Jump to content

Talk:Revolution of Dignity/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Recent events

Where the pro-Russia demonstrations in the aftermath are covered? It should be added that some of the recent protest are neither spontaneous, nor entirely local, and include Russian tourist/activist and organized busloads arriving from Russia itself.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by An unknown editor (talk) 3, March 2014

References

  1. ^ From Russia, ‘Tourists’ Stir the Protests, NYTimes, 3, March 2014

NO MENTION OF VICTORIA NULAND AND THE GEOFFRY PYATT???

Improper use of the talk page. WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

YOU WONDER WHO RUNS WIKIPROPAGANDA


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

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

Anti-government protesters in Kiev

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.

Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?

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

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

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

Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's willing.

Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.

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

Wikipropaganda is a good name for an encyclopedia entry that blanks out the alleged role, sourced from RS, of the US in the overthrow of Yanukovych and specifically the evidence that is the Nuland phone call.Haberstr (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

lede very problematic

I just went through the first couple paragraphs of the lede - which is way to long - and found that the sources given don't actually support the text. There's also a whole bunch of editorializing in there. Really needs a clean up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this is ridiculous

Re: [1]

Basically, after failing to push through their POV on the Annexation of Crimea article, because WP:CONSENSUS was so strongly against them (and administrators issued warnings), User:Tobby72 and User:Haberstr have now moved on to trying to accomplish the same thing on this article. Did I mention that this was the very something which was rejected by CONSENSUS on another article?

And this mindless reverting of any and all changes - *in addition* to changing text in a very POV way - looks like a straight up provocation, meant to start an edit war. It might be worth noting that one of the users above already gloated about how they managed to get another article protected by starting edit wars [2]. So not only are the POV changes the same, but the "strategy", of starting edit wars in a purposefully disruptive manner, appears to be the same. I'm sorry, but my ability to assume good faith has been exhausted.

How else can you explain the restoration of crazy fringe conspiracy websites as sources? Especially since those website may contain links to malware? Oh yeah, I forgot, you're demanding that this be "discussed on talk" first (while never having discussed it yourself). Gimme a break!

How else can you explain the reverting of copy edits and improvements in writing. How else can you explain restoring what is plainly horribly written English, mangled prose, bad grammar and nonsensical statements? How else can you explain restoring text which is redundant and mention several times?

How else can you explain restoring text which is not supported by the sources given, and which clearly misrepresents sources (as pointed out above)?

And so on.

Like I said, this looks like a disruptive attempt to start an edit war on purpose. Again. This is getting really ridiculous.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

  • GlobalResearch.ca site was removed [3]
  • By the way, how can you explain the reverting of well-sourced material?[4]
-- Tobby72 (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there is a discussion, and in that discussion WP:CONSENSUS is strongly against the kind of changes that you are now trying to make in this article, having failed to push them through on that one. Regarding the poll info in particular (what you call "well-sourced material") the WP:CONSENSUS is NOT to include it per WP:UNDUE. But you know this already.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I also note that while you removed the conspiracy website you left in the text that it was suppose to source. In fact, you added another source in which does not support the text, effectively deliberately misrepresenting the source. So we went from you restoring a clearly non-reliable odious source (an antisemitic website) to having a reliable source being misrepresented. Either way this clearly violates Wikipedia policy, and this kind of behavior is not carried out in good faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Removed, it's really questionable.[5] Btw, the source says: "Jonathan Marcus: "The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan." - BBC - 7 February 2014 -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Nuland and the other guy are still in the infobox.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, how do you explain restoring text which is not supported or even related to given sources in the lede? Did you actually bother reading what you were reverting? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not getting into an edit war over this content, but it would be great to have more editors involved in the discussion. -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@RGloucester: While I appreciate you restoring a more neutral version, note that in this restoration [6] you put back in a whole bunch of bad, ungrammatical writing, text which is not supported by sources, as well as straight up vandalism (search for "Hot Pocket"). My edits from 8:38 to 9:17 involved a good bit of clean up, and all of it was explained in the relevant edit summaries.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It was an accident. I fixed it. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This continue. Now the problem was not the reliability of the sources, but the quoted sources not supporting the assertion about 2014 Ukrainian revolution being produced by foreign powers (placing other countries in the infobox). So, yes, I agree with removal.My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP policy requires removal of Non-RS sourced accusations

