Talk:Revolution of Dignity/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

WHO RUNS THIS SHITTY SITE!!! NO MENTION OF VICTORIA NULAND AND PYATT. YOUR TRUE COLORS ARE SHOWING!!!

==I would suggest that the person who asked "who runs this [...] site" reflect on the possibility that Wikipedia is indeed user-run and user-written, but that a careful, patient, and unrelenting effort to influence the article to reflect a specific point of view (in this case that the overthrow of Yanukovitch can legitimately be referred to as a "revolution") can succeed over the long term in making that point of view prevail historiographically - as, for example, the Single Assassin Theory is being made to prevail (or was the last time I looked) in the article on the JFK assassination. An example of what I mean by "careful" is the inclusion of a mention of the US/NATO's documented role in the overthrow of Yanukovitch to avoid accusations of blatant ignorance of the facts while at the same time representing it as a mere accusation on the part of Russia.== — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestrad (talk • contribs) 05:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Meet the Americans Who Put Together the Coup in Kiev , By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News, 25 March 14 (unsigned section added by anon. user w/ I.P. address 97.65.237.209)

How about a link to the article instead of spam-pasting the whole story? Deleting article text and creating link. Paavo273 (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been watching it for about a week, hopeing that it will present a balanced picture. I have been disapointed. Some guys put up a little fight, trying to put some balance into it but there is a concerted effort to make sure that non-US sources are avoided like the plague. In particular Volunteer Markel HATES RT with vengence. About time someone zotted his privaleges on WP. His love affair with BBC and the gang is sickening. Eventhough RT does report from a Russian view point, it is far less biased than the BBC. Just look at the reporting of the Iraq war and Syria conflict. By activly deleting RT sources Volunteer Markel is working aginst the principles of WP and waring against truth, peace and true democracy. STOP IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ToMesmerise (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are the citations for this source? I'm not seeing anything reputable backing up what they're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.35.124 (talk) 00:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Western Ukrainian revolution

title should be changed to 2014 Western Ukrainian revolution--Crossswords (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Central government has changed, making event nationwide revolution (in terms of consequences). Seryo93 (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No mention of Nuland affair?

The intercepted cell phone call by Victoria Nuland, in which she spelled out who ought to be in the next government, received extensive coverage, and could be interpreted as evidence that the U.S. was manipulating the outcome of the protests. Why is there no mention of it in this article? Joe Bodacious (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

First, it happened on February 7th. Second, we don't interpret evidence. --Львівське (говорити) 01:20, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

It is outside the scope of this article. I'd imagine it would be in the Euromaidan article, though I haven't really looked through these. RGloucester — ☎ 01:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a section entitled "Background," which discusses events prior to February. There is extensive discussion on the role played by Russia, but nothing on the role played by the U.S. This looks to me like a neutrality problem. Joe Bodacious (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This looks to me like trying to shoehorn conspiracy junk from a wiretap into an article for arbitrary reasons. That Nuland may have preferred Yatsenyuk over Klitschko is kind of irrelevant to an article on the Revolution itself, no? -Львівське (говорити)

Coup d'état again

I have entered a translation of the German Wikipedia article including its references to English and German mainstream papers and stated the paragraph in WP approriate form. I see a removal of the passage as an attempt to utter a biased opinion "Russia and Yanukovych but also voices from influential Western newspapers like Der Spiegel or The Telegraph see the revolution as a form of coup d'etat because the movement would have acted against a democratically elected president. Moreover they claim that the Yanukovych ousting contradicted several principles of both the old and the new text of the Ukrainian constitution"GeorgeDorgan (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Why translations from German Wikipedia are directly deleted on this page ??

I entered a well-documented translation of the German Wikipedia into this page, concerning the opinion that the revolution was a coup d'etat. This translation got directly deleted by the Ukrainian censor of this page Львівське with the name of the Western Ukrainian town. Why is the German Wikipedia allowed to represent different PVs but the Ukranian, sorry English page, only the Ukrainian POV ????

Why don't you continue your censorship on the German page ??

GeorgeDorgan (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Scroll up. --Львівське (говорити) 06:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Coup d'etats

If 2013 Egypt events are categorized as a coup (see category), then how come this article cannot? Double standards? --Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Missed elephant in the room: Egypt events INVOLVED MILITARY, whilst Ukrainian ones were carried by "armed protesters". Compare with October Revolution (which is not a coup too). Seryo93 (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, we in Donbass call October Revolution a coup, too. Oктябрьский переворот. Do WP guidelines say only military can make a coup for WP purposes? Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Patriot Donbassa: Well, "переворот", "революция" both translate from revolutio ("поворот") and in this regard have a common meaning with overthrow (свержение). And revolutions are often a subtype of coup d'etat (illegal overthrow of government). It's my mistake (messed coup for путч with coup for переворот). But. According to coup d'etat article, coup is usually done by a small group of the existing state establishment (Verkhovna Rada!), whilst this particular "coup" also *pretends to be* done by a masses (Euromaidan). This makes things more complicated (abeit I'm not supporter of this "revolution" either). As for ruwiki, we use "regime change" (ru:Смена власти на Украине в 2014 году), neither "революция" nor "переворот". Seryo93 (talk) 12:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Please edit page in order to reflect accurately the events as they are becoming better sourced

