Misplaced Pages

Talk:Revolution of Dignity: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:53, 2 February 2015 edit168.215.166.190 (talk) →Recent events← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:21, 29 December 2024 edit undoBlindlynx (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,222 edits Undid revision 1266054290 by 121.44.233.36 (talk) WP:NOTOPINIONTag: Undo 
(872 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=e-e|style=long}}
{{Gs/talk notice|rusukr}}
{{controversial}} {{controversial}}
{{Article history
{{ITN talk|19 February|2014}}
{{ITN talk|23 February|2014}} | itndate = 19 February 2014
| itn2date = 23 February 2014
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1=
|otd1date=2024-02-18|otd1oldid=1208600798
{{WikiProject Ukraine|class=c|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=c|importance=high}}
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=C|
{{Ds/talk notice|topic=e-e|style=long}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=top}}
}}
{{Annual readership|scale=log}}
{{section sizes}}
{{Old moves|list=


* RM, February 2014 Euromaidan riots → February 2014 Euromaidan clashes, '''a new discussion has been started below''', 22 February 2014, ]
{{CollapsedShell|text=News items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's main page in the '']'' section.|1=
* RM, February 2014 Euromaidan riots → 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, '''moved''', 23 February 2014, ]
* RM, 2014 Ukrainian revolution → Overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, '''not moved''', 22 March 2014, ]
* RM, 2014 Ukrainian revolution → February 2014 ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, '''Not move to "February 2014 ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych" but some are open for other option''', 1 July 2014, ]
* RM, 2014 Ukrainian revolution → Overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, '''not moved''', 8 July 2014, ]
* RM, 2014 Ukrainian revolution → Revolution of Dignity, '''Closed as unproductive''', 19 December 2015, ]
* RM, 2014 Ukrainian revolution → Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, '''no consensus to move''', 13 May 2016, ]
* RM, 2014 Ukrainian revolution → Revolution of Dignity, '''Closed as malformed''', 25 June 2021, ]
* RM, 2014 Ukrainian revolution → Revolution of Dignity, '''moved''', 24 November 2021, ]
* RM, Revolution of Dignity → Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, '''not moved''', 22 March 2023, ]
* RM, Revolution of Dignity → Ukrainian Revolution of Dignity, '''] close''', 13 April 2023, ]
* RM, Revolution of Dignity → Maidan Revolution, '''not moved''', 2 July 2023, ]
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(30d) | algo = old(30d)
| archive = Talk:2014 Ukrainian revolution/Archive %(counter)d | archive = Talk:Revolution of Dignity/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
| counter = 6 | counter = 11
| maxarchivesize = 70K | maxarchivesize = 70K
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 1 | minthreadsleft = 5
}} }}


== Recent events == == Link to main article ==

Where the pro-Russia demonstrations in the aftermath are covered? It should be added that some of the recent protest are neither spontaneous, nor entirely local, and include Russian tourist/activist and organized busloads arriving from Russia itself.<ref name="TouristsProtests">, NYTimes, 3, March 2014</ref>{{unsignedIP|An unknown editor|3, March 2014}}

NO MENTION OF VICTORIA NULAND AND THE GEOFFRY PYATT???
YOU WONDER WHO RUNS WIKIPROPAGANDA

Jonathan Marcus: At the outset it should be clear that this is a fragment of what may well be a larger phone conversation. But the US has not denied its veracity and has been quick to point a finger at the Russian authorities for being behind its interception and leak.
Voice thought to be Pyatt's: I think we're in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats . And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.

Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs.
Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.

Anti-government protesters in Kiev

Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.

Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?

Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?

Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.

Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.

Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.

Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?

Jonathan Marcus: An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private words of encouragement at the appropriate moment.
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.

Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.

Jonathan Marcus: Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.


{{u|NoonIcarus}}, explain the reason for deleting the link to the main article in the subsection on United States support for the Revolution. ] blatantly inappropriate as the main article is written from academic sources. ] (]) 20:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note Sullivan's come back to me VFR , saying you need Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets to stick. So Biden's willing.


