Talk:Revolution of Dignity/Archive 8
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Questionable competence
The article does not cite William Blum and Noam Chomsky, the foremost historians on the subject of the Washington Connection and coupe de etat against democratically elected leaders. This Wiki post focuses on commercial news media, which as indicated by Michael Parenti in "Inventing Reality," are not sources for informed knowledge but are disseminators of corporate interests and toothpaste. The article must critically examine a coupe de etat against a democratically elected leader and the United Nations Charter on such subject matter. The absence of any citation to Blum and Chomsky call into question the critical competence of this Wiki post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Losduarte (talk • contribs)
- We all agree that this article can be improved, although I must express my skepticism towards your assessment as to which degree the quality of this article hinges on presence or absence of citations by these two historians you mention. Do you have any specific citations in mind that you think would be relevant? Heptor (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Wiki purportedly has editorial teams composed of competent researchers. The absence of scholarly research reduces any publication to the level of pop hearsay, as indicated previously, no better than the commercial news dedicated to corporate interest and rehearsed material to sell cosmetics. The absence of the two foremost historians on the subject of coupe de etat, promoted by the United States, does not invalidate the Wiki op. ed. piece (it calls its competence into question). However, the complete absence of any sociological and historical sources entirely invalidates a Wiki piece citing to mere corporate news media (the news is not verifiable and does not purport to be informed knowledge). That no one, assigned to the Wiki Ukrainian coupe team, has ever heard of Noam Chomsky underlines the lack of interest in critical research at Wiki Ukraine. It is pointless to provide critical research to a crew, which writes in the first person "I" and has never heard of Noam Chomsky or William Blum. There is no alternative to the heavy lifting of research.
- Very well. The commentary above duly points out the insufficiencies in the selection of sources for this article. This article is overly reliant on the popular news media and makes little use of the academic research on the topic. This assessment is supported by the editorial policy of Wikipedia on selection of sources. According to this policy, news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact; when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Selection of sources is a complicated and contentious matter requiring both time and competence to properly address, and allowing anyone claiming to have academic credentials to determine facts would be no better solution to this dilemma than the one presently deployed. Wikipedia does not have an editorial team assigned to this article, competent or otherwise: Wikipedia is edited entirely by volunteers. These volunteers are not required to present any academic credentials, and may edit the articles anonymously without disclosing their identities at all. That being said, knowledge of the topics at hand and an ability to express this knowledge in a comprehensible manner are often looked upon with favor. If the author of the above commentary finds him- or herself willing and able to review the article in some depth and suggest specific editorial changes in the article, such contributions would be very welcome. Heptor (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- What's funny is that it's quite obvious no Ukrainian sources were cited. There was no revolution, it was a coup - just ask ANY Ukrainian. Funny to see this entire site reduced to corporate propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.93.158 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Very well. The commentary above duly points out the insufficiencies in the selection of sources for this article. This article is overly reliant on the popular news media and makes little use of the academic research on the topic. This assessment is supported by the editorial policy of Wikipedia on selection of sources. According to this policy, news reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact; when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Selection of sources is a complicated and contentious matter requiring both time and competence to properly address, and allowing anyone claiming to have academic credentials to determine facts would be no better solution to this dilemma than the one presently deployed. Wikipedia does not have an editorial team assigned to this article, competent or otherwise: Wikipedia is edited entirely by volunteers. These volunteers are not required to present any academic credentials, and may edit the articles anonymously without disclosing their identities at all. That being said, knowledge of the topics at hand and an ability to express this knowledge in a comprehensible manner are often looked upon with favor. If the author of the above commentary finds him- or herself willing and able to review the article in some depth and suggest specific editorial changes in the article, such contributions would be very welcome. Heptor (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wiki purportedly has editorial teams composed of competent researchers. The absence of scholarly research reduces any publication to the level of pop hearsay, as indicated previously, no better than the commercial news dedicated to corporate interest and rehearsed material to sell cosmetics. The absence of the two foremost historians on the subject of coupe de etat, promoted by the United States, does not invalidate the Wiki op. ed. piece (it calls its competence into question). However, the complete absence of any sociological and historical sources entirely invalidates a Wiki piece citing to mere corporate news media (the news is not verifiable and does not purport to be informed knowledge). That no one, assigned to the Wiki Ukrainian coupe team, has ever heard of Noam Chomsky underlines the lack of interest in critical research at Wiki Ukraine. It is pointless to provide critical research to a crew, which writes in the first person "I" and has never heard of Noam Chomsky or William Blum. There is no alternative to the heavy lifting of research.
