Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:45, 1 April 2014

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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union 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 UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ukraine High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force.

A news item involving Euromaidan was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 December 2013.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Euromaidan. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Euromaidan at the Reference desk.

Archives (Index)

2013/December 2014/January 2014/February 2014/March 2014/April 2014/May 2014/June 2014/July 2014/August 2014/November 2015/January 2015/February 2015/May 2015/July 2015/October 2016/March 2016/December 2017/January 2017/April 2017/September 2017/November 2018/January 2018/October 2019/August 2021/June 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/May 2022/September 2023/February 2023/May 2023/November 2024/January 2024/June 2024/August 2024/September

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Links

>> Ukraine opposition set to call general strike >> Over 300,000 defy protest ban in Ukraine >> Ukraine anti-government protests spread>> Ukraine rejects test vote against Yanukovych >> Hijacker on flight bound for Turkey yells 'bomb,' makes failed attempt to divert plane to Sochi>> Is a proxy war being waged in Ukraine? >> Anti-government protests continue in Ukraine>> Russia presses Ukraine on debt amid protests >> Ukraine protesters vacate Kiev's city hall>> Kiev protests turn deadly as thousands clash >> Yanukovych Vows Early Presidential Election to End Crisis >> Kiev 'radicals' blamed for fuelling violence >> Ukraine government on verge of collapse ?? Ukraine crisis: Turchynov warns of 'separatism' risk>> Ukraine delays announcing interim governmentLihaas (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the purporse of all these Al Jazeera links?--Львівське (говорити) 23:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

for random links, this article talks about the social divide between euromaidan and the orange revolution, and would obv. be good for the 'comparisons to the orange revolution' section --Львівське (говорити) 17:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Strongly encourage that use.Lihaas (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I come across as rude and I like any help: (but) I find the coverage of Al Jazeera on Euromaidan a bit simplistic and sensational. (And) I prefer the news sources Interfax-Ukraine and Euronews because they have a permanent presence in Ukraine, and BBC News because it has also (but it has just 1 man there permanently). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Case in point: this Al Jazeera article states "Yanukovich's decision to align himself with Russia instead of the European Union". While yesterday Yanukovich stated "I have said many times that the program of the Regions Party since 1997 has the strategic aim of Ukraine's integration with Europe" and today his Prime Minister said "Those who have gathered at Maidan . And "There will be no discussion of the (Russian lead) Customs Union and the government is not drafting any documents. I want to stop the rumors right away". So that Al Jazeera article is spreading information not based on facts and actions of Yanukovich..... I can not help to get the feeling they have no idea what is going on in Ukraine... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Bravo, you've created an excellent example of article totally lacking neutrality! Seems nothing to do besides waiting until this pro-chaos hongweibing movement gets exhausted.--213.208.170.194 (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's very neutral, nearly 200 references so far in short time, care you point out issues or are you just trying to vent frustration?--Львівське (говорити) 07:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten to go through the article today, but I noticed things like a section titled "armed thugs" last time. (Since renamed.) It comes with who's most interested in the article I guess. Looking at the history and talk page, Lvivske, you seem willing to work with people if more got involved on the other side. I'll try to take another look later this week. Sai Weng (talk) 08:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how else to word "armed thugs" (assailants? goons? hooligans?). There's some stuff on the page I admittedly let slide since it's borderline and I don't want to get in a habit of reverting/altering every other user's contributions, or overusing the word "allegedly" as a staple in every sentence.--Львівське (говорити) 08:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I personally believe that the government has used thugs and agent provocateurs but it would be nice if we add something like "(claimed by the media)" or "(disputed)" to make it neutral. There is no way to actually prove their participation in the protests. --Երևանցի 15:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Except in the instances where they are standing side by side with riot police, in which case it's at least plain clothes police (which is unheard of and brings us full circle). I agree that the language could probably be cleaned up to be more diplomatic, virtually all the news sources reporting speak in a similar tone though.--Львівське (говорити) 15:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Just check the IP here of the IP that started this discussion. It is somebody from Russia... I am afraid that in Russia there is a large group that can not accept that Ukrainians do not want to side with Russia... So no matter what we do... As long if we don't write in this article "all people involved in the 2013 Ukraine pro-European Union protests were wrong and Ukraine is actully a part of Russia" 213.208.170.194 will complain about lacking neutrality!. pro-chaos hongweibing movement is just what right wing Russians named the Orange Revolution (see here). So we are responding to a request of neutrality by someone who is not interested in neutrality... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

just a comment relatively to the pertinency of IP geolocation relatively to neutrality: the IP means nothing or at least isn't conclusive per se in any way. Proof: the site of All-Ukrainian_Union_"Svoboda" which goes as far as forbidding russian language, is itself hosted in ... Russia. See: the IP is and it resolves to a Moscow based web hoster qrator.net: and [QRATOR, hoster of "Svoboda" site, datacenter in Moscow. Also, on Svoboda site, there are two social network boxes, one for the anglospheric Facebook, which counts ~14.000 followers, and one, shown first, for the russospheric and russian based VK (в контакте ...) which counts ~17.000 followers. So, IP obviously isn't a pertinent way to dismiss objectivity or validity of a contribution, or source... User:AntonioB 06:15, 11 December 2013 (CET)

