Talk:Revolution of Dignity/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Chornovol

Lvivske, where did you get information on Chornovol??? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Do not mind it, I found it. Under the section "Party of Regions office on Lypska Street set on fire". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Twitter as a source

While the use of Twitter may be justified in this exceptional case (?) please do add the name who's tweets you're adding and try to distance yourself from the position of the author (i.e. 'government thugs' is not neutral wording). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokalkosmopolit (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

sorry if i forget to mention, i only use twitter if its a RS journalist. I guess "pro-government thugs" or "paid government thugs" would be neutral, right? -I mean without using titushky, which is slang for the same thing. -Львівське (говорити) 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Tweets, in my experience, lack the fact checking of other high quality references like CNN.--Launchballer 12:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
agreed, and it's best to replace them with the articles these journalists write soon after, but as the situation develops it helps fill in the blanks. --Львівське (говорити) 15:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Trade Union 's Casualties

Can someone show the source of the Trade Union burning's casualties ???Because I don't see that they were death protesters.

it's in the body of the article, MP stated it, EuromaidanPR confirmed it to me (since, well, it's official) --Львівське (говорити) 18:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
"EuromaidanPR confirmed it to me" it is completely has no value Cathry (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That's good for you. Have a cookie. --Львівське (говорити) 20:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Why is it not in headlines everywhere? --82.117.137.132 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I see the Soboliev quote on many Ukrainian/Russian news sources, just not English yet. Still developing I guess. --Львівське (говорити) 23:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
They say there are no deaths from fire! http://www.socportal.info/news/shtab-soprotivleniya-oproverg-informatsiyu-o-pogibshih-v-dome-profsoyuzov you must remove that! http://batkivshchyna.com.ua/news/open/782Cathry (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

izvestia

This content was added by User:Lokalkosmopolit "Opposition activists armed with bats and iron rods beat to death the engineer of the office Valery Konstantinovich Zakharov[1]" Who is Izvestia.kiev.ua? Is this a copy wordpress blog of the Russian Izvestia? They only have 2k likes on facebook whereas the real Izvestia (whose logo they use) has over 56,000 . Can someone confirm or deny that this "Izvestia.kiev.ua" is a reliable source or not? The content they posted, about opposition killing an engineer, was mentioned by ZERO credible press so far, making this claim very dubious.--Львівське (говорити) 15:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of contemporary Ukranian press is paid by political opposition. So, I think, opinion of some other source is nice for neutrality. To count likes on FB - is ridiculous,Cathry (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC) most of Ukranians use other social media
This is just your wild conspiracy theory. Counting FB likes is just an attempt to verify if this is a real subsidiary of Izvestia or if it's a fake. It appears to be a fake blog IMO. --Львівське (говорити) 15:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Izvestia.kiev.ua is pretty sure affiliated with Izvestiya the Russian newspaper, the site of which reports the same incident [1]. You just can't go on removing unpleasant information like that on one hand while adding dubious things from pro-opposition Twitter pages. As you failed to self-revert, I have to report you for 3RR violations. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
you didn't provide the real source, you provided the sketchy one. I told you on my talk page to restore it, and I already put it back earlier here. But you can continue making things up if you want...--Львівське (говорити) 16:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that you've re-added this. I don't think it is correct to add things disputing the neutrality of Izvestiya as a source in that case, because it's OK per policy while Facebook as a source is definitely not OK but has been used here. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
If a social account is used it's best to qualify who is saying what, like if it's a primary source quote, or if it's a journalist publishing what's happening. Ideally, we replace or remove them when we have better sourcing later (which is what happened, most have been removed) --Львівське (говорити) 16:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The case with the Volyn governor is exactly one that points out the limits of 'let's accept social networking stuff at first'. There are terrible details reported [2], but we don't know if these are simply rumours.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
yes, if you use social media as a source for protesters. I'm only saying it's okay if it's from a reputable journalist and state where it comes from (ie. Christopher Miller of the Kyiv Post reported that X") and not "protesters tweeted that XYZ happened" (because obviously people make things up online) --Львівське (говорити) 16:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There was case, when opposition politician asked to kill families of his opponents, but then he said, his account was broken. It can be similar with social media accounts of reputable journalistsCathry (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
retractions can happen in any media. --Львівське (говорити) 17:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
In regards to izvestia, I agree with Cathry that information should be also used from any source as long as it carries true information and especially if it has an alternative point of view as well. It only adds value to such article. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

