Talk:Revolution of Dignity/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Does antisemitism and nationalism (far right) element deserve a section?

Hi, i created a section added a content from Harretz reporting anti semetic attack in Ukraine but this was immediately removed as "blatant POV". I was also being accused of misreprenting the original article. Firstly, I ask the remover that you observe wikipedia policy of assuming good faith of any editor. Harretz actually considers both Russian and American sides to be engaged in misrepresentation but this article happen to focus on largely American misrepresentation, and I only added factual part of the article, which is that antisemitic attack took place and Svoboda party, which is a part of new government, is a far right and antisemitic. This does not mean I endorse Russian invasion. However, it does not mean, I in turn, have to endorse so called people's revolution. Secondly, the issue of anti-semetism, whether it is true/justified or not, is raised by Russia/Putin. Therefore, this deserved to be included and I would think Harretz is fairly good source in this matter. Lastly, the fact that there is a significant nationalist (or far-right) element in the protest, especially among violent protestors, is also well reported, for example by U.K. Channel 4 news[1]. This does not mean liberal pro-democracy element doesn't exist in the protest. However, it does not mean we should white wash wikipedia article. I wait your response. Cheers. Vapour (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

See section above. It was blatant POV pushing and it was misrepresenting the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Haartz article is titled "From Washington to Moscow, everyone is lying about what’s happening in Ukraine". The position of the article is that both Moscow and Washington is lying. However, in term of antisemitism and far right, the article clearly takes the stance that assertion by U.S that there is no antisemitism or far right element in revolution is factually false.
I do not believe removal of factual reporting about actual violence against jews and synagogue is right in term of wikipedia policy or for that matter, general ethics and decency. Is a fact a blatant POV? Should violence against jew and synagogue reported by mainstream newspaper be removed because it is "blatant POV". Secondly, I did not say Russia intervened because antisemetism or that accusation by Putin is true,which I agree is a POV. It merely stated a fact that antisemitism and far right element is an issue raised by no other than the President of Russia, a major participant. Position of Putin may be a blatant POV. The existence of this issue is a fact and not a POV. Vapour (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
See the section above where it's laid out in plain sight how you omitted the key text from the article and misrepresented the source. As to the Washington Post transcripts of Putin's speech - that violates WP:PRIMARY and Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for Putin's propaganda.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I also don't see how reporting factual events can be considered a POV push, though I expanded the section a bit and added incidents implicating Yanukovich's police forces. I don't understand why you would blank the section though. Even if it were POV, the solution would be to balance it out. We can't ignore the rise in anti-Semitism both within public and in the government. LokiiT (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
See above. "Balancing it out" would involve writing about the disinformation and provocations (like reported, say, here). But honestly, an encyclopedia article is not a place for political polemics (one POV + another POV =/ NPOV, despite what some people think) so it simply doesn't belong here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
disinformation and provocations would go in a section dedicated to propaganda/information warfare. This section is about anti-Semetic activity, which by virtue of existing and being supported by reliable sources does have a place in the article. It's not about politics. LokiiT (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You are making assertions. An assertion is not an argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
What you just said was tantamount to gibberish. This is simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. LokiiT (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • No. Claims of "antisemitism" is clearly Russian Government propaganda. The Jerusalem Post reports that the Ukrainian Jewish Committee asserts that Russian claims of anti-Semitism in Crimea are lies and propaganda[2], France 24 reports that prominent Ukrainian Jews have rebuffed Putin’s anti-Semitism claims[3] and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that chief rabbi of Ukraine Rabbi Yaakov Dov Bleich has accused Russia (not Ukraine) of staging anti-Semitic “provocations” in Crimea in order to justify its invasion of the former Soviet republic[4]. --Nug (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • We're dealing with an ongoing international conflict here. That's why reporting on it in Wikipedia requires a lot of extra caution. Needless to say, Haaretz in not on the scene therefore we have to pay close attention to where the passed-on info originates from, every time, either from the Ukrainian pro-European media, or the pro-Soviet Ukrainian media or perhaps directly from the Russian media itself. However, at this early stage of the game it might be impossible to determine that fact reliably. The same applies to the Western media, for example the Channel 4 news like from the link by User:Vapour added 08:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC). That newsbyte comes from the Friday 24 January 2014 edition. – Seems like a different century to me. The reporter is clearly lying at 05:58 of the video by claiming that Putin already paid Ukraine 15 billion Euros. He did not... and never will. Poeticbent talk 22:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK there has been no anti-semtic attacks and all accusations and claims of such have been debunked by jewish leaders and jewish rights groups. I don't see how creating a section on a non-existent even, or trying to connect 1 instance in the kiev area to the revolution itself (synthesis) is encyclopedic or neutral. --Львівське (говорити) 20:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

New name

What about new name? Ukrainian crisis (79.7 million results on Google[5]) This is deadliest time for country since second world war. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

  • "Ukrainian crisis" is too generic. In reality, Ukraine has been in crisis for the past 25 year or so. I'm not saying this to mock the country. The same applies to my country (Armenia) and other post-Soviet states as well. So when searching "Ukrainian crisis" we should limit it to November 2013-February 2014.
  • If we were going to rename anything, it would be Euromaidan and not this article