"Ukrainians do not want to side with Russia" - speak for yourself, please. 148.88.244.42 (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You (ore somebody else) are again proofing that you are not interested in neutrality... + Misplaced Pages talk pages are not for general discussion of the subject. I above did not say "Ukrainians do not want to side with Russia"; I said "in Russia there is a large group that can not accept that Ukrainians do not want to side with Russia". — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the IP user called the pro-EU rallies "pro-chaos" says enough about their perceived stance on the issue.--Львівське (говорити) 17:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The article is now being slammed by two IP users in sync, possible sock puppets? That they threatened to report any reverts tells they are wiki regulars who don't feel like putting a name in front. Opinions before an edit war breaks out? One IP is from the Dominican Republic, plus the tone of the summaries is telling.--Львівське (говорити) 00:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If you feel the need do not hesitate to ask for semi-protection for IP's editing this page. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article - it is highly visible and edit warrings by IPs do not help. IP, please propose and discuss your changes on the talk page, rather than edit war; you cal also consider getting yourself an account. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

PS 1 of these IP's has started to threaten me... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have warned him or her, please drop me a note if the harassment continues Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We are real people, who request a neutral and detailed encyclopedia, and it is you who started threatening me with private messages (3 already).

Not the contrary.

So if you want to revert something for propaganda and confusion purposes, try to do it intelligently at least.

Not deleting all of it and putting "civilians" in your camp.

Sadly, nobody is omniscient, so use precise words or quit.

Nicolas P, out. 82.243.130.139 (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

For thee record I asked "Nicolas P" to be civil and assume good faith; I had no further interaction with him. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't have the right to ask me "to assume good faith" by spamming me, because you didn't do the same in your case.

You just clicked "revert all" and helped keep a completely ridiculous page that way, which is, the classical "Europe or Middle ages" propaganda coup.

The problem is, you aslo edited heavily the Ukrainian-UE page in the past.

So help me "assume good faith" first, and i will more easily.

Out and over. 82.243.130.139 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Dude; I did never touched your edits (actually I agreed with them!)... See here. I only object(ed) to your very aggressive way you use the edit summary function on Misplaced Pages. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It was just a mere coincidence, I’m not in sync with anyone, and also I haven’t threatened anyone, so don’t say it in plural. You should "assume good faith" too, just as Yulia Romero required me.

I restored the infobox from before the trouble. They seem to have a POV to push, and not adressing a real issue of neutrality. Students are a big part of the protest, as are civilians (obviously). Terms need not be inclusive to 100%, obviously not every nationalist or member of any given group is in kiev right now. As far as removing the titushki part, we can discuss that here; it's been reported in the press and politicians, and the groupings of these people have been pro-government and acting with the government in many cases, so it makes sense to me to keep them in that pro-gov column.--Львівське (говорити) 00:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I actually prefered the IP's version of the Infobox since we have no solid proof these Criminal formations (titushky) are controlled by the Government. There are drunk men looking for a fight in many towns of the world. Inna Bohoslovska is not a very reliable source... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I just started Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12013/December#Criminal_formations_.28titushky.29_in_the_Infobox for a discussion that hopefully will end inn a decision on this. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, infoboxes for controversial subjects are often sources of troubles. While article texts allows for many subtle ways to achieve neutrality, the infoboxes are much more rigid. If an edit war around the infoboxes would emerge I would remove the infobox all together. Said this I do not see any egregious violations of neutrality in the present infobox Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Language in this article is embarrassing and shows a clear bias, the word violent doesn't have to be randomly interjected in front of government every time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.244.95 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

the irony is that you're coming off as very pro-regime right now. It's all about WP:WEIGHT, and right now I'd say things are proportionate considering the situation. Please give concrete specific suggestions about neutrality in the article.--Львівське (говорити) 05:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Re: "Thugs" - just want to point out that this is a synonym used in media and not just a POV/neutrality thing. "titushki," the slang term for government-hired thugs" - kyiv post --Львівське (говорити) 20:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you know the differences between a "revolution" and a coup d'etat made by some nazi oligarchs??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephkeSchwing. (talk • contribs) 17:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's start developing the TOP sub-article already(

