Talk:Revolution of Dignity

What about 2014 Ukrainian uprising?

So here's a title that I'm proposing for a possible rename, given that some of the above users who did support the move to Revolution, were still not completely sure about the title.

The reason being that the Ukrainian parliament has remained more or less intact even with some current and former Party of Regions MP's staying, which means that their mandate has been preserved, if they've been present in the current proceedings; and despite the previous government fleeing and the parliament voting to remove the president, and therefore a better word for it might be uprising. Comments are welcome. -Mardus (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me to be strange that the LEGAL change of government in Ukraine is called a REVOLUTION, yet the illegal Russian invasion of Crimea is called an INTERVENTION in Wikipedia. I know that historically Wikipedia was dominated by Americans, but it seems that Russian FSB has a great deal of influence now. Or perhaps I am just perplexed as to this double standard.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

It's (revolution) is illegal ("impeachment" procedure of 22 Feb. went with many flaws) in fact, read both (2010 and 2004) revisions of the Ukr. constitution - they requiere supermajority and involvement of the Constitutional and Supreme courts in the proccedings, among other things. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Whatever individual editors want to argue is one thing. Wikipedia policy is clear: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Paavo273 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Poll

Might you support the move from "2014 Ukrainian revolution" to 2014 Ukrainian uprising?

Leave your support, opposition and comments below in the section.

• Oppose - It's not WP:COMMON use and in terms of proper semantics, "uprising" applies if it's currently happening or in past tense if it failed. In this case, a revolution with complete regime change has occurred and the situation stabilized, so uprising isn't the most accurate term any longer. (it would have applied prior to the 22nd, IMO) --Львівське (говорити) 00:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment To say that the situation is stabilitized is understandable to me as a reader, but not entirely accurate, particularly with multiple media outlets commenting on the possibility of Russian military intervention in Crimea. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Personally, that's just 'media being media' and trying to hype things up. The parliament of Crimea today announced it recognizes the new government and they were the first to bail on Dobkin's separatist movement in Kharkiv - and there was a 5,000 strong rally in support of the maidan-government today. That said, even if in this hypothetical Russia invaded Crimea, it wouldn't make this any less of a revolution unless they invaded Kiev, like, this week. And if that happened, that'd be a new article on the war.--Львівське (говорити) 02:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment Since I am new to Wikipedia I will not vote, but I do agree with you, Uprising is a rather semantic term. Avion365 (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose We should use something more neutral; "2014 Ukrainian Civil Unrest" or "2014 Ukrainian Political Crisis" would be much better. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support. The change of leadership was legal. Rioting prior to it does not make the removal of the former president from office - after he fled Kiev - a revolution. Rioting alone does not make a revolution either. For instance the protests in Paris in 1968 are called the "May 1968 events in France" in Wikipedia, yet these were at least as profound.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, you seem to be making it up as you go along. What is happening in Ukraine is by no means a revolution. There were protests and there was a regime change, but nothing else has changed. The social structure hasn't changed, the economic structure hasn't changed, the culture hasn't changed, there's no change in class structure... the list goes on. People even debate whether the Meiji Restoration in Japan in 1868 counts, and that event did have virtually all the hallmarks of a revolution. In this case, a democratically elected parliament voted to remove a sitting president, and now there is an interim government. The title of this article is wildly incorrect, and I say this as someone who has studied revolution theory at degree level. One of the leading academics on revolution theory is Theda Skocpol; whilst I strongly disagree with her in relation to the Meiji Restoration, you should find a fairly comprehensive analysis of what constitutes a revolution in her work. Perhaps start with this one: States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China, Cambridge University Press (New York), 1979. 86.161.244.214 (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: The current title is misleading and incorrect as per comments by 86.161.244.214, and that much I agree with. However I do agree that names suggested by Solntsa90 are more correctly representing the current ongoing situation in Ukraine. Urokugaeshi (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• compromise: The 2014 Ukrainian revolution, or 2014 Ukrainian uprising .... Igottheconch (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Maidan Coup: "The sudden and illegal seizure of a government, usually instigated by a small group of the existing state establishment to depose the established government and replace it with a new ruling body, civil or military." This was not a revolution by an outside group but a coup by an existing government faction which had failed to win elections.173.79.251.253 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There was no coup or revolution. The protests persuaded a dictator to flee. But his removal from office was carried out legally by parliament. Even his own party voted for his impeachment. That is not a coup. If Bill Clinton had been removed by impeachment - which nearly occurred - would that also be a coup?Royalcourtier (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Popular or not, he was legitimately elected. He was removed through an extralegal process that did not comply with the Constitution of Ukraine which requires a 3/4 majority and verification from the court. 338 votes were required for impeachment but only 328 vote to impeach; and even those votes occurred under duress and without free and open debate. Further, the requirement that the Supreme Court verify that an actual crime occur was ignored because... well, what crime occurred? It is not a crime to refuse to sign the European Annexation agreement (or European Association, same thing). It is definitely not a crime to leave Kiev in order to avoid bloodshed.173.79.251.253 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

