Talk:Orange Revolution

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeOrange Revolution was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 8, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
May 9, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 22, 2007, November 22, 2008, November 22, 2009, and November 22, 2010.
Current status: Former good article nominee

It was not orange revolution[edit]

It was not orange revolution. Nothing was orange in it except political manipulation, speculation and orange symbols. Manipulated people speculating allegedly "Square", "Freedom," "democracy".

Not long time after this 'revolution' I came to a driving school, paid the money for training was to attend driving courses and lessons in the classroom. Closer to the exams the teacher said: 'you wanted revolution? Now things changed and no more bribes on written exam and road test', he said that because before orange revolution if you won't pay a bribe - you won't pass the road test. We couldn't believe! We wanted revolution in 2004 because we wanted to be in EU but we haven't heard any criticism about life in EU. We were young and naive, unexperienced poor people full of false hopes and expectations. We wanted changes in our country but we didn't wanna work, we expected that Europeans would come to us and do the job instead of us! That was so wrong! And two weeks later during one of road test courses, driving instructor asked: "How planing to pass the road test?". I said that I don't know yet how and that passing for me from the first attempt is preferable. So he said: "In this case, you have to pay a bribe" I asked him how much he named the sum of 300 USD.

Orange revolution... You don't wanna go back to square in this case. And I wanted starve in protest, even on my own without social support, because I really wanted changes for better life. And I looked at those other 30 people in our class of that Driving School and I realized that no one cared, everyone cared about short term achievement for themselves. I thought at that time that it was better to be red (comunist) rather than orange. Even those promises were not substantial. People do not want to either NATO or the European Union. Whatever people wants, they don't know yet that they won't desire it once that dream comes true. They need real freedom in all meaning of this word, freedom from everything including their desires.

NPOV[edit]

The whole article is tilted in favor of the 'Orange' side but there's an especially clear example here:

"Other allegations, still disputed and unproven, include Russian involvement in Yushchenko's poisoning several weeks before the election, as well as the alleged presence of Russian security forces[9] sent to help Yanukovych to ascend to the presidency."

'disputed and unproven' implies that the balance of probability is that they are correct. I do not believe that is the case. PeterSP 06:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't tag the whole article over such minor point. But I don't get your point either. How would you like to rephrase this? --Irpen 06:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I also do not believe in these particular allegations and it was me who wrote this phrase. Perhaps "anecdotal" would be a more precise term, would not it? --Irpen 06:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase his accurate since international consensus seems to be that 'the balance of probability is that' the allegations are correct. Let's keep the phrasing.Malick78 09:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In either case someone edited that sentence, but didn't cut out the whole thing, so that all that was left was "Other allegations, still disputed and unproven." This isn't a sentence, and doesn't make any sense on its own, so I've deleted it for now. That said, from what I've seen there is enough international suspicion along these lines to include it in the article, if someone can find a legitimate source citing these suspicions. Also, the suspected involvement in the poisoning is hinted at earlier in the article, so this discussion should include that, as well.98.169.119.102 (talk) 12:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article to get some basic information on the Orange Revolution. It struck me that the style was very different from WP:NPOV. It looks like the kind of writing I've seen from journalists in former Soviet countries. They assume everybody is on the same side, they give a lot of analysis rather than facts (to let you know what the correct position is), everything is within a range of acceptable discourse (the Overton window), they report on petty disputes and details rather than the big picture, and they ignore contrary opinions.
It's as if a Soviet-bloc journalist went to work for the US State Department, and they told him, "Do it exactly like you did it in the Soviet Union, except now the US is the good guys."
I was curious about the US involvement in the Orange Revolution, which I finally found here. US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev This author seems to think that it's commendable for the US State Department to help a pro-democracy movement beat their opposition with funding and technical assistance. (The opposition might object to a foreign country interfering with their elections.) There was some discussion of this in the US press at the time. This Wikipedia article doesn't discuss it at all.
This is important now (December 2021) for understanding US-Russian relationships. When I read the Guardian article, I thought, Now I understand why Putin is always complaining about US interference with Russian affairs."
How should this article be improved? An editor once threw an article back to me and said, "Tear it up and start all over." I don't think that would be popular here. Failing that, I think an NPOV flag is appropriate, but we're not going to get it. --Nbauman (talk) 18:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


TrumanLA (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC) I apologize for my edit's improper signature (the instructions aren't great). I'm in COMPLETE AGREEMENT with user: Nbauman. I'm a patriotic former US Marine who reveres intellectual honesty.[reply]

Sadly, Wikipedia's become progressively spurious since 2010, but this is even bad for them.

Reference [8] is the SOLE "PROOF" of ELECTION FRAUD of a NATION-STATE..? That's it? One reference? I'm sorry, but not even if every magazine tried to corroborate it – would magazine articles constitute SUFFICIENT PROOF. Again, you can't base the tenor of the entire article off the illegitimacy of the election "Bc TIME MAGAZINE said so."

