Talk:Revolution of Dignity/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Lviv Region Independence

Somebody putted that statement in the infobox. The supporting article says completely different. It says that the region takes power in its own hands (due to trust in the President is being diminished). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the perceived problem with context? It's exactly what the article says (first three paragraphs quoted verbatim) and attributes to the VY regime vis-a-vis the latest EM bloodshed:"Ukraine's western region of Lviv has reportedly declared independence from the central government.

"Hours after protesters seized the prosecutor's office in central Lviv and forced a surrender by interior ministry police, the executive committee of the region council - also called the People's Rada – claimed control over the region.

"'The regime has begun active military action against people. Dozens of people have been killed in Kiev and hundreds have been wounded. Fulfilling the will of society, the executive committee of the Lviv region's council, the People's Rada, is assuming full responsibility for the fate of the region and its citizens', read a statement" Paavo273 (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Changed independence to political autonomy, everyone should be happy now. They didnt declare leaving the country, just that the rada is "assuming full responsibility for the region" --Львівське (говорити) 07:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Read the statement of Interfax-Ukraine (http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/190981.html) on which the article is based. It never mentions word "independence". The IBT article invents stuff. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The country goes through serious turmoil and IBT has a nerve to post shit like that. If something like that really happened there would be an explicit statement made by country's official, not IBT weirdo. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, it is not even worth of mentioning. The establishment of People's Rada in region across Ukraine is an ongoing process which is not really intended for autonomy not independence for any region (see 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO that's not how breakup announcements occur. The central government is never going to agree, kind of like Serbia rel Kosovo. This is NOT my opinion. It's what the Kremlin has been saying is in danger of happening--a Yugoslavia-style break up.

Rel the other point, :::Under No OR rules, that is the specific province of authors being published--to make those interpretations. Just because you don't agree with his interpretation, that's no reason to delete. "[A]ssuming full responsibility for the fate of the region and citizens" (quote from the original source you here cite) is apparently interpreted as independence by the IBT author. 'Seems reasonable to me. However, I have no problem in principle with some slight rewording if that will make everyone happy. Your objection would be much stronger if it were to an interpretation made by a WP EDITOR as opposed to the published author. Paavo273 (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, here is an official state of Lviv Region Administration (http://loda.gov.ua/informatsiya-pro-perehid-pidtrymku-chy-vyznannya-kerivnykamy-strukturnyh-pidrozdiliv-oda-narodnoji-rady-lvivschyny-je-nichym-inshym-yak-dezinformatsijeyu.html) that completely defeats IBT invention. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Paavo273, before coming up with statements like that one should be somewhat oriented in situations like that. First you are saying IMO and then "This is NOT my opinion". What do you know of Ukrainian politics? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My bad for the seeming contradiction. What is not my opinion is the COMPARISON to the old Yugoslavia. Paavo273 (talk) 08:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Paavo273, in regions of Ukraine there is a dual jurisdiction: one - council and another administration (appointed by president). All power in the region belongs to administration. The council simply tries to disestablish institute of regional state administration in the region. It is conflict of local government and you are bringing here Kosovo. Are you crazy???? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Paavo273, it is like the game of bad telephone. In my country there is saying "heard bell, but dont know from where". It seems that the author of the article does not have a slightest clue about situation in Ukraine. The problem in Ukraine is much broader. The only separatists intentions are in the East Ukraine and Crimea. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

:) So you're saying that "assuming full responsibility for the fate of the region and citizens" (quoting the original source you referred me to) is just a TEMPORARY non-recognition of VY's power structure in LO, not secession from UA? Paavo273 (talk)

Paavo273, here is the original information ([1]). In none of the references there are talks about independence. People are trying to stabilize situation in the country, that is all. Have you heard about information warfare? Did it cross your mind that someone could be a provocateur? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Paavo273, did you read my state about double jurisdiction in regions of Ukraine? Where do you see word independence in the following statement: "assuming full responsibility for the fate of the region and citizens"? How is that not the original research when some idiot interprets it as independence? Are you a specialist in international law? Does that idiot from IBT

have any educational background in international law or (at least) the Easter European Studies? I am trying to explain you the situation. Regional administration who is directly subordinated to the President of Ukraine, fully supports and approves what was going on at the massacre on February 20, yet refuses listen to the decision of regional council. The administration as a form of government lost all its credibility as for three months it refuses to react on situation in Kiev and has not intention to protest against actions of the crazy president. There is no intentions for secession in the Lviv Region and never were. Stop bringing Kosovo incident here as it does not correspond the reality. The article is a provocation. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, the statement about political autonomy has to go immediately. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Boguslavmandzyuk, could you please mediate on this matter? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, please, have a glance at that. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