:{{re|Алексей Юрчак}} Could you please let me know to which edit you're referring to? I can't find it. You might be confusing me for {{ping|Blindlynx}}. Best wishes, --] (]) 21:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.
::Of course, I got confused with {{u|Blindlynx}}. I apologize. ] (]) 21:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::{{u|Алексей Юрчак}} I it. I don't understand why it was removed.--] (]) 12:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::::The article is a POV fork. At the very least the deletion discussion should finish before restoring it. --] (]) 13:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Make an argument in favor of the article being a POV fork. It is almost entirely written from academic sources. ] (]) 23:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::There are lots of these on the article's talk page. ] (]) 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


== Use of the loaded term "Russian Propaganda" ==
Jonathan Marcus: Overall this is a damaging episode between Washington and Moscow. Nobody really emerges with any credit. The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the ease with which their communications were hacked. But is the interception and leaking of communications really the way Russia wants to conduct its foreign policy ? Goodness - after Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and the like could the Russian government be joining the radical apostles of open government? I doubt it. Though given some of the comments from Vladimir Putin's adviser on Ukraine Sergei Glazyev - for example his interview with the Kommersant-Ukraine newspaper the other day - you don't need your own listening station to be clear about Russia's intentions. Russia he said "must interfere in Ukraine" and the authorities there should use force against the demonstrators.


I the language to more neutral language. Although some sources do use the pejorative phrase "Russian propaganda", I did not see the phrase in the sources used for the sentence in sentence. (I do not have access to most of the sources.) For consistency, I rarely see the one-sided claims made in Western media (e.g. ]) referred to as propaganda--like the WMDs used to justify the Iraq War (see ],,,,,, ,,,) and the suggesting that Iraq was on the verge of launching ]. Yet, when I search the ] article for the term "propaganda" nothing comes up.--] (]) 12:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
== NOT a revolution ==
:In the loaded language, {{u|NoonIcarus}} wrote: "Described by the sources as such". Which sources used that loaded term? --] (]) 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::Sources include: {{cite journal |last1=Gerber |first1=Theodore P |last2=Zavisca |first2=Jane |title=Does Russian Propaganda Work? |journal=Washington Quarterly |date=Summer 2016 |volume=39 |issue=2 |pages=79–98 |doi=10.1080/0163660X.2016.1204398}}. If there is enough use by reliable sources, which there is, the term should be used. --] (]) 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::It should be clear by now, but it shouldn't hurt to remind of ]. --] (]) 12:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The loaded term was also introduced . --] (]) 12:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, there are 3 academic references for "propaganda". Not Western media. ] (]) 12:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:Neutrality is neutrally reporting what reliable sources say. Russian propaganda is described in reliable sources as such. And: Also a lot of Russians describe Russian propaganda as what it is. Only, those Russians had to flee from their home country, have been jailed, or murdered. ] (]) 12:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
We talked about this a few months ago it hasn't even been archived yet! there are plenty of academic sources for this!!!—] 13:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


