Talk:Oleksandr Turchynov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Shot[edit]

According to this, he has been shotted at the scene of Maidan by sniper. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too sure how trustworthy twitter is... especially from a source that is 100% bias (the account is called Euromaiden). On top of that, "shotted" is not a word: I think they meant "shot". Kndimov (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

acting pm in 2010[edit]

I factchecked it and plenty of hits came up on google. Reuters: "Ukraine's acting prime minister and Yanukovich rival Oleksander Turchinov" --Львівське (говорити) 07:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I want somebody to read our dispute with User:Lvivske about this issue: User talk:Lvivske#!, diff. I cannot convice him of fact, that Turchynov did not act as prime minister from 4 March 2010 till 11 March 2010, so this erroneous information should be removed from this and other articles. Maybe, somebody else can do it. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • That information isn't erroneous, Turchynov did act as Prime Minister from 4 March till 11 March 2010. Lvivske presented a very reliable source from Reuters. Also note this sources: Kyiv Post: "Tymoshenko vacates premier's post" and also Kyiv Post: "Cabinet: Turchynov will fulfill premier's duties until new government is formed". Clearly, the information is correct, and it should stay. --Sundostund (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • New York Times: "Oleksandr V. Turchynov, a former acting prime minister"
  • Rulers.org "On March 4 Oleksandr Turchynov is named acting prime minister as Tymoshenko takes a leave, although she nominally remains in office until March 11"
I don't see why this user thinks I need to be convinced or everyone should gang up on me. I'm not the one who did the first revert of his blanking, I was requested to come in and comment as an independent 3rd party to this dispute, and after taking the time to do my own fact checking, I see that Yuriy Kolodin here is wrong. On my talk page he plainly states that the media isn't to be trusted and he'd prefer to use original research to prove his point.--Львівське (говорити) 16:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Conversation is finished. --Yuriy Kolodin (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Is he acting PM?[edit]

I changed the info on the Victor Yanukovych page, but he is prime minister even if his function is only as the speaker of parliament? This source (http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/22/live-updates-protesters-take-over-kyiv-parliament-releases-tymoschenko/) only mentions that he is speaker of parliament currently. That would indicate that the presidency is currently vacant, wouldn't it? Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

he is 1 : "Oleksandr Turchynov, the opposition leader now appointed as parliament speaker and acting prime minister" - --Львівське (говорити) 07:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Controversy[edit]

Under "controversy" it states

Wikileaks documents mention Turchynov, then head of Ukraine's SBU, as having destroyed documents implicating Yulia Tymoshenko's alleged connections to organized crime boss Semion Mogilevich.[21]

However, when you open the link (21) all you can read is:

New and conflicting details emerge over Mogilevich’s alleged involvement in nation

and

"Former security service chief Oleksandr Turchynov said he didn’t order the destruction of a case file on reputed mobster Semyon Mogilevich. "

There is no mention of WikiLeaks and/or allegation of Turchynov destroying the documents. If this information is not available, perhaps it should be edited that "Wikileks allegedly mention.... etc.87.110.180.50 (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Turchynov[edit]

Turchynov was not appointed acting Prime Minister. The source given is erroneous. Arbuzov was never dismissed from being acting Prime Minister, while Turchynov due to situation in the country, was appointed coordinator of Cabinet of Minister (not Prime Minister). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

