Talk:Revolution of Dignity

neutrality

In order to dispute anyone's neutrality, you need to point out the reason for such a concern. You can't simply claim anyone who doesn't agree with your view on the situation is not neutral. I'm talking about your edits, Lvivske. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

neutrality issue was him being a "politologist" with no context. I've added that he's a politician and analyst, so I'll remove the tag now.--Львівське (говорити) 18:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

American and European press should not be used for references as these press out lets are not neutral in the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.49.12.136 (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I also concern about this Wikipedia page neutrality, because any encyclopedia should not lean toward any political / any government position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.77.40.121 (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality concern: There is, in Section 2. Background, a subsection 2.1 Russian Involvement. This is entirely appropriate given the Russian interests in the Ukraine, however I was surprised that there was no corresponding subsection detailing Western involvement. It seems to me, in the interest of balance and accuracy, that the role played by the E.U. and the Ukrainian diaspora in the events leading up to the ousting of Yanukovych should also be included. OldCommentator (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Chornovol

Lvivske, where did you get information on Chornovol??? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Do not mind it, I found it. Under the section "Party of Regions office on Lypska Street set on fire". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Twitter as a source

While the use of Twitter may be justified in this exceptional case (?) please do add the name who's tweets you're adding and try to distance yourself from the position of the author (i.e. 'government thugs' is not neutral wording). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokalkosmopolit (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

sorry if i forget to mention, i only use twitter if its a RS journalist. I guess "pro-government thugs" or "paid government thugs" would be neutral, right? -I mean without using titushky, which is slang for the same thing. -Львівське (говорити) 01:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Tweets, in my experience, lack the fact checking of other high quality references like CNN.--Launchballer 12:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

agreed, and it's best to replace them with the articles these journalists write soon after, but as the situation develops it helps fill in the blanks. --Львівське (говорити) 15:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Title

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

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

'February 2014 Euromaidan riots' is probably a reasonable compromise. Pro-government forces probably prefer the term 'coup attempt'. Investigations concerning the instigators of the rebellion are under way [1]. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

::::″a peaceful protest that was met with a brutal regime crackdown″ - setting buildings ablaze is not exactly peaceful. It is reported that the governor of Volyn oblast was captured by 'protestors', beaten, forced to knees at the local 'Maidan' and then forced to resign [2]. And now they tell us, these are 'peaceful protests'.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

izvestia

This content was added by User:Lokalkosmopolit "Opposition activists armed with bats and iron rods beat to death the engineer of the office Valery Konstantinovich Zakharov" Who is Izvestia.kiev.ua? Is this a copy wordpress blog of the Russian Izvestia? They only have 2k likes on facebook whereas the real Izvestia (whose logo they use) has over 56,000 . Can someone confirm or deny that this "Izvestia.kiev.ua" is a reliable source or not? The content they posted, about opposition killing an engineer, was mentioned by ZERO credible press so far, making this claim very dubious.--Львівське (говорити) 15:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Most of contemporary Ukranian press is paid by political opposition. So, I think, opinion of some other source is nice for neutrality. To count likes on FB - is ridiculous,Cathry (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC) most of Ukranians use other social media

This is just your wild conspiracy theory. Counting FB likes is just an attempt to verify if this is a real subsidiary of Izvestia or if it's a fake. It appears to be a fake blog IMO. --Львівське (говорити) 15:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Izvestia.kiev.ua is pretty sure affiliated with Izvestiya the Russian newspaper, the site of which reports the same incident [3]. You just can't go on removing unpleasant information like that on one hand while adding dubious things from pro-opposition Twitter pages. As you failed to self-revert, I have to report you for 3RR violations. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

you didn't provide the real source, you provided the sketchy one. I told you on my talk page to restore it, and I already put it back earlier here. But you can continue making things up if you want...--Львівське (говорити) 16:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've re-added this. I don't think it is correct to add things disputing the neutrality of Izvestiya as a source in that case, because it's OK per policy while Facebook as a source is definitely not OK but has been used here. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If a social account is used it's best to qualify who is saying what, like if it's a primary source quote, or if it's a journalist publishing what's happening. Ideally, we replace or remove them when we have better sourcing later (which is what happened, most have been removed) --Львівське (говорити) 16:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The case with the Volyn governor is exactly one that points out the limits of 'let's accept social networking stuff at first'. There are terrible details reported [4], but we don't know if these are simply rumours.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

yes, if you use social media as a source for protesters. I'm only saying it's okay if it's from a reputable journalist and state where it comes from (ie. Christopher Miller of the Kyiv Post reported that X") and not "protesters tweeted that XYZ happened" (because obviously people make things up online) --Львівське (говорити) 16:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There was case, when opposition politician asked to kill families of his opponents, but then he said, his account was broken. It can be similar with social media accounts of reputable journalistsCathry (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

retractions can happen in any media. --Львівське (говорити) 17:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In regards to izvestia, I agree with Cathry that information should be also used from any source as long as it carries true information and especially if it has an alternative point of view as well. It only adds value to such article. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Trade Union 's Casualties

Can someone show the source of the Trade Union burning's casualties ???Because I don't see that they were death protesters.

it's in the body of the article, MP stated it, EuromaidanPR confirmed it to me (since, well, it's official) --Львівське (говорити) 18:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"EuromaidanPR confirmed it to me" it is completely has no value Cathry (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That's good for you. Have a cookie. --Львівське (говорити) 20:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is it not in headlines everywhere? --82.117.137.132 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I see the Soboliev quote on many Ukrainian/Russian news sources, just not English yet. Still developing I guess. --Львівське (говорити) 23:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

They say there are no deaths from fire! http://www.socportal.info/news/shtab-soprotivleniya-oproverg-informatsiyu-o-pogibshih-v-dome-profsoyuzov you must remove that! http://batkivshchyna.com.ua/news/open/782Cathry (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just removed speculation...

I just removed per WP:SPECULATION:

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

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

I readded it with a section template. Found one source with EU ministers linking Russian pressure for causing the conflict. Will keep searching. I dont see how the original is OR though? Or do you mean the author at ABC used ORSYN? --Львівське (говорити) 22:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I do mean the author at ABC used ORSYN. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your excellent contributions! IMO given this is virtually verbatim from a qualifying valid source, there aren't grounds to exclude it, certainly not based on WP:Synthesis, which refers to a WP EDITOR synthesizing published sources. It would be fine to contradict it with some opposing (pro-Kremlin?) source and to qualify it as the work of a journalist at ABC. But I can't see excluding it; similar arguments could be made against a huge percentage of sources cited in this and other articles. The general position stated by Williams is being stated or implied ALL OVER by the Western media, and certainly the remarks Kremlin officials continue to make daily make them very susceptible to the ABC journalist's interpretation. I don't see an application here for Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor for WP:Synthesis unless the editor is taking what the Washington Post says and adding it to the Australian source to arrive at some third proposition or conclusion. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

War_Kyiv ref

I apologize for this edit which I thought was vandalism at first because the page was full of these tags. I see now that the issue wasn't Pravda or just sources at random, but actually the article itself, which is a social media live-blog. This was added by Alex G, can we get a comment from him if all of the info he added was actually from this page? If so we may have to remove it and I agree with the tagging. Perhaps we can get some other eyes on this? It's a lot of content that would need to be removed, unfortunately.--Львівське (говорити) 04:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske, I think it was Cathry who tagged everything with "better source" tag when you questioned him about izvestia (if I am not mistaken). I am removing the tags unless there would be a reason to revived them. That article reference should, of course, be supplemented with additional sources therefore I will put "Additional citation needed" in those places. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

please re-read, i already removed the tags and added section templates instead.--Львівське (говорити) 05:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

esperso tv link

Espreso tv link on Moskal is inoperational. My Google Chrome is not able to open it. If it is good link, the format should be changed; otherwise - it needs to be deleted. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

it works just fine. Nothing needs to be changed. Also, even if it was a deadlink, wiki policy is not to delete dead links because often a cache or archive can be found to supplement it. --Львівське (говорити) 05:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Explanations of the use of Ukrainian terminology

Particularly noted in the final paragraph of 18 February 2013 there are various references to Ukrainian terms such as titushky and siloviks which are not clear terms for use by someone unfamiliar with Ukrainian culture, could an explanation of such terms included in the article be incorporated to make for clearer reading. Tracland (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

For clarification this is in the initial clashes section. Tracland (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done—Silovik and Titushky are linked now. N2e (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

silovik shouldnt really be used at all. titushky is also slang for thug, but i guess 'titushky' is a ukrainian phenomenon and they are more than just thugs, though, i guess you could just says 'paid government thugs' but it gets long winded. --Львівське (говорити) 14:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Also dear editors; please don't use the term "MVS" but use Ministry of Internal Affairs. "MVS" is also a slang word or atleast a word that nobody outside Ukraine uses for it's police force.... 'titushky' by now is a word similar to "hooligan", but they are different phenomena... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

MVS isn't a slang word, it's an acronym. MVD in Russian.--Львівське (говорити) 15:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is uprising

This is not riot, this is already armed uprising.

let's wait it out, for all we know it will be a revolution by the morning with yanukovych lynched. --Львівське (говорити) 17:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the good 'peaceful' demonstrators have been lynching since 18 February. Like Russia 1917, like Germany from 1933 on, like Chinese Hongweibings. The blind masses will always find some kind of scapegoats whom they 'need' to put to death in order to open the road to glorious future. There have always been people out there who think that you only need to annihilate some 'enemies' (depending on the situation the Jews, Bourgeois, Intellectuals or - now in Ukraine - Party of Regions members) and the paradise is there. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it seems your cat is out of the bag. You just lost all credibility as an editor. --Львівське (говорити) 17:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is news that you support the opposition side while I oppose it. Neither view discredits one as a Wikipedia user. Opinionated users can still edit hot topics if they follow NPOV.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Normal editors try to provide a neutral representation of events. It's becoming increasingly clear you have a partisan stake in this, seeing as you are likening ousting murderers to Nazis blaming Jews. You're crossing a thin line. --Львівське (говорити) 18:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

...says someone who is a self-declared supporter of Svoboda. And mind the Wikiquette, please. It was you who brought up lynching and Yanukovich.
I use normal sources for information I find necessary to introduce and so far only you have had problems with it [5] and most of the time you haven't objected, too. I don't use Party of Regions activists' FB or Twitter for example. It's laughable to accuse others of bias while being explicitly partisan yourself.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

From an outside person, I think you should sit this one out Avion365 (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

May be I want such people as Yatsenyuk, Timoshenko, Yarosh to be lynched, but it is my personal opinion ant this place is not inappropriate for that hopesCathry (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I said for all we know - it's a realistic scenario for a dictator to be killed in an uprising, not that I was personally calling for it on here. --Львівське (говорити) 22:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a reminder here that Yulia Tymoshenko's last name is not spelled with a "i" in English reliable sources. (We seem to be off-topic anyhow....) — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:45, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Pravda. ru and Colonel Musienko

What makes this Musienko notable [6]? Because I once added Kravchuk's view but that was removed. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I already moved it to February_2014_Euromaidan_riots#Russian_military_personnel. I think it should stay to give readers some background info (it is not normal when Canadian military personnel states that the problem between President Obama and the Republican party can only be solved by means of force and that the USA proved that it is cannot exist as an independent sovereign state; hence it is also not normal when an active Russian military person makes similar statements); but in it's previous position it looked like we should expect a Russian invasion in Ukraine in less then 2 hours........ And we have no proof this will happen (I think it will not anyhow...). I did not remove Kravchuk's view (nor did I ever see it........); I have no problem with it being returned. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Page move to Ukraine Civil War

About the recent page move to Ukraine Civil War=Per Wikipedia:Article titles Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.. NO reliable English-language source has spoken of a Ukraine Civil War! Wikipedia is about showing what is going on, not about giving personal opinions what is going on!!!! — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Such a move does not seem to be currently supportable. The unrest in other cities might warrant a separate article, but not necessarily with such a title as that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

unrest in other cities already has another article --Львівське (говорити) 18:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's the main Euromaidan article, isn't it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ukrainian Regional State Administration occupations (we'll have to change the title later since it's more than just RSAs being occupied)--Львівське (говорити) 18:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Page moves are pretty ordinary with articles about current events, as are discussions about the name. You were clearly in the right, so thanks for moving it back. --Kizor 20:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Athletes withdrawing from Sochi Olympics

I've came across numerous reports on Ukrainian atheltes withdrawing from the ongoing Winter Olympics in Sochi. Anyone who is more or less familiar, please add a few sentences about this [7] [8] --Երևանցի ^talk 21:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have already updated Ukraine at the 2014 Winter Olympics and Concerns_and_controversies_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics#Athlete_boycott with info on this... It seems Ukrainian athletes are not withdrawing from the ongoing Winter Olympics in Sochi except 1 skier. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I think it would be best to wait for now and see what happens. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

New name

What about new name? Ukrainian crisis (79.7 million results on Google[9]) This is deadliest time for country since second world war. --Jenda H. (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Ukrainian crisis" is too generic. In reality, Ukraine has been in crisis for the past 25 year or so. I'm not saying this to mock the country. The same applies to my country (Armenia) and other post-Soviet states as well. So when searching "Ukrainian crisis" we should limit it to November 2013-February 2014.
• If we were going to rename anything, it would be Euromaidan and not this article

--Երևանցի ^talk 22:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Euromaidan would still be the article for the Euromaidan movement, so that can never change. A new hub article for the crisis as a whole, including both the Euromaidan, the riots and current crisis, and whats happening in the rest of the country is an option. Another option would be renaming this to better reflect that it's not just riots but an uprising or crisis or whatever we decide is the best term for specifically what happened in February.--Львівське (говорити) 22:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The "riots" in the title is a bit POV though. How about "February 2013 Euromaidan fighting" or something like that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That is my point it is not internal issue of Ukraine anymore. Political representations around Europe must react. It is not just riot.--Jenda H. (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: 'riots' is OK. We even have 'Category:2014 riots'.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Volunteer Marek, this is an all-out uprising now.--Darius (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how the fact that we have a category for riots affects what we call this article. Looking at the actual sources, the words used are "clashes", "violence", "uprising", "protests", not "riots".Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree that 'riots' is reductive at this point, there hasn't been much rioting (when I think of riots I think of people looting stores, chaos, anarchy, random expressions of violence), it's mostly and specifically clashes with police and people being gunned down. I think 'conflict' is sterile/neutral, 'uprising' may be POVy since people havent "risen up" yet (for all we know itll be put down tomorrow). On the news here they called it the "Ukrainian Crisis" --Львівське (говорити) 23:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe, rename to 2014 Ukrainian conflict now? NickSt (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the current title is inadequate, even wrong. IMO UA "conflict" is an improvement but still too non-descript. Further, IMO Julia Romero's interpretation of the naming rule a couple sections above this is also generally correct. The things that the rule and YR's interpretation doesn't take into account is that (A) there is a LAG, (B) many key events (e.g., RSA occupations) are not reported at all or very poorly reported in the Western media. As such, it would be IMO appropriate to use a translation of how the relevant domestic media are reporting it. I think as fluid as the situation apparently is on the ground across UA, this naming problem is likely to take care of itself soon in any case. Paavo273 (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I think an issue would be sorting out whether this article is part of Euromaidan or not, and if the title should reflect it. I think it very plainly is part of Euromaidan, therefore, the title should reflect it's a chapter of it and include 'Euromaidan' in the title, at the least. If we call it '2014 Ukrainian conflict' it becomes a whole different event, and not a branch of EM --Львівське (говорити) 04:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. "UA conflict" is not IMO great anyway. EM may BE NOW or on the verge of turning into something else, which EM will have spawned. If so, what then? Will the EM article be subsumed into this one with its new title or maybe the new article will have a shorter section on EM with a "See main article" link to EM? Paavo273 (talk) 05:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

To much details in current article.......

I applaud all your hard work in the article but currently this article has the information "The Rada speaker (currently Volodymyr Rybak) current whereabouts are unknown". Although I find that interesting.... that sort of info belongs in a newspaper and not in an encyclopaedia. And I already found a source that stated Rybak will be found soon. Let's remove Where's Volodymyr as soon as this info is redundant/he is found. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You're surely right when you say that it should be removed once he's found and the issue becomes moot. But for example if he has fled Ukraine already there's some relevance (as his signature is needed, according to Gazeta.ua).Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, the opposition has gathered 150 signatures with the aim of forcing the general prosecutor to resign [10]. Pshonka threatened to prosecute the organizers of riots on Febr. 19. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's relevant insofar as his signature is needed tomorrow and he may be sacked if he doesn't show up. If he doesn't show up, it's good to have a source confirming he was MIA since the day before. --Львівське (говорити) 23:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Motyl commentary

This section, while I think Motyl is a great mind on politics and the discussion is interesting, I don't see what Donbas separatism has to do with this article in specifics. This should be in an article on Ukrainian separatist movements or on the Donbas, not about the riots. Thoughts on removal? --Львівське (говорити) 03:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've added that section. He was commenting on these particular events. I think it's pretty relevant since he's not the only one talking about Ukraine's hypothetical partition. The RFE/RL article begins with "As the crisis in Ukraine escalates and becomes increasingly violent, the possibility that the country could break up is again coming to the fore. In a recent article, Alexander Motyl, a professor at Rutgers University and an expert on Ukrainian affairs, makes the provocative argument that this might just be the best thing that could happen." --Երևանցի ^talk 03:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

And he concludes that separatism is a waste-of-time bluff. Nonetheless, does this talk of partitioning the country belong here or in the main euromaidan article or elsewhere? I don't think the crisis that happened here is related to the discussion, his article (which RFE/RL is talking about) was written on the 14th; it's an overarching discussion throughout the entire euromaidan. --Львівське (говорити) 03:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It might be appropriate in Euromaidan article then. Or if you don't think it has any relevance in any article then go ahead remove it because I'm not going to fight for it, I just think it's an interesting viewpoint by an expert. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, for sure. Kuzio's thoughts on it is interesting too video --Львівське (говорити) 04:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Right sector passage

This content ("On 17 February 2014, Right Sector posted a message «In connection with the announced opposition National Headquarters on Tuesday, February 18, "peaceful offensive," all "Right Sector" units in Kiev and regions of Ukraine lead to a state of complete readiness.»") has been removed twice from the article; User:Cathry inserted it. I, personally, have no clue what it's trying to say. It also has nothing to do with the February riots, and so it's confusing why it was added as the first line of the intro to the article. --Львівське (говорити) 03:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, i think, it should be in this article, links http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/02/17/7014143/,

http://una-unso.in.ua/terminove-povidomlennya-pravogo-sektoru. It deals with 18 February riot, which was named "peaceful offensive"Cathry (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've re-added the content to the timeline with more elaboration. --Львівське (говорити) 04:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Lviv Region Independence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paavo273, here is the original information ([11]). In none of the references there are talks about independence. People are trying to stabilize situation in the country, that is all. Have you heard about information warfare? Did it cross your mind that someone could be a provocateur? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is translation of the official letter to which Interfax-Ukraine was referring ([12]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's what Bloomberg reported: "declared independence from [VY's] government" AND "Lawmakers in Lviv on the Polish border earlier today ousted their Yanukovych-appointed governor, established a new government autonomous from his administration and declared their allegiance to the opposition in Kiev." [13]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Head of Crimea council expressed his intentions for possible secession of Crimea for Russia (read the artice, "Russia rattles sabres...", Financial Times, ), in Sevastopol was elected a mayor of the city who is a citizen of Russia, the Russian protesters burned the Ukrainian flag and at the entrance to Sevastopol were seen Russian BTRs ([14], [15]).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response of Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch

I found the Pope's response to the situation in Ukraine. I don't know the format or where exactly this would be inserted, so I thought I'd offer it here: [16]

Also, a message from the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew. http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/patriarchal-message-ukraine-2014

Pstanton (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{Requested move/dated|February 2014 Euromaidan clashes}}

February 2014 Euromaidan riots → February 2014 Euromaidan clashes – I feel calling them "riots" is a bit misleading and not the most common description of the situation. This description is more neutral and generic. The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

it might be best if we pick the descriptor first, then decide on the move. Is clashes what everyone agrees on already? I agree it should be moved now regardless to something, just a matter of what. How about revolt? Uprising? --Львівське (говорити) 03:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

'Agree it s/b changed, but clashes is IMO the wrong word at least by itself. As per the stated policy, 'need precision and conciseness. While clashes is more neutral, it is actually less descriptive as single-word substitution. 'Could have clashes in sports. 'Can even be used metaphorically w/o any physicality. 'Need to find a better word or words. "deadly clashes"? "violent uprising"? just "violence"? Paavo273 (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

violence is ambiguous, just like riots, is it randoms acts of? I like uprising: march on government, crackdown, government capitulates to a degree, politicians fleeing the country, possible regime change in the window - seems like a stopgap before 'revolution' becomes official. If the far-right grabs the government buildings tomorrow, there's no way in hell this is just "a riot" anymore, and even so, clashes have stopped. --Львівське (говорити) 04:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the use of riots, as a politically charged word, is inappropriate here. "Riots" imply a sense of "impulsive violent lawlessness" without suggesting the political and social purpose that underpins them. Revolution, protest or uprising are more precise descriptors that I'd support. "Clashes" seems too vague. N4 (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose current title is reasonable enough. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I move that the title now be 2014 Ukrainian Revolution --Львівське (говорити) 16:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think one could describe Euromaidan from the beginning of the protests to now as a revolution, so this article should focus on the violence this week with the peace deal as the cut-off point. "Clashes" fits with what this article should focus on, the violence between opposition and government forces concluding with the peace deal.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Not as much as "concluding with the peace deal", as really with just a total collapse of Yanuk power in the capital and in much (most?) of the country, and an amazingly orderly takeover by the opposition (that's except things a display of separatism in Crimea). There were never any riots in Kiev in 2014. The only riots were in instances like when some police stations elsewhere (outside Kiev) were ransacked and their archives destroyed by agitated mobs following the shooting in Kiev, but it died down quickly and even Yanuk's residence was secured by rebel militias from looting. --Niemti (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

• I support moving to 2014 Ukrainian Revolution - riots that changes the government and constitution are named revolutions Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment the name seems to be already used by major news outlets, e.g. Ukraine Revolution Erupts in New Wave of Violence - Time (magazine), Yanukovich toppled in new Ukrainian revolution - Financial Times, Ukrainian revolution: 'It is vital the West works with Putin, not against him' The Telegraph, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support to 2014 Ukrainian Revolution - name is entirely descriptive; 2014 in Ukraine, there was an uprising that lead to regime change. This is the definition of revolution. If it gets a colorful name later we can go by WP:COMMON but until then, this is the most suitable, neutral name for the article. Calling it 'riots' at this point is dismissive of the event to paint it as just continued anarchy. Parliament and all levels of the government support the regime change, there isn't even a conflict at this point. --Львівське (говорити) 00:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

popular sources for 'Ukrainian revolution': Financial Times, Telegraph --Львівське (говорити) 00:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I suggest the title be February unrest in Ukraine and without the date tag "2014" as it is already notable.
  

Sources for "unrest": [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

I'm also ok with "revolution" if there are enough sources. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@User:Lvivske - Response to what you said below about a revolution's definition → A revolution can also be the name for a coup (Carnation Revolution, Egyptian Revolution of 1952..etc) and can be the name for a state reform (Bolivarian Revolution, Corrective Revolution (Egypt)..etc) so it's not necessarily the case here. Let's go with the sources this time until there are enough sources calling it "revolution". Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

yes, a revolution can also be the name for a coup, and as we've seen, the ousted president is now calling it a coup. Revolution and Coup are relative terms based on who is saying it. Considering in this case he fled the city and his administration vanished over night, it's hard to categorize it as a coup IMO, it was also done democratically with votes from his own party and defectors.--Львівське (говорити) 00:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I see The Guardian and DW previously calling it a "revolution". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The protester-side of the conflict has been calling it a revolution for some time, including media outlets, see here--Львівське (говорити) 00:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it should be called a "coup" either because Yanukovych is the one who claims it and there was no military involved in his removal. I'm also fine with "revolution" as long as there are enough sources. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about the title i proposed above? Just for now at least.. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Now BBC and The Guardian (again) call it a revolution. Perhaps that's good enough? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I see some sources calling it "uprising" → Discovery News Haaretz CNN The Telegraph

Maybe we can call it February Uprising in Ukraine. Thoughts? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• I support moving it to something other than "riots", but oppose calling it a revolution unless it is the consensus among sources (and I don't think it is yet). We can afford to move it to a better title and wait for the dust to settle before deciding whether to call it a revolution. wctaiwan (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Since there appear to be plenty of sources referring to it as a revolution, my opposition is now fairly weak, and mostly on the basis that there's no harm in moving it to "protests" or "crisis" now, and then switching to "revolution" in a few days should that clearly become the common name. (Note that The Guardian refers to "revolutionary potential" and "threat of revolution", which doesn't really count as calling it a revolution. But some of the other major sources are fairly unambiguous.) wctaiwan (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

By my count, there are 5 for 'revolution', 1 for 'riots', and 1 (wctaiwan) on the fence but against riots. --Львівське (говорити) 01:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

As stated before, my main issue is that the "revolution" would be Euromaidan broadly speaking and not just this particular period. Government buildings had been seized prior to the most recent unrest with violence breaking out before and this was just the culmination of all the previous actions. If we are going to talk of a "revolution" in a more narrow period, then I would think the actions following the peace deal are what should be included within it and the events preceding it only serving as a background. That would make the crackdowns this week and peace deal the sparks of the revolution rather than the revolution itself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

all of those government buildings were surrendered back to the government on the 17th as part of the amnesty deal. There was a literal break in the protests between the 17th and the 18th when this kicked off again.--Львівське (говорити) 17:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This title is so ridicalous

It's a revolution, and it's not limited to the Maidan, or even Kiev as a whole. And "riots" is something else. Btw, A riot (/ˈraɪət/) is a form of civil disorder characterized often by what is thought of as disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden against authority, property or people. (...) Riots typically involve "vandalism and the destruction of private and/or public property." The specific property to be targeted varies depending on the riot and the inclinations of those involved. Targets can include shops, cars, restaurants, state-owned institutions, and religious buildings. The only destruction so far is directly limited to the fighting between organized and disciplined political groups, it's not like there is a mob roaming streets and plundering shops & burning cars at random (example: 2011 England riots). --Niemti (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Curiously enough, it was first pro-Kremlin media that started to call it revolution (namely, Brown Revolution - Коричневая Революция). As of now, most sources do not refer to the events as a revolution, so this title would be POV. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Niemti, what kind of sources are you reading?! ″The only destruction so far is directly limited to the fighting between organized and disciplined political groups, it's not like there is a mob roaming streets and plundering shops & burning cars at random″ - you mean attempts to storm Russian consulate in Lviv are indicative of organization and discipline? Or putting Medvedchuk's villa ablaze [22]? Or the 18 Febr. destruction of PR HQ, with which the violent escalation began? Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

All this is political, it's not about looting and random vandalism. Riot is "a situation in which a large group of people behave in a violent and uncontrolled way". The anti-government side is highly organized, into militias (calling themselves sotnias), with advanced logistics (including field hospitals), etc. Politically, they have parties. Not a riot. An uprising. --Niemti (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And what am I reading? Right now, I'm reading http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/22/ukraine-crisis-uncertainty-after-yanukovych-signs-deal-live-updates It says:

• Yulia Tymoshenko to be released from prison in Kharkiv
• President Yanukovych flees Kiev. Wherabouts unknown
• Parliament appoints new speaker and new interior minister
• Protesters take over security in Kiev
• Regional politicians declare constitutional control in Kharkiv in response to events in Kiev

The photo illustrating it whows orderly lines of uniformed men in combat gear, the caption reads: "Anti-government protesters guard the the Ukrainian Parliament building in Kiev." That's not how a riot works. --Niemti (talk) 13:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How does the fact that violence has subsided after the government collapsed invalidate facts of wanton violence that I pointed out? Your own interpretation like ″That's not how a riot works″ - hence no riots took place - has no bearing as per WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lo:-)kalkosmopolit (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Because no riot took place (or at least not at the Maidan, as this incredibly stupid title implies). There was a street battle between the rebel militias and the Internal Ministry forces (possibly also State Security). --Niemti (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Btw, "Yanukovych has now described the events in Kiev as a coup." (source: same source, 'what kind of sources are you reading?!') No, before you ask, a coup also isn't synonymous with "riot". What a riot is a riot. It's a real concept that actually exists, not a silly buzzword for mass violence. (And previously he's also described it as "terrorism", including the govt's initative to declare martial law and send in the tanks for a "counter-terrorist operation", and needless to say it's also not synonymous with a riot.) Rebellion. --Niemti (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I know that Yanukovich has made a statement. He also said that he's not going to sign any of the resolutions passed today by Rada as he considers those illegitimate. It's his point of view.
As for martial law, then the real discussion as far as we know was not about martial law but state of emergency. These are two different things in Ukraine (in Poland 1981 the martial law was declared as there were no legal provisions for state of emergency). Both are possible per Ukrainian law, but state of emergency was considered more likely. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It really have nothing to do with the issue of the idiotic title of this article. (But as of Yanyk, he now also "calls it a Fascist Revolution like 1933 Germany," even as of course there was no revolution in 1933 Germany, he's called it many things.) And the article's infobox even shows a burnt down building, so an informed reader might get an impression it was something looted & burned by theose rioters like in the 2005 French riots or in the Watts Riots (where there were actual riots, note how the pictures show random stuff burn). --Niemti (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I personally assess Euromaidan as an overarching protest movement, but the events from the 18th to present to be the revolution part of things. Euromaidan called for early elections and protested peacefully, and later violently. What we see today is an actual power vacuum, occupation of major state buildings, and of course the deal and later parliamentary impeachment, and power shift. 18th-22nd is the revolution as far as I can see. That, or revolution should be a separate article which includes euromaidan, and this article, and the RSA occupations. --Львівське (говорити) 19:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The point is: there were never any "February 2014 Euromaidan riots". This is what a riot is: riot (also various dictionary definitions). It's only, once again, Wikipedia being silly.

Also for the term "Euromaidan" I don't think it's even any longer used for a long time. --Niemti (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been following it and it's never stopped being used. In Ukrainian and Russian, its always used in the press to describe the protesters, all across the country (euromaidansty or w/e). I think that has its own article and that's fine. The purpose of the protests changed dramatically, but the name stayed, just as Automaidan stayed and the Euromaidan official twitter, and so on stayed. Pretty sure the main stage still has a huge EUROMAIDAN banner. 'Maidan' is a big word since it all took place on Maidan. Anyway, as you pointed out, riots are "civil disorder characterized often by what is thought of as disorganized groups lashing out in a sudden againstauthority, property or people". If we used this definition, there was civil disorder against authority, but it was very organized. Extremely organized. Riots are anarchy, this was an uprising (and now a revolution). Hrushevskoho street was a riot since it was protesters and then radical groups splintering off and starting chaos on their own. This wasn't - this was organized self defense groups and protesters and other militant groups working together as a unit. --Львівське (говорити) 05:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

In Poland they dropped Euro in most reporting long ago, thought they did in Ukraine too. I guess in a case of doubt I'd use Maidan Nezalezhnosti / "Kiev's Independence Square" (which it was all the time), "Euromaidan" only for the initial protests, "opposition" for the movement. --Niemti (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Rada declares impeachment on Yanukovich

Verkhovna Rada has voted with 328 deputies in favor to impeach Yanukovich [23]. However, it should be noted that as per this article published in Dec. 2013, impeachment is a longer procedure and the current impeachment vote would according to this explanation be null and void.Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

I thought Ukraine is a democratic republic with rule of law. But since February 18, the 'revolutionary justice' has apparently taken precedence over such minor things like rule of law... An article on 'revolutionary justice' of 1917-1918 to freshen the memory [24]. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

You seem to have a very peculiar understanding of democracy. Forcing a governor to resign by first beating him, then humiliating publicly in front of the mob and if he still refuses, then to threaten his whole family with reprisals [25] or to bring an example from today, when MPs are beaten right in front of the parliament [26] then this is ″incredibly legal and democratic″. According to this 'splendid' logic passing the Ermächtigungsgesetz was also 'incredibly legal and democratic'.
As I said, an article details the legal order of impeaching the President of Ukraine and this was blatantly contravened today. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'd say that the sole reason the US and Europe are so soft on sanctions is the fact that Yanukovich was not legally impeached as defined in article 111 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which requires a lengthy procedure involving opinions from Constitutional Court of Ukraine and Supreme Court of Ukraine. Rada went so far as to remove 5 judges of the constitutional court next day after their own vote and suggest removal of the rest to the president [27]. The judges of the Constitutional Court even issued a joint statement regarding the pressure, threats of violence, threats of criminal prosecution they are subjected to[28]. Unfortunately, none of this is reflected in the western msm, so it won't really be possible to include that POV in the current article, which is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.85.168.137 (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You're very correct, it's a pity that this took place and it is a shame that Western media does not report it, as any independent nonpartisan media should do. I pointed it out many times on 22 Febr. already on various websites [29], but usually got only angry reactions as if I was supporting this kleptocrat. Obviously, by now Yanukovich is also illegal, as he has asked foreign country for military intervention, which may qualify as high treason, but this in no way invalidates that the new government in Ukraine took power illegally (which is one of its many blunders).Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Events across Ukraine section in need of expansion

The 'Events across Ukraine' section would benefit from some expansion, I added some information from the main Wikipedia article with a reference to BBC, I wish I had more time to expand it as I really care about it since I'm from Ukraine. Who would be willing to work on this section a little bit? :) Sofia Lucifairy (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it turned into its own article and I guess soon we'll have to come up with a summary of everything. --Львівське (говорити) 22:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Tymoshenko

The article's section about Tymoshenko may need some updating, as she's in Kiev now. [30] [31] Amazing. Sca (talk) 22:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

for litterary accuracy

least 82 people were killed, including 13 policemen; over 1,100 were injured

that's a "riot" or "skirmish"

saying 1,000 dead is a "protest" ?

USA history books cite "a Boston Massacre" with far less casualties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.207.160 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

ℳ==i hate to make suggestions== since it's totally not my place.

i would think attacking one's own wealth in one's own town (public buildings taxes paid for) is not helpful if one does not have the means (if the conflict is about means and suspected holding out of).

my example is. syria has areas of towns destroyed. they cannot protest over who is in the buildings: there are no buildings and no way to rebuild them.

I think so too. Now Ukrainians have different opinions, but, I think, part of those who support these attacks have some kind of euphoria. But still it is armed coup..Cathry (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You really have to back up provocative statements like this being an "armed coup" if you intend to inject it on the actual article.--Львівське (говорити) 02:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It was said by Yanukovich. Do you have arguments against it? Protesters were armed, Rada acted against actual law. And there were polls before 18 february about near 45-50% Ukrainians which do not supported Maidan Cathry (talk) 03:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

protestered did not take the government buildings but force or with arms, they were empty. Rada did not act against law, this is your own twisted interpretation of the law.--Львівське (говорити) 03:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Protesters were armed when they killed and damaged police (and when they were killed). From 24.11.13 they began to attack police http://mir24.tv/news/politics/9354860. http://mir24.tv/media/images/uploaded/about_big9352459.jpg (Can I add this image to article?) Or it is not true? And when they forced Rada to enact law which banned all weapon, even tear-gas, from police, naturally they did not need weapon any more. Cathry (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Attacking police in november? wow, you're off in your own little world there aren't ya? --Львівське (говорити) 04:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Активисты попытались прорвать милицейский кордон. Они сломали металлический шлагбаум и использовали его как таран, чтобы пройти сквозь оцепление. Стражи правопорядка в ответ применили слезоточивый газ и дубинки. Представители МВД утверждают, что такие меры были приняты, поскольку оппозиция первой начала бросать в милиционеров дымовые шашки и применила газ." If you don't know Russian i can translate it to you. I think you can see photos. Cathry (talk) 04:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Title

I suggest the title be February unrest in Ukraine and without the date tag "2014" as it is already notable.
Sources for "unrest": [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]

I see the beginnings of an edit war here over the title "2014 Ukrainian Revolution" vs. "2014 Euromaidan riots". I don't know what to say except go with what the sources are saying. If the Ukrainian press is split, as could well be the case, then I'd go with what the western press is using - which seems to be "Revolution" (I haven't checked thoroughly). I'm sure there's enough tension, bad feeling, etc. on the streets in Ukraine that we don't need to add to it here. I hope everybody realizes that one man's revolution is another man's riot. I'm sorry for everybody what Ukraine has had to go through, but I am optimistic about the future. This a.m. I was challenged on using the word revolution in the text and found that there were enough references in the press to justify the use. Maybe this has changed but probably more toward the general use of the word "revolution." I'll stay out this unless progress seems to be blocked, but I hope that everybody can put aside justifiably high emotions and just edit by the book. Good luck and the best to everybody. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

we have a poll to change it up in the talk page. I don't think the terms 'revolution' and 'riot' are relative at all. Uprising is what one uses if it's ongoing or fails, revolution if regime change happens. Coup if it was regime change without mass popular support. --Львівське (говорити) 00:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Took back the discussion above. Sorry, i just noticed. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Once again, whatever it was, THERE WAS A DISTINCT ABSENCE OF ANY RIOTS AT THE MAIDAN. Or maybe whatever invented this title meant a police riot, but in this case they didn't made it nearly clear enough. (Yes, I'm sarcastic.) --Niemti (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There's currently fairly strong consensus to change the title to '2014 Ukrainian Revolution', so go right ahead and move it. As you said, there was absolutely no rioting in the 18-22 timeframe, unless you want to account self-defense barricades and defending a massacre 'rioting', but that in hindsight now seems like a strong POV push. When we made this article, I think we used riots because it seemed to be shaping up to be like the early days of the Hrushevskoho Street Riots, but we have the luxury of hindsight now to FIX the title. --Львівське (говорити) 05:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots, I look at the infobox and I see "Afghan war veterans" - and today I learnt there are many Afghans in Ukraine, thank you Wikipedia. (Yes, again sarcasm, and I didn't even look beyond the infobox.) --Niemti (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Without the date tag "2014" as it is already notable". You do know that Wikipedia is going to be read even after the year 2014, right? It's not like this is going to be an annual event. JIP | Talk 14:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Move to 2014 Ukrainian Revolution

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

There was no consensus. Move it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.194.15 (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources are now reporting it as a revolution (see [37]), so the article is likely to stay moved. -- The Anome (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Update:

• BBC News (widely respected as impartial): Ukraine conflict: Tymoshenko speech ends historic day of revolution
• Financial Times (widely respected financial newspaper) Yanukovich toppled in new Ukrainian revolution
• Daily Telegraph (moderate right-wing mainstream British paper): Ukraine revolution: live -- Ukraine's president has disappeared as world awakes to the aftermath of a revolution
• ITV News (produced by ITN, independent producer of TV news programming for several TV channels): Rivers of tears amid a Ukrainian revolution
• The New Republic (respected liberal US publication): Ukraine's Revolution Has Reached Its Climax. These Factors Will Determine What Happens Next

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

Later update:

• TIME magazine, The Russian Stronghold in Ukraine Preparing to Fight the Revolution

-- The Anome (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Globe and Mail, protesters rule the streets, declaring their pro-Western revolution victorious.

--Львівське (говорити) 04:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Still later updates:

• New York Times, In Manhattan, Children of Ukrainians Connect to Revolution
• The Guardian, Ukraine: revolution on the Dnieper

-- The Anome (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: How come its now called Ukrainian Revolution of 2014? Like what's the difference between this and previous title? In my opinion, previous title 2014 Ukrainian Revolution is uses correct English.--Mishae (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Mishae, there is no reason. Or rather the reason given is so that it is consistent with the format of other similarly titled articles- which as far as I'm aware, isn't a product of Wikipedia policy or a reason to move at all. There are in fact a number of articles (2011 Omani protests, 2010-12 Algerian protests) that would in fact suggest the current format of event-date is not the preferred format. N4 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

You should launch move request in this very sensitive political topic. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A R2M is the exact same thing as what we're doing: using the talk page to find consensus. A green template doesn't change much. --Львівське (говорити) 17:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

You just conveniently ignored most of the votes and twisted wctaiwan's words to an outright 'oppose'. This is looking very POVy IMO...--Львівське (говорити) 17:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Norden1990, it isn't about opinions- and you're "summary" of above discussion is so selective I suggest you stand down from discussion here. You are clearly not acting as a neutral editor. It's about discussion, compromise and consensus. Yes, Lokalkosmopolit clearly opposes it. But despite my invitation to editors to explain why they oppose it his entire argument as per above is: "current title is reasonable enough." That isn't constructive. wctaiwan did not clearly oppose it. To quote an earlier comment by him/her: "I support moving it to something other than "riots", but oppose calling it a revolution unless it is the consensus among sources (and I don't think it is yet)." As I've said, we now have ample sources. Instead of straw man arguments like, "you think his opinion is better than mine", perhaps you could explain the substance behind the reasoning to not label this revolution as a revolution. That way, I can begin to understand your argument because at the moment I don't seem to think you have one. Or perhaps you can explain why the numerous sources listing this event as a revolution are not to be considered. Thanks. N4 (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or Norden?--Львівське (говорити) 18:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I saw your since removed comment and wondering what on earth you were on about ;) My previous comment is directed to Norden1990. I see a load of people and a load of sources suggesting a move is necessary and a few select people (with no elaborated argument whatsoever) saying, "no, don't do that." And for the record, I didn't "cherry pick", I skim read and missed out the second comment added onto the first. N4 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Though I think the latest move basically amounts to a supervote, the last thing we need now is another hasty move. I was fine with revolution, given the sources, but "clashes" does address the characterisation issues with the previous title of "riots". (The main inaccuracy I see now would be the scope--it doesn't look like sources treat this as strictly limited to Euromaidan, but also broader dissatisfaction with the government and Yanukovych.) I suggest starting another poll listed at WP:RM after a couple of days, when major sources have published stable analyses of the events. wctaiwan (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

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

• Premature - Let's wait for a bit. The situation is still developing, things might change in the following weeks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. --PLNR (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Curious, but what do you think could possibly change at this point? The president is in exile, impeached, and his own party has denounced him; the west has recognized the new government as legitimate, as have all government agencies. Do you honestly think things will change and he'll return on a white horse or something? --Львівське (говорити) 18:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support BBC and Daily Telegraph are the proper sources which imply it to be a "revolution".

