Talk:President of Ukraine

Is the "impeachment" of Yanukovych on 22 february 2014 legal?

The Constitution of Ukraine stipulates for a certain procedure for impeachment of the President (article 111), which was severely breached by today´s decision of Ukranian Parliament. So is he de jure still the President or not?Dilas25 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know the answer to that, Dilas 25, although I read that Yanukovych agreed to transfer some powers to Parliament on the day before he fled and the country reverted to the 2004 constitution. That may change something. The important thing, however, is that the Wikipedia page is backed up by authoritative sources and not by us speculating on legal matters. The Guardian today runs a story from the Associated Press calling Yanukovych the 'former president'. The BBC says that Turchynov is the interim president. A lot may change in the coming days, weeks and months, but to me, an interim president is still a president. Thus, Turchynov should feature in this article. --Wavehunter (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• President and opposition signed an EU sponsored agreement which agreed that Yanukovych remained President until elections later this year. An "Acting President" is not a "President". Pursuant to the Constitution the parliament have acted unconstitutionally in removing President Yanukovych. AP saying someone else is President is their opinion, it doesn't make it fact. What legal basis do AP base their assertion upon? I can also provide sources which say Yanukovych is President of Ukraine which contradict AP, so where does this leave us? I am interested in fact not opinion. I and others have asserted that the parliament has acted unconstitutionally in removing President Yanukovych, can this be rebuffed with fact by those saying otherwise? By the way, I am not a Yanukovych "groupie", I am simply interested in having wikipedia articles factually correct. No agenda here. Mandz orp (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about showing what is going on, not about giving personal opinions what is going on!!!! Most reliable English-language sources state that Yanukovych is impeached. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. The view that Yanu is still President is a minority opinion... We can not base Wikipedia on minority opinions! By the way I know you are not being honest about "not being a Yanukovych "groupie"". In my experience when people on Wikipedia start claiming that there not something... They usually are it... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, let´s not speak about "minorities" and "majorities" unless you have proof like sociological research. I was asking about the legal issue. Yanukovych was technically not "impeached" (because "impeachment" is a legal term and it is strictly regulated by article 111 of Ukrainian constitution (it is necessary to have a decision of Supreme Court that confirms that actions of the President constitute a crime and a decision of the Constitutional court that says that the procedure was observed. Secondly, it is necessary to have a 4/5 majority to make impeachment effective - this condition was not met). If we read the decision of the Parliament, then it says that Yanukovych "self-removed himself from acting as preseident" but it does not remove him from office. So de jure Yanukovych is still the President who is not functioning actively and was forced to flee due to mass protests. He also explicitly refused to resign.Dilas25 (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• • For the record, I have no agenda either. One commonly held tennet of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Through multiple sources we can verify that Yanukovych is an ex-president or former president; other sources may say other things and this can be reflected in the article too. Discussion of the constitution, however, is original research. Leaving Turchynov off the list would mean this page is at odds with the page List of Presidents of Ukraine. If you look for lists of presidents of other countries you will find many examples of acting presidents and unelected presidents. For example, the many acting presidents of Honduras. Or the 38th president of the United States, Gerard Ford, who was not elected. --Wavehunter (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
    • For the record, I just don't think its a good idea to place Turchynov in the gallery, along with elected Presidents, and mark him as the 5th President, which he clearly isn't. He's acting President, until a new one is elected in May. The person elected in May will be the 5th President... If you look at other articles about Presidents, you'll see that almost nowhere you can find an acting President in a gallery of Presidents. Gallery isn't a place for acting, unelected officeholders. --Sundostund (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I do believe I just fixed our problem... (By the way Sundostund I noticed that you edited on loads of subjects (in Wikipedia) and that thus you did not just joined Wikipedia to force your view of events on others). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Verifiability, not truth? From multiple sources I can also state that Yanukovych is President, de jure if not de facto. This verifiable. If discussion of the Constitution is original research then the legally binding agreement entered into by the Opposition and President under auspices of the EU is not, it is public knowledge, and it states that Yanukovych continues as President. This is the de jure situation. Leaving Turchynov off the list would mean conversely that the page on List of Presidents of Ukraine is at odds with this page. Happy to concede the point re: Acting President/ President.