The quoted material below violates WP:BLP policy ("...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."). See WP:BLPSOURCES. I attempted to remove it but was reverted:

During a 20 February interview, the retired[1] Colonel of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Russia (GRU) Aleksandr Musienko stated that the conflict could only be solved by means of force, and that Ukraine had proven it could not exist as an independent sovereign state.[1][2] According to government documents released by former deputy interior minister Hennadiy Moskal, Russian officials served as advisers in how to carry out the operations against protesters. Codenamed "Wave" and "Boomerang," the operations aimed to disperse crowds with the use of snipers and capture the protesters' headquarters in the House of Trade Unions; prior to police defections, the plans included the deployment of 22,000 combined security troops in the city.[3] According to the documents, the former first deputy of the Russian GRU stayed at the Kyiv Hotel and played a major role in the preparations, and was paid by the Security Services of Ukraine.[4] According to Reuters, the authenticity of the documents could not be confirmed.[5] Interior Minister Arseniy Avakov has stated that the conflict was provoked by a 'non-Ukrainian' third party, and that an investigation was ongoing.[6]

References

  1. ^ a b Massacre in Kiev: the truth in power?. Pravda.ru (original source). 20 February 2014
  2. ^ Massacre in Kiev: the truth in power? on YouTube. Pravda.ru. 20 February 2014
  3. ^ "Ukraine averted greater bloodbath, Moskal alleges 337526.html". Kyiv Post. 24 February 2014.
  4. ^ "Arrest warrants issued for Yanukovych, other former Ukraine officials on suspicion of mass murder". Kyiv Post. 24 February 2014.
  5. ^ "Yanukovich planned harsh clampdown on protesters: Ukraine deputy". Reuters. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
  6. ^ "У кривавому побоїщі в Києві брала участь неукраїнська третя сила – Аваков". Ukrayinska Pravda. 4 March 2014. Retrieved 12 March 2014.

Haberstr (talk) 08:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing "unsourced or poorly sourced" about this text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
... Therefore, how does this violate BLP policy? Enough of this tendentious stretching of policy in order to be WP:POINTy. You're grabbing at straws as a means of pushing your POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Where's McCain? Nuland? This article is pure propaganda.

Why isn't McCains and Nulands involvment mentioned anywhere? Why is there a section called Russian involvment, but not a single word about the fact that the coup was supported, financed and coordinated by the united states and the european union?

I presume true information has been attempted to be added to the article before but the CIA keeps sending masses of accounts to engage in editing wars, right?

194.237.157.205 (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. RT TV comments section is over that way --> Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
What does that have to do with anything? It brings up a valid point about the quality of the article. And then the Pyatt-Nuland phone call, obviously setting up a puppet government. Jesus, is everyone here an idiot? Either that or they are on US government payroll. Which frankly would not surprise me by this point. And the most absurd thing is how the US government's and the West's allegations is taken seriously despite the fact that they lie constantly. The fact that people still trust them is just so mind baffling to me that I cannot wrap my mind around it. The State department headquarters is that way, can pick up your $1.25 for your propaganda. --> --2601:8:BD80:F3F:5DC0:D1D:DA5C:47E9 (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Don't be caught up in the ridicule and insults spewed out by the US State Dept hacks or whatever who try to make discussion toxic in their efforts to get good NPOV editors like yourself banned or so disgusted you run from the stench of these propaganda-destroyed pages. Keep fighting the good fight, which is to create NPOV pages on the events surrounding the Ukraine crisis and coup.Haberstr (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Stop. Making. Personal. Attacks. How many times have you been told/warned/asked about this? Seriously! Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not making a personal attack.Haberstr (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
"US State Dept hacks or whatever who try to make discussion toxic in their efforts to get good NPOV editors like yourself banned". Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
That's a description of what may be going on on the Ukraine pages and not a personal attack. Since you think it is a personal attack, can you tell me who it is a personal attack on? If you can't then how can it be a PERSONAL attack?Haberstr (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Accusing other editors of being government hacks or agents is a pathetic new low for you, User:Haberstr. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Your accusation is false. Please apologize and avoid personal attacks on other editors. I was responding to speculation by the preceding editor, and I have no idea what you may or may not be.Haberstr (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm a "who", not a "what". And you were agreeing with the preceding editor's speculation. You know, it's pretty rich for the guy who just suggested "US State Dept hacks or whatever" are editing the topic area, plus a serious blanket bad faith accusation, to complain about people "attacking other editors for no reason". There is no massive government conspiracy against you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This is possibly the most pathetic attempt at weaselling out of WP:ADHOM, WP:UNCIVIL, WP:ABF and WP:ASPERSIONS I've encountered on Wikipedia. Keep on crying wolf. You've completely lost any credibility, even if there were anyone around who thought you still had some. Your true colours are glaring through... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on 2014 Ukrainian revolution which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/to-journalists-commentators-and-analysts-writing-on-the-ukrainian-protest-movement-euromaidan-kyiv-s-euromaidan-is-a-liberationist-and-not-extremist-mass-action-of-civic-disobedience
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on 2014 Ukrainian revolution which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/to-journalists-commentators-and-analysts-writing-on-the-ukrainian-protest-movement-euromaidan-kyiv-s-euromaidan-is-a-liberationist-and-not-extremist-mass-action-of-civic-disobedience
    Triggered by (?<!-)\bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This was not a Revolution

The Using of the Term Revolution for this happening is false because there was no radical change for example there are still oligarchic structures in the State and Economy in Ukraine. And actually the so-called Euromaidan was not a nation-wide protest movement, the most demonstrants came from Western Ukraine.--Anhor Camaxtli (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

United States (or EU) involvement

This article is failing to address the actors behind the actors. The facts of detail of these behind-the-scene actors may be questioned or disputed, but this article should have a reference in this regard.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/new-video-evidence-americas-coup-ukraine-means.html New video evidence has been added to the already-conclusive video evidence which shows that the U.S. Government was the controlling power behind the extremely violent and illegal 18-27 February 2014 Ukrainian coup, which overthrew the democratically elected and never legally removed-from-power Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-was-behind-ukraine-coup-obama-admits-that-us-brokered-a-deal-in-support-of-regime-change/5429142 US President Barack Obama revealed the United States’ involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and admitted that the United States “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.”

US President Barack Obama’s recent interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakiria reveals the United States’ involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and that the country worked directly with Ukrainian right-wing fascist groups, experts told Sputnik.

On Sunday, in his interview with CNN, Obama admitted that the United States “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.”

www.infowars.com/ron-paul-u-s-eu-behind-ukraine-coup/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used The overthrow of the legally elected government of Ukraine was “was not only supported by U.S. and EU governments — much of it was actually planned by them,” former congressman Dr. Ron Paul said.

http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/02/02/395825/US-backing-for-Ukraine-coup-confirmed The Russian foreign minister says the US president’s recent remarks about brokering power transition in Ukraine show that Washington was behind the overthrow of former Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych.

https://www.rt.com/news/233439-us-meddling-ukraine-crisis/ After months of denying having a hand in the Ukrainian coupe, US President Barack Obama admitted playing power broker for the “transition.” This probably falls short of America’s actual involvement.

184.166.40.137 (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Move to "Revolution of Dignity"?

Closed as unproductive. RGloucester — ☎ 15:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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.

Where did I find these books? At the library, which is where one usually expects to find such things. The book you cited does not refer to the Tunisian revolution by the name of "revolution of dignity", but is using it as a descriptive phrase. The books that I've found refer to the Ukrainian revolution simply as "Revolution of Dignity", with capitalisation. Regardless, this is clearly a waste of time, given the continual bandying about of "Ukrainian coup" hogwash. RGloucester — ☎ 14:53, 19 December 2015 (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.

Victoria Nuland seems to be missing

I couldn't find any mention of Victoria Nuland in the article.

But the Wikipedia article about her, Victoria_Nuland, certainly suggests that she had a very busy February that year, interacting with "Yats" (Arseniy_Yatsenyuk) and other opposition leaders.

I think the article could only be enhanced by mentioning a few of the more influential players such as Nuland --- surely nobody could deny that she was playing some sort of role, good, bad, or indifferent?

Son of eugene (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Who? -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Son of eugene. I also have questions about the title of this article. It seems to me that it would be more accurately titled "2014 Coup d'Etat in Ukraine" or "2014 Regime Change in Ukraine." Not the original Jack Bruce (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Euromaidan in Kiev 2014-02-19 12-06.jpg and File:Euromaidan in Kiev 2014-02-19 10-22.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Euromaidan in Kiev 2014-02-19 12-06.jpg and File:Euromaidan in Kiev 2014-02-19 10-22.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 19, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-02-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Burning of the Trade Unions Building
The burning of the Trade Unions Building—used as the headquarters of the Euromaidan movement—during the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, following a failed attempt by the Ukrainian police to capture the building. After the fire, the damaged building was covered with large canvas screens on two sides with the words "Glory to Ukraine" printed on them in large letters.Photograph: Amakuha
Archive – More featured pictures...

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

recent resumption of edit warring

and attempts to implement changes to article which never got consensus. Here (You KNOW there's no consensus for this as it's been discussed multiple times), here and here. The last edit in particular is by an WP:SPA who showed up out of nowhere and immediately started four different edit wars on four different articles [7] while showing familiarity with Wikipedia policies and mark up. IF we assume that this is a legit account, these changes STILL need to be discussed first, particularly since most of them are so over-the-top POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

This was not a Revolution

The Definition of the Term Revolution is fundamental change of the political power and organizational structures. But there are still Oligarchic Structures in State and Economy in Ukraine, so this was not a Revolution. This was simply a Coup d'état.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 16:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

2014 Ukrainian revolution → Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 – Harmonization with others, e.g. Egyptian Revolution of 2011. – Article editor (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Article editor, Dicklyon, and RGloucester: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Might be OK except that we don't treat made-up descriptive titles as proper names; keep lowercase per WP:NCCAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Generally speaking, I oppose this. Being familiar with the developing literature on this event, the name that is usually used is "Revolution of Dignity". As long as the NDESC name is going to be used, there is no reason to sacrifice concision for the sake of adding add "of". I certainly oppose the capitalisation, as well. RGloucester — ☎ 17:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)----
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This was not a Revolution

The term Revolution is wrong because there was no fundamental change in organizational structures of the State and the Society.--95.113.235.188 (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


Just because you repeat making this topic multiple times does not make it correct. 2606:6000:6787:CF00:94E1:512C:ADB:E91C (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

lviv declared independence???

" Some areas, including Lviv Oblast, declared themselves politically independent of the central government.[56]"- really? Who exactly in Lviv declared independence? The city council or who? I searched the Internet, there are articles with this headline, but no specification of who exactly ad how declared independence in Lviv. I think you should take it out from the article. 94.139.128.153 (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Revolution?

There was no Revolution this was a coup which was only supported by pro-American and pro-EU Ukrainians.--Obama-Versteher (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Not a "Removal"

The article have a section called "Removal of Yanukovich", in which the events of 21-22 february are described. But the vote in the parliament was about Yanukovich abandoning his post voluntarily, and not about removing him. There for you can argue that Yanukovich had abandoned his post, and wasn't removed at all. Therefore it's a question if there was any removal at all, so please change the text.94.139.128.110 (talk) 09:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it correct to call it a 'revolution'?

The government that took charge in Kiev after Yanukovich fled has the position that there was no disestablishment of the constitution and that they are a continuation of the legitimate government. Accordingly the title would appear to be incorrect.50.100.30.200 (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Major Issues

This article is completely one-sided in regard to the role of foreign actors, with major facts omitted and a blatant pro-Western, anti-Russian POV quite clear. For starters, the title: it was not a revolution, but a foreign-backed coup. There is an entire section on Russian involvement but not a word on US involvement. I see on archived talk pages for the article that editors took issue with Russian state-owned sources (RT, Sputnik News) and "conspiracy theory" outlets (Global Research, AlterNet, Infowars). Here are a bunch of other articles describing US involvement to various degrees from other sources that should be acceptable (but probably will be dismissed as propaganda because they don't tow the pro-Western line - ironic):

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/05/chronology-of-the-ukrainian-coup/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/02/28/commentary/world-commentary/ukrainian-coup-is-not-a-revolution/#.WKyZwv3FC-o

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

As it stands now, this article is a complete joke and an utter failure to meet Wikipedia's NPOV and objectivity standards. Since this was apparently a long running issue based on the archived discussion pages, and the result is this one-sided trash, I doubt the editors controlling this article will allow anything counter to their propaganda to stay. Absolutely pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.122.241 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this. This article is written from a pro-American/pro-Ukrainian (nationalist) POV, but that is to be expected when any news sources not adhering to said POV have been conveniently classified as unreliable. I would like the editors in charge of this article to have a constructive debate instead of responding with accusations and instant reverts (to which I have responded in tone with an accusation of vandalism).
Due to this article's blatant POV issues, I have slapped a POV tag on it. And before I am accused of being paid by the Kremlin or the like - I think both sides have their motives to exaggerate things, this is why it is most important to write this article from an objectively neutral POV, rather than from either side's POV. - OBrasilo (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that you both read through the archived talk and desist from soapboxing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
That implies I never read this or any other related article's talk page before. I have. And both sides had been out of control. Some pro-Russians have been way too aggressive (and resorted to needless ad hominem attacks), but the pro-Ukrainians have been relatively uncivil as well. - OBrasilo (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
As I have already asked of you on your talk page, please desist from the ad hominem attacks. Wikipedia articles (including WP:TITLE) are written according to the dominant mainstream views... which this article reflects. It has nothing to do with my personal political convictions (which you are making assumptions about) or yours. We do not follow WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT or WP:GEVAL. While I appreciate that your intent is good faith, I don't think you fully comprehend the WP:NPOV policy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
What I'd like is a reasonable explanation for why American mainstream media are considered reliable (even more so now that even the President of the United States is himself doubting their reliability) but Russian mainstream media are not. - OBrasilo (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:SOAP again. Your query is a legitimate one, but this article's talk page is not the venue in which to discuss it. It may be worth your while exploring the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you feel that a revival of discussion is worthwhile, you might consider posting a well constructed query there (ensuring that you aren't merely replicating the self-same discussions that have been done to death before). It's a sticky issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I quickly checked. This recent edit by an IP is actually a WP:SYN (none of these sources claims directly that Maidan was arranged by US) and therefore should be reverted. BTW, Russian media, such as RT (TV network) are used a lot for sourcing on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
It didn't say that the Maiden was arranged by the US, just that it was trying to influence the outcome by encouraging Yatsenyuk to be the Prime Minister. 75.128.35.146 (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Second inserted paragraph is classic WP:SYN to promote a conspiracy theory. Yes, there were apparently private conversations between Yatsenuk, Klichko and representatives of US administration, but there are no indications these discussions influenced anything. It tells basically the following: "someone from US administration talked with Yatsenyuk and he therefore was elected". This is WP:SYN. First inserted paragraph is simply a repetition of something that was said just before ("The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, further inflaming the situation and resulting in a series of violent clashes in the streets of Kiev.") My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

coup?

I do not think the event after the Maiden could be considered a "coup". It certainly was not like a September 11th in 1973 where a military faction overthrew the government, but if it was a coup, it would be like the March on Rome where many activists seized critical government buildings and overwhelmed by security forces.

I would say that the events after the Maiden was more of a "coup" than a "revolution". But this article, as many others have pointed out, is biased in favor of the Western point of view and the Maiden activists.

I would add that it should be alternatively called a coup, along with "Euromaidan Revolution" and "Revolution of Dignity" 75.128.35.146 (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