He was also legitimately removed from office by parliament after he fled the capital. He had lost the support of the people, parliament and even his own party - who voted for his removal. That isn't a coup or a revolution, it is the impeachment of a very unpopular president.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. If "revolution" is chosen then the current government of Ukraine was installed by a political coup and is illegal. However, this may well be appropriate since the actions that followed the 21 February accords were nullified by the actions of the mob and subsequent actions within the Verkhovnaya Rada were taken with almost 40% of the elected voting members absent. Those subsequent actions summarily changed/substituted the Ukrainian Constitution and then continued to function under new rules - still without the participation of almost one-third of its membership. This resulted in a slate of "acting" government leaders and a set of "revolving door" military leadership appointments. All of which has put both the Ukrainian leadership and state into great disarray, threatening the internal integrity of the country.Moryak (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. Absolutely correct. The correct name for what happened is either a coup or a putsch. It would be ridiculous to call it an "uprising", since very few people were involved: just the deluded people in Maidan and the fascist Right Sector, which shot both police and protesters and seized government buildings. What is now happening in southeastern Ukraine is more properly called an uprising—by the people against an illegitimate, oppressive fascist regime. This article should be deleted and started from scratch with the new title "2014 Ukrainian putsch" or "2014 Ukrainian coup"; doing anything else will seriously damage the credibility of Wikipedia. Fortunately, while Ukrainian nationalist fanatics have control of this Wikipedia article, they do not have control of the Ukraine itself. – Herzen (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Very few people were involved? Wow. When is a million people in the streets considered "few"? That you're incredulously calling for the article's deletion and are following typical anti-Ukrainian rhetoric, is this another sock account?--Львівське (говорити) 19:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to be "anti-Ukrainian", since there is no such thing as a Ukrainian nation: the idea that such a nation exists was an invention of the German empire. – Herzen (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's very clear you're trolling now. Please keep your inflammatory hate-speech sites off of talk pages like this.--Львівське (говорити) 22:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Lvivske. Revolution is used by mainstream news sources *by far, and it adequately describes what occurred. § DDima 19:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent events

Where the pro-Russia demonstrations in the aftermath are covered? It should be added that some of the recent protest are neither spontaneous, nor entirely local, and include Russian tourist/activist and organized busloads arriving from Russia itself.

The unconstitutional impeachment.

I see an edit war here. The last revert by User:Calton makes me shake my head. ″Rv opinion stated as fact: you're not a lawyer, nor are you the Supreme Court, so "unconstitutional" is your opinion, not fact.″ [1]

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

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

Yep, definitely an edit war. And the edit warrior is you. "Ridiculous" is, in fact, the correct term: you stated, as fact, an opinion. It's not even a solid fact: you might have something resembling a point if an official body charged with making such judgements -- say, the Ukrainian equivalent of the U. S. Supreme Court -- had ruled as such, but even then it would be attributed to source of the ruling and not stated as a bald fact. You need to review basic editing standards, as you seem to keep misunderstanding them, as shown by your recent appearances on WP:ANI. --Calton | Talk 21:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

We don't need specialist sources for that. For example, if reliable sources define Russia's acts regarding Crimea as occupation then this must also be reflected in the article. We don't need court rulings for that either. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources, specialized or otherwise, are utterly irrelevant. Once again: stating as fact what is a legal opinion is wrong, period/full-stop. Perhaps you should focus on actual objections instead of imaginary ones. --Calton | Talk 22:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Noncontroversial facts should not be presented as mere 'opinions'. For example, the fact that the Earth is round is not presented as an 'opinion', but as a fact. It would be different matter, if there was a controversy regarding the legality of the impeachment, however, based on sources there really isn't: if you claim normal Western sources are not correct here, you should first offer alternative views before removing the sources from the article.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes but the point is exactly that this is not a "noncontroversial fact". You can't use a journalist's editorial. You can't use a report of what Putin thinks. Also, it is too in WP:RS, just search for the word "editorial".

Now, let me consider whether I want to waste my time writing up that SPI report.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The article from Der Spiegel Münchhausen-Check: Putin und der legitime Präsident der Ukraine that I brought up is definitely a reliable source. If you think the issue is in any way controversial you would need to point out sources disagreeing with the explanation in Der Spiegel. There are some other Western sources supporting similar views [2] (Marc Weller, a legal expert: ″the past president of Ukraine was not removed in the correct manner (via impeachment)″) , as well as countless Russian sources. I simply chose Spiegel as it is both authoritative and treats the question in full detail. To my knowledge, no better source for the legality question exists. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

One last time: Sources, specialized, reliable, or otherwise, are utterly irrelevant. For the last time: stating as fact what is a legal opinion is wrong, period/full-stop. Perhaps you should focus on actual objections instead of imaginary ones. --Calton | Talk 23:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop making your own rules. ″stating as fact what is a legal opinion is wrong″ - which policy supports this view? What would be your suggestion to change my edit as opposed to full erasures that you performed?Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Stop making your own rules": see psychological projection. Amusing, really.

"which policy supports this view?": see Wikipedia:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view. Note the very first bullet point.

If you're unable to understand even the most basic rules and guidelines about editing, and are completely unwilling or unable to take on the universally held advice about them that you've been given, all I can say is, "Enjoy your envitable topic ban/blocking". I'm finished arguing with you, since you all you're doing is recycling the same wrong things over and over again. Making it compliant isn't my problem, it's yours. --Calton | Talk 23:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

And what does bullet 3 say? It says:

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

. That's exactly what I've been arguing for. Fully in line with NPOV. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What part of the word "opinion" is not clear? Legal opinion, political opinion, personal opinion on the use of pesticides, opinion on a wife's or girlfriend's (or boyfriend's) dress--they're all opinions. Personally, I'm not against stating opinions, however biased they may be, as long as they are attached to the citation of nearly any published source. But the voice rule is non-negotiable WP policy:

"Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."

Paavo273 (talk) 03:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Look, this is all getting close to the idea that we would need to describe the view that Holocaust happened as an 'opinion' (one opinion out of many legitimate opinions), as indeed different views exist (see: Holocaust denial). Isn't that the logical consequence of your line here?
I'm not opposed to just saying in the article who said what if that's what you mean by Wikipedia's voice. The problem we really have is that some users simply reject what sources say based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No alternative source disputing the views expressed in my sources has been offered. No alternative wording has been offered to the one in my version. I'm ready to re-word the passages and also use the sources in more detail if that is useful. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Since you insist on continually misstating/distorting what people have told you, perhaps it's best if you stop digging that hole you're hip-deep in. And please stop attempting to use logic: you don't actually understand how it works and are just embarrassing yourself. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

If my logic is so utterly flawed, then it wouldn't be difficult to point out what's actually wrong with it. If you consider my last comment above for example. What you've been doing is to quote selectively a policy and then change the topic when pointed out that your interpretation is based on selective reading. I on the other hand did point out the logical consequences of your line. According to your interpretation, the view that earth is round should be stated as an 'opinion' on the same footing as the view that earth is flat. That's exactly what the consequence of your interpretation of policies is. It also doesn't help your cause if you start stalking my edits across other topics and reverting them just to harass me. Diff: [3]. Just underscores the fact that you're not up to constructively improving articles but looking for personal vendetta. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Any reference to lawyers and supreme court are meaningless. We are talking about Ukrainian law and Ukrainian courts. What lay people in other countries may think is irrelevant. This was neither a coup nor a revolution.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

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

He fled after the military refused to crack down on protests. After the capital was evacuated, the remaining politicians in parliament took control and continued without him. That's not a coup by any definition. -Львівське (говорити)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coup not Revolution

Revolution: "A fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time."

