Talk:Revolution of Dignity/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Questionable competence

The article does not cite William Blum and Noam Chomsky, the foremost historians on the subject of the Washington Connection and coupe de etat against democratically elected leaders. This Wiki post focuses on commercial news media, which as indicated by Michael Parenti in "Inventing Reality," are not sources for informed knowledge but are disseminators of corporate interests and toothpaste. The article must critically examine a coupe de etat against a democratically elected leader and the United Nations Charter on such subject matter. The absence of any citation to Blum and Chomsky call into question the critical competence of this Wiki post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losduarte (talk • contribs)

We all agree that this article can be improved, although I must express my skepticism towards your assessment as to which degree the quality of this article hinges on presence or absence of citations by these two historians you mention. Do you have any specific citations in mind that you think would be relevant? Heptor (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki purportedly has editorial teams composed of competent researchers. The absence of scholarly research reduces any publication to the level of pop hearsay, as indicated previously, no better than the commercial news dedicated to corporate interest and rehearsed material to sell cosmetics. The absence of the two foremost historians on the subject of coupe de etat, promoted by the United States, does not invalidate the Wiki op. ed. piece (it calls its competence into question). However, the complete absence of any sociological and historical sources entirely invalidates a Wiki piece citing to mere corporate news media (the news is not verifiable and does not purport to be informed knowledge). That no one, assigned to the Wiki Ukrainian coupe team, has ever heard of Noam Chomsky underlines the lack of interest in critical research at Wiki Ukraine. It is pointless to provide critical research to a crew, which writes in the first person "I" and has never heard of Noam Chomsky or William Blum. There is no alternative to the heavy lifting of research.

Very well. The commentary above duly points out the insufficiencies in the selection of sources for this article. This article is overly reliant on the popular news media and makes little use of the academic research on the topic. This assessment is supported by the editorial policy of Wikipedia on selection of sources. According to this policy, news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact; when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Selection of sources is a complicated and contentious matter requiring both time and competence to properly address, and allowing anyone claiming to have academic credentials to determine facts would be no better solution to this dilemma than the one presently deployed. Wikipedia does not have an editorial team assigned to this article, competent or otherwise: Wikipedia is edited entirely by volunteers. These volunteers are not required to present any academic credentials, and may edit the articles anonymously without disclosing their identities at all. That being said, knowledge of the topics at hand and an ability to express this knowledge in a comprehensible manner are often looked upon with favor. If the author of the above commentary finds him- or herself willing and able to review the article in some depth and suggest specific editorial changes in the article, such contributions would be very welcome. Heptor (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

What's funny is that it's quite obvious no Ukrainian sources were cited. There was no revolution, it was a coup - just ask ANY Ukrainian. Funny to see this entire site reduced to corporate propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.93.158 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Link to Paul Manafort?

I'm not a wikipedia talker, so I hope I'm doing this right.. Wanted to point out that publicly released text records between Paul Manafort's daughters state that this "revolution" was orchestrated by Paul Manafort and that he was paid for it. Here's the part in question, which can be found in any of the copies of the texts available online:

Sent: I have LOADS of evidence that a COURT OF LAW would accept.

Received: He prob feels he has s right

Received: And yet somehow my own mother, Disney.

Sent: Doesn't

Received: Yes well just bc he feels something doesn't make it so

Sent: He also felt he had a right to sexually assault mom

Sent: He has no moral or legal compass

Received 2015-03-31: You know he has killed people in Ukraine? Knowingly

Sent: What?!

Sent: No

Sent: Yup

Sent: Remember when there were all those deaths taking place? A while back. About a year ago

Sent: Revolts and what not

Sent: Do you know whose strategy that was to cause that

Received: To send those people out and get them slaughtered.

Received: As a tactic to outrage the world and get focus on Ukraine.

Sent: Don't fool yourself. That money we have is blood money

Sent: I don't advise raising it with him. He lies like a rug and gets realllll pissed off. But it's true. He thinks I don't remember

Thought I'd mention it, though I'm not 100% sure on the details (figured I'd leave that to professional fact-finders rather than try myself).

