Jump to content

Talk:Revolution of Dignity/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Requested move 16 November 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: moved. The only oppose comes from issue of the scope of the article. Other than that, consensus is in favour of move. The future scope of the article is beyond the scope of this RM. Regards, —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

February 2014 Maidan revolution → Revolution of Dignity – Per WP:COMMONNAME. 'Revolution of Dignity' has become the common name for this revolution , used in many reliable sources and publications on the subject. A plain Google search shows that 'Revolution of Dignity' comes up with 60,900,000 hits, vastly exceeding the current title's 181,000. Notable publications using the now common name: [1]. The other titles simply does not reflect the reality on the ground, or indeed, the naming used by reliable sources. While it has taken time for RS to get to this point, we can say that it is now time to follow the sources and rename this article. Somerby (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@RGloucester, Ymblanter, and Yulia Romero: sorry if I forgot someone to ping. --Somerby (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Somerby that the 2013/2014 Euromaidan and the (only in) February 2014 events in Kyiv (culminating in the ousting of then-president Viktor Yanukovych) should not look the same thing. Although I am personally very sympathetic to naming the article 'Revolution of Dignity' it is not a name recognizable for most people in the English speaking world. From my own search on 30 October I concluded that most English press name it a 'revolution'. So I prefer an article name with 'revolution' in it. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

sorry, I miss your argument. 'Revolution of Dignity' is an article name with 'revolution' in it, isn't it? Another option can be 'Maidan revolution', but here confusion with Orange revolution can arise. I do not like year in the name, because at least in part of the RS the broader 2013/2014 scope is used (also for the revolution, not only for the Euromaidan movement). --Somerby (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Mainstream English press do/did not use the word 'Dignity' when reporting about the revolution. Many revolutions can be considered to be a 'Revolution of Dignity' (in Sudan or Belarus). Only people who are already very informed about Ukraine will recognise the February 2014 events in Kyiv as the 'Revolution of Dignity'. I am only following the logic/guidelines of Wikipedia:Article titles here. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Press are not the only RS which we should take into account (and I do not agree that mainstream English press do not use the word 'Dignity' when reporting about the revolution by the way). Google Scholar search also should be take into account. --Somerby (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Mainstream English press is where most people get there information from. As for as I know scholarly papers are not read by many people.... So I do not take them in account when looking for a WP:COMMONNAME. That is my way for establising a common name. Anyway, consensus should establish an article name, not me. I would not vote for renaming the article 'Revolution of Dignity'. If consensus would make 'Revolution of Dignity' the article name it is OK by me. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:03, 16 November 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.

"Maidan Revolt": an alleged coup d'etat should not be called a 'revolution'; at least use a neutral concept

it would be nice wikipedia stop using so obvious methods of introducing a priori judgments in its historic, cultural and social articles. In this case 'revolt' is a neutral term, and the location in space establish no values. 'Revolution of dignity'? please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.75.44 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I also would like to suggest to explain the etymology: when has the expression evolved and by whom has been the 'revolution of dignity' been used? While a revolution which is free of violence may be seen to have dignity (usually you wait in democratic structures for the next election and give it a better try), a revolution with violent tension including blood, sweat and tears resulting in chaos has no dignity at all. --Gunnar (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Sniper false flag operation

Nothing about this? see https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26866069, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/magazine/ukraine-protest-video.html

This looks bad that it's not even mentionned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.15.56.2 (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is also a noteworthy reference: Katchanovski, Ivan (2019-12-15). "The far right, the Euromaidan, and the Maidan massacre in Ukraine" (PDF). Journal of Labor and Society. 23 (1): 5–29. doi:10.1111/wusa.12457. Retrieved 2022-06-08. A comprehensive study concluded that the Maidan massacre of the protesters and the police was a successful false flag operation conducted covertly by the elements of the Maidan opposition in order to overthrow the Yanukovych government and seize power in an asymmetric armed conflict (Katchanovski, 2015b, 2016b). These findings were replicated by Hahn (2018). However, these studies did not take into account newly available evidence, which was made public during the ongoing Maidan massacre trial. Gunnar (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Questions about Soros and OSF Role

I have noticed that the articles about the different revolutions in Ukraine don't mention the fundamental role of George Soros, which he himself highlighted in several news sources, e.g., https://www.ft.com/content/695226e0-e528-11e7-97e2-916d4fbac0da Wouldn't it make sense including a historically acknowledged fact? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.64.10.45 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"Revolution of Dignity" - Not NPOV

I'm quite convinced that that half of the population that voted for the government that was ousted by this revolution, and that after the revoluton were treated by the new government as some kind of fifth colonners, do not agree that this revolution was in anyway dignified.