Coup: "The sudden and illegal seizure of a government, usually instigated by a small group of the existing state establishment to depose the established government and replace it with a new ruling body, civil or military."

Let me explain the difference clearly. A revolution occurs when forces abolish government power structures. This clearly did not occur. A coup occurs when one faction of the government seizes control of the existing power structures. This clearly did occur.

There was no revolution in Ukraine. There was only a coup. The article should be retitled accordingly. This position is non-POV and sustainable. I recommend: "Maidan Coup" or "2014 Ukrainian Coup". 173.79.251.253 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: Above I use the literal definition of 'Revolution' to mean the violent overthrow of government power structures (e.g. the American Revolution). Revolution also has a figurative definition of 'wide-ranging change' (e.g. the 'industrial revolution').

Applying a figurative term that is not literally true is necessarily POV. For example, neither the "Velvet Revolution" nor the "Orange Revolution" were literal revolutions and their names are POV and misleading. In both cases these monikers were coined by dissidents. I recognize that these are the terms that are widely used to refer to these events and, having become widely recognized, are appropriate titles in Wikipedia. That does not change the fact that they are POV. Nor does it change the fact that, in this case, there is no widely recognized name for these events that would justify such POV naming. I reiterate that the appropriate title is "Maidan Coup" or "2014 Ukrainian Coup" 173.79.251.253 (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits for the reason I gave in the edit summary, plus that unless the page is moved there is no point editing the title in the text itself. Please consider making a formal controversial move request per WP:RM/CM. BethNaught (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why do you have to call it either a coup OR a revolution? Just say that Yanukovitch was ousted, everyone can agree on that.Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Because it was a coup. I don't disagree that he was ousted but call a Spade a Spade.

I think it is extremely question that there is a 'Crimean Crisis' and a 'Ukrainian Revolution' when in fact the "Crimean Crisis" WAS a revolution that threw off the existing government while the "Ukrainian Revolution" WAS a coup where one faction of the government forced out the other. Why do we adopt such loaded language? Do we rely on the US State Department official position alone? The Russians have consistently called it a coup. The facts support it being a coup.

If the current form of government persists then it is a coup; if the current form of government ceases to exist then it is a revolution.

Clearly it was a coup. The article title, infobox, etc. should be "2014 Ukrainian Coup" in order reflect the facts... rather than the official position of the US State Department. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This was neither a coup nor a revolution. The deeply unpopular president flees the capital, and he is removed from office by parliament. That is all very legal and constitutional, and neither a coup nor a revolution. I see the hand of Russia's FSB trying to misrepresent facts here.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Popular or not, he was legitimately elected. He was removed through an extralegal process that did not comply with the Constitution of Ukraine which requires a 3/4 majority and verification from the court. 338 votes were required for impeachment but only 328 vote to impeach; and even those votes occurred under duress and without free and open debate. Further, the requirement that the Supreme Court verify that an actual crime occur was ignored because... well, what crime occurred? It is not a crime to refuse to sign the European Annexation agreement (or European Association, same thing). It is definitely not a crime to leave Kiev in order to avoid bloodshed.

The fact is that one faction of the government used force and extralegal procedures to take control of the existing power structures. This is the definition of a coup. You can call me FSB or w/e... but I am from the US and not fooled by Ukrainian or Russian propaganda. A coup is a coup is a coup, regardless of which side you think is right.173.79.251.253 (talk) 04:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

'Coup' suggests military coup, and it certainly wasn't the regular army who brought down Yanukovitch.Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You're equivocating. A coup is not necessarily need to be a military coup.

Merriam Webster: "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group." Note that it says especially not necessarily. Further, there is no mention of the military... certainly you aren't arguing that the Maidan protests were non-violent.

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

There are disputed versions of how power came to change. Coup is widely understood as military as in Encyclopaedia Btiannica definition. I'm not arguing for 'revolution' against 'coup' I'm arguing for neither and, with others, that it would be better named 'Overthrow of Yanukovitch'Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense to me. It is accurate and non-POV.173.79.251.253 (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A coup is when the government is overthrown by a group that's hostile towards the west, while a revolution is when a government is overthrown by a group favourable towards the west. Western media 101. Simple enough? But in all seriousness, this article is obviously misnamed; coup or not, it certainly wasn't a revolution. LokiiT (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

That is just plain silly. How was the Bolshevik Revolution favourable to the West? --Nug (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about modern times. LokiiT (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The Iranian Revolution would seem to disagree with you. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

LokiiT, if you think sarcasm towards the western media would help persuade other editors instead of merely showing your arrogance and your imperviousness to reason, then you are seriously mistaken.128.189.191.222 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this a serious discussion? It wasn't a coup, that's hilarious. No legitimate source calls it a coup. Are we done here? --Львівське (говорити) 06:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC) I wouldn't call it a coup but Russia Today does. Is that not RS? And the Iranian Revolutuion was around 35 years ago, since the end of the cold-war there have been many 'colour-coded' revolutions favourable to the West. So I'm for neither 'coup' nor 'revolution'

No; I do not see Russia Today as RS; it is more of a Putin propaganda machine... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a list of what is and isn't RS. RT sometimes better than BBC IMO, but very few sources consistently reliable. It's hardly a revolution, what has changed? Just elections come forward a year. Any new faces, any great change to the constitution?