Link to Paul Manafort?
I'm not a wikipedia talker, so I hope I'm doing this right.. Wanted to point out that publicly released text records between Paul Manafort's daughters state that this "revolution" was orchestrated by Paul Manafort and that he was paid for it. Here's the part in question, which can be found in any of the copies of the texts available online:
Sent: I have LOADS of evidence that a COURT OF LAW would accept.
Received: He prob feels he has s right
Received: And yet somehow my own mother, Disney.
Sent: Doesn't
Received: Yes well just bc he feels something doesn't make it so
Sent: He also felt he had a right to sexually assault mom
Sent: He has no moral or legal compass
Received 2015-03-31: You know he has killed people in Ukraine? Knowingly
Sent: What?!
Sent: No
Sent: Yup
Sent: Remember when there were all those deaths taking place? A while back. About a year ago
Sent: Revolts and what not
Sent: Do you know whose strategy that was to cause that
Received: To send those people out and get them slaughtered.
Received: As a tactic to outrage the world and get focus on Ukraine.
Sent: Don't fool yourself. That money we have is blood money
Sent: I don't advise raising it with him. He lies like a rug and gets realllll pissed off. But it's true. He thinks I don't remember
Thought I'd mention it, though I'm not 100% sure on the details (figured I'd leave that to professional fact-finders rather than try myself).
Thanks for all the work you folks do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.22.8 (talk) 23:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion! This is interesting to read, but unfortunately this material is not usable on Wikipedia... Both because it is a Primary source, and because the discussion between Paul Manford’s daughters is hearsay since they were not themselves involved in the events. This could be included if the messages were reported on and put in a context by reliable secondary sources. Heptor (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Appreciation to the Authors
I just wanted to thank you for the accurate page, despite the overwhelming propaganda. During the revolution I lived in Podil, at the bottom of the hill below the center, on Sagaydachnogo below where the stacks of tires were used to blocked the road, and near the Funicular. All I saw were good people, from every walk of life, desperate for a better life, seeking to end a corrupt government. Slava Ukrayini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:4100:1304:45D:DE32:F6BE:6643 (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Why not wait to vote in a new government rather than support a violent coup? Prunesqualor billets_doux 09:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Revolution?