War_Kyiv ref

I apologize for this edit which I thought was vandalism at first because the page was full of these tags. I see now that the issue wasn't Pravda or just sources at random, but actually the article itself, which is a social media live-blog. This was added by Alex G, can we get a comment from him if all of the info he added was actually from this page? If so we may have to remove it and I agree with the tagging. Perhaps we can get some other eyes on this? It's a lot of content that would need to be removed, unfortunately.--Львівське (говорити) 04:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, I think it was Cathry who tagged everything with "better source" tag when you questioned him about izvestia (if I am not mistaken). I am removing the tags unless there would be a reason to revived them. That article reference should, of course, be supplemented with additional sources therefore I will put "Additional citation needed" in those places. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
please re-read, i already removed the tags and added section templates instead.--Львівське (говорити) 05:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

esperso tv link

Espreso tv link on Moskal is inoperational. My Google Chrome is not able to open it. If it is good link, the format should be changed; otherwise - it needs to be deleted. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

it works just fine. Nothing needs to be changed. Also, even if it was a deadlink, wiki policy is not to delete dead links because often a cache or archive can be found to supplement it. --Львівське (говорити) 05:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Explanations of the use of Ukrainian terminology

Particularly noted in the final paragraph of 18 February 2013 there are various references to Ukrainian terms such as titushky and siloviks which are not clear terms for use by someone unfamiliar with Ukrainian culture, could an explanation of such terms included in the article be incorporated to make for clearer reading. Tracland (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

For clarification this is in the initial clashes section. Tracland (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 Done—Silovik and Titushky are linked now. N2e (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
silovik shouldnt really be used at all. titushky is also slang for thug, but i guess 'titushky' is a ukrainian phenomenon and they are more than just thugs, though, i guess you could just says 'paid government thugs' but it gets long winded. --Львівське (говорити) 14:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Also dear editors; please don't use the term "MVS" but use Ministry of Internal Affairs. "MVS" is also a slang word or atleast a word that nobody outside Ukraine uses for it's police force.... 'titushky' by now is a word similar to "hooligan", but they are different phenomena... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
MVS isn't a slang word, it's an acronym. MVD in Russian.--Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Pravda. ru and Colonel Musienko

What makes this Musienko notable [3]? Because I once added Kravchuk's view but that was removed. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I already moved it to February_2014_Euromaidan_riots#Russian_military_personnel. I think it should stay to give readers some background info (it is not normal when Canadian military personnel states that the problem between President Obama and the Republican party can only be solved by means of force and that the USA proved that it is cannot exist as an independent sovereign state; hence it is also not normal when an active Russian military person makes similar statements); but in it's previous position it looked like we should expect a Russian invasion in Ukraine in less then 2 hours........ And we have no proof this will happen (I think it will not anyhow...). I did not remove Kravchuk's view (nor did I ever see it........); I have no problem with it being returned. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Page move to Ukraine Civil War

About the recent page move to Ukraine Civil War=Per Wikipedia:Article titles Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.. NO reliable English-language source has spoken of a Ukraine Civil War! Wikipedia is about showing what is going on, not about giving personal opinions what is going on!!!! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Such a move does not seem to be currently supportable. The unrest in other cities might warrant a separate article, but not necessarily with such a title as that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
unrest in other cities already has another article --Львівське (говорити) 18:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's the main Euromaidan article, isn't it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations (we'll have to change the title later since it's more than just RSAs being occupied)--Львівське (говорити) 18:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Page moves are pretty ordinary with articles about current events, as are discussions about the name. You were clearly in the right, so thanks for moving it back. --Kizor 20:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Athletes withdrawing from Sochi Olympics

I've came across numerous reports on Ukrainian atheltes withdrawing from the ongoing Winter Olympics in Sochi. Anyone who is more or less familiar, please add a few sentences about this [4] [5] --Երևանցի talk 21:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already updated Ukraine at the 2014 Winter Olympics and Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics#Athlete_boycott with info on this... It seems Ukrainian athletes are not withdrawing from the ongoing Winter Olympics in Sochi except 1 skier. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I think it would be best to wait for now and see what happens. --Երևանցի talk 22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

To much details in current article.......