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm feeling a little bit lonely developing the demonstrably TOP-IMPORTANT article of the whole Euromaidan category(((. Several paragraphs from here belong there - as well as hundreds of new refs needed for that widely-reported, controversial and enigmatic event. The topic of December 1 will be alive for years to come, regardless of the campaign's outcome. That's why developing it's coverage inside this article would soon make the latter extra-long and unreadable. I really need all your help there. Thanks in advance, Ukrained2012 (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So we're splitting off the article now? I think it's best to just take what's in the current Euromaidan article, we got everything from that day covered and just add in all the reaction related to it and an info box. I've watch listed it and will try to help when I can.--Львівське (говорити) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Euromaidan article is way overgrown and it should be split into number of other sub-articles. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about creating a (stand alone) article about "anti-protest laws" that were (sort of....) passed by Ukr. parliament on 16 January 2014 and that is now wildly covered in (section) Euromaidan#January 2014. Would that be a good thing? It would look like (I think) Wiki-article "Russian foreign agent law" and/or Wiki-article "Legislation on languages in Ukraine". Not sure about tittle for article... "'anti-protest' laws" seems most used in English media... but sounds POV-pushy... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Escalation to Violence, under this heading a Citation is still needed for the claim that select media outlets in the region have dubbed this movement: Eurorevolution. Can the outlets in question be named? 84.13.14.26 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality of section Euromaidan#Repressions_against_protesters_and_parliamentarian_opposition....

does not seems to exist... Remember that Misplaced Pages is about not choosing sides in a conflict (hence I have been putting in these "Yanu said he does good" etc things in the article the last weeks... I never did that because I agreed or disagreed with him)... We are here to inform about Euromaidan... not to make one party in the conflict as bad as we can... And that seems to whole intention of the section Euromaidan#Repressions_against_protesters_and_parliamentarian_opposition right now. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

phrasing might be a neutrality issue but i think it's a lot of original research more than anything, "police said X(ref1) but then the truth came out(ref2)" like that. Synthesis? --Львівське (говорити) 01:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

this whole section is turning into a POV list, and a lot of its content is just duplicate stuff from the rest of the article / timeline of events. Turning into original research. --Львівське (говорити) 18:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I removed the "Russian Factor" section because it looked like blatant original research / synthesis. --Львівське (говорити) 20:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, that is not groundlessly. (please, see Avakov: To the bloody events in Kiev was involved the third force). Also there was a recent video footage on the program "Exclamation Mark!" on TVi which puts in question of sniping the Ukrainian citizens by the Ukrainian special operations units or law enforcement formations. Also there were statements made Inna Bohoslovska that there was utilization of snipers from the Russian Federation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about.--Львівське (говорити) 15:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

POV

I haven't been following this article as much as I wish I did, but there are several clearly POV statements and sentences that make this article really one-sided. It's nice to see that there are many users who are interested in editing this article, but it is worrying that some are so biased that they don't even see it.

The section I've opened a while ago that went largely unnoticed comes to say that many of the users who contribute to this article are not interested in its impartiality.

A quick glance at the infobox reveals very serious problems.

• "no state officials were held responsible, and a number of random people were imprisoned"; it's beyond me how this kind of a sentence can ever be considered NPOV and encyclopedic
• inclusion of Russia as a side of the civil conflict is simply unacceptable (in fact, EU and most active EU states such as Poland can be included there because numerous EU officials and EU member state officials have visited Maidan, which is a direct participation in the protests as opposed to Russia's indirect and debatable role)

--Երևանցի 20:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on point 1, but I can't be the only one reverting or else I'll look like a bad guy. On point #2...why not? Sources are there, Russian bikers were sent in; Don Cossacks from Russia are in the country now, spec. troops from Russia have been video taped, etc. is that POVy or what? (honest question) --Львівське (говорити) 02:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

We should probably define "Russia" first. Are we talking about its government or various groups from Russia? Both bikers and Don Cossacks are de facto NGOs, right? Even if there is solid evidence that Russian govt forces have been (or still are) in Ukraine, that doesn't really prove the fact that they are engaged in the conflict. No, of course not, Russia's inclusion per se is not POV. If Russia is, indeed, engaged in the conflict then I don't have any problem with its inclusion. And also, if we are adding Russia, why not add the European Union on the anti-government column? They have actively supported the protests from Brussels and in Maidan. --Երևանցի 03:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

hmm...well then maybe it's just the phrasing, with the flagicon it may seem that it's openly state sanctioned, while in reality it's probably done unofficially. So is it a flagicon issue? Do we change it to "Russian groups" or something like that? As for the EU...their only involvement has been moral support from politicians. Do they go under the leaders column? No, they aren't actively leading anything. At most "EU and US state officials" would count as a party...I guess.--Львівське (говорити) 03:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Russian groups" may easily refer to "Ethnic Russian groups of Ukraine", i.e. Russians from eastern/southern Ukraine opposing the protests. I think it would be best to say "Groups from Russia". That is as precise as it can get, in my opinion. Well, in this case moral support is as important, because it's not a war (yet, and hopefuly will not get that far), but a civil conflict, where physical force isn't the only major factor and wasn't a factor until mid-January, when the protests were more or less peaceful. --Երևանցի 03:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

