User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


Regardless of whether or not the allegations that the FEMEN leader was pictured in front of the burning Trade Unions Building is included in the article or not, your text addition was highly biased and not neutral (stating that the Maidan activists burned down the building). The FEMEN article is not a place to discuss that, which either way is false information. The link you provided in your text as a "reference" does not appear to be a credible source of information, and itself is highly biased, not to mention misleading.

If you have credible information (a reliable news source), by all means add that. But don't suggest something that might or might not have happened. Wikipedia is not the place to discuss rumors. We only portray the facts; and when a supposed source itself is biased, then it comes back and hurts our credibility as an encyclopedia. Which is the reason why I removed that text. Before adding the text again, please bring it up on the talk page, and achieve consensus to have that information added back. § DDima 22:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


It is a *fact* that EuroMaidan activists attacked the building. Stating that is not "biased". It is simply the truth. No one disputes that they are the ones who attacked the building. No one on either side disputes that fact. That is made clear in the RT article cited. I can cite many more other articles that say the same, if you like. They all cite pro-Maiden forces or specifically Right Sector (for more on the ties between those two, see or

Why was that added to the Femen page? Well, before the Femen leader photograph can be discussed, there has to be context to what is happening behind her in the photograph, and that's why a description of the arson attack was included.

It is not an "allegation" that she posed in front of the building while a fire burned. There is photographic evidence that she posted herself. I could add the actual photo to wikipedia as a direct source, but I am not a registered user, so it is linked in the last reference instead.

There was absolutely no false information added to the Femen page. There were no rumors. Please, stop referring to a 3-point, factually based update as "rumors".

FACTS stated:

1) There was a massacre committed by Maidan supporters on May 2nd.

2) Femen in Ukraine (where Femen was founded) currently supports Maidan.

3) Femen leader poses for photo in front of May 2nd Maidan attack on anti-government demonstrators.

And to be abundantly clear with readers, there is even the extra clarification that there are no direct ties to Femen actually participating in the massacre (although any reasonable person can see that Femen leader Ievgeniia Kraizman supported it, if they look at the photo).

Also, again, if a leader of, say, the activist group Code Pink (who do attention-grabbing protests in the U.S.) posed for a photo in front of a fire started by violent radicals who burned and killed dozens of political opponents (opponents of the radicals and Code Pink), a mention of that would most certainly be relevant and "directly related" for the Code Pink wikipedia page.

Take a minute to look at the Code Pink page. The Tucker Carlson section doesn't even have to do with Code Pink whatsoever, but Medea Benjamin is a leader of the group, so it ended up on the Code Pink page. There are examples like this all over Wikipedia. (

Please, do not merely delete my contribution and then wash your hands of it and walk away. (talk)

We are not discussing other articles, we are merely discussing FEMEN itself. Alleging that someone participated in a what you call "a massacre" where many people were killed breaks Wikipedia's BLP policy, which states in a nutshell: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research."
The reference you added is not a credible source of information to back up the claim that the FEMEN leader participated in that "so called massacre." Please find credible sources and don't waste time on such speculation. If this is such a big deal to you, bring it up with other editors and see what they say. You know my point of view on the topic and the other editor you contacted as well . Until it is credibly sourced, this kind of information should be kept out of the article. § DDima 00:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You need to read (or parse) the text more carefully.

The paragraph ( clearly does not allege that she participated in the killings, only that she posed in front of a fire during the incident. In fact, it clearly states there is no evidence that shows she or Femen actually participated in the killings.

As for your comment about a "so called massacre", I'd say that's rather revealing about your bias in this matter. I don't know anyone who is neutral in matter that wouldn't call it a massacre. Dozens of people were burned alive after being trapped in a building that was deliberately barraged with molotov cocktails. A number of those who tried to escape the flames were beaten and/or killed by the crowd outside. Some fell to their deaths jumping from windows.

"A massacre is a specific incident in which a military force, mob, or other group kill many people—and the perpetrating party is perceived as in total control of force while the victimized party is perceived as helpless or innocent." (Oops, there I go discussing another article.)

Maybe you don't think those trapped in the building by a mob with molotovs were "innocent", but rather they somehow they deserved their fate.

Please, never lecture me about bias and neutrality when you refer to dozens of people being deliberately burned to death as a "so-called massacre." (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to make it easy for you registered Wikipedians to restore this current events contribution (on an article that states at the top that it is outdated):

So, I believe I have beaten back all of DDima's objections to the update, except for one. He doesn't like Indybay as a "reliable source" (even though Indybay is listed in Google News when most websites are not:

So, here's my solution that will require the assistance of a registered Wikipedia editor:

Simply upload the photo about which the Femen update revolves to Wikipedia itself, and then there does not have to be a link to Indybay on this Femen article.

As a non-registered user, I cannot add images myself to Wikipedia, so here's an image that can be used: (

"Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content [on Indybay] is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere."

Please, repost the text I contributed today ( and use the photo above instead of a link to Indybay, that is if the boys of Wikipedia will allow one photo on the Femen article that doesn't show boobs  ;-)

Thank you. (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)