--Երևանցի talk 22:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Euromaidan would still be the article for the Euromaidan movement, so that can never change. A new hub article for the crisis as a whole, including both the Euromaidan, the riots and current crisis, and whats happening in the rest of the country is an option. Another option would be renaming this to better reflect that it's not just riots but an uprising or crisis or whatever we decide is the best term for specifically what happened in February.--Львівське (говорити) 22:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The "riots" in the title is a bit POV though. How about "February 2013 Euromaidan fighting" or something like that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
That is my point it is not internal issue of Ukraine anymore. Political representations around Europe must react. It is not just riot.--Jenda H. (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek: 'riots' is OK. We even have 'Category:2014 riots'.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Volunteer Marek, this is an all-out uprising now.--Darius (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how the fact that we have a category for riots affects what we call this article. Looking at the actual sources, the words used are "clashes", "violence", "uprising", "protests", not "riots".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree that 'riots' is reductive at this point, there hasn't been much rioting (when I think of riots I think of people looting stores, chaos, anarchy, random expressions of violence), it's mostly and specifically clashes with police and people being gunned down. I think 'conflict' is sterile/neutral, 'uprising' may be POVy since people havent "risen up" yet (for all we know itll be put down tomorrow). On the news here they called it the "Ukrainian Crisis" --Львівське (говорити) 23:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that the current title is inadequate, even wrong. IMO UA "conflict" is an improvement but still too non-descript. Further, IMO Julia Romero's interpretation of the naming rule a couple sections above this is also generally correct. The things that the rule and YR's interpretation doesn't take into account is that (A) there is a LAG, (B) many key events (e.g., RSA occupations) are not reported at all or very poorly reported in the Western media. As such, it would be IMO appropriate to use a translation of how the relevant domestic media are reporting it. I think as fluid as the situation apparently is on the ground across UA, this naming problem is likely to take care of itself soon in any case. Paavo273 (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I think an issue would be sorting out whether this article is part of Euromaidan or not, and if the title should reflect it. I think it very plainly is part of Euromaidan, therefore, the title should reflect it's a chapter of it and include 'Euromaidan' in the title, at the least. If we call it '2014 Ukrainian conflict' it becomes a whole different event, and not a branch of EM --Львівське (говорити) 04:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point. "UA conflict" is not IMO great anyway. EM may BE NOW or on the verge of turning into something else, which EM will have spawned. If so, what then? Will the EM article be subsumed into this one with its new title or maybe the new article will have a shorter section on EM with a "See main article" link to EM? Paavo273 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems quite clear that "Ukraine Crisis of 2014" is a better title for the time being. In the lede there is a statement claiming that the majority of the governments around the world have identified the conflict as a "revolution", but when you look at the sources, they're just expressions of hope for resolution of conflict and violence. There is almost no official talk of either "revolution" or "coup".GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
majority of the world's governments (well, all except russia) see the new government as legitimate, and all media sources call it a revolution. I don't see how it can be argued to not be a revolution now, in March with all the hindsight we have. --Львівське (говорити) 20:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Adviser of Polish president confirmed that this was a coup

In this main Polish daily Rzeczpospolita Roman Kuzniar stated that what happened in Ukraine was an unconstitutional coup[6], he justifies it as "necessary", but nevertheless confirms that this was indeed a coup(justified or not). Perhaps it is worth adding that not only Russian opinions consider the events a coup? Roman Kuzniar is highly notable-a top Polish diplomat, international relations scholar and advisor to Polish president, according to the website of Polish president [7]Between 1995 and 2002, he was a member of the Polish delegation to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations. He is an author and editor of numerous publications in the area of international political relations, strategic studies, and foreign policy of the Republic of Poland, international security, and human rights. In 1995, he initiated the publication of „The Strategic Yearbook” becoming its editor-in-chief.In 1990, he simultaneously began working for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The positions he held included: director of the Department for Planning and Analysis (1992-1994), a minister-plenipotentiary at the Permanent Representation of the Republic of Poland at the United Nations in Geneva (1994-1998), an employee (1998-2002) and director (2000-2002) of the Department for Strategy and Foreign Policy Planning (he resigned for his opposition to the war in Iraq). Between 2003 and 2005, he was the director of the Academy of Diplomacy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On 1st June 2005, he became the director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs (he was dismissed in February 2007 because of differences on key issues of Polish foreign policy). On 1st December 2007, he became an advisor of the Minister of National Defence, Bogdan Klich On 1st October 2010, he became an advisor to the President of the Republic of Poland

Should we add that advisor to President of Poland stated the above? Views? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this should be included. All kinds of people, some of them more or less "official", from all kinds of countries, have made all kinds of commentary in regard to the ongoing situation. If we were to try and include them all we'd wind up with a ridiculously long list of "he said, she said" - i.e., anything but an encyclopedia article. I can go through Rzeczpospolita or other Polish magazines and newspapers and easily find dozens of commentators, some of them more respectable than Kuzniar, who say completely different things. That's putting aside the fact that the main point of Kuzniar's piece isn't "it was a coup!" but rather "it's good that it happened, whatever you want to call it" - in other words, it's not a good piece to use to support the notion that it was a "coup".
If this was some kind of "official" position of the Polish government it'd be one thing. But it isn't (except maybe for the "it's good that it happened, whatever you want to call it" part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Consensus sought for new sectiion in Reactions. "Ukrainian Jewish community and Israel"