"The view that Yanu is still President is a minority opinion", according to whom? What defines minority opinion? As I said Yanukovych is the de jure President. Mandz orp (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Yulia Romero, I'm not here to force anything on anyone... Acting officeholders are included in a list of officeholders (in this case, List of Presidents of Ukraine), and that is fine, but they are never added to the gallery of officeholders at an article about that office (in this case, President of Ukraine). Its just that simple. I see you guys have a dispute here, I'll not go into that. I just wanted to prevent putting of an unelected officeholder in a gallery of elected ones, and marking him as the 5th President. --Sundostund (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• • I have edited to add "Disputed" next to the supposed Acting President's name. I think this can be a compromise as his status is disputed, and no Yulia, I do not have an agenda other than ensuring accuracy and fact. Mandz orp (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

According to sources that really treat the question - and by that I eliminate sources which merely state 'was impeached/ousted by a vote of 328 - 0' - in some detail, the vote was not legal. See here [1]. The wording is 'politically correct', i.e. they do not explicitly say the vote was null and void, what they do however is to list some of the provisions that were not followed.
Now, the idea that 'Most reliable English-language sources state that Yanukovych is impeached.' But one could equally start counting Russian sources that say exactly the opposite! It all boils down to which sources treat an issue in necessarily thorough manner. I have not seen a single source yet that claims the impeachment was done according to this and that provision effective at the moment. One English language source - linked here - does treat this question and indeed points out that this was not the case and points out shortcomings (to use an euphemism). Wikipedia is not a democracy. One good source can trump ten sloppy/partisan sources. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me Sundostund; I think you are a NPOV-editor. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

In that case, sorry for misunderstanding :)... I try to be neutral as much as I can in my work here. And, I certainly didn't came here to entangle myself in a discussion whether Yanukovych was legally impeached or not. I'm leaving that cup of tea to others. --Sundostund (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Yulia: the only source that I have seen and that really tries to handle the question whether the impeachment was legal is an English language source [2] that Lvivske added yesterday. And even if it were language other than English, a source treating the question disputed in details is still better than newspaper sources that claim something with no substantiation. You could easily find thousands of English language websites supporting Intelligent Design or other pseudoscience, but they don't trump scientific sources no matter how few there are. apparently most of the people believe the Evolution of humans did not take place [3], so what? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

PS. As for the Western sources that refer to Yanukovich as former president or impeached/ousted president. They really reflect the de facto situation and they do not even try to treat the question whether the impeachment was legal. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• If 338 MP's are required for the removal, impeachment, of President Yanukovych and only 328 MP's voted to remove/impeach, how is that process legal? And if it is not legal how is

Turchynov the legitimate Acting President? Mandz orp (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Yanu has not let himself heard of since 2 days... So calling him President is also weird is it not? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Again, if 338 MP's are required for the removal, impeachment, of President Yanukovych and only 328 MP's voted to remove/impeach, how is that process legal? And if it is not legal how is Turchynov the legitimate Acting President?

This isn't about where President Yanukovych is, he is reportedly in the east of the country or Crimea, this is about people claiming Turchynov is the legitimate Acting President, can you please address the above issue? Mandz orp (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is obviously not a picture of Yulia Romero!

Please do realise that next to Wikipedia I have a life, a family and friends! And I could right now have a good time with them! But I choose to keep Wikipedia updated on things of my choosing! And I am a volunteer! And I don't even care if Turchynov is the legitimate Acting President!!! So please keep your expectations of me low... To learn you that Wikipedia is not ideal and that it sometimes does not go as you please... I will not address the above issue... You had to learn sometime that Wikipedia is not perfect... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll give here the link to Article 111 of the constitution of Ukraine on impeaching the president. There is an explaining comment there, too. [4]. The site is Internet portal Pravo Ukrainy i.e. 'Ukrainian Law/Justice'. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• On things of your choosing and with "facts" of your choosing it seems. Wikipedia is a reference for factual information. For someone to be editing the "President of Ukraine" article when they don't, as you yourself said, "even care if Turchynov is the legitimate Acting President" says it all. You are not it would appear concerned with actual facts rather you are approaching this issue in a partisan and biased way ignoring the fact that the removal of President Yanukovych was illegal and is disputed. I am actually not even sure what is in dispute, if 338 MP's were required for impeachment and only 328 MP's voted to impeach....how exactly is it in dispute that Turchynov is supposedly the legitimate Acting President??? If someone can please explain that for me, that would be welcome. Mandz orp (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Vynnychenko and Petliura

Actually, sources differ on whether "president" ever was their official titles. I read that the next official "president" after Hrushevsky was Kravchuk. Could anyone who brought this in elaborate? --Irpen 20:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Most likely, they never used the title of "president": Vinnychenko was the head of Directory and Petliura used military titles. However, both legally abided by the Constitution of UNR and should be considered at least acting heads of state.