Thanks for all the work you folks do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.22.8 (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! This is interesting to read, but unfortunately this material is not usable on Wikipedia... Both because it is a Primary source, and because the discussion between Paul Manford’s daughters is hearsay since they were not themselves involved in the events. This could be included if the messages were reported on and put in a context by reliable secondary sources. Heptor (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Appreciation to the Authors

I just wanted to thank you for the accurate page, despite the overwhelming propaganda. During the revolution I lived in Podil, at the bottom of the hill below the center, on Sagaydachnogo below where the stacks of tires were used to blocked the road, and near the Funicular. All I saw were good people, from every walk of life, desperate for a better life, seeking to end a corrupt government. Slava Ukrayini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:4100:1304:45D:DE32:F6BE:6643 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Why not wait to vote in a new government rather than support a violent coup? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Revolution?

The title is misleading. The events in Ukraine just don't measure up as a 'revolution'. Pre- and post- the coup-d'etat didn't change much. It retained the same federal structure. It continued to hold elections generally considered to pass the requirements of being free and fair. It is still a president/PM representative democracy. It's still a market. economy. So I am seeking a consensus on what the title should be changed to. I think the most accurate would be "Ukraine 2014 Coup-d'Etat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.175.29 (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That is an exceedingly narrow definition or 'revolution' and one not shared by WP:RELIABLE sources on the topic. blindlynx (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 174.89.175.29. The title should be changed.Seekallknowledge (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Responses sections