There have been some interesting developments. A significant number of Ukrainians injured in the last phase of fighting are now being treated in Irsaeli facilities, including a complete arm reconstruction following a close range AK wound. Sources available. Also that Ukrainian Jews are being tought search and rescue and intensive first aid by the Jewish agencies present in Ukraine. This to assist if the worst case scenario of war should occur. I have seen no references to any anti-semitic incidents, (and I keep an hourly watch on Israeli MSM RS), and they would be swift to pick any up. I think a short section on the Ukrainian Jewish community and its actions would be relevant. Thoughts? Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Do you really "keep an hourly watch on Israeli MSM RS"? Haaretz, the Israel's oldest newspaper report "we have already reported on a fear in the Jewish communities of an increase in anti-Semitism, as well as several incidents in which extreme right-wing gangs intensified their activity against synagogues and Jewish institutions. Our correspondent in Crimea, Anshel Pfeffer, reported that Jews were beaten in Kiev and a synagogue was destroyed there, and similar incidents occurred in the city of Zaporozhye in southeast Ukraine and in the Crimean capital of Simferopol. .... In addition, the far-right party Svoboda (Liberty) received 38 seats in the legislature in the most recent elections, and its members espouse extreme anti-Semitic and nationalist views. ...."[8]. Since anti semetic activities is listed as one of justification of Russian intervention, this probably deserve a section of its own. Vapour (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Well let's say about three times a day :). Seriously though, there is no pattern of disturbing events being reported from my brief scans at this time.. Such sources would certainly highlight any incidents. I would suggest a section which can be developed, on the Jewish Ukrainian population and the revolution's impact. We are all aware of the neo-nazi presence in Ukraine. More general aspects of the communities responses and reactions could be recorded as I suggested above. It can be added to if necessary. A seperate anti semitism section I would oppose at this point. But events are still unfolding. Irondome (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's the "..." part you left out:
Despite that, many pointed to the fact that Russia is trying to defame the new government in Kiev by portraying it as extremely rightist, anti-Semitic and Nazi in its entirety, and some people even wondered whether those incidents weren’t Russian provocations, in order to arouse opposition to the new government.
And Haaretz has recently ran other stories about the possibility that whatever attacks have occurred could very well be provocations.
You deliberately and willfully misrepresented a source. One more stunt like that and off to WP:AE we go. This article, because it is in the "Eastern Europe" topic area falls under discretionary sanctions [9]. This is a notification of that fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
There is actually nothing in "..." except line break. Secondly, you are free to add "russian is trying to defame" part or "attack could be provocation". However, I do not believe that removing mention of factual incidents of anti semetism, which has been reported by legitimate media source is ok in term of both wikipedia policy or in term of fair representation of matter.. The best way is to present the presentation of antisemetism by both side (Russian think it is a pogram while US think not a trace of anti semetism can be seen, neither of it is true.). You surely agree that nationalism and anti semetism is an issue raised and countered by both side. Then it deserve a section. I am happy to debate on how it is presented. However, I do not agree the whole matter should be removed. Cheers Vapour (talk) 07:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
There is actually nothing in "..." except line break. - oh yeah? Then where did the text I quoted come from? Yes, I guess strictly speaking there is a "line break" after the part you put in... and then there's the next paragraph which you omitted with the (...). Look, despite the fact that the article is behind a paywall some of us do have access/subscription to Haaretz so there's really no point in misrepresenting what's in the actual article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Here's another article by Anshel Pfeffer from Haaretz [10] Quote(s): so far the net sum of anti-Semitic attacks in Crimea has been one incident of graffiti sprayed on a synagogue here in Simferopol. ... (<-- that's how you use the three dots - to omit material that is secondary, not to twist what the source is saying) As an Israeli-British journalist reporting on the conflict here in Crimea since Sunday, I can categorically say that I have never been more comfortable using my Israeli passport. Then in a section explicitly labeled "No Rise in Anti-Semitism": However, if you were relying only on Kremlin-financed media, such as the Russia Today news channel, and that group of journalists who are prepared to do anything to demonize the democratic governments of the West, even shill for Vladimir Putin, for your information of recent events in Ukraine, you would be convinced that a dark wave of anti-Semitism has smashed down on this country. he then goes on to say it's mostly nonsense. I guess folks should read it for themselves.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
You are free to add "graffiti" content. However, what you are currently doing is to censor a mention of violence against jew and synagogue and this is pretty bad. What Kerry or Putin or another journalist from Haaretz think about such crime is certainly a POV. But actual reporting of violence against jew is a matter of fact and not opinion. Plus, Wikipedia neutrality policy means that we, amature editor, should not take editorial stance of reporting by legitimate media. If you want to add a content from "No Rise in Anti-Semitism" I will certaily welcome it because it add another perspective from legitimate media. However, removing reporting of antisemetic violence because you disagree it as POV should not have place in wikipedia or elsewhere. Please cool down. Please imagine yourself answering to a public. Do you think you could explain away your action? You are removing mention of violence against jew and synagogue because, as you claim it, it is a matter of perspective. And if you have any doubt, several major news source reports far right elements in the revolution.[11][12][13] 08:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
No, what I am currently doing is pointing out that you omitted a key passage from the source, in order to misrepresent its meaning.
Additionally, opinion pieces are not reliable sources for facts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
mmm, actually, it is ok in wikipedia to add opinion as long as it is from media or academia and is presented as an opinion. Moreover, all reporting in legit media are under editorial controlled and are fact checked. So if an opinion piece of NYT says that a ultra orthodox jewish student was stabbed and, in a separate incident, an another Hebrew teacher was beaten by a gang, it is reliable sources for facts. As I keep asking, why are you keep asserting violence against jews and synagogue as POV?Vapour (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not "asserting violence against jews and synagogue as POV" and you really need to watch how you (mis)represent what I'm saying, especially since that kind of accusation can be extremely offensive. This isn't a good pattern you're establishing here you know. What I am doing is pointing out that you manipulated a quote from a source to present it in a particular POV way. Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out how your action can be seen (probably by most people). Whatever your opinion of the source article from Harrtez, the content I pulled in this wikipedia article only mention one fact, occurrence of violence against jews and synagogue. Then you are trying to remove mention of it because I fail to add opinion part of the article which is not flattering to Russia. I don't see the logic here. Is fact a POV because it fail to include a POV? Vast majority of article is about how Washington's counter to Russian argument does not stand up and I didn't include that either. but if I am to be faithful to the opinions of this article I probably should have. Instead, I only stuck to factual parts. Vapour (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
First of all, it's Haaretz, not "Harrtez". Second, as I've explained numerous times already, I don't have a problem with the source (well, aside from the fact that this particular text is an opinion piece, rather than a news report). What I do have a problem with, as I've explained numerous times already, is the fact that you are misrepresenting the source in an attempt to push a POV. I don't particularly care about your (as it happens, incorrect) "interpretation" of what the article says (this is actually part of the reason why we *don't* use opinion pieces as sources). You did not "stick to factual parts". You picked one "factual part" and purposeful left out half of it to cram it into a particular POV. As a Yiddish proverb says "a half truth is still a whole lie". And one more time - stop attributing to me actions, motives or opinions in order to attempt to manipulate the discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
User: Volunteer Marek still hasn't explained his reason for wanting to exclude factual events regarding anti-Semitism from this article, and I don't suspect we're going to see one from him. It seems he's attempting to white-wash any wrong-doing of the opposition, logic be damned. LokiiT (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have explained, something like eight times already, that User:Vapour misrepresented a source in order to push a POV. In fact, I gave a quite detailed explanation above, with direct quotations from the source, Haaretz. I provided other sources - also Haaretz as well as the Jewish Daily Forward. I am NOT "wanting to exclude factual events regarding anti-Semitism from this article", I am however objecting to you and Vapour's attempts at POV pushing here.
Do not accuse me of "white-washing" again. Stop misrepresenting my motives. Again, I'm trying to be civil about this, but do consider this a warning.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
User: Volunteer Marek If your issue is with the presentation of said content then what you could do is either attempt to fix it up to present a more neutral view, or simply place a POV template in the section. However you chose the most aggressive and uncooperative action by completely removing the content and engaging in more edit warring. To me this invalidates your argument. As a compromise I'm going to reinsert the section with a template. We can improve it from there. LokiiT (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to put in POV material into the article and then some other user gets to put in a POV template as a consolation prize. NPOV is one of the pillars of Wikipedia - POV needs to be removed. And it's actually you has been aggressive - making implications about other users' motives and actions - on this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
You're directly contradicting wikipedia policy; being "POV" is not a valid reason for blanking material, and having been around for a quite while, there is no question that you already know that. As for your motives, you've made them clear in the past with your involvement in a certain outed cabal. But I digress, let's keep this discussion on topic. LokiiT (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
No, I am not. What you are linking to is *not* Wikipedia policy. The actual policy is here: WP:NPOV. What you are linking to is not policy, and it's not even a guideline [14], it's essentially somebody's (deeply flawed, idiosyncratic and not in accord with standard practice) interpretation of that policy.
And if you want to bring up cabals, then let's have a look at your block log and history of sock puppetting, ey? Oh wait, I digress, ok, now we can keep it on topic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to engage in a mudslinging fest with you. I will however point out a quote from WP:NPOV, which again is in complete contrast to what you're saying: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. LokiiT (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the arguments made here. So I have reverted the restoration of that shite as there are no consensus for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting how whenever Volunteer Marek needs a revert, someone with no history editing the article or related articles seems to jump to his rescue. It would be helpful if you could expound on why you oppose so vehemently the inclusion of factual events regarding anti-Semitism, without so much as a compromise, instead of throwing around school-yard slang. LokiiT (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, this isn't "factual events regarding anti-Semitism" it's POV pushing Russian government propaganda and misrepresenting some sources by omitting key passages (the ones that say it's likely Russian government propaganda).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
And WTF is that meant to mean? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Your actions and comments aren't conducive to improving the article. LokiiT (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, WTF is "Interesting how whenever Volunteer Marek needs a revert, someone with no history editing the article or related articles seems to jump to his rescue." that supposed to mean? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
No, actually, removing POV junk from an article *is* improving an article. Adding POV to an article is the *opposite* of improving an article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyhow, what is your position on this edit, Darkness Shines. Are you for removing the mention of antisemitic attack on jews and synagogue sourced and rise of far right and antisemitic party, sourced from a major Israeli newspaper. I see the removal of factual account sourced from a media a clear breach of wikipedia policy. Given that this relate to attack against persecuted minority and rise of far right in a ongoing very volatile situation, I think speedy resolution to this this edit dispute merit intervention. I will initiate dispute resolution. Cheers. Vapour (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I put our dispute in dispute resolution noticeboard. [15] Have your say. Cheers. Vapour (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