180 degree shift in foreign policy alignment (EU AA signed & massive reforms coming), economic alignment, new constitution (draft in 2 weeks), early presidential elections, early parliamentary elections, all levels of the government, security, and judiciary gutted, etc. I'd say that qualifies as a revolution. --Львівське (говорити) 19:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Revolution is when one form of government replaced by another. This is just the sort of change when one party replaces another in a Democracy, unless of course you're suggesting that the change was not democratic or constitutional.

You could minimize every revolution that way - "just one party replacing another". It didn't happen through scheduled elections though, protests prompted the head of state to flee the country, like Nicolae Ceaușescu --Львівське (говорити) 14:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that Ceausescu was an unelected head of state and Yanukovitch a democratically elected (if useless) head of state.

Why does that matter? --Львівське (говорити) 20:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There is plenty of precedent that if a popular movement overthrows an unelected government that's a revolution, whereas if a small group replace a democratic government, especially by force, that's a coup, as in Greece and Chile in my lifetime. This was a popular movement with smaller armed groups within it overthrowing a democratically elected government so it's a bit of both. Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

And in this case, a tyrant was overthrown by a popular movement. Arms weren't used in the overthrow itself (he fled in the night) just in clashes in the street against a significantly much more armed security force (retaliatory gunfire should be expected when 100 people are killed). But I think this is all getting off track, reliable sources call it a revolution, pretty unanimously (not counting Russian sources who call it a coup & junta and a mess of other things) --Львівське (говорити) 20:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Has there been any decision that RT is not RS. It is surely reliable in stating the Russian government's view that this was a Putsch, which is all I am indicating in lead.Sceptic1954 (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, look for discussions at WP:RSN. It is reliable for 1) simplest facts and in some instances 2) expressing the view of the Russian government. The sentence I removed about it being a coup can be included somewhere in the lede but not in the first sentence and not as an alternative "title".Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not in the first sentence? If it's in the first sentence then I'd agree to remove the title neutrality template.Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm note sure if RT is any less reliable overall than the Daily Mail, how do we know the Daily Mail didn't get it's story from RT. However it seems unnecessary, and might appear vinidictive towards RT, to remove an RT reference while leaving the DM ref and the text unchanged.

I restored the quote from the Mayor of Tallinn, I've no reason to suspect that RT would fabricate this. However it does not belong in the 'states' section because he is not speaking on behalf of Estonia. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) In final reply to Marek I restored all his RT quotes. No of course I wouldn't necessarily accept RT if it made a categorical assertion about who killed civilians in Kiev or who launched chemical attacks in Baghdad. But where it agrees with other reliable sources about numbers of statues destroyed, or for quotes, it seems reliable enough.Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

RT is simply not a reliable source except for "simplest", uncontroversial facts. I don't know about Daily Mail. I'd be skeptical about it myself. Others may feel differently.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: [4]. Oy! Come on! The source you added to supposedly support the fact that it was a "coup" is all about how it was NOT a coup, even though Russian government tries to pretend it was! You are blatantly misrepresenting a source here, which is a blockable offense. You are basically "lying with sources".

Of course it is true that the Russian government calls it a coup. And this is already included in the lede. But you cannot add your own made up article title to the first sentence in an attempt to push POV. When and if actual reliable sources call the thing coup (not say "Russian government calls it a coup" which is a different thing), then you could do that. But for now please stop it with the POV pushing and the misrepresentation of sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well please report me and see if I get blocked. I am not arguing whether it was a coup or not simply that some people regard it as a coup. If you think RT is not a reliable source for anything the Russian government said I have used the Guardian. I'm not adding an article title, I'm qualifying the title of the article in the first sentence, trying to accomodate the views of a significant minority of editors in the discussion above. It's not pushing POV it's trying to see that all points of view are represented. Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, you're putting the word "coup" and bolding it in the first sentence as if it was an alternative title. The fact that the Russian government regards it as a coup is already in the lede. Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the Russian governments view is there, but I think it should be more prominent. I agree there are many possible positions between where it is in your revert and in my edit. I can agree it doesn't have to be bolded. Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Re 'Take it to talk' there are two separate issues here - 1 Marek's extirpation of all RT sources 2 The prominence given to the Russian government's view of this as a 'coup' The latest edits and the edit notes confuse them. I think it is imossible to reach agreement with Volunteer Marek so if the editor who wrote 'take it to talk' will join in that might help reach consensus. Until resolution I will add a neutrality template to the top of the article.Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Here I am, and I am not seeing a consensus for addition of this content, I also do not see how RT is a RS here. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree to the change of the title if a "Move request" tag were to be placed here. Trimbitrima (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough to remove the exchange from Marek's Talk Page. Let's just say that he has been deleted every reference from RT on this and at least one other article. He does not point to any binding decision that RT is not RS period and should never be cited, therefore he should justify each removal separately. If he is allowed to persist with such actions unchecked it would at least give the lie to allegations that wiki is trolled by the Kremlin. Re the change title request there is a majority for the present title but no consensus or overwhelming majority, by putting 'coup' in the opening line I considered I was offering something which would reflect the minority viewpoint. Sadly Marek comes acorss to me as someone who wishes to exclude the minority viewpoint as far as possible. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As neither Darkness Shines not Violunteer Marek have responded to the above point, and Volunteer Marek hasn't responded to my points on his talk page I have restored the deletions. I think it would be quite wrong to remove references simply on grounds they are from RT. Removal should be argued on a case-by-case basis and it should be shown why the RT is not a reliable source in each case. Please do not revert without doing this. I am perfectly happy to discuss the placement of 'coup' in the opening sentence. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Can we remove the POV-title tag? There appears to be no consensus to call this a "coup", only to note that the Russian government calls it that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

How do you conclude that. Such a conclusion is certainly POV and one begins to sense something sinister in it. The arguments put here are not provided to somehow elevate the Russian government's interpretation of the event, they are pure clean logic, using well established universaly acknowledged definitions. To say that it is a revolution is foolish. There appears to be clear consensus amongst those corageous enough to be honest to call it for what it is, a coup.Cachi43 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Russia Today as Reliable Source

Which three editors, there's you and there's Volunteer Marek I'd be glad if you could refer to the third. However you're surely supposed to respond to the points I raise, not just say it's not RS and keep silence. If you don't respond then it looks like you are not interested in the question any more. So, if reverting state exactly why it is not RS for each of the three references you are deleting.