Incidentally, I am not quite sure whether the title of "president" was even mentioned in the Constitution of UNR. Sashazlv 02:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Hrushevsky was a president by a title, not just a head of state. I think, since the title is the "President of Ukraine" not "Heads of the Ukrainian States" we should not call Vinnychenko and Petriura "presidents" in the article only because they were heading the state. --Irpen 08:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I was also sure H. held the title of president -- until yesterday. So, yesterday I found an annotation to the Constitution of UNR. The annotation is relatively detailed and does not mention president at all. Here's the annotation (my comment continues after the annotation):

---

http://history.franko.lviv.ua/IIk_5.htm:

КОНСТИТУЦІЯ УКРАЇНСЬКОЇ НАРОДНОЇ РЕСПУБЛІКИ - Основний Закон Української Народної Республіки, що закріплював суспільний та державний устрій, основи її політики, основні права і обов'язки громадян, систему й принципи організації та діяльності державних органів. Прийнята Українською Центральною Радою 29.4.1918. На цьому засіданні, крім інших законів, була обговорена і прийнята Конституція Української Народної Республіки - Основний закон держави. Проект Основного Закону був підготований спеціальною конституційною комісією на чолі з головою УЦР М. Грушевським, яка вивчила досвід конституційного законодавства різних країн світу, насамперед, найближчих сусідів України, що мали спільні або подібні з нею історичні, економічні та політичні умови розвитку.

Конституція мала підназву: «Статут про державний устрій, права Іівільності УНР». Складалася з 85 статей і 8 розділів: Загальні постанови, Права громадян України, Органи влади Української Народної Республіки, Всенародні Збори Української Народної Республіки, Про Раду Народних Міністрів Української Народної Республіки, СудУкраїнської Народної Республіки, Національні союзи, Про тимчасове припинення громадянських свобід.

У розділі І Конституції констатується, що Українська Народна Республіка є «державою суверенною, самостійною і ні від кого незалежною»; носієм державного суверенітету є увесь народ України, усі громадяни України, які проживають на її території; реально свій суверенітет народ здійснюватиме через Всенародні Збори України (ст. З); територія України є єдиною і неподільною, і що без згоди 2/3 депутатів Всенародних Зборів не може відбутися ніяка зміна як кордонів України, так і у державно-правових відносинах якоїсь частини території держави до всієї цілості (ст. 4). Не порушуючи «єдиної своєї власти, -говориться у ст. 5, - УНР надає своїм землям, волостям і громадам права широкого самоврядування». Усім націям і національностям, які населяють Україну надавалося право «на впорядкування своїх культурних прав у національних межах».

Відразу за першим, загальним розділом йшов розділ про громадянські права й свободи, що свідчить про те велике значення, яке надавали в тогочасній Українській державі проблемі проголошення та гарантування прав і свобод громадян. Громадянином УНР вважалася кожна особа, яка набула це право у передбаченому законодавством порядку. Інститут подвійного громадянства не допускався. Позбавити людину громадянства мігтільки Суд республіки. Цивільно-правова, громадянська і політична дієздатність наступала в УНР з 20-річного віку. Ст. II конституції підкреслювала, що «ніякої різниці у правах і обов'язках між чоловіком і жінкою, «право УНР не знає». В ст.12 Конституції стверджувалося, що всі громадяни рівні у своїх громадянських і політичних правах - незалежно від статі, національності, раси, віросповідання, освіти, майнового стану. Використання старих титулів і звань заборонялося. Охоронялася недоторканність особи, житла, таємниця листування. За положеннями Конституції ні громадяни України ні іноземці не могли бути обмежені на території держави у свободі слова, друку, віросповідання, створенні організацій і союзів, праві на страйк, якщо тільки вказані дії не носили характеру кримінального злочину. Проголошувалася повна свобода вибору місця проживання і пересування. На території УНР скасовувалася як вид покарання смертна кара, тілесні та ображаючі людську гідність і честь покарання. Скасовувалося як покарання і конфіскація майна. Виборче (активне і пасивне) право надавалось тільки громадянам УНР, яким на день виборів виповнилось 20 років. Виборче право було загальним, рівним, таємним.

