Talk:Euromaidan/Archive 12014/February

Repressions against protesters and parliamentarian opposition

Selective justice

• Police cooperation with people of unknown identity who became known as titushky.
• On 25 November 2013 unknown people attacked a protesting tent city in Dnipropetrovsk, while police was witnessing the event.
• On 5 January 2014 Petro Poroshenko handed over to the Prosecutor General office explicit video evidences of participation in provocations people who cooperate with law enforcement. Also there is a video of person who ground guides the bulldozer and seems very similar to one of regimental commanders of Berkut. The Ministry of Internal Affairs called the video a provocation, yet was not able to explain the similarity. The officer himself denies any accusations.
• On January 31, 2014 after signing by the President of Ukraine amnesty, the Ministry of Internal Affairs posted photos of several activists as wanted, including the tortured Bulatov.

False accusations

• Late at night on 24 January 2014 the Ministry of Internal Affairs accused protesters in violating a truce. That happened almost an hour late after the Channer 5 reported that stand off renewed and Berkut opened fire with rubber bullets at protesters.
• On January 30, 2014 Vitaliy Zakharchenko officially accused the standoff of Hrushevskoho in the death of one of law enforcement serviceman.

Repressions against political opponents

• On 9 December 2013 police without any sanctions violently at night raided main office of the opposition party "Batkivshchyna" (Fatherland).
• On January 31, 2014 number of opposition MPs guarding Bulatov in hospital from being arrested by police.
• On January 31, 2014 SBU accused the opposition party Batkivshchyna in preparation to coup-d'etat.
• On January 31, 2014 SBU accused another opposition party Svoboda in preparation of terrorist acts in Dnipropetrovsk.

Jailed

• On 24 November 2013 two members of Svoboda were jailed for 60 days. One of the convicted is a disabled person. Svoboda's activists are suspected in rowdiness with use of firearm or cold weapon in order to inflict injuries.
• On 3 December 2013 nine random people were jailed for 60 days. They were detained under suspicion in participation in attack on Berkut near the Presidential Administration on 1 December 2013. On 4 December 2013 the Social National Assembly (SNA) took responsibility for the attack at Bankova and occupation of administrative buildings in the center of city.
• On 6 December 2013 Andriy Dzyndzia, a journalist of the Road Control, was detained as a preventative measures for two months. After announcement of the court decision a fight took place in the court hallroom between parliamentarians and police. During that time near the court building took place a picket of 5,000 people in protest of the court decision.

Accusation of torture or cruelty

• On 4 December 2013 a lawyer of one journalist accused police of torturing his client.
• During his arrest by servicemen of HUBOZ on 5 December 2013, Dzyndzia was severely beaten to the point that it was necessary to take him unconscious to emergency room. HUBOZ officers refused to explain the reason for his arrest neither to Dzyndzia himself nor his lawyers whom meeting with Dzyndzia was denied.

|}

Infobox

Why are things like how many personnel carriers the police have, or the wooden catapult included in the numbers section? The 'results' section is a premature list of miscellaneous events. The infobox is getting cluttered with trivia. --Львівське (говорити) 02:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, why are pro-government supporters mixed with state forces? It's not like they collaborated, right? --Երևանցի ^talk 03:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's because they were added before we started making different categories. On the other hand, public sector employees and those paid by the government to support them are, technically, government forces.--Львівське (говорити) 04:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they are technically govt forces, but they aren't armed and don't have the de jure privileges state forces (Berkut, VV) have by law. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The current wording is mine although the citations are from before. It refers to anti-maiden participants. The previous wording just said 'paid supporters' or something like that which I thought was necessarily POV since surely there must be some level of genuine support for a democratically elected government. If I remember correctly, an early anti-maiden was organized by a number of civil servants which I think is the reason it was added to the infobox although I think that could be removed as it probably reflects undue weight in light of the many anti-maidens that followed. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

there have been a number of significant, paid, anti-maidans. The organic ones tend to divide into POR supporters, Russian Bloc, and Don Cossacks.--Львівське (говорити) 05:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are the changes you're proposing? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Russian loan of 17-12-13 to be renegotiated? Should we mention this in Wikipedia?

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev have suggested this today. Shouls this be mentioned in this article and/or in 17 December 2013 Ukrainian–Russian action plan? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

yes for sure on the action plan article (duh). For this one...I say no, since it's just "suggested" and not concrete yet, and would not have a direct influence on euromaidan YET --Львівське (говорити) 15:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done in 17 December 2013 Ukrainian–Russian action plan today. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Just created two stubbies for Right Sector & Spilna Sprava

Since I don't have much time to spend on Wikipedia these days them is only stubbies; but feel free to make them bigger!!!! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Feel free also to expand AutoMaidan made by our colleague Gryffindor (I am more of a Ravenclaw myself). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I have some articles bookmarked that I was going to get around to using to make those, ill try to beef them up later. you rock. --Львівське (говорити) 20:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

File:Smile-flag Ukraine.gifДякую i Excelsior! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Time of when it began, precisely or nearly precisely

What time, precisely, or nearly precisely did it begin?--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

did you not read the first sentence of the article? --Львівське (говорити) 20:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

yes, but I mean precisely or nearly precisely--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

just know it was the evening. The news about it was at 2am on the 22nd link covering the previous nights protests. best i could find. --Львівське (говорити) 20:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but they said night, or did you mean night when you said evening? Night of 21 Nov is after 0:00, before 0:00 it is 20 Nov.--78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

i mean late on the 21st. --Львівське (говорити) 20:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

An Interesting View

Extended content

Wars and revolutions, regardless of their soundness, gain legitimacy when sprinkled with the blood of good people, a baptism of sorts. Think back to 2003 when the war makers celebrated the first American casualties in Iraq. Their youthful, smiling images appeared everywhere. What tragedy! How dare the enemy do this? In the name of fallen, we shall proceed ever more boldly! As wars drag on, the dead and suffering put increasing pressure on the war makers to justify the cause. So, instead of being paraded as sanctifying relics, military remains are quietly dumped into landfills. But the soldiers’ role in propaganda is an issue I’ve covered before. Let’s talk about Ukraine, where I live. On January 22 three Ukrainian protesters were killed by riot police, two by gunshot. It happened, strangely enough, on Unity Day. The holiday marks a proclamation of unity made in 1919 between the short-lived Western Ukrainian government, who was then battling Polish forces for control of Eastern Galicia, and the similarly short-lived government in Kyiv, which was soon overrun by Bolshevik forces. Tragedy has been the hallmark of Ukrainian history since the Mongols sacked Kyiv in 1240. So we now have the blood of good people, but what exactly has it baptized? This remains up for grabs. History The current protests began on November 21st after Ukraine’s President Yanukovych announced he wouldn’t be signing an anticipated accession agreement, which would have begun a long process leading, theoretically, to Ukraine joining the EU. My early argument for self-reliance ahead of EU accession angered a few Ukrainian friends. Ukrainians generally blame their economic morass on corrupt and predatory politicians. The political class is known to raid successful businesses with assistance from the courts, and a blind eye from the police. Protesters consider accession to the EU the only remedy. I sympathize, but disagree in two ways. I’d put some of the blame on societal corruption down to the lowest levels, and I think gun ownership is a surer protector of property rights. The protests escalated after a violent and unexpected pre-dawn raid by the “Berkut” riot police on November 30. The purpose of the raid was unclear. The protesters were stationary and unorganized. Some were sleeping. Reports circulated that some of the injured were kidnapped from the hospitals where they sought treatment, and others were detained immediately and denied medical care even for severe injuries. Three protesters remain missing. Following outcry over the raid, between 300,000 and a million protesters flooded into the capital, many from the nationalistic western part of the country. There was live music, free food, and distributions of winter clothes. There was much taunting of the police. Provocateurs among the protesters caused some (not all) of the physical confrontations. Protesters built barricades. They toppled the monument of Lenin near the city center. Soviet-Afghan war veterans organized camp security. They gained control of a few government buildings and camped out, waiting for change. For almost two months, not much happened. The protesters dwindled but remained. During my visit to the capital the camps seemed to co-exist with Kyiv’s normal city life (my photos). During the lull Russian President Putin and Ukrainian President Yanukovych agreed that Russia would buy $15 billion worth of Ukrainian debt, likely forestalling the consequences of the government’s insolvency. Both presidents insisted no other conditions were attached to the deal. On January 20th the Ukrainian legislature, without following legislative procedures, criminalized virtually every conceivable form of protest. The flood of new legislation also requires future buyers of sim cards for cellphones to present passports. This triggered the violence taking place now. The protesters are using stones, fireworks, Molotov cocktails and, famously, a catapult (which has its own Twitter account). In addition to clubs, the riot police have begun employing “flash-bang” grenades and rubber bullets. Eyes have been lost. Also, two protesters have been killed by live ammunition. Thousands of additional Titushky (government sponsored hooligans) have arrived. Strangely, several hundred of them deployed to surround the US Embassy. Injured protesters continue to disappear from hospitals. Protesters emerging from custody show signs of brutal beatings and report various tortures and humiliations. They report having seen others either dead or unconscious. Several Perspectives The EU It seemed the EU was facing the perfect storm: unemployment the highest ever, governments teetering on the brink of insolvency, anti-EU sentiment rising everywhere, and numerous countries threatening to leave. Then Ukrainians burst onto the scene risking their very lives, seemingly, for a chance to join. This will likely be the popular portrayal in the west. Western news stories lead with the “desire of Ukrainians to join the EU.” The west seeks to expand their sphere of influence and diminish Russia’s, and it is only to this extent that Ukraine’s civil unrest matters. Ukrainian news coverage no longer even mentions it. The Protesters The November 30 raid seemed a pivot point where the purpose of the protest switched from advocating EU accession to topping a hideously corrupt and abusive regime. Here is a picture of the construction of the President’s third residence. His son recently became one of Ukraine’s richest men. Ukrainians are tired of feeling humiliated, as evidenced when they voice their desire to have a “normal” country. After the latest violence, any agreement which keeps the President and Party of Regions in power is intolerable. The Regime To be honest, I somewhat like President Yanukovych. He strikes me as a bumbling hooligan of dim intelligence doing what he knows best: making himself rich. I prefer this type of politician to the ideologues in the west, because the hooligan only wants material wealth. If I stay out of his business and keep my own success inconspicuous, he’ll leave me alone. By contrast, the ideologue demands my heart and soul. President Yanukovych had been flirting with both Moscow and Brussels, leading them on like a champion stripper, trying to finagle the best deal for himself. I think the protests in response to his latest stall caught him by surprise. The tragedy for him was that they revealed the brutality of the system. Many protesters incorrectly regard Russia and the Yanukovych regime to be one big evil empire seeking to eliminate Ukraine. While it’s true that Yanukovych’s Party of Regions has been massively supported by Moscow, the last thing the regime wants is supervision. They have a resource-rich country of their own, and they want to continue treating it like a gigantic ATM. Unfortunately for them, the government is bankrupt and ineffective, and riddled with the same myopic opportunism you find at its head. They needed a bailout to keep the party going, and it seems like they just got it from Russia. The Russians The dynamics between Russia and Ukraine are very complicated, and seeped in controversial interpretations of history. Here’s my take: Protests like this do not happen in Russia, and the Kremlin wants to keep it that way. The state took tighter control of Russian media when violence first flared in Kyiv. Newsmen ridiculed the protests, even claiming that cold weather caused the unrest. Russia wants to expand its empire. They are building dependency by buying Ukrainian debt, similar to how they do with subsidized gas deals. There is also a long-standing plan to divide Ukraine, and absorb parts of it into the Russian federation. WWII history is used to divide Ukrainians. Lastly, there is much speculation that Russian agents are actively trying to escalate the situation to the point that Russian security forces have an excuse to intervene. Eastern and Russian-Ukrainians Some are supportive of the protesters rebelling against a corrupt regime. Others feel threatened by the nationalism of the protesters, which can take a pointedly anti-Russian tone. Still others are afraid to voice their opinions for fear of losing their jobs. That was the conclusion of a very affable friend of mine who regularly travels to Donetsk on business. He said he couldn’t even get anyone to express an opinion. The Berkut riot police from Russified parts of Ukraine have been known to express anti-Ukrainian, pro-Russian, and pro-Soviet views. It may be confusing for western observers to see Ukrainian police angrily tearing down Ukrainian flags. The Opposition The three opposition politicians are former heavyweight boxing champion Vitaly Klitschko, lawyer turned politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk, and nationalist firebrand Oleh Tyahnybok. They called for a general strike in response to the latest violence. Earlier, they had appeared in plastic helmets in defiance of the anti-protest laws. The protesters don’t trust any of them. Klitschko seems to be the least mistrusted, and he was sprayed in the face with a fire extinguisher when he spoke among the protesters. Despite the lack of trust, there doesn’t seem to be anyone else, so any solution of the sort the protesters are seeking will likely involve these men. The Violence The official death count at the time of this writing is five. Judging by reports of protesters released from custody, and reports of missing people, it could be in the dozens. Nevertheless, I do not yet consider this a war or a rebellion. It remains civil unrest, masses of riot police confronting masses of protesters. With such a density of people, a single armed person on either side could kill numerous opponents. It took my military mind quite a while to realize what each side was doing. The protesters strive to create a spectacle and discredit the regime by demonstrating their powerlessness. They are also striving to win and maintain sympathy. The regime, through the riot police, is attempting to demonstrate that they are, in fact, in control, and that the protesters are outliers of public opinion. The worst possible outcome for the protesters, with whom I’m sympathetic, is the establishment of a Belarus-style dictatorship. The most realistic expectation is forcing a change of regime, perhaps through a snap election, though that would be difficult because the Party of Regions is very good at election fraud. A new regime would likely be just as corrupt, but power structures in Ukraine are very vertical. So, it really would be a new set of power brokers. More importantly, the fact that the people changed the ruling party would itself restrict the arrogance of future regimes. Of course, a much sounder foundation for a free society with lasting property rights would rely on the principles of local autonomy through secession, sound money through competing currencies, and property rights through gun ownership. Sadly, these ideas aren’t yet popular enough in Ukraine, which is why the greatest dream of so many protesters is of European politicians protecting them from Russian ones. A sad state of affairs indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.172.180 (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines I hide above message since talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Poll on 'authoritarianism'

Under the "Support for Euromaidan in Ukraine" section, it's stated that "In the East, 29% of the population support authoritarianism in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv regions." However the wording of the option in the study is "In certain circumstances, an authoritarian regime may be preferable to a democratic" which is a more nuanced position than what is written in the article. In fact, it's so nuanced that I question the value of including the information at all and further it seems peripheral to the section. I I totally reverted it but the edit was reinserted with a request to address the issue on the talk page. In the mean time, I've simply included the exact wording from the study in place of "support authoritarianism". Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the current, more nuanced' wording you proposed. My original version was just trying to summarize, I apologize if you felt it left out pertinent details. I guess the "under certain circumstances" part is important that it's not an absolute opinion. Still, I think the information is important in defining the socio-political characteristics of these regions and why they do or do not support the movement. --Львівське (говорити) 19:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I may have been overeager when I removed the original edit. I don't want to engage in WP:OR but the poll doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Option 1 is: "Democracy is the most suitable type of political system for Ukraine" and option 2 is: "In certain circumstances, an authoritarian regime may be preferable to a democratic one". The problem is that respondents can only agree with one even though they clearly aren't mutually exclusive. The English translation is provided by the polling centre itself but perhaps it's imperfect. This is why I originally removed the edit but since my concern essentially boils down to original research I'll leave it up to others. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not see what "In the eastern regions of Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv, 29% of the population believe "In certain circumstances, an authoritarian regime may be preferable to a democratic one" has to do with Euromaidan... The sentence looks to me to be an attempt to make regions that do not overtly support Euromaidan look bad... And thus POV. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

PS On first glance it made me think of being Black PR; I am not saying it was intended to be that (I assume good faith). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree but we should assume good faith as you say. I'm still not convinced that it's relevant to the topic, though. Львівське has made the argument that an authoritarian disposition on the part of Eastern Ukrainians could partly explain their lack of support for Euromaidan but that sounds like wp:synthesis. It's not as if Euromaidan can be reduced to authoritarianism versus democracy. Based on the lack of relevance and the apparent flaws of the poll itself (personal opinion), I'd support it's removal but I don't want to do it myself as I was reverted once before. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Makeup of protesters

Current article talks about the students and education, but this article covers the change in the demographics and could really help the article link --Львівське (говорити) 22:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Split to Timeline of the Euromaidan

• I think very big "timeline" section must be split to Timeline of the Euromaidan. If all editors agree, I can create it (now redirect). But it's need to write brief summary section in the main aricle. Who can help to do it? NickSt (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• support - but only if a summary of events can be put in its place and not just a link to a "timeline article" --Львівське (говорити) 17:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

i moved all the content from 30 nov / 1 dec to the other article, gotta do a summary later. you're right, this article is way too bloated (not that its a bad thing) --Львівське (говорити) 17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• support, the initial article is way overgrown. The Domestic responses article also could be considered for split as well. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• support; but did we not agree to do this already? Had we not agreed we would do it after the demonstrations had stopped? Are you now suggesting we should not wait until Euromaidan is history? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong support. Seriously, why has this not been done already? Only thing to do is to move this huge section to (currently a redirect) article Timeline of the Euromaidan, and write a brief summary of the key events in the main article, no subsections needed, as the summary would probably have a size of a typical subsection of the current timeline section or less. --94.253.159.135 (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
• Ok. Who can write the summary section before splitting? NickSt (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
• I've done the split to Timeline of the Euromaidan. Epicgenius (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Epicgenius. I think it would be wise if we start now to put the the less important but still important info about Euromaidan into Timeline of the Euromaidan only. Like I did so a couple of minutes ago. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

now we need summaries of all the major events and not just links to other articles --Львівське (говорити) 16:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

After the splitting of the "Timeline of the Euromaidan" article, I feel that there might not be as much information on the "Euromaidan" article about the events of the riots. The loss of hundreds of references is one thing, the lack of information is another. The Euromaidan riots have gone on since November, not a long time ago. Could you at least put in a summary of the major events? If so, leave a note on my page. Thanks, Babestress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.242.158 (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Parittion

There is some mention of this. Maybe other sources can be found too. But we shuld mention some possible repercussions/reactions. >> Yanukovich's latest move might make a partition of the Ukraine unavoidable>> Russia threatens to back Ukraine split[ http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/ethan-s-burger/could-partition-solve-ukraine%E2%80%99s-problems >> Could partition solve Ukraine’s problems? ]Lihaas (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Protests Attendees

In the table aside the heading "Protests in Ukraine", the first line of the table gives "400,000–800,000" peak attendees in Kiev. Unfortunately, the source is a protester that gave these figures, vaguely citing "various estimates". It could be a personal estimate, and should not be used in an encyclopedia. I'll look for estimates by other sources. Mytskine (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I searched for data, but the figures vary widely. The "400,000–800,000" is probably propaganda. From what I gathered, the largest manifestation was on 2013-12-08. On this day, the opposition claimed there was up to a million of attendees. The local press gave an estimate of 500,000 persons. The Agence France Press 250,000-300,000. The Associated Press (American), first issued a post about "more than 200,000 angry Ukrainians", then wrote that they were "more than 500,000" (both figures can be seen on the same AP article http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ukraine-capital-braces-massive-protest ). Mytskine (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I updated the table with the figures from AP. To be complete, on december 1st, were there was a claim of "400,000–800,000" protesters, I only found figures between 100,000 (CNN) and 300,000 (AP). For pure curiosity, I had a look on last week-end protests, and the international press has more similar estimates: most newspapers announce 70,000 protesters on 2013-02-09. The Ukrainian police has an estimate of 6,000 persons on this day. Mytskine (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"probably propaganda" sounds like original research...the largest were on the 1st by all accounts, you inserted numbers from the next week. Just not liking the numbers is not really a reason to ignore them. Checking the sources on the timeline article i see some for "over 300k" and RT (citing Ukrainian media) saying over 700k, and Nemstov saying 400-800k--Львівське (говорити) 19:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

My commit was not a personal preference. I read at least a dozen of articles from the NYT, CNN, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Le Monde, Associated Press, AFP: all claimed that the peak attendance was on Dec, 8th and none endorsed an estimate above 500k for any day, though some reported that local media or protesters had such estimates. I see the "200k-500k" estimate (sourced from Associated Press) has been reversed. Now the article is back to the "400k-800k", with the reference being an interview in The Atlantic: "What we saw in Kiev last weekend, when by various estimates between 400,000 and 800,000 people came out, speaks for itself," Nemtsov said (a Russian politician). Sure, these unknown and "various sources" of B. Nemtsov are such a better source than AP's reporters! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mytskine (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 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 [1], 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. Wikipedia 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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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)

Wikipedia 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)

Links

[2]>> 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 [http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/12/former-ukrainian-presidents-warn-chaos-2013124184325216516.html >> Former Ukrainian presidents warn of chaos>> Ukraine president 'outraged' by violence >> Fresh demonstrations held in Ukraine >> Chinese businessman to invest $3bn in Ukraine >> Huge protests sweep Ukrainian capital>> Ukraine's president agrees to offer of talks >> Ukraine protesters defy riot police >> Ukraine president slams calls for revolution>> Riot police withdraw from Ukraine protests>> Ukraine opposition rejects call for talks >> Ukraine to offer amnesty to protesters >> Ukraine suspends officials over crackdown >> Ukraine Protesters Yearn for a Leader as Tymoshenko's Ghost Gazes Over Camp >> EU suspends work on Ukraine trade agreement >> Ukraine Protesters Warn Against Trade Pact with Moscow>> EU says door open to Ukraine as unity cracks >> Ukrainian president seeks cash from Kremlin>> Russia and Ukraine strike $15bln deal >> EU expresses doubts over stronger Kiev ties >> Ukraine opposition demands sanctions>> 'Ukraine must change or be destroyed'>> Protests herald unstable year for Ukraine>> EU urges Ukraine to ditch anti-protest laws>> Ukraine's leader approves anti-protest lawsUkraine protesters clash with riot police >>?? Ukraine president calls for calm amid clashes >> Violence as Ukraine anti-protest law enacted>> Ukraine police dismantle protest camps>> Ukraine opposition sets 24-hour deadline>> Ukraine's president offers concessions>> Ukraine protesters besiege ministry building>> Ukraine protesters dig in after deal rejected>> Deadlock in Ukraine>> Ukraine opposition rejects government deal>> Ukraine minister warns of state of emergency>> Ukraine president repeals anti-protest laws>> Thousands mourn Ukraine protester amid unrest >> Ukraine scraps protest laws as PM steps down>> Ukraine considers amnesty for protesters>> Ukraine president goes on sick leave >> Ukraine's opposition plans new protests >> Hope and prayers behind Kiev's barricades>> Ukraine president returns from sick leave>> Ukraine activist goes abroad for treatment >> Efforts to resolve Ukraine crisis continue >> Ukraine government considers early elections >> US sees Russian hand in envoy's bugged call []>> 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 [Independence Square in Kyiv are demanding that an association agreement be immediately signed with the EU. The government also favors the soonest possible signing of the agreement, but we want to provide conditions to minimize losses for the Ukrainian economy"]. 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)

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)