A.h. kingInformation has to be verified before posting it. Is it not the main principle of wikipedia? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A.h. king, a simple question. Did Arbuzov resign from his office? Did anybody dismiss him? On February 24, 2014 Arbuzov as an acting Prime Minister of Ukraine released a statement: "Complex circumstances should not prevent economy of the country to work". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
This RELIABLE source states that Turchynov was named acting PM by the Verkhovna Rada: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26316268 (paragraph 5-6). A.h. king • Talk to me! 10:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A.h. king, how is that RELIABLE? Just because it published by BBC, it is not automatically reliable. Is the information published by the Supreme Council of Ukraine non-reliable?? Wikipedia is not a newschannel to republish some random information from other sources. Wikipedia information should be such that correspond the reality. Information on appointments to government offices is documented with official documents which proscribe those appointments. Turchynov is a coordinator of CabMin (not Prime Minister), yet Arbuzov continues to occupy the office of Prime Minister of Ukraine. If Turchynov would have been appointed acting Prime Minister, Arbuzov should have been dismissed. It did not take place. Please, note that even Vitaliy Zakharchenko has not been completely dismissed from his post, but considering situation in Ukraine and the fact that the head of Ukrainian militsiya is on the run Arsen Avakov was temporarily appointed in his place. Also, look that no ministerial portfolios were switched as of yet, but rather the current ministries are being simply dismissed. The new temporary government should be appointed on Thursday, February 27. A lot of media reporters are rushing with conclusions or assumptions, but instead simplify things when they should be reported the way they are. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Look at the official websites of the Supreme Council of Ukraine, the President of Ukraine, and the Cabinet of Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The reason Turchynov is the acting President due to the Constitution of Ukraine where the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada acts as the President of Ukraine in the absence of one (ex officio). No one has any intentions to usurp power in the country, yet there are many who portray it as such. There were dismissal and resignation of certain number of officials that was approved by the Ukrainian parliament, any other officials are absent without leave (AWOL) and should be brought to liability as one who left their office or missing from their work without proper documentation. No one dismissed Arbuzov from his office. On February 26 he needs to hold government meeting. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
After signing the treaty with parliamentary opposition the President had to officially address people, yet he chose an alternative way discrediting the opposition, his supporting party and bringing the country on a verge of civil schism. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The article about Viktor Yanukovych also states that Yanukovych was impeached which also is not true. He was removed from the office due to self-withdrawal (Ukrainian: самоусунення, samousunennia). Even the English article does not mention anything about impeachment which constitutes an original research. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
On February 22, 2014 Oleksandr Turchynov, Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada (note, not an acting Prime Minister), conducted a conference with acting government officials. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A.h. king, also, please, consider that the fact of the chairman of Parliament coordinating (not chairing) the Cabinet of Ukraine is mentioned by the All-Ukrainian Association Maidan. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Turchynov was coordinator of Cabinet only, not Prime Minister. Arbuzov was dismissed today, on 27 Feb. NickSt (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph states that Putin doesn't consider legitimate. How is that relevant? Should we list all the officials who do consider him legitmate? Does Putin decide which foreign officials are legitimate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.176.222 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Rel the use of 50-cent legal terms: 'Need citations or use other terminology cited supported by the sources[edit]

De jure, de facto, and ex officio--fancy legal terms--IMO add nothing to this article. Just make it sound like first-year law review got hold of it. These terms make legal judgments. As such, need to cite sources for the use of the terms or use other plain language actually supported by the sources. Paavo273 (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The terms make no legal judgements, by recognising him as 'de jure' or not governments make legal judgements. I am just reporting how different governments view. I could change them for 'in fact' and 'in law' but the Latin terms are universal in diplomacy. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have a valid source quoting or referring to any "government mak[ing] [one or more of these] legal judgment[s]", fine! Otherwise, save the legal vocab. for a law school essay or legal vocab. lesson and just use what the sources say. WP policy, incl. No OR is quite clear about this. In other words, 'need to stay within the four corners of the source material; WP by policy is entirely derivative. We don't add our own ideas. Paavo273 (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Have now made the same point in the lead sticking more closely to sources. Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing obscure about 'de facto': the BBC uses it today "Moscow remains in de facto control of Ukraine's southern autonomous region." [1]Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Oleksandr Turchynov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oleksandr Turchynov. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Slavyansk episode[edit]