DDima, what is your opinion on that matter? Please, post your opinion. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My proposition to get rid of the information about autonomy of Lviv Region until there would be an explicit information from the Ukrainian authorities. The article at the IBT is a provocation and completely invented. There was not even a single precedent. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, per your request, please, read all information at this section. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how you're arguing against them declaring regional autonomy apart from the central authorities. Sure, they didn't declare independence, the IBTs wording is wrong (not a provocation, just an exaggeration); but they declared themselves authority over the region.--Львівське (говорити) 15:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Posting the information in infobox gives an impression as a main achievement. Did participants of the February 2014 Euromaidan riots had initial intentions of political autonomy? It came out of the conflict as the governor of Lviv Region refuses to resign from his office after the regional council gave him a note of distrust. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That information is relevant may be for the article like the 2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations if it is really needed to be mentioned. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My initial protest was, of course, towards phrasing as independence and I am grateful for your changes on that subject. But the problem is that we need to agree that the article from IBT is provocative than everything will make sense. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that infobox should only have the main benchmark information (a key issue or achievement), not a random stuff. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, it seems as the article from IBT composed by the authors of Command & Conquer: Red Alert. Just look at that video. Where did they get it from?! And now we have users like Paavo273 comparing Ukraine to Yugoslavia and Lviv Region with Kosovo. Do you see what is going on? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't you detect misinterpretation? Would not you agree that there is no separatist movement from Ukraine in the region? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• You need to calm down instead of making 5 responses to yourself in a row, it's getting really confusing to understand your arguments with this style of posting. --Львівське (говорити) 16:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with Alex on all statements, I also agree with Lvivske that Alex posts too much posts, however, I managed to read through them and here is my verdict: Kosovo and Yugoslavia comparisons are marginal and therefore are not suppose to be mentioned here, however, just like Yugoslavia Ukraine have factions (Titushky for example). Adding to it the fact that Ukraine is politically divided between Pro-Russian Ukrainians (East) and Pro-West Ukrainians (West). Weather the country riots will end like Yugoslavia, probably an exaggeration, however, we must never forget that history can repeat itself, and it might end like in the Soviet Union brake up when Gorbachev sent tanks to claim back independent Lithuania back in 1990, or if it wasn't him directly, then someone from the State Committee on the State of Emergency put a firm hand. As far as separatist movements go, aren't Titushky are in some case a separatist movement? Like, I know they are pro government, but unlike Berkut they are by themselves.--Mishae (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That's all fine, I understand those comparisons are stupid (which is why I don't make them). Separatism is illegal in Ukraine, declaring actual independence would have been met with backlash. What's the problem with referring to it as autonomy from the central government? Why was a request for mediation opened up? Seems all parties are here discussing just fine. Also, titushky are not in any way a separatist movement, they are just paid mercenaries and don't have actual political leanings towards the notion of leaving the country. --Львівське (говорити) 16:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Aren't mercenaries are separatists? Keep in mind that terrorism and separatism is not the same. The problem with referencing Lviv Region as autonomy is that then we would need to call Kiev an autonomy and then user Paavo273 will compare it to Tibet and opposition to Buddhist monks. --Mishae (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mishae, for your support. Lvivske, please, understand that personally I am not against phrasing about political autonomy, but it should be disambiguous and in no way should imply separatist intentions. Could we find a consensus within the wikipedia community that the article from IBT is such that does not correspond the reality in order to prevent any future appeals on that matter? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think political autonomy is unambiguous. Calling it independence implies separatism from the state, autonomy implies regional authority apart from the state - like Crimea or Sevastopol. --Львівське (говорити) 16:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

IMO this is an unproductive thing to go to mediation over. But obviously that's the choice of whoever requests it. The point Aleksandr Grigoryev makes is well taken. IMO Lvivske's suggestion is a reasonable one. If that doesn't work for AG, how about "independence from the Yanukovych regime or Yanukovych government"?" Beyond the basic important distinction that AG makes about no separatism is desired, this is IMO a largely semantic distinction.

The problem is if you exclude sources that are facially valid, it works across the political spectrum of sources the same way, and then you have a great big fight over sources instead of building an encyclopaedia. I read, maybe here, that all internal UA sources are paid by the opposition. And I guarantee many will take issue with the reliability of most Russian, especially Kremlin, sources. So I really think the solution is to cite as broad a spectrum of "reliable" sources and not try to exclude.

A serious problem is if you go outside the four corners of what a source says, it immediately turns into OR, a clear WP policy violation.

Clearly it WAS a major power move/shift/action there in LO that deserves serious treatment in the article; it is now getting a lot of coverage in the news media, not just one or two articles. If Aleksandr Grigoryev doesn't like Lvivske's wording or my new suggestion, WHAT would be suitable wording IYO? Paavo273 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's another source, Mark MacKinnon has been following Euromaidan since the beginning so he's pretty plugged in: link: "The western city of Lviv, an opposition bastion, declared its autonomy from Mr. Yanukovych’s government on Wednesday" --Львівське (говорити) 19:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there have been problems with nitpicking sources already but given that we have such a divisive and hot topic at hand, this is not surprising.
However, I don't think one's OR theories like 'they can't make such a thing cuz they are Ukrainian nationalists and no nationalist would do such a thing' has bearing here. There are all kinds of oddball people out there in Ukraine 'making the decisions' these days so it's not that surprising. To the issue at hand: I've tried to google about this supposed declaration of independence and at first glance I can say that there are both some Western and some Russian (Russophone) websites that report this but it doesn't seem to be well-reported. However, some people genuinely seem to have understood the events as declaration of de facto independence. Kommersant:

Действительно Законодательное собрание Львова провозгласило независимость? — Да, Львовский облсовет провозгласил, что сейчас вся власть принадлежит народному совету, который возглавляет председатель Львовского облсовета от всеукраинского объединения "Свобода" Петр Колодий.

