Wikipedia

Talk:Revolution of Dignity/Archive 2

< Talk:Revolution of Dignity
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Lvivske in topic Other popular names
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Move to 2014 Ukrainian Revolution

Latest comment: 10 years ago37 comments14 people in discussion

I've made the move from February 2014 Euromaidan riots to 2014 Ukrainian Revolution. The discussion here indicates there is universal agreement that "riots" was not the most appropriate term to use. I believe we reached consensus that indicated a preference for the title 2014 Ukrainian Revolution. Even if we haven't reached consensus yet an imperfect better title is still more appropriate than an imperfect faulty one. If we need to discuss the article's title further, please do. All the best. N4 (talk) 06:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Move it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.194.15 (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources are now reporting it as a revolution (see [1]), so the article is likely to stay moved. -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Update:

-- The Anome (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Later update:
-- The Anome (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
--Львівське (говорити) 04:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Still later updates:
-- The Anome (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Question: How come its now called Ukrainian Revolution of 2014? Like what's the difference between this and previous title? In my opinion, previous title 2014 Ukrainian Revolution is uses correct English.--Mishae (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Mishae, there is no reason. Or rather the reason given is so that it is consistent with the format of other similarly titled articles- which as far as I'm aware, isn't a product of Wikipedia policy or a reason to move at all. There are in fact a number of articles (2011 Omani protests, 2010-12 Algerian protests) that would in fact suggest the current format of event-date is not the preferred format. N4 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

86.151.194.15 (talk)- there certainly IS consensus that the term "riots" is not appropriate. If the issue you have is with the use of "revolution" then feel free to explain why another term is more appropriate. "There was no consensus. Move it back," is just outright incorrect and unconstructive. N4 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You should launch move request in this very sensitive political topic. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
A R2M is the exact same thing as what we're doing: using the talk page to find consensus. A green template doesn't change much. --Львівське (говорити) 17:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No I do not. A requested move is a feature by which a user find somebody else to carry out the actual movement process because, for example, the user does not understand how to move an article itself. If you mean I should discuss it further, you'll notice an invitation a few lines above here inviting further discussion. Numerous editors (Львівське, Alex Bakharev, Fitzcarmalan, wctaiwan, Niemti, Smallbones, The Anome and myself) have expressed support of the use "revolution" if sufficient sources adopt the use of this word. We now have AMPLE such sources. And while we're speaking about discussion and consensus, after I first made the move I put a message on here explaining why I made the move and invited further discussion so a consensus could be reached. As there has been so little comment, anyone that has elected to move the article since is doing so without consensus. If anyone can provide a particularly compelling argument here as to why the article should not be titled 2014 Ukrainian Revolution then I'm all ears. Until then, I'm following consensus, being bold and making the move. N4 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

So, Alex Bakharev and Lvivske's opinions are more than enough to move this article's title. I don't think so. Lokalkosmopolit and wctaiwan clearly opposed this version. 2-2. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You just conveniently ignored most of the votes and twisted wctaiwan's words to an outright 'oppose'. This is looking very POVy IMO...--Львівське (говорити) 17:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Norden1990, it isn't about opinions- and you're "summary" of above discussion is so selective I suggest you stand down from discussion here. You are clearly not acting as a neutral editor. It's about discussion, compromise and consensus. Yes, Lokalkosmopolit clearly opposes it. But despite my invitation to editors to explain why they oppose it his entire argument as per above is: "current title is reasonable enough." That isn't constructive. wctaiwan did not clearly oppose it. To quote an earlier comment by him/her: "I support moving it to something other than "riots", but oppose calling it a revolution unless it is the consensus among sources (and I don't think it is yet)." As I've said, we now have ample sources. Instead of straw man arguments like, "you think his opinion is better than mine", perhaps you could explain the substance behind the reasoning to not label this revolution as a revolution. That way, I can begin to understand your argument because at the moment I don't seem to think you have one. Or perhaps you can explain why the numerous sources listing this event as a revolution are not to be considered. Thanks. N4 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you talking to me or Norden?--Львівське (говорити) 18:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I saw your since removed comment and wondering what on earth you were on about ;) My previous comment is directed to Norden1990. I see a load of people and a load of sources suggesting a move is necessary and a few select people (with no elaborated argument whatsoever) saying, "no, don't do that." And for the record, I didn't "cherry pick", I skim read and missed out the second comment added onto the first. N4 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Though I think the latest move basically amounts to a supervote, the last thing we need now is another hasty move. I was fine with revolution, given the sources, but "clashes" does address the characterisation issues with the previous title of "riots". (The main inaccuracy I see now would be the scope--it doesn't look like sources treat this as strictly limited to Euromaidan, but also broader dissatisfaction with the government and Yanukovych.) I suggest starting another poll listed at WP:RM after a couple of days, when major sources have published stable analyses of the events. wctaiwan (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