Please edit page in order to reflect accurately the events as they are becoming better sourced to reflect this new sourced information:

The following line:

By 13:00 on 20 February at least 34 protesters more had been shot dead by police, with reporters verifying the bodies (15 at the Kozatsky Hotel, 12 at the Ukraine Hotel, 7 at the Central Post Office).[159]

Source given is : "Ukraine death toll rising on Feb. 20 with at least 42 people killed, most by gunshots from police". Kyiv Post. 20 February 2014. Archived from the original on 21 February 2014.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140221071310/http://www.kyivpost.com/content/kyiv/ukraine-death-toll-rising-on-feb-20-with-at-least-42-people-killed-most-by-gunshots-from-police-live-updates-video-337236.html

The source , Kyiv Post ITSELF even ADMITS and that the 35 death toll and does not even _claim_ to be able to identify the police as the responsible. To boot : Later on the sources claim the murders were carried out by special forces and NOT the Police.

the article even states clearly:

"Most of the victims appeared to have been victims of gunshot wounds from police and shot near October Palace this morning as protesters advanced on police."

This goes for ALL admins patrolling this page: If you feel you're admin enough to remove entries on talk pages, you should have enough honesty to correct blatant lies when you get them pointed out to you as well. The BBC Newsnight team and the German documentary on the fact that fire on the demonstrators contain incontrovertible evidence that fire came from the Maidan controlled Hotel and radio recordings of the police conversations on radio shows they do not know who is firing and the firing is coming from other buildings. No written order to fire on the demonstrators exists and no one in the Yanukovic government would have dared put their name on such a document - none of the Police accepted or could accept anything but written orders for such firing or risk getting accused of and jailed for carrying out actions they had no authority to carry out. These are now KNOWN facts _throughout_ western academia and will be part of ALL official political institutes publications. Please show some absolute bare minimum and remove the claim I referred to as the source has been proven both wrong and not a credible source anymore. Or do you suggest we use Nazi newspapers from WWII as credible sources on the invasion and occupation of Poland and all the other occupied countries. Please do not try to stifle actual facts. As a self confessed Marxist as one of your admins / patrollers should find it easy to support accuracy and reliability as well as finding it easy to remove inaccuracies that no longer have root in factual events. Also the _claim_ in Kyiv Post that Police shot and killed 34 people does not make it so, is not enough as source - it does not constitute a serious criminal investigation and it is at best hearsay. Please act as an adult or refrain from trying to re-edit when I remove the erroneous entry myself tomorrow if the entry has not been corrected. I will post your edits or lack of such along with this post to you and other admins accross usenet and academic sites if you fail to bother complying to your own (Wikipedia) rules, guidelines and policies here as admin patrolling that page and the talk page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDPJ-ucnyPU

Broadcast on german state television on the 10.4.2014 this investigative report presents evidence for their having been snipers from among the ranks of the opposition, shooting at their own people at Independence Square (Maidan) in Kiev. The show is called Monitor, and it was screened on WDR which is part of the state broadcaster ARD. With english subtitles.

You can choose your own reliable sources from Google:

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&ei=bQ6IU52ZFcHJ4ASy1YDgBQ&ved=0CBIQ1S4#q=german+documentary+exposes+snipers+kiev+

https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=ww&ei=bQ6IU52ZFcHJ4ASy1YDgBQ&ved=0CBIQ1S4#q=german+documentary++Who+where+the+maidan+snipers

or use these:

http://orientalreview.org/2014/04/03/kiev-snipers-the-regime-and-yanukovych/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26284100

The complete video by the BBC team online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg3R_BSz0Cc

if you fail to find the BBC Newsnight reportage with google, I will aid you or supply the links myself. (already supplied above)

Now you have more than TWO reputable links (check google results) that document the falsehoods of the Kyiv post statement.

I trust you take the appropriate action that any decent adult would do with any bare minimum of honesty and integrity left in him or her. That is if you really are a half decent admins as you all seem to say on your pages and not just a paid cover or left gatekeepers. I trust you set your honesty and dignity higher if you are not. I wont bother listening to, reading or wasting time replying to juvenile retorts, attempts at discrediting sources or any other dishonest attempts at "disqualifying" me. Posts to my page will be deleted if they contain any such juvenile crap. Please stay on topic, refrain from doing anything or do what is honorable. I have nothing further to discuss or communicate with you.

Good day to you sirs. Nunamiut (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My Marxism is poor and thus I do not find it easy to support accuracy and reliability. As well, I do not find it easy to remove inaccuracies that no longer have root in factual events. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 20:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This passes for what in who's reality exactly? The evidence of shots from the Maidan Hotel and a mainstream german documentary does not impress the dishonest gentleman I take it. Congrat's sir. Your grasp of the english language is equally impressive: "inaccuracies that no longer have root in factual events". What kind of logic is that supposed to represent. Or better yet: _what_ if anything at all, DOES it mean???

and btw:

http://orientalreview.org/2014/05/29/who-was-maidan-snipers-mastermind/ 46.15.224.112 (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! You just quoted yourself and insulted your own logic / inability to make a coherent sentence! :D --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think he would have to quote himself-that is, repeat himself-if you didn't willfully misunderstand him the first time. The German state television report and the BBC report are both notable and reputable.GPRamirez5 (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Coup d'état

I'll draw your attention to the first paragraph from the Wikipedia article Coup d'état

"A coup d'état, also known as a coup, a putsch, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a government, usually instigated by a small group of the existing state establishment to depose the established government and replace it with a new ruling body, civil or military."

