting the elections results. Thanks. BUT I think there is merit in the sub grouping of North South East west and central. This is a common grouping used i discussing politics in Ukraine. But I do ot think this is a show stopper where the table mentioned above was most certainly inappropriate DemocracyWorks (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes the maps have been changed as recommended by Mariah Yulia and now are on the same scale.


 * Thanks Greggerr! I guess everybody is happy that there (1) new maps (thanks to Ukraine Today). I can't really judge if (2) the old version of the political crisis is better. At the time that the crises was going on I soon lost track with the events.... But I'm not sure the old version was better, for example in the version of 25-12-2007 it says: The power struggle came to loggerheads when the opposition party, Bloc Yulia Tymoshenko, supported the government by passing legislation on the Law of the Cabinet of Ministers over-riding the president's power of veto. I can’t remember that that 1 time event was the main problem… I thought the problem was that individual members of BYuT and OU defected to support POR.... I still think it is best to keep that section as short as possible and let the battle be fought at the 2007 Ukrainian political crisis page. It is a controversial topic and it is likely that the war on this page will continue if we start fooling around with it (unless we ban all POR-fans from wikipedia, LOL). It is better to keep the oblast in the table in geographical order (3) since it proofs that Ukraine is divided. Good idea to move the big table with comparison of 2006 and 2007 results table (4) to Elections in Ukraine. That article looks a bit empty anyway! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The parliament has the constitutional right to passing legislation and override the president's power of veto. It is not illegal or unconsitutional. One could readily argue that the president had and continues to abused the power of veto. The decision and ability for the parliament to override the presidents veto came about when Yulia Tymoshcneko's bloc supported the legislation. DemocracyWorks (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not really "eight-month power struggle". When the government was formed after the 2006 election, "Our Ukraine" members were initially in the government. While the Law of the Cabinet of Ministers was one of the key events you are correct that the fear of constitutional majority by defection of some opposition members was the key reason behind the 2007 election. --Greggerr (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * yes and no. It is speculative and fails the NPOV test when you present one side of the debate as being correct and exclude the real facts. Ukraine's constitution provides provision for a two third constitutional majority overriding the views of the president.  There was no "defection" as has been suggested.  Under Ukraine's constitution a member of parliament must remain a member of the party that elected them. This provision is known as the Imperative mandate and has been widely condemned as being undemocratic and unworkable.  There is nothing preventing a member of parliament supporting or opposing a particular initiative or legislative proposal.DemocracyWorks (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If everyone likes the six maps for the percentage of total national vote by parties (as expressed above), why the maps are not in the article? --Greggerr (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The colors need to be adjusted. The same intensity should not be used for 20% for Tymoshenko as for 4% for the Communist Party. Who can fix that? Jd2718 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The colors, as recommended by Mariah-Yulia, have been adjusted and are now of the same intensity and scale as each other. Scale one to 25 based on the percentage of total national vote. (I find it interesting that Jd2718 made this statement days after the changes had been put in place and the he seeks to remove statements ad comments that correct his misleadig statements) The reason there should be six maps is that they represent all the parties that won representation or were represented in the previous parliament. The Socialist party fell short by less the 0.14% of the 3% representation threshold. The question is which maps?  Do we display the ones with region names and percentage or just preset the map with shaded colors?  I personally prefer the ones without the names as there is not real reason to publish the details which are available in the tables. Sometimes less is more.  The highest vote map should be published and is of interest. The highest votes map also acts as a legend showing regions English names. DemocracyWorks (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Now I know for sure I shouldn't start editing the 2007 Ukrainian political crisis page. Bit of a pity since I would like to read it but in it's current form it is unreadable... The maps Greggerr put in don't seem to have the problem Jd2718 is refering too (no idea why they wern't in the article, good idea(!)). Maps made by User:DemocracyATwork, so he did do some good too this article if only he would have asked User:Kuban kazak for advice....... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * @ I disagree I think that the article on the election thanks to user Gregerr has improved the quality and NPOV of the article considerably. 9IU ahve to read the polictal crisis article to see what chages there have bee made) However additional factual information and graphics could be published. The charts showing the overall vote and the swing should be reinstated. More works needs to be done to remove the emotive misleading statements associated with the Political crisis. DemocracyWorks (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Political Crisis
There was no defection as suggested. The comment about defection fails the NPOV test. Under Ukraine's constitution an elected member of parliament can not change party membership but there is nothing preventing members of parliament form indicating support for the governing coalition. The possibility of the governing coalition obtaining a constitutional majority is speculative partisan politics. A change i a members status or alleged breaches of the constitution are not grounds listed in Ukraine's constitution for the dismissal of Ukraine's parliament (article 90). If a member of parliament resigns form their original party they lose the right to remain a member of parliament. In any aledged breach of the Consitution there is a proper process that can and should have been followed. The president could have made an application to the admistrative courts and or Constitutional Courts to have the indiviual membership of parliamet suspeded pending a legal challege. A member of paraalimet who techically breahed requirements for membership has 20 days in which to bring his membership into line with the provisions of Ukraine's constituution failing that their entitlement to remain a member of parliament ceases.