:Also, you shouldn't be removing stuff because you don't have access to sources. Are you seriously arguing that because we don't have sources for something unrelated to we should remove sourced claims here?—] 17:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The title and entire contents are false here. It is well documented that this was not a revolution but rather a coup organised by NATO and the USK military industrial complex.
::{{tq|you shouldn't be removing stuff because you don't have access to sources.}} I did not remove the term "propaganda." As I above, I the original neutral language "Russian media" from the loaded term "propaganda" by . I followed ] by reverting a bold edit and discussing.
That's why the current Kiev regime is being resisted by people in the East. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I reverted (to restore the more neutral language) because that added the loaded term relied on the *exact* same sources that the neutral original had used. I was *transparent* that I was unable to look at all of the sources, and that is why I which sources used the loaded term.
::What I did not know when I reverted was that the original more neutral language "Russian media" was by the same editor ({{u|Rsk6400}}) who it to the more loaded term--only 4 hours later. At the time I reverted following ], I mistakenly thought a ''different'' editor had provided the neutral language and {{u|Rsk6400}} provided a ''different interpretation'' of the sources by changing it to loaded language.
::I did not see the term "propaganda" prominently in the sources provided that I *did* check, and that's why I {{tq|Which sources used that loaded term?}} with edit summary "Request identification of which "sources describe it as such"".
::Also, I have about how to access a source whose content was disputed, and I am getting no cooperation or suggestion whatsoever on how I can do that--expect for {{u|Manyareasexpert}}'s that it so outdated, suggesting it may not be worth bothering to look at. One pillar of Misplaced Pages is ]. How can I verify a claim about material in a source, check a quote, check if material was "cherry-picked", check if key conclusions or context are omitted, etc. as have been alleged, if I cannot ] the source(s) used to support the claim?
::'''Please ] rather than making such an accusation against me.'''--] (]) 22:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm sorry for not being clear. I don't think you're acting in bad faith that said ] is a park of ] and ] extends to assuming that other editors are using sources they have access too and we don't accurately.
:::Given that russian media and propaganda are heavily intertwined but not all russian media is propaganda i think that propaganda is a more accurate term in this case.
:::The Tomkiw; Richter; and Geber papers explicitly use the term.
:::Could you please explain what the iraq war has to do with this?—] 23:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|I don't think you're acting in bad faith}} Thank you.
::::{{tq|Could you please explain what the iraq war has to do with this?}} Double-standards on Misplaced Pages. U.S. propaganda is not labelled as U.S. propaganda in ]--when I hope we can all agree that the justification for going to that war was propaganda--while non-U.S. countries' propaganda for making similar arguments ''is'' identified as such. For the Iraq war, rather than saying that U.S. propaganda claimed ..., the article attributes those views to the proponents in the administration (e.g. Bush/Cheney) which were uncritically echoed in the U.S. mainstream media.
::::I do agree that if the ] calls it propaganda, then it is acceptable to call it that in the article, although I have the feeling that ] policy suggests such emotive ] be attributed rather than used in Wiki-voice, such as described in ]. I can't say I have had a lot of experience with debates between those who want to include a loaded term and those who disagree and how those disagreements were resolved.
::::My overall sense from ] and ] is that loaded terms are generally to be avoided in preference of a more neutral wiki-voice. I welcome suggestions about where I might look at similar disagreements on the use of loaded language in wiki-voice. Such a discussion about the use might be better in another forum. Not sure where that might--possibly the talk page of ] and/or ].--] (]) 11:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::The problem is that we do not want to be presenting fringe---or in this case propaganda---uncritically, simply labelling 'coup' and other such news as propaganda avoids dancing round the point, we have peer reviewed academic papers that discuss russian propaganda around maiden.
:::::You're welcome to bring up RS for US propaganda at that page. —] 12:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::: by {{u|Manyareasexpert}} is an improvement and more similar to how the ] focuses more on the administration's biased and/or factually questionable narrative rather entirely on the media of the country that kowtows and uncritically parrots the administration's preferred narrative. I have definitely seen ] that says that Putin (and probably also representatives of the Russian government like Lavrov) have made the claims. Part of the purpose of ] is to get competing interpretations of events by important actors like the presidents of super-powers who have major influence on those events--even if those claims are proved to be completely false. --] (]) 15:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)


== Title not from a neutral point of view == == Not A, not even B ==


{{Ping|Closed Limelike Curves}} Please stop edit warring. For academic sources that cover this not-so-current event, see my comment at ]. Also: An "A" rating normally needs a review, see the pages on rating. ] (]) 05:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The claim that the events can be described as revolution is a biased (also any further claims deriving from the assumption this must be true). The other POV is that this is about an externally backed coup. So the terms revolution and coup are not neutral until there is historical consensus about this.<ref>http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/22758-meet-the-americans-who-put-together-the-coup-in-kiev</ref><ref>http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/24/a_coup_or_a_revolution_ukraine</ref><ref>http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/02/28/commentary/world-commentary/ukrainian-coup-is-not-a-revolution/</ref><ref>https://www.popularresistance.org/ukraine-uprising-u-s-hypocrisy-russian-aggression-vs-movement-of-the-squares/</ref><ref>http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11541</ref> <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:{{u|Rsk6400}} Edit warring? I am not seeing it. Can you please provide diffs? The editor hasn't even edited the article at all.. --] (]) 14:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:Only one of your references is a ] (Japan Times) and it consists of one person's commentary. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
::I was addressing Closed Limelike Curves and I think they know that they were edit warring ''on this talk page.'' ] (]) 14:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
::Don't even waste time engaging with these types, Mr N. No reliable source (don't try pushing ]) calls this a "coup", which is an implausible term. ] — ] 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
:::Oh right. Now I see. . I suggest when you accuse others of edit-warring that you provide the diffs, so it's clear. I didn't understand the title about A or B. It's so rare to see edit-warring on the talk page. I had seen the and was going to revert myself, except that I am not sufficiently familiar with the process of how articles are assessed. I am glad you had reverted it. Sorry for any confusion.--] (]) 18:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
:@] feel free to nominate this for GA status, then, so I can give it an A-class rating when it's approved. :) ] (]) 02:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


== Under “Aftermath”\“Protests against the revolution” ==
== missing elements ==


In the last paragraph there may be a confusion between people and the parliament and the reference is wrong or non-existent; I would had deleted that last sentence of the last paragraph ] (]) 10:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this page can be classified as neutral as it is.