The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 fits this description exactly. It is an embarrassment to Wikipedia that this article is not entitled the Ukrainian Coup. ------Greatestrowerever^{Talk Page} 21:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We already had this discussion, which resulted in no concensus to change. Also, this does not fit your definition as it was supported and instigated by the Euromaidan protests. BethNaught (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus to retain either. Is there anything to stop the discussion and voting being repeated. And what if there's a majority to change but no consesnus to change? 31.49.168.160 (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a propaganda platform so it will be called a Revolution and not a Coup even though it was clearly a Coup. More Ukrainians speak English than Russians so they'll win every popularity vote (or whatever Wikipedia wants to call "consensus" lol).

The same is true of the so-called 'Orange Revolution' which was obviously not a revolution (even if it were "revolutionary"). As I said earlier, using figurative language which is not literally true is necessarily POV. However, Wikipedia policy is 100% irrelevant; only "consensus" matters even if you can point directly to policy. And on Wikipedia "consensus" means who can round up the most votes. That's why the Ukrainians are here trying to convince us native English speakers that a Coup is a Revolution.

In the same way the Ukrainians tell us that the "Crimean Crisis" was not a revolution even though they threw off the government. Why wasn't it a revolution? Because it was illegal under the Constitution. Do I really have point out the irony there? I'm taking bets on what the Ukrainians will want to call it when Eastern Ukraine (Donetsk, Kharkov, etc) actually does have a revolution, throws out the usurpers, and joins with Russia. I'm guessing either 'Ukrainian Crisis' or possibly 'Russian Occupation of Ukraine' (because, clearly, the territory always was and always will be part of Ukraine lol). Anyone want to guess? 173.79.251.253 (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I beat myself. Rather than 'Crisis' or 'Occupation' let's call it the 'Crimean Resistance against Russian Occupation'. That makes it clear that Crimea is, always was, and always will be part of Ukraine and that the triumph of the Great Svobada Republic over all of Eastern Europe is inevitable. Yes, I like the sound of 'Resistance'. It sounds so strong and brave! 173.79.251.253 (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to our encyclopedia. With all the respect, this is talk page where people should discuss changes to article, not their personal views or opionions, so this isn't the right place for any political views by anybody. Thank you. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Calling the Coup in Ukraine a 'Revolution' is a political opinion; it is self-evident that no actual Revolution occurred. I move we rename to "Glorious Revolutionary of the Great and Indivisible Ukrainian Motherland 2014". US State Department citation to come shortly. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to restart this debate, make a move request through the proper channels. Otherwise please refrain from unconstructive remarks about political opinions. BethNaught (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no debate. It was a Coup but Wikipedia will refer to it as a Revolution because you have the votes. Please feel free to let me know if you have any more unconstructive remarks about my unconstructive remarks; I would love to hear them :) 173.79.251.253 (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I edited above as 31.49.168.160, thinking I was logged in. What are the proper channels for restarting a debate? I agree with 173.79.251.253, the title of this article cannot be other than political.

Conversation was never closed and you don't need permission to restart it. In a revolution the form of government changes and in a coup the people change but the form remains the same. 3 Ukrainians say it was a 'revolution' while anyone who can pick up a dictionary can see it was Coup. However, that does not matter. These Ukrainians are not here out of a spirit of intellectual honesty; they're here to use Wikipedia as a propaganda platform. Look at their profiles and they even say 'I participated in EuroMaidan'.

The problem is that if you get managed to get 10 good-faith Wikipedia editors to say hey, wait a second, it was clearly a coup... Then 3 Ukrainians will turn into 15 Ukrainians and they'll override us native English speakers on the proper use of our own language. Consensus on Wikipedia is nothing more than a popularity vote and policy doesn't actually matter... all that nonsense exists to give Wikipedia some semblance of journalistic integrity. Anyone with a English dictionary can verify that the events in Ukraine were a Coup.