I applaud all your hard work in the article but currently this article has the information "The Rada speaker (currently Volodymyr Rybak) current whereabouts are unknown". Although I find that interesting.... that sort of info belongs in a newspaper and not in an encyclopaedia. And I already found a source that stated Rybak will be found soon. Let's remove Where's Volodymyr as soon as this info is redundant/he is found. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're surely right when you say that it should be removed once he's found and the issue becomes moot. But for example if he has fled Ukraine already there's some relevance (as his signature is needed, according to Gazeta.ua).Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
In the meantime, the opposition has gathered 150 signatures with the aim of forcing the general prosecutor to resign [6]. Pshonka threatened to prosecute the organizers of riots on Febr. 19. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it's relevant insofar as his signature is needed tomorrow and he may be sacked if he doesn't show up. If he doesn't show up, it's good to have a source confirming he was MIA since the day before. --Львівське (говорити) 23:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Right sector passage

This content ("On 17 February 2014, Right Sector posted a message «In connection with the announced opposition National Headquarters on Tuesday, February 18, "peaceful offensive," all "Right Sector" units in Kiev and regions of Ukraine lead to a state of complete readiness.»") has been removed twice from the article; User:Cathry inserted it. I, personally, have no clue what it's trying to say. It also has nothing to do with the February riots, and so it's confusing why it was added as the first line of the intro to the article. --Львівське (говорити) 03:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, i think, it should be in this article, links http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/02/17/7014143/,

http://una-unso.in.ua/terminove-povidomlennya-pravogo-sektoru. It deals with 18 February riot, which was named "peaceful offensive"Cathry (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've re-added the content to the timeline with more elaboration. --Львівське (говорити) 04:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Motyl commentary

This section, while I think Motyl is a great mind on politics and the discussion is interesting, I don't see what Donbas separatism has to do with this article in specifics. This should be in an article on Ukrainian separatist movements or on the Donbas, not about the riots. Thoughts on removal? --Львівське (говорити) 03:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added that section. He was commenting on these particular events. I think it's pretty relevant since he's not the only one talking about Ukraine's hypothetical partition. The RFE/RL article begins with "As the crisis in Ukraine escalates and becomes increasingly violent, the possibility that the country could break up is again coming to the fore. In a recent article, Alexander Motyl, a professor at Rutgers University and an expert on Ukrainian affairs, makes the provocative argument that this might just be the best thing that could happen." --Երևանցի talk 03:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
And he concludes that separatism is a waste-of-time bluff. Nonetheless, does this talk of partitioning the country belong here or in the main euromaidan article or elsewhere? I don't think the crisis that happened here is related to the discussion, his article (which RFE/RL is talking about) was written on the 14th; it's an overarching discussion throughout the entire euromaidan. --Львівське (говорити) 03:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It might be appropriate in Euromaidan article then. Or if you don't think it has any relevance in any article then go ahead remove it because I'm not going to fight for it, I just think it's an interesting viewpoint by an expert. --Երևանցի talk 04:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, for sure. Kuzio's thoughts on it is interesting too video --Львівське (говорити) 04:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is uprising

This is not riot, this is already armed uprising.