Наступні чотири розділи Конституції врегульовували принципи організації і діяльності вищих органів державної влади, управління й судочинства. В основу побудови структури вищих орга­ів держави покладено принцип розподілу вла­ди на законодавчу, виконавчу і судову. Найвища законодавча влада, згідно Конституції, належала Всенародним Зборам, виконавча - Раді Народних Міністрів (Р.Н.М.), судова - Генеральному Суду. Місцевими органами влади і управління ставали виборні Ради і управи - у громадах (сільських і міських), волостях і землях. Всенародні Збори мали обиратися населенням на основі рівного, прямого, загального, таємного голосування на пропорційній системі виборів -один депутат - від 100 тис. жителів строком на З роки. Проголошувався принцип депутатської недоторканності, запроваджувалася оплата праці депутатів. Сесії парламенту скликалися двічі на рік. На першій сесії мав бути обраний Голова парламенту, його заступник та товариші, які складали Президію Всенародних Зборів. На Голову покладалися обов'язки організувати і очолювати роботу парламенту, «сповняти всі чинності, зв'язані з представництвом Республіки» (ст. 35). Відповідно до Конституції законодавчі акти приймалися тільки парламентом, який також затверджував бюджет країни, оголошував війну, укладав мир і т, д. Право законодавчої ініціативи належало: Президії Всенародних Зборів; партійним фракціям, зареєстрованим Всенародними Зборами; групам депутатів (не менше ЗО чоловік); Раді Народних Міністрів; органам самоврядування, які об'єднують не менше 100 тис. виборців; групам виборців (не менше 100 тис. чол.).

Згідно з Конституцією Рада Народних Міністрів формувалася Головою парламенту. Склад і програма Р.Н.М. затверджувався парламентом, перед яким уряд ніс відповідальність за свою діяльність. У випадку винесення вотуму недовір'я уряд йшов у відставку. Парламент більшістю у 2/3 голосів міг віддати членів РНМ під слідство й суд (ст. 58). Депутати парламенту мали право депутатського запиту до уряду. Протягом 7 днів окремі міністри чи уряд повинні були дати відповідь на депутатський запит. Навищим судом республіки оголошувався Генеральний Суд, який обирався Всенародними Зборами. Він виступав як касаційна інстанція для усіх інших судів, не міг бути судом першої та другої інстанцій та мати функції адміністративної влади. На який строк обирався Генеральний Суд, як і інші суди країни, яким способом вони обиралися - у Конституції не сказано. Це мало бути вирішене окремим законом про судоустрій. Зате у Конституції є інше важливе положення, що «судових вирішень не можуть змінити ні законодавчі, ні адміністраційні органи власти» (ст. 63). Судочинство оголошувалося усним і гласним, всі громадяни, незалежно від посад, оголошувалися рівними перед судом і перед законом. Окремий розділ Конституції був присвячений національним проблемам. «Кожна з населяючих Україну нації», - пишеться у ст. 69, -має право в межах УНР на самостійне устроєння свого національного життя, що здійснюється через органи Національного Союзу». Кожна національна меншина входить у свій Національний Союз, обирає свої органи самоврядування. Верховним органом у Національних Союзах є Національні збори. Кожен Національний Союз видає своє законодавство, що не повинно протирічити Конституції і законодавству України (у такому разі створюються спільні «погоджувальні комісії»), встановлює свій бюджет та ін. Органи кожного Національного Союзу були органами не громадськими, а державними, що надавало їм відповідного правового статуту і авторитету. 8-й розділ Конституції, передбачав можливість тимчасового (не більше як на три місяці) призупинення дії громадських прав і свободу випадку війни чи внутрішніх заворушень. Таке рішення, як і те, дія яких саме прав чи свобод повинна бути призупинена, приймали Всенародні Збори, а у виключних випадках - Рада Народних Міністрів.

У Конституції не згадувалося про герб, прапор, гімн держави, про основні принципи внутрішньої і зовнішньої політики, про порядок обрання місцевих органів влади і управління; органи прокуратури, судову систему та ін. Конституція, очевидно, будучи створеною на перехідний період становлення української державності, мала тимчасовий характер. Конституція УНР була доброю правовою базою для всього іншого законодавства України, створення демократичної державності, законності та правопорядку, В період Директорії УНР- 12.11.I 920 РИМ УНР був ухвалений Закон про Тимчасове верховне управління та порядок законодавства в Українській Народній Республіці.

---

So, I now think that the very existence of the post of president of UNR is a hypothesis, an unverified hypothesis. I need the text of the constitution to verify it. Do you know if it available on-line? Sashazlv 04:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Constitution of UNR

I suppose that the original text of the constitution can be found in the following book: Державний центр Української Народної Республіки в екзилі: Статті і матеріали / Інститут дослідження модерної історії України / Любомир Р. Винар (ред.), Наталія Пазуняк (ред.). — К. : Веселка, 1993. — 494с. — ISBN 5-301-01684-9.