As I said earlier, and I will repeat here: Using figurative language which is not literally true is necessarily POV. Just because I think the Ukrainian Coup was a Disaster it does not make it the Ukrainian Disaster. Just because I think it was a Crisis doesn't make it the Ukrainian Crisis. Just because I think it will lead to a rebirth of the country does not make it the Ukrainian Renaissance. No revolution occurred so, whatever it should be called, calling it a revolution is POV. I'm not going to waste time arguing with non-native English speakers about how to use the English language. Anyone with a dictionary can verify my statements: If the form of government did not change then no revolution occurred. Just because it was 'revolutionary' (figurative) does not make it a Revolution (literal). 173.79.251.253 (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Здравствуйте all, I have to agree with User:Yulia Romero on this one: "With all the respect, this is talk page where people should discuss changes to article, not their personal views or opionions, so this isn't the right place for any political views by anybody." RSs talk. All others walk. Paavo273 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect to Team Ukraine: Don't try to teach me English. There was a famous quote from Abraham Lincoln. He asked, if you call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a dog have? Well, some will answer that the dog has five legs. If that is your answer then you've failed Mr. Lincoln's test. The answer is four... you see, calling a dog's tail a leg does not make it a leg; the dog cannot suddenly walk on it's tail because you've titled it a leg. You see my point? I understand that Team Ukraine has an interest, a very biased one, in calling the Coup that occurred a "revolution". However, calling it the "Ukrainian Revolution" does not make it a revolution any more than calling the "Orange Revolution" a revolution. Neither event was a Revolution even if that is the label the Ukrainians apply to it. I am not making a political argument, I don't care about Russia or Ukraine, I'm just telling you non-native English speakers that, in plain English, what happened in Ukraine was a Coup and not a Revolution. You can call it the "Great Orange Renaissance of Liberation" for all I care... it is still a coup. And don't talk to me about RS I've already posted them above IDIDNTHEARTHAT. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker with a degree in this stuff and you're 100% wrong, especially at English. Please provide proof to back up your assertions, otherwise it's more "I don't like it so it's a coup and a junta" rhetoric. --Львівське (говорити) 23:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop with the IDIDNTHEARTHAT nonsense. If you cannot take the time to read the thread and see that I have provided sources then why even respond? Please note the date stamp:

Encyclopedia Britannica: "coup d’état, also called Coup, the sudden, violent overthrow of an existing government by a small group. The chief prerequisite for a coup is control of all or part of the armed forces, the police, and other military elements. Unlike a revolution, which is usually achieved by large numbers of people working for basic social, economic, and political change, a coup is a change in power from the top that merely results in the abrupt replacement of leading government personnel." 173.79.251.253 (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

By your definition, it's a revolutio, not a coup. Case dismissed. --Львівське (говорити) 23:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You're obviously not a native English speaker bro. Unlike a revolution [...] coup is a change in power from the top that merely results in the abrupt replacement of leading government personnel. That is what happened in Ukraine. The form of government did not change, just the people at the top. Is there still a President and a Verkhoyna Rada still have sessions? If so, then there was no revolution. In a revolution, the form of government changes. When the Russians had a Revolution they killed the Tsars and set up a new government. When the Americans had a revolution we kicked out the British, wrote a Constitution, and started our own Congress. Ukraine did not change their form of government, therefore no revolution occurred. It is as simple as that. And stop lying about being a native English speaker if you can't even understand that quote.

You know I don't speak Spanish, in English please. Bro. --Львівське (говорити) 23:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I realize you're trying to drag this down into a flame war. I know I shouldn't say anything. However, I have to admit that rereading this sentence makes me lol: "I'm a native English speaker with a degree in this stuff and you're 100% wrong, especially at English."

First is the grammatical error which I'll excuse (i.e. 'wrong at English' is not grammatically correct).

What I can't understand is, if I am 100% wrong about the Coup stuff then how can I be especially wrong "at" English? What can be more wrong than 100% wrong? It seems to me, that logic dictates, that if I am 100% wrong in both then I am not especially wrong in either... I must be equally wrong in both. Just saying... 173.79.251.253 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Now you're just being pedantic. If you want me to break it down into a pie chart, you're 78% wrong at your coup classification, and 22% wrong at English, based on the convoluted argument that accompanied it. --Львівське (говорити) 00:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

No offense, but are Lvivske, Yulia, etc. really pretended to be neutral parties? You're all Ukrainians as is clear from your talk pages. Even your signature is in Ukrainian. I don't care about either of your countries. I really don't. But I know in English the difference between a Coup and a Revolution and that calling a Dog's tail a leg doesn't mean he can walk on it. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 23:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks aren't the solution here either. (BTW, in English "its" is the possessive and "it's" the contraction for it is.) Knowing the Cyrillic Ukrainian or Cyrillic Russian alphabet or having a non-Anglo-American username does not necessarily make one a non-native English speaker and surely not someone unqualified to edit here.

A real problem is this page has become the WP talk equivalent of a tape loop (as in 8-track tape, or a CD or MP3 player set on infinite repeat of just a single monotonous tune). As in been there; 'done that. The more helpful approach w/b to focus on content using RSs to build the encyclopaedia. Someone said READ this page. That's what I'd suggest. It shows this is just going 'round & 'round ad infinitum. ...Making fellow editor YR's remarks above and below all the more germane. Paavo273 (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. It is the truth. This page is full of Ukrainians pushing POV. You really disagree with that? Some are even using their talk pages to crowdsource consensus including Lvivske, Yulia, and yourself (Paavo). I'm not saying that being Ukrainian makes anyone incorrect; I'm just pointing out a clear bias and attempts to manipulate public perception. If I am incorrect and Yulia, Lvivske, etc. are not Ukrainians or if you haven't been coordinating through talk pages then please correct me; but here are a few examples:

• Paavo's talk page: [re: Yanukovich] can you check on his last known location? another fight is happening on his page...ugh..--Львівське (говорити) 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
• Yulia's talk page: The Euromaidan article is getting a healthy dose of Russian conspiracy theory at the moment about the "opposition snipers". You may want to take a look at it if you have a chance. I've started a talk page discussion about it and some other issues injected by this new, single purpose account user.--Львівське (говорити) 04:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)able. I'm asking since I'm sure you've read the news too lol --Львівське (говорити) 21:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right, this page is like a tape loop: I point to the English dictionary or Encyclopedia and Team Ukraine just says IDIDNTHEARTHAT and RS over and over. As I said, I don't expect the article to be changed because it is being camped by Ukrainians with a political interest in calling the Coup a Revolution. But again, calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't mean he can stand on it. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

By your misguided definition, any presidential impeachment is a 'coup'. Nixon was deposed in the Watergate Coup, right? --Львівське (говорити) 16:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand you're trying to equivocate but at least do your homework. Nixon resigned and was never impeached. Clinton was impeached but acquitted of all charges. No US President has ever been removed from office via the impeachment process.

Neither situation is comparable to what happened with Yanukovich. There are two key reasons: First, there were no armed mobs in the street that forced Nixon out of Washington under threats of violence to himself and his family. Second, our Consitutional process was processed. As you surely know, the Ukrainian Constitution that was in effect, after the Ukrainian Supreme Court threw out the changes, required a 3/4 majority in order to remove the President. As you know, the opposition only managed to get 328 votes when they needed 338.

Please don't compare my nation of laws with your nation of mob rule. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the Romanian revolution? Dec 16, Protest in Timișoara. Dec 21, Ceaușescu gave his last speech. Dec 22, the newly appointed Minister of Defense Stănculescu refused to carry orders of Ceaușescu. Noon, the Ceaușescu's fled. Afternoon, they were captured. Dec 24, the Ceaușescu's were executed after a show trial. Bloodshed + no constitutional impeachment + direct military involvement (defaction of Stănculescu) + only 9 days from the very beginning to the very end, yet it is almost unanimously called a revolution, not a coup. Care to explain to me why?

Someone may tell me that the Romanian revolution changed the fundamental form of government. However, it then confuses me that the 1969 Libyan coup d'état, which saw the Ghaddafi's rise of power, is called a coup, not a revolution, because this coup also changed the fundamental form of government, from monarchy to the so-called Jamahiriya. I'm not trying to push any POV, just want to differentiate clearly revolution from a coup. 128.189.191.222 (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you make some good points (though I know little of the Romanian Revolution). The title we give to things is often distinct from the reality. In the US, for example, they passed the "Affordable Care Act" which clearly increases the cost of healthcare lol. In the same way we call the Orange Revolution a Revolution even though, clearly, it was neither a Revolution nor a Coup but, instead, a political movement. Whenever figurative language is used that is not literally true then it necessary reflects POV (e.g. Orange Revolution or Libyan Coup) That being said, once a title becomes common usage that is what title is used even if it is POV.

In this case I think the final title is still unknown. Most news I read and watch in the US talks about the "Events in Ukraine" or "Situation in Ukraine". I recognize my evidence is anecdotal but I don't really see anything that says either "Coup" or "Revolution" in the media. I think both "Coup" and "Revolution" are POV. For lack of a common usage in English language sources we should really use a more neutral title such as "Overthrow of Yanukovych" which actually describes what happened and not how a particular side wants to have it perceived. However, I don't think that changing the title is realistic given the number of Ukrainians camping this thread to push POV. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Overthrow is an excellent compromise. Has it been proposed formally? Irondome (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The events of 2014 do not constitute a coup by any responsible definition. The president and most minister fled the capital. The parliament elected new ministers and a new speaker, and set a date for a new presidential election. It had a right to take action to ensure continuity of government. That is not a coup. The president was not removed, impeached or anything of the sort. Parliament appointed an acting president due to the presidents undeniable abandonment of office.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that this whole "Ukrainian revolution" article was written by pro-Russian/anti-government sympathizers or the separatists themselves. I don't question the corruption that was going on in the Ukrainian government, but I do question the legitimacy of this wiki. The language used is plainly biased in favor of the separatists, and talks about how the Ukrainian police "attacked" citizens. But I've been watching Simon Ostrovsky's dispatches, and I'm seeing a different picture than the mainstream press is doling out to us. I'm seeing random citizens being beaten near to death by pro-Russian militia and hauled off to unknown locations, all the while screaming, "I'm Russian!" while they retort back, "You piece of shit. You should be killed."