International and other reactions

I suggest removing sections "Domestic reactions" and "International reactions" from the page. It is badly outdated and does not add anything to the page. Any information of significance from this section could be included to other sections, but I do not really see anything of significance. My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. It's significant and has sources. It's been discussed before. 107.77.223.210 (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
So, why it is important to tell, for example, that Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on 19 February 2014 "condemned the violence and loss of life in Ukraine and urged both sides to resume positive political negotiations to resolve the crisis"? My very best wishes (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The background and the rallys is important for context. The international reaction should stay. 107.77.223.173 (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
You did not answer the question. Why this outdated claim (it was made in 2014) should remain on the page if it actually tells nothing about 2014 Ukrainian revolution? And BTW, you should not use two different IP addresses per WP:SOCK. My very best wishes (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
While it is lengthy, I think a summary of the content would provide historical context. While individual politicians should go, international bodies and a precise of the predominant reactions is WP:DUE. The article stands on its own as being about the revolution prior any knowledge of the ensuing events, hence a picture of responses at that point in time is historically significant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Right now this is simply a list of responses. They have little sense and value. If we want to keep them, then it would be better to put them into a separate page "International responses to ...". But what do you think about previous thread (currently reverted by IP) with repetition and hints that Nuland somehow appointed Yatsenuk to his position, or controlled him? I think those should definitely be removed. My very best wishes (talk)
Perhaps some of that (statements by international organizations) could stay, but this is simply a list of uninformative statements taken out of context. Without proper context and summary, this is even misleading. For example, the statement by Akhmetov is misleading, unless reader knows that he actually was behind the "uprising" in Donbass, but this page does not provide such info, which obviously goes against WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
All of the WP:POV inferences of a U.S. 'puppet government' should never have been introduced, and should have gone long ago...
As regards the list of a stand alone article: no, I don't believe that it merits its own article. As with all recent current affairs, we're swimming in spin-offs that aren't particularly significant and are not maintained properly (which is how they get latched onto by POV pushers while regulars are working on other articles). I know that this argument is supposedly not a kosher one, but it is WP:COMMONSENSE, so I'll invoke WP:IAR on this one. My only suggestion at this point in time is that we cut and paste the international reaction here, on the talk page, and create a good summary of salient content before restoring it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Some bits of info in this section are important and should be saved, however they possibly belong to another page, Timeline of the Euromaidan. In any event, if I change something, please feel free to revert or correct my edits. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
@My very best wishes: By all means, amend it as you see fit. I trust your judgement. I'll keep an eye on the changes in case I have an express opinion on amendments, but I'm currently only able to log in to stay on top of any obvious vandalism or POV pushing until mid way into April. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! But it's not too bad, and maybe fixing this is not worth struggling with various strange accounts around here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately, there have only been nitpicky complaints about about the section (i.e., if this and this government made a statement, we have to POVPUSH the points of view of at all costs... in favour of the IP or SPA whose arguments are predominantly not encyclopaedic. WP:WORLDVIEW is just and essay and is not intended to address trivial complaints. The opinions and positions were the prominent positions being expressed by reliable sources at the time, therefore still belong as historically significant within the bounds of the article already covering what is already an historical event. I'm fine with letting it stand as is without summarisation, turning it on its head, or adding more obtuse points of view. Не нужно ломать голову. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on 2014 Ukrainian revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

POV edits by GPRamirez5

That was good revert by Dearscrewtape. Telling that Yanukovich was "democratically elected", but removing that "Russian government support for Yanukovych led to his ouster" in the lead was really POVish way to summarize the content. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

There was no Revolution

This was no Revolution this was just a Coup.--95.113.251.131 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible improvements to the article

First of all, I think that the article is in a decent shape. But when I tried to make the article illegible for the Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries (better known as the Wikipedia:On this day/Today section on Wikipedia main page) fellow Wikipedian howcheng pointed out some points for improvement for the article which I agree with. Unfortunately I lack time these days too give the article a good maintenance job, but feel free to do so. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Corruption in Ukraine

Corruption in Ukraine is prominently mentioned in the background section of the article. Is there any reason to mention corruption in this particular context? As can be seen in the article linked in the previous sentence, Ukraine is indeed profoundly corrupt. The leaders of the 2014 revolution promised less corruption, but it seems like Ukraine remains pretty corrupt despite this promise. Also, the statement "After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption" suggests that Ukraine wasn't corrupt before the breakup of the Soviet Union, which is dubious. Heptor (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Signing of the association agreement

In the second paragraph of the lead, the article states that "President Yanukovych [...] ultimately decided not to sign [the association agreement with the EU]". Somewhat randomly, in this interivew, Lavrov says that Yanokovich was merely postponing it ("just to postpone it, mind you, not to cancel it altogether!", as he put it). Is this a correct recollection of the events? Do we have sources for stating that he ultimately decided not to sign the agreement? Heptor (talk) 16:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity/Archive_7&oldid=1075610873"