sounds fine to me --Львівське (говорити) 03:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Երևանցի 04:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I ask that you also review this section, I voiced my issues above but no one responded.--Львівське (говорити) 02:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Also, the "Resignation of some siloviks" section I would say delete altogether --Львівське (говорити) 02:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I will. --Երևանցի 03:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's clear WP:CHERRYPICKING.I think we need to reword the entire section. I'm sure many, if not most, of these claims are true, but we need to present it in a neutral way so that the reader knows what it's all about. Do you think we should just remove it for now and sort it out in the talk page? --Երևանցի 03:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I do. A lot of the stuff was already mentioned on the timeline; as you said, it's cherrypicked and then WP:SYN'd into "A said this but really B is true," original research. It's not like there is a journal article out there sourcing all the veracity of claims, we're not here to play judge and jury. I'm sure a section could be made of some of that info, but not in the current list format. Way too many lists going on at the moment IMO. --Львівське (говорити) 03:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I did notice the points mentioned above, but currently I don't have much time to spend on Misplaced Pages. So thanks guys for sorting things out! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Structure

The information on public opinion and support might need to be organized more concisely. I found some repeating information on public opinion and support in the summary, background, and impact topics. Perhaps creating a new topic to corral that information would benefit this article. As a side note there is also information to be added on the new amnesty laws for anti-government protestors.Drewhartman15 (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Automaidan or AutoMaidan?

• Colleagues, please say your opinion here: Talk:AutoMaidan. NickSt (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

RfC Inter as a reliable source

There is a discussion on the timeline article about whether Inter or one of its subsidiaries counts as a reliable source. In turn, a user is now questioning whether Ukrainska Pravda is a reliable source for being "pro opposition". Can some other third parties please comment? --Львівське (говорити) 03:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainska Pravda was criticized by Polemika (page in uk.wikipedia.org) when it ignores some critique of protesters by V. Nuland Cathry (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you citing a blog? Footer on "Polemika" says "Editors are not responsible for the content or accuracy of materials published for publicity." lol --Львівське (говорити) 04:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do you call it a blog? Footer says "Редакция не несет ответственности за содержание и достоверность материалов, публикуемых на правах рекламы." it means "Editors are not responsible for the content or accuracy of advertisement materials". Why are you telling a lie?Cathry (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not telling a lie, I copied/pasted it verbatim out of google. --Львівське (говорити) 05:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of "Polemika" is doubtful. Their criticism of Ukrainska Pravda is based on material published in Ukrainsla Kryvda, which is a clone of Ukrainska Pravda publishing news with yellowish shade.--Andrux (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter, any "news" site with something like this on it is clearly a propaganda site / non reliable news source. Site looks like a big joke IMO, hardly a reliable source on wikipedia by any metric --Львівське (говорити) 05:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Neutrality

I haven't read through the whole article yet, but the little that I have seen regarding the neutrality of this article leaves much to be asked for.Chhe (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

be specific. your edit summary saying that police brutality was justified / expected doesn't exactly speak for your own neutrality. --Львівське (говорити) 22:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In this revert , the cited bbc article makes no mention of "police brutality". It states the following,"Several thousand protesters tried to storm the state regional administration building in south-eastern Zaporizhzhya, with police using tear gas and smoke grenades against the crowd and eventually dispersing them, reports said". The assertion that this is police brutality is an opinion. As I said I haven't looked through the whole article yet, but considering how blatant this violation of POV it usually is the case in my experience that it probably isn't isolated.Chhe (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Another thing I would say is that common sense would suggest that police brutality against a crowd of thousands doesn't add up.Chhe (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Common sense is knowing that policemen can also go mental......... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

All I am saying is: Please Assume good faith and avoid accusing others (among me...) of harmful motives without clear evidence. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

They would have to be really wacko. Imagine trying to attack someone in a crowd of thousands. Just doesn't have the ring of truth. But all of this is mute since the article doesn't mention police brutality. Misplaced Pages operates off of citations from reliable sources. The BBC article simply doesn't say the police acted brutally.Chhe (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