Will add translation later if requested. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your assessment of this, Lokalkosmopolit. Does the following seem like a fair translation (Google translate with further tweaking 'cuz my Russian is grossly inadequate):

"Has the Lviv legislature indeed declared independence? - Yes, the Lviv regional council has declared that now all power belongs to the People's Council, which is headed by the Ukrainion Union (or party?) Svoboda's Lviv regional council Chairman Peter Kolodi"?

Paavo273 (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Yes, Lviv regional council declared that now all power belongs to the People's Rada, which is headed by the chairman of the Lviv regional council, Petro Kolodiy of Svoboda" (i think your translator got messed up with the 'ukrainian union' part, svoboda'a full name is "all ukrainian union svoboda")--Львівське (говорити) 23:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is translation of the official letter to which Interfax-Ukraine was referring ([2]).

Regime began open hostilities against the people. In punishment of activist on Maidan were thrown authorities and armed "titushky." The number of dead in Kiev goes to dozens wounded - by the hundreds.

In this determining time we need to be organized, responsible and united, because only in this way will protect own family, own country, own people.

Executing the will of the community of Lviv, the Executive Committee of Lviv Regional Council - the People's Council - assumes full responsibility for the fate of the land and people.

To the composition of the Executive Committee of the Lviv Regional Council - People's Council headed by the Chairman of the Council, the Chief of Staff of National Resistance of Lviv region Peter Kolodiy included representatives of deputies, Self Defense of Maidan, other associations of activists, public figures and well-known scientists.

The main task of the Executive Committee of the Lviv Regional Council - People's Council is to maintain life support and order in the region, facilitating in sending activists to Kyiv, ensuring the Kyiv Maidan in anything necessary.

Legitimate authorities in the Lviv region remain popularly elected local councils and their created executive committees.

Most of the district police departments in the Lviv region has announced their transition on the side of Ukrainian people and the subordination of the executive committee of the Lviv regional council - the People's Council.

The Executive Committee of the Lviv Regional Council - National Council subjugates all bodies of executive power located in the region and calls on all public servants and citizens with an appeal to execute decisions and orders signed by the Chairman of the People's Council Peter Kolodiy.

The Executive Committee of the Lviv Regional Council - People's Council is located in the administrative building of the Lviv Regional Council at vul. V. Vynnychenka, 18, Lviv, telephone hotline: 0 800 501 727.

GLORY to UKRAINE!
Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the translation. Okay, so secession/independence is not from Ukraine, only from the VY regime.

Here's what Bloomberg reported: "declared independence from [VY's] government" AND "Lawmakers in Lviv on the Polish border earlier today ousted their Yanukovych-appointed governor, established a new government autonomous from his administration and declared their allegiance to the opposition in Kiev." [3]

Is that a reasonable reflection of what happened, IYO? Paavo273 (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Now, why are you all quoting sites like IBT, the Russophone Kommersant, or any other weird political scientists? Why not to read the original document?? Where in that document do you see anything that imply separation from Ukraine?! As I said before many, many times, Ukraine has big problems in regards of local government due to the double jurisdiction. Beside a Regional State Administration, any regional council itself has own executive committee that is able to govern own region, yet the Yanukovych regime (or Azarov Government if you will) refuses to acknowledge that. So, stop any of your talks about independence of the Lviv Region. The guy who wrote the article Gianluca Mezzofiore, may he burn in hell, is provocateur. For things like that there is a criminal liability if they do not correspond reality. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