article on separatist pro-Russian Nazi Gubarev - [16] Sayerslle (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the section without the allegedly POV material that Marek was complaining about. Based on the lack of discussion in the above dispute resolution by those removing the material, it's been made clear that there is no logical justification for removing factual events regarding antisemitism from the article. If you have any issues, feel free to edit the section and improve it. Please keep in mind the policy that I bolded above: even if you feel a section is POV, blanking the material is against wiki-policy. LokiiT (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You've restored a section with POV material which misrepresents the underlying the source. There was some discussion on the dispute resolution, by other editors, who pretty much called you out on the POV pushing. In light of the fact that others have pretty much called it, I (and probably some of the others) felt no need to comment further. How you turn that into "I get to do what I want!", is beyond me. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
If you'd read what I wrote, you would see that I did not include the material that you contested. LokiiT (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I did read what you wrote, thank you very much. Your edit was still problematic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Then discuss the problems here instead of being disruptive. Why did you claim that I reinserted the material that you contested? LokiiT (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Amazing, User:Darkness Shines for a second time comes to rescue your from breaking the 3 revert rule within minutes after your last revert. You sure are lucky to have friends like that. LokiiT (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Ya, cos you have no consensus, still waiting on a response from to to ny question posted, 23:28, 8 March 2014. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Purposefully (?) misleading edit summaries in edits by LokiiT