== "Revolution of Dignity" who coined the name, and when did it come into usage? ==
There is no special section for foreign leaders who spoke on the Maidan. Yet many people see the presence of people like Ashton on the Maidan where she gave a speech in support of the protests as a severe violation of the principle of "non-interference" in the internal affairs of other countries. In this context it is also strange that the leaked phone conversation between Victoria Nuland and ambassador Pyatt about who should rule Ukraine isn't mentioned. In my opinion this should be in a paragraph 2.2: Western involvement.


Who coined the term "Revolution of Dignity", and when did it come into usage? Why is the word "dignity" in the name, and how does that relate to the events in Ukraine? There is no mention of this in this entire padlocked article. Could a Misplaced Pages power user please add some information about where the name "Revolution of Dignity" came from?] (]) 16:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 16:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I recommend including something from the following NY Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html
This gives background to the Russian advice to Yanukovich on how to deal with the protests - that was largely ignored - and paints it as sound from the tactical point of view.] (]) 11:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Just the heading tells me all I need to know about this article and Misplaced Pages in general. "The Ukraine revolution (2014)" is the obvious and only title that this article should have. It is clear, descriptive and unbiased. This kind of BS is why Misplaced Pages is going the same way as the large corporate propaganda outlets. It was once a useful resource; it is now is pure political propaganda. ] (]) 00:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
== Barack Obama admits the role of US in regime change in Ukraine ==
This is just in and reported on several outlets. I think it should definitely be included in this article since this shows that the so-called "revolution" wasn't simply a revolution but was a calculated ouster funded/supported by nations including the US (for geopolitical reasons).


:Hello! I'm not educated on this topic but consensus was made here (under sections "Title change" and "Requested move 16 November 2021"). If you believe that "this article and Misplaced Pages in general" are biased, feel free to contribute. You can request the article name to be changed if your reasoning is valid and verifiable by reliable secondary sources. Cheers, ] (] • ]) 05:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150201/1017625288.html <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 23:21, 29 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Revolution of Dignity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Revolution of Dignity, along with other pages relating to the Russo-Ukrainian War, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

  • Only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, though editors who are not extended-confirmed may post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area on article talk pages. Should disruption occur on article talk pages, administrators may take enforcement actions against disruptive editors and/or apply page protection on article talk pages. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even on article talk pages. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, Articles for deletion nominations, WikiProjects, requests for comment, requested moves, and noticeboard discussions.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

  • Violations of any restrictions and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard.
  • Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
  • An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 19, 2014, and February 23, 2014.
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 18, 2024.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconUkraine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Misplaced Pages. 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
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon2010s Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Section sizes
Section size for Revolution of Dignity (37 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 27,429 27,429
Prelude 8,307 8,307
Overview 13,130 13,130
Detailed timeline 63 106,751
18 February 2014 23 23,862
Protest march and initial clashes 15,735 15,735
Attack on Maidan 4,497 4,497
Opposition leaders meeting with Yanukovych 3,607 3,607
19 February 12,114 12,114
20 February 17,660 36,809
Diplomatic efforts 5,537 5,537
Ukrainian political developments 13,612 13,612
21 February 5,200 20,484
Agreement on settlement of political crisis 7,380 7,380
Agreement aftermath 7,904 7,904
Removal of Yanukovych 6,884 13,419
Disappearance and prosecution 6,535 6,535
Aftermath 15 54,769
New government 10,891 10,891
Juridical developments 4,025 4,025
Yanukovych press conference and Russian response 4,002 4,002
Ban on Russian state TV 1,014 1,014
Lustration 3,222 3,222
Berkut dissolved 2,732 2,732
Protests against the revolution 14,135 14,135
Russian occupation of Crimea 2,043 2,043
Destruction of Soviet monuments 3,853 3,853
Sports 5,203 5,203
Public opinion 575 575
Signing of the EU Association Agreement 2,098 2,098
Suicides of former officials 961 961
Casualties 1,466 1,466
Russian involvement 7,618 11,871
Russian propaganda 4,253 4,253
See also 53 53
Notes 39 39
References 966 966
Total 224,781 224,781
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