I would suggest to remove this section. It is outdated and frankly reads ridiculous. One could say "WP is not news", but those are very old and outdated "news". My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Domestic/international reactions moved here from main page.My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Domestic responses Verkhovna Rada On 20 February, Parliament resumed its work around 16:00 and worked until about 23:00. Members adopted a draft law that expressed "condemnation of the violence that led to the deaths of peaceful citizens of Ukraine". On the morning of 21 February, Parliament announced that Speaker Rybak had signed a resolution titled "About condemning violence in Ukraine, which led to loss of life". The resolution ordered the Cabinet of Ukraine and all siloviks to stop the use of force and prohibited the use of any weapons and special measures against citizens of Ukraine. Political response Iryna Herashchenko, a member of Parliament with Klitschko's opposition Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform party, commented on the critical state of Ukrainian health services, saying: "Emergency services and all are filled to the brink. There is nowhere to put people up. The doctors are wonderful. Their sacrifice is impressive. They work with full dedication, fight for everyone who is injured." After negotiations with Yanukovych, opposition leader Yatsenyuk said that the talks had "ended with nothing. ... Deputies from the opposition said Yanukovych threatened all opposition leaders with criminal responsibility. We only had one item: immediately start the truce, but they told us to effectively give in. Since a truce has not been announced and the government has no such desire, we're standing on the brink of the most dramatic page of the history of Ukraine." In a statement on his party's website, Klitschko wrote: "Yanukovych reacts to the situation absolutely inadequately. All he's been talking about is that the leaders of the opposition should call on people on Maidan (Kyiv's Independence Square) to end the standoff and lay down arms. ... These are police forces that are violently shooting at protesters downtown Kyiv. This is what I suggest: authorities should immediately withdraw law enforcers and put an end to the bloody crackdown, as people continue to die. This is what I've told Yanukovych. Could talks be a solution while blood has been shed? But unfortunately he has no understanding of the situation." Acting Prime Minister Serhiy Arbuzov said at a 19 February cabinet meeting, "It is unacceptable to talk about European values and the desire for a new level of Ukraine's development and at the same time sacrifice human lives, destroy the state's and citizens' goods, burn their cars and apartments, and shame the country in the eyes of international community." Acting Minister of Justice Olena Lukash accused the opposition of violating agreements and demanded an immediate end to violence. She argued that the escalation was the fault of extremists. Party of Regions MP Oleh Tsariov appeared on Russian TV and announced that officials would clear Independence Square within an hour, saying, "After we bring order to Maidan, we'll bring it nationwide." Party of Regions MP Vadym Kolesnichenko blamed the opposition and the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, for the violence in Ukraine. On 18 February, in an interview with Hromadske TV, Inna Bohoslovska said that she had seen policemen disguised as protesters shooting at other policemen. The same day, the MVS website showed people dressed as protesters with firearms. Yulia Tymoshenko called on the opposition to cease any talks with Yanukovych. An international group of researchers who specialize in the study of far right political movements published a joint statement in which they disagreed with claims about the nationalist character of the Ukrainian revolution, pointing out that it had a mostly democratic and liberal character. According to the letter signed by these researchers, while nationalist groups were present and involved in the protests, their influence on the movement was marginal. However, they said, this influence was disproportionately highlighted by the Russian media, which was using the claims as a weapon of Russian imperialism. Regions The presidium of the Supreme Council of Crimea (the parliament of Crimea) said: "Peaceful Crimea is extremely worried by another outbreak of violence in the center of Kyiv. Slaughter on the capital's streets proves that the opposition has perceived numerous concessions on the part of the authorities as a manifestation of weakness and has taken advantage of the amnesty law to take a respite before a new attempt to forcibly seize power in the country." It added: "Innocent people died at the hands of the lawless gunmen on February 18. These are no longer peaceful protests, of which the opposition leaders and biased mass media outlets have said repeatedly, and not even mass unrest. This is the beginning of a civil war." Deputies of Luhansk Oblast declared: "We turn to the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich with the demand to take strict measures concerning those, who today virtually went to war against our country, and to introduce a state of emergency. The time of peaceful negotiations has ended – negotiations cannot be held with terrorists and extremists!" Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People's former chairman, Mustafa Abdülcemil Qırımoğlu, said: "They will answer for the blood of every patriot. I urge all citizens to create pockets of resistance." International reactions International organisations United Nations — Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on 19 February for an end to the "unacceptable" violence in Ukraine and for amnesty for those detained during the unrest. European Union — Foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton urged Yanukovych, the government, and leaders of the opposition "to address the root causes of the crisis". In addition, the president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, issued a statement expressing his condolences to the families of those killed and calling for an end to the violence. He also said: "The EU has been offering its sincere assistance to facilitate political dialogue between the sides and de-escalate the situation. We continue to believe that constitutional reform, formation of a new inclusive government and creating conditions for democratic elections constitute the only way out of this deep and long-lasting political crisis. [...] Yet, we have also made it clear that the EU will respond to any deterioration on the ground. We therefore expect that targeted measures against those responsible for violence and use of excessive force can be agreed by our Member States as a matter of urgency." Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe — The OSCE chairperson-in-office, Foreign Minister Didier Burkhalter of Switzerland, urged Ukrainian authorities on 19 February "to do their utmost to defuse the menacing situation in the country" and to suggest measures to de-escalate the conflict, including the assignment of "an impartial international facilitator, possibly working in tandem with a respected Ukrainian personality, and dispatching an international expert team to establish facts on violent incidents and human rights violations". Council of Europe — The secretary general of the council, Thorbjørn Jagland, said in a statement on 18 February that the Ukrainian Parliament should have a "serious debate on how to end the crisis" and offered the legal and constitutional support of the Council of Europe. Weimar Triangle — in a joint statement by the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Poland issued on 28 February, the three countries urged the new Ukrainian authorities to respect minority rights, stating, "A lasting accommodation of the existing diversity in Ukrainian society necessitates reaching out to Eastern and Southern regions and engaging with all legitimate interests, including minority rights, especially regarding language issues." Nations Armenia — A Foreign Ministry spokesman said on 20 February: "We deeply regret the tens of victims as a result of clashes in Kyiv. Ukraine is a friendly country for Armenia. We hope that the sides will resume talks to achieve a peaceful settlement of contentious issues." Australia — Foreign Minister Julie Bishop on 19 February condemned the violence and loss of life in Ukraine and urged both sides to resume positive political negotiations to resolve the crisis. Canada — Foreign Minister John Baird declared in a statement on 18 February: "Canada calls on all sides to show restraint and to cease all acts of violence immediately. No act of violence or repression today will go unnoticed by the Government of Canada, and we will work with our allies in the international community to ensure that those responsible will be held to account." On the same day, Baird also said that Canada would supply demonstrators in Ukraine with medical aid. Colombia — The Foreign Ministry, on behalf of the Colombian government, issued a press release expressing "deep concern about the situation in Ukraine" while also deploring the "acts of violence that have taken place in the last couple of days." In the same statement, Colombia urged the government of Ukraine to "guarantee security, human rights, and the fundamental liberties of its citizens". Czech Republic — Foreign Minister Lubomír Zaorálek, meeting with the Ukrainian ambassador on 19 February, described the use of violence against protesters as "absolutely unacceptable" and said that "under no circumstances should internal problems be solved in such a manner". Estonia — Foreign Minister Urmas Paet said in a statement on 19 February, "We need to help Ukraine out of this crisis," and added, "Estonia is prepared to consider punitive measures against all those responsible for the increase in violence." Finland — Foreign minister Erkki Tuomioja, in a statement on 18 February, expressed his condolences to the families of those killed, urged an end to the violence and praised the attempts of the EU, the OSCE, and the Council of Europe to mediate in the conflict. Georgia — The Foreign Ministry released a statement on 18 February condemning the use of force and adding that Georgian officials were "extremely concerned over tragic events" in Kyiv. On 20 February, President Giorgi Margvelashvili said that "use of arms against own people does not speak well of any government" and warned that "not a single government has managed to get away with it". In an interview with The Guardian, Irakli Alasania, Georgia's defence minister, said that the Ukrainian revolution was the "first strategic failure for Putin." Alasania was sanguine about the potential for escalation, saying: "There's a lot of rhetoric and chest-thumping. It's not unusual. But Russia won't go into military confrontation. I don't think there's a military option on the table for Putin." Germany — Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned, "Those responsible for making decisions that lead to further bloodshed should know that Europe's decision on sanctions will be reconsidered for sure." Hungary — The Foreign Ministry expressed deep concern and extended condolences to the victims' families. It also stated that, as a neighbouring country, Hungary was interested in a "stable, democratic, and integrated Ukraine, as well as directly interested in the legal certainty of the Trans Carpathian Hungarians". Israel — Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that Israel was concerned about the events and expressed hope that the situation would resolve without further loss of human life. Italy — Foreign Minister Emma Bonino called on 20 February for visa sanctions against those responsible for violence, a weapons embargo, and humanitarian support. Latvia — The Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement on 19 February putting the full responsibility for the escalation of the crisis on the Ukrainian government. The statement also read, "Those guilty of causing violence must be held responsible." Lithuania — The Foreign Ministry issued a note stating in part: "We demand to halt violence immediately and thoroughly investigate all the incidents, which have resulted in deaths and injuries, and to arraign the perpetrators before court. Once again, we invite the European Union member states to discuss a possibility of applying target measures against those responsible for the use of force." Poland — Secretary of State Henryka Mościcka-Dendys from MSZ told the Jyllands-Posten daily on 21 February 2014 that Poland trusted the Ukrainian people to decide for themselves what future they wanted for Ukraine, while stressing the significance of Polish-Ukrainian relations both in history and in individual family ties. There was a time, she said, when Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary were expected to remain in the Soviet Bloc forever, and yet it was a Russian leader, Boris Yeltsin, who changed that belief. She said that situation was analogous to the current one because in the long run, a more democratic Russia could only benefit from a pro-European Ukraine. Romania — President Traian Băsescu stated that the events threatened the stability of the region. He added that "Romania agrees with the proposed individual sanctions, for the silver lining has been crossed. The 25 deaths serve as evidence for the fact that both parties (e.n. the Ukrainian government and the protesters) have crossed the line." Prime Minister Victor Ponta made an immediate appeal for peace, saying that "diplomatic efforts will lead to the cessation of violence". Russian Federation — The Russian Foreign Ministry stated on 19 February: "What is happening is a direct result of the policies of appeasement by Western politicians and European institutions, which from the beginning of the crisis turned a blind eye to the aggressive actions of radical forces in Ukraine, thereby encouraging them to escalate and provoke the legitimate authority." According to the press secretary of the president of Russia, Russia considered the events in Ukraine a coup attempt. On 20 February 2014, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev stated that Russia could only cooperate fully with Ukraine when its leadership was in "good shape". He added that Russia wanted a "strong government" in Ukraine "so that people don't wipe their feet on the authorities like a doormat". Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov likened threats of EU sanctions "on those responsible for Ukraine violence" to blackmail and said, "The EU is also trying to consider the introduction of sanctions, and at the same time they come to Kyiv on uninvited missions." On 24 February, Medvedev questioned the legitimacy of the authorities who replaced President Yanukovych, saying, "If you consider Kalashnikov-toting people in black masks who are roaming Kyiv to be the government, then it will be hard for us to work with that government." The following day, Foreign Minister Lavrov expressed concern about the faith of the TV channel "Inter", Russian TV channels in Ukraine, freedom of speech in Ukraine, and the abolition of the Ukrainian law on language. He added that his government was interested in "preventing the influence of radicals and nationalists who are now trying to play the first violin". Sweden — Foreign Minister Carl Bildt issued a statement saying in part, "The EU will not hesitate on measures against interests of persons associated with repression and violence in Ukraine." He also said that Yanukovych had "blood on his hands". Turkey — Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in a press conference, "Ukraine is one of the countries with a strategic location in the Black Sea basin. Stability of Ukraine and peace in the country is of vital importance to the whole region." United Kingdom — Foreign Secretary William Hague said: "It is clear ousted President Viktor Yanukovych's authority is no longer widely accepted in Ukraine, and Britain is working with the new government in Kyiv. ... Ukraine had a pressing need for constitutional reform, improvements to its political culture, free elections, and an end to pervasive corruption. Meanwhile, the international community must work with the new government to discourage further violence and agree on international financial support. Ukraine's financial situation is very serious and, without outside assistance, might not be sustainable. An economic crisis in Ukraine would be a grave threat to the country's stability and have damaging wider consequences. It wasn't clear the country could wait until presidential elections in late May for a financial package as it faced dwindling reserves, a depreciating currency, and large foreign exchange debts that were falling due, and it was also shut out of international capital markets." Asked who the UK recognized as the current head of state, Hague said Britain was working with the new government. "There is, of course, a dispute constitutionally about who is the president, but in this situation it is very clear that, whatever the constitutional provisions, the authority of Mr. Yanukovych is no longer widely recognized as president," he said. "And in order to achieve the objectives that I've just set out, it's necessary for us to talk to the speaker who has been declared the acting president." United States — President Barack Obama warned on 19 February that there would be consequences if violence continued in Ukraine and that the Ukrainian military should not step into a situation that could be resolved by civilians. The US also imposed a visa ban on 20 senior Ukrainian officials and other people it accused of being behind the violent crackdown on protesters. On 20 February, President Obama sharply criticized Russian support of the Yanukovych government and called for respect of people's basic freedoms.

Title change

I'm very hesitant to get into this mess again, but isn't it obviously partisan to append the qualifier "of dignity" to this Ukrainian revolution? Removing "Ukrainian" from the title also makes the title less recognizable. Re the title change on Nov 5th. Seems like an activist move to me. Heptor (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

We follow reliable sources. The COMMONNAME has clearly become 'Revolution of Dignity' in reliable sources, and there is nothing wrong with using a common name that is 'partisan' (see WP:POVTITLE), even though I don't agree that this title is such. 'Revolution of Dignity' returns 258,000 Google search hits, the old title merely 17,000. Notable published examples include: Ukraine's Maidan, Russia's War: A Chronicle and Analysis of the Revolution of Dignity, this report from the Brookings Institution, and this report from OpenDemocracy. There is nothing less identifiable about this title...in fact, it is much more identifiable, and much more in line with how reliable sources treat this subject! RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the policy, we prefer titles that are recognizable, natural and precise. The title "2014 Ukrainian revolution" is all of these. There is also "Euromaidan Revolution", which is neutral and precise, but perhaps somewhat less recognizable to the general audience. Looking up the hits on "Revolution of Dignity", the top of the list is an article titled "Ukraine's revolution of dignity: The dynamics of Euromaidan". It says that "This paper analyzes the civil revolution in Ukraine, which is also known as the Euromaidan Revolution. It is regarded as the Revolution of Dignity by Ukrainian citizens. I also get matches on the Ukrainian Institute and the Maidan Museum. Looking up "euromaidan+revolution" Eurmaidan Revolution I get results on The Jackson School of International Studies (Ukraine’s Euromaidan Revolution), "Considering the Orange legacy: patterns of political participation in the Euromaidan Revolution". To me it looks like the use of the word "dignity" is often an attempt to describe it rather than to name it. So "Euromaidan Revolution" looks like a better title than the one proposed, however I don't see any good reasons to change the title that the article had since the beginning. Heptor (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The present title is recognisable, natural and, precise. That determination is based on what reliable sources uses, and given that they have no trouble using 'Revolution of Dignity', neither does Wikipedia. I agree that Euromaidan Revolution is an acceptable title, and commonly used. However, a search suggests that Revolution of Dignity is much more common in reliable sources. I think your claim that this title is a 'description' is off the mark. Examples like this article, which is actually not about the revolution itself, show that Revolution of Dignity is used as a proper name, without additional qualifiers, to refer to these events in reliable sources. Even the Financial Times, a source much more likely to be read by non-academics, does not hesitate to include 'Revolution of Dignity' without additional qualifiers (in this case in an article written by President Zelensky). I find it hard to believe that we should deviate from what most sources use in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 16:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

But here arrives another question: doesn't the new term encompass entire Euromaidan (November 2013 - February 2014)? Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closed as malformed. RGloucester — ☎ 13:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

---

2014 Ukrainian revolution → Revolution of Dignity – Revert undiscussed move from the stable title unfortunately carried out using the page mover tool, making a standard BRD revert impossible. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Polyamorph (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comments moved from RM/Technical requests:
  • This move should not be performed without discussion. The move to "Revolution of Dignity" was previously performed as an undiscussed move by RGloucester, and was challenged on the article talk page shortly after it was made. Their favored title is not the stable one. See discussion on my user talk page. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Not done per Buidhe's comment above. This needs proper discussion. Kindly start a discussion to achieve a stable name. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The undiscussed move from the stable title was made by Buidhe, and any RM should take place from the stable title to the proposed title, not the other way around. I am closing this RM and will request a new technical request. User Buidhe is unfortunately intent on causing trouble, and I am sure adequate punishment will eventually be imposed. RGloucester — ☎ 13:06, 25 June 2021 (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.

Change the section "Russian involvement" to "Foreign involvement"?

Hello. We have a section dedicated to Russian involvement in the revolution, but I don't see anything about the speech given by John McCain to the Euromaidan protestors , or anything about the leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine . So I wonder if that section should be made more general, and other external influences included in it. 67.70.119.213 (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Article name

For some reason, until I moved the page today (30 October 2021), this article was named "2013–14 Ukrainian revolution" but the Euromaidan protest were only protest from November 2013 until February 2014 and something completly different then the events described in this Wikipedia article. The Euromaidan protest did take place in 2013 and 2014 but this article discribes only the series of events in Kyiv in February 2014 culminating in the ousting of then-president Viktor Yanukovych (the rest of the Euromaidan events is described in it's own English language Wikipedia article). So this particular article can not have in it's name "2013". I have moved the article to "February 2014 Maidan revolution since this seems to be the events WP:COMMONNAME per Ukraine`s timeline of BBC news — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 11:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

What's with the constant name changes again, especially without discussion? I can see your argument for removing the 2013 part, but why change the rest of the name? It should be 2014 Ukrainian revolution like it was before; February is unnecessary since there wasn't any other revolution in Ukraine in 2014 (or a "Maidan" revolution anywhere in the world for that matter), and removing the country's name just makes it less descriptive. Plenty of sources call it by different names, BBC isn't the only one out there. It's been called Euromaidan, Maidan, Revolution of Dignity, just the 2014 revolution, and many others. Why choose one when it's not clearly the dominant one used in all major English-speaking media, and there is a more neutral and descriptive one available? Mordrim (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

As long as Euromaidan and the February 2014 events in Kyiv (culminating in the ousting of then-president Viktor Yanukovych) are not being made to look the same thing I am OK with "2014 Ukrainian revolution". Actually I tried to move the page to 2014 Ukrainian revolution (last 30 October) but could not because it required a page move request I considered a waste of my time.... I did spend a lot of time on October 30 to improve the article... though 😁😏😉 Anyway there is now on ongoing page move below Mordrim. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)