Regarding 1 Russian government viewing the revolution as a coup as 'coup' states "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." That justifies one. 2 Where RT agrees with another RS how can it be unreliable? 3 Regarding the view of the Mayor of Tallinn is there any reason to think that RT would misrepresent him. I would suggest that deletion of the references without answering these questions is an abuse of wikipedia and even if there is a majority of editors on this page who might support it that wouldn't make it an abuse. If such abuse continues can anyone advise me if there is a facility to report it.

As said this rather demonstrates that the Kremlin agents aren't editing this article. If they were editing anywhere on wikipedia they would surely edit here. If they aren't editing wikipedia we can feel fairly confident that the readers comments and approval ratings on such diverse publications as the Guardian and Daily Mail which show rather strong support for the Russian position over Ukraine aren't being edited by the Kremlin either, which shows that to have any credibility this article must give expression to such views. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The third "No; I do not see Russia Today as RS; it is more of a Putin propaganda machine... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)" BTW, the Daily Fail is not RS either. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, that point however is answer by "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."

It seems that on voting there is 3 to 2 but none of the 3 are trying to answer the points made by at least of the 2. Talk is about trying to reach consensus. If the 3 aren't trying to reach consensus do their vote count? Certainly if there is continuing silence from the 3 I will try to flag this up. I'll leave until tomorrow until I attempt that. Daily Mail not always the best source but if Daily Mail and RT agree that might provide some reassurance. Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Might I ask why you are so intent on having "coup" in the lede sentence? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a separate issue so please don't discuss it in this section. The question of RT as RS would arise wherever I tried to use it as source for the view of the Russian government. I'd actually prefer to leave this issue for now and just cioncentrate on that of RT as RS. Thank you. Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

RT is as reliable as the Washington Post. Both are influenced by politics. --Trimbitrima (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. So that's 3 to 3.Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, what do the sources say? Russia Today Drops All Pretense Of Editorial Independence, Publishes Pro-Putin Propaganda The Kremlin funded Russia Today network, in the words of its former anchor Liz Wahl, regularly “whitewashes the actions of Putin.” And that is merely one organ of the enormous PR machine designed to gain support for Russian policies on our shores.(opinion) On the Kremlin's Overseas Propaganda News Channel, Putin Really Rules The Kremlin runs a multi-hundred million dollar propaganda machine—can it be sanctioned? Russia Today alone is a $400 million operation Russia Today, which acts as the chief mouthpiece of Putin’s propaganda Does not look good. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a problem for a Russian editor to find similar Russian sources describing the US or GB newspapers as unbalanced. --Trimbitrima (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, go find a source which says the Guardian is a propaganda machine for David Cameron. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Your quote may indicate that RT is unreliable on claims of fact but has shown that it is an extremely reliable source for the view of the Russian government, which is one of the points of issue here, relating to nos 1 and 3 of the quotes.Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it will be interesting to some readers to know that Tallinn has a mayor who says Pro-Russian things so this is definitely worth including. Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wishes to revert my addition of RT as source for Russian givernment calling this a coup will they please respond to this from WP:RS "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." What better source could there be for the Russian Government's view?

I agree, if its straight from the bear's mouth, don't see the issue.--Львівське (говорити) 07:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Sceptic1954 (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents. Russia Today is reliable. It's surely not less reliable than anything else. UNIAN and Ukrainska Pravda use every opportunity to report something that denigrates the anti-Maidan forces. Russia Today is a much more serious news provider than these ones and it surely cares about its reputation more than them. And I've seen The Guardian, Daily Mail, etc. use every opportunity to repeat pro-Maidan propaganda too. They don't fact check the news they report. Yes, Russia Today is non-neutral, but none of the sources used in the article are. "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It is against WP:NPOV to delete references to Russia Today. --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As an outsider who stumbled upon this exchange, I am astonished to read claims here (apparently made with a straight face) that RT can be compared for reliability to the quality press in open, democratic, rule-of-law societies, such as The Washington Post or The Guardian. RT makes no secret of being a Government propaganda organ, and it functions in the setting of a highly autocratic regime. The others are independent of governments -- on many occasions aggressively so -- and have a range of safeguards (internal and external) for journalistic ethics. I haven't the time to stick around here and keep arguing this point, but if one doesn't get that basic distinction, one is really out at sea in trying to understand the present-day world. Nandt1 (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the distinction needs to be made that while every news source is biased in some way (in how they frame material, how they report, how much weight they give issues, and so on) but RT in this instance is a government propaganda division. Bias is one thing, lies and outright inflammatory language is another. It would be like using HLN or a tabloid as a source, because that's what RT is, a government owned tabloid. --Львівське (говорити) 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

RT is as reliable as BBC. Is BBC a reliable source? 173.79.251.253 (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry: you just don't get it. Nandt1 (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

On this particular issue I think BBC is a bit more neutral than the Guardian which is baffling its readers with it's pro-Western government line. Daily Mail is a bit more neutral than Guardian. Every source has its biases and so each should be evaluated separately. I'd say that where two sources with opposiing biases concur the assertion is likely to be reliable, a good reason for citing RT and a Western source in certain instances. However just because RT may be biased doesn't necessarily make it unreliable, it may choose to highlight verifiable facts which Western sources ignore. Where there is claim and counterclaim both should be featured.Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I get it exactly: RT is owned and operated by Russia. In the same way, BBC is owned and operated by the UK. If being a 'government mouthpiece' disqualifies RT as a reliable source then it must also disqualify BBC as a reliable source. The logic is pretty straightforward. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The BBC is funded by a licence fee, not the government, and is editorially independent of the government. It is not a government mouthpiece; in fact it is required to be balanced and neutral in its reporting, so most of the time when discussing eg the government's latest policy, there will also be a critic. Is that the case with RT? Also, the BBC has no owners at all, whereas the ownership of RT, while not clearly linked to the government, is murky. BethNaught (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

See BBC Controversies and Criticism of the BBC 21st Century. It's not perfect.31.49.168.160 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not say it was perfect, just that it was independent of government. I am well aware that many accuse it of various biases; still, no-one accuses it (that I have heard of) of it being a propaganda machine. BethNaught (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Bah. Your words are meaningless. The fact that it is a 'license fee' as opposed to coming out of the general funds is irrelevant. In Britain they pay $300/household/year through a 'license fee' to fund BBC. Meanwhile, in Russia they pay $x/household but it comes out of the general revenues. The method of funding is irrelevant. You seem to imply that if Xinhua was operated under a 'license fee' that it would no longer be a government mouthpiece hah. You can equivocate all you want about funding structures and ownership but at the end of the day BBC, RT, and Xinhua are all state run newspapers.

BBC, RT, and Xinhua are funded through their respective governments. BBC, RT, and Xinhua claim to have editorial independence and are, generally, reliable sources. However, BBC, RT, and Xinhua will spin each story in their government's favor. For example, BBC will call this a Revolution and RT will call it a Coup. Xinhua will probably also call it a Coup... it depends on the stance of the government.

All I'm saying is you can not denigrate one government mouthpiece without denigrating them all. RT may be biased but they are still a reliable source. If they are not accepted as a reliable source then it is hypocritical to accept the BBC as a reliable source 173.79.251.253 (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually you're the one equivocating. Sources please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

BBC operates under a royal charter issued by the British Head of State. You really want a need a citation for that? In my opinion, being start-chartered or state-funded means that an entity is not independent of government control.

Let me ask the obvious question: If RT or Xinhua operated under a 'license fee' system instead of operating out of the general budget would that make them independent of government control? If not, what is your definition of 'independent of government control'? If your definition is amorphous then you are equivocating. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

RT is more reliable than most sources used in the article. UNIAN, Ukrainska Pravda are pushing pro-Maidan views as it is their very purpose to do that. And The Guardian and Daily Mail are happy to repeat every little thing that comes out of the current Ukrainian power's mouth. I am also amazed that BBC does the same. It's like BBC doesn't even attempt to check the information that is given to them by the current Ukrainian power, doesn't even attempt to present a more complete picture. From my point of view, RT is much more clever and there is much more substance to how they present things. Yes, RT is non-neutral, but it cares about its reputation. (By the way, there are also several references to Radio Free Europe, which is funded by U.S. Congress. Yet, no one is talking about removing them.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

E.g., BBC calls Ukrainska Pravda a "pro-Maidan internet nerwespaper", globalresearch.ca calls UNIAN a "putschist news agency". --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Ummm, the BBC link is not even an article just a side blurb. globalreseach.ca is a crazy conspiracy theory site. I guess I should've said "reliable sources please".Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Look at the BBC's reporting of the Syrian crisis, V Marek, show us where they have reported that Assad's armed opposition has used chemical weapons? Where did BBC report on the American involvement in the Russia / Georgia conflict? When did the BBC during the US/Iraq conflict question the existance of WMD? When during the NATO bombing of Serbia did the BBC, CNN, Radio Free Europe... report on the civilian deaths and number of schools bombed? And do everyone a favour and give us an example of falsified reporting by RT. Prove to us that johnpilger.com just makes it all up. I'm not writing this because I know the answers. I have posed these questions based on my naturally limited exposure. I myself want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.132 (talk) 21:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you and your troopers have failed to prove that RT is not reliable. And you certainly have not got concensus to delete RT citations. BUT you continue to! VM you know no limits, it is becoming obvious to most editors on this page that your edits are not constructive but are rather carried out with one objective - to remove any reference to Russian media sources, just like Russian TV has been banned in the Ukraine, you wish to ban it from the world. Enforcing your bias does not contribute to world peace - but rather to the contrary. STOP VM!ToMesmerise (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you a sockpuppet of the user who just got blocked a few hours ago, or the one that got blocked yesterday, or the one that got blocked two days ago, or the one that got blocked three days ago, ... , n-days ago, or more than one of the above?

Let me help you out a bit here: this is the part where you start complaining that I'm always accusing newly registered single purpose accounts with two edits who seem to have extensive knowledge of my edit history and a fanatical devotion to inserting nonsense cited to junk sources, of being sockpuppets rather than engaging them seriously and listening to all the wisdom they have to give and how I'm failing to assume good faith and all that. Then we wait a little bit and we add another mark to those n days.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Coup d'état

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukraine 1954

Why did nobody complain and speek about an Ukrain crisis when Russian people where ukrainized whithout being asked? No chance of a referrendum .. just new borders by goveernments above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.165.90.170 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Welcome to our encyclopedia. With all the respect, this is talk page where people should discuss changes to article, not their personal views or opionions, so this isn't the right place for your political views. Thank you. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Very good point that should not be disregarded, the history of the Russian's in Crimea has been overlooked and is rather central to the events... simmering discontent... Perhaps you could put a parragraph together and even a new WP page? WP is not a notice board for political views but facts this seems like an important background fact.180.149.192.132 (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Speculation on snipers. Interview with Bogomolets

Could Volunteer Marek, or somebody else, please explain why he reverted my edit about the interview Bogomolets had with CNN on the 20th. I added this because I think it is relevant. Bogolomets says she never treated miltary or Berkut personnel during the violence on 18th - 20th of february, but in this interview she says she did. Whatever you may think of that, it is a fact, not speculation, POV, rumor, outdated info, or whatever reason Volunteer Marek is citing. So why? Bandar kecil (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

^^^ Another sleeper sock puppet account shows up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no sleeper sock puppet account here.Bandar kecil (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Team Ukraine is camping this page to push POV. That is why. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually that's pretty much all it is: speculation, POV, rumor, outdated info. You've answered your own question. Go team NPOV! Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Marek, but you did not answer my question.

