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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles
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
It was not intended to be rude. I am sorry you found it so.
I know that in the English language, the same letters are pronounced different ways in different words. So if Ukrainian people wish to spell in a way that is inconsistent from the point of simplistic transliteration rules, that would make perfect sense given how inconsistent English language pronunciation rules are.
Тягнибок = Tyahnybok
Гриценко = Grytsenko
Тiгiпко = Tigipko
I hope your comments about different parts of Ukraine were not meant to be offensive.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No my comments about different parts of Ukraine were not meant to be offensive; I was wondering if your opinion was thought through. On second thought you where not that rude but as a non-Ukrainian thinks that look obvious to you look strange to me.... for example: this letter Г remains a mystery for me... thank god for WP:Common name... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The web-site address doesn't prove wrong spelling of the surname (I'm sure he wasn't registering the address himself, and those who registered it were Russian-speaking adherents of Soviet transliteration tradition. In Ukrainian, there's a decades-long tradition of transliterating Г by H and Ґ by G. Unless his surname is Ґриценко, it should be written with H. --Shulha (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are joking? You know better how to spell his name that he does?--Toddy1 (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm joking! (Should I mention that we are talking not about the person's name itself, but only of it's transliteration into Latin alphabet. There are rules, you know. I insist: he wasn't the person who registered the website, and he may not care too much of would it be Grytsenko, Ghrycenko, Hrytsenko or any other possible option). --Shulha (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you intend to send him to a 'labour camp' for an education for not obeying 'these rules'?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's obvious, who's kidding :) If you agree on my version of the lettering under his poster, we'll leave it as it is. --Shulha (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your version of the lettering under his poster is excellent.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrytsenko agrees to abandon parliamentary seat (?) & wp:notnews
Something is going on with Mr. Hrytsenko in the Verkhovna Rada today; but because of wp:notnews I prefer not to update this article already. But I will make a start with that (and had already done so...) below:
15 June 2015 several of the other parties that had competed under "umbrella" "Fatherland" in the 2012 parliamentary elections merged into "Fatherland"[1]; Hrytsenko's party did not merge with them and kept its independence.[2] On 18 May 2013 the faction of "Fatherland" demanded that Hrytsenko (who was a member of the "Fatherland" faction) would resign from parliament.[3] Hrytsenko agreed to do that if "Fatherland" faction leader Arseniy Yatseniuk would do the same.[4]
I have just modified 5 external links on Anatoliy Hrytsenko. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,I have just modified 7 external links on Anatoliy Hrytsenko. 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.
I reverted this edit per WP:BRD. As follows from the header, these are "accusations". Do they belong to the page? I do not think so because all of that remains unproven at best. Obviously, every old Ukrainian politician (and especially a presidential candidate) was accused of something. Piling this up is not the way to write BLP pages. Was it something notable at least? Was it published in a book or in a really good English language source, like NYT? If so, let's include. Otherwise, no. My very best wishes (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ой, да ладно, «Нью-Йорк Таймс» и отражение в книге нужно? Вам самому-то не смешно? НЙТ не будет писать про него, потому что фигура не интересна американским читателям. Значимостью обладает, но уж явно не настолько, чтобы про него НЙТ писал что-то большее, чем мелкое упоминание. I usedreliable sources for this article: Ukrayinska Pravda, Korrespondent, Ukrainian Independent Information Agency, Ukrainian News Agency, 1+1, Newspaper in Ukrainian, KP, Segodnya, Gordonua, Espreso TV, among others. And this is the list of media that have articles at English WP. I'm not talking about 24 TV Channel, Vesti etc. So, I would like to look at the administrator who would recognize your actions justified. And I regard them as an attempt to clean up the article from uncomfortable facts. And I do not recommend you continue the Edit warring. "included by a red-linked account" - is this the crime to be red-linked user? Prove me. If I go to Meta, write something about myself, will it change your attitude to the facts in the article? "Please use good RS (better in English, so that everyone can check)" - Source language does not matter. Even so, you have removed at least two materials that were confirmed by references to the Ukrayinska Pravda, which, in turn, are referred to in the article of Atlantic Council. This indicates your inconsistency. And it confirms that you are just trying to clean up the article from uncomfortable to the person, but confirmed, facts.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, let we see what kind of facts you are trying to remove.