We seem both to agree never to edit using "common sense only"... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So where in the article do you contend it states the police were brutal?Chhe (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I did never contended anything; I was only making general observations... I assumed you were right about the police-thingy... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, there are many citations saying there was police brutality. Most notably on November 30 when they cracked down on the 400 students, and the next day when they ran through the streets beating everyone up, including journalists. You can't say there was no police brutality when journalists were injured in the dozens, who they themselves obviously accounted in the press for the brutality.--Львівське (говорити) 23:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I realize now you're specifically calling out whether there was brutality in Zaporizhia; I know for sure we can find evidence of that date (or that it happened in eastern cities) because there was a notable crackdown in Dnipropetrovsk. Hold up ill dig around.--Львівське (говорити) 23:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

sounds good.Chhe (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What I've found was that in Dnipro, 300 police rushed the 1,500 protesters, working with titushky where this source calls it an attack on protesters (which is police brutality synonym?), here's more; 200 were arrested in Zaporizhia so pull from what scene what you will, titushky and police beat people down at will, police using rubber bullets and tithsky baseball bats ("Local correspondents reported that "titushki" protesters driven into yards and beaten there."); in Sumy it was a "forceful dispersal" ("beaten with batons", threatening "we will kill you") --Львівське (говорити) 00:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I concur with the placement of POV tags. Clearly this article is the product of mainly internet activists judging by the type of references used.--Kathovo talk 18:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

i see no problem with references. can you be specific or is this a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT ? --Львівське (говорити) 18:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Well for starters, exessive referencing to Euronews, Youtube videos, and pro-western Ukranian language websites.--Kathovo talk 19:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Euronews is a reliable source, it seems you just don't like "western" media for some arbitrary reason. Would you prefer we use state-owned media and Russian sources? lol --Львівське (говорити) 19:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I certainly look at Russian state-owned news outlets with suspension, however, that doesn't mean that Euronews is a tremendously more reliable source, after all they clearly state their mission is "covering world news from a European perspective." Their funding as well comes from the European Commision, an organisation whose president is quite a vocal supportive of the demonstrators.--Kathovo talk 19:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Revolution

I would say the title needs to be changed to Ukrainian Revolution, almost all sources now cite it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.165.174.13 (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

euromaidan is a movement, the revolution article should be separate. --Львівське (говорити) 18:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Civil War

Maybe the page Ukrainian Civil War should redirect here instead of to the Ukrainian War of Independence, on the grounds that one was a war of independence and the other is a civil war. 68.37.254.48 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is not a war and no RS calls it a war. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Russia Today

out of 400 sources not a single one from RT site? is it banned from this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.134.230 (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

RT is a joke and in no way could it be regarded as a credible source any more that writings on the wall in public toilets could be regarded as reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.0.196 (talk) 13:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Take your POV to a forum not here because i can say the same about websites like Euronews. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

RT is literally the most unreliable source there is. Let's cut the crap here, it's not news, its fantasy propaganda a good portion of the time. Independent news sources are reliable, state news agencies aren't.--Львівське (говорити) 18:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I also see a lot of "fantasy propaganda" in Time World and NYT among others, and i know RT can be crap sometimes. I also agree we can't use it in articles like this one where it is too close to the subject and has interests in the events. But on the same logic i think we shouldn't use websites like Euronews. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

yep, either exclude sources from all interested parties, east and west, or include all.. for the sake of NPOV.... 101.108.23.138 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How is Euronews in a conflict of interest? I mean just speaking as someone who has read RT and watched their videos, the have been known for blatantly lying about the situation. I understand Euronews may be favorable but AFAIK they don't skew facts. Framing a story is one thing (every news agency does it) but lying is another, and it's the facts we have to pull out of sources and not the rhetoric or tone. They are also known for using unaccredited figures and bloggers as 'experts' (which I guess Fox News does a lot too to push their POV).--Львівське (говорити) 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And just speaking as someone who has read/followed/watched both RT and Euronews, i'm telling you that none are reliable covering Euromaidan or any similar EU-Russia conflict. RT might be stauncher yes, so you can easily catch the propaganda. Euronews on the other hand, is a lot smarter when claiming neutrality and they're experts when it comes to using an emotional tone but making it somehow appear neutral. They do distort facts sometimes and they also lie. I remember a while ago when they were covering the reactions to Ariel Sharon's death where they interviewed Egyptians as if they were Gazans. How can you know they don't inject false details between the lines in something as sensitive as Euromaidan? In my opinion, i believe none are reliable in this case and i think all Euronews refs here should be replaced by alternatives like Reuters for example. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Personally, I don't read Euronews and I don't think I've ever used them as a reference. Someone on this talk page actually recommended it to me as a more reliable source than say, KP; I guess that's not the case. I agree Reuters would be better, but it also depends on what's being referenced. If it's a quote or a specific event or action that's real, sure, I don't see why that would be false - if it's framed perspective and we're using their analysis here, then yeah, resource it. --Львівське (говорити) 05:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Also, we have this section detailing how fraudulent Russian media has been so far. Using it as an RS on a highly sensitive topic like this would be trouble.--Львівське (говорити) 22:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Never trust RT:it is not a mass media, it's just a Putin's propaganda channel. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 05:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

case in point, check out this screen shot I just took here: "Scores killed after violent clashes as security forces restore order - Protesters in Ukraine fire at RT crew" --Львівське (говорити) 05:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Never trust Misplaced Pages:it is not a media outlet, but a Cheer-leader for the US policy. A keen supporter staging Color Revolts, to undermine elected leader and countries linked to Russia. You see, if the Spin Doctors are allowed to sex-up information and make sweeping statements - what is to stop anyone else? 89.240.218.187 (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess Russia sources are now very relevant... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.221.221.148 (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda removal