Link to main article

NoonIcarus, explain the reason for deleting the link to the main article in the subsection on United States support for the Revolution. wp:povfork blatantly inappropriate as the main article is written from academic sources. Алексей Юрчак (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Алексей Юрчак: Could you please let me know to which edit you're referring to? I can't find it. You might be confusing me for @Blindlynx:. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Of course, I got confused with Blindlynx. I apologize. Алексей Юрчак (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Алексей Юрчак I restored it. I don't understand why it was removed.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The article is a POV fork. At the very least the deletion discussion should finish before restoring it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Make an argument in favor of the article being a POV fork. It is almost entirely written from academic sources. Алексей Юрчак (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
There are lots of these on the article's talk page. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Use of the loaded term "Russian Propaganda"

I restored the language to more neutral language. Although some sources do use the pejorative phrase "Russian propaganda", I did not see the phrase in the sources used for the sentence in sentence. (I do not have access to most of the sources.) For consistency, I rarely see the one-sided claims made in Western media (e.g. Propaganda_in_the_United_States) referred to as propaganda--like the WMDs used to justify the Iraq War (see Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War,,,,,, ,,,) and the countless images of mushroom clouds suggesting that Iraq was on the verge of launching ICBMs. Yet, when I search the Iraq War article for the term "propaganda" nothing comes up.--David Tornheim (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

In restoring the loaded language, NoonIcarus wrote: "Described by the sources as such". Which sources used that loaded term? --David Tornheim (talk) 12:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Sources include: Gerber, Theodore P; Zavisca, Jane (Summer 2016). "Does Russian Propaganda Work?". Washington Quarterly. 39 (2): 79–98. doi:10.1080/0163660X.2016.1204398.. If there is enough use by reliable sources, which there is, the term should be used. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
It should be clear by now, but it shouldn't hurt to remind of WP:NOTFORUM. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The loaded term was also introduced here. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are 3 academic references for "propaganda". Not Western media. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Neutrality is neutrally reporting what reliable sources say. Russian propaganda is described in reliable sources as such. And: Also a lot of Russians describe Russian propaganda as what it is. Only, those Russians had to flee from their home country, have been jailed, or murdered. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

