Talk:2004 Ukrainian presidential election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Ukraine B‑class High‑importance

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Commonwealth of Independent States#Controversial election observation mission|CIS election observers]] The anchor (#Controversial election observation mission) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Related pages[edit]

(Call me an embittered POV anti-US conspiracy theorist, if you like, but) this article seems distinctly POV (pro-OSCE) to me. I do hope people aren't losing interest in this as it fades into the past: this is about democracy; this is important. I think we ought at the very least to have a link to <http://www.bhhrg.org/CountryReport.asp?CountryID=22&ReportID=241\>. What do people think about its contents?

There is a factual error in the first paragraph of that "report" (Yanukovych did not win the first round of voting). There are other "liberties" taken with facts to support BHHRG's POV. This is to say nothing of the group's dubious credentials and well-publicized anti-Western politics. I see no reason to open up a giant can of worms by adding BHHRG's obviously slanted POV to this page. --Horbal

New developments should also be posted in the appropriate section at Current events. —Michael Z. 06:38, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Related pages, which may need updating as events develop:

Election Problems[edit]

There are several articles online dealing with election inconsistencies, and the monitors from the OSCE and CIS countries. I may have time to get to this later, but if anyone would like to take a crack at starting an election corruption section that would be groovy. --thames 17:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's a solid thread here tracing to a whole new wp article to outside involvement in general by foreign states in democratic elections.

There's enough leads here to go digging:

<http://talk.workunlimited.co.uk/ukraine/story/0,15569,1360236,00.html\>

and don't forget the big campaign by UK newspapers for UK citizens to write to US citizens and explain to them how they should vote.

There's real scope for a lot of digging about the corruption of the democratic process by foreign governments, as opposed to foreign citizens too. I hope that something on wiki comes up to point out that the Ukraine thing, even if it is wildly popular, isn't 100% grass roots.

anonymous, 8-12-04

Preliminary Results[edit]

Yushchenko's got an almost 20 point lead!

Centrum im. Razumkowa + Kiev International Institure of Sociology(KMIS), 77% of exit polls: Yushchenko 54%, Yanukowych 43% (previous prediction: 58:39).

Socjalny Monitoring Yushchenko has 3,5% lead (49,4:45,9).

Yanukovich HQs: Yanukowych wins 48,2 to 46,8%

Central Elections Commission: turnover: 76,63 % (slighly higherthan 3 weeks ago: 74,95)

10,000 of Yushchenko supporters[edit]

Over 10 thousands of supporters of Victor Youshchenko, the oposition presidential candidate, gather on the Independence Square in central Kiev. http://webcam.inter.ua/ru/640x480.html

I don't see anyone.

By this time over 50 thousand people have gathered in the Independence Square. --Steschke 12:22, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Ya, I see them standding shoulder to shoulder at this time. Not too often you get to see a revolution in action.--Lucky13pjn 19:17, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, only about once a year. Last time it was the Rose Revolution in Georgia. --Kpalion 01:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hasn't the fact that their names are so similar caused any confusion at the polls?

To you them may seem similar but in Ukrainian the names start with different letters, so it's not that difficult to distunguish them.

Yushchenko = Ющенко

Yanukovych = Янукович

--Berkut 03:53, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, but they're both Viktors. And what's more, none of them is really a victor... --Kpalion 03:53, 26 Nov 2004

Political analysis[edit]

This Financial Times article talks about the ongoing power struggle: Yushchenko probes Kuchma regime, by Stefan Wagstyl and Tom Warner. It was deemed too POV to be linked from current events, but has some interesting information that I haven't seen elsewhere. Can anyone link to other articles in the same vein (I mean analytical, not POV). —Michael Z.

I should've anticipated a problem when Diebold called the Ukranian election for Bush five minutes before the polls opened. --66.102.74.217 05:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bizarre choice of pic[edit]

Isn't it truly bizarre to have only a picture from a demonstration of Yanukovich's supporters (rather than Yushenko's), when the true newspiece has been the (by all accounts) much more massive demonstrations of Yushenko's supporters, and Yanukovich's more limited demonstrations came only in response to those? Aris Katsaris 19:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Problem corrected. Aris Katsaris 03:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Voter Turnout[edit]

Between the two rounds of the election, dramatic increases in turnout were recorded in Yanukovych-supporting regions, while Yushchenko-supporting regions recorded the same turnout or lower than recorded in the first round. This effect was most marked in eastern Ukraine and especially in Yanukovych's stronghold of Donetsk, where a turnout of 98.5% was claimed—more than 40% up from the first round. In some districts, turnout was claimed to be more than 100%, with one district claiming a 127% turnout.