Re: [17]. LokiiT in the edit summary claims:

please pay attention to both the content and the talk page. I did not restore the material that you contested as you claimed in talk

The purpose of this edit summary appears to be to claim that he is *not* restoring text which has been removed per WP:CONSENSUS (and which was subject of discussion at Dispute Resolution, where likewise, LokiiT was called out for making POV edits). In some strict sense this may be true, as in, it's not *exactly* word for word restoration of his previous edits. Still, it's still the same POV pushing as before. Fundamentally, the main problem is that just as the earlier edits misrepresented the underlying sources by cherry picking quotes and extracts, these edits repeat the exact same strategy. This is as clear a bad faithed violation of WP:NPOV as you can get on Wikipedia. It violates WP:NPOV because it is very clearly trying to push a particular fringe view. It is bad faithed because it involves misrepresenting sources. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

1. No material was removed with consensus. It was removed without consensus, which is why a dispute resolution was attempted. 2. You contested the material regarding a Kiev synagogue. That material was completely left out. End of story. 3. If you think I'm being misleading then feel free to report me to whoever you report things like that to. I'm not sure if you believe your own BS or what, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who's dead set on turning wikipedia into his own personal battleground. This is a collaboration, not your own personal blog. Learn to play nicely with others or find a new hobby. LokiiT (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You're trying to turn things on their head. The material, highly POV material, was *added* without consensus. And thus it was removed by myself, and other editors. I contested the earlier edit, and I contest your recent edits, which, except for superficial differences are an attempt to do the same thing. 3. --> I consider reporting people a last resort so I'd rather work this out on the article page. Still, keep going, and we might wind up there. As to the rest - you should probably heed your own words. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

neutrality

In order to dispute anyone's neutrality, you need to point out the reason for such a concern. You can't simply claim anyone who doesn't agree with your view on the situation is not neutral. I'm talking about your edits, Lvivske. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

neutrality issue was him being a "politologist" with no context. I've added that he's a politician and analyst, so I'll remove the tag now.--Львівське (говорити) 18:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

American and European press should not be used for references as these press out lets are not neutral in the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.12.136 (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I also concern about this Wikipedia page neutrality, because any encyclopedia should not lean toward any political / any government position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.77.40.121 (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality concern: There is, in Section 2. Background, a subsection 2.1 Russian Involvement. This is entirely appropriate given the Russian interests in the Ukraine, however I was surprised that there was no corresponding subsection detailing Western involvement. It seems to me, in the interest of balance and accuracy, that the role played by the E.U. and the Ukrainian diaspora in the events leading up to the ousting of Yanukovych should also be included. OldCommentator (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


No Nuland? I am reluctant to wade into editing this large article, given the likelihood of triggering a tug-of-war, but I find it astonishing that there is zero mention of the name of Victoria Nuland, given the speech she gave at the National Press Club (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU) wherein she spoke glowingly of the $5 billion the US has given to the insurrection; also the wiretap of her instructing Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt as to whom among that group to install in key positions of the new regime, obscenely dismissing the EU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO_uBr0QFmw).