NO MAGAZINE EVER had that much credibility. But particularly within the last 20 years as the line between propaganda and journalism becomes increasingly blurred. Where's the proof? Why isn't the proof PUBLICLY AVAILABLE? (How disgraceful).

There was far more evidence of the Democrats cheating in 2020; - litigating to change the rules? - disallowing meaningful observation "because of covid" to keep only conservatives from standing near them?? - refusing to perform signature matches? - hundreds of affidavits by observers subjected to extraordinary treatment IN THE EXACT AREAS vote-patterns "changed" ..? - Voting patterns changed only after midnight when bipartisan-observers were told that tallying was over & "to go home" ? - Massively disproportionate batches: 1000-to-0. To ZERO? BS.

This was a runoff bc they TIED. First question I'd ask? "If it was so massive as to be overt voter fraud, why so CLOSE?"

GA on hold[edit]

This article looks good, but it needs a heckuvalot more citations all over the article (except the last bit of "Political Developments," this looks good) in order to qualify for GA rank. This will stay in place for a maximum of 7 days. Thank you. Diez2 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed allegations of vote fraud[edit]

The British Helsinki Human Rights Group has exposed these charges to be unsubstantiated. This article is immensely biased in favor of Yushchenko and the western media that fabricated the "orange revolution". http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?CountryID=22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.105.99.126 (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

user:Jacob Peters, fist of all, you are banned from editing. If you are interested to contribute, appeal your ban to ArbCom and give them a word to not create sockpuppets anymore. We'll see what they rule, but now you are deservingly banned. Nevertheless, I am trying to accommodate whatever reasonable I can find in your edits. To start with, I could not find anything that confirms the reliability of www.bhhrg.org. Sorry, this is unusable. The WP ref you added is somewhat worthwile, but you deliberately gave a vague ref. I strongly suspect that the reason was that you knew that it does not say what you claim it does. Anyway, here is the ref from WP on that day that you refused to give in full:

I am posting it here and we can include what it says into the article but not your nonsense assertion. --Irpen 02:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, please refrain from slandering people. You falsely accused me of being another person and of being banned. Second, it is not your decision to make what is and is not a reliable source. The British Helsinki Human Rights Group had observers in the election and are well qualified to form an opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.99.126 (talk • contribs)

Whatever. If you didn't quack so loudly, Jacob, you might take more people in. You are not wanted on the English Wikipedia. Please take your disruptive activities elsewhere. Moreschi Talk 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I am ready to consider using bhhrg provided I get any references that assert its reliability. Its own claims of being reliable are not enough. The WP article is indeed usable and I will add the info from it. --Irpen 21:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA[edit]

Even though there have been some improvements in the number of sources and citations in the article, many claims go widely unsourced, and there still is one section in the article without a source. I do thank Irpen for trying to improve this. Come back in a little while with a few more citations and try again. Thank you! Diez2 15:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Diez2. I am aware of the article's deficiencies of which lack of inline refs in the primary one. The only label that IMO is worth the bother is an FA one and this article is very far from it. Referencing and expanding it will continue slowly and I agree that as of now it is unfit for GA. Thanks for your feedback anyway. --Irpen 19:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Reaction[edit]

Is it worth putting in something about this? Russia cutting off gas supplies...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Malick78 (talk • contribs)

Maybe a quick mention, but I would not expand it under this entry. Russia-Ukraine gas dispute material however can be used for Ukraine-Russia foreign relations article.--Riurik(discuss) 22:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Putin[edit]

Can anyone please explain how is this image related? First of all it has no source it was done by Ukrainian artists nor whether it published during the time of the Orange revolution. Even if both of those events are proven, how is Putin dressed in Stalin's attire related to the events in Ukraine in 2004? There is nothing wrong with a carricature, but select a relevant one [1], not some abstract image. --Kuban Cossack 18:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between Putin and Orange Revolution is straightforward in that Volodia twice got involved visiting Ukraine while campaigning for Yanyk and then recognized the fraudulent elections. But I agree that the image has no source of its origin and is problematic in other ways.--Riurik(discuss) 21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic-nationalist aspects[edit]

I always got the impression that there was a supremacist undertone to a lot of "Orange Revolution" proclamations, especially when Yushchenko never missed an opportunity to say something like "all real Ukranians support us", and in the context of suppression of Russian-language education, etc. I just now found an academic study saying, "The parties that orchestrated the Orange Revolution had several objectives that had some ethnic and/or nationalistic content and were generally considered to be ethnicity-wise pro-Ukrainian," and which found that "ethnic Russians were less likely to vote pro-Orange than ethnic Ukrainians just prior to the Orange Revolution and this is independent of their preferences for a western type market economy and a western type democracy." [ftp.iza.org/dp2530.pdf]

Would someone with more expertise on the issue care to include this aspect of matters, or to collaborate with me on it? Eleland 15:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding GA[edit]

Do you guys think we should try for the GA status again? — Alex 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed?[edit]

I hate to put in 'citation needed' tags, but I really think that this statement could use one:

"Under intense scrutiny by domestic and international observers, the second run-off was declared to be "fair and free""

