Talk:Orange Revolution/Archive 1

Orange Alternative in Poland

The Orange Revolution had happened before Slobodan Milosevic - it was a movement called the Orange Alternative in Poland, during the Solidarity uprising (early 1980-'s). The main idea was to avoid communist repression and censors, by doing alternative, sometimes surrealistic protests which did not directly attacked the Power, but everybody knows, that it was a way to make fun and humiliate the regime.

Witold

Time to put an orange on the Seder plate, perhaps? Rickyrab 01:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggestiong to delete article+"current" tag

How do you make a page for deletion? this "revoulition" is nothing more then Ukraine's fighting back against authortarians, while noble, its not something that deserves an encylopedia reference Pellaken 13:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some might argue that an event occupying the attention of a country of 50 million for weeks, which has seen rallies of hundreds of thousands, and influencing its democratic future, is even more significant than the Prince Edward Island Draft Beer Party. But if you think you can get more support for deleting this than the fifty or more Wikipedians who have contributed to this article, you can learn about the procedure at Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Good luck. —Michael Z.

Should the "current event" tag be removed? It's doubtful that new stuff will be coming in rapidly about this. Mntlchaos 08:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~

Ukrainian intelligence and security agencies chapter

I changed "successor to the Ukrainian KGB" by "the Ukrainian successor agency to the KGB". As far as I know, there were no such a thing as Ukrainian KGB in the USSR. The KGB was a central agency, similar to what in the US is called "Federal". If it's incorrect to say "a New York FBI" or "NY CIA", we should avoid saying "Ukrainian KGB" referring to the Soviet time. If my information is incorrect, please revert. Irpen 19:09, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, "Ukrainian KGB" (KGB USSR) did exist - as a republic level KGB subdivision. Mapple 18:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops; I just amended your edit, before reading this comment; sorry. Feel free to revert, since you seem to know more about the subject than I. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-06-1 21:24 Z

Well, whether UA KGB did exist or not is a matter of terminology preference. The latest "successor to the KGB in Ukraine" seems to be optimal since it covers both views. I suggest we keep it. Irpen 22:58, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, let's keep this wording. Mapple 18:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with calling SBU a "successor to the KGB". Neither SBU, not Ukrainian government call them that. It's not a neutral point of view. It's confusing, since SBU does not perform functions of the "Ukrainian KGB", it has different constitutional powers and goals. While the main purpose of the KGB in Ukraine was to suppress decent, SBU is more like the American FBI. It is forbidden for SBU to oppress or even harass political opponents. It's plain subjective to call them the KGB.--Andrew Alexander 18:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

SBU was a Ukrainian KGB renamed. Whether it evolved to FBI or remained politically similar to KGB or not is a separate debate. Like Russia is the successor state to the USSR whether it is successfull or not to stand its own against other forces in the world. --Irpen 19:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

But it was NOT renamed! It's a fully new organization, at least officially. Please provide some source of the "renaming". Thanks--Andrew Alexander 19:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

From SBU's official website (http://www.sbu.gov.ua/eng/history/): The need to reform the former Union and republican systems of state security authorities arose right after Ukraine declared its independence. On September 20, 1991, by adopting the Regulation "On Establishment of the National Security Service of Ukraine," the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine (Ukraine's Parliament) liquidated the State Security Committee of the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine (Ukrainian KGB). So as you can see, SBU was intended to replace KGB, I don't know whether it's KGB simply renamed or if it performs the same functions, but SBU appears to be the successor to KGB. --Berkut 19:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, however, the quote says clearly that KGB was "liquidated". Liquidated doesn't mean renamed. That's the confusion I am talking about. Even Irpen got confused with the wording. That's why it's not a NPOV.--Andrew Alexander 19:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Renamed was just a way to say things in a more simple way. If you don't know the meaning of the meaning of the political term "successor", read up. Also, feel free to start a vote on the issue but if you make another farse by recruiting absentee voters, similar to what Yanuk did, I will move to arbitration to have the vote disqualified as fraudulent. --Irpen 20:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Blue ribbon