let's wait it out, for all we know it will be a revolution by the morning with yanukovych lynched. --Львівське (говорити) 17:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, the good 'peaceful' demonstrators have been lynching since 18 February. Like Russia 1917, like Germany from 1933 on, like Chinese Hongweibings. The blind masses will always find some kind of scapegoats whom they 'need' to put to death in order to open the road to glorious future. There have always been people out there who think that you only need to annihilate some 'enemies' (depending on the situation the Jews, Bourgeois, Intellectuals or - now in Ukraine - Party of Regions members) and the paradise is there. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Ah, it seems your cat is out of the bag. You just lost all credibility as an editor. --Львівське (говорити) 17:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is news that you support the opposition side while I oppose it. Neither view discredits one as a Wikipedia user. Opinionated users can still edit hot topics if they follow NPOV.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Normal editors try to provide a neutral representation of events. It's becoming increasingly clear you have a partisan stake in this, seeing as you are likening ousting murderers to Nazis blaming Jews. You're crossing a thin line. --Львівське (говорити) 18:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
...says someone who is a self-declared supporter of Svoboda. And mind the Wikiquette, please. It was you who brought up lynching and Yanukovich.
I use normal sources for information I find necessary to introduce and so far only you have had problems with it [7] and most of the time you haven't objected, too. I don't use Party of Regions activists' FB or Twitter for example. It's laughable to accuse others of bias while being explicitly partisan yourself.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
From an outside person, I think you should sit this one out Avion365 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
May be I want such people as Yatsenyuk, Timoshenko, Yarosh to be lynched, but it is my personal opinion ant this place is not inappropriate for that hopesCathry (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I said for all we know - it's a realistic scenario for a dictator to be killed in an uprising, not that I was personally calling for it on here. --Львівське (говорити) 22:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder here that Yulia Tymoshenko's last name is not spelled with a "i" in English reliable sources. (We seem to be off-topic anyhow....) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Response of Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch

I found the Pope's response to the situation in Ukraine. I don't know the format or where exactly this would be inserted, so I thought I'd offer it here: [8]

Also, a message from the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew. http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/patriarchal-message-ukraine-2014

Pstanton (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Tymoshenko

The article's section about Tymoshenko may need some updating, as she's in Kiev now. [9] [10] Amazing. Sca (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Events across Ukraine section in need of expansion

The 'Events across Ukraine' section would benefit from some expansion, I added some information from the main Wikipedia article with a reference to BBC, I wish I had more time to expand it as I really care about it since I'm from Ukraine. Who would be willing to work on this section a little bit? :) Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it turned into its own article and I guess soon we'll have to come up with a summary of everything. --Львівське (говорити) 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

for litterary accuracy

least 82 people were killed, including 13 policemen; over 1,100 were injured

that's a "riot" or "skirmish"

saying 1,000 dead is a "protest" ?

USA history books cite "a Boston Massacre" with far less casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.160 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

ℳ==i hate to make suggestions== since it's totally not my place.

i would think attacking one's own wealth in one's own town (public buildings taxes paid for) is not helpful if one does not have the means (if the conflict is about means and suspected holding out of).

my example is. syria has areas of towns destroyed. they cannot protest over who is in the buildings: there are no buildings and no way to rebuild them.

I think so too. Now Ukrainians have different opinions, but, I think, part of those who support these attacks have some kind of euphoria. But still it is armed coup..Cathry (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You really have to back up provocative statements like this being an "armed coup" if you intend to inject it on the actual article.--Львівське (говорити) 02:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
It was said by Yanukovich. Do you have arguments against it? Protesters were armed, Rada acted against actual law. And there were polls before 18 february about near 45-50% Ukrainians which do not supported Maidan Cathry (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
protestered did not take the government buildings but force or with arms, they were empty. Rada did not act against law, this is your own twisted interpretation of the law.--Львівське (говорити) 03:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Protesters were armed when they killed and damaged police (and when they were killed). From 24.11.13 they began to attack police http://mir24.tv/news/politics/9354860. http://mir24.tv/media/images/uploaded/about_big9352459.jpg (Can I add this image to article?) Or it is not true? And when they forced Rada to enact law which banned all weapon, even tear-gas, from police, naturally they did not need weapon any more. Cathry (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Attacking police in november? wow, you're off in your own little world there aren't ya? --Львівське (говорити) 04:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
"Активисты попытались прорвать милицейский кордон. Они сломали металлический шлагбаум и использовали его как таран, чтобы пройти сквозь оцепление. Стражи правопорядка в ответ применили слезоточивый газ и дубинки. Представители МВД утверждают, что такие меры были приняты, поскольку оппозиция первой начала бросать в милиционеров дымовые шашки и применила газ." If you don't know Russian i can translate it to you. I think you can see photos. Cathry (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This title is so ridicalous