To clarify:

- It's not speculation, POV or rumor, as it merely is a quote of herself which contradicts statements she makes later on.

- As far as I know it's not outdated info either

So please, could you have the decency to answer my question in a normal way?Bandar kecil (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is there such a huge emphasis on what Russia thinks?

Should Russia's view on the revolution be discussed in this article? Absolutely. What Putin thinks? Certainly. But it seems more than a little odd IMO that so much space and energy is given in THIS and many other Ukraine-related articles to the Kremlin's position. It seems to beg the conclusion that somehow in this the 21st Century Russia still "OWNS" Ukraine. Is the USSR really NOT a failed state afterall? Have these last 24 years just been an illusion?

Does this seem more than a little out-of-whack to anyone else? How about a section rel what Denmark or Iceland thinks? What about the official positions of Somalia or Zambia rel the subject? Or what about Mexico or Columbia? Paavo273 (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You ask a rhetorical question: Isn't the USSR a failed state? I presume you mean Russia? Let me ask a question: Isn't Ukraine a failed state? I mean, it's not like they can balance a budget, pay their bills, protect their borders, or even prevent a coup in their national capital. I don't see buildings burning in Moscow.

Back to the point: What Iceland thinks about Ukraine is irrelevant. Russia has an army on the border and they're about to liberate half the country... so their opinion is a little more significant don't you think? 173.79.251.253 (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I mean the USSR as in Ukraine SSR. And it's not really that rhetorical.

Why is there a presumption that what Russia thinks about Ukraine should outweigh what the rest of the world thinks? Why isn't there instead a presumption that UA has a right to self-determination? At least on paper, except at the Kremlin and perhaps here in Wikipedia, countries including Ukraine have a basic right to self-determination--this being the 21st Century.

Your remarks "Isn't Ukraine a failed state? I mean, it's not like they can balance a budget, pay their bills, protect their borders, or even prevent a coup in their national capital" seems IMO rather Ukrainophobic, whether intentional or not. And what are the ramifications of that? Does that mean they don't have a right to exist as an independent country? Or just that they must not set their own foreign or domestic policy? Or that they have to put up with ueber-corrupt leaders who loot the national treasury as a basic governing m.o.?

If Russia invades half of Ukraine, what would it be "LIBERATING" half the country FROM? Paavo273 (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

On the first point, I'm just saying that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. As an American, I really don't care about your country as long as we don't get involved. Ukraine is not our problem; if Europe wants to bail out your failed state then that is their choice. You say Ukrainians have the right to self-determination... Shouldn't the people of Eastern Ukraine have the right to self-determination too?

On the second point, Russia would obviously be liberating the people of Eastern Ukraine form The EU Agents who Usurped Power in Kiev and would Sell Ukraine! :P Why do you ask such silly questions? 173.79.251.253 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Russia sends paid "local defenders" to Ukraine, and it's highly likely they also send paid editors to create their own propaganda on social media cites including Wikipedia. USchick (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Russia would never bother to pay people to edit Wikipedia articles having to do with the Ukraine. It knows that Canada is full of nationalist Ukrainians, who are much more fanatical than their non-expat counterparts, so there is no way that people who do not hate Russia can have much of an effect on Ukraine-related Wikipedia articles. I haven't made any edits to this article to bring some sanity to it, because I know that is hopeless. – Herzen (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that. --Львівське (говорити) 21:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I wish I was getting paid! lol. I am a US citizen and my only loyalty is to the US. My country has already wasted $50billion on "pro-democracy" efforts in Kiev according to our State Department such as bussing protestors into Kiev. I don't care about your country. There are people in my country who need food and housing; why the hell are we paying Ukrainians to protest? The politicians in my country need to answer this question. I am sick and tired of foreigners trying to manipulate my government into interfering in your failed countries. In Syria they even stage chemical weapons attacks just to get the US involved.

That is why all the Ukrainians are camping Wikipedia, they want to convince us Americans to that they're being oppressed by Russia. The only problem with that logic is that Yanukovych is the democratically elected President of Ukraine. He was overwhelming elected by the people of Eastern Ukraine and he was thrown out with only 328 votes when the Ukraine Constitution requires 338 votes (according to the Ukraine Supreme Court). In the US, President Obama may be unpopular, but we do not throw him out of office because it would undermine our democracy. If they evicted Obama and installed Mitt Romney as President instead I can guarantee you we'd be having a civil war too. You've undermined your own democracy then you expect us to come bail you out and force your unelected government on the people of Eastern Ukraine. The people of Eastern Ukraine, those who participated in the democratic elections, have every right to be pissed about how the Ukrainian Constitution was violated.

On a final note: Please stop pretending the EU agents in Kiev want an independent Ukraine. They don't. It is their publicly stated goal to give up Ukraine's sovereignty to the EU. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that some people don't know the fact that direct verbal attack/denigration of their opponent only has the effect of showing their un-educatedness, childishness, untrustworthiness, and imperviousness to reason, and this only serves to undermine their image, as well as the looming image of their boss. I was once such an idiot, thinking that everything would be in my favor if I show my anger and attack what I dislike, but everyone just contemptuously walked away. So my humble suggestion is that some users need to reconsider their strategy in this POV campaign. Your chance is waning away fast! Look at the current title; it has stayed this way for over a month despite your desperate efforts! 128.189.191.222 (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Name

Maybe this has already been covered in the archives but surely a more accurate name for this article would be Ukrainian Coup d'état or Ukrainian Coup. The current name seems a bit POV to me. --109.246.151.191 (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is completely hopeless and a world of fantasy if a substantial number of people are emotionally invested in the subject of an article. That is the case here, since Canada and the United States are infested with rabid Ukrainian nationalists, who control articles about the geographical region currently known as the Ukraine by their sheer numbers. There is nothing for rational Wikipedia editors to do but wait for the Ukraine to destroy itself with its stupidity and hatred of Russia, at which time it will become possible to write sensible and objective articles about the Ukraine. – Herzen (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

You're one of the most emotional single-purpose accounts going, Herzen. Please check your rhetoric at the door and play nice. --Львівське (говорити) 23:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounding. Should this page be Semi-Protect?