Accusations in army collapse: "After Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine criticized the Ministry of Defense for the ineffective fight against corruption and crime in the army, Hrytsenko summoned Prosecutor General Oleksandr Medvedko to a live TV debates." This caused a big stir in the country, the event was covered in the Ukrainian press. What should we remove?
"In 2007, when Hrytsenko was the Minister of Defense, a military hospital in Dnipropetrovsk was sold to a private company" - the fact confirmed by Petro Poroshenko's Commissioner for the peaceful settlement of the conflict in Donetsk and Lugansk Oblasts. Where are "original interpretation" or some analysis?
"In August 2011, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine conducted an internal investigation after revealing cases of mass poisoning of servicemen in parts where private companies "Ivala" and "Belotserkovskiy Voyentorg" are engaged in food supply." - Do you want to say that there was no investigation?
"In May 2014 the General Prosecutor Office of Ukraine stated that Anatoliy Hrytsenko’s actions (as one of ex-Ministers of Defense) have brought the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the state of inappropriate combat readiness. The criminal proceedings have been opened." - well, if you do not trust the media, you will probably believe the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine (I think that this is Primary source, but anyway)?
"In 2016, the General Prosecutor Office of Ukraine published materials of investigation “Russian war aggression against Ukraine”." - another "original interpretation" or what?
"Several journalist investigations state that Anatoliy Hrytsenko was involved in corruption schemes of selling of military encampments and other military objects as well as discarding military property." - well, the first material, which is debatable; despite this, links to those investigations are presented in the article.
"On April 4, 2018, National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) informed that the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor Office initiated a criminal proceeding" - and what next? Where is "un-neutral point of view" or something?
Argument investigation - OK, the second debatable material, because of Argument credibility.
Earnings - You deleted the paragraph with reference to the declaration posted on the official website of Hrytsenko! You can't be serious! It's just ridiculous.
Kredisov, Kolomoyskyi - These are quotes and points of view. This may be present in the article.
After all, we have just two materials that could be reviewed as debatable.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 09:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You tell there were [criminal] investigations. What were the results or official conclusions of these investigations? Was he convicted or indicted? Did the investigations result in anything? From what I saw in these sources, they resulted in nothing, in effect exonerating the person (yes, you used a few old opinion pieces in Ukrainian press. Such things do not belong to this page as something unproven and not notable. In any event, you need WP:Consensus to include new contentious information to a BLP page. In addition, you included the following "The investigation states that this has been one of the main factors which led to the Crimea Crisis and War in Donbass." Where? I do not see it in the source. My very best wishes (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Я предупреждал тебя воздержаться от войн правок. Теперь я вынужден буду принять меры. 2. "What were the results or official conclusions of these investigations?" - For example, Donald Trump: "Trump's connections to Russia have been widely reported by the press. (and so on)" - oh, yeah, and so on and on and on. What were the results or official conclusions of these investigations about Trump and Russia connections? Anything else? 3. In this article @ ZIK (one of the 12 national channels of Ukraine) it is clearly stated that under Hrytsenko as Minister of Defence the largest amount of military property was sold. Also, "На момент начала агрессии России против нашей страны в Украине не было достаточно исправного оружия и техники, прежде всего самолетов и вертолетов, а также танков, БТР, БМП, которые являются весомой составляющей частью вооружения Сухопутных войск." (At the time of the start of Russia's aggression against our country, Ukraine did not have enough operational weapons and equipment, primarily airplanes and helicopters, as well as tanks, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, which are a significant component of the weapons of the Ground Forces.) - we are in Wikipedia, and according NPOV we have to use the phrase "the Crimea Crisis and War in Donbass" instead of "Russia's aggression against our country", don't we? 4. You have to find the consensus with me as main author of this article. Not cleaning up those parts that you don't like, but find the consensus, first of all.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is your source. But this is just a blog (see just below the piece: "Редакция не несет ответственности за мнение, которое авторы высказывают в блогах на страницах ZIK.UA"), just a personal opinion of uk:Палій Олександр Андрійович few people know about. And frankly, this is a ridiculous opinion piece. Yes, Ukraine did sell weapons. A lot of other countries did the same. It does not mean much. He blames Hrytsenko for ... not conducting a military parade in Kiev? What? My very best wishes (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit that when I visit this Wikipedia article a few weeks ago it did give me the feeling that it was not neutral enough. It seemed to me that in the article Hrytsenko was blamed to much for the impoverishment of the Ukrainian army. But my problem was the tone. I would like:
removal of the information about the tv debates with General Oleksandr Medvedko = this seems to be a non-noticable PR move by Hrytsenko.