This edit. Why this seemingly insignificant episode has been included? The only possible explanation is probably in the source [1] which tells: "Yarosh takes credit for starting the war in Donbass". However, this is clearly not the case and rather a conspiracy theory because Yarosh did not start the war in Donbass, as should be known to anyone familiar with the subject. This should be removed, at least from this page (having it on the page about war in Slavyansk is obviously fine). In addition, this is a content fork included in several pages. My very best wishes (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't mislead, please. The page that includes the words "Yarosh takes credit for starting the war in Donbass" is not the source; the source is the 8th biggest news site in Ukraine, existing since 2004. I provided the other link as it featured an English translation of the original article, which I thought would be of utility to the majority of readers. If you would prefer, and other editors agree, we can leave out the English translation and keep only the original Ukrainian article as a source (if that is your primary complaint). Or we could add a disclaimer that "The headline and introductory comments of the English translation were not present in the original article".
Concerning "copy+pasting into different pages", it is common practice on Wikipedia to put similar info and sources into different articles that they touch, changing the wording as needed.
It was actually the first significant battle of the Slavyansk conflict (the first direct conflict with casualties between militants on both sides). That it was his orders that got it started seems quite self-evidently a notable thing to mention.
I would also like to ask you to please provide a rationale for why you deleted the other bit of information, concerning the poll of his legitimacy rating in the rebellious Eastern regions of Ukraine. Esn (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  1. I simply copy-pasted the title from the source, "Yarosh takes credit for starting the war in Donbass", and it properly reflects what the quoted source tells.
  2. Why on the Earth this minor incident should be included here if it was already included in several others and more relevant pages? That's my point.
  3. If it was an opinion of all people in Ukraine, that would be OK (he is an Ukrainian official). But why one should include opinion of people about him on this small territory occupied by Russia? If that was an opinion of people from the entire Russia, that would be more relevant. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
At the time (and also currently to my knowledge) Ukraine under acting President Turchinov claimed the territory of Donbass as its own, and the people of Donbass as its own citizens. The views of the public in those territories about Turchinov's legitimacy are thus extremely relevant, as they were ostensibly citizens that he ruled, or claimed to rule. It is standard practice in articles about politicians to mention significant opinion poll results.
As for the other point: again, the original source (the Censor interview with Yarosh) does not say that "Yarosh takes credit for starting the war in Donbass". That headline was actually based on a somewhat provocative one originally given by RT Deutsch, "Former commander of Pravy Sektor admits provoking the war in Donbass". It was changed into an even more provocative one in the Fort-Russ English translation of the RT Deutsch article). The German RT article, while it accurately summarizes sections of the interview, it also leaves out quite a lot of other interesting things that Yarosh said (they omitted the things which were not friendly to their editorial newsline, which is not at all surprising, as the same thing is done by my local news in Canada as well... tell truth that supports the narrative, hush up truth that doesn't).
In answer to your second question: because it's not a minor incident, but a notable event (and very newsworthy at the time it happened) that Turchinov played a leading role in. Esn (talk) 16:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • This is just one minor cherry picked episode that looks out of the place, just as the public opinion about him in Donbass. My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
What we have here is a difference of opinion. Bloomberg thought that the 74% figure was significant (same article was printed in iPolitics.ca), and a sign of his government's failure to win support among the people of Donbass. I strongly believe that public perception of a politician within the territory he rules (or claims to rule) is a very important thing to mention in an article about him. Shall I perhaps ask other editors from WikiProject Politics or WikiProject History to weigh in on this question? There is also room to expand it into a section about the reasons for Turchynov's lack of popularity among the Donbass population at the time, and his own political goals, in the context of which it would be natural to mention that his desire to silence the "enemy broadcasts" coming from the Slavyansk television station (according to Yarosh), led to the first combat casualties.
I also think that this bit of information provides much-needed balance and context to a sentence in the preceding paragraph: "Before he issued a deadline, which was scheduled for 9 am, he tried to negotiate with insurgents and even proposed to hold referendum on the same day as elections which will be on 25 May. His proposition was questioned by journalists who feared that the referendum might be sabotaged by pro-Russia insurgents." Well, since only a few days later, he covertly ordered a violent response to shut down separatist broadcasts, it makes it clear that Turchinov was presenting one face in public, and a different one in private (which can be seen as good or bad, obviously, depending on whether you think a peaceful solution was possible or desirable). Otherwise, the reader is left with the impression that Turchynov was a naive peacenik and reluctant warrior, which would clearly be a skewed representation. Esn (talk) 17:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I think one should focus on providing important and factual information on the person that is currently missing (it was done much better even on ruwiki - see ru:Турчинов, Александр Валентинович), as opposed to cherry picking minor episodes that paint him in a negative light. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)