Had to remove this, it's an op-ed blog by Paul Craig Roberts. Not citing him in his capacity as an economic, but for "reports" of protesters being paid off. On the article, his 'source' is a german propaganda blog here, "I can only hope that enough people in Germany and other countries of the EU are intelligent enough to understand the events in Ukraine. If not, then we will experience in Germany and the EU, a fascism, against the 3rd Empire was a late-Romantic opera. This fascism is all the more dangerous when he is supported by a split in different parties monolithic rule. Socialists rely so happy on having resisted the Nazi Party. But none of whom survived more anyway. Let the party have the name from this period yet, so she has nothing in common. Steinmeier makes the Ribbentrop!" and it just goes on in a nonsensical rant. This isn't a reliable source, this isn't even coherent, it's the ramblings of an anti-EU internet nut. End case. --Львівське (говорити) 04:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Misplaced Pages pro-Eu? Why do you post disinformation from Udar Svoboda Batkyvschyna?Cathry (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Stay on topic or back up accusations you want to throw. --Львівське (говорити) 05:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is trying to be neutral. All information should be sourced to reliable sources or explicitly attributed as opinions of notable people. It appears that the blog of Mr. Roberts is not a reliable source and I am not sure his opinion is notable enough to be included. Although some pro-Yanukovych should of course be include. Politicians are usually not considered as reliable sources although the opinion of the main parliament option parties such as Udar Svoboda Batkyvschyna are certainly notable enough to be included to the article. If you point out to poorly sourced information it would help the discussion Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

if he gave his opinion as an expert, sure, but in this case he was just citing info he got from what would clearly be an unreliable source by any standard of quality. --Львівське (говорити) 22:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

not quite peaceful — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.121.236 (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

"Stay on topic or back up accusations you want to throw." And just who gave you the right to be rude? And, given the question seemed reasonable - why was it not fully addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.218.187 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Two new articles

I propose two new articles about Euromaidan. List of Lenin statues toppled during Euromaidan and list of government officials who resigned during Euromaidan. Tens of both exist and I think they are worthy enough of their own articles.

i support the creation of Leninopad (the overthrow of the lenin statues) i have some sources i can get to work on with in the morning74.76.57.171 (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't support this. List of communist monuments in Ukraine exists (just make a section on that article and if it gets big enough, then we can split it into a new article). Also, Fall of the monument to Lenin in Kiev already exists because it received a lot of news coverage. As it stands, Leninfall isn't a popular thing yet and while individually notable, as a single event it doesnt have much traction in western media. Stick to a good, well written section with sources on the main list article. --Львівське (говорити) 05:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup of section 3 (Timeline of the events)

There's a lot more information about pro-government rallies and anti-maidans than Euromaidan protests in this section. Yes, you get the whole thing if you click "Timeline of the Euromaidan," but I think there should be a larger summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

just keep in mind that before we split it into separate articles, those euromaidan events dwarfed the anti-maidan section 100x over. Yes, we still need to provide summaries of those articles on this page (but I guess we're all busy) --Львівське (говорити) 16:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe move part of that section to Antimaidan (Антимайдан)? NickSt (talk)
• Y Due to absense of the opposite votes and arguments, section moved to Antimaidan. NickSt (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Results

Maybe there can be some more on the results, as there are many, most of it can be on separate pages, but we should see which side in this protest/revolution won since it seems that it is over now. Stuff like the protestors gaining control over the government, the arrest warrant for the previous president, and anything else that is really important. T97π (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Right now it is difficult to see, as there is the "fog of information warfare" everywhere. But I agree with you. I did not follow the news closely enough - did the revolution get rid of the oligarchs already? Or only of the Yanukowitsh-clique. The former government of Timoshenko and her cronies was as corrupt, if I remember it correctly, and there are some other oligarchs, they even control the parliament, as german newspaper ZEIT reported three weeks ago. It seems you could also buy youself into the parliament, so there are man y "wealthy businessmen" sitting there - are these the people making the decisions now? The new cabinet seems to be largely Timoshenko party, a few of the nationalist/neonazi types, and some people from Maidan. Are the other people from Maidan content with all that? Since the Krim parliament occupation Maidan seems to have disappeared from the news, are people still there and do they have new demands? I expected to read all that here in the article, if not in the media... --93.198.205.165 (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The money factor

There is no mention about the money factor, that the EU was willing to give 838 million US in loans/aid, and that Russia was willing to give 15 Billion in loans plus cheapers gas prices, and that the EU required changes in laws and regulations whilst Russia did not, so I am going to add this information Yesnoupdown1234 (talk) 17:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Still ongoing?