I understand their (both Western and Eastern Ukrainians') anger at the government for failing them - over and over - but the Ukrainian police, by and large, have been handing over their weapons and gear, and many of the men in the Ukrainian military have been doing the same - and getting beaten for their trouble. None of this is being recorded here. I am largely unbiased as I have no stake in any of it, no family and only one friend from Ukraine, and she is not talking about it. I have been writing news for several years, since even before I got my degree in journalism, and I think it is time to make a fair and accurate edit of this page. And while I appreciate the work that has gone into it, it does Wikipedia a disservice to allow inaccurate and biased information to be posted about an issue this sensitive and controversial. -- (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move to February 2014 ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych

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 move to "February 2014 ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych" but some are open for other option. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

---

(non-admin closure)

2014 Ukrainian revolution → February 2014 ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych – In international media the events desscribed in this Wikipedia article are by now (16 June 2014) never described as "a revolution", hence it is not commonly called "a revolution". BBC News in practicly all its articles about Ukraine (these days) describes the events as "February's ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych" — --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose on the grounds that the title proposed isn't satisfactory, as it is too lung, clunky, and not at all concise. RGloucester — ☎ 18:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am open to new suggestions as long as it does not contain the word "revolution"; since outside of Wikipedia nobody seems to describe the events as a "revolution". (The irony is that the events were more a revolution then the Orange Revolution....) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I would not say that that is the case. Examples being:

1. BBC
2. The Guardian
3. The Economist

I'm not necessarily opposed to a change, but I think it is false to say that "no one" refers to it as a revolution. RGloucester — ☎ 20:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support in principle - whatever it was, it wasn't a revolution. Closer to a coup than anything. Red Slash 07:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - A quick google search tells me that the current name has 11,800,000 search results compared to the proposed name which has only 291,000 search results. Also other people were ousted/ resigned during the February revolution other than Viktor Yanukovych, the revolution wasn't just about Viktor Yanukovych. On another note, why is the proposed title "February 2014 ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych" rather than "2014 ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych"? It isn't as if he was ousted more than once in 2014. IJA (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest simply Overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych, there is absolutely no need to specify the date in the title as he has been ousted only once. And there's also no need to have the word "President" in the title, an example would be Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Good idea Yerevantsi; "overthrow" is also used by the BBC today. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 12:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And today again. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:34, 1 July 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.

2014 Ukrainian revolution be renamed and moved to Overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych.

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. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

---

2014 Ukrainian revolution → Overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych – In international media the events described in this Wikipedia article are by now (July 2014) not so much described with the term "revolution", hence it is not commonly called "a revolution". BBC News in practically all its articles about Ukraine (these days) describes the events as "overthrow". In all English media reports I read (a.o. Washington Post) about the events that deal with this article I never saw the word "revolution" (OK I did not read all English media reports...). "Overthrow" is also used in Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - During the revolution, other key figures in Ukraine were overthrown/ forced to resign other than Yanukovych. IJA (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – Name doesn't appear to be inclusive enough, so more info necessary to sway my view. Dustin (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The overthrow/fall/impeachment of Yanukovych isn't necessarily attributed to those last events in Kiev, but to the whole Euromaidan protests. Also, the proposed title suggests that the article deals primarily with the political developments that led to Yanukovych's downfall while this is not the case at all. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Not the common name of the revolution. The Current title has 7+ million hits whereas the proposed title has just over 100,000 hits. One of the main objective of the revolution was to restore the 2004-2010 Constitution, the proposed title neglects this and gives WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to the overthrow of Yanukovych. Also as stated previously, during the revolution, other key figures in Ukraine were overthrown/ forced to resign other than Yanukovych. IJA (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose remember the Orange Revolution where Yanukovych was also ousted. The proposed title is highly ambiguous. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:29, 3 July 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.

Term revolution

Should be Coup d'etat instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartreligion (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV, The term "Ukrainian revolution" is currently used only by the English Wikipedia, while most other Wikis commonly use the term "Euromaidan".

I emphasized that the term "revolution" is a often accepted opinion, but not necessarily a fact GeorgeDorgan (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

this article is about the revolution, its the widely accepted term to depict the events. We had several discussions here and consensus was to use 'revolution' in the title and to define the event. You have now started a draft of original research and fake references to push this "coup" fantasy. Two of your references (one a blog) had no mention of the word "coup" and the other was german. This is a WP:WEIGHT issue, just because you find one source that may (i dont read german, so who knows if this one was fake too) say its a coup, that dosent override that the rest of the world doesnt abide by that conspiracy theory or revisionism. If you want to talk about coups, go check out what's happening in Thailand at the moment. --Львівське (говорити) 05:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not a revolution. Even eng wiki says that revolution is: "1.Complete change from one constitution to another 2.Modification of an existing constitution". In Ukraine, they didn't change anything about constitution, they changed their president. Nothing more.

Hi anon, sorry but no, they did make constitutional amendments. It was literally the first thing that parliament did. Happy hunting for more straws to grasp. :) --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 07:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

nope, that was not enough to call revolution. Every month someone changes something. Но ты же ведь и по-русски понимаешь, не так ли? ;) Революция - это изменение конституционного строя, а не пара поправок. — Preceding unsigned 2014 (UTC)

Well this is ultimately your incorrect personal assessment, which I couldn't care less about. It's a revolution, deal with it.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 15:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Тебе английским по белому написано, что такое революция. Несколько поправок в конституцию - это не революция. Если бы перешли к процессу федерализации страны - это можно было бы назвать революцией. Если бы решили упразднить должность президента как таковую - это была бы революция. Если бы объявили абсолютную монархию - это тоже была бы революция. А поправки... Они каждые два месяца вносятся. Т.е. революция во всех странах мира идёт непрерывно с момента утверждения их конституции. Ну с тобой спорить бесполезно, ты это статью "держишь", судя по частоте мелькания твоего ника в этом обсуждении, а у меня нет столько свободного времени, чтобы мешать тебе форсить дорогую твоему сердцу "революцию".