Someone removed the Janukovych blue ribbon. Why? Kazak

The removal was supplied with an explanatory comment you can see in the history: (rv. blue ribbon not notable in this context. Would be good for the article about Yanukovich's political force.). I hope you find this explanation convincing. If not, let's discuss it at this page. Irpen 07:26, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Janukovych's movement was, although ineffective, a counter to Jushchenko. The revolution involved him a lot, so I thought it appropriate to include it. Kazak

It is entirely appropriate to include factual material about Yanukovich's movement as well as pictures, like the one article has about miner's demontsrations. The ribbon, however, is not a picture of events, it's nothing more than a symbol. An article about O.R. has a symbol of O.R. which is fine, but in my opinion the symbol of Yanukovich's campaign does not belong to the O.R. article. I am opposing this not for ideological, but for purely stylistical reasons. Balance is always good, but to bring something out of place into the article with the claim that it would make it more balanced is a wrong approach. If you see the article is unbalanced, feel free to add relevant material to it, just try to keep it encyclopedic. Thanks, -Irpen 05:33, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I just saw the Orange Revolution as a struggle between both sides, not just Jushchenko's movement. Never mind. :-) Kazak

"Protests organized by Pora" version

Pora unquestionably played an important role in O.R. However, the version offered recently is a distortion of the events. I reverted the first insertion of manifestations being cell-phone organized because it simply doesn't fit the common sense and the course of events, which I was following very closely. I appreciate that Ryzzofoshizzo cited a source which I carefully read. Well, the source article does say that Pora used modern communications in its actions to make them more timely and to avoid the state control. However, nowhere does it say in the article that the end-October 2004 manifestations were organized solely, or mainly, by Pora, though it unquestionably took an active part. It is just too small. It is active and well-organized enough to be an important actor, but not to bring 0.5 - 1 mln people to the streets. Those were common Kievans (initially) joined by protesters arrived from provinces within the next days and most of this folks don't have cell phones and rarely, if at all, use internet. Many of them were moderate, rather than active, supporters of Yuchshenko, and came to protest against the electoral fraud more than against Yanukovich. Most of these folks would have accepted Yanukovich, should they be convinsed that he won fairly, and were just ticked off by an obvious lie. I respect Ryzzofoshizzo's contribution but I am going to rerevert it from this article. The info would be useful though for Pora article, which is badly outdated. I will put this on my todo list. Thanks! --Irpen 23:46, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Polish involvement in the Orange Revolution

The article does not cover the role of Poland/Polish politicians in the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. The Polish support for Viktor Yuschchenko has been the main reason for strenghtening of the Polish-Russian political tensions. The questions is - should it be included in the Alleged involvement of outside forces paragraph? The Polish support was official - so perhaps we should write about the international reactions to the Orange Revolution?

What are your ideas?

--ish_warsaw 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the whole negotiations process with international mediators is totally ommitted. That's a real blunder. Thanks for pointing this out. I will see what can be done, but I won;t promise any time frame. You are welcome to try to write about this. Thanks! --Irpen 23:19, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

As nothing happened since August, I've added a short sentence that at least mentions it. Feel free to expand it further. --Lysy ^(talk) 11:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! My todo list is just too long and with the fervent disruptors, since recently, I am even slower in sorting it out.

"Alarmed" by the Presidential Oath

Could Irpen or whoever claims the "alarm" please provide a reference here. I watched very closely the event of the Orange Revolution and don't recall a single polical figure in the Orange movement, who expressed any kind of alarm, except for the alarm of Yushchenko doing too little to remove Kuchma. Please post a reference. Thanks--Andrew Alexander 07:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Political figures on Yushchenko's side obviously didn't say anything even if they would silently disaprove it. If you have read the press coverage, you would have seen a moderate amount of unease about this even among the liberal observers. You can also go check the forum archives and since you are an expert in the forum usage, I don't need to point you to specific sites. --Irpen 07:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Were the "observers" anonimous? It was "supporters" you are talking about in the article. Which supporters? Can I hear at least one name?--Andrew Alexander 09:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said, the public figures of the pro-Democracy movement did not express any disagreement with their leader at these hard times for obvious reasons. I am talking about the general public perception. If you followed the events closely, even from outside of UA, you were reading most popular forums, like Maidan and Ukrayins'ka pravda, you would have seen the reaction. Their archives, unfortunately, seem to be purged from old material. You could also find the articles in the press archives of that time, even written by liberal moderate journalists, that expressed reservations about this step. Personally, I think it was the right step on his part. However, when I was writing about it, I included this info because there was indeed some confusion about it. In any case, you might be right, that alarmed is a too strong word and I will try to rephrase it. --Irpen 02:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