By my current count of the talk page above, we're at: 6 for (lvivske, small bones, alex b, n4, mishea, fitzcarlman), 2 fine pending common use (wctaiwan), 2 against (lokal, norden)--Львівське (говорити) 18:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. --PLNR (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Curious, but what do you think could possibly change at this point? The president is in exile, impeached, and his own party has denounced him; the west has recognized the new government as legitimate, as have all government agencies. Do you honestly think things will change and he'll return on a white horse or something? --Львівське (говорити) 18:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support BBC and Daily Telegraph are the proper sources which imply it to be a "revolution".
I will not argue over it, hands down. The other sources I don't know much about but those 2 are promising. On a separate note, renaming it to February 2014 Euromaidan clashes is absolutely wrong. Let me explain my reason why: The term clashes is identical to riots, therefore you still call it a riot. Like we don't call Russian Revolution a 1917 Russian clashes even though there were, and many. My stance here is with Львівське and Bakharev who's support I share. If someone here think that I am not being neutral, point me and Львівське an example where we were not neutral editors. I also need to mention to the above editor that situation although developing will change in days not weeks since the information is fueled hourly.--Mishae (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - for all previous reasons, and so I have a bolded voted to count on here --Львівське (говорити) 18:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Fry1989 eh? 18:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I support the immediate move to 2014 Ukrainian Revolution. I think clashes is no improvement on the term protests- it does not portray the event's political slant at all. While I do agree that the situation is still developing, I do not think waiting a few more days for more sources is beneficial for the project. Just as the media is labeling the event as a revolution now it can only continue to do so in the coming weeks and days. The media will not spontaneously decide to label this as a coup d'état instead, for example. It will remain a revolution no matter how many or how few sources list it explicitly as one. Delaying the move doesn't help the project especially when we have a clear consensus. N4 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • When I reverted the move myself I did so based on WP:CRYSTALBALL. However, it is right that by now both riots and clashes do not accurately reject the text of the article, i.e. we have political crisis, we have Yanukovich de facto ousted and the (admittedly null and void) impeachment vote. From a legal/neutral point of view we have some evidence of a coup d'etat. This however does not mean that we have to call it a coup, as most of the sources do not recognize the events as such (per Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs; for comparison, take the title 2009 Honduran coup d'état - apparently it legally wasn't a coup but it's still called like that).

Currently the lede reads: ″The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014[14][15][16] began with a series of violent episodes of civil unrest in Kiev, Ukraine, as part of Ukraine's ongoing Euromaidan movement against the government″ - we even don't know if whether to calls those things Ukrainian Revolution of 2014 or Ukrainian Revolution of 2013-2014. The difference between the article at hand and Euromaidan is not clear.

The uncertainty concerning the title is also reflected by the fact that the Ukrainian wiki has it as Протистояння в Україні з 18 лютого 2014 - Confrontation in Ukraine since 18 February and the Russian wiki Обострение противостояния на Украине (февраль 2014 года) - Escalation/Intensification of the confrontation in Ukraine.