Can whoever added that cite the source? I think results and numbers should be used from Centreal Election Comission (CEC) website http://www.cvk.gov.ua/wp333pt001f01=501 (Ukr). I know those results are not to be trusted, but they are only and most "official" results availbale.

I've made an image showing voter turnout by region.

File:Ukraine Elections2004 Voter Turnout.png

--Berkut 15:49, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The 98.5% figure comes from the OSCE's official report, which has been covered by a number of media outlets - see http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/AOL/world/national/2004/11/22/ukraine041122.html for instance. The 127% figure apparently comes from the European Network of Election Monitors - see the AP story at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/12/03/013.html and elsewhere. -- ChrisO 17:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your map is great, but I think the key issue here is the increase in turnout in certain regions. From the CBC story I quoted above:

"The OSCE report pointed to Yanukovitch's home region, Donetsk, as a particularly bad example. Donetsk had an improbable 98.5 per cent turnout; 750,000 more people voted this time than voted in the first round three weeks ago; and all 750,000 new voters appear to have voted for Yanukovitch. That was enough to decide the election."

I think there's some confusion concerning the city of Donetsk, and the entire region: Donetsk oblast. I think the 98.5 figure is just for the city, while 96.65 is for the entire Donetsk region (oblast). At first I thought the 98.5 nubmer was for the whole region, since it;s unusual to report just by a city. --Berkut 23:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll revisit the map I did earlier (Image:Ukraine ElectionsMap TurnoutChange.png) to try to bring out a bit more detail. -- ChrisO 17:17, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything more specific than these stories either. But the 127% figure

may refer to a specific raion or poll, rather than to an entire oblast. The quote is always vague. —Michael Z.

This map is misleading as it shows percentages in relation to the regional/Oblast and as such does not accurately reflect the distribution of the vote. Ukraine's Presidential election is a National electorate not regional. The map as presented does not take into account the fact that each region has significantly different number of constituents a ratio of 1 to 8. Ukr-Trident (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is to be published then it should be accompanied by a disclaimer that highlights the distortion in the statistics presented. Unlike the other map there is no relationship shown between oblast/regions even though it gives an impression there is. If is to be published then it should be color graded using a single color and based on the variance of the total national vote not the percentage of each region as shown here in the 2010 Presidential election first round.

Ukr-Trident (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout Increase cont.[edit]

I still think official CEC results should be used for this map, because that is what the Yushchenko/Yanukovych map used. Accoring to CEC the highest turnout increase was in Donetsk oblast with 18.56 percent increase.

I don't think any more detailed map than regions is needed, also the less detailed map is easier to compare to the Orange/Blue map.

--Berkut 01:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Original Research false and misleading information see below. Ukr-Trident (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move of content[edit]

Much of the content of this page was moved to a different page (Post-election developments in Ukraine, 2004) -- but I really think that most of it would be better off if it had been taken to Orange Revolution instead.

I also think that really more than a sentence is required in this article than simply "On December 3 the Supreme Court declared the results of the runoff election to be invalid". This is short as too be ludicrous.

How about something like the following structure:

Candidates
Preliminary vote
Runoff
International influence and reaction
Orange Revolution
- This would be about three-four paragraphs, linking to the main "Orange Revolution" article, and describing (in brief!) the twelve-day or so period from the elections to the Supreme Court Decision.
Later Developments
- After the Supreme Court decision the main part of the "Orange Revolution" is complete as it succeeded its reason. This would now about be the events following all the way up to the election.
Repeat Elections.

What do you think about such a structure? Aris Katsaris 02:14, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Three articles about roughly the same set of events is too much. If you ask me, the page Post-election developments in Ukraine, 2004 is superfluous. Let's move it all to Orange Revolution! Cheers, IJzeren Jan 06:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC).