weird political scientists? *throws up arms* I give up trying to make sense to you tonight. If we engage in original research the primary document says autonomy, if we use RSs they say autonomy. You shoot back with "there is no separatism!" and we go in circles. --Львівське (говорити) 05:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev: I thought I understood your position and your translation, and that we were now in agreement. ? QUERY: What few words would YOU use to characterize it ('cuz the whole translation is too long to include in the article)? Paavo273 (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Paavo273, yes that is about right. And that is what Lvivske meant when he corrected it to political autonomy (I guess). But remember when you mentioned situation with Kosovo? I was not angry at you. It was the same impression I got when I read the article of that Italian looking name author from IBT. Did you see what Kommersant wrote with its "DA" (Да)? Now, one say something like that, but another who does have a clue about the whole situation interprets it in its own way. One should be careful how they making their statement. Lviv Region has no intentions to be independent from KYIV and never will. Back in 1240 Daniel of Galicia from Lviv helped Michael of Chernigov (Grand Prince of Kiev) to stop the Mongol hordes. Similarly many people from Lviv Oblast who were sniped away by the Yanukovych goons in Kiev on February 20 came to stand their ground. And that Mazzarati goof talks about independence. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Paavo273, that statement should not be included in the infobox. Political autonomy would be a correct definition of that statement. The People's councils were announced in regions of Ukraine earlier and Lvivske created a separate article. The Lviv council tries to get rid of its governor for quite sometime already, and the governor has already even signed his letter of resignation, but only the president can only dismiss him. Here is the whole conflict. So, the Lviv council came out with that statement. It still legally has no real power and is purely populistic. I also noticed that your responses often appear before I am able to reply to your previous statements, so, Lvivske, please, bear with me hear. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what makes this situation different: other Rada's were declared as an alternate authority, but Lviv took the next step to make it the absolute authority and supersede the office of governor, and the president himself. Their police and SBU now operate independent of Kiev as well. Now, they're not independent, they still recognize parliament in all likelihood; their statement has all elected members in control of the Rada, and those deputies were elected as parliamentary representatives. --Львівське (говорити) 05:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, you mentioned of an autonomy like in Crimea or Sevastopol. But it is not really the case. The Lviv regional council announced its political autonomy from the regime, not the regional autonomy. Do you see the difference? It refuses to accept the authority of the current president. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Negative, not only in the Lviv region were instances of police pledging their allegiance to the regional council. Such occurrences were taken place in Zakarpattya and, if I am not mistaken, Volyn as well. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to at least replace the reference from IBT and not add it to the article? Could we agree that the author at least over exaggerated? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

it's called the autonomous republic of crimea for a reason...--Львівське (говорити) 05:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

For what reason? Do you know? I bet most of English language wikipedians from Ukraine have no clue. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Why does Sevastopol has a special status? And what is purpose of it for the city? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The status of autonomy in Crimea and Sevastopol is not clearly defined. Both live in their Soviet past. Lvivske let's not go out of subject here. I insist on having the reference of Mazzerofoni or whatever his name is to be removed from the article or replaced with something more appropriate. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, are you now out of principle do not want to get rid of Lviv Obalst political autonomy from the infobox? Why did the fact of Crimean intentions of secession disappear?? They had a Russian flag raised over the Kerch town hall. How do you call that?? (Demonstrators raise Russian flag in Kerch) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

my perspective on this is that it's all unofficial and just protests. I made a new section on this article about the Crimean protests, but they go both ways. Crimea hasnt declared independence or autonomy or separatism, just a rally. Crimea officially has supported the new provisional government and disavowed any separation talks. --Львівське (говорити) 05:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hold on. So, when I told you the same thing about the Lviv region and provided a link, you doubted that fact. Listen here is the same statement of Ternopil regional council that it takes power in its hands (Regional council will provide full control of the land in this situation, The leaders of the Ternopil regional and city councils, the People's Council, the Council adopted a joint statement of the clergy in the community Ternopil region). No, IBT authors came out stating anything about Ternopil region. Why is that? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

what's the date on those? was it before the courts deemed them illegal and undid it? It would have to be after the 18th when everything was re-occupied and actually done on all levels from SBU and police to public works.--Львівське (говорити) 06:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? All regional councils in the Western Ukraine expressed their untrust to the government of Ukraine and took control of all matters in the region. All that happened on February 19 as in the Lviv region. The phraseology might have been different, but the meaning was the same. Check the websites of regional councils on February 19 and you will see. The guy who wrote the article for IBT is loco. And it was his article that was republished all over the internet. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The president started to shoot its own people, while the governors were sabotaging reaction in the regions. That was the whole issue. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Note, that I am not stating that Crimea expressed its independence, however its intentions of secession are real. And there are plenty of evidence. Raising of the Russian flag over the town hall is a good example. Statement of the Lviv regional council never carried words of independence. The Lviv council tried to assure people that things like in Kiev wont happen in Lviv. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, please, note that the author of the article in IBT is referring to the Interfax statement that neither carries a word of independence. The person has simply reinterpreted in its own way. Similar thing was done by bloomberg. The authors of articles in those internet publishers either does not have an understanding of administrative system in Ukraine or are provocateurs. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Crimean independence isn't real. Just because 200 looneys tore down a Ukrainian flag in Kerch doesn't mean jack. No public officials have declared any intent to secede - rather the opposite - they've all said they want to be in Ukraine. As it stands, the article doesn't say Lviv wants to declare independence so I don't know what you're arguing about.--Львівське (говорити) 07:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Head of Crimea council expressed his intentions for possible secession of Crimea for Russia (read the artice, "Russia rattles sabres...", Financial Times, ), in Sevastopol was elected a mayor of the city who is a citizen of Russia, the Russian protesters burned the Ukrainian flag and at the entrance to Sevastopol were seen Russian BTRs ([4], [5]).