We talked about this a few months ago it hasn't even been archived yet! there are plenty of academic sources for this!!!—blindlynx 13:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, you shouldn't be removing stuff because you don't have access to sources. Are you seriously arguing that because we don't have sources for something unrelated to we should remove sourced claims here?—blindlynx 17:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
you shouldn't be removing stuff because you don't have access to sources. I did not remove the term "propaganda." As I explained above, I restored the original neutral language "Russian media" from the loaded term "propaganda" by reverting this edit. I followed WP:BRD by reverting a bold edit and discussing.
I reverted (to restore the more neutral language) because this edit that added the loaded term relied on the *exact* same sources that the neutral original had used. I was *transparent* that I was unable to look at all of the sources, and that is why I asked which sources used the loaded term.
What I did not know when I reverted was that the original more neutral language "Russian media" was created by the same editor (Rsk6400) who changed it to the more loaded term--only 4 hours later. At the time I reverted following WP:BRD, I mistakenly thought a different editor had provided the neutral language and Rsk6400 provided a different interpretation of the sources by changing it to loaded language.
I did not see the term "propaganda" prominently in the sources provided that I *did* check, and that's why I *asked* Which sources used that loaded term? with edit summary "Request identification of which "sources describe it as such"".
Also, I have repeatedly asked about how to access a source whose content was disputed, and I am getting no cooperation or suggestion whatsoever on how I can do that--expect for Manyareasexpert's comment that it so outdated, suggesting it may not be worth bothering to look at. One pillar of Misplaced Pages is WP:V. How can I verify a claim about material in a source, check a quote, check if material was "cherry-picked", check if key conclusions or context are omitted, etc. as have been alleged, if I cannot access the source(s) used to support the claim?
Please assume good faith rather than making such an accusation against me.--David Tornheim (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry for not being clear. I don't think you're acting in bad faith that said WP:SOURCEACCESS is a park of wp:v and wp:AGF extends to assuming that other editors are using sources they have access too and we don't accurately.
Given that russian media and propaganda are heavily intertwined but not all russian media is propaganda i think that propaganda is a more accurate term in this case.
The Tomkiw; Richter; and Geber papers explicitly use the term.
Could you please explain what the iraq war has to do with this?—blindlynx 23:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you're acting in bad faith Thank you.
Could you please explain what the iraq war has to do with this? Double-standards on Misplaced Pages. U.S. propaganda is not labelled as U.S. propaganda in Iraq war--when I hope we can all agree that the justification for going to that war was propaganda--while non-U.S. countries' propaganda for making similar arguments is identified as such. For the Iraq war, rather than saying that U.S. propaganda claimed ..., the article attributes those views to the proponents in the administration (e.g. Bush/Cheney) which were uncritically echoed in the U.S. mainstream media.
I do agree that if the WP:RS calls it propaganda, then it is acceptable to call it that in the article, although I have the feeling that WP:MOS policy suggests such emotive loaded terms be attributed rather than used in Wiki-voice, such as described in MOS:QUOTEPOV. I can't say I have had a lot of experience with debates between those who want to include a loaded term and those who disagree and how those disagreements were resolved.
My overall sense from WP:MOS and MOS:WTW is that loaded terms are generally to be avoided in preference of a more neutral wiki-voice. I welcome suggestions about where I might look at similar disagreements on the use of loaded language in wiki-voice. Such a discussion about the use might be better in another forum. Not sure where that might--possibly the talk page of WP:MOS and/or MOS:WTW.--David Tornheim (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that we do not want to be presenting fringe---or in this case propaganda---uncritically, simply labelling 'coup' and other such news as propaganda avoids dancing round the point, we have peer reviewed academic papers that discuss russian propaganda around maiden.
You're welcome to bring up RS for US propaganda at that page. —blindlynx 12:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
This edit by Manyareasexpert is an improvement and more similar to how the Iraq War focuses more on the administration's biased and/or factually questionable narrative rather entirely on the media of the country that kowtows and uncritically parrots the administration's preferred narrative. I have definitely seen WP:RS that says that Putin (and probably also representatives of the Russian government like Lavrov) have made the claims. Part of the purpose of WP:NPOV is to get competing interpretations of events by important actors like the presidents of super-powers who have major influence on those events--even if those claims are proved to be completely false. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Not A, not even B

@Closed Limelike Curves: Please stop edit warring. For academic sources that cover this not-so-current event, see my comment at Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity/Archive_10#Arbitrary_break. Also: An "A" rating normally needs a review, see the pages on rating. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Rsk6400 Edit warring? I am not seeing it. Can you please provide diffs? The editor hasn't even edited the article at all.. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I was addressing Closed Limelike Curves and I think they know that they were edit warring on this talk page. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh right. Now I see. . I suggest when you accuse others of edit-warring that you provide the diffs, so it's clear. I didn't understand the title about A or B. It's so rare to see edit-warring on the talk page. I had seen the this change and was going to revert myself, except that I am not sufficiently familiar with the process of how articles are assessed. I am glad you had reverted it. Sorry for any confusion.--David Tornheim (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@David Tornheim feel free to nominate this for GA status, then, so I can give it an A-class rating when it's approved. :) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Under “Aftermath”\“Protests against the revolution”

In the last paragraph there may be a confusion between people and the parliament and the reference is wrong or non-existent; I would had deleted that last sentence of the last paragraph Taltzgcz (talk) 10:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

"Revolution of Dignity" who coined the name, and when did it come into usage?

Who coined the term "Revolution of Dignity", and when did it come into usage? Why is the word "dignity" in the name, and how does that relate to the events in Ukraine? There is no mention of this in this entire padlocked article. Could a Misplaced Pages power user please add some information about where the name "Revolution of Dignity" came from?120.88.155.223 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC) 120.88.155.223 (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Just the heading tells me all I need to know about this article and Misplaced Pages in general. "The Ukraine revolution (2014)" is the obvious and only title that this article should have. It is clear, descriptive and unbiased. This kind of BS is why Misplaced Pages is going the same way as the large corporate propaganda outlets. It was once a useful resource; it is now is pure political propaganda. 206.83.119.213 (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not educated on this topic but consensus was made here (under sections "Title change" and "Requested move 16 November 2021"). If you believe that "this article and Misplaced Pages in general" are biased, feel free to contribute. You can request the article name to be changed if your reasoning is valid and verifiable by reliable secondary sources. Cheers, xRozuRozu (t • c) 05:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: