Jump to content

Talk:Revolution of Dignity

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 124.149.240.157 (talk) at 10:57, 17 February 2024 (→"Le Revolution of Dignity": Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In the newsNews items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 19, 2014, and February 23, 2014.

Should "United States" be included in the infobox under a "Supported by" heading?

Plenty of infoboxes mention supporting nations/parties, as well as alleged supporting nations/parties (whether or not those allegations are true), usually with an "Alleged by X" disclaimer. This and this are some prominent examples.

Should we include the United States mention, include with "alleged by" disclaimer, or not include?

ADifferentMan (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include, since the infobox should summarise the article which has a section on the support by the US, and in line with multiple reliable sources which confirm this. Alaexis¿question? 11:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include with "alleged by" or Include is my first instinct, but I realize now that "support" isn't adequately defined in my head. Are we only counting support like materiel and cash? Lots of nations make general statements supporting democracy, does that count as support? If so, I'm sure we can find a whole bevy of nations to add to the list. TheSavageNorwegian 14:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all convinced me. Don't include. It's undue to say the US supported while leaving out the many many other government officials who also publicly supported. TheSavageNorwegian 01:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include Including with "alleged by" would mean admitting that we have no RS to support the notion that it was supported by the US. That is forbidden by WP:FRINGE, as I pointed out above. Including without a disclaimer would need excellent RS, which we don't have. The sources mentioned by Alaexis in the preceding section are either old news sources or they are written by non-scholars (the Jacobin-text) or low-profile scholars. According to our article, the US support was of a different nature than the Russian involvement, and that is supported by a multitude of news sources and by high-profile scholars like Andreas Kappeler, Serhii Plokhy, and Timothy Snyder. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Precision: Maybe it's not correct to call Roger E. Kanet a "low-profile" scholar, but I don't see how the quote from his work should support the inclusion of "Supported by the US". Rsk6400 (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither Sakwa nor Kanet are low-profile scholars, quite the opposite. He explicitly writes it was clearly supported by the West and proceeds to give examples. Alaexis¿question? 18:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re the Kanet quote: "The West" is a very broad term, it is surely not identical with "the US". Given the context of our infobox, "supported by" means "supported in a way similar to the Russian support of the government" - is this really supported by Kanet ? Re Sawka: "A commentator for RT" (from his article) says enough. None of your sources really works. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on sourcing Since you brought up the same three historians elsewhere, I thought I’d mention that Snyder has made some …interesting patterns of comments on multiple topics. His page mentions a few of them. Also, I just started watching the lecture series that he posted on YouTube.
    No opinion on the infobox parameter. The last thing we need is another furball over such things.
    Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On Tim Snyder, this piece is illuminating: "Putin, Trump, Ukraine: how Timothy Snyder became the leading interpreter of our dark times". A lot of his more dire predictions have proven correct, especially with regard to Ukraine. Even prominent critics like Sam Moyn have had to tip their hat. Not sure if you're referring to his history of Ukraine lecture series but that shit is excellent. Generalrelative (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include per discussion in previous section [1]. Most of the corresponding section on the page is about Russia and not"alleged", but properly describing this in the infobox would be difficult. I am sure there was a diplomatic support of Yatsenuk by the USA. But it would be wrong to summarize in the Infobox as suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t include. Lawmakers and government figures from various countries supported Ukrainians’ self-determination and opposed their government’s anti-democratic, illegal, and violent actions, so why single out the United States? Nothing described in the relevant section on US support is anything like Moscow’s meddling with Ukraine’s government since 2010, much less its response by invading Ukraine and occupying part of it. Adding this would be WP:UNDUE and halfway to Putin’s propaganda that the United States organized a coup in Ukraine (which is now under the heel of a US puppet, a satanist Jewish Nazi).  —Michael Z. 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, there is a consensus to deprecate “supported by” being used with the belligerent parameter, at Template talk:Infobox military conflict#RfC on "supported by" being used with the belligerent parameter. This article’s Template:Infobox civil conflict is very similar, and the parameter in question is equivalent: “side1/side2/side3 the parties participating in the conflict.”
A write-in value of “supporters” is unsuitable for an infobox and contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, “to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article,” “allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.” “Supporters” is very vague, and inclusion of a state’s name can mean anything from some politician from a state made unofficial personal statements, to direct invasion by a foreign state’s military: the proposed content is not a key fact that can be interpreted accurately from the inclusion of a country name. If it should appear as a heading in the infobox, then please get consensus to alter the infobox template, and not add it ad hoc when there is no consensus to include it.  —Michael Z. 19:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear that. This kind of thing has been a source of conflict across numerous articles that I've had on my Watchlist. Generalrelative (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't include "Support by" can mean very different things (cf. Russia also being in this category). With the potential for misunderstanding, it is rarely a great thing for the level of objective summary that an infobox requires. Chaotic Enby (talk) 20:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Thesavagenorwegian, I understand your argument about non-US officials also supporting the revolution. Now that I think of it, most of the sources talk about "Western" rather than just US support. What would be the best way to present it in the infobox? Alaexis¿question? 18:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I see it, is that you appear to be conflating moral support with material support. We only include verifiable reference to the latter in infoboxes. So the question is moot. Generalrelative (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was not just moral. The Jacobin article details the material support provided by the organisations like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy. Btw that's not necessarily *bad*, mind you. Alaexis¿question? 20:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference. On the face of it your argument seems reasonable. But I took a bit of time to break things down and I don't think it holds up.
  1. Note that the Jacobin article makes no claims about USAID or the National Endowment for Democracy specifically with regard to the Revolution of Dignity or Euromaidan. Here's the relevant quote:

    “External actors have always played an important role in shaping and supporting civil society in Ukraine,” Ukrainian scholar Iryna Solonenko wrote in 2015, pointing to the EU and the United States, through agencies like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and US Agency for International Development (USAID), whose Kyiv headquarters were in the same compound as the US embassy. “One can argue that without this external support, which has been the major source of funding for Ukrainian civil society since independence, Ukrainian civil society would not have become what it now is.”

    That's a rather noncommittal and nonspecific statement, and it's really the strongest stuff the author has to offer.
  2. The only claims that specifically relate to Euromaidan amount to US politicians posing for photos and handing out sandwiches:

    While it may be a long time before we know its full extent, Washington took an even more direct role once the turmoil started. Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy met with Svoboda’s fascist leader, standing shoulder to shoulder with him as they announced their support to the protesters, while US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland handed out sandwiches to them.

  3. Claims about a group called "New Citizen" are perhaps the most compelling on the surface but get rather muddled when you look at the sources. An article in Financial Times is trotted out to state that New Citizen played an important role in the protests, but actually says nothing about how the group was funded. [2] For that, the Jacobin piece relies on reporting by Moscow-based journalist Mark Ames published in an obscure online magazine called PandoDaily. [3] The allegation is that Pierre Omidyar, founder of ebay and publisher of The Intercept, "co-invested with the US government to help fund regime change in Ukraine", but if you look at the claims in more detail both parties funded New Citizen in 2012, i.e. 2 years before the Euromaidan and the revolution. And New Citizen's total budget that year was around $500,000, of which just over half came from the US government. That is a tiny NGO and a tiny commitment from the US, and there is no evidence it was pushing for regime change at that time. All this is relying on reporting in the Kyiv Times (it wasn't "discovered" by Ames as Jacobin claims). [4] What I find dubious is that we would consider Ames or the Jacobin author reliable sources for interpreting a few hundred thousand dollars in US spending on a pro-democracy NGO in 2012 as state sponsorship for a regime change that occurred in 2014.
All things considered, I think you really have to squint at this stuff to arrive with the author of the Jacobin piece at the conclusion that this was a "US-Backed, Far Right–Led Revolution". It really was neither of those things. Generalrelative (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I still think we should not second-guess RS which explicitly describe it as support but the consensus by this point is clear. Alaexis¿question? 08:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the job of editors to evaluate our sources and not just use them uncritically. Jacobin is a biased source, and accepting its conclusions without taking that into account would introduce the same bias to the article. Kahastok talk 16:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Court Decision

A Ukrainian court just decided that the deaths of protesters that occurred were caused by shots coming from areas unoccupied by the police or pro government forces. It concluded that far right elements were responsible for the deaths. I wonder if this new info necessitates inclusion in the article?

EDIT: here’s a link to the decision, it takes a little bit to load https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/114304164

2603:7000:B900:36EA:81F7:26AD:B247:AFAA (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is the part that concerns this topic:[5] "У межах даного судового провадження даних про причетність до такого поранення потерпілого працівників правоохоронних органів, а тим більше обвинувачених, не встановлено. Вогнепальне поранення було завдано ОСОБА_1852 з напрямку готелю «Україна», тобто з території, яка на той час не контролювалася правоохоронними органами. Даний постріл мав прицільний характер в скупчення людей".
Translated: "Within the scope of this court proceeding, data on the involvement of law enforcement officers in such an injury to the victim, and even more so the accused, have not been established. The gunshot wound was inflicted on PERSON_1852 from the direction of the "Ukraine" hotel, that is, from the territory that was not controlled by law enforcement agencies at that time. This shot was aimed at a crowd of people". Mhorg (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even a court decision is a primary source, drawing or implying any conclusions from it would be WP:OR. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Presumably there are secondary sources reporting on this, especially in Ukraine. If someone who can read Ukrainian would like to find and present them that would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i haven't seen any news coverage of this, but haven't had the chance to do a more thorough search—blindlynx 15:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This development hasn’t been covered much as of yet, and I won’t speculate as to the reason for that. However, there is a secondary source now available which describes the court’s decision.
here’s the link: https://bnn.network/politics/courts-law/ukrainian-court-verdict-on-maidan-killings-a-challenge-to-the-dominant-narrative/ 2603:7000:B900:36EA:6161:4D3F:70:11E6 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this isn't the place to speculate. But thanks for supplying a source. Never having heard of BNN, I looked into it, and I have to say I'm not sure I'd consider it reliable. The "About" page has lots of words on it, but nothing that I could find about how editorial oversight works. Here are their editorial guidelines, which they describe as "stringent", but to my eye are far too vague to be considered credible. So I checked another article at random and found this gem of probing social analysis. I'm concerned that BNN may be a platform for the views of its founder, Gurbaksh Chahal, alongside Daily Mail-style tabloid journalism. Can you point to any additional information that might help us evaluate the source for reliability? Generalrelative (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the fact they quote 'no russian trace' which doesn't seem to be in the ruling and use archaic spelling doesn't inspire confidence—blindlynx 21:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but I will point out that the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) has been used as a source on this website and yet their founder’s views and affiliations seem to have played no role. We should be consistent. 2603:7000:B900:36EA:4973:3EA8:9219:44BA (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean by 'consistent'—blindlynx 14:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve had someone tell me that the affiliations and beliefs of the founder of ISW are irrelevant (he’s the husband of Victoria Nuland and a neoconservative). If that’s the case then why would the founder of BNN be scrutinized differently? 2603:7000:B900:36EA:443B:BB6B:C8FB:C893 (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry apologies, the founder of ISW is actually the sister of Robert Kagan (husband of Victoria Nuland). 2603:7000:B900:36EA:443B:BB6B:C8FB:C893 (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be that ISW is a poor source too. I haven't looked into it. In general, we like to examine sources separately and on their own merits (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFF-type arguments are to be avoided). Wrt BNN, my concerns is more about the fact that it appears to be a tabloid with very low editorial standards. If the court's finding is a development that's significant enough for an encyclopedia, it will be discussed in better sources. Until that time, there is no rush. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and is meant to be behind the curve. Generalrelative (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fair, I’d prefer a different source as well and will supply it if found. 2603:7000:B900:36EA:DCA6:FBE6:32FE:73D (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV claims

Several users such as @Czello: are making a claim that Russia providing a deal for Ukraine is POV. In the wiki article it states that Russia pressured Ukraine not to accept Europe's deal, but this is not why their leadership refused the deal. As many news reports show, they refused it because Russia provided $15 billion and a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices, and without any demands on reforms to tackle corruption.

Russia pressures = not POV. Russia pressures and provides a deal = POV. If your claim is that stating the latter is POV, then justify it.

And if you think this is undue, then that is fine. Remove both of them. However if you want to keep that part, then provide the full story. RBut (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

russian pressure to reject the eu agreement is well cited and directly relevant to the protests, the gas deal just tangential example of this pressure. Further, the whole story is that while ostensibly without conditions teh gas thing was meant to keep Ukraine russia's political economic orbit as the source you cited clearly states—blindlynx 21:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To all: Events happened 10 years ago are well described in academic sources by historians already.
Andrew Wilson. The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation. — Yale University Press
Serhii Plokhy. The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History. — W. W. Norton & Company
Taras Kuzio. Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War. — Routledge
Use summaries from these and write a paragraph on a subject. No need to use news articles. We can see then what to include in the lead from there. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the looks of it to me, Manyareasexpert agrees that there should be a continuation (that Russia simultaneously provided a deal), but sourced from historians. While blindlynx is rejecting that it is relevant, as well as implying that the word "pressure" already encapsulates or contains the deal.
For Manyareasexpert, that is fine with me if you would like another source. But that is no reason to delete the whole addition. Editors should instead, replace it with a better source (I know it was not your doing).
For blindlynx, Russia simultaneously provided an alternative deal. This is a continuation of the point which is as relevant as the pressure part. If you say that one part is not relevant, then you are also implying that the other part is not. You cannot have it both ways. So choose one. RBut (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RBut, sorry for calling your first edit (of Oct 20) "POV". I misunderstood your edit summary (which was grammatically not correct). While IMHO not POV, it was still against MOS:LEAD (the lead section should summarize the body of the article). Also, I totally agree with Manyareasexpert, while I don't agree with your statement that editors should replace bad sources with better ones. Sources come first, and we don't search for sources for what we want to say, but we follow the (preferably academic) sources. Finally, you should not expect other editors to do or complete your work. I think the "Prelude" section should be reworked in the light of the books mentioned by Manyareasexpert. Of the three books mentioned, I've read only Plokhy's, which I can highly commend. Rsk6400 (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, feel free to correct it gramatically or otherwise. As it currently stands, it is "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it. While providing a $15 billion bailout, combined with a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices to fight off Ukraine's economic crisis." RBut (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, lets get this done ASAP because of opportunity cost. Whoever has issues with grammar, show what you prefer. As for whether this should be included, it is an integral part of the story. You can see this reflected within the same literature that is cited in the article or in the discussion above: 1. The source used for "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it" further states within the same paragraph that Russia provided a deal (The European Union in Crisis by Dinan Desmond & Nugent Neil). 2. The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation by Andrew Wilson (the book that Manyareasexpert referenced) stated the same. 3. The Russo-Ukrainian War by Serhii Plokhy in (the book that Manyareasexpert referenced and Rsk6400 read) stated the same. 4. Russian Nationalism and the Russian-Ukrainian War is not focused on that aspect. It has little information on it.
1. "The European Union in Crisis" by Dinan Desmond & Nugent Neil: "In August 2013, Russia started to restrict Ukrainian imports, which the Ukrainian opposition immediately described as ‘a trade war to pressure the country against signing a cooperation pact with the European Union’ (Danilova, 2014; see also Pepescu, 2013). In September 2013, the first signs appeared that Yanukovych might give in to the Russian pressure and possibly reject the Association Agreement (House of Lords, 2015: 54–5). What made Yanukovych ultimately do so was allegedly the mismatch between the $15 billion loan to be granted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with EU support but also with EU conditions attached, versus a $15 billion loan offered by Russia unconditionally (ibid.: 55). The Russian loan was part of a ‘Ukrainian-Russian Action Plan’, based on a bilateral treaty signed by Yanukovych and Putin in December 2013 (Euronews, 2013). The prospect of this agreement led Yanukovych to abandon the Association Agreement with the EU, which was to have been signed at the European Partnership summit in Vilnius, in November 2013. Yanukovych’s change of heart at the Vilnius summit was the proverbial wake-up call for the EU."
2. "The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation" by Andrew Wilson: "The EU put the agreements on ice and made them conditional; though it was never explicitly stated whether the key condition was Tymoshenko’s release or legal reform to prevent the same thing happening again. (Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili later revealed how Yanukovych would boast in private meetings ‘very loudly about how he had corrupted senior officials, in the supreme court and the constitutional court’.6) By 2013 summer, it seemed the EU was getting confused and/or softening its stance, as it needed a political success at the key Eastern Partnership summit in Vilnius in November 2013. Rumours circulated that Tymoshenko’s freedom was no longer a prerequisite. This was bad for Ukraine, threatening as it did to give Yanukovych a free pass to entrench himself further in power. Russia could perhaps have been more relaxed, as it looked as though the agreement might be watered down or take years of implementation. But it reacted instead to the increased possibility of Ukraine’s mere signature, and unleashed a trade war in August, using much bigger sticks and carrots than the EU. Yanukovych was allegedly threatened with the loss of Crimea,7 while a $15 billion loan that was agreed in December, most of the first instalment of which instantly disappeared into the family’s pockets, seems to have been promised in private earlier."
3. "The Russo-Ukrainian War" by Serhii Plokhy: "The EU's principal demand was the continuation of market reforms. That was the tricky part for Yanukovych, who wanted no reforms and was developing a kleptocratic system of rent collection. But he and his entourage hoped to imitate reforms, protect their business interests from Russia, and penetrate European markets. Polls suggested that in the presidential elections scheduled for 2015 Yanukovych would win if he delivered on his promise of bringing Ukraine into association with the EU. Pro-democratic and liberal voters would forgive him the rest.24
Yanukovych vacillated. While the EU was demanding the release of Tymoshenko and reforms, Moscow asked nothing of the sort. But it threatened Yanukovych with an economic blockade if he signed an association agreement with the EU. To show that he meant business, Putin embarked on a limited trade war with Ukraine, barring Ukrainian products from Russia and causing a 10 percent drop in Ukrainian exports. The cost of “tightening up” Russia’s customs regulations was estimated at $1.4 billion. Moscow had not only a stick but also a carrot in its arsenal. Putin offered money if Ukraine did not sign the proposed agreement with the EU: the amount would later be specified as $15 billion, a lifeline for Yanukovych, whose kleptocratic rule had brought Ukraine to the verge of financial collapse. Yanukovych had finally made his choice.25
In November 2013 Yanukovych accepted an invitation to the EU summit in Vilnius, where he was expected to sign the association agreement but abruptly refused to do so. Speaking to his own entourage, he explained the about-face as the result of an exchange with Putin, who had allegedly told him that he would never allow the European Union or NATO to share a border with Russia. If Yanukovych signed the EU agreement, Putin threatened to occupy the Crimea and a good part of southeastern Ukraine, including the Donbas. Yanukovych, visibly shaken, decided to abandon the EU association agreement.26
Yanukovych did not tell his European counterparts about the money that he was getting from Russia. When he visited Putin in Moscow a few weeks later, the Russian president delivered on his promise. He offered his Ukrainian counterpart a discount price on Russian natural gas and a $15 billion loan. “Ukraine,” declared Putin, “is undoubtedly our strategic partner and ally in the full sense of the word.” The Eurasian integration project was alive and well, or so it seemed at the time.27 RBut (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are important details worth mentioning in the article body. We will see what will make to the lead after. We can use summary / conclusion chapters from mentioned works. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. "The European Union in Crisis" by Dinan Desmond & Nugent Neil
These are important details as well worth mentioning in body. What's more important however is Conclusion section starting with The Ukraine crisis originated in the determination of a foreign power,
Russia, not to tolerate an EU foreign policy initiative. Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, but I did not come here for this. I read the article, saw a part of the story that was missing, and added in that part to complete the story. The 27th reference (The European Union in Crisis by Dinan Desmond & Nugent Neil) is used to state "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it", it further states within the same paragraph, the $15 billion deal. Since that source is used for the lead, then it must be sufficient to further reference that source within the same paragraph (where it states the deal). Do we have agreement on that? RBut (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 27th reference (The European Union in Crisis by Dinan Desmond & Nugent Neil) is used to state "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it"
I have my own approach for the lead, which other editors might support, or they might not. It is to look for source's Summary / Conclusion sections for important information worth mentioning in the lead. If we look at Desmond & Nugent work, it talks about
The Ukraine crisis, which erupted in 2014, represents the point at which the aspirations of the EU to extend its influence eastwards collided with Russia’s determination to rebuild power and status following the collapse of the Soviet Union. This keenly felt loss impelled President Vladimir Putin to try to regain control of Russia’s near abroad and restore Russia’s global standing. Putin’s pressure on Ukraine to reject a proposed association agreement with the EU in favour of a Russian-led customs union foundered on popular protest in Kiev, which resulted in the ousting of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president. This, in turn, triggered violent resistance in eastern Ukraine against the new, pro-Western government, and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Chancellor Merkel took the lead in managing the EU’s response, which helped to bring about a fragile peace – the Minsk Accord – and included sanctions against Russia. The conflict is now frozen, but could escalate at any time. Accordingly, the EU faces instability on its eastern border in addition to the instability caused by the migration crisis on its southern border.
in its Intro section p. 3 . Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. "The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation" by Andrew Wilson
This is a strong argument as it is a short summary and Wilson finds this detail, along with others, valuable. I suggest expanding article body with it and other details first. For example, beforementioned Desmond & Neil talk about the same amount What made Yanukovych ultimately do so was allegedly the mismatch between the $15 billion loan to be granted by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), with EU support but also with EU conditions attached, versus a $15 billion loan offered by Russia unconditionally (ibid.: 55). offered by IMF, and it's not in our article yet. We can even make a separate chapter "Association Agreement". Manyareasexpert (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to get back to the purpose of this section and dispute. My edit was removed by several editors for being POV, but as shown above with scholarly sources, and I can cite many news sources, that my edit is in line with those sources. Russia did more than pressure Ukraine into refusing EU's deal. They offered their own deal with no strings attached. The source which is referenced to say "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it", within the same paragraph, talks about Russia's deal. Therefore, that second part can be added (which is the part that I added, the part that was then removed by several editors). Do we have agreement on this?
Since some people had issues with my grammar (even though it's almost a copy/paste of the news source), then please fix it. "Russia put pressure on Ukraine to reject it. While providing a $15 billion bailout, combined with a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices to fight off Ukraine's economic crisis." RBut (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree your edit omits details that academic sources supply this information with. For example, Wilson comments Russia could perhaps have been more relaxed, as it looked as though the agreement might be watered down or take years of implementation. But it reacted instead to the increased possibility of Ukraine’s mere signature, and unleashed a trade war in August, using much bigger sticks and carrots than the EU. Yanukovych was allegedly threatened with the loss of Crimea,7 while a $15 billion loan that was agreed in December, most of the first instalment of which instantly disappeared into the family’s pockets, seems to have been promised in private earlier and other details from other sources. I suggest to expand article body first and proceed to the lead after. Manyareasexpert (talk) 10:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So type out the sentence with the changes to the edit, I have asked people here for this several times. I want to get this done ASAP and leave. If you want to expand the body and then rewrite the lead afterwards, the more power to you. But I am here about the dispute with my edit. RBut (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody wants to collaborate on this, after several days of inaction (told by admin in previous dispute), I am permitted to edit the sentence back in. However if you then remove it again, it is clearly bad faith engagement. So if you have problems with the grammar or details, now is the time to fix it. RBut (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not how consensus building works. Rsk6400 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To rephrase that sentence would take you as long as it did to write the sentence above. Since you mentioned issues with grammar, why not propose the new sentence? RBut (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We're all volunteers here and do not respond well to being told what to do. As always, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Generalrelative (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RBut, please stop edit warring, see WP:EW. It has become a bit difficult to follow this discussion, since you made so many words - better to be concise, see WP:TPG. As I see it, the best idea so far was Manyareasexpert's to re-work the "Prelude" section based on academic sources. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Generalrelative (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My edit was called out for POV, I proved that it wasn't. There is consensus for this point, and the deal I added in is in line with scholarly and news sources, including the very source that is referrenced for the "pressure" part (within the same paragraph of that source, it talks about the deal). Reworking the body is completely irrelevant to this. If you want to re-work the body and then re-edit the lead, that's your perogative. I am not going to do that. So now there has to be a legitimate reason for removing my edit. Removing it for "you must work on the body" is not legitimate. RBut (talk) 12:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:LEAD says the lead section shall summarize the article. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read this article's prelude section? "...Russia was willing to offer $15 billion,[52] as well as cheaper gas prices.[52]"
And the "Russian involvement" section: "...Yanukovych accepted "bail-out" money—$2 billion out of a $15 billion package—from Russia.[82]" RBut (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Pressure' in the lead is enough we don't need to get into every detail of the pressure in the lead—blindlynx 15:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is enough. Or maybe it is not. I saw many sources commenting on Russia's "a carrot and a stick" approach. The suggestion is to extend the article body first. Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ahh sorry i misunderstood this discussion as wanting to add it to the lead—blindlynx 15:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You understood the discussion correctly, see RBut's comment of 12:05, 5 December 2023. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, we're just persuading the editor to take care of article body first. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@blindlynx This is a point you made at the very beginning which we have moved past long ago. Now where we are at is @Rsk6400 quoting MOS:LEAD (the article should be summarized in the lead), and I quoted the article to show that the deal, which is an integral part of this conflict, is in this wiki article several times. "Pressure" in the lead is absolutely not enough, as that is not why Ukraine's leaders denied EU's deal. By my view, this discussion is over. I have put up a sufficient case and it is time to add my edit back into the article. Those who want to edit the body and then re-edit the lead, please be my guest. You have no resistance or pushback from me. RBut (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit war. I'd rather look for agreement between editors. For example, both Wilson and Plokhy agree on
Russia could perhaps have been more relaxed, as it looked as though the agreement might be watered down or take years of implementation. But it reacted instead to the increased possibility of Ukraine’s mere signature, and unleashed a trade war in August, using much bigger sticks and carrots than the EU. Yanukovych was allegedly threatened with the loss of Crimea,7 while a $15 billion loan that was agreed in December, most of the first instalment of which instantly disappeared into the family’s pockets, seems to have been promised in private earlier (Wilson)
To show that he meant business, Putin embarked on a limited trade war with Ukraine, barring Ukrainian products from Russia and causing a 10 percent drop in Ukrainian exports. The cost of “tightening up” Russia’s customs regulations was estimated at $1.4 billion. Moscow had not only a stick but also a carrot in its arsenal. Putin offered money if Ukraine did not sign the proposed agreement with the EU: the amount would later be specified as $15 billion, a lifeline for Yanukovych, whose kleptocratic rule had brought Ukraine to the verge of financial collapse. Yanukovych had finally made his choice (Plokhy) Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So how would you add that into "Russia pressured Ukraine to reject it, while providing a $15 billion loan and a 1/3rd reduction in gas prices."? RBut (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repeating myself: your edit does not make it clear that the air package was part of the pressure moscow was exerting to 'keep Kyiv in its political and economic orbit'—blindlynx 17:04, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, their strategy was a multi-pronged approach. They pressured Ukraine's leaders via multiple methods, and said that more would follow, and then offered a sweetheart deal for them (15 billion, 1/3rd reduction in gas prices). If my edit doesn't do so and so, then please, add in those details, or fix the grammar. I am not against that. Why is not a single person here willing to fix the issues they bring up? RBut (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, do we have consensus? RBut (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RBut, please take a look at Generalrelative's comment of 16:02, 30 November 2023. I think that answers the question you repeatedly asked. My message on your user's talk page means that you really should stop edit warring, because continued edit warring can easily lead to being blocked. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalrelative: How can consensus be attained if nobody is interested in that. The attempt above is completely ignored, and the comment by @Rsk6400 right above should be telling. If you look, all concerns have been fulfilled and negated, I welcome changes to grammar, or extra details, but even after all that, if those same people just simply do not care, what you're implying is that all they have to do is never grant consensus and ghost this section? RBut (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest posting at a noticeboard, e.g. WP:NPOVN. Folks here appear (to me) to have addressed your concerns and given you sensible advice which you have chosen not to follow, but fresh eyes may see things differently. Generalrelative (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you editors sure you don't want to give consensus for this edit unless I summarize 3 books? RBut (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the united states be included in the foreign involvement section?

Politicians voicing support for protests is incredibly weak compared to Russia sending saboteurs and using economic pressure on Ukraine, The United States even urged Ukrainian protesters to negotiate with Viktor Yanukovych. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/23/readout-vice-president-bidens-call-ukrainian-president-viktor-yanukovych https://www.refworld.org/docid/55c0b14c4.html https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/ Monochromemelo1 (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah equating teh us and russia's involvement is wp:undue, taht said a 'foreign reactions section' would be worth while—blindlynx 22:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Le Revolution of Dignity"

When did this fake name get invented for the Maidan Revolution? I've been following the news on this for coming up on 10 years now and I've never heard this term before. It seems like some insane level of spin. Is there any real justification for this article title? 100.37.244.118 (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion which led to the selection of the current title is here; you could start there for the reasons why. That discussion was from 2021, but also see the box at the top of the page which lists three more move discussions since then which have all affirmed the current title. If you want to suggest that it should be changed to something else the instructions are at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but you should start a new move discussion only if there is new information which suggests a different title is appropriate. Opening new move discussions just to challenge previous decisions can be seen as disruptive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the move to "Revolution of Dignity" was initiated and pushed through by a sockpuppet account called "Somerby" who was a sock of "Dolyn" and was locked and permanently banned by the Wiki community. That seems to me to count as "new" information that would not have been brought up when "Somerby" was active in making the change. What do you think? 100.37.244.118 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't have anything to do with the title of this page—blindlynx 19:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This so called "Revolution of Dignity" name was coined by the Ukrainian regime that removed Yanukovich and the name has been subsequently adopted by the Western media as well as Wikipedia. But a revolution by definition must have wide popular support and involve the removal of a monarch or dictator. The fact Yanukovich was legally elected and removed without due process does not support this. Neither does the fact that eastern and southeastern Ukraine, who mainly voted for Yanukovich, were not politically involved in his removal. 2604:3D08:8E80:580:C437:9632:90E1:844B (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there wasn't a 'rebellion' in 2014 it was an armed invasion of Ukraine's Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts by Russian soldiers and their proxy forces which Russia openly admits to arming. In Ukraine the ousting started as protests movement to his withdrawal from negotiations with the EU which was widely popular in Ukraine.Yaunkovich then started killing protesters and banned protesting. The ousting in Yaunonkovich is called the Revolution of dignity in Ukraine. Monochromemelo1 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came to the talk page to say the same thing, I have never once heard it freferred to as the Revolution of Dignity, which sounds like an A-Team episode. It's always referred to as Euromaidan or the Maidan revolution in British media. Using this name doesn't seem like it fits the Neutral Point of View — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:B414:2401:4C17:513F:1B80:DDBD (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Euromaidan is a separate article and as of the RM last march 'Revolution of Dignity' is the term most used in scholarship—blindlynx 15:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but in everyday usage it is overwhelmingly known as Maidan or Euromaidan. 124.149.240.157 (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revolution_of_Dignity&oldid=1208406186"