It's a revolution, and it's not limited to the Maidan, or even Kiev as a whole. And "riots" is something else. Btw, A riot (/ˈraɪət/) is a form of civil disorder characterized often by what is thought of as disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden against authority, property or people. (...) Riots typically involve "vandalism and the destruction of private and/or public property." The specific property to be targeted varies depending on the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious buildings. The only destruction so far is directly limited to the fighting between organized and disciplined political groups, it's not like there is a mob roaming streets and plundering shops & burning cars at random (example: 2011 England riots). --Niemti (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Curiously enough, it was first pro-Kremlin media that started to call it revolution (namely, Brown Revolution - Коричневая Революция). As of now, most sources do not refer to the events as a revolution, so this title would be POV. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Niemti, what kind of sources are you reading?! ″The only destruction so far is directly limited to the fighting between organized and disciplined political groups, it's not like there is a mob roaming streets and plundering shops & burning cars at random″ - you mean attempts to storm Russian consulate in Lviv are indicative of organization and discipline? Or putting Medvedchuk's villa ablaze [11]? Or the 18 Febr. destruction of PR HQ, with which the violent escalation began? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

All this is political, it's not about looting and random vandalism. Riot is "a situation in which a large group of people behave in a violent and uncontrolled way". The anti-government side is highly organized, into militias (calling themselves sotnias), with advanced logistics (including field hospitals), etc. Politically, they have parties. Not a riot. An uprising. --Niemti (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And what am I reading? Right now, I'm reading http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/22/ukraine-crisis-uncertainty-after-yanukovych-signs-deal-live-updates It says:

  • Yulia Tymoshenko to be released from prison in Kharkiv
  • President Yanukovych flees Kiev. Wherabouts unknown
  • Parliament appoints new speaker and new interior minister
  • Protesters take over security in Kiev
  • Regional politicians declare constitutional control in Kharkiv in response to events in Kiev

The photo illustrating it whows orderly lines of uniformed men in combat gear, the caption reads: "Anti-government protesters guard the the Ukrainian Parliament building in Kiev." That's not how a riot works. --Niemti (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How does the fact that violence has subsided after the government collapsed invalidate facts of wanton violence that I pointed out? Your own interpretation like ″That's not how a riot works″ - hence no riots took place - has no bearing as per WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lo:-)kalkosmopolit (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Because no riot took place (or at least not at the Maidan, as this incredibly stupid title implies). There was a street battle between the rebel militias and the Internal Ministry forces (possibly also State Security). --Niemti (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Btw, "Yanukovych has now described the events in Kiev as a coup." (source: same source, 'what kind of sources are you reading?!') No, before you ask, a coup also isn't synonymous with "riot". What a riot is a riot. It's a real concept that actually exists, not a silly buzzword for mass violence. (And previously he's also described it as "terrorism", including the govt's initative to declare martial law and send in the tanks for a "counter-terrorist operation", and needless to say it's also not synonymous with a riot.) Rebellion. --Niemti (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I know that Yanukovich has made a statement. He also said that he's not going to sign any of the resolutions passed today by Rada as he considers those illegitimate. It's his point of view.
As for martial law, then the real discussion as far as we know was not about martial law but state of emergency. These are two different things in Ukraine (in Poland 1981 the martial law was declared as there were no legal provisions for state of emergency). Both are possible per Ukrainian law, but state of emergency was considered more likely. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It really have nothing to do with the issue of the idiotic title of this article. (But as of Yanyk, he now also "calls it a Fascist Revolution like 1933 Germany," even as of course there was no revolution in 1933 Germany, he's called it many things.) And the article's infobox even shows a burnt down building, so an informed reader might get an impression it was something looted & burned by theose rioters like in the 2005 French riots or in the Watts Riots (where there were actual riots, note how the pictures show random stuff burn). --Niemti (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally assess Euromaidan as an overarching protest movement, but the events from the 18th to present to be the revolution part of things. Euromaidan called for early elections and protested peacefully, and later violently. What we see today is an actual power vacuum, occupation of major state buildings, and of course the deal and later parliamentary impeachment, and power shift. 18th-22nd is the revolution as far as I can see. That, or revolution should be a separate article which includes euromaidan, and this article, and the RSA occupations. --Львівське (говорити) 19:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is: there were never any "February 2014 Euromaidan riots". This is what a riot is: riot (also various dictionary definitions). It's only, once again, Wikipedia being silly.