The best I've managed to find is a Washington Post article but it doesn't mention anything about "intense scrutiny by domestic and international observers": —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illu45 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


________________________________ Sorry people , i dont really know how can i send you an information, thats why i decided to edit enything to give this information to you. If you wanna write about Orange Revolution , i think you dont have to write ONLY about Ukraine , you should write about other Orange Revolutions around the world. Ive got some infromation about Orange Revolution in Azerbaijan. Please add about 3-4 Linces if you can. Thank you !!!! this is the website for information " http://www.orangerevolution.us/blog/_archives/2005/4/14/581982.html

_________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Undomix (talk • contribs) 21:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link led only to a junk advert page. I think you may be referring to the other "color" revolutions, but the term "orange revolution" generally refers to the Ukrainian one, and as such this is what the article should be about. There are already mentions of the similarities to events in Yugoslavia and Georgia - what else do you want? 98.169.119.102 (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement of outside forces[edit]

The last section, on Russian influence is almost completely uncited and contains rather a lot of claims which certainly need to be cited. I will have a closer look when I have time. As I cite I have removed the following weasel words:

Most observers agree that the campaign received significant contribution from Russian state-controlled businesses.

Thehalfone (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biger Yanukovych Picture[edit]

I never thought that I would be asking this but has anyone got a bigger picture of Yanukovych at the time of the Orange Revolution (free of rights etc.) The image I replaced the deleted image with could be deleted soon by those copyrights hunters on wikipedia... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have this huge election poster from Vinnytsia [2]. It surely was strange to see all those huge Yanukovych posters put up by local authorities all around Vinnytsia saying that Vinnytsia supports Yanukovych although everyone knew that the support for him was minimal in that region. Närking (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, maybe his pet cat is called Vinnytsia? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture doesn't fit in well, we'll keep it in reserve. Seems like there is going to be a Lytvyn Bloc + BYuT + OU-PSD goverment by the way. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we will see how long time that will work. And yes, the picture would be better at Ukrainian presidential election, 2004.
If you don't succeed, try again :) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

Should there be a "Legacy" section in this article? It is claimed that the elections in Ukraine where are democratic because of the Orange Revolution. Also something about the celebrations could be written there. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if these events should be mentioned in the article....

End of the revolution?[edit]

If an editor would wrote:”…according to the der Spiegel this election marked the end of the Orange revolution…” that would make sense. See Wikipedia:No original research. 1 editor saying, "Yo, it's over" looks Point of view pushing. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 08:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it called the Orange revolution?[edit]

Could somebody add in a word as to why this was called the "Orange" revolution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.217.241 (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m wondering too.
It was the colour adopted by Yushchenko (the Ukrainian) who had the (revised-election) win over Yanukovich (the Russian). I couldn’t find a reason… but this [3] says being red was no longer popular.
This [4] says red (Republicans) and blue (Democrats) for the USA weren’t fixed until 2000, and rare before 1992. Also Red states and blue states.
Probably strongly influenced by the Velvet Revolution (the name).
MBG02 (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Orange Revolution. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background speculations section is biased[edit]

Background speculations are biased about external involvement of US & EU assistance without comparable discussions of Russian interventions. Reference [49] is an unattributed pdf flysheet. 174.45.228.145 (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing.[edit]

Why no mention of the sign-language interpreter, Nataliya Dmytruk?

I was under the impression that her act of defiance was one of the catalysts that sparked the Orange Revolution.

[Dmytruk] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.156.154 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on CIA involvement[edit]

"was a series of protests and political events, engineered and controlled by Mossad and CIA"

Is stated in the first sentence, no sources provided, CIA is mentioned once more and the Mossad not at all.

And when the CIA is mentioned it's as a conspiracy theory by Russian Nationalists: "In Russian nationalist circles the Orange Revolution has been linked with fascism because, albeit marginal, Ukrainian nationalist extreme right-wing groups and Ukrainian Americans (including Viktor Yushchenko's wife, Kateryna Yushchenko, who was born in the United States) were involved in the demonstrations; Russian nationalist groups see both as branches of the same tree of fascism. The involvement of Ukrainian Americans lead them to believe the Orange Revolution was steered by the CIA."

If there are no sources for CIA/Mossad involvement this should be cut from the first paragraph. QykD7Aa8 (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Ukraine, a loaded term?[edit]

Since people do not tend to talk about an 'Independent' France, Germany or USA, why are is this word being used in relation to the Ukraine? If the article is to be considered natural, should it not avoid questionable or loaded terms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.2.120 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many times did Putin visit Ukraine in 2004?[edit]

Under the heading "Background: Visits of Vladimir Putin to Ukraine in 2004", it states "In 2004 the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin has made a record of 8 visits to Ukraine." No source is provided for this assertion, but a link is provided under the heading to the article "List of international presidential trips made by Vladimir Putin". A look at that page shows 5 visits Putin made to Ukraine in 2004. So it appears that either that list is incomplete or the assertion that he visited 8 times is in error, or some combination thereof. Can anyone help resolve this? Bricology (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orange_Revolution&oldid=1219525906"