Talk:First Yatsenyuk government

Not yet appointed
Discussion is still in progress for the definition of the Government, only the prime minister has been asked to form a government of national unity. Example : Olga Bogomolets was in the list presented at the Independence Square, but she refused it. Official appointment has to be done today but it's still unclear if it will happen (the consensus has not been reached between MP). Loreleil (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Lemma
Maybe rename to Yatsenyuk Government? NickSt (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the right decision. It is not a national unity government, since most major parties are not involved. It is seldomly called “national unity government” (in euronews) and certainly not “the national unity government” in the media, since it is inappropriate, thus I will remove that description. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Outline of this Government plans
Seems available here. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  21:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Government lacks legitimacy
There is no part about the legitimacy of the government.

"Ascertaining the legitimacy of the interim government in Kiev is quite tricky. According to Article 111 of the Ukrainian constitution, the President can only be impeached from office by parliament through “no less than three-quarters of its constitutional composition.” On February 22, 2014 the Ukrainian parliament voted 328-0 to impeach President Yanukovych who fled to Russia the night prior. However for an effective impeachment under constitutional rules the 449-seated parliament would have needed 337 votes to remove Yanukovych from office. Thus under the current constitution, Yanukovych is still the incumbent and legitimate President of the Ukraine.

This constitutional oversight puts the interim government in legal limbo as the bills that are currently being signed into law by acting President Turchynov are not carrying any constitutional authorization. This problem of legitimacy also undermines Kiev’s dealings with foreign governments, as the government appointed by Turchynov does not represent the de jure official government of the Ukraine. As such, foreign governments who are willfully recognizing and thereby trying to confer international legitimacy upon the interim government in Kiev, are indeed breaking international law by violating (1) the sovereignty of the Ukraine and the law of the land (constitution), (2) the principle of non-interference, (3) and the practice of non-government recognition."

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/03/russia-in-ukraine-a-reader-responds/ --Wrant (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A blog is not a reliable source. --Львівське (говорити) 00:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want we can check the source if it's reliable or not WP:RS and this conclusion is already a part of other articles. Further this: http://www.rferl.org/content/was-yanukovychs-ouster-constitutional/25274346.html "However, it is not clear that the hasty February 22 vote upholds constitutional guidelines, which call for a review of the case by Ukraine's Constitutional Court and a three-fourths majority vote by the Verkhovna Rada -- i. --Wrant (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've opened a section weather the source is reliable or not WP:RS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Lawfareblog --Wrant (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Further Lawfare is Published by The Lawfare Institute in Cooperation With http://www.brookings.edu/ and is for sure not less reliable as a newspaper, following it represents the research of Ashley Deeks, almost every other source is less reliable about this topic:


 * Ashley Deeks joined the University of Virginia Law School in 2012 as an associate professor of law after two years as an academic fellow at Columbia Law School. She served for ten years in the Legal Adviser's Office at the State Department, most recently as the Assistant Legal Adviser for Political-Military Affairs. In 2007-08 she held an International Affairs Fellowship from the Council on Foreign Relations. After graduating from the University of Chicago Law School, she clerked for Judge Edward Becker on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

--Wrant (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * IT'S NOT A SIMPLE PRIVATE "BLOG" BUT a publication medium of Lawfare: Lawfare is Published by The Lawfare Institute in Cooperation With http://www.brookings.edu/
 * Show me a single evidence that this source is unreliable according to WP:RS! And stop violating the Wiki guidelines with WP:IDONTLIKE.
 * If there will be more deletes like in the past without even trying to start a discussion I will suggest the page for protection AND report the Users due to WP:AN3 and if there is enough evidence also WP:SOCK.

--Wrant (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As the discussion on WP:RS/N has been archived with the result of unanimous consensus that the blog is a reliable source, i'll restate the text. Those who have argued that blogs are not reliable sources are invited to review WP:NEWSBLOG, thank you.B01010100 (talk) 04:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

There are actually several problems with the text being inserted, aside from the reliability issue. First and foremost the text being inserted into the article says: The constitutional authorization was questioned by Ashley Deeks an associate professor of law at .... The blog actually says Stefan Soesanto writes in with the following thoughts on my earlier post on Russia’s introduction of troops into Ukraine as an international law violation:... - and the quotes are from the reader not the author of the blog. Deeks is just quoting an email she received from a reader. There's neither an endorsement of the reader's opinion nor a rejection, from Deeks, AFAICT. So either somebody didn't read the source carefully, or just doesn't care that they are misrepresenting Deeks.

Aside from that, the text is based on a cherry picking of both sources and quotations from within the sources, violating WP:UNDUE.