Also for the term "Euromaidan" I don't think it's even any longer used for a long time. --Niemti (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been following it and it's never stopped being used. In Ukrainian and Russian, its always used in the press to describe the protesters, all across the country (euromaidansty or w/e). I think that has its own article and that's fine. The purpose of the protests changed dramatically, but the name stayed, just as Automaidan stayed and the Euromaidan official twitter, and so on stayed. Pretty sure the main stage still has a huge EUROMAIDAN banner. 'Maidan' is a big word since it all took place on Maidan. Anyway, as you pointed out, riots are "civil disorder characterized often by what is thought of as disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden againstauthority, property or people". If we used this definition, there was civil disorder against authority, but it was very organized. Extremely organized. Riots are anarchy, this was an uprising (and now a revolution). Hrushevskoho street was a riot since it was protesters and then radical groups splintering off and starting chaos on their own. This wasn't - this was organized self defense groups and protesters and other militant groups working together as a unit. --Львівське (говорити) 05:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
In Poland they dropped Euro in most reporting long ago, thought they did in Ukraine too. I guess in a case of doubt I'd use Maidan Nezalezhnosti / "Kiev's Independence Square" (which it was all the time), "Euromaidan" only for the initial protests, "opposition" for the movement. --Niemti (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Title

I suggest the title be February unrest in Ukraine and without the date tag "2014" as it is already notable.
Sources for "unrest": [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]

I see the beginnings of an edit war here over the title "2014 Ukrainian Revolution" vs. "2014 Euromaidan riots". I don't know what to say except go with what the sources are saying. If the Ukrainian press is split, as could well be the case, then I'd go with what the western press is using - which seems to be "Revolution" (I haven't checked thoroughly). I'm sure there's enough tension, bad feeling, etc. on the streets in Ukraine that we don't need to add to it here. I hope everybody realizes that one man's revolution is another man's riot. I'm sorry for everybody what Ukraine has had to go through, but I am optimistic about the future. This a.m. I was challenged on using the word revolution in the text and found that there were enough references in the press to justify the use. Maybe this has changed but probably more toward the general use of the word "revolution." I'll stay out this unless progress seems to be blocked, but I hope that everybody can put aside justifiably high emotions and just edit by the book. Good luck and the best to everybody. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
we have a poll to change it up in the talk page. I don't think the terms 'revolution' and 'riot' are relative at all. Uprising is what one uses if it's ongoing or fails, revolution if regime change happens. Coup if it was regime change without mass popular support. --Львівське (говорити) 00:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Took back the discussion above. Sorry, i just noticed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, whatever it was, THERE WAS A DISTINCT ABSENCE OF ANY RIOTS AT THE MAIDAN. Or maybe whatever invented this title meant a police riot, but in this case they didn't made it nearly clear enough. (Yes, I'm sarcastic.) --Niemti (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There's currently fairly strong consensus to change the title to '2014 Ukrainian Revolution', so go right ahead and move it. As you said, there was absolutely no rioting in the 18-22 timeframe, unless you want to account self-defense barricades and defending a massacre 'rioting', but that in hindsight now seems like a strong POV push. When we made this article, I think we used riots because it seemed to be shaping up to be like the early days of the Hrushevskoho Street Riots, but we have the luxury of hindsight now to FIX the title. --Львівське (говорити) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots, I look at the infobox and I see "Afghan war veterans" - and today I learnt there are many Afghans in Ukraine, thank you Wikipedia. (Yes, again sarcasm, and I didn't even look beyond the infobox.) --Niemti (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Without the date tag "2014" as it is already notable". You do know that Wikipedia is going to be read even after the year 2014, right? It's not like this is going to be an annual event. JIP | Talk 14:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