Hence this title is not NPOV according to Wikipedias definiton.

Obviously this name is in widespread use among it's supporters. A right soluton would therefore be to create a new article about the events that led to the regime change, move most of the contents there, and keep this article with a short explenation about the term, together with the link to the main article.

If i get this wrong, then can please someone explain to me how it can be NPOV in a current conflict using one side's positively name for an event that by the other side is considered a very negative one?

I came here to find neutral and unbiased information about the events in Ukraine 2013/2014, but how can i trust that the subject in the article is described in a neutral and balanced way, when not even the title is?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.187.171.169 (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Most recent edit appears to be biased

Hi, I'm not a regular wikipedian but I see in the last 24 hours user User:Jr8825 has edited this article to trivialise western involvement in the revolution. As you can see, on the current revision, the "Parties to the civil conflict" says Supported by Russia (alleged) with no citation, but this user removed a cited Supported by European Union because the link has died. Googling the old link shows a paper called The European Union in the Mirror of the Ukrainian Crisis by Andrzej Szeptycki of the University of Warsaw, but the user made no attempt whatsoever to try and rectify the link or come to the talk page to talk about bias, or justify their reason, they just stripped it from the page while leaving the unsourced claim of Russian involvement. That's also setting aside that there have also been publicly cited accusations of CIA involvement (which the CIA denied despite their director being present in Kiev). This edit has western anti russian bias in my opinion, no sourced reason, just clearly wanted to minimise western involvement in the current conflict 80.3.154.248 (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The link hadn't died, I accessed it, skim read through it, and came to the conclusion that it doesn't support the claim. Editing of the article is not restricted, so if you have a reliable source to support the claim that the European Union was directly involved as a party to the conflict (i.e. directly supporting Euromaidan) you may re-add it to the infobox with that source. Additionally, the article body doesn't mention direct EU involvement other than as an external mediator. Lead content should reflect the article body, and this should generally extend to the infobox. Jr8825 • Talk 20:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Responding to the accusation I was being selective or biased by not also removing Russia as a party to the conflict, there is an entire section of the article dedicated to discussing those allegations, and the sources there provide attribution. See MOS:LEADCITE. Jr8825 • Talk 20:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Even the Dutch state-controlled television network confirms that the EU was directly involved. We have a saying 'olie op het vuur gooien' which means 'escalating things' and that is exactly what the network calls it.[5] They wrote that liberals Hans Van Baalen and Guy Verhofstadt where addressing the crowd stating that they are a delegation from the EU and that it will send a new one every week until the protesters are victorious. 188.206.96.214 (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of facts

The neutral fact is that a coup is defined as an overthrow of a government and removal of its powers, which is exactly what took place during this event.

It does not matter if the overthrown regime was evil or not. It does not matter if that regime was replaced by a better one or not. Those are all points of view. If you think that coup is a bad word or the coup was bad (or good) than that is your opinion but it does not change the (already sourced) facts.

It's also a fact that millions of people do not call it the Revolution of Dignity. You don't have to agree with these people to acknowledge that fact that they call it something else. All that matters is the fact that it can be sourced that they call it the Ukrainian Coup, it does not matter if these people are right or wrong for calling it that way.

83.232.57.120 (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be a disputed by label, not commonly used by non-Russian media. See, for example, [6] Al Jazeera's use of "scare quotes"]. Jr8825 • Talk 10:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The usage of normal and constitutional parliamentary measures to remove an official is not a coup. There's a reason why we don't say what happened to Nixon--or, indeed, any number of PMs in parliamentary systems after a particularly lopsided vote of no confidence--was a coup. 2604:2800:0:8B9E:9D00:E463:CFA8:3406 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