Removing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct, as the edit summaries and discussion here only mentioned that it is not a reliable source i only took a quick glance at the source to see if the post was indeed made by Deeks and searched for the text of the quotes in the blog to see if they were really there and read the surrounding paragraphs to see if they were not taken out of context. I completely missed the statement saying that it's republishing an email she received. It would have had been helpful had you pointed out this other issue in your edit summary or on the talk page though.B01010100 (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, that's what I'm doing above. The first time around I just thought it was sort of obvious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it was obvious since none of the multiple edit summaries nor the talk page mentioned the issue, and that the issue that was mentioned (reliability of the blog) does not apply given this issue (if the publication was not in name of the blogger then it's irrelevant whether the blog is a reliable source since the reliability doesn't transfer anyway).B01010100 (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

???
What does this have to do with parliamentary voting? Actually, why is it even relevant? So an American politician had a preference. So what? The leaked phone call is more known for the use of the word "fuck" than for the fact that Nuland preferred somebody or other.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Uh, User:Herze? How about using the talk page? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * What part of Bloomberg's headline "Intercepted F-Bomb Phone Call Shows U.S. Role in Ukraine" don't you understand? To give a couple of quotes from the article:
 * The recorded call may cause trouble for the Ukrainian political opposition, which has tried to fend off Russian assertions that it’s acting on behalf of Western interests. …
 * On the phone call, Nuland discussed which opposition figures should and shouldn’t join a new government in Kiev…
 * Nuland said that Yats should be the P.M. and then he was made the P.M. a few weeks later. That's not relevant according to you? And in case you missed it:
 * On February 1, Obama said that the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine," in an interview to CNN. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Obama's remarks proved Washington's direct involvement in the Ukrainian coup.
 * So it's absolutely clear that the US installed Yatsenyuk into power. But that's not relevant to the article, according to you. Your constantly playing dumb is highly disruptive and makes it virtually impossible for editors who – unlike you – are not obsessed with owning articles and keeping out any point of view other than the one they continually, obsessively, and aggressively push to get any work done. – Herzen (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's NOT "absolutely clear that US installed Yatsenuk into power". that is nowhere in the source. It's not in the quotes you provide. It's just your own Pov Original Research.
 * Sputnik news is not a reliable source. It's a trash source which Pov pushers favor because it plays to their prejudices.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is implied by the source, and the content I added to the article doesn't go beyond what the source says. Also, the view that the US installed the Kiev coup government is more or less unanimous in Russia, as well as among the Left in the West (as well as many libertarians), so it is a POV which Wikipedia should represent or, at the very least, not absolutely suppress. However, yet again are you pushing what you view to be the Truth and obsessively trying to hang on to your ownership of Ukraine-related articles. – Herzen (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Implied by the source" is just a weasely way of saying "I pulled that out of my thin air". In other words you're admitting that you're just doing original research. The content you added DOES go way beyond what the source says (and hell, you are ADMITTING it in just the previous sentence! Can you at least try and not contradict yourself in less than two sentences?) The text is just straight up, blatant POV pushing, and your ridiculous rhetoric about "Kiev coup government" just goes to illustrate that you really shouldn't be editing this topic.
 * Oh yeah, your "the Truth" link goes to the 5 pillars. You're right. I do care about the 5 pillars which include NPOV and NOR. If you don't then Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Since, you know, they's the pillars of the site.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is about presenting NPOV version of the events, not the American one Marek.It needs to represent a global perspective.I appreciate that it might be a bit cultural shockish so to speak if you are American, but non-USA sources, including Russian should be used as well, and Russian or Polish POV needs the same treatment as US POV.I am sure if you dig enough, you will also find sources that present a more nuanced view of the situation, even in USA.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you dropped the condescending tone and stopped patronizing me. You know that I know very well "what Wikipedia is about". Apparently though, you and Herzen are a bit confused on that. So... one more time (I've lost track of how many times I've had to remind you of this): the "nationality" of a source does not matter. It doesn't matter whether something is a "US source" or a "Russian source" or a "Fijan source". All that matters is whether a source satisfies the criteria laid out at WP:RS. If you honestly think that Sputnik news satisfies these criteria then I'm sorry, but you're in the wrong place, Wikipedia isn't the site for you.
 * Likewise there isn't a "Russian POV" unless you somehow believe that every Russian in the world believes the same thing (which would be, well, racist) There is no such thing as "US POV". Only people who buy into this Dugin-esque notion that there's some kind of eternal holy struggle between Russia and the West see it that way. There's absolutely no reason why Wikipedia should adhere to this line of thinking, pushed forward by fascists like Dugin. NPOV means reliable sources and due weight, not cringe conspiracy crap, and misrepresenting sources as Herzen readily admits he's doing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This edit implies that Yatsenuk was appointed by US government. No, he was not - according to RS, including one that was quoted in this edit. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Yatsenyuk government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.interfax.ru/news/361693 with https://web.archive.org/web/20140228011944/http://www.interfax.ru/news/361693 on http://www.interfax.ru/news/361693

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Yatsenyuk government. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310234110/http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/64288/pm-butkevicius-congratulates-ukraines-new-prime-minister-201464288/ to http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/64288/pm-butkevicius-congratulates-ukraines-new-prime-minister-201464288/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Copy edit
Someone has put this article on a list of articles needing a copy edit. I plan to do one. Since I am currently in a contentious thread at ANI about recent Ukrainian history, I just want to stress that on the first-pass copy-edit I will not be evaluating references or the truth of statements, just sentence mechanics and the like. If this article is on your watchlist, please feel free to point out any errors that I make or seem to miss; I just don't want specific edits I may make here to be cited elsewhere as proof of something or other. If I have questions or other concerns about something that is not the English, I will make a note below in this section. Elinruby (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)