Several insignificant amendments is not enough to call this coup d'état revolution. Everyone undestands that =) So you may think anything you want, but nothing changed in our country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.18.60.6 (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Svidomits make flatout false statements just like their illigal goverment. Coup it is and nothing more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.72.88.84 (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The term revolution is always problematic as it implies approval.. While the word "coup" would signify disaproval and would be a bit missleading as a coup usually makes people think about military coups where the military takes control. A better word would be "regime change" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.34.124 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The role of ultranationalist groups (Svoboda, Right Sector) in Revolution in minified and blurred over

The role of ultranationalist groups (Svoboda, Right Sector) in Revolution in minified and blurred over. No facts about this, while these things did take place: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SBo0akeDMY

The position of some major politicains who are in opposition to the current European officials, should also be presented: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXoit9P7kc8

By the way, for instance, in the article "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" the role of pro-russian so-called "ultranstionalist" is boosted and stated in the first sentence: "Since the end of February 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian, ultranationalist,[41][42][43] and anti-government groups have taken place in major cities across the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine".

93.187.186.90 (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Revolution?

Seems an odd choice of words for the article title. Surely Ukrainian Coup d'état would be a more accurate description of the events?--78.145.141.68 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This was not coup, under any legitimate definition of that term. It is doubtful that it was a revolution either. Mass demonstrations, followed by the president leaving the country, followed by the appointment of an acting president according to the constitution. That is neither a violent overthrow of authority nor an illegal change of power. Ironic that Wikipedia should be minded to call this a revolution, yet baulks at calling the Russian invasion of Crimea an invasion.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Article name

Would the name Ukrainian Coup not be a more accurate name for this article?--64.134.224.138 (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No. RGloucester — ☎ 01:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Coup

I know it has been discussed at length whether or not to re-name this page as Ukrainian Coup an there has been no consensus. However due to the fact that a google search for Ukrainian Coup delivers over 4 Million results this is just too great a number to be ignored and thus not at least having a mention in the first line is at least POV and at worst deliberately mis-leading the reader.

Therefore I am going to be bold update the first line to include both the names Ukrainian Revolution and Ukrainian Coup. Discussion welcome. --71.110.129.100 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No. Give it up already. Volunteer Marek  19:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I've changed it back and warned Volunteer Marek for his disruptive editing. Please take part in the discussion in future instead of just blanking edits without any concensus. --71.110.129.100 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss. First, because it already has been discussed to death and the answer was a big NO. Second because it's an obvious attempt at POV pushing based on wacky sources and Kremlin propaganda. So stop wasting people's time. Even if Google search gave you bazillion hits for the phrase, if these are not reliable sources, we don't give a fig. The term used in reliable sources is revolution.

Also, since you appear to be familiar with Wikipedia enough to be leaving template warnings on user's talk page, I gotta ask, you got another account here? A previous one perhaps?  Volunteer Marek  19:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

A pretty grown up response from Volunteer Marek.....or not. I DON'T LIKE IT SO I'M REMOVING IT!! Typical of the sort of POV activity that team Ukraine have been pushing out on Wikipedia trying to legitimize their Coup in the eyes of the reader. I have changed it back and i'm getting sick of Volunteer Marek's disruptive editing (note: he just deleted the previous warning template.) --71.110.129.100 (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Your reference to "team Ukraine... on Wikipedia" pretty much reveals that this isn't your first account and that you're here just to cause trouble.

More substantially, you're welcome to type in "coup" into the archive search box above and read the discussions for yourself. Reliable sources do not call it a coup. Consensus of editors is not to use this highly POV term. Volunteer Marek  20:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly I used the term Team Ukraine because i'd already read through the archives above and that term had been previously used to describe the vocal and petulant Ukrainians peddling their own POV agenda. Calling a Coup a Revolution instead is incredibly politically charged and misleading. However that is not the issue here. The issue is that across global published media the terms Revolution and Coup are both used to describe the events in Ukraine in 2014 and therefore this should be reflected in the Wikipedia article. --71.110.129.100 (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Riiiigggghhhhtttttt. Volunteer Marek  04:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think by now it is clearly established that the position of 71.110.129.100 that the mere presence of a certain number of google hits does not constitute [RS]; it seems to be a piece of propaganda to characterize the overthrow of the Moscow-affiliated regime as a "coup" or a "fascist junta". While there MAY be some reasonable point of entry for a discussion of the Legal issues of the Ukrainian revolution of 2014 the insertion into the lede or an early paragraph of this article is definitely NOT the place for it. Wikidgood (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Toward NPOV

Please do not impute a sincere intention on the part of Y. if the WP:RS consensus does not support it. He did what he did, the majority of Uk. citizens do NOT agree with the Russia Today interpretations which are not WP:NPOV. Thank you in advance. Wikidgood (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Article name