I will not argue over it, hands down. The other sources I don't know much about but those 2 are promising. On a separate note, renaming it to February 2014 Euromaidan clashes is absolutely wrong. Let me explain my reason why: The term clashes is identical to riots, therefore you still call it a riot. Like we don't call Russian Revolution a 1917 Russian clashes even though there were, and many. My stance here is with Львівське and Bakharev who's support I share. If someone here think that I am not being neutral, point me and Львівське an example where we were not neutral editors. I also need to mention to the above editor that situation although developing will change in days not weeks since the information is fueled hourly.--Mishae (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - for all previous reasons, and so I have a bolded voted to count on here --Львівське (говорити) 18:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support Fry1989 ^eh? 18:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• I support the immediate move to 2014 Ukrainian Revolution. I think clashes is no improvement on the term protests- it does not portray the event's political slant at all. While I do agree that the situation is still developing, I do not think waiting a few more days for more sources is beneficial for the project. Just as the media is labeling the event as a revolution now it can only continue to do so in the coming weeks and days. The media will not spontaneously decide to label this as a coup d'état instead, for example. It will remain a revolution no matter how many or how few sources list it explicitly as one. Delaying the move doesn't help the project especially when we have a clear consensus. N4 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• When I reverted the move myself I did so based on WP:CRYSTALBALL. However, it is right that by now both riots and clashes do not accurately reject the text of the article, i.e. we have political crisis, we have Yanukovich de facto ousted and the (admittedly null and void) impeachment vote. From a legal/neutral point of view we have some evidence of a coup d'etat. This however does not mean that we have to call it a coup, as most of the sources do not recognize the events as such (per Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_Great_Wrongs; for comparison, take the title 2009 Honduran coup d'état - apparently it legally wasn't a coup but it's still called like that).

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

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

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

Ukrainian Crisis and conflict can include articles and events that took place since November, so obviously it's going to have more google hits. The revolution also just happened the other day (so 3 months worth of articles and data vs. 2 days) --Львівське (говорити) 18:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I checked it. Empirically false. Ukrainian crisis has 3 times more hits than Ukrainian Revolution even for the last 24 hours. Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 19:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I support the proposed move. IJA (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support move -- The government has fallen, the parliament has made a 180 in favour of supporting the protestors' cause, the principal opposition leader has been released from prison, the president has fled, all in a few days. Really, "clashes" doesn't cut it. "Revolution" is simple and descriptive, and, most importantly, follows the usage by WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Split or rename

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

There is no doubt that a revolution has taken place and the vast majority of sources reflect this, but the real issue is whether this article is really about that. I would say the term revolution either applies to the events of Saturday specifically or the entire Euromaidan movement since November. On this article, the focus should be the street battles between security forces and protesters. Consider it a conflict that is part of a revolution or the spark of a revolution. A peace deal ended this conflict, but it created a power vacuum that allowed the opposition to seize power. Given that the Euromaidan protesters are apparently going to continue (and we have no idea if this is the end to the unrest), it might be a good idea to create an independent article for the events on Saturday that would be the article for the revolution. Seems most reporting refers to the events of Saturday in particular as a revolution rather than the preceding events this week.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The content of the article is about it and the events the immediately led to it, and the legal aftermath. This article could very well act as the 'revolution' article IMO; I'm unsure if a split of the 18-21 clashes and the actions on the 22nd constitute a split or a break in the timeline of events. The question is, I guess, whether the revolution started 2/18 or on 11/21; sources started calling it a revolution sometime in december ("eurorevolution") to be sure, and it ended with a revolution, but this may be nitpicky. Also, I should note, that the Euromaidan article itself is fairly bloated and each string of events has gotten its own sub-article. If Euromaidan is the 'main' article, then this is the sub-article for the 18-23 events.....since we wont be renaming Euromaidan to Ukrainian Revolution, and we know a 'Ukrainian Revolution' article must exist, then I think the logic follows that this is the most suitable candidate.--Львівське (говорити) 19:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate: Are you dubious about Rose and Orange Revolutions as well? Street battles you say? There will be that, but Euromaidan is the main article. Kindoff like Colour revolutions have 5 subpages named Orange, Rose, Cedar and Tulip Revolutions. Speaking of Tulip Revolution, why is there no infobox???--Mishae (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I said I'd stay out of this unless progress appeared to be stuck. With all the name changes, it's probably time I said something. Following TDA's "There is no doubt that a revolution has taken place" there should be an article on "2014 Ukrainian Revolution" (or similar). It might as be this article. If you want to split off the "pre-revolutionary events" that's fine with me. Making an entirely new article starting with Feb. 21 would also be ok as well. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Move back to 2014 Ukrainian Revolution

It's clear from the discussion above that there is a rough, but not unanimous, consensus that the move is appropriate. Multiple independent mainstream reliable sources (BBC, Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, ITN, TIME) are now calling it a revolution, and so should we. Accordingly, I'm moving this article to 2014 Ukrainian Revolution. If you don't like this, please don't just insta-revert: instead, please suggest a better title for this article. -- The Anome (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support--Mishae (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, this article is mainly about the events that took place during 'February 2014 Euromaidan clashes', it makes more sense to start a new article for '2014 Ukrainian Revolution', otherwise you'll need to trim more than half of it. --PLNR (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The term Euromaidan is used only in the beginning of the article and in the first section.--Mishae (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the Revolution is only mentioned in the article Aftermath. You want an article about the revolution, where the Reactions section cover the main announcement as oppose to the February clashes, where the background section covers can have this article lead, instead of an extensive daily account of February clashes and you can cover the aftermath of the Revolution i.e. elections etc. for all those reason a separate article seem to be most suited.--PLNR (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

And you point is? O.K. Maybe we should break up Russian Revolution article too just because initially it started out with clashes as well.--Mishae (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support again not sure why we're doing another poll. I don't think the revolution (Feb 22) is a separate event from the actions that led to it from 18-21 Feb. I think the starting point is the 18th when the uprising occurred, RSAs were re-occupied, and the death toll ran up (which by all media reports is a separate death toll from the previous death toll on maidan and hrushevskoho in previous months). I fail to see how the clashes and political revolution are separate events. If we make a new 'revolution' article, it would be full of the exact same content from this article detailing the events that led to it. --Львівське (говорити) 00:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, what he is saying is that just like with 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots we can split the above article into 2014 Ukrainian Revolution and February 2014 Euromaidan clashes. In my opinion, if that will happen then the readers will be confused between 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots and February 2014 Euromaidan clashes. I'm strictly in naming it 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, and that shouldn't be discussed any longer.--Mishae (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

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)

Poll

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

Leave your support, oppisition 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)

On a separate note...