removal of the information about the military hospital in Dnipropetrovsk was sold to a private company. I can not find information in the article that it is Hrytsenko's fault the former military facility was given to the Russian VTB Bank. Let alone it is his fault the hospital now "belongs to the invader country." Besides Dnipropetrovsk is now named Dnipro and is in full control of Ukrainian authorities....
In August 2011, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine conducted an internal investigation after revealing cases of mass poisoning. But Hrytsenko was long gone as Defence minister by then. It seems nonsense to blame him for thing happening years after he stopped being Defensive Minister
The accusations that Hrytsenko as Defence Minister has brought the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the state of inappropriate combat readiness makes sense to have in the article.... but only with Hrytsenko's response to the accusations and since Wikipedia is not an almanac not super lengthy as was done
The same goes for accusations that Hrytsenko as Defence Minister was involved in corrupt deals. He much have responded to this. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make a much shorter, well sourced and NPOV version, please do. I agree that some of the blames are pure nonsense (blaming him for the invasion of Crimea is one of them); others could be included, but in a reasonable and NPOV fashion, as policy requires. Should he, rather than Yanukovich, be blamed for the terrible state of Uktainian military? I strongly doubt, but if there are really good RS claiming that, this is something debatable for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here Hrytsenko blames his successor Mykhailo Yezhel of being solely responsible for the food scandal that was previously mentioned in this Wikipedia article. Here he claims he did not order the sale of this Dnipropetrovsk hospital. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are lots of blames in Ukrainian politics. Everyone blames everyone. Do such claims deserve to be included? Yes, if they resulted in convictions. Yes, if the claims are highly notable and have been republished in reliable secondary "western" sources. Yes, if they are important and facts like the involvement of Poposhenko in Panama Papers. No, if this is just a blame or a personal opinion, even a justifiable one.My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the principle to only mention claims who are republished in reliable secondary "western" sources. But the problem their is that Ukrainian politicians do get seldom mentioned in "western" sources.... If claims are very highly notable I am not against reliable "non-western" sources. In the case of Hrytsenko the accusations against him seem or ridiculous (the decline of the Ukrainian army is not his fault alone), if not black PR. There are lots of examples in Ukrainian politics of black PR over the years.... (a lot of hypocrisy too, but that is another story). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its good that somebody finally starts to discuss not user, but the article.
Yes, I did not notice that the information on ZIK was the blog of Paliy. Therefore, the phrase about "the Crimean Crisis and War in Donbass" (in definitions of Wikipedia) could be considered as a private opinion. However, we cannot ignore the message posted on the official website of the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine about checking activities at the head of the Ministry of Defense. And I strongly believe that this information must be presented in the article, regardless of how this investigation ended.
"removal of the information about the tv debates with General Oleksandr Medvedko = this seems to be a non-noticable PR move by Hrytsenko." - funny, My very best wishes hinted that I'm working for Graf Dyakula, but Yulia Romero wrotes that this case was a PR for Hrytsenko. I think, this episode is interesting in the scale of all Ukrainian policy - not every day the acting Prosecutor General accuses the acting Minister of Defense in corruption.