Speaker of the Crimean Parliament: Crimea could secede from Ukraine, if our country "collapse", Crimean Tatars promise to keep the Crimea as part of Ukraine, Crimea will raise the question of secession at change of legitimate authorities of Ukraine, Why Crimea could secede from Ukraine. Look at these articles... Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No no no, "Volodymyr Konstantinov, speaker of Crimea’s parliament, said on Thursday that the region might try to secede from Ukraine if the country split. “It is possible, if the country breaks apart,”" So the speaker of the council said its possible IF Ukraine essentially has a civil war and splits. Huge difference, he's talking in hypotheticals. Also, the article is from the 20th, before the revolution - crimea's parliament now supports the integrity of Ukraine so what you're citing is meaningless now. The rallies in Sevastopol are troubling but they dont represent all of crimea; also, Sevastopol is an autonomous city so it should be treated as its own political entity. That they elected a Russian mayor is one thing, but until Governor Yatsuba says they want to separate it's not worth much.Львівське (говорити) 07:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, I was never talking about Crimean independence. There were real intentions of secession. Now, on the other hand. The article from IBT is completely groundless. There were no precedents for independence. Just because the council announced that it takes power in its hands, it does not have to be equivalent to announcement of independence. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THAT DAMN IBT ARTICLE!? WHO CARES?! --Львівське (говорити) 07:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Because, I see that many other websites copying it and there is a video footage which looks real. Listen, I am talking about facts. Information should be verified. Lviv region never seceded from Ukraine and never had any such intentions. On the other hand, there is a real threat taking place in Crimea. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Several regional councils announced that they take power in their hands, yet only the Lviv regional council was announced in the Western media as such that declared its independence. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What's going on here is simply not understanding the Ukrainian language. I don't think anyone here has any reliable sources to say that Lviv, or that the Halychyna region in general, wants to be independent of Ukraine in the sense that Kosovo wants to be independent from Serbia, Chechnya wants to be independent from Russia, or Catalonia wants independence from Spain. During the French Revolution, people wanted to be free from control of the king, not to divide up France into many new countries. This is what has been happening in Lviv and throughout Ukraine. The people rose up against their government and said that they are independent of his influence. They did not once suggest that they wanted to create a new country based around Lviv.--BoguSlav 21:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Kharkov

What about 25-27 February Kharkov, Nikolaev, and other protests?Cathry (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Mass protests in the East

Aren't there mass protests in Donetsk at the current moment? While understandably the focus is on Crimea, I believe that people are protesting the new self-imposed government in major cities in the Eastern regions as well. More than 10,000 people carrying Russian flags protested Saturday in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk, the stronghold of ousted president Viktor Yanukovych, an AFP journalist said. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Money

In the article there is no mention of the money, that the EU was willing to offer 610 million euros in aid (838 million US) in addition the Ukraine would need to make substantial changes to its regulations and Russia was willing to offer a loan of 15 billion plus a discount of the gas which the Ukraine purchases from Russia and Russian did not require any changes to the regulations. So I am going to add it. Yesnoupdown1234 (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with the revolution. Yes, the 2 billion dollar loan payment had a part, but that's covered. The offers though, have nothing to do with the events.--Львівське (говорити) 19:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It has everything to do with the revolution, it explains why the president chose the Russian offer, and by choosing the Russian offer the revolution started. Yesnoupdown1234 (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Update the lede

The lede sounds like the revolution is over. It needs to be updated to reflect that there's a foreign military in control of a part of Ukraine 2014 Crimean crisis. USchick (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead is indeed need updating. Since you changed the title to Ukrainian revolution, it need a brief summary of what was the revolution about i.e. why the change of government, what they were protesting about. --PLNR (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This needs more attention. The Overview section begins in Feb. "The initial riots began on 18 February 2014" is not accurate. The initial riots began in Nov 2013. USchick (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted it to the way it was before, the dates are extremely inaccurate. USchick (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• So fix it. The overview section was recently split from the lead, and as far as I know there is no provision for such overview(summary) sections in English Wikipedia other then in the lead. --PLNR (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a whole lot to fix, going all the way back to Nov 2013. I'm sure it will be hotly contested. It's much better the way it is now. USchick (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Background

User PLNR recently added this statement to the background

"followed Russian economic pressures on Ukraine and aggressive propaganda campaign against the EU-Ukraine deal. which lead to President Viktor Yanukovych choosing not to sign a political..."

I have modified this part and put it bellow the money factor of 15 Billion, the money factor is more important and should be on top Yesnoupdown1234 (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your edit is nothing but a huge bloated of undue detail [6]. This article isn't about the economical details so 15bn or 15cents doesn't matter. What does mater that Russia instigated the economical crisis in the first place, so they can swoop in with generous deal with an offer they can't refuse i.e. which what the EuroMaidan protests were all about corruption and Ukraine deeply intertwined and painful relationship with Russia. Who see it as subordinate they can play with. Also pretty much what happens now in Crmimea, Russia trying to incite sectarian divide so they can force pliable government in Ukraine or else.. --PLNR (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok that is all very nice, however that is not what you have written in the article, what you have written is that BECUASE of the propaganda because of THAT is why Viktor Yanukovych took the deal. And my point is that the deal was better financially and that is why he took it, and that is why the money should be written before the propaganda. You see the difference? Yesnoupdown1234 (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Kiev vs Kyiv