I've tried to find out what could be the title that would be a common, neutral and accurate (i.e. reflecting the contents) title for the article by a Google search for last 24 hours (″ukraine kiev yanukovych OR yanukovich″). Based on that I couldn't find anything certain. It is true however that ″Ukrainian crisis″ 2014 + ″Ukrainian political crisis″ 2014 together (around 450 000) have many more times Google hits than ″Ukrainian Revolution″ (74,800). Based on this I don't believe the suggested title Ukrainian Revolution is already the most common title, it's still somewhat of WP:CRYSTALBALL to use it. I think it is both neutral and descriptive to remove riots and clashes from the title and to introduce crisis into the title. When it becomes clear that the 'Ukrainian Revolution' is widely used then move to it at the moment it seems preliminary. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Crisis and conflict can include articles and events that took place since November, so obviously it's going to have more google hits. The revolution also just happened the other day (so 3 months worth of articles and data vs. 2 days) --Львівське (говорити) 18:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I checked it. Empirically false. Ukrainian crisis has 3 times more hits than Ukrainian Revolution even for the last 24 hours. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - I support the proposed move. IJA (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move -- The government has fallen, the parliament has made a 180 in favour of supporting the protestors' cause, the principal opposition leader has been released from prison, the president has fled, all in a few days. Really, "clashes" doesn't cut it. "Revolution" is simple and descriptive, and, most importantly, follows the usage by WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Split or rename

Just throwing this out there, but should this article be the deeper article on the 18-22 events, and the revolution article be overarching euromaidan to present? Or is the current timeframe, 18-present the 'real' revoluton which occured (riots, pushback, political regime change). I should note that on the 17th, all occupied buildings were given back and everything was at a stalemate, so there is a break in continuity. --Львівське (говорити) 18:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt that a revolution has taken place and the vast majority of sources reflect this, but the real issue is whether this article is really about that. I would say the term revolution either applies to the events of Saturday specifically or the entire Euromaidan movement since November. On this article, the focus should be the street battles between security forces and protesters. Consider it a conflict that is part of a revolution or the spark of a revolution. A peace deal ended this conflict, but it created a power vacuum that allowed the opposition to seize power. Given that the Euromaidan protesters are apparently going to continue (and we have no idea if this is the end to the unrest), it might be a good idea to create an independent article for the events on Saturday that would be the article for the revolution. Seems most reporting refers to the events of Saturday in particular as a revolution rather than the preceding events this week.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The content of the article is about it and the events the immediately led to it, and the legal aftermath. This article could very well act as the 'revolution' article IMO; I'm unsure if a split of the 18-21 clashes and the actions on the 22nd constitute a split or a break in the timeline of events. The question is, I guess, whether the revolution started 2/18 or on 11/21; sources started calling it a revolution sometime in december ("eurorevolution") to be sure, and it ended with a revolution, but this may be nitpicky. Also, I should note, that the Euromaidan article itself is fairly bloated and each string of events has gotten its own sub-article. If Euromaidan is the 'main' article, then this is the sub-article for the 18-23 events.....since we wont be renaming Euromaidan to Ukrainian Revolution, and we know a 'Ukrainian Revolution' article must exist, then I think the logic follows that this is the most suitable candidate.--Львівське (говорити) 19:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
@The Devil's Advocate: Are you dubious about Rose and Orange Revolutions as well? Street battles you say? There will be that, but Euromaidan is the main article. Kindoff like Colour revolutions have 5 subpages named Orange, Rose, Cedar and Tulip Revolutions. Speaking of Tulip Revolution, why is there no infobox???--Mishae (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I said I'd stay out of this unless progress appeared to be stuck. With all the name changes, it's probably time I said something. Following TDA's "There is no doubt that a revolution has taken place" there should be an article on "2014 Ukrainian Revolution" (or similar). It might as be this article. If you want to split off the "pre-revolutionary events" that's fine with me. Making an entirely new article starting with Feb. 21 would also be ok as well. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

On a separate note...