The Constitutional Court has not ruled on the legality and constitutionality of the president's decree following the president's intevention in the opperation of the court. The Ukrainian Courts ruled that the president's dissmissal of members of the Constitutional Court to be illegal and one of the three judges dismissed was reinstated by an order of the court. The other two judges resigned. The Court was expected to bring down its ruling in May. DemocracyWorks (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hee Democracy Works (a.k.a. Victor from Donetsk)
Can you please say what is your problem with the article now? In the beginning your contribution where handy and that lead to some good chances. But now your just getting (only) annoying. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is looking better user gregerr kept vandalising corrections made to remove the false corrupt data table that user riuin from memory installed, but he has atleast now realised his mistakes and the table now reads correctly.  I totally disagree with his false interpreted as to what is and what constitutes original research ad as such falls under WP:OR policy.  I think he is clutching at straws to justify his version ad interpretation.  I corrected a few false statements. 1. The agreement was reached on the basis that the president's decree was based on article 82 of Ukraine's constitution. 2. The resignations of the opposition, which triggered the "legality of the dismissal",  came after the agreement not before the agreement. 3. The leading statement before the regional results table was not good English. I am still concerned about the NPOV statement of defection.  There was no defection (Under Ukraine's constitution a member of parliament can not change membership of their factions and retain their mandate). If you try and argue that voting in support of the government's inititatives is defection (A statement that is partisan) then you would have to apply the same standard to every vote. Even the vote held on March 7 2008 there were divisions in the ranks of the factions. This is common and not unconstitutional. The use of the terminology "defection" is very much partisan and fails the NPOV test. just because the word defection has bee used i some editorial statements and those made by the President in political banter does not reflect reality of preset a NPOV.  The way it is presented it implies it is a fact and the basis of the Presidents decree or resolution. I repeat there was no "defection" members of the opposition did indicate support for government initiatives. The rest including the possibility of a 300 members support is pure speculation and should be presented as such not as being fact.

Elections in Ukraine

 * Is it a good idea to dump the folowing chapters too Elections in Ukraine?
 * Exit polls
 * Election time line
 * Registered parties and blocs
 * Also the same chapters of the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2006 move to there? There is no mentioning of exit polls in the Ukrainian presidential election, 2004.... If there was something wrong with it (I can't tell) it shouldn't be there... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we should leave them. We could only dump the registered parties if you add the number of candidates in the template and make an appropriate comment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm for keeping those too. Elections in Ukraine suppose to provide more general information, while the details should be kept here. --Greggerr (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Early Parliamentary Elections expected soon as members of President's party resign on mass to start new party
Members of the president's political party Our Ukraine have resigned their mandate i order to set up a new political party. the mass resignation indicates serious rift in the new governing coalition and a loss of confidence in Yulia Tymoshchenko's and Yushchenko's leadership. the members that have recently withdrawn from our Ukraine are the same members who were the cause for the collapse of the orange coalition in 2006. It is expected that the President may soon call for early Presidential elections ad once they are out of the way ad Ukraine has undertaken further constitutional reform and Ukraine reverts back to a Presidential Autocracy Yulia Tymoshenko;s government will be dismissed once again by the president. Fresh elections are expected to be held later this year. Ukraine is now more political unstable then it was prior to the president's unconstitutional dismissal of the parliament last year.


 * 2008 Ukrainian political crisis would be the place for this. PS 6 people is a "the mass resignation"? PS 2 How's the weather in Donesk? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Todate 7 have resigned (10%)with more expected. Maybe you have not read the various informed commentary on events unfolding. Try the Jamestown.  A US think tanks organistaion desinged to destabelise this region, YUSHCHENKO LOOKS TO GRAND COALITION TO REPLACE TYMOSHENKO By Taras Kuzio.  http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372866 ad foriegnotes...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtdaydo (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)