The title is misleading. The events in Ukraine just don't measure up as a 'revolution'. Pre- and post- the coup-d'etat didn't change much. It retained the same federal structure. It continued to hold elections generally considered to pass the requirements of being free and fair. It is still a president/PM representative democracy. It's still a market. economy. So I am seeking a consensus on what the title should be changed to. I think the most accurate would be "Ukraine 2014 Coup-d'Etat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.175.29 (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
- That is an exceedingly narrow definition or 'revolution' and one not shared by WP:RELIABLE sources on the topic. blindlynx (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with 174.89.175.29. The title should be changed.Seekallknowledge (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Responses sections
I would suggest to remove this section. It is outdated and frankly reads ridiculous. One could say "WP is not news", but those are very old and outdated "news". My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Domestic/international reactions moved here from main page.My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Domestic responsesVerkhovna RadaOn 20 February, Parliament resumed its work around 16:00 and worked until about 23:00. Members adopted a draft law that expressed "condemnation of the violence that led to the deaths of peaceful citizens of Ukraine".[1] On the morning of 21 February, Parliament announced that Speaker Rybak had signed a resolution titled "About condemning violence in Ukraine, which led to loss of life". The resolution ordered the Cabinet of Ukraine and all siloviks to stop the use of force and prohibited the use of any weapons and special measures against citizens of Ukraine.[2] Political response
Regions
International reactionsInternational organisations
Nations
|
Title change
I'm very hesitant to get into this mess again, but isn't it obviously partisan to append the qualifier "of dignity" to this Ukrainian revolution? Removing "Ukrainian" from the title also makes the title less recognizable. Re the title change on Nov 5th. Seems like an activist move to me. Heptor (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- We follow reliable sources. The COMMONNAME has clearly become 'Revolution of Dignity' in reliable sources, and there is nothing wrong with using a common name that is 'partisan' (see WP:POVTITLE), even though I don't agree that this title is such. 'Revolution of Dignity' returns 258,000 Google search hits, the old title merely 17,000. Notable published examples include: Ukraine's Maidan, Russia's War: A Chronicle and Analysis of the Revolution of Dignity, this report from the Brookings Institution, and this report from OpenDemocracy. There is nothing less identifiable about this title...in fact, it is much more identifiable, and much more in line with how reliable sources treat this subject! RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- According to the policy, we prefer titles that are recognizable, natural and precise. The title "2014 Ukrainian revolution" is all of these. There is also "Euromaidan Revolution", which is neutral and precise, but perhaps somewhat less recognizable to the general audience. Looking up the hits on "Revolution of Dignity", the top of the list is an article titled "Ukraine's revolution of dignity: The dynamics of Euromaidan". It says that "This paper analyzes the civil revolution in Ukraine, which is also known as the Euromaidan Revolution. It is regarded as the Revolution of Dignity by Ukrainian citizens. I also get matches on the Ukrainian Institute and the Maidan Museum. Looking up "euromaidan+revolution" Eurmaidan Revolution I get results on The Jackson School of International Studies (Ukraine’s Euromaidan Revolution), "Considering the Orange legacy: patterns of political participation in the Euromaidan Revolution". To me it looks like the use of the word "dignity" is often an attempt to describe it rather than to name it. So "Euromaidan Revolution" looks like a better title than the one proposed, however I don't see any good reasons to change the title that the article had since the beginning. Heptor (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- The present title is recognisable, natural and, precise. That determination is based on what reliable sources uses, and given that they have no trouble using 'Revolution of Dignity', neither does Wikipedia. I agree that Euromaidan Revolution is an acceptable title, and commonly used. However, a search suggests that Revolution of Dignity is much more common in reliable sources. I think your claim that this title is a 'description' is off the mark. Examples like this article, which is actually not about the revolution itself, show that Revolution of Dignity is used as a proper name, without additional qualifiers, to refer to these events in reliable sources. Even the Financial Times, a source much more likely to be read by non-academics, does not hesitate to include 'Revolution of Dignity' without additional qualifiers (in this case in an article written by President Zelensky). I find it hard to believe that we should deviate from what most sources use in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 16:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- According to the policy, we prefer titles that are recognizable, natural and precise. The title "2014 Ukrainian revolution" is all of these. There is also "Euromaidan Revolution", which is neutral and precise, but perhaps somewhat less recognizable to the general audience. Looking up the hits on "Revolution of Dignity", the top of the list is an article titled "Ukraine's revolution of dignity: The dynamics of Euromaidan". It says that "This paper analyzes the civil revolution in Ukraine, which is also known as the Euromaidan Revolution. It is regarded as the Revolution of Dignity by Ukrainian citizens. I also get matches on the Ukrainian Institute and the Maidan Museum. Looking up "euromaidan+revolution" Eurmaidan Revolution I get results on The Jackson School of International Studies (Ukraine’s Euromaidan Revolution), "Considering the Orange legacy: patterns of political participation in the Euromaidan Revolution". To me it looks like the use of the word "dignity" is often an attempt to describe it rather than to name it. So "Euromaidan Revolution" looks like a better title than the one proposed, however I don't see any good reasons to change the title that the article had since the beginning. Heptor (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- We follow reliable sources. The COMMONNAME has clearly become 'Revolution of Dignity' in reliable sources, and there is nothing wrong with using a common name that is 'partisan' (see WP:POVTITLE), even though I don't agree that this title is such. 