Anybody find this omission curious? We all know Wikipedia is quite trustworthy except where the CIA's priorities are challenged. ProudPrimate (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot missing from this article, most of which pertains to criticism or negative aspects of the maiden protesters (e.g. an entire section about the rise in anti-Semitism is being stone-walled by a couple of edit warriors). Stick around for a while and watch the editing process. It's not curious, but rather expected in an article like this. LokiiT (talk) 23:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I am a Ukrainian for DYK

I've expanded the new article I am a Ukrainian for DYK. I think I exhausted all good English sources, is there anything to add from Ukrainian ones? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Move proposal

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Concerns about NPOV motivated both sides of the discussion. It is clear from the debate below that the proposed title is at least as problematic as the current one, if not more so, according to consensus. Xoloz (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ukrainian revolution → Overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych – It seems like many people agree that the current title is POV, I just thought I'd suggest an alternative. Charles Essie (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

  •  Comment:: I think this is a step in the wrong direction. -- Kndimov (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (strongly) —Panam2014 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (strongly) - No need to whitewash what happened. It wasn't just Yanuk that was overthrown, it was his entire regime. RGloucester — ☎ 19:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I wouldn't say Yanukovych was a dictator and that he had a regime. But I do think that the article was a lot more than simply forcing the president out. -- Kndimov (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I never said he was a dictator, I'm just trying to say that the term revolution is considered by many to be POV since the events that took place here were just as disputed and controversial the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt, both Morsi and Yanukovych were democratically elected heads of state that were forced out following massive protests that did not entirely have nationwide support. Charles Essie (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose (strongly) -- While "revolution" may carry for some certain POV connotations, this suggestion is IMO exponentially worse. There is and was a huge amount more going on than VY's overthrow. As some, including journalistic sources, have said, this is/was a struggle for the soul of UA. Overall, POV v. NPOV is a slippery thing. What may seem objective to one may be just the opposite to another. (Not entirely different from one man's terrorist is another's patriot.)
IMO a better choice w/b to merge this back to Euromaidan as tagged. EM, unless you've followed the news recently, is a blank slate. VY was democratically elected, but there's not much else democratic about him or his regime. There is well-established ECONOMIC and POLITICAL (in the form, e.g., of rigged elections and systemic corruption) tyranny that rank and file Ukrainians are sick of. It's the system many are fed up with, not just one man or one regime. It certainly didn't originate with VY, but it surely THRIVED. This guy got obscenely rich beyond any government salary he ever earned. "Nero fiddled while Rome burned."
—Paavo273 (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment:: While precedent is an ingrained LEGAL concept at least in the Anglo-American-Canadian-Australian-et al. judicial systems, I find NO authority for it in Wikipedia. If there is any WP policy on point, could s.o. please refer me to it. Compared to any legal proceeding, WP is just a free-for-all. It could well be that the "SM overthrow" title is just wrong, too; but nobody ever challenged it. Also, in Serbia, wasn't there a major NATO (or mainly Clinton) bombing campaign that largely precipitated the overthrow? Paavo273 (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In fact, there is a commonly cited essay, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which goes against the idea that precedent should be the primary determining factor in moving/deleting/merging articles. RGloucester — ☎ 04:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Can't say I disagree to the extent I have info to form an opinion except AFAIK YT is not in charge at present. I didn't actually intend to say the system WAS overthrown. 'Was proposing that THAT is what was at the heart of Euromaidan for many or most of the pro-EU protesters. A lot of revolutions historically, it seems, bring no better life and often a worse life for the people than the previous regime and system. Sadly, it's easier to have a revolution than effect LASTING positive change. ('Can't help but think of October 1917.) Time will tell/Время покажет/Vremya pokazhet. Paavo273 (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support (strongly). The jury isn't out yet on whether or not this is a Revolution, coup or putsch of power, so we should keep the article as neutrally named as possible; "2014 Ukrainian Civil Unrest" or "2014 Ukrainian Political Crisis" are the names I suggest. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment:: If you really want to be technical (and it seems that you do), this is closer to a coup (unconstitutionally ousted president by a small vanguard of ideologues), than to a revolution (mass demonstrations that lead to ousting of leaders by a large participation of society). Solntsa90 (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose much more than only overthrow of one kleptocrat Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Support If the title 'Overthrown of President Viktor Yanukovitch' is seen in the context of Euromaidan that is more precise. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose (strong) this appears to be a POV push to dismiss the revolution as simply an "overthrow". Many sources call it the Ukrainian revolution, it was an event. The impeachment was part of the revolution, and all revolutions have a component where a leader is deposed. Also, this article deals with the revolution and days leading up, the proposed title would limit it to just the process of his impeachment. --Львівське (говорити) 06:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose the move: a change of regime occurred through abnormal channels which brought about a significant change of direction for the country. Furthermore many reliable sources refer to it as a revolution. Per Львівське above the change would limit the scope of the article and unfairly imply a POV.BethNaught (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - the jury is still out. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Much more happened than just an overthrow of government. There was also Euromaidan, various riots throughout the entire country, followed by a foreign invasion. USchick (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The change would limit the scope of the article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current name is most adequate. Proposed name is POV-pushed. NickSt (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent reverts