From what I am aware, while there was a large majority in favor of impeachment, the majority did not reach the requisite proportion required for a constitutional change of government. It was successful because Yanukovych ran. New elections had been scheduled- the pro-Maidan party would have won easily. But the government was removed by a coup, it just was. 174.241.80.73 (talk) 02:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
You may cite George Friedman, the former CEO of Stratfor, wo said in December 2014: "Russia calls the events at the beginning of the year a US-organised coup d'état. And it was indeed the most blatant coup in history."
Chernenko, Elena; Gabuev, Alexander (2014-12-19). "«Интересы РФ и США в отношении Украины несовместимы друг с другом» – Глава Stratfor Джордж Фридман о первопричинах украинского кризиса" [«Russian and US interests regarding Ukraine are incompatible with each other» – Stratfor Head George Friedman on the root causes of Ukraine crisis]. Kommersant (in Russian). Moscow. Retrieved 2022-06-08. Russia's strategic imperative is to have as deep a buffer zone on its western borders as possible. That is why Russia has always treated Belarus, Ukraine, the Baltics and other Eastern European countries in a special way. They are of great importance to Russia's national security. At the beginning of this year Ukraine had a slightly pro-Russian but badly shaken government. It suited Moscow: Russia does not want to totally control or occupy Ukraine - it is enough that Ukraine does not join NATO and the EU. The Russian authorities could not allow a situation in which Western armed forces would be within a hundred kilometres of Kursk or Voronezh. The US, on the other hand, was interested in the formation of a pro-Western government in Ukraine. They saw that Russia was on the rise and sought to prevent it from consolidating its position in the post-Soviet space. The success of pro-Western forces in Ukraine would have deterred Russia. Russia calls the events at the beginning of the year a US-organised coup d'état. And it was indeed the most blatant coup in history. Gunnar (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
You should cite George Friedman with the complete quote:
"On a visit to Russia, I told the business journal Kommersant that if the US were behind a coup in Kiev, it would have been the most blatant coup in history, as the US government openly supported the uprising and had provided some funding for the demonstrating groups. In other words, it was no coup. The Russian news service Sputnik published what I said, cutting out a few odds and ends"
https://www.businessinsider.com/george-friedman-russia-is-winning-the-internet-2016-4
Nevertheless, someone's opinion about the events doesn't change the facts. And the facts don't support any definition of a coup I'm aware of. Wikipedia says that a coup "Typically, it is an illegal seizure of power by a political faction, rebel group, military, or a dictator." A faction is a small group - the government was replaced by a parliamentary coalition which included former Party of Regions MPs, which was by no means a small group. There was no "rebel group" waging war in Ukraine at the time, unless you consider the street clashes in Kyiv an armed conflict. No dictator was installed as a result of the so called "coup". And ironically, the only party who tried to involve the military was Yanukovych himself. Plex (talk) 09:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Impeachment claim not supported by cited source

From what I can see, the claim that Yanukovych fled Kiev "ahead of an impeachment vote" is not supported by the cited source, the late 2014 BBC timeline of the Revolution and ensuing conflict[1] (presently reference 29). I have not found any other reliable source that such a vote was set to be held. It seems to me that the claim should either be removed or backed up by a different source, if anyone can provide one. 46.239.93.30 (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed this, with appropriate sourcing. RGloucester — ☎ 21:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
It cannot be supported by a source because it is not true. During the Maidan protests the President left Kyiv and went to Kharkiv. As Kharkiv is within Ukraine it is not true that he fled the country. It should also be noted that the 'impeachment vote in the Rada failed to meet the constitutional requirements in a number of ways. In particular the Ukrainian legislature (the Rada) failed to meet the 2/3 threshold required by the Ukrainian constitution.2600:1006:B02D:9B45:E52A:98B:4DD6:36B3 (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Please read what the article says now. I fixed the relevant sentence, removed an inappropriate reference to 'impeachment', and made clear that Yanukovych fled Kyiv, not 'the country'. It seems that some people are confused about the meaning of the word impeachment. The Rada voted to remove Yanukoych from office, not to 'impeach' him. Impeachment is the process of charging someone in a high office with a crime, then holding a trial. It does not necessarily imply removal from office, though that is one potential result. As you are aware, this process did not happen in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your response. We are all in agreement that Yanukovitch did not flee Ukraine (as Kharkiv is in Ukraine) and that he was removed through a process that was inconsistent with the Ukrainian constitution (e.g. without the required 2/3 vote of the Rada). I don't believe you are disputing any facts. I will leave it to you to update this article, given that you and your cohorts have been camping every Ukraine thread for at least the last decade to make sure its tone is consistent with your pro-Ukrainian political views.2600:1006:B01B:18A5:615C:1AC1:301E:F587 (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
We’re not all in agreement.
Yanukovych fled justice and left Kyiv, then he tried to flee Ukraine but was turned away at airports or ports one or more times, finally getting rescue-kidnapped by Russian military. He and some of his cabinet and advisors abandoned their posts and there was a lack of leadership during a crisis: interior ministry police apparently just left Kyiv because the interior minister was absent too.
The constitution had no provision for dealing with this situation, so the process was irregular but democratic governance was maintained because the elected Rada remained in place and removed him with a democratic majority. His own “pro-Russian” party controlled the majority vote that removed him.
Reliable sources don’t call it a “coup.” I don’t see what the deal is about the term “impeachment”: it is commonly considered to mean a removal from office, but I agree it’s confusing so other wording is better. —Michael Z. 01:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand you claim "Yanukovych fled justice". What do you mean by justice? Was there an ongoing prosecution raised because of kleptomania or worse? I have heard his motorconvoy was shot at, while he was sitting a the helicopter. It this hearsay or confirmed fact? Gunnar (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26248275. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