'Revolution of Dignity' returns 258,000 Google search hits, the old title merely 17,000. Notable published examples include: Ukraine's Maidan, Russia's War: A Chronicle and Analysis of the Revolution of Dignity, this report from the Brookings Institution, and this report from OpenDemocracy. There is nothing less identifiable about this title...in fact, it is much more identifiable, and much more in line with how reliable sources treat this subject! RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
But here arrives another question: doesn't the new term encompass entire Euromaidan (November 2013 - February 2014)? Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Requested move 25 June 2021
- The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Closed as malformed. RGloucester — ☎ 13:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
2014 Ukrainian revolution → Revolution of Dignity – Revert undiscussed move from the stable title unfortunately carried out using the page mover tool, making a standard BRD revert impossible. RGloucester — ☎ 04:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Polyamorph (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comments moved from RM/Technical requests:
- This move should not be performed without discussion. The move to "Revolution of Dignity" was previously performed as an undiscussed move by RGloucester, and was challenged on the article talk page shortly after it was made. Their favored title is not the stable one. See discussion on my user talk page. (t · c) buidhe 05:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done per Buidhe's comment above. This needs proper discussion. Kindly start a discussion to achieve a stable name. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- This is incorrect. The undiscussed move from the stable title was made by Buidhe, and any RM should take place from the stable title to the proposed title, not the other way around. I am closing this RM and will request a new technical request. User Buidhe is unfortunately intent on causing trouble, and I am sure adequate punishment will eventually be imposed. RGloucester — ☎ 13:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Change the section "Russian involvement" to "Foreign involvement"?
Hello. We have a section dedicated to Russian involvement in the revolution, but I don't see anything about the speech given by John McCain to the Euromaidan protestors [1], or anything about the leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to Ukraine [2]. So I wonder if that section should be made more general, and other external influences included in it. 67.70.119.213 (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
References
Article name
For some reason, until I moved the page today (30 October 2021), this article was named "2013–14 Ukrainian revolution" but the Euromaidan protest were only protest from November 2013 until February 2014 and something completly different then the events described in this Wikipedia article. The Euromaidan protest did take place in 2013 and 2014 but this article discribes only the series of events in Kyiv in February 2014 culminating in the ousting of then-president Viktor Yanukovych (the rest of the Euromaidan events is described in it's own English language Wikipedia article). So this particular article can not have in it's name "2013". I have moved the article to "February 2014 Maidan revolution since this seems to be the events WP:COMMONNAME per Ukraine`s timeline of BBC news — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 11:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- What's with the constant name changes again, especially without discussion? I can see your argument for removing the 2013 part, but why change the rest of the name? It should be 2014 Ukrainian revolution like it was before; February is unnecessary since there wasn't any other revolution in Ukraine in 2014 (or a "Maidan" revolution anywhere in the world for that matter), and removing the country's name just makes it less descriptive. Plenty of sources call it by different names, BBC isn't the only one out there. It's been called Euromaidan, Maidan, Revolution of Dignity, just the 2014 revolution, and many others. Why choose one when it's not clearly the dominant one used in all major English-speaking media, and there is a more neutral and descriptive one available? Mordrim (talk) 08:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
As long as Euromaidan and the February 2014 events in Kyiv (culminating in the ousting of then-president Viktor Yanukovych) are not being made to look the same thing I am OK with "2014 Ukrainian revolution". Actually I tried to move the page to 2014 Ukrainian revolution (last 30 October) but could not because it required a page move request I considered a waste of my time.... I did spend a lot of time on October 30 to improve the article... though 😁😏😉 Anyway there is now on ongoing page move below Mordrim. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a ((reflist|group=nb))
template (see the help page).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.