Just pointing out that this edit, violates NEWSORG, we do not use editorials for statements of fact, so either someone gets to writing attribution or I get to reverting. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't have time for reverting but I note that the objection changed between first and second reverts, you guys gotta be consistent or it will look like you're just searching for reasons to keep certain things out. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I am being consistent and have no clue what you are on about, we are not meant to use editorials for statements of fact, thems the rules. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC) ::see below for response31.49.168.160 (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This is so strange and non-neutral to remove this absolutely obvious statement sourced from reliable sources that I don't want to participate in the discussion. It stays per WP:NPOV. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Only one of the sources is editorial. It's useful to keep it because not everyone is able to read German (Der Spiegel). It's interesting how 'reasons' for removing the obvious information keep changing: first it was a complete no-go ('you are not allowed to reflect legal opinions unless you're Supreme Court'), then the 'concern' was 'failed verification' (I checked it and the article is still online, safe and sound). Then again reflecting a view unanimously held by reliable/specialist sources became nothing more, noting less than 'a question of WP:UNDUE'.
The bottom line: this obvious and undisputed information has to be removed by hook or by crook.
My suggestion: considering this, the next time mr. Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverts this, he gets reported at WP:AE, that's the real venue for editors like him. POV-pushers like this we can do without. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, are you really going to make me go to the trouble of filing an SPI report? And please cut it out with the threats, you should know they don't work.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
An SPI was already filed some time ago, I was checked and cleared of any wrongdoing [18]. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time to participate any more today so can't answer question above but I exect to be back tomorrow. Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It's probably yesterday's news now but these were the two different reasons given for the same revert yesterday, in chronological order. 1 (first isnt an RS, second failed verification) Lvivskie. 2 (it's a question of WP:UNDUE. Why pick these two editorials?) Volunteer Marek 31.49.168.160 (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that there can be more than one reason to remove something, right? Also, thanks for bringing this up and reminding me of it. The text is clearly WP:UNDUE. It cherry picks two editorials - out of possible hundreds - and claims "According to a number of western sources". Which I guess is literally true, this "number" being 2, and these sources being op-ed pieces. But it's still UNDUE and POV pushing. So yeah, it should be removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Every single undisputed fact does not need 10, 20 or 100 RSs supporting it. Just one or two is enough, otherwise the whole article should be blanked as 'undue' (according to your logic). Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but here we don't have an "undisputed fact". We have the claim that "a number of western sources..." which makes it sound like, you know, a whole bunch, or at least quite a few. But that's not the case. And neither source actually says "a number of western sources...". Each of the two sources just more or less says "my opinion is...".Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, the first of those sources is an essay by a graduate student. NTTAWWT, but it's not exactly a noteworthy opinion or even a professional one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to removing the 'a number of western sources' part. It's actually redundant because the reader can check the reference links at the end of the sentence. As I said in my edit summary I only added it to prevent the accusations of 'presenting opinions as facts'. As was expected: which ever way I choose to introduce this basic and nowhere disputed fact I get various pretexts by your side that it's not OK. Bottom line: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Also, Radim Dragomaca can already be considered as a scholar rather than a student [19]. You don't have to have a PhD already in order to work at a university (which he does).Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Alright, can you go ahead and remove it then please? While at it, can you also remove the grad student opinion piece (yes, grad students are scholars (and students) but there's still the question of weight)? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Information twisted

Saw some reports that happened in one day, in article they are placed in another thus twisting the true events. For example: NY Times were reporting arms seizure during the ongoing shooting in Kiev sometime on February 20, while in article that information was placed on February 19 and as a justification for the former SBU director Yakymenko. I corrected that particular instance, but there could be more such twists. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The unconstitutional impeachment.

I see an edit war here. The last revert by User:Calton makes me shake my head. ″Rv opinion stated as fact: you're not a lawyer, nor are you the Supreme Court, so "unconstitutional" is your opinion, not fact.″ [20]

As if I had entered something based on my own gut feeling (which indeed would be OR). No! It is no more an 'opinion stated as fact' than the claim that Russia occupied Crimea (as done by Western sources and consequently reflecxted in our articles). I've added sources that explicitly state the impeachment was illegal. Both sources actually treat the question in details.

Why is it so hard for some people to accept simple facts? The question is not even controversial, the impeachment vote was patently unconstitutional. The line of some people here seems to be that if Putin says 1 plus 1 equals 2 then this must not be agreed upon. Sorry but this is getting ridiculous. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, definitely an edit war. And the edit warrior is you. "Ridiculous" is, in fact, the correct term: you stated, as fact, an opinion. It's not even a solid fact: you might have something resembling a point if an official body charged with making such judgements -- say, the Ukrainian equivalent of the U. S. Supreme Court -- had ruled as such, but even then it would be attributed to source of the ruling and not stated as a bald fact. You need to review basic editing standards, as you seem to keep misunderstanding them, as shown by your recent appearances on WP:ANI. --Calton | Talk 21:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
We don't need specialist sources for that. For example, if reliable sources define Russia's acts regarding Crimea as occupation then this must also be reflected in the article. We don't need court rulings for that either. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Sources, specialized or otherwise, are utterly irrelevant. Once again: stating as fact what is a legal opinion is wrong, period/full-stop. Perhaps you should focus on actual objections instead of imaginary ones. --Calton | Talk 22:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Noncontroversial facts should not be presented as mere 'opinions'. For example, the fact that the Earth is round is not presented as an 'opinion', but as a fact. It would be different matter, if there was a controversy regarding the legality of the impeachment, however, based on sources there really isn't: if you claim normal Western sources are not correct here, you should first offer alternative views before removing the sources from the article.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes but the point is exactly that this is not a "noncontroversial fact". You can't use a journalist's editorial. You can't use a report of what Putin thinks. Also, it is too in WP:RS, just search for the word "editorial".
Now, let me consider whether I want to waste my time writing up that SPI report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The article from Der Spiegel Münchhausen-Check: Putin und der legitime Präsident der Ukraine that I brought up is definitely a reliable source. If you think the issue is in any way controversial you would need to point out sources disagreeing with the explanation in Der Spiegel. There are some other Western sources supporting similar views [21] (Marc Weller, a legal expert: ″the past president of Ukraine was not removed in the correct manner (via impeachment)″) , as well as countless Russian sources. I simply chose Spiegel as it is both authoritative and treats the question in full detail. To my knowledge, no better source for the legality question exists. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
One last time: Sources, specialized, reliable, or otherwise, are utterly irrelevant. For the last time: stating as fact what is a legal opinion is wrong, period/full-stop. Perhaps you should focus on actual objections instead of imaginary ones. --Calton | Talk 23:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Stop making your own rules. ″stating as fact what is a legal opinion is wrong″ - which policy supports this view? What would be your suggestion to change my edit as opposed to full erasures that you performed?Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
"Stop making your own rules": see psychological projection. Amusing, really.
"which policy supports this view?": see Wikipedia:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view. Note the very first bullet point.
If you're unable to understand even the most basic rules and guidelines about editing, and are completely unwilling or unable to take on the universally held advice about them that you've been given, all I can say is, "Enjoy your envitable topic ban/blocking". I'm finished arguing with you, since you all you're doing is recycling the same wrong things over and over again. Making it compliant isn't my problem, it's yours. --Calton | Talk 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
And what does bullet 3 say? It says:

Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

. That's exactly what I've been arguing for. Fully in line with NPOV. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
What part of the word "opinion" is not clear? Legal opinion, political opinion, personal opinion on the use of pesticides, opinion on a wife's or girlfriend's (or boyfriend's) dress--they're all opinions. Personally, I'm not against stating opinions, however biased they may be, as long as they are attached to the citation of nearly any published source. But the voice rule is non-negotiable WP policy:
"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
Paavo273 (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Look, this is all getting close to the idea that we would need to describe the view that Holocaust happened as an 'opinion' (one opinion out of many legitimate opinions), as indeed different views exist (see: Holocaust denial). Isn't that the logical consequence of your line here?
I'm not opposed to just saying in the article who said what if that's what you mean by Wikipedia's voice. The problem we really have is that some users simply reject what sources say based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No alternative source disputing the views expressed in my sources has been offered. No alternative wording has been offered to the one in my version. I'm ready to re-word the passages and also use the sources in more detail if that is useful. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Since you insist on continually misstating/distorting what people have told you, perhaps it's best if you stop digging that hole you're hip-deep in. And please stop attempting to use logic: you don't actually understand how it works and are just embarrassing yourself. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
If my logic is so utterly flawed, then it wouldn't be difficult to point out what's actually wrong with it. If you consider my last comment above for example. What you've been doing is to quote selectively a policy and then change the topic when pointed out that your interpretation is based on selective reading. I on the other hand did point out the logical consequences of your line. According to your interpretation, the view that earth is round should be stated as an 'opinion' on the same footing as the view that earth is flat. That's exactly what the consequence of your interpretation of policies is. It also doesn't help your cause if you start stalking my edits across other topics and reverting them just to harass me. Diff: [22]. Just underscores the fact that you're not up to constructively improving articles but looking for personal vendetta. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Any reference to lawyers and supreme court are meaningless. We are talking about Ukrainian law and Ukrainian courts. What lay people in other countries may think is irrelevant. This was neither a coup nor a revolution.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What can the assertion that it "was neither a coup nor a revolution" be based on? What does Ukrainian law say about it? Armed protesters violently taking over Government buildings and forcing an elected president to flee the country (irrespective as to how good or bad he was) is what? Goverment structures generally remain intact, there was no violent upheaval outside of Kiev and the result was that opposition parties and some extremists took over power. Does not sound like a revolution, much more like a coup. Honesty, logic and thought are not irrelevant - they are pertinant and the basis to wiki's success.Cachi43 (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

He fled after the military refused to crack down on protests. After the capital was evacuated, the remaining politicians in parliament took control and continued without him. That's not a coup by any definition. -Львівське (говорити)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity/Archive_4&oldid=1137155980"