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

...I'm putting this link to Wiktionary's definition of revolution so that all those who oppose the move first read and get accustomed with what it means. Happy reading.  --Mishae (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Good note. But notice how it talks in retrospective about actions which already occurred. Right? So, when people where getting snipped out the Western media was only talking about riots or clashes. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Of note: "The removal and replacement of a government." - which did indeed happen, official and recognized on all levels. Even Yanukovych isn't fighting this anymore, he's on the run and presidential website has been taken down. --Львівське (говорити) 05:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Correction: Yanukovych have said in a statement that "I will not resign". Although its dated to February 22, I can't find any sources that says that Yanukovych have officially resigned. Fleeing? Yes, found plenty of info on that. Resignation? That's another story.--Mishae (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
About Yanukovych, Turchynov said that Yanukovych supposedly in from of several MPs told Yatseniuk about his resignation. Later, Yanukovych recorded a video statement where he said that he still is the President of Ukraine and wont sign any draft laws adopted by parliament. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
He appears to have dropped off the radar for now, with the Washington Post saying that the provisional government has issued a warrant for his arrest: [2] -- The Anome (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
At first I didn't believe the report of the arrest warrant issued for Yanukovych. There are several reports like the Washington Post's (above) all coming from Avakov's facebook account via AP. But CNN has something (a bit vague) and Kyiv Post seems to be an independent report. If anybody has anything else, it should be included in the article. It should sort itself out in an hour or so in any case. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Army's statement

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The statement of the Army about remaining committed to the people of Ukraine appeared just on 22 February when the conflict was finished and Yanukovych lost his authority. But journalists have published a secret document which proves that during the conflict the chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces Yuriy Ilyin had ordered to some brigades to attack the protesters. The question why this didn't happen is still open. So, I think it's a mistake to state that the Army was by side of the protest. --Dƶoxar (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake to say the army is going one way or another. The situation is still developing and for all we know the only chief may be put in place again.Avion365 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • "According to Glavkom, llyin said that the army remained loyal to the Ukrainian people and refused to be involved in the political conflict on Feb. 22," - we also know that the army said they were with the people that day, and that that top staff member resigned after he refused to take the orders (and was reinstated after this was over). On the 22nd, army officials also stood on maidan delcaring their support. I don't think it's too early to say who they support. --Львівське (говорити) 20:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Just removed speculation...

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I just removed per WP:SPECULATION:

On Monday 17 February, Russia announced it would release another $2 billion of its 17 December 2013 agreed loan of $15 billion to the Ukrainian government, which The Washington Post credited as a reason for the protests.[1] According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Russian authorities had been pressuring the Ukrainian administration to take decisive action to crush protests; and it noted that the assault on Euromaidan protesters by police was ordered hours after the $2 billion from Russia was transferred.[2]

  1. ^ Fisher, Max (18 February 2014). "The three big reasons that protests reignited in Ukraine". Washington Post. Retrieved 18 February 2014.
  2. ^ "Ukraine protests: 14 dead in worst day of violence". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 19 February 2014. Retrieved 18 February 2014. They moved in hours after Moscow gave Ukraine $2 billion in aid which it had been holding back to demand decisive action to crush the protests.

We and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation have no proof that these two events are linked... Seems rather a clasic case of WP:ORIGINALSYN to me...... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I readded it with a section template. Found one source with EU ministers linking Russian pressure for causing the conflict. Will keep searching. I dont see how the original is OR though? Or do you mean the author at ABC used ORSYN? --Львівське (говорити) 22:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I do mean the author at ABC used ORSYN. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your excellent contributions! IMO given this is virtually verbatim from a qualifying valid source, there aren't grounds to exclude it, certainly not based on WP:Synthesis, which refers to a WP EDITOR synthesizing published sources. It would be fine to contradict it with some opposing (pro-Kremlin?) source and to qualify it as the work of a journalist at ABC. But I can't see excluding it; similar arguments could be made against a huge percentage of sources cited in this and other articles. The general position stated by Williams is being stated or implied ALL OVER by the Western media, and certainly the remarks Kremlin officials continue to make daily make them very susceptible to the ABC journalist's interpretation. I don't see an application here for Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor for WP:Synthesis unless the editor is taking what the Washington Post says and adding it to the Australian source to arrive at some third proposition or conclusion. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Since it's being blanked by an IP now I figured I'd bring this up in good faith on the talk page. Beyond the ABC source, there's also the Globe and Mail so it's not just one guy. On top of this the paragraph section I've made goes into much further detail. We have a GRU head saying force needs to be used, then the new documents that came out today proving that a GRU guy planned the entire crackdown and was in the city. On top of this, Medvedev saying in public the opposition should be cracked down on and well, the entire thing is very well referenced, read for yourself. --Львівське (говорити) 22:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