"I can not find information in the article that it is Hrytsenko's fault the former military facility was given to the Russian VTB Bank." - «Мы поднимали вопрос Днепропетровского военного госпиталя, который, как вы знаете в 2007 году с каким-то махинациями был продан частной структуре, которая заложила госпиталь принадлежащий Минобороны российскому банку ВТБ. Сегодня, по-сути, госпиталь, в котором лечат наших парней, принадлежит стране-оккупанту» [1], the link was in the article. Also, TSN, UNIAN. I do not take these statements from the air.
"But Hrytsenko was long gone as Defence minister by then. It seems nonsense to blame him for thing happening years after he stopped being Defensive Minister" - The practice of outsourcing was introduced in 2007 and was proposed by the then Minister of Defense Anatoliy Hrytsenko, who legislated it. But, OK, I can agree that over the past years, these companies have degraded, which led to poisoning. And he is not directly related to the tragedy. "Hrytsenko blames his successor Mykhailo Yezhel..." (Yulia Romero) - I propose to include in the article both the original version and the versions of Hrytsenko himself, which you cited. Per NPOV
"In 2016, the General Prosecutor Office of Ukraine published materials of investigation “Russian war aggression against Ukraine”." - by the way, I never add this episode in the text. The only thing I did was adding a link to ZIK. I propose to restore this piece and put the Citation needed template. I am sure that there are more serious sources for these numbers than a blog entry. If not, we can delete it later. But this text was before I began to edit the article.
Argument investigation - As I wrote above, I do not insist on this episode because of the quality of the source.
Last but not least. Earnings. This is information from Hrytsenko's official website. How can it break BLP?--Zorro naranjo (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources.
The last is what you are attempting. --Calton | Talk 12:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the information based only on its official declaration.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling that people should use reliable secondary sources for contentious claims in BLP pages, and preferably not opinion pieces. For example, this is a primary source in Ukrainian. In this regard your last edit is unacceptable because it uses two questionable sources: a website of the subject (a self-published primary source) and (b) a blog. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted the half of the article per WP:BLP, and now you prevent the adding of any information to the article. WP:POINT. Scanned copies of declarations are located on the official website of Hrytsenko. And it absolutely can not break the WP:BLP. As for Atlantic Council - this is moderated blog, with the Chief editor (Melinda Haring). This is an expert opinion of AC employees. Anyway, you could delete this link, but the main idea is that it does not matter where located the copies of declarations, after all, this information is in the official bodies. As long as Hrytsenko is not a deputy at the moment, his declaration is not published on public.nazk.gov.ua. And I think that soon, after the start of the presidential election campaign, the new data will appear on official sources. And there, most likely, will be about the same data as in copies for previous years.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that people should use reliable secondary sources for contentious claims in BLP pages. You reply that blogs and scanned copies are fine. No, this is wrong. Please check WP:RS. I did not remove your latest poorly sourced addition only because it is not particularly contentious in my opinion. But it had to be removed per policy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. <...> When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves." - You can delete link to the Atlantic Council if you want. But do not tell me about the prohibition of using the primary sources in Wikipedia. Where are the interpretations or something? By the way, about the Atlantic Council. Do not pretend that you don't understand what I mean: "Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format." Most of their content is analytics, published in one of the thematic blogs (with Chief editors, as I mentioned above). But this site, without a doubt, the reliable source. Do not agree? First, fix all those links.--Zorro naranjo (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at WP:RS [2], blogs belong to questionable/self-published sources. Quoting old documents published a government is a bad idea because you need proper context. Perhaps the claim was discarded, and they published later something opposite? You need good secondary RS to provide proper context. My very best wishes (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tautology
Hrytsenko served 25 years in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, served in combat units, as teacher at the military college and in staff positions in the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine I have removed the second word, but maybe it would've been better to leave it and to change the first one (to something like spent) instead? Or would "spent 25 years" be too much of a different meaning?--Adûnâi (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote for him (he is probably the best candidate). The problem: he is not sufficiently charismatic. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
.svg){kind=small}
Done tonight; he has left the faction today. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