Індекс рубрикатора НБУВ: Т3(4Укр)6я43

Шифр зберігання книги в НБУВ: ВА562311

I also found this book in the Library of Congress catalog, call number: DK508.44 .U4165 1993. I can request an interlibrary loan from LOC, but it would be a bit of a stretch to do this for Wikipedia. Sashazlv 04:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Chairmen of Supreme Soviet of Ukrainian SSR

I've included the list of Chairmen of Supreme Soviet into Verkhovna Rada article, and I propose to exclude the list from this article based on the following.

1. The Chairmen of Supreme Soviet have never been the Presidents of Ukraine. This article is named President of Ukraine and it should not go outside the scope of describing the President of Ukraine.
2. In the Soviet time the ruling power in the Ukrainian SSR after Moscow was in the hands of the First Secretary of Communist Party of UkrSSR, not in the hands the Chairman of Presidium of Supreme Soviet.
3. President is commonly seen as a part of the executive branch of the government, not the legislative branch. The executive branch in the Soviet time was present by the Soviet of Ministries.
4. An attempt to claim that the Chairmen were "like" the President is an original research, unless supported by reliable sources. An article "Історія президентства" on the official website of the President of Ukraine [5] includes no information on Chairmen. It does however include information on Hrushevsky.
5. The current list on this page is factually inaccurate, as Burmistenko, Ivashko and Kravchek were the Chairmen of Supreme Soviet, not Presidium of Supreme Soviet.

The proposal came following a discussion with User:Sashazlv on his talk page. KPbIC 04:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Watch out Viktor!

A bill on "presidential impeachment" is arising! See: Parliament passes at first reading bill establishing mechanism for presidential impeachment. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 03:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Russian name

According to Dilas25 "the Constitution of Ukraine (Art. 10) guarantees free development, use and protection of Russian language" but what the hell has that got to do with editing wikipedia? And why is not the Sorbian name of the German Bundestag included in that article? It is quite obvious the only reason Dilas 25 is editing wikipedia is to Russiafy Ukrainian articles. In my view this guy should be banned from wikipedia cause he is only here to push a political agenda. Let's have a propper discussion first and not let clowns like Dilas 25 (he added the Bellarussian name in Prime Minister of Ukraine...) take over wikipedia. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of "Russifying Ukrainian articles" and "making political agenda" are so absurd and weird that I don't even want to comment on that (especially taking into account the kind "apolitical" comment "Death to Russian imperialists" made by you, Yulia Romero). Sadly, you are even uncapable of keeping yourself withing the limits of normal politeness. Adding Russian name of Ukrainian parliament (in smaller font than in Ukrainian) would, in my opinion, be ´polite´ taking into account the significant role that the Russian language plays in Ukrainian society (see Russian language in Ukraine) and the fact that Russian is explicitly mentioned in Ukrainian constitution (article 10) alongside Ukrainian language (unlike any other possible minority language like Crimean Tatar). The "free use, development and protection" of the Russian language is guaranteed by the constitution of Ukraine (like it or not!) which may be taken as a certain degree of official recognition. Here you can read the text of Ukrainian Constitution in English: http://www.president.gov.ua/en/content/chapter01.html Dilas25 (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The WP:UEIA policy is clear: the lede should contain "common names by which its subject is widely known". I am unconvinced the Russian version is "widely known" (in the English speaking world). I wish the editor does not take edits of others personally as per WP:AGF policy. I regret I did so (at the time); but in my defense your edit summaries at the time where so cryptic I could not make heads or tail of it. As a compromise we could ad the Russian name (next to the Ukrainian name) in the history section since in Soviet Times Russian and Ukrainian where official languages in the Ukrainian SSR. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Appointment and dismissal of Cabinet of Ukraine Ministers

The current article gives the idea that the Prime Minister appoints Ministers and then seeks to get the parliaments (=Rada) approval for that; while it seems to be the President per presidential decree (with the Rada seems to have no say in this however). On October 1, 2010 the Constitutional Court of Ukraine recognized the constitutional amendments of 2004 illegal was the appointment of Ministers per Prime Minister + Rada approval one of these constitutional amendments that now is defunct? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Polls for future Ukrainian presidential election, 2015 article

Can be found here. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

For a few polls since early 2011 see below.

— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I am veri veri sory for holodone in ukran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.170.249.156 (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)