Currently 68 vs 53, respectively. Is there a MOS rule to be applied here? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There seem to have been endless debates at Talk:Kiev as to the 'correct' name of the city, given that the article is entitled Kiev and there seems to be no current dispute, we should use Kiev throughout the article here, too. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess the names of publications e.g. Kyiv Post, should not be immune to this general rule? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Warszawa is Warsaw in Wikipedia, but that does not mean we should be 'translating' titles like Biznes Warszawski. I understand why Ukrainians want to have the city called Kyiv, however we have policy that we reflect passively the English language usage, not support one or the other version, even if there is an 'official' version supported by the locals. The policy may not be perfect, but then it should be changed, not contravened. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

So, it should be Kiev Post, etc., yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

If you had read my last comment you would have seen the answer to Kyiv Post and Warsawian Business.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I did read it, thanks. It seemed to be ambiguous. "Kyiv Post" sounds like an English/Ukrainian hybrid, whereas Biznes Warszawski does not. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Kyiv Post is a brand. You don't translate brands. USchick (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Rada declares impeachment on Yanukovich

Verkhovna Rada has voted with 328 deputies in favor to impeach Yanukovich [7]. However, it should be noted that as per this article published in Dec. 2013, impeachment is a longer procedure and the current impeachment vote would according to this explanation be null and void.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

original research, these are extraordinary measures. whether his appointed judges recognize it probably wont matter, all of these laws will be re-written.--Львівське (говорити) 17:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought Ukraine is a democratic republic with rule of law. But since February 18, the 'revolutionary justice' has apparently taken precedence over such minor things like rule of law... An article on 'revolutionary justice' of 1917-1918 to freshen the memory [8]. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Lokal, is this just more original research and your own personal interpretation of law? It's like you're forgetting the absolute abscence of law prior to today in parliament with fake votes and hand counts; today has been incredibly legal and democratic for once. --Львівське (говорити) 19:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a very peculiar understanding of democracy. Forcing a governor to resign by first beating him, then humiliating publicly in front of the mob and if he still refuses, then to threaten his whole family with reprisals [9] or to bring an example from today, when MPs are beaten right in front of the parliament [10] then this is ″incredibly legal and democratic″. According to this 'splendid' logic passing the Ermächtigungsgesetz was also 'incredibly legal and democratic'.
As I said, an article details the legal order of impeaching the President of Ukraine and this was blatantly contravened today. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, the governor is a presidential appointee, not an elected representative. And why are you even bringing what happened in Lutsk up here? You're really reaching. It's amazing that there are a minority of people who will tow the "democratic dictator" line to the very end...--Львівське (говорити) 20:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

May it will be great if you show some neutral not pro-opposition sources with word "dictator" Strange minority "According to a January poll, 45% of Ukrainians supported the protests, and 48% of Ukrainians disapproved of Euromaidan" from article Cathry (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes because we all know that polls are incredibly accurate and the margin of 3% is one that can be trusted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.80.212 (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is not an impeachment, and it seems to me they did not use this word in paperCathry (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

all sources in english call it an impeachment.--Львівське (говорити) 19:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• BBC, Kyiv Post, RTE, Forbes, Toronto Star, even RT --Львівське (говорити) 19:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Stick with what the reliable sources say. If one or two equally reliable sources say "but it doesn't meet the legal definition of impeachment" then you gotta cite that also. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

But they used word "самоуcунення" still it was based on disinformation about disappearance and resign Cathry (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that the sole reason the US and Europe are so soft on sanctions is the fact that Yanukovich was not legally impeached as defined in article 111 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which requires a lengthy procedure involving opinions from Constitutional Court of Ukraine and Supreme Court of Ukraine. Rada went so far as to remove 5 judges of the constitutional court next day after their own vote and suggest removal of the rest to the president [11]. The judges of the Constitutional Court even issued a joint statement regarding the pressure, threats of violence, threats of criminal prosecution they are subjected to[12]. Unfortunately, none of this is reflected in the western msm, so it won't really be possible to include that POV in the current article, which is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.168.137 (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You're very correct, it's a pity that this took place and it is a shame that Western media does not report it, as any independent nonpartisan media should do. I pointed it out many times on 22 Febr. already on various websites [13], but usually got only angry reactions as if I was supporting this kleptocrat. Obviously, by now Yanukovich is also illegal, as he has asked foreign country for military intervention, which may qualify as high treason, but this in no way invalidates that the new government in Ukraine took power illegally (which is one of its many blunders).Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

march 1 cleanup

obviously this is a very contentious topic, but i found obvious nonsense on a random date (march 1) that i picked and cleaned it up. i removed unsourced nonsense and also removed the paragraph that tried to connect right-wing ukrainian yarosh to al quaeda. no serious sources link the two (unless you consider RT and white-power website stormfront to be serious) and Yarosh is on record denying it (if it was really his view, why would he deny it?), claiming his social media account was hacked.