(non-admin closure) A new discussion has been started below. wctaiwan (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2014 (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.

{{Requested move/dated|February 2014 Euromaidan clashes}}

February 2014 Euromaidan riots → February 2014 Euromaidan clashes – I feel calling them "riots" is a bit misleading and not the most common description of the situation. This description is more neutral and generic. The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

it might be best if we pick the descriptor first, then decide on the move. Is clashes what everyone agrees on already? I agree it should be moved now regardless to something, just a matter of what. How about revolt? Uprising? --Львівське (говорити) 03:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
'Agree it s/b changed, but clashes is IMO the wrong word at least by itself. As per the stated policy, 'need precision and conciseness. While clashes is more neutral, it is actually less descriptive as single-word substitution. 'Could have clashes in sports. 'Can even be used metaphorically w/o any physicality. 'Need to find a better word or words. "deadly clashes"? "violent uprising"? just "violence"? Paavo273 (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
violence is ambiguous, just like riots, is it randoms acts of? I like uprising: march on government, crackdown, government capitulates to a degree, politicians fleeing the country, possible regime change in the window - seems like a stopgap before 'revolution' becomes official. If the far-right grabs the government buildings tomorrow, there's no way in hell this is just "a riot" anymore, and even so, clashes have stopped. --Львівське (говорити) 04:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the use of riots, as a politically charged word, is inappropriate here. "Riots" imply a sense of "impulsive violent lawlessness" without suggesting the political and social purpose that underpins them. Revolution, protest or uprising are more precise descriptors that I'd support. "Clashes" seems too vague. N4 (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose current title is reasonable enough. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I think one could describe Euromaidan from the beginning of the protests to now as a revolution, so this article should focus on the violence this week with the peace deal as the cut-off point. "Clashes" fits with what this article should focus on, the violence between opposition and government forces concluding with the peace deal.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not as much as "concluding with the peace deal", as really with just a total collapse of Yanuk power in the capital and in much (most?) of the country, and an amazingly orderly takeover by the opposition (that's except things a display of separatism in Crimea). There were never any riots in Kiev in 2014. The only riots were in instances like when some police stations elsewhere (outside Kiev) were ransacked and their archives destroyed by agitated mobs following the shooting in Kiev, but it died down quickly and even Yanuk's residence was secured by rebel militias from looting. --Niemti (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