now lokal is blanking on the grounds of needing more sources. At this point there are many sources. Can we please get a talk page discussion going before blanking content that's well sourced? Otherwise it's just disruptive. --Львівське (говорити) 15:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Ihor Kostenko

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Just read that a wikipedian Ihor Kostenko known here as User:Ig2000 [3] was killed in Kiev on 18 February 2014 during the revolution. He was active on English and Ukrainian Wiki, Commons and in Ukrainian chapter. He was an active supporter of Euromaidan and was shot to the head during the protests. My condolences to his friends and family. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please except my condolences as well. I'm wondering how many of Ukrainian Wikipedians have died due to this horrible conflict?--Mishae (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Please except my condolences also. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
R.I.P...guy was a true hero --Львівське (говорити) 01:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification sought

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a reference to the Congress of the Southern and Eastern Regions which took place on 22nd Febryary without any clarification as to whether this was a pre-existing formal organisation or an ad-hoc assembly of representatives from those regions (were these representatives the elected members of the Ukrainian Parliament from those regions, or were they representatives appointed from the Oblast governments?). Please amend the text to clarify this.

Many of the incidents reported in this article under "Reactions" and "Responses" appear to be reactions and responses which took place prior to the transfer of power which took place on 24th February (i.e. they were reactions to the events leading up to the 'ouster' of the former government, rather than reactions to the transfer of power itself), e.g. they include calls for Yanukovych to take action, which assume that he still held effective control of the government, and were presumably written when he did retain such control. To clarify this, it would assist is the dates on which each of these individual incidents took place were added. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

"Ukrainian Front", formed February 1st, not ad hoc.--Львівське (говорити) 01:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Video of the Day at Commons

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The Berkut is coming (12:19)

This video is Video of the Day at Commons. It looks to me like it deserves it, and I'll suggest that it be included in this article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As an external link, yes. But otherwise consensus wont agree. Wikipedia doesn't allow the use of YouTube videos as a reference unfortunately.--Mishae (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a file on Commons. I believe that we're allowed to include any Commons file in the article. Yes, it is from YouTube originally (where is was properly licensed CC-BY), and just like we're allowed to include files that were originally on Flickr, or files that were originally uploaded to Commons by somebody with a pseudonym, we can include files uploaded from YouTube. Notice that the file isn't being used as a reference, but just as a file. That said, we should use our judgement on whether the video is an accurate portrayal - just as we judge whether any file is an accurate portrayal. Does anybody have any doubts that this video is accurate (e.g. was it actually taken on the Maiden on the date stated? Is it propaganda with phony footage or soundtrack added. If there are no serious questions about that, I think we should add it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
It is English Wikipedia, I am not certain what is the benefit of 12min speech in Ukrainian by? about?. --PLNR (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just going to throw sources down in case one catches on

economist calling it February revolution [4]

--Львівське (говорити) 15:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, we can always see if it catches on; however I think people could easily confuse it for the 1917 February Revolution in St Petersberg/ Petrograd. IJA (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
eh, names get reused all the time. Not up for me to decide, though, we'll just have to wait and see --Львівське (говорити) 16:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity/Archive_2&oldid=1144363089"