I think the name of this article is strange. No-one calls this the Ukrainian Revolution. Most people refer to it as either the Ukrainian Coup or the Ukrainian Coup d'état - certainly that is the case in the UK where I am. I've never heard anyone call it a revolution - only a coup. Perhaps the article title should be changed to reflect its more common name? --85.255.234.84 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No. RGloucester — ☎ 15:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Intelligent response User:RGloucester. Glad to see you tried hard in school! The name of this article really does need to be addressed as the current one is highly POV and does not reflect the either the global consensus or the consensus on Wikipedia as demonstrated my the multitude of previous discussions on the subject.--85.255.234.84 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

NOT a revolution

The title and entire contents are false here. It is well documented that this was not a revolution but rather a coup organised by NATO and the USK military industrial complex. That's why the current Kiev regime is being resisted by people in the East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.75.172 (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Title not from a neutral point of view

The claim that the events can be described as revolution is a biased (also any further claims deriving from the assumption this must be true). The other POV is that this is about an externally backed coup. So the terms revolution and coup are not neutral until there is historical consensus about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.181.135 (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Only one of your references is a reliable source (Japan Times) and it consists of one person's commentary. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't even waste time engaging with these types, Mr N. No reliable source (don't try pushing opinion pieces) calls this a "coup", which is an implausible term. RGloucester — ☎ 17:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

BBC, one of the most reliable sources going are calling it a coup [1]. User:Johnny B 22:10, 25 February2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.68.22 (talk)

missing elements

I don't think this page can be classified as neutral as it is.

There is no special section for foreign leaders who spoke on the Maidan. Yet many people see the presence of people like Ashton on the Maidan where she gave a speech in support of the protests as a severe violation of the principle of "non-interference" in the internal affairs of other countries. In this context it is also strange that the leaked phone conversation between Victoria Nuland and ambassador Pyatt about who should rule Ukraine isn't mentioned. In my opinion this should be in a paragraph 2.2: Western involvement.

I recommend including something from the following NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/world/europe/ukraine-leader-was-defeated-even-before-he-was-ousted.html This gives background to the Russian advice to Yanukovich on how to deal with the protests - that was largely ignored - and paints it as sound from the tactical point of view.83.86.53.85 (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Barack Obama admits the role of US in regime change in Ukraine

This is just in and reported on several outlets. I think it should definitely be included in this article since this shows that the so-called "revolution" wasn't simply a revolution but was a calculated ouster funded/supported by nations including the US (for geopolitical reasons).

http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150201/1017625288.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by RS-Fighter (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Seconded, the role of the US should be discussed. - Saibod (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Will you please stop posting idiotic nonsense to Wikipedia talk pages? RT comments section is somewhere else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Source is garbage. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

CNN themselves have a transcript of the interview, in which Obama states that "we'd brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine" . Then there is the leaked phone conversation between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt. - Saibod (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Government in exile ?

As far as I understand the former Prime Minister of Ukraine is planning to form government in exile [2] If correct, this should be added. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Just taking a look at this article, I am not particularly comfortable with its tone and content.

Starting with its unquestioning characterisation of the events starting in 2014 as a "revolution" (in line, mind with the so-called "colour revolutions") and its subsequent coverage, the article fails to convey a balanced point of view and to sufficiently describe and contrast the various positions as regards the situation. In fact, it reads a bit like a run-of-the-mill best-seller: the impossibly bad Bad Guys, the Good Guys (with minor defects, to make them more relatable to the audience), ... we're only lacking some romance! :-)

Joking aside, for example the third paragraph in the introduction mentions Russia 'calling the revolution a "coup d'état"'. Considering that, according to the article's very own (unreferenced) "fact box" one of the goals of the "revolution" was the "ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych", it would seem that "2014 Ukrainian Coup d'État" would be at least as equally fitting a name for this article. Yet, there is no qualification of the term "revolution" that has been chosen.

Equally, the rest of the article has a pronounced Western bias. This is in part expected given that a large part of the (utterly non-academic, but then again this is Wikipedia) sources are in English and therefore written by or directed to a Western audience, as opposed to a local, regional, or non-Western audience. However, of those Ukrainian and (only one?) Russian-language citations there are, the majority of references used come from sources such as Ukrayinska Pravda ("Ukrainian Truth") and the Kiev Post, both of which are eminently pro-Western (this is not a criticism of those sources per se).

I do not believe or suggest that there is a deliberate attempt at manipulating Wikipedia by presenting a specific point of view, but merely that the editorship's work has been a bit lacking in this article by using in an uncritical manner those sources that are the easiest for a Western, English-speaking editor to find and interpret.

I suggest that this and related articles (e.g., Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis is downright embarrassing) be reviewed and contrasted for neutrality, and all news sources (where they must be used at all) be treated critically—but with especial care taken when dealing with those coming from the same cultural background as the editor, as the bias in those is the most difficult to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.211.179 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

BBC, one of the most reliable sources going are calling it a coup [3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.60.68.22 (talk)

Please don't misrepresent sources, please stop wasting our time, please familiarize yourself with the relevant policies (the ACTUAL policies, not what you imagine the policies are), please stop using the talk pages of Wikipedia articles as a forum. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)