popular sources for 'Ukrainian revolution': Financial Times, Telegraph --Львівське (говорити) 00:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I suggest the title be February unrest in Ukraine and without the date tag "2014" as it is already notable.
Sources for "unrest": [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
I'm also ok with "revolution" if there are enough sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
@User:Lvivske - Response to what you said below about a revolution's definition → A revolution can also be the name for a coup (Carnation Revolution, Egyptian Revolution of 1952..etc) and can be the name for a state reform (Bolivarian Revolution, Corrective Revolution (Egypt)..etc) so it's not necessarily the case here. Let's go with the sources this time until there are enough sources calling it "revolution". Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
yes, a revolution can also be the name for a coup, and as we've seen, the ousted president is now calling it a coup. Revolution and Coup are relative terms based on who is saying it. Considering in this case he fled the city and his administration vanished over night, it's hard to categorize it as a coup IMO, it was also done democratically with votes from his own party and defectors.--Львівське (говорити) 00:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I see The Guardian and DW previously calling it a "revolution". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The protester-side of the conflict has been calling it a revolution for some time, including media outlets, see here--Львівське (говорити) 00:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it should be called a "coup" either because Yanukovych is the one who claims it and there was no military involved in his removal. I'm also fine with "revolution" as long as there are enough sources. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
What do you think about the title i proposed above? Just for now at least.. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Now BBC and The Guardian (again) call it a revolution. Perhaps that's good enough? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I see some sources calling it "uprising" → Discovery News Haaretz CNN The Telegraph
Maybe we can call it February Uprising in Ukraine. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I support moving it to something other than "riots", but oppose calling it a revolution unless it is the consensus among sources (and I don't think it is yet). We can afford to move it to a better title and wait for the dust to settle before deciding whether to call it a revolution. wctaiwan (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Since there appear to be plenty of sources referring to it as a revolution, my opposition is now fairly weak, and mostly on the basis that there's no harm in moving it to "protests" or "crisis" now, and then switching to "revolution" in a few days should that clearly become the common name. (Note that The Guardian refers to "revolutionary potential" and "threat of revolution", which doesn't really count as calling it a revolution. But some of the other major sources are fairly unambiguous.) wctaiwan (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


By my count, there are 5 for 'revolution', 1 for 'riots', and 1 (wctaiwan) on the fence but against riots. --Львівське (говорити) 01:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As stated before, my main issue is that the "revolution" would be Euromaidan broadly speaking and not just this particular period. Government buildings had been seized prior to the most recent unrest with violence breaking out before and this was just the culmination of all the previous actions. If we are going to talk of a "revolution" in a more narrow period, then I would think the actions following the peace deal are what should be included within it and the events preceding it only serving as a background. That would make the crackdowns this week and peace deal the sparks of the revolution rather than the revolution itself.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
all of those government buildings were surrendered back to the government on the 17th as part of the amnesty deal. There was a literal break in the protests between the 17th and the 18th when this kicked off again.--Львівське (говорити) 17:18, 23 February 2014 (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.

Move back to 2014 Ukrainian Revolution

It's clear from the discussion above that there is a rough, but not unanimous, consensus that the move is appropriate. Multiple independent mainstream reliable sources (BBC, Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, ITN, TIME) are now calling it a revolution, and so should we. Accordingly, I'm moving this article to 2014 Ukrainian Revolution. If you don't like this, please don't just insta-revert: instead, please suggest a better title for this article. -- The Anome (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Support--Mishae (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this article is mainly about the events that took place during 'February 2014 Euromaidan clashes', it makes more sense to start a new article for '2014 Ukrainian Revolution', otherwise you'll need to trim more than half of it. --PLNR (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
    • The term Euromaidan is used only in the beginning of the article and in the first section.--Mishae (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but the Revolution is only mentioned in the article Aftermath. You want an article about the revolution, where the Reactions section cover the main announcement as oppose to the February clashes, where the background section covers can have this article lead, instead of an extensive daily account of February clashes and you can cover the aftermath of the Revolution i.e. elections etc. for all those reason a separate article seem to be most suited.--PLNR (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
And you point is? O.K. Maybe we should break up Russian Revolution article too just because initially it started out with clashes as well.--Mishae (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support again not sure why we're doing another poll. I don't think the revolution (Feb 22) is a separate event from the actions that led to it from 18-21 Feb. I think the starting point is the 18th when the uprising occurred, RSAs were re-occupied, and the death toll ran up (which by all media reports is a separate death toll from the previous death toll on maidan and hrushevskoho in previous months). I fail to see how the clashes and political revolution are separate events. If we make a new 'revolution' article, it would be full of the exact same content from this article detailing the events that led to it. --Львівське (говорити) 00:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, what he is saying is that just like with 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots we can split the above article into 2014 Ukrainian Revolution and February 2014 Euromaidan clashes. In my opinion, if that will happen then the readers will be confused between 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots and February 2014 Euromaidan clashes. I'm strictly in naming it 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, and that shouldn't be discussed any longer.--Mishae (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Кровь на руках оппозиции
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity/Archive_1&oldid=1151036775"