I also added the widely reported (i added a ny times link) and widely verified fact that the pro-russia demonstrators in eastern cities included a large number of russian nationals who had come in specifically to foment pro-russia sentiment. several of them from moscow and and have been identified personally, includnig one of the 'flag raisers'.

i only read march 1. if the whole article is like this, then it is safe to assume that this page is under serious attack by russian propagandists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.245.96 (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Title

Is February 2014 Euromaidan riots the best term? Wouldn't something like February 2014 Euromaidan unrest or February 2014 Euromaidan violence fit NPOV best? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

we're beyond 'unrest' and 'violence' is ambiguous IMO --Львівське (говорити) 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

'February 2014 Euromaidan riots' is probably a reasonable compromise. Pro-government forces probably prefer the term 'coup attempt'. Investigations concerning the instigators of the rebellion are under way [14]. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I favour "February 2014 Euromaidan civil disturbance".--Launchballer 12:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think 'coup attempt' would be over the line. They didn't try to occupy the presidential admin or anything that would actually qualify as a 'coup', this was a peaceful protest that was met with a brutal regime crackdown. --Львівське (говорити) 15:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

::::″a peaceful protest that was met with a brutal regime crackdown″ - setting buildings ablaze is not exactly peaceful. It is reported that the governor of Volyn oblast was captured by 'protestors', beaten, forced to knees at the local 'Maidan' and then forced to resign [15]. And now they tell us, these are 'peaceful protests'.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"February 2014 Euromaidan civil disturbance" or "February 2014 Euromaidan clashes" both sound fine to me.--Darius (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

clashes is okay to me IMO (accurately describes that two sides are 'clashing')--Львівське (говорити) 16:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I still prefer the current title and oppose the changes suggested. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm also fine with the current, should we make a straw poll to see what's consensus? --Львівське (говорити) 16:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Unless there's a good reason to change, one should give time for interested users to bring forth different arguments and only then decide. WP:Requested moves should be the procedure. It would take a couple of days at least. Would it make sense?Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

makes sense to me. The current name follows the format of the other articles, like Hrushevskoho Street riots, so would need consensus to break the format --Львівське (говорити) 16:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, title of this article definitely has to be changed. Revolution imply "major changes in culture, economy, and socio-political institutions", like Monarchy to Democracy, Capitalism to Socialism. In case of Ukraine one group of politicians replaced another by means of an aggressive group of protesters. Number of protesters ranged from 20 to 100+ thousands which is 0.01 to 0.22 percent of total population of Ukraine. Hence term coup seem to be more appropriate: Guardian coup d'état: the "musical chairs" coup d'état. The stated aim of such a coup is usually improving public order and efficiency, and ending corruption. There usually is no fundamental change to the power structure. Generally, the leaders portray their actions as a temporary and unfortunate necessity. AlphaOmega2211 (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

objectivity

This article is very one-sided. It almost always gives the point of view of the protesters from the Euromaidan: on the violence in the streets, on the shootings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tintinru (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It gives the viewpoint of reliable sources, as WP is obliged to do, and is fairly NPOV. Would you prefer we only cite RT and Press TV? FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 14:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Who ordered to shoot at people on Maidan?

This leaked call between Estonian FM and EU foreign policy chief is interesting. It suggests that the same snipers shot both civilians and policemen. It is suspected they were not under Yanukovych command and might have been recruited by the "new coalition". Shall we include that somewhere? --Emesik (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it seems very relevant. Particularly this quote: "There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition," Urmas Paet said LokiiT (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is very misleading. Just because there were snipers, that doesn't make them from the opposition, who didn't even have access to helmets. Who has snipers? Putin perhaps? USchick (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not our job to interpret events. LokiiT (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not the Estonian man's job to speculate. USchick (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

He isn't speculating he is going by information he was given. Any comment from an authority figure should be considered note worthy. It should be mentioned on this article... --Kuzwa (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

What we should do is provide the direct quotes from participants (without adding our own spins, POVs or propaganda) and citations, and let the readers (most of whom are wiser and more logical than most of us) draw their own conclusions and implications. This is an encyclopedia. For example, it's up to the readers, not to us, to decide for themselves whether it is or isn't the Estonian Foreign Minister's job to relay his understanding of the events to the EU representative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Rutenburg (talk • contribs) 03:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Vlad Rutenburg: Yet for some reason you constantly excise said relevant bit from Bogomolets' statement:

She said the new government in Kiev had assured her a criminal investigation had begun but that she had not direct contact with it so far.

"They told me they have begun a criminal process and if they say that I believe them. The police have not given me any information on it."

This is a direct quotation from the Telegraph article, the entry for 15.17. Please abstain from accusing others of deliberately inserting propaganda, as you did in your edit summary. I will follow WP:AGF and assume you simply overlooked that part of the sentence and thus invite you to check the Telegraph article again. Should you remove the edit again, I will assume that you deliberately distort the quotation from a RS. 04:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FungusFromYuggoth (talk • contribs)

Hennady Moskal, a former deputy head of Ukraine's main security agency under Viktor Yanukovych, the SBU, admitted in an interview published in the Ukrainian newspaper Dzerkalo Tizhnya that snipers from the Interior Ministry and SBU were responsible for the shootings, stating[16]:

"In addition to this, snipers received orders to shoot not only protesters, but also police forces. This was all done in order to escalate the conflict, in order to justify the police operation to clear Maidan."