Change Date 18–23 February 2014 to Date 30 November 2013 – 23 February 2014 PavloKryvonis (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Order of lead figures in infobox

What is the reason for Tyahnybok being listed above other, arguably more prominent figures like Tymoshenko and Poroshenko? He was not that much of a main figure compared to the others Rousillon (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a lot of POV issues with any article remotely related to Ukraine at the moment. Especially those with restrictions on editing. I've noticed there are quite a few users who regularly edit these articles and have particular political slants proudly displayed on their User pages. Sadly some of the admins involved in "arbitration" seem to share these political views. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"Revolution of dignity" is clearly not neutral article title. This is propaganda slogan used by its supporters. Or you must call the 1917 communist revolution "Great October Socialist Revolution". It's very likely other articles on Russia and Ukraine are not neutral. Please stop using Wikipedia for propaganda purposes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.176.75.217 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2023

89.122.39.11 (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)I would want to put the old photo on this page. It looks more defining!
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Lemonaka (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 January 2023

TankDude2000 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC) I want to change some pictures with other Euromaidan images. Also, I need to change the name from “Revolution of Dignity” to “Ukrainian Revolution”!
 Not done As stated above, the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Regarding the title: There is already a long discussion above. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The involvement of the Berkut police in the murders of maidan protesters

Two more references of [1][2] must be added in the paragraph of "Ukrainian mass medias reported the results of forensic examinations, according to which, the government police Berkut was implicated in the murders of maidan protesters since, according to these forensic examinations, matches were found between the bullets extracted from the bodies of maidan protesters and the weapons of the government police Berkut.[332][333][334][335][336][337][338] The experts explained why no match between the bullets and the weapons, which had been assigned to the Berkut special force, had been found as a result of the examination of the bullets held in January 2015, whereas the examination carried out in December of the same year had showed such a match.[339]", located in the end of the sections of "Casualties. Speculation on snipers" of the article. I ask everyone, who can edit the article, to add these two references [3][4] to this about mentioned paragraph. Prohoshka (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ukrainian prosecutor: the latest examination proved the fault of the Berkut people in the shooting of Maidan activists
  2. ^ Про що розповідають кулі з Майдану
  3. ^ Ukrainian prosecutor: the latest examination proved the fault of the Berkut people in the shooting of Maidan activists
  4. ^ Про що розповідають кулі з Майдану

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2023

161.8.211.107 (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

the entry revolution of dignity is replete with false statements. that it relies on secondary media sources the BBC for example which states that the government abandoned the EU agreement under pressure from Russia demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that this entry must be removed in its entirety.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. See WP:RS. Trusted secondary sources like the BBC for example are often preferred Cannolis (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Name of the Article (should it be named to ' Ukrainian revolution')

Note: I do not support Russia's invasion and war in Ukraine, and I am against what everything that Putin and his cronies stand for. However, since this event and the events following it are contentious, I propose a name for the English article of Wikipedia that I percieve to be non-partisan: 'Ukrainian Revolution'.

The reason is that the name 'Revolution of Dignity' is a name for the revolution widely used in Ukraine, but not internationally. Besides, the name 'Revolution of Dignity' not only does not indicate when or where it took place (it's a vague name that conveys emotions by the Ukrainians), but it also sounds slightly partisan (I swear I'm not trying to degrade the name because of pro-russian bias, I personally oppose Russia's invasion and War in Ukraine). Wikipedia's guidelines indicate that articles cannot take any stance in a conflict; I.e, to stay neutral. And even in a war where there's an obvious aggressor (in this case, Russia) and an obvious victim (the Ukrainian people), one can't get carried away with any biases, however small they may be.

As such, I propose that articles in English refer to the Ukrainian revolution as 'Ukrainian Revolution.' It's a clear, non-partisan name (in line with Wikipedia's guidelines) specifies when and where it took place, and even indirectly says that it was a popular uprising against their government (the government of Viktor Yanukovich at the time).

I'm open to questions and responses to my proposal. 80.42.174.53 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

There is already a discussion about this, see above. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

“Revolution of dignity” is a propaganda term

NO ACTION
(non-admin closure by Rsk6400) A formal move discussion has been closed a few days ago. No need to continue this discussion.

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.

This “revolution” involved the democratically elected president being literally run out of the country. To call it a civilian coup or even an uprising would be far more objective and accurate.

The term “revolution of dignity” literally sounds like it came from the intelligence agencies of a nation that felt its interests were furthered by the event. It clearly seeks to lionize one side of the conflict by using a non-academic term like “dignity”. 67.245.186.65 (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the term "freedom fries" had nothing to do with freedom, and it seems that there is no dignity in this revolution (in contrast to the Orange revolution when nobody was killed). Just let's refresh the newspeak dictionary. Gunnar (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


Would like to let everyone know that this user, among several others pushing similar narratives on both this article and other Ukraine-related subjects, has (1) only edited Ukraine-related articles, (2) has a static IPv4 address, and (3) has an IP address that is on at least one spam/botnet blacklist. All of these should make you suspicious.

Furthermore, the impeachment of an official through normal and constitutional parliamentary procedures is not--and will never be, no matter what Russia Today says--a coup. 2604:2800:0:8B9E:9161:5358:CD49:E918 (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

OP here, let’s address the lies of the previous editor:

-I do not have any other edits of any other article, I barely know how to do this mechanically

-I only posted my opinion on this article because “revolution of dignity” is both an inaccurate description and uses terminology that is not at all objective. Even if the user views this as a “revolution”, obviously a term like “2014 Ukrainian revolution” would be far far more objective then “revolution of dignity”.

-I don’t know anything about routers or ISP’s and have no idea what a “static ip” would indicate

-I’m assuming the comment about me being on a “spam blacklist” is a lie, and I’m obviously not a bot... and if they do have quick access to some sort of secret spam blacklist that would probably indicate that they are a government official and likely have a professional bias on this matter

-I never cited and would never cite a propaganda outlet like Russia Today. No idea where this comment comes from

-The BBC article you cited DOES NOT use the words “impeachment” or “constitutional”, your characterization is your own and not derived from that article. The article does however state:

“Mr Yanukovych appears on TV to denounce “coup””

“An arrest warrant is issued for Mr Yanukovych”

The article states that the parliament voted to remove yanukovych, but nothing about any impeachment proceedings or any crime he had committed. Further, the fact that a warrant was immediately issued for his arrest strongly indicates a coup, especially when no crimes or actual impeachment proceedings are referenced in this detailed article.

I think it’s “suspicious” that you would post such an angry rant in response to me merely stating my opinion. And your little background check only indicates that you seek to impugn my motives and discredit me rather then debate with facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.186.65 (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

OP again, just want to add one final point. The “impeachment in ukraine” page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_Ukraine) states regarding this event specifically “The action did not follow the impeachment process as specified by the Constitution of Ukraine (which would have involved formally charging the president with a crime, a review of the charge by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, and a three-fourths majority vote – i.e. at least 338 votes in favor – by the Rada)” and “There were no articles of impeachment against Yanukovych.”

Both direct quotes from that article indicating that it was an unconstitutional overthrow, or coup, ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA ITSELF, as well as the BBC article the above editor cited. Why this page is not consistent with that page is likely due to disinformation spread by the likes of the editor above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.186.65 (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

One formal remark: Wikipedia is not allowed to cite Wikipedia. Always use external references. And by the way: excluding Russia Today is a type of an ad hominem argument. You need to check the content, not the sender of a message. Gunnar (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but I want you to try to understand that Wikipedia article titles are not based on conjecture or WP:OR about whether a process was constitutional or not. We follow the common name in reliable sources, which has been determined to be 'Revolution of Dignity'. Indeed, our article titles' policy specifically allows us to use WP:POVNAMEs (non-neutral names) if they are the common name. The granularity of the process by which Yanukovych was removed is already described in the article, and attested by RS. I have fixed some misleading uses of the word 'impeachment', as well. However, despite the fact that the process may not have followed the usual rules, RS refer to this revolution as such, and therefore, so too must Wikipedia. RGloucester — ☎ 17:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, that makes sense. I still disagree with the terminology, but I completely understand why Wikipedia uses the exact characterizations of RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.245.186.65 (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Google's ngram viewer shows "Maidan revolution" is being more predominant term. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
You've made up your NGRAM wrong, presumably to prove a WP:POINT considering you included the non-starter and otherwise vague '2014 coup'. A properly put together NGRAM shows the present title clearly on top. RGloucester — ☎ 19:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
"2014 coup" is quite widely used. But I was just chekcing, I am not pushing for it yet. I don't know why the "revolution of dignity" showed up with different counts in thte two searches. I will try to investigate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
And the Encyclopaedia Britannica calls it The Maidan protest movement (not a "revolution" apparently). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
We have a separate article on the Euromaidan movement. RGloucester — ☎ 19:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I find it weird that the ngram count for "revolution of dignity" started already before early 2014. Which revolutions were counted in the years before the Maidan massacre? Gunnar (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
You assert in your comment that "Wikipedia article titles are not based on conjecture or WP:OR about whether a process was constitutional or not. We follow the common name in reliable sources, which has been determined to be 'Revolution of Dignity'."
That makes good sense, but is "Revolution of Dignity" *really* the "common name in reliable sources". I consider myself a reasonably good reader on current events, and mostly read major American news outlets like The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and Politico and I don't recall *EVER* seeing this term before being redirected to it.
So, here is an (admittedly imperfect, but still of value) experiment, just using Google to see how many results the three possible terms get:
"Ukrainian Revolution" About 29,400,000 results
"Maiden Revolution" About 9,410,000 results
"Revolution of Dignity" About 282,000 results
So, of course you can find uses of your preferred term, but it's quite clear from the above (even given that some of the sources in each category that Google has indexed would not pass the Wikipedia "Reliable Sources" test) that the *common* name is not "Revolution of Dignity* -- it's uncommon. Two *orders of magnitude* less-used than "Ukrainian Revolution"
Thus, I strongly concur with the OP that this sounds like someone is pushing a propaganda move here, and we are using this (almost comically Soviet-era sounding) quite uncommon name for an event almost everyone calls by one of the two other names.
If you asked 100 diligent daily readers of top American news sources "what is the "Revolution of Dignity" I bet fewer than 10 would know. That's just a guess. Vs. all 100 would know what Ukrainian Revolution or Maiden Revolution would mean, I suspect.
ZeroXero (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Fellow, give place; here is no longer stay. Fostercoxfoster (talk) 07:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I kind of agree, but from a different angle, I'm no where near smart enough or informed enough to judge whether this was a glorious revolution for the people or a civilian coup. But I still feel like the name breaks the "use the most common name" rule, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this FAR more commonly called the Euromaiden Revolution or just the Ukranian revolution? It seems like it was only changed to the far less commonly known name when tensions were ramping up between Russia and Ukraine, which feels a lot less like the reasoning was 'this is the most common name' and more 'this revolution was objectively good slava ukraini!'. I think we should change it back to either 'Ukraine revolution', 'Ukranian revolution', 'Ukranian revolution of 2014' (the old name) or even 'Euromaiden revolution', all of which I feel are FAR more commonly used than the current term. Whether or not 'Revolution of Dignity' carries an implication that is inaccurate doesn't really feel like a fruitful discussion, since if it is a term that is used for the 2014 revolution then it should probably be mentioned entirely for "scholarly" purposes, and even if we all magically realised the 2014 revolution was actually the worst thing in history for everyone, it should still be mentioned, because it was a term used for it. My main point is that 'Ukrainian Revolution' is probably the most neutral and (more importantly) widely used term. Gnerkistanislaviyort (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you would improve the article and make it appeal to more readers by changing the title and not using the term 'revolution of dignity'. It makes the article appear biased and therefore not worth taking seriously. This was implied in my previous comment which was removed. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 06:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to start just another move discussion, but please take a look at all the reasons given in the previous discussions (all linked on the top of this page), and the relevant guidelines, most prominently WP:COMMONNAME. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
No one calls it this outside of Ukrainians. In the US if you said "Revolution of Dignity" vs "Euromaiden"/"euromaiden revolution" you'd get most people knowing about the latter. Should be titled "Ukrainian Revolution of 2014. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I have not read all of the above. I do not think it necessary to do so to give useful feedback about improving the article. If my response is, similar to that of another user that supports their response. It is not necessary to state that the purpose of feedback is to improve the article, that is understood as it is the purpose of feedback. This is the first time anyone has ever removed a comment of mine from a talk page. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think we should change it from “Revolution of Dignity” to “Ukrainian Revolution of 2014” or “2014 Ukrainian Revolution” because it appears more informative and much more formal. Also, unlike the “Orange Revolution”, this revolution didn’t have an official name. TankDude2000 (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Serhij Plokhy, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine, which is one of the most popular scholarly works on Ukrainian history, simply calls it "Revolution of Dignity" on pages 339, 341, 342, 352, 353, and in the index. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
All of the other “revolution” pages on wikipedia have the title of: (insert country) Revolution of (insert year). For example, the Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010. That revolution was also called “People’s April Revolution”, but the former was kept as title! TankDude2000 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
"All" ? Did you really check all ? Including Orange Revolution ? Once again, the relevant guideline is WP:COMMONNAME. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I’m not reffering to color revolutions sir! TankDude2000 (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I think the title deserves a change as well, as it is not NPOV. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, the “Ukrainian Revolution” name is much more known comnpared to the “Revolution of Dignity”. TankDude2000 (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
See above, This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move requests listed below. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Revoution of Dignity is what the Ukrainians named it. It's their revolution, so they get to name it, imho, unless there is a clear-cut English-language COMMONNAME.
I don't agree with the official name of Vichy France having been the French State, but that is simply what it was whether I like it or not. In that case a COMMONNAME existed in English, fortunately, but that is not the case here. I've spent the past year immersed in the war in Ukraine, and I don't think I've ever heard it called the 2014 revolution and i would need to think before I associated this with Ukraine. That's in English, French or Spanish. other languages may have some other terminology, but we are in English here. Elinruby (talk)
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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2023

Either remove the following sentence or find a source for it. Neither the source for the next sentence nor the source for the previous sentence support this and nothing except Wikipedia/copies of Wikipedia come up on a search:

Oleh Lyashko echoed the demand, saying, "Either he resigns, or we take him away." (in Detailed Timeline/Agreement Aftermath) LordDiscord (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3/21/2023

Revolution of Dignity → Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 – Per WP:COMMONNAME. 'Revolution of Dignity' is a propaganda term and is not what most of the English-speaking world would refer to the revolution as. The current title is less descriptive and brings serious NPOV concerns. One of the previous reasons for support was "even though it's not the common name in English it's a good natural dab" - another NPOV comment. Furthermore, such a title follows the general naming convention for revolutions. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@LegalSmeagolian: Please follow the correct procedures for requested moves, WP:RM. BTW: Maybe you shouldn't call a term used by a Harvard historian (Serhii Plokhy, see my comment in one of the two discussions on the subject above) a "propaganda term". Rsk6400 (talk) 05:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Oops fixing now. Thanks. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2023

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: not moved. (non-admin closure) ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Revolution of Dignity → Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 – Revolution of Dignity → Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 – Per WP:COMMONNAME. 'Revolution of Dignity' is a propaganda term and is not what most of the English-speaking world would refer to the revolution as. The current title is less descriptive and brings serious NPOV concerns. One of the previous reasons for support was "even though it's not the common name in English it's a good natural dab" - another NPOV comment. Furthermore, such a title follows the general naming convention for revolutions. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose The name of this page has been discussed many times (see header), and this is a waste of time. Serhii Plokhy, The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine, which is one of the most popular scholarly works on Ukrainian history, simply calls it "Revolution of Dignity" on pages 339, 341, 342, 352, 353, and in the index. Since Plokhy is a history professor at Harvard University, we should not call our title "a propaganda term". Rsk6400 (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with you since this is obviously a common name, but you should rethink your insinuation that professors at Harvard can never spread propaganda. 〜 Festucalex • talk 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    Are you saying Plokhy spreads propaganda? That’s wrong. Or just discussing philosophical principals for the sake of discussion? Either way, the comment is unconstructive.  —Michael Z. 23:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
    Harvard professors are not immune to bias, nor above criticism. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose since this is the English WP:COMMONNAME, despite being, admittedly, a flagrantly biased term. This term's commonality can be traced to the fact that most of the English-speaking world supports the post-Maidan Ukrainian state for geopolitical reasons that are irrelevant to this move request. I, however, would consider supporting a move to Maidan Revolution. 〜 Festucalex • talk 17:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • oppose no evidence provided that 'Ukrainian Revolution of 2014' is the common name or that Revolution of Dignity is a 'propaganda term'. Maidan Revolution should probable redirect to the wider Euromaidan—blindlynx 18:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    Hey, this you? I think it would be dishonest to say that the term "Revolution of Dignity" is not propagandizing events, as it implies the whole thing was dignified. While, in my opinion, it was necessary for the Ukranian people, it was a very chaotic situation that heavily relied on far-right paramilitaries. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    wow i supported the move a to this title a few years ago you really got me there. A few hundred far right crazies in protests of hundreds of thousands is hardly a heavy reliance—blindlynx 18:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    Those people were some of the heavy lifters of the protests, for better or worse. And you supported the move and remarked that it wasn't the common name. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    LegalSmeagolian, I read two academic books on Ukrainian history, both recent enough to cover the Maidan events (Plokhy and Andreas Kappeler). Neither supports the Russian narrative of strong influence by "far-right paramilitaries". Either present RS or stop repeating that piece of disinformation. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    I don't wish to overstate their role, but they were certainly a contributing factor. They barely had any influence on the new government, but in terms of the actual protests themselves, they were incredibly active and participatory. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    You realize overstating there role is decidedly propaganda right? But it seems that Revolution of dignity is the current common name, [7], [8], [9]—blindlynx 19:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    Yet you brought it up when it isn't relevant to this move. I'm sorry but the the far right being brought up just because we're talking about Ukraine when it has precious little to do with the specific topic is exactly what i mean by overstating. Moreover this paper is very careful not to make inferences about influence but just talks about visibility—blindlynx 20:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    That's not true, the paper also talks about real participation in the protests. Additionally, I never stated that they had a strong influence on the resulting government, rather that they were a major participant of the protests/revolution. Again, I think the participation of far-right movements makes the term "Dignity" inaccurate, and hence the article should go with a non-biased non-glorifying title. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    It's not worth getting into a methodological debate about media analyses. You need to back up the claim that 'dignity' glorifies the far-right rather than describes Ukrainians fight for anti-imperialism and meaningful self-determination—blindlynx 21:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
    (i didn't mean to present it a binary, there's obviously nuance, sorry) —blindlynx 21:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose and WP:SNOW close per what everyone else has said. WP:COMMONNAME applies. — Czello 19:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
    I think it is pretty clear from multiple topic discussions above that the current name is contentious, with @ZeroXero's comment in the '"Revolution of dignity" is a propaganda term' discussion being particularly compelling. Therefore a WP:SNOW. I think it would be wise to hear from a wide variety of Wikipedia editors discussing the title and various options before even considering a close. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
    It may or may not be a "propaganda" term, but it's still the WP:COMMONNAME. I suggested a snow close as every comment so far is opposed to a rename, and I can't see that changing. — Czello 14:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and WP:SNOW close per responses from fellow Wikipedians. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No evidence for the COMMONNAME assertion. Discussion makes it clear this is an attempt to WP:right great wrongs by editors who don’t want to allow Ukrainians something with dignity and play up right-wing “paramilitaries” as an excuse.  —Michael Z. 00:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think your assertion that this is WP:right great wrongsis very civil. I don't have any qualms with the Ukrainian people, I support Ukraine in its defense against Russian aggression, and I think the 2014 Revolution was a positive for Ukraine as a whole. I have just not heard this term for these events common English parlance, and I think there should be a bit of nuance on how we describe historic events. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    For the third time: One of the most respected experts on Ukrainian history uses the term on a lot pages (which I listed above) and in the index of his book. For the first time: That you started this discussion doesn't mean that you have to reply to each and every contribution here. Rsk6400 (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    I think it is appropriate to respectfully reply to a claim that I am attempting to "right great wrongs." LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Support I wouldn’t call the “Revolution of Dignity” a propaganda term, but the title “Ukrainian Revolution of 2014” seems more informative and easier to find. Even “Maidan Revolution” works! I ignore color revolutions on this subject. They are ment to have different titles! TankDude2000 (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2023 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2023

TankDude2000 (talk) 11:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Starting on 18 February Euromaidan activists occupied regional state administration (RSA) buildings in several oblasts (regions). -> Since 18 February, Euromaidan activists started occupying regional state administration (RSA) buildings in several oblasts.
 Question: why? M.Bitton (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear why you want to make this change, and it does not appear to have consensus. Please discuss before making a new request, which should be of the form "please change X to Y". Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity/Archive_9&oldid=1163145654"