underground server and WP:FAC

I added an underground server info to the article. Please correct/expand. Also, I added a "fraud" section heading that preceeds the "protests" section and added more Wikilinks. I think the article may be made a Featured Article Candidate within a reasonable effort. Since this is one of the few UA-related topics that may generate interest, making it a Featured would finally bring the wider WP attention to Ukraine. While the History of Kiev is also reasonably detailed, it need much work and the reality is that the world would be more interested to read about the O.R. than about Kiev.

Are we ready yet for peer review? I hope this article won't be butchered though for POV reasons. Please avoid inflamatory rhetoric in reponse. --Irpen 03:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Russian involvement

Is that true that "Ukrainians living in Russia were also transported home in order to vote." ? Would they not be allowed to vote if they stayed abroad (i.e. in Russia) ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

This was a subject of another controversy. The government that backed Yanukovych wanted to set up voting places all over Russia where, with the lack of monitors, they could provide any number of pro-Yanukovych votes. The opposition managed to stall the effort using the pressure and, if I remember correctly, physical blocking the Rada and Electoral Commission (headed by pro-Yanukovych Kivalov) from implement the change in the law before the consitutional deadline. When the government finally passed their wanted changes (past the deadline) the Supreme Court invalidated them for the very reason that they were passed past the deadline. So, Ukrainians in Russia could only vote in Ukrainian consulates, the same way as Ukrainians in any other country. --Irpen 21:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's pretty normal that people abroad vote at consulates. But why would they need to be "transported home in order to vote" ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Because voting at a consulate was a complicated matter. Even being registered at consulate as a temporary resident abroad doesn't guarantee that you are on the roster. You have to come there in advance to register for voting. And remember that there are many Ukrainian citizens all over Russia and there aren't that many consulates. So, it often doesn't matter much (distance-wise) whether you travel to a nearest consulate or to Ukraine , where at your place of permanent registration you will always be on the roster. --Irpen 21:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

New chunk of text by anon that radically changes the article

The text below was added by an anon twice. It radically changes everything the article is all about. I checked for obvious copyvios and didn't find any. Thus, this seems to be a significant peace of someone's work. Therefore, I am not deleting it but moving to talk. Please discuss this unsourced and counter-mainstream version here first. If we can get anything out of such discussion, we will move it to the article. --Irpen 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the protests began was because this was announced well in advance (that and the free food and rock concerts that the Kiev authorities helpfully allowed to be established in the square). The Yushchenko camp planned to use the coups in Yugoslavia and Georgia as a template to carry out one of its own. The plan was to have Yushchenko supporters release exit polls claiming his victory, then claim that any deviation of the official results from these to be evidence of fraud. Added to this would be false claims such as that claiming Yanukovich's having control of all "administrative resources" and thus being the only candidate with the means to fix election results. Elections in Ukraine are run at the regional level. Western Ukraine was under the control of Yushchenko's people and eastern Ukraine was under the control of Yanukovich's people. Thus, Yushchenko was just as capable of stealing votes as Yanukovich was.

Some observers, such as those of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, reported that most of the dirty business was carried out by Yushchenko's side. Nevertheless, the BHHRG described it as the most honest election it had observed in the Ukraine. Indeed, the previous presidential election in 1999 is recognised to have been fraudulent. That fraud, however, robbed a candidate who wanted union with Russia. It also helped make a failed central banker the new prime minister of Ukraine, nominated by the fraudulently elected Leonid Kuchma. That banker's name is Viktor Yushchenko, who ran in this 2004 campaign against the corruption of the same Leonid Kuchma!