--Nug (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I think Moskal's idea that ″This was all done in order to escalate the conflict, in order to justify the police operation to clear Maidan″ is a clear conspiracy theory. It seems he refers to 20 Febr. events, not 18 Feb when the fighting broke out.
Yanukovich, however, had every right to declare state of emergency on 18 Febr. already when first policemen were killed with gunshot wounds. He already had justification (or pretext, if you like) to clear Maidan on 18 February. No additional justification was necessary. The fact that he even didn't declare state of emergency is another sign that he was actually fearing Western reactions and by any means wasn't intentionally 'escalating' anything. Moskal's theory makes no sense. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

We will leave that up for the international community and, preferably, an independent investigation to decide - certainly not to a random Wikipedian like you (or me, or anyone here). Moskal is a career policeman and lawyer - and a former top offical in both the internal security agency as well as the ministry of Internal Affairs. ZN is an influential, respected newspaper in the Ukraine, noted for a generally analytical style. Both pass per WP:RS and thus, this version -as a version among many others- should be included. Personally, I believe this to be far less of a "conspiracy theory" than the claim the former opposition, or even "NATO" or "the EU" directly, hired the snipers, which rests on zero proof whatsoever - in the famous phone call, Paet does not present ANY evidence, and he has since stated that he was recounting versions he heard in Kiev. But my personal beliefs do not matter in this, and neither do yours. We report what RS say on the subject. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Things can pass RS, but still get rejected because being a reliable newspaper does not make one completely errorproof. Otherwise we wouldn't have disputes like this [17]. Media is very agitated in Ukraine as well as Russia right now. The claim that a government that according to all evidence has chosen the 'do not react to provocation!' line, offers all kinds of compromises, does not use legal means that it has to defend itself, is actually hiring secret snipers to create bloodbath with the apparent aim of totally discrediting itself - now per Occam's Razor this is BS. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The claim that the EU (represented, apparently, as a monolithic bloc, which, as is known to nearly everyone who is actually a citizen of one of its member countries, is everything but) and US hired mercenaries in order to enact a "fascist coup" and destabilize the country in order to specifically target Russia - that is not contrived? That passes Occam's Razor perfectly? Again, there is no *proof* for any version. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The whole thing is a bunch of rumor mongering along several dimensions. An encyclopedia is not a tabloid. We also don't have to report every single rumor or hearsay out there, even if it does show up in some newspaper or other. Frankly, I think the whole section should be simply removed per WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree - the entire sniper debate, as nebulous and vague as it is, has by now gained traction, by the fact alone that it has been used as a massive propaganda tool by RT, which in its headlines drew conclusions without any tangible proof (Kiev snipers hired by Maidan leaders). Several Western newspapers such as Haaretz, Guardian and The Independent have picked the topic up. There are now several versions, two of which ("new coalition" involvement / Russian involvement) have been used by Putin and the new Ukrainian government, respectively, as well as a third theory from a source who can be assumed with a certain justification to be an expert. It does not clear any of it up, but the thing has made noticeable waves and as such, in my view, does not fall under WP:UNDUE anymore. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Dr. Bogomolets insisted that she did not indicate that protesters used snipers. She simply relayed to the Estonian minister what she saw that day – protesters shot in the head and heart. “What I saw were people who were killed by snipers and only on [protesters’] side.” [18]" - I agree with volunteer marek, the section is way UNDUE, - more and more Wikipedia shows the truth of George Orwells essay 'NOtes on nationalism' and editors are editing not according to improving articles , but according to their 'side' - Sayerslle (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I know about Dr Bogomolets' clarifying remark, I was actually the one who added it to the sniper section of the article - not the blockquote, but a sentence describing her explanation of the situation (another user then gave the direct quote). If you read my posts on the discussion page, you'll see that I myself have a pretty clear opinion on who was behind the snipers (I subscribe to Moskal's interpretation). However, the point I made still remains - the sniper, call it controversy, HAS made several waves and there are multiple RS giving all major versions of the story so far. Precisely because I wish to improve the article, I feel that we cannot simply leave it out completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FungusFromYuggoth (talk • contribs) 23:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

[19] - I don't know what moskals interpretation is, is it moskows interpretataion? - its all undue rubbish, a pointless section pushed by putin apologists, imo - its all a load of putin propaganda really isnt it. its like 'the rebels gassed themselves in ghouta in damascus' - lavrov/putin/kgb - gulling the witless Sayerslle (talk) 13:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what moskals interpretation is, is it moskows interpretataion? Then read the article and the linked interview, for God's sake, before you make accusations. Moskal is arguing that Yanukovych was behind the snipers, if they even exist. And at least read the postings of those you are about to slander as "Putin apologists" - I am pro-Ukrainian through and through. BUT that plays no role, since we are, by definition, obliged to present viewpoints sourced by RS, and, as I have stated twice already, the sniper issue has been covered in Western media, not merely by Kremlin mouthpiece RT (the usage of which as a source I oppose, by the way). FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean 'if they even exist'? [20] Sayerslle (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)