I moved the content to Post-election developments in Ukraine, 2004 simply because Ukrainian presidential election, 2004 had become too long for some browsers to handle it. I agree with Aris's idea about structring the "main" election page. But I disagree with merging the timeline with Orange Revolution or anything else (at least as long as the events still unfold). There's nothing wrong about a detailed timeline, and it describes more than the Orange Revolution itself. Mind you, the Orange Revolution means only a "series of nationwide protests, sit-ins, and planned general strikes in Ukraine, organized by supporters of presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko following the disputed results of the presidential election." Post-election developments in Ukraine, 2004 is also about political negotiations, separatism, international reactions, media reactions, legal issues, Ukraine's military presence in Iraq and other things that go beyond the scope of Orange Revolution. --[[User:Kpalion|Kpalion (talk)]] 09:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to move too much to Orange Revolution. Since the outcome of the elections is still uncertain, and Yushchenko is not yet victorious, I think it would be jumping the gun to place all the events under the rubric of the Orange Revolution (and probably violative of NPOV as well). Orange Revolution should simply discuss the one side, some background on their efforts, contributors, motivation, etc etc. Post-election developments is about to be obsolete as well, since there's going to be another election. Post-election developments also goes into a bit too much detail for the needs of wikipedia--if you want that kind of detail, Wikinews is now available--although IMHO it's far from useful. I think post-election developments should be condensed into a summary of the salient events between the first election, and the upcoming second round of elections, and it should all be put under the rubric of the Ukrainian Presidential Election 2004, since this is all one event, more or less. thames 16:52, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You may be right, but let's summarize it only after it's all done in Ukraine. --[[User:Kpalion|Kpalion (talk)]] 17:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ukraine or "the Ukraine"?[edit]

I wonder if the country is best called "the Ukraine" or simply "Ukraine". I've seen both versions used in the past. Rickyrab 01:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Simply "Ukraine". —Michael Z.

Indeed. Articles in English are used for territories, not for independent states. The Ukraine was pretty common before 1991, but since that year, simply Ukraine has become common. If I recall correctly, the Ukrainian government explicitly promoted the usage of the latter. IJzeren Jan 20:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC).

Compare also "the Sudan", "the Lebanon", "the Gambia" etc. In each of these cases the indefinite article is now usually omitted. -- ChrisO 17:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Other 4%[edit]

The final vote in the revote was 52%-44%. I cannot find any report for what happened to the other 4%. Did people spoil their ballots, or vote for unauthorized candidates? --M @r ē ino 20:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ukrainian elections have "against all candidates" choice on the ballot. I suspect most of the other 4% choose that, but I can't find anything in the official results yet. Andris 18:41, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

International objections[edit]

Near the end of the article we have described the objections of the US and EU to the Ukrainian election. As no dates are given, it's hard to tell if these are objections to the first or second runoff election. If they are objections to the first one, could that be clarified? It would also be nice to have some followup responses to their reactions to the second election here. Wesley 17:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Chronological[edit]

This article is written in a wierd, chronological manner. Sometimes past events are referred to as present (eg. "The United States government has also decided not to recognize the election" referring to the 2nd election, despite the fact that a 3rd election has already occurred.)

It is clear that the article was written like this, but someone should go through and update it to make it clear how things ended up happening. I'd do this, but I don't know much about the subject. 68.49.142.108 06:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"no reference" template?[edit]

Maybe we can remove the "noreference" sign already? There's mor then 5 sources linked. Ukrained 10:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! Done and reasons explained in edit summary. --Irpen 16:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Civil Disobedience'[edit]

Quote: "This led to a serious political crisis, widespread acts of civil disobedience, dubbed the "Orange Revolution","

Doesn't this term imply that the protestors we're doing something wrong or acting in a negative way. It just seems like slightly biased wording and should probably be replaced. 84.65.218.55 21:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup you can tell this is Russian Xenophoby at its best.

Table numbers[edit]

Hi. Regarding the table in that article: it is obviously mistaken. If you were really :) reading the article before adding the info, you should have noticed that Viktor Yanukovych (not Yuschenko) was declared the winner of the 2nd vote. That's why we started that revolution :)))). But your table states just opposite, indicating that Yuschenko came first. You (or somebody) must have been misplaced the numbers of two candidates. This mistake is so freaking obvious that you just shouldn't contradict :). So, please, don't take the issue as disputed (cause it's definitely not) and don't start edit war.

I'll check sources and you'd better check them too :). May be we shall solve the problem by adding some notice beneath the table. But please DO NOT remove the template. It, BTW, may be considered propaganda by our Muscovian friends. I mean Yuschenko has never been officially proclaimed winner of the second round of election. If we state that in table - we're kind of "rewriting history". You don't want that, do you? Best wishes, AlexPU 16:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just in case, I'm a professional political analyst (although equipped with poor English) and immediate participant of that election campaign. AlexPU 16:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Electionworld. I checked everything, and here's what I found:

Good news: I was almost wrong because your table doesn't contradict to the rest of article, and the date of the 2nd vote is specified. So take my apologies (just in case). I've already removed the "accuracy" template
But: The table alone was correct but ambiguous (because a "rerun" of a second vote is unprecedented). So I initially took that column for results of the forged Nov 21 vote. And I wasn't alone in this mistake since we in Ukraine usually call that vote "second", and the final vote "third". That's why I changed the table template by adding a small disambiguation notice to the column heading. I hope you're OK with that. And, would you please turn that notice into a in-template footnote? (I'm not really into tables and Wikidesign :()
Bad news: We don't have a link to English text of the official results any more. Looks like they purged that page from the Commission Website during recent parliamentary elections. I added Ukrainian-language texts links:

Oh, and thanks for your input to Ukraine-related articles. Best wishes. AlexPU 17:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No references at all[edit]

This whole article should be removed due to its lack of references, incorrect choice of words and clear bias.

No information on the Supreme Court decision?!?[edit]

The most striking thing about this whole election, to me, is that the initial election was overturned by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, yet there's nothing about this in the article, just a brief note mentioning that it happened. Maybe someone knowledgeable about this affair could add something about how this works in Ukrainian law, what the Supreme Court vote was, what the reasons given by the judges were, whether or not international influence played a role in the judges' decision, etc.

Fair use rationale for Image:Viktor yushchenko.jpg[edit]

Image:Viktor yushchenko.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}[edit]

I just spend more then an hour finding and adding references because a previous editor added ^{[citation needed]}-tags all over the article, although I am aware that wikipedia is a colleberal effort that does not mean that editors should let other editors do there work for them because other editors are to lazy to do there own research! The events of the Ukrainian presidential election, 2004 are well documented and several books (in (in English) are written about it. So it is not that hard to find references, I suggest every user in future tries to find references first before adding ^{[citation needed]}-tags. If you do not have the time, first make time and then add the references yourself before wasting time of and discretioning previous editors (making other editors look that they spread false information is in my view also POV-pushing). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map original research[edit]

I have removed the above map as it is not backed up the published data and the information is misleading. See http://www.cvk.gov.ua/vp2004/wp301-PT001F01=500.htm

eg. Donetsk

1st round 2,878,213 voters representing 86.74% of the region and 10.58% of the total national vote
2nd round 3,711,606 voters representing 96.20% of the region and 12.36% of the total national vote
3rd round 3,143,730 voters representing 93.54% of the region and 10.97% of the total national vote

Voter turn out in comparison to registered list http://www.cvk.gov.ua/vp2004/wp301-PT001F01=500.htm

Donetsk 3,771,767 registered constituents 37,613,022 Total National list

1st round 2,878,213 voters representing 76.31% of the region and 7.65% of the total national list
2nd round 3,711,606 voters representing 98.40% of the region and 9.87% of the total national list
3rd round 3,143,730 voters representing 83.35% of the region and 8.36% of the total national list

Other regions of note include Crimea. Luhanst, Sevestopol

The data presented is misleading as it is incorrect and is without a clear explanation as to the basis of the calculations used and the dates that it applies to. Donetsk is most certainly is not 17% Ukr-Trident (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Observers[edit]

The article says that the first election was widely criticised as rigged by "international observers" but then only cites two American sources, one of which is a think-tank based in Washington D.C. I hardly think that they qualify as reliable independent sources.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ukrainian presidential election, 2004. 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) 10:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maps removed - maps needed[edit]

I have removed the weird maps some user had sprinkled the article with; the same maps appeared no less than five times. Worse, the articles were downright misleading. Instead of showing the strength of support for each candidate by region, as any reader would expect, they showed what proportion of each candidates total came from which region. That is rather irrelevant, and basically only shows population density. I hope good maps can be added to the article. Jeppiz (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

three dates but only one pair of percentages[edit]

I'm assuming the 51.99 for Yushchenko and 44.20 for Yanukovych reflects the 3rd (final) "second round re-run" on 26 December 2004?

Do we have what the earlier percentages were for the first round (31 October 2004) and and second round (21 November 2004)?

I think we should list all 3 sets of data points to make it clear how much the %s shifted between these 3 points. LichCake (talk) 04:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]