What do other registered eds think? Are IP and SP issues making things difficult or are things under control? I have been stalking closely with the very occ edit. Be good to get thoughts before events on the ground intensify, if they do. I am leaving a copy of this on Russian military intervention in Ukraine talk as well. Cheers all. Irondome (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think all of the articles under this sub-topic are horribly infected with IP and sleeper SPAs. The biased/POV edits are one thing, but the rhetoric on the talk pages is another. I think we're in an environment now where it's nearly impossible to assume good faith for half the active edits. Take this Herzen guy above for example, is that a hacked account? No Ukraine edits and inactive since December and now he shows up on the talk page spewing hatespeech? So fishy. --Львівське (говорити) 05:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I just got tired when it comes to Wikipedia; that's why I have not been active. To get what I think is the correct view across on a given subject can require a considerable investment of energy, so I wonder, what is the point? A personal example here is the article on German idealism. I think there is no doubt that Kant was a German idealist (the first one), but the Wikipedia article doesn't indicate this prevailing view among philosophers. I simply don't have the energy to fix that article, because I don't think it's worth the effort. Anyone who is seriously interested in German philosophy is not going to rely on Wikipedia, but will go to more serious sources.

Please note that I have not even bothered to make any edits to any Ukraine related article. You say that you can't "assume good faith" when it comes to me. How can anyone assume good faith when it comes to you? You are in everybody's face when it comes to your vile nationalism, writing out your user name in Cyrillic in the English Wikipedia. I can't take your decision to present your user name in Ukrainian Cyrillic as anything else than a provocation (Victoria Nuland used the more precise word) to anyone who abides by civilized Western values. – Herzen (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"vile nationalism" "provocation", yeah we have a troll here. Please take the personal attacks outside, along with the hate speech. --Львівське (говорити) 06:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no way you can substantiate your claim that I am a troll. (Hey, isn't calling me a troll a personal attack? Why is it OK for you to make personal attacks?) My contributions to Wikipedia have been sporadic, that is true, but none of them have been about Russia or the geographical region currently referred to as "the Ukraine". Unlike you, I have absolutely no personal investment in the Ukraine. If you had the least concern about preserving Wikipedia as something that can be taken seriously, you would immediately desist from making any edits to articles having anything to do with the Ukraine, including Talk pages. – Herzen (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Calling "deluded people on Maidan", and editors "rabid nationalist fanatics". Then spewing hate speech that Ukrainians don't have a right to exist and calling for the state to 'destroy itself'. Yeah. Calling a spade a spade here. --Львівське (говорити) 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Igor Strelkov

Is this the wiki page where we can write about the recently outted Russian spy operating in Eastern Ukraine? http://www.google.com/search?hl=ru&gl=ua&tbm=nws&q=Igor+Strelkov&oq=Igor+Strelkov Thank You, Anonymous

My understand, and please anyone correct me if I'm wrong, is that the "Ukrainian Revolution" refers specifically to the overthrow of Yanukovych. Subsequent events which belong in article titled "Pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" (i.e. the "Ukraine Crisis" or "Situation in Ukraine" in almost all English sources but I digress). Anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong here: the title "Ukrainian Revolution" here refers specifically to the overthrow of Yanukovych and not subsequent events in Crimea, etc. Sorry if there is any confusion, this article should really be titled "Overthrow of Yanukovych" for clarity but there isn't much point in beating on that particular dead horse. 173.79.251.253 (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

US / EU Involvement

There is a section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Russian_involvement about Russian involvement. I suggest a new section about US/EU Involvement.

--Wrant (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

do you have any legitimate sources concerning alleged Euro-American involvement in the revolution or crackdown? I highly doubt you do.--Львівське (говорити) 23:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The involvement was clear during the protest through the direct support from western politicians on the Maidan. And further things like Nulands telephone conversation. --Wrant (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

That hardly constitutes involvement.--Львівське (говорити) 00:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That's another POV and that's your personal opinion. Further I can find you a lot of second tier sources with opinions about the US/EU involvement in Ukraine. Furthermore there are incidents like the CIA director in the Ukraine. There is enough material. --Wrant (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

to protect its interests in the region NOT sourced

This is in personal opinion and not sourced. Provide a source or delete the statement.--Wrant (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post credited as a reason for the protests.

No it didn't Washington Post said:

1. Thousands of protesters marched to the parliament building to support a vote to reduce the president's powers.

2. Yanukovych is still seen as inching closer to Russia

3. The core problems driving the protests are all still there.

The only thing they wrote was: "it's part of $15 billion in overall promised aid – but it's a reminder that Yanukovych is sticking with Putin.".

"a quick fix to plug holes in Ukraine’s indebted economy" should be added from this article to make clear why the money was needed: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/russia-gives-2-billion-boost-to-ukraines-embattled-yanukovych/article16922660/

--Wrant (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-foreign-affairs/news/ministry-of-foreign-affairs-of-hungary-urges-peaceful-solution-to-the-ukrainian-crisis. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a discretionary sanctions editnotice on this article?

...similar to this editnotice, which has been placed on the global warming article? Jarble (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I notice that there is now such a notice is posted on the talk page and links to an arbitration committee decision last amended in 2012. Does it remain applicable? It would, at first glance on my part, appear to be, but can someone with more knowledge about the arbcom process provide more information? --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 14:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Should there be a Ukraine Civil War page created?

What do you think? Would you support that page being created? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.181.72 (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Here it is, needs editors: Ukrainian Civil War 2014. Reaper7 (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)