Is the Euromaidan still ongoing? Didn't it end in the Ukrainian Revolution? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, ongoing. Maybe until Ukrainian presidential election, 2014. NickSt (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• People still protest because they want Russia to withdraw its troops from Crimea. They also protest because they don't want Ukraine to split. Another reason they protest is to pressure the new government and make sure that they do what the people want. The first demand of Euromaidan is actually still unmet, which is the signing of the EU deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As long as people are in tents on Maidan, Maidan continues. I think once the EU agreement is signed in a few weeks it'll finally be officially over. Then on to other matters...--Львівське (говорити) 22:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Paet statement / propaganda

Should be careful for this one since 1 user already tried to cite RT, but it's already been debunked as propaganda a la the NBC phone call of Zimmerman when the tapes were doctored. But this is what im referring to:

Russia Today (or, RT, as the network prefers to be known these days) demonstrated its total independence from Moscow on Thursday when it published audio of a telephone call between Estonia’s Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and The European Union’s High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, Catherine Ashton. The call, which was randomly intercepted by highly capable but unidentified intelligence operatives, purports to reveal that Paet had informed Ashton that the EuroMaidan protesters hired snipers to shoot at EuroMaidan protesters, presumably to cause a pretext to topple the government (which eventually fell when Yanukovich fled and ordered local security guards to abandon government buildings). But the bombshell call removed the context of Paet’s comments. "I was talking on the theories there were about what happened...from both sides - among policemen and the people from the streets - that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides,” he later said. “It is extremely regrettable that phone calls are being intercepted,” Paet added. “The fact that this phone call has been leaked is not a coincidence.”

--Львівське (говорити) 21:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

• Reuters confirmation its fake --Львівське (говорити) 22:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm relatively new here, so before starting to edit the real thing, just a question. This conversation between Paet and Ashton is called 'fake' and 'propaganda' in the remarks above. How is it fake? The conversation was confirmed by Estonia as legitimate. How is it propaganda? The remarks Paet made were about a conversation he had with a doctor who shared her opinion with him. Nothing more, nothing less. The exact wording of the conversation is available and can be checked. I don't see the propaganda in that, just a different view, which, subsequently wasn't being paid attention to. Question is whether this has enough 'value' to incorporate on the page. But fake it certainly was not, and propaganda, well, I'd say the conversation in itself is not. Bandar kecil (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The Estonian spokesman stated that "We reject the claim that Paet was giving an assessment of the opposition's involvement in the violence."--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 06:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The relevant parts of the conversation should be included as the leak was extensively covered, albeit mostly from Russian media, along with later statements by Paet/Estonian Foreign Ministry. It's absence is conspicuous. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk Rally on March 5

Stop changing the amount of people, it's not 10000. Let's say 5000-7000, most major news sites stick to that range. I am for the protests, but I don't want false information to be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Inept page move

Someone unilaterally lengthened the title with unnecessary disambiguation and couldn't even close the bracket. I call for this to be undone immediately. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, any administrators out there?--Smerus (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. I had to move the talk page manually because it had a closing paren (the article did not). Antandrus (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to merge and reorganize material into Euromaiden article and perhaps an article on the Ouster of Victor Yanukovych

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This article seems to be a duplicate of the Euromaidan article and does not provide much information that could not be covered in that article. Secondly, this article's title is controversial given the unrest in Ukraine, and other issues. For many ethnic Ukrainians, they consider the change in government in their interests as a revolution, while for many ethnic Russians living in Ukraine they consider the change in government against their interests as a coup d'etat, and as such there has been unrest by the ethnic Russian population. Neutrality needs to be upheld, and I believe that the Euromaidan article can address much of the material there.