The pre-election polls all showed a significant Yanukovich lead. The first round then strangely returned a slight Yushchenko lead, with Socialist leader Moroz and Communist leader Simonenko following. When the second round happened, Yushchenko partisans quickly released exit polls claiming a Yushchenko victory. Throughout the Western media, Yushchenko was declared the victor before the first vote was even counted. The results were slowly released, first from the east and south (as happened on October 31), then in the Yushchenko strongholds. From the first announced set of results, Yushchenko's people cried fraud and reminded everyone of his vow that if he didn't win, he would carry out a coup.

end of text inserted by anon user. --Irpen 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting writing by the same anon:

The revolution, however, only succeeded following a compromise that could yet derail it come March 2006. Socialist Party leader Oleksandr Moroz, who backed Yushchenko in the run-off election, demanded, as a condition for holding a third round of presidential elections, that the constitution be changed to convert Ukraine from a presidential to a parliamentary system. The Communist Party of Petro Simonenko similarly pushed for this constitutional change. Moroz's deputies were absolutely necessary for Yushchenko to get his third round, so the agreement passed. As of 1 January 2006, Yushchenko has lost most of his powers. Viktor Yanukovich's Party of Regions holds a commanding lead in the polls, as Russia has cut off much of the $5 billion per year subsidy it gives Ukraine annually in cheap gas. This revolution may end with Viktor Yanukovich in power as prime minister and Viktor Yushchenko as a figurehead. As a result, Yushchenko wants to hold a referendum on restoring his presidential powers. Much remains to be seen.

--Irpen 05:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What's so interesting, Irpen? A regular pro-Russian propaganda crap, consisting of mere lies mixed with inaccurate and (my English sucks this evening, let me rephrase: ... мішаних з недоведеними/неточними й другорядними за значенням, хоча й логічними, висновками). In terms of Wikipedia: a mixture of false (POV-biased), unreferenced and irrelevant statements.

What do you suggest? Elaborating this stuff to Wiki guidelines is a large and inflammatory work effecting few dozens of UA articles. Adding it as is would be unacceptable. Ukrained 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't suggest anything. The article is not bad at all although incomplete. In my view it is very well balanced. Michael, myself and other spent so much time with nitpicking that I would hate to loose this all to a POV pusher, either a pro- or anti-OR one. I moved this writing to talk rather than deleting it because someone spent a significant effort writing it to be just deleted. It can sit at talk and be later noved to archive rather than being hidden in history where it will never get attention. If the anon who wrote it manages to get something encyclopedic on the basis of this writing, we will discuss this further. Please do not misunderstand me. In no way am I proposing to incorporate this in the text in its current form. You are welcome to study history and see how the article came to its current form. It is potentially another WP:FA but it is very far from it for now. --Irpen 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Banana revolution?

This the name that polititians started to give to these revolutions. No mention in this article.--tequendamia 13:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Absurd Propaganda

The official count differed markedly from the exit poll results that gave Yushchenko up to an 11% lead, while official results gave the election win to Yanukovych by 3%. While Yanukovych supporters have claimed that Yushchenko's connections to the Ukrainian media explain this disparity, the Yushchenko team publicized evidence of many incidents of electoral fraud in favor of the government-backed Yanukovych, witnessed by many local and foreign observers.

Hasn't any one been smart enough to figure out that these exit polls were distorted by the partisan western imperialist institutes that operated them? Those that operated the exit polls were subversive outlets including the CIA's Freedom House.

Freedom House and the Democratic party's NDI helped fund and organise the "largest civil regional election monitoring effort" in Ukraine, involving more than 1,000 trained observers. They also organised exit polls. On Sunday night those polls gave Mr Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for much of what has followed.

The exit polls are seen as critical because they seize the initiative in the propaganda battle with the regime, invariably appearing first, receiving wide media coverage and putting the onus on the authorities to respond.

Perhaps more to the point, Tatiana Silina of Zerkalo Nerdeli has reported in substantive detail on the various exit poll methods employed. She writes:

"In fact, there were at least three exit polls. The “National Exit Poll” had been prepared for about twelve months and covered widely enough. The NEP project, initiated and authored by the Democratic Initiatives foundation, was financially supported by eight foreign embassies and four international funds.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1360236,00.html

Other exit polls showed a more realistic picture:

Exit polls conducted through face-to-face interviews showed incumbent Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich garnering 42.67 percent, and opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko winning 38.28 percent, whereas anonymous polls (respondents fill out forms anonymously) showed contrary results, namely Yushchenko receiving 44.4 percent and Yanukovich getting 38 percent. The polls were conducted at 8 p.m. Moscow time, one hour prior to the closing of polling stations. Some 50,000 respondents took part in the polls."

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=46162

Jacob Peters, please sign in, how many times I was asking you to do so. Now, instead of citing out of context pieces from the Zerkalo Nedeli, care to read the whole article, whose full English version is available online. --Irpen 06:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The portion about exit polls giving Yushchenko an 11% lead were dishonest and devoid of credibility in that they were conducted by "National Democratic Institute" and Freedom House which is led by a former CIA chairman. Other non-partisan exit polls showed a close race with varying 4 point lead by both Yushchenko and Yanukovich. As the recent Ukrainian elections have shown, Prime Minister Yanukovich was indeed the favoured candidate. It was Yushchenko who with illegal aid from overseas institutes stole an election. The exact same scenario in this "Orange Revolution" was carried out in Yugoslavia and Georgia in which inflated exit polls were used as an excuse to pull off a coup. It has been extensively documented the intrusive conduct of western institutes in these elections. Officials of western operated NGOs speak frankly for themselves.

Jacob Peters

Your entry shows you know quite little of Ukrainian politics. By the parliamentary election, the "Orange vote" was split between three parties and they combined actually widen the "orange" lead over the total of the "blue" vote collected by the PR+Communists. Second point is that the revote of the compromised runoff (won by Yuschenko with an 8% margin) was ran under the intence scrutiny, both international and from within Ukraine. Not a single observer from the PR party was excluded from the a single voting station both during the vote and during the post-vote counting. Next, the machinations with the illegal parallel server were obvious as well. The votes simply did not add up. Next, in certain regions 30% or so voted by an absentee ballot, an easy way of the vote fraud. There are countless more examples which you won't here because you seem to have come to the article with the political agenda. However, your cherry-picked quotes are from an article in indeed highly respected Ukrainian newspaper. I simply suggested you to read all of it. --Irpen 07:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your claim about the "Orange vote" is a distortion of reality. If that were the case, Yanukovich would not be prime minister. You attempt to distort the situation by combining the share of two political parties against Yankukovich's party which earned a clear plurality. Plus, the Socialists are not part of the Orange group. They have formed a coalition with Yanukovich. The runoff vote was far from fair given how NGOs operated by western funds clearly undermined the input of the Ukrainian people.

The second round of the election was fair. So says the BHHRG, one of the few NGOs in the West that isn’t a handmaiden of the Empire.

http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?CountryID=22&ReportID=230

Contrary to the condemnations issued by the team of professional politicians and diplomats deployed by the OSCE mainly from NATO and EU states, the BHHRG observers did not see evidence of government-organized fraud nor of suppression of opposition media. Improbably high votes for Prime Minister, Viktor Yanukovich, have been reported from south-eastern Ukraine but less attention has been given to the 90% pro-Yushchenko results declared in western Ukraine.

Although Western media widely claimed that in Ukraine the opposition was, in effect, excluded from the broadcast media, particularly in western Ukraine the opposite was the case. On the eve of the poll – in flagrant violation of the law banning propaganda for candidates – a series of so-called “social information” advertisements showing well-known pop stars like Eurovision winner Ruslana wearing the orange symbols of Mr Yushchenko’s candidacy and urging people to vote appeared on state television!

Although BHHRG did not encounter blatant violations in either the first or second rounds, the Group’s observers were alarmed by a palpable change in the atmosphere inside the polling stations in central Ukraine in particular. In Round 1, a relaxed and orderly mood prevailed throughout the day. In Round 2 the situation had become slightly tense and chaotic. In BHHRG’s observation the change in Round 2 was attributable primarily to an overabundance of local observers, who exercised undue influence over the process and in some instances were an intimidating factor. The vast majority of observers in the polling stations visited were representatives of Viktor Yushchenko.

Whatever may have been the case in south-eastern Ukraine, it was clear to this Group’s observers in central Ukraine and western Ukraine that the opposition exercised near complete control. The broadcast media showed bias towards Mr. Yushchenko in these areas, particularly in western Ukraine where Mr Yanukovich was invisible – not even being shown voting on polling day. It is naïve to think only the government had the facilities to exercise improper influence over the polls. From what BHHRG observed, the opposition exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process in many places, giving rise to concerns that the opposition – not only the authorities – may have committed violations and may have even falsified the vote in opposition-controlled areas. So-called “administrative resources” in places visited by BHHRG appeared to be in the hands of the opposition, not the government, and this may have frightened voters. After all since Sunday, police and security personnel in some western towns have declared their loyalty to “president” Yushchenko.

The open bias of Western governments and their nominated observers in the OSCE delegation, some of whom have appeared on opposition platforms, makes it unreasonable to rely on its report.

In spite of concerns, BHHRG finds no reason to believe that the final result of the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine was not generally representative of genuine popular will. The election featured a genuine choice of candidates, active pre-election campaigns, and high voter participation. It is clear that Ukrainian opinion was highly polarized. That meant many people backing a losing candidate would find it difficult to accept a defeat. Foreigners should not encourage civil conflict because the candidate on whom they have lavished expensive support turned out to be a loser.

Jacob Peters

Allegations and Democratic

True, at the time, the claims were not proven and were considered allegations, however since the Supreme Court decision in late '04 and certainly by now, we know full well that those claims were not pure allegations, but had factual basis to it. To write that "protesters acted on [information or allegations] of corruption, fraud, etc." is to imply that these did not occur. I also do not agree with you that describing the Orange revolution movement as "democratic" is pov. To the contrary, omitting such a description is a point of view. --Riurik ^(discuss) 01:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree that 1) corruption, fraud, etc. were not just allegations but real; 2) that the OR was a movement towards the democracy. Now, to the changes.

In no way I meant to imply that the fraud did not occur. I think we may simply rephrase the sentence. The article says "protests in response to...". What prompted the demotsrators were allegations' being convinsing enough and they protested. But they were of course protesting the corruption and fraud itself, not the "allegations of corrupiton". As such, we could change:

"The OR was a series of protests and political events that took place throughout the country in response to massive corruption, voter intimidation and direct electoral fraud during the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election."

by

"The OR was a series of protests and political events that took place throughout the country following the second round of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election being significantly compromised by massive corruption, voter intimidation and direct electoral fraud."

As for using "democratic", I do think it is a POV while it is largely correct but not entirely so. The truth is that this is too much of a generalization. Some of the democratic political forces that supported the OR did not do that under the Orange colors, (the Socialist party being the notable example, Moroz did not wear the Orange ribbon despite throwing his support behind the movement). Also, part of the political forces that supported the OR, however small (and this may be a subject of a separate discussion), were not democratic at all, such as ultra-right and ultra-nationalist UNA - UNSO. I agree that UNA-UNSO is a relatively fringe movement, that the mainstream of the OR force were democratic but it is clear from the article anyway, since we make it clear that the reason that prompted the protests was electoral fraud. The article says so very conspicuously and I do not see the need for avoidable generalizations. --Irpen 05:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "...during the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election (allegations which were later largely substantiated)." Or "...in response to allegations—later largely substantiated—of massive corruption, ..."

Reasoning explained in the answer below. --Riurik ^(discuss) 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And why not write "mainly democratic"? Or add something like "Although mainly associated with Yushchenko's democratic party, the movement had the support of a wide-ranging coalition of parties, from socialist through to strongly right-wing," or "from the socialists through to the small, ultra-nationalist UNA - UNSO party." —Michael Z. 2006-11-07 13:27 Z

---

Without being unduly stubborn, I cannot in good faith agree to such a rephrasing which places doubt as to what the Orange movement protested or whether the protest was a legitimate exercise of a people's discontent against grave irregularities of an election process. Certainly, writing on this subject in late '04 or early '05, the word allegations would have been more appropriate given the proximity to the historic events, however today we know (through historians and other researchers) that the demonstrations were in protest of corruption, fraud and other violations.

As for the adjective democratic as used to describe the Orange Revolution movement, I think it falls well within the norms of a neutral point of view. As you mention, "it is 'largely' correct". The objection is sustained by an incredible standard: it is not entirely so. If this standard were applied to other articles, writing would be pointless. For example, under the "not entirely so" standard, one could argue that the Russian Revolution of 1917 should not be described as communist because it was not entirely communist since other non-communist groups were involved in the revolution as well. By the same logic, "mainly communist" would be just as absurd as "mainly democratic".

I do appreciate the civility of your approach, which is much better than what we have to deal with on a regular basis (anom vandalism, etc). --Riurik ^(discuss) 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Riurik, resiprocity here goes without saying. Now, this article has not undergone any major edits that I can remember for about a year and a half when Michael and myself brought it to what survived the test of time almost unchanged. I have just finally given it some further developments and since much of the first parts are moved around and rewritten, I think the dispute now might be moot anyway. I have no time, to respond to Jacob Peters' latest entry above. Sorry, later. --Irpen 06:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You both have good points. I don't think the word allegations casts doubt on the idea, it merely makes the point that not all of the facts were known at the time. In any case that situation is a bit too complex to encompass in a word or two, but the intro should summarize it somehow. On the other hand, I don't really have a problem in leaving out the word, but there doesn't seem to be a real disagreement about the facts here, so I'd like to find a phrasing acceptable to everyone.

How do we express that all of the charges were not catalogued and proven, but there was a lot of real evidence available to the public? —Michael Z. 2006-11-08 07:12 Z

Michael, could you please check my today's edit, copyedit it and propose your change to the phrasing as you see best? We could go from there then. --Irpen 07:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Orange Revolution - democratic?

Irpen, that the Orange Revolution was democratic and peaceful is a historical fact. It is only proper to describe it in such a manner. You think that democratic and peaceful are epithets, when they are mere adjectives used to describe a legit event.

1. Was it not peaceful? (as considered by mainstream scholars)
2. Was it not democratic? (as considered by mainstream scholars)

The answer is yes to both, am I wrong? If not, why do you object? --Riurik ^(discuss) 22:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding peaceful, I agree. Because the victory was achieved without the armed uprising and/or violence, it was a peaceful revolution. I slightly moved the word, please check.

Regarding "democratic", I think it is excessive. Democracy is much wider concept than fair elections. The protesters were united over one single issue, rejection of the electoral fraud. The article should clearly concentrate on this issue: the election was rigged and people refused to accept it. These are facts, and I suggest to stick to them. --Irpen 23:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should stick to the facts. Without getting into the definition of democracy, democratic as an adjective is not excessive when it describes a peaceful movement of people, against a corrupt and rather authoritarian (at least on some levels) administration during Leonid Kuchma's presidency. Another indication by which a revolution/movement may be deemed democratic or not is whether the people brought to power by the revolution behaves in a democratic manner or not (such as respecting freedom of the press, freedom of association, etc). Perhaps the key test of whether Yushchenko's administration can be deemed democratic or not is the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2006 which were "free and fair," and - after months of negotiations - brought back to power Viktor Yanukovych.--Riurik ^(discuss) 03:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yushchenko's administration being more democratic than that of his predecessor does not make the OR "democratic". OR did not bring Yushchenko to power. The election did. What OR did was overturn of the rigged election rather than brought someone to power. OR was not for most people who took part in it a movement aimed at installing democratic Yushchenko over non-democratic Yanukovych. OR's single purpose was rejection of rigged election. Of course quite a few adamant supporters of Yushchenko took part in demontsrations but many who demonstrated would not have done so moved had Yanukovych's victory been a real and a fair one even though Kiev overwhelmingly voted for Yushchenko. I do not like unnecessary adjectives in the articles and prefer to stick to facts and not make judgements. OR was a movement aimed to reject a rigged election. Let's just say so and leave it to the reader to judge the rest. --Irpen 05:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

The Orange Revolution was a response to an authoritarian administration under Kuchma. In its nature, OR was democratic because through it citizens uprooted the old authoritarian order ushering freedoms characteristic of democracies. Historians (Aslund, McFaul), commentators [1], [2] and scholars [3] have called the Orange Revolution democratic. It is not as you say an unnecessary adjective, nor is it making a judgment. By calling OR democratic, we are sticking to the facts.--Riurik ^(discuss) 07:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The OR was a response to a stolen election, no more no less. UBK was a response to authoritarian regime. Commentators present their opinions. They are allowed to do it. Encyclopedias should not. --Irpen 07:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, encyclopedias should not present opinions, only factual information. I think most scholars agree that just as the UBK was a response to an authoritarian administration, so was the OR - a people based opposition movement to Kuchma's authoritarian regime. That it is proper to describe this movement as democratic is not widely contested, if at all.--Riurik ^(discuss) 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. UBK and OR was two totally different events in many respects, their scale first of all. Number of people willing to take it to the streets to protest Kuchma in general defined the scale of UBK. A number of people who were willing to take it to the streets to protest a stolen election defined a (much greater) scale of OR. Slealing elections is bad and protesting that is good. This is all we need to bring to a reader. Let the reader make up his mind what epithet to attach to it on his own. Experts' writing about facts and even making connection between different facts is one thing but their personal opinion on what epithets apply should be separated from that. --Irpen 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I suspect that UBK and OR are much more similar than just size differences as you claim. Nevertheless, we are discussing the appropriateness of the adjective democratic to be used when describing the Orange Revolution. In your opinion, democratic is an epithet and does not belong in the description of the OR. I disagree; democratic,in this case does not apply as an epithet, rather it is an adjective that directly describes the nature of the peaceful revolution of the Ukrainian people.

One way to look at the issue:

• a stove is described as "hot" when it leads to water that is transformed from a cold state to boiling;
• similarly, a revolution is "democratic" when it is a people based peaceful movement that leads to "democratic" conditions in the country following its conclusion. It is disputed that the Ukraine after the Orange Revolution is much more democratic than the Ukraine before it. Hence, democratic is a proper word for an encyclopedia to describe the subject at hand.--Riurik ^(discuss) 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said that size is the only difference between the OR and the UBK. I do not argue that the OR was not democratic. I do not even mind the text of the article saying so in general. I am just not comfortable with the way this is done now because it is in the lead section, moreover at its very top, the word in the current phrasing looks artificially added creating an overall impression of the article's opinionizing by mixing the opinions with hard fatcs on the very top. I did not yet have time to come up with an alternative but neither I like the way it is put now. Fine, I don't want to argue on this any more. I will not delete the word but will try to come up with a better solution in further edits I don't know when. I can see that this arguing is not leading us anywhere. --Irpen 03:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The Orange Revolution was clearly a protest against an anti-democratic act, and its result was a triumph for democracy in Ukraine. But perhaps just slapping a slightly vague label on a diverse movement isn't encyclopedic. What if the statement was made more specific, instead of just saying "democratic revolution" (I write these as general examples, without regard to the specific sentence):

• revolution which succeeded in guaranteeing a democratic election
• revolution which resulted in a democratic vote
• revolution which ended in a fair election and an optimistic future for democracy in Ukraine
• revolution against anti-democratic corruption

These link the more concrete results related to democracy. —Michael Z. 2006-11-17 20:50 Z

I would support something along these lines but such phrase won't fit into the very first paragraph. Could you implement one of your ideas in the article's text? I am not trying to say that the OR was undemocratic. All I am saying is that I am uncomfortable with the way this is done now because it is in the lead section, moreover at its very top, the word in the current phrasing looks artificially added creating an overall impression of the article's opinionizing by mixing the opinions with hard facts from the very beginning of the article. --Irpen 20:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is democratic artificial when it comes to the Orange Revolution? I do not hold this position just because it sounds pretty. Democratic is an accurate descriptive word for the "...series of protests and political events" under discussion.

Revolutions are accompanied with all kinds of adjectives: orange, red, velvet, socialist, communist, peaceful, and democratic. To aver that the Orange Revolution was democratic is not to affix to it an artificial label that misleads or spins, rather it is to state accurately what type of revolution took place in Ukraine in late 2004.

And yes, I also support the above suggestions as additions that can be incorporated within the general text. --Riurik ^(discuss) 06:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)