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

Good note. But notice how it talks in retrospective about actions which already occurred. Right? So, when people where getting snipped out the Western media was only talking about riots or clashes. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Of note: "The removal and replacement of a government." - which did indeed happen, official and recognized on all levels. Even Yanukovych isn't fighting this anymore, he's on the run and presidential website has been taken down. --Львівське (говорити) 05:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Yanukovych have said in a statement that "I will not resign". Although its dated to February 22, I can't find any sources that says that Yanukovych have officially resigned. Fleeing? Yes, found plenty of info on that. Resignation? That's another story.--Mishae (talk) 06:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

About Yanukovych, Turchynov said that Yanukovych supposedly in from of several MPs told Yatseniuk about his resignation. Later, Yanukovych recorded a video statement where he said that he still is the President of Ukraine and wont sign any draft laws adopted by parliament. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

He appears to have dropped off the radar for now, with the Washington Post saying that the provisional government has issued a warrant for his arrest: [38] -- The Anome (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

At first I didn't believe the report of the arrest warrant issued for Yanukovych. There are several reports like the Washington Post's (above) all coming from Avakov's facebook account via AP. But CNN has something (a bit vague) and Kyiv Post seems to be an independent report. If anybody has anything else, it should be included in the article. It should sort itself out in an hour or so in any case. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Army's statement

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

I think it's a mistake to say the army is going one way or another. The situation is still developing and for all we know the only chief may be put in place again.Avion365 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• "According to Glavkom, llyin said that the army remained loyal to the Ukrainian people and refused to be involved in the political conflict on Feb. 22," - we also know that the army said they were with the people that day, and that that top staff member resigned after he refused to take the orders (and was reinstated after this was over). On the 22nd, army officials also stood on maidan delcaring their support. I don't think it's too early to say who they support. --Львівське (говорити) 20:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• glavcom article with all the classified documents --Львівське (говорити) 20:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Ihor Kostenko

Just read that a wikipedian Ihor Kostenko known here as User:Ig2000 [39] was killed in Kiev on 18 February 2014 during the revolution. He was active on English and Ukrainian Wiki, Commons and in Ukrainian chapter. He was an active supporter of Euromaidan and was shot to the head during the protests. My condolences to his friends and family. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please except my condolences as well. I'm wondering how many of Ukrainian Wikipedians have died due to this horrible conflict?--Mishae (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please except my condolences also. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

R.I.P...guy was a true hero --Львівське (говорити) 01:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarification sought

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

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

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

Video of the Day at Commons

The Berkut is coming (12:19)

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

As an external link, yes. But otherwise consensus wont agree. Wikipedia doesn't allow the use of YouTube videos as a reference unfortunately.--Mishae (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a file on Commons. I believe that we're allowed to include any Commons file in the article. Yes, it is from YouTube originally (where is was properly licensed CC-BY), and just like we're allowed to include files that were originally on Flickr, or files that were originally uploaded to Commons by somebody with a pseudonym, we can include files uploaded from YouTube. Notice that the file isn't being used as a reference, but just as a file. That said, we should use our judgement on whether the video is an accurate portrayal - just as we judge whether any file is an accurate portrayal. Does anybody have any doubts that this video is accurate (e.g. was it actually taken on the Maiden on the date stated? Is it propaganda with phony footage or soundtrack added. If there are no serious questions about that, I think we should add it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It is English Wikipedia, I am not certain what is the benefit of 12min speech in Ukrainian by? about?. --PLNR (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Other popular names

Just going to throw sources down in case one catches on

economist calling it February revolution [40]

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

Interesting, we can always see if it catches on; however I think people could easily confuse it for the 1917 February Revolution in St Petersberg/ Petrograd. IJA (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

eh, names get reused all the time. Not up for me to decide, though, we'll just have to wait and see --Львівське (говорити) 16:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Kharkov

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

Mass protests in the East

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

Money

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

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

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

Update the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

User PLNR recently added this statement to the background

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

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

Your edit is nothing but a huge bloated of undue detail [41]. This article isn't about the economical details so 15bn or 15cents doesn't matter. What does mater that Russia instigated the economical crisis in the first place, so they can swoop in with generous deal with an offer they can't refuse i.e. which what the EuroMaidan protests were all about corruption and Ukraine deeply intertwined and painful relationship with Russia. Who see it as subordinate they can play with. Also pretty much what happens now in Crmimea, Russia trying to incite sectarian divide so they can force pliable government in Ukraine or else.. --PLNR (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Kiev vs Kyiv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Who ordered to shoot at people on Maidan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

march 1 cleanup

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

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

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

Consensus sought for new sectiion in Reactions. "Ukrainian Jewish community and Israel"

There have been some interesting developments. A significant number of Ukrainians injured in the last phase of fighting are now being treated in Irsaeli facilities, including a complete arm reconstruction following a close range AK wound. Sources available. Also that Ukrainian Jews are being tought search and rescue and intensive first aid by the Jewish agencies present in Ukraine. This to assist if the worst case scenario of war should occur. I have seen no references to any anti-semitic incidents, (and I keep an hourly watch on Israeli MSM RS), and they would be swift to pick any up. I think a short section on the Ukrainian Jewish community and its actions would be relevant. Thoughts? Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you really "keep an hourly watch on Israeli MSM RS"? Haaretz, the Israel's oldest newspaper report "we have already reported on a fear in the Jewish communities of an increase in anti-Semitism, as well as several incidents in which extreme right-wing gangs intensified their activity against synagogues and Jewish institutions. Our correspondent in Crimea, Anshel Pfeffer, reported that Jews were beaten in Kiev and a synagogue was destroyed there, and similar incidents occurred in the city of Zaporozhye in southeast Ukraine and in the Crimean capital of Simferopol. .... In addition, the far-right party Svoboda (Liberty) received 38 seats in the legislature in the most recent elections, and its members espouse extreme anti-Semitic and nationalist views. ...."[42]. Since anti semetic activities is listed as one of justification of Russian intervention, this probably deserve a section of its own. Vapour (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's the "..." part you left out:

Despite that, many pointed to the fact that Russia is trying to defame the new government in Kiev by portraying it as extremely rightist, anti-Semitic and Nazi in its entirety, and some people even wondered whether those incidents weren’t Russian provocations, in order to arouse opposition to the new government.

And Haaretz has recently ran other stories about the possibility that whatever attacks have occurred could very well be provocations.

You deliberately and willfully misrepresented a source. One more stunt like that and off to WP:AE we go. This article, because it is in the "Eastern Europe" topic area falls under discretionary sanctions [43]. This is a notification of that fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)