I suggest that a second article could possibly be created that is titled: Ouster of Victor Yanukovych, that would focus on the process that saw him rejected by the Ukrainian parliament and subsequently fleeing Ukraine to Russia.--74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support merging material into Euromaidan article and a new article titled Ouster of Victor Yanukovych, per above reasons.—74.12.195.248 (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is not merely a duplicate of the main Euromaidan article but instead is a focus on the events that happened in February, much like the article on the 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots are to the events that happened during January. This is a broad topic and there is a lot to say, so it seems to me that just merging it into the main Euromaidan article is a political attempt by someone to hide the real events that happened during the revolution. As for neutrality, this article passes that with flying colors, having credible and reliable sources back up the name of the article and articulate that it was indeed a revolution. DDima 16:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. They're not duplicates. The Euromaidan protests started late last year, while the revolution and overthrow of Yanukovych and only applies to the events in February and March. Most media outlets are calling it a revolution, so the title is not controversial.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by "most media outlets"? Western media outlets may be calling it as such but what about others? There is a substantial pro-Russian presence in Eastern Ukraine, do they view it as a revolution or a coup d'etat?--74.12.195.248 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per DDima and Rurik the Varangian. The articles focus on different periods of the Euromaidan, with the 2014 revolution article focusing mainly on the violent events that led to the impeachment/overthrow of Yanukovich and the formation of the interim government. The Euromaidan article focuses on the entire protests and provides substantially less detail about that stage. As for the naming, per WP policy we have to use the most commonly used title, and international media almost unanimously view this as a revolution. The coup d'etat appellation is only brought forward by Russia and Russian state media such as RT and VoR, which cannot be assumed to be neutral in this regard. We have to avoid WP:UNDUE. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - It's a notable event that should definitely have an article of its own. Also, your proposals appear to be WP:OR. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• strong Support --Panam2014 (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose merger on grounds that the revolution article already greatly exceeds Misplaced Pages:Article size. Only after that article is well split, is there a need to consider other reasons for merger with one of the resulting smaller articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is not a duplicate. Rather, it covers notable events in depth that are only given a generalized overview in the Euromaidan article.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the above votes. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

• Seeing how this was not a serious proposal and almost everyone opposes merging the two articles, I am removing the merge sign. § DDima 05:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Loan request as Initial_causes ?

The section Initial_causes start with a paragraph about Ukranian president asking for loan to EU. First the source is talking about talking the Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov not the president. Secondly, the paragraph is kind of out of context as it describes a december 2013 event even before introducing the EU-agreement context.

It would be great if someone familiar with the topic could review this section as the chronology and causality between this loan request/offer and the Euromaidan isn't clear at all.  - lyhana8 (Talk) 02:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Reactions

I proposed that we review the reactions section of the article as many valid contributions have been deleted; even tough they are under the principles of Misplaced Pages.

Has Euromaidan ended?

I'm not sure about saying that Euromaidan ended on March 21, 2014. Even though the deal has begun to be signed, people still protest on Maidan and other places in Ukraine. There are new reasons for Euromaidan- to put pressure on the new government and to get Russia to withdraw the Russian troops from Crimea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.73.13.209 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Request move of 'Sniper theory' section

I suggest this all be moved to the 2014 Ukrainian revolution article. It combines the shootings from the Hrushevskoho street riots, and the revolution murders. The section I'm referring to is here. The content needs a real look at, as it appears to be pushing the Russian POV that the snipers were really the opposition (lots of the sources are ITAR and RT). To provide a balanced section, it should have more detailed info and not omit important stuff. The Paet call is especially prone to propagandizing. --Львівське (говорити) 03:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

please see my comment to the "Original Research" topic you also opened. Sage (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Original research needs to be removed

In this section I've noted original research. The (new) user has injected a paragraph of original research and political smearing, and cites a jpeg from facebook. This obviously has no place on wiki. Someome want to take care of this?--Львівське (говорити) 03:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it can also be added there, but the fact is that this article (and other ones) have long claimed, without evidence, that the police shot all of the protesters. The available evidence is qutie to the contrary. I have not omitted (knowingly) any evidence from the relevant people who would have speical knowledge. Note I also have left in the doctor's speculation that Russian forces were behind the shootings, as it is obvious from her various interviews (which I can easily cite) that she was working in a tent hospital unit during the entire event and has no idea who did the shooting, and hence her comment is quite irrelevant. But it is not worth to argue over :). By the way I think your comment "pushing the Russian POV" indicates your bias. The sources I cited were: (1) officials of the Ukrainian interior ministry; (2) Estonian foreign minister; (3) pro-coup/revolution doctor helping victims who is part of the post-coup/revolution government; (4) head of Ukraine's security services (a Ukrainian) at the time of the sniper shootings; (5) current head of the investigative team into the shootings and a member of the post-coup/revolution government; (6) some opinion pieces that tie together some open knots; and (7) Russia's foreign minister re: claims he provided evidence to US and EU and who Russia thinks is responsible. If somehow this is "pro-Russian POV" then maybe it is simply that Russia is right on the facts, something which you may not accept for ideological reasons but it certainly is no reason to censor or delete the section. Sage (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is literally no evidence to suggest that the opposition was behind the shootings. Outside of speculation on "hunting rifles" and "grape shot" by the previous regime, and former regime officials who are now wanted for murder - their word doesnt mean much. Then you have Lavrov talking up words of nothing with no evidence, and you can't really use him as a credible source. You use the Paet info, even though he has denied the comments and that the Russian wire tap was out of context (he was relaying a theory on the ground). That an entire section exists now suggesting fringe theory concocted by Russia and the Yanukovych regime is undue weight and a huge POV push. --Львівське (говорити) 03:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class European Union articles
• Mid-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• C-Class Ukraine articles
• High-importance Ukraine articles
• WikiProject Ukraine articles
• C-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment