Talk:Revolution of Dignity/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

POV claims

Several users such as @Czello: are making a claim that Russia providing a deal for Ukraine is POV. In the wiki article it states that Russia pressured Ukraine not to accept Europe's deal, but this is not why their leadership refused the deal. As many news reports show, they refused it because Russia provided $15 billion and a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices, and without any demands on reforms to tackle corruption.

Russia pressures = not POV. Russia pressures and provides a deal = POV. If your claim is that stating the latter is POV, then justify it.

And if you think this is undue, then that is fine. Remove both of them. However if you want to keep that part, then provide the full story. RBut (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

russian pressure to reject the eu agreement is well cited and directly relevant to the protests, the gas deal just tangential example of this pressure. Further, the whole story is that while ostensibly without conditions teh gas thing was meant to keep Ukraine russia's political economic orbit as the source you cited clearly states—blindlynx 21:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

To all: Events happened 10 years ago are well described in academic sources by historians already.

Andrew Wilson. The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation. — Yale University Press

Serhii Plokhy. The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History. — W. W. Norton & Company

Taras Kuzio. Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War. — Routledge

Use summaries from these and write a paragraph on a subject. No need to use news articles. We can see then what to include in the lead from there. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

By the looks of it to me, Manyareasexpert agrees that there should be a continuation (that Russia simultaneously provided a deal), but sourced from historians. While blindlynx is rejecting that it is relevant, as well as implying that the word "pressure" already encapsulates or contains the deal.

For Manyareasexpert, that is fine with me if you would like another source. But that is no reason to delete the whole addition. Editors should instead, replace it with a better source (I know it was not your doing).

For blindlynx, Russia simultaneously provided an alternative deal. This is a continuation of the point which is as relevant as the pressure part. If you say that one part is not relevant, then you are also implying that the other part is not. You cannot have it both ways. So choose one. RBut (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

RBut, sorry for calling your first edit (of Oct 20) "POV". I misunderstood your edit summary (which was grammatically not correct). While IMHO not POV, it was still against MOS:LEAD (the lead section should summarize the body of the article). Also, I totally agree with Manyareasexpert, while I don't agree with your statement that editors should replace bad sources with better ones. Sources come first, and we don't search for sources for what we want to say, but we follow the (preferably academic) sources. Finally, you should not expect other editors to do or complete your work. I think the "Prelude" section should be reworked in the light of the books mentioned by Manyareasexpert. Of the three books mentioned, I've read only Plokhy's, which I can highly commend. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, feel free to correct it gramatically or otherwise. As it currently stands, it is "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it. While providing a $15 billion bailout, combined with a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices to fight off Ukraine's economic crisis." RBut (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Please, lets get this done ASAP because of opportunity cost. Whoever has issues with grammar, show what you prefer. As for whether this should be included, it is an integral part of the story. You can see this reflected within the same literature that is cited in the article or in the discussion above: 1. The source used for "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it" further states within the same paragraph that Russia provided a deal (The European Union in Crisis by Dinan Desmond & Nugent Neil). 2. The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation by Andrew Wilson (the book that Manyareasexpert referenced) stated the same. 3. The Russo-Ukrainian War by Serhii Plokhy in (the book that Manyareasexpert referenced and Rsk6400 read) stated the same. 4. Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War is not focused on that aspect. It has little information on it.

1. "The European Union in Crisis" by Dinan Desmond & Nugent Neil: "In August 2013, Russia started to restrict Ukrainian imports, which the Ukrainian opposition immediately described as ‘a trade war to pressure the country against signing a cooperation pact with the European Union’ (Danilova, 2014; see also Pepescu, 2013). In September 2013, the first signs appeared that Yanukovych might give in to the Russian pressure and possibly reject the Association Agreement (House of Lords, 2015: 54–5). What made Yanukovych ultimately do so was allegedly the mismatch between the $15 billion loan to be granted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with EU support but also with EU conditions attached, versus a $15 billion loan offered by Russia unconditionally (ibid.: 55). The Russian loan was part of a ‘Ukrainian-Russian Action Plan’, based on a bilateral treaty signed by Yanukovych and Putin in December 2013 (Euronews, 2013). The prospect of this agreement led Yanukovych to abandon the Association Agreement with the EU, which was to have been signed at the European Partnership summit in Vilnius, in November 2013. Yanukovych’s change of heart at the Vilnius summit was the proverbial wake-up call for the EU."

2. "The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation" by Andrew Wilson: "The EU put the agreements on ice and made them conditional; though it was never explicitly stated whether the key condition was Tymoshenko’s release or legal reform to prevent the same thing happening again. (Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili later revealed how Yanukovych would boast in private meetings ‘very loudly about how he had corrupted senior officials, in the supreme court and the constitutional court’.6) By 2013 summer, it seemed the EU was getting confused and/or softening its stance, as it needed a political success at the key Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius in November 2013. Rumours circulated that Tymoshenko’s freedom was no longer a prerequisite. This was bad for Ukraine, threatening as it did to give Yanukovych a free pass to entrench himself further in power. Russia could perhaps have been more relaxed, as it looked as though the agreement might be watered down or take years of implementation. But it reacted instead to the increased possibility of Ukraine’s mere signature, and unleashed a trade war in August, using much bigger sticks and carrots than the EU. Yanukovych was allegedly threatened with the loss of Crimea,7 while a $15 billion loan that was agreed in December, most of the first instalment of which instantly disappeared into the family’s pockets, seems to have been promised in private earlier."

3. "The Russo-Ukrainian War" by Serhii Plokhy: "The EU's principal demand was the continuation of market reforms. That was the tricky part for Yanukovych, who wanted no reforms and was developing a kleptocratic system of rent collection. But he and his entourage hoped to imitate reforms, protect their business interests from Russia, and penetrate European markets. Polls suggested that in the presidential elections scheduled for 2015 Yanukovych would win if he delivered on his promise of bringing Ukraine into association with the EU. Pro-democratic and liberal voters would forgive him the rest.24

Yanukovych vacillated. While the EU was demanding the release of Tymoshenko and reforms, Moscow asked nothing of the sort. But it threatened Yanukovych with an economic blockade if he signed an association agreement with the EU. To show that he meant business, Putin embarked on a limited trade war with Ukraine, barring Ukrainian products from Russia and causing a 10 percent drop in Ukrainian exports. The cost of “tightening up” Russia’s customs regulations was estimated at $1.4 billion. Moscow had not only a stick but also a carrot in its arsenal. Putin offered money if Ukraine did not sign the proposed agreement with the EU: the amount would later be specified as $15 billion, a lifeline for Yanukovych, whose kleptocratic rule had brought Ukraine to the verge of financial collapse. Yanukovych had finally made his choice.25

In November 2013 Yanukovych accepted an invitation to the EU summit in Vilnius, where he was expected to sign the association agreement but abruptly refused to do so. Speaking to his own entourage, he explained the about-face as the result of an exchange with Putin, who had allegedly told him that he would never allow the European Union or NATO to share a border with Russia. If Yanukovych signed the EU agreement, Putin threatened to occupy the Crimea and a good part of southeastern Ukraine, including the Donbas. Yanukovych, visibly shaken, decided to abandon the EU association agreement.26

Yanukovych did not tell his European counterparts about the money that he was getting from Russia. When he visited Putin in Moscow a few weeks later, the Russian president delivered on his promise. He offered his Ukrainian counterpart a discount price on Russian natural gas and a $15 billion loan. “Ukraine,” declared Putin, “is undoubtedly our strategic partner and ally in the full sense of the word.” The Eurasian integration project was alive and well, or so it seemed at the time.27 RBut (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Those are important details worth mentioning in the article body. We will see what will make to the lead after. We can use summary / conclusion chapters from mentioned works. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

1. "The European Union in Crisis" by Dinan Desmond & Nugent Neil
These are important details as well worth mentioning in body. What's more important however is Conclusion section starting with The Ukraine crisis originated in the determination of a foreign power,
Russia, not to tolerate an EU foreign policy initiative. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, but I did not come here for this. I read the article, saw a part of the story that was missing, and added in that part to complete the story. The 27th reference (The European Union in Crisis by Dinan Desmond & Nugent Neil) is used to state "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it", it further states within the same paragraph, the $15 billion deal. Since that source is used for the lead, then it must be sufficient to further reference that source within the same paragraph (where it states the deal). Do we have agreement on that? RBut (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

The 27th reference (The European Union in Crisis by Dinan Desmond & Nugent Neil) is used to state "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it"
I have my own approach for the lead, which other editors might support, or they might not. It is to look for source's Summary / Conclusion sections for important information worth mentioning in the lead. If we look at Desmond & Nugent work, it talks about
The Ukraine crisis, which erupted in 2014, represents the point at which the aspirations of the EU to extend its influence eastwards collided with Russia’s determination to rebuild power and status following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This keenly felt loss impelled President Vladimir Putin to try to regain control of Russia’s near abroad and restore Russia’s global standing. Putin’s pressure on Ukraine to reject a proposed association agreement with the EU in favour of a Russian-led customs union foundered on popular protest in Kiev, which resulted in the ousting of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president. This, in turn, triggered violent resistance in eastern Ukraine against the new, pro-Western government, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Chancellor Merkel took the lead in managing the EU’s response, which helped to bring about a fragile peace – the Minsk Accord – and included sanctions against Russia. The conflict is now frozen, but could escalate at any time. Accordingly, the EU faces instability on its eastern border in addition to the instability caused by the migration crisis on its southern border.
in its Intro section p. 3 . Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

2. "The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation" by Andrew Wilson
This is a strong argument as it is a short summary and Wilson finds this detail, along with others, valuable. I suggest expanding article body with it and other details first. For example, beforementioned Desmond & Neil talk about the same amount What made Yanukovych ultimately do so was allegedly the mismatch between the $15 billion loan to be granted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with EU support but also with EU conditions attached, versus a $15 billion loan offered by Russia unconditionally (ibid.: 55). offered by IMF, and it's not in our article yet. We can even make a separate chapter "Association Agreement". Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

We need to get back to the purpose of this section and dispute. My edit was removed by several editors for being POV, but as shown above with scholarly sources, and I can cite many news sources, that my edit is in line with those sources. Russia did more than pressure Ukraine into refusing EU's deal. They offered their own deal with no strings attached. The source which is referenced to say "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it", within the same paragraph, talks about Russia's deal. Therefore, that second part can be added (which is the part that I added, the part that was then removed by several editors). Do we have agreement on this?

Since some people had issues with my grammar (even though it's almost a copy/paste of the news source), then please fix it. "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it. While providing a $15 billion bailout, combined with a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices to fight off Ukraine's economic crisis." RBut (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree your edit omits details that academic sources supply this information with. For example, Wilson comments Russia could perhaps have been more relaxed, as it looked as though the agreement might be watered down or take years of implementation. But it reacted instead to the increased possibility of Ukraine’s mere signature, and unleashed a trade war in August, using much bigger sticks and carrots than the EU. Yanukovych was allegedly threatened with the loss of Crimea,7 while a $15 billion loan that was agreed in December, most of the first instalment of which instantly disappeared into the family’s pockets, seems to have been promised in private earlier and other details from other sources. I suggest to expand article body first and proceed to the lead after. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

So type out the sentence with the changes to the edit, I have asked people here for this several times. I want to get this done ASAP and leave. If you want to expand the body and then rewrite the lead afterwards, the more power to you. But I am here about the dispute with my edit. RBut (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

If nobody wants to collaborate on this, after several days of inaction (told by admin in previous dispute), I am permitted to edit the sentence back in. However if you then remove it again, it is clearly bad faith engagement. So if you have problems with the grammar or details, now is the time to fix it. RBut (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not how consensus building works. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

To rephrase that sentence would take you as long as it did to write the sentence above. Since you mentioned issues with grammar, why not propose the new sentence? RBut (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We're all volunteers here and do not respond well to being told what to do. As always, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Generalrelative (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

RBut, please stop edit warring, see WP:EW. It has become a bit difficult to follow this discussion, since you made so many words - better to be concise, see WP:TPG. As I see it, the best idea so far was Manyareasexpert's to re-work the "Prelude" section based on academic sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur. Generalrelative (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

My edit was called out for POV, I proved that it wasn't. There is consensus for this point, and the deal I added in is in line with scholarly and news sources, including the very source that is referrenced for the "pressure" part (within the same paragraph of that source, it talks about the deal). Reworking the body is completely irrelevant to this. If you want to re-work the body and then re-edit the lead, that's your perogative. I am not going to do that. So now there has to be a legitimate reason for removing my edit. Removing it for "you must work on the body" is not legitimate. RBut (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD says the lead section shall summarize the article. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you read this article's prelude section? "...Russia was willing to offer $15 billion,[52] as well as cheaper gas prices.[52]"

And the "Russian involvement" section: "...Yanukovych accepted "bail-out" money—$2 billion out of a $15 billion package—from Russia.[82]" RBut (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

'Pressure' in the lead is enough we don't need to get into every detail of the pressure in the lead—blindlynx 15:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

It is enough. Or maybe it is not. I saw many sources commenting on Russia's "a carrot and a stick" approach. The suggestion is to extend the article body first. Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

ahh sorry i misunderstood this discussion as wanting to add it to the lead—blindlynx 15:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

You understood the discussion correctly, see RBut's comment of 12:05, 5 December 2023. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

yes, we're just persuading the editor to take care of article body first. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

@blindlynx This is a point you made at the very beginning which we have moved past long ago. Now where we are at is @Rsk6400 quoting MOS:LEAD (the article should be summarized in the lead), and I quoted the article to show that the deal, which is an integral part of this conflict, is in this wiki article several times. "Pressure" in the lead is absolutely not enough, as that is not why Ukraine's leaders denied EU's deal. By my view, this discussion is over. I have put up a sufficient case and it is time to add my edit back into the article. Those who want to edit the body and then re-edit the lead, please be my guest. You have no resistance or pushback from me. RBut (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Please don't edit war. I'd rather look for agreement between editors. For example, both Wilson and Plokhy agree on
Russia could perhaps have been more relaxed, as it looked as though the agreement might be watered down or take years of implementation. But it reacted instead to the increased possibility of Ukraine’s mere signature, and unleashed a trade war in August, using much bigger sticks and carrots than the EU. Yanukovych was allegedly threatened with the loss of Crimea,7 while a $15 billion loan that was agreed in December, most of the first instalment of which instantly disappeared into the family’s pockets, seems to have been promised in private earlier (Wilson)

To show that he meant business, Putin embarked on a limited trade war with Ukraine, barring Ukrainian products from Russia and causing a 10 percent drop in Ukrainian exports. The cost of “tightening up” Russia’s customs regulations was estimated at $1.4 billion. Moscow had not only a stick but also a carrot in its arsenal. Putin offered money if Ukraine did not sign the proposed agreement with the EU: the amount would later be specified as $15 billion, a lifeline for Yanukovych, whose kleptocratic rule had brought Ukraine to the verge of financial collapse. Yanukovych had finally made his choice (Plokhy) Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

So how would you add that into "Russia pressured Ukraine to reject it, while providing a $15 billion loan and a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices."? RBut (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself: your edit does not make it clear that the air package was part of the pressure moscow was exerting to 'keep Kyiv in its political and economic orbit'—blindlynx 17:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The way I see it, their strategy was a multi-pronged approach. They pressured Ukraine's leaders via multiple methods, and said that more would follow, and then offered a sweetheart deal for them (15 billion, 1/3rd reduction in gas prices). If my edit doesn't do so and so, then please, add in those details, or fix the grammar. I am not against that. Why is not a single person here willing to fix the issues they bring up? RBut (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

So, do we have consensus? RBut (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

RBut, please take a look at Generalrelative's comment of 16:02, 30 November 2023. I think that answers the question you repeatedly asked. My message on your user's talk page means that you really should stop edit warring, because continued edit warring can easily lead to being blocked. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: How can consensus be attained if nobody is interested in that. The attempt above is completely ignored, and the comment by @Rsk6400 right above should be telling. If you look, all concerns have been fulfilled and negated, I welcome changes to grammar, or extra details, but even after all that, if those same people just simply do not care, what you're implying is that all they have to do is never grant consensus and ghost this section? RBut (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting at a noticeboard, e.g. WP:NPOVN. Folks here appear (to me) to have addressed your concerns and given you sensible advice which you have chosen not to follow, but fresh eyes may see things differently. Generalrelative (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you editors sure you don't want to give consensus for this edit unless I summarize 3 books? RBut (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Lead too long, too many paras

As per [1] 'As a general guideline—but not absolute rule—the lead should usually be no longer than four paragraphs. The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic.' Jontel (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Why is there only one journalist for the "Protest against new government "?

There is only 1 journalist for the "protest against new government section i think there should be multiple or the section should be deleted Rynoip (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

"Ukraine crisis 2014" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ukraine crisis 2014 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 21 § Ukraine crisis 2014 until a consensus is reached. Yorkporter (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Should the united states be included in the foreign involvement section?

Politicians voicing support for protests is incredibly weak compared to Russia sending saboteurs and using economic pressure on Ukraine, The United States even urged Ukrainian protesters to negotiate with Viktor Yanukovych. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/23/readout-vice-president-bidens-call-ukrainian-president-viktor-yanukovych https://www.refworld.org/docid/55c0b14c4.html https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/ Monochromemelo1 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

yeah equating teh us and russia's involvement is wp:undue, taht said a 'foreign reactions section' would be worth while—blindlynx 22:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html?smid=url-share

Doesn’t this change things? 2601:648:8300:9A60:D95D:2B05:B141:B2E0 (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

No, the source is about the current war, i.e. 10 years after the Revolution of Dignity. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The major labour unions should be included in pro-Maidan, anti-Yanukovych section

"Federation of Trade Unions of Ukraine" & "Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine" actively participate in anti-Yanukovych protests and deserve a mention. Russian Wikipedia mentions them already. Jūnenas0 (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Le Revolution of Dignity"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When did this fake name get invented for the Maidan Revolution? I've been following the news on this for coming up on 10 years now and I've never heard this term before. It seems like some insane level of spin. Is there any real justification for this article title? 100.37.244.118 (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion which led to the selection of the current title is here; you could start there for the reasons why. That discussion was from 2021, but also see the box at the top of the page which lists three more move discussions since then which have all affirmed the current title. If you want to suggest that it should be changed to something else the instructions are at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but you should start a new move discussion only if there is new information which suggests a different title is appropriate. Opening new move discussions just to challenge previous decisions can be seen as disruptive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the move to "Revolution of Dignity" was initiated and pushed through by a sockpuppet account called "Somerby" who was a sock of "Dolyn" and was locked and permanently banned by the Wiki community. That seems to me to count as "new" information that would not have been brought up when "Somerby" was active in making the change. What do you think? 100.37.244.118 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't have anything to do with the title of this page—blindlynx 19:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

This so called "Revolution of Dignity" name was coined by the Ukrainian regime that removed Yanukovich and the name has been subsequently adopted by the Western media as well as Wikipedia. But a revolution by definition must have wide popular support and involve the removal of a monarch or dictator. The fact Yanukovich was legally elected and removed without due process does not support this. Neither does the fact that eastern and southeastern Ukraine, who mainly voted for Yanukovich, were not politically involved in his removal. 2604:3D08:8E80:580:C437:9632:90E1:844B (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

there wasn't a 'rebellion' in 2014 it was an armed invasion of Ukraine's Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts by Russian soldiers and their proxy forces which Russia openly admits to arming. In Ukraine the ousting started as protests movement to his withdrawal from negotiations with the EU which was widely popular in Ukraine.Yaunkovich then started killing protesters and banned protesting. The ousting in Yaunonkovich is called the Revolution of dignity in Ukraine. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to say the same thing, I have never once heard it freferred to as the Revolution of Dignity, which sounds like an A-Team episode. It's always referred to as Euromaidan or the Maidan revolution in British media. Using this name doesn't seem like it fits the Neutral Point of View — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B414:2401:4C17:513F:1B80:DDBD (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Euromaidan is a separate article and as of the RM last march 'Revolution of Dignity' is the term most used in scholarship—blindlynx 15:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in everyday usage it is overwhelmingly known as Maidan or Euromaidan. 124.149.240.157 (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at the old request moves---especially the nov 2021 one---those discussions will explain what's going on—blindlynx 16:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the most used term in scholarship. I can replicate the results from the previous discussion:

• Google Scholar Search (returned errors when going past page 98)
  • "Revolution of Dignity" Ukraine -Wikipedia: 6,720 results
  • "Maidan revolution" Ukraine -Wikipedia: about 2,240 results

but this excluded the most common term, "Euromaidan".

• • "euromaidan" Ukraine -Wikipedia: 15,600 results

With several results on that page using "Euromaidan" as shorthand for the entire protest movement and change in government, saying "before and after Euromaidan"[2][3], or just "Euromaidan revolution"[4][5]. The most cited paper on the first page of results (245 citations) makes no distinction.[6]

It's really not clear that the most common term for the protest movement is different from the most common term for the armed conflict, or even the second or third-most common terms. Searching for "Revolution of Dignity" on Google Scholar, the most cited work on the first page (63 citations) says the "Revolution of Dignity" took place between 2013-2014,[7] presumably including the protests.

So this confusion about what to call this article is tightly linked to how to structure all these events in article space. The Orange Revolution article covers both the protests and the upheaval, so I'm not sure why there's a split in this case. Wizmut (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a specific set of notable events that happened during the wider Maidan protests. It's not really comparable to the orange revolution because there was just a lot more of note going on during Maidan.

What do you suggest we name these if not the current titles? —blindlynx 15:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

If article size wasn't an issue then I'd say put it all in one article. But that's not workable, so I don't think there's an easy answer. "Euromaidan protests" and "Euromaidan revolution" seem to cover the chosen split, somewhat imperfectly.

Would be weird to have no article called "Euromaidan", but this term seems to cover a slightly different set of events for each author. Maybe the long term solution in 10 years will be to have a super-article briefly covering everything and then two more specific articles, one more towards 2013 and one more towards 2014. Will have to wait and see what scholars settle on. Wizmut (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

wont that just muddy things? ....'Revolution of dignity' is more common and clearer that 'Euromaidan revolution'

idk i don't really see a compelling reason to move anything—blindlynx 22:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

We should compare "revolution of dignity" (7500 hits in Scholar) with Euromaidan (twice as much) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

For which? the whole thing or the clashes to ousting bit? —blindlynx 16:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

"This article is about a specific set of notable events that happened during the wider Maidan protests" - sources call those protests Euromaidan, or the Revolution of dignity. I don't see sources giving any specific name for "a specific set of notable events that happened during" what period? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Right sorry, i guess the problem is that both the specific set of events and the whole set of protest are called both Euromaidan or the Revolution of dignity...hence the two articles. I guess we could point Revolution of dignity to Euromaidan and give this a WP:NDESC like End of the Revolution of Dignity/Evromaidan'—blindlynx 22:32, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I checked the sources and they say Euromaidan and the Revolution of dignity are synonyms, literally "Euromaidan, or the Revolution of dignity" - Why Women Protest: Insights from Ukraine's EuroMaidan | Slavic Review | Cambridge Core , Ukraine and Russian Neo-Imperialism - Google Books .

After that we need to note that events of Feb 18 - Feb 22 (dates are not precise) are given much attention in sources, and so a separated article could be made off Euromaidan dedicated to these, for the reasons of article length, and named appropriately.

And this is what we have here, we just need to decide on article name. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

the current situation is a natural dab but it's also a weird wiki specific distinction. I feel like it's hard to make up my mind every time this comes up.

Do you have any ideas for the title of this article? —blindlynx 15:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

A wider discussion should be opened so more editors would engage and find the correct title. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

agreed —blindlynx 17:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Several overtly political comments removed Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian propaganda

I just restored the use of the term "Russian propaganda" instead of Putin as the proponent of the theory that the revolution was a coup. The coup-narrative is one of the key elements of the Russian justification of anti-Ukrainian aggression and therefore should be explicitly named as an element of Russian propaganda. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. This article is not a place for broadcasting Putin's words. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

If you use a direct quotation, you must then provide immediate attribution to a person, not some nebulous idea. See MOS:QUOTE. Anything less is simply false writing. To attribute to "Russian propaganda" requires a source that says just that. Interpreting a press conference from Vladimir Putin to be synonymous with the message of "Russian propaganda" in general is WP:Original research or WP:Synth, depending on how you justify it. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Greetings! You are edit warring. You are supposed to reach consensus before re-adding your changes first. Please undo your changes and seek consensus. Thanks!
Sources say just what you require. Wilson p. VI : Except that the coup was not in Kiev, as Russian propaganda claimed, but in Crimea a week later. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a few citation, the fact russian propaganda calls it a coup is obvious and there a tonnes of sources for it—blindlynx 22:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Then you should have no trouble rewriting the section with an indirect quotation and a supporting source. (See e.g. WP:INTEXT for examples relevant to this.) What we have now is a direct quotation of Putin himself at a specific press conference, which requires specific in-line attribution.

Regarding Wilson and Crimea, that's great, and it's cited. As you will note in my comments here and my thorough edit summaries, I did not delete this, but I instead moved it to the section on Crimea. If you want to say what you want to say, you have to write it in proper encyclopedic prose, and not in this point-counterpoint format (that is inherently argumentative). SamuelRiv (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I added three sources and there isn't a direct citation anyways.

Regarding the crimea bit it's relevant given according to sources is an actual coup and so we should provide that context right after talking about russian claims of a coup. Either way there isn't consensus for your changes, please self revert—blindlynx 00:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Please try to understand that a direct quotation has to be to be found explicitly in the cited reference, otherwise it fails WP:Verifiability. Attributing a public quotation from Putin -- which one source quotes -- to something else -- which a source does not quote -- also fails verification. Verifiability is the minimum standard of inclusion for content on Wikipedia. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've reworded it slightly to avoid the misapprehension that the coup part is a direct quote—blindlynx 00:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't need Putin. I provided direct quote above, thanks! You moved it to Crimea section. It can be in that section, but it should also remain in a section where it was before. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine to me now. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Level of support for Yanukovych

The page currently states:

"Yanukovych was widely disliked in Ukraine's west but had some support in the east and south, where his native Russian is much more widely spoken". Emphasis mine.

However, the referenced article that was apparently sourced from actually says:

"Yanukovych is widely despised in Ukraine's west, but has strong support in his native Russia-speaking east, as well as south."

Again emphasis mine. The editor changing "strong" to "some" is clearly biased. Article appears locked so I can't correct. 31.52.143.133 (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The source is from 20.2.2014 and is outdated. I replaced the sentence with another from better, actual academic source. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Relevant Discussion about U.S. involvement

This topic and article are mentioned here:

• Talk:United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#2014_Ukraine (permalink)

--David Tornheim (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Also relevant

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_involvement_in_the_2013–2014_Ukrainian_Revolution

--David Tornheim (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)